3134 GI/2017
(2951)
REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
WEEKLY
]
—
—
No. 21]
NEW DELHI, MAY 21—MAY 27, 2017, SATURDAY/ VAISAKHA 31—JYAISTHA 6, 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)
वित्त मंत्रालय
(वित्तीय सेिाएं विभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 14 मार्च, 2017
का.आ. 1295.— केंद्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के वलए प्रयोग) वनयम, 1976 के वनयम 10 के उप
वनयम (4) के अनुसरण में संलग् न अनुंं में उवल् लव न वन नवलव न ंकों की सचर्ीं्ध शा ाओं/कायाचलयों को, वजनके 80% से अव क
कमचर्ाररयों ने ह ंिी का कायचसा क ज्ञान प्राप् न कर वलया , अव सचवर्न करनी ।
क्र.सं.
ंक का नाम
शा ाओं की संख् या
1.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण्ड जयपुर
133
2.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर
56
3.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ िरांाि
02
कुल
191
[फा सं. 11016/1/2015-ह ं. (अव .)]
राजीि कुमार, स ायक वनिेशक(रा.भा.)
2952
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
राजभाषा वनयम 1976 के वनयम 10(4) के अंनगचन अव सचवर्न दकए जाने िाले कायाचलयों/शा ाओं की सचर्ी
क्रम सं
शा ा/ कायाचलय का नाम एिं पना
1.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण्ड जयपुर
विद्या र नगर शा ा ( कचट सं- 10763)
1/38 विद्या र नगर
जयपुर -302039
राजस्थान
2.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण्ड जयपुर
पी.डब्लल्यु डी काप्लेक्स शा ा (कचट सं- 10820)
पी.डब्लल्यु डी काप्लेक्स, ज कं रोड़
जयपुर-302006
राजस्थान
3.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण्ड जयपुर
सीकर रोड शा ा (कचट सं- 11154)
प्लाट नं-1
शांवन एवशयारटक स्कुल
सन वसटी टाउन वशप
सीकर रोड, जयपुर-302013
राजस्थान
4.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण्ड जयपुर
ब्रह्मपुरी शा ा ( शा ा कचट-10761)
सीना राम ंाजार, ब्रह्मपुरी, जयपुर-302002
राजस्थान
5.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण्ड जयपुर
सेंट्रल स्पाइन शा ा (कचट सं-10861)
ए-9 गणेशम प्लाजा , सेंट्रल स्पाइन
विद्या र नगर, जयपुर-302039
राजस्थान
6.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण्ड जयपुर
राज ानी कृवष उपज मंडी शा ा (कचट सं- 10978)
राज ानी कृवष उपज मंडी
जयपुर-302013
राजस्थान
7.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण्ड जयपुर
ज री ंाजार शा ा (कचट सं- 10029)
िुकान सं-245 से 248 के उपर
प्रथम नल, ज री ंाजार
जयपुर-302003
राजस्थान
8.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
शा ा का नाम: वमठौड़ा (शा ा कचट-11244)
पना: ग्राम पंर्ायन भिन, पंर्ायन सवमवन,
II
(ii)
2953
वसिाना पोस् ट: वमठौड़ा, वजला-ंाड़मेर
(राजस् थान) वपन: 344801
9.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
शा ा का नाम: लचणी (शा ा कचट-11287)
पना: िेिावसयों की गली, मेन स्टेशन रोड़
पोस्ट-लचणी
वजला- जो पुर वपन: -342802
10.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
शा ा का नाम: ंी.जे.एस.कोलोनी, जो पुर (शा ा कचट-11288)
पना: आरटीओ क्रॉहसंग रोड़, ंी.जे.एस.कोलोनी
जो पुर वपन: 342006
11.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
शा ा का नाम: नया ंस स् ट ण् ड रोड, सचर्ोर (शा ा कचट-11289)
पना: गोिािरी कॉ पल क् स, नया ंस स् टकड
पोस् ट-सचर्ोर
वजला-जालोर, राजस् थान वपन: -343041
12.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
शा ा का नाम: ंालरिा (शा ा कचट-11235)
पना: जो पुर वनिरी मुख् य सड़क
ंस स् ट ण् ड पोस् ट - ंालरिा
न सील – ओवसयां वजला - जो पुर
राजस् थान वपन: - 342 306
13.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
शा ा का नाम: पथमेड़ा (शा ा कचट-11237)
पना: श्री गोपाल गोि नच गौशाला,
आनंििन, पथमेड़ा
पोस् ट – ाडेनर न सील – सचर्ोर
वजला- जालोर, राजस् थान वपन: -343 041
14.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
शा ा का नाम: फलोिी, कृवष उपज मंडी (शा ा कचट-10205)
पना: कृवष उपज मंडी के सामने
जो पुर रोड, फलोिी, वजला-जो पुर
राजस् थान वपन -342301
15.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
शा ा का नाम: सरिड़ी (शा ा कचट-11245)
पना: पंर्ायन सवमवन
पोस् ट, सरिड़ी, न सील-पर्पिरा
वजला-ंाड़मेर, राजस् थान वपन:344032
16.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
शा ा का नाम: ंसलाि की पाल (शा ा कचट-11343)
2954
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
जो पुर पना: 682/12 सेटेलाइट अस् पनाल
ंसलाि की पाल,नयापुरा
वजला-जो पुर, राजस् थान वपन:342026
17.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
शा ा का नाम: एम स ंासनी, जो पुर (शा ा कचट-11315)
पना: शॉप संख् या 37,
ंासनी ट्रांसपोटच नगरमेन सालािास रोड, जो पुर
वजला-जो पुर,
राजस् थान वपन:342005
18.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
शा ा का नाम: जो पुर प्रनाप नगर (शा ा कचट-11244)
पना: ओम सत् यम, 104 प्रनाप नगर विस् नार योजना
ट पो स् ट ण् ड के पास, प्रनाप नगर, जो पुर
वजला-जो पुर, राजस् थान वपन:342004
19.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
शा ा का नाम: कुडी भगनासनी (शा ा कचट-11405)
पना: 5-एर्-7, कुडी ाउहसंग ंोडच
जो पुर वजला-जो पुर, राजस् थान वपन:342005
20
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
शा ा का नाम: डांवगयािास (शा ा कचट-11319)
पना: जयपुर ाइिे, पेट्रोल पंप के वनकट
ेमानाडा क्षेत्र, डांवगयािास, जो पुर
वजला-जो पुर, राजस् थान वपन:342027
21.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
शा ा का नाम: मालिाड़ा (शा ा कचट-11339)
पना: सुन् ा माना रोड, मालिाड़ा
न सील- रानीिाड़ा
वजला-जालोर, राजस् थान वपन:343039
22.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
िानपुर (शा ा कचट :-11173)
घोडी नेजपुर र्ौरा ा ,रनलाम मागच , पोस्ट िानपुर
वजला –ंााँसिाड़ा -327001
23.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
ेरोड़ा (शा ा कचट :-11226)
ंस स्टकड, हभंडर रोड , ेरोड़ा
न सील िल्लभनगर
वजला –उियपुर -313601
24.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
ट्रांसपोटच नगर ,उियपुर (शा ा कचट :-11263)
डी सी टाक पररसर ,आिशचनगर एन एर् 6
प्रनापनगर,उियपुर
वजला –उियपुर -313001
II
(ii)
2955
25.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
रायपुर, भीलिाडा (शा ा कचट :-11232)
ररओम काप्लेक्स,गंगापुर रोड
रायपुर
वजला –भीलिाडा -313803
26.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
ठीकररया (शा ा कचट :-11238)
वसल्िर प्लाजा काप्लेक्स ,
िीरांगना वसनेमा के पास िा ोि रोड
ंांसिाडा
वजला –ंांसिाडा -327001
27.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
िेलिाडा (शा ा कचट :-11233)
मोनीलाल टीकन वनिास
जो पुर वमष्ठान भण्डार के पास
ंस स्टकड ,िेलिाडा
वजला –राजसमन्ि -313202
28.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
नीनरडी (शा ा कचट :-11296)
नीनरडी,
वजला –उियपुर -313002
29.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
िेलांगरी (शा ा कचट :-11314)
मेनरोड िेलांगरी
वजला –वसरो ी -307001
30.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
वपपलीनगर (शा ा कचट :-11311)
वपपलीनगर
न सील भीम
वजला –राजसमन्ि -305921
31.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर,
ंपािर कलााँ (शा ा कचट :- 11177)
छंडा रोड, गणेश कुंज के पास,
ंपािर कला,
न सील- सांगोि, वजला कोटा
राज्य : राजस् थान, वपन : 325007
32.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
मंडाना शा ा (कचट सं-11186)
ंस स्टकड के पास
राजस्थान-325003
2956
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
33.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर,
कोटा शॉहपंग सेंटर (शा ा कचट :- 11300)
114, फनीर्र माकेट, शॉहपंग सेंटर,
वजला कोटा
राज्य : राजस् थान
वपन : 324 007
34.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर,
विश् िकमाच नगर शा ा (शा ा कचट :- 11301)
ओसीएफ-4, विश् िकमाच नगर, कोटा
वजला कोटा , राज्य : राजस् थान
वपन : 324 010
35.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर,
ंोर ेड़ा कोटा शा ा (शा ा कचट :- 11394)
प् लॉट नंर-10, गौनम कॉलोनी,
ंोर ेड़ा कोटा
वजला कोटा
राज्य : राजस् थान , वपन : 324 001
36.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
उप म ाप्रंं क सवर्िालय
आंर्वलक कायाचलय, पवब्ललक पाकच, ंीकानेर(कुट सं-10548)
वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 334001
37.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
स ायक म ाप्रंं क-प्रथम सवर्िालय
आंर्वलक कायाचलय, पवब्ललक पाकच, ंीकानेर (कुट सं-10548)
वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान,वपनकोड – 334001
38.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
स ायक म ाप्रंं क-विनीय सवर्िालय
आंर्वलक कायाचलय, पवब्ललक पाकच, ंीकानेर
वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान, वपनकोड - 334001
39.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
रास्म क ंीकानेर(कुट सं-10870)
वंन्नाणी वंहल्डंग, अल सागर रोड, ंीकानेर
वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान,वपनकोड - 334001
II
(ii)
2957
40.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
सीसीपीसी ंीकानेर (कुट सं-10644)
पवब्ललक पाकच, ंीकानेर
वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 334001
41.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
मुद्रा प्रंं न प्रकोष्ठ (सीएसी) (कुट सं-10548)
अस्पनाल मागच शा ा, ंीकानेर
वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 334001
42.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
आरसीपीसी श्रीवंजयनगर (कुट सं-11083)
िािा पपा राम मचशाला के सामने, श्रीगंगानगर
वजला – श्रीगंगानगर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 335704
43.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
न सामग्री आगार (स्टेशनरी वडपो) (कुट सं-10834)
वंन्नाणी वंहल्डंग, अल सागर रोड, ंीकानेर
वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 334001
44.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- गोडच (कुट सं-10610)
गााँि- गोडच, डाकघर- ंज्जच, न सील- कोलायन
वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 334305
45.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- लालगढ़ (ंीकानेर) (कुट सं-10801)
वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 334004
46.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- घचमर्क्कर श्रीडचंगरगढ़ (कुट सं-11267)
एन.एर्. 11, मोमासर ंास, घचमर्क्कर के पास, श्रीडचंगरगढ़, ंीकानेर
वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 331803
2958
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
47.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- रायसर (कुट सं-11316)
पोस्ट- नौरंगिेसर, मरु र इंजीवनयररंग कॉलेज के पास, एन.एर्. 11,
जयपुर रोड, ंीकानेर
वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 334001
48.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- आरडी 465 िामोलाई (कुट सं-11346)
पोस्ट- रानेर, ंीकानेर
वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 334021
49.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- वनलक नगर (कुट सं-11404)
सुभाष पेट्रोल पंप के नजिीक, जयपुर रोड, ंीकानेर
वजला – ंीकानेर,
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 334022
50.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- श र शा ा ंीकानेर (ंीकानेर वसटी) (कुट सं-10164)
भुवजया ंाजार, ंीकानेर
वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 334005
51.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- झाझच (कुट सं-10519)
न सील- कोलायन, ंीकानेर
वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 334302
52.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- सचरपुरा (कुट सं-10606)
न सील- नो ा, ंीकानेर
वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 334801
53.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- जांगलच (कुट सं-10608)
न सील- नो ा, ंीकानेर
वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 334803
II
(ii)
2959
54.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- भामटसर (कुट सं-10609)
वशि मंदिर के पास, भामटसर,
न सील- नो ा, ंीकानेर
वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 334801
55.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- रनोक (कुट सं-10617)
िाया पंर्च, न सील- नो ा, ंीकानेर
वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 334804
56.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- ढींगसरी (कुट सं-10618)
न सील- नो ा, ंीकानेर
वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 334804
57.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- रामसर (कुट सं-11021)
न सील- ंीकानेर, वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 334201
58.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- सींथल (कुट सं-11047)
करनी माना मंदिर के पास, सींथल,
िाया नापासर, वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 334202
59.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- कांना नुररया कॉलोनी (कुट सं-11048)
ए-35, कांना नुररया कॉलोनी, ंीकानेर
वजला – ंीकानेर, राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 334003
60.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- रोडा (कुट सं-11068)
िाया नो ा, ंीकानेर
वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड - 334803
2960
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
61.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- अक्कासर (कुट सं-11112)
न सील- ंीकानेर, वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 334001
62.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- जिा र नगर (कुट सं-11143)
ए-6, डचडी पेट्रोल पप के सामने,
जिा र नगर, गजनेर रोड, ंीकानेर
वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 334005
63.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- गंगाश र (कुट सं-11268)
प्लॉट नं-2, म ांलीपुरम कॉलोनी,
ंस स्टकड के नजिीक,नो ा रोड,
गंगाश र, ंीकानेर, वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान, वपनकोड – 334403
64.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- कुर्ौर अगुणी (कुट सं-11310)
न सील- नो ा, ंीकानेर
वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान , वपनकोड – 334202
65.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- ींिासर (कुट सं-11408)
पंर्ायन भिन ींिासर, न सील- कोलायन, ंीकानेर
वजला – ंीकानेर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 334302
66.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- अग्रसेन र्ौक, श्रीगंगानगर (कुट सं-11169)
6 क्यच, जिा र नगर, अग्रसेन र्ौक, श्रीगंगानगर
वजला – श्रीगंगानगर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 335001
67.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- ंनिाली (4 ंीएनडब्लल्यच) (कुट सं-11034)
ंस स्टकड, ंनिाली (4 ंीएनडब्लल्यच), न सील- सािुलश र, श्रीगंगानगर
वजला – श्रीगंगानगर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 335062
II
(ii)
2961
68.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- र्चनािढ़ (कुट सं-10980)
न सील- श्रीगंगानगर
वजला – श्रीगंगानगर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 335022
69.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- गुरूसर मोवडया (26 एमओडी) (कुट सं-11070)
शा सननाम जी जनरल ॉवस्पटल, गुरूसर मोवडया
वजला – श्रीगंगानगर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 335802
70.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- नई ान मंडी, पिमपुर (कुट सं-11168)
केयचएम पररसर, पिमपुर
वजला – श्रीगंगानगर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 335041
71.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- नई ान मंडी, श्रीकरणपुर (कुट सं-11111)
गुरूिारा नानक सा ं के पास, श्रीगंगानगर रोड, श्रीकरणपुर
वजला – श्रीगंगानगर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 335073
72.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- पवब्ललक पाकच, श्रीगंगानगर (कुट सं-10144)
28ए, पवब्ललक पाकच, श्रीगंगानगर
वजला – श्रीगंगानगर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 335001
73.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- उ म हसं र्ौक, श्रीगंगानगर (कुट सं-10986)
ंस स्टकड के नजिीक, श्रीगंगानगर
वजला – श्रीगंगानगर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 335001
74.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- 19 ज़ेड, श्रीगंगानगर (कुट सं-11110)
गााँि+पोस्ट- 19 ज़ेड, न सील- श्रीगंगानगर
वजला – श्रीगंगानगर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 335038
2962
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
75.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- नई ान मंडी, रायहसं नगर (कुट सं-11269)
ंी-2, नई ान मंडी गेट के सामने, अनचपगढ़ रोड, रायहसं नगर
वजला – श्रीगंगानगर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 335051
76.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- कीकरिाली, श्रीगंगानगर (कुट सं-11251)
ग्राम पंर्ायन भिन, कीकरिाली, न सील- रायहसं नगर
वजला – श्रीगंगानगर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 335051
77.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- मोरजंड ारी (कुट सं-11286)
ंस अड्डा के नजिीक, मोरजंड ारी, सािचल श र
वजला – श्रीगंगानगर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 335037
78.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- रािला मंडी, श्रीगंगानगर (कुट सं-11393)
िुकान नं. 36, ान मंडी, रािला मंडी, न सील- घरसाना
वजला – श्रीगंगानगर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 335707
79
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- मचर्नच र्ौक, भािरा (कुट सं-11252)
वजला – नुमानगढ़
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड - 335501
80.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- दकशनपुरा, दि नािा (कुट सं-11253)
राजीि गााँ ी सेिा केंद्र, दकशनपुरा, दि नािा
वजला – नुमानगढ़
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 334302
81.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- वभरानी (कुट सं-11256)
पुवलस स्टेशन के नजिीक, वभरानी, न सील- भािरा
वजला – नुमानगढ़
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 335503
II
(ii)
2963
82.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- ंशीर, नुमानगढ़ (कुट सं-11264)
न सील- रटब्लंी
वजला – नुमानगढ़
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 335063
83.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- सेक्टर-5, नो र (कुट सं-11270)
सेक्टर नं. 5, म ेंद्र ट्र क्टर एजेंसी के सामने, नो र
वजला – नुमानगढ़
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 335523
84.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- ंक रोड शा ा, पीलींंगा (कुट सं-11271)
िुकान सं. 15, 16, 17, ंक रोड,
ंाल्मीदक र्ौक, पीलींंगा
वजला – नुमानगढ़
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 335803
85.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- एयर फोसच स्टेशन, सचरनगढ़ (कुट सं-10813)
सचरनगढ़ एयर फ़ोसच स्टेशन
वजला – श्रीगंगानगर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 335804
86.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- एसटीपीएस, रायांिाली (कुट सं-10817)
न सील- सचरनगढ़
वजला – श्रीगंगानगर
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 335804
87.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- रननपुरा, नुमानगढ़ (कुट सं-11372)
गााँि+पोस्ट- रननपुरा, न सील- नो र
वजला – नुमानगढ़
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 335523
88.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ ंीकानेर एंड जयपुर
शा ा- 12 डीपीएन-गोगामेडी (कुट सं-11373)
गााँि+पोस्ट- 12 डीपीएन (गोगामेडी), न सील- नो र
वजला – नुमानगढ़
राज्य – राजस्थान
वपनकोड – 335504
2964
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
89.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
सगुना मोड़, िानापुर, पटना ,शा ा कोड-11242
र्न् द्रा का पलेक् स, प् लॉट नंर-102,
िानापुर,पटना,वं ार-801503
90.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
डे री ऑन सोन, शा ा कोड-11164
प् लॉट नंर-906, स् टेशन रोड
मो न ंीघा लेन के नजिीक, पोस् ट- डालवमयानगर
वं ार-821305
91.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
नोएडा सेक् टर-49( गांि-ंरोला), शा ा कोड-11218
मुख् य िािरी रोड, गांि-ंरोला
सेक् टर-49, नोएडा, वजला-गौनम ंु्ध नगर
उत् नर प्रिेश -201310
92.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
साक् र्ी, जमशेिपुर, शा ा कोड-11213
प् लॉट नंर-480, लाइन नंर-22
आिशच अब्ल िुल र ीम का पलेक् स,
प्रथम मंवजल, कासीडी ,
साक् र्ी, जमशेिपुर, झार ण् ड-831001
93.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
कांटाटोली, रांर्ी ,शा ा कोड-11178
प् लॉट नंर-280, नाइल मॉल
पुराना जारींाग रोड, कांटाटोली,
रांर्ी, झार ण् ड-834001
94.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
सा नेिाल ,शा ा कोड-11243
िाडच संख् या 11, ड लों रोड
गुरु गोवंन् ि हसं गेट के पास(सा नेिाल र्ौक)
पोस् ट-सा नेिाल,वजला लुव याना
पंजां-141120
95.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
रड़, शा ा कोड-11257
पानी टंकी के सामने, र्ंडीगढ़ रोड
पोस् ट- रड़, वजला-मो ाली
पंजां-140301
96.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
ग्रेटर नोएडा, शा ा कोड-11273
ओम टॉिर, ंी-5, सेक् टर एल् फा-1
ग्रेटर नोएडा, वजला – गौनम ंु्ध नगर
II
(ii)
2965
उत् नर प्रिेश-201301
97.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
सीनामढ़ी, शा ा कोड-11141
शीला मेंशन,डुमरा रोड, रायोपट्टी
साहू र्ौक, सीनामढ़ी,
वं ार-843302
98.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
सुरार, नंीनगर ब्ल लॉक, शा ा कोड-11225
एनटीपीसी के सामने, पोस् ट– वपरौटा
नंीनगर, औरंगांाि, वं ार-824303
99.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
गुड़गांि, सेक् टर-5 ,शा ा कोड-11280
शीनला माना रोड, मेन रोड,
सेक् टर-5, गुड़गांि, ररयाणा- 122001
100.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
राजौरी गाडेन, शा ा कोड-11277
जे-13/57, मेन रोड, राजौरी गाडेन,
नई दिल् ली- 110027
101.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
गुजरांिाला टाऊन, शा ा कोड-11284
ए-330,डेरािल नगर, नई दिल् ली-110009
102.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
सेक् टर 16(ए), फरीिांाि , शा ा कोड-11250
एससीएफ-35 ि 36, हुडा माकेट,
पाटच-।, सेक् टर16(ए), फरीिांाि, ररयाणा
103.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
सेक् टर-49, नोएडा, शा ा कोड-11218
मुख् य िािरी रोड, गांि-ंरोला,
सेक् टर-49, नोएडा वजला गौनम ंु्ध नगर
104.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
पीनमपुरा , शा ा कोड-11358
7, िीपाली एंक् लेि,
पीनमपुरा, नई दिल् ली- 110034
105.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
सेक् टर 49-ए, शा ा कोड-11285
ंचथ नंर-7,सेक् टर49-ए, र्ंडीगढ़
106.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
जींि, शा ा कोड-11279
2966
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
एससीएफ-32, जाट मचशाला के पास,
जींि, ररयाणा
107.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
वभिानी , शा ा कोड-11278
ंालाजी कॉ प् लेक् स, पुराने ंस स् ट ण् ड के पास(इन गेट)
सकुचलर रोड, वभिानी, ररयाणा
108.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
वसरसा , शा ा कोड-11283
मलागर हसं पेट्रोल पंप के सामने,
ंेंगच रोड, वसरसा, ररयाणा
109.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
पलिल , शा ा कोड-11261
गुप् ना प् लॉजा, रसचलपुर र्ौक के पास,
ंाईपास, मेन रोड, पलिल, ररयाणा
110.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
वशमला , शा ा कोड-11438
पािचनी कांप् लेक् स, पंथाघाटी एनएर्-22,
ंाई पास रोड, वशमला, व मार्ल प्रिेश- 171009
111.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
साल् टलेक सेक् टर-1 कोलकाना, शा ा कोड-11410
सीएफ- 364, साल् टलेक सेक् टर-1, कोलकाना-700064
112.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
ठाकुरपुकुर, शा ा कोड-11411
192, डायमंड ांचर रोड,प्रथम नल, ठाकुरपुकुर
भारन ग स ंुककंग कायाचलय के वनकट, पविम ंंगाल
कोलकाना- 700063
113.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
र्न् द्रशे रपुर , शा ा कोड-11413
प् लॉट नंर-306/1710/4017
परटया वस रर्ंडी र्क,
वंग ंाजार के वनकट भुिनेश् िर
114.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
क्षेत्रीय कायाच.-2, ल नऊ, शा ा कोड-11194
शॉप नंर-6,7, एलडीए क मर्शचयल का प् लेक् स
कपचरथला ंाग, अलीगंज, ल नऊ-226020
115.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
क्षेत्रीय कायाच.-5,कोलकाना, शा ा कोड-11320
प्रथम नल, एन.एस.रोड, कोलकाना -700001
II
(ii)
2967
116.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
रासमेक दिल् ली, शा ा कोड-10876
र्नुथच नल, अह ंसा भिन
न् यच राजेन् द्र नगर, शंकर रोड, नई दिल् ली-110060
117.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
सीसीपीसी दिल् ली , शा ा कोड-10648
पी-4/90, विनीय नल, कनॉट सकचस
दिल् ली-110001
118
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
स् टेशनरी वडपो दिल् ली, शा ा कोड-10838
िाई सी, 1/3, लो ा मंडी,
नारायणा इंडवस् ट्रयल स् टेट ,
फेज-II, नई दिल् ली-110028
119.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
गुड़गांि, सेक् टर-49, शा ा कोड-11318
इरोज शॉप नंर-90,91, वसटी स् क् िॉयर
सेक् टर-49, गुड़गांि -122018
120.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
मालिीय नगर , शा ा कोड-11342
डी-81, मेन माकेट,
मालिीय नगर, दिल् ली-110017
121.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
ि शाली, शा ा कोड-11419
प् लॉट नंर-26, सचयाच कवनष् क टॉिर,
सेक् टर-4, ि शाली
122.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
वसकंिरा ंोडला, आगरा, शा ा कोड-11445
प् लॉट नंर-04, सेक् टर-05,आिास विकास कालोनी,
वसकंिरा ंोडला रोड,
आगरा, उत् नर प्रिेश-282007
123.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
सीनापुर, शा ा कोड-11359
इकंाल प् लॉजा, ंट्सगंज,
जीआईसी क्राहसंग के वनकट,
जीटी रोड, सीनापुर-261001
124.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
पी सी कालोनी, कांकरांाग , शा ा कोड-11324
2968
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
जी-122,पी.सी.कॉलोनी, पोस् ट – लोव या नगर,
कांकरांाग, पटना-800020
125.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
र्ंद्रगढ़ नंीनगर , शा ा कोड-11406
ग्राम एिं पोस् ट- र्ंद्रगढ़,थाना- नंीनगर,
पंर्ायन- र्ंद्रगढ़, औरंगांाि-824301
126.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
भागलपुर मेन शा ा, शा ा कोड-11414
जयसिाल टॉिर, आरंीएसएस रोड,
वभ नपुर, गुमटी नंर-3, भागलपुर- 812001
127.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
कचल रोड, जालं र, शा ा कोड-11172
75, गुरजेपाल नगर,
कचल रोड, जालं र-144001
128.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
मुल् लापुर गरींिास, मो ाली , शा ा कोड-11322
मेन रोड, मुल् लापुर गरीं िास,
वजला –मो ाली-140901
129.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
नारनौल , शा ा कोड-11335
एम जी मोटसच के वनकट,
क लाश नगर, नारनौल, वजला-म ेन् द्रगढ़,
ररयाणा-123001
130.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
क थल , शा ा कोड-11384
कुरुक्षेत्र रोड, क थल, ररयाणा-136027
131.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
ंािल , शा ा कोड-11440
ंािल ऑटो फ्यचल के वनकट,
रेिाड़ी रोड, ंािल, ररयाणा-123501
132.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
ंालासोर, शा ा कोड-11412
एफएम गोलाई, भाष् करगंज,
ंालासोर, ओवडसा-756001
133.
स् टेट ंक ऑफ ंीकानेर एण् ड जयपुर
रथनला, कोलकाना, शा ा कोड-11433
271 ए, एनएससी ंोस रोड,
गररया मेट्रो स् टेशन के वनकट, कोलकाना-700047
II
(ii)
2969
134.
िेनचर
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर, िेनचर शा ा
गाडचन विव्यु कााँपलेक्स ंस स्टकड
िेनचर ंेलथंगडी नालुक 574242
135.
सुब्रमन्या
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर, सुब्रमन्या शा ा,
श्रीवनकेनन भिन कार स्ट्रीट सुब्रमण्या,
सुवलया, सुब्रमण्या 574238
136.
विट्ठल
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर, विट्टल शा ा,
2-387 (24), रर ा और पाकच लाईन को प् ल क् स
ज न ंसिी के सामने
विट्ठल 574243
137.
कडंा
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर, कडंा शा ा,
एसएर्एलओएम टािसच मेन रोड कडांा-574221
138.
विशेवषकृन
एनआरआई
शा ा मंगलचर
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर,
विशेवषकृन एनआरआई शा ा,
मंगलचर, 2-12 / 6, व ल ग्रोि,
वर्हलंी कुलचर -फेरी रोड प्रथम नल
मंगलचर 575006
139.
जयापुरा
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर, जयापुरा शा ा,
िेंकटनाग कााँप्लेक्स पररसर मेन रोड,
जयापुरा कोप्पा नालुका 577123
140.
मेलकर
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर, मेलकर शा ा,
गंगा पुष्पा आकेड मेलकर फलक
मंगलौर पोस्ट, ंंटिाल 57423
141.
नाररमोगरू
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर, नाररमोगरू शा ा,
एसए कॉप्लेक्स, पुरुषरकट्टे नाररमोगरू गांि
और पोस्ट पुत्तचर नालुका, पुत्तचर 574202
142.
आईिरानाडु
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर, आईिराना डु शा ा
ग्राम पंर्ायन सेिा केन्द्र भिन आईिरानाडु,
सुवलया नालुका 574239
143.
ाउहसंग ंोडच
कॉलोनी
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर, ाउहसंग ंोडच कॉलोनी शा ा,
ए आई टी कॉलेज रोड ज्योवन नगर वर्क्कमगलचर,
वर्क्कमगलचर 577102
2970
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
144.
एम.जी.रोड
मंगलचर
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर, एमजी रोड शा ा
दिव्या एन्क्लेि केनरा कॉलेज के सामने
ओ एमजी रोड, मंगलचर 575,003
145.
ंाजार सड़क
वर्क्कमगलुर
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर,
ंाजार सड़क वर्क्कमगलुर शा ा
08262-23937300 वर्क्कमगलचर 577101
146.
मलान्िुर सड़क
वर्क्कमगलुर
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर,
मलान्िुर सड़क वर्क्कमगलुर,
राजेश्वर पररसर मलान्िुर सड़क
वर्क्कमगलचर वर्क्कमगलचर 577101
147.
वनलुिावगलच
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर, वनलुिावगलच शा ा,
श्री लक्ष्मी पररसर वनलुिावगलच (िी एंड पी)
कोप्पा नालुक, वर्क्कमगलचर वजले 577120
148.
कालसा शा ा
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर, कालसा शा ा,
प्रथम नल कामन टािर मुख्य सड़क कालसा
मुदिगेरे नालुक्का कालसा 577124
149.
सत्यमंगला
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर, सत्यमंगला शा ा,
पास विनायक समुिाय भिन गौरीकोप्पलच
ासन 573202
150.
ंेलिडी
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर,
ंेलेिडी शा ा, ाना No.529,
ंेलिडी ग्राम ि पोस्ट िोद्दमग्गे हुंली,
अरकलगुड नालुका, ासन वजला,
ासन 573113
151.
लेंीडु
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर, लेंीडु शा ा,
ाना सं 42/1 राजनवसरयुर रोड लेंीडु
ंेलचर नालु का, सन वजला लेंी डु
573121
152.
द्ड्ड्डा
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर, िुड्डा शा ा,
सवपजे सड़क िुड्डा 573118
153.
े ब्लंाले
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ म सचर, ेब्लंाले शा ा,
ग्राम पंर्ायन भिन े ब्लंाले
गांि और पोस्ट े ब्लंाले 573102
154.
अरवलकट्टे
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ म सचर, अरवलकट्टे शा ा,
कचल िेल टािर डंल टक,
सल्गामे रोड, ासन, ासन 573201
II
(ii)
2971
155.
ने रू नगर
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ म सचर, ने रू नगर शा ा,
लक्ष्मी टािर वर्क्कमगलुर ासन
मुख्य सड़क ने रू नगर ंेलच रु 573115
156.
वमनी वि ान
सौ
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ म सचर,
वमनी वि ान सौ ा शा ा,
कल्पनरु पररसर के वनकट वमवनवि ान्सौ ा
ंी.एर्. सड़क अरवसकेरे 573103
157.
ंाजार शा ा
र्न्नारायपट्ना
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ म सचर,
अग्र र ंीिी, र्ंद्रशे र भिन के.आर. सर्कचल
र्न्नारायपट्ना ासन 573116
158.
कुंिुर
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ म सचर, ाना सं 354,
कुंिुर गांि और पोस्ट िंवडगाना ल्ली
र्न्नारायपट्ना
159.
फोटच अरकलगुड स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ म सचर,
फोटच अरकलगुड शा ा मवल्लप्ट्ना रोड,
अरकलगुड 573102
160.
भटकल
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ म सचर,
भटकल शा ा, नृनीय / 1443 / 1F,
1 मंवजल नाईक र्ंद्रच र्ेंसच
नई अंग्रेजी स्कचल रोड भटकल 581320
161.
ं लुर
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ म सचर, ं लचर शा ा,
डॉ अरुर नर्सिंग ोम के पास मेन रोड
ं लुर 574102
162.
थेकट्टे
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ म सचर, थेकट्टे शा ा,
प्रेम भट कांप्लेक्स, एनएर् 66,
थेकट्टे कुंिापुर नालुकाम थेकट्टॆ 576231
163.
मांकी
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ म सचर, मांकी शा ा,
1 मंवजल मांकी, नर्सिंग ोम ंंसाले,
मांकी 581348
164.
ंनिासी रोड
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ म सचर,
ंनिासी रोड शा ा,
मररकंा मंदिर के वनकट
नेत्रिनी कांप्लेक्स, ंनिासी रोड
वसरसी 581401
2972
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
165.
गोकणच
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ म सचर, गोकणच शा ा,
िरिाजा सं 446 श्री गुरु राघिेंद्र कांप्लेक्स,
नरक्की रोड, गोकणच 581326
166.
वशररयारा
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ म सचर, वशररयारा शा ा,
ंीएन 4-59 / ंी, प्रथम नल,
कल्मग्री एटी / पीटी: वशररयारा – 576210
नालचका एिं वजला: उडुपी वशररयारा 576210
167.
कोटेश्वरा
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ म सचर, कोटेश्वरा शा ा,
लक्ष्मीिेिी कॉप्लेक्स,
श्री वपत्तंी रामर्ंद्र मंदिर के सामने
मारुवन िन रोड, कोटेश्वरा
कुंिापुर कोटेश्वरा – 576222
168.
मवणपाल
स्टेट ंक ऑफ़ म सचर, मवणपाल शा ा,
ि ष्णिी वनिास प्रथम नल
मवणपाल- परकला रोड,
ईश्वर नगर मवणपाल -576104
169.
नन्नीिाला
शा ा
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर, नन्नीिाला शा ा
ग्रामपंर्ायनी समुिाय भिन
नन्नीिाला, र्ल्लकेरा नालुका, वजला:वर्त्रिुगच
170.
ावलिना
शा ा
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर, ावलिना शा ा
राजीि गां ी सेिा केन्द्र,
ग्रमपंर्ायनी-हुवलिना, रर र नालुका
वजला िािणगेरे 577530
171.
नुमकुरला ल्ली
शा ा
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर,
नुमकुरला ल्ली शा ा
ग्रामपंर्ायनी समुिाय भिन
मल्कामचरु नालु का, वर्त्रिुगच - 577535
172.
मिलगेरी शा ा
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर,
मिलगेरी शा ा, ग्रामपंर्ायनी समुिाय भिन
रपन ल्ली नालु का,
वजला : िािणगेरे-583131
173.
कडलेंालच
शा ा
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर, कडलेंालच शा ा
नागरआज वंहल्डंग, अंजनेय मंदिर के पास,
कडल्ंालच, गरींोमन ल्ली नालुक,
ंेल्लारी वजला
174.
गुंडुमुनुगच शा ा
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर, गुंडुमुनुगच शा ा
वर्िानंि गौडा वंहल्डंग, गुंडुमुनुगु,
कुडलगी नालुक, ंेल्लारी वजला
II
(ii)
2973
175.
मकानडचकच
शा ा
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर,
मकानडचकच शा ा
ओंकार वंहल्डंग, मकानडचकच,
कुड्लगी नालुक्का, ंेल्लारी वजला
176.
वथ मालपुरा
शा ा
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर,
वथ मालपुरा शा ा
हुविना डगली नालुक, ंेल्लारी वजला
177.
सुग्गेन ल्ली
शा ा
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर,
सुग्गेन ल्ली शा ा, समुिाय भिन
सुग्गेने ल्ली, ोस्पेट नालुक,
ंेल्लारी वजला
178.
डीसी ऑदफस
ारिाड़
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर,
रूम नं. 01ए डीसी ऑदफस कंपाउंड,
िािणगरे- ािेरी, ािेरी – 581110
179.
वडम ांस
ारिाड़ शा ा
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर,
ारिाड़ इंस् टीट्यूटचट ऑफ मेंटल ल् थ
एंड न् यचरो साइंस, ंेलगाम – 580008
180.
येडाजीगलेमने
शा ा
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर,
पोस् ट: यडाजीगलेमने,
सागर, वशमोगा
181.
कांलीकोप् पा
शा ा
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर,
पोस् ट: कांलीकोप् पा,
सागर, वशमोगा
182.
कमलापुर
शा ा
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर,
प्रथम नल, श्री रेिनवस्ध ेश् िर कॉ प् लेक् स,
ंस स् टकड के पास, कमलापुर रोड,
कमलापुर, कमलापुर
183.
अरूड श ा
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर,
प् लॉट नं. 4, शास् त्री गंज,
एपीएमसी याडच के पास, अरूड
184.
डॉ. नेकुर
सुब्रह्मण् यम
रोड, ंेल् लारी
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर,
डॉ. नेकुर सुब्रह्मण् यम रोड,
ंेल् लारी
185.
ने रू कॉलोनी,
ंेल् लारी
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर,
ने रू कॉलानी शा ा,
43ए, टीएस नं. 7382, प्रथ म मेन,
ने रू कॉलानी, ंेल् लारी – 583101
186.
लेंेगाच शा ा
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर,
स् िणच वि ान सध , सी ब्ल लॉक,
ंसमन ोलेनोरगल, ंेलगाम
2974
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 14th March, 2017
S.O. 1295.—In pursuance of sub-rule(4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (use for official purpose of the
union) Rules, 1976,the Central Government, hereby notified the listed branches/offices of the following banks in the
attached annexure, more than 80% of the staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of hindi.
Serial No.
Name of the Banks
Number of Branches/offices
1.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
133
2.
State Bank of Mysore
56
3.
State Bank of Hyderabad
02
Total
191
[F.No.11016/1/2015-OL(Noti.)]
RAJIV KUMAR, Assistant Director(OL)
187.
नक् कालगी
शा ा
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर,
पींी26, एसएस फ्रंट,
वस्ध ेश् िर मंदिर के सामने,
ंेलगाम – 591123
188.
ेल् लेनोरगल
शा ा
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर,
c/o रामिुगच शा ा, जुवनपेठ,
रामिुगच, ंेलगाम – 590023
189.
यरगट्टी शा ा
स्टेट ंक ऑफ म सचर,
श्री िेंकटेश कॉ प् लेक स,
ंेलगाम – ंागलकोट रोड,
येरगट्टी – 591129
190.
स ायक म ाप्रंं क
स् टेट ंक ऑफ िरांाि
क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय, प्रथम नल,32 ए,
ब्रंोनच रोड,केहनंग स् ट्रीट,कोलकाना
वपन कोड-700001
कोलकाना (वजला)-पवश् र्म ंंगाल(राज् य)
191.
शा ा प्रंं क
स् टेट ंक ऑफ िरांाि
िािरी(गौनमंु्ध नगर)शा ा(21929)
न् यािरगंज,नजिीक नगरपावलका,
जीटी रोड, िािरी
वपन कोड-203207(फोन: 0120-2662150)
गौनमंु्ध नगर(वजला)-उत् नर प्रिेश(राज् य)
II
(ii)
2975
List of Branches/Offices to be notified under Rule 10(4) in the Gazette of Government of India
1.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Vidyadhar Nagar Branch (Branch code-10763)
1/38 Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur -302039
Rajasthan
2.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
P.W.D Complex Branch (Branch Code- 10820)
Jacob Road , Jaipur-302006
Rajasthan
3.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Sikar Road Branch (Branch Code-11154)
Plot No-1, Shanti Ashiatic School
Suncity Township
Sikar Road, Jaipur – 302013
Rajasthan
4.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Brahampuri Branch (Branch Code-10761)
Sita Ram Bazar
Brahampuri ,Jaipur-302002
Rajasthan
5.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Central spine (Branch code-10861)
A-9 Ganesham Plaza
Didyadhar Nagar, Jaipur-302039, Rajasthan
6.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Rajdhani Krishi Upaj Mandi Branch (Branch code- 10978)
Rajdhani krishi upaj Mandi
Jaipur-302013, Rajasthan
7.
State Bank Of Bikaner and Jaipur
Johari Bazar Branch (Branch Code- 10029)
Abobe Shop Number-245 to 248, Ist floor
Johari Bazar
Jaipur-302003, Rajasthan
8.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Branch : MITHODA
Address : Gram Panchayat Bhawan
Panchayat Samiti, Siwana
Post – Mithoda Distt. Barmer
Rajasthan PIN—344801
9.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Branch: LUNI
Address : Devasiyo Ki Gali,
Main Station Road
Post- Luni District-Jodhpur
PIN- 342802
10.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Branch : B.J.S COLONY, JODHPUR
Address : RTO Crossing Road, B.J.S. Colony
Jodhpur PIN -342006
2976
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Branch : NEW BUS STAND ROAD, SANCHORE
Address : Godavari Complex
New Bus Stand Road, Post – Sanchore
Distt. – Jalore, Rajasthan PIN -343041
12.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Branch : BALARWA
Address : Jodhpur Tiwri Main Road
Bus Stand, Post – Balarwa
Tehsil – Osian, Distt. – Jodhpur
Rajasthan PIN – 342 306
13.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Branch : PATHMERA
Address : Shri Gopal Goverdhan Gaushala,
Anandvan , Pathmera Post – Hadetar
Tehsil – Sanchore
Distt. Jalore Rajasthan PIN - 343 041
14.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Branch : PHALODI K.U.M
Address : Opp. Krishi Upaj Mandi
Jodhpur Road
Phalodi Distt. Jodhpur
Rajasthan PIN - 342 301
15.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Branch : SARWADI
Address : Panchayat Samiti
Post – Sarwadi, Tehsil – Pachpadra
Distt. Barmer, Rajasthan PIN – 344 032
PIN -342041
16.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Branch : HANSLAV KI PAL, JODHPUR
Address : 682/12 Near Satelite Hospital
Hanslav Ki Pal, Nayapura
Distt. Jodhpur
Rajasthan PIN – 342026
17.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Branch : AIIMS BASNI, JODHPUR
Address : SHOP No 37
Basni Transport Nagar
Main Salawas Road
Distt. Jodhpur
Rajasthan PIN – 342005
18.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Branch : JODHPUR PRATAP NAGAR
Address : Om Satyam,
104 Pratap Nagar Extension
Near Tempo Stand, Pratap Nagar,
Jodhpur Distt. Jodhpur
Rajasthan PIN – 342004
19.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Branch : KUDI BAGATASNI
Address : 5-H-7, Kudi Housing Board
II
(ii)
2977
Jodhpur Distt. Jodhpur
Rajasthan PIN – 342005
20.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Branch : DANGIYAWAS
Address : Jaipur Highway, Near Petrol Pump
Hemanada Area, Dangiawas
Distt. Jodhpur
Rajasthan PIN – 342027
21.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Branch : MALWARA
Address : Sundha Mata Road
Malwara, Tehsil- Raniwara
Distt. Jalore
Rajasthan PIN – 343039
22.
State Bank Of Bikaner and jaipur
DANPUR (Branch Code:-11173)
Address : GHORI TEJPUR CHOURAHA ,
RATLAM ROAD, Post: DANPUR
Distt: BAANSWADA -327001, Rajasthan
23.
State Bank Of Bikaner and Jaipur
KHERODA (Branch Code:-11226)
Address :
BUS STAND ,BHINDER ROAD ,KHERODA
TEHSIL : VALLABHNAGAR
Distt: Udaipur -313601, Rajasthan
24.
State Bank Of Bikaner and Jaipur
TRANSPORT NAGAR,UDAIPUR (Branch Code:-11263)
Address :
DC TAK COMPUND,ADARSH NAGAR,NH76
Pratap Nagar,Udaipur
Distt: Udaipur -313001
25.
State Bank Of Bikaner and Jaipur
RAIPUR,BHILWARA (Branch Code:-11232)
Address :
HARIOM COMPLEX,GANGAPUR ROAD
RAIPUR
Distt: BHILWARA -313803
26
State Bank Of Bikaner and Jaipur
THIKARIYA (Branch Code:-11238)
Address :
SILVER PLAZA COMPLEX,
NEAR VEERANGANA TALKIES
DAHOD ROAD ,BANSWARA
Distt: BANSWARA -327001, Rajasthan
27.
State Bank of Bikaner and jaipur
DELWARA (Branch Code:-11233)
Address :
MOTILAL KHATIKAN NIWAS
NEAR JODHPUR MISHTHAN,
BUS STAND,DELWARA
Distt: RAJSAMAND -313202, Rajasthan
2978
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
28.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
TITARDI (Branch Code:-11296)
Address :
TITARDI
Distt: Udaipur -313002, Rajasthan
29.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
VELANGARI (Branch Code:-11314)
Address :
MAIN ROAD VELANGARI
Distt: SIROHI -307001, Rajasthan
30.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
PIPLINAGAR (Branch Code:-11311)
Address :
PIPLINAGAR
TEHSIL : BHIM
Distt: RAJSAMAND -305921,
Rajasthan
31.
STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR
CHHABRA ROAD,NEAR GANESH KUNJ, (11177)
BAPAWAR KALAN, TEHSIL- SANGOD,
DIST- KOTA
STATE- RAJASTHAN
PIN : 325007
32.
STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR
NEAR BUS STAND, MANDANA (11186)
DIST- KOTA
STATE- RAJASTHAN
PIN : 325003
33.
STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR
114, FURNITURE MARKET,
SHOPING CENTRE, KOTA (11300)
DIST- KOTA
STATE- RAJASTHAN
PIN: 324 007
34.
STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR
OCF-4, VISHWAKARMA NAGAR, KOTA, (11301)
DIST- KOTA
STATE- RAJASTHAN
PIN : 324 010
35.
STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR
PLOT NO. 10, GAUTAM COLONY, (11394)
BORKHEDA KOTA, DIST- KOTA
STATE- RAJASTHAN
PIN : 324 001
36.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
DGM Secretariat, CODE-10548
Zonal Office, Public Park, Bikaner
District – Bikaner
State – Rajasthan
Pincode – 334001
II
(ii)
2979
37.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
AGM-I Secretariat, CODE-10548
Zonal Office, Public Park, Bikaner
District – Bikaner
State – Rajasthan
Pincode-334001
38.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
AGM-II Secretariat, CODE-10548
Zonal Office, Public Park, Bikaner
District – Bikaner
State – Rajasthan
Pincode-334001
39.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
RASMECCC Bikaner, CODE-10870
Binnani Building, Alakh Sagar Road, Bikaner
District – Bikaner
State – Rajasthan
Pincode-334001
40.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
CCPC Bikaner, CODE-10644
Public Park, Bikaner
District – Bikaner
State-Rajasthan, Pincode-334001
41.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Currency Administration Cell (CAC) Bikaner, CODE-10548
Hospital Road Branch, Bikaner
District – Bikaner
State – Rajasthan
Pincode-334001
42.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
RCPC SRI BIJEYNAGAR, CODE-11083
Opp. Dada Pampa Ram Dharmashala, Sri Ganganagar
District – Sri Ganganagar
State – Rajasthan
Pincode – 335704
43.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
STATIONERY DEPOT, BIKANER, CODE-10834
Binnani Building, Alakh Sagar Road, Bikaner
District – Bikaner
State – Rajasthan, Pincode – 334001
44.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch - GODU, CODE-10610
Vill- Godu, PO- Bajju, Tehsil- Kolayat
District – Bikaner
State – Rajasthan, Pincode – 334305
45.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – LALGARH (BIKANER) ,
CODE-10801 District – Bikaner
State – Rajasthan, Pincode – 334004
46.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – GHOOMCHAKKAR,
2980
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SRI DUNGARGARH, CODE-11267
NH-11, Momasar Baas,
Near Ghoomchakkar, Sri Dungargarh
District – Bikaner
State – Rajasthan, Pincode – 331803
47.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – RAISAR, CODE-11316
PO- Naurangdesar,
Nr Marudhar Engineering College,
NH-11, Jaipur Rd.
District – Bikaner, State – Rajasthan
Pincode – 334001
48.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – RD 465 DAMOLAI, CODE-11346
PO- Raner, Bikaner
District – Bikaner
State – Rajasthan, Pincode – 334021
49.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – TILAK NAGAR, CODE-11404
Near Subhash Petrol Pump,
Jaipur Road, Bikaner
District – Bikaner
State – Rajasthan
Pin code – 334022
50.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – BIKANER CITY, CODE-10164
Bhujiya Bajar, Bikaner
District – Bikaner
State – Rajasthan
Pincode – 334005
51.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – JHAJHU, CODE-10519
Tehsil- Kolayat
District – Bikaner
State – Rajasthan
Pincode – 334302
52.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – SOORPURA, CODE-10606
Tehsil- Nokha
District – Bikaner
State – Rajasthan
Pincode – 334801
53.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – JANGLOO, CODE-10608
Tehsil- Nokha
District – Bikaner
State – Rajasthan,Pincode – 334803
54.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – BHAMATSAR, CODE-10609
Near Shiv Mandir, Tehsil- Nokha
District – Bikaner
II
(ii)
2981
State – Rajasthan
Pincode – 334801
55.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – DHARNOKE, CODE-10617
Via Panchoo, Tehsil- Nokha
District – Bikaner
State – Rajasthan
Pincode – 334804
56.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – DHINGSARI, CODE-10618
Tehsil- Nokha
District – Bikaner
State – Rajasthan,Pincode – 334804
57.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – RAMSAR, CODE-11021
Tehsil- Bikaner
District – Bikaner
State – Rajasthan
Pincode – 334201
58.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – SINTHAL, CODE-11047
Near Karni Mata Mandir, Sinthal,
Via Napasar, District – Bikaner
State – Rajasthan,Pincode – 334202
59.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – KANTA KHATURIA COLONY,
CODE-11048 A-35, Kanta Khaturia Colony, Bikaner
District – Bikaner
State – Rajasthan
Pincode – 334003
60.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – RODA, CODE-11068
Via Nokha
District – Bikaner
State – Rajasthan
Pincode – 334803
61.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – AKKASAR, CODE-11112
Tehsil- Bikaner
District – Bikaner
State – Rajasthan
Pincode – 334001
62.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – JAWAHAR NAGAR, CODE-11143
A-6, Opp. Doodi Petrol Pump,
Jawahar Nagar, Gajner Road, Bikaner
District – Bikaner
State – Rajasthan
Pincode – 334005
63.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – GANGA SHAHAR, CODE-11268
2982
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Plot No.2, Mahabalipuram Colony,
Nr. Bus Stand, Nokha Rd, Ganga Sahar
District – Bikaner,State – Rajasthan, Pincode – 334403
64.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – KUCHOR AGUNI, CODE-11310
Tehsil- Nokha
District – Bikaner
State – Rajasthan
Pincode – 334202
65.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – KHINDASDAR, CODE-11408
Panchayat Bhawan Khindasar, Tehsil- Kolyat
District – Bikaner
State – Rajasthan
Pincode –
334302
66.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – AGRASEN CHOWK,
SRI GANGANAGAR, CODE-11169
6Q, Jawahar Nagara, Agrasen Chowk
District – Sri Ganganagar
State – Rajasthan
Pincode –
335001
67.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – BANWALI (4 BNW) , CODE-11034
Bus Stand, Banwali (4 BNW), Tehsil- Sadulshahar
District – Sri Ganganagar
State – Rajasthan
Pincode – 335062
68.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – CHUNAWAD, CODE-10980
Tehsil- Sri Ganganagar
District – Sri Ganganagar
State – Rajasthan,Pincode – 335022
69.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – GURUSAR MODIA (26 MOD) , CODE-11070
Shah Satnam Ji General Hospital, Gurusar Modia
District – Sri Ganganagar
State – Rajasthan
Pincode – 335802
70.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – NEW DHAN MANDI, PADAMPUR, CODE-11168
KUM Premises, Padampur
District – Sri Ganganagar
State – Rajasthan
Pincode –335041
71.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – NEW DHAN MANDI,
SRI KARANPUR, CODE-11111
Near Gurudwara Nanak Saheb,
Sri Ganganagar Road, Sri Karanpur
District – Sri Ganganagar
State – Rajasthan
II
(ii)
2983
Pincode –
335073
72.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – PUBLIC PARK,
SRI GANGANAGAR, CODE-10144
28A, Public Park, Sri Ganganagar
District – Sri Ganganagar
State – Rajasthan
Pincode –
335001
73.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – UDHAM SINGH CHOWK,
SRI GANGANAGAR, CODE-10986
Near Bus Stand, Sri Ganganagar
District – Sri Ganganagar,
State – Rajasthan,Pincode –
335001
74.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – 19 Z, SRI GANGANAGAR, CODE-11110
VPO- 19 Z, Tehsil- Sri Ganganagar
District – Sri Ganganagar
State – Rajasthan
Pincode –
335038
75.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – NEW DHAN MANDI,
RAISINGHNAGAR, CODE-11269
B-2, Opp. New Dhan Mandi,
Anoopgarh Road, Raisinghnagar
District – Sri Ganganagar
State – Rajasthan
Pincode –
335051
76.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – KIKARWALI, CODE-11251
Gram Panchayat Bhawan, Kikarwali,
Tehsil- Raisinghnagar
District – Sri Ganganagar
State – Rajasthan, Pincode – 335051
77.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – MORJAND KHARI, CODE-11286
Near Bus Stand, Morjand Khari, Sadul Shahar
District – Sri Ganganagar
State – Rajasthan, Pincode –
335037
78.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – RAWALA MANDI,
SRI GANGANAGAR, CODE-11393
Shop No. 36, Dhan Mandi,
Rawala Mandi, Tehsil- Gharsana
District – Sri Ganganagar
State – Rajasthan,Pincode –
335707
79.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – MURTI CHOWK, BHADRA, CODE-11252
District – Hanumangarh
State – Rajasthan, Pincode – 335501
2984
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
80.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – KISHANPURA,
DIKHNADA, CODE-11253
Rajiv Gandhi Sewa Kendra,
Kishanpura, Dikhnada
District – Hanumangarh
State – Rajasthan, Pincode –
334302
81.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – BHIRANI, CODE-11256
Near Police Station, Bhirani, Tehsil- Bhadra
District – Hanumangarh
State – Rajasthan
Pincode – 335503
82.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – BASHIR, HANUMANGARH, CODE-11264
Tehsil- Tibbi
District – Hanumangarh
State – Rajasthan
Pincode – 335063
83.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – SECTOR-5, NOHAR, CODE-11270
Sector No. 5, Opp. Mahendra Tractor Agency, Nohar
District – Hanumangarh
State – Rajasthan
Pincode – 335523
84.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – BANK ROAD,
PILIBANGA, CODE-11271
Shop No. 15, 16, 17, Bank Road,
Valmiki Chowk, Pilibanga
District – Hanumangarh
State – Rajasthan
Pincode – 335803
85.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – AIR FORCE STATION,
SURATGARH, CODE-10813
Suratgarh Air Force Station
District – Sri Ganganagar
State – Rajasthan
Pincode – 335804
86.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – STPS, RAYANWALI, CODE-10817
Tehsil- Suratgarh
District – Sri Ganganagar
State – Rajasthan
Pincode – 335804
87.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – RATANPURA,
HANUMANGARH, CODE-11372
VPO- Ratanpura, Tehsil- Nohar
District – Hanumangarh
State – Rajasthan
Pincode – 335523
II
(ii)
2985
88.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Branch – 12 DPN, GOGAMERI, CODE-11373
VPO- 12 DPN (Gogameri), Tehsil- Nohar
District – Hanumangarh
State – Rajasthan, Pincode – 335504
89.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Saguna Mor,Code- 11242
Chandra Complex,Plot No. -102,
Danapur, Patna, Bihar -801 503
90.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Dehri On Sone,Code 11164
Plot No. -906, Station Road
Near Mohan Bigha lane, Post Dalmianagar
Bihar -821 305
91.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Sector -49 (Village-Barola) ,Code 11 218
Main Dadri Road, village-Barola
Sector-49, Noida, District-Gautam Budh Nagar
UP -201 310
92.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Sakchi, Jamshedpur,Code 11 213
Plot No. -480, -22 line number
Adarsh Abdul Rahim Complex,
First floor, Kashidih
Sakchi, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand -831 001
93.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Kantatoli, Ranchi,Code 11 178
Plot No. -280, Nile Mall
Old Hazaribagh Road, Kantatoli,
Ranchi, Jharkhand -834 001
94.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Sahnewal,Code 11 243
Ward No. 11, Dahlon Road
Near Guru Gobind Singh Gate (Sahnewal Chowk)
Post-Sahnewal, District- Ludhiana
Punjab -141 120
95.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Kharar,Code 112 57
In front of Water Tank, Chandigarh Road
Post Kharar, District-Mohali
Punjab -140 301
96.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Greater Noida,Code-11 273
Om Tower, B-5, Sector Alpha -1
Greater Noida, District -Gautam Budh Nagar
UP -201301
97.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Sitamarhi,Code-11 141
Shila Mension, Dumra Road, Rayopatty
Sahu Chowk, Sitamari,
Bihar -843 302
2986
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
98.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Surar, Nabinagar block,Code-11 225
In front of NTPC,Post - Pirouta
Nabinagar, Aurangabad
Bihar -824 303
99.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Gurgaon, Sector -5,Code-11 280
Shitala Mata Road, Main Road,
Sector-5, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122001
100.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Rajouri Garden,Code-11 277
J -13 / 57, Main Road, Rajouri Garden;
New Delhi - 110 027
101.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Gujranwala Town,Code-11 284
A-330, Deraval Nagar, New Delhi -110 009
102.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Sector 16 (A), Faridabad,Code 11 250
SCF -35 and 36, Huda Market,
Part -., Sector 16 (A), Faridabad, Haryana
103.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Sector-49, Noida,Code 11 218
Important Dadri Road, Village - Barola,
Sector-49,
Noida District Gautam Buddha Nagar-201301
104.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Pitampura,Code-11 358
7, Deepali Enclave,Pitampura, New Delhi-110034
105.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Sector 49- A,Code-11 285
Booth Number-7, Sector 49- A, Chandigarh-160047
106.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Jind,Code-11 279
SCF -32, Near Jaat Hospital,
Jind, Haryana-126102
107.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Bhiwani,Code-11 278
Balaji Complex, Near Old bus Stand (IN Gate)
Circular Road, Bhiwani, Haryana-127021
108.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Sirsa,Code-11 283
In front of Malagar Singh Petrol pump ,
Bengu Road, Sirsa, Haryana-125055
109.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Palawal,Code-11 261
Gupta Plaza, Near Rasulpur chowk,
Bypass, Main Road, Palwal, Haryana-121102
II
(ii)
2987
110.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Shimla,Code-11 438
Parvati Complex, Panthaghati, NH-22
Bypass Road, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh 171 009
111.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Salt Lake Sector-1, Kolkata,Code-11 410
CF - 364, Salt Lake Sector-1, Kolkata - 700 064
112.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Thakurpukur,Code-11411
192, Diamond Harbor Road, First Floor, Thakurpukur
Near Bharat Gas Booking Office , West Bengal
Kolkata - 700 063
113.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Chandrashekharpur,Code-11 413
Plot Number -306/1710/4017
Patia Sikharchandi Chack,Near Big Bazar,
Bhubaneswar-751024
114.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Regional Office- 2, Lucknow,Code-11194
Shop No. 6, 7, LDA Commercial Complex
Kapurthala Bagh, Aliganj, Lucknow -226 020
115.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Regional office- 5, Kolkata,Code-11320
First Floor, N.S.Road, Kolkata -700 001
116.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
RASSMECC Delhi,Code-10876
Fourth Floor, Ahimsa Bhawan
New Rajinder Nagar, Shankar Road,
New Delhi -110 060
117.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
CCPC Kolkata,Code-10648
First Floor, N.S.Road, West Bengal
Kolkata -700 001
118.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Stationery Depot Delhi,Code-10838
Y C, 1/3, Loha Mandi,
Naraina Industrial Estate,
Phase II, New Delhi -110 028
119.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Gurgaon, Sector -49,Code-11318
Eros Shop No. 90, 91, City Square
Sector-49, Gurgaon -122 018
120.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Malviya Nagar,Code-11 342
D - 81, Main Market,
Malviya Nagar, Delhi -110 017
121.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Vaishali,Code-11419
2988
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Plot-26, Surya Tower Kanishka,
Sector 4, Vaishali
122.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Sikandra Bodla, Agra,Code-11445
Plot No. -04, Sector -05,
Awas Vikas Colony, sikandara Bodla Road,
Agra, Uttar Pradesh -282 007
123.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Sitapur,Code-11 359
Iqbal Plaza, Buttsganj,
Near GIC crossing,GT Road,
Sitapur -261 001
124.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
PC Colony, Kankrabag,Code-11324
G -122, PC Colony, Post - Lohia Nagar,
Kankrabag, Patna -800 020
125.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Chandragdh Nabinagar,Code-11406
Village and Post Chandragdh, Thana- Nabinagar
Panchayt- Chandragdh, Aurangabad -824 301
126.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Bhagalpur Main Branch,Code-11414
Jaiswal Tower, RBSS Road,
Bhikhanpur, Gumati No. 3, Bhagalpur- 812 001
127.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Cool Road, Jalandhar,Code-11172
75, Gurjepal Nagar,
Cool Road, Jalandhar -144 001
128.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Mullapur Garibdas, Mohali,Code-11322
Main Road, Mullapur Garib das,
District – Mohali, Punjab -140 901
129.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Narnaul,Code-11335
Near MG Motors,
Kailash Nagar, Narnaul, District Mahendragarh,
Haryana -123 001
130.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Kaithal,Code-11384
Kurukshetra Road, Kaithal,
Haryana -136 027
131.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Bawal,Code-11440
Near Bawal Auto fuel,Rewari Road,
Bawal, Haryana -123 501
132.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Balasore,Code-11412
FM Golai, Bhashkarganj,
Balasore,Odisa -756 001
II
(ii)
2989
133.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Rathatala, Kolkata,Code-11433
271 A, NSC Bose Road,
Near Garia Metro Station, Kolkata -700 047
134.
VENUR
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
VENUR BRANCH,
GARDEN VIEW COMPLEX BUS STAND
VENUR BELTHANGADY TALUK 574242
135.
SUBRAMANYA
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
SUBRAMANYA BRANCH,
SRINIKETANA BUILDING
CAR STREET SUBRAMANYA,
SULLIA SUBRAMANYA 574238
136.
VITTAL
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
VITTAL BRANCH, 2-387(24),
REEHA & PARKLINE COMPLEX
OPP: JAIN BASADI VITTAL 574243
137.
KADABA
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
KADABA BRANCH,
Shalom Towers Main Road Kadaba-574221
138.
SPECIALISED NRI
BRANCH
MANGALORE
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
SPECIALISED NRI BRANCH
MANGALORE, 2-12/6,
Hill Grove, Chilimbi Kuloor-Ferry Road
First Floor Mangalore 575006
139.
JAYAPURA
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
JAYAPURA BRANCH,
VENKATNAG COMPLEX MAIN ROAD,
JAYAPURA KOPPA TALUK 577123
140.
MELKAR
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
MELKAR BRANCH,
GANGA PUSHPA ARCADE MELKAR PANE
MANGALORE POST, BANTWAL 574231
141.
NARIMOGARU
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
NARIMOGARU BRANCH,
S A COMPLEX, PURUSHARAKATTE
NARIMOGARU VILLAGE & POST PUTTUR
TQ PUTTUR 574202
142.
IVARANADU
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
IVARNADU BRANCH
GRAMA PANCHAYATH SEVA KENDRA
BUILDING IVARNADU, SULLIA TALUK. 574239
2990
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
143.
HOUSING BOARD
COLONY
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
HOUSING BOARD COLONY BRANCH,
A.I.T College Road
Jyothi Nagara Chikmagalur Chikmagalur 577102
144.
M.G.ROAD
MANGALORE
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
M.G.ROAD BRANCH,
DIVYA ENCLAVE
OPP:CANARA COLLEGE
M G ROAD, MANGALORE 575003
145.
MARKET ROAD
CHICKMAGALUR
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
MARKET ROAD CHICKMAGALUR
BRANCH 08262-23937300
CHIKMAGALUR 577101
146.
MALLANDUR
ROAD
CHICKMAGALUR
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
MALLANDUR ROAD BRANCH,
RAJESHWAR COMPLEX
MALLANDUR ROAD CHIKMAGALUR 577101
147.
NILUVAGILU
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
NILUVAGILU BRANCH,
Shri Lakshmi Complex Niluvagilu (V&P)
Koppa Taluk, Chikmagalur District 577120
148.
KALASA BRANCH
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
KALASA BRANCH,
IST FLOOR KAMATH TOWERS
MAIN ROAD KALASA MUDIGERE
TALUK KALASA 577124
149.
SATHYAMANGALA
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
SATHYAMANGALA BRANCH
NEAR VINAYAKA SAMUDHAYA BHAVANA
GOWRIKOPPALU HASSAN 573202
150.
BELAVADI
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
BELAVADI BRANCH,
Khata No.529, Belavadi
Village & Post Doddamagge Hobli,
Arkalgud Taluk, Hassan
District Hassan 573113
151.
HALEBEEDU
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
HALEBEEDU BRANCH,
Khatha No 42/1 Rajanasiriyur Road
Halebeedu Belur Taluk Hassan
Dist HALEBEEDU 573121
152.
DUDDA
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
DUDDA BRANCH,
SAMPIGE ROAD DUDDA 573118
II
(ii)
2991
153.
HEBBALE
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
HEBBALE BRANCH,
GRAMAPANCHYATH BUILDING HEBBALE
VILLAGE AND POST HEBBALE 573102
154.
ARALIKATTE
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
ARALIKATTE BRANCH,
COOL WELL TOWERS
OPPOSITE DOUBLE TANK SALGAME ROAD,
HASSAN HASSAN 573201
155.
NEHRU NAGAR
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
NEHRU NAGAR BRANCH,
LAKSMI TOWERS
CHICKMAGALUR-HASSAN MAIN ROAD
NEHRU NAGAR BELUR 573115
156.
MINI VIDHANA
SOUDHA
ARASIKERE
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA BRANCH,
KALPATARU COMPLEX
NEAR MINIVIDHANASIUDHA B H ROAD
ARASIKERE 573103
157.
MARKET BRANCH
CHANNARAYAPA
TNA
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
MARKET BRANCH,
AGRHAR BEEDI,
CHANDRASHEKAR BUILDING
K R CIRCLE
CHANNARAYAPATNA HASSAN 573116
158.
KUNDUR
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
KUNDUR BRANCH,
KHATHA NO 354 KUNDUR
VILLAGE AND POST DANDIGANAHALLY HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TQ HASSAN DIST 573111
159.
FORT ARKALGUD
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
FORT ARKALGUD BRANCH
MALLIPATNA ROAD
ARKALGUD 573102
160.
BHATKAL
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
BHATKAL BRANCH, III/1443/1F,
1st FLOOR NAIK CHANDRU CHAMBERS
THE NEW ENGLISH SCHOOL ROAD BHATKAL 581320
161.
BAILUR
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
BAILUR BRANCH,
Near Dr Aroors Nursing Home
Main Road Bailur 574102
162.
THEKKATTE
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
THEKKATTE BRANCH,
PREMA BHAT COMPLEX NH-66,
THEKKATE KUNDAPUR TALUK 576231
163.
MANKI
STATE BANK OF MYSORE
MANKI BRANCH,
1st FLOOR MANKI NURSING HOME
BANASALE, MANKI 581348
2992
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
164.
BANAVASI ROAD
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
BANAVASI BRANCH,
NEAR MARIKAMBA TEMPLE
NETRAVATI COMPLEX
BANAVASI ROAD SIRSI 581401
165.
GOKARNA
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
GOKARNA BRANCH,
DOOR NO 446
SHRI GURU RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX
TARAMAKKI ROAD GOKARNA 581326
166.
SHIRIYARA
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
SHIRIYARA BRANCH, B N 4-59/B,
FIRST FLOOR, KALMARGI
AT/PT : SHIRIYARA - 576210
TALUK & DIST : UDUPI
SHIRIYARA 576210
167.
KOTESHWARA
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
KOTESHWARA BRANCH,
LAXMIDEVI COMPLEX,
OPP SRI PATTABI RAMACHANDRA
TEM MARUTI VANA ROAD,
KOTESHWARA KUNDAPUR
KOTESHWARA 576222
168.
MANIPAL
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
MANIPAL BRANCH,
VAISHNAVI RESIDENCY
FIRST FLOOR MANIPAL- PARKALA ROAD,
ESHWARA NAGARA MANIPAL MANIPAL 576104
169.
NANNIWALA
BRANCH
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
NANNIWALA BRANCH
GRAMPANCHAYATI SAMUDAY BHAVAN
NANNIWALA, CHALLAKERA-577522,
CHITRADURG
170.
HALIVANA
BRANCH
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
HALIVANA BRANCH
RAJIV GANDHI SEVA KENDRA,
GRAMAPANCHAYATI HALIWANA,
HARIHAR TALUK
DAVANAGERE-577530
171.
TUMKURLAHALLI
BRANCH
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
TUMKURLAHALLI BRANCH
GRAMPANCHAYATI SAMUDAY BHAVAN
MALKAMORU TALUK, CHITRADURGA-577535
172.
MADALAGERI
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
MADALAGERI
GRAMPANCHAYATI SAMUDAY BHAVAN,
MADALGERI, HARPANHALLI TALUK,
DIST. DAVANAGERE-583131
II
(ii)
2993
173.
KADLEBALU
BRANCH
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
KADLEBALU BRANCH
NAGARAJ BUILDING,
NEAR ANJENEYA TEMPLE,
KADLEGALU,
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT.
174.
GUNDUMUNUGU
BRANCH
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
GUNDUMUNUGUBRANCH
CHIDANANDGOUDA BUILDING
GUNDUMUNUGU, KUDLIGI TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT.
175.
MAKANADUKU
BRANCH
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
MAKANADUKU,BRANCH,
OMKARI BUILDING, MAKANADUKU,
KUDLIGI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT
176.
THIMMALAPURA
BRANCH
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
THIMMALAPURA BRANCH,
HUVINAHADAGALI TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT.
177.
SUGGANAHALLI
BRANCH
STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
SUGGANAHALLI BRANCH
SAMUDAYA BHAVANA,
SUGGENAHALLI,
BELLARY DISTRICT.
178.
D C OFFICE
COMPLEX,
HAVERI
STATE BANK OF MYSORE
Room no. 01, D C OFFICE COMPOUND,
DEVAGIRI – HAVERI, HAVERI – 581110
179.
DIMHANS
DHARWAD
STATE BANK OF MYSORE
DHARWAD INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH
AND NEURO SCIENCE,
BELGAUM ROAD,
DHARWAD – 580008
180.
YEDAJIGALEMANE STATE BANK OF MYSORE
POST: YEDAJIGALEMANE SAGAR,
SHIMOGA
181.
KAMBALIKOPPA
STATE BANK OF MYSORE
POST: KAMBALIKOPPA, SHIMOGA
182.
KAMALAPUR
STATE BANK OF MYSORE
FIRST FLOOR,
SRI REVANASIDDESHWAR COMPLEX,
NEAR BUS STAND KAMALAPUR ROAD,
KAMALAPUR,
183.
