3287 GI/2017

(3191)

jftLVªh la

(,u) 04@0007@2003µ05

REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

]

ubZ fnYyh]

ebZ

—

twu

] 2017] 'kfuokj@

T;s

—

T;s

] 193

No. 22]

NEW DELHI, MAY 28—JUNE 3, 2017, SATURDAY/ JYAISTHA 7—JYAISTHA 13, 1939

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

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

Hkkx

II—

[k.M 3—

mi&[k.M (ii

)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

fons'k ea=kky;

(lh

izHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 17 ebZ

] 2017

1341

—

jktuf;d vkSj dksalqyh; vf/dkjh ('kiFk ,oa iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948

(1948 dk 41)

dh /kjk 2 ds

[akM (d) ds vuqlj.k esa oSèkkfud vkns'k A

,rn~}kjk] dsaæ ljdkj Hkkjr ds nwrkokl] eLdr

esa Jh n'kZu ¯lg usxh] lgk;d vuqHkkx vf/dkjh dks fnukad

17 ebZ] 2017

ls lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds rkSj ij dksalqyj lsokvksa ds fuoZgu ds fy, izkfèkd`r djrh gS A

¹la

Vh&4330@0

1@201

izdk'k pUn]

funs

(dksalqyj)

3192

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 3, 2017/JYAISTHA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2017

S.O. 1341.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Darshan Singh Negi,

Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Embassy of India, Muscat to perform the Consular services

with effect from 17th May, 2017.

[No. T-4330/01/2016]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

भारी उद्योग और लोक उद्यम मंत्रालय

(भारी उद्योग विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 27 फरिरी, 2017

का.आ. 1342.—सािवजवनक पररसर (अनविकृत रहने िालों की बेिखली) अविवनयम, 1971 (1971 का 40) की िारा 3 के

द्वारा प्रित्त शवियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार एतिद्वारा नीचे िी गई सारणी के कॉलम-I में उवल्लवखत अविकाररयों को,

राजपवत्रत अविकारी के समकक्ष होने के नाते, उि अविवनयम के प्रयोजनों के वलए संपिा अविकारी वनयुि करती है, जो प्रित्त शवियों

का प्रयोग करेंगे और उि सारणी के कॉलम-2 में विवनर्िवष्ट सािवजवनक पररसरों के संबंि में अपने अविकार-क्षेत्र की संपिाओं के संबंि में

कत्तव्य

ों का पालन करेंगे।

अविकारी का नाम ि पिनाम

सािवजवनक पररसरों के िगव तथा अविकार-क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमाएं

श्री स्िरूप लाल वमत्रा, प्रबंिक (आंतररक लेखा

परीक्षा एिं सवचिालय), एण्ड्रू यूल कंपनी

वलवमटेड,

डॉ.

राजेन्द्र

प्रसाि

सरणी,

कोलकाता-700001

i).

वहन्द्िुस्तान केबल्स वलवमटेड, रूपनारायणपुर इकाई, एचसीएल, क्षेत्रीय

कायावलय, 116ए, रास वबहारी एिेन्द्यू, कोलकाता-700029 से संबंवित

पररसर।

ii).

315, जोिपुर पाकव, कोलकाता-700068 वस्थत पररसर

iii). गोल्फ ललंक अपाटवमेंट्स, 50 चााँिीतला लेन, कोलकाता–700040 (ओ. जे.

फ्लैट सं. ई-1, ई-2 और एल-2) वस्थत चार फ्लैटस

iv). मशीन टूल्स िर्कसव, पी.ओ. नरेन्द्रपुर-700103 वस्थत पररसर।

v).

हैिराबाि इकाई, पी.ओ. हैिराबाि केबल्स, हैिराबाि-500051 से संबंवित

सभी पररसर/फ्लैट।

vi). जूही हाउलसंग स्कीम, इलाहाबाि वस्थत पांच फ्लैट (फ्लैट सं. 68, 36, 45,

46 और 38) तथा इलाहाबाि वस्थत एचसीएल की नैनी इकाई से संबंवित

अविपथ आिास योजना, इलाहाबाि में िो फ्लैट (फ्लैट सं. ए-17 और ए-19)

vii). क्षेत्रीय कायावलय, नई दिल्ली, ए-40, रंजीत लसंह ब्लॉक, एवशयन गेम्स

विलेज, नई दिल्ली-110049 वस्थत पररसर।

[फा. सं.1(12)/2008-पीई-II]

एल. सी. राम, अिर सवचि

MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRY AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES

(Department of Heavy Industry)

New Delhi, the 27th February, 2017

S.O. 1342.—In exercise if the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction if Unauthorised

Occupants Act, 1971 (40 of 1971, the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column 1 of the

(ii)

3193

Table below, being office, equivalent to rant of gazetted officer of Government, to be an Estate Officer for the purpose

of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estates of his

jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in column 2 of he said Table in supersession of all previous

notifications issued in regard to Hindustan Cables Limited.

Name & Designation of the officer

Categories of public premises and local limits of jurisdiction

Shri Swarup Lal Mitra, Manager,

(Internal Audit and Secretarial) of Andrew

Yule Company Limited, Kolkata

Premises belonging to the undertaking of Hindustan Cables Ltd.,

Rupnarainpur Unit Township as well as premises of HCL,

Regional Office, Kolkata.

ii)

Premises at 315, Jodhpur Park, Kolkata-700068

iii)

4 Flats (Flat Nos. J.O., E-1, E-2 and L-2) at Golf Link

Apartments, 50 Chanditala Lane, Kolkata-700040.

iv)

Machine Tool Works, P.O. Narendrapur-700103.

All premises/Flats belonging to Hyderabad Unit, P.O. Hyderabad

Cables, Hyderabad-500051

vi)

Five Flats (Flat nos. 68,36,45,46 and 38) at Juhi Housing Scheme,

Allahabad and 2 Flats (Flat nos. A-17, and A-19) at Agnipath

Awas Yojna, Allahabad belonging to Naini Unit of HCL at

Allahabad.

vii)

Premises at Regional Office, New Delhi, A-40, Ranjit Singh

Block, Asian Games Village, New Delhi-110049.

[F. No. 1(12)/2008-PE-II]

L. C. RAM, Under Secy.

नागर विमानन मंत्रालय

नई दिल् ली, 22 मई, 2017

का.आ. 1343.—इस मंत्रालय के दिनांक 06.08.2012 की अविसूचना सं. एिी-24011/3/2011-एएआई के क्रम में, केंर

सरकार एतिद्वारा श्री एस. सुरेश को सिस् य (वि्‍ त), भारतीय विमानप्‍ तन प्राविकरण के पि पर उनके कायवकाल को िेतनमान रुपये

75,000-1,00,000/- में, 31.07.2017 से आगे 31.03.2020 तक, अथावत उनकी सेिावनिृवत्त की तारीख, अथिा आगामी आिेशों तक,

जो पहले हो, तक बढ़ाया जाता है।

[फा. सं. एिी-24011/22/2016-एएआई-मोका]

पी. जे. थॉमस, अिर सवचि

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

New Delhi, the 22nd May, 2017

S.O. 1343.—In continuation of this Ministry’s Notification No.AV-24011/3/2011-AAI dated 06.08.2012, the

Central Government hereby extend the tenure of Shri S. Suresh as Member (Finance), Airports Authority of India in the

scale of pay of Rs.75,000-1,00,000/- beyond 31.07.2017 till 31.03.2020, i.e. the date of his superannuation, or until

further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. AV-24011/22/2016-AAI-MOCA]

P. J. THOMAS, Under Secy.

3194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 3, 2017/JYAISTHA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh]

ebZ

] 2017

1344

—

Hkkjr ds jk

"Vªifr] ,vj bafM;k fyfeVsM ds daiuh fu;e ds vuqPNsn 98 esa iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq,] fuEufyf[kr nks O;fDr;ksa dks bl vf/lwpuk ds tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls 3 o"kks± dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok vkxkeh vkns'kksa rd] t

Hkh igys gks] ,vj bafM;k fyfeVsM ds fu

ns'kd eaMy esa va'kdkfyd xSj&ljdkjh funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrs gSa A

(

)

Jh vkj

R;kxh] iwoZ vè;{k] ¯gnqLrku ,;jksukWfVDl fyfeVsM

(

)

Jh lbZn ”kiQj bLyke] iwoZ izca/ funs'kd] M;w'k cSad

¹la

,oh

18013

@20

07&,vkbZ

paæ fd

'kksj 'kqDyk

]

voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 31st May, 2017

S.O. 1344.—In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 98 of the Articles of Association of the Air

India Limited, the President is pleased to appoint the following two persons as part-time non-official Director on the

Board of Air India Limited for a period of 3 years from the date of issue of this Notification or until further orders,

whichever event occurs earlier.

(i)

Shri R. K. Tyagi, Ex-Chairman, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited

(ii)

Shri Syed, Zafar Islam, Ex MD, Deutsche Bank

[No. AV-18013/007/2007-AI]

CHANDRA KISHORE SHUKLA, Under Secy.

मानि संसािन विकास मंत्रालय

(स्कूल वशक्षा और साक्षरता विभाग)

(एनएलएम-IV अनुभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 31 मई, 2017

का.आ. 1345.—भारत सरकार की दिनांक 20.11.2013 की अविसूचना सं.-एफ-46-3/2008-एई-4/एनएलएम-IV द्वारा

गरित राष्ट्रीय साक्षरता वमशन प्राविकरण (एनएलएमए) की कायवकारी सवमवत की कायाविवि समाप्त होने और भारत सरकार के दिनांक

20.06.1988 के संकल्प सं. एफ 9-5/87-एई-1 (दिनांक 13.12.1994 के संकल्प सं. एफ 9-18/94-एई-1, दिनांक 21.04.1997 के

संकल्प सं. एफ 9-7/97-एई-1, दिनांक 02.09.2004 के संकल्प सं. एफ 14-2/2004-एई-1 के द्वारा आगे और संशोवित) के पैरा 4 में

प्र्‍यायोवजत शवियों का प्रयोग करते हुए सक्षम प्राविकारी के अनुमोिन से यह वनणवय वलया गया है दक वनम्नवलवखत सिस्यों के साथ

कायवकारी सवमवत को पुनगवरित दकया जाए।

क.

सवचि,

अध्यक्ष

स्कूल वशक्षा और साक्षरता विभाग,

मानि संसािन विकास मंत्रालय,

भारत सरकार,

नई दिल्ली

ख.

