रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ;एनद्ध 04/0007/2003—05 REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
प्राध्किार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक WEEKLY
सं. 34] नई दिल्ली, अगस्त 20—अगस्त 26, 2017, शनिवार/श्रावण 29—भाद्र 4, 1939
No. 34] NEW DELHI, AUGUST 20—AUGUST 26, 2017, SATURDAY/ SRAVANA 29—BHADRA 4, 1939
इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड ;iiद्ध
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्राालयों ;रक्षा मंत्राालय को छोड़करद्ध द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविध्कि आदेश और अध्सिूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
स्वास्वास्वास्वास्थ्यस्थ्यस्थ्यस्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्या एवं परिवार कल्या एवं परिवार कल्या एवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालयण मंत्रालयण मंत्रालयण मंत्रालय
(स्वा(स्वा(स्वा(स्वास्थ्यस्थ्यस्थ्यस्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्या एवं परिवार कल्या एवं परिवार कल्या एवं परिवार कल्याण िवभाग)ण िवभाग)ण िवभाग)ण िवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 17 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1957195719571957....————जबकि भारतीय आयु(cid:22)व(cid:24)ान परिषद (संशोधन) अध्यादेश, 2013 की धारा 3क की उप-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते 1ए दिनांक 5 नवंबर, 2013 को भारतीय आयु(cid:22)व(cid:24)ान परिषद का पुनर्गठन किया गया था।
और जबकि भारतीय आयु(cid:22)व(cid:24)ान अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102) की धारा 3 की उप-धारा (1) के खंड (ख) के अनुसरण में तथा संबंधित विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा सूचित अनुसार कें >ीय सरकार निम्निलिखत को भारतीय आयु(cid:22)व(cid:24)ान परिषद के सदस्य के रूप में इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने से पांच वर्ष की अवधि के लिए नामित करती है।
अब, इसिलए, उपयु र्क्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप-धारा (1) के प्रावधान के अनुसरण में कें > सरकार एतFारा भारत सरकार तत्कालीन स्वास्थ्य मंत्रालय के दिनांक 9 जनवरी, 1960 की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. सं.138 में निम्न संशोधन करती है, नामत:
4913 GI/2017
(5195)5196 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार की दिनांक 6 नवंबर, 2013 की का.आ. 3325 (अ) की अधिसूचना तथा इसमें किए गए संशोधनों में अंतिम प्रविष्टि के बाद तथा इससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि में निम्निलिखत को शािमल किया जाए, नामत:
| Q.सं. | विश् वविद्यालय का नाम | नामित सदस् य का िववरण | चयन प्रQिया |
| 48. | वीर कु ं वर सिह विश् वविद्यालय, आरा, िबहार | डॉ. िवजय शंकर सिह, 0/85, डॉक्टर्स कॉलोनी, कं करबाग, पटना | | निवरोध निर्वाचित |
[सं. वी-11013/02/2016-एमईपी]
अिमत बिस्वास, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of Health and Family Welfare)
New Delhi, the 17th August, 2017
S.O. 1957.—Whereas on 05th November, 2013, the Medical Council of India was re-constituted in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3A of the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013;
And, whereas the Central Government, in pursuance of Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) and as informed by the respective university, the following has been elected to be a member of the Medical Council of India for a period of five years with effect from the date of issue of this notification.
Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry of Health number S.O. 138 dated 9th January, 1960, namely:-
In the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare number S.O. 3325(E) dated 06th November, 2013 and amendments thereto, after the last entry and entry relating thereto, the following shall be inserted, namely:
| S. No. | Name of the University | Details of the Elected Member | Mode of Election |
| 48. | Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara, Bihar | Dr. Vijay Shankar Singh, 0/85, Doctor's Colony, Kankarbagh Patna. | Elected uncontested. |
[No. V-11013/02/2016-MEP]
AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.
पेपेपेपेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय ट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय ट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय ट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 18 अगस्त, 2017
)भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन (अिधिनयम , का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1958195819581958....————के न्(cid:16)ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम एवं खनिज पाइपलाइन
1962 )1962 का 50( , की धारा (क) के खंड (2) के अनुसरण में, नीचे दी गई अनुसूची के स्तंभ 1 में उल्लिखित *क्ति को, उक्त अनुसूची के स्तंभ 2 में की तत्स्थानी प्रविष्टि में उल्लिखित क्षेत्र के संबंध मे उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृ त्यों का निर्वहन करने के लिए प्राधिकृ त करती है, अर्थात :—
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5197प्राधिकारी का नाम और पता
अधिकारिता का क्षेत्र
( 1)
( 2 )
झारखंड राज्य
9ी अजय सिह बड़ाईक ( झा. प्र. से. )
सक्षम प्राधिकारी
इंडियन ऑयल कॉपBरेशन लिमिटेड
पारादीप हल्दिया दुर्गापुर एल. पी. जी. पाइपलाइन ऑगमेंटेशन एवं
18" हल्दिया बरौनी प्रोडक्ट पाइपलाइन परियोजना
देवघर पैलेस , तीसरा तल , वी आई पी चौक
जसीडीह, देवघर - 814 142 (झारखंड )
यह अधिसूचना जारी होने की तारीख से लागू होगी |
[फा. सं. आर-25011/14/2012/48578-ओआर-I (पार्ट)]
पवन कु मार, अवर सिचव
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 18th August, 2017
S.O. 1958.—In pursuance of Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act,1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby authorizes the person mentioned in column ( 1 ) of the Schedule given below to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under said Act, in respect of the area mentioned in column ( 2 ) of the Schedule :-.
SCHEDULE
Name and address of the Authority
Area of Jurisdiction
( 1)
( 2 )
Shri Ajay Singh Baraik, JAS
State of Jharkhand
Competent Authority
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Augmentation of Paradip Haldia Durgapur LPG Pipeline
And 18"Haldia Barauni Product Pipeline Projects
" Deoghar Palace" , 3rd Floor, VIP Chowk,
Jasidih, Deoghar - 814 112 (Jharkhand )
This notification is applicable from the date of issue.
[F. No. R-25011/14/2012/48578-OR-I (Pt.)]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
5198 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1959195919591959....————के न्(cid:16)ीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पारादीप (ओिड़शा) से हैदराबाद (तेलंगाना) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉपBरेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा "पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन" िबछाई जानी चािहए;
और के न्(cid:16)ीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि मे जो इस से उपाबM अनुसूची में वNणत है और िजस में उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अत: अब, के न्(cid:16)ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अिधिनयम,1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Pए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई *क्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वNणत भूमि में हितबM है, उस तारीख से िजसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इUीस दिन के भीतर भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के िलए उस में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में 9ी दिल्लीप कु मार महांित, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉपBरेशन लिमिटेड, पारादीप - हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, तृतीय तल, आलोक भारती टावर ,शहीद नगर,भुवनेश्वर -751007, ओड़िशा को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सके गा I
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| तहसील - ओडगाँ | िजला - नयागढ़ | राज्य -ओिड़शा | ||||
| गाँव का नाम | प्लॉट नं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||||
| हेक्टयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | ||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
732 00 00 41 743 00 03 52 744 00 03 14 741 00 01 32 742 00 07 69 763 00 01 85 716 00 00 27 716/3092 00 05 85 764 00 06 06 765 00 03 83 715 00 00 58 714 00 05 35 766 00 01 90 713 00 00 18 710/2302 00 13 92 709 00 00 63 705 00 00 39[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5199