AURAD
STATE BANK OF MYSORE
PLOT NO.4, SHASTRI GUNJ,
NEAR APMC YARD, AURAD
2994
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 14 मार्च, 2017
का.आ. 1296.— केंद्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के वलए प्रयोग) वनयम, 1976 के वनयम 10 के उप
वनयम (4) के अनुसरण में संलग् न अनुंं में उवल् लव न वन नवलव न ंकों की सचर्ीं्ध शा ाओं/कायाचलयों को, वजनके 80% से अव क
कमचर्ाररयों ने ह ंिी का कायचसा क ज्ञान प्राप् न कर वलया , अव सचवर्न करनी ।
184.
DR. TEKUR
SUBRHAMANYAM
ROAD, BELLARY
STATE BANK OF MYSORE
DR. TEKUR SUBRHAMANYAM ROAD,
BELLARY
185.
NEHRU COLONY
BELLARY
STATE BANK OF MYSORE
NEHRU COLONY BRANCH, 43A,
TS NO. 7382, 1ST MAIN,
NEHRU COLONY, BELLARY – 583101,
BELLARY
186.
LEBERGA
STATE BANK OF MYSORE
SWARN VIDHAN SAUNDH,
C BLOCK BASMAT HOLLETORGAL
187.
TAKKALAKI
STATE BANK OF MYSORE
PB26, SS FRONT,
OPPOSITE SIDDHESHWAR TEMPLE,
BELGAUM 591123
188.
HELLETORGAL
STATE BANK OF MYSORE
C/O RAMDURG BRANCH,
JUNIPETH, RAMDURG,
BELGAUM – 591123
189.
YARGATTI
BRANCH
STATE BANK OF MYSORE
SHRI VENKATESH COMPLEX,
BELGAUM BAGALKOT ROAD,
YERGATTI – 591129
190
The Assit General Manager,
STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD
REGION-III-FIRST FLOOR,
32 A, BRABOURNE ROAD,
CANNING STREET,KOLKATA,
Pin code-700001
Phone: 033- 22350647
KOLKATA(DIST)-WEST BENGAL(STATE)
191
The Asst General Manager,
STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD
DADRI(GB-NAGAR) BRANCH (21929)
NYADERGUNJ, NEAR NAGARPALIKA
GT ROAD,DADRI
Pin code- 203207
Phone: 0120- 2662150
II
(ii)
2995
क्र.सं.
ंक का नाम
शा ाओं की संख् या
1.
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
70
2.
कापोरेशन ंक
17
3.
इंवडयन ंक
31
कुल
118
[फा सं. 11016/1/2015-ह ं. (अव .)]
राजीि कुमार, स ायक वनिेशक (रा.भा.)
राजभाषा वनयम 1976 के वनयम 10(4) के अंनगचन अव सचवर्न दकए जाने िाले कायाचलयों / शा ाओं की सचर्ी
क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय, कानपुर
1
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया,
वनल र शा ा
उमरपुर ब्ललॉक रोड,
वनल र वजला
शा ज ााँपुर, उत्तर प्रिेश 242307
2
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया,
पोिायां शा ा
िलजीन एंड कंपनी
पेट्रोल पंप के पास
शा ज ााँपुर, उत्तर प्रिेश
3
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया,
रसुलांाि शा ा
सुभाष नगर , हझंझक रोड
वजला कानपुर िे ान 209306
4
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
व रन नगर शा ा
317 व रन नगर
उन्नाि
क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय, उियपुर
5
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
विज्ञान नगर शा ा
हप्रंस प्लाजा
झालािाड़ रोड, विज्ञान नगर
वजला कोटा,
राजस्थान 324005
2996
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
शोभागपुरा शा ा
एम पी एंकलािे सरकारी स्कचल के सामने
100 दफट रोड, शोभागपुरा सकचल
उियपुर (राजस्थान) 313001
7
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
सिीना ेड़ा शा ा
प्लॉट नं 237,
सेक्टर 9 व रण मंगरी
सिीना मुख्य मागच, उियपुर
राजस्थान 313001
8
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया,
शा ा कुड़ी भनासनी – जो पुर
िुकान नं 15
सीरिी ॉस्टल के सामने
कुड़ी भगनासनी मुख्यन सड़क,
वजला जो पुर, राजस्थान 342005
9
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया,
शा ा ंारां रोड, कोटा
डी-25, वशि टािर,
सु ान कॉलोनी
अस्सी दफट रोड,
पुवलस लाइन्स के पास
ंारां रोड, वजला कोटा,
राजस्थान 324001
10
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया,
शा ा ेरिाड़ा छािनी
मचल मवण भिन, रानी रोड
ंड्ला, पोस्ट ेरिाड़ा
वजला उियपुर, राजस्थान 313803
11
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया,
शा ा करिाड़
वनफ़्ट निीन पररसर,
नागौर रोड, ग्राम करिाड़
वजला जो पुर,
राजस्थान 342037
II
(ii)
2997
क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय, दिल्ली (उत्तर)
12
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
िल्लभगढ़ शा ा (मेट्रो शा ा)
सी 489, र्ािला कॉलोनी
िल्लभगढ़, फरीिांाि
ररयाणा, वपन 121004
13
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
फ़रीिांाि सेक्टर 28 शा ा (मेट्रो शा ा)
एस सी एफ 105 हुिा माकेट
सेक्टर 28, फ़रीिांाि
ररयाणा 121002
क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय, गाजीपुर
14
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
अदिलांाि शा ा
ग्राम अदिलांाि
न सील मो मिांाि
वजला गाजीपुर यच.पी.233228
15`
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
भरौली अला शा ा
ग्राम लत्थुडी
पोस्ट ऑदफस लत्थुडी
वजला गाजीपुर, यच .पी 233228
16
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
ं्ध ोपुर शा ा
ग्राम ं्ध ोपुर
पोस्ट वंरणों
वजला गाजीपुर, यच .पी 233300
क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय, आजमगढ़
17
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
इवल्नफानगंज ंाज़ार
ग्राम +पोस्ट इवल्नफानगंज
न सील टांडा
अंेडकर नगर, उत्तर प्रिेश,
वपन 224145
2998
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
18
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
ंल्लीपुर शा ा
ग्राम + पोस्ट ंररयािान ंाज़ार,
ंस ारी अकंरपुर रोड
न सील अकंरपुर
अंेडकर नगर, उत्तर प्रिेश,
वपन 224210
19
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
मीरानपुर शा ा
ग्राम + पोस्ट वमरानपुर
न सील अकंरपुर
अंेडकर नगर, उत्तर प्रिेश,
वपन 22412
क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय, करनाल
20
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया,
गन्नौर, सोनीपन शा ा
शॉप नं 512, िाडच नं 3, नमस्ने र्ौक
मुख्य रेल्िे रोड,
न्यच अनाज मंडी के पास
गन्नौर, सोनीपन 131101
21
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
पुंडरी क थल शा ा
अनाज मंडी के पास
मुख्य रोड, हुडा माकेट के पास
पुंडरी, क थल 136026
क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय, जंलपुर
22
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
गोर पुर ग्िारीघाट रोड शा ा
670, अि पुरी कॉलोनी
ग्िारीघाट, जंलपुर,
मध्यप्रिेश 482008
क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय, गोर पुर
23
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
कसया शा ा
ब्ललॉक नं 65, िाडच नं 05
लोव या नगर
िेिररया पडरौना रोड
कसया, वजला कुशीनगर,
उत्तर प्रिेश, वपन 274402
II
(ii)
2999
क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय, मेरठ
24
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
वसकंिरांाि शा ा
टीर्सच कॉलोनी
ंी डी एस स्कचल के सामने
जी टी रोड, वसकंिरांाि
वजला ंुलंिश र 203205
उत्तर प्रिेश
25
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
सेिा शा ा मेरठ
174, एर् के ाउस
दिल्ली रोड, मेरठ 250002
उत्तर प्रिेश
क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय, पटना
26
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
िीघा, पटना शा ा
सुवमत्रा भिन,
आवशयाना-िीघा रोड
आईडींीआई के ंगल में,
पटना, वजला पटना,
वं ार 800025
क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय, राजकोट
27
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया,
िारका शा ा
सिे नं. 3539
गोकुल ोटल के पास
मुख्य पोस्ट ऑदफस रोड
िारका, वज. िेिभचवम
िारका 361335
क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय, मे साना
28
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया,
पालनपुर ाइिे शा ा
गायत्री मंदिर के सामने
आंच ाइिे, आरटीओ सकचल के पास
पालनपुर
वजला ंनासकांठा (गुजरान) 385001
3000
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय, सचरन
29
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
वमड कारपोरेट शा ा
भचनल, स फी वंहल्डंग,
डर् गाडचन के सामने
नानपुरा, सचरन 395001
30
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
िडोि शा ा
श्री मांडिी विभाग स कारी ांड
उद्योग मंडली वलवमटेड,
मु िडोि, पो.ंो न
ना. मांडिी, वजला सचरन,
वपन 394140
क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय, ंड़ौिा
31
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
लचणािाला शा ा
51, गणेश कॉलोनी, िरा ारी रोड
लचणािाला वजला:मव सागर
गुजरान 389230
क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय, मुंई(उत्तर), ठाणे
32
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
म ाड शा ा
पुण्याई, 2046,
छत्रपवन वशिाजी रोड,
एस.टी डेपो के पीछे
पोस्ट म ाड़, वजला, रायगढ़
म ाराष्ट्र 402301
33
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
रो ा शा ा
िुकान नं 15/16, एसटी स्टकड
कमर्शचयल कॉप्लेक्स
रो ा, वजला रायगढ़,
म ाराष्ट्र 402109
II
(ii)
3001
क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय, नावसक
34
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
वनफाड़ शा ा
प्लॉट नो. 359, नुमान नगर
विट्ठल मंदिर के पास
मु. पो.वनफाड़
ना.वनफाड़
वजला नावसक,
वपन 422303
35
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
कलिन रोड
भगिनी संकुल
आर के एम स्कचल के पास
माकेट याडच रोड, गणेश नगर
मु.पो. कल्िण, ना.कल्िण
वजला नावसक 423501
36
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
िडनेर भ रि शा ा
18 मेन रोड, ग्राम पंर्ायन के पास
मु.पो.िडनेर भ रि
ना.र्ंििड
वजला नावसक 423111
क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय, नेल्लचर
37
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
ंििेल शा ा
प्रथम नल, डोर संख्या 3-1-66-1
ंििेल नेल्लचर रोड,
ंििेल 516227
िाई एस आर कड़पा वजला
आंध्र प्रिेश
क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय, मंगलचर
38
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
मंगलचर वसटी
19-6-360/5, अररष्ट एन्क्लेि
ग्राउंड फ्लोर, पाण्डेश्वर, मंगलचर
वजला- िवक्षण कन्नड
कनाचटक 575001
3002
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय, वसलीगुड़ी
39
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
कवलयागंज शा ा
एन एस रोड,
पुराने भारनीय स्टेट ंक,
मरिाड़ी पट्टी िाडच नं - 16
कवलयागंज, युवनवसप वलटी
वजला उत्तर दिनाजपुर,
पविम ंंगाल 733129
40
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया,
गंगारामपुर शा ा
िेशंं ुपाड़ा , वर्त्तरंजन अपाटचमेंट,
वर्त्तरंजन पल्ली,
वशं ंाड़ी रोड, गंगारामपुर,
वजला िवक्षण दिनाजपुर
क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय, ंेलगाम
41
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
मुड़ेनचर शा ा
काशम, ाउस नं 42,
रामप्पा लक्कप्प जाई वंहल्डंग
लक्ष्मी िेिी मंदिर के पास
िरि नं 1, मुड़ेनचर, पो मुड़ेनचर,
नालुका रामिुगच
वजल्ला ंेलगाम, कनाचटक
42
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
इलकल शा ा
म ान्ना वशिायोगी कॉप्लेक्स
ंस स्टकड रोड,
पो- इलकल,एस डी, हुनगचाँि,
वडस्ट ंागलकोट
43
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
सेडम शा ा
प्लॉट नं 101,
सिे नं 907/1 एंड 907/3
जी के रोड, सेडाम, नालुका
सेडाम वजला, गुलंगाच
II
(ii)
3003
44
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
हसं ुनुर शा ा
आर के एंटरप्राइसेस वंहल्डंग
कुस्नगी रोड, हसं ुनुर
45
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
नालीकोटी शा ा
एस के कालेज कपाउण्ड के पास
िेिर व प्परगी रास्ना
पो नालीकोरट, एस डी मुद्देंी ल,
वजला ंीजापुर, कनाचटक
46
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
हलंगसुगुर, रायर्चर
सकरी कॉप्लेक्स,
गुलंगाच रोड
हलंगसुगुर, रायर्चर, कनाचटक
47
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
मलदिननी शा ा
ंेलगाम इंटेग्रटेड िेि
सोसाइटी वंहल्डंग (ंीआईआरडीएस),
मलदिननी समुिाया कावलका केंद्र सवमवन,
जी पी नं 860 वनयर ंस स्टकड
मलदिननी, गोकक नालुक
वजल्ला ंेलगाम, कनाचटक
48
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
शा पुर यािगीर
मकान नं 4-73/72(58-44),
ंी ंी रोड, शा पुर
वजला यािगीर, कनाचटक
क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय, संलपुर
49
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
आइंठापली शा ा
एनएर् 6, आइंठापली
आयकर भिन के पास,
वजला संलपुर
ओवडशा, वपन 768004
3004
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय, भुिनेश्वर
50
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
कटक रोड शा ा
ओ ली ंाग , भुिनेश्वर -751006
51
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
कहलंगा वि ार शा ा
प्लॉट नं.- 788/1463
सम ॉवस्पटल रोड
श्यामपुर, भुिनेश्वर-751003
52
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
पो रीपुट शा ा
कोदकला रेवसडेंसी 190/702
अनंन वि ार, पो रीपुट
भुिनेश्वर
53
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
सीडीए वंडानसी शा ा
सी/436, सेक्टर-6,
माकेटनगर,
वंडानसी, कटक, 753 014
54
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
इंफोवसटी शा ा भुिनेश्वर
र्ंद्रका इंडवस्ट्रयल स्टेट,
भुिनेश्वर,उडीसा
वपन 751 024
55
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
शास्त्रीनगर शा ा
ओ.एल.आई.सी. प्र ान कायाचलय भिन
एन-172, नयापल्ली,
भुिनेश्वर 751 012, उडीसा
56
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
ओमफेड स्वेयर शा ा भुिनेश्वर
र्ंद्रशे रपुर, पोस्ट: मनर्ेश्वर ,
भुिनेश्वर 751 017, उडीसा
II
(ii)
3005
57
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
परटया शा ा, भुिनेश्वर
प्रथम मंवजल, श्री सांई आनंिम
कमर्शचयल कांपलेक्स
प्लाट न.386/21, परटया,
भुिनेश्वर, उडीसा
वपन - 751 024
58
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
सामंनपुर शा ा,
सी-2,प्रज्ञापीठ,
सामंनपुर,र्ंद्रशे रपुर
भुिनेश्वर- 751013 उडीसा
59
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
ंालुगचि शा ा
ोटल दिगांवनका के पास,
मेन रोड, ंालुगचि
वजला- ुिाच 752030
60
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया,
अस्नरंग शा ा
पोस्ट – अस्नरंग
सं-वजला- ककटपुर
वजला- पुरी उवडसा 752109
61
यचवनयन ंक क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय भिन भुिनेश्वर,
ररटेल आवस्न शा ा
3/1,ए वसविक सेंटर,
आईआरसी विलेज नयापल्ली,
भुिनेश्वर,वजला ुिाच,
भुिनेश्वर, उडीसा 751015
क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय, समस्नीपुर
62
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
कस्ंा नाजपुर शा ा
कोल्ड स्टोरेज र्ौक
एन एर् – 28, नाजपुर,
वज़ला – समस्नीपुर (वं ार)
वपन- 848101
3006
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
63
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
रमपुर शा ा,
िाडच नंर -9, समस्नीपुर
वज़ला- समस्नीपुर (वं ार)
वपनकोड- 848101
64
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
नरकरटयागंज शा ा
आयच समाज रोड,
पोस्ट-नरकरटयागंज,
थाना - वशकारपुर
वज़ला- पविमी र्पारण (वं ार)
वपनकोड- 845455
65
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
ंलीगढ़ शा ा,
भगिनी स्थान र्ौक ंलीगढ़ ंाज़ार,
ग्राम+पोस्ट-ंलीगढ़,
थाना - रुन्नी स िपुर
वज़ला- सीनामढ़ी (वं ार)
वपनकोड- 843328
66
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
मीरगंज शा ा, थुआ मोड़
पोस्ट-मीरगंज, वज़ला-गोपालगंज (वं ार)
वपनकोड- 841438
67
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
सोन ली शा ा, ग्राम+पोस्ट- सोन ली,
ब्ललॉक+थाना- किंा
वज़ला-करट ार (वं ार)
वपनकोड- 855114
क्षेत्रीय कायाचलय, कोवझकोड
68
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
पट्टचर क्कल शा ा
वशि साइलम वंहल्डंग,
शोरनचर रोड, वत्रर्चर
केरल 680022
69
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
िेस्ट फोटच (वत्रर्चर)
वसिासवि वंहल्डंग, संकरा इयर रोड
िेस्ट फोटच वत्रर्चर,
वत्रर्चर, केरल 680004
II
(ii)
3007
70
यचवनयन ंक ऑफ इंवडया
मन्नारकाड शा ा
कुडच काप्लेक्स, ंस स्टकड
पालक्काड रोड, मन्नारकाड
पालक्काड 678582
71
कापोरेशन ंक
आाँर्वलक कायाचलय (8829)
अपचिाच र्ेंंसच, सण्णी मीड्स लेन
पालयम, वनरुिनंनपुरम, केरल
वपन कोड : 695034
72
कापोरेशन ंक
पाला शा ा (1220)
भचवम नल, XVIII/240 (7,8,9)
पेंडानत्तु प्लाज़ा, िेल्लाप्पाड
पाला- ऎट्टुमानचर रोड, पाला,
कोट्टयमवजला,
केरल,वपन कोड : 686575
73.
कापोरेशन ंक
वनरुिनंनपुरम - टेक्नोपाकचशा ा (1323)
उिया वंहल्डंग, उिया स्वायर
कष़क्कचट्टम पी.ओ.
वनरुिनंनपुरमवजला
वपन कोड : 695582
74.
कापोरेशन ंक
पािुिा शा ा (1427)
प्रथम नल
परडवयल वंहल्डंग
पालमचडु, पािुंा
वपन कोड : 690574
75
कापोरेशन ंक
रान्नीशा ा (1429)
डोर सं. II -303 (ए)
प्रथम नल, एम सी टॉिर
मामुक्कु, रान्नी
पत्तनमवनट्टावजला,केरल
वपन कोड : 689673
3008
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
76.
कापोरेशन ंक
नोडुपुष़ा शा ा (1430)
प्रथम नल, पुवत्तरी टॉिसच,
के एस आर टी सी ंस अड्डे के वनकटइडुक्की रोड, नोडुपुष़ा
इडुक्की वजला,केरल
वपन कोड : 685584
77.
कापोरेशन ंक
पवत्तयचर शा ा (1624)
िरंपत्तानत्तु र् त्रम
िचकान सं.76 सी./76डी.
काक्कनाड जंक्शन, एरुिा पोस्ट
कायंकुलम, आलप्पुष़ावजला, केरल
वपन कोड : 690572
78.
कापोरेशन ंक
कुरट्टिट्टम शा ा (1626 )
आनाड आकेड
िडक्कुंनला पी.ओ.
कुरट्टिट्टम,करुनागप्पल्ली
कोल्लम वजला, केरल
वपन कोड : 690536
79.
कापोरेशन ंक
वनरुिनंनपुरम –सेिाशा ा (1715)
टी. सी. 4/924 (2)
प्रथम नल, आर &के कॉमप्लेक्स,
पाइप लेन रोड, किवडयार
वनरुिनंनपुरम,
केरल,वपन कोड : 695003
80
कापोरेशन ंक
ुिरा ऋण केंद्र ( 1771)
अपचिाच र्ेंसच
सण्णी मीड्स लेन
पालयम, वनरुिनंनपुरम, केरल
वपन कोड : 695034
81.
कापोरेशन ंक
कांवजरप्पल्ली शा ा (1805)
मुक्काडन वंहल्डंग्स
कुररहशंगल जंक्शन
कांवजरप्पल्ली, कोट्टयमवजला,
केरलवपन कोड 686507:
II
(ii)
3009
82.
कापोरेशन ंक
अवनरंपुष़ाशा ा (1806)
मलवयल वंहल्डंग्स
सेंट्रल जंक्शन, अवनरंपुष़ा
कोट्टयमवजला, केरल
वपन कोड : 688562
83.
कापोरेशन ंक
र्ारुमचड शा ा(1817)
अरुत्तुंवडल नेंो टॉिसच
के.पी. रोड, र्ारुमचड
आलप्पुष़ा वजला, केरल
वपन कोड : 69050
84.
कापोरेशन ंक
कुडयत्तचर शा ा (1844)
के. पी. X 80, 81, 82
उन्नत्तोट्टवत्तल वंहल्डंग
कुडयत्तचरपी. ओ., इडुक्की
केरल, वपन कोड : 685590
85.
कापोरेशन ंक
करुकच्चाल शा ा(1737)
डोर सं.V/118 ंी/IV,
लारा टॉिसच, िाष़चर रोड,
करुकच्चाल
कोट्टयम वजला, केरल
वपन कोड : 686540
86.
कापोरेशन ंक
आरट्टंगल शा ा(1425)
भचवम नल, अविट्टम कॉप्लेक्स
एन.एर्.47, मामं, दकष़़ुविल्लम पी.ओ.
आरट्टंगल, वनरुिनंनपुरम वजला,
केरल, वपन कोड : 695104
87.
कापोरेशन ंक
आंर्वलक कायाचलय : ठाणे (कचट सं.8828)
कोरल स्वेयर, िचसरा नल,
सचरज िाटर पाकच के सामने
घोडंंिर रोड़
ठाणे (पविम)-400615
वपन कोड : 686507
3010
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
म ाराष्ट्र राज्य
88.
इंवडयन ंक, अंर्ल कायाचलय : लुव याना
एससीएफ - 88
अंचन एस्टेट
फेज़-1, डुगरी
लुव याना
पंजां -141013
89.
इंवडयन ंक, ंरनाला शा ा
ंी-एक्स / 835
के सी रोड, ंरनाला
पंजां-148101
90.
इंवडयन ंक, अ नचर शा ा
इंवडयन ंक िाडच नंर सं.12
ंीएसएनएल टेलीफोन एक् स् र्ेंज के नज़िीक
अ नचर मेन रोड
न सील – अ नचर
वजला: जमच
ज मच एिं कश् मीर – 181201
91.
इंवडयन ंक, ंटाला शा ा
एससीएफ 29–30
अंचन एस् टेट
सेक् टर 1 ,ंटाला
वजला : गुरिासपुर
पंजां : 143505
92.
इंवडयन ंक, भागपुरा शा ा
ंांा ईशर हसं ग्रुप ऑफ कॉलेजेस
भागपुरा माफचन गगरा
वजला : मोगा
पंजां 142043
93.
इंवडयन ंक, ंीआरएस नगर शा ा
एस.सी.ओ.39
ब्ल लॉक – जी
सराभा नगर पुवलस थाने के सामने
ंीआरएस नगर
लुव याना
पंजां – 141012
94.
इंवडयन ंक, सक् युचलर रोड शा ा
60 सक् युचलर रोड
रनन हसं र्ौक के नजिीक
वजला : अमृनसर
पंजां – 143001
II
(ii)
3011
95.
इंवडयन ंक,
ियाल नगर शा ा
ंी / 38 – 4410
अिनार हसं रोड
ियाल नगर
वजला : जलं र वसटी
पंजां – 144003
96.
इंवडयन ंक, िोरा ा शा ा
अज ं हसं का प् लेक् स
फ्लाई ओिर के सामने
जी टी रोड
िोरा ा , वजला : लुव याना
पंजां – 141421
97.
इंवडयन ंक, दफरोजपुर शा ा
सक् युचलर रोड
ंगिािी गेट
व फरोजपुर श र
वजला : दफरोजपुर
पंजां – 152002
98.
इंवडयन ंक,
फरीिकोट शा ा
जुवंली वसनेमा र्ौक
सक् युचलर रोड
फरीिकोट
वजला : फरीिकोट
पंजां – 151203
99.
इंवडयन ंक,
फनेगढ़ नौंाि शा ा
माफचन गुरु काशी युवनिर्सचटी
सरिचलगढ़ रोड
नलिानी संो
वजला : भरटंडा
पंजां – 151302
100.
इंवडयन ंक, गोराया शा ा
जी टी रोड
गोराया
वजला : जालं र
पंजां – 144409
3012
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
101.
इंवडयन ंक, गुरिासपुर शा ा
22 इ प्रचव् मेंट ट्रस् ट वंहल्डंग
जी टी रोड
गुरिासपुर
वजला : गुरिासपुर
पंजां – 143521
102.
इंवडयन ंक,
एर् एम िी कालेज रोड शा ा
एससीएफ 8
इ प्रचव् मेंट स् क्रीम
ंीएसएफ कॉलानी
एर्एमिी कॉलेज के सामने
वजला : जालं र
पंजां – 144408
103.
इंवडयन ंक,
ज मच शा ा
56 ए / ंी, गां ी नगर
ज मच
ज मच एिं कश् मीर
वजला : ज मच
ज मच एिं कश् मीर – 180004
104.
इंवडयन ंक, कटरा शा ा
केशि ोटल
िाडच सं.1 पराशर गली
ंाण गंगा रोड
कटरा (ि ष् णो िेिी)
वजला : ररयावस
ज मच एिं कश् मीर – 182301
105.
इंवडयन ंक, मानसा शा ा
नीम िाली गली
वजला : मानसा
पंजां – 151505
106.
इंवडयन ंक, मटिानी शा ा
िीपीओ – मटिानी
सरकारी माध् यवमक विद्यालय के पास
मटिानी
वजला : मोगा
पंजां – 142053
II
(ii)
3013
107.
इंवडयन ंक, मुक् नसर शा ा
983, सिर ंाजार
घास मंडी र्ौक
मुक् नसर
पंजां – 152026
108.
इंवडयन ंक,
मुल् लांपुर शा ा
ढालीिाल कॉ प् लेक् स
दफरोज़पुर रोड , मुल् लांपुर
वजला : लुव याना
पंजां – 152026
109.
इंवडयन ंक,
नडाला शा ा
ओंीसी ंक के नजिीक
दढलिान रोड, नडाला
वजला : कपचरथला
पंजां – 144624
110.
इंवडयन ंक,
सुनाम शा ा
माना मोड़ी र्ौक
सुनाम , वजला : संगरूर
पंजां – 148028
111.
इंवडयन ंक,
पठानकोट शा ा
138, रामलीला म िान
डल ौज़ी रोड
शान ोटल के पीछे
पठानकोट, वजला गुरिासपुर
पंजां – 145001
112.
इंवडयन ंक,
दफल् लौर शा ा
वंहल्डंग सं. 39 एिं 40
िाना मंडी , दफल् लौर
वजला : जलं र
पंजां – 144410
113.
इंवडयन ंक,
समराला शा ा
एम जी का प् लेक् स के सामने
न् ना रोड, समराला
वजला : लुव याना
पंजां – 141114
3014
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
114.
इंवडयन ंक,
सुंिर नगर शा ा
2435 मेन रोड
ंस् नी जो ेिल र्ौक के नजिीक
इंवडयन ऑइल पेट्रोल पप् म के सामने
वजला : लुव याना
पंजां – 141007
115.
इंवडयन ंक,
श ीि कनेल हसं नगर शा ा
मकान सं.48सी
श ीि कनेल हसं नगर
फेस ।।।, सुआ रोड
जिद्दी
प ोिाल रोड के नज़िीक
वजला : लुव याना
पंजां – 141013
New Delhi, the 14th March, 2017
S.O. 1296.—In pursuance of sub-rule(4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (use for official purpose of the
union) Rules, 1976,the Central Government, hereby notified the listed branches/offices of the following banks in the
attached annexure, more than 80% of the staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of hindi.
116.
इंवडयन ंक,
ट गोर नगर शा ा
1105 – दकरन विल् ला,
ट गोर नगर ंी
वसविल लाइन् स लुव याना
वजला : लुव याना
पंजां – 141001
117.
इंवडयन ंक,
नरन नारन शा ा
सं ु का प् लेक् स
वसविल अस् पनाल के सामने
अमृनसर रोड
वजला : नरन नारन
पंजां – 143401
118.
इंवडयन ंक,
नालां रटल् लो शा ा
278 मेन रोड
मॉडनच िेिन् स ब्रीिरी
ंो री नालां रटल्लो
वजला : ज मच
ज मच एिं कश् मीर – 180002
II
(ii)
3015
Serial No.
Name of the Banks
Number of Branches/offices
1.
Union Bank of India
70
2.
Corporation Bank
17
3.
Indian Bank
31
Total
118
[F.No. 11016/1/2015-OL (Noti.)]
RAJIV KUMAR, Assistant Director (OL)
List of Branches/Offices to be notified under Rule 10(4) in the Gazette of Government of India
Regional Office, Kanpur
1
Union Bank of India,
Tilhar Road Branch
Umarpur Block Road,
Tilhar, dist.., Shahjahanpur,
Uttar Pradesh, 242307
2
Union Bank of India
Powayan Branch
Near Daljeet & Co.
Petrol Pump, Shahjahanpur,
Uttar Pradesh
3
Union Bank of India,
Rasulabad Branch
Subhasha Nagar
Jhinjhak Road, Dist.Kanpur
Dehat 209306
4
Union Bank of India,
Hiran Nagar Branch
317, Hiran Nagar, Unnao
Regional Office, Udaipur
5
Union Bank of India
Vigyan Nagar Branch
Prince Plaza
Jhalawar Road, Vigyan Nagar
Dist. Kota, Rajasthan
6
Union Bank of India
Shobhagpura Branch
M.P.Enclave, Opp.Govt.School
100 Feet Road Shobhagpura Circle
Udaipur (Rajasthan) 313001
7
Union Bank of India
Savina Kheda Branch
3016
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Plot No.237, Sector 9 Hiran Magri
Savina Main Road, Udaipur
Rajasthan 313001
8
Union Bank of India
Branch- Kudi Bhagtasani,
Jodhpur
Shop No.15,
Opp.Seervi Hostel
Kudi Bhagtasani Main Road
Dist.Jodhpur,
Rajasthan 342005
9
Union Bank of India
Baran Road Branch, Kota
D-25, Shiv Tower,
Sukhdhan colony
Eighty Feet Road
Nera Police Line
Baran road, dist.Kota,
Rajasthan 324001
10
Union Bank of India
Kherwara Chhaoni Branch
Mool Mani Bhavan Rani road
Badlaa, Post Kherwara
Dist.Udaipur,
Rajasthan 313803
11
Union Bank of India
Karwar Branch
NIFT Campus New Building,
Nagaur road,
Village Karwar
Dist. Jodhpur,
Rajasthan 342037
Regional Office, Delhi (N)
12
Union Bank of India
Ballabgarh Branch (Metro Branch)
C 489 Chawla Colony
Ballabgarh Faridabad
Haryana Pin 121004
13
Union Bank of India
Faridabad Sector 28
Branch (Metro Br)
SCF 105 Huda Market
Sector 28 Faridabad
Haryana Pin 121002
Regional Office, Ghazipur
II
(ii)
3017
14
Union Bank of India
Adilabad Branch
Village Adilabad
The. Mohammandabad
Dist. Ghazipur
UP 233228
15
Union Bank of India
Bharouli Ala Branch
Village Latthudih
Post Office Latthudih
Dist.Ghazipur, UP 233228
16
Union Bank of India
Baddhopur Branch
Village baddhopur
Post birno
Dist. Ghazipur ,
UP 233300
Regional Office, Azamgarh
17
Union Bank of India
Iltifatganj bazar branch
At & Post Iltifatganj
Tahsil Tanda
Ambedkar Nagar
Uttar Pradesh,
pin 224145
18
Union Bank of India
Ballipur branch
At and post Bariyawan Bazar
Baskhari, Ambedkar road
Tehsil akbarpur
Ambedkarnagar,
Uttar pradesh pin 224210
19
Union bank of India
Miranpur branch
At and post Meeranpur
The Akbarpur
Ambedkarnagar,
Uttar pradesh pin 224122
Regional Office, Karnal
20
Union Bank of India
Gannaur, Sonipat Branch
Shop No. 512
Ward No.3,
Namaste Chowk,
Main Railway Road,
3018
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Near New Grain Market,
Gannaur,
Sonipat 131101
21
Union Bank of India
Pundri-Kaithal Branch
Near Anaj Mandi,
Main Road
Near Huda Market,
Pundri, Kaithal 136026
Regional Office, Jabalpur
22
Union Bank of India
Gorakhpur, Gwarighat Road
670 Awadhpuri Colony
Gwarighat,
Jabalpur (MP) 482008
Regional Office, Gorakhpur
23
Union Bank of India
Kasya Branch
Block No.65, Ward No.05
Lohia Nagar,
Deoria Padrauna Road
Kasya Dist-Kushinagar
Uttar Pradesh
Pin Code 274402
Regional Office, Meerut
24
Union Bank of India
Sikandrabad Branch
Teachers Colony
Opp.B.D.S.School
G.T.Road, Sikandarabad
Dist.Bulandshahar 203205
Uttar Pradesh
25
Union Bank of India
Service Branch , Meerut
174, H.K.House
Delhi Road
Meerut 250002
Uttar Pradesh
Regional Office, Patna
26
Union bank of India
Digha, Patna branch
Sumitra bhavan,
Aashiyaana- digha road
Near IDBI Bank,
II
(ii)
3019
Patna
Dist Patna ,
Bihar 800025
Regional Office, Rajkot
27
Union Bank of India
Dwarka Branch
Survey No.3539
Next to Gokul Hotel
Main Post Office Road,
Dwarka Dist.
Devbhumi Dwarka 361335
Regional Office, Mehsana
28
Union Bank of India
Palanpur Highway Branch
Opp Gayatri Temple, Palanpur
Abu Highway,
Near RTO Circle,
Palanpur
Dist. Banaskantha
(Gujrat) 385001
Regional Office, Surat
29
Union Bank of India
Mid Corporate Branch
Ground Floor, Saifee Building,
Opp. Dutch Garden Road
Nanpura, Surat, Pin 395001
30
Union Bank of India
Vadod Branch
Shree Mandvi Vibhag Sahkari Khand Udyog
Mandli Ltd.
At Vadod, Post Bodhan
Tal. Mandvi, Dist.Surat
Pin 394140
Regional Office, Badoda
31
Union Bank of India,
Lunawada branch
51 Ganesh colony,
Varadhari Road
Lunawada,
Tal Lunawada
Dist. Mahisagar
Gujarat 389230
Regional Office, Mumbai (N)
32
Union Bank of India
Mahad Branch
3020
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
PUNYAI, 2046,
chatrapati Shivaji road,
Behind S.T.Depot,
At & Post Mahad
Dist.Raigad,
Maharashtra 402301
33
Union Bank of India
Roha Branch
Shop No. 15 & 16
S.T.Bus Stand,
Commercial Complex,
Roha, Dist.Raigad
Maharashtra 402109
Regional Office, Nasik
34
Union Bank of India
Niphad Branch
Plot No.359,
Hanuman Nagar
Near Vithal Temple
At & Po Niphad
Tal Niphad,
Dist.Nasik
Pin 422 303
35
Union Bank of India
Kalwan Branch
Bhagwati Sankul
Near R.K.M School
Market Yard Roiad
Ganesh Nagar,
At & Po. Kalwan
Dist.Nasik 423501
36
Union Bank of India
Vadner Bhairav Branch
18 Main road,
Near Grampanchayat
At & Post Vadner bhairav
Tal Chandwad
Dist.Nasik 423111
Regional Office, Nellore
37
Union Bank of India
Badvel Branch
1st floor, D.No.3-1-66-1
Badvel, Nellore Road
Badvel 516227
Y.S.R.Kadapa District,
Andhra Pradesh
II
(ii)
3021
38
Union Bank of India
Mangalore Citi Branch
No.19-6-360/5,
Arista Enclave
Ground Floor,
Pandeshwara
Mangalore
Dist.Dakshina Kannada
Karnataka 575001
Regional Office, Siligudi
39
Union Bank Of India
Kaliaganj Branch
N.S.Road, Opposite Old SBI
Marwari Patti Ward
NO.16-Kaliyaaganj
Municipality,
Dist.Uttar Dinajpur
West Bengal, 733129
40
Union Bank of India
Ganga Rampur Branch
Deshbandhu
Chittaranjan Apartment
Chittaranjan Pally, Shib Bari road
Gangarampur
Regional Office, Belgaum
41
Union Bank of India
Mudenur, Belggavi Br
Kashamma,
House No.42
Ramappa Lakkappa Jayi Building,
Near Laxmi Devi Temple,
Ward No.1
PO Mudenur,
Taluka Ramdurg
Dist.Belgaum, Karnataka
42
Union Bank of India
Ilkal Branch
Mahanta Shivayogi Complex
Bus Stand road, PO Iikal,
SD Hungund, Dist. Bugalkot
43
Union Bank of India
Sedam Branch
Plot No.101, SY No.90714, 907/3
G.K.Road, Sedam
TQ Sedam, Dist. Gulbarga
3022
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
44
Union Bank of India
Sindhanur Branch
R K Enterprises Building,
Kustagi Road, Sindhanur
Dist. Raichur
45
Union Bank of India
Talikoti Branch
Near S.K.College Compound
Devar Hippanrgi Road
PO Talikoti, SD Muddebihai,
Dist. Bijapur
46
Union Bank of India
Lingsugar, Raichur Branch
Sakri Complex, Gulbarga Road
Lingsugur Dist
Raichur, Karnataka
47
Union Bank of India
Maldinni Branch
Belgaum Integrated Dev
Society building, (BIRDS),
Maldinni Samudaya Kalika Kendra Samithi,
GP No.860
Near Bus Stand,
Maldinni, TQ Gokak
Dist.Belgaum, Karnataka
48
Union Bank of India
Shahpur Yadgir Branch
H No 4-73/72(58-44), B.B.Road
Shahapur
Dist.Yadgir, Karnataka
Regional Office, Sambalpur
49 Union Bank of India
NH 6, Ainthaapalli
Near Income Tax Bhavan
Dist.Sambalpur
Odisha, Pin 768004
Regional Office, Bhubaneswar
50
Union Bank of India
Cuttack Road Branch
Okhil Bagh,
Bhubaneswar-751006
51
Union Bank of India
Kalinga Vihar Branch
Plot no-788/1463
Sum Hospital Road,
II
(ii)
3023
Shyampur,
Bhubaneswar-751003
52
Union Bank of India
Pokhariput Branch
Kokila Residency,190/702,
Anant Vihar,
Pokhariput,
Bhubaneswar-751020
53
Union Bank of Indian
CDA Bidanasi Branch
C/436, Sector-6,
Marketnagar,
Bidanasi,
Cuttack 753 014,
Orissa,
54
Union Bank of India
Infocity branch,
Bhubaneswar
Chandaka Industrial Estate,
Bhubaneswar, Orissa
Pin 751 024
55
Union Bank of India
Shastrinagar branch
O.L.I.C.
Head Office Building,
N-17/2, Nayapalli,
Bhubaneswar 751012, (Orissa)
56
Union Bank of India
Omfed Square branch,
Bhubaneswar,
Chandrasekharpur
Post. Mancheswar,
Bhubaneswar-751 017
57
Union Bank of India
Patia Branch, Bhubneswar
1st Floor, Sri Sai Anandam
Commercial Complex
Plot No.386/21, Patia
Bhubaneswar,
Orissa.
PIN-751 024
58
Union Bank of India
Samantapur branch,
C-2 Prajnapitha,
Samantapur,
Chandrasekharpur,
3024
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Bhubaneswar-751013 (Orissa)
59
Union Bank of India
Balugaon branch
Near Hotel Digantika
Main Road, Balugaon
Dist. Khurda 752030
60
Union bank of india,
Astaranga Branch
AT/PO Astaranga
SD -Kakatpur,Dist- Puri,
Orissa 752109
61
Union bank of india
Union loan point (ulp)
bhubaneshwar
Plot no. 3/1,
A Civic Center,
Near Hotel Crown,
IRC Village, Nayapalli,
Dist.- Khurda
Bhubaneshwar,
Orissa 751015
Regional Office, Samstipur
62
Union Bank Of India
Kasba Tajpur Branch
Cold Storage Chowk
NH 28, Tajpur
Dist- Samastipur (Bihar),
Pin Code-848101
63
Union Bank of India
Dharampur Branch
Ward No. 9, Samastipur
Dist- Samastipur (Bihar)
Pin Code- 848101
64
Union Bank of India
Narkatiaganj Branch
Arya Samaj Road,
Po- Narkatiaganj,
PS- Shikarpur,
Dist- West Champaran (Bihar)
Pin Code- 845455
65
Union Bank of India
Baligarh Branch
Bhagwati Sthan Chowk,
Baligarh Bazar,
Vill+Po-Baligarh ,
PS- Runni Saidpur,
II
(ii)
3025
Dist- Sitamarhi (Bihar)
Pin Code- 843328
66
Union Bank of India
Mirganj Branch
Hathua More,
post- Mirganj,
Dist- Gopalganj (Bihar)
Pin Code- 841438
67
Union Bank of India
Sonaili Branch
Vill+post- Sonaili,
Dist- Katihar (Bihar)
Pin Code- 855114
68
Union Bank of India
Patturaikaal Branch
Shivasailam Building
Shaoranur Road,
Trichur, Kerala 680022
69
Union Bank of India
West Fort (Trichur)
Sivasakthi Building
Sankara Iyer Road
Trichur
Kerala 680004
70
Union Bank of India
Mannarkkad Branch
Kudu Complex
Near Bus Stand
Palakkad road
Mannarkkad,
Palakkad 678582
71
CORPORATION BANK
ZONAL OFFICE (8829)
APOORVA CHAMBERS,
SUNNY MEADS LANE
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA.
PIN CODE: 695034
72
CORPORATION BANK
PALAI BRANCH (1220)
GROUND FLOOR, XVIII/240 (7,8,9)
PENDANATHU PLAZA, VELLAPPADU
PALA-ETTUMANOOR ROAD
PALAI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
KERALA
PIN CODE: 686575
3026
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
73.
CORPORATION BANK
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - TECHNO
PARK BRANCH(1323)
UDAYA BUILDING, UDAYA SQUARE
KAZHAKKOOTTAM PO
THIRUVANANTHPURAM DISTRICT
PIN CODE: 695582
74.
CORPORATION BANK
PAVUMBA BRANCH(1427)
FIRST FLOOR
PARADAYIL BUILDING
PALAMOODU
PAVUMBA,
PIN CODE: 690574
75.
CORPORATION BANK
RANNI BRANCH (1429)
DOOR NO II -303 (A)
FIRST FLOOR, EMCEE TOWER
MAMUKKU, RANNI
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN CODE: 689673
76.
CORPORATION BANK
THODUPUZHA BRANCH (1430)
FIRST FLOOR, PUTHIRI TOWERS
NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND
IDUKKI ROAD, THODUPUZHA.
IDUKKI DISTRICT, KERALA
PIN CODE: 685584
77.
CORPORATION BANK
PATHIYOOR BRANCH(1624)
VARAMPATHANATHU CHAITRAM,
SHOP NO.76C/76D,
KAKKANAD JUNCTION, ERUVA POST
KAYAMKULAM. ALLAPUZHA
DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN CODE: 690572
78.
CORPORATION BANK
KUTTIVATTOM BRANCH(1626 )
ANAND ARCADE ,
VADAKKUMTHALA P O
KUTTIVATTOM, KARUNAGAPPALLY
KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA
PIN CODE: 690536
79.
CORPORATION BANK
TRIVANDRUM - SERVICE BRANCH
(1715)
T.C 4/924 (2)
1ST FLOOR, R & K COMPLEX,
II
(ii)
3027
PIPE LINE ROAD, KOWDIAR
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA
PIN CODE: 695003
80
CORPORATION BANK,
RETAIL LOAN CENTRE ( 1771)
APOORVA CHAMBERS
SUNNY MEADS LANE,
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
KERALA
PIN CODE: 695034
81.
CORPORATION BANK
KANJIRAPALLI BRANCH (1805)
MUKKADAN BUILDINGS
KURISINKAL JUNCTION
KANJIRAPALLI
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT ,
KERALA
PIN CODE: 686507
82.
CORPORATION BANK
ATHIRAMPUZHA BRANCH (1806)
MALAYIL BUILDINGS
CENTRAL JUNCTION
ATHIRAMPUZHA
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
KERALA
PIN CODE: 688562
83.
CORPORATION BANK
CHARUMMOODU BRANCH (1817)
ARUTHUNDIL NEBO TOWERS
K.P.ROAD, CHARUMMOODU
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
KERALA
PIN CODE: 690505
84.
CORPORATION BANK
KUDAYATHOOR BRANCH (1844)
KP X 80, 81, 82
UNNATHOTTATHIL BLDG
KUDAYATHOOR PO
IDUKKI, KERALA,
PIN CODE: 685590
85.
CORPORATION BANK
KARUKACHAL BRANCH (1737)
DOOR NO.V/118B/IV
LARA TOWERS
VAZHOOR ROAD
KARUKACHAL
3028
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA
PIN CODE : 686540
86.
CORPORATION BANK
ATTINGAL BRANCH (1425)
GROUND FLOOR
AVITTOM COMPLEX
N.H. 47 , MAMOM
KIZHUVILOM P.O
ATTINGAL,
TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT
KERALA , PINCODE : 695104
87
CORPORATION BANK
ZONAL OFFICE : THANE (CODE NO.
8828)
CORAL SQUARE, IIND FLOOR
OPP. SURAJ WATER PARK
GHODBUNDER ROAD
THANE (WEST)-400 615
MAHARASHTRA STATE
88
INDIAN BANK,
Zonal Office : Ludhiana
SCF – 88,
Urban Estate
Phase – I, Dugri
Ludhiana
Punjab – 141013
89
INDIAN BANK,
Barnala Branch
B – X / 835
K.C. Road
Barnala
Punjab – 148101
90
INDIAN BANK,
Akhnoor Branch
Indian Bank Ward No.12
Near BSNL Telephone Exchange
Akhnoor Main Road
Tehsil : Akhnoor
District : Jammu
Jammu and Kashmir – 181201
91
INDIAN BANK,
Batala Branch
SCF 29-30
Urban Estate
Sector – 1
Batala
II
(ii)
3029
District : Gurdaspur
Punjab – 143505
92
INDIAN BANK,
Bhagpura Branch
Baba Ishar Singh Group of Colleges
Bhagpur Alias Gagra
District : Moga
Punjab – 142043
93
INDIAN BANK,
BRS Nagar Branch
S.C.O.39
Block – G
Opp. Sarabha Nagar Police station
B.R.S. Nagar
District : Ludhiana
Punjab – 141012
94
INDIAN BANK,
Circular Road Branch
60 Circular Road
Near Rattan Singh Chowk
District : Amritsar
Punjab : 143001
95
INDIAN BANK,
Dayal Nagar Branch
B/38 – 4410
Avtar Nagar Road
Dayal Nagar
District : Jalandhar City
Punjab : 144003
96.
INDIAN BANK,
Doraha Branch
Ajaib Singh Complex
Opposite Fly Over
G T Road , Doraha
District : Ludhiana
Punjab : 141421
97.
INDIAN BANK,
Ferozepur Branch
Circular Road
Baghdadi Gate
Ferozepur City
District : Ferozepur
Punjab : 152002
98.
INDIAN BANK,
Faridkot Branch
3030
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Jubilee Cinema Chowk
Circular Road , Faridkot
District : Faridkot
Punjab : 151203
99.
INDIAN BANK,
Fathegarh Naubad Branch
C/O Guru Kashi University
Sardoolgarh Road
Tawlwandi Sabo
District : Bathinda
Punjab : 151302
101
INDIAN BANK,
Goraya Branch
G T Road , Goraya
District : Jalandhar
Punjab : 144409
101.
INDIAN BANK,
Gurdaspur Branch
22 Improvement Trust Building
G T Road
Gurdaspur
District : Gurdaspur
Punjab : 143521
102.
INDIAN BANK,
H M V College Road
SCF 8 , Improvement Scheme
BSF Colony
Opp. HMV College
District : Jalandhar
Punjab : 144001
103.
INDIAN BANK,
Jammu Branch
56 A / B, Gandhi Nagar
Jammu
Jammu and Kashmir
District : Jammu
Jammu and Kashmir : 180004
104.
INDIAN BANK,
Katra Branch
Keshav Hotel
Ward No.1 Prashar Street
Banganga Road
Katra (Vaishnodevi)
District : Reasi
Jammu and Kashmir : 182301
II
(ii)
3031
105.
INDIAN BANK,
Mansa Branch
Neem Wali Gali
District : Mansa
Punjab : 141505
106.
INDIAN BANK,
Matwani Branch
VPO – Matwani
Near Govt. Middle School
Matwani , District : Moga
Punjab : 142053
107.
INDIAN BANK,
Muktwar Branch
983, Sadar Branch
Near Ghas Mandi Chowk
Muktsar , Punjab : 152026
108.
INDIAN BANK,
Mullanpur Branch
Dhaliwal Complex
Ferozepur Road
District : Ludhiana
Punjab : 141101
109.
INDIAN BANK,
Nadala Branch
Dhilwan Road
Nadala , District : Kapurthala
Punjab : 144624
110.
INDIAN BANK, Sunam Branch
Mata Modi Chowk
Sunam , District : Sangrur
Punjab : 148028
111.
INDIAN BANK,
Pathankot Branch
138 Ramlila Ground
Dalhousie Road
Backside Hotel Shan
Pathankot , District : Gurdaspur
Punjab : 145001
112.
INDIAN BANK, Phillaur Branch
Building No.39 and 40
Dana Mandi , Phillaur
District : Jalandhar
Punjab : 144410
113.
INDIAN BANK,
Samrala Branch
3032
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Opp. M G Complex
Khanna Road
Samrala , District : Ludhiana
Punjab : 141114
114.
INDIAN BANK,
Sunder Nagar Branch
2435 Main Road
Near Basti Jodhewal Chowk
Opp. Indian Oil Petrol Pump
District : Ludhiana
Punjab : 141007
115.
INDIAN BANK,
Shahid Karnail Singh Nagar Branch
House No.48C
Shaheed Karnail Singh Nagar
Phase III, Sua Road
Jawadi, Near Pakhowal Road
District : Ludhiana
Punjab : 141013
116.
INDIAN BANK,
Tagore Nagar Branch
1105 – Kiran Villa
Tagore Nagar B
Civil Lines Ludhiana
District : Ludhiana
Punjab : 141001
117.
INDIAN BANK,
Tarn Taran Branch
Sandhu Complex
Opp Civil Hospital
Amritsar Road
District : Tarn Taran
Punjab : 143401
118.
INDIAN BANK,
Talab Tillu Branch
278 Main Road
Opp. Moderndevans Brewery
Bohri Talab Tillo
District : Jammu
Punjab : 180002
II
(ii)
3033
नई दिल्ली, 14 मार्च, 2017
का.आ. 1297.—केंद्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के वलए प्रयोग) वनयम, 1976 के वनयम 10 के उप
वनयम (4) के अनुसरण में संलग् न अनुंं में उवल् लव न वन नवलव न ंकों की सचर्ीं्ध शा ाओं/कायाचलयों को, वजनके 80% से अव क
कमचर्ाररयों ने ह ंिी का कायचसा क ज्ञान प्राप् न कर वलया , अव सचवर्न करनी ।
क्र.सं.
ंक का नाम
शा ाओं की संख् या
1.
स्टेट ंक ऑफ इंवडया
203
कुल 203
[फा सं. 11016/1/2015-ह ं. (अव .)]
राजीि कुमार, स ायक वनिेशक (रा.भा.)
राजभाषा वनयम 1976 के वनयम 10(4) के अंनगचन अव सचवर्न दकए जाने िाले कायाचलयों / शा ाओं की सचर्ी
1
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
विशेषीकृन ि यक वनक ंककंग शा ा
एम.ंी. टािसच, र्रगांिा
गोर पुर
उत् नर प्रिेश – 273013
2
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
रूपन छपरा शा ा, लार
िेिररया
उत् नर प्रिेश – 274502
3
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
ंरगििा ंाजार शा ा, वपपरा
म ाराजगंज उत् नर प्रिेश – 273305
4
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
संया शा ा, वससिा ंाजार
म राजगंज
उत् नर प्रिेश – 273163
5
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
समर ीरा शा ा , नौननिा
म राजगंज
उत् नर प्रिेश - 273162
6
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
पथरा ंाजार शा ा
वस्ध ाथचनगर
उत् नर प्रिेश – 272153
7
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
स् पेशल पी.ंी.ंी. शा ा
वमजाचपुर
उत् नर प्रिेश – 231001
3034
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
हिंध् यार्ल रोड शा ा, वमजाचपुर
अमरािनी र्ौरा ा, हिंध् यार्ल
वमजाचपुर
उत् नर प्रिेश – 231307
9
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
िेिररया शा ा, गाजीपुर
िेिररया, गाजीपुर जमवनया ाइिे
गाजीपुर
उत् नर प्रिेश – 232340
10
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
क्षेत्रीय व् यिसाय कायाचलय-6
एस.ंी.आई. प्रशासवनक कायाचलय भिन
िाराणसी
उत् नर प्रिेश – 221002
11
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
प गंरपुर शा ा, प गंरपुर
पंर्कोसी रोड, िाराणसी
उत् नर प्रिेश – 221007
12
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
ि यवक् नक ंककंग शा ा
अगरसंिा, मुलायम नगर
गार िार रोड , ंवलया
उत् नर प्रिेश – 277001
13
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
ाथी ंाजार शा ा, ाथी ंाजार
िाराणसी, उत् नर प्रिेश – 221405
14
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
करठरांि शा ा
करठरांि र्ौमु ानी
िाराणसी, उत् नर प्रिेश – 221207
15
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
उगापुर शा ा, उगापुर
पोस् ट: औराई,
संन रवििास नगर
उत्तर प्रिेश - 221024
16
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
सींकरारा शा ा, सींकरारा
जौनपुर, उत् नर प्रिेश – 222131
17
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
रंंसपुर शा ा, रंंसपुर
आजमगढ़, उत् नर प्रिेश – 276001
18
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
िावलिपुर शा ा, िावलिपुर
II
(ii)
3035
मऊनाथ भंजन िावलिपुर,
मऊ, उत् नर प्रिेश – 276405
19
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
मररया शा ा,
संन रवििास नगर
भिो ी, उत् नर प्रिेश – 221306
20
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
ंाँ िा ंाजार शा ा,
ंाँ िा ंाजार
जौनपुर, उत् नर प्रिेश – 222143
21
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
वमजाच ािीपुर शा ा,
मऊ नाथ भंजन
मऊ, उत् नर प्रिेश – 275101
22
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
क्षेत्रीय व् यिसाय कायाचलय-7
गाजीपुर
उत् नर प्रिेश – 233001
23
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
वगलट ंाजार शा ा,
ल नऊ ंाई पास रोड
िाराणसी
उत् नर प्रिेश – 221002
24
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
विशेष पी.ंी.ंी. शा ा
इवन् िरानगर,
ल नऊ
उत् नर प्रिेश – 226 016
25
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
इटधजा शा ा
कुसी रोड, इटधजा
ल नऊ
उत् नर प्रिेश – 226 203
26
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
कल् याणपुर शा ा
न सील सिर
ल नऊ
उत् नर प्रिेश – 226 022
27
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
नकरो ी शा ा
इवन् िरानगर
ल नऊ, उत् नर प्रिेश – 226 016
28
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
एर्.ए.एल. इवन् िरानगर शा ा
फ जांाि रोड एर्.ए.एल.
ल नऊ, उत् नर प्रिेश – 226 016
3036
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
29
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
एसंीआई इनटर् इवन् िरानगर शा ा
ल नऊ, उन नर प्रिेश – 226 016
30
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
ंांचगंज शा ा
ल नऊ, उत् नर प्रिेश - 226003
31
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
वसविल लाइन् स शा ा
वनकट अंेडकर र्ौरा ा
कर् री रोड, गोण् डा
उत् नर प्रिेश - 271 001
32
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
कटरा ंाजार शा ा
कनचलगंज, गोण् डा
उत् नर प्रिेश – 271503
33
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
स िुल् ला नगर शा ा
ंलरामपुर
उत् नर प्रिेश – 271 307
34
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
ंालपुर शा ा
ंालपुर ंाजार
गोण् डा,
उत् नर प्रिेश – 271 125
35
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
रगपुर शा ा
रगपुर, गोण् डा
उत् नर प्रिेश – 271 204
36
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
इकौना शा ा
इकौना ंाईपास
श्रािस् नी
उत् नर प्रिेश – 271 845
37
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
कटरा ंाईपास शा ा
श्रािस् नी
उत् नर प्रिेश – 271 845
38
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
रानी ंाजार शा ा
रानी ंाजार, ंारगॉि,
गोण् डा, उत् नर प्रिेश – 271 204
39
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
राजापुर शा ा
वनकट राजापुर र्ौरा ा
ल ीमपुर ीरी
उत् नर प्रिेश – 262 701
40
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
मास् टर ंाग शा ा
II
(ii)
3037
कसमण् डा
सीनापुर
उत् नर प्रिेश – 261 302
41
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
फचलंे ड़ शा ा
ल ीमपुर ीरी
उत् नर प्रिेश – 262 701
42
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
मररया पवण् डन शा ा
ऐरा इस् टेट
ल ीमपुर ीरी
उत् नर प्रिेश – 262 722
43
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
अमीर नगर शा ा
अमीर नगर
ल ीमपुर ीरी
उत् नर प्रिेश – 262 804
44
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
सुन् िरािल शा ा
ल ीमपुर ीरी
उत् नर प्रिेश – 262 701
45
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
वपसिां ंाज़ार शा ा
सीनापुर
उत् नर प्रिेश – 261 151
46
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
र्ुंगी र्ौरा ा शा ा
रांाि, सीनापुर
उत् नर प्रिेश – 261 001
47
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
रामकोट शा ा
रांाि, सीनापुर
उत् नर प्रिेश – 261 001
48
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
कौशलपुरी शा ा
फ जांाि, उत् नर प्रिेश – 224 001
49
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
अलीगंज सुल् नानपुर शा ा
ब्ल लाक - कुड़िार
सुल् नानपुर,
उत् नर प्रिेश –227 805
50
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
पचरा ंाजार शा ा
सिर फ जांाि
उत् नर प्रिेश – 224 171
51
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
अमानीगंज शा ा
फ जांाि, उत् नर प्रिेश – 224 121
3038
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
52
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
कटरा ानपुर शा ा
िाररकागंज, सिर न सील
सुल् नानपुर, उत् नर प्रिेश –228 125
53
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
पी.ंी.ंी. पयागीपुर शा ा
वनकट एफ.सी.आई. गाडेन,
पयागीपुर र्ौरा ा, सुल् नानपुर
उत् नर प्रिेश – 228 001
54
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
अि यचवनिर्सचटी शा ा
सुल् नानपुर रोड, फ जांाि,
उत् नर प्रिेश –224 001
55
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
जरनगंज शा ा
1, शा नजफ रोड,
ल नऊ, उत् नर प्रिेश –226 001
56
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
नीलमत् था शा ा
रर रपुर नीलमत् था
ल नऊ
उत् नर प्रिेश – 226 002
57
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
ंु्ध ेश् िर र्ौरा ा शा ा
ंु्ध ेश् िर र्ौरा ा
ल नऊ
उत् नर प्रिेश – 226 017
58
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
वि ान सभा मागच शा ा,
19 सी, वि ान सभा मागच
ल नऊ
उत् नर प्रिेश – 226 001
59
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
र शा ा, िरगढ़ रोड
ंारांंकी, उत् नर प्रिेश – 225 121
60
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
कोटिा सड़क शा ा
पो. थौडा, ंारांंकी
उत् नर प्रिेश – 225 415
61
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
रटक ननगर शा ा
ंारांंकी, उत् नर प्रिेश – 225 415
62
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
सफिरगंज शा ा
ंारांंकी
उत् नर प्रिेश – 225 415
II
(ii)
3039
63
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
म सी शा ा
ं राइर्
उत् नर प्रिेश – 271 824
64
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
रुपईडी ा शा ा
नाल नानपारा
ं राइर्
उत् नर प्रिेश – 271 881
65
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
ज नापुर ंाजार शा ा
न सील – म सी
ं राइर्, उत् नर प्रिेश –271 902
66
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
क्षेत्रीय व् यिसाय कायाचलय -6
ंारांंकी
उत् नर प्रिेश – 225 001
67
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
विभचवन ण् ड शा ा
गोमनीनगर, ल नऊ
उत् नर प्रिेश – 226 010
68
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
उनरेरठया शा ा
पािर ाउस शा ा, सेक्टर - 9-ंी,
िृन् िािन योजना, ल नऊ
उत् नर प्रिेश – 226 002
69
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
पत्रकारपुरम शा ा
ल नऊ
उत् नर प्रिेश – 226 010
70
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
कानपुर रोड शा ा
हसंगार नगर
कानपुर रोड
ल नऊ
उत् नर प्रिेश – 226 005
71
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
स वनक स् कचल शा ा
स् कचटर इवण् डया र्ौरा ा, सरोवजनी नगर
ल नऊ
उत् नर प्रिेश – 226 008
72
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
पी.ंी.ंी. आवशयाना शा ा
सेक् टर – एल, आवशयाना कालोनी
कानपुर रोड, ल नऊ
उत् नर प्रिेश – 226 012
3040
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
73
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
सराय शे शा ा
सनरर रोड, वर्न ट
ल नऊ, उत् नर प्रिेश - 227 105
74
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
अमौसी इण् डवस् ट्रयल एररया शा ा
ल नऊ, उत् नर प्रिेश – 226 008
75
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
क्षेत्रीय व् यिसाय कायाचलय – सप् नम
ंींुल् ला इस् टेट, जरनगंज
ल नऊ, उत् नर प्रिेश – 226 001
76
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
वंजनौर शा ा
सीआरपीएफ ककपस वंजनौर
ल नऊ, उत् नर प्रिेश – 226 002
77
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
एकना वि ार शा ा
एकना वि ार
मुरािांाि – 244001
78
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
ठाकुरिारा वसटी शा ा
न सील - ठाकुरिारा
मुरािांाि – 244001
79
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
आसाम रोड पचरनपुर शा ा
कोनिाली रोड
पचरनपुर, पीलीभीन – 262122
80
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
पक् का कटरा शा ा
कृवष उत् पािन मंडी सवमवन
वनल र, शा ज ांपुर - 242307
81
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
अभयपुर शा ा
भोजीपुरा, न नीनाल रोड
ंरेली
82
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
वमजाचपुर शा ा
ब्ल लॉक - वमजाचपुर
न सील - जलालांाि
शा ज ांपुर – 242127
83
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
ब्र म ंाजार शा ा
संभल, उत्तर प्रिेश -202412
84
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
पीली कोठी शा ा
मुरािांाि – 244001
85
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
निािा इंिीपुर शा ा
II
(ii)
3041
ब्ल लॉक – ििरौल, न सील - सिर
शा ज ांपुर
86
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
घंटा घर शा ा
ंिायचं – 243001
87
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
नौशेरा शा ा
ंिायचाँ – 243601
88
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
ासपुरा शा ा
नचरपुर
वंजनौर – 245734
89
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
मिनपुर शा ा
न सील सिर
शा ज ांपुर – 244601
90
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
मिासी शा ा
रामपुर
उत्तर प्रिेश - 244924
91
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
परसा ेड़ा शा ा
सी.ंी. गंज
ंरेली – 243502
92
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
टनकपुर रोड शा ा
नकटा िाना र्ौरा ा
वसविल लाइन् स
पीलीभीन – 262001
93
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
राम नगर शा ा
न सील आंिला
ंरेली – 243301
94
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
सें ा शा ा
मो मिपुर पथरा
ऑिला, ंरेली – 243301
95
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
ं जोई वसटी शा ा
संभल, उत्तर प्रिेश - 244925
96
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
वंलाकुंडा शा ा
(डचंगरपुर)
मुरािांाि - 244925
97
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
ं जचईया शा ा
न सील - आंिला
ंरेली – 243001
3042
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
98
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
डेलापीर शा ा
केशलना ावस् पटल के पास
पोस्ट - इज् जननगर
ंरेली – 243006
99
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
रुनगला शा ा
ंीसलपुर रोड
ंरेली – 243006
100
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
कान् रपुर शा ा
लाल फाटक रोड
ंरेली - 243001
101
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
कचमािंर्ल नगर शा ा
इज् जननगर, ंरेली,
उत्तर प्रिेश – 243122
102
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
नगररया परीवक्षन शा ा
श ीि गेट के पास
न नीनाल रोड
ंरेली – 243122
103
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
रामगंगा वि ार शा ा
फेज – 1, कांठ रोड
मुरािांाि – 244001
104
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
क्षेत्रीय व् यिसाय कायाचलय - VI
रामपुर, उत्तर प्रिेश - 244901
105
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
जे.एस. ह ंिच कालेज शा ा
अमरो ा, उत्तर प्रिेश - 244221
106
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
नौरा शा ा
नजींांाि
वंजनौर – 246763
107
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
स फनी शा ा
रामपुर – 202411
108
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
प्रकाश नगर शा ा
मुरािांाि – 244401
109
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
सें ा शा ा
पोस्ट - मो मिपुर पथेरा
ंरेली – 243301
II
(ii)
3043
110
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
माडल टाउन शा ा
ुसलोक ावस् पटल के सामने
पो: श् यामगंज
ंरेली - 243122
111
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
रादफयांाि कलान शा ा
न सील - जलालांाि
शा ज ांपुर – 242127
112
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
रे र शा ा
वंजनौर – 246722
113
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
वंलासपुर मंडी शा ा
निीन मंडी स् थल
न सील - वंलासपुर
रामपुर -244921
114
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
गोपामऊ शा ा
रिोई, उत् नर प्रिेश - 241 404
115
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
सौरर शा ा
कन् नौज, उत् नर प्रिेश - 209728
116
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
मीरपुर रोड शा ा
कानपुर
उत् नर प्रिेश – 209214
117
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
मिनपुर शा ा
फरु ांाि
उत् नर प्रिेश – 209743
118
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
इब्रा ीमगंज वछंरामऊ शा ा
कन् नौज
उत् नर प्रिेश – 209721
119
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
ह ंजरी शा ा
रसचलांाि रोड
कानपुर िे ान
उत् नर प्रिेश – 209204
120
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
वशिली शा ा
कानपुर िे ान
उत् नर प्रिेश - 209204
121
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
रस ान शा ा
मेन र्ौरा ा, रस ान
कानपुर िे ान
उत् नर प्रिेश – 209115
3044
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
122
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
अरौल शा ा
कानपुर
उत् नर प्रिेश – 209202
123
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
रेल मंडी शा ा
जसिंन नगर
इटािा
उत् नर प्रिेश – 206265
124
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
ंकेिर शा ा
इटािा
उत् नर प्रिेश – 206124
125
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
इकदिल शा ा
इकदिल र्ौरा ा
इटािा
उत् नर प्रिेश - 206126
126
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
कोंर् शा ा
कोंर्
कानपुर
उत् नर प्रिेश – 285205
127
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
ंरुआ सागर शा ा
वनकट नगरपावलका पररषि
झांसी
उत् नर प्रिेश – 284201
128
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
रक् सा शा ा
झांसी
उत् नर प्रिेश – 284419
129
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
वर्गलौिा शा ा
लवलनपुर
उत् नर प्रिेश – 284403
130
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
उत् नरीपुरा शा ा
उत् नरीपुरा
कानपुर
उत् नर प्रिेश - 209210
131
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
एडींी ंांगरमऊ शा ा
उन् नाि
उत् नर प्रिेश – 209858
132
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
पींी शा ा
इटािा
उत् नर प्रिेश – 206001
II
(ii)
3045
133
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
पींींी फरु ांाि शा ा
फरु ांाि
उत् नर प्रिेश – 209601
134
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
सांडी शा ा
रिोई
उत् नर प्रिेश – 241001
135
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
रिोई वसटी शा ा
रिोई
उत् नर प्रिेश - 241001
136
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
ज ांगंज शा ा
फरुच ांाि
उत् नर प्रिेश – 209739
137
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
पाली शा ा
रिोई
उत् नर प्रिेश – 241123
138
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
काव पल शा ा
फरुच ांाि
उत् नर प्रिेश – 207505
139
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
एलीट क्रॉहसंग शा ा
98, वसविल लाइन् स
झांसी, उत् नर प्रिेश – 284001
140
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
कोयला नगर शा ा
कानपुर, उत् नर प्रिेश - 208011
141
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
वमयागंज शा ा
ल नऊ ंांगरमऊ रोड
उन् नाि, उत् नर प्रिेश – 209870
142
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
ऊाँर्गांि शा ा
उन् नाि
उत् नर प्रिेश – 209863
143
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
वंठचर शा ा, कानपुर
उत् नर प्रिेश – 209210
144
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
विशेषीकृन पींींी शा ा
कानपुर, उत् नर प्रिेश –208002
3046
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
145
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
क्षेत्रीय व् यिसाय कायाचलय - VII
प्रशासवनक कायाचलय
कानपुर, उत् नर प्रिेश - 208001
146
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
सुजानगंज शा ा
सी.ओ.डी. ककपस
कानपुर, उत् नर प्रिेश – 208001
147
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
क्षेत्रीय व् यिसाय कायाचलय - विनीय
प्रशासवनक कायाचलय
कानपुर, उत् नर प्रिेश – 208001
148
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
वत्रलोक माकेट शा ा
रामािेिी, जी.टी. रोड
कानपुर
उत् नर प्रिेश – 208007
149
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
पटरा र्ौरा ा शा ा
कानपुर मीरपुर ाइिे
कानपुर
उत् नर प्रिेश – 209308
150
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
पींींी उन्नाि
उन् नाि
उत् नर प्रिेश - 209881
151
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
समथर शा ा
वनकट नगर पावलका पररषि
झांसी
उत् नर प्रिेश – 284304
152
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
पव ढला म ािेश शा ा
सीआरपीएफ क पस
इला ांाि
उत् नर प्रिेश – 211013
153
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
लाल गोपाल गंज शा ा
इला ांाि, उत् नर प्रिेश – 229413
154
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
सरेनी शा ा, रायंरेली
उत् नर प्रिेश – 229212
155
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
रानीगंज शा ा
स् िामी करपात्री इंटर कालेज
II
(ii)
3047
प्रनापगढ़
उत् नर प्रिेश – 230304
156
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
कृवष उत् पािन मंडी सवमवन शा ा
कौशा ंी
उत् नर प्रिेश – 212207
157
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
रेलिे कोर् फ क्ट्री शा ा
पोस्ट - लालगंज
रायंरेली
उत् नर प्रिेश – 229212
158
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
रानीगंज शा ा
अमेठी
उत् नर प्रिेश – 229402
159
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
रर्ंिपुर शा ा
रायंरेली
उत् नर प्रिेश – 229303
160
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
गौरा शा ा
रायंरेली
उत् नर प्रिेश – 229204
161
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
म ुपुरी शा ा
डलमऊ रोड, रायंरेली
उत् नर प्रिेश – 229405
162
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
ंांचगंज शा ा
न सील - ऊाँर्ा ार
रायंरेली, उत् नर प्रिेश –229205
163
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
व रो शा ा, रायंरेली
उत् नर प्रिेश – 229205
164
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
सेमरौना शा ा
रायंरेली
उत् नर प्रिेश – 229126
165
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
जगनपुर शा ा, रायंरेली
उत् नर प्रिेश – 229402
166
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
कुंिनगंज शा ा,
रायंरेली
उत् नर प्रिेश – 229303
3048
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
167
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
उमरान शा ा, रायंरेली
उत् नर प्रिेश – 229404
168
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
िुसौनी शा ा
रायंरेली
उत् नर प्रिेश – 229306
169
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
वत्रिेणीपुरम शा ा
इला ांाि
उत् नर प्रिेश – 211019
170
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
ट गोर टाउन शा ा
इला ांाि
उत् नर प्रिेश – 211012
171
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
अलीगंज शा ा
ंांिा, उत् नर प्रिेश –210001
172
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
रा ेनगर शा ा
फने पुर
उत् नर प्रिेश – 212601
173
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
म ोंा वसटी शा ा
म ोंा
उत् नर प्रिेश – 210427
174
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
वनलोई शा ा
अमेठी, सुल् नानपुर
उत् नर प्रिेश – 229402
175
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
सुवर् शा ा
पोस् ट - अमेठी
सुल् नानपुर
उत्तर प्रिेश – 229402
176
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
िाररसगंज शा ा
अमेठी,
उत् नर प्रिेश – 229402
177
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
गां ीनगर शा ा
अमेठी
उत् नर प्रिेश – 229402
178
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
छानो शा ा
II
(ii)
3049
अमेठी
उत् नर प्रिेश – 229402
179
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
हंंिागंज शा ा
अमेठी
उत् नर प्रिेश – 229402
180
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
इ ोरिा भिानी शा ा
ग्राम - हसं पुर
अमेठी ,
उत् नर प्रिेश – 229135
181
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
उमरी शा ा
अमेठी
उत् नर प्रिेश – 229127
182
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
पनिारी शा ा, म ोंा
उत् नर प्रिेश – 210429
183
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
ंांचगंज शा ा
प्रनापगढ़
उत् नर प्रिेश – 230503
184
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
पवश् र्मगांि शा ा
संगीपुर रोड, प्रनापगढ़
उत् नर प्रिेश – 230503
185
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
कोटिा शा ा
इला ांाि
उत् नर प्रिेश – 221502
186
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
नचरुद्दीनपुर वजला शा ा
अमेठी
उत् नर प्रिेश – 229127
187
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
सररला शा ा
मीरपुर
उत् नर प्रिेश – 210432
188
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
मेजा उजाच वनगम प्रा. वल. शा ा
इला ांाि
उत् नर प्रिेश – 212301
189
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
दिलीपपुर शा ा
प्रनापगढ़, उत् नर प्रिेश –230127
3050
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
190
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
गौरा शा ा
न सील – रानीगंज
प्रनापगढ़
उत् नर प्रिेश – 230306
191
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
सिा शा ा, फने पुर
उत् नर प्रिेश – 212645
192
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
विशेषीकृन एनआरआई शा ा
इला ांाि
उत् नर प्रिेश – 211002
193
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
वत्रिेणी शा ा
4, कर् री रोड
इला ांाि
उत् नर प्रिेश – 211002
194
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
क्षेत्रीय व्यिसाय कायाचलय - V
10-सी, कर् री रोड,
इला ांाि, उत् नर प्रिेश –211002
195
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
वसविल लाइंस शा ा
ल नऊ इला ांाि रोड
इला ांाि
उत् नर प्रिेश – 229001
196
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
पींींी शा ा
अशोक नगर
इला ांाि
उत् नर प्रिेश – 211001
197
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
वसविल लाइंस इला ांाि शा ा
इला ांाि
उत् नर प्रिेश – 211001
198
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
वत्रपुरा र्ौरा ा शा ा
ल नऊ इला ांाि रोड
रायंरेली
उत् नर प्रिेश – 229001
199
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
क्षेत्रीय व्यिसाय कायाचलय – VI
कारपेंटरी स्कचल के वनकट
इला ांाि
उत् नर प्रिेश – 211002
II
(ii)
3051
200
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
वशिगढ़ शा ा
रायंरेली
उत् नर प्रिेश – 229308
201
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
सेमरी शा ा
वनकट भिानीगढ़ र्ौरा ा
रायंरेली
उत् नर प्रिेश – 229206
202
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
नसीरांाि शा ा
मऊ रोड
रायंरेली
उत् नर प्रिेश – 229307
203
भारनीय स् टेट ंक
सुंांसा शा ा
प्रनापगढ़
उत् नर प्रिेश – 230306
New Delhi, the 14th March, 2017
S.O. 1297.— In pursuance of sub-rule(4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (use for official purpose of the
union) Rules, 1976,the Central Government, hereby notified the listed branches/offices of the following banks in the
attached annexure, more than 80% of the staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of hindi.