पिेन-सिस्य

सवचि,

स्िास््य एिं पररिार कल्याण विभाग,

स्िास््य एिं पररिार कल्याण मंत्रालय,

भारत सरकार

(ii)

3195

सवचि,

ग्रामीण विकास विभाग,

ग्रामीण विकास मंत्रालय,

भारत सरकार

सवचि,

पंचायती राज विभाग,

पंचायती राज मंत्रालय.

भारत सरकार

सवचि,

मवहला तथा बाल विकास मंत्रालय,

भारत सरकार

सवचि,

युिा कायवक्रम विभाग,

युिा कायवक्रम और खेल मंत्रालय

भारत सरकार

सवचि,

खेल-कूि विभाग,

युिा कायवक्रम और खेल मंत्रालय

भारत सरकार

सवचि,

सामावजक न्द्याय तथा अविकाररता मंत्रालय,

भारत सरकार

सवचि,

कृवि सहकाररता तथा दकसान कल्याण विभाग,

कृवि एिं दकसान कल्याण मंत्रालय,

भारत सरकार

सवचि,

पशुपालन, डेयरी और म्‍स्य पालन विभाग,

कृवि एिं दकसान कल्याण मंत्रालय,

भारत सरकार

10.

संयुि सवचि तथा वित्तीय सलाहकार,

मानि संसािन विकास मंत्रालय,

भारत सरकार,

नई दिल्ली

11.

सलाहकार (वशक्षा),

नीवत आयोग,

भारत सरकार,

नई दिल्ली

12.

अध्यक्ष,

राष्ट्रीय मुि वशक्षा संस्थान (एनआईओएस), नोएडा, (यू.पी.)

3196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 3, 2017/JYAISTHA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13.

वनिेशक,

प्रौढ़ वशक्षा वनिेशालय (डीएई),

नई दिल्ली

ग.

गैर-आविकाररक सिस्य

कुलपवत, इंदिरा गांिी राष्ट्रीय मुि विश्वविद्यालय (इिू), नई दिल्ली

कायवक्रम सलाहकार, राष्ट्रीय सेिा योजना (एनएसएस)

घ.

राज्य संसािन केन्द्रों (4) के प्रवतवनवि

वनिेशक, एसआरसी, केरल

वनिेशक, एसआरसी, दिसपुर, असम

वनिेशक, एसआरसी, तवमलनाडु

वनिेशक, एसआरसी, इंिौर, मध्य प्रिेश

ड.

जन वशक्षण संस्थाओं (3) के प्रवतवनवि

वनिेशक, जेएसएस, वचत्रकूट, उ.प्र.

वनिेशक, जेएसएस, जोरहाट, असम

वनिेशक, जेएसएस, गोिा

च.

एसएलएमए (5) के सिस्य/सवचि

सिस्य सवचि, एसएलएमए, आंध्र प्रिेश

सिस्य सवचि, एसएलएमए, राजस्थान

सिस्य सवचि, एसएलएमए, उत्तर प्रिेश

सिस्य सवचि, एसएलएमए, वबहार

सिस्य सवचि, एसएलएमए, हररयाणा

छ.

सिस्य सवचि

संयुि सवचि तथा पिेन महावनिेशक,

राष्ट्रीय साक्षरता वमशन प्राविकरण,

स्कूल वशक्षा और साक्षरता विभाग,

मानि संसािन विकास मंत्रालय

कायवकारी सवमवत का कायवकाल इस अविसूचना की तारीख से िो ििव की अिवि के वलए होगा।

कायवकारी सवमवत के गैर-आविकाररक सिस्य, कायवकारी सवमवत की बैिक में भाग लेने के वलए हिाई यात्रा (इकोनॉमी र्कलास)

के पात्र होंगे।

[सं.एफ. 46-3/2008-एई-4/एनएलएम-4]

जुगलाल लसंह, उप सवचि

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of School Education and Literacy)

(NLM-IV Section)

New Delhi, the 31st May, 2017

S.O. 1345.—On expiry of the term of the Executive Committee of the National Literacy Mission Authority

(NLMA) constituted vide Government of India’s Notification No. F-46-3/2008-AE-4/NLM-IV dated 20-11-2013 and

in exercise of powers delegated in para 4 of Government of India Resolution No. F.9-5/87-AE-I dated 20.06.1988

(modified further vide Resolution No. F.9-18/94-AE-1 dated 13-12-1994, F.9-7/97-AE-1 dated 21-4-1997, F.14-

2/2004-AE-1 dated 2-9-2004), it has been decided with the approval of the Competent Authority to reconstitute the

Executive Committee with the following members.

(ii)

3197

A. Secretary,

Chairperson

Department of School Education & Literacy

Ministry of Human Resource Development,

Government of India,

New Delhi

B. Ex-Officio Members

1. Secretary,

Department of Health & Family Welfare,

Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,

Government of India.

2. Secretary,

Department of Rural Development,

Ministry of Rural Development,

Government of India.

3. Secretary,

Department of Panchayati Raj,

Ministry of Panchayati Raj,

Government of india.

4. Secretary,

Ministry of Women & Child Development,

Government of India,

5. Secretary,

Department of Youth Affairs,

Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports,

Government of India,

6. Secretary,

Department of Sports,

Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports,

Government of India,

7. Secretary,

Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment,

Government of India,

8. Secretary,

Department of Agriculture Cooperation & Farmers Welfare

Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare,

Government of India,

9. Secretary,

Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries,

Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare

Government of India,

10. Joint Secretary & Financial Adviser,

Ministry of Human Resource Development

Government of India,

New Delhi

11. Adviser (Education),

Niti Aayog,

Government of India,

New Delhi

3198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 3, 2017/JYAISTHA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12. Chairman,

National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS), Noida, (U.P.)

13. Director,

Directorate of Adult Education (DAE),

New Delhi

C. Non-Official Members

1. Vice-Chancellor, Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU),

New Delhi.

2. Programme Adviser, National Service Scheme (NSS),

Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, New Delhi

D. Representatives of States Resource Centres (4)

1. Director, SRC, Kerala

2. Director, SRC, Dispur, Assam

3. Director, SRC, Tamilnadu.

4. Director, SRC, Indore, Madhya Pradesh

E. Representatives of Jan Shikshan Sansthans (3)

1. Director, JSS, Chitrakoot, U.P.

2. Director, JSS, Jorhat, Assam

3. Director, JSS, Goa.

F. Members/Secretaries of SLMAs. (5)

1. Member Secretary, SLMA, Andhra Pradesh.

2. Member Secretary, SLMA, Rajasthan.

3. Member Secretary, SLMA, Uttar Pradesh.

4. Member Secretary, SLMA, Bihar.

5. Member Secretary, SLMA, Haryana.

G. Member Secretary

Joint Secretary (AE) & Ex-officio Director General,

National Literacy Mission Authority,

Department of School Education & Literacy,

Ministry of Human Resource Development.

The term of the Executive Committee will be for a period of two years from the date of this Notification.

The Non-official Members of the Executive Committee shall be entitled to travel by air (Economy Class) to

attend the Executive Committee Meeting.

[No. F. 46-3/2008-AE-4/NLM-4]

JUGLAL SINGH, Dy. Secy.

dks;yk ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 2 twu] 2017

1346

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd blls mikc) vuqlwph esa mfYyf[kr ifj{ks= dh Hkwfe ls

dks;yk vfHkizkIr gksus dh laHkkouk gS;

(ii)

3199

vkSj] js[kkad la[;k ,lbZLkh,y@ch,lih@th,e¼ih,yth½@Hkwfe@511] rkjh[k 12 vizSy] 2017 dk ftlesa mDr

vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe {ks= ds C;kSjs vUrfoZ"V gS] fujh{k.k dyDVj] ftyk lqjtiqj ¼NRrhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk

fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkÅl LVªhV] dksydkrk & 700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k lkÅFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM ¼jktLo

vuqHkkx½] lhir jksM] fcykliqj&495006 ¼NÙrhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gS;

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa

blds i”pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr “kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] iwoksZDr

vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa dks;ys dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk”k; dh lwpuk nsrh gSA

mijksDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrcn~/k dksbZ O;fDr] bl vf/klwpuk ds jkti= esa izdk”ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs

fnu dh vof/k ds Hkhrj Hkkjlk/kd vf/kdkjh ;k foHkkxk/;{k ¼jktLo½] lkÅFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lhir jksM]

fcykliqj&495006 ¼NRrhlx<+½ ls &

¼i½

laiw.kZ Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k mlds Åij fdlh vf/kdkj ds vtZu ij vk{ksi dj ldsxk( ;k

¼ii½

mDr vf/klwpuk dh /kkjk 4 dh mi &/kkjk ¼3½ ds v/khu dh xbZ fdlh dkjZokbZ ls gqbZ ;k lEHkor% gksus okyh fdlh

{kfr ds fy;s vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 ds v/khu izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk( ;k

¼iii½

mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa ds izHkkoghu gksus ds laca/k esa ;k mDr

vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ ds v/khu [kuu iV~Vs izHkkoghu gksus ds fy;s izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk

vkSj mls mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼i½ ls [kaM ¼iv½ esa fofufnZ"V enksa dh Ckkcr mixr

O;; dks minf’kZr djus ds fy;s iwoksZDr Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr lHkh ekufp=ksa] pkVksZa vkSj vU; nLrkostksa dks ifjnRr dj

ldsxkA

vuqlwph

egkek;k vkslhih ¼lsa/kksikjk&AA Cykd½] HkVxkao {ks=]

ftyk& lqjtiqj ¼NRrhlx<+½

[ js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e¼ih,yth½@Hkwfe@511] rkjh[k 12 vizSy] 2017]

¼d½ jktLo Hkwfe%

Øe

la-

xzke dk uke

xzke la[;k

rglhy

ftyk

{ks=]

gsDVj esa

fVIif.k;ka

cjkS/kh

178

HkS;kFkku

lqjtiqj

54-810

Hkkx

tjgh

103

izrkiiqj

lqjtiqj

67-460

Hkkx

lsU/kksikjk

izrkiiqj

lqjtiqj

33-660

Hkkx

nqjrh

jktiqj

lqjtiqj

79-800

Hkkx

dqy % 235-730 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 582-49 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