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
686 00 00 10 675 00 03 44 676 00 03 77 673 00 04 07 669/2261 00 00 10 670 00 04 13 664/2294 00 09 86 664/2293 00 00 61 650 00 03 88 651 00 00 29 652 00 00 92 653 00 02 67 655 00 08 61 655/2303 00 03 71 609/2431 00 14 65 617 00 02 30 610 00 01 75 610/2857 00 06 26 611 00 00 29 604 00 05 51 602 00 00 35 603 00 03 38 603/2307 00 02 14 577/2239 00 03 61 526 00 01 26 525 00 01 35 524 00 00 48 47 00 08 70 102 00 01 79 104 00 00 61 104/2954 00 00 10 104/3118 00 00 11 103 00 04 24 103/2278 00 04 19 95 00 03 91 108 00 06 89 94 00 01 705200 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
121 00 01 74
271 00 00 59
270 00 03 31
270/2619 00 02 98
264 00 03 27
265 00 06 13
262 00 00 70
266 00 00 10
261 00 04 74
258 00 01 73
258/2271 00 04 07
259 00 02 07
255 00 03 58
255/2505 00 05 47
253 00 00 10
254 00 05 46
247 00 04 80
246 00 05 45
246/2390 00 03 63
244 00 02 36
244/2349 00 00 18
245 00 07 54
231 00 00 15
168 00 08 05
224 00 00 11
221 00 09 42
209 00 02 02
208 00 00 10
210 00 05 41
211 00 00 50
205 00 03 51
204 00 00 85
204/2336 00 02 06
जागिरि खइरपटि 259 00 03 19
258 00 02 26
255 00 02 52
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939
5201
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
251 00 00 10
9 00 04 33
62 00 03 34
61 00 01 45
61/948 00 00 72
63 00 05 78
64 00 02 12
60 00 03 73
58 00 02 89
60/752 00 00 10
57 00 00 10
59 00 07 05
15 00 01 25
32 00 01 70
16 00 01 10
31 00 02 87
30 00 06 55
29 00 02 89
27 00 00 33
21 00 00 90
23 00 05 40
19/724 00 01 59
98 00 03 45
मझिआँख[ड 737 00 07 21
602/1533 00 05 76
606 00 00 97
607 00 00 32
618 00 03 93
608 00 03 37
609 00 01 86
617 00 00 44
611 00 02 85
610 00 00 45
647 00 05 12
646 00 00 27
645 00 06 70
5202 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
642 00 01 92 643 00 03 34 651 00 00 10 651/1578 00 00 10 689 00 04 23 690 00 03 11 691 00 01 61 692 00 06 25 693 00 01 88 741 00 02 31 767 00 04 84 767/1608 00 02 41 766 00 07 61 798 00 00 12 807 00 06 67 801 00 02 51 802 00 00 16 803 00 01 05 804 00 03 43 805 00 01 31 823 00 08 13 824 00 01 62 825 00 00 78 826 00 00 43 827 00 02 88 820 00 05 56 821 00 01 96 822 00 01 73 829 00 00 10 460 00 05 54 363 00 01 05 356 00 02 22 357 00 02 58 355 00 00 53 354 00 00 65 353 00 00 88 352 00 02 73[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5203
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
380 00 00 64
380/1573 00 00 57
380/1583 00 00 57
324 00 09 50
325 00 05 39
323 00 09 72
323/1546 00 00 39
317 00 15 41
398 00 00 45
भािलआिडही 1472 00 00 47
1473/2472 00 02 80
1473 00 03 68
1471 00 02 56
1474 00 00 67
1474/2658 00 01 61
1470 00 01 31
1475 00 07 51
1477 00 03 40
1478 00 00 96
1479 00 03 35
1483 00 00 39
1479/2338 00 01 74
1482 00 02 58
1481 00 02 35
1481/2651 00 02 49
1264 00 00 72
1266 00 01 93
1265 00 01 52
1268 00 03 92
1269 00 21 82
1270 00 00 59
1254 00 01 32
137 00 08 09
136 00 03 88
171 00 06 83
168 00 06 43
5204 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
164 00 00 77 163/2449 00 03 14 163 00 02 37 182 00 08 40 183 00 00 80 185 00 06 24 186 00 01 56 196 00 02 36 197 00 06 25 195 00 00 90 198 00 04 18 199 00 00 10 200 00 04 03 206 00 00 10 249 00 06 24 250 00 06 21 255/2339 00 00 10 255 00 04 20 254 00 03 60 244 00 12 36 253/2451 00 01 03 243 00 00 27 239 00 04 60 238 00 00 10 241 00 01 81 240 00 04 41 297 00 00 41 299 00 06 47 232 00 04 32 302 00 08 25 231 00 00 11 301 00 01 00 303 00 05 40 305 00 02 75 306 00 06 90 462 00 01 17 465 00 01 44[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5205
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
गोलगाँ 1474/2388 00 02 02
1357 00 05 31
1372 00 01 87
1372/2415 00 04 92
1358 00 00 83
1359 00 03 29
1371 00 00 69
1370 00 02 51
1360 00 03 31
1369 00 04 62
1377 00 00 10
1378 00 05 84
1380 00 01 82
1379 00 00 10
1381 00 01 70
1331 00 00 80
1330 00 03 01
1329 00 03 28
1328 00 09 72
1327 00 02 07
1317 00 04 14
1322 00 00 10
1319 00 02 63
1320 00 01 42
1306 00 03 48
1305 00 06 32
1303 00 09 41
1293 00 02 53
1292 00 01 77
1291 00 01 06
1443 00 02 02