Serial No.
Name of the Banks
Number of Branches/offices
1.
State Bank of India
203
Total
203
[F. No. 11016/1/2015-OL (Noti.)]
RAJIV KUMAR, Assistant Director (OL)
List of Branches/Offices of the State Bank of India to be notified under Rule 10(4) in the Gazette of
Government of India
1
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SPL PERSONAL BANKING BRANCH
M. B. TOWERS, CHARGAAVAN
GORAKHPUR
UTTAR PRADESH – 273013
2
STATE BANK OF INDIA
ROOPAN CHHAPRA, LAAR
DEORIA
UTTAR PRADESH – 274502
3
STATE BANK OF INDIA
BARGADVA BAJAR, PIPARA
MAHARAJGANJ
UTTAR PRADESH – 273305
3052
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SABYAA, SISVAA BAJAR
MAHARAJGANJ
UTTAR PRADESH – 273163
5
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SAMARDHIRAA, NAUTANVA
MAHARAJGANJ
UTTAR PRADESH - 273162
6
STATE BANK OF INDIA
PATHRA BAJAR
IDDHARTH NAGAR
UTTAR PRADESH – 272153
7
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SPECIAL P.B.B. BRANCH
MIRZAPUR
UTTAR PRADESH – 231001
8
STATE BANK OF INDIA
VINDHYACHAL ROAD BRANCH
AMRAVATI CHAURAHA
VINDHYACHAL
MIRZAPUR
UTTAR PRADESH – 231307
9
STATE BANK OF INDIA
DEORIA BRANCH,
GAZIPUR JAMANIYA HIGHWAY
GAZIPUR
UTTAR PRADESH – 232340
10
STATE BANK OF INDIA
REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE-6
SBI ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
BUILDING
VARANASI
UTTAR PRADESH – 221002
11
STATE BANK OF INDIA
PAIGAMBARPUR BRANCH,
PAIGAMBURPUR PUNCH KOSI ROAD
VARANASI
UTTAR PRADESH – 221007
12
STATE BANK OF INDIA
PERSONAL BANKING BRANCH ,
AGARSANDA
MULAYAM NAGAR, GARAHWAAR
ROAD
BALIA
UTTAR PRADESH – 277001
13
STATE BANK OF INDIA
HATHI BAZAR BRANCH
VARANASI
UTTAR PRADESH – 221405
14
STATE BANK OF INDIA
KATHIRAON BRANCH
KATHIRAON CHAUMUHANI
VARANASI
UTTAR PRADESH – 221207
15
STATE BANK OF INDIA
UGAAPUR BRANCH
POST: AURAI
SANT RAVIDAS NAGAR
UTTAR PRADESH – 221024
16
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SEEKRARA BRANCH
II
(ii)
3053
JAUNPUR
UTTAR PRADESH – 222131
17
STATE BANK OF INDIA
HARBANSPUR BRANCH
AZAMGARH
UTTAR PRADESH – 276001
18
STATE BANK OF INDIA
WALIDPUR BRANCH
MAU NAATH BHANJAN - WALIDPUR
MAU, UTTAR PRADESH – 276405
19
STATE BANK OF INDIA
KHAMARIYA BRANCH
GRAM & POST: KHAMARIYA
SANT RAVI DAS NAGAR
BHADOHI
UTTAR PRADESH – 221306
20
STATE BANK OF INDIA
BANDHWA BAZAR BRANCH
BANDHWA BAZAR
JAUNPUR
UTTAR PRADESH – 222143
21
STATE BANK OF INDIA
MIRZA HADIPUR BRANCH
MAU NATH BHANJAN, MAU
UTTAR PRADESH – 275101
22
STATE BANK OF INDIA
REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE-7
GAZIPUR, UTTAR PRADESH – 233001
23
STATE BANK OF INDIA
GILAT BAZAR BRANCH
LUCKNOW BYE-PASS-ROAD
VARANASI
UTTAR PRADESH – 221002
24
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SPECIAL P.B.B. BRANCH
INDIRANAGAR
LUCKNOW
UTTAR PRADESH – 226016
25
STATE BANK OF INDIA
ITAUNJA BRANCH,
NEAR POLICE STATION
BAKSHI KA TALAB
LUCKNOW
UTTAR PRADESH - 226203
26
STATE BANK OF INDIA
KALYANPUR BRANCH
TEHIL SADAR, LUCKNOW
UTTAR PRADESH 226022
27
STATE BANK OF INDIA
TAKROHI BRANCH
INDIRANAGAR , LUCKNOW
UTTAR PRADESH 226016
28
STATE BANK OF INDIA
HAL INDIRANAGAR BRANCH
FAIZABAD ROAD HAL
LUCKNOW
UTTAR PRADESH 226016
29
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SNIINTOUCH INDIRANAGAR BRANCH
LUCKNOW
UTTAR PRADESH - 226016
3054
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
30
STATE BANK OF INDIA
BABUGANJ BRANCH
LUCKNOW
UTTAR PRADESH - 226003
31
STATE BANK OF INDIA
CIVIL LINES BRANCH
NEAR AMBEDKAR CHAURAHA
KUTCHERY ROAD
GONDA
UTTAR PRADESH - 271001
32
STATE BANK OF INDIA
KATRA BAZAR BRANCH
COLONEL GANJ
GONDA
UTTAR PRADESH - 271503
33
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SADULLAH NAGAR BRANCH
BALRAMPUR
UTTAR PRADESH – 271307
34
STATE BANK OF INDIA
BALPUR BRANCH
BALPUR BAZAR,
GONDA
UTTAR PRADESH 271125
35
STATE BANK OF INDIA
KHARAGPUR BRANCH
GONDA
UTTAR PRADESH 271204
36
STATE BANK OF INDIA
EKAUNA BRANCH ,
EKAUNA BYE PASS
SHRAWASTI,
UTTAR PRADESH - 271845
37
STATE BANK OF INDIA
KATRA BYEPASS BRANCH
SHRAVASTI
UTTAR PRADESH - 271845
38
STATE BANK OF INDIA
RANI BAZAR BRANCH
BARGAON, GONDA
UTTAR PRADESH – 271204
39
STATE BANK OF INDIA
RAJAPUR BRANCH
NEAR RAJAPUR CHAURAHA
LAKHIMPUR KHERI
UTTAR PRADESH – 262701
40
STATE BANK OF INDIA
MASTER BAGH BRANCH
KASMANDA,
SITAPUR
UTTAR PRADESH - 261302
41
STATE BANK OF INDIA
PHOOL BEHAR BRANCH
LAKHIMPUR KHERI
UTTAR PRADESH - 262701
42
STATE BANK OF INDIA
KHAMARIA PANDIT BRANCH
POST: AERA ESTATE
LAKHIMPUR KHERI
UTTAR PRADESH – 262722
43
STATE BANK OF INDIA
AMIR NAGAR BRANCH
II
(ii)
3055
AMIR NAGAR
LAKHIMPUR KHERI
UTTAR PRADESH – 262804
44
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SUNDARAWAL BRANCH
LAKHIMPUR KHERI
UTTAR PRADESH – 262701
45
STATE BANK OF INDIA
PISAWAN BAZAR BRANCH
SITAPUR
UTTAR PRADESH - 261151
46
STATE BANK OF INDIA
CHUNGI CHAURAHA BRANCH
KHAIRABAD
SITAPUR
UTTAR PRADESH - 261001
47
STATE BANK OF INDIA
RAMKOT BRANCH
KHAIRABAD
SITAPUR
UTTAR PRADESH - 261001
48
STATE BANK OF INDIA
KAUSHALPURI BRANCH
FAIZABAD
UTTAR PRADESH - 224001
49
STATE BANK OF INDIA
ALIGANJ SULTANPUR BRANCH
BLOCK KURWAR
SULTANPUR
UTTAR PRADESH – 227805
50
STATE BANK OF INDIA
POORA BAZAAR BRANCH
SADAR FAIZABAD
UTTAR PRADESH - 224171
51
STATE BANK OF INDIA
AMANIGANJ BRANCH
FAIZABAD
UTTAR PRADESH - 224121
52
STATE BANK OF INDIA
KATRA KHANPUR BRANCH
DWARIKAGANJ, TEHSIL SADAR
SULTANPUR
UTTAR PRADESH - 228125
53
STATE BANK OF INDIA
PBB PYAGIPUR BRANCH
NEAR FCI GARDEN, PAYAGIPUR
CHAURAHA
SULTANPUR
UTTAR PRADESH - 228001
54
STATE BANK OF INDIA
AVADH UNIVERSITY BRANCH
SULTANPUR ROAD
FAIZABAD
UTTAR PRADESH - 224001
55
STATE BANK OF INDIA
HAZRATGANJ BRANCH
1, SHAHNAJAF ROAD
HAZRATGANJ
LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH – 226001
56
STATE BANK OF INDIA
NEELMATHA BRANCH
3056
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
HARIHARPUR NEELMATHA
LUCKNOW
UTTAR PRADESH - 226002
57
STATE BANK OF INDIA
BUDESHWAR CHAURAHA BRANCH
BUDESHWAR CHAURAHA
LUCKNOW
UTTAR PRADESH – 226017
58
STATE BANK OF INDIA
VIDHAN SABHA MARG BRANCH
19C, VIDHAN SABHA MARG
LUCKNOW
UTTAR PRADESH - 226001
59
STATE BANK OF INDIA
HARAKH BRANCH
HAIDERGARH ROAD
BARABANKI
UTTAR PRADESH - 225121
60
STATE BANK OF INDIA
KOTWA SADAK BRANCH
POST: HATAUNDHA
BARABANKI
UTTAR PRADESH – 225415
61
STATE BANK OF INDIA
TIKAITNAGAR BRANCH
BARABANKI
UTTAR PRADESH - 225415
62
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SAFDARGANJ BRANCH
BARABANKI
UTTAR PRADESH - 225415
63
STATE BANK OF INDIA
MAHSI BRANCH
BAHRAICH
UTTAR PRADESH – 271824
64
STATE BANK OF INDIA
RUPAIDIHA BRANCH
TAL NANPARA
BAHRAICH
UTTAR PRADESH – 271881
65
STATE BANK OF INDIA
JAITAPUR BAZAR BRANCH
TEHSIL - MAHSI
BAHRAICH
UTTAR PRADESH - 271902
66
STATE BANK OF INDIA
RBO – VI,
BARABANKI
UTTAR PRADESH - 225001
67
STATE BANK OF INDIA
VIBHUTI KHAND BRANCH
GOMTI NAGAR
LUCKNOW
UTTAR PRADESH – 226010
68
STATE BANK OF INDIA
UTRETHIA BRANCH
NEAR POWER HOUSE, SECTOR 9-B
VRINDAVAN YOJANA, LUCKNOW
UTTAR PRADESH - 226002
69
STATE BANK OF INDIA
PATRAKARAPURAM BRANCH
GOMTINAGAR,
II
(ii)
3057
LUCKNOW
UTTAR PRADESH - 226010
70
STATE BANK OF INDIA
KANPUR ROAD BRANCH
SINGAR NAGAR
KANPUR ROAD
LUCKNOW
UTTAR PRADESH – 226005
71
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SAINIK SCHOOL BRANCH
SCOOTER INDIA CHOWRAHA,
SAROJINI NAGAR,
LUCKNOW
UTTAR PRADESH – 226008
72
STATE BANK OF INDIA
PBB AASHIANA BRANCH
SECTOR L, AASHIANA COLONY,
KANPUR ROAD, LUCKNOW
UTTAR PRADESH - 226012
73
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SARAI SHEKH BRANCH
SATRIKH ROAD , CHINHAT
LUCKNOW
UTTAR PRADESH – 227105
74
STATE BANK OF INDIA
AMAUSI INDUSTRIAL AREA BRANCH
LUCKNOW
UTTAR PRADESH - 226008
75
STATE BANK OF INDIA
RBO – VII, HABIBULLAH ESTATE,
HAZARATGANJ
LUCKNOW
UTTAR PRADESH - 226001
76
STATE BANK OF INDIA
BIJNOR BRANCH
CRPF CAMPUS BIJNOR
LUCKNOW
UTTAR PRADESH - 226002
77
STATE BANK OF INDIA
EKTA VIHAAR BRANCH
EKTA VIHAAR
MORADABAD – 244001
78
STATE BANK OF INDIA
THAKURDWARA CITY BRANCH
TEHSIL - THAKURDWARA
MORADABAD – 244001
79
STATE BANK OF INDIA
ASSAM RAD PURANPUR BRANCH
KOTWALI ROAD,
TEHSIL - PURANPUR
PILIBHIT – 262122
80
STATE BANK OF INDIA
PAKKA KATRA BRANCH
KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI,
TILHAR
SHAHJAHANPUR - 242307
81
STATE BANK OF INDIA
ABHAYPUR BRANCH
POST- BHOJIPURA
NAINITAL ROAD
BAREILLY
3058
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
82
STATE BANK OF INDIA
MIRZAPUR BRANCH
BLOCK - MIRZAPUR
TEHSIL - JALALABAD
SHAHJAHANPUR – 242127
83
STATE BANK OF INDIA
BRAHM BAZAR BRANCH
SAMBHAL
UP – 202412
84
STATE BANK OF INDIA
PILI KOTHI BRANCH
MORADABAD – 244001
85
STATE BANK OF INDIA
NAWADA INDIPUR BRANCH
BLOCK DADRAUL
TEHSIL - SADAR
SHAHJAHANPR - 243001
86
STATE BANK OF INDIA
GHANTA GHAR BRANCH
BADAUN – 243601
87
STATE BANK OF INDIA
NAUSHERA BRANCH
BADAUN – 243601
88
STATE BANK OF INDIA
KHASPURA BRANCH
NOORPUR
MORADABAD ROAD
BIJNOR – 346734
89
STATE BANK OF INDIA
MADANPUR BRANCH
TEHSIL SADAR
SHAHJAHANPUR – 244601
90
STATE BANK OF INDIA
MAWASI BRANCH
RAMPUR
UTTAR PRADESH - 244924
91
STATE BANK OF INDIA
PARSAKHERA BRANCH
C.B. GANJ
BAREILLY – 243502
92
STATE BANK OF INDIA
TANAKPUR ROAD BRANCH
NAKTA DANA CHAURAHA
CIVIL LINES
PILIBHIT – 243301
93
STATE BANK OF INDIA
RAM NAGAR BRANCH
TEHSIL - AONLA
BAREILLY – 243301
94
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SENDHA BRANCH
TEHSIL- MOHAMMDPUR PATHRA
AONLA
BAREILLY – 243301
95
STATE BANK OF INDIA
BAHJOI CITY BRANCH
SAMBHAL
UTTAR PRADESH - 244412
96
STATE BANK OF INDIA
BILAKUNDA BRANCH
(DUNGARPUR)
MORDABAD – 244925
II
(ii)
3059
97
STATE BANK OF INDIA
BAHJUIA BRANCH
TEHSIL - AONLA
BAREILLY – 243301
98
STATE BANK OF INDIA
DELAPEER BRANCH
NEAR KESHLATA HOSPITAL
POST- IZZATNAGAR
BAREILLY – 243122
99
STATE BANK OF INDIA
HARRUNAGLA BRANCH
BISALPUR ROAD
BAREILLY – 243006
100
STATE BANK OF INDIA
KANDHARPUR BRANCH
LAL PHATAK ROAD
BAREILLY - 2443001
101
STATE BANK OF INDIA
KURMANCHAL NAGAR BRANCH
POST - IZZATNAGAR
BAREILLY – 243122
102
STATE BANK OF INDIA
NAGARIA PARIKSHIT BRANCH
NEAR SHAHEED GATE
NANITAL ROAD ,
BAREILLY – 243122
103
STATE BANK OF INDIA
RAM GANGA VIHAR BRANCH
PHASE-1, KANTH ROAD
MORADABAD
UTTAR PRADESH - 244001
104
STATE BANK OF INDIA
REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE - VI
RAMPUR
UTTAR PRADESH – 244901
105
STATE BANK OF INDIA
J. S. HINDU COLLEGE BRANCH
AMROHA
UTTAR PRADESH - 244221
106
STATE BANK OF INDIA
DHANAURA BRANCH
POST- NAZIBABAD
BIJNOR – 246763
107
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SAIFNI BRANCH, RAMPUR – 202411
108
STATE BANK OF INDIA
PRAKASH NAGAR BRANCH
MORADABAD – 244001
109
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SENDHA BRANCH
POST- MOHAMMADPUR PATHERA
BAREILLY – 243301
110
STATE BANK OF INDIA
MODEL TOWN BRANCH
OPP. KHUSLOK HOSPITAL
POST - SHYAM GANJ
BAREILLY - 243122
111
STATE BANK OF INDIA
RAFIABAD KALAN BRANCH
TEHSIL - JALALABAD
SHAHJAHANPUR – 242127
3060
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
112
STATE BANK OF INDIA
REHAR BRANCH
BIJNOR - 46722
113
STATE BANK OF INDIA
BILASPUR MANDI BRANCH
NAVIN MANDI STHAL
TEHSIL - BILASPUR
RAMPUR – 244921
114
STATE BANK OF INDIA
GOPAMAU BRANCH
HARDOI
UTTAR PRADESH - 241404
115
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SAURIKH BRANCH
KANNAUJ
UTTAR PRADESH - 209728
116
STATE BANK OF INDIA
HAMIRPUR ROAD BRANCH
KANPUR
UTTAR PRADESH – 209214
117
STATE BANK OF INDIA
MADANPUR BRANCH
FARRUKKHABAD
UTTAR PRADESH - 209743
118
STATE BANK OF INDIA
IBRAHIMGANJ CHHIBRAMAU
BRANCH
KANNAUJ
UTTAR PRADESH – 209721
119
STATE BANK OF INDIA
KAHINJARI BRANCH
RASOOLABAD ROAD
KANPUR DEHAT
UTTAR PRADESH – 209204
120
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SHIVLI BRANCH
KANPUR DEHAT
UTTAR PRADESH - 209204
121
STATE BANK OF INDIA
RASDHAN BRANCH
MAIN CHAURAHA, RASDHAN
KANPUR DEHAT
UTTAR PRADESH – 209115
122
STATE BANK OF INDIA
ARAUL BRANCH
KANPUR
UTTAR PRADESH – 209202
123
STATE BANK OF INDIA
RAIL MANDI BRANCH
JASWANT NAGAR
ETAWAH
UTTAR PRADESH - 206265
124
STATE BANK OF INDIA
BAKEWAR BRANCH
ETAWAH
UTTAR PRADESH – 206124
125
STATE BANK OF INDIA
EKDIL BRANCH
EKDIL CHAURAHA
ETAWAH
UTTAR PRADESH - 206126
II
(ii)
3061
126
STATE BANK OF INDIA
KONCH BRANCH
KONCH
KANPUR
UTTAR PRADESH – 285205
127
STATE BANK OF INDIA
BARUA SAGAR BRANCH
NEAR NAGARPALIKA PARISHAD
JHANSI
UTTAR PRADESH – 284201
128
STATE BANK OF INDIA
RAKSA BRANCH
JHANSI
UTTAR PRADESH - 284419
129
STATE BANK OF INDIA
CHIGLAUWA BRANCH
LALITPUR
UTTAR PRADESH – 284403
130
STATE BANK OF INDIA
UTTARIPURA BRANCH
UTTARIPURA
KANPUR
UTTAR PRADESH - 209210
131
STATE BANK OF INDIA
ADB BANGARMAU BRANCH
UNNAO
UTTAR PRADESH - 209858
132
STATE BANK OF INDIA
PB BRANCH, ETAWAH
UTTAR PRADESH - 206001
133
STATE BANK OF INDIA
PBB FARRUKHABAD BRANCH
FARRUKKHABAD
UTTAR PRADESH - 209601
134
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SANDI BRANCH
HARDOI
UTTAR PRADESH – 241001
135
STATE BANK OF INDIA
HARDOI CITY BRANCH
HARDOI
UTTAR PRADESH - 241001
136
STATE BANK OF INDIA
JAHANGANJ BRANCH
FARRUKKHABAD
UTTAR PRADESH - 209739
137
STATE BANK OF INDIA
PALI BRANCH
HARDOI
UTTAR PRADESH - 241123
138
STATE BANK OF INDIA
KAMPIL BRANCH
FARRUKKHABAD
UTTAR PRADESH – 207505
139
STATE BANK OF INDIA
ELITE CROSSING BRANCH,
98, CIVIL LINES
JHANSI
UTTAR PRADESH - 284001
140
STATE BANK OF INDIA
KOYLA NAGAR BRANCH
3062
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
KANPUR
UTTAR PRADES - 208011
141
STATE BANK OF INDIA
MIYAGANJ BRANCH
LUCKNOW BANGARMAU ROAD
UNNAO
UTTAR PRADESH - 209870
142
STATE BANK OF INDIA
UNCHGOAN BRANCH
UNNAO
UTTAR PRADESH - 209863
143
STATE BANK OF INDIA
BITHOOR BRANCH
KANPUR
UTTAR PRADESH – 209210
144
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SPECIALISED PBB BRANCH
KANPUR
UTTAR PRADESH - 208002
145
STATE BANK OF INDIA
REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE - VII,
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
KANPUR
UTTAR PRADESH – 208001
146
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SUJATGANJ BRANCH
COD CAMPUS
KANPUR
UTTAR PRADESH – 208013
147
STATE BANK OF INDIA
REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE - II,
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
KANPUR
UTTAR PRADESH – 208001
148
STATE BANK OF INDIA
TIRLOK MARKET BRANCH
RAMADEVI G T ROAD
KANPUR
UTTAR PRADESH - 208007
149
STATE BANK OF INDIA
PATARA CHUARAHA BRANCH
KANPUR HAMIRPUR HIGHWAY
KANPUR
UTTAR PRADESH – 209308
150
STATE BANK OF INDIA
PBB UNNAO
UNNAO
UTTAR PRADESH – 209881
151
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SAMTHAR BRANCH
NEAR NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD
JHANSI
UTTAR PRADESH – 284304
152
STATE BANK OF INDIA
PADILA MAHADEV BRANCH
CRPF CAMPUS
ALLAHABAD
UTTAR PRADESH - 211013
153
STATE BANK OF INDIA
LALGOPAL GANJ BRANCH
ALLAHABAD
UTTAR PRADESH – 229413
II
(ii)
3063
154
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SARENI BRANCH
RAE BARELI
UTTAR PRADESH - 229212
155
STATE BANK OF INDIA
RANIGANJ BRANCH
OPP. SWAMI KARPATRI INTER
COLLEGE
PRATAPGARH
UTTAR PRADESH - 230304
156
STATE BANK OF INDIA
KRASHI UTPADAN MANDI BRANCH
KAUSHAMBI
UTTAR PRADESH – 212207
157
STATE BANK OF INDIA
RAILWAY COACH FACTORY BRANCH
POST – LALGANJ
RAE BARELI
UTTAR PRADESH - 229212
158
STATE BANK OF INDIA
RANIGANJ BRANCH
AMETHI
UTTAR PRADESH - 229402
159
STATE BANK OF INDIA
HARCHANDPUR BRANCH
RAEBARELI
UTTAR PRADESH - 229303
160
STATE BANK OF INDIA
GAURA BRANCH
RAE BARELI
UTTAR PRADESH - 229204
161
STATE BANK OF INDIA
MADHUPURI BRANCH
DALMAU ROAD
RAE BARELI
UTTAR PRADESH - 229405
162
STATE BANK OF INDIA
BABUGANJ
TEHSIL - UNCHAHAR
RAE BARELI
UTTAR PRADESH – 229205
163
STATE BANK OF INDIA
KHIRO BRANCH
RAE BARELI
UTTAR PRADESH - 229205
164
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SEMRAUTA BRANCH
RAEBARELI
UTTAR PRADESH - 229126
165
STATE BANK OF INDIA
JAGATPUR BRANCH
RAEBARELI
UTTAR PRADESH - 229402
166
STATE BANK OF INDIA
KUNDANGANJ BRANCH
RAEBARELI
UTTAR PRADESH – 229303
167
STATE BANK OF INDIA
UMRAN BRANCH
RAEBARELI
UTTAR PRADESH – 229404
3064
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
168
STATE BANK OF INDIA
DUSAUTI BRANCH
RAE BARELI
UTTAR PRADESH – 229306
169
STATE BANK OF INDIA
TRIVENIPURAM BRANCH
ALLAHABAD
UTTAR PRADESH – 211019
170
STATE BANK OF INDIA
TAGORE TOWN BRANCH
ALLAHABAD
UTTAR PRADESH - 211012
171
STATE BANK OF INDIA
ALIGANJ BRANCH
BANDA
UTTAR PRADESH - 210001
172
STATE BANK OF INDIA
RADHEYNAGAR BRANCH
FATHEPUR
UTTAR PRADESH – 212601
173
STATE BANK OF INDIA
MAHOBA CITY BRANCH
MAHOBA
UTTAR PRADESH – 210427
174
STATE BANK OF INDIA
TILOI BRANCH
AMETHI
SULTANPUR
UTTAR PRADESH – 229402
175
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SUCHI BRANCH
POST: AMETHI
SULTANPUR
UTTAR PRADESH - 229402
176
STATE BANK OF INDIA
WARISGANJ BRANCH
AMETHI
UTTAR PRADESH – 229402
177
STATE BANK OF INDIA
GANDHINAGAR BRANCH
AMETHI
UTTAR PRADESH – 229402
178
STATE BANK OF INDIA
CHHATOH BRANCH
AMETHI
UTTAR PRADESH – 229402
179
STATE BANK OF INDIA
BINDAGANJ BRANCH
AMETHI
UTTAR PRADESH - 229402
180
STATE BANK OF INDIA
AHORWA BHAWANI BRANCH
VILL- SINGHPUR, AMETHI
UTTAR PRADESH - 229135
181
STATE BANK OF INDIA
UMRI BRANCH
AMETHI
UTTAR PRADESH – 229127
182
STATE BANK OF INDIA
PANWARI BRANCH
MAHOBA
UTTAR PRADESH - 210429
II
(ii)
3065
183
STATE BANK OF INDIA
BABUGANJ BRANCH
PRATAPGARH
UTTAR PRADESH - 230503
184
STATE BANK OF INDIA
PASCHIMGAON BRANCH
SANGIPUR ROAD
PRATAPGARH
UTTAR PRADESH – 230503
185
STATE BANK OF INDIA
KOTWA BRANCH
ALLAHABAD
UTTAR PRADESH - 221505
186
STATE BANK OF INDIA
NOORUDDINPUR ZILLA BRANCH
AMETHI
UTTAR PRADESH – 229127
187
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SARILA BRANCH
HAMIRPUR
UTTAR PRADESH - 210432
188
STATE BANK OF INDIA
MEJA URJA NIGAM PVT. LTD.
BRANCH ALLAHABAD
UTTAR PRADESH - 212301
189
STATE BANK OF INDIA
DILEEPPUR BRANCH
PRATAPGARH
UTTAR PRADESH – 230127
190
STATE BANK OF INDIA
GAURA BRANCH
TEHSIL – RANIGANJ
PRATAPGARH
UTTAR PRADESH - 230306
191
STATE BANK OF INDIA
HASWA BRANCH
FATEHPUR
UTTAR PRADESH – 212645
192
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SPECIALISED NRI BRANCH
ALLAHABAD
UTTAR PRADESH - 211002
193
STATE BANK OF INDIA
TRIVENI BRANCH
04 KUTCHERY ROAD
ALLAHABAD
UTTAR PRADESH - 211002
194
STATE BANK OF INDIA
REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE – V
10-C KUTCHERY ROAD
ALLAHABAD
UTTAR PRADESH - 211002
195
STATE BANK OF INDIA
CIVIL LINES BRANCH
LUCKNOW ALLAHABAD ROAD
RAE BARELI
UTTAR PRADESH - 229001
196
STATE BANK OF INDIA
PBB BRANCH
ASHOK NAGAR
3066
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ALLAHABAD
UTTAR PRADESH - 211001
197
STATE BANK OF INDIA
CIVIL LINES ALLAHABAD BRANCH
ALLAHABAD
UTTAR PRADESH – 211001
198
STATE BANK OF INDIA
TRIPURA CHAURAHA BRANCH
LUCKNOW ALLAHABAD ROAD
RAE BARELI
UTTAR PRADESH - 229001
199
STATE BANK OF INDIA
REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE – VI
NEAR CARPENTARY SCHOOL
ALLAHABAD
UTTAR PRADESH - 211002
200
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SHIVGARH BRANCH
RAE BARELI
UTTAR PRADESH - 229308
201
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SEMRI BRANCH
NEAR BHAVNIGARH CHAURAHA
RAEBARELI
UTTAR PRADESH - 229206
202
STATE BANK OF INDIA
NASEERABAD BRANCH
RAEBARELI
UTTAR PRADESH – 229307
203
STATE BANK OF INDIA
SUBANSA BRANCH
PRATAPGARH
UTTAR PRADESH - 230306
कोयला मंत्रालय
आिेश
नई दिल् ली, 25 मई, 2017
का.आ. 1298.—कोयला ारक क्षेत्र (अजचन और विकास) अव वनयम 1957 (1957 का 20) (वजसे इसमें इसके पश् र्ान
उक् न अव वनयम क ा गया ) की ारा 9 की उप- ारा (1) के अ ीन जारी भारन के राजपत्र, असा ारण, भाग II, ंड 3, उप- ंड
(ii), नारी 17 फरिरी, 2014 में प्रकावशन, भारन सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अव सचर्ना का. आ. संख् यांक 413(अ), नारी 14
फरिरी, 2014 के प्रकाशन पर उक् न अव सचर्ना से संलग् न अनुसचर्ी में िर्णचन भचवम और ऐसी भचवम (वजसे इसमें इसके पश् र्ान उक् न
भचवम क ा गया ), में या उस पर के सभी अव कार, उक् न अव वनयम की ारा 10 की उप ारा (1) के अ ीन, सभी विल् लंगमों से
मुक् न ोकर, आत् यंवनक रूप से केन् द्रीय सरकार में वनव न ो गए ;
और, केन् द्रीय सरकार का य समा ान ो गया , दक सेंट्रल कोलफील् ड्स वलवमटेड, वजला रांर्ी-834001,झार ंड (वजसे
इसमें इसके पश् र्ान सरकारी कंपनी क ा गया ), ऐसे वनंं नों और शनों का, जो केन् द्रीय सरकार इस वनवमत् न अव रोवपन करना
उवर्न समझे, अनुपालन करने के वलए रजामंि ;
अन:, अं, केन् द्रीय सरकार, उक् न अव वनयम की ारा 11 की उप- ारा (1) िारा प्रित् न शवक् नयों का प्रयोग करने हुए, य
वनिेश िेनी , दक उक् न भचवम और इस प्रकार वनव न उक् न भचवम में या उस पर के सभी अव कार नारी 17 फरिरी, 2014 से केन् द्रीय
II
(ii)
3067
सरकार में इस प्रकार वनव न ंने र ने के ंजाए, वन नवलव न वनंं नों और शनों के अ ीन र ने हुए, सरकारी कंपनी में वनव न ो
जाएंगे, अथाचन :-
(1)
सरकारी कंपनी, उक् न अव वनयम के उपंं ों के अ ीन यथा अि ाररन प्रवनकर, ब्ल याज, नुकसावनयों और ि सी ी मिों
की ंांन दकए गए संिायों की केन् द्रीय सरकार को प्रवनपचर्नच करेगी ;
(2)
शनच (1) के अ ीन सरकारी क पनी िारा केन् द्रीय सरकार को संिेय रकमों का अि ारण करने के प्रयोजनों के वलए उक् न
अव वनयम की ारा 14 के अ ीन एक अव करण का गठन दकया जाएगा और दकसी ऐसे अव करण और अव करण की
स ायना के वलए वनयुक् न व् यवक् नयों के संं में उपगन सभी व् यय, सरकारी कंपनी िारा ि न दकए जाऐंगे और इस
प्रकार वनव न उक् न भचवम में या उस पर के अव कारों के वलए या उनके संं में अपीलों आदि ज सी सभी विव क
कायचिाव यों के संं में उपगन, सभी व् यय भी, सरकारी कंपनी िारा ि न दकए जाएंगे ;
(3)
सरकारी कंपनी, केन् द्रीय सरकार या उसके पि ाररयों की, ऐसे दकसी अन् य व् यय के संं में क्षवनपचर्नच करेगी, जो इस
प्रकार वनव न उक् न भचवम में या उस पर के अव कारों के ंारे में, केन् द्रीय सरकार या उसके पि ाररयों िारा या उनके
विरू्ध दकन् ीं कायचिाव यों के संं में आिश् यक ो ;
(4)
सरकारी कंपनी को केन् द्रीय सरकार के पचिच अनुमोिन के वंना भचवमयों को दकन् ीं अन् य व् यवक् नयों को अंनररन करने की
शवक् न न ीं ोगी ; और
(5)
सरकारी कंपनी, ऐसे वनिेशों और शनों का पालन करेगी, जो केन् द्रीय सरकार िारा, जं कभी आिश् यक ो, उक् न भचवम
के विवशष् ट क्षेत्रों के वलए दिए जाएं या अव रोवपन दकए जाएं ।
[फा. सं. 43015/17/2017–एलए एण्ड आईआर ]
एन. के. हसं , उप सवर्ि
MINISTRY OF COAL
ORDER
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2017
S.O. 1298.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Coal, number S.O. 413(E), dated the 14th February, 2014, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II,
Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 17th February, 2014, issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing
Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the lands and all
rights in or over the said land described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the
said land) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10
of the said Act;
And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the Central Coalfields Limited, District Ranchi-834001,
Jharkhand (hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as
the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby directs, that the said land and all rights in or over the said land so vested shall with effect from the
17th February, 2014 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the Government Company,
subject to the following terms and conditions, namely:-
1.
The Government Company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of
compensation, interest, damages and the like, as determined under the provisions of the said Act;
2.
A Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of the said Act for the purpose of determining the
amounts payable to the Central Government by the Government Company under condition (1) and all
expenditure incurred in connection with any such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal
shall be borne by the Government Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal
proceedings like appeals, etc. for or in connection with the rights, in or over the said lands, so vested,
shall also be borne by the Government Company;
3.
The Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other
expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central
Government or its officials, regarding the rights in or over the said land so vested;
3068
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
The Government Company shall have no power to transfer the lands to any other persons without the
prior approval of the Central Government ; and
5.
The Government Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by
the Central Government for particular areas of the said lands, as and when necessary.
[F. No. 43015/17/2017-LA & IR]
N. K. SINGH, Dy. Secy.
आिेश
नई दिल् ली, 25 मई, 2017
का.आ. 1299.— कोयला ारक क्षेत्र (अजचन और विकास) अव वनयम 1957 (1957 का 20) (वजसे इसमें इसके पश् र्ान
उक् न अव वनयम क ा गया ) की ारा 9 की उप- ारा (1) के अ ीन जारी भारन के राजपत्र, असा ारण, भाग II, ंड 3, उप- ंड (ii),
नारी 28 अिचंर, 2015 में प्रकावशन, भारन सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अव सचर्ना का. आ. संख् यांक 2936(अ), नारी 28
अिचंर, 2015 के प्रकाशन पर उक् न अव सचर्ना से संलग् न अनुसचर्ी में िर्णचन भचवम और ऐसी भचवम (वजसे इसमें इसके पश् र्ान उक् न भचवम
क ा गया ), में या उस पर के सभी अव कार, उक् न अव वनयम की ारा 10 की उप ारा (1) के अ ीन, सभी विल् लंगमों से मुक् न ोकर,
आत् यंवनक रूप से केन् द्रीय सरकार में वनव न ो गए ;
और, केन् द्रीय सरकार का य समा ान ो गया , दक सेंट्रल कोलफील् ड्स वलवमटेड, वजला रांर्ी-834001,झार ंड (वजसे
इसमें इसके पश् र्ान सरकारी कंपनी क ा गया ), ऐसे वनंं नों और शनों का, जो केन् द्रीय सरकार इस वनवमत् न अव रोवपन करना उवर्न
समझे, अनुपालन करने के वलए रजामंि ;
अन:, अं, केन् द्रीय सरकार, उक् न अव वनयम की ारा 11 की उप- ारा (1) िारा प्रित् न शवक् नयों का प्रयोग करने हुए, य
वनिेश िेनी , दक इस प्रकार वनव न भचवम में या उस पर के सभी अव कार नारी 28 अिचंर, 2015 से केन् द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार
वनव न ंने र ने के ंजाए, वन नवलव न वनंं नों और शनों के अ ीन र ने हुए, सरकारी कंपनी में वनव न ो जाएंगे, अथाचन :-
(1)
सरकारी कंपनी, उक् न अव वनयम के उपंं ों के अ ीन यथा अि ाररन प्रवनकर, ब्ल याज, नुकसावनयों और ि सी ी मिों के
संं में दकए गए संिायों की केन् द्रीय सरकार को प्रवनपचर्नच करेगी ;
(2)
शनच (1) के अ ीन सरकारी क पनी िारा केन् द्रीय सरकार को संिेय रकमों का अि ारण करने के प्रयोजनों के वलए उक् न
अव वनयम की ारा 14 के अ ीन एक अव करण का गठन दकया जाएगा और ऐसे दकसी अव करण और अव करण की
स ायना के वलए वनयुक् न व् यवक् नयों के संं में उपगन सभी व् यय, सरकारी कंपनी िारा ि न दकए जाऐंगे और इसी
भांवन इस प्रकार वनव न उक् न भचवम में या उस पर के अव कारों के वलए या उनके संं में अपीलों आदि ज सी सभी
विव क कायचिाव यों के संं में उपगन, सभी व् यय भी, सरकारी कंपनी िारा ि न दकए जाएंगे ;
(3)
सरकारी कंपनी, केन् द्रीय सरकार या उसके पि ाररयों की, ऐसे दकसी अन् य व् यय के संं में क्षवनपचर्नच करेगी, जो इस
प्रकार वनव न उक् न भचवम में या उस पर के अव कारों के ंारे में, केन् द्रीय सरकार या उसके पि ाररयों िारा या उनके
विरू्ध दकन् ीं कायचिाव यों के संं में आिश् यक ो ;
(4)
सरकारी कंपनी को केन् द्रीय सरकार के पचिच अनुमोिन के वंना उक् न भचवमयों को दकन् ीं अन् य व् यवक् नयों को अंनररन करने
की शवक् न न ीं ोगी ; और
(5)
सरकारी कंपनी, ऐसे वनिेशों और शनों का पालन करेगी, जो केन् द्रीय सरकार िारा, जं कभी आिश् यक ो, उक् न भचवमयों
के विवशष् ट क्षेत्रों के वलए दिए जाएं या अव रोवपन दकए जाएं ।
[फा. सं. 43015/18/2017–एलए एण्ड आईआर ]
एन. के. हसं , उप सवर्ि
II
(ii)
3069
ORDER
New Delhi, the 25th May, 2017
S.O. 1299.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Coal, number S.O. 2936(E), dated the 28th October, 2015, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II,
Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 28th October, 2015, issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing
Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the land and all
rights in or over the said land described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the
said land) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10
of the said Act;
And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the Central Coalfields Limited, District Ranchi-834001,
Jharkhand (hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as
the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf ;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby directs, that the said land and all rights in or over the said land so vested shall with effect from the
28th October, 2015 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the Government Company,
subject to the following terms and conditions, namely :-
1.
The Government Company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of
compensation, interest, damages and the like, as determined under the provisions of the said Act;
2.
A Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of the said Act for the purpose of determining the
amounts payable to the Central Government by the Government Company under condition (1) and all
expenditure incurred in connection with any such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal
shall be borne by the Government Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal
proceedings like appeals, etc. for or in connection with the rights, in or over the said lands, so vested,
shall also be borne by the Government Company;
3.
The Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other
expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central
Government or its officials, regarding the rights in or over the said land so vested;
4.
The Government Company shall have no power to transfer the lands to any other persons without the
prior approval of the Central Government ; and
5.
The Government Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by
the Central Government for particular areas of the said lands, as and when necessary.
[F. No. 43015/18/2017-LA & IR]
N. K. SINGH, Dy. Secy.
—
II
ii
3070
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
New Delhi, the 19th May, 2017
S.O. 1300.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control
and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection)
Rules, 1964, the Central Goverenment hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of
India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry number S.O. 1413, dated the 13th July, 2015, published in the Gazette
of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated the 18th July, 2015, namely :—
In the said notification, in the opening paragraph, for the words “Minerals and Ores at Paradip”, the words
“Minerals and Ores at Paradip and Dhamra Ports” shall be substituted.
[F. No. 4/2/2015-Export Inspection]
SANTOSH KUMAR SARANGI, Jt. Secy.
—
II
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 8th May, 2017
S.O. 1301.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/2001) of the Labour Court, Kota as shown in Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of AIR and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
04.05.2017.
[No. L-42012/55/2001-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
vuqca/k
U;k;k/kkh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ¼dsUnzh;½ dksVk] ¼jkt-½
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& Jherh vfurk 'kekZ] vkj-,p-ts-,l- funZs'k
izdj.k Øekad % vkS-U;k- ¼dUsnzh;½&27@2001
fnukad LFkkfir % 12@11@2001
izlax % Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k Ø-a ,y&42012@55@2001 ¼vkbZvkj¼lh,e&II½ fnukda 9@10@2001
funsZ'k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947
e/;
eueksgu iapksyh iq= pUnz izdk'k }kjk tujy lsØsVªh] fgUn
etnwj lHkk] caxkyh dksyksuh] Nkouh] dksVkA &&izkFkhZ Jfed
II
(ii)
3071
,oa
dUsnz vfHk;Urk] vkWy bf.M;k jsfM;ks Hkkjrh; izlkj.k fuxe]
>kykokM+¼jkt-½A &&vizkFkhZ fu;kstd
mifLFkr
izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k
%
Jh ,u-d-s frokjh
vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k %
Jh vkj-lh-xks;y
vf/kfu.kZ; fnukad% 19@5@2016
%%vf/kfu.kZ;%%
Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds izklkafxd vkns'k fnukda 9@10@2001 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 ¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ ds vUrxZr bl
U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ lEizsf”kr fd;k x;k gS%&
"Whether the termination of service of Shri Manmohan Pancholi S/o Sri Chandra Prakash by the
management of All India Radio, Jhalawar from 1/4/2000 is legal and justified? If not, to whar relief he
is entitled to?"
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 us viuk Dyse LVsVesUV U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr dj O;Dr fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ dsUnz vfHk;Urk] izlkj Hkkjrh]
Hkkjrh; izlkj.k fuxe] vkdk'kok.kh] >kykokM+ }kjk i= fn- 16@3@90 ds }kjk gsYij ds dk;Z gsrq fn- 10@4@90 dks vkdk'kok.kh]
>kykokM+ ij lk{kkRdkj VsLV gsrq cqyok;k x;k FkkA fn- 1@2@92 ls vizkFkhZ fu;kstd us izkFkhZ dks iEi vkWijsVj j[kj[kko o fo|qr
j[kj[kko vkfn dk;Z ds fy, lsok esa fu;ksftr fd;k Fkk rFkk le;≤ ij izkFkhZ dh losk vof/k ds lEcU/k eas fu;kstd funZs'k nsrk
jgkA izkFkhZ dh mifLFkfr jftLVj esa ntZ gksrh Fkh rFkk izkFkhZ dk dk;Z le; izkr% 10 cts ls lka;dky 5 cts rd fu;r FkkA izkFkhZ dks
osru ekfld nj ls fn;k tkrk Fkk] ijUrq fu;kstd izkFkhZ dks vkS-fo-vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ls oafpr j[kus ds fy, vuqcU/k o Bsdk crk;s
tkus dh dk;Zokgh djrk FkkA izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds ;gka fn- 1@2@92 ls 31@3@2000 rd fujUrj dk;Z djrs gq, mDr vof/k
esa 240 fnu ls dkQh vf/kd le; rd dk;Z dj fy;k Fkk] ijUrq vizkFkhZ us vkS-fo-vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q] th ,oa ,p rFkk vU;
vkKkid izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku dj izkFkhZ ls fn- 1@4@2000 ls dk;Z ysuk cUn dj fn;k o izkFkhZ dh NaVuh dj nhA izkFkhZ fu;kstd ds
;gka jkstkuk M;wVh gsrq pDdj yxkrk jgk] ijUrq fu;kstd us izkFkhZ dh mifLFkfr ntZ ugha dh o izkFkhZ dks M;wVh ij Hkh ugha fy;kA
izkFkhZ us fn- 12@5@2000 dks fu;kstd dks jft-,-Mh- i= }kjk izkFkZuk&i= izsf"kr dj i= izkfIr ds 3 fnu esa M;wVh ij ysus dh ekax
dh] vU;Fkk dkuwuh dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus ckcr lwfpr fd;kA mDr i= fu;kstd dks fn- 16@5@2000 dks izkIr gks x;k] ijUrq fu;kstd
us mDr i= dk dksbZ mRrj ugha fn;k] uk gh izkFkhZ dks M;wVh ij fy;kA fu;kstd us izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls fudkys tkus ds ckn iIiw esMk
d';i iq= I;kjyky d';i dks losk eas fu;ksftr dj fy;k gS] ijUrq izkFkhZ dks fu;kstu gsrq dksbZ volj iznku ugha fd;kA izkFkhZ dks
ukSdjh ls gVk;s tkus ds le; izkFkhZ ls dfu"B eFkqjk izlkn o uUnyky fu;kstd ds fu;kstu ekStwn Fks o vkt Hkh gSA ifj.kker% izkFkhZ
us fu;kstd ds ;gka Lo;a dks fiNys lEiw.kZ osru o ykHkksa lfgr lsok esa cgky fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk U;k;kf/kdj.k ls dh gSA
4- mijksDr Dyse LVsVesUV dk tokc izLrqr dj vizkFkhZ dh v¨j ls O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd vkdk'kok.kh] >kykokM+ esa gsYij ds ,d in
ij HkrhZ fd;s tkus gsrq Hkkjr ljdkj dh fu/kkZfjr izfØ;k ds vUrxZr ftyk jkstxkj dk;kZy;] >kykokM+ ls ;ksX; vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph
izkIr gqbZ Fkh ftlesa izkFkhZ dk uke Hkh FkkA lHkh 19 vH;fFkZ;kas dks cyqkok i= Hkstdj mUgas VsLV ,oa lk{kkRdkj eas lfEefyr gksus ds fy,
fn- 10@4@90 dks vkdk'kok.kh] >kykokM+ ds dk;kZy; esa cqyok;k x;k FkkA 19 vH;fFkZ;ksa esa ls izkFkhZ lfgr dqy 15 vH;FkhZ mDr
fnukad dks VsLV ,oa lk{kkRdkj ds fy, mifLFkr gq, FksA fu;ekuqlkj ;ksX; vH;fFkZ;ksa ds p;u gsrq v/;{k lfgr ikap lnL;ksa dh ,d
p;u lfefr xfBr dh x;h FkhA mDr p;u lfefr }kjk VsLV ,oa lk{kkRdkj ds ckn ek= 2 vH;fFkZ;kas dh p;fur lwph cuk;h x;h Fkh
mlesa izkFkhZ dk uke ugha FkkA vFkkZr p;u lfefr }kjk izkFkhZ ds uke dk p;u ugha fd;k x;k FkkA VsLV ,oa lk{kkRdkj ds fy,
vH;fFkZ;kas dks cqyokuk ,oa vH;fFkZ;kas dk mleas lfEefyr gksuk ek=] mUgas lsok eas ysus j[kus dh xkj.Vh ugha gksrhA izkFkhZ dks
vkdk'kok.kh] >kykokM+ esa dHkh fdlh in ij fu;ksftr ugha fd;k x;k Fkk] uk gh mls dHkh vuqcU/k vFkok Bsds ij j[kk x;k blfy,
mls lsok ls vyx djus vFkok fudkyus dk dksbZ iz'u gh mRiUu ugha gksrk] uk gh uksfVl vFkok uksfVl osru o NaVuh dk eqvkotk
fn;s tkus dk iz'u mRiUu gksrk gSA eFkqjk izlkn uke ls feyrk&tqyrk ,d O;fDr eFkqjkyky yooa'kh dks NksM+dj 'ks"k dksbZ Hkh O;fDr
vizkFkhZ foHkkx esa fu;ksftr ugha jgk gS] uk gh vkt dh rkjh[k esa fu;ksftr gSA eFkqjkyky yooa'kh gkM+kSrh Hkk"kk esa izlkfjr gksus okys
3072
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
[ksrh] x`gLFkh tSls dk;ZØeksa esa ,d lek;kstd ds :i esa Hkkx ysrk gS ftlds fy, dkuwuh rjhds ls izR;sd dk;ZØe dk vuqcU/k rS;kj
fd;k tkrk gS o mUgsa ,d fnu ds dk;ZØe ds fy, 250@&:- 'kqYd fn;k tkrk gSA izkFkhZ dks tc fu;ksftr gh ugha fd;k x;k rks
mifLFkfr jftLVj esa mldh mifLFkfr ntZ gksus] vkus&tkus dk le; fu/kkZfjr djus o ekfld nj ls osru vkfn fn;s tkus dk iz'u gh
mRiUu ugha gksrkA vizkFkhZ dk;kZy; esa fn- 16@5@2000 dks ,d iathd`r i= izkIr gqvk Fkk ftldk tokc vizkFkhZ dk;kZy; ds i= fn-
20@5@2000 ls iathd`r Mkd eq[; Mkd?kj] >kykokM+ ds tfj;s izkFkhZ dks fn;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ }kjk vlR;] fujk/kkj ,oa eux<+Ur
rF; vafdr dj viuk Dyse LVsVesUV izLrqr djuk O;Dr fd;k x;k gSA ifj.kker% vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;k x;k
Dyse LVsVesUV [kkfjt fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk U;k;ky; ls dh x;h gSA
5- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls mDr tokc dk tokcyqtokc esa nLrkost ds izLrqr dj O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd fu;kstd us izkFkhZ dks dksbZ
fu;qfDr&i= ugha fn;kA nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfedksa dks fu;kstd ds ;gka fu;qfDr&i= ugha fn;s tkrs gSa] fdlh izdkj dh ost&fLyi Hkh
ugha nsrs gSa] mifLFkfr dkMZ ,oa tksc&dkMZ Hkh iznku ugha fd;s tkrs gSa o uk gh gVkus dk dksbZ i= fn;k tkrk gSA lHkh nLrkosth
lk{; fu;kstd ds dCts eas gSA mDr tokcyqtokc ds ek/;e ls vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk izLrqr tokc Dyse LVsVesUV fujLr fd;s tkus o
izkFkhZ dks fiNys lEiw.kZ osru esa leLr ykHkkas ds lsok ij cgky fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;h gSA
6- mijksDr tokcqytokc dk tokc vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr dj O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk tokcqytokc ds lkFk izLrqr fd;s
x;s nLrkost eas ls dksbZ Hkh nLrkost vkdk'kok.kh] >kykokM+ ds ugha gSaA mDr nLrkostkr eS- fo".kq bysfDVªdYl ds vfHkys[k gSa] vr%
;fn izkFkhZ }kjk dgha dk;Z fd;k x;k gS rks og eS- fo".kq bysfDVªdy uke dh laLFkk gS rFkk izkFkhZ mDr laLFkk ds le{k viuk i{k j[k
ldrk gSA vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ dks fdlh Hkh in ij fdlh Hkh le; fu;ksftr fd;s tkus ls bUdkj fd;k x;k gS] vr% izkFkhZ }kjk 240
fnu ls vf/kd le; rd dk;Z fd;s tkus dk iz'u gh mRiUu ugha gksrkA ifj.kker% vizkFkhZ }kjk iqu% izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;k x;k
Dyse LVsVesUV [kkfjt fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;h gSA
7- lk{; esa Lo;a izkFkhZ Jfed eueksgu iapksyh rFkk vizkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls vkj-,l-R;kxh ds 'kiFk&i= izLrqr fd;s x;s gS]a ftuls nksukas
i{kkas ds izfrfuf/kx.k }kjk ,d&nwljs i{k ds 'kiFk&i=ksa ij ftjg dh x;h gSA izys[kh; lk{; esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izn'kZ MCY;w-1 yxk;r
MCY;w-67 rFkk MCY;w-69 yxk- MCY;w-74 nLrkostkr o vizkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls izn'kZ ,e-1 yxk;r ,e-71 izys[k izLrqr dj iznf'kZr
djok;s x;s gSa
8- mHk;i{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/kx.k dh cgl lquh x;h] mudh vksj ls fyf[kr cgl Hkh izLrqr dh x;h] ftldk rFkk vfHkys[k ij
miyC/k lk{; o lkexzh dk /;kuiwoZd ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA
9- fo}ku izfrfuf/k izkFkhZ dh vksj ls U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k rdZ j[kk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa fn- 1@2@92 ls
iEi&vkWijsVj j[k&j[kko o fo|rq j[k&j[kko vkfn dk;Z ds fy, lsok esa fu;ksftr gksdj fn- 31@1@2000 rd fujUrj 240 fnu ls
vf/kd le; rd dk dk;Z iw.kZ dj fy;k Fkk] ijUrq vizkFkhZ }kjk vkS-fo-vf/kfu;e ds vkKkid izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk fd;s cxSj fnukad
1@4@2000 ls lsok ls fu"dkflr dj voS/k :i ls izkFkhZ dh NaVuh dj nh] vr% izkFkhZ fiNys lEiw.kZ osru o vU; ykHkkas lfgr lsok esa
cgky gksus dk vf/kdkjh gSA
10- blds foijhr nwljh vksj vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls fo}ku izfrfuf/k }kjk rdZ j[kk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ }kjk fdlh Hkh in ij
fdlh Hkh le; fu;ksftr ugha fd;k x;k gS] uk gh izkFkhZ }kjk vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd le; rd dk;Z fd;k x;k gSA
vr% ekeys esa vkS-fo-vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ykxw ugha gksus ls izkFkhZ dksbZ laj{k.k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS] uk gh dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr
djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA ifj.kker% izkFkhZ dk Dyse fujLr gksus ;ksX; gksuk O;Dr fd;k gSA
11- bl izdkj ekeys esa izkFkhZ dk i{k jgk gS fd izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu eas fn- 1@2@92 ls iEi vkWijsVj ds in ij fu;ksftr
gksdj fn- 31@3@2000 rd fujUrj dk;Z djrs gq, 240 fnu ls vf/kd le; dk dk;Z dj fy;k Fkk] ijUrq vizkFkhZ }kjk mls voS/k :i
ls fn- 1@4@2000 ls lsok ls fu"dkflr dj izkFkhZ dh NaVuh dj nhA tc Hkh dksbZ deZdkj fu;kstd ds fu;kstu esa fujarj 240 fnu
rd dk;Z fd;k tkuk O;Dr djrk gS rks bl rF; dks fl) djus dk Hkkj Lo;a deZdkj ij jgrk gS fd mlus lsok lekfIr frfFk ls
Bhd iwoZ ds 12 dys.Mj ekg dh vof/k esa fujUrj 240 fnu rd fu;kstd ds fu;kstu esa dk;Z fd;k gS] tSlk fd ekuuh; mPpre
U;k;ky; }kjk vius fuEu U;k;fu.kZ;u esa vfHker izdV fd;k x;k gS%&
(1) "Surendranagar Distt. Panchayat & Anr. v. Gangaben Laljibhai & Ors.-2006(2)ACJ 408(SC)"
12- U;k;n`"Vkar **vkj-,e-;sYVªVh cuke lgk;d vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk&2006¼108½ ,Q,yvkj 213¼,llh½** ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre
U;k;ky; }kjk ;g Hkh izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd deZdkj ij 240 fnu yxkrkj dke djus ds rF; dks lkfcr djus dk tks Hkkj gS]
mlesa deZdkj }kjk dsoy ek= vius 'kiFk&i= esa ;g fy[k nsuk fd mlus 240 fnu rd yxkrkj dke fd;k] i;kZIr ugha gksxk] vfirq
mls fdlh Bksl ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ls bl rF; dks lkfcr djuk gksxk ftlls fd ;g rF; lEiq”V gks ldsA bl lEcU/k esa
U;k;fu.kZ; ds isjk la[;k 17 fuEukuqlkj gS%&
II
(ii)
3073
“Analyzing the above decisions of this Court, it is clear that the provisions of the Evidence Act in
terms do not apply to the proceedings under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. However,
applying general principles and on reading the aforestated judgments we find that this Court has
repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for
240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness
box. This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence. both oral and
documentary. In cases of terminating of services of daily wages earner, there will be no letter of
appointment or termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus in most cases, the
workman (claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the Court the nominal muster
roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the
attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter of facts of
each case. The above however make it clear that mere affidavits or self-serving statements made by
the claimant/ workman will not suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden placed for 240 days in
a given year. The above judgments further lay down that mere non-production of muster rolls per se
without any plea of suppression by the claimant workman will not be the ground for the Tribunal to
draw an adverse inference against the management. Lastly, the above judgments lay down the basic
principle, namely, that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution will not interfere with the
concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court unless they are perverse. This exercise will
depend upon facts of each case.”