¼[k½ vkjf{kr ou Hkwfe%

Øe

la-

dEikVZesaV

la[;k

jsat

fMohtu

{ks=] gsDVj esa

fVIif.k;ka

ih 1680

izrkiiqj

lqjtiqj

9-200

Hkkx

ih 1681

izrkiiqj

lqjtiqj

21-720

Hkkx

dqy % 30-920 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 76-40 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

dqy ;ksx¼d$[k½¾266-650 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½

;k 658-89 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½

3200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 3, 2017/JYAISTHA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

lhek o.kZu%

Cykd &

d1&[k1&x1

js[kk fcUnq *d1* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke cjkS/kh ds e/; Hkkx] fcUnq *[k1* ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq *x1*

ij feyrh gSA

x1&?k1

js[kk fcUnq *x1* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke cjkS/kh ds nf{k.kh Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq *?k1* ij feyrh

gSA

?k1&³1

js[kk fcUnq *?k1* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke tjgh ds iwohZ Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq *³1* ij feyrh gSA

³1&p1

js[kk fcUnq *³1* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke tjgh vkSj cjkS/kh ds mRrjh Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq *p1* ij

feyrh gSA

p1&N1&t1

js[kk fcUnq *p1* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke cjkS/kh ds e/; Hkkx] fcUnq *N1* ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq *t1* ij

feyrh gSA

t1&d1

js[kk fcUnq *t1* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke cjkS/kh ds e/; Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq *d1* ij

feyrh gSA

Cykd &

d2&[k2

js[kk fcUnq *d2* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke tjgh ds nf{k.kh Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq *[k2* ij feyrh

gSA

[k2&x2

js[kk fcUnq *[k2* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke tjgh ds nf{k.kh Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq *x2* ij feyrh

gSA

x2&?k2

js[kk fcUnq *x2* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj vkjf{kr ou dEikVZesaV la[;k 1680] xzke nqjrh ds nf{k.kh Hkkx

ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq *?k2* ij feyrh gSA

?k2&³2&p2

js[kk fcUnq *?k2* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke nqjrh ds nf{k.kh Hkkx] fcUnq *³2*] vkjf{kr ou dEikVZesaV

la[;k 1680 ds mRrjh Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq *p2* ij feyrh gSA

p2&N2

js[kk fcUnq *p2* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke tjgh ds nf{k.kh Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq *N2* ij feyrh gSA

N2&d2

js[kk fcUnq *N2* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke tjgh ds nf{k.kh Hkkx ls gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq *d2* ij

feyrh gSA

Cykd &

III

d3&[k3

js[kk fcUnq *d3* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke lsa/kksikjk ds mRrjh] vkSj xzke nqjrh ds e/; Hkkx ls xqtjrh

gqbZ fcUnq *[k3* ij feyrh gSA

[k3&x3

js[kk fcUnq *[k3* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke nqjrh ds e/; Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq *x3* ij feyrh gSA

x3&?k3

js[kk fcUnq *x3* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke nqjrh ds e/; Hkkx vkSj xzke lsa/kksikjk ds mRrjh Hkkx ls

xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq *?k3* ij feyrh gSA

?k3&³3&p3

js[kk fcUnq *?k3* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke lsa/kksikjk ds mRrjh Hkkx] fcUnq *³3* ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq *p3*

ij feyrh gSA

p3&N3&t3

js[kk fcUnq *p3* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke lsa/kksikjk ds mRrjh Hkkx] fcUnq *N3* ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq *t3*

ij feyrh gSA

t3&d3

js[kk fcUnq *t3* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke lsa/kksikjk&diljk ds Hkkxr% lfEefyr lhek ls gksrh gqbZ

vkjafHkd fcUnq *d3* ij feyrh gSA

[Qk- la- 43015@21@2017&,y, ,.M vkbZvkj]

jke f’kjksef.k ljkst] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2017

S.O. 1346.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the land in

the locality mentioned in the Schedule annexed hereto;

(ii)

3201

And whereas, the plan bearing number SECL/ BSP/ GM(PLG)/LAND/ 511, dated the 12^th April, 2017

containing details of the areas of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Collector,

District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001 or at

the office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur -495006 (Chhattisgarh);

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central

Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal in the land described in the aforesaid Schedule.

Any person interested in the land described in the aforesaid Schedule may --

(i)

object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or of any rights in or over such land; or

(ii)

claim compensation under section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by any

action taken under sub-section (3) of section 4 of the said Act; or

(iii)

claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act, in respect of prospecting license

ceasing to have effect or under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the said Act for mining lease ceasing to have

effect and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land to show the expenditure

incurred in respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act,

to the Officer-in-Charge or Head of the Department (Revenue), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road,

Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh) within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification.

SCHEDULE

Mahamaya OCP (Sendhopara-II Block), Bhatgaon Area,

District- Surajpur (Chhattisgarh)

[Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM (PLG)/LAND/ 511, dated the 12^th April, 2017]

(A) Revenue Land:

Sl.

Name of

village

Village

number

Tahsil

District

Area

hectares

Remarks

Barudhi

178

Bhaiyathan

Surajpur

54.810

Part

Jarhi

103

Pratappur

Surajpur

67.460

Part

Sendho-

para

Pratappur

Surajpur

33.660

Part

Durti

Pratappur

Surajpur

79.800

Part

Total: 235.730 hectares (approximately)

or 582.49 acres (approximately)

(B) Reserve Forest Land:

Sl.

No.

Compartment

number

Range

Division

Area in

hectares

Remarks

P 1680

Pratappur

Surajpur

9.200

Part

P 1681

Pratappur

Surajpur

21.720

Part

Total: 30.920 hectares (approximately)

or 76.40 acres (approximately)

Grand Total (A+B): 266.650 hectares (approximately)

or 658.89 acres (approximately)

3202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 3, 2017/JYAISTHA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Boundary description:

Block – I :

A1-B1-C1

Line starts from point ‘A1’ and passes in village Barudhi through middle part of village Barudhi,

point ‘B1’ and meets at point ‘C1’.

C1-D1

Line starts from point ‘C1’ and passes in village Barudhi through southern part of village Barudhi and

meets at point ‘D1’.

D1-E1

Line starts from point ‘D1’ and passes in village Jarhi through eastern part of village Jarhi and meets at

point ‘E1’.

E1-F1

Line starts from point ‘E1’ and passes in village Jarhi and Barudhi through northern part of village

Jarhi and Barudhi and meets at point ‘F1’.

F1-G1-H1

Line starts from point ‘F1’ and passes in village Barudhi through middle part of village Barudhi, point

‘G1’ and meets at point ‘H1’.

H1-A1

Line starts from point ‘H1’ and passes in village Barudhi through middle part of village Barudhi and

meets at starting point ‘A1’.

Block – II:

A2-B2

Line starts from point ‘A2’ and passes in village Jarhi through southern part of village Jarhi, and meets

at point ‘B2’.

B2-C2

Line starts from point ‘B2’ and passes in village Jarhi through southern part of village Jarhi, Reserve

Forest compartment number 1680 and Durti and meets at point ‘C2’.

C2-D2

Line starts from point ‘C2’ and passes in Reserve Forest and village Durti through southern part of

Reserve Forest compartment number 1680, village Durti and meets at point ‘D2’.

D2-E2-F2

Line starts from point ‘D2’ and passes in village Durti through southern part of village Durti, point ‘E2’

northern part of Reserve Forest compartment number 1680, southern part of village Jarhi and meets at

point ‘F2’.

F2-G2

Line starts from point ‘F2’ and passes in village Jarhi through southern part of village Jarhi, and meets

at point ‘G2’.

G2-A2

Line starts from point ‘G2’ and passes in village Jarhi through southern part of village Jarhi, and meets

at starting point ‘A2’.

Block – III:

A3-B3

Line starts from point ‘A3’ and passes in village Sendhopara and Durti through northern part of village

Sendhopara, middle part of village Durti and meets at point ‘B3’.

B3-C3

Line starts from point ‘B3’ and passes in village Durti through middle part of village Durti and meets at

point ‘C3’.

C3-D3

Line starts from point ‘C3’ and passes in village Durti and Sendhopara through middle part of village

Durti , northern part of village Sendhopara and meets at point ‘D3’.

D3-E3-F3

Line starts from point ‘D3’ and passes in village Sendhopara through northern part of village

Sendhopara, point ‘E3’ and meets at point ‘F3’.

F3-G3-H3

Line starts from point ‘F3’ and passes in village Sendhopara through northern part of village

Sendhopara, point ‘G3’ and meets at point ‘H3’.

H3-A3

Line starts from point ‘H3’ and passes in village Sendhopara along partly common boundary of villages

Sendhopara-Kapsara and meets at starting point ‘A3’.

[F. No. 43015/ 21 /2017-LA&IR]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Under Secy.

(ii)

3203

lapkj

ea=kky;

(

Mkd

Hkkx)

(iksLVjekLVj tujy dk dk;kZy;] xksok {ks=k] i.kth)

i.kth

]

ebZ

] 2017

1347

—

dsaæh; ljdkj ds vf/fu;e] 1972 (1972 esa 18) foHkkxh; tkap (lkf{k;ksa dh

mifLFkfr dk izorZu vkSj

nLrkostksa dk izLrqfrdj.k) dk /kjk (4) dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Jh th

ryxkaodj dk ,rn~}kjk

tkap vf/dkjh fofu£e

djrh gS vkSj lgk;d Mkd v/h{kd (;k=kk) jRukfxjh fMfotu dks dfFkr vf/fu;e dh mi&/kjk 4

}kjk

dsaæh; ljdkj dks iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx (ljdkjh lsod dk oxZ) ftlds fo#¼ tkap dh tk ldrh gS] dk izkf/dkjh fu;qDr djrh gS A

iQk

thvkj@LVkiQ

@vkbZvks dh fu;qfDr@fivks@2016&17

fouksn dqekj oekZ

]

iksLVekLVj tujy

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS

(Department of Posts)

(O/O POSTMASTER GENERAL, GOA REGION, PANAJI)

Panaji, the 23rd May, 2017

S.O. 1347.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Departmental Inquiries

(Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1972 (18 of 1972), the Central

Government hereby specifies Shri G.P. Talgaonkar, Inquiry Officer and ASPOs (Tour) Ratnagiri as a authority to

exercise the power conferred on the Central Government by sub-section 4 of the said Act in respect of (Category of

Government servants) against whom a departmental inquiry may be held.