13- gLrxr ekeys esa izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa lsok lekfIr dh frfFk 1@4@2000 ls Bhd iwoZ ds 12 dys.Mj ekg dh vof/k esa
fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;s tkus ds rF; dks lkfcr fd;s tkus gsrq lk{; esa Lo;a dk 'kiFk&i= U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr dj
O;Dr fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa fn- 1@2@92 ls iEi vkWijsVj ds in ij fo|qr j[k&j[kko vkfn dk;Z ds fy, lsok
esa fu;ksftr gksdj fn- 31@3@2000 rd fujUrj dk;Z djrs gq, 240 fnu ls dkQh vf/kd le; rd dk;Z dj fy;k gS] ijUrq vizkFkhZ
fu;kstd }kjk izkFkhZ ls fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ds fn- 1@4@2000 ls dk;Z ysuk cUn dj fn;k o izkFkhZ dh mifLFkfr Hkh ntZ ugha dh
rFkk izkFkhZ dks M;wVh ij ugha fy;kA izkFkhZ us fn- 12@5@2000 dks vizkFkhZ dks jft-,Mh Mkd }kjk izkFkZuk&i= izsf"kr dj i= izkfIr ds
3 fnol esa M;wVh ij ysus vU;Fkk vof/k lekIr gksus ij dkuwuh dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus ckcr lwfpr fd;k ftldk vizkFkhZ }kjk dksbZ mRrj
ugha fn;k x;k] uk gh izkFkhZ dks M;wVh ij fy;kA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr dh x;h nLrkosth lk{; ls izdV gksrk gS fd izn'kZ MCY;w-1
vkdk'kok.kh] >kykokM+ }kjk izkFkhZ dks lk{kkRdkj o VsLV gsrq cqyk;s tkus ds i= fn- 16@3@90 dh tsjksDl izfr gSA izn'kZ MCY;w-1 ds
voyksdu ls izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks mDr i= ds }kjk vkdk'kok.kh] >kykokM+ esa lk{kkRdkj o VsLV gsrq fn- 10@4@90 dks izkr% 10
cts mifLFkr gksus ckcr lwfpr fd;k x;k] ijUrq izkFkhZ us viuh ftjg esa Lohdkj fd;k gS fd bls dksbZ fu;qfDr&i= ugha fn;k x;kA
;g lk{kh viuh ftjg esa bl rF; dks Lohdkj djrk gS fd blds ikl ,slk dksbZ izek.k&i= ugha gS fd bl lk{kh us vizkFkhZ ds ;gka
dke fd;k gks A bl izdkj mDr nLrkost ds ek/;e ls dsoy ek= izkFkhZ dks gsYij ds in gsrq VsLV o lk{kkRdkj ds fy, cqyk;k x;k
gSA mDr nLrkost ls fdlh Hkh fu;fer in ij fu;qfDr gsrq cqyk;k tkuk izdV ugha gksrk] uk gh mDr nLrkost ls izkFkhZ }kjk vizkFkhZ
ds fu;kstu eas dksbZ Hkh dk;Z fd;k tkuk izekf.kr gksrk gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;kas eas mDr nLrkost izkFkhZ dks dksbZ ykHk ugha igWqpkrk gSA izkFkhZ
us Lo;a dks vizkFkhZ ds ;gka iEi vkWijsVj ds :i esa fo|qr j[k&j[kko dk;Z ds fy, lsok esa fu;ksftr fd;k tkuk O;Dr fd;k gS o Lo;a
dh mifLFkfr vyx mifLFkfr jftLVj ftleas dsoy izkFkhZ dk gh uke fy[kk gqvk Fkk] eas ntZ fd;k tkuk O;Dr fd;k gS o mifLFkfr
ntZ djus ds ckn vizkFkhZ ds izR;sd vf/kdkjh }kjk vius y?kq gLrk{kj fd;k tkuk dgrk gSA ;g lk{kh ekpZ] 98 ls vxLr] 99 rd ds
mifLFkfr jftLVj dh tsjksDl izfr;ka izn'kZ MCY;w-2 yxk;r MCY;w-11 gksuk dgrk gSA blds vfrfjDr iEi ij dk;Z djus gsrq Hkh
vizkFkhZ ds ;gka jftLVj j[kk gksuk dgrk gS ftlesa Lo;a ds gLrk{kj djuk dgrk gS rFkk jftLVj ij vizkFkhZ ds vf/kdkjh vFkok
deZpkjh ds Hkh gLrk{kj gksuk O;Dr djrk gSA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls mDr jftLVj dh tsjksDl izfr izn'kZ MCY;w-12 yxk;r MCY;w-67 ds :i
esa izLrqr dj iznf'kZr djok;h x;h gSaA bl lk{kh us ftjg esa izn'kZ MCY;w-11 yxk;r MCY;w-20 ij vius gLrk{kj gksus ls bUdkj fd;k
gS o mDr nLrkostkr ij vizkFkhZ ds dk;kZy; dh eksgj Hkh yxh gksus ls bUdkj fd;k gS o mDr nLrkost ij M;wVh ij mifLFkr
vf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj gksuk Hkh O;Dr fd;k gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ us mDr rFkkdfFkr Lo;a dh mifLFkfr ds lEcU/k esa izLrqr fd;s x;s
jftLVlZ dh izfr;ka izn'kZ MCY;w-11 yxk;r MCY;w-20 ij Lo;a ds gLrk{kj gksus ls bUdkj fd;k gS rFkk vizkFkhZ foHkkx ds fdl vf/kdkjh
ds gLrk{kj gS]a ;g Hkh Li"V ugha fd;k gSA blds vfrfjDr mDr nLrkostkr ij foHkkx dh dksbZ lhy vkfn Hkh vafdr ugha gksuk O;Dr
fd;k gSA vizkFkhZ lk{kh vkj-,l-R;kxh us ;g Hkh O;Dr fd;k gS fd izn'kZ MCY;w-2 yxk;r MCY;w-11 muds foHkkx ds nLrkost ugha gSaA
bl lEcU/k esa izn'kZ MCY;w-2 yxk;r MCY;w-10 ds voyksdu ls Hkh izdV gksrk gS fd mDr nLrkostkr ij foHkkx dk dksbZ uke] lhy
vFkok fdlh vf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj Li"V vafdr ugha gSaA vr% mDr nLrkostkr vizkFkhZ foHkkx ls tkjh gksus vFkok foHkkx eas izkFkhZ }kjk
dke fd;s tkus dk rF; lkfcr djus eas izkFkhZ dks dksbZ ykHk ugha igWqpkrs gSaA
14& ;gka ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd ;|fi izkFkhZ }kjk izn'kZ MCY;w-12 yxk;r MCY;w-68 nLrkostkr dh izfr;ka foHkkx eas Lo;a dh mifLFkfr
ds lEcU/k eas izLrqr fd;s x;s jftLVlZ dh QksVksizfr;ka gksuk vius 'kiFk&i= eas vafdr fd;k x;k gS] ijUrq bl lEcU/k eas mDr
3074
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
nLrkostkr dh QksVksizfr;ka dqy izn’kZ MCY;w-12 yxk;r MCY;w-67 gh gksuk izdV gksrk gS o izn’kZ MCY;w-68 ds :i eas dksbZ nLrkost
i=koyh ij miyC/k ugha gSA izn'kZ MCY;w-12 yxk;r MCY;w-66 nLrkostkr ij iwoZ esa okLro esa dksbZ izn'kZ ugha Mkys x;s gSa] vr%
U;k;fgr esa vkt fn- 19@5@2016 dks mDr nLrkostkr ij mDr izn’kZ Mkys x;s A mDr nLrkostkr izn’kZ MCY;w-21 yxk;r MCY;w-67
ds voyksdu ls Hkh izdV gksrk gS fd mDr nLrkostkr ij Hkh foHkkx dk dksbZ uke] lhy o fdlh vf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj ekStwn ugha gS]
bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mDr leLr nLrkostkr Hkh vizkFkhZ foHkkx }kjk la/kkfjr fd;k tkuk vFkok mDr nLrkostkr vizkFkhZ foHkkx ls
lEcfU/kr gksuk izekf.kr ugha gSA izn'kZ MCY;w-12 yxk;r MCY;w-67 nLrkostkr ds lEcU/k esa vizkFkhZ lk{kh vkj-,l-R;kxh mDr iEi
jftLVj tSlk dksbZ nLrkost foHkkx eas j[ks tkus ls bUdkj djrk gSA vr% mDr nLrkostkr Hkh izkFkhZ Jfed dks vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu eas
fdlh fu;fer in ij fu;ksftr gksus vFkok vizkFkhZ ds ;gka fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;s tkus ds rF; dks izekf.kr djus gsrq izkFkhZ
Jfed dks dksbZ ykHk ugha igqWpkrs gSaA viuh ftjg esa Hkh izkFkhZ us Lohdkj fd;k gS fd blds ikl dksbZ izek.k ugha gS fd blus vizkFkhZ
ds ;gka dke fd;k gS D;ksafd vizkFkhZ us bls dksbZ izek.k ugha fn;k gSA izkFkhZ us vius 'kiFk&i= esa O;Dr fd;k gS fd fn- 1@4@2000
ls vizkFkhZ us izkFkhZ dh mifLFkfr ysuk cUn dj fn;k rks izkFkhZ us fn- 12@5@2000 dks vizkFkhZ dks jft-,Mh Mkd }kjk izkFkZuk&i= izsf"kr
dj i= izkfIr ds 3 fnol esa M;wVh ij ysus vU;Fkk vof/k lekIr gksus ij dkuwuh dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus ckcr lwfpr fd;k rFkk bl
lEcU/k esa izsf"kr fd;k x;k i= izn'kZ MCY;w-69 gksuk O;Dr fd;kA izkFkhZ dk mDr i= vizkFkhZ dks fn- 16@5@2000 dks izkIr gksuk O;Dr
fd;k x;k gS o mldk dksbZ mRrj fn;s tkus ls bUdkj fd;k x;k gS] ijUrq izkFkhZ }kjk izsf"kr i= izn'kZ MCY;w-69 Hkh izkFkhZ }kjk vizkFkhZ
ds fu;kstu esa lsok lekfIr dh frfFk ls Bhd iwoZ ds 12 dys.Mj ekg dh vof/k esa fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;s tkus rF; dks o fdlh
fu;fer in ij fu;qDr gksus ds rF; dks izekf.kr djus esa dksbZ enn ugha djrk gSA izkFkhZ Lo;a ds }kjk lgk;d Je vk;qDr¼dsUnzh;½]
dksVk dks izLrqr dh x;h f'kdk;r dh izfr izn'kZ MCY;w-70 gS] izn'kZ MCY;w-71 vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr tokc dh izfr gS] izn'kZ MCY;w-72 izkFkhZ
}kjk izLrqr tokcyqtokc dh izfr gS] ijUrq mDr nLrkostkr Hkh izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa lsok lekfIr dh frfFk ls Bhd
iwoZ ds 12 dys.Mj ekg dh vof/k esa fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;s tkus ds rF; o izkFkhZ dh fdlh fu;fer in ij fu;qfDr gksus ds
rF; dks izekf.kr djus esa izkFkhZ Jfed dh dksbZ enn ugha djrs gSaA
15& izn'kZ MCY;w-73 izkFkhZ }kjk vizkFkhZ ds ;gka fd;s x;s dk;Z ds lEcU/k esa vizkFkhZ }kjk Lo;a dks fn;s x;s izek.k&i= dh izfr ds :i
esa iznf'kZr djok;k x;k gS ftlesa izkFkhZ }kjk vizkFkhZ foHkkx eas ejEer fo|rq lLaFkkiu ds j[k&j[kko o ejEer rFkk dksyksuh bR;kfn esa
ikuh dh eksVj ds izpkyu dk dk;Z fn- 15@10@95 ls 25@10@97 rd fd;s tkus dk mYys[k gS] ijUrq mDr nLrkost ls Hkh izkFkhZ
dk vizkFkhZ foHkkx esa fdlh fu;fer in ij fu;ksftr gksus dk rF; izekf.kr ugha gS] uk gh mDr izek.k&i= esa of.kZr vof/k ls vizkFkhZ
ds ;gka izkFkhZ }kjk lsok lekfIr dh frfFk ls Bhd iwoZ ds 12 dys.Mj ekg dh vof/k eas fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;s tkus dk rF;
izekf.kr djus esa dksbZ enn feyrh gSA
16& nLrkost izn'kZ MCY;w-74 lgk;d Je vk;qDr¼dsUnzh;½] dksVk }kjk izdj.k esa Je ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh dks izsf"kr fd;s
x;s vlQy okrkZ izfrosnu dh QksVksizfr gS] ijUrq mDr nLrkost izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa lsok lekfIr dh frfFk ls
Bhd iwoZ ds 12 dys.Mj ekg dh vof/k esa fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;s tkus ds rF; dks vFkok foHkkx esa fdlh fu;fer in ij
fu;ksftr gksus ds rF; dks lkfcr djus eas dksbZ ykHk ugha igaWqpkrk gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ i=koyh ij miyC/k Lo;a dh ekSf[kd ,oa
nLrkosth lk{; ds vk/kkj ij ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds mDr mn`r U;k;n`"Vkar ^^2006¼2½,lhts 408¼,llh½ &lqjsUnzuxj fMLVªDV
iapk;r ,oa vU; cuke xaxkcsu ykyth HkkbZ ,oa vU; rFkk 2006¼108½ ,Q,yvkj 213¼,llh½&vkj-,e-;sYVªVh cuke lgk;d vf/k'kklh
vfHk;Urk^^ esa izfrikfnr fl)kar dh jks'kuh esa vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds fu;kstu esa lsok lekfIr dh frfFk 1@4@2000 ls Bhd iwoZ ds 12
dys.Mj ekg dh vof/k esa fujUrj 240 fnu dk dk;Z fd;s tkus ds rF; dks vFkok fdlh fu;fer in ij fu;qDr fd;s tkus ds rF;
dks lkfcr fd;s tkus esa iw.kZr;k vlQy jgk gSA
17& bl lk{kh us viuh ftjg esa izn'kZ ,e-1 ds fjekØ dkWye esa fdlh vf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj gksus ls bUdkj fd;k gS] ijUrq chp esa
fdlh vf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA bl lk{kh us viuh ftjg esa bl lEcU/k esa Hkh vufHkKrk izdV dh gS fd gkftjh
jftLVj esa blds vykok vU; O;fDr;ksa ds uke D;ksa ugha gSaA bl lk{kh us viuh ftjg esa Lo;a dks gsYij ds in ds fy, tkuk O;Dr
fd;k gS] ijUrq uy] ykbZV dh esUVhusUl dk dke LVkQ ds gsYij }kjk fd;k tkuk O;Dr fd;k gSA ;g lk{kh Lo;a ls fjdkfMZax dh
e'khuksa dh lkQ&lQkbZ dk dke djok;k tkuk dgrk gS o Lo;a dks dke ds cnys Hkqxrku izkIr gksuk O;Dr djrk gS] ijUrq Lo;a dks
feys osru ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ ckmpj U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ij izLrqr djus ls bUdkj djrk gSA bl lk{kh us izn'kZ ,e-1 esa VªkalehVj
dh fjis;fjax dk uke fy[kk gksus ls bUdkj fd;k gSA ;g lk{kh viuh ftjg esa fo}ku izfrfuf/k vizkFkhZ ds bl lq>ko dks xyr gksuk
O;Dr djrk gS fd ;g lk{kh dkWVªsDVj ds }kjk dke djrk FkkA bl lk{kh us izn'kZ ,e-2 ij Hkh , ls ch Lo;a ds gLrk{kj gksus ls
bUdkj fd;k gSA
18& bl lEcU/k esa vizkFkhZ dk i{k jgk gS fd izkFkhZ dks dsoy ek= vkdk'kok.kh] >kykokM+ eas gsYij ds ,d in ij HkrhZ fd;s tkus gsrq
fu/kkZfjr izfØ;k ds vUrxZr jkstxkj dk;kZy;] >kykokM+ ls ;ksX; vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph ekaxh x;h Fkh] ogka ls izkFkhZ lfgr 19 vH;fFkZ;ksa
dh lwph izkIr gqbZ FkhA lk{kkRdkj dh fu/kkZfjr frfFk 10@4@90 dks 15 vH;FkhZ VsLV ,oa lk{kkRdkj ds fy, dk;kZy; eas mifLFkr gq,
FksA bl p;u ds fy, ikap lnL;h; p;u lfefr xfBr dh x;h FkhA lk{kkRdkj ds mijkUr ek= 2 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh p;u lwph cuk;h
x;h Fkh ftuesa izkFkhZ dk uke 'kkfey ugha FkkA p;u lwph esa ls esfjV ds vk/kkj ij esfjV okys vH;fFkZ;ksa dks mlh le; fu;qfDr ns nh
x;h Fkh tks vHkh rd izlkj Hkkjrh izlkj.k dh lsok esa pys vk jgs gSaA vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{kh vkj-,l-R;kxh us blh vk'k; dk
II
(ii)
3075
'kiFk&i= viuh lk{; esa izLrqr fd;k gS rFkk 'kiFk&i= esa ;g Hkh vafdr fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks dHkh dksbZ fu;qfDr ugha nh x;hA izkFkhZ
dks uk rks Bsds ij] uk gh eLVªksy ij fu;qfDr nh x;h o uk gh fdlh izdkj dh vLFkk;h] vfu;fer o rnFkZ fu;qfDr iznku dh x;hA
bl lk{kh us dsUnzh; ljdkj ds miØe vkdk'kok.kh] >kykokM+ ds dk;kZy; dh O;oLFkk lEcU/kh dqN dk;Z tSls ykbZV ,oa ia[kksa dh
ejEer rFkk iEi izpkyu vkfn] isVh dkWUVªsDV ds ek/;e ls djok;k tkuk O;Dr fd;k gSA bu dk;ksZa dk isVh dkWUVªsDV o"kZ 97&98]
98&99 rFkk 99&2000 esa vizkFkhZ dk;kZy; }kjk >kykokM+ dh gh QeZ eS- fo".kq bysfDVªdYl] >kykokM+ dks fn;k x;k FkkA vizkFkhZ }kjk
fn;s x;s dk;kZns'k ds vuqlkj mlus vizkFkhZ ds dk;kZy; eas dk;Z lEikfnr fd;k o dk;kZns'k ds vuqlkj Hkqxrku tfj;s QeZ ds fcy ,oa
ckmplZ dh jkf'k izkIr dh gS] ,sls fcyksa ij rFkk /ku jkf'k izkfIr ij izkFkhZ ds gLrk{kj ekStwn gSaA eS- fo".kq bysfDVªdYl dks tks dk;kZns'k
fn;s x;s os fu;ekuqlkj dksVs'ku vkfn izkIr dj U;wure fufonknkrk o dk;Z dh ijQksZesUl ds vk/kkj ij gh fn;s x;s gSa rFkk ;fn
foHkkx ds fdlh vf/kdkjh }kjk dksbZ izek.k&i= fn;k x;k gS rks og eS- fo".kq bysfDVªdYl dks fn;s x;s dk;kZns'k ds fo:) lEikfnr
fd;s x;s dk;Z ds ckcr gh fn;k x;k gSA
19& vizkFkhZ dk ;g Hkh i{k jgk gS fd izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ ds dk;kZy; }kjk dHkh Hkh vuqcU/k] Bsds vFkok nSfud etnwjh ij fu;ksftr ugha
fd;k x;k FkkA vizkFkhZ ds ;gka izkFkhZ }kjk nSfud etnwjh ij dk;Z fd;s tkus rFkk mls osru dk Hkqxrku udn esa fd;s tkus dk dksbZ
jsdkMZ ugha gSA bl lEcU/k esa i=koyh ds voyksdu ls izdV gksrk gS fd izn'kZ ,e-1 ds lEcU/k esa mDr vizkFkhZ lk{kh viuh ftjg esa
O;Dr djrk gS fd izn'kZ ,e-1 D;k nLrkost gS] ;g ugha crk ldrk o izn'kZ ,e-1 ij y?kq gLrk{kj fdlds gSa] bl rF; dh tkudkjh
Hkh bl lk{kh dks ugha gSA izn’kZ ,e-2 o izn’kZ ,e-2&, nLrkostkr Hkh ;g lk{kh Lo;a ds foHkkx }kjk rS;kj fd;s tkus ls bUdkj djrk
gSA bl lEcU/k esa mDr nLrkostkr ds voyksdu ls Hkh izkFkhZ }kjk vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu eas fdlh fu;fer in ij dk;Z fd;s tkus dk
rF; izekf.kr ugha gksrk] uk gh lsok lekfIr dh frfFk ls Bhd iwoZ ds 12 dys.Mj ekg dh vof/k esa fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;s tkus
dk rF; izekf.kr gksrk gS] bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa eas mDr nLrkostkr Hkh izkFkhZ Jfed dks dksbZ ykHk ugha igWqpkrs gSaA jftLVMZ i= izn’kZ ,e-4
ds tfj;s Hkkjr ljdkj] vkdk'kok.kh] t;iqj }kjk fu;kstu dk;kZy;] >kykokM+ ls mDr dk;kZy; dks gsYij in gsrq izkIr gq, vH;fFkZ;ksa
dks VsLV o lk{kkRdkj ds fy, fn- 10@4@90 dks mifLFkr gksus ds funsZ'k fn;s x;s gSaA mDr jft-i= ds lkFk layXu vH;fFkZ;ksa dh
lwph izn'kZ ,e-4&, eas izkFkhZ dk uke Øe la-14 ij vafdr gSA ;g lk{kh viuh ftjg eas izn’kZ,e-18 eas tks uke vafdr gS] mueas ls
eS- fo".kq bysfDVªdYl dks Bsdk fn;k tkuk O;Dr djrk gS tks Bsdk izn'kZ ,e-19 ds rgr fn;k tkuk O;Dr djrk gSA izn'kZ ,e-19 ds
vuqlkj vkdk'kok.kh o vkdk'kok.kh dksyksuh dh ykbZV o ikuh dh O;oLFkk] jkstkuk ikuh dh eksVj dk izpkyu] ns[kHkky o j[k&j[kko
ds fy, izfrekg 2600@&:- fn;s tkus dk dksVs'ku i= gS ftl ij fdlh ekaxhyky ds gLrk{kj gSaA izn'kZ ,e-20 vkdk'kok.kh dk;kZy;
o vkdk'kok.kh dksyksuh dh fo|qr o ikuh dh O;oLFkk gsrq izfrekg 2000@&:- fn;s tkus dk dksVs'ku i= gS ftl ij izkFkhZ eueksgu
iapksyh ds gLrk{kj ekStwn gSaA blh izdkj inz'kZ ,e-21 vkdk'kok.kh dh fo|qr o ikuh dh O;oLFkk dh ns[kHkky vkfn ds fy,
2500@&:- izfrekg fn;s tkus dk dksVs'ku i= gS ftl ij izdk'k 'kekZ ds gLrk{kj gSaA blh izdkj izn'kZ ,e-24 fo|qr j[k&j[kko o
iEi vkWijs'ku gsrq vfl-MkW;jsDVj bathfu;j] vkdk'kok.kh] >kykokM+ }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k eseksjs.Me gS ftlds }kjk 2200@:- izfrekg
dh nj ls o"kZ 99&2000 ds fy, 8800@&:- ds Hkqxrku dh Lohd`fr iznku dh x;h gSA blh izdkj izn'kZ ,e-25 eS- fo".kq
bysdDVªdYl] >kykokM+ dk ysVj isM gS ftl ij fo".kq bysfDVªdYl vFkok izksijkbZVj ds :i esa izkFkhZ eueksgu iapksyh }kjk gLrk{kj
fd;s x;s gSa ftlesa ekg vizSy ls tqykbZ rd mDr QeZ }kjk izLrqr fd;s x;s dksVs'ku ds vuqlkj iqjkuh nj ls ekg vxLr] 99 ls ekg
uoEcj] 99 rd 2200@&:- izfrekg dh nj ls dk;Z djus ij lgefr O;Dr dh x;h gSA blh izdkj izn'kZ ,e-26 esa eS- fo".kq
bysfDVªdYl] >kykokM+ dks o"kZ 99&2000 ds fy, 8800@&:- ds Hkqxrku dh Lohd`fr iznku dh x;h gSA blh izdkj izn'kZ ,e-27 ds
}kjk LVs'ku bathfu;j] vkdk'kok.kh] >kykokM+ }kjk fo|qr j[k&j[kko o ikuh ds iEi ds izpkyu gsrq phQ bathfu;j] vkdk'kok.kh] ubZ
fnYyh dks Lohd`fr gsrq fy[kk x;k i= gSA izn'kZ ,e-28 vkdk'kok.kh o vkdk'kok.kh dksyksuh esa ikuh dh O;oLFkk dh ns[kHkky o
j[k&j[kko gsrq 2200@&:- izfrekg ij mDr dk;Z ds ,ot esa nqjLrh gsrq fo".kq bysfDVªdYl] >kykokM+ }kjk dsUnz vfHk;Urk]
vkdk'kok.kh] >kykokM+ dks izLrqr fd;k x;k dksVs'ku gS ftlesa izksijkbZVj ds :i esa izkFkhZ eueksgu iapksyh ds gLrk{kj gSaA izn'kZ ,e-
29 dsUnz vfHk;Urk] vkdk'kok.kh] >kykokM+ dks izsf"kr dksVs'ku i= gSA izn'kZ ,e-30 o ,e-41 fofHkUu QeksZa ls dksVs'ku ekaxs x;s gSa ftuesa
fo".kq bysfDVªdYl] >kykokM+ dk uke Hkh vafdr gSA izn'kZ ,e-30&,] 33&,] ,e-38 o 41&, vkdk'kok.kh dk;kZy; o dksyksuh esa fo|qr
o ikuh dh O;oLFkk gsrq dksVs'ku ds okafNr LVkslZ vkbZVe dh lwph gSA izn'kZ ,e-31 vkdk'kok.kh dk;kZy; o dksyksuh esa jkstkuk ikuh
dh eksVj ds pkyu] ns[kHkky o j[k&j[kko vkfn gsrq y{eh bysfDVªdYl] >kykokM+ }kjk dsUnz vfHk;Urk] vkdk'kok.kh] >kykokM+ dks
3000@&:- dk tkjh fd;k x;k dksVs'ku i= gS ftl ij izdk'k 'kekZ ds gLrk{kj gSaA izn'kZ ,e-32 o ,e-39 fo".kq bysfDVªdYl]
>kykokM+ }kjk mDr vkdk'kok.kh dk;kZy; o dksyksuh esa fo|qr o ikuh dh O;oLFkk vkfn gsrq izsf"kr fd;k x;k 2200@&:- izfrekg dk
dksVs'ku gS ftl ij izkFkhZ eueksgu iapksyh ds izksijkbZVj ds :i esa gLrk{kj gSaA blh izdkj dk dksVs'ku izn'kZ ,e-33 eaxy bysfDVªdYl]
>kykokM+ ds ysVj isM ij vizkFkhZ ds uke ls izsf"kr fd;k x;k gSA vkns'k izn’kZ ,e-34 }kjk dsUnz vfHk;Urk] vkdk'kok.kh >kykokM+] dh
vksj ls eSa fo".kq bysfDVªdYl] >kykokM+ dks ekpZ] 99 rd l'krZ ikuh forj.k] iEi vkWijs'ku ,oa dk;kZy; o dksyksuh ds fo|qr
j[k&j[kko dk dk;Z va'kdkyhu le; ds vk/kkj ij dkaVªsDV ds :i esa Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA izn'kZ ,e-35 fofHkUu QeksZ ds dksVs'ku dk
rqyukRed fooj.k gS ftlesa fo".kq bysfDVªdYl] >kykokM+ dk uke Hkh vafdr gSA izn'kZ ,e-36 lR;ukjk;.k yky pan }kjk ,vkbZvkj]
>kykokM+ dks vkdk'kok.kh dksyksuh eas ikuh dh eksVj izpkyu o ns[kHkky gsrq 3]000@&:- izfrekg dh nj ls Hkstk x;k dksVs'ku gSA
blh izdkj izn'kZ ,e-37 y{eh bysDVªksfuDl dh vksj ls dsUnz vfHk;Urk] vkdk'kok.kh] >kykokM+ dks dke dh etnwjh ds lEcU/k eas Hkstk
x;k fooj.k gSA blh izdkj izn’kZ ,e-40 Hkh vizkFkhZ foHkkx dks Hkstk x;k dksVs’ku gSA izn'kZ ,e-42 vizkFkhZ foHkkx dk fo".kq
bysdDVªdYl] >kykokM+ ls lEcfU/kr Hkqxrku dk fcy gSA izn'kZ ,e-43 o ,e-44 fo".kq bysfDVªdYl] >kykokM+ }kjk vizkFkhZ foHkkx esa
3076
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
fo|qr o ikuh dh O;oLFkk gsrq Øe'k% 1@4@98 ls 30@4@98 o 1@5@98 ls 31@5@98 rd dh vof/k ds fy, Øe'k% 2200@&]
2200@&:- dh Hkqxrku dh jlhnsa gS ftu ij mDr QeZ ds izksijkbZVj ds :i esa izkFkhZ eueksgu iapksyh ds gLrk{kj gSaA izn’kZ ,e-46
fo".kq bysfDVªdYl] >kykokM+ }kjk vizkFkhZ vkdk'kok.kh dk;kZy; o dksyksuh esa fo|qr o ikuh ds dk;Z ds fy, 6600@&:- dk Hkqxrku
izkIr fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa mDr QeZ dh jlhn gS ftl ij izksijkbZVj ds :i esa izkFkhZ eueksgu iapksyh ds gLrk{kj gSaA izn'kZ ,e-47]
,e-52] ,e-56] ,e- 58] ,e-62 o ,e-67 fo".kq bysfDVªdYl] >kykokM+ o vU; QeksaZ ds Hkqxrku ds lEcU/k esa dUVhutsUV fcYl gSaA izn'kZ
,e-48 yxk;r ,e-51] ,e-53] ,e-55] ,e-57] ,e-59] ,e-63] ,e-64 o ,e-68 yxk;r ,e-70 vizkFkhZ foHkkx esa fo".kq bysfDVªdYl]
>kykokM+ }kjk o"kZ 98&99 esa fofHkUu vof/k;ksa esa fo|qr o ikuh O;oLFkk dh ns[kHkky o ikuh eksVj izpkyu vkfn dk;Z ds fy, Hkqxrku
dh jlhnsa gSa tks lHkh jlhnsa fo".kq bysfDVªdYl] >kykokM+ ds ysVj isM ij gSa rFkk bu lHkh ij izkFkhZ eueksgu iapksyh ds gLrk{kj gSaA
izn'kZ ,e-61 }kjk fcyksa ds Hkqxrku dh jkf'k dk M~zkQ~V vkgj.k o laforj.k vf/kdkjh vkdk'kok.kh dsUnz] >kykokM+ ds uke ls Hksts tkus
dk i= gSA izn'kZ ,e-60 vizkFkhZ foHkkx }kjk vkdk'kok.kh dksyksuh esa fo|qr o ikuh ds j[k&j[kko fn- 1@1@99 ls 31@1@99 rd dh
vof/k ds fy, fd;s tkus gsrq 2200@&:- dk pSd izkIr djus dh jlhn gSA izn'kZ ,e-65 lgk;d dsUnz vfHk;Urk] vkdk'kok.kh] bUnkSj
}kjk dsUæ vfHk;Urk] >kykokM+ dks fy[kk x;k i= gS ftlesa izkFkhZ eueksgu iapksyh dks tkjh fd;s x;s izek.k&i= ds lEcU/k esa vafdr
fd;k x;k gS fd mDr izek.k&i= dksbZ rduhdh o iz'kklfud dk;Zokgh dk ekxZn'kZu ugha feyus ls izkFkhZ eueksgu iapksyh ls O;fDrxr
lEcU/kkas ,oa O;ogkj ds dkj.k dsoy ekuoh; vk/kkj ij uke o in dh lhy yxkdj tkjh fd;k x;k gSA izn'kZ ,e-66 lgk;d
vfHk;Urk] izlkj Hkkjrh] Hkkjrh; izlkj.k fuxe] vkdk'kok.kh >kykokM+ dks ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh vukSipkfjd f'k{kk] [kkuiqj ftyk
>kykokM+ }kjk fn- 26@4@2001 dks fy[kk x;k i= gSA izn'kZ ,e-71 eq[; vfHk;Urk] vkdk'kok.kh] ubZ fnYyh }kjk dsUnz vfHk;Urk]
vkdk'kok.kh] >kykokM+ ds ikuh ds iEi izpkyu o fo|qr lLaFkkiu ds j[k&j[kko gsrq fo".kq bysfDVªdYl] >kykokM+ ds Hkqxrku LohÑfr
ctV vuqnku eas ls fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k eas Kkiu gSA
20& ;|fi izkFkhZ us izn'kZ MCY;w-73 vuqHko izek.k&i= ds vk/kkj ij Lo;a dks vizkFkhZ foHkkx esa fu;ksftr gksus dk vk/kkj crk;k gS] ijUrq
mDr izek.k&i= fn-15@10@95 ls 25@10@97 rd ikuh dh eksVj vkfn ds izpkyu dk dk;Z fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k eas fn;k x;k gS]
ijUrq mDr nLrkost ds }kjk Hkh izkFkhZ }kjk vizkFkhZ foHkkx esa fdlh fu;fer in ij dk;Zjr gksus dk dksbZ izek.k ugha gSA
21& ;|fi ekeys esa izkFkhZ dk i{k jgk gS fd vizkFkhZ us izkFkhZ dks fn-1@4@2000 ls lsok ls fu"dkflr dj izkFkhZ dh NaVuh dj nh]
ijUrq izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;s tkus ds rF; dks lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gSA izkFkhZ Lo;a dh fu;qfDr
fdlh fu;fer in ij gksus ds rF; dks lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gSA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls ,slh dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; vFkok vizkFkhZ }kjk
mls lsok ls fu"dkflr fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k eas ikfjr dksbZ vkns'k U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS] uk gh ,slh dksbZ
ekSf[kd lk{; izLrqr dh x;h gS ftlls ;g izdV gksrk gks fd izkFkhZ Jfed us Lo;a dks lsok ls fu"dkflr fd;s tkus ds mijkUr vizkFkhZ
foHkkx esa viuh mifLFkfr ntZ djokuh pkgh gks] ijUrq vizkFkhZ }kjk mls ,slk fd;s tkus ls fu"ks/k fd;k x;k gksA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ge
ekuuh; jkt- mPp U;k;ky; ds U;k;n`"Vkar ^^vkj,yMCY;w- 2001¼1½ jkt- 238&ujsUnz flag lksyadh cuke jkW ,.M fQfuf'kax izksMD'ku
,oa vU;^^ esa izfrikfnr fl)kar dh jks'kuh esa izkFkhZ Jfed dk ekeyk NaVuh dk gksuk izekf.kr ugha ekurs gSaA
22& izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls U;k;n`"Vkar ^^1977 McY;w,y,u¼;wlh½ 569&ik:ey cuke LVsV vkQ jktLFkku 2010 ,llh,yts i`"B
335&vuwi 'kekZ cuke ,Dth-bathfu;j] ifCyd gsYFk fMfo-ua-1] ikuhir¼gfj;k.kk½] 2005¼8½vkjMhMh 3280¼jkt-½&i`Fohjkt cuke yscj
dksVZ] tks/kiqj ,oa vU;] 2007¼3½lhMhvkj 1923¼jkt-½&vfl-bathfu;j] fMLVªhC;wVjh lc fMfotu jkbZV esu dsuky] pEcy izkstsDV vUrk
dksVk cuke tt] yscj dksVZ] dksVk ,oa vU;] vkj,yMcY;w 2005¼1½ jkt- i`"B 584&dSyk'kpUn cuke LVsV vkQ jktLFkku]
1991¼II½,y,y,u 224¼jkt-½ &th-,e-uksnZu jsYos cuke lsUVªy b.M-fVªC;wuy] t;iqj rFkk 2015¼145½ ,Q,yvkj 184¼,llh½&esfduu
esfdfut ,.M daiuh fy- cuke esfduu ,EiyksbZt ;wfu;u 1985¼51½,Q,yvkj 494¼,llh½&,p-Mh-flag cuke fjtZo cSad vkWQ bf.M;k
,oa vU;] rFkk 1978¼37½,Q,yvkj 240¼,llh½&fgUnqLFkku fVu oDlZ izk-fy- cuke ,EiyksbZt vkQ eS-fgUnqLFkku fVu oDlZ izk-fy-^^ is'k
fd;s x;s gSa] ijUrq gLrxr ekeys esa izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu eas lsok lekfIr dh frfFk ls Bhd iwoZ ds 12 dys.Mj ekg dh vof/k esa
fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;s tkus ds rF; dks lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gSA blds vfrfjDr izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZ }kjk vkS-fo-vf/kfu;e dh
/kkjk 25&,Q ds izko/kku dh vogsyuk dj Lo;a dh voS/k :i ls NaVuh fd;s tkus ds rF; dks Hkh lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS] vr%
mDr lHkh U;k;n`"Vkar izkFkhZ Jfed dks dksbZ ykHk ugha igWqpkrs gSaA
23& izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls U;k;n`"Vkar ^^1976 ,llh,yts 85&LVVs cSad vkWQ bf.M;k cuke ,u-lqUnjeuh^^ is’k fd;k x;k gS] ijUrq
gLrxr ekeys esa izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa lsok lekfIr dh frfFk ls Bhd iwoZ ds 12 dys.Mj ekg dh vof/k esas fujUrj
240 fnu dk;Z fd;s tkus dk rF; izekf.kr ugha gS rFkk izkFkhZ vkS-fo-vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q dk laj{k.k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh
ugha ekuk x;k gS] bu ifjLFkfr;ksa esa izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izLrqr mDr U;k;n`"Vkar izkFkhZ Jfed dks dksbZ ykHk ugha igWqpkrk gSA
24& izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls U;k;n`"Vkar ^^2008¼118½ ,Q,yvkj 684¼jkt-½&E;wfufliy cksMZ] yk[ksjh] cwWnh cuke Jherh eaxyhckbZ ,oa
vU;^^ is'k fd;k x;k gSA mDr U;k;n`"Vkar esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds eqrkfcd deZdkj }kjk 240 fnu fujUrj dk;Z fd;s tkus dk rF; izekf.kr
Fkk] ijUrq gLrxr ekeys esa izkFkhZ Jfed mDr rF; dks lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS] vr% mDr U;k;n`"Vkar izkFkhZ Jfed dks dksbZ
ykHk ugha igqWpkrk gSA
II
(ii)
3077
25& izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls U;k;n`"Vkar ^^1996¼II½,y,yts 316¼jkt-½&phQ bathfu;j] bjhxs'ku cuke deys'k ,oa vU; rFkk ^^ is'k
fd;k x;k gSA mDr U;k;n`"Vkar esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds eqrkfcd deZdkj dks vkS-fo-vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,Q ,oa /kkjk 25&ch ds vUrxZr
ykHk izkIr djus gsrq deZdkj }kjk lsok lekfIr dh frfFk ls iwoorhZ dys.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu dk;Z fd;s tkus dh vko';drk ugha gksuk
izdV fd;k x;k gS ijUrq ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds mDr mn`r U;k;n`"Vkar ^^vkj-,e-;sYV~Vh cuke lgk;d vf/k'kklh
vfHk;Urk&2006 ¼108½ ,Q,yvkj 213¼,llh½** esa izfrikfnr fl)kar dh jks'kuh esa izkFkhZ Jfed dks izLrqr mDr U;k;n`"Vkar ls dksbZ ykHk
ugha igWqprk gSA
26& izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls U;k;n`"Vkar ^^2010¼124½ ,Q,yvkj 700¼,llh½&gjftUnj flga cuke iatkc LVsV os;jgkmflax dksj rFkk
2015¼144½,Q,yvkj 837¼,llh½&tlesj flag cuke LVsV vkQ gfj;k.kk ,oa vU;^^ is'k fd;s x;s gSa] izLrqr U;k;n`"Vkarksa esa ekeyk voS/k
lsok ls fu"dklu dk Fkk] ijUrq gLrxr ekeyk voS/k lsok ls fu"dklu dk gksuk ugha ik;k x;k] vr% izLrqr nksauks U;k;n`"Vkar izkFkhZ
Jfed dks dksbZ ykHk ugha igWqpkrs gSaA
27& izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls U;k;n`"Vkar ^^vkj,yvkj 1991¼2½ jkt- i`"B 158&vksfj;UVy cSsd vkWQ dkWelZ cuke ihvk]s lsUVªy
xouZesUV b.M fVªC;wuy ,oa vU;^^ is'k fd;k x;k gS] ijUrq gLrxr ekeys esa izkFkhZ }kjk vkS-fo- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&th o ,p dh
vogsyuk fd;s tkus dk rF; lk{; }kjk izekf.kr ugha fd;k x;k gS] vr% mDr U;k;n`"Vkar Hkh izkFkhZ Jfed dks dksbZ ykHk ugha igWqpkrk
gSA
28& izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls U;k;n`"Vkar ^^2013¼139½,Q,yvkj 541¼,llh½&nhikyh xq.Mq lqjosl cuke ØkfUr twfu;j v/;kid ,oa
vU;^^ is'k fd;k x;k gSA mDr U;k;n`"Vkar esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds eqrkfcd ;fn fdlh U;k;ky; vFkok vU; l{ke U;kf;d@v)ZU;kf;d
eap@fudk; }kjk deZdkj ds fo:) dh x;h dk;Zokgh dks voS/kkfud vFkok uSlfxZd U;k; fl)karksa ds foijhr ik;k tkrk gS rks ,slh
ifjfLFkfr esa deZdkj iqu% lsok esa fu;ksftr gksus ;ksX; gS] ijUrq gLrxr ekeys esa ,slh fLFkfr ugha gS] vr% mDr U;k;n`"Vkar Hkh izkFkhZ
Jfed dks dksbZ ykHk ugha igWqpkrk gSA
29& vizkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls U;k;n`"Vkar ^^¼2007½2 ,llhlh 428&iatkc LVsV bysfDVªzflVh cksMZ ,oa vU; cuke lqns'k dqekj iqjh rFkk
¼2007½ ,l,yVh 805¼,llh½&jfui uxjikfydk cuke ckcwth xkHkkth Bkdqj ,oa vU;^^ is'k fd;s x;s gSa ftudk voyksdu fd;k x;kA
30& bl izdkj mijksDr lEiw.kZ lk{; ds foospu ls izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ Lo;a dh ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ds vk/kkj ij vizkFkhZ
fu;kstd ds fu;kstu esa lsok lekfIr dh frfFk 1@4@2000 ls Bhd iwoZ ds 12 dys.Mj ekg dh vof/k esa fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;s
tkus ds rF; dks lkfcr fd;s tkus esa iw.kZr;k vlQy jgk gSA izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZ foHkkx esa Lo;a dh fu;qfDr iEi vkWijsVj ds fu;fer in
ij gksus ds rF; dks Hkh lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gSA tcfd nwljh vksj vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ls
izdV gksrk gS fd vizkFkhZ foHkkx }kjk o"kZ 1997&98] 98&99 rFkk 99&2000 esa >kykokM+ dh ,d QeZ eS-fo".kq bysfDVªdYl dks dksVs'ku
vkeaf=r djus dh izfØ;k viukrs gq, dk;kZns'k fn;k x;k Fkk o mDr QeZ }kjk dk;kZns'k dk lEiknu fd;k x;k Fkk o mldk Hkqxrku
pSd~l }kjk QeZ dks fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk vizkFkhZ foHkkx }kjk QeZ ls jlhnsa izkIr dh x;h FkhaA bu Hkqxrku dh jlhnksa ij eS-fo".kq
bysfDVªdYl ds izksijkbZVj ds :i esa izkFkhZ eueksgu iapksyh ds gLrk{kj ekStwn gSa ftlls izekf.kr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk fo".kq
bysfDVªdYl] >kykokM+ ds izksijkbZVj ds :i esa dk;Z ds Hkqxrku dh jkf'k izkIr dh x;h gSA izkFkhZ }kjk mDr jkf'k] fo".kq bysfDVªdYl]
>kykokM+ QeZ ds ekfyd vFkok izfrfuf/k dh gSfl;r ls izkIr fd;k tkuk Hkh mDr nLrkost ls izdV gksrk gSA izkFkhZ dk ekeyk NaVuh
dk gksuk Hkh izekf.kr ugha gSA izkFkhZ us vius ls dfu"B O;fDr;kas ds vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu eas lsokjr jgus o u;s Jfed fu;ksftr fd;s
tkus ds lEcU/k esa Hkh dksbZ Bksl lk{; U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr ugha dh gSA vr% bu leLr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa izkFkhZ vkS-fo-vf/kfu;e
dh /kkjk 25&,Q] th ,oa ,p ds izko/kkukUrxZr dksbZ lja{k.k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gksus ls vizkFkhZ ds fo:) fdlh izdkj dk
dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksuk ugha ik;k tkrk gS ,oa lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl Hkh blh vuq:i mRrfjr gksus ;ksX; gSA
ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 9@10@2001 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr
funsZ'k@jsQzsUl fookn dks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed eueksgu iapksyh] vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds fu;kstu esa lsok
lekfIr dh frfFk 1@4@2000 ls Bhd iwoZ ds 12 dys.Mj ekg dh vof/k esa fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;s tkus ds rF; dks lkfcr fd;s
tkus esa iw.kZr;k vlQy jgk gSA izkFkh] vizkFkhZ ds ;gka fdlh fu;fer in ij fu;qDr ,oa fu;ksftr gksus ds rF; dks Hkh lkfcr fd;s
tkus esa vlQy jgk gSA izkFkhZ dk ekeyk NaVuh dk gksuk Hkh izekf.kr ugha gSA vr% bu leLr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa izkFkhZ Jfed] vizkFkhZ
fu;kstd ds fo:) fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
Jherh vfurk 'kekZ] U;k;k/kh'k
3078
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
—
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2017
S.O. 1302.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 12.05.2017.
[No. L-30011/50/2005-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI
Present : JUSTICE SURENDRA VIKRAM SINGH RATHORE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-12 OF 2006
Parties :
Employers in relation to the management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd
And
Their workmen
Appearances :
For the first party /Management
:
Mr. R.S.Pai, Adv.
For the second party / Bharat Lokhande
:
Mr.Jaiprakash Sawant, Adv.
State
:
Maharashtra
Mumbai, dated the 27th day of April, 2017.
AWARD
1.
As per the schedule of the reference the following industrial dispute was referred to this Tribunal:
“Whether the action of the management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Marketing Division, Mumbai in
terminating the services of Shri Bharat Lokhande w.e.f. 1.1.2005 is justified? If not, what relief, Shri Bharat
Lokhande is entitled to?
2.
Notices were issued to both the parties. Parties have filed their pleadings. In his Statement of Claim the second
party has submitted that he was employed by the Management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (hereinafter
referred to as the Management) for attending the following works (called as marfatia work) of the Management w.e.f.
2.2.1989.
(a)
Daily Lodgement of bank documents at Central Office, Ballard Estate.
(b)
Daily posting and bringing mail from Vashi-Turbhe Post Office.
(c)
Carrying to and bringing back mail/stationery from Central Office, Ballard Estate/Maker Towers, Cuffe
Parade daily.
(d)
Bringing Office stationery, miscellaneous items from local market whenever required.
(e)
Lodgement of Bank documents at Central Bank of India, Ballard Estate before 10.30 a.m. every Saturday.
II
(ii)
3079
(f )
Any other work assigned by the officers of the management from time to time.
The second party attended the said work and other incidental work under the control of the Officers’ of the
Management. Initially the workman was given Rs. 1,000/- p.m. from the date of his appointment and subsequently his
wages were increased during subsequent years. For the year 2004, he was given Rs.4,200/- per month as his wages. He
has also submitted that Deputy Manager (OPS) Vashi of the Management was his employer and he was a workman
within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and he was receiving the consideration as
wages as defined under Section 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He continued in his services till 2004 but without
following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act and in violation of the principles of natural justice, by way of
victimization and in order to deprive him his right to the status and benefits of permanency, his services were
terminated which amounted to unfair labour practices. He made representations through the Union for his
regularization and also moved an Application to the Assistant Labour Commissioner but his efforts ended in failure due
to rigid and adamant attitude of the Management. Thus in brief, the submission of the workman was that he was
engaged as workman, was paid wages and worked continuously from 1989 to 2004 under the control and supervision of
the Management. Therefore, termination of his services was illegal as he was a workman and he ought to have been
regularized.
3.
In the Written Statement filed on behalf of the Management, it was pleaded that Bharat Lokhande was engaged
as a marfatia contractor for job work on the basis of yearly contract entered into between the Management and
Contractor. Last of his contract ended on 31.12.2004 and thereafter he was not engaged as contractor. The
Management has denied the relationship of employer and employee between the Corporation and the said Contractor
and has pleaded that Bharat Lokhande does not fall within the definition of 2(s) of the Act. Since he was not a
workman, the reference is not maintainable.
4.
While preparing the judgement, it came to the notice that the Issues have not been framed, Keeping in view the
rival submissions the following Issues are hereby framed.
(1)
Whether the second party Bharat Lokhande was a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the
Act or he was a Contractor?
(2)
Whether the termination of his services was illegal / irregular?
(3)
Relief, if any, to which the second party is entitled?.
5.
On behalf of Management, the following documents were filed and all these documents have been admitted by
the second party. Second party has not filed any document.
(1)
Marfatia Contract dated 27.2.1989 for miscellaneous part time jobs at Vashi DU.
(2)
Marfatia Contract dated 27.1.2000.
(3)
Marfatia Contract dated 28.1.2001.
(4)
Letter dated 20.2.2001 from Bharat Lokhande requesting renewal of contract and increase in cost of
Marfatia contract.
(5)
Letter issued to Bharat Lokhande dated 14.9.2002 intimating of unsatisfactory performance contract.
(6)
Letter from Bharat Lokhande dated 28.12.2002 requesting renewal of contract.
(7)
Marfatia Contract dated 20.1.2003.
(8)
Letter from Bharat Lokhande dated 26.12.2003 requesting renewal of contract.
(9)
Marfatia Contract dated 18.1.2004.
(10)
BKKM’s (union) letter dated 19.11.2004 requesting for permanency of Mr.Bharat Lokhande.
(11)
BKKM’s (union) letter dated 02.12.2004 intimating about adjudication of the matter.
(12)
Letter dated 31.12.2004 to Bharat Lokhande terminating the contract.
(13)
Acknowledgement of Cheque by Bharat Lokhande.
(14)
Letter to Asstt. Labour Comm. Dated 25.8.2005 explaining our stand.
In this case after making oral submission learned counsel for the management has also filed his written
arguments. I have also gone through the written argument but the oral submissions made by the rival parties have
already covered all the issues.
3080
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.
On the strength of the above mentioned documents, it has been argued on behalf of the Management that Bharat
Lokhande was wholly a contractor to do the specific work either himself or through some other person, so it cannot be
stated that he was engaged by the Management to perform certain work himself. However, it has not been denied that
from the date of his initial engagement in the year 1989 he continued to work till 2004. Contract of Bharat Lokhande
was for a specified period. On the request of the Bharat Lokhande it was renewed from year to year. Lastly it could not
be renewed as the unit in which he was engaged was closed. It has also been argued that the company is a Govt. of
India undertaking and no person can be appointed in any capacity without following due procedure. It has also been
submitted that Bharat Lokhande has never applied for his appointment as workman and he got the contract only due to
special favour of some officers.
7.
Learned counsel for the second party has made very lengthy arguments and has argued that it is not a case
where the contractor has provided the services of other persons to ensure the compliance of the contract but in this
case, an agreement is shown to have been entered into between Management and Bharat Lokhande. Bharat Lokhande
has himself performed the duties assigned to him. He has continuously worked under the control and supervision of
the Management. During the course of argument learned counsel for the workman has submitted that he has not filed
any document as he places full reliance on the documents filed on behalf of the Management and on the strength of
those documents he has raised his argument that he was under the control and supervision of the Management. He has
referred the letter of the Management whereby he was informed that his services were not found satisfactory. He has
also argued that he has continuously worked for 15 years and this fact is not denied by the Management. So he was a
workman. He has placed reliance on several pronouncement which shall be dealt with at the relevant part of the
judgement.
8.
Thus the sum and substance of the arguments of the Management is that Bharat Lokhande was engaged as a
contractor to do some specific work and there was no control of the Management on Bharat Lokhande as to how, by
what means and in what manner he will perform the assigned work. His contract was for a specific period of one year
and thereafter it was renewed from time to time on the request of Bharat Lokhande. Thus he was only a contractor and
he does not fall within the purview of the definition of workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The argument
of the learned counsel for the workman is that the contract under which Bharat Lokhande was engaged was sham and
bogus. Virtually he was engaged by the Management and he continued to work for 15 years. Therefore, he was a
workman and he deserves to be regularized.
9.
Several case laws have been referred by both the sides and before proceeding further, I would like to mention
some relevant parts of the case laws relied upon by the rival parties.
10.
On behalf of the Bharat Lokhande, reliance has been placed on Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd vs. State of
Saurashtra AIR 1957 SC 264
“This argument, however, proceeds on a misapprehension of the true legal position. The broad distinction
between a workman and an independent contractor lies in this that while the former agrees himself to work, the
latter agrees to get other persons to work. Now a person who agrees himself to work and does so work and is,
therefore, a workman does not cease to be such by reason merely of the fact that he gets other persons to work
along with him and that those persons are controlled and paid by him. What determines whether a person is a
workman or an independent contractor is whether he has agreed to work personally or not. If he has, then he is a
workman and the fact that he takes assistance from other persons would not affect his status. (emphasis added)
“6. If the livelihood of the workmen substantially depends on labour rendered to produce goods and services for
the benefits and satisfaction of an enterprise, the absence of direct relationship or the presence of dubious
intermediaries or the make-believe trappings of detachment from the Management cannot snap the real-life
bond. The story may vary but the inference defies ingenuity. The lia- bility cannot be shaken off.”
Reliance has also been placed on case law Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Suresh & Ors. 1999 I
CLR 959 SC.
Relevent part of this case law is hereby produced as under:
"In this behalf, it is necessary to recapitulate that on abolition of the contract labour system, by necessary
implication, the principal employer is under statutory obligation to absorb the contract labour. The linkage
between the contractor and the employee stood snapped and direct relationship stood restored between principal
employer and the contract labour as its employees. Considered from this perspective, all the workmen in the
respective services working on contract labour are required to be absorbed in the establishment of the appellant."
Reliance has also been placed on case law Silver Jubilee Tailoring House and others v. Chief Inspector of
Shops and Establishments and another (1974) 3 SCC 498. Following observations have been made by the
Hon’ble Apex Court at different part of this judgment which may be summarized as under:
II
(ii)
3081
(i)
When the tailors generally attend the shop everyday if there is work and different rates are fixed for them
according to their sskill and their work is checked then even though there may be no regular hours of
work or obligation to attend everyday and the tailors could take the work home, there was relationship of
employer and employee between the tailoring shop and tailors.
(ii)
In recent years the test of right to control the manner of doing the work as traditionally formulated cannot
be treated as an exclusive test. In order to decide the relationship of employer and workmen it is relevant
to consider that the workers attend the shop belonging to the employer and work on the machines of the
shop and that they can be removed if the work is not satisfactory. When after stitching the cloth was
liable to be checked and returned if not found satisfactory the ultimate authority over the performance of
the work resided in the employer and this shows that the worker was subject to directions of the latter.
(iii)
It is not necessary that a servant should be under the exclusive control of one master and should work
whole time in the shop. He can be employed by more than one employer.
Reliance has also been placed on case Law Shining Tailors and Industrial Tribunal-II and others 1983 II LLJ
413 SC. In the present controversy relevant part of this case law is hereby produced as under.
“5.
We have gone through the record and especially the evidence recorded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal
has committed a glaring error apparent on record that whenever payment is made by piece rate, there is no
relationship of master and the servant and that such relationship can only be as between principal and principal
and therefore, the respondents were independent contractors. Frankly, we must say that the Tribunal has not
clearly grasped the meaning of what is the piece rate, If every piece rated workmen is an independent contractor,
lakhs and lakhs of workmen in various industries where payment is corelated to production would be carved out
of the expression 'workmen' as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act. In the past the test to determine the
relationship of employer and the workmen was the test of control and not the method of payment. Piece rate
payment meaning thereby payment correlated to production is a well-recognised mode of payment to industrial
workmen. In fact, wherever possible that method of payment has to be encouraged so that there is utmost
sincerity, efficiency and single minded divotion to increase production which would be beneficial both to the
employer, the workmen and the nation at large. But the test employed in the past was one of determining the
degree of control that the employer wielded over the workmen. However, in the identical situation in Silver
Jubilee Tailoring House and Ors. v. Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments and Anr. , J. speaking for the
Court observed that the control idea was more suited to the agricultural society prior to Industrial Revolution and
during the last two decades the emphasis in the field is shifted from and no longer rests exclusively or strongly
upon the question of control. It was further observed that a search for a formula in the nature of a single test will
not serve the useful purpose, and all factors that have been referred to in the cases on topics, should be
considered to tell a contract of service. Approaching the matter from this angle, the Court observed that the
employer's right to reject the end product if it does not conform to the instructions of the employer speaks for the
element of control and supervision. So also the right of removal of the workman or not to give the work has the
element of control and supervision. If these aspects are considered decisive, they are amply satisfied in the facts
of this case. The Tribunal ignored the well laid test in law and completely misdirected itself by showing that
piece rate itself indicates a relationship of independent contractor and error apparent on the record disclosing a
total lack of knowledge of the method of payment in various occupations in different industries. The right of
rejection coupled with the right to refuse work would certainly establish master servant relationship and both
these tests are amply satisfied in the facts of this case. Viewed from this angle, the respondents were the
workmen of the employer and the preliminary objection therefore, raised on behalf of the appellant-employer
was untenable and ought to have been overruled and we hereby overrule it. (underlined by me).
Reliance has been placed on Pachora Peoples’ Co-op. Bank Ltd V. Employees Provident Fund Organisation
2014 (4) Mh.L.J.436 (H.C.Bom). Paragraph 7, 8, and 9 are reproduced as under:
“7.
We quite appreciate that the Pigmy Deposit Collectors, not only have to make regular visits to small
depositors like traders, housewives, students, self-employed persons etc., but these visits are promoted owing to
the requirement of collecting their deposits. This obviously is in tune with and traceable to the business of the
petitioner bank. This is a manual nature of work and the collections have to be made by going from places to
places and visiting persons to persons. Various forms have to be filled in, accounts, registers and passbooks are
required to be maintained and updated on day to day basis and the said amounts received have to be deposited
with the petitioner bank. The commission to be paid to the said collectors is linked with the quantum of the
collection. This is ultimately traceable to the business of the bank and is connected with the generation of funds
for the bank.
3082
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8. The definition of ‘wages’ under section 2(rr) of the Industral Disputes Act, 1947, in our opinion and on the
basis of the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, squarely covers such Pigmy Deposit Collectors.
Needless to state, these collectors are answerable and accountable to the petitioner bank. In the event, the Bank
is not satisfied with the performance of any such collector, it entitles the Bank to delete such collector from its
list and allot no work to him.
9. As such, in our opinion, though the degree of supervision, control and direction may differ from what is
commonly emanating from the public and private industrial sector, we intend to give a wider meaning to the
principle of “Employer-Employee” in connection with such Pigmy Deposit Collectors.”
Reliance has also been placed on Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Ashok Margovind Panchal and Anr. 2002 III CLR
743 (H.C. Bom)
“9. Applying the aforesaid tests aptly prescribed by the learned Judge, to the present case, the conclusion is
inescapable that the work continued and the post of security guard was of permanent nature and, therefore, there
was no application of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act. Even the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court
in the case of K. Rajendran v. Director (Personnel), Project and Equipment Corporation of India, reported in
1992 H.C. Madras 462 has observed as under :--
"Held : Of course, the intention of the Parliament in enacting Sub-clause (bb) to Clause (oo) of Section 2 of the
Act was to exclude certain categories of workers from the definition of "retrenchment". But, there is nothing in
Sub-clause (bb) which enables an unscrupulous employer to terminate the service of the workers on the ground
of non-renewal of their contract even when the work for which they were employed subsists. The exception as
contained in Sub-clause (bb) will have to be strictly construed and Clause (bb) should be made applicable only
to such cases where the work ceases with the employment or the post itself ceases to exist. Clause (bb) cannot be
made applicable to a case when the employer resorts to contractual employment as a device to simply take it out
of Clause (oo) of Section 2 of the Act notwithstanding the fact that the work for which the workmen are
employed continues or the nature of duties which the workmen was performing are still in existence."
(emphasis added)
Much reliance has been placed on S.M.Nijalkar & Ors. V.Telecom District Manager, Karnataka 2003 II CLR
233 SC wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has considered this point. Relevant part is hereby reproduced below.
13. The termination of service of a workman engaged in a scheme or project may not amount to retrenchment
within the meaning of Sub-clause (bb) subject to the following conditions being satisfied:-
(i) that the workman was employed in a project or scheme of temporary duration;
(ii) the employment was on a contract, and not as a daily-wager simplicitor, which provided inter alia that the
employment shall come to an end on the expiry of the scheme or project; and
(iii) the employment came to an end simultaneously with the termination of the scheme or project and
consistently with the terms of the contract.
(iv) the workman ought to have been apprised or made aware of the abovesaid terms by the employer at the
commencement of employment.
14. The engagement of a workman as a daily-wager does not by itself amount to putting the workman on notice
that he was being engaged in a scheme or project which was to last only for a particular length of time or up to to
occurrence of some event, and therefore, the workman ought to know that his employment was short-lived. The
contract of employment consciously entered into by the workman with the employer would result in a notice to
the workman on the date of the commencement of the employment itself that his employment was short-lived
and as per the terms of the contract the same was liable to termination on the expiry of the contract and the
scheme or project coming to an end. The workman may not therefore complaint that by the act of employer his
employment was coming to an abrupt termination. To exclude the termination of a scheme or project employee
from the definition of retrenchment it is for the employer to prove the abovesaid ingredients so as to attract the
applicability of Sub-clause (bb) abovesaid. In the case at hand, the respondent-employer has failed in alleging
and proving the ingredients of Sub-clause (bb), as stated hereinabove. All that has been proved is that the
appellants were engaged as casual workers or daily-wagers in a project. For want of proof attracting applicability
of Sub-clause (bb), it has to be held that the termination of the services of the appellants amounted to
retrenchment.” (emphasis added)
II
(ii)
3083
Reliance has also been placed on PWD v. Satya Pal 2007 I LLJ 500 wherein Honourable High Court has
observed in para 9 as under:
9. It is apparent from the above that the device of issuing work orders was to satisfy the letter of the law as
contained in Section 2(oo)(bb) but in was in fact it was nothing but an employment on the continuous basis. The
very purpose for which Section 2(oo)(bb) was introduced was to avoid saddling an employer with the liability
under Section 25F where a worker had been engaged for a very short period of say, two or three months. It was
not meant to be invoked in a situation where the worker is in continuous employment, as in this case, for over
three years. If one were to interpret Sections 2(oo)(bb) in the manner that the appellant suggests, it would permit
the law to be misused to avoid a statutory liability. It must be kept in mind that the ID Act is intended to protect
a workman whose services have been continuously engaged for a considerable period of time. It is in this
background that the provision of Section 2(oo)(bb) should be interpreted.” (underlined by me).
11.
Per contra on behalf of the Management, reliance has been placed on the pronouncement of the Honourable
Apex Court in Chintaman Rao vs. State of M.P. AIR 1958 SCC 388
“9.
This takes us to the consideration of the definition of the term 'worker' under the Act. 'Worker' is
defined to mean a person employed, directly or through any agency, whether for wages or not, in any
manufacturing process. It is and it cannot be disputed that the making of bidis is a manufacturing process. But is
a Sattedar a person 'employed ', directly or through agency, within the meaning of the definition " employed".
The concept of employment involves 'three ingredients: (1) employer (2) employee and (3) the contract of
employment. The employer is one who employs, i.e., one who engages the services of other persons. The
employee is one who works for another for hire. The employment is the contract of service between the
employer and the employee hereunder the employee agrees to serve the employer subject to his control and
supervision. Can it be said that a Sattedar is employed by the management of the factory to serve under it ?
There is a well understood distinction between a contractor and a workman and between contract for service and
contract of service. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary (Third Edition, Volume 1, Page 616) the distinction between
a contractor and a workman is brought out in bold relief in the following manner:
10." Of course, every person who makes an agreement with another for the doing of work is a contractor, in a
general sense; but as used in Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict., c. 37), s. 4 "contractor" and
"WORKMAN" "have come to have a more restricted and distinctive meaning," and "contractor " means 'one
who makes an agreement to carry out certain work specified, but not on a contract of service'." The same idea is
repeated in a different terminology thus.. " A 'contractor' is a person who, in the pursuit of an independent
business, undertakes to do specific jobs of work for other persons, without submitting himself to their control in
respect to the details of the work ". There is, therefore, a clear-cut distinction between a contractor and a
workman. The identifying mark of the latter is that he should be under the control and supervision of the
employer in respect of the details of the work. This Court in Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of
Saurashtra (1) in the context of the definition of " workman " under the Industrial Disputes Act (XIV of 1947)
made the following observations at page 157: " The essential condition of a person being a workman within the
terms of this definition is that he should be employed to do the work in that industry, that there should be, in
other words, an employment of his by the employer and that there should be the relationship between the
employer and him as between employer and employee or master and servant. Unless a person is thus employed
there can be no question of his being a workman within the definition of the term as contained in the Act."
Reliance was also placed on Puri Urban Co-op. Bank vs. Madhusudhan Sahu 1992 (3) SCC 323 . Paras 6
and 7 are hereby reproduced as under.
“6. Now engaging Sahu was to require him to weight the ornaments brought in the Bank for pledging and to
appraise their quality, purity and value. He could be directed to do this but not the manner in which he shall do
it. That was left to him exclusively, as it depended on his skill, technique and experience. Besides under the
terms of engagement he was required to, and he did, execute a bond indemnifying and holding himself
responsible to the Bank for all his acts and commissions as an appraiser, and be accountable for the loss
sustained by the Bank on account of under-valuation of the gold pledged with it. These terms inhered in the
Bank the power to warn him and to remind him that he was not expected to be negligent in his duty. Still there
was a fair element of freedom though coupled with responsibility, for Sahu in the manner in which he could do
his work.
7. Therefore, we are of the view that though Sahu claims to be a workman as commonly understood, he was not
`employed' as such, so as to establish a master and servant relationship, which could warrant a re-union in the
event of disruption, by the intervention of the Labour Court. The allegation of the Bank before the Labour Court,
as well as here, that Sahu is a reputed goldsmith and had remained gainfully employed so as to disentitle him
any back wages, which appealed to the Labour Court, has remained uncontroverted before us. It also remains
3084
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
uncontroverted before us that the Bank has, on its approved list, other such like appraisers and it is not
obligatory for the Bank to allot work to Sahu or any other, at all. Additionally, in no event can he ask for work,
or periodic remuneration or idling wages. These particulars, not by themselves, but in the totality or
circumstances indicate lack of master and servant relationship.” (underlined by me)
Reliance has also been placed in case law Reji Kumar & Ors vs. Director of Health Services, Kerala & Ors.
2009 (16) SCC 385. Para 7 of this Judgment reads as under:
“7.
Even otherwise, when the appointment itself is for a fixed tenure, though the nature of the tenure is a
temporary one, the appointment comes to an end after the expiry of the tenure and there would be no relationship
of master and servant thereafter until the relationship is continued by a fresh letter of appointment, or by
intervention of any court’s order. We are told that when the appellants approached the High Court, the Court
had not granted any interim order. By the time they approached the Court the term of one year had expired”.
Reliance has also been placed on Gamgadhar Pillai vs Siemens Ltd 2007(1) SCC 533. Observations of the
Honourable Apex Court in paragraph no. 26, 27 and 28 relates in the instant controversy.
“26.
The period of employment had all along been commensurate with the period of work undertaken by
Respondent under the respective contracts. It may be a small contract or it may be a big one. Period of contract
in each case was indeed bound to be different. Each site office of Respondent Company is also a separate
establishment.
27.
It has furthermore not been denied or disputed that services of the employees engaged on such terms
would come to an end on completion of the period of contract. Such retrenchment would come within the
purview of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Once the period of contract was fixed and the same
was done keeping in view the nature of job, it cannot be said that the act of the employer in terminating the
services of Appellant was actuated by any malice. Such an act on the part of the employer cannot be said to have
been resorted to for defrauding an employee. The object of such temporary employment was bona fide and not
to deprive the concerned employee from the benefit of a permanent status. We, having regard to the fact
situation obtaining herein, cannot infer that the findings of the Tribunal as also the learned Single Judge of the
High Court were manifestly erroneous warranting exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India.
Reliance has also been placed on the case law (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 253 Kishor Chandra Samal vs.
Orissa State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. Dhenkanal. Para 10 and 11 of this judgment reads as
under:
“10.
Section 2(oo) of the Act reads as follows: "Section 2(oo) "retrenchment" means the termination by
the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted
by way of disciplinary action, but does not include -
(a) ......
(b) ......
(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-removal of the contract of employment
between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a
stipulation in that behalf contained therein"
11.
The decision in S.M. Nilaikar's case (supra) has no application because in that case no period was
indicated and only indication was the temporary nature of engagement. In the instant case in all the orders of
engagement, specific periods have been mentioned. Therefore, the High Court's order does not suffer from any
infirmity. (underlined by me).
Reliance has also been placed in case law Municipal Council, Samrala vs Raj kumar 2006 (3) SCC 81.
Attention was drawn towards paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgement which reads as under:
“14.
The decision of this Court is not an authority for the proposition that apart from a project or a
scheme of temporary duration, Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act will have no application.
Furthermore, in the instant case, as has been noticed by this Court in S.M. Nilajkar itself, the respondent was
categorically informed that as per the terms of the contract, the same was a short-lived one and would be liable
to termination as and when the appellant thought it for or proper or necessary to do so. Yet again, this Court in
view of the facts and circumstances prevailing therein had no occasion to consider the second part of Section
2(oo)(bb) of the said Act.
15.
There is neither any doubt nor any dispute that the terms and conditions contained in the offer of
appointment on both the spells were the same. So far as the employment of a person in a Municipal Council
II
(ii)
3085
which is “State” in the meaning of Article 12 is concerned, the same must be done in terms of the provisions of
the statute and/or rules framed thereunder. The respondent therefore was not appointed on a permanent or a
temporary basis. It is not the case of the respondent that while making an offer of appointment, the Municipal
Council had complied with the requirements laid down in the statute or statutory rules or even otherwise the
same was in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Reliance was also placed in the case law Management of Sonepat Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Ajit Singh
2005 (1) LLJ 1122 SC
“Thus, a person who performs one or the other jobs mentioned in the aforementioned provisions only would
come within the purview of definition of workman. The job of a clerk ordinarily implies stereotype work
without power of control or dignity or initiative or creativeness. The question as to whether the employee has
been performing a clerical work or not is required to be determined upon arriving at a finding as regard the
dominant nature thereof. With a view to give effect to the expression to do “any manual, unskilled, skilled,
technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work”, the job of the concerned employee must fall within one or
the other category thereof. It would, therefore, not be correct to content that merely because the employee had
not been performing any managerial or supervisory duties, ipso facto he would be a workman.”
Reliance has also been placed on Karnataka Handloom Dev. Corpn. Ltd v. Sri Mahadeva Laxman Raval 2006)
13 Supreme Court Cases 15 The Apex Court has observed in paragraph 16, 17 and 18 as under:
16.
A careful perusal of the terms and conditions of appointment would go to show that the respondent is
not a worker but employed on contract basis on a time bound specific scheme assigned as weaving trainer.
However, the learned Judges of the Division Bench committed a factual error in holding that the above letter of
appointment does not show that employment was not a contract which stipulated that it comes to an end with the
expiry of project or scheme nor is it the case of the Corporation that the respondent was made aware of any such
stipulation even at the commencement of the employment. The High Court has failed to notice that the
respondent was engaged on contract basis and had been assigned to train weavers who were lagging in weaving
skills in the weaving potential development area working on time specific short term scheme sponsored by the
Corporation. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the respondent is not a worker for the purposes of Section
25F of the I.D. Act but employed on contract basis only. The High Court also has not properly appreciated the
judgment relied on - S.M. Nilajkar & Ors. vs. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 27. As the
respondent was engaged as trainer for a specific period under the scheme and was paid a stipend of Rs.1,000/-
p.m. from the date of his appointment and, therefore, Section 2(oo) of the Act is not attracted soon after the
expiry of the specific period the respondent's service was discontinued and so it is not a retrenchment as defined
under Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act.
17.
On the other hand, the case of the Corporation before the learned Single Judge and also before the
Division Bench was that the respondent was not a workman in the employment of the appellant and that he was
a weaver in the area as another weaver in the area and was getting certain concessions from the Corporation.
18.
We have perused all the appointment letters dated 14.01.1991, 24.02.1992, 10.02.1993, 03.03.1993
and 30.11.1993 produced by the respondent as annexures which consistently and categorically state that the
respondent's appointment with the Corporation was purely contractual for a fixed period. The respondent was
engaged only under the Vishwa programme scheme which is not in existence. Now the scheme came to an end
during August, 1994 the respondent was also not governed by any service rules of the Corporation. The
Corporation put an end to the contract w.e.f. 31.08.1993 which, in our opinion, cannot be termed as dismissal
from service. Even assuming that the respondent had worked 240 days continuously he, in our opinion, cannot
claim that his services should be continued because the number of 240 days does not apply to the respondent
inasmuch as his services were purely contractual. The termination of his contract, in our view, does not amount
to retrenchment and, therefore, it does not attract compliance of Section 25F of the I.D. Act at all.
12.
In view of these rival submission the first and very important point to be decided is whether the workman Bharat
Lokhande was a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act or he was only engaged as a contractor.
13.
In support of his claim Bharat Lokhande has filed affidavit of evidence but no documentary evidence has been
filed. He has placed reliance on the documents relied upon and filed by the Management.
14.
On behalf of the Management affidavit of Narendra Sukhdeo Dhavle has been filed who has also stated that the
Corporation is a Government of India Undertaking and is governed by Recruitment Rules and has stated that Bharat
Lokhande was only a Mafatia contractor and was never engaged as a workman. He has also stated that the Despatch
Unit at Vashi of the Management was closed down permanently w.e.f. 16.5.2005. In his cross-examination, the witness
has stated that he was not working under the supervision of the Officer of the Management. He was doing his job as
per the written contract and no one was supervising his work. His statement that the Vashi unit was closed permanently
3086
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
w.e.f.16.5.2005 has not been challenged in the cross-examination. It is argued that he anyhow got the favour of some
Officers of the Management and managed to get this contract. He has drawn our attention towards certain part of the
cross-examination of Bharat Lokhande (second party) which reads as under:
“I knew A.R.Sarkar from 1992. First contract was given to me by A.K.Sarkar on 27.2.1989. Some Officer at
Vashi introduced me to Sarkar. The name of the Officer at Vashi is A.V.Mardikar. I went to Vashi Office on
2.2.1989. Nandini Kutty asked me to visit Vashi Office. I was knowing her for the last 10 years in 1989.
Nandini Kutty called me for the first time on 2.2.1989 and she introduced me to Mardikar. I met Mardikar for
that day for about 15-20 minutes. I started working from the date which is mentioned in the agreement. This is
correct that the first contract for work was from 1.3.1989 to 28.2.1990.”
15.
The argument of the learned counsel for the Management is that the contract entered into with Bharat Lokhande
was for a specific period and subsequently it was renewed on the request of Bharat Lokhande and ultimately it could
not be renewed because the Vashi Unit itself was to be closed.
A careful perusal of the case laws relied upon by the rival parties leads to the conclusion that although the
supervision and the control on the workman is a guiding factor to determine the relationship of employer and employee
but it has also been held by the Honourable Apex Court in the above mentioned case laws that this is not the concluding
factor to determine the relationship.
The next guiding factor to determine the nature of relationship is the nature of the initial engagement and the
duration. The conclusion that comes out after careful scrutiny of all the above mentioned case laws show that if a
casual engagement is made even though on contract basis but the same is continued for several years then the
relationship would be the employer and the workman. A distinguishing factor that can be carved out from the case laws
is the period of the initial appointment. If the initial appointment has been made for a specific period or till the
continuance of the project then the position would be different and such cases shall be different from the cases where
initial appointment has been made without specifying any period of appointment.
16.
It also comes out from the above case laws that in some cases the nature of work for which a person was
employed also helps in determining the nature of employment. At this stage I would like to quote the definition of
workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which reads as under:
“workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled,
skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment
be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute
includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a
consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not
include any such person-
(i)
Who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy
Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii)
Who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or
(iii)
Who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
(iv)
Who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten thousand rupees] per
mensem or exercises, either b the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers
vested in hi, functions mainly of a managerial nature.
I would also like to quote Section 2(oo) 2(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2(oo) (bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of
employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being
terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or
17.
The aforesaid definition is of great importance to determine the controversy in hand. Of course the intention of
the Parliament in enacting such clause (bb) to clause (oo) of Section 2 of the Act was to exclude certain category of
workers from the definition of retrenchment but there is nothing in sub clause (bb) which enables the unscrupulous
employer to terminate the service of the workers on the ground of non-renewal of their contract even when the work for
which they were employed subsists. The explanation as contained in sub-clause (bb) will have to be strictly construed
and clause (bb) must be made applicable to such cases where the work ceases with the employment or the post itself
ceases to exist. It cannot be made applicable to a case when the employer resorts to a contractual employment. The
contract of employment consciously entered into by the workman with the employer is by itself a notice to the
workman on the date of the commencement of the employment itself which goes to inform the workman that his
employment was short lived as per the terms of the contract and was for a specific period and was liable to be
II
(ii)
3087
terminated on the expiry of the period specified in the contract or the project itself coming to an end. In such situation
the workman would not be in a position to make complaint that his employment came to an abrupt termination. It is
true that Industrial Disputes Act is intended to a workman whose services has been continuously engaged or a
considerable period of time and in this background the provisions of Section 2(oo) and (bb) should be interpreted. Of
course a person who makes an agreement with another for doing a work is a contractor and contractor means one who
makes a agreement to carry out certain work in pursuit of independent business undertakes to do specific jobs of work
for other persons without submitting himself to their control in respect to the details of the work. Thus there is a clear
cut distinction between contractor and a workman but as stated earlier supervision by the employer in respect of the
performance of the work cannot be conclusive proof of relationship. The essential condition of a person being a
workman within the terms of the definition of the Act is that he will be employed to do the work in that industry and
there should be, an employment by the employer and there should be relationship between the employer and him as
master and servant. Unless a person is thus employed there can be no question of such relationship within the meaning
of the Act. Even otherwise when an appointment itself is for a fixed tenure that the nature of tenure is a temporary one
his appointment would come to an end after expiry of the tenure and there would be no relationship of master and
servant. Thereafter by a fresh letter of appointment the same may be extended which will amount to a fresh contract.
18.
In the case of Kishor Chandra Samal the Honourable Apex Court has distinguished the decision in S.M.Nilajkar
and has observed that S.M.Nilajkar case has no application because in that case no period was indicated and only
indication was temporary nature of engagement and in that background the relationship of employer and workman was
accepted.
Now in this legal background, the issue No.1 has to be considered.
ISSUE NO.1 :
Whether the second party Bharat Lokhande was a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of
the Act or he was a Contractor?
So far as facts of this case are concerned there is no dispute regarding facts. The initial engagement of the
second party Bharat Lokhande was as Mafatia contractor and the contract itself reads that he may do the specified work
either himself or shall get it done through others. Thus the nature of work as specified in the said contract shows that
those work were of independent nature. It was not specified in the contract that how he will perform the work, how he
had to complete the said work. He was to perform the assigned work in his own manner. The very distinguishing
factor in the facts of the instant case was that the contract was for a specific period of one year. Even date of
termination of the contract was also mentioned. After going through the cross-examination of Bharat Lokhande
(second party) the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that he has never applied for his appointment as a workman.
His admission in the cross-examination show that it was only by some special favour or due to some of his personal
relations with some officers he was given this contract. It is also admitted that Bharat Lokhande from the date of his
initial appointment worked for 15 years till 31.12.2004 but it is also an admitted fact that every year after expiry of the
period of contract he himself gave request letter to the company for renewal of his contract. Several of such letters
have been filed on behalf of the management and the same are admitted. In all such letters Bharat Lokhande has
referred himself as Mafatia contractor. It is nowhere the case of the second party that he was forced to write so and he
was a workman in the company. Thus the long period on which the learned counsel for Bharat Lokhande has laid great
emphasis was virtually due to the yearly renewal of the contract and every such renewed contract was for a specific
period of one year. It is also an admitted fact that the Vashi unit wherein Bharat Lokhande was working as Mafatia
contractor came to an end in May 2005 because lease which was granted by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd was
cancelled by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd and, therefore, unit was closed. Since every contract of Bharat
Lokhande was for a specific period of one year therefore after 31.12.2004 there was no occasion for the company to
renew the said contract for another period of one year. Nor the workman can make a complaint that his contract came to
an abrupt end which was not within his notice.
19.
Thus keeping in view the legal position as discussed above, this Tribunal is of the considered view that every
time engagement of Bharat Lokhande was for a specific period of one year. Even the date of determination of contract
was mentioned therein . On the request of the workman himself his contract was renewed. He himself in his request
letters addressed himself as Mafatia contractor and it is also not been challenged that the said unit in which he was
working was closed within a very short period thereafter. Thus it is true that Bharat Lokhande worked for a long time
but keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the above mentioned case this
Tribunal is of the considered view that inspite of his engagement for a long period the nature of his relationship cannot
change because every contract was a fresh contract and that too say for a specific period of one year. So it transpires
from a bare perusal of fact that Bharat Lokhande continued to work as a Mafatia contractor for a long time which was
due to yearly renewal of his contract and when he came to know that Vashi unit is going to be closed then for the first
time he raised demand for his regularization which was uncalled for in the facts of the present case. Thus in view of the
discussion made above this Tribunal is of the considered view that there was no relationship of workman and employer
as claimed by Bharat Lokhande . This issue is hereby decided in favour of the Management.
3088
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
20.
ISSUE NO.2 :
Whether the termination of his services was illegal / irregular?
In view of the discussion made above, virtually there was no termination of the services of Bharat Lokhande
which was only on the expiry of the period of contract that could not be renewed as the Vashi unit itself was closed. So
by any stretch of imagination it can be stated that the termination of his services was illegal or irregular. This issue is
accordingly decided against Bharat Lokhande.
21.
ISSUE NO.3.:
Relief, if any, to which the second party is entitled?.
In view of the findings given on Issue No.1 and 2 Bharat Lokhande is not entitled to any relief.
Award is passed accordingly.
JUSTICE S. V. S. RATHORE, Presiding Officer
—
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2017
S.O. 1303.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 58/2008) 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
12.05.2017.
[No. L-29012/79/2008-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 21st April, 2017
PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
C R No. 58/2008
I Party
II Party
Smt. Rathnamma,
The Managing Director,
W/o Ananda Shetty,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
R/of Melige Post,
No. 39, M. G. Road,
Thirthahalli Taluk,
Bangalore.- 560001
Shimoga District-577415
Since, I party Workman Rathnamma expired and later, her
husband Ananda Shetty also Expired represented by her L.R’s:
1. Sri. Karunakara , S/o Late Sh. Rathnamma & Ananda Shetty.
(For II party M/s. A.K. Vasanth &
2. Sri. Shivaram Shetty, S/o Late Sh. Rathnamma & Ananda Shetty,
M.K. Girish, Advocates)
since Shivaram Shetty expired represented by his wife Rukmini
and daughters Rashmi M.S, Sushma M.S, Reshma M.S
All residing at Melige Post, Thirthahalli Taluk,
Shimoga District.
(For I party, M. Rajashekar, Advocate)
II
(ii)
3089
AWARD
1.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/79/2008-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 removal from service of Smt. Rathnamma w/o Ananda Shetty by the management of
Mysore Minerals Limited w.e.f. 17.07.1998 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 the II Party has illegally terminated the services of the workman Rathnamma w/o
Ananda Shetty, (since deceased) w.e.f. 17.07.1998, and the workwoman has faced unemployment, financial hardship,
mental agony, and thereby suffered heavily. The I Party/ Workman has been appointed as a Labour/Mazdoor/Workman
in the II Party on 05.04.1977 at Thirthahalli Clay Mines, Thirthahalli Taluk, Shimoga District. Since, then the I Party
has worked continuosly to the best of her ability and to the satisfaction of her superiors. The I Party submits that, while
working as a workman, the II Party forced the I Party to undergo Medical Examination on 22.01.1998. The Doctor has
issued the incorrect report in Form “O” to the II Party, stating that I Party appears to be more than 58 years. Further,
the II Party decided to terminate her service with effect from 17.07.1998. Further, the I Party states that, the II Party
based on the false certificate issued by the Doctor, has forcibly and illegally terminated her services and informed the
said fact to the I Party, vide its letter dated 27.07.1998. The I Party states that, the actual date of birth of the I Party is
entered in the B Register, which is 05.04.1948 and as per the register, as on 17.07.1998 the age of the workwoman,
would be only 50 years 3 months and 13 days and the II Party has illegally terminated the I Party. Further, the I Party
states that, the II Party with a malafide intention of terminating the services of I Party has obtained a false certificate
stating that her age would be 58 years as on 17.07.1998 as against the true age and their own record. It is submitted that
in the entire service of the I Party the II Party has not bothered to get the I Party medically checked up and for the first
time during the year 1998, the II Party with a sole intention of removing the I Party from the service, has obtained the
medical check-up done and illegally removed her from the service. Further, it is submitted that, the I Party has not been
covered by the Mines Act, 1952 and Mines Rules 1995. Therefore, there has been no necessity for I Party to undergo
any medical examination as required under the Mines Act and Rules since her service has not been covered under the
said Act. It is submitted that, at the time of removing the I Party from the service she has been given only gratuity and
all other service benefits have been intentionally withheld by the II Party and the said conduct of the II Party is highly
objectionable and condemnable. Further, it is submitted that, the other co-employees of the I Party those who have
been illegally discharged from the service by the II Party have succeeded in either getting the job or the service
benefits. Hence, the I Party is also entitled to get her legal dues from the II Party. It is further submitted that since the I
Party has been illegally discharged from service w.e.f 18.07.1998, i.e., nearly 6 years, 8 months and 17 days, earlier to
the date of superannuation (04.04.2008), without assigning any valid reasons and without settling her service benefits
such as Gratuity, Provident Fund, Earned Leave, Bonus, Medical Benefits etc., the I Party has suffered great loss and
hardship apart from suffering financial loss and sustained mental shock. It is submitted that, since the I Party is not
worldly wise she could not fight back and recover the benefits for which she is legally entitled to. Further, I party is
entitled to receive damages from the II Party for illegal termination/ discharge and having made the I Party to suffer
great mental shock. Thus, the LRs of the deceased workwoman are entitled to get Rs. 5,74,180/- together with interest
at the rate of 12% from 18.07.1998 up to the date of payment by the II Party. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may
be pleased to allow the claim petition and direct the II Party to pay a sum of Rs. 5,74,180/- along with interest at the
rate of 12% from 18.07.1998 up to the date of payment by the II Party together with costs, in the interest of justice and
equity.
3.
Brief details mentioned in the Counter statement ate as follows:-
At the time of joining the service, in the year 1977, the I party has furnished her date of birth as 05.04.1948 as
per the Horoscope maintained by his parents as per the family tradition and custom. It is not correct to state that the
II party has accepted the same as true and correct. The I party has not produced any authenticated document with
regard to her date of birth before the II party. Further, II party on the recommendation of the employees union of the II
party, the I party has been subjected to medical examination. It is not with any ulterior motive as alleged by the I party.
All the required facilities have been provided by the II party to the I party as per the Mines Act. The allegation made
by the I party in para No.8 of the claim petition is wholly incorrect. The II party has instructed the Medical Examiners
to submit report with regard to health condition and age of the mining workers. The allegations of the I party that the II
party with an ulterior motive tampered the I party’s record, date of entry and age, etc, is false and in correct. All the
required service regulations governing the I party have been followed by the II party. The I party joined the services of
the II party on 05.04.1977 at the age of 29 years. The Register of Employees in Form-B is produced for the kind
3090
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
perusal of this Court and enclosed as Annexure-R1. 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. Therefore, the I party
is not entitled for any relief at the hands of this Court. In the medical examination, the I party has been found to be
aged more than 58 years as per the report given by the doctors. Therefore, I party cannot question before this Court
with regard to genuineness of medical examination report as law provides alternative remedy, i.e., filing appeal before
the Medical Appellate Board within 30 days. Therefore, the I party is debarred in law to question the legality of the
medical report before this Court. The I party has approached this Court, with incorrect allegations against the II party.
Therefore, the filing of the above dispute is against the principle of Promissory Estopple. Hence, the claim filed
by the I party before this Court is time barred and this Court cannot entertain the said claim at this length of time.
Viewed from any angle, the claim filed by the I party is not maintainable for the above mentioned reasons.
Hence, II party prays to dismiss the claim petition filed by the I party.
Further, this is an old case of the year 2008. 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 removal from service of Smt. Rathnamma w/o Ananda Shetty by the management of Mysore
Minerals Limited w.e.f. 17.07.1998 is justified? If not, to what relief the I party is entitled to?”
5.
Analysis, Discussion Findings with regard to the above mentioned point:-
The WW-1 namely, Smt. Rathnamma W/o Ananda Shetty/Workwoman (since deceased) has examined herself
as WW-1 and also, the above mentioned submissions made in the claim statement have been stated by her. Further,
Death Certificate of Smt. Rathnamma W/o Ananda Shetty, has been submitted, in order to establish that she has
expired on 13.07.2012 and also family tree details have been issued by the Village Accountant dated 30.07.2012. The
WW-1, has clearly submitted in the claim statement and also, in her evidence that she has joined the II party-company
on 05.04.1977 and Terminated on 17.07.1998. Further, WW-2 namely Smt. Rukmini, wife of Shivarama Shetty,
examined herself as WW-2 and she has filed Ex W-7 to Ex W-10. Further, WW-3, Rashmi M.S, D/o Shivarama
Shetty, examined herself as WW-3 and she has filed Ex W-11 to Ex W-14. Further, as per Ex W-14, the Genealogical
tree detail has been issued by the Village Accountant. Further, Karunakara M.A, has examined himself as WW-4 and
filed Ex W-15 to Ex W-18.
6.
Further, it is seen that as per the Register of Employees, furnished by II party the Date of Birth of workwoman
has been mentioned as 05.04.1948, as pointed out in the claim statement. Further, in the Ex-W2 Medical Report, the
workwoman has affixed only the left hand thumb impression. On that ground only, it is pointed out in the claim
statement that the workwoman is an illiterate workman and not worldly wise to understand the details, properly.
Further, as per the Ex-W10, the family members details of deceased workman have been clearly furnished by the I
party. Also, as per Ex-W12, the death certificate of Ananda Shetty, has been issued by the Chief Registrar of Births
and Death. Further, as per E-W13 the death certificate of Shivarama Shetty, Son of workman has been filed. Further,
in the Counter statement, itself, the II party has admitted that the workwoman has joined the services of the II party on
05.04.1977 and the Register of Employees in Form – B has also been submitted. Further, W2 to W4 witnesses have
clearly established by filing the relevant records, as mentioned in the Exhibits list and also significantly established that
they are entitled to get the amount of Rs.4,15,815/- payable to the deceased workwoman. Further, the Assistant
Manager, of II party, namely MW1 has also admitted that the said workwoman joined the services of II party company
on 05.04.1977. However, the II party has not established that removal of I party from the services of II party is genuine
and legitimate.
7.
Further, it is found that the I party is not entitled to get gratuity for the period 18.07.1998 to 04.04.2006, and
also interest at the rate of 12% and further, the amount of damages from the II party management for the above
mentioned peculiar facts and special circumstances and unique details and reasons. Further, it is seen that, the
II Party/Management is adopting super technical and hyper technical measures, so as to stop the workwoman of 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 workwoman are denied. 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 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
II
(ii)
3091
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.
8.
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
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 the
I Party, has not been allowed to work after 17.07.1998, as the I Party has reached the age of superannuation.
9.
Further, 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 of 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. 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., 18.07.1998 to 04.04.2006. For the above, mentioned
reasons, it is found that, the LR’s of the deceased workman namely i) Smt. Rukmini, wife of Shivarama Shetty and
daughters of Shivarama Shetty namely ii) Rashmi M.S, iii) Sushma M.S, and iv) Reshma M.S are entitled to get
1/4th share each of 50% of the amount of Rs.4,15,815/- payable to deceased workwoman and another 50% of
Rs.4,15,815/- to Karunakara M.A, towards monetary benefit amounts, and loss of income sustained and payable to the
I Party workwoman Smt. Rathnamma w/o Ananda Shetty from 18.07.1998 to 04.04.2006, for the above mentioned
various reasons, grounds and details mentioned in the claim statement and also, established by the I party, in
accordance with the law. Accordingly, the following award is passed.
3092
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The II Party is not justified in terminating the service of the Smt. Rathnamma w/o Ananda Shetty–
workwoman, (since deceased) w.e.f 17.07.1998 and II Party is directed to pay Rs.4,15,815/- for the loss of
income sustained by the workwoman to the LRs of the deceased workwoman, namely, i)Smt. Rukmini,
wife of Shivarama Shetty and daughters of Shivarama Shetty namely ii) Rashmi M.S, iii) Sushma, M.S,
iv)Reshma M.S at the rate of 1/4th share each of 50% of the amount of Rs.4,15,815/- payable to deceased
workwoman and another 50% of Rs.4,15,815/- to Karunakara M.A, and the award is passed accordingly,
without cost for the above mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 21st April, 2017)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1
Smt. Rathnamma, I Party/workman (Deceased)
WW2
Smt. Rukmini, W/o Late Shivarama Shetty
WW3
Ms. Rashmi M.S, D/o Late Shivarama Shetty
WW4
Sri. Karunakara M A, S/o Late Rathnamma Ananda Shetty
List of witness on the side of the II party: Mr.Somanna, Asst. Manager .
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex W-1
-
‘B’ Register of Employees
Ex W-2
-
Medical Report in Form ‘O’
Ex W-3
16.07.1998
Letter by II Party to I Party
Ex W-4
27.07.1998
Order by II Party to I Party
Ex W-5
05.04.1977
Statement of Attendance, leave, emoluments etc.,
Ex W-6
18.07.1998
Statement of Attendance, leave, emoluments etc.,
Ex W-7
-
Aadhaar Card Copy of Rukmini
Ex W-8
-
PAN Card details of Rukmini
Ex W-9
-
Bank Account details of Rukmini
Ex W-10
01.03.2017
Family Tree details
Ex W-11
-
Aadhaar Card Copy of Rashmi M S
Ex W-12
18.12.2012
Death Certificate of Ananda Shetty
Ex W-13
05.02.2016
Death Certificate of Shivarama Shetty
Ex W-14
30.07.2012
Family Tree details issued by Village Accountant
Ex W-15
-
Aadhaar Card Copy of Karunakara M A
Ex W-16
-
PAN Card details of Karunakara M A
Ex W-17
Bank Account details of Karunakara M A
Ex W-18
24.03.2017
LRs details by Workwoman.
II
(ii)
3093
—
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2017
S.O. 1304.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 97/2007) 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
12.05.2017.
[No. L-29012/23/2007-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 21st April, 2017
PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
C R No. 97/2007
I Party
II Party
Sri. Rangaswamy,
The Managing Director,
S/o Late Hanumanayaka, MML Worker,
Mysore Minerals Limited,
Anathi Village & Post,
No. 39, M G Road,
Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk,
Bangalore- 560001
Hassan District.
(For I party, M/s K.T. Govinde Gowda
(For II party M/s. L. Venkatarama Reddy
& Sh. C.G. Dileep Gowda, Advocates)
Advocate)
AWARD
1.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-29012/23/2007-IR(M) dated 21.08.2007 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 terminating the services
of Sri. Rangaswamy w.e.f. 26.03.1998 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 in the year 1986, he has joined in the service of the II Party management at its Mining
Unit viz., Bhaktharahalli Chromite Mines, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District, as a Mining Worker under Token
No. 138. The I Party has been rendering his service Sincerely, Honestly, Diligently without giving any room for any
omission or commission. The I Party submits that, from 07.02.1998 for a period of 5 weeks the I Party could not attend
the duty due to his mother’s illness and also, subsequently she died. The I Party intimated the same to the officials of
the II Party and requested them for sanctioning the leave. Knowing the said details the Manager of II Party issued
notice dated 07.03.1998, 13.03.1998 and 23.03.1998. After the receipts of the notices, the I Party promptly once again
explained his difficulties for his absence for the duty and availing leave thereon, due to serious illness of his mother.
Subsequently, the I Party reported for duty on 26.03.1998 onwards but Officials of the II Party refused to allow him
inside the Mines at Bhaktharahalli and Byrapura Mines on the plea that the said Manager required clarification from the
3094
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
II Party Head Office. Everyday the I Party used to approach the Manager of Bhaktharahalli and other Superiors for
providing employment. The I Party respectfully submits that, during the year 1995-96, the II Party Management as
eyewash entrusted some Mining Development Work in Hassan and Shimoga Districts to Private Contractors without
following due process of law and paid about Rs. 21 crore in an illegal manner without extracting Mining Development
Work. Finally and ultimately the II Party adopted its own tactics, ways and means for terminating the Mining Workers,
in short cut methods and also in an illegal and irregular manner by adopting anti-labour and un-fair labour practice and
victimized the I Party and other co-workers by removing them enmasse by resorting to so-called Medical Examination
during the year 1998. The I Party respectfully submits that, the action of the II Party in terminating the services of the I
Party in the said manner tantamount, to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(00) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
The II Party having not followed the Mandatory provisions of Section 25 F, G, H & N of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 and Rules 78 and 79 thereon, the action of the Management is, therefore, void-ab-initio as laid by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Sundaramani Vs State Bank of India, Santhosh Gupta Vs State Bank of India,
Robert D’Souza Vs Southern Railway, K.S.R.T.C.- Bangalore Vs Boraiaha and others and also violated the Provisions
of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The II Party Management is not justified in retrenching the service of the I Party w.e.f.
26.03.1998, in summary manner, without any regard to the principal of Natural justice and fair play. 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 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
Scheduled Tribe which is 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 27.03.2006. 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. 26.03.1998. 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 service and also, premature superannuating of the I Party services w.e.f. 26.03.1998 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., 26.03.1998 till providing employment as per B-register and
EPF records and Service records maintained by the II Party and EPF Authorities and pay the interest at the rate of
II
(ii)
3095
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 dispute raised by the I Party is totally perverse, frivolous and misconceived, and
there is no merit in the dispute, in question, raised by the I Party. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed in limine at
threshold. The II Party also states that, the I Party has raised the dispute after lapse of 10 years from the date of
termination of service i.e, 26.03.1998. The II Party states that, the I Party has been given 30 days time to prefer appeal
before Appellate Medical Board as per Rules. The I Party has not availed the opportunity extended to him by the II
Party. However, the I Party waited for the result in the case filed by the co-workers, who approached Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka. The Success of co-workers of I Party in W.P. No. 5615/2001 and 269101/2001 before Hon’ble
High Court of Karnataka inspired the I Party to file this dispute after lapse of 10 years. The II Party states that, if
parties like I Party, are allowed to file dispute before the Court of law, then there will be no end to litigation in the
country. Hence, the conduct of the I Party does not deserve any relief at the hands of this Tribunal. The II Party also
states that, the dispute raised by the I Party is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches, since the claim
made by the I Party is stale and time barred. The II Party states that, the II Party has arranged for Medical Examination
of all the employees and workers, working at Mines Units during the year 1997-98 as required under Mines Rules 1995,
which is a requirement of law. The II Party also states that, for the above said purpose of Medical Examination of
workers, as per the advice of the Director of Mines Safety - a team of qualified and Senior Medical Officers from Hutti
Gold Mines Co. Ltd., have been specifically entrusted to carry out Medical Examination of all the workers of II Party,
who are working at Mines Units in various places. The said expert team have examined the I Party and found that I
party has no capacity to work in the mine, in view of the fact that the I Party, aged more than 58 years as on the date of
Medical Examination. As per the report of expert Medical examination, the II Party Management took the decision to
terminate the services of the workers who are working at Mines units under the management of II Party. However, the
I Party took decision to receive the monetary benefits arising, due to of the termination, i.e., E.P.F, Gratuity, Leave
Pension and settled the matter with the II Party without any protest and without any grievance of his rights. The II
Party also states that, the I Party who has amicably settled his monetary benefits with the II Party and has no right to
raise the present dispute after lapse of 8 years, at instigation, for wrongful gain. The II Party states that, the dispute
referred by Government of India is itself not maintainable in law, in view of the fact that there is no relationship of
employer and employee existed between I Party and II Party, as on the date of preferring the reference. Hence, the
reference is made without authority of law and without jurisdiction, as such the dispute deserves to be dismissed on this
ground alone. The II Party states that, the Central Government ought to have refused to refer the dispute sought by the I
Party on the ground that the claim does not merit reference. There is no Industrial Dispute existed or is apprehended.
The II Party also states that, the statements made by I Party in the claim statement are all denied as false and incorrect
and the I Party is put to strict proof thereof. The I Party is not entitled for any family pensionary benefits as per law.
The provisions of Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 and Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable in the case
of the I Party. The II Party also states that, the I Party is happily working elsewhere since from the date of his
termination. Hence, the question of suffering from financial problems without work does not arise at all. The II Party
states that, the II Party has not changed the date of birth of I Party as alleged by him. The II Party also states that, the
statement of I Party that he is pursuing the concerned authorities till raising the dispute is totally incorrect and the I
Party has slept over his rights for 10 years. The II Party states that, the allegations of the I Party that the II Party has not
followed the procedure and law while terminating the I Party and the action of the II Party is illegal, irregular and
arbitrary, capricious and malafide are all figment of imagination of the I Party. Therefore, the II Party prays this Court
to dismiss the dispute filed by the I Party with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice and equity.
4.
The crucial point that arises for consideration in the present matter is:-
“Whether the action of the management of M/s Mysore Minerals Limited in terminating the services of
Sri Rangaswamy w.e.f. 26.03.1998 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
5.
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 Bhaktharahalli Chromite Mines,
Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District, as a Mining Worker under Token No. 138 in the year 1986. The WW1 has
also rendered his service sincerely, honestly, diligently, without giving room for any omission or commission. The I
Party states that, from 07.02.1998 for a period of 5 weeks the I Party could not attend the duty due to his mother’s
illness and also subsequently, she died. The I Party intimated the same to the officials of the II Party and requested
them for sanctioning the leave. Knowing the said details the Manager of II Party issued notice dated 07.03.1998,
13.03.1998 and 23.03.1998. After the receipt of the notices, the I Party promptly once again explained his difficulties
3096
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
for his absence for the duty and availing leave thereon, due to serious illness of his mother. The I Party states that the II
Party failed to issue the charge sheet and show-cause notice to the I Party. Further, WW1 also states that, his date of
birth as per the Register of Employees maintained by II Party is 07.11.1965 and he is entitled to serve in the II Party-
company, till reaching the age of superannuation i.e, till 07.11.2025. WW1 also states in his evidence and claim
statement 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. Furthermore, in the claim statement 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 claim statement 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-4, dated
31.08.2001, the I Party has sent letter to II Party requesting the II Party to permit him to do the duty and pay the wages
from 26.03.1998 till allowing and permitting him to work and as per Ex W-5, circular issued on 22.08.2008 by the II
Party and the retirement age of workman has been increased from 58 to 60 years, by the II Party.
6. Further, 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 termination 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 the settled law that
there is no estoppel as against the statutory rights with regard to the workers right, 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.
7.
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 both the 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 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. Further, the II Party issued, three notices dated 07.03.1998, 13.03.1998 and
23.03.1998 to I Party. However, I Party has clearly stated that his Date of Birth is 07.11.1965, and he will be attaining
the age of superannuation only on 07.11.2025 and after taking the 5 weeks of leave the I Party, has reported for duty on
26.03.1998. Further, the Assistant Manager of II party namely, MW1 has clearly admitted that the Register of
Employees has been submitted to this court. As per the Register of Employees, the Date of Birth of I party has been
mentioned as 07.11.65 only. Further, MW1 has admitted in the cross examination, that it is true to suggest that there is
also no health unit and Bhattarahalli Chromite Mines is an ---open mine and there is no shelter from Sun and Rain, and
along with the termination order issued to the I party, three months salary has not been paid and he does not know as to
whether change of age, has been intimated to EPF Authorities, as per the Medical certificates and it is true to suggest
that the I party is an illiterate person. Further more, MW1 has admitted that it is true to suggest that having suffered the
loss the Management thought of reducing the number of workers and at the said juncture, the Management ordered for
Medical Examination of all the mining workers and we have not produced the medical certificate issued by the Doctor
who examined the I party and it is true to suggest that the I party has not been issued the charge sheet and no enquiry
has been conducted before the termination of his service.
8.
Further, it is relevant to mention that the I Party workman has been punished by II Party on 26.03.1998 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 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
II
(ii)
3097
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.
9.
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
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 26.03.1998, as the I Party has reached the age of superannuation.
10. 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
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 terminating the service of I party/Rangaswamy with effect
from 26.03.1998 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,
3098
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
26.03.1998 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 21st April, 2017)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
WW 1
Sh. Rangaswamy, I Party/ workman
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1
Sh. Somanna, Assistant Manager/II Party
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex W-1
07.03.1998
First Notice letter
Ex W-2
13.03.1998
Second Notice letter
Ex W-3
23.03.1998
Final Notice letter
Ex W-4
31.08.2001
Letter written by I Party to II Party
Ex W-5
22.08.2008
Circular relating to enhancing the superannuation
age from 58 years to 60 years
Exhibit marked on behalf of II Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex M-1
-
Register of Employees
Ex M-2
-
Employees Service Record
—
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2017
S.O. 1305.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
15.05.2017.
[No. L-30011/1/2008-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
II
(ii)
3099
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM
Present :
Sri M.K. Bhattacharjee, M.A., LL.B.,
Presiding Officer,
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:
The Management O.N.G.C. Ltd., Sibsagar, Assam.
-Vrs-
Their Workmen represented by the Vice President, ONGC Workers’ Association, Sibsagar, Assam.
Ref. Case No. 05 of 2008
APPEARANCES :
For the Management
:
Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Sr. Advocate
Mr. B. Das, Advocate
For the Union
:
Mr. M.J. Quadir, Advocate,
Mr. S.Y. Ahmed, Advocate
Date of Award : 28.04.2017
AWARD
1.
This Reference Case arose out of an Industrial Dispute between the employer, ONGC Ltd. (Management of
Assam Asset, Nazira) and their workmen in respect of the claim raised by the Workmen through their Union regarding
regularization of service of six Junior Technical Assistant (Boiler). The matter was referred by the Ministry of Labour
and Employment, Government of India, vide Order No. L-30011/1/2008-IR(M);Dated: 05/05/2008 u/s 10(1)(d) of the
I.D.Act. 1947. The Schedule of the Reference is as follows :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of ONGC Ltd. (Executive Director, Assam Asset, Nazira, Dist.
Sivsagar Assam) in not regularizing the services of 6 Jr. Technical Assistants (Boiler) (List enclosed in
Annexure-A) appointed on contractual basis June, 1998 is justified or not ? To what relief the concerned
workmen are entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the reference, notices were served upon the parties who appeared and submitted their respective
statements. The case of the workmen was that 14 posts of Boiler Operators along with other posts were to be filled up
in the year 1997 in ONGC, ERBC, Assam Asset. Accordingly, a requisition for recruitment of 7 Posts of Junior
Assistant Technician (Boiler) was sent to the Assistant Director Employment, Jorhat, Sivsagar, Sonari, Nazira and
Mariani. Thereafter 7 candidates were selected and appointed to the Posts of Junior Assistant Technicians (Boiler)
on regular basis. After recruitment of the 7 Junior Assistant Technician (Boiler), the ONGC again forwarded requisition
for recruitment of 7 numbers of Junior Assistant Technicians (Boiler) on contract basis to the Assistant Director,
Employment Exchange of Jorhat, Sivsagar, Sonari, Nazira and Mariani. Names of 7 candidates (1) Biswajit Das, (2)
Mirazul Haque, (3) Taskinuddin Ahmed, (4) Jogen Saikia, (5) Dambarudhar Gogoi, (6) Pranab Saikia & (7) Bipul
Dutta were sponsored by the Employment Exchanges and they appeared before the interview on 08.06.98 and were
selected for the post of Junior Assistant Technician (Boiler) on contract basis. Subsequently the aforesaid 7 candidates
were appointed for a period of six months on contractual basis. From time to time their period of contract was extended.
After 04.10.2000 the Management of ONGC extended the service of the said Junior Assistant Technician (Boiler) for a
period of 4 years and engaged them on tenure basis without terminating the contract engagement, and recommended for
4 years engagement. Again on expiry of the above mentioned extension, the Management of ONGC extended their
service on 03.10.05 for 2 months till 30.11.05. The said period of engagement was further extended as per terms based
employment Scheme by holding an interview on 20.11.05 and at that time ONGC management changed the
nomenclature of Junior Assistant Technician (Boiler) and renamed the Post as Field Operator (Boiler) on 09.12.2005 to
which the aforesaid workmen have been posted earlier since 1998 without changing the ONGC’s recruitment and
Promotion Policy and the period of their services was extended for 4 years with a rider clause of 45 years of age for
termination of the service and reducing the Pay Scale to Rs.5000/- from Rs.5188/-. The aggrieved employees then
approached the Management for regularization of their services on and from 03.05.2001. The Manager, Industrial
Engineering, Nazira recommended for 10 numbers of Junior Assistant Technician (Boiler) for regular appointment. In
3100
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
this connection, the Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide Notification dated 08.09.94 prohibited contract
labour of boiler operation along with other categories of workers in the establishment of ONGC in the Country. As
such, the Management of ONGC did not engage Boiler Operator either on contractual or on tenure basis. The ONGC
Workers’ Association , ERBC Sivsagar, thereafter, raised an Industrial Dispute before the ALC(C), Ministry of Labour,
Government of India on behalf of the above named 7 numbers of workmen. However, due to obstinacy of the
Management the conciliation process ended in failure and ultimately the matter was referred to the Tribunal. The
workmen prayed for the following relief.
(i)
The aggrieved employees sought regularization of their services against regular post of Boiler Assistant
Technician with effect from date from which they assumed the charges of Junior Technician (Boiler);
(ii)
The aggrieved employees also demanded regular Pay Scale and annual increment and other fringe
benefits at par with the regular employees of the same cadre.
(ii)
After regularization their promotion to the next higher post are also to be considered as per rules.
4.
The Management of ONGC, Nazira, Sibsagar submitted their written statement stating that the aforesaid 7
numbers of Junior Assistant Technician (Boiler) were appointed purely on contract basis for six months and such
contract was renewed from time to time. It was also stated that all the workmen, aforementioned, joined their duties
accepting all the terms and conditions mentioned in the Memorandum dated 09.06.98 (Exhibit-2) wherein it was clearly
mentioned that the engagement of the said workmen was temporary and for a fixed term and there could not have a
claim for regularization. In the year 2001 ONGC took a Policy decision for engagement of workers on a scheme of
tenure based for a period of 4 years or up to the age of 40 years whichever is earlier and the ONGC held an interview
in the year 2001 for engagement of qualified and suitable persons under the same Scheme with effect from 24.10.2001
for a period of 4 years on the terms and conditions mentioned in the offer of tenure based engagement vide memo dated
04.10.01 (Exhibirt-3). It was also stated that on expiry of 4 years i.e. on 30.11.2005 the engagement of those workers
came to an end and subsequently the workmen and employer relationship between the parties also came to an end. The
ONGC again held interviews on 28.11.05 for filling up of certain posts of Field Operators (Boiler) on tenure basis and
accordingly they were appointed on the same terms and conditions as appended in letter dated 09.12.2005 (Exhibit-5).
Their engagement was temporary in nature for the period of 4 years which came to an end on 08.12.09. The
Management further contended that with passing of ONGC (Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1993, the function of the
Company as a commercial entity depended on competition with other global players engaged in exploration,
development and production of hydrocarbons. As a result, ONGC was required to obtain exploration rights or licenses
on the basis of open competitive bidding with other global players and as such, the availability of works depended upon
the successful bidding of the ONGC in the global tender. It was also stated that in view of the aforesaid development in
the functioning of ONGC the claim of the workers that the nature of their work was permanent was not tenable. It was
also mentioned that the Management gave the workmen a chance for appearing in interview for regularization but the
workmen could not come out successful in the interview on 01.03.2008. On the aforesaid premises the Management
prayed for rejecting the claim of the workmen.
5.
During the pendency of this reference workman Mirajul Haque was appointed by the Management of ONGC to
the post of Junior Assistant Technician (cementing) and in this connection on a petition was filed by the then Vice
President, ONGC Workers Association, Sibsagar and name of Sk Mirajul Haque was struck off from the reference vide
order dated 22.04.2010. Similarly workman Jogen Saikia and Biswajit Das also filed joint petition along with an
Affidavit praying for dropping their names from the reference as they were also appointed by the Management on
regular basis. Their names were also struck off vide order dated 25.04.2013. The workman Taskinuddin also submitted
similar petition through the Union for allowing him to withdraw from the proceeding as he was also appointed as Junior
Assistant Technician (production) on regular basis by the Management. His name was accordingly struck off from the
reference vide order dated 06.05.2013. In respect of workman Bipul Dutta, his engaged counsel Mr. M.J.Quadir
submitted a petition dated 06.05.2013 stating that the workman expired on 20.09.2005 during the pendency of this
reference and his legal heirs did not pursue the matter and as such, the case of workman Bipul Dutta was not pressed
before the Tribunal and his name was struck off vide order dated 06.05.2013. In view of the aforesaid, this proceeding
remained between the Management of ONGC and two workmen namely Pranab Saikia and Dombarudhar Gogoi and
their Union. Meanwhile, during the pendency of this Reference case before this Tribunal, a Misc Case No.3 of 2010
was filed by the Union representing workman Pranab Saikia who was not considered for further engagement by the
management on the ground of his vision problem. This Tribunal passed an order on 24.5.2010 directing the
management of ONGC to engage workman Pranab Saikia on tenure basis. Against this order the management preferred
Writ Petition No.5028/ 2010 before Hon’ble Gauhati High Court. The Writ petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble
Gauhati High Court vide order dated 9.6.2011 directing the management of the ONGC to accommodate the workman in
any other non-technical post on tenure basis, preferably on the same rank and pay.
II
(ii)
3101
6.
The workmen side examined six witnesses while the Management examined one witness. On conclusion of the
hearing my learned Predecessor answered the reference vide his Award dated 28.06.2013 with the following operative
part:-
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case & having regard to the discussion and the findings
arrived at as above, and taking into account the ratio of the judgments pronounced by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court as mentioned above, it can safely be held that the workmen have not been able to establish
that they were engaged in any sanctioned post and the Management engaged the workmen according to
their requirement and volume of works as per the provision of the Recruitment Policy adopted by their
Competent Authority. Under the above circumstances, it can be concluded that the action of the
Management ONGC Ltd. ( Executive Director, Assam Asset, Nazira, Dist-Sivsagar, Assam ) in not
regularizing the service of 6 Jr. Technical Assistants (Boiler) appointed on contractual basis in the Month
of June,1998 is justified and accordingly the workmen are not entitled to any relief. Hence, this Reference
is answered in favour of the Management.”
6.
Against the aforesaid order, the workers Association of ONGC, Assam Asset, Nazira and 2 workmen namely
Pranab Saikia and Dambarudhar Gogoi preferred Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before
the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court which was numbered as W.P.(C) 6110/2013. The Hon’ble High Court disposed of the
aforesaid Writ Petition vide order dated 15.2.2016 and remanded back the reference case to this Tribunal for fresh
decision. The relevant part of the order passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court is as under:-
“17. When the petitioners were appointed as Field Operator (Boiler) on tenure basis on 09.12.2005, it was
specifically mentioned therein that the tenure engagement would be subject to the decision of the Hon’ble
Gujrat High Court/Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gujrat where identical
issues were being adjudicated.”
“18.
Mr. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before the Court a copy of the judgment
of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dated 29.04.2015 passed in a batch of Letters Patent
Appeal (Executive Director, ONGC Vs ONGC Employees Mazdoor Sabha). In the said batch of cases,
the industrial dispute pertained to regularization of service of the term based employees. In fact the
schedule of the reference in the said cases reads as under:-
“Whether the demand of the ONGC Employees Majdoor Sabha, Baroda to give regular appointment to
577 terms based appointees (list enclosed) is proper or just? If so, what relief the workmen are entitled for
and what directions are necessary in the matter ?”
“19. The Tribunal on due consideration issued a number of directions. One of the directions was to
regularize the services of such term based employees. Another direction given was not to undertake
any recruitment exercise without providing regular employment to the term based appointees. It was
against the last direction of the Tribunal that ONGC preferred writ petitions before the Gujarat High
Court. A Single Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissed the writ petitions upholding the award passed
by the Tribunal except the direction not to go for fresh recruitment without giving regular appointment to
the term based appointees. It was held that since the workmen had already undergone the procedure of
recruitment their cases for regularization deserved consideration. Accordingly, directions were issued to
absorb them as regular employees. On appeal, i.e. Letters Patent Appeal No.797/2013 and other connected
appeals, the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court vide the common order dated 29.04.2015 rejected the
contentions advanced on behalf of ONGC. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as merit-less. It was
held that the decision of the Tribunal as affirmed by the Single Bench did not call for any interference.
Exhaustive reference was made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ONGC Ltd. Vs Petroleum
Coal Labour Union, Civil Appeal No.3727/2015 decided on April 17, 2015.”
“20. When in the tenure appointment of the petitioners it was mentioned that such appointment would be
subject to the outcome of the decision of the Gujarat High Court or the decision of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gujarat, it was the bounden duty of the Tribunal to
have awaited the verdict of the Gujarat High Court. At this stage, it may be mentioned that on a
comparative analysis of the schedules in both the references i.e., in the present reference as well as in the
Gujarat reference, it is more than evident that the subject matter of the two reference proceedings was
indeed identical. A perusal of the impugned award dated 28.06.2013 would go to show that there is no
reference to the decision of the Tribunal at Gujarat which decision has been upheld by the Gujarat High
Court, both at the stage of Single Bench as well as by the Division Bench.”
3102
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“21. At this stage, it may be noted that against the decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High
Court, ONGC filed Special Leave to Appeal (SLP) Nos. 22467-22469/2015 before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. However, by order dated 17.08.2015 the SLPs were dismissed.”
“22. The aforesaid development has considerable relevance and would have a vital bearing on the
outcome of the industrial dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.1. Therefore, the same is
required to be considered by the Tribunal afresh as it is necessary and important to maintain uniformity
in the decisions arrived at by industrial adjudicators on industrial disputes having identical dimension.”
“23. In such circumstances, Court is of the view that it would be just and proper if the case is remanded
back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in the light of the aforesaid development. Accordingly, impugned
award dated 28.06.2013 is hereby set aside and quashed. Matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for a
fresh decision in accordance with law. Till such decision is taken, service status of the petitioners as on
today shall be maintained. Let the fresh decision on remand be taken within a period of 4 (four) months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”
7.
In view of the aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, this Tribunal is required to decide the
reference afresh keeping in mind the decision of the CGIT, Gujrat as upheld by Hon’ble Gujrat High Court and Hon’ble
Supreme Court in similar and identical matter.
8.
It appeared from the evidence adduced by the workmen side that the workmen were originally appointed on
contract basis by the Management as Junior Technician (Boiler). The period of their engagement was extended from
time to time and ultimately after holding an interview the workmen were engaged as Field Operator (Boiler) on tenure
engagement on 9.12.2005 vide Ext-H. It is therefore, an admitted fact that though the workmen were engaged on tenure
basis, their engagement was done after holding interview. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute.
9.
It is submitted by both sides that similar appointments on tenure basis were made by the Management of ONGC
in several places and industrial dispute arose out of such appointments and subsequent actions of the management. An
identical matter was referred to CGIT, Gujrat by the Ministry and that is why all such appointments made thereafter
were stated to be subject to the decision of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court/ CGIT, Gujrat. Hon’ble Gauhati High Court has
already held in W.P(C) No. 6110/2013 that matters are identical in nature and after passing of the “Award” by
CGIT, Gujrat, it was challenged by the Management before Hon’ble Single Bench of Gujrat High Court where the
decision of the CGIT was substantially upheld. The management then preferred Writ Appeal before the Division Bench
of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court which upheld the decision of the Hon’ble Single Bench. Ultimately, SLP filed by the
Management before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also dismissed. In view of the aforesaid development, Hon’ble
Gauhati High Court held, in W.P (C) No. 6110/2013, that this Tribunal is required to consider the aforesaid
development/ facts and “it is necessary and important to maintain uniformity in the decisions arrived at by industrial
adjudicators on industrial disputes having identical dimension.”From Ext-H, a document of the Management and
admitted by both sides it was clear that the appointments of the workmen on tenure engagement as Field Operator
(Boiler) shall be subject to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court.
10.
During argument of the matter, learned lawyers of both the sides fairly admitted that the identical matter was
decided by the CGIT, Gujarat with several directions including regularization of the service of such termed based
employees. It was also fairly conceded that against the award passed by the Tribunal, Gujarat the Management
preferred a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and subsequently to the Division Bench of the Hon’ble
Gujarat High Court and in both the matters, Hon’ble Gujrat High Court upheld the award passed by the CGIT, Gujarat.
The Management also filed a Special Leave to Appeal No. 22467-22469/2015 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court but
the same was dismissed vide order dated 17.08.2015. It was also very fairly contended by the learned lawyers of both
the sides that in view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court the Award passed by the CGIT, Gujarat in
the identical matter of facts attained finality and in view of the specific mention in Ext-H that engagement of the
Field Operators on tenure basis on 09.12.2005 would be subject to the decision of the CGIT, Gujarat/Hon’ble Gujarat
High Court (in Ext H), this Tribunal is required to answer the reference in the same/similar way as that of CGIT,
Gujarat. It is however, stated that in view of lack of medical fitness of the workmen involved in this reference, the facts
of this reference varies to a certain extent.
11.
During pendency of this proceeding, out of the seven workmen, only 2 workmen namely Pranab Saikia and
Dambarudhar Gogoi remained in the fray. The names of the remaining five were struck off on their petitions as stated
in paragraph 4 of this “Award”.
12.
During argument it was submitted that both Mr. Pranab Saikia and Dambarudhar Gogoi were found medically
unfit for the technical job and both of them are not in the employment of ONGC as on date. Learned lawyer appearing
for the management fairly submitted that he has no objection if the workmen found medically unfit is absorbed in a
non-technical post subject to their eligibility in respect of age, etc.
II
(ii)
3103
13.
In view of the above discussion, since the two workmen namely, Mr. Pranab Saikia and Mr. Dambarudhar
Gogoi were subsequently found to be medically deficient for technical job during consideration of their extension as
tenure based Field Operator (Boiler), they shall be absorbed on regular basis by the management in any non-technical
post subject to their eligibility regarding age, etc. Their regularization in any non-technical post shall be done notionally
from the date(s) on which they last worked as tenure based Field Operator (Boiler). The management shall complete the
aforesaid exercise within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of the receipt of this order.
Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this 28th day of April, 2017 at Guwahati.
M. K. BHATTACHARJEE, Presiding Officer
—
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2017
S.O. 1306.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2013) 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. Bureau of Civil Aviation Security and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 11.05.2017.
[No. Z-16025/3/2017-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
I.D. No. 31/2013
Shri Sandeep Kumar, S/o late Shri Suresh Kumar,
R/o House No.177, Pole No.17,
Village Nasirpur, P.O. Palam,
New Delhi – 110 045
…Workman
Versus
1.
The Manager,
Bureau of Civil Aviation Security
T-3, Indira Gandhi International Airport,
Delhi-110 037
2.
The Director,
ETA Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
ETA House, B-13, Sector 63,
Noida – 201 307
…Management
AWARD
In the present claim was filed under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) by the
claimant Shri Sandeep Kumar, who has alleged that he was appointed as plumber by the management under Grade G-2,
on a monthly salary of Rs.8528.00 vide appointment letter dated 17.07.2012. Thereafter, the claimant started working
at Airport Authority of under Bureau of Civil Aviation Security. He was discharging his duties efficiently and was
also punctual in performance of his duties. Management pressurised the claimant to work in sewer pit, which was not
3104
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
acceptable to the claimant. Claimant was put to a lot of harassment and finally his services were terminated by the
management in violation of Section 25-F of the Act.
2.
Bureau of Civil Aviation Security filed statement of defence stating that they are a regulatory body responsible
for implementation, enforcement of Cicil aviation security at airports in India and RDCOS. It is responsible for
security function at Airports and allowes only those who have legitimate functions at the airport if they are security
cleared so that their presence is not detrimental to aviation security. Employers forward duly filled in signed form
alongwith requisite document so as to enable Management No.1 to issue Airport Entry Pass in favour of their
employees after required verification and approval from authorities. Further it is a dispute between ETA Engineering
Pvt. Ltd. Management No.2 and the claimant and no relief has been claimed from Management No.1.
2.
M/s ETA Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Management No.2 filed reply to the statement of claim, who took preliminary
objections that the claim filed by the claimant herein is lot legally maintainable and he has no locus standi to file the
case. On merits, management denied most of the averments. However, it was admitted that the claimant joined
management No.2 on 23.08.2012 and not 17.07.2012 and it was specifically mentioned that probation period was of six
months. Claimant was not confirmed. Claimant also forged and manipulated the documents to concoct the story.
4.
Against this factual background, my learned predecessor vide order dated 01.04.2013, on the basis of pleadings
of the parties, framed the following issues:
(1)
Whether the claimant was forced to tender his resignation by M/s ETA Engg. Pvt. Ltd.? If yes, its
effects.
(2)
Whether alleged steps, taken by M/s ETA Engg. Pvt. Ltd. to terminate services of the claimant, falls
within the ambit of retrenchment as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
(3)
Whether the claimant is entitled to relief of reinstatement in service?
5.
The case was thereafter listed for evidence of the parties. Several attempts were made between the parties for
settlement. In the end, good sense prevailed between the parties and on the efforts made by this Tribunal, parties
agreed to amicably settle the matter. Management was ready and willing to make payment of Rs.22,606.00 in full and
final settlement of the claim. Statement of Shri Vinod Rana, Admn. Executive of M/s ETA Engineering, Management
No.1 was separately recorded in the Lok Adalat held on 18.04.2007. Management No.2 has issued cheque No.500816
dated 20.03.2017 for Rs.22,606.00 drawn on IDBI Bank in favour of the claimant, Shri Sandeep Kumar, who has
accepted the cheque and has stated that he has accepted the above amount in full and final satisfaction of his claim. In
view of this, no controversy remains to be resolved between the parties. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to
the appropriate Government for publication.
Dated : April 28, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
—
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2017
S.O. 1307.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 93/2010) 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. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
11.05.2017.
[No. L-30011/66/2006-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
II
(ii)
3105
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 24th April, 2017
Reference : (CGITA) No. 93/2010
1.
The Asset Manager,
ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar Asset,
Ankleshwar (Gujarat)
2.
The Director,
M/s Industrial Security Services,
1st Floor, Upal Tower, Opp. Umiya Dham,
Vaishali Cinema Road,
Surat (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Union,
Aram Building, Poolbari Naka, Salatwada,
Baroda (Gujarat) – 390001
…Second Party
For the First Party :
Shri C.S. Naidu Associates
For the Second Party :
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/66/
2006-IR(M) dated 16.07.2010 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the union for regularization of services of Shri Malek Mohammed Hanif Yakub & 22
others contract workmen in the establishment of ONGC Ltd., Ankleshwar Asset is legal, proper and just? To
what relief these concerned contract workmen are entitled?”
1.
The reference dates back to 16.07.2010. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 7 on 06.09.2010
and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 11 on 04.06.2014. Since then the second party Rashtriya
Mazdoor Union has not been leading evidence and has also moved an application Ex. 12 requesting the tribunal to treat
the matter as settled and withdrawn.
2.
Thus, the reference is disposed of as withdrawn.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
—
3106
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2017
S.O. 1308.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 01/2005) 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. I.O.C. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11.05.2017.
[No. L-30012/51/2004-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 25th April, 2017
Reference : (CGITA) No. 01/2005
The Executive Director,
IOC Ltd., Gujarat Refinery,
PO Jawaharnagar,
Baroda (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
Shri Namsharan Bailalbhai Patel,
B-7, Jal Santoshinagar,
Nr. Utkarsh Petrol Pump,
Karelbaug,
Baroda (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
For the Second Party
:
Shri B.K. Bhatt
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-
30012/51/2004-IR(M) dated 23.11.2004 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of IOC Ltd., Gujarat Refinery, Baroda through its officers in
terminating the services of Shri Namsharan Bhailal Patel w.e.f. 27.08.2003 is legal, proper and justified? If not,
to what relief the concerned workman Shri Namsharan Bhailal Patel is entitled and from which date and what
other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 23.11.2004. After service of notice on both the parties, the second party workman
submitted the statement of claim Ex. 9 alleging that he was appointed as Helper Grade I w.e.f. 07.10.1996 and was
posted in the Mechanical Maintenance Department, Gujarat Refinery of Indian Oil Corporation vide letter no.
P/1/59043 dated 07.10.1996. He had been attending the duties regularly in the Gujarat Refinery but in the year 2002, he
met a health ailment, therefore, he proceeded on leave after submitting leave applications annexed with the medical
certificate but the first party employer instead of considering his health ailment preferred to issue him a charge-sheet
dated 29.10.2002. He further alleged that he has submitted his explanation to the charge-sheet served on him but same
was rejected by the first party summarily punishing him by withholding of one increment vide letter no. P/1/59043
resulting him denial of increment on 01.04.2003 which was due to him. He further alleged that on 27.08.2003, another
order was served on him by the first party employer inflicting punishment of dismissal from service acting with mala-
fide intention from relieving him from the service despite the fact that he has been on leave being suffering from
delirium of organic origin hepatitis and pellagra. Thus he has been punished twice for the so called unauthorised
absence twice which is violative of the principles of natural justice. Thus, he has prayed for declaring his termination
from service as illegal with a relief of reinstatement with back wages.
II
(ii)
3107
2.
The first party employer was received the notice and vide Application Ex. 5 sought time for filing written
statement on 23.03.2010 but despite lapse of 7 years, he failed to submit the written statement. Therefore, on
20.12.2016, the reference was ordered to proceed ex-parte against the first party.
3.
The second party submitted his affidavit/examination in chief Ex. 12 on 25.04.2017 reiterating the averments
made in the statement of claim. He has also submitted the medical certificate of one doctor Sandeep Shah, M.D.
(Psychiatry) indicating that the workman was suffering from delirium of organic origin hepatitis and pellagra. He was
also advised for rest from 08.02.2001 to 19.02.2001 and from 20.02.2001 to 23.02.2001.He has submitted the
photocopy of the leave applications and charge-sheet, explanation in the charge-sheet along with both punishment
orders.
4.
I heard the arguments of the advocate of the second party workman. The documents submitted by the workman
indicates that he had been suffering with health ailment and was hospitalised from 08.02.2001 to 19.02.2001 and from
20.02.2001 to 23.02.2001 while the charge-sheet shows that he had been absent from duty with prior sanction or
authorisation for the period reproduced as under:
January, 2002
1-31
February, 2002
1-2, 19, 21-28
March, 2002
1-15, 27
April, 2002
30
May, 2002
1,16-20
June, 2002
1-6, 11-12, 17-29
July, 2002
4-31
August, 2002
1-31
September, 2002
1-30
October, 2002
1-26
5.
The punishment order indicates that he has been punished for withholding of one increment for unauthorised
absence of 227 days from 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2002 explaining that as per the long term settlement dated 19.09.1994
signed by all the trade unions, if an employee absents himself unauthorisedly for more than 188 days, his annual
increment shall be postponed by a period of one year.
6.
Later, the dismissal order dated 27.08.2003 indicates that the workman was terminated w.e.f. 27.08.2003 but the
said order does not indicate under what circumstances and charges, he was dismissed and the second party has not
explained in his affidavit as well as statement of claim that under what circumstances, his services were terminated. It is
noteworthy that the charge-sheet Annexure 5 was served on the workman on 29.10.2002, therefore, presumably, his
services would have been terminated on 27.08.2003 in pursuance of the charge-sheet dated 29.10.2002 and his
withholding of one year increment was inconsequence of the long term absence settlement dated 19.09.1994 with the
trade unions.
7.
As already explained in the table above, he has been absent for more than 180 days and the workman have not
submitted the copies of the leave applications to prove his explanation that he, due to his ailment, proceeded on leave
after submitting the applications. Thus the workman has not come with the clean hands. He appears to be habitual
absentee from duties. He has been discharged from service after due inquiry.
8.
Thus, the reference has no force. The workman has failed to prove his case that he proceeded on leave due to
health ailment after submitting the applications for leave on each and every date as mentioned in the table above.
9.
Thus, the reference is disposed of with the observation as under: “the action of the management of IOC Ltd.,
Gujarat Refinery, Baroda through its officers in terminating the services of Shri Namsharan Bhailal Patel w.e.f.
27.08.2003 is legal, proper and justified.” The second party workman Shri Namsharan Bhailal Patel is not entitled for
any relief sought by him through his statement of claim.
10.
The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
3108
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
—
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2017
S.O. 1309.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 576/2004) 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. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
11.05.2017.
[No. L-30011/63/2003-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 20th April, 2017
Reference : (CGITA) No. 576/2004
1.
The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
ONGC, Tel. Bhavan,
Dehradun – 248001
2.
The Group General Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd., Mehsana Project, Palavasana,
Mehsana (Gujarat) – 384002
3.
The Group General Manager (P & A),
ONGC, WRBC, Makarpura Road,Head Reg. Off.,
Baroda (Gujarat) – 390009
4.
The Managing Partner,
M/s Industrial Security Guards Services,
Gautam Terrace, Basement No. 1 & 2, M.G. Road,
Naupada, Thane – 400602
…First Party
V/s
The Secretary,
ONGC Labour Union,
8, Samarpan Shopping Complex, High Road,
Mehsana (Gujarat) – 384002
…Second Party
For the First Party :
Shri K.V. Gadhia
For the Second Party
:
Shri A.S. Kapoor
II
(ii)
3109
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/63/
2003-IR(M) dated 04.11.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of ONGC Labour Union, Mehsana for regularisation of 82 Security Guards w.e.f.
16.10.1987 who have worked on the work of perennial nature, by the management of ONGC Ltd. is proper and
justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workers are entitled for and since when?”
1.
The reference dates back to 04.11.2003. The second party submitted the statement of claim on 04.05.2005 along
with number of documents. The first party did not prefer to submit the written statement despite giving the number of
opportunities since the date of filing the statement of claim by the second party. The first party did not even care to
represent even by a counsel by an advocate. Therefore, the second party asked to lead evidence but the second party
also did not prefer to lead evidence despite giving dozens of opportunities. Thus it appears that the second party has not
been willing to prosecute the case.
2.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party with the observation as
under: “the demand of ONGC Labour Union, Mehsana for regularisation of 82 Security Guards w.e.f. 16.10.1987 who
have worked on the work of perennial nature, by the management of ONGC Ltd. is improper and unjustified.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
—
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2017
S.O. 1310.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 669/2004) 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. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11.05.2017.
[No. L-30012/21/1998-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 17th April, 2017
Reference : (CGITA) No. 669/2004
The Executive Director,
ONGC Ltd., WRBC,
Makarpura Road,
Baroda (Gujarat) - 390009
…First Party
3110
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
V/s
1.
Shri Kanubhai Prajapati,
22, Santoshwadi, Danteshwar,
Vadodara (Gujarat)
2.
Shri Himatbhai Jawaharlal,
GhachiFalia, Danteshwar,
Vadodara (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri C.S. Naidu Associates
For the Second Party
:
Shri A.L. Saiyad
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/21/98-
IR(M) dated 11.05.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect
of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether Shri Kanubhai Prajapati & Shri Himatbhai Jawaharlal had been engaged either by the corporation or
its contractor at any point of time during the period from 1972 to 1985 as is being claimed by these workmen? If
so,
“Whether these two workmen namely Shri Kanubhai Prajapati & Shri Himatbhai Jawaharlal are entitled to all
the benefits arising out of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Baroda in Reference ITC No. 4/91? If so,
to what relief these two workmen are entitled for and from which date?”
1.
The reference dates back to 11.05.1999. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 3 on 19.07.1999
and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 11 on 20.08.2000 to which the second party submitted the
counter reply Ex. 14 and 17 on 22.09.2000 and 05.01.2001 respectively. The second party was examined on 26.06.2001
but did not turn up for cross-examination. Later on 14.02.2017, legal heirs of the workman moved an application Ex. 40
for substitution of legal heirs which was allowed. Legal heirs were taken on record but today on 17.04.2017, the
advocate for the second party Shri A.L. Saiyad stated that the legal heirs are not willing to prosecute the case.
2.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of as not pressed.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
—
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2017
S.O. 1311.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1122/2004) 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. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 11.05.2017.
[No. L-30012/21/1999-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
II
(ii)
3111
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 25th April, 2017
Reference : (CGITA) No. 1122/2004
The Senior Installation Manager,
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Kandla Installation, Kharirohar, P.B. No. 33,
Gandhidham (Gujarat) – 370201
…First Party
V/s
The Secretary,
Petroleum Employees Union,
Plot No. 280, Sector 7,
Gandhidham (Gujarat) – 370201
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri Deepak Shukla
For the Second Party
:
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/21/99-
IR(M) dated 06.08.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Kandla, in imposing penalty by
reducing three stages in the grade on Shri D.R. Asnani, General Workman, is just, valid and legal? If not, to
what benefits the workman is entitled and what directions are necessary in the matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 06.08.1999. In response to the notice, the second party submitted the statement of
claim Ex. 4 on 25.09.2000 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 14 on 31.07.2009. Since then the
second party has been absent and has also failed to lead his evidence after a lapse of 7 years despite giving dozen of
opportunities including last opportunity to be given on 03.01.2017. Thus it appears that the second party has not been
willing to prosecute the case.
2.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party with the observation as
under: “the action of the Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Kandla, in imposing penalty by reducing three
stages in the grade on Shri D.R. Asnani, General Workman, is just, valid and legal.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
—
3112
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2017
S.O. 1312.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1317/2004) 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. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
11.05.2017.
[No. L-30012/66/2000-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 18th April, 2017
Reference : (CGITA) No. 1317/2004
1.
The Group General Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd.,
Hazira Project,
P.O. Bhatpore,
Surat (Gujarat) – 394518
2.
M/s. Sagar Construction,
Near Tapi Bridge,
Tax Plaza, Kagdaila ONGC Road,
Surat (Gujarat) – 394518
…First Party
V/s
Shri Kamlesh P. Patel,
At. Bhatpur,
Taluka Choryasi,
Surat (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party :
For the Second Party :
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/66/2000-IR(M)
dated 05.07.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the
matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the contract between the management of ONGC Ltd., Surat and the contractor M/s. Sagar
Construction in respect of the contractual workman Shri Kamlesh P. Patel is sham and bogus contract?”
“Whether the demand of the workman Shri Kamlesh P. Patel for treating/declaring him as direct and
regular/permanent employee of ONGC Ltd. or from the date of Notification issued by Government of India,
prohibiting his alleged employment/work through the contract system is legal and justified? If so, to what relief
Shri Kamlesh P. Patel is entitled and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 05.07.2000.The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on
25.10.2000/09.11.2000 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 10 on 10.04.2001. Since then the second
party has been absent and has also not been leading evidence. Therefore, on 05.04.2017, fresh notice was issued to all
the parties to appear on 18.04.2017 but neither of the parties responded to the notice. The notice to the second party was
served by registered post. Thus it appears that the second party has not been willing to prosecute the case.
II
(ii)
3113
2.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party with the observation as
under: “the contract between the management of ONGC Ltd., Surat and the contractor M/s. Sagar Construction in
respect of the contractual workman Shri Kamlesh P. Patel is not sham and bogus contract and the demand of the
workman Shri Kamlesh P. Patel for treating/declaring him as direct and regular/permanent employee of ONGC Ltd. or
from the date of Notification issued by Government of India, prohibiting his alleged employment/work through the
contract system is illegal and unjustified.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
—
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2017
S.O. 1313.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1327/2004) 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. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
11.05.2017.
[No. L-30012/125/2000-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 18th April, 2017
Reference : (CGITA) No. 1327/2004
1.
The Group General Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd.,
Hazira Project,
P.O. Bhatpore,
Surat (Gujarat) – 394518
2.
M/s. Surat Electricity Co. Ltd.,
Contract Division
403, 404, Ruchita,
Athugar Street,
Nanpura
Surat (Gujarat) – 395001
…First Party
V/s
Shri Dhirajbhai Nanubhai Patel,
At. Bhatpur,
Taluka Choryasi,
Surat (Gujarat)-394510
…Second Party
For the First Party :
For the Second Party :
3114
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/125/
2000-IR(M) dated 22.08.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the contract between the management of ONGC Ltd., Surat and the contractor The Surat Electricity
Co. Ltd., Contract Division, Surat in respect of the contractual workman Shri Dhirajbhai Nanubhai Patel is sham
and bogus contract?”
“Whether the demand of the workman Shri Dhirajbhai Nanubhai. Patel for treating/declaring him as direct and
regular/permanent employee of ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project from either the date of his initial engagement with
the contractor or from the date of Notification issued by Government of India, prohibiting his alleged
employment/work through the contract system is legal and justified? If so, to what relief Shri Dhirajbhai
Nanubhai Patel is entitled and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 22.08.2000.The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 5 on 14.11.2000
and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 12 and 13 on 10.04.2001. Since then the second party has been
absent and has also not been leading evidence. Therefore, on 05.04.2017, fresh noticewas issued to all the parties to
appear on 18.04.2017 but neither of the parties responded to the notice. The notice to the second party was served by
registered post. Thus it appears that the second party has not been willing to prosecute the case.
2.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party with the observation as
under: “the contract between the management of ONGC Ltd., Surat and the contractor The Surat Electricity Co. Ltd.,
Contract Division, Surat in respect of the contractual workman Shri Dhirajbhai Nanubhai Patel is not sham and bogus
contract and the demand of the workman Shri Dhirajbhai Nanubhai. Patel for treating/declaring him as direct and
regular/permanent employee of ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project from either the date of his initial engagement with the
contractor or from the date of Notification issued by Government of India, prohibiting his alleged employment/work
through the contract system is illegal and unjustified.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
—
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2017
S.O. 1314.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1329/2004) 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. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
11.05.2017.
[No. L-30012/123/2000-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 26th April, 2017
II
(ii)
3115
Reference : (CGITA) No. 1329/2004
1.
The Group General Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd.,
Hazira Project,
P.O. Bhatpore,
Surat (Gujarat) – 394518
2.
The Surat Electricity Co. Ltd.,
Contract Division,
403, 404, Ruchita,
Athugar Street,
Surat (Gujarat) – 395001
…First Party
V/s
Shri Amratlal J. Patel,
Rundh Magdalla,
Opp. Water Tank, Taluka Choriyasi,
Surat (Gujarat) – 395007
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri D.C. Gandhi Associates
For the Second Party
:
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/123/
2000-IR(M) dated 22.08.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the contract between the management of ONGC Ltd., Surat and the contractor The Surat Electricity
Co. Ltd. in respect of the contractual workman Shri Amratlal J. Patel is sham and bogus contract?”
“Whether the demand of the workman Shri Amratlal J. Patel for treating/declaring him as direct and
regular/permanent employee of ONGC Ltd. or from the date of his initial engagement with the contractor or
from the date of Notification issued by Government of India, prohibiting his alleged employment/work through
the contract system is legal and justified? If so, to what relief Shri Amratlal J. Patel is entitled to and from which
date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 22.08.2000. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 5 on 14.11.2000
and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 13 on 10.04.2001 while pending in Industrial Tribunal, Surat.
After the creation of Central Government Industrial Tribunal, this tribunal issued notice Ex. 28 to all the parties to
appear on 22.02.2011 but none appeared to prosecute the case. Therefore, again notice Ex. 25 and 27 was issued on
19.09.2011 to all the parties to appear on 22.09.2011 and 13.06.2014 respectively. Since then the second party has been
absent and has also not been leading evidence. Thus it appears that the second party has not been willing to prosecute
the case.
2.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party with the observation as
under: “the contract between the management of ONGC Ltd., Surat and the contractor The Surat Electricity Co. Ltd. in
respect of the contractual workman Shri Amratlal J. Patel is not sham and bogus contract and the demand of the
workman Shri Amratlal J. Patel for treating/declaring him as direct and regular/permanent employee of ONGC Ltd. or
from the date of his initial engagement with the contractor or from the date of Notification issued by Government of
India, prohibiting his alleged employment/work through the contract system is illegal and unjustified.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
—
3116
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 16th May, 2017
S.O. 1315.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1348/2004) 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. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on
11.05.2017.
[No. L-30011/3/2001-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 18th April, 2017
Reference : (CGITA) No. 1348/2004
1.
The Group General Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project,
P.O. Bhatpore,
Surat (Gujarat) – 394518
2.
M/s International Engineering & Marine Works,
Marine Co-op. Housing Society, B/92,
St. Sabastian Road,
Bandra, Mumbai
3.
M/s Dembla Valva Services,
Adarsh Industrial Estate,
Pokharan Road, No. 1, Uppavan Thane,
Thane – 400606
…First Party
V/s
The General Secretary,
Gujarat Working Class Union,
A-772, Anand Ganga Kasak, Bharuch (East),
Bharuch (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party :
For the Second Party :
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/3/2001-
IR(M) dated 16.01.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect
of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the workman to absorb/regularise the services of 6 contractual workmen as permanent
and direct employees of ONGC Ltd., Hazira, Surat with time scale of pay of their category of work equivalent to
their similar placed regular employees of ONGC Ltd., by declaring the contract as ‘sham contract’ is fair and
II
(ii)
3117
justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date and what other
directions are necessary in the matter?”
1.
The reference dates back to 16.01.2001. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 3 on 12.02.2001
and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 14 on 04.09.2001. Since then the second party has been absent
and has also not been leading evidence. Therefore, on 21.12.2010 and 05.04.2017, fresh notices were issued to all the
parties to appear on 04.05.2011 and 18.04.2017 respectively but neither of the parties responded to both the notices.
Thus it appears that the second party has not been willing to prosecute the case.
2.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party with the observation as
under: “the demand of the workman to absorb/regularise the services of 6 contractual workmen as permanent and direct
employees of ONGC Ltd., Hazira, Surat with time scale of pay of their category of work equivalent to their similar
placed regular employees of ONGC Ltd., by declaring the contract as ‘sham contract’ is unfair and unjustified.”
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
—
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 18th May, 2017
S.O. 1316.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 95/2015) 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
India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18.05.2017.
[No. L-12012/61/2015-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Tuesday, the 4th October, 2016
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 95/2015
(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 N. Mohandoss
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1.
The Dy. General Manager
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
State Bank of India, Chennai Zone
Chennai Network-1, No. 86, Rajaji Salai
Chennai-600001
2.
The Regional Manager (Region V)
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Disciplinary Authority, State Bank of India
Vellore-632001
3118
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
M/s. Balan Haridas, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Respondent
:
Sri S. Ravindran, Advocate
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L- 12012/61/2015-IR (B.I)
dated 18.06.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India, Chennai regarding imposing of punishment on
Sri N. Mohandoss as discharge from service with superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise at that
stage and without disqualification from future employment is justifiable or not? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal numbered it as ID 95/2015 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, an ex-serviceman had joined the service of the First Respondent Bank as an Armed Guard on
19.08.1994. He had been working as Watchman in Gajalnaickenpatti Branch from the date of joining the service till the
year 1998. Thereafter he was transferred to Harur Branch. While working there, he was issued a Charge Memo dated
15.06.1999. It was alleged in the charge that he had collected Rs. 3,400/- from one Jayapal during 1996-1998 for
crediting to the Recurring Deposit Account of his children, misappropriated the same and cheated the customer and also
that he resorted to outside borrowals without approval from the appropriate authority. An enquiry was conducted on the
charges. In the enquiry held on 25.10.1999 a letter was obtained from the petitioner as if he is admitting the charges.
The petitioner had given the letter dated 25.10.1999 with the hope to conclude the enquiry and get a posting nearby to
his home town. The letter was given out of ignorance. The Disciplinary Authority set aside the enquiry and ordered
denovo enquiry. The enquiry was conducted afresh. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report holding that the
first charge is not proved and that only one of the six incidents detailed in the second charge was proved.
However, the Second Respondent, who is the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry
Officer without giving the petitioner any opportunity for hearing and proposed punishment of discharge. The
punishment was imposed on the petitioner by order dated 17.03.2001 and this was confirmed by the Appellate
Authority. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition in the Madras High Court challenging the punishment. The Writ was
dismissed. The petitioner preferred appeal as Writ Appeal No. 1699/2010 and this was allowed. The order of the
Appellate Authority was set aside for fresh consideration. The Second Respondent disagreed with the findings of the
Enquiry Officer in respect of Charge No. 1 and held that the petitioner has committed misappropriation. The reasoning
given by the Second Respondent for disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer and entering a finding of guilt on the
petitioner is not legal or proper. The Second Respondent imposed the punishment of discharge from service with
superannuation benefits on the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority has imposed the punishment without considering
any of the grounds raised by the petitioner. In any case the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the allegations
leveled against the petitioner. An award may be passed holding that the order of the Second Respondent is arbitrary and
illegal and directing the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full wages, continuity of service and all other
attendant benefits.
4.
The Respondents have filed a common Counter Statement contending as below:
The petitioner was earlier working as an Armed Guard at Gajalnaickenpatti Branch of the Respondent. He was
transferred to Harur Branch. During this time, certain misconducts committed by the petitioner came to light. On
15.06.1999 a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner for misappropriating Rs. 3,400/- belonging to one Jayapal, a
constituent of Gajalnaickenpatti Branch. The petitioner indulged in borrowing money from third parties who are
constituents of the branch also. The petitioner did not submit any explanation to the Charge Sheet. A domestic enquiry
was held on 25.10.1999 and the petitioner submitted a letter regretting for the misconducts committed by him and
pleaded to take a lenient view on the matter. Based on the version of the petitioner, the enquiry Officer submitted his
findings holding the petitioner guilty of the charges leveled against him. When the report was submitted to the
Disciplinary Authority, he took the view that enquiry could not be concluded on the basis a confession alone and
ordered denovo enquiry. In the enquiry the petitioner was properly represented. In his written submission he has stated
that Jayapal has accepted the money and the account of his children have been closed and settled. In the domestic
enquiry two letters by the petitioner and two letters by Jayapal were marked. The petitioners did not take any plea
against these documents. He did not raise a contention that these documents are untrue. The Enquiry Officer submitted
his findings holding that the first charge was not proved and the second charge was partly proved. The Disciplinary
II
(ii)
3119
Authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of the First Charge and imposed the punishment
of discharge from service with superannuation benefits on the petitioner by order dated 27.10.2000. The appeal filed by
the petitioner was rejected. The Writ Petition filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal was dismissed.
However, his Writ Appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to Disciplinary Authority to commence the
proceedings from the stage of issuance of fresh Show Cause Notice to the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority has
considered the matter and disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of Charge No. 1. After hearing
the objection of the petitioner the punishment of discharge from service with superannuation benefits was imposed on
the petitioner. Enquiry against the petitioner was held in a fair and proper manner. The petitioner is not entitled to any
relief.
5.
The evidence in the case consists of documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W28 and Ext.M1. No oral evidence
was adduced on either side.
6.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the punishment of discharge from service imposed on the petitioner by the Respondent is
justifiable?
(ii)
What, if any is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?
The Points
7.
The incident resulting in the dispute had occurred in the year 1998. The proceedings against the petitioner had a
chequered career.
8.
The petitioner who had retired from Indian Army had joined the First Respondent Bank as an Armed Guard and
had been working as a Watchman initially at Gajalnaickenpatti, and at Harur when the charge memo was issued to him.
The allegation against the petitioner as revealed from Ext.W5, the Charge Memo are two-fold, one that he had collected
a sum of Rs. 3,400/- tendered by one Jayapal for credit of his children’s recurring Deposit Account during 1996-1998
and misappropriated it and thereby cheated the customer and the Bank and the other that he had resorted to outside
borrowings without approval from appropriate authority. Instances of such 6 borrowings are also referred to in the
Charge Sheet.
9
Enquiry was conducted on the charges leveled against the petitioner and a findings was entered against him.
When the enquiry report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority, the Disciplinary Authority took a view that the
enquiry was not conducted in a proper manner and ordered denovo enquiry on 01.12.1999. Enquiry was again
conducted and this time the Enquiry Officer found that the first charge of misappropriation of customer’s money is not
proved. The second charge was found partly proved. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the
Enquiry Officer and held the petitioner guilty of the first charge, which is the principal charge also and imposed the
punishment of discharge from service on the petitioner. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the
Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 23258/2001 against the order of discharge and this was
dismissed. He filed Writ Appeal No. 1699/2010. The Hon’ble Madras High Court allowed the Writ petition and
remitted the matter for fresh consideration from the state of issue of proposed notice by the Disciplinry Authority. The
Disciplinary Authority again disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on Charge No. 1 and ordered
punishment of discharge from service. This order was upheld by the Appellate Authority in appeal. The dispute is
raised against this order of discharge.
10.
Though the petitioner has raised a contention in the Claim Statement that enquiry was not conducted in a fair
and proper manner, this contention was withdrawn by the counsel for the petitioner.
11.
Ext.W19 is the order in Writ Appeal No. 1699/2010 by which the Disciplinary Authority was directed to
consider the matter afresh. The relevant portion of the order of the High Court is extracted below:
In the subject case we have scrutinized the reasons given by the Disciplinary Authority and we find that the
statutory authority has taken its final decision without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant at the
stage at which it proposed to differ with the findings given by the enquiry Officer. This violation goes to the
root of the matter and as such is sufficient to vitiate the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority
contrary to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer.
Therefore we set aside the order dated 17.03.2001 as confirmed by the order dated 15.06.2001. The matter is
remitted to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration. It is open to the Disciplinary Authority to
commence the proceedings from the stage of issuance of fresh Show Cause Notice to the Appellant indicting
his tentative disagreement with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The Writ Appeal is allowed as
indicated above.
3120
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
12.
Ext.W13 is the order dated 17.03.2001 of the Second Respondent referred to in the order of the High Court. The
Disciplinary Authority had imposed the punishment of discharge from service on the petitioner by this order. Ext.W14
is the order of the Appellate Authority dated 19.04.2001, also referred to in the order of the High Court. The High Court
has set aside the Ext.W13 and Ext.W14 orders while remitting the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh
consideration. The Disciplinary Authority was to commence the proceedings from the date of issuance of fresh Show
Cause Notice. On the basis of this direction, the Disciplinary Authority had prepared its note of dissent marked as
Ext.W20 and had sent it to the petitioner for his comment. Ext.W21 is the submission made by the petitioner regarding
Ext.W20. Ext.W22 is the order of the Disciplinary Authority discharging the petitioner from service after considering
Ext.W21. Ext.W24 is the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
13.