[F. No. GR/Staff-II/Apptt. of IO/PO/2016-17]

VINOD KUMAR VERMA, Postmaster General

miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k

ea=kky;

(

[kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k

foH

kkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 29 ebZ

] 2017

1348

-—

dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e

(4) ds vuqlj.k esa]

miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=kky; ([kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k foHkkx)

ds iz

lfud

fu;a=k.kk/hu fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa]

ftuds 80

ls vf/d deZpk

jhoa`n

us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS]

dks jkti=k esa

vfèklwfpr djrh gS

—

dsaæh; HkaMkj.k fuxe]

{ks=kh; dk;kZy;]

csaxyq:&560016

dsaæh; HkaMkj.k fuxe]

dsaæh; HkaMkjx`g

oM+ksnjk&39000

dsaæh; HkaMkj.k fuxe]

dsaæh; HkaMkjx`g

oM+ksn&

388370

3204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 3, 2017/JYAISTHA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dsaæh; HkaMkj.k fuxe]

dsaæh; HkaMkjx`g

vkbZ

kjFk]

oM+kSnk&391357

dsaæh; HkaMkj.k fuxe]

dsaæh; HkaMkjx`g

Hkkouxj

64005

¹la

bZ&110

@20

fgUnh

eukst dqekj

] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Food and Public Distribution)

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2017

S.O. 1348.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following office under the administrative control of the

Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public Distribution) whereof

more than 80% of staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :—

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Regional Office,

Bangalore-560016

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Central Warehouse,

Vadodara-I,-390002

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Central Warehouse,

Vadod-388370

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Central Warehouse,

ICD, Dashrath, Baroda-391357

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Central Warehouse,

Bhavnagar-364005

[No. E-11011/1/2008-Hindi]

T. K. MANOJ KUMAR, Jt. Secy.

,oa

jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh]

ebZ

] 201

1349

—

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

eSVykbZiQ bafM;k ba

ksjsal dEiuh fy

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je

;k;ky;]

vjukdqye] dksphu

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la

201

) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

201

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[

,y&

39025

201

&vkbZvkj (ch&

)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

(ii)

3205

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 26th May, 2017

S.O. 1349.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ernakulam, Cochin as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of PNB

Metlife India Insurance Company Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.05.2017.

[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

Present : Shri K. Sasidharan, B.Sc., LLB, Presiding Officer

(Friday the 31^st day of March, 2017/10^th Chaitra, 1939)

ID 34/2014

Workman/Applicant

Shri Deepak. M. J.,

S/o Shri. M. A. Jose,

Mandumpal House,

Puthur P.O.,

Thrissur – 680 014.

By Adv. Shri Ashok. B. Shenoy

Management

The Chief Executive Officer,

PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Ltd.,

Registered Office,

Brigade Sheshamahal,

No.5 Vani Vilas Road, Basavangudi,

Bengaluru – 560 004.

By Adv. Shri. Nelson. J. Manayil

This case coming up for final hearing on 02.03.2017 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 31.03.2017 passed

the following:

AWARD

This is an application filed by the workman under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The contentions in the application filed by the workman in brief are as follows:

The applicant/workman joined the services of the management on 01.11.2017 at their Thrissur branch. Formerly the

management was known as “MetLife India Insurance Company Limited”. Even though the workman was designated

at the time of appointment as ‘Sales Manager’ and ‘Senior Sales Manager – Agency Sales’, throughout his tenure of

employment he was assigned, vested with and required to do only clerical, manual, technical and operational duties.

The duties assigned were discharged by him diligently, honestly and without any complaint from any source.

On 12.10.2012 the management unilaterally terminated the services of the workman by serving the termination

letter dated 09.10.2012. It is stated that the termination was effected for the reason that the workman failed to improve

his performance in spite of issuing the notices dated 16.07.2012 and 03.10.2012. The said statement by the

management is false, incorrect and not in tune to facts.

On 12.12.2012 the workman submitted an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central),

Ernakulam with a request to conciliate and resolve the matter in issue. The conciliation officer could not succeed in his

attempt and hence a failure report was issued on 25.04.2014. The action of the management in terminating the services

of the workman is illegal and unjust. The allegation by the management that there was no improvement in the

performance of the workman and there was no earnest effort on his part for improving the performance is absolutely

false. The impugned action on the part of the management is stigmatic, punitive and hence illegal. The management

has failed to follow the principles of natural justice and denied the opportunity to the workman to substantiate his

3206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 3, 2017/JYAISTHA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

contentions. Before serving the termination notice the management has not issued any show cause notice or memo of

charges against the workman. The action of the management is unjust and illegal.

The impugned termination amounts to retrenchment and hence illegal. It is clear violation of Sections 25F, 25G

and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The impugned termination is vindictive and without any bonafides.

About one week prior to the date of termination of his services, the management directed the workman to resign from

the union. They threatened the workman with dire consequences if he fails to do so. The action of the management is

illegal and in clear violation of the rights of the workman to continue his employment. From the date of termination

the workman is unemployed and not having any income.

Therefore the workman has requested to pass an award declaring that the action of the management in

terminating his services with effect from 12.10.2012 as illegal, unjust and hence to set aside the same; to declare that

the workman is entitled to be reinstated in the service of the management with full back wages, continuity of service

and all other attendant benefits and to direct the management to reinstate him in service with full back wages,

continuity of service and all other attendant benefits thereof.

The contentions in the written statement filed by the management in brief are as follows:

The management has denied all the averments in the application except those that are specifically admitted. The

management is a company incorporated in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The

management is primarily into the business of Life Insurance with the approval from the Government of India through

the insurance regulator IRDA. It has got branches at several places in India and acclaimed widely for its services and

reputation.

The averments in the application are false, incorrect and it is filed with malafide intention. The application is

liable to be dismissed in limine for the reason that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter in issue.

The applicant is not a “workman” within the purview of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The

applicant was performing purely supervisory and managerial nature of work and he was not doing any clerical or

manual work. He was drawing an annual salary of `3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs fifty thousand only). Hence he

will not come within the purview of a “workman” as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The matter in

issue will not be an “industrial dispute” as defined under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The applicant was employed as a ‘Sales Manager’ entrusted with the task of generating business and promoting

sales for the management company. The applicant was selected for the post of Sales Manager-Agency Sale in E-1

Grade and the management issued an offer letter to him and it was duly accepted by him. After accepting and

acknowledging the offer of employment the applicant signed the business conduct certificate, employee code of

business and ethics acknowledgement form and malpractice matrix agreement. At the time of joining, Confidentiality

Agreement was signed by him. After submitting the required documents the management engaged the applicant as per

appointment letter dated 08.10.2007 as a Sales Manager-Agency Sale in E-1 Grade at the Thrissur branch office with

an annual salary of `2,65,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs sixty five thousand only). The terms and conditions of appointment

are specified in detail in the letter of appointment dated 08.10.2007. The said terms and conditions form part of the

binding contract between the applicant and the management.

10.

Clause 11 of the appointment letter which reads as follows:

“11 Termination:

Upon confirmation of your employment under clause 2 above, the Company reserves the right to terminate your

services by providing you with 30 (thirty) days notice or salary in lieu thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing

or the provision of clause 2 company reserves the right to terminate your services without any notice or salary

in lieu thereof for reason including but not limited to misconduct, negligence of duty, disloyalty, dishonesty,

insubordination, misrepresentation, indiscipline, disobedience, breach of the Non-Disclosure Agreement,

irregular attendance, inefficiency, poor performance, redundancy of job or any act detrimental to the interests

of the Company”.

11.

During the designation as “Sales Manager”, the work profile of the applicant constituted largely of promotion of

sales or business, or both for the management company and to assist the company in its growth. Initially the

performance of the applicant was good and it continued till December, 2008. With effect from 28.01.2009, he was

promoted as Senior Sales Manager-Agency Sales in Grade E-2. Subsequently the performance of the applicant was not

up to the expectation of the management. Therefore the branch head pursued him to improve his performance. Even

after granting several opportunities, he failed to improve his performance. Hence a warning letter dated 27.04.2012

was issued to him, in which it is stated that his performance from January, 2012 to March, 2012 was far below the

acceptable standard of the management. It was made clear that such type of non-performance is not acceptable. Even

after that there was no improvement in the performance of the applicant. Since the applicant failed to improve his

(ii)

3207

performance even after repeated requests, he was terminated from the services with effect from 12.10.2012 for poor

performance as per termination letter dated 09.10.2012.

12.

The management has stated that the applicant is not a “workman” as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. Even on merits also he has no right to maintain an application of this nature. The management has

requested to dismiss the claim of the applicant with costs.

13.

The workman filed rejoinder denying the contentions of the management and reiterating the contentions in the

application filed under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

14.

The applicant tendered evidence as WW1 and Exts.W1 to W13 are the documents marked on his side. On

behalf of the management no oral evidence has been adduced. Exts.M1 and M2 are the documents marked on behalf of

the management. Heard both sides.

15.

The points arising for consideration are:

“(i)

Whether the applicant is a “workman” as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

(ii)

Whether the Tribunal is having the right to entertain and adjudicate the dispute raised by the

applicant?

(iii)

Whether the termination of the services of the applicant by the management is just, legal and

proper?

(iv)

Whether the applicant is entitled to get the relief as claimed in the application?”

16.

Point Nos.(i) & (ii):-

This is an application filed under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 by one Shri. Deepak. M. J. The applicant has stated that he is a ‘workman’ as defined under the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. He joined the services of the management company on 01.11.2007 at its Thrissur office. At the

time of appointment, he was designated as Sales Manager and Senior Sales Manager – Agency Sales. The applicant

has stated that even though at the time of appointment he was designated as aforesaid, throughout his tenure of

employment, he was assigned, vested with and required to do only clerical, manual, technical and operational duties.

He has stated that he was discharging the duties assigned to him diligently, honestly and without any complaint from

any source.

17.

He has stated that on 12.10.2012 the management unilaterally terminated his services by serving the termination

letter dated 09.10.2012. According to the applicant the reason for termination stated by the management is absolutely

false. He has stated that the termination of employment by the management is unjust, illegal and against the statutory

and legal provisions. He has stated that he is a ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 and the matter in issue is an “Industrial Dispute” as defined under the Act and hence this Tribunal has got the

right to entertain and adjudicate the matter in issue.

18.