Ext.W10 is the enquiry report with the finding that the First Charge against the petitioner i.e. the charge of
misappropriation of Rs. 3,400/- belonging to a customer is not established. The Enquiry Officer had entered such a
findings for the reason that Jayapal, who had made complaint to the Respondent Bank alleging that his money was
misappropriated is not examined. The Disciplinary Authority relied upon those very documents which the Enquiry
Officer refused to rely upon in the absence of Jayapal to enter a finding against the petitioner. The prime reason given
by the Disciplinary Authority to enter a finding against the petitioner are Ext.W1 to Ext.W4 upon which the Enquiry
Officer has refused to place any reliance. Of course, the Disciplinary Authority had also relied upon the admission
made by the petitioner in this respect. However, the entire discussion in his dissent note is based upon Ext.W1 to
Ext.W4.
14.
Ext.W1 and ext.W2 are letters said to have been written by the petitioner to Jayapal and Ext.W3 and Exdt.W4
are letters said to have been written by Jayapal to the Branch Manager. ExtW1 and Ext.W2 are letters to the effect that
the petitioner had retained the amount of Rs. 3,400/- entrusted with him by Jayapal. Ext.W3 and Ext.W4 are to the
effect that Jayapal used to entrust money with the petitioner for remitting in the Recurring Deposits in the name of his
two children but he had subsequently found out that the money was not being remitted and that the petitioner had
written to him admitting that the money was not remitted but will be paid soon.
15.
It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that ext.W1 to Ext.W4 should not have been relied upon by
the Disciplinary Authority since those are documents which are not proved in the enquiry proceedings. He has pointed
out that the documents were formally marked only but were not proved by examining the required witnesses. In the
enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer has stated that Jayapal who had allegedly written the two letters have not come
forward to give evidence regarding the veracity of those letters. As a matter of fact Jayapal who is complainant in the
case has not come forward to support the case of the Management at all. So far as Ext.W1 and Ext.W2 are concerned,
these were also not proved.
16.
The counsel for the Respondent has referred to the decision in ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD. VS.
ANANTHACHANDRA PRUSTY reported in AIR 1997 SC 2274 to argue for the position that there is no such thing as
absolute burden of proof always lying upon the Management in a disciplinary enquiry. The burden of proof depends
upon the nature of explanation and the nature of charge and the burden may be shifted to the delinquent Officer
depending upon his explanation in a given case, it has been held in the above case. However, in the present case the
stage of shifting of the burden did not reach at all since the Management has not adduced any evidence on its side to
prove Ext.W1 to Ext.W4. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision in LIFE INSURANCE
CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. RAM PAL SINGH BISEN reported in 2010 4 SCC 491 in this
respect. In the above case, while considering the evidence in departmental enquiry the Apex Court has held that the
contents of the documents are required to be proved either by primary or secondary evidence. Documents having not
been produced and marked as required under the Evidence Act cannot be relied upon by the Court, it was held. The
contents of the document cannot be proved by merely filing them in Court. In the present case no one was examined to
prove the authenticity of Ext.W1 to Ext.W4. There is no evidence to show whether Ext.W1 and Ext.W2 were written by
the petitioner and there is no evidence to show whether Ext.W3 and Ext.W4 were written by Jayapal. Thus these
documents are without any proof. Those were merely filed in the enquiry proceedings and given some markings. So
those documents could not have been relied upon to give a finding against the petitioner.
17.
In Ext.W19 also the absence of proof in respect of Ext.W1 to Ext.W4 are referred to. The High Court has
observed that mere production of documents alone is not sufficient and they should have been proved in a manner
known to law. The High Court has referred to the fact that even the Bank Manager who is said to have received the
complaint from Jayapal is not examined. Even in view of the observation of Hon’ble High Court there is no question of
relying upon Ext.W1 to Ext.W4 as they are not proved in accordance with law.
18.
Now the question is what else if any is the evidence available on the side of the Management and whether such
evidence, if any, is sufficient to prove the charge. The Hon’ble High Court, while remitting the matter to the
Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration had directed it to commence the proceedings from the date of issuance of
fresh Show Cause Notice to the appellant. On the basis of this Ext.W20-Dissent Note was given by the Disciplinary
Authority, Ext.W21 comments was given by the petitioner and thereafter Ext.W22 order of “discharge from service
II
(ii)
3121
with superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise and without disqualification for future employment” was
passed by the Authority. In spite of the observation of the High Court the Disciplinary Authority has relied upon
Ext.W1 to Ext.W4 to enter a finding of guilt which was not at all proper as these were not proved and also because of
the observation of the High Court. However, the Disciplinary Authority has relied upon letter given by the petitioner on
25.10.1999 admitting the charges also in this respect.
19.
In fact other than Ext.W1 to Ext.W4, the only piece of evidence available in favour of the Management
regarding the guilt of the petitioner is Ext.W6-the explanation given by the petitioner and also subsequent submissions
made by the petitioner through his Representative.
20.
What is Ext.W6? Is it sufficient to enter a finding of guilt against the petitioner? This is in the form of a letter
given to the Assistant General Manager, the Disciplinary Authority through the Enquiry Officer on 25.10.1999. This is
given in answer to Ext.W5-the charge memo. Ext.W5 has directed the petitioner to submit his explanation regarding the
charges within 15 days. However, the petitioner has not complied with this direction until the enquiry proceedings have
been initiated. The explanation is seen given through the Enquiry Officer, after enquiry was started.
21.
The petitioner has stated in Ext.W6 that he is writing this letter in view of the charge memo. This is given by
way of answer to the charges. To appreciate the explanation given by the petitioner, it is necessary to extract the first
charge detailed in the Charge Memo. The charge states:
While working as watchman at Gajalnaickenpatti branch during 1996-1998 you collected a sum of Rs. 3,400/-
tendered by Sri M. Jayapal for credit of his children’s Recurring Deposit Account and misappropriated it
yourself thereby cheating the customer and the Bank.
In Ext.W6 the petitioner has related his family circumstances to state under what circumstances the incident in
the charge has occurred. He has narrated about the illness of his parents, the necessity to meet their medical expenses
and the need to take care of the education of his four children. He has stated that he had incurred huge expenses on
account of these apart from his routine family expenses which had been beyond his control. Then he has stated:
In order to meet out my parents’ medical expenses on an urgent basis I have utilized the amount tendered by
Sri M. Jayapal for the credit of his children’s Recurring Deposit Account with a hope to return or remit the
amount within a short period by selling the land owned by my father. Since the real estate business is on a
downward trend I could not dispose the land to my expectation. On disposing the land within a month or two
months time I will liquidate all my outside borrowings.
However, I have repaid the amount received from Sri M. Jayapal and the letter of acknowledgement for the
amount received has been given by him which is enclosed for your kind reference.
At the end of the explanation the petitioner has stated that his action may be condoned and a lenient view may be
taken considering his family situation. At the beginning of the explanation also he has stated that he is asking for a
sympathetic consideration on the basis of the explanation that is being given by him.
22.
There is reference to Ext.W6 explanation in the submissions made by the Defence Representative before the
Enquiry Officer and the authorities who had dealt with the matter subsequently. In Ext.W9-the briefs submitted by the
Defence Representative, the attempt is to justify the act on the basis that there was no criminal intention on the part of
the petitioner. What is stated is that there was no intention of cheating. Apart from this it is further stated that Jayapal’s
Children’s RD Account have been closed and settled on 18.06.1998 and Jayapal has admitted and accepted that he has
received Rs. 3,400/- from Mohandoss, the petitioner. Then he goes on state that the petitioner had no intention to cheat
the account holder i.e. Jayapal or to defraud the bank. Justification is attempted also on the basis that there was no loss
to the Bank because of the incident. Then there is Ext.W10 which also refers to the repayment made by the petitioner
to Jayapal.
23.
Only in Ext.W21-the written submission made by the petitioner to the Dissent Note by the Disciplinary
Authority there is a vague attempt to make out that Ext.W6 was not given voluntarily. Even then what is stated is only
that in the enquiry held on 25.10.1999 a letter was obtained as if he is admitting the charges. He has further stated that
he had given the letter with the “fond hope” to conclude the enquiry and get posting nearby to his hometown. Until
Ext.W21 given on 10.02.2014 there was no case at all that it was not a voluntary one. In Ext.W23-the Appeal preferred
by him against Ext.W22-the order of discharge it is stated that the letter was given out of sheer ignorance. Lastly there
is a reference to the letter in the Claim Statement. In this it is stated that the letter was obtained as if the petitioner is
admitting the charges. Thus it could be seen that after Ext.W6 letter was given in 1999, until 2014, there was never a
case for the petitioner that it is not one given by him or that it was one obtained by coercion or even that it was a
misguided one. Even now the petitioner does not have a case that he has not given this explanation. He does not have a
specific case also that it was obtained by coercion, undue influence or any foul means.
3122
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
24.
On going through Ext.W6, the reply given by way of explanation regarding the first charge there could be no
doubt that the petitioner was very much aware of the charge against him. The Charge memo has stated that he has
collected the sum of Rs. 3,400/- that was tendered by Jayapal for crediting to his children’s Recurring Deposit Account.
In very clear words the petitioner has stated in his explanation that he has collected this amount and has utilized it for
his personal requirements. He has further stated that the amount was subsequently repaid to Jayapal directly.
25.
What is the effect of Ext.W6? It is an admission made by the petitioner in the proceedings initiated against him.
A Charge Memo was issued to him and he has owned the charges and admitted the charges in the explanation. It is just
like the defendant in a civil case has admitted the averments in the plaint in the Claim Statement submitted by him in a
Court. It is part of the proceedings.
26.
An argument has been advanced by the counsel for the petitioner that Ext.W6 was given in the enquiry
proceedings which has subsequently been set aside and as such the explanation given by the petitioner in the said
enquiry proceedings could not have been relied upon at all. This argument has no force. This explanation was given by
the petitioner is in answer to the Charge Memo that was issued to him. It is addressed to the Disciplinary Authority,
though given through the Enquiry Officer. Apart from that, though the enquiry proceedings itself has been set aside, the
reply given by the petitioner to the Charge Memo is a part of the records and could not be taken out of the file as if it
was never there. Throughout, in the subsequent proceedings the petitioner has been referring to this explanation and he
never had a case during those references that he has nothing to do with Ext.W6 or that he has not made any such
admission. Thus so far as Charge No. 1 is concerned, Ext.W6 is an unconditional and voluntary admission on the part
of the petitioner regarding his involvement in the charge. I find that Ext.W6 fortified by subsequent references to the
same in the proceedings throughout is sufficient to prove the substantial charge against the petitioner.
27.
The second charge is to the effect that the petitioner has indulged in borrowings without approval from
appropriate authority. One of the borrowers has been examined in the proceedings and the Enquiry Officer has found
this part of the charge alone proved. This is only a minor charge about which there is no necessity to discuss in detail.
28.
The counsel for the petitioner has been submitting that even if the petitioner is found guilty and the punishment
is to sustain it should be in such a way that he should be able to receive superannuation benefits. The punishment
imposed on the petitioner is discharge from service with superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise at that
stage and without disqualification from future employment. Even though the punishment refers to superannuation
benefits the petitioner would not be entitled to these benefits as since he has not completed the required period of
service on the date of dismissal i.e. 17.03.2001. The counsel has referred to the decision of the Apex Court reported in
BHARAT BANK LIMITED, DELHI VS. EMPLOYEES OF THE BHARAT BANK LIMITED, DELHI reported in
AIR 1950 SC 188 where it is observed that an Industrial Tribunal has wider powers than that of the ordinary Courts and
is competent to add to and alter the conditions of contract also. According to the counsel if the date of dismissal of the
petitioner is brought forward to the second order of the Disciplinary Authority the petitioner would be completing the
required period of service to make him eligible for superannuation benefits.
29.
I do not think the decision relied upon by the counsel gives power to this Tribunal to favour the petitioner in this
manner. The incident leading to the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner had taken place in 1998 and the
proceedings was started 1999. He could not be deemed to have worked or to have been in service during the period in
which he actually was not. He will become eligible for superannuation benefits only if he was entitled to as per the
Bipartite Settlement. So the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
In view of my 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 4th October, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Management
:
None
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
30.04.1998
Petitioner’s letter to M. Jayapal
Ext.W2
30.04.1998
Petitioner’s letter to M. Jayapal
II
(ii)
3123
Ext.W3
09.06.1998
Petitioner’s letter to Branch Manager
Ext.W4
20.08.1999
Petitioner’s letter to Branch Manager
Ext.W5
15.06.1999
Charge Memo
Ext.W6
25.10.1999
Explanation
Ext.W7
03.02.2000
Preliminary Objection
Ext.W8
21.07.2000
Representation of Defense
Ext.W9
03.10.2000
Representation of Defense
Ext.W10
17.10.2000
Enquiry Report
Ext.W11
21.11.2000
Proceedings of AGM
Ext.W12
28.11.2000
Submission of Defense Representative
Ext.W13
17.03.2001
Order of the Respondent
Ext.W14
19.04.2001
Appeal to Appellate Authority
Ext.W15
28.04.2001
Minutes of Personal Hearing
Ext.W16
28.04.2001
Points raised by defense representative
Ext.W17
15.06.2001
Order of the Appellate Authority
Ext.W18
16.07.2010
Order in WP No. 1699 of 2010
Ext.W19
02.12.2011
Order in WA No. 1699 of 2010
Ext.W20
29.06.2012
Dissent Note of Disciplinary Authority
Ext.W21
10.02.2014
Petitioner’s comment regarding dissent note
Ext.W22
25.03.2014
Order of the 2nd Respondent
Ext.W23
16.04.2014
Petitioner’s appeal petition before 1st Respondent
Ext.W24
28.07.2014
Order of 1st Respondent
Ext.W25
23.12.2011
Details of Payment of Subsistence Allowance
To
22.07.2013
Ext.W26
23.07.2013
Details of Payment of Subsistence Allowance
To
31.12.2013
Ext.W27
Jan., 2014
Details of Payment of Subsistence Allowance
Ext.W28
Feb., 2014
Details of Payment of Subsistence Allowance
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
03.02.2000
Enquiry Proceedings
—
[
I
]
3124
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 18th May, 2017
S.O. 1317.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47/2015) 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
India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18.05.2017.
[No. L-12012/46/2015-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Monday, the 17th October, 2016
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 47/2015
[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 :
Smt. Heindramma
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The General Manager
:
2nd Party/Respondent
State Bank of India
Local Head Office, 16, College Lane
Chennai
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
M/s. R. Sreekanth, D. Lazar, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
:
M/s. S. Ravindran, Bazeer Ahamed & S. Gomathi Lakshmi
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/46/2015-IR (B.I) dated
20.04.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
“Whether the action of the Respondent Bank i.e. SBI, Chennai in respect of denial of employment and “stopped
from employment to the petitioner”, Smt. Heindramma is justifiable or not? If not to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal numbered it as ID 47/2015 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 was employed with the Respondent at its Perambur Branch from the year 1975. She has worked
continuously for 38 years without any break and to the utmost satisfaction of the Manager and other Officers of the
branch. While working at the Branch she has requested the Branch Manager to make her a permanent employee. The
Branch Manager had informed that she will be considered for permanency after placing the matter before the Head
Office. The salary of the petitioner used to be credited to her account. On 07.05.2013 the Perambur Branch Manager
informed the petitioner that she was stopped from service. The act of the Respondent is illegal. The petitioner is the
only bread winner of the family. An order may be passed directing the Respondent to confer permanent status to the
petitioner and pay her all the retirement benefits.
4.
The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:
The employment in the Respondent Bank is only through due selection process. Whenever temporary employees
were engaged in the Subordinate Cadre against leave vacancies or vacancies due to absenteeism, the temporary
employee would be considered for appointment, when vacancy arises. Pursuant to several settlements the temporary
employees who were engaged during the period from 1975 to 1997 were considered for filling up the existing
II
(ii)
3125
vacancies. However, such settlements would not apply to persons like the petitioner who were not employed as
temporary workman or part-time workman against leave vacancies. The petitioner was engaged independently by the
Branch Manager of Perambur Branch for cleaning toilets in the morning and in the evening for about an hour. She was
paid on the days she cleaned toilets. These engagements would not amount to either temporary engagement or part-time
engagement. The petitioner’s services were utilized for cleaning the toilet in the Perambur Branch in the morning and in
the evening from 2005 onwards. The Perambur Branch handed over maintenance of the branch including cleaning of
the toilets to third party agency from 01.04.2013. After 31.03.2013 the Perambur Branch manager did not utilize the
service of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner that she was employed from 1975 onwards is untrue. The
engagement of the petitioner by the Branch manager was without any authority and was only casual in nature. The
petitioner is now more than 60 years of age. There is no question of reinstatement of the petitioner in such
circumstance. 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 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M8.
6.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the Respondent is justified in stopping the petitioner from employment
(ii)
What, if any is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?
The Points
7.
The dispute was raised by the petitioner seeking to confer permanent status on her as an employee of the
Respondent and pay all the retirement benefits to her.
8.
The petitioner has claimed in the Claim Statement that she was employed with the Respondent Bank at its
Perambur Branch from the year 1975. According to her, she was stopped from service by the Branch Manager on
07.05.2013.
9.
Though the petitioner has not stated anywhere in the Claim Statement in what capacity she was employed at
Perambur Branch of the Respondent, the Counter Statement of the Respondent reveals in what capacity she was
working in the Branch. The documents produced on behalf of the petitioner shows her engagement with the
Respondent Bank from the year 2006 only. Even as admitted by the Respondent in its Counter Statement she was
engaged for cleaning toilets from 2005 onwards. The Counter Statement states that she was engaged by Perambur
Branch Manager without any authority, for cleaning the toilet for about an hour in the morning and evening together.
However, according to the Respondent the engagement was from 2005 onwards and not from 1975. It is also stated in
the Counter Statement that the petitioner was disengaged from 13.03.2013, though, according to the petitioner this was
from 07.05.2013.
10.
The petitioner has filed affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination in tune with the Claim Statement filed by her. She
has also produced Ext.W1 to Ext.W5 to prove her engagement. Ext.W2 is the Attendance Register from the year 2006
to September 2009 and Ext.W1 is the Register from the year 2009 to 2013. Ext.W3 is the Debit Slip for Rs. 3,100/-
towards the cleaning charges for March 2013. Ext.W4 is the Bank Pass Book of the petitioner for the period from 2008
to 2010 and Ext.W5 is the Pass Book of the period from 2011 to 2013. These two Pass Books show remittances by the
Bank to the account of the petitioner within frequent intervals towards cleaning charges. No documents are available to
prove engagement of the petitioner prior to 2005. However, if the oral evidence of the petitioner is taken into account it
is probable that she was engaged even earlier. MW1 examined on behalf of the Respondent has of course stated that the
case of the petitioner that she was being engaged from 1975 onwards is not correct. However, this witness has started to
work as Manager of the Perambur Branch only in the year 2015. He does not have any direct knowledge regarding the
engagement of the petitioner. During cross-examination of the petitioner the Counsel for the Respondent has not
challenged the claim of the petitioner in the affidavit that she was being engaged from 1975 onwards. So in all
probability the petitioner must have been at the Bank much prior to 2005 which is the year of engagement admitted by
the Bank. However, it is clear from the very admission of the petitioner during her cross-examination that she was
working for sometime in the morning and for sometime in the evening and that also to clean the office premises and the
toilets. The last payment seen made to the petitioner is @ Rs. 100/- per day.
11.
Even as admitted by the Respondent the petitioner was turned out from the job when the Bank started to do the
work of cleaning through outside agency from April 2014. The claim of the petitioner is not for reinstatement but to
confer permanent status to her and to pay her retirement benefits. The petitioner is now past the age of retirement. Her
age is shown as 60 in her deposition. Her claim for conferment of permanent status could not be entertained. However,
the petitioner has to be compensated as she was sent out of service without complying with Section-25(F) of the
Industrial Disputes Act. She was neither paid any compensation nor was issued any notice before she was disengaged.
3126
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Considering the nature of work done by the petitioner and the long years of her service, Rs. 2.50 lakhs is fixed as
compensation payable to her. The Respondent is liable to pay this amount to the petitioner.
12.
In view of my discussion above the Respondent is directed to pay Rs. 2.50 lakhs to the petitioner within two
months of the publication of the Award. In default of payment the amount will carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from
the date of the Award.
The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the PA transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day
the 17th October, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
WW1, Smt. Heindramma
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
MW1, Sri P. Mohan
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
-
Attendance Register from 2009 to 2013
Ext.W2
-
Attendance Register from 2006 to Sept. 2009
Ext.W3
02.04.2013
Payment of salary issued by the Respondent
Ext.W4
-
Bank Pass Book showing the salary credited in the account of the petitioner from
2008 to 2010
Ext.W5
-
Bank Pass Book showing the salary credited in the account of the petitioner from
2011 to 2013
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
17.11.1987
Memorandum of Settlement entered into between the Respondent Bank and
Trade Unions
Ext.M2
16.07.1988
Memorandum of Settlement entered into between the Respondent Bank and
Trade Unions
Ext.M3
27.10.1988
Memorandum of Settlement entered into between the Respondent Bank and
Trade Unions
Ext.M4
09.01.1991
Memorandum of Settlement entered into between Respondent Bank and Trade
Unions
Ext.M5
30.07.1996
Memorandum of Settlement entered into between the Respondent Bank and
Trade Unions
Ext.M6
15.09.1998
Memorandum of Settlement entered into between the Respondent Bank and
Trade Unions
Ext.M7
10.12.2012
Agreement between Respondent Bank and Avon Facility Management Services
Pvt. Ltd.
Ext.M8
21.02.2014
Agreement between Respondent Bank and Avon Facility Management Services
Pvt. Ltd.
—
II
(ii)
3127
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 18th May, 2017
S.O. 1318.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2015) 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
India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18.05.2017.
[No. L-12025/01/2017-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Monday, the 8th August, 2016
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 18/2015 (DF)
BETWEEN :
Smt. E, Antony Mary
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1.
The Regional Manager
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
(RBO-III) (Disciplinary Authority)
State Bank of India
No. 25, Swamy Nelliyappa High Road
Tirunelveli-627001
2.
The Deputy General Manager
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
(Business & Operations) (Appellate Authority)
State Bank of India, Administrative Office
Maduram Complex
No. 2, Ambedkar Road
Madurai-625002
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
M/s Balan Haridas, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
:
M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co., Advocates
AWARD
This is an Industrial Dispute taken on file under 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended by
Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010).
1.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief is this are these:
The petitioner joined the services of the Respondent Bank in the year 1995. While she was working as Assistant
in Palayamkottai Branch at Tirunelveli she was placed under suspension by order dated 09.06.2007. Thereafter, a
Charge Memo dated 01.07.2007 was issued to her alleging that on 07.06.2007 she has stealthily taken away a note
packet of Rs. 100/- denomination amounting to Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner was alleged to have committed gross
misconduct under Para-5(j) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002. Though the petitioner submitted her
explanation denying the charge a domestic enquiry was ordered. The Enquiry Officer submitted report to the effect that
the charge leveled against the petitioner has been proved. On the basis of the report the Bank had asked for the
comments of the petitioner and she had submitted her comments also. The Respondent passed order on 31.12.2011
dismissing the petitioner from service. Though the petitioner preferred an appeal it was rejected by the Appellate
3128
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Authority by a cryptic order dated 23.04.2012. The respondent had preferred a criminal complaint based on the very
same allegations leveled against the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings. After trial the petitioner was acquitted of the
criminal charge, by judgment dated 03.04.2014. After this the petitioner made a representation to the First Respondent
Bank to reconsider the punishment. However, the First Respondent declined to take the petitioner back in service. The
punishment imposed on the petitioner is grossly illegal. The charge leveled against the petitioner was not proved in the
enquiry. The compact disc marked in the enquiry proceedings is not the complete recording of the CCTV on
07.06.2007 the date of the alleged offence. The Branch Manager who has certified the CD was not the Chief Manager
on the day and had no knowledge of the contents of the same. Even otherwise the compact disc does not prove the
charge against the petitioner. In any case there is no co-relation between the incident recorded in the CD and the cash
shortage reported. An award may be passed setting aside the order of the First Respondent dismissing the petitioner
from service without notice and ordering the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full backwages,
continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
4.
The Respondents have filed Counter Statement contending as below:
The petitioner was given appointment as Clerk in the Bank in the year 2007 on compassionate grounds. The
Palayamkottai Branch had installed CCTV cameras to video graph the movements of the staff and members of the
public who visit the Branch. The Post Master of Palayamkottai Head Post Office was maintaining an account with the
Palayamkottai Branch of the Respondents. On 07.06.2007 a government cheque issued in the name of the Post Master
for Rs. 5,00,000/- was presented for payment at the Bank. Ambalavanan, a staff of the Post Office presented the cheque
to the Single Window Operator counter manned by Usharani Selvaraj. Usharani had asked the Special Assistant for
notes as sufficient notes were not available in her counter. The Special Assistant gave four sections of Rs. 500/- note
and three bundles of Rs. 100/- currencies. Messenger, Thangavelu counted the notes that were given to him in the Note
Counting Machine and delivered them to the representative of the Post Office. The currencies were not used on that day
for Post Office transactions. At the time of closing, when the Post Master counted the sections of note that were brought
from the Respondent Bank he noticed that in one bundle there were only nine sections. He informed the Branch
Manager over phone and also brought the bundles containing only nine sections of Rs. 100/- notes instead of ten
sections with the slip of SBI not opened. When search for the section of notes by the bank staff became futile they
played the CCTV and found the petitioner removing the section of currency that remained at the counting machine as
Thangavelu omitted to remove it. On the next day morning the Chief Manager and others visited the residence of the
petitioner and on the same day she remitted the missing amount in the Bank. An investigation was conducted in the
matter. Based on the investigation enquiry proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and she was found guilty of
the charge leveled against her. The Bank has proved the case against the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings. The
petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
5.
The evidence in the case consists of Ext.W1 to Ext.W12 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M30. No oral evidence was adduced
on either side.
6.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the action of the Respondents in dismissing the petitioner from service is legal and justified?
(ii)
What, if any is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?
The Points
7.
The petitioner was dismissed from service by the First Respondent on 31.12.2011 on the charge that she had
removed a section of Rs. 100/- currency note packet amounting to Rs. 10,000/- which was lying in the note counting
machine of Palayamkottai Branch of the First Respondent. The case is that Thangavelu the Messenger had taken the
section alongwith nine other note packets to the Note Counting Machine and counted them but had omitted to remove
one section from the machine and this one section which was lying in the machine was stealthily removed by the
petitioner.
8.
The case of the Respondents is that the ten note packets were counted by Thangavelu, the Messenger on the day
in question for handing it over to the Messenger of the Post Master of Palayamkottai who had come to encash the
government cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/-. According to the Bank the Messenger left the Bank with the money without
verifying it under the bonafide belief that he had received the entire amount. But when the Post Master counted the
amount in the evening he found shortage of one section of Rs. 10,000/-. He informed the Chief Manager and the
Manager and staff made a search in the Branch but they could not find the money. Then they played the CCTV of the
day and noticed the petitioner removing one section of the note from the Note Counting Machine. They decided that
the petitioner is the one responsible for the shortage in the amount that was given to the Messenger of the Post Office.
The Chief Manager and the Others visited the resident of the petitioner on the next day morning itself and on their
persuasion she made good the shortage by the evening of the day.
II
(ii)
3129
9.
It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the charge against her was not established by the Management in the
enquiry proceedings. The charge against her as detailed in the Charge Memo which is marked as Ext.W1 is that she
had furtively and stealthily taken away one Rs. 100/- currency note packet amounting to Rs. 10,000/- placed in the Note
Counting Machine which was omitted to be carried by Sri Thangavelu the Messenger alongwith nine other note packets
to form a bundle for payment to the Post Office and in the process she has misappropriated Rs. 10,000/- belonging to
the Bank and had thus committed gross misconduct in terms of Para-5(j) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated
10.04.2002.
10.
Thangavelu, the Head Messenger is the only witness who was examined by the Management in the enquiry
proceedings. Thangavelu had deposed before the Enquiry Officer that on the morning of 07.06.2007 Special Assistant,
Usharani had received a cheque for Rs. 5,00,000/- from the Post Office and she had given cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- to him
for delivery. He has taken the money in front of the customer and has given them after counting in the presence of the
staff members. He has further deposed that in the evening when it was reported from the Post Office that a section of
Rs. 100/- denomination is missing, a thorough search was made by the staff and they have failed to find the money.
Then he had noticed the CCTV camera on and had requested the Manager to view the same. On viewing the CCTV
footage they had noticed the petitioner taking the Rs. 100/- note section from the counting machine and going to her
seat.
11.
The petitioner had examined three staffs of the Bank in the enquiry proceedings. DW1, the first witness had been
working in the Bank on deputation and had been there just for 10 days. On hearing about the complaint from the Post
Office he too had made a search. On the night they have verified the CCTV reversal and had found the petitioner taking
the Rs. 100/- section and going to her seat when the Messenger was not there and had tried to keep the money away.
The evidence of DW2, Usharani is also almost on the same terms. She had seen the CCTV reversal on the next day. She
had noticed the petitioner carrying the left out Rs. 100/- section and taking it to her table and dropping it on the side of
the table. The third witness, a Clerk of the Bank had also spoken about the CCTV footage. He has stated that on
noticing in the footage that the petitioner was carrying the section of notes they have decided that the petitioner has
taken the money away and they have stopped their search for the money.
12.
The concerned CD has been produced and marked as Ext.M1. I have watched the content of the CD which is for
a period of about 10 minutes. The picture in the CD is very vague. However, it shows somebody going to the counting
machine, counting notes for some time, leaving the notes there then coming back and continuing the counting. In
between others also are in the venue doing so many things including talking to each other. At the end of the content of
the CD a lady is seen coming to the machine taking money from the machine and going to the nearby seat. In the
meanwhile she is found talking to someone nearby showing the money in her hands to him. The content of the CD
comes to an end with this.
13.
It could be seen from the enquiry proceedings that the Defence Representative had been continuously requesting
the Enquiry Officer to direct the Presenting Officer to produce the copy of the entire CCTV footage of the day. But the
Presenting Officer has reported that the same is not available. Ultimately the Enquiry Officer has decided that Ext.M1
CD which was produced in the enquiry proceedings would serve the purpose of the case and whatever had happened
prior to and after what is there in the CD are not relevant for the purpose of the dispute.
14.
The petitioner, even at the outset, had denied the case of the Management that she has stealthily removed the
money and she has misappropriated the same. It is seen from the evidence that on the basis of the CCTV footage the
Branch Manager and three other staff had visited the petitioner on the next day morning and she was persuaded to remit
the alleged deficit in the Bank. The judgment of the Criminal Court in which the petitioner was an accused for the
charge of theft shows that she had pledged some jewels at Muthoot Finance on the next day through her Son and she
had remitted Rs. 10,000/- at the Bank by the evening. So it is clear that it is due to pressure from the Manager and
Others who assumed her to be the culprit that she had remitted the money in the Bank. She had never admitted that she
removed the money from the machine. Even assuming that the CD is admissible in evidence it is not known why it
stopped at the time the petitioner was found talking to someone alongwith the money in her hands. Her very reasonable
request to have copy of the CCTV footage pertaining to what happened subsequently was not heeded to by the Enquiry
Officer in spite of her repeated requests. The evidence given by the witnesses is only to the effect that they had seen in
the CCTV footage the petitioner taking away a section of note from the counting machine. One does not know if this is
part of the money that was counted by PW1 to be handed over to the Messenger of the Post Master. It has come out in
evidence that the counting machine is being used by other staff also and this will always be in use. How can it be
presumed that what was noticed by the witnesses in the CCTV footage was the petitioner removing the very section of
note that was in deficit out of Rs. 5,00,000/- that was handed over to the Messenger of the Post Office? Such a
presumption cannot be made at all in the absence of any evidence.
15.
Even otherwise Ext.M1 could not be relied upon at all for the reason that it is not properly proved. The proof of
an electronic device should be as provided in Section-65 (B) of Indian Evidence Act. If such a document is to be
3130
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
accepted in evidence, as per Section-65(B)(4) a certificate identifying the electronic record containing the statement
describing the manner in which it was produced should be there. It should furnish the particulars of any device
involved in the production of that electronic record and it should be signed by a person occupying a responsible official
position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or management of the relevant activities.
16.
The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in TOMASO BRUNO AND
ANOTHER VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in 2015 7 SCC 178 in support of his argument that Ext.M1
cannot be relied upon. In the above case it was held that non-production of CCTV footage, non-collection of call
records and SIM details of mobile phones seized from the accused are not mere instances of faulty investigation but
even withholding of best evidence. The Apex Court observed that it is not the case of prosecution that CCTV footage
could not be lifted or a CD copy could not be made. In the present case only a portion of the CCTV footage is
produced. The remaining portion which also seems to be very relevant has not been produced. This amounts to
withholding of the evidence. The Apex Court has observed in the above case that if a party in possession of best
evidence which would throw light in the controversy withholds it the Court can draw an adverse inference against him
not withstanding that the onus of proving does not lie on him. In the present case the burden is on the Management to
prove the case. So it is more so that adverse inference is drawn against the Respondent.
17.
It is not merely because the entire copy of the CCTV footage of the day is not produced, Ext.M1 could not be
relied upon. Even otherwise the document is bereft of proof and could not be relied upon at all. It is not proved as
provided under Section-65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of
the Madras High Court dated 05.08.2015 in OA 695/2015 in this respect. The Hon’ble High Court has referred to the
decision of the Apex Court in ANWAR VS. P.K. BASHIR AND OTHERS reported in 2014 10 SCC 473 reiterating the
conditions under Section-65(B)(4) of the Evidence Act for proof of electronic record. It states that if it is desired to give
a statement in any proceedings under Section-65(B(4) of the Evidence Act (a) there must be a certificate which should
identify the electronic record containing the statement (b) the certificate must describe the manner in which the
electronic record was produced (c) the certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production
of the record (d) the certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section-65(B)(2) of the
Evidence Act and (e) the certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to
the operation of the relevant device. The High Court has observed that electronic records being more susceptible to
tampering, alteration, etc. without such safeguards, these safeguards are taken to ensure the source and authenticity of
the device.
18.
In the present case none of the conditions above are satisfied. The enquiry proceedings states that the CD was
certified on 14.05.2009. The incident had taken place in June 2007. The document produced here does not contain any
certificate as stated in the enquiry proceedings. Even if there is any certificate it was made after a delay of 1.5 years.
There is no evidence as to whether the certificate was signed by a person occupying a responsible position. The only
person examined on behalf of the Management is the Head Messenger who does not have anything to do with Ext.M1.
DW1 has stated during his examination that he does not know anything about the preparation of the CD from the
premises of the Bank. Thus there is no evidfence at all regarding the authenticity of the CD. The Management is relying
upon Ext.M1 alone to establish the case. The evidence given by the witnesses are based on the footage which they are
said to have viewed. However, they do not know anything about Ext.M1 or authenticity of Ext.M1. So in any case
based on Ext.M1 alone the Management has no legs to stand.
19.
It has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that in any event, the case of the Management is without any
foundation. The case is that in the evening of 07.06.2007 the Post Master of Palayamkottai informed the Branch
Manager of Palayamkottai that there is deficit of one section of Rs. 100/- denomination in Rs. 5.00 lakhs that had been
handed over to the Messenger of the Post Office. A written complaint is coming on the next day only. The case of the
Management is that the cheque was encashed in the morning of 07.06.2007 itself. The Messenger, Ambalavanan who
encashed the cheque from the branch is not examined in the enquiry proceedings. The case is that the Post Office had
no necessity to use the money on the day and had kept in untouched till the evening at the time of closure and the deficit
was noticed only when the money was counted at the time. However, neither the Ambalavanan nor the Post Master had
come forward to give evidence. There is no evidence from them on what transpired after the money was handed over to
Ambalavanan.
20.
The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the evidence given by the witnesses regarding the practice accepted
by the Bank in its transactions with the customers. DW2 who was the Special Assistant and had worked as Payment
Cashier had given the details regarding payment to Ambalavanan. She is the one who made payment to Ambalavanan.
She has stated during her examination that the Post Office staff Ambalavanan had received Rs. 5.00 lakhs. According to
her, she used to inform the customers that they should leave the counter only after verification of the cash. According
to her, it can be taken that Ambalavanan has received the entire cheque amount of Rs. 5.00 lakhs. She has further stated
that if a customer leaves the branch and then comes back and claims shortage it will not be accepted by the Bank. There
is also the evidence by DW3. DW3 had stated that if a customer comes back with the complaint of shortage of cash
II
(ii)
3131
after a time gap of half-an-hour or one hour it may be entertained depending upon the circumstance. As could be seen
the Post Office Messenger who is said to have collected the money has not come forward to assert the case of deficit in
the money. This itself shakes the very foundation of the case.
21.
Lastly, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that she was tried in a criminal proceedings for the very
charge that was raised against her in the enquiry proceedings and she was found not guilty and acquitted of the case and
therefore also the punishment imposed on her will not hold good. Ext.W9 is the judgment in CC 40/2008 on the file of
the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tirunelveli in which the petitioner was the accused. In the case she was
charged for offence under Section-381 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that she had stolen a bundle of Rs. 10,000/- in
Rs. 100/- denomination left in the counting machine of the Bank. Ext.W1, the Charge Memo would show that the very
same was the charge against the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings. The case is that she had stealthily taken away the
money from the counting machine. The judgment in CC 40/2008 has become final in the absence of any appeal
challenging the same. What is the effect of such acquittal in a departmental proceedings? The counsel for the petitioner
has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in GM TANK VS STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER reported in
2006 CDJ SC 415 in this respect. In the above case the same witnesses were examined in the Criminal Case and the
departmental proceedings. The concerned workman was acquitted by the Criminal Court holding that the prosecution
has not proved the guilt alleged against him beyond reasonable doubt. The Apex Court has held that in such
circumstance it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental
proceedings to stand. It was further held that the facts and evidence in the departmental as well as in the criminal
proceedings being the same the distinction which is usually proved between the departmental and criminal proceedings
on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable to the case. Reference was also made to the
decision in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA VS. HOOGHLY MILLS COMPANY LTD. reported
in 2007 1 SCC 571 in this respect. It was a case where the Management Bank had failed in its attempt to recover the
money allegedly misappropriated by civil proceedings and also failed to prove the case of embezzlement in the criminal
proceedings also. The Apex Court held that if departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on identical set of
facts, evidence in both the proceedings are common and employee is acquitted in the criminal case, an order of
dismissal already passed may be set aside.
22.
The counsel for the petitioner has referred to a few decisions of the Madras High Court also to substantiate his
argument on the point. Reference was made to the decision in RAMASAMY VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU
AND OTHERS reported in CDJ 2006 MHC 038 where also it was held that the charge in the departmental enquiry and
the grounds leading to the prosecution of the accused being on the same set of facts, in view of the fact that the criminal
case ended in honorable acquittal on merits, the disciplinary authority ought to have considered the same before
proceeding further. This is the finding rendered in the decision in DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER VS.
PALANISAMY AND ANOTHER reported in CDJ 2006 MHC 273, KALYANASUNDARAM VS. MANAGEMENT
OF TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION in Writ Appeal 5/2011 and also in the decision in
KANAGASABAPATHY VS. DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VILLUPURAM AND ANOTHER reported in
CDJ 2006 MHC 1123.
23.
The counsel for the Respondent has referred to the decision in STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR
VS. NEMICHAND NALWAYA reported in 2011 4 SCC 584 in his attempt to differentiate the present case and to
show that the dictum laid down in the above decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. It was held in
the above case that the fact that the Criminal Court subsequently acquitted the employee by giving him the benefit of
doubt will not in any way render a completed disciplinary proceedings invalid nor affect the validity of the
finding of guilt or consequential punishment. According to the counsel the acquittal obtained by the petitioner in the
present case is not an honorable acquittal and therefore the decisions relied upon on behalf of the petitioner are not
applicable to the facts of the present case. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision in UNION OF
INDIA AND OTHERS VS. NAMAN SINGH SHEKHAWAT reported in 2008 4 SCC 1 wherein the Apex Court has
held that the Criminal Court having given a positive finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt, it
is not mere benefit of doubt having been given and the employee is entitled to a relief in his favour in the departmental
proceedings.
24.
In Ext.W9 the Judicial Magistrate has stated that it will be appropriate to grant benefit of doubt to the accused. It
was in view of this it has been argued on behalf of the Respondent that it is not an honourable acquittal but one
obtained merely on the basis of benefit of doubt. However, even though the term “benefit of doubt” is used in the
judgment it is not an acquittal based on benefit of doubt alone but on a positive finding that the guilt of the accused is
not established. In the Criminal Case all the witnesses examined in the enquiry proceedings have been examined. Their
evidence which is based on the CCTV footage was not accepted by the Criminal Court. By cogent reasoning the Court
has found that the charge against the accused is not proved. So in spite of usage of the term “benefit of doubt” in the
judgment it is to be treated as acquittal in the absence of proof.
3132
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
25.
The counsel for the Respondent has again relied upon the decision in STATE BANK OF BIKANER case
referred to earlier in which it has been held that an employee who allows the findings in the enquiry and the punishment
by the Disciplinary Authority to attain finality by non-challenge cannot after several years challenge the decision on the
ground that subsequently the Criminal Court has acquitted him. The counsel has been pointing out that the petitioner
herein has raised the dispute only after her acquittal in the criminal case. The claim has been made by the petitioner
within the period of limitation contemplated under Section-2A of the ID Act and therefore it could not be stated that the
petitioner has allowed her dismissal to attain finality by non-challenge. Since the claim is made within time there was
nothing wrong in her doing it even though it is after acquittal of her in the criminal case. For the above reasons the
petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed for.
Accordingly the Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within two months of publication
of the award with 50% backwages and other attendant benefits. In case of default in payment of the backwages it would
carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
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 8th August, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
:
None
Documents Marked:
On the Petitioner’s side
Ext.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
01.12.2007
Charge Memo
Ext.W2
27.12.2007
Explanation of the petitioner
Ext.W3
-
Enquiry Proceedings
Ext.W4
13.08.2011
Prosecution Brief
Ext.W5
10.10.2011
Defense Brief
Ext.W6
21.10.2011
Letter of the Respondent enclosing enquiry report
Ext.W7
12.11.2011
Petitioner’s comments on the enquiry report
Ext.W8
31.12.2011
Order of dismissal
Ext.W9
03.04.2014
C.C.No. 40 of 2008
Ext.W10
19.04.2012
Appeal
Ext.W11
23.04.2012
Order of Appellate Authority
Ext.W12
21.07.2014
Petition under Section-2A of the ID Act.
On the Respondent’s side
Ext.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
-
Compact disc evidencing the charges against the petitioner – C.D. (PE X01) –
And One D.V.D – D.V.D only furnished to the petitioner.
Ext.M2
07.06.2007
Cheque No. 437770 for Rs. 5.00 lakhs from Post Master, Palayamkottai with
receipt and attestation on its reverse
Ext.M3
07.06.2007
Photocopy of the note bundle with 9 sections of Rs. 100/- denomination
delivered to Post Office
Ext.M4
08.06.2007
Letter from Post Master, Palayamkottai – H.O. to the Chief Manager, SBI
Palayamkottai
II
(ii)
3133
Ext.M5
08.06.2007
Letter from Chief Manager, SBI Palayamkottai to Reg. Manager, SBI, RBO, T.
Veli (rm-rbo-16-51)
Ext.M6
08.06.2007
Letter from Thangavel, Messenger, SBI Palayamkottai to Regional Manager,
RBO, T.Veli
Ext.M7
08.06.2007
Credit slip from Antony Mary for Rs. 10,000/- to credit to Sundry Deposit
Account
Ext.M8
09.06.2007
Preliminary Investigation Report by S. Muthusamy, Dy. Manager, SBI-RBO,
T.Veli
Ext.M9
09.06.2007
Suspension Order to Antony Mary DIS-CON-131
Ext.M10
23.06.2007
Investigation Report by Sri S. Muthusamy
Ext.M11
13.08.2007
Letter from Regional Manager to DGM – RBO T. Veli – RBO – RM III-116
enclosing:
(i)
A copy of FIR No. 913/07 dated 10.07.2007
(ii)
Letter dated 14.07.2007 from Chief Manager, Palayamkottai to Inspector
of Police (cB) – Palayamkottai
(iii)
Letter dated 16.07.2007 – RM – RBO -12-76 from Chief Manager to
Regional Manager
(iv)
Letter dated 0808.2007-AGM-12-78-Details of Arrest, imprisonment and
Bail
Ext.M12
16.08.2007
Memo from Regional Manager to Antony Mary – calling for explanation within
15 days – RBO – RM – III – 173
Ext.M13
30.08.2007
Letter from Antony Mary to SBI, RBO, T.Veli – requesting 30 days time to
submit her explanation
Ext.M14
28.09.2007
Explanation from Antony Mary to Branch Manager RBO, SBI, T.Velia to the
memo dated 16.08.2007
Ext.M15
30.01.2008
Notice of enquiry (Disc.Con.656) – Explanating procedure
Ext.M16
22.04.2009
Letter from Dis. Proceeding Cell, Madurai (Dis.Con.223) to E.O. / Chief
Manager, Overseas Branch, Chennai
Ext.M17
28.07.2009
Order of Hon’ble High Court in MP 1/2009 – extending stay by 4 weeks
Ext.M18
03.09.2009
Order of Hon’ble High Court in M.P. 1/09 – stay further extended by 3 weeks
Ext.M19
01.10.2009
Order of Hon’ble High Court in MP 1/09 – stay further extended by 3 weeks
Ext.M20
24.02.2010 to
Deposition of witness Muthusamy, Manager (DPC), SBI, ZO, Madurai – In
20.04.2012
C.C.No. 40/08
Ext.M21
23.09.2010
Order – dismissing the WP (MD) No. 6916/09 and MP (MD) MS 1/2009 and
1/2010 filed by the Petitioner before the Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras
High Court
Ext.M22
15.05.2007 to
Extract of Currency Chest Book – Folio No. 42 dated 18.05.2007 of Form T.E.1
21.05.2007
Ext.M23
10.01.2011
First Information Report No. 04/2011 – enclosing the deposition in Cr.No.
4/2011 (total 9 pages)
Ext.M24
21.09.2011
Letter from T. Mathiarasan (EO) to K. Rajendran (D.R.) – enclosing copy of
P.O’s brief dated 13.08.2011 and calling for Defense Report before 28.09.2011
Ext.M25
07.12.2011
Letter to Antony Mary from D.A. proposing punishment of dismissal and fixing
personal hearing on 27.12.2011
Ext.M26
26.12.2011
Reply of D.A. to Antony Mary on her request to postpone the enquiry and fixing
the P.H. on 31.12.2011
3134
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.M27
31.12.2011
Report of D.A. on the P.H. – Antony Mary failed to appear and proceedings of
the hearing
Ext.M28
07.03.2012
Letter from Regional Manager addressed to DGM (B&O) – DPC Section – SBI
Madurai enclosing appeal dated 25.02.2012 of Mrs. Antony Mary
Ext.M29
12.04.2012
Reply to Antony Mary from DGM/Appellate Authority fixing personal hearing
on 19.04.2012 on the Appeal dated 25.02.2012
Ext.M30
19.04.2012
Proceedings of personal hearing on 19.04.2012 before Appellate Authority
—
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 18th May, 2017
S.O. 1319.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2015) 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
India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18.05.2017.
[No. L-12012/54/2014-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Tuesday, the 10th January, 2017
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 15/2015
(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 Another and their
workman)
BETWEEN :
Sri V. Anbumani
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1.
The Regional Manager (Disciplinary Authority)
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
State Bank of India, Region-II
Regional Business Office, Raja Mirasdar
Hospital Road
Thanjavur-613001
2.
The Deputy General Manager (Business &
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Operations)
State Bank of India
Disciplinary Proceeding Cell, Admn. Office
Tiruchy Zone, Mc. Donalds Road
Tiruchi-620001
II
(ii)
3135
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
M/s K.M. Ramesh, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/1st & 2nd Respondent
:
M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co., Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/54/2014-IR(B-I) dated
30.01.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Tiruchirapalli in imposing the punishment of
discharge from service of Sri V. Anbumani, Special Assistant is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
concerned workman is entitled?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 15/2015 and issued notices to both sides.
Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel and filed their 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 was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the State Bank of India in 1985. He was promoted as
Special Assistant in 2008. He was working in Mannargudi Branch at the time when he was wrongfully terminated by
the Bank by order dated 25.09.2012. While the petitioner was working in Mannargudi Branch he was suspended from
service w.ef. 27.11.2009 alleging certain acts of gross misconduct. The petitioner was issued with a charge sheet dated
15.12.2010 leveling two charges against him. The first charge against the petitioner is that while he was holding
custody of ATM Pin Mailers and Undelivered ATM Cards for delivering to the customers those were misused to
withdraw aggregate amount of Rs. 5,42,340.00 from various customers and this was because of the negligence of the
petitioner to safe keep the ATM Cards and Pin Mailers. The Second Charge is that the petitioner allowed an outsider,
one Revathi to misuse the ATM Cards and Pin Mailers and thus helped her to withdraw money fraudulently from the
customers’ account thus facilitating an outsider to misappropriate Rs. 5,42,340.00 belonging to various customers. The
explanation given by the petitioner to the charge sheet was not accepted and an enquiry was conducted against him. The
charges against the petitioner having been found proved by the Enquiry Officer the petitioner was dismissed from
service (not discharged as seen in the order of reference) by order dated 10.04.2002. The appeal filed by the
petitioner against the order of dismissal was dismissed. The petitioner has not committed any misconduct as alleged.
The enquiry against the petitioner has not been conducted in a fair and proper manner. The petitioner is entitled to be
reinstated in the service of the State Bank of India.
4.
The Respondents have filed Counter Statement contending as below:
Both Respondents represent State Bank of India. So a common counter Statement is filed and the Respondents
are referred to as “Respondent”. There is a policy of job rotation among Clerical Staffs once in six months. In the
second half of 2009 the job allocation to the petitioner inter-alia included ATM Offsite Cash Replacement and entering
ATM Pin in the Register and delivery. In the Mannargudi Branch where the petitioner was working there was
unauthorized engagement of casual employee by name Revathi. One Ravikumar had SB Account in Mannargudi
Branch. On 26.10.2009 his father presented his son’s cheque for Rs. 70,000/- and this was returned for want of
sufficient balance. When Ravikumar came to the branch it was noticed that three unauthorized withdrawals for Rs.
81,000/- were made through an Offsite ATM Centre. On 13.11.2009 the wife of Account Holder Mohammad Suleiman
came to the Branch and it was noticed that there had been unauthorized withdrawal of about Rs. 3,87,000.00 from the
account. On verification it was found that cash was withdrawn from 10 SB Account Holders. The petitioner who was
entrusted with the Pin Mailers and also the undelivered ATM Cards had misused his position and colluded with a casual
employee, Revathi to handle ATM Cards and Pin Mailers. Thus Revathi was able to withdraw Rs. 5,32,840.00 from
different accounts. The Branch Manager was also responsible for allowing the Pin Mailers and the ATM Cards to be in
the custody of the petitioner. Disciplinary action was initiated against the Branch Manager also. Enquiry against the
petitione was held in a fair and proper manner. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The petition is liable to be
dismissed.
5.
The petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter Statement denying the averments in the Counter
Statement and reiterating his case in the Claim Statement.
6.
Though the petitioner has challenged the fairness of enquiry in the Claim Statement, he has given up his
contention in the Proof Affidavit filed by him before this Tribunal. So there is no necessity to consider this issue in the
dispute.
3136
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W25 and
Ext.M1 to Ext.M8.
8.
The points for consideration are:
(i)
Whether the action of the Respondents in dismissing the petitioner from service without notice is legal
and justified?
(ii)
What if any is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?
The Points
9.
The petitioner who was working as Special Assistant in Mannargudi Branch of SBI was dismissed from service
by order dated 26.11.2009 on allegations of certain misconducts committed by him. It is alleged by the Management
that the petitioner was in the custody of ATM Pin Mailers and Undelivered ATM Cards and was having the duty to
deliver them to the customers but he allowed one Revathi to misuse the ATM Cards and Pin Mailers facilitating
withdrawal of more than Rs. 5.50 lakhs from the account of different customers by her.
10.
In the enquiry proceedings the Management had examined the Branch Manager at the time of incident and also
the subsequent Manager. Documents were also marked in the enquiry proceedings. On the side of the petitioner also
two witnesses were examined and some documents were marked. The Enquiry Officer has found that both charges
against the petitioner are proved. He has relied upon the alleged recovery of the ATM Cards and Pin Mailers said to
have been made from the petitioner and also the confession statement said to have been made by Revathi against whom
criminal proceedings have been initiated by the Bank for withdrawal of amount from the account of different customers.
11.
The First Charge against the petitioner states that he was holding custody of ATM Pin Mailers and Undelivered
ATM Cards for delivery to the customers, but these were misused to withdraw more than Rs. 5.00 lakhs from various
customers account as detailed in the annexure to the Charge Memo and this was because of the negligence of the
petitioner to safe keep the ATM Cards and Pin Mailers. As per the Second Charge the petitioner had allowed Revathi,
an outsider to misuse the ATM Cards and Pin Mailers which were held in his custody and thus he facilitated Revathi to
misappropriate amount belonging to various customers of the Bank thereby tarnishing the image of the Bank.
12.
Is it proved by the evidence tendered by the Management if the petitioner was in the custody of ATM Cards and
Pin Mailers? Only if the answer to this is in the positive the question of someone misusing them while in the custody of
the petitioner arises. As far as the custody of ATM Pin Mailers are concerned it is not disputed by the petitioner himself
that he was at the time doing the work of holding custody of Pin Mailers, entering them in the Register, etc. Ext.W24
contains PEX-I marked in the enquiry proceedings, an Office Order which had become effective from 27.07.2009.
S.No. 9 in the Office Order is in respect of the petitioner, Anbumani. Alongwith other jobs, he is also entrusted with the
job of entering of ATM Pin in the Register and delivery. The jobs entrusted to him do not include custody of ATM
Cards or their delivery to the customers.
13.
Is there any evidence available to show that undelivered ATM Cards were in the custody of the petitioner as
alleged in Charge No. 1 of the Charge Memo? The then Branch Manager had been examined by the Management as
PW2 in the enquiry proceedings. During his examination he has stated specifically that the custody of ATM Pin Mailers
were with the petitioner while undelivered ATM Cards were in the custody of Cash Officer. When the Branch Manager
who is having the duty to allot the different works to the staffs states so it is beyond doubt that the petitioner could not
have been in the custody of undelivered ATM Cards.
14.
The counsel for the Respondent had been relying upon the statement regarding recovery of ATM Pin Mailers
and ATM Cards from the custody of the petitioner. According to the counsel this is sufficient to establish the case of the
Management that the petitioner was in the custody of ATM Cards as well. However, this case is not supported by the
Branch Manager. The case of the Bank that recovery of these were made from the petitioner itself is not established.
During his examination the Branch Manager has stated that Chief Manager (Administration) and the Channel Manager
have recovered the ATM Pin Mailers and ATM Cards from the petitioner on 13.09.2009. Thus it is clear that the
Branch Manager is not a party to the alleged recovery. Those Officers who are said to have made the recovery are not
examined.
15.
Ext.W24 includes PEX-3 marked in the enquiry proceedings. This is in respect of the covers said to have been
recovered from the custody of the petitioner and kept under the safe custody of the Branch Manager. PEX-3 is only the
details of certain covers with the signature of the Branch Manager. The Branch Manager apparently is not the one who
made the recovery. A statement does not seem to have made at the time when the covers were allegedly recovered.
Ext.PEX-3 would not show on which date the covers were recovered from the petitioner. The Branch Manager has
given 13.09.2009 as the date of recovery without any supportive evidence. He was not present at the time of the alleged
recovery. He has admitted during his cross-examination that Ext.PEX-3 itself does not reveal that the documents named
II
(ii)
3137
in it were recovered from the custody of the petitioner. Ext.PEX-3 does not contain the signature of the petitioner. It
cannot be also because it is only a statement made by the Branch Manager at a time subsequent to the alleged recovery.
16.
A letter written by the Branch Manager to the Regional Manager also would reveal that the petitioner could not
have been in the custody of undelivered ATM Cards. Ext.W25 contains DEX-3 marked on the side of the petitioner in
the enquiry proceedings. It is a letter written by PW2, the Branch Manager to the Regional Manager. In this letter he has
stated that the Branch Cash Officer is having record for keeping undelivered ATM Cards with him. He has of course
stated in the letter that he was under the impression that the cards were with the Cash Officer but after the incident
happened he came to understand that the petitioner was in custody of ATM Cards as well as ATM Pin Mailers.
However, this case is not pursued by the Branch Manager in the enquiry proceedings. Even during his Chief
Examination his case is that the Cash Officer only was in custody of ATM Cards. In such circumstance, Ext.PEX-3
could not be relied upon to accept the case of the Management that ATM Cards were recovered from the custody of the
petitioner.
17.
The counsel for the Respondent has been relying upon the confession statement said to have been made by
Revathi also to advance his argument that the petitioner was responsible for custody of the ATM Cards as well and that
he has facilitated Revathi to misuse those ATM Cards and Pin Mailers and she has withdrawn amount from the account
of different customers alongwith two others, misusing them. The Second Charge is framed against the petitioner in such
a way as if to make out that Revathi who is the actual culprit has nothing to do with the Bank and is a total outsider to
the Bank. It is not in dispute either for the petitioner or for the Management that Revathi is the one who has withdrawn
Rs. 5,42,340.00 by different occasions from the account of various customers, obtaining ATM Cards and Pin Mailers
from the Bank. However, Revathi is not an outsider. She was working in the Bank under the blessings of the Branch
Manager. The Branch Manager has stated in Ext.DEX-2 itself that Revathi was employed at the Branch though he
would state that it was only to prepare voucher and account opening.
18.
The question is whether the confession statement allegedly made by Revathi can be accepted? The Enquiry
Officer has heavily relied upon the confession statement to enter a finding against the petitioner. A copy of the
translation of alleged confession statement which is in Tamil has been provided. As seen from this she was working for
wages at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day at the time. The statement proceeds to state that she had worked in account
opening work and alongwith that also worked under Special Assistant, Anbumani and assisted him in the work of
registration of ATM Card and recording the details of account opening and ATM Card details in the Register. The
confession statement proceeds to state that she had found the undelivered ATM Cards and Pin Mailers and had
collected them without anybody’s knowledge and had withdrawn amount on various dates with the help of her two
friends.
19.
The counsel for the Respondent has argued that being in a departmental proceedings the confession statement
could be acted upon. The counsel has referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in ASSOCIATED CEMENT
COMPANIES LTD. MADUKKARAI CEMENT WORKS, COIMBAORE VS. LABOUR COURT, COIMBATORE
AND ANOTHER reported in 1976 SCC ONLINE MADRAS 282 in this respect. It was a case where evidence of an
accomplice was accepted by the Labour Court. The Court has held that the Labour Court not being bound by the strict
principles of Law of Evidence can take into consideration the evidence of an accomplice. It was further observed that
even a retracted confession can be acted upon in proceedings before a Labour Court. Reference was also made to the
decision of the Apex Court in KULDEEP SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER reported in 1997 1 LLN
52. It was held here that the fact that the confession was made to the Police or while in the custody of the Police may
not be of much consequence for the reason that strict rules of Evidence Act do not apply to departmental/disciplinary
enquiries. In answer to the above decisions the counsel for the petitioner has referred to the later decision of the Apex
Court in ROOP SINGH NEGI VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS reported in 2009 2 SCC 570 where it
was held that confession statement should have been proved. It was observed that the case of the Appellant was that he
was forced to make the confession statement by the Police rather than merely tendering the document and the contents
thereof should have been proved.
20.
In the light of the principles revealed through the above decisions it is to be seen whether the confession
statement said to have been made by Revathi can be acted upon. The confession statement admittedly is not proved
either by the maker of the statement or through the person who has recorded it. The document was merely tendered in
evidence by one of the witnesses. The Bank or the witnesses have nothing to do with the confession statement. The
Bank got the statement as sent by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tiruvarur as seen from Ext.PEX-24
included in Ext.W25. The letter addressed to the Branch Manager states that the copy of the Charge Sheet and also the
confession statement of Revathi are being sent alongwith the letter. There is no evidence as to who has recorded the
confession statement or from which place or on which date it was recorded. There is no evidence as to whether such a
confession statement was given by Revathi at all. In the absence of examination of Revathi, the maker of the statement
or the one who might have recorded the statement there is nothing to show that such a statement has been given at all.
The mandate given by the Apex Court in ROOP SINGH NEGI’s case that the confession should have been proved has
3138
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
not been complied with. In the two cases referred to on behalf of the Respondent the confession statements were made
by the concerned employees. In the present case the petitioner has not made any confession statement. The Management
is trying to rely upon statement allegedly made by a person who has committed the crime of withdrawal of money from
the account of customers by removing Pin Mailers and ATM Cards from the Bank. How much value can be given to
such a statement even if any was given? As pointed out on behalf of the petitioner the petitioner was not even made an
accused in the Criminal Case alongwith Revathi. On the other hand, he was a witness to the prosecution in the said
Criminal Case. In such circumstance it would be outrageous to act upon a confession statement, the existence even of
which is not established. So the case in Charge No. 2 that the petitioner allowed Revathi to misuse the ATM Cards and
facilitated misappropriation of amount is not proved.
21.
The petitioner was allotted the duty of custody of ATM Pin Mailers as already referred to. Apart from Ext. PEX-1
included in Ext.W24, there is also the admission on the part of the petitioner in this respect in his statements as
well as during his evidence before this Tribunal. Ext.W3 is the letter written by the petitioner to the Regional Manager.
He has stated in this that the work of delivery of Pin Mailers was allotted to him. There is no case for the petitioner that
the Pin Mailers used for withdrawing amount from the account of different customers were not under his custody. PEX-2
included in Ext.W24 is copy of ATM Pin Mailer Register from 12.08.2009 after the duty was entrusted with the
petitioner. The procedure for maintaining the Pin Mailers and also ATM Cards has been explained in the Counter
Statement filed by the Respondents. It is stated in this that the Bank is expected to maintain absolute confidentiality in
handling the ATM Cards and Pin Mailers and the system is devised in such a manner that the Pin Mailer and ATM Card
will not go together to the same hand and will not go together at the same time. During his examination before this
Tribunal the petitioner has admitted that this procedure detailed in the Counter Statement is correct. So it is apparent
that once custody of Pin Mailers is given to the petitioner it is his duty to maintain the confidentiality of these Pin
Mailers. It is a fact that these Pin Mailers were removed when they were in the custody of the petitioner. The petitioner
cannot absolve himself from the responsibility by putting the responsibility on the Branch Manager or some others.
When he is well aware of the procedures it was for him to see that the confidentiality of the Pin Mailers is maintained.
In so far as he was not able to discharge the responsibility put on him properly by enabling others to remove the Pin
Mailers and misuse them it is certainly negligence on the part of the petitioner. If he had kept the Pin Mailers properly it
would not have been possible for another to withdraw amount from the account of the customers even if ATM Cards
were available. So to this extent the petitioner is guilty.
22.
As could be seen form the documents produced, it is not for the first time that the petitioner had been negligent
in his duty. Ext.M1 to Ext.M6 are proof of this. Ext.M1 is the Charge Memo issued to the petitioner in 2004 for keeping
the gate adjacent to the Strong Room unlocked resulting in loss of ornaments pledged with the Bank and thus causing
loss of Rs. 50,000/- to the Bank. Ext.M3 is the order of punishment of censure given to the petitioner. Ext.M4 is another
Charge Memo to the effect that while working as Single Window Operator (SWO) he posted a cheque although the
account did not have sufficient funds resulting in creation of an unauthorized overdraft, etc. Ext.M6 is the order of
punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of six months to the petitioner.
23.
Having been found that a part of the charge against the petitioner is established, what is the punishment due to
the petitioner? The punishment of dismissal has been imposed on the petitioner by the Management on the basis that
both charges against him are proved. Is the same punishment to be maintained or is he entitled to some
concession? The counsel for the Respondent has referred to the recent decision of the Apex Court in State Bank of
Patiala Vs. The General Secretary, Staff Union and Others reported in 2016 LLR 1121 in support of his argument that
the petitioner is entitled to the major punishment of dismissal from service itself. In the above decision the Apex Court
has stated that any act on the part of the workman adversely affecting the interests of the Bank is nothing but a gross
negligence on his part justifying major punishment of dismissal from service.
24.
In the above case the concerned workman who was entrusted with the task of watching a godown, the stock of
which was pledged to the Bank of which he was the employee had allowed the owner of the godown to take away the
goods on the understanding that he would replace the goods after some time. The goods were later replaced but they
were of inferior quality. In the above case, the employee was cheating its own employer and it is a graver offence. The
petitioner herein has been negligent only and that is exactly why he was not made an accused in the Criminal Case.
There is the fact that the ATM Cards also were not kept in proper custody and it was because of this the actual offender
was able to get both ATM Cards and Pin Mailers, the two essentials necessary for withdrawing amounts through ATM
machines. So the responsibility for causing loss to the Bank by negligence goes to others as well. The part of the
Branch Manager who is the authority to administer things properly could not be ignored. When these aspects are taken
into account, the petitioner is entitled to some concession in the matter of punishment. At the same time there cannot be
too much leniency considering his past history of negligence as well. Compulsory Retirement from service will be due
punishment to the petitioner.
II
(ii)
3139
25.
Accordingly, an Award is passed as below:
The punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner is set aside.
The punishment of Compulsory Retirement from service with superannuation benefits is imposed on the
petitioner.
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 10th January, 2017)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
WW1, Sri V. Anbumani
For the 2nd Party/Management
:
None
Documents Marked :
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
01.08.2002
Xerox copy of letter enclosing Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary
action procedure for Workmen
Ext.W2
26.11.2009
Xerox copy of suspension order issued to the petitioner
Ext.W3
03.02.2010
Xerox copy of letter from petitioner to the Regional Manager of the Respondent
Bank
Ext.W4
25.08.2010
Xerox copy of memo issued by the Regional Manager of the Respondent Bank to
the petitioner
Ext.W5
13.09.2010
Xerox copy of reply given by the petitioner to the Regional Manager of the
Respondent Bank to the petitioner
Ext.W6
15.12.2010
Xerox copy of Charge Sheet issued to the petitioner
Ext.W7
06.01.2011
Xerox copy of letter from petitioner to the Assistant General Manager of the
Respondent Bank
Ext.W8
06.01.2011
Xerox copy of letter from petitioner to the Branch Manager, Mannargudi Branch
of the Respondent Bank
Ext.W9
18.01.2011
Xerox copy of letter from Assistant General Manager of the Respondent Bank to
the petitioner
Ext.W10
28.01.2011
Xerox copy of letter from petitioner to the Assistant General Manager of the
Respondent Bank
Ext.W11
25.02.2011
Xerox copy of letter from Assistant General Manager of the Respondent Bank to
the petitioner appointing Enquiry Officer
Ext.W12
29.04.2011 to
Xerox copy of enquiry proceedings
14.02.2012
Ext.W13
16.04.2012
Xerox copy of defence brief submitted by the petitioner before the Enquiry
Officer
Ext.W14
15.05.2012
Xerox copy of Enquiry Officer’s report
Ext.W15
10.05.2012
Xerox copy of Enquiry Officer’s report
Ext.W16
05.06.2012
Xerox copy of reply given by the petitioner attacking the Enquiry Officer’s
report
Ext.W17
29.08.2012
Xerox copy of letter issued by the Disciplinary Authority proposing punishment
Ext.W18
18.09.2012
Xerox copy of proceedings of personal hearing before the Disciplinary Authority
3140
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ext.W19
25.09.2012
the final order issued by the Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment
Ext.W20
20.11.2012
Xerox copy of the appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority of the
Respondent Bank
Ext.W21
14.06.2013
Xerox copy of oral submissions made before the Appellate Authority by the
petitioner
Ext.W22
30.11.2013
Xerox copy of the letter of the Appellate Authority enclosing order of Appellate
Authority
Ext.W23
30.11.2013
Xerox copy of the order of the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal
Ext.W24
xxxx
Prosecution Exhibits marked in the enquiry
Ext.W25
xxxx
Defence Exhibits marked in the enquiry
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
19.02.2004
Charge Memo to the petitioner – Dis/Con/410
Ext.M2
17.04.2004
Explanation of the petitioner
Ext.M3
18.05.2004
Punishment of censure to petitioner – Dis/Con/89 24.11.2009
Ext.M4
31.01.2005
Charge Memo issued to petitioner – Try/Dis/Con/412
Ext.M5
22.02.2005
Explanation of petitioner to the Show Cause Notice dated 31.01.2005
Ext.M6
21.05.2005
Punishment awarded to petitioner – stoppage of increment for a period of
6 months –ZO/TRY/DIS/CON/128
Ext.M7
2009
Copy of Leave Record of Petitioner for the period 2009-PEX-26
Ext.M8
24.02.2012
Prosecution brief submitted by the Presenting Officer to the Enquiry Officer and
with a list of prosecution exhibits marked in the enquiry
—
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 18th May, 2017
S.O. 1320.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 9/2016) 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 India and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18.05.2017.
[No. L-12025/01/2017-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Friday, the 30th December, 2016
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
II
(ii)
3141
Industrial Dispute No. 9/2016
[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 Another and their
workman]
BETWEEN :
Sri A. Ramamoorthi
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1.
The Dy. General Manager (B&O)
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
Appellate Authority
State Bank of India
Human Resources Section, Network-II
Administrative Office, Madurai Cluster
Maduram Complex
No. 2, Dr. Ambedkar Road
Madurai-625002
2.
The Regional Manager (RBO IV)
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
Disciplinary Authority, State Bank of India
Madurai-625002
AWARD
This is an Industrial Dispute taken for adjudication on the file under Sub-Section 2A of Section-10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended by Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010).
1.
The averments in the Claim Statement in brief are as below :
The petitioner joined the services of the Respondent Bank on 17.11.1988. He had been working as Special
Assistant in Thallakulam Branch of the Respondent Bank. On 11.01.2014 he came to the administrative office of Bank
of Madura to make enquiry regarding the non-distribution of the Special Allowance due to him and regarding the
discriminatory treatment in transferring him to another branch. He came to know that Rajendran was in the room of
Deputy Manager. Rajendran informed him that the Chief Manager (Personnel & HR) had asked him to wait for a letter
and only after getting the letter he can go home. The petitioner and Mylerinathan waited outside. The Officers of the
Respondent Bank requested the petitioner and Mylerinathan to stay alongwith Rajendran as he was on fast in
connection with a festival. The Respondent Bank had issued a Charge Memo containing six charges to the petitioner on
21.03.2014. As per the Charge Memo the petitioner had participated in sit in Dharna alongwith Rajendran and
Mylerinathan within the premises of Administrative Office, Madurai from 02.30 PM on 11.01.2014 to 11:00 AM on the
next day. It is also alleged in the Charge Memo that the Officers had instructed the petitioner and other participants of
the Dharna to leave the premises but they continued to hold sit in Dharna forcing the officials to be held up in the office
premises till 11:00 AM on the next day. It is also alleged that the petitioner demanded Attendance Register to enable
Rajendran to sign the same and also demanded modification in the letter given to Rajendran and this resulted in
retention of officials in the Bank till the next day. It is also alleged that the incident was published by the newspapers
and telecast by a Television Channel causing loss of image and reputation to Bank. The petitioner is also alleged to
have brought outsiders to the premises of Administrative Office and forced the Bank authorities to the requirement of
permitting Rajendran to rejoin duty in the Administrative Office at Madurai. The Charge Memo states that the
petitioner has committed misconduct under Paragraphs 5(C), 5 (D), 5(E), 5 (J) and 5(L) of the settlement dated
10.04.2002. The petitioner gave explanation to the Charge Memo denying the charges. This was not accepted and an
enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer held that all the six charges are proved. The
Second Respondent dismissed the petitioner from service by order dated 09.05.2015, on the basis of the report of the
Enquiry Officer. The Appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner had not committed any of the
misconducts alleged. Rajendran, Senior Assistant working in the Administrative Office, Madurai was transferred to
Lady Dock College Branch. Rajendran approached the Hon’ble High Court questioning the order of transfer and
obtained an interim order to maintain status-quo. On 11.01.2014 Rajendran had approached the Bank to join duty on the
basis of the order of the High Court. However, he was prevented from signing the Attendance Register. The petitioner
had gone to the Administrative Unit of the Respondent Bank at Madurai for his personal purpose. The issue regarding
Rajendran was being considered by the Office and the Deputy General Manager and the Chief Manager (HR) requested
the petitioner to remain in the Administrative Unit to take care of Rajendran as he was weak owing to the fast he was
undergoing. The petitioner did not participate in the issue in any manner. There was no Dharna as alleged in the Charge
Memo and so there was no question of the petitioner participating in the Dharna. The petitioner had not committed any
3142
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of the misconducts alleged. The enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner. The dismissal of the petitioner
from service is illegal and unjust. An order may be passed setting aside the order of dismissal of the petitioner and
directing the Respondent to reinstate the petitioner with full backwages, continuity of service and attendant benefits.