The management has contended that the applicant is not a ‘workman’ as defined under the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 and the matter in issue is not an “Industrial Dispute” enabling this Tribunal for adjudication. They have

stated that the applicant was appointed as a Sales Manager – Agency Sale in E-1 Grade as per the terms and conditions

in the appointment letter dated 08.10.2007 at the Thrissur branch office with an annual salary of `2,65,000/- (Rupees

Two lakhs sixty five thousand only). It is stated that the applicant was entrusted with the task of generating business

and promoting sales for the management company. According to the management the applicant will not come under

the purview of a ‘workman’ as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

19.

While examined as WW1, the applicant has stated that he joined the management company as Sales Manager –

Agency Sale E-1 grade with an annual salary of `2,65,000/-. He has stated that subsequently he was promoted as

Senior Manager – Agency Sale E-2 grade. He has stated that Sales Manager is the person working in the field along

with insurance agents who are having license as per IRDA. WW1 has admitted that Ext.M1 is the joining report signed

by him at the time when he joined the management company.

20.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that even though the applicant was appointed as Sales Manager

– Agency Sales in E-1 grade he was assigned, vested with and required to do only clerical, manual, technical and

operational duties and he was performing the duties assigned to him to the best of his ability. It is also submitted that

nomenclature of the post as ‘Sales Manager – Agency Sales’ is not a criteria to arrive at conclusion that the

workman/applicant was doing managerial functions. It is submitted that the applicant/workman is a “workman” as

defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

21.

The learned counsel for the management submitted that the applicant will not come under the purview of

“workman” as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted that the applicant was performing the work

which is purely of supervisory and managerial nature and was not doing any manual or clerical work. The learned

3208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 3, 2017/JYAISTHA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

counsel referred to the Rulings reported in H. R. Adyanthaya Vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd., (1994) 5 SCC 737 and also the

Ruling reported in Chauharya Tripathi & Ors. Vs. LIC of India & Ors. – AIR 2015 SC 2275 and submitted that the

applicant will not come under the purview of a “workman” as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

22.

In decision second referred above the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:

“Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) S.2(s) and S.10(1) – Life Insurance Corporation of India Act

(31 of 1956) S.23 – “Workman” - Development Officers working in the LIC are not workmen – hence Labour

Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate industrial dispute raised by Development Officers”.

23.

Ext.W1 is the offer of appointment issued by the management to the applicant. In Ext.W1 document it is stated

that the offer of appointment is contingent on the acceptance of the terms and conditions in the appointment letter,

which will be mailed to him separately. WW1 has admitted that Ext.M1 is copy of the joining report signed by him at

the time of joining the management company. Even though WW1 has denied the specific question relating to the

nature of duties assigned to him while employed as Sales Manager and Senior Sales Manager – Agency Sales, it is

evident that the nature of duties performed by him while working in the management company is akin to that of the

Development Officers working in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. In view of the dictum laid down in the

decision referred above it is evident that the applicant will not come under the purview of “workman” as defined under

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Moreover his annual salary at the time when joined the services of

the management company was `2,65,000/-. Subsequently he was promoted and there was increase in his annual salary.

Therefore on that ground also he will not come under the purview of “workman” as defined under the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

24.

Since the applicant/workman is not a “workman” as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, this

Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the dispute initiated by him under Section 2A(2) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence the points for consideration are answered against the applicant.

25.

Point No.(iii):-

While answering Point Nos.(i) & (ii) it is held that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to

adjudicate the dispute initiated at the instance of the applicant/workman. In such circumstance it will not be just, legal

or proper for this Tribunal to render a finding regarding the legality or correctness of the decision by the management

in this regard. Hence Point No.(iii) is observed as above.

26.

Point No.(iv):-

While answering Point Nos.(i) & (ii) it is held that the applicant/workman will not come

under the purview of “workman” as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and hence this Tribunal

has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the matter in issue. In such circumstance the applicant is not entitled to

the relief claimed. The point is answered accordingly.

27.

In the result an award is passed holding that the applicant/workman is not a “workman” as defined under the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence not entitled to the relief claimed as per this application under Section 2A(2) of

the ID Act.

The Award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.

Pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 31^st day of March, 2017.

K. SASIDHARAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the workman/applicant

WW1

04.02.2015

Shri. Deepak. M. J.

Witness for the management

NIL

Exhibits for the workman/applicant

Offer of employment letter No.Nil dated 04.10.2007 issued by the Regional Executive

Recruitments, MetLife India Insurance Co., Pvt. Ltd., Kochi (Kerala) to the applicant.

Copy of the Identity Card dated 01.04.2008 issued by the District Executive Officer, Kerala

Shops & Commercial Establishments Workers’ Welfare Fund Board, Thrissur to the applicant.

Termination letter No.Nil dated 09.10.2012 issued by the Associate Director – Human Resources,

MetLife India Insurance Co. Ltd., Haryana to the applicant.

Certificate bearing No.07/10/2013/D2 dated 25.04.2014 issued by the Conciliation Officer &

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Government of India, Office of the Regional Labour

(ii)

3209

Commissioner(Central), Ministry of Labour & Employment, Kendriya Shram Sadan, Kakkanad,

Cochin to the applicant.

Certificate of Achievement awarded during Lavasa, 08/2011 by the management to the applicant.

Certificate of Appreciation awarded during JFM 2010 for Premium in March to the applicant.

Certificate of Appreciation awarded during JFM 2010 for Magical Malaysia to the applicant.

Certificate of Appreciation awarded during JFM 2010 for NOP in March, 2010 to the Applicant.

Certificate of Medallion Appreciation awarded for Medallion Qualifier on 09.07.2010 to the

applicant.

W10

Certificate of Excellence awarded for successfully qualifying the MDRT Lakshya Conference

held at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from 05^th-07^th August, 2010 by the management to the applicant.

W11

RENDEZVOUS WITH SAMEER BANSAL awarded in recognition of exemplary performance in

FA Activisation during September, 2010 to the applicant.

W12

Certificate of Achievement presented for outstanding achievement in the Knowledge is Power by

the management to the applicant.

W13

Certificate of Honour for ‘Activity Wizard’ for the months of Jan-Mar, 2010 awarded by the

management to the applicant.

Exhibits for the management

True copy of the 1^st page of the appointment letter dated 08.10.2007 issued to the

applicant/workman by the management along with the true copy of the Joining Report

dt.01.11.2007 along with other forms submitted by the applicant.

True copy of the letter No.Nil dated 27.04.2012 issued by the Manager – Human Resources,

MetLife India Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore to the applicant.

ubZ fnYyh]

26 ebZ

] 201

1350

—

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

lSUVªy cSad

vkWiQ bafM;k

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je

;k;ky;]

dkuiqj (m

)

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la

2006

) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

201

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[

,y&

12011

190

2005

&vkbZvkj (ch&

)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th May, 2017

S.O. 1350.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Kanpur (U.P.) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central

Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.05.2017.

[No. L-12011/190/2005-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 36 of 2006

Between :

The Vice President

U.P. Bank Workers Organization

2, Naveen Market, Kanpur.

Kanpur(U.P.)

3210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 3, 2017/JYAISTHA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

And

The Regional Manager,

Central Bank Of India,

Sanjay Place,

Regional Office,

Agra-282001.

AWARD

Central Government, vide Notification No. L-12011/190/2005–IR(B-II) dated 16.05.2006, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Aligarh in not regularizing Shri Rajesh Kumar

on the post of Daftri Sub-Staff and appointing him as part-time Sweeper and not Paying him wages equivalent to

permanent employee w. e. f. 01.10.2000 is justified? If not, to What relief the concerned workman is entitled?

The case of the worker in short is that he was appointed by the bank as part time sweeper in the Year 1995 and

according to Bipartite Settlement he was being paid his monthly wages at the rate of Rs. 740/- per month with effect

from 2000. Prior to him one Sri Gendalal Daftri was working at the extension counter of the bank and one Sri

Mahendra Singh was also working as guard at that extension counter of the bank. In the year 2000 Sri Gendalal was

promoted at the post of Daftri and he was transferred and Sri Mahendra Singh retired from the service of the bank. It is

also alleged that on the oral direction of the senior Branch Manager, the bank used to take the work of daftri including

the work of peon. The working hour of the worker is from 09.15 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. It is also alleged that according to

the provision of Bipartite Settlement in case any part time employees works 29 hours a week he is entitled to receive

full wages and since the worker had worked for more than 29 hour in a week therefore, he is entitled to received full

wages. On the above basis it is prayed by the worker that he be declared permanent and also be paid full wages with

effect from 01.10.2000.

The opposite party opposed the claim of the worker and filed their reply in which it is stated That the worker has

no lien or right on any regular ad permanent post in the bank as he was Simply engaged as part time basis for the work

of safai karamchari as such he could not claim Wages and work as a matter of right like regular and permanent

employee as he never worked continuously against any regular and permanent post. The claim filed by the union is

highly belated as such is not maintainable. Worker has no right to claim permanency or regularization in the service of

the bank.

On merit it has been pleaded by the bank that the worker was engaged as a part time safai Karamchari in

extension counter Central Bank of India, Gandhi Ashram Aligarh on consolidate R.1050/- per month. It is denied by

the bank that the worker at any point of time was paid wages at Rs.740/- per month with effect from 2000.It is not an

industrial dispute as the cause of the concerned worker has not been sponsored by the competent union or by

majority ad substantial number of employees of the opposite party.It is admitted by the opposite party that the worker

was simply engaged as a part time safai karamchari on consolidated wage basis and he was issued an appointment

letter dated 28.07.03 wherein it is clearly mentioned in para one of the appointment letter that he would not work less

than 3 hours but not more than 6 hours per week for cleaning work only to be decided by te management of the bank.

It is denied by the bank that it ever took the work of daftri from the worker and the bank had never issued any oral or

written order for performing the work of daftri. Worker had ever worked as a subordinate staff as such he is not

entitled to be paid any regular pay scale or ay payment of arrears of salary.

On the basis of above it is prayed that the claim of the worker is highly belated and as he had Never performed

the work of daftri / peon, therefore, his entire claim is liable to be rejected being devoid of merit.

The representative for the worker vide his affidavit dated 28.09.2013 paper no. 30/1-2 has filed 6 papers.

Whereas worker has examined himself as w. w.1 and two more witnesses by name Rajendra Prasad and R.

P. Singh were also examined as w. w. 2 & w.w.3 on behalf of the worker. Management has examined its

officer Sri Yogendra Pratap Singh as M. W.1.

Both sides have filed document in support of their respective cases which shall be discussed at the appropriate

stage.

10.

I have heard the arguments of the parties at length and have also gone through the records carefully.

11.

It is contended by the authorized representative for the worker that although Rajesh Kumar was appointed as

part time sweeper on monthly wages of Rs. 740/ per month in 1995 but the officer of the branch in addition to

his normal work of sweeping the branch also utilized him as daftri and peon from 01.10.2000, but did not pay him

regular wages either of the post of peon/daftri which is against rules and mounts to unfair labor practice.

(ii)

3211

12.

On the other hand it was contended by the representative for the management that the worker neither had

discharged the duties of daftri or peon on full time basis nor he was ever appointed on the said post according to

recruitment rule nor any officer of the bank had ever directed the worker to perform the duties of peon / daftri as

such worker is neither entitled for his regularization of service as daftri nor is entitled for payment of wages

at par to regular employees of the bank of the category to which the worker belongs.

13.

It was also contended that the branch manager had no authority to appoint any person on the Post of daftri or

peon and this power rests with Regional Manager of the Bank.

14.

It is also contended that no information was ever sent to Regional Office that Rajesh Kumar is working as peon/

daftri at the extension counter of the branch nor any approval is taken by the then branch manager in this regard.

15.

On behalf of the worker a copy of letter sent to Senior Manager, Central Bank of India, Agra has been filed

which reveals that Sri R P Singh the authorized representative for the worker who was In-charge of Extension Counter,

Gandhii Ashram Banna Devi, of the bank at Aligarh had sent this letter wherein it is mentioned that there is no

orderly or Armed Guard in the Extension Counter, therefore, worker is utilized for this, but in this letter is not

mentioned that services of Rajesh Kumar is utilized as Daftri although w.w. 2 Sri R P Singh who was in-charge of

extension Counter at the relevant time has admitted this letter, could not prove any letter of appointment or any

authority in writing given to Rajesh Kumar to work as datary also. He himself admitted in His cross examination that

he directed Rajesh Kumar to work as daftri by an office letter on the Direction of the branch manager but no such

letter is filed by the worker and secondly on the Oral direction of the branch manager Sri R P Singh the then in-

charge of Extension Counter had no authority either to appoint Rajesh Kumar as daftri or to utilize his serves as daftri.

If it is done by Sri R P Singh without any authority it will be presumed that he has taken the service of the post of

daftari from Rajesh Kumar in his personal capacity even without approval of appointing authority or the branch

manager.

16.

W.W.1 Rajesh Kumar had admitted in his cross examination that he was not given any appointment

letter on 1.1.95 and that he has also admitted that his services were not terminated by the bank terminated by

the bank and he was transferred to Patiyali branch on the post of sweeper where he had joined. He also says that he

does not know whether the post of daftri is a regular post and on this post he was never appointed.

17.

In this regard w.w.3, Rajendra Prasad has also admitted the affidavit given by the worker paper no. 32/38 and

also said that he does not know whether there is any paper regarding working of The worker as daftri is available of the

file of worker Rajesh Kumar or not.

18.

Paper no. 32/38 filed by the management is the copy of affidavit of worker Rajesh Kumar dated 07.05.03 given

to the branch manager wherein he has stated that if his services on the post of sweeper on consolidate wages of

Rs. 740/- per month are regularized he admits that he will not claim any benefit in any court / ALC and after his

regularization he will not claim any promotion or seniority.

19.

Thus it is admitted by the worker by filing this affidavit before the branch manager not to raise any dispute in

any court / ALC, if his services are regularized as part time sweeper.

20.

As he himself has admitted that he has been transferred at patiyal branch as part time sweeper where he joined

the post, his conduct above shows that he has never been appointed as daftri or peon by the bank.

21.

Having concluded that worker Rajesh Kumar had never been appointed on the post of daftri nor had ever

worked at the said post, there cannot be any justification for his regularization on the said post and as he was working

as part time safai karmcharin on consolidate wages, therefore, appointing him as part time sweeper is held to be

justified.

22.

Therefore, reference is answered accordingly against the worker and in favor of the management.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh]

26 ebZ

] 201

1351

—

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

bafM;u

vksojlht cSad

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je

;k;ky;]

pSUubZ

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la

2016

) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

201

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[

,y&

39025

2010

&vkbZvkj (ch&

)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

3212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 3, 2017/JYAISTHA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 26th May, 2017

S.O. 1351.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian

Overseas Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.05.2017.

[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 11^th May, 2017

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 20/2016

BETWEEN :

Sri K. Baburaj

1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Managing Director

2^nd Party/Respondent

Indian Overseas Bank

Central Office

Anna Salai

Chennai-600002

Appearance :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

Sri T. Ramkumar, Advocate

For the 2^nd Party/Management

M/s N.G.R. Prasad, Advocate

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).

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

The petitioner is an employee of the Respondent Management. He joined the service of the Respondent as

Driver-cum-Messenger in January 2004. He was not issued with any Appointment Order. He was assigned duties as a

Driver to drive vehicles of the higher officials of the Respondent. He was required to discharge the work of a

Messenger also. He had been discharging his duties sincerely and diligently. The service of the petitioner was a

continuous one. In spite of continuous and perennial nature of work performed by the petitioner the Management did

not confirm him in service. In the year 2011, when the Respondent was under the process of absorbing temporary

workers who had worked for a long time as Sweepers, Drivers, Messengers etc. the petitioner approached the

Respondent requesting him to confirm him in service. He was asked to attend an interview on 18.08.2011 and he was

selected for appointment as Driver-cum-Messenger by order dated 23.09.2011. He was posted at Suramangalam at

Salem District and was later transferred to Udayapatti Branch. The petitioner had satisfactorily completed his probation

and was confirmed in the service of the Respondent on 10.04.2012. The petitioner was again transferred to Central

Office, Chennai where he worked as Driver-cum-Messenger. On 21.12.2013 the Respondent Management issued an

order of termination on the petitioner without any prior notice, terminating his service with immediate effect. The

Management had alleged that the petitioner had submitted bogus documents in support of his educational qualification

to obtain appointment in the Respondent Bank. The allegations made against the petitioner are false. The petitioner was

required to put his signature in an application form. The form was filled-up by the Management. The termination of the

petitioner is punitive in nature. There is a stigma in the order of termination. The petitioner was not issued with any

Charge Memo nor was any enquiry conducted before he was terminated from service. He was not given any

opportunity to meet the allegations made against him. The termination of the petitioner is unfair, unjust and against the

principles of natural justice. The petitioner is entitled to an order reinstating him in service with all attendant benefits.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

(ii)

3213

A settlement under Section-12(3) of the ID Act had been entered into between the recognized Trade Union and

the Respondent on 17.02.2011, for absorption of Temporary Messengers / sweepers as a one-time measure, subject to

satisfaction of certain conditions regarding educational qualification and age limit. The concerned persons should have

been in the service of the Respondent preceding 15.11.2010 and should have continued to be working. They should

have worked for more than 240 or more days in a calendar year as on 15.11.2010. The petitioner had been absorbed in

the service of the Bank by order dated 23.09.2011. The petitioner had produced documents before he was allowed to

join duty. The Bank had received various complaints of corruption and nepotism in the absorption process of

Messengers and Sweepers. An investigation was made by the Bank and it was found that the Transfer Certificate

produced by the petitioner as one from Corporation Boys Higher Secondary School, Nungambakkam was a fake one.

In the application for absorption itself the petitioner had made a declaration that if the information and particulars given

by him are not correct or if any suppression has been made he will be disqualified and if appointed his appointment is

liable to be terminated without notice. Based on the Investigation Report dated 05.12.2013 the petitioner was

terminated from service on 21.12.2013. It was later found that the petitioner was absorbed in service while engaged as

Personal Driver for the Executive of the Bank. As per the settlement dated 17.02.2011 and the circular of the Bank

dated 23.03.2011 only persons who were engaged as Casual/Temporary Messengers/Sweepers were eligible to be

absorbed in the service of the Bank. The Bank had taken disciplinary action against the officials who were involved in

the scam related to absorption of Messengers and Sweepers. Principle of natural justice cannot be claimed by persons

who has committed fraud by producing bogus educational certificate and has made misrepresentation in respect of his

working period. Persons engaged by Executives as Driver are not eligible for absorption as per the circular dated

23.03.2011. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

In the rejoinder filed the petitioner has denied the allegations made against him in the Counter Statement and has

reiterated his case in the Claim Statement.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to W5

and Ext.M1 to Ext.M3.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the termination of the petitioner from service by the Respondent is justifiable?

(ii) What, if any, is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?

The Points

The petitioner was appointed in the service of the Respondent Bank by order dated 23.09.2011. According to the

petitioner he had started to work in the Bank as Driver-cum-Messenger even in January 2004. He had been seeking

absorption in the service of the Bank and in the year 2011 when the Management had taken steps for absorbing

Temporary Workers he had made another request and on the basis of an interview he is said to have been selected and

appointment order issued to him. By order dated 10.04.2012 the petitioner had been confirmed in service also. The

Respondent had terminated him from service without prior notice by order dated 21.12.2013. the case of the respondent

is that the petitioner had got appointment on the basis of a bogus transfer certificate that was produced by him

alongwith the application given by him on the basis of the settlement dated 17.02.2011 providing for absorption of

Temporary Messengers and Sweepers.

The Respondent had examined the Chief Manager of the Enquiry Cell to substantiate its case. The petitioner

also got him self-examined. In the Proof Affidavit filed by MW1, the case in the Claim Statement is reiterated. It has

been stated that even as per the Appointment Order the petitioner was allowed to report for duty only on production of

the documents. Again, as per Clause-2 of the Appointment Order the service was liable to be terminated if the

documents produced are found to be forged, tampered with, etc. MW1 is not the one who had conducted investigation

regarding production of false certificate by the petitioner. However, the Investigation Report has been marked through

MW1.

The petitioner has stated in the Proof Affidavit filed by him that it was on the basis of an interview held on

18.08.2011 he was selected. According to him, he was appointed as Driver-cum-Messenger.

The petitioner does not refer to any application for absorption having been made by him to the Respondent.

What he has stated in his Claim Statement is that when the Respondent was in the process of absorbing temporary

workers he had approached the Management seeking to confirm him in service and it was accordingly he was called for

interview and selected. However, in the subsequent paragraph of the Claim Statement he had stated that he was

required to put his signature in an application form and the application form was filled-up by the Management after

obtaining his signature. He has further stated that he had not submitted any Bogus Certificate as alleged in the order of

termination.