2.
The Respondents have filed Counter Statement contending as below:
The Respondent Bank is having an Administrative Office at Ambedkar Road, Madurai. K. Rajendran who was
working as Senior Assistant in the Administrative Office was transferred to a nearby branch situated at Lady Dock
College, Madurai. On 11.01.2014 by 02:30 PM he, alongwith Mylerinathan and the petitioner indulged in unauthorized
sit-in Dharna which lasted till 11:00 AM on 12.01.2014. Though the Chief Manager (HR) and other officials of the
Administrative Office instructed the petitioner and the other two employees to leave the place and not indulge in
disorderly conduct, they continued to hold sit-in Dharna in Office. During the Dharna the petitioner demanded
production of Attendance Register relating to Administrative Office from the officials so as to enable Rajendran to sign
the register. When Rajendran sought for some clarification in the order of transfer and it was furnished to him the
petitioner pressurized and demanded modification in the written clarification. This resulted in the detention of officials
in the office premises from 02:30 PM on 11.01.2014 to the next day. The officials had to lodge a criminal complaint
with the Police authorities. These incidents were published in the Tamil Newspaper Dinamalar. A private television
channel also aired the incident. This caused loss of image and reputation to the Bank. On 12.01.2014 the petitioner
arranged to bring outsiders to the Administrative Office and abetted them to force the bank authorities to permit
Rajendran to rejoin duty at the Administrative Office. A Charge Sheet was issued to the petitioner in respect of the
misconducts committed by him. As the explanation submitted by him was not satisfactory, a domestic enquiry was
conducted. The enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner. The Enquiry Officer submitted report holding that
the petitioner was guilty of all the charges leveled against him. The petitioner’s submissions were sought on the enquiry
report. This having been found unsatisfactory he was dismissed from service by order dated 07.08.2015. The appeal
filed against this order was also dismissed. The petitioner’s version of the incident narrated in the Claim Statement is
not true. The grave misconducts committed by the petitioner warrant punishment of dismissal from service. The
petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
3.
Though the petitioner has contended in the Claim Statement that enquiry in the departmental proceedings had
not been conducted in a fair and proper manner, subsequently, the counsel for the petitioner has given up this
contention and has made endorsement to the effect that the challenge on the fairness of enquiry is not pressed. So there
is no necessity to consider this contention by this Tribunal.
4.
The evidence in the case consists of documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W4 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M12. No oral
evidence was adduced by either side.
5.
The points for consideration are :
(i)
Whether the action of the Respondents in dismissing the petitioner from service is justified?
(ii)
What, if any is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?
The Points
6.
The petitioner had been working as Special Assistant in Thallakulam Branch of the State Bank of India. He was
under orders of transfer to Natham Branch when the incident relating to the issue of the Charge Memo occurred.
7.
The incident mainly relates to one K. Rajendran who was working in the Administrative Office at Madurai. On
11.01.2014 Rajendran had reached the Administrative Office armed with an interim order to maintain status-quo
obtained from the Hon’ble High Court against his transfer. It is alleged that Rajendran had demanded to permit him to
sign attendance register or a letter from the Administrative Office and had repeatedly demanded modification of the
letter and this has resulted in the retention of the Officers on 11.01.2014 which was a Saturday beyond the Office hour
of 02:30 PM and lasted till morning of the next day. The allegation seems to be that Rajendran, one Mylerinathan and
also the petitioner held a sit-in Dharna in the Administrative Office to pressurize the officials to obtain the letter in the
manner in which they wanted it and in the meanwhile brought persons from outside to office and used them also to
pressurize officials and the incident was published by newspapers and telecasted by television channel resulting in loss
of reputation to the Bank.
8.
The alleged incident was split and shown as six charges against the petitioner. Ext.M1 is the copy of the Charge
Sheet issued to the petitioner on 21.03.2014. Ext.M2 is the explanation submitted by him to the charges on 11.04.2014.
This was not accepted and a domestic enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. All the six charges narrated in the
Charge Sheet were found against the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer consequent to which he was dismissed from
service.
9.
The petitioner has not denied his presence in the Administrative Office alongwith Rajendran on the day in
question. His explanation for his presence is that he himself had come to the Administrative Office to enquire about his
II
(ii)
3143
own transfer and also about the Special Allowance due to him. It was only from the Administrative Office he happened
to know about the presence of Rajendran in the Administrative Office and his attempt to join duty in the office on the
basis of High Court order. According to the petitioner when there was delay in the office issuing a letter to Rajndran the
Officers themselves asked the petitioner to be with Rajendran so as to take care of him as he was weak on account of
the fast undertaken by him on the particular day which was a festival day.
10.
In the domestic enquiry the Management had examined 10 witnesses, all officers and other employees of the
Bank. The statement of these witnesses recorded during investigation were marked during the examination. The
petitioner had examined Rajendran as his witness.
11.
It is necessary to examine the evidence given by the witnesses before the Enquiry Officer to find out what
actually transpired on the day in question. Kumaravelu, CM (GB) has given a statement regarding the incident and this
is marked as PX4. As per the statement of this witness Rajendran had approached him on 11.01.2014 and had requested
to cancel his leave on that day and allow him to report for duty. Rajendran has also given a copy of the Stay Order
obtained from the High Court. This has happened in the morning. He has further stated that by 02:30 PM Rajendran had
entered his room accompanied by two persons and they were sitting in his room for half an hour. He does not refer to
the petitioner by name in the statement. During his examination he has named the petitioner and Mylerinathan as the
persons who had accompanied Rajendran when Rajendran met him at 02:30 PM. Since the case of the petitioner is that
he left the office for his personal matter this witness was specifically asked if the petitioner had told him that he had
come on account of his personal matter and the witness has replied that the petitioner had not told him so. He further
stated during his examination that he had to sit in the office until 0800 PM on the day as the petitioner, alongwith two
others were sitting outside the cabin of DGM. During cross-examination this witness stated that he does not remember
if the petitioner and Rajendran were in the cabin of DGM on the day. He stated that he was in duty in the office till
0800 PM.
12.
Shanmugham, the Chief Manager (HR) was in the office from the morning and was there throughout till the next
day when Rajendran, the petitioner and their colleague left. PEX-2 is the statement given by him and marked through
him. He has spoken about the incident from 10:30 in the morning onwards. He has stated that the DGM had told him
about the letters that were given to him by Rajendran alongwith the copy of the order of the High Court. He has stated
in the statement that alongwith Rajendran, the petitioner and Mylerinathan were part of the sit-in Dharna in the office.
While describing the details he has stated that he was told by the Security Officer at around 04:00 PM that the petitioner
and Mylerinathan also were sitting at the entrance of the DGM’s cabin. He has further stated that when Rajendran
refused to accept the letter that was given he had requested the petitioner and Mylerinathan to convince Rajendran to
accept the letter but instead of doing this they have also requested him to give letter to Rajendran in the manner he
wanted it. He has stated about the complaint given by the Bank when the matter prolonged, coming of the outsiders
inside the premises, video graphing of the incidents by the channels etc. During his examination also he has stated that
the petitioner and Mylerinathan also participated in the sit-in Dharna and the demand was to sign the Attendance
Register of 11.01.2014 or a letter to be given. He further stated that the letter was modified four times as insisted by
Rajendran. He has also stated that when persuasions failed himself and DGM have asked Rajendran, the petitioner and
Mylerinathan to leave the office. He has also stated that the petitioner had not told him that he had come to the office
only for his personal work. He then stated that he was held up at the office on the next day till 11:30 AM on account of
sit-in Dharna by the three employees. During cross-examination this witness has stated that even though the petitioner
and the other two were repeatedly requested to leave the premises they stayed back and this itself is staging Dharna.
During cross-examination also he had stated that he had requested the petitioner to convince Rajendran to accept the
letter that was given to him.
13.
Mahalingam who is the Deputy Manager at the Administrative Office was at the office from morning onwards.
His statement is marked as PEX-6 in the enquiry proceedings. He has stated about Rajendran approaching him and
meeting him in the morning. Then he has stated that by 02:00 PM he has come alongwith petitioner and Mylerinathan
to his room and wanted to meet the DGM. The DGM had left for lunch and they came back at 03:30 PM. Rajendran
wanted to permit him to mark his attendance in the register or to give him a letter. He has further stated that the DGM
came back by 04:30 PM and had asked Rajendran and the other to leave the premises. However, they refused to leave.
Mahalingam also requested them to leave his room as he wanted to lock the room. But they refused to leave the office.
Rajendran told him that he would wait till a solution is reached. All the three were waiting in his room till 09:30 PM.
The petitioner and Mylerinathan have taken the food that was arranged by the Bank. Rajendran is stated to have been
on fast. When the DGM called them the three went out of Mahalingam’s room and then he locked the room. However,
he remained at the office till 04:00 AM on the next day. During his examination he has asserted the facts in the
statement. During his cross-examination he stated that he saw the petitioner for the first time when he came alongwith
Rajendran by 02:00 PM on 11.01.2014. He further stated that he did not know for what purpose the petitioner had come
but he had wanted to meet DGM. However, the petitioner did not make any demand to him. He further stated that he
had to remain at the office because of the act of the petitioner.
3144
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
14.
Chidambara Jeevanandham, Manager (PB) and was working as Deputy Manager (OAD) at the time and his
statement is marked as PEX-5. He has stated that Rajendran had reported to him by 11:00 AM on 11.01.2014 alongwith
Mylerinathan. He was in the office till 03:15 PM on the day only. He has not stated anything about the presence of the
petitioner in the office, in his statement. There is no reference to the petitioner during his examination also. To a
pointed question during cross-examination he has stated that he did not see the petitioner at all on the day. Later he had
stated that he had seen the petitioner and two others sitting in the room near the cabin of DGM by 03:30 PM on the day.
So it seems that though there was no meeting of himself and the petitioner on the day he had seen the petitioner
alongwith the other two.
15.
Karthikeyan Venkatesan, Manager (HR) had given statement which is marked as PEX-3 in the enquiry
proceedings. As per the statement on 11.01.2014 the Chief Manager had informed him that Rajendran, petitioner and
Mylerinathan have refused to leave the office until Rajendran is permitted to sign the Attendance Register or receive a
letter to that effect. He has stated that Rajendran was given a letter but he has disputed the contents of the letter and
wanted modification and negotiation was held with him till 11:30 PM and this failed. Consequently, Rajendran was
requested to leave the office alongwith others but they have refused to do so and even asked to lodge a Police
Complaint. The three have remained in the office premises till 11:00 AM on 12.01.2014, until Rajendran received a
letter in the manner he wanted it. During his examination this witness has stated that the petitioner and two others held
sit-in Dharna with the demand that Rajendran should be permitted to sign the Attendance Register or given a letter by
DGM as per their terms. He further stated that in spite of persuasion they refused to leave the office. During his cross-
examination this witness has stated that the petitioner did not make any demand to him while the three were with him.
16.
Senthil Kumar was the District Coordinator of the Bank and was present at the office on the day in question. His
written statement is marked as PEX.7. His evidence is regarding what transpired on the day from 0700 PM. In his
statement he has stated that the Manager (HR) had asked him to wait at the Bank premises at 0700 PM and at that time
the petitioner, Rajendran and Mylerinathan have been discussing about a letter which has been served to Rajendran.
He has further stated that Rajendran had read the letter and refused to accept the letter and made a demand to alter the
letter and consequently some change was made in the contents of the letter and was served to him but he refused to
accept this also and thus change had to be made to the letter on 3 or 4 occasions. Implicating the petitioner he has
stated that Rajendran and his friends have refused to leave the premises until their demand was met. According to this
witness he was able to leave the office only at midnight on account of the incident. Though there is no reference to a
sit-in Dharna in Ext.P7 statement, during his examination, to a leading question put by the Presenting Officer he stated
that the petitioner and Mylerinathan participated in the sit-in Dharna alongwith Rajendran. This witness further stated
that the DGM and Others have advised Rajendran and his two accomplices to leave the office at 11:30 PM but they had
failed to do so. He has stated during his cross-examination that he has remained in the office as the Manager (HR) and
the Deputy Manager (OAD) had asked him to witness the occurrence.
17.
Sajith Krishnan was Manager (Security) in the Administrative Office at the time. His statement is marked as
Ext.PEX-1. He has stated that the three persons including the petitioner were found sitting in the lobby of DGM’s office
from 02:30 PM on 11.01.2014 and were not willing to move out. He has further stated that several Officers including
himself had persuaded them to leave the office but they were not willing to do so. He had also stated about the Police
Complaint made at the odd hours and the effort of the Police Party also to persuade the three to leave the office.
Ultimately, only when Rajendran received a letter to his liking the three including the petitioner left the premises on the
next day, he has stated. He has asserted his version in the statement during his examination also.
18.
Gunasekaran and Kasimani are Armed Guards. Their statements are marked as PEX-10 and PEX-9
respectively. Gunasekaran was called for duty on the night of 11.01.2014. He has reported for duty by 05:00 AM on
12.01.2014. He was asked not to permit anyone to enter the Administrative Office. He has spoken about the gathering
in front of the office gate on the morning of 12.01.2014. The Police Officers had reached the office premises by 09:00
AM on the day. He had merely seen the petitioner and two others leaving the premises by 11:00 AM on 12.01.2014. He
has not spoken anything about what transpired inside the office.
19.
Kasimani who was on duty on 11.01.2014 had left the office at 0600 PM on the day. He was called back at 0800
PM and had reported for duty again. He had seen the petitioner and the other two inside the office. He had also stated
that the Police Officer who came at 11:00 PM had asked the petitioner and others to go out but Rajendran had told him
that it is matter between the Manager and themselves and it will be resolved among themselves. Kasimani was in the
office till 0700 AM on the next day. He has stated that the petitioner and two others were still in the office when he left
the office.
20.
Rajendran has been examined as witness for the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings. He has stated in his
examination that his transfer from the Administrative Office was not a proper one and he had approached the Hon’ble
High Court and had obtained an order of status quo and had reached the Zonal Office on 11.01.2014 to join duty. He
was not permitted to sign the Attendance Register though he was allowed to occupy his seat. According to him the
petitioner had come to him by 12:00 or 1230 on the day. He was fasting till night on the day and because of this the
II
(ii)
3145
DGM had asked the petitioner to take care of him. His case is that it was only to take care of him the petitioner had
remained in the office on the day.
21.
Is the evidence available sufficient to establish the case of the Management and prove the charges in Ex.M1? It
is nobody’s case that the petitioner has been in the office premises from morning onwards. The admitted case is that
Rajendran and his colleague Mylerinathan had reached the office in the morning itself and made a request to allow him
to join duty and sign the Attendance Register. The petitioner had reached the premises only by noon. Even as per the
evidence given by Rajendran examined on behalf of the petitioner he had reached there by 12:00 Noon. None of the
Management witnesses have stated anything about seeing the petitioner alongwith Rajendran and Mylerinathan in the
morning itself. On the other hand the case is that the Dharna in the office premises by Rajendran and his two
accomplices including the petitioner started at 02:30 PM. So when Rajendran had been approaching the higher officials
in the office with a request to permit him to join duty the petitioner was not there and the petitioner could not be
considered as a accomplice or to have anything to do with this in the morning. It is very much clear that the petitioner
had nothing to do with the decision of Rajendran to go to the office and join duty on the basis of the status-quo order
obtained from the High Court.
22.
The case of he petitioner given in his explanations and narrated in the Claim Statement is that he had gone to the
Administrative Office with his personal problems. However, the witnesses examined on behalf of the Management has
denied the case of the petitioner that he has advanced any of his personal matters before any of them. They have
specifically stated that the petitioner did not tell them anything about his personal problems.
23.
It is an admitted fact that at least from 02:30 PM the petitioner was with Rajendran and with his colleague.
According to the petitioner one of the superior Officer had instructed him to be with Rajendran at the office since
Rajendran had been on fast on the day and they were afraid of his health on account of the fast. The case in the
Claim Statement is that though the petitioner was with Rajendran throughout from noon on 11.01.2014 to 11:00 AM on
the next day until the problem was solved he had nothing to do with the affair of Rajendran but he kept company with
Rajendran only because of the instruction given by one of his superior Officers. However, the petitioner himself did not
give evidence to advance this case. Other than Rajendran examined on behalf of the petitioner no one has stated about
the so-called instruction given to the petitioner. It is unlikely that the bank officials had given such an instruction to the
petitioner at all. Even according to the petitioner he had nothing to do with the decision of Rajendran to join duty on the
day and persuade the Officers to permit him to sign the Attendance Register or to give a letter on the basis of the order
of the High Court. Rajendran himself had come to the Office to join duty in spite of the fast and should have been very
much capable of taking care of himself. In any case his colleague by name Mylerinathan was alongwith Rajendran from
morning itself. So there was no necessity for another companion to take care of Rajendran or to assist him. Even
assuming that the petitioner reached the premises on his personal affairs he had kept company with Rajendran after he
came to know about the decision of Rajendran to join duty on the day.
24.
However, the fact that the petitioner was with Rajendran all along does not mean all the misconducts attributed
to him as per the Charge Sheet were committed by him. As stated the incident had been split into several and six
charges have been leveled against the petitioner. Charges 3 to 6 can be dealt with first.
25.
Charge No. 3 is that during participation in the sit-in Dharna the petitioner in a disorderly and indecent manner
demanded production of Attendance Register relating to Office Administration Section from the officials in order to
enable Rajendran to sign the same by deliberately misinterpreting the order of the High Court and thus he made a false
statement and also abetted the other staff members present in the Dharna to engage forcefully against the officials
present. It is not clear from the charge whether the misconduct committed is that he made a false statement or whether
he demanded production of Attendance Register also. So far as the charge that the petitioner demanded production of
Attendance Register from the officials is concerned, none of the witnesses had stated that the petitioner in person made
any such demand. The case in the statements of the witnesses and their evidence also is that demand was made by
Rajendran to allow him to sign the Attendance Register or to give him a letter on the basis of the High Court order. So
far as the charge of making a false statement is concerned, it could not be deciphered what is the false statement that
was made. Rajendran had given a copy of the High Court order to the concerned officials and his demand was to allow
him to join duty on the basis of the order. Rajendran seems to have interpreted the interim order to maintain status quo
by the High Court as an order permitting him to join duty. Whether this was correct or not was a matter for
interpretation and it was because the officials have interpreted it in such a way as not to allow Rajendran to sign the
Attendance Register he was not permitted to do so. There was no question of making a false statement in this respect.
Apart from that none of the witnesses have stated that the petitioner had given an interpretation which is a
misinterpretation to the officials.
26.
The fourth charge is that when a written clarification was demanded by Rajendran relating to his transfer the
petitioner alongwith Mylerinathan pressurized and repeatedly demanded modification in the written clarification
provided to Rajendran resulting in detention of officials of the Bank in the office premise for an indefinite period on a
3146
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
half working day followed by weekly holiday resulting in harassment and mental agony to the officials. None of the
witnesses have stated that the petitioner in person pressurized the officials to modify the letter. No doubt the petitioner
was all along with Rajendran when he was asking the officials to have the letter modified in the manner in which he
wanted it. But the petitioner himself did not make any such demand. On the other hand, the evidence of two of the
Management witnesses is that they made a request to the petitioner to persuade Rajendran to accept the letter given to
him. They have of course stated that the petitioner did not do so. However, the petitioner rather than being with
Rajendran does not seem to have made any personal demand to the officials to have the letter modified.
27.
The fifth charge is that the petitioner forced the bank authorities to lodge a criminal complaint with the Police
authorities on 12.01.2014 and the incidents portrayed the image of the bank poorly in the eyes of the general public and
the customers and found coverage in the newspapers and also in the TV channels and this has caused loss of image and
reputation to the Bank. A criminal complaint seems to have been filed by the bank authorities regarding the incident.
One of the witnesses have even stated that Rajendran was asking them to lodge a complaint when they were persuading
him to leave the office premises. However, there is no case for any of the witnesses that the petitioner is in any way
instrumental in lodging a criminal complaint. Even assuming that such a complaint was lodged at the instance of
Rajendran the petitioner could not be responsible for the coverage of the incident by the newspaper or the TV channels.
So there is no basis for the charge that the petitioner is responsible for the loss of image and reputation to the bank also.
28.
The last charge is that the petitioner arranged to bring outsiders to the premises of the Administrative Office on
12.01.2014 and abetted those outsiders to force the bank authorities to agree to the requirement of permitting Rajendran
to rejoin duty. There is no basis for this charge against the petitioner also. None of the witnesses have stated that the
petitioner is responsible for bringing outsiders to the bank premises. There is no evidence to show that the petitioner
contacted anybody or summoned anybody to the office premises during the incident. Of course it is there in evidence
that on the morning of 12.01.2014 outsiders have reached the premises. However, there is no evidence of its having
been at the instance of the petitioner. On the other hand the available evidence would show that Rajendran was
contracting others through mobile phone during the incident. He had requested for a Doctor stating that he is ill and this
was arranged. Alongwith the doctor a lawyer who was her husband also had come to the place. Others also had reached
the place, as could be seen from the statements. Karthikeya Venketesan, one of the witnesses of the Management has
stated in his statement that in the morning of 12.01.2014 around 20 people were found shouting and arguing with the
guards and the Security Officer outside the entrance. It is also stated that those people went away after Rajendran
spoke to them.
29.
A copy of bulletin published by State Bank of India SC/Tribes Employees Welfare Association has been
produced by the Management in the enquiry proceedings. A translation of the bulletin which is in Tamil has been
provided. The bulletin claims the act of Rajendran in getting a letter from the Management as he required as a great
victory of the Association. In this bulletin there is reference to Rajendran contacting the General Secretary of the
Association before 09:00 PM on 11.01.2014. The bulletin refers to all the arrangements that were made by the
Association during the incident. There is no reference to the petitioner at all in the bulletin. The entire doing of the day
is associated with Rajendran only. It seems to have been at the request of Rajendran people have gathered outside the
premises on 12.01.2014. The petitioner could not be made responsible for the presence of outsiders outside the office
premises on 12.01.2014.
30.
Charges 1 and 2 can be considered together. The first charge is that while the petitioner was availing joining
time on account of his transfer he participated in an unauthorized sit-in Dharna alongwith Rajendran and Mylerinathan
from 02:30 PM on 11.01.2014 to around 11:00 on 12.01.2014 and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the
Bank. The second charge is that when the officials team led by the Chief Manager instructed the petitioner and other
participants in the sit-in Dharna to leave the premises of Administrative Office, he continued to hold sit-in Dharna even
beyond 23:30 hrs. on 11.01.2014 and forced the officials to be held up in the official premises throughout the night of
11.01.2014 and till 11:00 AM on 12.01.2014 and by this showed dissent against the superiors and also disobeyed the
lawful and reasonable orders of the Management.
31.
Was there a sit-in Dharna as alleged in the Charge Sheet? What is the evidence available in this respect? In his
statement marked as PEX-1 Sajith Krishnan does not mention about the sit-in Dharna. What he has stated is that even
after the office hours the three employees including the petitioner were not willing to move out from the lobby. He has
also stated that the efforts to convince the three people started in the evening and continued till the next day. During his
examination what he has stated is that the three were sitting in DGM’s lobby even after office hours and the officials
were trying to convince them to leave the office. Witness Shanmugham has stated in his statement marked as PEX-2
that the petitioner was part of sit-in Dharna. However, what is seen from the statement of this witness itself is that the
petitioner and the other two were moving from place to place inside the office either on their own or at the instance of
the superior Officers. Rajendran was frequently going outside and talking over his mobile phone. While Rajendran was
speaking with this witness the petitioner and Mylerinathan were standing at the western side of the wall in the cabin.
Rajendran himself was sitting before him. As per PEX-3, the statement given by Karthikeya Venkatesan there is no
II
(ii)
3147
reference to a Dharna by the petitioner and others. What he has stated is that while himself and others were preparing
to leave the office Rajendran the petitioner and the other were sitting in the DGM Secretariat. However, during his
examination when a leading question was put to him he has stated that Dharna was held by Rajendran alongwith the
petitioner and another. As seen from PEX-4 the statement given by Kumaravelu, Rajendran had approached him by
10:30 AM or 11:00 AM. Rajendran tried to give a letter to Kumaravelu but he was informed that the matter does not
come under his duties. He has left the cabin and he had come back by 02:30 PM accompanied by two persons. The
three had been sitting in his office for half an hour. When he went out for lunch they also left. Later he had seen
them sitting outside DGM’s room. As could be seen in PEX-5 the statement given by Chidambara Jeevanandham,
Rajendran was sitting in his own seat upto the lunch time. He does not state what happened subsequently. As seen
from PEX-6 given by Mahalingam, the Deputy Manager Rajendran accompanied by the petitioner and Mylerinathan
had approached by 02:00 PM requesting to meet the DGM. Since DGM was not available the three went away and
came back by 03:30 PM to his room. When DGM came back by 04:30 PM he asked the three to leave the office. He
has further stated in his statement though the petitioner and another had been accompanying Rajendran the two did
not speak anything. But they were waiting in his room till 09:30 PM. The HR Section Officers had arranged dinner
for all including the petitioner and Mylerinathan. When the Deputy Manager told the three that he wanted to lock his
room they left the room. Witnesses Senthil Kumar and Samiuddeen Hussain also do not refer to Dharna in their
respective statements.
32.
What could be seen from the statements and evidence is that on the basis of demand of Rajendran to permit him
to sign the Attendance Register or to deliver a letter to him based on the High Court order hectic negotiations were
being held between Rajendran and the Officers and they were trying to solve the problem. A Dharna in its strict sense
does not seem to have occurred in the office on the day. On the other hand, there seems to have been persuasion on the
part of the Rajendran to convince the Officers about his right to join duty and the attempt of the Officers to convince
him otherwise.
33.
As per Charge No. 2 even though the petitioner and the other two were instructed to leave the premises of the
Administrative Office they remained there even beyond 23:30 PM on 11.01.2014 and forced the officials to be held up
in the office premises throughout the night and showed dissent against the superiors and also disobeyed the reasonable
orders of the Management. In could be seen on going through the evidence that the Officers have been trying to send
away Rajendran and his two colleagues out of the office even at the earliest. It is there in evidence that in spite of the
requests and persuasion of the Officers they remained inside the office causing difficulty to the Officers and forcing
them to stay inside the office. It was only because the three remained in the office several of the Officers had to remain
inside the office in their attempt to solve the problem even during odd hours and when the attempt failed were forced to
call the Police and later make a formal complaint at the instance of the Police.
34.
The evidence and statement given by most of the witnesses would reveal that the petitioner and the other two
continued to remain inside the office in spite of the direction to leave the office. In PEX-1 Sajith Krishnan the Security
Officer had stated that he has tried to convince the petitioner and others to leave the Administrative Office building but
they were not obliging. According to him when the Police came they also requested them to vacate the building but
they have refused. Still another attempt was made by the Police officials after a formal complaint was lodged by the
Management. Yet it was only refusal on the part of the three including the petitioner. As per PEX-2, Shanmugham
Chief Manager (HR) had told Rajendran to receive the letter given by him under protest and had asked them to vacate
the premises latest by 11:30 PM. He has also stated about the Police persuading the petitioner and the other two to
leave the premises and their refusal to do so. He has stated about this during his examination also. As per PEX-3
Karthikeya Venkatesan has stated that he had heard the DGM asking the petitioner and others to leave the premises and
the Police also advising them to leave but they have refused. Ext.PEX-6 given by Mahalingam, PEX-7 given by Senthil
Kumar and PEX-8 given by Samiuddeen Hussain also stated that the petitioners and others were asked to leave the
premises, but they have not obliged. Thus it is very much apparent from the evidence as well as statements marked
through the witnesses that efforts were made by Officers to persuade the petitioner and two others to leave the office
premises. In spite of that they have remained in the office. The petitioner was staying with Rajendran in his attempt to
persuade the officials to give a letter to him as suited him.
35.
Saturday was a half working day and the Officers were expected to leave by 02:30 PM. Most of them had to
remain inside the office since the petitioner and the other two refused to leave the premises. During cross-examination
some of the witnesses have stated that neither the petitioner nor the other two prevented them from leaving the office.
On the basis of this it has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the charge that the officials were forced to
remain inside the office will not lie. This argument certainly cannot be accepted. The officials had to remain inside the
office premises at the odd hours only because the petitioner and the other two remained inside the office even after the
office hours. In the normal course the three should have waited till the next working day to have the grievance of
Rajendran, if any settled. Rather than doing this they continued to remain in the office persuading the officials to solve
the problem beyond office hours and at odd hours. So the charge that the petitioner and others refused to leave the
3148
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
office premises in spite of the request and disobeyed the lawful and reasonable orders of the Management is certainly
established.
36.
The copy of the CCTV recording at the Administrative Officer on 11.01.2014 and 12.01.2014 had been
produced by the petitioner stating that this was marked in the enquiry proceedings. However, the proceedings does not
show any CD having been marked. In any case what is revealed from the CCTV recording is very vague and does not
indicate anything except that a few persons are moving in and around. This will not serve any purpose.
37.
On going through the Enquiry Officer’s report it could be seen that the finding entered by him is not on the basis
of any reasoning. He has merely quoted the written arguments of either side and stated that each of the charges are
proved. He does not seem to have made any attempt to analyze the evidence and find out if the charges are established.
He has not made a scrutiny of the evidence at all. The counsel for the Respondent has referred to the decision of the
Apex Court in GENERAL MANAGER, PUNJAB AND SIND BANK AND OTHERS VS. DAYA SINGH reported in
2010 11 SCC 233 to argue for the proposition that the finding of the Enquiry Officer need not be like a judgment in a
Court of Law. The Apex Court has observed in this that the enquiry report by a Bank Officer need not be written in the
manner in which a Judicial Officer would write it. The counsel for the Respondent had been trying to justify the report
of the Enquiry Officer on the basis of this observation. However, the Apex Court in the same judgment has stated that
the order should be sufficiently clear and should contain the reasons in justification of the conclusion arrived at. What is
wrong with the report of the Enquiry Officer is not that it is not written in the manner of a judgment but it does not
contain any reasoning in support of his finding. Even earlier in the decision in ANIL KUMAR VS. PRESIDING
OFFICER AND OTHERS reported in 1985 3 SCC 378 the Apex Court has laid down that the report of the Enquiry
Officer should contain reasons for the findings. He should apply his mind to the evidence before entering his finding.
What is lacking in the report in this case is application of mind on the evidence available.
38.
The counsel for the petitioner has argued that it is a case of victimization and the petitioner should be totally
absolved of all the charges against him. From the evidence it could be seen that it is not a case of victimization. It is the
admitted case that the petitioner as well as the other two were inside the office beyond office hours on 11.01.2014 and
had remained at the office until 11:00 AM on the next day forcing the Officers to remain inside the office. The charge
based on this certainly could not be termed as victimization.
39.
Punishment is due to the petitioner for the charge proved against him. The counsel for the Respondent has
argued that in cases where there is breach of discipline an employee is not entitled to any concession. He has
referred to the decision of the Apex Court in L.K. VERMA VS. HMT LIMITED AND ANOTHER reported in 2006 1
LLJ 1074 and also the decision in USHA BRECO MAZDOOR SANGH VS. MANAGEMENT OF USHA BRECO
LIMITED AND ANOTHER reported in 2008 5 SCC 554 in this respect. In both cases the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
reminded of the necessity of the employees to maintain discipline and devotion to duty and the necessity to impose
sufficient punishment in case of breach of discipline. Those two were cases are where punishment of dismissal from
service were imposed on the concerned employees. However, on going through the decisions it could be seen that the
charges leveled against those employees were very severe including using abusive language, manhandling, etc.
40.
So far as the present case is concerned the proven charge is that the petitioner refused to leave the office in spite
of request forcing the officials to remain at the office beyond office hours. The proved charge is of lesser gravity when
compared to the charges in the decisions referred to above. Apart from this is the fact the petitioner was only a silent
partner of his colleague Rajendran and had not done anything on his own except refusing to leave the premises. There is
also the fact that the petitioner had served the Respondent establishment dutifully for several years and there is no
history of previous misconduct against him. In the circumstance a lesser punishment would be sufficient for the
petitioner rather than the punishment of dismissal from service. The punishment of bringing down to lower stage in the
scale of pay would be sufficient
41.
In view of my discussion above, an Award is passed as below:
The punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner is set aside.
The petitioner shall be reinstated in service within two months of publication of the Award.
The petitioner is brought down to the next lower stage in the scale of pay.
The pay due to the petitioner in the lower stage from 09.05.2015 shall be paid to him within two months of
publication of the Award. In default it will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% 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 30th December, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
II
(ii)
3149
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the 2nd Party/1st and 2nd Management
:
None
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.W1
24.02.2014
Show Cause notice issued by the Respondent Bank
Ext.W2
11.03.2014
Explanation to the Show Cause Notice
Ext.W3
19.12.2014
Brief submitted by the petitioner’s Defence Representative to the Enquiry
Officer
Ext.W4
27.04.2015
Written Statement given in the personal hearing
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
21.03.2014
Copy of Charge Sheet issued to petitioner
Ext.M2
11.04.2014
Explanation submitted by Petitioner
Ext.M3
02.06.2014
Enquiry Proceedings
To
09.09.2014
Ext.M4
21.07.2014
List of 15 documents filed by Management Representative in the enquiry held
against the petitioner
Ext.M5
27.01.2015
Report of the Enquiry Officer
Ext.M6
14.02.2015
Letter from Respondent to Petitioner enclosing findings of the Enquiry Officer
Ext.M7
27.04.2015
Proceedings of the personal hearing
Ext.M8
09.05.2015
Order of dismissal issued to petitioner
Ext.M9
22.06.2015
Copy of Appeal filed by petitioner
Ext.M10
07.08.2015
Order of Respondent rejecting the appeal filed by petitioner
Ext.M11
09.03.2015
Reply by the petitioner on Enquiry Officer’s report
Ext.M12
28.03.2015
Respondent’s letter to petitioner proposing punishment and affording personal
hearing.
—
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 18th May, 2017
S.O. 1321.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 108/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of The South
Indian Bank Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18.05.2017.
[No. L-12012/66/2015-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
3150
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Friday, the 16th September, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 108/2015
(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 South Indian Bank and their workman)
BETWEEN :
Sri T. Shanmugasundaram
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The General Manager
:
2nd Party/Respondent
The South Indian Bank Ltd.
Head Office, SIB House
Mission Quarters, T.B. Road
Trichur-680001
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
M/s. R. Sankarasubbu, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
:
M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co., Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/66/2015-IR (B.I) dated
03.07.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the dismissal of Sri T. Shanmugasundaram by the Management of South Indian Bank is justified or
not? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 108/2015 issued notices to both sides.
Both sides have entered appearance through their counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.
3.
The counsel for the petitioner has advanced a contention orally that the dispute is not an industrial dispute. In
view of this the case was posted for giving up the dispute to enable the petitioner to approach the forum which he
considers as the proper one. Thereafter, the petitioner had sought time but he had not made any endorsement requesting
to close the dispute.
4.
When the matter was called on 30.08.2016 there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. In spite of this
it was postponed to this date. Today also there was no representation on the side of the petitioner.
5.
The petitioner seems to be not interested in pursuing the dispute. He has not come forward to establish the case
set up by him. In the absence of any material on the side of the petitioner the reference is to be answered against him.
Accordingly, the reference is answered against the petitioner. An award is passed to this effect.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 16th September, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: None
For the 2nd Party/Management
: None
II
(ii)
3151
Documents Marked:
On the Petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
On the Management’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Nil
—
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 18th May, 2017
S.O. 1322.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 48/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of IDBI Bank Ltd.
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18.05.2017.
[No. L-12012/57/2015-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Friday, the 30th December, 2016
Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 48/2015
(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 IDBI and Another and their workman)
BETWEEN :
Sri S. Sankaralingam
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1.
The Branch Manager
:
2nd Party/1st Respondent
IDBI Bank Ltd. , Paulson Valagam
4085/12, 4098/2 South, 4th Street
Pudukkottai
2.
The Managing Director
:
2nd Party/2nd Respondent
M/s Updater Services (P) Ltd.
No. 2/302/A, UDS Salai,
Off Old Mahabalipuram Rd.
Chennai-600097
3152
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
In Person
For the 2nd Party/1st Respondent
:
M/s. NVS Association, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/2nd Respondent
:
M/s. S. Velusamy & N. Mahendran, Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/57/2015-IR (B.I) dated
21.04.2015 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
“Whether the demand of the workman Sri S. Sankaralingam in seeking employment in IDBI Bank Ltd. from
where he was stopped without any reason is legal and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is
entitled?”
2.
After receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 48/2015 and issued notices to both
sides. The petitioner appeared in person and the Respondents through their counsel and have filed their claim and
counter statements respectively.
3.
The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner was appointed by IDBI Intech Ltd. who was the Contractor of the First Respondent Bank as
Senior Business Development Officer with effect from 15.10.2011 and was advised to report at the First Respondent
Branch. The petitioner was assigned works such as mobilizing deposits, interacting with bank clientele etc. The nature
of works that were assigned to the petitioner are regular and perennial in nature forming part of the core activities of the
First Respondent. The petitioner was appreciated on several occasions for his outstanding work. IDBI Intech Ltd.
terminated the petitioner on 02.06.2013 as its contract with IDBI Bank came to an end for the reason that a subsidiary
of the principal employer should not be given contract of outsourced work. The Second Respondent became the
Contractor instead of IDBI Intech Ltd. and the petitioner was taken on rolls by the First Respondent on 03.06.2013
itself as Senior Sales Executive. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties in the First Respondent Branch. As per
the appointment letter issued by the Second Respondent salary of the petitioner was fixed as Rs. 10,200/- per month.
The petitioner was performing his duties in a sincere manner. The petitioner proceeded on leave with prior intimation
for 11 days from 01.06.2014 to 11.06.2014 on the ground of his marriage. When the petitioner reached the First
Respondent Branch on 12.06.2014 he was not allowed to sign the muster roll by the Branch Head. The petitioner was
solely dependent on his job for his livelihood. The Respondents have terminated the petitioner from service with the
intention of depriving him the promotion that was due to him. The termination of the petitioner is unfair labour practice,
against principles of natural justice and in violation of Section-25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. An Award may be
passed holding that the decision of the Respondents in preventing the petitioner from resuming duty w.e.f. 12.06.2014
is illegal and pass such other order as deemed proper.
4.
The First Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:
The reference is not maintainable as the alleged dispute does not have the character of an Industrial Dispute. The
petitioner was sent to First Respondent Branch of the Bank as Senior Sales Executive from 15.10.2011 towards
performance of the contract entered into with the First Respondent. The Second Respondent is one of the service
providers of the Bank. An agreement was entered into between the Bank and the Second Respondent on 28.02.2013 for
providing certain services. The petitioner was one of the many employees deployed by the Second Respondent for
fulfilling the task for which the Second Respondent has entered into service contract with the First Respondent. There is
no employer employee relationship between the petitioner and the First Respondent. In early 2015 it was found that the
service of the Second Respondent was not upto the mark. On enquiry with the Second Respondent it was found that the
petitioner who was one of the members of the team deployed by the Second Respondent to perform functions of the
bank was irregular in attendance. The petitioner was found to be working for many financial agencies, apart from the
Second Respondent. The Second Respondent set right the shortcoming by making appropriate deployment of personnel.
The petitioner is not entitled to any relief from the First Respondent.
4.
The Second Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:
This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The petitioner is not a workman under Section-2(s) of
the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner is working as Senior Sales Executive in a supervisory cadre and drawing
salary of Rs. 10,200/- a month. The petitioner has no right to claim reinstatement as he was neither terminated nor
retrenched by the Second Respondent. The Second Respondent is a Company executing the work of marketing and
back-office support services for the First Respondent. The Second Respondent engages its workman to fulfill its
contractual obligations in the Fist Respondent Branch. The petitioner was one of the employees deputed by the second
II
(ii)
3153
Respondent on 03.06.2013. He joined the Second Respondent by order dated 03.06.2013. Before reporting for
duty he had accepted the terms and conditions narrated in the Appointment Order. The petitioner absented himself
from duty at the First Respondent premises from 01.06.2014. He abandoned his employment with the Second
Respondent. The oral request by the Second Respondent to the petitioner to report for employment did not yield any
result. Thereafter the Second Respondent had received a legal notice on behalf of the petitioner alleging that he was
terminated from service. The Second Respondent has sent a reply to this stating that he was not terminated from service
and also asking the petitioner to resume his duties. Instead of resuming the duty the petitioner has raised the dispute.
The Second Respondent undertakes to give employment to the petitioner as stated in the reply notice. The petition is
liable to be dismissed.
5.
The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and MW2 and documents marked as
Ext.W1 to Ext.W7 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M15.
6.
The points for consideration are :
(i)
Whether the demand of the petitioner in seeking employment with the First Respondent is justified?
(ii)
What if any is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?
The Points
7.
The petitioner has been working as Senior Business Development Officer with he First Respondent Bank from
1510.20011. Even as per the Claim Statement his employment with the First Respondent was through IDBI Intech Ltd.,
a subsidiary of IDBI Bank Ltd. the contract entered into by IDBI Bank Ltd. IDBI Intech Ltd. seems to have been put to
an end for the reason that IDBI Intech Ltd. is a subsidiary of IDBI Bank Ltd. The employment of the petitioner through
IDBI Intech Ltd. lasted till 02.06.2013 as seen from the Claim Statement. He continued to work for the First
Respondent through the Second Respondent w.e.f. 03.06.2013 itself as IDBI Bank had entered into contract with the
Second Respondent to provide services. The case of the petitioner is that while he was working with the First
Respondent Bank he had taken leave for 11 days from 1st to 11th June 2014 for the purpose of his marriage, but when he
reached the Bank on 12.06.2014 he was not allowed to sign the Muster Roll by the Branch Head. His contention is that
the action of the First Respondent is in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. He seeks a proper
relief from this Tribunal.
8.
The petitioner has given evidence as WW1 reiterating his case in the Claim Statement. Ext.W1 to Ext.W7 are
the documents marked through the petitioner on his behalf.
9.
Ext.W1 is the appointment letter issued by IDBI Intech Ltd. which was the previous service provider of the First
Respondent. Exts.W2 to Ext.W4 are only appreciation letters or congratulatory mail issued by the Regional Head,
Corporate Office, etc. of the First and Second Respondents.
10.
Ext.W6 is the appointment letter issued by the Second Respondent on 03.06.2013 showing that from this date
onwards the petitioner had been working for the First Respondent with Second Respondent as the Contractor. Ext.W7
contains the terms and conditions of employment issued by the Second Respondent. The First Respondent has produced
Ext.M2 the agreement executed by it with the Second Respondent. Exts.M2 and Ext.M4 are the offer letters issued by
the Second Respondent to the petitioner. Ext.W6-Appointment Order was issued subsequently by the Second
Respondent.
11.
It is very much clear from the documents produced, evidence of MWs 1 and 2 and also the admission made by
the petitioner during his examination as WW1 that the petitioner has been appointed by the Second Respondent on the
basis of its agreement with the First Respondent as service provider to provide certain services to the First Respondent
Bank. The petitioner has admitted during his cross-examination that his employer is the Second Respondent. He also
admitted that his salary slip is in the name of the Second Respondent. He also admitted that as per Ext.W5-the
agreement between the First and Second Respondents, the Second Respondent has the liberty to select employee for
working with the First Respondent. Ext.M1 is the pay-slip for the month of April 2014 issued by the Second
Respondent to the petitioner which would show that the petitioner was getting salary only from the Second Respondent
and not from the First Respondent. Apparently, there was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner
and the First Respondent so the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from the First Respondent.
12.
The Second Respondent has denied the case that the petitioner was terminated from service. According to the
Second Respondent the petitioner happened to be irregular in his work. He was contacted and was asked to resume
duty. But the petitioner has refused to oblige the Second Respondent by resuming duty. The Second Respondent has
stated that even after getting lawyer notice on behalf of the petitioner it has sent reply offering to give employment to
the petitioner. In the Counter Statement also the Second Respondent has taken the stand that it is willing to provide
work to the petitioner. During examination MW2 who has given evidence on behalf of the Second Respondent has
stated that the contract of the Second Respondent with the First Respondent has expired on 31.12.2015. Even during
3154
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
cross-examination MW2 has stated that the Second Respondent is willing to provide work to the petitioner in an
establishment with which it is having contract for service now. The petitioner’s stand is that he will be satisfied only if
he is getting employment in the First Respondent establishment. The contract of Second Respondent with the First
Respondent having expired this is an impossibility. If the petitioner is inclined he is at liberty to accept the offer of the
Second Respondent to employ him elsewhere. He 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 PA transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day
the 30th December, 2016)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
WW1, Sri S. Sankaralingam
For the 2nd Party/Respondents
:
MW1, Sri P. Sivasankan
MW2, Sri V. Annakumar
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner’s side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
15.10.2011
Appointment letter issued by IDBI Intech Ltd. (Contractor)
Ex.W2
-
Letter of Appreciation issued jointly by IDBI Intech (Contractor) and the Branch
Head, IDBI Bank Ltd. Pudukkottai (Principal Employer)
Ext.W3
-
Certificate of Appreciation issued by HR Corporate Office, IDBI Intech Ltd.
Mumbai
Ext.W4
-
Appreciation and Congratulatory Mail dated 30.01.2012 issued by Regional
Head, Tamilnadu II, IDBI Bank Ltd., Coimbatore
Ext.W5
-
Agreement dated 28.02.2013 between IDBI Bank and Updater Services
Ext.W6
-
Appointment letter dated 03.06.2013 issued by Updater Services Ltd.
(Contractor)
Ex.W7
-
Terms and Conditions of appointment issued by M/s Updater Services Ltd.
On the Management side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ext.M1
-
Petitioner’s pay-slip for the month of April, 2014 issued by the 2nd Respondent
Ext.M2
28.02.2013
Agreement between the 1st Respondent and the 2nd Respondent
Ext.M3
01.04.2013
Offer letter issued by the 2nd Respondent to the petitioner
Ext.M4
19.05.2013
Offer letter issued by the 2nd Respondent to the petitioner
Ext.M5
03.06.2013
Appointment letter issued by the 2nd Respondent to the petitioner
Ext.M6
11.03.2015
RBI Notification No. RBI/2014-15/497 DBR No. BP.BC.76/21.04.158/2014-15
Ext.M7
26.03.2015
Failure of Conciliation Report issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner
(Central)
Ext.M8
-
Staff Attendance Register maintained by the 2nd Respondents
Ext.M9
-
Form-5 and related documents
Ext.M10
-
Copy of Provident Fund slip of the petitioner
Ext.M11
-
Copy of the ESI Returns filed by the 2nd Respondent pertaining to the petitioner
Ext.M12
24.06.2014
Copy of legal notice sent by the petitioner to the 2nd Respondent
II
(ii)
3155
Ext.M13
11.07.2014
Copy of the reply sent by the 2nd Respondent to the counsel for petitioner and
petitioner with acknowledgement card
Ext.M14
-
Copy of the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central) Pondicherry
Ext.M15
26.03.2015
Copy of the failure report issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner
(Central) Pondicherry
—
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2017
S.O. 1323.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, Delhi 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 22.05.2017.
[No. L-12012/18/2010-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, 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. 26/2011
Shri V.K. Bakshi, through
General Secretary,
Delhi Labour Union, Agarwal Bhawan,
G.T. Road, Tis Hazari,
Delhi
…Workman
Versus
The General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office,
11, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi – 110 001
…Management
AWARD
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No.L-12012/18/2010-
IR(B-I) dated 14.03.2011 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Act, for
adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
‘Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Sansad Marg, New Delhi in
imposing the penalty of dismissal from service with effect from 03.05.2007 on Shri V.K. Bakshi, is legal and
justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?
2.
Brief facts giving rise to the reference are that Shri V.K. Bakshi, the claimant herein, had joined employment
with the management on 16.02.1970 at G.T. Road, Shahdara on temporary basis and subsequently he was confirmed in
service with effect from 08.06.1977. Later on, he was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant. He was discharging
3156
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
his duties to the satisfaction of the management and had an unblemished and uninterrupted record of service to his
credit.
3.
It is the case of the claimant that he was charge sheeted on 27.03.2006, charging him with the following
allegations:
It is alleged that you have resorted to undernoted unlawful activities while working at our GT Karnal Road and
Shakti Nagar branches respectfully:
1.
SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. have advised that you have not made the payment against the
SBI Credit Cared No.0004:006661011723314 since January 2004 despite various communications from
them and by Zonal Office/branch. The present outstandings there-against are Rs.28,181.35.
2.
You have issued undernoted cheques without maintaining sufficient crediting your account which were
returned with the objection ‘Insufficient Funds’ by Shakti Nagar branch:
(i)
Cheque No.572915 dated 18.01.2015 for Rs.11,020.00 favouring Northern India Paint Colour &
Varsney Co. Ltd. returned on 12.05.2005.
(ii)
Cheque No.110898 dated 15.06.2005 for Rs.1466.00 favouring G.E. Countrywide Consumers
Financial Services Ltd.
3.
You have raised loan from Everglad Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. without obtaining specific approval from the
competent authority. Inthis connection, an attachment order issued on 27.09.2003 by Civil Judge, Tiz
Hasari, Delhi for attachment of your salary to the extent of Rs.59,495.00 due to the decree holder M/s
Everglad Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. was received at our Shakti Nagar branch. Monthly instalment of
Rs.2000.00 of your salary is being remitted to the court and Rs.20,000.00(approx.) have so far been
appropriated.
4.
You have raised loan of Rs.50,000.00 from Indian National Co-operative (NA) Thrift and Credit Society
Ltd. Hissar on 04.07.2003 without seeking prior permission of the Bank. Further, you issued an ‘Account
Payee’ cheque No.403411 dated 25.09.2004 drawn on SBI, GT Karnal Road, Delhi for Rs.77,240.00 in
favour of the above Society. Before the cheque could be presented, you closed the account. You were
served with a legal notice on 13.10.2004 under section 138/141 of Negotiable Instruments Act on
01.10.2005. Hisar and Delhi police officials came to Shakti Nagar branch with non-bailable warrants
issued by Judicial Magistrate, Hissar to arrest you and took you away at 2.00 p.m.
5.
The total deduction from the salary is 81.07% against Bank’s extant instructions that total deductions will
not be more than 60% of the gross salary.
6.
You have raised loan from undernoted Thrift & Credit Societies whereas as per extant instructions, an
employee cannot be member of more than one T&C Society:
a.
Bank Staff Co-op Urban SE T&C Society Ltd., Hissar
b. International Co-op Non Agriculture T&C Society Ltd., Hissar.
c.
ECBE Staff Co-op Credit Society Ltd., Meerut.
d. Indian National Co-op Non-Agri T&C Society, Hissar
e.
Bhartiya State Bank Karyakarta Co-op T&C Society Ltd., Kirti Nagar
f.
SBI Employees T&C Society Ltd., Ranjit Nagar, Delhi
The aforesaid lapses, if established, tantamount to ‘major misconduct’ in terms of Para 5(j) of Provisions of
Disciplinary Proceedings Settlement dated 10.04.2002.
4.
Reply to the above charge sheet was filed by the claimant. It is further alleged that the claimant was constrained
to take loans due to compelling circumstances. He had to reply unpaid loans. Management did not consider reply of
the claimant and initiated departmental enquiry in respect of the above charge sheet. No documents or list of witnesses
was provided to the claimant despite repeated requests. Ultimately, claimant received a memorandum dated 23.04.2007
alongwith findings of the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, claimant was placed under suspension by the Assistant General
Manager and subsequently he was issued order dated 03.05.2007 vide which penalty of ‘Removal from service’ was
inflicted upon the claimant. Claimant filed appeal dated 24.05.2007 against the order of his removal from service
before the Appellate Authority, but of no vain.
II
(ii)
3157
5.
Claimant has now challenged the order of termination on the ground that the enquiry was not conducted in a fair
and proper manner. Finally, he has prayed that the said order of removal from service and holding the order of
termination dated 03.05.2007 to be illegal and unjustified and with continuity of service and payment of back wages.
6.
Claim was contested by the management who filed written statement thereto and took preliminary objections,
inter alia of jurisdiction, reference being time barred and concealment of material facts etc. On merits, statement of
factum of the claimant working with the management was admitted. It was alleged that charges have been proved
against the claimant in the departmental enquiry. Enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner and claimant was
afforded various opportunities vide letters dated 29.08.2006, 06.09.2006 and 28.09.2006 to bring his defence
representative but despite the said opportunities, he did not opt to give the name of the defence representative.
Claimant has also admitted the charges in his reply regarding non-payment of dues of SBI Credit card etc. In the end, it
has been alleged that the reference be decided in favour of the management.
7.
Against this factual background, my learned predecessor, vide order dated 13.04.2011, framed the following
issues:
(i)
Whether the enquiry conducted by the bank was just, fair and proper?
(ii)
Whether punishment awarded to the claimant was proportionate to his misconduct?
(iii)
As in terms of reference
(iv)
Relief
8.
It is clear from the record that vide order dated 13.05.2011, preliminary issue as to the vires of the domestic
enquiry was decided in favour of the claimant and against the management. Since there were pleadings in the written
statement seeking permission to prove misconduct against the claimant on merits, as such, management was afforded an
opportunity to adduce evidence in respect of the charges mentioned above.
9.
Management, in support of their stand, examined Shri Ajay Kumar Gaind as MW2, whose affidavit is
Ex.MW2/A and also relied upon documents Ex.MW2/1 to Ex.MW2/59. It is not out of place to mention here that the
claimant has not examined himself in rebuttal.
10.
I have heard Shri Abhinav Kumar, A/R for the claimant and Ms.Kitu Bajaj, A/R for the management.
11.
It was urged on behalf of the claimant that payment has been made of the outstanding debts which was taken as
loan by the claimant and management has wrongly and illegally issued charge sheet against the claimant despite the
factum of payment of loan having been paid by the claimant. Learned A/R for the claimant also urged that claimant
was facing financial difficulty and due to compelled circumstances, he had raised loans for his own treatment as well as
for the treatment of his family members. Moreover, regarding the charge of standing as guarantor/surety, it was urged
that the real brother of the claimant had taken loan from the bank and the claimant has simply stood guarantor for the
same. Since his brother was not in a position to repay the loan, as is clear from the evidence on record, as such,
repayment of the loan was made by the claimant in instalments and the said fact has also been admitted by Shri Gaind,
MW2 in his cross examination.
12.
Per contra, Ms.Kitu Bajaj strongly urged that the claimant has in his reply Ex.MW2/59 admitted the various
allegations made in the charge sheet, as such, there was no necessity to adduce further evidence in the face of the
admission made by the claimant. She proceeded to argue that though payment of part loan was made by the claimant,
the claimant has also issued cheque dated 18.01.2005 which was bounced due to insufficient funds and it has really
tarnished the image of the bank. She invited attention of the Tribunal to the factum of admission made in his reply
Ex.MW2/59 wherein the claimant has stated the he is willing to make payment of Rs.28,181.35 against SBI Credit Card
and he could not make payment as he was getting very nominal amount of salary. He had raised loan from different
societies and he had been paying loan instalments. This has made his financial position worse.
13.
Before I proceed to evaluate merits of the evidence adduced by the parties as well as submissions raised in
respect of charge sheet dated 27.03.2006, it is necessary to mention here that the claimant herein has admitted the
charges in his reply Ex.MW2/59, in both direct as well as indirect manner, made in the charge sheet.
14.
The first charge in the charge sheet pertains to SBI Credit Card payment, which were not made by the claimant
despite various communications/reminders issued to the claimant by the Zonal Office and the amount outstanding at
that time was Rs.28,187.35. To this charge, it is replied by the claimant that he is ready and willing to make payment
against SBI Credit Card and the same could not be paid as he was getting very nominal amount of salary. He has also
given explanation that due to health problems of his elder daughter he had raised loan from different societies and he
had been repaying the instalments to the societies, as a result of which very little salary is left in the account of the
claimant. An overall examination of this witness clearly suggests that there is admission on the part of the claimant
regarding payment of outstanding dues of SBI Credit Card. It is also clear from evidence on record, particularly
3158
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
affidavit Ex.MW2/A of Shri Gaind, MW2, that the claimant was issued Credit Card No.0004:006661011723314 in
January 2004 and claimant was also using the card for various purchases. It is further clear from perusal of letter
Ex.MW2/1 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, SBI Card, that payment has not been made against billing statement
of 17.11.2004 and the claimant was advised through the Branch Manager to make the outstanding payment. There is
another letter Ex.MW2/2 to the similar effect where there is mention of outstanding payment to be made by the
claimant. There is also mention that in case payment is not made now, matter may be dealt with under service rules.
To the similar effect is Ex.WW2/4 dated 07.05.2005 wherein there is mention of outstanding payment against SBI
Credit Card issued to the claimant herein. Perusal of these letters clearly establishes that the above amount was due
towards the claimant and has not been paid by the claimant. Therefore, at the time of issuance of the charge sheet,
entire amount was not cleared by the claimant.
15.
Second charge is in relation to issuance of cheque No.572915 dated 18.01.2005 for Rs.11020.00 and cheque
No.110898 dated 15.06.2005 for Rs.1466.00, which was bounced and was returned on the grounds of insufficient funds
by Shakti Nagar branch of the bank. Claimant has in his reply to this allegation stated that under a misunderstanding
the above cheque was issued and he has now made payment of Rs.11,020.00 and now nothing remains due. During the
course of arguments, this issue was not pressed much as payment in respect of the amount has been settled between the
claimant and the other parties. No doubt, claimant was issued letter Ex.MW2/6 by the Branch Manager in respect of
bouncing of the above cheque.
16.
Allegation against the claimant regarding charge no.3 and Charge No.4 of the charge sheet is regarding raising
of loan from Everglad Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. without specific approval of the competent authority due to non payment of
the above loan attachment order was issued on 27.09.2003 by Civil Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi for attachment of salary to
the extent of Rs.59,495.00 from the salary of the claimant and deduction of Rs.20,000.00 from salary of the claimant
towards repayment of the loan. Again the claimant raised a loan of Rs.50,000.00 from Indian National Co-op (NA)
Thrift ad Credit Society Ltd. Hissar on 04.07.2003 without approval of the competent authority. During the course of
arguments, it was pointed out that from the salary of the claimant payments were being made so as to clear the said
loan.
17.
Charge No.5 of the charge sheet pertains to deduction of salary to the extent of 81.07% which in fact cannot be
more than 60% of the gross salary of the claimant.
18.
Charge No.6 of the charge sheet mentions of other loans being raised from various Thrift and Credit Societies,
as detailed under this charge. Claimant, in his reply, in para 5 has stated that in fact he stood guarantor for his real
brother who was in need of money, who expired in 2002 and due to untimely death of his brother and other compelling
circumstances mentioned above, the amount could not be returned in time. He has further admitted regarding
attachment order against his salary. However, he was regularly making payment by way of instalments. Claimant has
also admitted the factum of raising loans from the Societies, which was not paid on time. Claimant has accepted that
Secretary of the said society has taken three blank cheques from the claimant. As financial position of the claimant had
deteriorated, Secretary of the Society demanded full amount of Rs.77,240.00 by presenting all the above cheques for
payment and the same could not be honoured. Claimant has admitted that due to illness of his daughter, purchase of
house and establishment of business of his son, he has had to raise these loans. It is clear from statement of Shri
Gaind, MW2 that he has admitted in his cross examination that the claimant has not borrowed any amount from M/s
Evergreen Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. and he has simply stood guarantor for his real brother for an amount of Rs.59,495.00. In
his next cross examination on 06.10.2016, this witness has again admitted that the bank was making deduction from
salary of the claimant towards repayment of loan of his brother from M/s Evergreen Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. However, this
witness could not show any document on the date of his cross examination to show as to whether any outstanding
payment still remained in the name of the claimant qua the said amount. He has further admitted that last payment was
made by the bank on 26.10.2004 from salary of the claimant whereas the claimant was charge sheeted on 27.03.2006.
Management should have come with clear cut statement so as to show as to what was the nature of the balance
payment, if any, to be made by the claimant and from overall examination of the statement of this witness, it is clear
that the amount due towards M/s Evergreen Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. in the name of the real brother of the claimant stood
paid by the claimant by way of instalments.
19.
During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the management put much emphasis on the fact that before
raising of the loan from the Thrift and Credit Societies as mentioned in charge No.3 and 4 of the charge sheet, claimant
has not sought prior approval from the competent authority, which is mandatory under the law. In this regard, attention
of the court was invited to the Bipartite Settlement and this fact was also not denied by the learned A/R for the claimant
that approval from the competent authority is mandatory before availing of loans/ standing of guarantor/surety. In such
circumstances, this Tribunal is of the view that the claimant has flouted banking norms by not obtaining necessary
approval from the competent authority before raising of loans.
20.
Now, the residual question is whether the raising of loans by the claimant without approval from the competent
authority amounts to misconduct or not. In this regard, attention of the Tribunal was invited to Chapter 2 of the
II
(ii)
3159
Bipartite Settlement which deals with disciplinary action and procedure. It is clear from Clause 19.5 (j) of the Bipartite
Settlement that expression ‘gross misconduct’ has been given a very comprehensive meaning and includes doing an
prejudicial to the interest of the bank and gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in
serious loss. The clause also deals with minor misconduct. However, definition of ‘minor misconduct’ is given in
Clause 7 and does not include the allegation contained in charge sheet dated 27.03.2006.
21.
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs District Collector (2012) 4 SCC 407 decided on
02.03.2012 dealt with the meaning of misconduct as used in the context of bank rules and after taking survey of the
entire case law on the subject, it was held that expression "misconduct" is not capable of any precise definition or
misconduct can be defined as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a
dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, wilful in character, improper or wrong behavior, would also fall within the
meaning of misconduct. The term misconduct in fact its synonyms are misdemeanor, misdeed, misbehavior,
delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement offense, but not negligence or carelessness. The term misconduct implies a
wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgement. Though misconduct is not necessarily the same thing as conduct
involving moral turpitude. Thus, the word misconduct is a relative term and is to be considered with reference to the
said matter and context where the same occurs.
22.
Since in the case on hand more than 80% of the salary of the claimant was being appropriated towards
repayment of instalments of loans taken by the claimant from the Societies as mentioned in the charge sheet and there
was also attachment of his salary as is clear from the order of Civil Court, Tis Hazari, which has really caused a lot of
embarrassment to the bank and the same has tendency to tarnish image of the bank. An employee of the bank is
expected to know atleast the elementary thing that he cannot raise loans without obtaining approval of the competent
authority. The claimant has not even later on tried to seek ex post facto sanction regarding the said loans so as to prove
his bonafide. Thus, having overall regard to the evidence on record and the fact that the claimant herein, in his reply
has admitted the factum of not seeking approval from the competent authority before raising of loans, as such charges
as mentioned in Charge No.3 and 4 of the charge sheet is held to be proved against the claimant.
23.
Now, the next question which arises for consideration is as to whether the punishment awarded to the claimant is
proportionate to the misconduct committed by him. It is clear from evidence on record that the claimant is not guilty of
any moral turpitude. He has simply raised loans without seeking prior approval of the competent authority of the bank
and the overdue amounts of the loans have been repaid now. In such a situation, this Tribunal is of the considered
opinion that punishment of ‘removal from service’ is very grave and severe in nature and the same is liable to be
reduced to ‘Stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect’. 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 : May 4, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
—
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2017
S.O. 1324.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 73/2012) 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 22.05.2017.
[No. L-12012/23/2012-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
3160
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/73/2012
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Rajkumar Singh,
S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh,
R/o Malviya Ganj, Gurunanak Pura,
Beside Gurudwara,
Itarsi (MP)
…Workman/Union
Versus
Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Neemvada Branch,
Itarsi
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of December 2016
1.
As per letter dated 18-6-2012 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-12012/23/
2012-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Itarsi in terminating the service of Shri Rajkumar
Singh S/o Shri Ghanshyam Singh w.e.f. 13-11-2010 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2.
Ist party workman is challenging termination of his services w.e.f. 13-11-2010 under reference . Even after
issuing notices, the Union didnot participate in the proceeding, no statement of claim is filed. Ist party is proceeded
exparte on 15-6-2016.
3.
IInd party management also not filed Written Statement. From conduct of the parties, it is clear that the parties
are not pursuing or participating in the dispute.
4.
In the result, award is passed as under:-
“ Reference is disposed off as No Dispute Award.”
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
—
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2017
S.O. 1325.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Federal Bank
Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22.05.2017.
[No. L-12012/28/2012-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
II
(ii)
3161
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
Present : Shri.K. Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer
(Monday the 19th day of December, 2016/28th Agrahayana, 1938)
ID 21/2012
Workman
:
Shri Benedict Aleegious T.,
Anu Bhavan,
Kanakulam,
Uchakkada P.O – 695506.
By Adv. Shri C. Anil Kumar
Management
:
The Managing Director and CEO,
Federal Bank Ltd.,
Head Office,
Aluva.
By M/s. B. S. Krishnan Associates
This case coming up for final hearing on 16.12.2016 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 19.12.2016 passed
the following:
AWARD
This is a reference under clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) for adjudication.
2.
The dispute referred for adjudication is:
“Whether the action of the management of Federal Bank Ltd. in imposing the punishment of
‘compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits’ upon Shri Benedict Aleegious T. vide their order
dated 28/11/2009, is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?’
3.
After receipt of the reference Order No.L-12012/28/2012-IR(B-I) dated 04.07.2012, issued by the Ministry of
Labour, Government of India, summons was issued to the parties to appear, submit pleadings and produce
documents to substantiate their respective contentions. On receipt of summons, the parties entered appearance through
counsel and submitted their pleadings.
4.
The contentions in the claim statement filed by the workman in brief are as follows:
The workman involved in this reference Shri. Benedict Aleegious. T joined as a bankman in the year 1984 in the
management bank. Since then he had unblemished service under the management. While he was employed under the
management, he received letter of appreciation from the management on several occasions. On 30.08.2008 the
management served an order suspending the workman from the services of the bank. Subsequently an order
No.AW:DE:15:08 dated 19.11.2008 was served with certain allegations against the workman. In that order it was
informed that an enquiry has been ordered against the workman and Shri. Tom P. Roy, Senior Manager, PIR
department has been appointed as the enquiry officer. An opportunity was afforded to the workman to submit
explanation against the allegations levelled as per the order aforesaid. The allegation against the workman was that on
22.08.2008 he was found in a suspicious circumstance with a lady in the stationery room of the bank. The management
charged the workman for the indecent behaviour in the premises of the bank and doing any act prejudicial to the interest
of the bank as per the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002 and Disciplinary Action and Procedure Therefor. The
workman has not committed any act as alleged in the charge memo.
5.
The allegations against the workman are cooked up by the management. From the evidence tendered by the
management witnesses during the enquiry it can be seen that other establishments are functioning on the either side of
the stationery room. It is strange to notice that in respect of an incident alleged to have happened on 22.08.2008, a
report to that effect was sent from the branch to the Head Office only on 29.08.2008. The charges levelled against the
workman are cooked up by the principal officer of the branch with ulterior motive.
6.
The domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was in clear violation of the principles of natural justice
and fair play. He was denied opportunity to defend his case during the enquiry. The two officers who gave evidence
against workman in the course of enquiry were hostile towards the workman. The enquiry officer has not appreciated
3162
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the evidence in the correct perspective. The finding of the enquiry officer is perverse and not based on any admissible
evidence. The workman had submitted explanation against the proposed punishment by the disciplinary authority.
Against the decision of the disciplinary authority he preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which was
dismissed without considering his contentions. The punishment imposed on the workman is too harsh and
disproportionate to the allegations levelled against him. He is the sole bread winner of his family. The allegation
against the workman is stigmatic and it is not possible to find an alternate employment to him. Therefore the workman
has requested to set aside the punishment order and to direct the management to reinstate him in service with full back
wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
7.
The contentions in the written statement filed by the management in brief are as follows:-
The management has denied all the averments in the claim statement filed by the workman except those that are
specifically admitted. While working as bankman in Neyyattinkara branch of the management bank, Shri. Benedict
Aleegious. T was placed under suspension and issued a charge sheet for the acts of gross misconduct – ‘indecent
behaviour on the premises of the bank’ and ‘doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank’ as per the Bipartite
Settlement dated 10.04.2002. The allegation against the workman is that while working in Neyyattinkara branch, at
about 4:20 pm on 22.08.2008, he was found inside the stationery room of the branch in the second floor of the building
locked from inside along with a strange woman during office hours with ulterior intention causing disrepute to the bank
and affected moral discipline of the staff. The conduct of the workman in keeping himself locked inside the stationery
room of the branch along with a strange woman during office hours was with ulterior intention. When he was caught
hold of by the officers of the branch, he was not able to give any convincing reason about the presence of the strange
woman inside the stationery room during the office hours. The enquiry conducted against the workman was in
accordance with the rules and by following the principles of natural justice. In the course of enquiry advocate Shri. S.
John was representing the workman who defended the matter on his behalf. The defense representative cross examined
all the witnesses examined on behalf of the management. Thereafter opportunity was afforded to the workman to
adduce evidence in support of his defence. He has not adduced any evidence to substantiate his defence.
8.
The enquiry officer evaluated the matter in issue in detail and submitted a finding to the effect that the
workman is guilty of the misconduct alleged. Thereafter the disciplinary authority complied the procedure and
issued the proposed punishment of dismissal from service without notice. After hearing the workman, the disciplinary
authority passed the final order reducing the punishment to “compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits”. The
appellate authority considered the matter and came to the conclusion that there is no scope for interference in the final
order of punishment issued by the disciplinary authority. The letter of appreciation issued by the management is not a
ground to justify the act of gross misconduct committed by him. The branch office reported the matter on 22.08.2008
itself to the Head Office and a written communication was sent on 29.08.2008. The claim of the workman that he has
been wrongly implicated in this matter is absolutely false. The contention of the workman that the charges levelled
against him were cooked up by the officers of the management is absolutely false. The management has requested to
consider the validity of the enquiry as a preliminary point and sought permission to adduce independent evidence to
prove the charges levelled against the workman by adducing independent evidence if it is found that the enquiry is
vitiated.
9.
After filing written statement by the management the workman filed rejoinder reiterating the contentions in the
claim statement.
10.
As requested by the counsel for the management, the validity of the domestic enquiry was considered as a
preliminary point. On this aspect, on behalf of the management MW1 was examined and Ext.M1 is the document
marked. As per the Preliminary Order dated 04.05.2016 it is held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the
management is valid and proper. Thereafter the matter was posted for final hearing. The counsel appearing for the
parties were heard in detail.
11.
The points arising for consideration are:
“(i)
Whether the workman Shri. Bendict Aleegious. T has committed the acts of gross misconduct as
alleged by the management?
(ii)
Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits issued by the
management against the workman Shri. Benedict Aleegious. T is just and legal or disproportionate
to the allegations levelled against him?
(iii)
To what relief the workman is entitled?”
12.