3214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 3, 2017/JYAISTHA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

Ext.W1 is the order of appointment issued to the petitioner. It could be seen from this that his appointment was

only as Messenger and not as Driver-cum-Messenger as claimed by him in the Claim Statement. The Appointment

Order contains the clauses regarding the authority of the Respondent to terminate the employee from service in case of

any false information, misrepresentation, production of bogus certificate, etc. Ext.W3 is the order of termination issued

to the petitioner. In this it is stated that the petitioner had submitted a copy of the Transfer Certificate dated 06.07.2000

purported to be issued by the Headmaster of Corporation Boys Higher Secondary School, Nungambakkam and this was

found to be a bogus one. The termination order has quoted the declaration given by him in his application form that in

case the details furnished by him are incorrect he is liable to be terminated from service.

11.

Ext.M2 is the letter given by the petitioner to the Deputy General Manager of the Bank in which he has stated

that alongwith the application submitted by him he is enclosing the Transfer Certificate issued by the school where he

had studied and also the Community Certificate. It is very much clear even from his Claim Statement and also from his

evidence that application was given by him on the basis of the settlement entered into by the Respondent for absorption

of temporary workmen. It is apparent form Ext.M1 that the petitioner was aware of the investigation that was

conducted against him. In this there is no reference to his working as Messenger but only as Driver. There is also

reference to a union leader asking for some amount as bribe. Ext.M3 is the Investigation Report which states that the

certificates submitted by the petitioner were found to be bogus. The copy of the certificates submitted by the petitioner

is also enclosed.

12.

The argument that is advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the termination of the petitioner from service is

against the principles of natural justice as prior notice nor a charge sheet was not issued to him or enquiry was

conducted. There is no doubt that termination of the petitioner from service is without issuing a charge sheet or

conducting any enquiry. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to Clause-12 of the Bipartite Settlement which

provides for disciplinary action against an employee. The Respondent has been harping on the terms included in the

application as well as the clauses in the Appointment Order in which the employee has agreed to be terminated from

service in case of any misrepresentation, production of bogus documents, etc. The case of the Respondent is that in a

cases where fraud is involved the principles of natural justice need not be invoked. The counsel for the petitioner has

referred to an unreported decision of the Karnataka High Court in a matter involved in Indian Overseas Bank in Writ

Appeal No. 1334 and 1335/2015 where it was held that where orders of termination were passed without holding an

enquiry regarding the alleged misconduct, in the absence of establishing the said fact the termination could not have

been made. However in the decision in BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. AVINASH D. MANDIVIKAR in

Civil Appeal No. 347/2004 the Apex Court has held that equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of a person

who got appointment on the basis of a false Caste Certificate by playing fraud and that equity of compassion cannot be

allowed to bend the arms of law in a case where an individual acquired a status by practising fraud. It has been held by

the Apex Court in the decision in SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES AND OTHERS VS. R. VALASINA

BABU in civil Appeal No. 5858/2006 that if the employee concerned had played fraud in obtaining an appointment it

will not be necessary to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the concerned person. Again in the decision in UP

JUNIOR DOCTORS ACTION COMMITTEE VS. DR. B. SHEETAL MANDWANI reported in AIR 1999 SC 909 the

Apex Court has held that admission to the course having been obtained by fraud no opportunity of hearing need be

given before cancelling it. Thus it could be seen that cases involving fraud are placed by the Apex Court in a different

footing unlike in a case of termination on account of other reasons.

13.

Even otherwise the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. In the decision of Karnataka High Court referred to

earlier the aggrieved person had approached the High Court directly by a Writ Petition. In the present case the

petitioner had raised the Industrial Dispute. As already discussed the Respondent had established the basis upon which

the termination of the petitioner was effected. There is sufficient evidence let in through MW1 and the documents and

also the admission by the petitioner himself that the petitioner had put in an application and it was on that basis his

selection was made. His case is that he had not produced any certificate alongwith the application or subsequently.

However, the settlement for absorption envisage certain pre-conditions including educational qualification and it would

not have been possible for the petitioner to be appointed in the absence of production of the certificate. When the

matter is before this forum which is the adjudicating the dispute as per the provisions of the ID Act, the Respondent

having produced all its documents to establish its case the petitioner had the opportunity to prove that he was actually

eligible to be appointed as per the terms of the settlement. Even though the case of the Respondent is that bogus

certificate has been produced, other than making a denial of it the petitioner has not lifted his finger to prove that he has

got the required qualification and he is eligible to be appointed as per the terms of the settlement. The petitioner is the

person who must be in custody of the document to prove that he is eligible for absorption. When the Respondent has

put in sufficient evidence the burden had shifted upon the petitioner to prove that he is eligible to be appointed. Even

though the Respondent has not conducted any enquiry before termination of the petitioner from service, it is established

through the evidence before this Tribunal that the appointment of the petitioner was on the basis of a false certificate.

So the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed.

(ii)

3215

On the basis of the above discussion 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 the

11^th May, 2017).

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri K. Baburaj

For the 2^nd Party/Management

MW1, Sri P.G. Sankarakrishnan

Documents marked

On the Petitioner’s side

Ext.No.

Date

Description

Ext.W1

23.09.2011

Order of Appointment issued to the petitioner, appointing him as a Messenger

Ext.W2

26.05.2012

Confirmation Order issued to the petitioner

Ext.W3

21.12.2013

Order of Termination issued to the petitioner

Ext.W4

14.09.2015

Petition filed by the petitioner under Section-2A of the Industrial Dispute before

the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation Officer), Chennai

Ext.W5

10.04.2002

Provisions of bi-partite settlement in respect of disciplinary action against the

employees of the Respondent Bank

On the Management’s side

Ext.No,

Date

Description

Ext.M1

26.10.2013

Petitioner letter to Investigation Officer

Ext.M2

17.05.2011

Petitioner’s letter to Respondent enclosing application

Ext.M3

05.12.2013

Investigation Report

ubZ fnYyh]

26 ebZ

] 201

1352

—

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

cSad vkWiQ

cM+kSnk

ds izca/ra=k ds la

c¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je

;k;ky;]

dkuiqj (m

)

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la

2005

) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

201

dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[

,y&

12012

191

2004

&vkbZvkj (ch&

)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th May, 2017

S.O. 1352.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 5/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur (U.P.) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.05.2017.

[No. L-12012/191/2004-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 5 of 2005

3216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 3, 2017/JYAISTHA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In the matter of dispute between-

The General Secretary,

Bank of Baroda Staff Association U.P.

Madhav Bhavan,

15/222-A, Civil Lines,

Kanpur

And

The Assistant General Manager,

Bank of Baroda,

Regional Office,

19 Way Road,

Lucknow

AWARD

Central Government, Mol, New Delhi vide notification No. L-12012/191/2004-IR(B-II) dated 27.12.2004, has

referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda imposing the Punishment contained in order No.

UPL 29/BIG-1054 dated 23.10.03 Passed by the disciplinary authority on Sri Ram Gopal Singh Head Cashier is legal

and justified? If not what relief is the disputant workman is entitled?

It is as fact as appear from the records of the case that worker while he was working as Head Cashier at

Branch Office Dalmau in District Rai Barely was suspended by the bank by order dated 08.12.93 and the same

was lifted by the management by order dated 03.09.97. After revocation of the suspension order he was posted at

Salon branch of the bank. Subsequently by order dated 29.01.02 he was charge sheeted by the disciplinary authority

for the following reasons.

That on 04.12.93 (Saturday) you accompanied with Mr. D. S. Martolia Jt. Manager and Mr. Ram Kumar Peon

in the strong room for the purpose of closing of cash in the safe. The case safe was closed by locking the same by

the key held by you without application of key of Joint Manager.

That you left the strong room without ensuring that cash safe was properly closed as seal was nor put in

your presence.

Instead of carrying the cash keys with you, you left the same in the drawer of the cash cabin of Dalmau

Branch on 04.12.93 overnight.

On 06.12.93 when you came in the branch and found the latch of drawer broken you did inform about it to

anybody.

On 06.12.93 when you entered in the strong room and found the seal of cash safe broken instead of

reporting the matter to branch manager you preferred to apply your cash key to unlock and open the cash safe of the

branch.

On 06.12.93 when the case safe being opened Mr. D.S. Martolia joint manager found that while applying

his key, the same was not moving in opening direction, he felt unusual and informed the same to you. You have

not informed the fact to anyone but immediately moved the handle of cash safe. The cash safe was thus opened

but the entire cash kept in the cash safe amounting Rs. 392490.75 was found missing.

10.

You were negligent as joint custodian of cash which facilitated the loss of cash amount to Rs. 392490.75

missing from the cash safe of out Dalmau branch Raebareli.

11.

The worker thus was charged as follows-

You committed acts which show lack of integrity on your part.

You did acts, which are prejudicial to the interest of the bank.

You committed acts amounting to breach of trust reposed in you by the bank.

Your above acts have caused serious loss to the bank.

12.

After conclusion of the inquiry, inquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority by in the inquiry

officer who after considering the same passed final order against the worker by order dated 23.10.03 on proved

charge No.1 to 4 imposing penalty on charge No.1 with drawl of special allowance of Head cashier and on

remaining charge 2 to 4 punishment of bringing down by two stages in the pay scale and in his in all worker

(ii)

3217

was brought down to 6 stages in time scales. It was also ordered by the disciplinary authority that not as a

penalty an amount of 50% of financial loss (Rs. 392490.75) suffered by the bank due to the acts/omissions on

the part of CSE together with interest at PLR in suitable equitable monthly instalments shall be considered to be

recovered from Mr. Ram Gopal Singh as administrative action. Further any residual unrecovered amount shall be

recovered from the terminal benefits payable to Mr. Ram Gopal.

13.

The final order was passed by the disciplinary authority after providing the worker opportunity of personal

hearing.

14.

From the record of domestic file it appears that the worker had not preferred any appeal assailing the final

order before the appellate authority.

15.

Worker has filled his statement of claim in which it is alleged that in the finding of enquiry officer it has

come that cash safe was properly locked and sealed in the presence of G.S. Martolia the branch manager and Sri

Ram Kumar Peon. It shows that the worker was a honest man and his integrity cannot be doubted. It is also

alleged that second charge is a vague charge and inquiry officer has not given any reasons for his findings is

very sketchy report has been drafted. Before awarding him punishment show cause notice was issued to him and

submissions made by him in the letter dated 20.05.03 were not considered. He further alleged that disciplinary

authority did not go through evidence on record in violation of natural justice and passed a punishment order

against the povisions of bipartite settlement.

16.

Management has filed written statement in which the entire claim of the worker has been refuted. It is also

alleged that the worker has rightly been issued charge sheet by the bank for committing serious misconduct and

disciplinary inquiry has also rightly been held by the inquiry in accordance with the rules of natural justice and

the worker has been given adequate and proper opportunity of his defence. Prior to inflicting the punishment

order the worker was issued a show cause notice by the disciplinary authority proposing the tentative

punishment and after receipt of the submissions of the worker punishment as proposed in the show cause notice

was confirmed by the disciplinary authority. It is also alleged that the worker being head cashier was the joint

custodian of keys of the cash safe and he should never part with the keys. In the matter FIR was lodged at P.S.

Dalmau on 6.12.93 in which charge sheet has been submitted against Ram Gopal Singh worker.

17.

Worker has also filed rejoinder in which nothing new has been stated except reiterating the facts already

pleaded by him in his claim statement.

18.

After exchange of pleading case was fixed for evidence of parties case was fixed for evidence of the

parties and worker Ram Gopal Singh examined himself as W.W.1. and thereafter management examined

Raj Kumar Saxena M.W.1 but worker despite giving opportunity did not cross examin the management witness

and absented himself from attending the case.

19.

On 20.04.12 my predecessor has passed the order fixing a date for disposal of preliminary issue. A perusal

of record shows that no preliminary issue was framed which was later on framed on 11.03.15 regarding fairness

of domestic inquiry.

20.

None appeared on behalf of worker to argue on his preliminary issue thereafter after hearing learned

representative for the management it was decided on 21.10.15 holding that inquiry conducted by the management

was just and proper. Thereafter case was fixed for final arguments and again none appeared for the worker to make

submissions before the tribunal.

21.

I have heard the arguments of the representative for the management and perused the record.

22.

On perusal of records it appears that management has examined three witness Sri Sarvesh Bhasin, J.P.

Verma and D.S. Martolia in domestic inquiry conducted by Raj Kumar Saxena who was examined before this

tribunal as M.W.1. Sri R.K. Saxena has stated on oath that worker was given every opportunity of his defense

and inquiry was conducted according to rules of natural justice. It is also evident from the perusal of domestic

inquiry on record that worker was a joint custodian of the cash safe as he was working as head cashier and the

worker himself has admitted in domestic inquiry that he used to keep the key in the drawer and further admitted

that on 06.12.93 the kunda of drawer of cash cabin was broken and he did not find any seal in the cash safe. This

statement of worker before he inquiry officer makes it clear that the worker was responsible for keeping the key

with him and keeping the key in the drawer of cash cabin is latch in his responsibility on his part.

23.

Considering the admission and evidence of the worker I have also examined the finding of the enquiry

officer and I find that the enquiry officer has committed no illegality in recording his finding and holding the

charge proved against the worker.

3218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 3, 2017/JYAISTHA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

24.

During the course of arguments it has also been argued by the management that Mr. D. S. Martolia was

also charge sheeted and awarded same punishment as was given to the worker and shortage of the amount was

apportioned 50% and the same was ordered to be recovered from his salary.

25.

It is thus quite evident that the management was quite fair in awarding the punishment upon the worker

by taking lenient view.

26.

As there is no challenge by the worker on the point of quantum of punishment therefore, it is held that

considering the nature of charges proved against the worker, punishment given to the worker is quite proportionate

having regard to the guilt proved against him.

27.

Having concluded that the charges are proved against the worker, and he was awarded appropriate

punishment, there is no need to interfere and the same is upheld.

28.

Accordingly reference is answered against worker and it is held that he not entitled to any relief as claimed

by him.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh]

26 ebZ

] 201

1353

—

vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

bafM;u

vksojlht cSad

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je

;k;ky;]

pSUubZ

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la

2016

) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS

]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

201

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[

,y&

39025

2010

&vkbZvkj (ch&

)]

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 26th May, 2017

S.O. 1353.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian

Overseas Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 26.05.2017.

[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 11^th May, 2017

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 21/2016

BETWEEN :

Sri K. Devakumar

1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Managing Director

2^nd Party/Respondent

Indian Overseas Bank

Central Office

Anna Salai

Chennai-600002

Appearance :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

Sri T. Ramkumar, Advocate

For the 2^nd Party/Management

M/s. N.G.R. Prasad, Advocate

(ii)

3219

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).

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

The petitioner was engaged by the Respondent Bank as a Temporary Messenger. He was working in the Mount

Road Branch of the Respondent from June 2006. Thereafter he was engaged in West CT Nagar branch of the

Respondent. The engagement was on daily wage basis and payment was made every week. The petitioner was assigned

duties like Cash Remittance, Loan Recovery, Buying Stationery Items, etc. The petitioner was also assigned with the

work of Sweeping and Scavenging. The petitioner had been employed continuously without any break. He was

assigned the same duties as that of a permanent workman. In spite of this the Respondent failed to confirm the

petitioner in service. In the meanwhile the Respondent entered into a settlement for absorption of Temporary

messengers/Full Time/Part Time Sweepers on 17.02.2011. While the petitioner was working in Nesapakkam Branch he

applied for absorption, on the basis of the settlement. Along with the application he had furnished all the documents

required by the Respondent. The petitioner was eligible to be absorbed in service not only on the basis of the settlement

but also on the basis that the work performed by him was continuous and perennial in nature. On verification of the

application submitted by the petitioner and after interview the Respondent selected and appointed the petitioner as

Messenger. On satisfactory completion of the period of probation he was confirmed in service and transferred to

Kodambakkam Branch and was assigned the same duties that were performed by him earlier. On 07.05.2014 the

Respondent terminated the petitioner from service with immediate effect without any prior notice. In the order of

termination the Respondent had alleged that the petitioner had submitted bogus transfer certificate in support of his

educational qualification to obtain appointment in the Bank. This allegation is false. The termination of the petitioner

from service is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was not issued with any Charge Memo nor was any enquiry

conducted before he was terminated from service. An Award may be passed holding that the action of the Respondent

in terminating the petitioner from service is unjustified and also directing the Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in

service with full backwages, continuity of service and attendant benefits.

The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:

The Respondent had entered into a settlement with the recognized Trade Union on 17.02.2011 regarding

absorption of Temporary Messenger/Sweepers as a one-time measure subject to the satisfaction of certain educational

qualification and age limit. The concerned person should have been in service immediately preceding 15.11.2010 and

should have continued to be working also, to be absorbed. The person should have worked and completed 240 or more

days in a calendar year as on 15.11.2010. The petitioner was absorbed in the service of the Bank as per the settlement

dated 17.02.2011. He was posted at Nesapakkam Branch. On the basis of the instructions given the petitioner had

submitted certificates and documents to prove his educational qualification, age, etc. The Bank had received various

complaints regarding the recruitment and an investigation was conducted to verify the credentials of those who were

absorbed in the service of the Bank as per the settlement dated 17.02.2011. The CBI has registered complaints against

persons who were involved in the recruitment scam. An investigation is going on. On investigation conducted by the

Bank it was found that the petitioner had submitted bogus transfer certificate to get into service. In the application

submitted by him the petitioner has declared that if any statements made by him are incorrect or any false information

has been submitted by him he is liable to be disqualified and if appointed he is liable to be terminated from service. The

petitioner was terminated from service based on the investigation report dated 12.05.2014. The petitioner is not entitled

to any relief.

The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the allegations in the Counter Statement and reiterating his case in the

Claim Statement.

The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to

Ext.W4 and Ext.M1 and Ext.M2.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the Respondent is justified in terminating the petitioner from service.

(ii)

What, if any is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?

The Points

The petitioner is said to have been working in the Respondent establishment as a Temporary Messenger from

June 2006. He had made an application for absorption in the service of the Bank on the basis of the settlement entered

into by the Bank with its recognized Trade Union on 17.02.2011, and was selected and appointed as a Messenger. After

his period of probation he was confirmed in service also. The Respondent terminated him from service on 07.05.2014.

3220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 3, 2017/JYAISTHA 13, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

It is alleged by the Respondent that the petitioner had produced false certificate regarding his educational qualification.

The termination was on account of this.

Ext.W1 is the Order of Appointment issued to the petitioner on 27.09.2011. The order states that the service is

liable to be terminated if any material information is suppressed or if the certificates submitted by him are found to be

not genuine or tampered with. In the application form submitted by the petitioner for absorption in the service of the

Respondent on the basis of settlement dated 17.02.2011 the petitioner has stated that if any statements furnished by him

are incorrect he is liable to be disqualified and if appointed he is liable to be terminated from service. In Ext.W2, the

order of termination it is stated that the petitioner and submitted forged certificate in support his educational

qualification to obtain appointment in the bank and therefore he is liable to be terminated from service without notice.

Thus the termination is on the basis that false certificate regarding educational qualification has been submitted by the

petitioner.

The Chief Manager of the Enquiry Cell of the Respondent has been examined as MW1. He has stated in the

Proof Affidavit that the petitioner has undertaken not to furnish false or forged documents. Ext.M1 is the application

submitted by the petitioner for absorption in the Respondent Bank. Ext.M2 is the Investigation Report which states that

the transfer certificate submitted by the petitioner along with the application was found to be a forged one. The

petitioner has stated during his examination that he has not submitted any documents alongwith his application for

absorption. However, it could be seen from the very Claim Statement that he had furnished all the required documents

along with the application and it was on this basis he was interviewed, selected and appointed though with a condition

that in case of any false information or suppression of information his appointment is liable to be terminated.

The argument that is advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the termination of the petitioner from service is

against the principles of natural justice as prior notice on a charge sheet was not issued to him or enquiry was

conducted. There is no doubt that termination of the petitioner from service is without issuing a charge sheet or

conducting any enquiry. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to Clause-12 of the Bipartite Settlement which

provides for disciplinary action against an employee. The Respondent has been harping on the terms included in the

application as well as the clauses in the Appointment Order in which the employee has agreed to be terminated from

service in case of any misrepresentation, production of bogus documents, etc. The case of the Respondent is that in a

case where fraud is involved the principles of natural justice cannot be invoked. The counsel for the petitioner has

referred to an unreported decision of the Karnataka High Court in a matter involved in Indian Overseas Bank in Writ

Appeal No. 1334 and 1335/2015 where it was held that where orders of termination were passed without holding an

enquiry regarding the alleged misconduct, in the absence of establishing the said fact, the termination could not have