Point Nos.(i) & (ii):-
Shri. Benedict Aleegious. T, the workman involved in this reference joined as a
bankman in the management bank in the year 1984. Since then he was employed under the management bank. While
working as bankman at the Neyyattinkara branch, the management issued an order No.PIR/M4/PF-4237/AW-
197/2778/2008 dated 30.08.2008 and suspended him from the services of the bank. Subsequently, he was served with
II
(ii)
3163
order No.PIR/M4/PF-4237/AW-197/454/2008 dated 19.11.2008 alleging that he has committed certain acts of gross
misconduct. The management bank issued charge sheet against the workman under the following heads - “(i) Indecent
behaviour on the premises of the Bank; and (ii) Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank” as per the
different clauses in the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002 on Disciplinary Action & Procedure Therefor. In the
memo of allegations the management under clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) explained the details of misconduct committed
by the workman during office hours inside the bank premises at about 4:20 PM on 22.08.2008. The Senior Manager of
the branch sent a communication dated 29.08.2008 to the Deputy General Manager, PIR Department, Head Office
Aluva of the management bank, explaining in detail about the incident occurred at about 04:20 PM on 22.08.2008
inside the bank premises involving the workman in this reference.
13.
The management appointed Shri. Tom P. Roy, Senior Manager, P & IR Department as the enquiry officer to
conduct an enquiry in relation to the misconduct alleged against the workman. The enquiry officer conducted enquiry
and submitted the report along with all the connected papers before the management. On receipt of the enquiry report
the management complied the statutory requirements and the disciplinary authority issued an order with the proposed
punishment against the workman. The workman has submitted that he is innocent and that he has not done any act as
alleged by the management. The disciplinary authority proposed the order of “dismissal from service without notice”
against the workman for the act of gross misconduct committed by him. After hearing the workman on the proposed
punishment, the disciplinary authority decided to alter the proposed punishment and ordered the punishment of
“Compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits” for the acts of misconduct – “Indecent behaviour on the
premises of the Bank; and Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank”.
14.
Against the order of the disciplinary authority the workman preferred an appeal before the appellate authority.
The appellate authority concurred with the final order passed by the disciplinary authority and the workman was
compulsorily retired with superannuation benefits from the services of the bank. The workman has stated that the
charges alleged against him are cooked up by the principal officers of the branch with some ulterior intention. He has
stated that the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry in violation of the principles of natural justice and fairness and that
he was denied the opportunity to defend his case properly. It is stated that the enquiry officer failed to appreciate the
testimony of the witnesses examined on the side of the management in an impartial manner. According to the workman
the management witnesses examined before the enquiry officer were not speaking the truth and that they were
attempting to victimize him. He would also state that the two officers who gave evidence against him in the course of
domestic enquiry were showing hostile attitude against him. He has challenged the enquiry proceedings on the ground
that it is vitiated and that he has requested to set aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority which was
confirmed by the appellate authority. The workman has stated that he is the sole bread winner of his family and that the
denial of employment caused undue hardship and inconvenience to him.
15.
The management has contended that the workman has committed the act of gross misconduct of indecent
behaviour in the premises of the bank during the working hours on 22.08.2008 and that he has done act prejudicial to
the interest of the bank and thereby committed gross misconduct. The management has stated that the enquiry officer
conducted the enquiry after affording fair and reasonable opportunity to the workman to substantiate his contentions
and that the enquiry officer has followed the principles of natural justice while conducting the enquiry. It is stated that
in the course of enquiry as requested by the workman, he was defended by an Advocate Shri. S. John of his choice and
that the witnesses examined on behalf of the management were cross examined by the defence representative.
Moreover the enquiry officer afforded opportunity to the workman to adduce evidence if he so desired. The
management has stated that the punishment ordered against the workman is just and proper and in proportion to the
gravity of misconduct committed by him. As requested by the learned counsel for the management, after affording
sufficient opportunity to the parties to take steps and for production of documents, the validity of the domestic enquiry
was considered as the preliminary point. As per the Preliminary Order dated 04.05.2016 it is held that the domestic
enquiry conducted by the management is just, proper and by following the principles of natural justice. Thereafter the
matter was posted for final hearing. The learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard in detail.
16.
The learned counsel for the workman submitted that even though the incident happened on 22.08.2008. the
Senior Manager sent a report regarding the incident only on 29.08.2008. It is stated that the workman is innocent and
that false and frivolous allegations were raised by the senior officers to wreck vengeance against him. The learned
counsel for the workman submitted that in the course of enquiry the workman has submitted the reason for foisting
false case against him. It is stated that there was a complaint against the senior officers of the bank regarding the
transfer of a sum of `40 lakh to M/s.Bajaj Alliance Insurance Company. Relating to that incident there was a vigilance
complaint and an enquiry was conducted. It is stated that in the said enquiry the workman identified the handwriting in
the cheque pertaining to that incident and thereafter the senior officers were against the workman and they were trying
to find out a cause to initiate proceedings against him. The learned counsel submitted that the workman is a widower
and he had unblemished service of 24 years under the management bank and he has to look after his two children. It is
also stated that the workman is a heart patient and he has not done any act causing prejudice to the interest of the bank.
3164
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
17.
The learned counsel for the management submitted that the allegations levelled against the workman are true to
facts and that he has committed the act as alleged in the memorandum of allegations served on him. The learned
counsel submitted that the management witnesses 1 and 2 who witnessed the incident gave evidence of the factual state
of affairs. The allegation that the senior officers foisted false case against the workman is denied by the counsel for the
management.
18.
On going through the statement of allegations annexed to the memo of charges it can be seen that the allegations
against the workman are so grave. The evidence tendered by MW1 and MW2 in the course of domestic enquiry
revealed that the senior officers have witnessed the incident as stated in the statement of allegations. Even though the
defence representative cross examined the witnesses at length in the course of enquiry nothing was brought out to
discredit their testimony regarding the incident occurred on 22.08.2008 inside the bank premises. The contention of the
workman that he has been falsely implicated at the instance of the senior officers of the bank cannot be accepted as true
and correct especially in view of the evidence tendered by MW1 and MW2 in the course of enquiry. The acts alleged
to have been committed by the workman is so grave and it affects the reputation of the bank. From the final order
passed by the disciplinary authority it can be seen that the disciplinary authority considered the submissions made by
the workman and a lenient view has been taken so that the workman can claim any re-employment and his right to
receive superannuation benefits is safeguarded by the disciplinary authority. In such circumstance I do not find any
justification in interfering with the order of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits, passed by the
disciplinary authority. The management has succeeded in proving the allegations levelled against the workman.
Therefore the points for consideration are answered against the workman and in favour of the management.
19.
Point No.(iii):-
In view of the findings on Point Nos.(i) & (ii) the workman is not entitled to the relief
claimed by him as per this reference. The point is answered accordingly.
20.
In the result an award is passed holding that the workman is not entitled to any relief claimed as per this
reference.
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 19th day
of December, 2016.
SASIDHARAN K., Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witness for the Workman
NIL
Witness for the Management
MW1 10.02.2015
Shri. Tom P. Roy
Exhibit for the Workman
NIL
Exhibit for the Management
M1
- Enquiry File
—
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2017
S.O. 1326.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 08/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
II
(ii)
3165
Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western
Railway and their workman, received by the Central Government on 22.05.2017.
[No. L-41011/106/2013-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 08th April, 2017
Reference : (CGITA) No. 08/2014
1.
The General Manager,
Western Railway,
Churchgate,
Mumbai – 400020
2.
The Sr. Divisional Engineer (West),
Western Railway, Near Chamunda Bridge, Asarwa,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
3.
The Additional Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway, Near Chamunda Bridge, Asarwa,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
4.
The Assistant Divisional Engineer (NW),
Western Railway, Near Sararpur Railway Bridge,
Shaher Kotda Police Station,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
The Divisional Secretary,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,
28/B, Narayan Park, Behind Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
For the Second Party
:
Shri R.S. Sisodia (Union Representative)
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-
41011/106/2013-IR(B-I) dated 03.01.2014 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 Sr. Divisional Engineer (West), Western Railway, Ahmedabad and
others in issuing modified charge sheet vide 25.03.2013 to Shri Sunil Kant, Trackman Gang No. 4, Sanand
(Protected Workman) during the pendency of conciliation proceedings is justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 03.01.2014. Despite service on all the parties, neither of the parties submitted their
statement of claim or written statement as the case may be. Today on 08.04.2017 in the Mega Lok Adalat, Shri R.S.
Sisodia on behalf of the Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad expressed unwillingness to
prosecute the reference.
2.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of as not pressed.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
3166
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
—
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2017
S.O. 1327.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western
Railway and their workman, received by the Central Government on 22.05.2017.
[No. L-41011/130/2010-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 08th April, 2017
Reference : (CGITA) No. 37/2011
1.
The Chief Signal and Telecom Engineer,
Western Railway,
Churchgate,
Mumbai
2.
The Works Manager,
Signal Workshop,
Western Railway, Sabarmati, D Cabin,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
The President,
Paschim Railway KarmachariParishad,
28/B, Narayan Park, Behind Chandkheda Railway Station,
Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party :
For the Second Party :
Shri R.S. Sisodia (Union Representative)
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-
41011/130/2010-IR(B-I) dated 03.05.2011 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 Works Manager, Signal Workshop, Western Railway, Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad by changing the category of Shri LaxmanAmtha, Jeep Driver, to Fitter is legal and justified? To
what relief the union/workman is entitled?”
II
(ii)
3167
1.
The reference dates back to 03.05.2011. After service on all the parties, the second party submitted his statement
of claim Ex. 3 but the first party did not submit the written statement. Today on 08.04.2017 in the Mega LokAdalat,
Shri R.S. Sisodia on behalf of the President, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad expressed unwillingness to
prosecute the reference.
2.
Therefore, the reference is disposed of as not pressed.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
—
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2017
S.O. 1328.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western
Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22.05.2017.
[No. L-41011/69/2008-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/53 of 2009
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
WESTERN RAILWAY
The Divisional Railway Manager (E)
Western Railway
Mumbai Division
Mumbai Central
Mumbai-400008.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
The Secretary
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad
33, Moti Bhuvan, 2nd floor
Dr. D’Silva Road
Dadar (W)
Mumbai 400 028.
APPEARANCES :
FOR THE EMPLOYER
:
Mr. Abhay Kulkarni, Advocate
FOR THE WORKMEN
:
Mr. M. B. Anchan, Advocate
3168
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Mumbai, dated the 4th April, 2017
AWARD PART-II
1.
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-41011/69/2008-IR (B-I) dated
11.06.2009 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
“Whether the action of the management of Western Railway Administration, Mumbai by terminating the
services of Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav, Bungalow Peon, is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman?”
2.
After receipt of the reference, notices were issued to both the parties. In response to the notice, the second party
union filed their statement of claim at Ex-6.According to them workman Ashok Kumar Yadav was appointed as
Bungalow Peon since 26/12/2005 at the Bungalow of Ms. Rita Raj, Divisional Commercial Manager, Western Railway
at Baroda. After completing 120 days he was granted temporary status from 6/1/2006. In May 2007, Ms. Rita Raj was
transferred from Baroda to Mumbai. On her application her Bungalow Peon i.e. Workman, Ashok Kumar Yadav was
also transferred to Mumbai and he was working at her Bungalow. He worked there from 03/09/2007to 14/09/2007. On
14.9.2007 workman had been to the Bungalow of Ms. Rita Raj to resume his duty. However she did not allow him to
resume his duty. Therefore on the next day workman made representation to Ms. Rita Raj. Inspite of that she did not
allow him to join his duties. The workman therefore made complaint to President of their union and also filed
complaint with Police and sent representation to Divisional Manager, Western Railway with a request to allow him to
join his duties.However he did not get any reply. Therefore he used banner with a request to DRM to allow him to join
his duty. Ms. Rita Raj called RPF Personnel and they assaulted and beat the workman. Therefore he was admitted in
the hospital. The workman was never absent. On the other hand he was not allowed to join his duties by Ms. Rita Raj.
3.
The workman was charge-sheeted for the charge that he had made STD calls from the residential telephone of
Ms. Rita Raj. Another charge leveled was that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 14/09/2007. The
workman was not given opportunity for his explanation in respect of the charges of making STD calls from the
residential telephone of Ms. Rita Raj with her permission. He had also paid the charges thereof. He was never absent
from duty. On the other hand Ms. Rita Raj did not allow him to resume his duties. In the inquiry proceeding Ms. Rita
Raj was important witness. However neither she was examined nor was made available for cross examination. Inspite
of that Inquiry Officer held him guilty and his services were terminated. The workman was not given sufficient
opportunity to defend himself. The Inquiry Officer has violated the Principles of Natural Justice. Therefore the
workman has raised industrial dispute. As conciliation failed, on the report of ALC (C) the Central Labour Ministry
has sent the reference to this Tribunal. The union therefore prays that the order of termination be set aside and the
workman be reinstated in service with full back wages with continuity of service.
4.
The first party management resisted the statement of claim vide its written statement Ex-14. According to them
while working as a Bungalow Peon at Vadodara in the absence of Ms. Rita Raj the workman used to make STD calls
from her residential telephone without her permission and warning notice was issued to him in that respect of
18/08/2006.In reply thereto the workman admitted the facts and had apologized in writing. After transfer of Ms. Rita
Raj to Mumbai, the workman was also transferred to Mumbai. However he remained unauthorisedly absent from
14/09/2007. Due to which Ms. Rita Raj suffered great difficulties. Though he was absent from duty, he used to visit
office of DRM, BCT. He also requested Mr. Haridas G. to issue him sick memo. He advised him to report his duty as
he was not sick. Competent Authority issued charge sheet dt.9/10/2007 to the workman for the aforesaid STD calls as
well as for unauthorized absence. Initially workman refused to accept the charge sheet as it was in English and required
it in Hindi. Subsequently he accepted the charge-sheet. The Inquiry Officer was appointed and departmental inquiry
was initiated against the workman. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry as per the rules. He recorded the
evidence of the management. Opportunity was given to the workman to cross examine the management witnesses. The
workman was also given an opportunity to lead his evidence. After completion of the hearing the Inquiry Officer held
the workman guilty. Accordingly he sent his report to the disciplinary authority. Disciplinary Authority sent the copy
of the report to the workman with show cause notice. After giving him hearing the disciplinary authority terminated the
services of the workman. The inquiry was fair and proper and findings of the Inquiry Officer are in consonance with
the evidence on record. The punishment of termination is the appropriate punishment. Therefore management submits
that it needs no interference. Therefore they pray that the reference be rejected with cost.
5.
In view of Award Part – I, dated 09.06.2014, this Tribunal has held that the inquiry is not fair and proper and the
findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse. As per Award Part – I dated 09.06.2014 opportunities given to the first
party management to prove the charges by leading evidence.
6.
In view of that first party management led additional evidence by filing affidavit Ex.35 and filed pursis Ex.36.
The concerned workman has also filed his additional evidence by filing affidavit Ex.37 and filed pursis Ex-38.
II
(ii)
3169
7.
Second party workman has then filed written arguments Ex.39. First party management has filed written
arguments Ex.40.
8.
Following issues are framed at Ex.7. I reproduce the issues along with my findings thereon for the reasons to
follow:
Sr. No.
Issues
Findings
1.
Whether the inquiry is fair and proper ?
No
2.
Whether the findings of I.O. are perverse ?
Yes
3.
If not, whether the punishment of removing Shri
Ashok Kumar Yadav from the services of Western
Railway is adequate ?
No
4.
Whether the workman deserves to be reinstated
with full back wages ?
Yes
5.
What order ?
As per final order
REASONS
Issues Nos. 1&2:-
9.
So far these issues are concerned as per Award Part – I, there is finding of fact that the inquiry is not fair and
proper and the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse. However, the opportunities are given to the first party
management to prove the charges by leading evidence. In view of that first party management has adduced the
evidence of Ms. Asha Dhute who is APO/Traffic with Western Railway. She reiterates that the concerned workman
was appointed as Bungalow Peon w.e.f. 26.12.2005 and prior to said appointment he was performing the duties as
substitute Bungalow Peon. According to her, the concerned workman was assigned duties at Bungalow and then Sr.
DCM/DRC at Vadodara and as per the rules and regulations and guidelines, the official is allotted Bungalow Peon only
once and the workman concerned prior to May 2007 was allotted duties at the Bungalow of Ms. Rita Raj.
10.
In the case, in respect of first charge as against the concerned workman of making the STD calls, the workman
has not denied that he made STD calls as his mother was ill. According to the concerned workman, the STD calls were
made by him with the permission of Ms. Rita Raj. It is further contended by him that he has paid the charges of STD
calls. It has came in evidence of Ms. Asha Dhute, the witness of the management that after transfer of Ms. Rita Raj to
Mumbai as Sr. DOM / BCD, the concerned workman was also transferred to Mumbai and he was staying at the
Bungalow of Ms. Rita Raj.
11.
So far the inquiry proceedings against the concerned workman are concerned, it is made clear that Part – I
Award has not been challenged by the management. Precisely, therefore this witness in his evidence has not
commented upon the enquiry proceedings. It appears that he was not the complainant, Ms. Rita Raj was the
complainant in respect of allegations as against the workman and this fact is admitted by this witness in her cross
examination. Admittedly, therefore Ms. Rita Raj was the concerned and only witness in respect of both the charges
leveled against the workman. Even after Award Part – I was passed, the management has not examined Ms. Rita Raj
who was the main and most important witness. Therefore, the findings hold good to the effect that non-examination of
such material witness was denial of reasonable opportunity to the workman.
12.
In support of this, again reliance is placed by the Learned Counsel for the concerned workman on the decision in
case of Central Administrative Tribunal (Patna Bench) in CCS Dwivedi V/S. Union of India & Ors. 1989 (4) (CAT –
892).
“In that case the applicant was charged that he has taken money and given the chit to passenger to travel and
did not credit the money. In that case neither the chit was produced nor passenger was examined as witness.
In the circumstances the tribunal quashed the order of disciplinary authority by observing that ‘non-
examination of such witness was denial of reasonable opportunity to the workman”.
13.
According to the workman, he had used the said telephone with the permission of Ms. Rita Raj and he also paid
the charges thereof. The said charge was of the year 2006. Even the management witness admitted that the charges of
the calls made by the workman were recovered from his salary. In the circumstances whether the STD calls were made
3170
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
with the permission of Ms. Rita Raj was the important aspect for which again Ms. Rita Raj was the important witness.
Her non-examination therefore goes to the root of matter. It was expected of the management to examine Ms. Rita Raj
to prove the allegations or the charges since she has not been examined by the management. It will have to be said that
the management has failed to prove the charges by adducing oral evidence. Because the evidence of Ms. Asha Dhute
relied upon by the management is of no consequences especially when she also admits that Ms. Rita Raj was the
complainant even in respect of charges of making phone calls and absenteeism of the workman on duty at her
residence.
14.
It is evidence of the workman that he was not allowed by Ms. Rita Raj to enter in the Bungalow premises. In
this respect, the management witness Ms. Asha Dhute does not know whether Ms. Rita Raj did not allow the concerned
workman to enter in the Bungalow premises. In respect of this charge as against the workman it was expected of the
management to examine Ms. Rita Raj to prove the charges by adducing oral evidence but she has not been examine and
has not made available for cross-examination. That amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to the workman to
defend himself. It is violation of principle of natural justice. The evidence so far adduced by the management for
proving these charges is not sufficient since the material evidence of Ms. Rita Raj is withheld and Ms. Asha Dhute, the
management witness cannot say whether the workman was not allowed to work by Ms. Rita Raj. Even that is the
position then it cannot be said that that the workman was unauthorisely absent on duty. The charges in respect of his
absenteeism on duty has not been proved by leading oral evidence by the management though opportunity is given to
the first party management to prove the charges by leading evidence.
15.
Even then the Learned Counsel for the management submitted that the workman concerned has admitted that he
used residential telephone for making STD calls without permission of Ms. Rita Raj and therefore he was issued
warning notice dated 18.6.2006. Submission is to the effect that the workman admitted the facts and apologized and
even allowed the railway administration to deduct the said amount from his wages and therefore on his admission the
charge of making unauthorised STD calls is proved. It is submitted that in respect of un-authorised absence of the
workman, it is not even his case that he was sick and therefore workman/s letter of apology and admission of the
workman in the said apology letter dated 14.7.2008 which is produced at page 192 in the documents filed on behalf of
the workman along with list of documents dated 5.2.2014. It is sufficient to prove the charges leveled against the
workman.
16.
It is not possible to countenance view profounded by Learned Counsel for the management, because on the basis
of complaint of Ms. Rita Raj the charges have been framed. Ms. Rita Raj has also issued charge-sheet to the workman.
She is also disciplinary authority to the workman. She had passed removal order of the workman. So in this case the
same person is the complainant and also the disciplinary authority. This is against the principles of natural justice and it
will have to be said that while conducting the enquiry against the concerned workman, principle of natural justice have
not been followed. Learned Counsel for the concerned workman refer to the government circular dated 9.11.1990 to
submit that whenever it is noticed that the disciplinary authority of the railway servant is himself involved in the case,
she should not act as disciplinary authority for railway servant concerned. If that is the rule to be followed while
conducting the enquiry against the workman then it will have to be said that the enquiry against the concerned workman
is not conducted as per the rules and therefore again the enquiry is held to be not fair and proper.
17.
Consequently, I hold that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse as he has not given fair and proper
opportunity to the workman to defend himself. Even if the opportunities were given to the first party management to
prove the charge by leading evidence, the management has not adduced evidence of Ms. Rita Raj though she is material
witness. It will have to be said therefore that the management has not proved the above issues and hence Issue No.1 is
answered in negative and Issue No.2 is answered in affirmative to the effect that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are
perverse.
Issues Nos. 3 & 4.
18.
Once we come to the conclusion that the enquiry is not fair & proper and the findings of the Inquiry Officer are
perverse then obviously there is no question of adequacy of punishment since the punishment awarded deserves to be
set aside.
19.
Even then Learned Counsel for the management submitted that the question of integrity of the workman is
material because the workman concerned goes to the extent of lodging police complaint against the officials with the
allegations that RPF Personnel at the instance of Ms. Rita Raj assaulted him. Submission is to the effect that such
allegations are only the figment of imagination of workman and he also failed to prove the same before the court and
before the tribunal.
20.
In my considered view, this submission is not acceptable because it was for the management to prove the
charges. The charges are not proved by the management by leading evidence and therefore no question of integrity
arises on the ground that the concerned workman has lodged complaint against Ms. Rita Raj. Even in that respect, the
concerned workman in his evidence has stated that in respect of police complaint filed by him, police have not taken the
II
(ii)
3171
action against the RPF. But then the fact remains that he has filed the complaint with such allegations wherein he has
stated that RPF man had beaten him and he was injured and was admitted in Jagjivan Ram Railway Hospital, Mumbai
Central for treatment. In view of that Learned Counsel for the concerned workman refer to the document at pages 114,
115 of the list of documents of the concerned workman. When the management has not proved the charges leveled
against the concerned workman, contention of the management as regards to the integrity of the concerned workman
shall fall out.
21.
Realising this difficulty, the Learned Counsel for the management submitted that even if the charges are not
proved the workman is not entitled for reinstatement and full back wages as a matter of law because the tribunal should
be cautious in exercising this discretionary power in such cases.
22.
Submission is also to the effect that as per the settled principle of law no workman is entitled to back wages if he
fails to prove that he seriously attempted to obtain alternative employment but failed. Submission is that in this case the
workman has not produced cogent evidence before this tribunal that he indeed made serious attempts to obtain
alternative employment and therefore he is not entitled to back wages.
23.
As a matter of fact, it has come on record that in respect of charges for making telephone calls it was unduly
delayed action of the management. So from the facts of the present case it cannot be said that the action of the
management is justified. The concerned workman was appointed as a Bungalow Peon from 26.12.2005. After
completing 120 days service, he was granted temporary status from 6.5.2006 and thereafter he was a regular railway
servant. When the action of management cannot be justified then in that circumstances the concerned workman is
entitled to reinstatement and back wages. Hence, I hold that the punishment of removing concerned workman from the
services of Western Railway is improper and illegal. The concerned workman is entitled to relief of reinstatement and
back wages. Issues Nos. 3 & 4 are therefore answered accordingly.
Issue No.5.
24.
In view of my findings to the above issues, I pass the following order.
ORDER
(i)
The inquiry is held not legal and proper. The findings of the Inquiry Officer are declared as
perverse.
(ii)
Order of termination of the workman is set aside.
(iii)
Workman be reinstated with 30% back wages of his last pay with continuity of service.
Date: 04/04/2017
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
—
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2017
S.O. 1329.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bangalore 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 23.05.2017.
[No. L-12012/55/2012-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 30th DECEMBER, 2016
3172
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
C R No. 12/2013
I Party
II Party
Shri. R K Sagargol,
The General Manager,
S/o Kalappa Sagargol,
State Bank of India,
Temporary Messenger, Rudraswamy
St. Marks Road,
St., Mara Jamkhandi, Jamkhandi,
Kunjathbail Post, Kavoor,
Bagalkot District
Bangalore - 560001
AWARD
1.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-12012/55/2012-IR(B-I) dated 05.03.2013 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 State Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri. R.K.
Sagargol is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen is entitled to?”
2.
After the receipt of the reference, the matter has been registered on the file of this Tribunal and notices have
been sent for both parties. None appeared for the I party and I party also called absent. Infact, notice of hearings have
been sent to the I party by RPAD in Transaction No A RK345401554 IN, Dated 22.11.2016 through the Department of
Posts, India and also acknowledgment received regarding the receipt of the notice by the I Party. Still, no
representation has been made on behalf of I party and also, I party is called, absent.
3.
On perusal of records already notices have been sent and, the said notices have been served to both the parties
and the RPAD acknowledgment cards have been received by this Tribunal. Hence, it is found that inspite of giving
sufficient and adequate chances by issuing notices of hearing to I party, the I party has not made any appearance. In
such circumstances, the matter is posted for passing Award, after the perusal of entire records brought on record.
4.
Further, from the above mentioned circumstances, it would be very much clear, in the present matter, that the I
party has no interest to contest the present matter, inspite of the service of notices of hearing to the I party. It is for the I
party to make out a case that I party is entitled to the above mentioned benefits and that the management has done a
mistake by denying the said benefits. Further, on behalf of the II party, Sri. V.A. Byatnal, Advocate of the II Party,
reported that the II party has not violated any provisions of the Rules. Under the above mentioned special circumstances
and peculiar facts, this Tribunal is constrained to pass appropriate award, after the perusal of materials available on
record.
5.
Since no appearance has been made and also claim statement has not been filed and further no case has been
made out by I party and the present reference has only to be rejected for non- prosecution. Therefore, keeping in view
the conduct of I party in, not appearing before this Tribunal, even though notices have been sent to the I party by way
of RPAD and the conduct of I Party in not filing claim statement, in support of the said reference, it is crystal clear
that the I party is no more interested in prosecuting the claim against II party. In the result and also in above mentioned
facts and situations, it is to be held that the present reference has to be rejected, for non prosecution and no useful
purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings any more pending. Hence the following award.
AWARD
Reference is dismissed for non-prosecution.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 30th December, 2016)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
—
[
I
]
II
(ii)
3173
New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2017
S.O. 1330.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bangalore 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 23.05.2017.
[No. L-12025/01/2017-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 1ST NOVEMBER, 2016
PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
ID No. 37/2013
I Party
II Party
Sh A C Machaiah,
The Chief General Manager
H.No. 198, SFS 407,
State Bank of India,
II Main, II Phase,
Local Head Office,
New Yelahanka Town,
St. Marks Road,
Bangalore – 560064
Bangalore – 560001
1.
The I Party filed the Claim Statement praying the relief as follows:
“To direct the II Party Management to reinstate I Party in his original post and pay him all consequential
benefits and pass such other order or orders as deems fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of
justice.” Mr. B. D. Kuttappa and Mr. D. R. Vishwanath Bhat, Advocates are for the I Party, and Mr. A. G.
Shivananda, Advocate is for the II Party.
2. During course of the proceedings, a memo dated 21.10.2016 has been filed on behalf of I Party, signed by the I
Party and also by the Counsel for the I Party . It is specifically stated in the said memo to dispose of, the present matter,
as not pressed. It is pertinent to point out that the said memo has been signed by the I Party and also by the counsel of
the I Party.
3. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is to be held that the present application has to be disposed of,
as not pressed, as prayed for in the said memo dated 21.10.2016 and no useful purpose will be served in keeping the
proceedings any more pending. Hence the following:
AWARD
Reference is disposed of, as not pressed as per the memo dated 21.10.2016, filed by the I Party and also
signed by the counsel for the I Party.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 1st November, 2016)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
—
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2017
S.O. 1331.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 07/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
3174
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Labour Court, Bangalore 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 23.05.2017.
[No. L-12025/01/2017-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 1ST NOVEMBER, 2016
PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
ID No. 07/2016
I Party
II Party
Sh A. C. Machaiah,
The Chief General Manager
H.No. 198, SFS 407,
State Bank of India,
II Main, II Phase,
Local Head Office,
New Yelahanka Town,
St. Marks Road,
Bangalore – 560064
Bangalore – 560001
1.
The I Party filed the Claim Statement praying the relief as follows:
“To direct the II Party Management to reinstate I Party in his original post and pay him all consequential
benefits and pass such other order or orders as deems fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of
justice.” Mr. B. D. Kuttappa and Mr. D. R. Vishwanath Bhat, Advocates are for the I Party, and Mr. A. G.
Shivananda, Advocate is for the II Party.
2. During course of the proceedings, a memo dated 21.10.2016 has been filed on behalf of I Party, signed by the I
Party and also by the Counsel for the I Party . It is specifically stated in the said memo to dispose of, the present matter,
as not pressed. It is pertinent to point out that the said memo has been signed by the I Party and also by the counsel of
the I Party.
3. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is to be held that the present application has to be disposed of,
as not pressed, as prayed for in the said memo dated 21.10.2016 and no useful purpose will be served in keeping the
proceedings any more pending. Hence the following:
AWARD
Reference is disposed of, as not pressed as per the memo dated 21.10.2016, filed by the I Party and also
signed by the counsel for the I Party.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 1st November, 2016)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
—
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2017
S.O. 1332.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bangalore 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 23.05.2017.
[No. L-12012/86/2010-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
II
(ii)
3175
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 02nd JANUARY, 2017
PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
C R No. 15/2012
I Party
II Party
Smt. R. Nagarathna,
The Chief Manager (H.R Section),
No. 153/1, 4th Cross, 1st Main Road,
State Bank of India,
Near Maramma Temple,
Local Head Office, St. Marks Road
Bagalkunte,
Bangalore
Bangalore - 560073
Represented by: T.S. Anantharam,
Office Bearer of the Affiliated Union
(CITU), and N. Pratap Simha, Office Bearer of the
Affiliated Union (CITU) No. 103/1, 2nd Main Road,
8th Cross, Chamrajpet, Bangalore-18
AWARD
1.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-12012/86/2010-IR(B-I) dated 17.05.2012 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 State Bank of India, Bangalore in terminating the service of Smt.
R. Nagarathna, w.e.f 21.12.2009, is legal and justified? To what relief Smt. R. Nagarathna is entitled?
2.
After the receipt of the reference, the matter has been registered on the file of this Tribunal and notices have
been sent for both parties. None appeared for the I party and I party also called absent. Infact, notice of hearings have
been sent to the I party and also to the Office Bearers by RPAD through the Department of Posts, India and also
acknowledgment received regarding the receipt of the notice. Still, no representation has been made on behalf of I
party and also, I party is called, absent.
3.
On perusal of records already notices have been sent to both the parties through the RPAD, by this Tribunal.
Hence, it is found that in spite of giving sufficient and adequate chances by issuing notices of hearing to I party, the I
party has not made any appearance. In such circumstances, the matter is posted for passing Award, after the perusal of
entire records brought on record.
4.
Further, from the above mentioned circumstances, it would be very much clear, in the present matter, that the I
party has no interest to contest the present matter, in spite of the service of notices of hearing to the I party. It is for the
I party to make out a case that I party is entitled to the above mentioned benefits and that the management has done a
mistake by denying the said benefits. Further, on behalf of the II party, Sri. A.G. Shivananda, Advocate of the II Party,
reported that the II party has not violated any provisions of the Rules and there is no Industrial Dispute and the dispute
has been raised on frivolous grounds. Under the above mentioned special circumstances and peculiar facts, this
Tribunal is constrained to pass appropriate award, after the perusal of materials available on record.
5.
Since no appearance has been made by I party and the present reference has only to be rejected for non-
prosecution. Therefore, keeping in view the conduct of I party in, not appearing before this Tribunal, even though
notices have been sent to the I party by way of RPAD, in support of the said reference, it is crystal clear that the I
party is no more interested in the case. In the result and also in above mentioned facts and situations, it is to be held
that the present reference has to be rejected, for non prosecution and no useful purpose will be served in keeping the
proceedings any more pending. Hence the following award.
AWARD
Reference is dismissed for non-prosecution.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 02nd January, 2017)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
3176
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
—
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2017
S.O. 1333.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Devi Patna
Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 23.05.2017.
[No. L-12011/66/2002-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 47/2003
Ref.No. L-12011/66/2002-IR(B-I) dated 29.04.2003
BETWEEN :
Sri Kanhaiya Lal Gond, General Secretary
Patan Bank Karmchari Sangh,
Sitaram Puram, Bahraich Road
Gonda (UP)-271001
AND
1.
The Chairman,
Devi Patan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, HO
508 Phoolvila Malviya Nagar
Gonda (UP) 271001
AWARD
1
By order No. L-12011/66/2002-IR(B-I) dated 29.04.2003 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the General Secretary, Devi Patan
Bank Karmchari Sangh, Gonda and the Chairman, Devi Patan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Gonda for adjudication.
2.
The reference under adjudication is:
“WHETHER THE DEMAND OF DEVI PATAN KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK KARMCHARI
SANGH, GONDA FOR PAYMENT OF ONE ADVANCE INCREMENT TO ALL THE EMPLOYEES
OF DEVI PATAN KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK AND (ii) FOR PAYMENT OF SPECIAL
ALLOWANCE TO COMPUTER OPERATORS OF THE SAID BANK, BOTH W.E.F. 1.4.2000 ON PAR
WITH THE NATIONALIZED COMMERCIAL BANK, IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF SO, WHAT
RELIEF THEY ARE ENTITLED FOR?”
3.
As per the claim statement W-4, workmen Union has stated in brief that the one advance increment to the
employees of the opposite party bank has not been sanctioned/paid whereas in accordance with Bipartite Settlement it
should have been sanctioned, the salary of the employees of Sponsor bank viz. Punjab National Bank were revised in
the light of 6th & 7th Bipartite Settlements. But the opposite party bank did not grant the pay scale due, between V & VI
II
(ii)
3177
Bipartite Settlement another settlement dated 19.10.1993 was arrived at between the concerned parties, the action of the
bank not allowing the increment is unjustified and illegal. Another issue by the petitioner is regarding special pay
payable to Computer Operators amounting to Rs.633/- in all computerized branches/offices, Computer operators have
been working on the computer, even then opposite party bank is not paying the due computer allowance. With the
aforesaid pleadings the petitioner has requested for payment of one advance increment to all the employees w.e.f.
01.11.1993 and special pay to computer operators from the date the said work was taken from those employees. As per
list A1-15 several documents have been enclosed by the petitioner.
4.
The opposite party bank has filed reply/statement A2-9/M-9 dated 22.07.2003 wherein allegations of the claim
statement have been denied and the Section 17 of the RRB Act has been quoted therein. The opposite party has asserted
that special increment to computer never existed on 31.03.2000. The benefit of computer allowance had been wrongly
given to the employees of the bank in April 2001 without proper clarifications. Moreover, the opposite party is not
competent authority to take decision on its own, it is a policy matter and it is implemented as per approval of the Central
Government. Similarly the demand for advance increment is also unjustified and illegal and beyond the perview of the
jurisdiction of the opposite party. It has also been emphasized that orders passed by Hon’ble High Court, Patna have
been challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding management of RRB, Ara and Gaya and the matter is
pending before Hon’ble Apex Court. The management has requested that the demand of petitioner is legally not tenable.
5.
The petitioner with strong denial of the written statement/reply has filed rejoinder A1-11 reiterating the pleas
taken in the claim statement. The management has filed several documents as per list C-12. Pendency of the aforesaid
matter before Hon’ble Supreme Court has also been referred by the opposite party before this Tribunal. However, any
direction/orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court have not been filed by the parties before this Tribunal.
6.
The petitioner Union for the concerned workman has not filed any affidavit or oral evidence in support of the
claim statement. Therefore, no evidence was adduced on behalf of the management as well.
7.
Despite the fact that several dates were given to both the parties and the case was fixed for hearing; arguments of
the workman Union or his Learned AR were not advanced rather they refrained themselves from appearing in this
Court. Arguments of Learned AR of the opposite party were heard at length and record has been scanned thoroughly.
8.
The case has been pending in the Court for more than 13 years. Petitioner Union has failed to file any affidavit or
oral evidence in support of its claim. Justification for sanction of one increment and special allowance to Computer
Operator has not been supported by any cogent evidence and valid justification. In such circumstances sanction of any
relief to the petitioner Union with regard to the demand referred by the Government, can not be sustained. Petitioner is
not entitled to any relief. However, it may be quite pertinent to mention here that any directions given by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court regarding the matter in issue, shall be binding on both the parties.
9.
Award as above.
LUCKNOW
02.05.2017
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
—
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2017
S.O. 1334.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bangalore 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 23.05.2017.
[No. L-12011/31/2013-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
3178
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 20.09.2016
PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
CR No. 38/2013
I Party
II Party
The Dy. Regional Secretary,
1. The Dy.General Manager & CDO, State Bank of India,
State Bank Staff’s Union (Karnataka),
Local Head Office, 65 St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560001
Administrative Unit,
2. The Asst.Gen. Manager(Admn), SBI, Administrative Unit,
Keshwapur,
Network II, TS Complex, Sholapur Road, Keshwapur,
HUBLI – 580 023
Hubli-58302
3. The Branch Manager, SBI, Sagar(G), Sahapur,
Yadgiri District – 585323
AWARD
1.
The Central Government vide Order No.L-12011/31/2013-IR(B-I) dated 22.07.2013 in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 has made
this reference for adjudication with following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the State Bank of India management initiating proceeding against union member for
taking case of non-member of union working in State Bank of India as casual is fair? To what relief the
union members entitled?”
2.
I party appeared, in person and presented the memo, dated 20.09.2016. It is clearly stated in the said memo as
follows:-
“The aforesaid dispute does not survive, because the proceedings initiated against the union member has been
dropped and no proceedings are pending against such union members. Accordingly, the first party does not press the
reference and same may be dismissed as not pressed to meet the ends of justice.”
3.
The contents of the said memo have been seen by the counsel for II party. No objection has been raised on
behalf of the II party also, to pass an award as per the memo mentioned details filed by the I party. Hence, the said,
memo is placed on record. In the circumstances, the reference is disposed of, as not pressed.
AWARD
In the result, the Reference is disposed of, as not pressed and the Award is passed accordingly.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 20.09.2016)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
—
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 24th May, 2017
S.O. 1335.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 117/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
II
(ii)
3179
Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western
Railway and their workman, received by the Central Government on 24.05.2017.
[No. L-41011/27/2012-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 21st April, 2017
Reference : (CGITA) No. 117/2012
1.
The General Manager,
Western Railway,
Churchgate, Mumbai
2.
The Dy. Mechnical Engineer (Loco),
Loco Carriage & Wagon Workshop,
Western Railway,
Dahod (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
The President,
General Workmen’s Union,
Sinduri Matta Devasthan, S.T. Nagar Road,
Godhra (Gujarat) – 389001
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri M.M. Makhija
For the Second Party
:
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-
41011/27/2012-IR(B-I) dated 17.08.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of the union, General Workmen’s Union, for payment of Provident Fund, gratuity with
interest and 2/3rd of family pension w.e.f. 20.10.1983 to Smt. Manguben Chandrabhan Singh Thakor W/o Late
Shri Chandrabhan Singh M. who was removed from service w.e.f. 20.10.1983, is legal and justified? To what
relief Smt. Thakor is entitled?”
1.
The reference dates back to 17.08.2012. After service to the parties, the second party submitted the statement of
claim Ex. 6 on 01.02.2013 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 9 and 10 on 16.07.2016 along with
documents vide list Ex. 11.
2.
Now today on 21.04.2017, Shri J.K. Ved, the President, General Workmen’s Union representing the second
party workman expressed unwillingness to prosecute the case and to withdraw the reference.
3.
Thus the reference is finally disposed of as withdrawn.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
—
3180
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 24th May, 2017
S.O. 1336.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western
Railway and their workman, received by the Central Government on 24.05.2017.
[No. L-41012/47/2006-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 27th April, 2017
Reference : (CGITA) No. 22/2007
1.
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway,
Pratapnagar, Baroda – 390004
2.
The Divisional Electrical Engineer (TRS),
Western Railway, Baroda Yard,
Baroda
…First Party
V/s
The Hon. President,
Genera Workmen’ Union,
Sinduri Mata Devasthan,
S.T. Nagar Road, P.O. Godhra,
Panchmahal (Gujarat) – 389001
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri Rajesh Singh Thakur
For the Second Party
:
Shri J.K. Ved (Union Representative)
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-
41012/47/2006-IR(B-I) dated 07.02.2007 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 Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Baroda
imposing penalty of lowering the basic salary from Rs. 4600 to Rs. 4200 for a period of six months with
cumulative effect is legal, proper and just? If not, to what relief the concerned workman Shri Farooq Ahmed G.
Shaikh is entitled to?”
1.
The reference dates back to 07.02.2007. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 12 on
07.10.2007 but today on 27.04.2017, Shri J.K. Ved, The Hon. President, General Workmen’ Union, has requested to
withdraw the reference.
II
(ii)
3181
2.
Hence the reference is dismissed as withdrawn.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
—
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 24th May, 2017
S.O. 1337.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 09/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western
Railway and their workman, received by the Central Government on 24.05.2017.
[No. L-41012/137/2007-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad,
Dated 27th April, 2017
Reference : (CGITA) No. 09/2011
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Railway,
Kalupur,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
The Divisional Secretary,
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad,
Shastri Pole,
Kothi,
Baroda (Gujarat) – 390001
…Second Party
For the First Party
:
Shri N.J. Acharya
For the Second Party
:
Shri R.S. Sisodia (Union Representative)
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-
41012/137/2007-IR(B-I) dated 06.01.2011 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the demand of Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad to give compassionate appointment to Shri
Rajeshbhai Dalsukhbhai, elder son of late Shri Dalsukhbhai Somabhai who died while in service on 20.02.1996
is legal, proper and just? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”
3182
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1.
The reference dates back to 06.01.2011. In response to the notice issued by the tribunal, the second party union
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad through it Secretary R.S. Sisodia submitted the statement of claim Ex. 6
alleging that the workman Dalsukhbhai Somabhai died while in service on 20.02.1996 and the second party union
Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad hereinafter referred to as union raised and submitted a charter of demand vide
letter 19.02.2007 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner Baroda where the conciliation proceedings were initiated
before the Conciliation Officer cum Assistant Commissioner of Labour but the conciliation proceedings failed. The
Conciliation Officer cum Assistant Commissioner of Labour referred the matter to the union Government which
referred the matter to this tribunal by way of this reference. It has been further alleged that the deceased workman
Dalsukhbhai Somabhai was appointed as Gang-man on 03.10.1978 and continued to service the first party till
20.02.1996 when he died in service. On 20.02.1996, his son Rajeshbhai Dalsukhbhai applied for compassionate
appointed in place of his father within 6 month of death of his father but the first party did not decide the application
despite in order. Therefore, he approaches the union. It is further alleged that the deceased workman Dalsukhbhai
Somabhai served the first party without any spot on his career. It has been further alleged that the widow of the
deceased workman remarried and submitted the no-objection in case the son of the deceased workman is appointed on
compassionate ground. It is further alleged that the first party did not appoint on compassionate ground in the garb of
circular dated 18.04.1984 wherein it is the condition precedent that the widow should not remarry. To this argument,
the second party has alleged that the application of the son of the deceased workman was not decided in time, therefore,
his widow under pressure and to this argument of the first party, the union has alleged that the aforesaid circular does
not apply in the case because the application for appointment on compassionate ground was applied in time and widow
at that point of time has submitted no objection then in such case, the appointment would have been made and the
circular was not hurdle in the appointment on compassionate ground as the applicant was the son of the deceased
workman. The union has also submitted the copy of the death certificate of the workman, application on compassionate
appointment etc.
2.
On 10.01.2014, the second party union moved an application Ex. 10 for amendment of the statement of claim
regarding the name of the son of the deceased workman to be read as “Rajeshbhai Dalsukhbhai” instead of Raheshbhai
Dalsukhbhai. Same was allowed.
3.
The first party submitted the vakalatpatra of his advocate on 28.04.2011 in response to the notice but did not
prefer to submit the written statement despite the fact that the advocate for the first party Shri N.J. Acharya used to
attend the tribunal on most of the dates. The first party given dozen of dates to submit the written statement but did not
prefer to submit the written statement, therefore, on 05.02.2016, the case was ordered to proceed on ex-parte.
4.
In support of the statement of claim Ex. 6, the second party union submitted the affidavit of Rajeshbhai
Dalsukhbhai on 10.03.2017 reiterating the averments made in the statement of claim which are unrebutted as the first
party did not prefer to file written statement as well as the affidavit.
5.
Thus in light of the evidence of the second party, the reference is disposed of with the observation as under: ”the
demand of Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad to give compassionate appointment to Shri Rajeshbhai Dalsukhbhai,
elder son of late Shri Dalsukhbhai Somabhai who died while in service on 20.02.1996 is legal, proper and just.”
6.
The first party is directed to give appointment at appropriate post considering the qualification of the applicant
son of the deceased workman within 60 days of the publication of the award.
7.
The award is passed accordingly.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
—
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 24th May, 2017
S.O. 1338.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
II
(ii)
3183
Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Northern
Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.05.2017.
[No. L-41012/12/2015-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 15/2015
Ref.No. L-41012/12/2015-IR(B-I) dated 20.04.2015
BETWEEN :
Sri Dinesh Chorasia
S/o Late Sri Ganesh Prasad,
548/197, Pal Atta Chakki, Surya Nagar
Rajajipuran
Lucknow-226017
AND
1.
The Divisional Railway Manager,
UttarNorthern Railway
New Delhi-11:0001
2.
The Divisional Railway Manager
Northern Railway,
DRM Office, Hazratganj
Lucknow
3.
M/s Shahid Faizan Ahmed & Brothers
654, Begum Ka Makbara
Janpad, Faizabad
AWARD
1.
By order No. L-41012/12/2015-IR(B-I) dated 20.04.2015 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the Sri Dinesh Chorasia S/o late Sri
Ganesh Prasad, Lucknow and the DRM, NR of Lucknow/New Delhi for adjudication.
2.
The reference under adjudication is:
“KYAN M/S SHAHID FAIZAN AHMED AND BROTHERS, FAIZABAD WA PRABANDHAN, UTTAR
RAILWAY, LUCKNOW DWARA SRI DINESH CHOURASIA S/O LATE SRI GANESH PRASAD KO
DINANK 25.1.2013 KO NAUKRI SE NIKALA JANA NYAYOCHIT EVAM VAIDH HAI? YADI
NAHIN TO VADI KIS RAHAT KO PAANE KA HAKDAR HAI?”
3.
The Schedule letter dated 20.04.2015 was received in this Court on 13.5.2015, ID case was registered
accordingly and notices through registered post were issued to both the parties. On the next date Learned AR Sri Siraj
Ahmed for the workman appeared in the court and filed his authority. Opportunity was given to submit claim statement.
On behalf of Northern Railway Sri U.K. Bajpai filed his authority. More than 12 days were given, several adjournment
applications were allowed but no claim statement was filed in the Court on behalf of the workman. On 18.10.2016,
20.12.2016,10.02.2017 and 17.02.2017, none appeared in the court for the workman.
4.
Learned AR for DRM, NR, Sri U.K. Bajpai submitted that the workman might not be interested to further
proceed with the case, and his grievance might have been redressed.
5.
Arguments of Learned AR of the management were heard at length, record available before the court was
perused. Despite being provided sufficient opportunity, the workman did not appear in the court on several dates,
neither any claim statement was filed on his behalf. Moreover further time was also not sought and no reason was
assigned by the Learned AR of the workman for not filing the claim statement. Learned AR for the management
vehemently argued that the petitioner workman is not entitled to any relief in this case, and the impugned order if any
passed by the management, is fully justified and legal.
3184
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.
After having heard the Learned AR of the management and perusal of the record, it is inferred that the legality or
validity of the alleged impugned order dated 25.01.2013 passed by the management by which the petitioner workman
was removed from his services, can not be adjudicated under such circumstances. The concerned workman is not
entitled to any relief.
7.
Award as above.
LUCKNOW
28.04.2017
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
—
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 24th May, 2017
S.O. 1339.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Jaipur Thar
Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.05.2017.
[No. L-12011/01/2013-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
I.D. 41/2013
Reference No.L-12011/01/2013-IR(B-I) dated: 30.7.2013
1.
The General Secretary
Jaipur Thar Gramin Bank Officers Union
K-103, Huddko Pratap Nagar,
Jodhpur
2.
The General secretary
Jaipur Thar Gramin Bank Karmachari Union,
K-103, Huddko Pratap Nagar,
Jodhpur.
V/s
The President
Jaipur Thar Gramin Bank
Head Office, Kissan Bhawan,
Lal Kothi, Tonk road,
Jaipur.
AWARD
30.3.2017
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:-
II
(ii)
3185
D;k t;iqj Fkkj xzkeh.k cSad] iz/kku dk;kZy;] t;iqj ds }kjk HksnHkko iw.kZ rjhds dks viukrs gq, VªkWliksVZ vykmUl dsoy
t;iqj] nkSlk] ukxkSj {ks= esa dk;Zjr dfeZ;ksa dks fn;k tkuk ,oa tks/kiqj] tSlyesj o ckMesj ftyksa esa dk;Zjr dfeZ;ksa dks ;g
HkRrk ugha fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ,oa U;k;laxr gS? ;fn ugha rks ;wfu;u fdl vuqrks"k dk vf/kdkjh gS \
2.
According to statement of claim dated 7.1.2014 submitted by General Secretary of the Union, briefly facts of the
case is that vide notification dated 25.2.2013 Marwar Gramin Bank and Jaipur Thar Gramin Bank have been
amalgamated. After amalgamation of above mentioned two banks the new bank in existence is called Marudhara
Gramin bank. Accordingly after amalgamation of the both banks new union of the workmen is known as “ Marudhara
Gramin Karamchari Union” and union of the officers of the bank is known as “ Marudhara Gramin Bank Officers
Union”.
3.
It has been further alleged that presently employees of Marwar Gramin Bank are paid transport allowance at the
rate of Rs.150/- per month and employees of Jaipur Nagore Gramin Bank are paid at the rate of Rs.65/- per month but
employees of Thar Anchalik Gramin Bank are not paid any amount in the name of transport allowance. It has been
further alleged that transport allowance should be paid in accordance with settlement of I.B.A., sponsoring bank and
direction of the Government of India.
4.
Finally, it has been prayed that looking into different rates of transport allowance existing among the employees
of different banks order be passed for payment of Rs.275/- per month to be paid to all the employees from the time of
first amalgamation in January, 2006 according to present settlement between SBBJ & IBA.
5.
From perusal of order sheet it shall appear that after filing statement of claim on 7.1.14 none has appeared from
applicant side till the last date on 28.3.2017. After 7.1.14, 18 dates have been fixed consecutively to different
proceedings in the cases but applicant has failed to appear on any subsequent date till 28.3.2017 to take part in further
proceeding to assist the tribunal for further proceeding in the case.
6.
Opposite party bank has appeared on 24.3.2014 and next date 9.6.14 has been fixed for filling reply but opposite
party. Applicant has been absent on 24.3.14. On 9.6.14 applicant was absent and learned representative for opposite
party appeared and alleged that applicant has not filed statement of claim in proper name of the parties as per reference
hence, opposite party has not been able to file reply to statement of claim. Opposite party further moved an application
on 9.6.14 against applicant to proceed ex-party against him because of continuous absence of applicant. The application
of opposite party was allowed on 9.6.14 and order was passed by tribunal that case shall proceed ex-parte against
applicant. Next date 16.6.14 was fixed for ex-parte hearing against applicant.
7.
On 16.6.14 adjournment of opposite party was allowed and next date 17.6.14 was fixed for ex-parte hearing
against applicant on 17.6.14. On 17.6.14 again none appeared for applicant. Learned representative for opposite party
appeared and alleged that change in reference is required. He alleged that in reference in place of “ Jaipur Thar Gramin
Bank” name of “ Marudhara Rajathan Gramin Bank” is to be mentioned because “ Jaipur Thar Gramin Bank” has been
merged with “ Marwar Gramin Bank” with new name “ Marudhara Gramin Bank” and “ Mewar Gramin Bank” has
been merged with “ Marudhara Gramin Bank” with new name “ Marudhara Rajasthan Gramin Bank”. Accordingly,
order was passed on 17.6.14 that notice be sent to applicant to take step for change of name of the bank in statement of
claim. Opposite party was directed to file notification of merger of banks so that step may be taken to bring change in
reference regarding change of name of banks.
8.
Till 8.3.2017 applicant neither appeared before tribunal nor took any step for corrigendum in reference or
amendment in statement of claim. A notice dated 8.3.2017 was sent to applicant which reads as under :-
lsok esa]
tujy lsdzsVªh]
t;iqj Fkkj xzkeh.k cSad deZpkjh ;wfu;u]
ds- 103] gqMdks izrki uxj] tks/kiqj ¼jkt-½
fo"k;%& CGIT Case No. 41/2013, t;iqj Fkkj xzkeh.k cSad deZpkjh ;wfu;u] tks/kiqj cuke nh izslhMsUV] t;iqj Fkkj xzkeh.k cSad] gsM
vkfQl] fdlku Hkou] yky dksBh] Vksd jksM] t;iqj ¼jkt-½ esa eqdnesa dh izxfr gsrq iSjoh ds laca/k esaA
egksn;]
mDr izdj.k bl U;k;kf/kdj.k esa fopkjk/khu py jgk gSA cSad dk uke cny x;k gS ftlds fy;s ;kfpdk esa lalks/ku vko’;d
gS vkSj ;kfpdk esa lalks/ku ds iwoZ fjQjsUl esa cSad dk uke Je ea=ky; ls lalksf/kr djkus gsrq ;kph i{k }kjk vko’;d dk;Zokgh djk;k
tkuk vko’;d gSA
fnukad 14-3-2014 dh rkjh[k ls ;kph i{k dh rjQ ls mDr ekeys esa vkxs dh dk;Zokgh ds fy, dksbZ mifLFkr ugha vk jgk gSA eqdnesa
esa vxyh frfFk fnukad 28-03-2017 fu;r gSA
3186
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vr% vki ls vuqjks/k gS fd fnukad 28-03-2017 dks Lo;a vFkok vius fu;qDr izfrfuf/k ds ek/;e ls mifLFkr gksdj eqdnesa esa
vkxs dh dk;Zokgh esa lfEefyr gksus rFkk eqdnesa dh izxfr ds fy, iSjoh djuk lqfuf’pr djus dk d"V djsaA ,slk u djus ij ekuk
tk;sxk fd vki dks eqdnesa esa vkxs dh izxfr esa dksbZ :fp ughs gSA eqdnesa dk fuLrkj.k rn~uqlkj vki dh vuqifLFkfr esa fof/k ds
vuq:i fd;k tk;sxkA
Hkonh;
¼gLrk{kj viBuh;½
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
dsUnzh; Je U;k;ky;]t;iqj
9.
Above notice has been served on applicant General Secretary of the union and acknowledgement is on record.
Applicant did not appear on 28.3.2017 as per direction in notice. On 28.3.2017 order was passed to stop further
proceeding in the case due to lack of interest of applicant side towards adjudication of the reference in question. In
above circumstance it is sufficiently clear that applicant is not interested in taking further step to have the reference
adjudicated. In absence of any evidence adduced by applicant I am of the view that applicant has failed to prove that
non payment of transport allowance by the bank to the employees of Jodhpur, Jaisalmer and Barmer district is unjust
and illegal. Statement of claim of the applicant is dismissed accordingly.
10.
Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
—
[
I
]
New Delhi, the 24th May, 2017
S.O. 1340.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Rail Wheel
Factory and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 23.05.2017.
[No. L-12025/01/2017-IR (B-I)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 26th April, 2017
PRESENT : Shri V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
ID No. 14/2013
I Party
II Party
Sri. Mahesh Kumar M,
1. The General Manager, Rail Wheel Factory,
S/o Late Mathaiah,
Yelahanka, Bangalore - 560106
Rail Wheel Factory,
2. The Assistant Personnel Officer,
Personnel Branch,
Manager’s Officer, Personnel Branch,
Yelahanka,
Rail Wheel Factory,
Bangalore – 560106
Yelahanka, Bangalore - 560106
Advocate for I Party :
Advocate for II Party: Mr. Ramesh Upadhyaya
M/s. Krishna. B & Geetha Krishna,
II
(ii)
3187
AWARD
1.
Brief details mentioned in the claim statement are as follows:—
The I Party Submits that, he is a graduate in B.com. The I Party states that, he joined the service as a Group – D
employee with the II Party Management w.e.f 15.08.2009 against a sanctioned post, on substantive capacity. The I
Party also states that, he has been removed from his service w.e.f. 28.05.2001. That on the very same day another order
date 28.05.2001 has been issued appointing the I Party Workman in the cadre of Peon in the grade of Rs. 5,200-
20,200/- and a copy of the same is produced as Annexure-A. The I Party states that a letter dated 13.05.2011 has also
been issued to the I Party workman informing him to report to duty on or before 23.04.2001 to complete the formalities
and a copy of the same is produced as Annexure-C. The I Party workman has completed 120 days of service and
accordingly, an order dated 02.11.2011 has been issued and granting temporary status w.e.f 12.09.2011 together with
pay scales attached to the post. The I Party states that, the I Party workman accepted the job as he has served as a peon
in the residential quarters allocated to Smt. Kusuma Hariprasad, with atmost diligence and devotion to work. It is also
relevant to mention that Smt. Kusuma Hariprasad, is married with one Sri. Prathap Reddy and she has got 2 small kids.
No timing is fixed and for 24 hours the workman has been discharging the duties as a Bungalow Peon and through out
his service, not even a single memo has been issued to the I Party and the un-blemished record of service is being
maintained by the I Party. Further, to the utter surprise, dismay and shock to the I Party workman, he has been served
with a show cause notice dated 02.03.2012 and a copy of the same is produced as Annexure-E. The II Party without
appreciating the reply offered by the I Party workman an Official Memorandum dated 19.04.2012 has been passed,
terminating the services of I Party workman and a copy of the same is produced as Annexure-G. The I Party offered his
reply dated 05.04.2012 stating that he reported to duty on 13.05.2012 but he has been thrown out of job by using, men
and muscle power. That refusal to allow the workman to discharge his duty is a worst kind of unfair labour practice as
defined under section 2(ra) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The orders of termination passed against the I Party
workman is grossly unjust and violative of Principles of Natural Justice in as much “NO DEFINITE FINDING OF
GUILT” has been recorded by way of conducting the enquiry. The I Party Submits that, the II Party Management
ought to have conducted an enquiry and ought to have granted, a reasonable and adequate opportunity to the I Party to
disprove the misconduct alleged against him. The I Party Workman has been engaged to serve the II Party
Management upto 31.12.2009 but he has been prematurely terminated. The policy of ‘Hiring and Firing’ adopted by
the II party, has to be deprecated. That non payment of retrenchment compensation together with orders of termination
is bad in law and such orders of termination have already been declared as “Void ab-initio”, according to the decisions
rendered by the various courts of this Country in the following cases:—
a) ILR 1996 Kar 1874 – SRA Kamat Vs KSRTC
b) AIR 1981 SC 1253 – Mohan Lal Vs BEL
c) AIR 1979 SC 75 – Hindustan Tin Works
d) 1990 (3) SCC Page 682 – Punjab Land
Smt. Kusuma Hariprasad, has uttered ugly words against the I Party workman against the caste he belongs. Keeping
this in mind and also to accommodate person of her choice the orders of termination has been passed. Hence, there is
bonafide exercise of powers. Without specifying the working hours, the I Party workman has been subjected to untold
misery and hardships. The I Party workman has been made to suffer, unreasonably without any “Rhyme or Reason”.
Therefore, the I Party Workman prays that this Court may be pleased to pass an award, directing the II Party
Management, to reinstate the I Party into his original post, with continuity of service, seniority, Promotion and full back
wages from the date of dismissal to till the date of Re-instatement and to grant all the consequential benefits, to meet
the ends of justice.
2.
Brief details mentioned in the Counter statement are as follows:—
The II Party states that, the I Party, based on his application (Annexure – R1) and as recommended by the
officer Smt. Kusuma Hariprasad, Dy.FA&Cao (Annexure – R2), has been engaged as Substitute Emergency Peon on
14.05.2011 (Annexure – R3). In Railways, due to arduous nature of duties and long hours spent in dealing with official
matters, there is a provision for Administrative Grade Officers to engage a person of their choice/confidence as
Emergency Peon to work in their Bungalow and to carry documents between Bungalow and office as may be needed.
There is a serious mis-behaviour committed on the part of the I Party workman and his service is grossly unsatisfactory.
Therefore, his services has been terminated, which is legal and good in law. Mere indicating the date of birth, date of
engagement or date of superannuation in pay slip does not mean one is permanent in service or his services could not be
terminated for good and sufficient reason. The application of the workman has been forwarded by the Officer on
17.01.2011 and offer of appointment has been issued on 13.05.2011, which has been accepted by the workman on
14.05.2011. The termination of service of the workman is done, for the violation of terms and conditions accepted by
3188
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
him, after following the procedures. It has been made clear to the workman before engaging him in the service on
contractual basis, that his services could be terminated if his service has been found to be unsatisfactory. The Officer
being educated and a Group ‘A’ Officer does not appreciate, the differentiating on caste and creed. The I Party
workman having been engaged on contractual basis, does not come under the purview of section 25-G of Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947. There are no merits in the application of the I Party workman. All other statements in the
application, which are not specifically traversed herein are denied as not correct.
3.
Brief details mentioned in the Rejoinder filed by I Party are as follows:—
The I Party states that he has been appointed accepting the terms and conditions appointment order dated
13.05.2011 and he has worked upto 19.04.2012, completing 240 days of service without any interruption. The I Party
workman has done the works like washing clothes, cleaning the floor, go to market and should be available on all 24
hours. The II Party Management ought to have conducted an enquiry and ought to have granted a reasonable and
adequate opportunity to the I Party workman to disprove the misconduct alleged against him. The I Party workman has
been served with a show cause notice dated 02.03.2012 inviting explanation, as to why his service as Substitute
Emergency Peon, should not be terminated. In response to the said show cause notice the I Party workman offered his
detailed and convincing reply on 05.04.2012 with a humble request to permit him to continue his services. But
unfortunately without appreciating the reply offered by the I Party workman, an Official Memorandum dated
19.04.2012, has been passed, terminating the services of I Party workman.
4.
In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, an important point arises for consideration, with regard to the
above mentioned matter, as follows:- “Whether II Party is justified in imposing the punishment of terminating the
service of I party/Sh. Mahesh Kumar M staff No.061049? If not, to what relief, the I party is entitled to get?”
5.
POINT :— The MW-1 namely the Chief Staff and Welfare Inspector, of II Party has admitted in his evidence
that the Emergency Peon, gets temporary status on satisfactory completion of 120 days from the initial date of
appointment. In the present case also as per Ex A-5 dated 02.11.2011, the I Party has been granted temporary status
with effect from 12.09.2011. Further, MW-1 has admitted that I Party has been appointed on 14.05.2011 and also MW-
1 has admitted that I Party has been granted temporary status on completion of 120 days w.e.f. 12.09.2011, as per
Ex A-5 filed by the I Party. Further, MW-1 has categorically admitted that I Party has been appointed in the vacancy
post and there is no practice of conducting medical examination before granting temporary status. However, the I Party
has been subjected to medical examination prior to engaging him as Substituted Emergency Peon and salary of the
Emergency Peon is paid by Government. Further, MW-1, also admitted that he is not aware as to whether Smt.
Kusuma Hariprasad has been examined regarding unauthorised absence from duty, committed by the I Party and no
enquiry has been conducted regarding allegation made against the I Party and only Smt. Kusuma Hariprasad can answer
as to whether she has denied to give work for I Party. On the other hand, I Party has clearly stated in his evidence that
without verifying the allegation and without conducting any enquiry and also without recording any finding of guilt, the
II Party has terminated the service of I Party workman and it is clear case of unfair labour practice and also, violation of
principle of natural justice. Further, the evidence of MW-1 is also not clear to the effect that I Party has been
terminated by following the principle of natural justice and also, the allegation has been proved as per the principles of
preponderance of probability.
6.
Further, out in the judgment relied on behalf of the II Party and reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 1933,
(Before Mr. Justice. N. Santhosh Hegde and Mr. Justice. S.B. Sinha), Civil Appeal Nos. 4868 with 4869 of 1999, dated
03.03.2005, in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs S.G. Kotturappa and another, it
is held as follows only:- “Termination of Service – Badli worker, has no statutory status/right – His termination for
unsatisfactory work, that too, with opportunity given for improvements – Not invalid or violative of S.25-F of I.D.
Act.” And also in the judgment reported in (2009) 17 Supreme Court Cases 473, (Before Mr. Justice. Dr. Ajith Pasayat
and Mr. Justice. A.K. Ganguly), in the case of Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Vs T.V. Anandappa, Civil Appeal
No. 2589 of 2009, decided on April 16, 2009, it is held as follows only:- “Badli Worker – Protection under Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 – Held, not available.” Further, out in the judgment relied on behalf of II Party and reported in AIR
1999 Supreme Court 1958 (1), (Before Ms. Justice. Sujata, Mr. Justice. V. Manohar, Mr. Justice. D. P Mohapatra and
Mr. Justice. R.C Lajoti), Civil Appeal No. 711 of 1983 dated 14.05.1999, in the case of N.S.Giri Vs The Corporation of
City of Mangalore and others, it is held as follows only:- “Industrial Dispute Act (14 of 1947), S.10A- Award of
Industrial Tribunal enforcement of Award enhancing age of superannuation to 58 years - Inconsistent with statutory
provisions governing service conditions – cannot be enforced.” However, it is found that as per Ex A-5, the II Party has
clearly pointed out that the I Party is eligible for privileges like annual increment, leave (CL/LAP/LHAP), pass/PTO,
HRA, Medical benefits etc., as admissible to temporary Railway Servants with effect from 12.09.2011 on grant of
temporary status and also, the II Party has not established that, the I Party has been terminated for good and sufficient
reason and hence, the above mentioned citations filed on behalf of II Party are not applicable to the present case for the
special facts and peculiar circumstances and also for the unique details mentioned herein above.
II
(ii)
3189
7.
It is well settled by the catena of decisions that labour laws being beneficial pieces of legislation are to be
interpreted in favour of the beneficiaries in case of doubts. The II Party cannot make submission in an aprobate or
reprobate manner. It is obligatory on the part of the tribunal to consider the entire materials on record and to give a
finding on several contentions urged by both the parties. The Tribunal has to discharge its statutory function in terms of
the Industrial Dispute Act, based upon the facts and circumstances of the present case only. Further, it is also evident,
from the close reading of the facts and situations mentioned above, that the I Party is entitled to get the full
reinstatement, relief as prayed for in the claim statement.
8.
Further, the awarding of reinstatement does not amount to automatic conferment of back wages as held in 2009
(4) LLJ 667 (SC) Malla C.N. Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir & others. Awarding of back wages, depend upon other
factors and circumstances. The I Party has pointed out in the claim statement that the I Party has been thrown out of
employment and is facing hardship. In the affidavit also, the I Party has stated that with no financial income he is
facing great hardship. However, the claim of the workman that he is entitled for the full back wages, cannot be
considered, having regard to fact that the I Party has not performed any work for II Party from 19.04.2012 to till date,
namely, for more than 5 long years, and also, in order to balance the interest of both the parties, this Court is of the
considered opinion that in the facts and situation of the present case, 50% back wages only can be granted to the I Party.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and long gap from the date of dismissal of I Party, from 19.04.2012 to till
date, it is seen that granting of 50% back wages would be adequate.
9.
Further, AW-1, namely the I Party has clearly stated in his evidence that he has no other avocation in life except
employment with II Party and from the date of dismissal from service i.e., on 19.04.2012 to till date he is not gainfully
employed elsewhere and he could not get employment elsewhere. Further, AW-1 has categorically stated that it is not
true to suggest that he himself stopped coming to the work from 13.02.2012 and I Party has been thrown out of his job
without following the principles of natural justice. Further in the judgment relied upon on behalf of I Party and
reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 75, (1978 LAB I.C. 1667), (Before Mr. Justice. V.R. Krishna Iyer, Mr. Justice.
D.A. Desai and Mr. Justice. O. Chinnappa Reddy) in the case of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs The
Employees of M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. and others,Civil Appeal No. 656 of 1978, dated 07.09.1978, it is held
as follows:- “When the Industrial unit concerned is looking up and has started making profits, and the workmen have
already been reinstated and they have started earning their wages, in view of the fact that the unit has still not cleared its
accumulated loss and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the award not of full back wages but 75
percent, thereof will be appropriate.” However, in the judgment relied on behalf of the I Party himself and also
reported in ILR 1996 KAR 1874, Mr. Justice. Kumar Rajaratnam, in the case of S. Rathnakar Amrith Kamath Vs
K.S.R.T.C, it has been held as follows:- “Industrial Dispute Act (Central Act No. 14 of 1947) Sections 2(s) & 25-F
workman’s removal from service without complying with section 25-F, held, illegal-having suffered a long litigation,
held, entitled not only continuity of service but with 50% of back-wages.” Accordingly it is found that in the above
mentioned facts and circumstances the I Party is entitled to get 50% back wages from the date of termination namely
19.04.2012 to till the date of reinstatement.
10.
In the light of the above mentioned facts and situations, this Court is awarding 50% back wages from the date of
order of dismissal, and also, on the careful appreciation of the submissions made in the statements, and also, the oral
and documentary evidences adduced by both the Parties, I Party is ordered to be reinstated with the benefit of continuity
of service and other consequential benefits that he would have received in the absence of the impugned penalty of
removal from service, but with 50% of back wages. However, the workman/I Party is entitled for continuity of service
for the other purposes. For the above mentioned facts and circumstances and situation, it is found that the I
Party/Workman is entitled for re-instatement, with benefit of continuity of service and other consequential benefits that
he would have received, in the absence of the impugned penalty of removal from service, but with back wages of 50%,
for the above mentioned peculiar reasons. There shall be continuity of service. Thus, the point is answered,
accordingly.
AWARD
The II Party is not justified in imposing the punishment of Terminating the services of I Party/Sh. Mahesh
Kumar M and the said II Party is directed to reinstate I Party with the benefit of continuity of service and
other consequential benefits, that he would have received in the absence of the impugned penalty of
Terminating the services of I party, but with 50% back wages, and the present reference is ordered
accordingly, without costs, for the above mentioned peculiar facts and special circumstances of the present
matter.
(Dictated, transcribed, corrected and signed by me on 26th April, 2017)
V. S. RAVI, Presiding Officer
3190
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 27, 2017/JYAISTHA 6, 1939
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
List of Witness on the side of I Party:
AW 1
Sh. Mahesh Kumar M, I Party/ workman
List of Witness on the side of II Party:
MW 1
Sh. Narasimha Murthy, Chief Staff and Welfare Inspector
Exhibit marked on behalf of I Party:
Exhibits
Date
Description of Document
Ex A-1
19.04.2012
Memorandum issued by II Party to I Party workman
Ex A-2
05.04.2012
Explanation to the show cause notice from I Party to Smt.
Kusuma Hariprasad
Ex A-3
05.05.2011
Letter issued for Medical Examination from Rail Wheel
Factory General Manager’s Office Personnel Department
Ex A-4
13.05.2011
Engagement of Substitute Emergency peon to Smt. Kusuma
Hariprasad
Ex A-5
02.11.2011
Memorandum granting temporary status issued by II Party
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-11:0064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-11:0054.
ALOK KUMAR
Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2017.06.14 14:46:39 +05'30'