1282 00 05 34
1281 00 01 52
1452 00 03 84
1453 00 08 50
1267/2378 00 01 40
5206 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1264 00 02 79
1265 00 02 47
1261 00 00 37
1248 00 03 16
1245 00 08 62
1237 00 05 46
1238 00 01 39
1239 00 01 13
1234 00 07 96
1233 00 07 30
1232 00 03 40
1 00 02 52
धुसुमा 1564 00 03 28
1522/1654 00 03 58
1521 00 00 74
1520 00 06 78
1523 00 06 45
1517 00 00 39
1517/1864 00 00 67
1524 00 05 92
1514/1753 00 00 54
1514 00 00 34
1525 00 02 49
1513 00 02 51
1526/1608 00 00 16
1526 00 01 82
1527/1789 00 01 60
1527/1788 00 03 17
1527 00 07 02
1512/1610 00 00 10
1511 00 02 88
687 00 02 38
688 00 00 18
688/1592 00 00 15
678 00 01 36
686 00 05 81
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939
5207
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
673 00 02 49
672 00 01 34
671 00 00 90
674 00 00 10
621 00 04 61
624 00 06 97
622 00 03 32
623 00 07 32
628 00 03 39
619 00 03 14
610 00 14 24
629 00 01 04
609 00 04 40
608/1676 00 00 97
608 00 05 34
608/1677 00 03 48
608/1678 00 00 10
607 00 07 81
566/1653 00 00 10
606 00 02 60
576 00 04 64
573 00 00 10
574 00 00 70
575 00 01 79
572 00 00 10
577 00 04 93
585 00 00 10
578 00 02 59
579 00 00 10
580 00 05 77
581 00 02 34
524 00 01 32
525 00 00 89
523 00 01 37
522 00 00 34
521 00 00 16
िशखर पुर 2711 00 00 87
5208 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2704 00 00 10 2708 00 07 68 2707 00 00 82 2722 00 05 10 2706 00 04 36 2686 00 08 41 2686/4884 00 02 66 2683 00 00 82 2688 00 00 18 2687 00 03 78 2672 00 05 25 2668 00 07 55 2664 00 08 19 2665 00 13 08 921/4240 00 01 92 921 00 01 50 912 00 02 92 909 00 00 10 909/4388 00 00 10 910 00 00 48 910/4652 00 00 65 910/4842 00 00 57 911 00 06 34 911/4902 00 03 09 915 00 03 01 917 00 02 82 917/4392 00 03 15 837 00 02 96 838 00 02 18 836 00 00 82 838/4386 00 01 86 841 00 04 28 842 00 02 65 843 00 00 14 843/4387 00 03 37 846 00 05 07 851 00 13 26[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5209
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
859 00 05 78 817 00 02 27 813 00 01 63 814 00 01 82 815 00 02 41 816 00 02 52 770 00 03 13 771 00 00 48 770/4272 00 00 33 772 00 00 86 783 00 00 50 782 00 08 80 779 00 00 13 778 00 03 37 777 00 03 32 775 00 00 10 776 00 07 35 776/4362 00 05 09 787 00 00 49 698 00 05 31 560 00 07 86 565 00 02 15 556 00 00 10 556/4661 00 00 10 555 00 08 05 566 00 02 02 553 00 05 23 552/4074 00 00 15 552 00 05 85 551 00 00 81 547 00 07 97 548 00 00 41 2916 00 00 10 545 00 01 21 546 00 04 25 544 00 02 35 544/4898 00 06 535210 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
538/4267 00 02 58
2936 00 05 31
2950 00 05 25
2949 00 00 91
2951 00 03 25
2952 00 06 54
2954 00 02 27
2955 00 01 89
2956 00 00 10
2956/4782 00 00 10
2957 00 07 67
2966 00 01 20
2965 00 12 67
2970 00 06 30
2972/4270 00 01 51
2971/4250 00 00 18
2972/4151 00 07 98
2973 00 13 56
2972 00 01 78
2984 00 02 58
2985 00 03 29
3008 00 05 88
3009 00 13 21
3020 00 00 74
3010 00 00 30
3019 00 05 37
3019/4834 00 02 28
3019/4835 00 02 38
3018 00 19 20
असुरढिपा 633 00 02 48
633/1321 00 02 80
634 00 10 19
641 00 00 80
644 00 02 79
643 00 00 92
646 00 03 78
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939
5211
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
648 00 00 22
683 00 02 50
684 00 03 08
685 00 00 55
682 00 02 32
679 00 01 90
678 00 01 59
680 00 00 57
677 00 05 56
676 00 01 09
675 00 01 97
669 00 03 79
670 00 02 26
673 00 00 10
671 00 02 03
662 00 02 68
661 00 08 18
750 00 03 05
759 00 02 46
758 00 00 34
805 00 08 44
804 00 00 47
806 00 13 07
814 00 15 17
808 00 02 19
809 00 00 10
815 00 05 74
798 00 00 10
798/1323 00 00 10
816 00 02 87
817 00 11 36
877/1232 00 01 21
हरिहरपुर 2136/2162 00 01 02
2022 00 01 33
2023 00 23 38
2021 00 00 10
5212 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1867 00 03 78 1859 00 00 11 1860 00 10 54 1861 00 02 50 1862 00 01 99 1850 00 05 31 1850/2620 00 00 85 1853 00 01 69 1847 00 02 65 1846 00 03 73 1854 00 00 19 1854/2669 00 01 10 1855 00 01 43 1844 00 01 87 1720 00 03 38 984 00 04 94 985 00 00 85 986 00 02 77 987 00 05 80 983 00 00 84 983/2550 00 00 27 983/2562 00 00 28 983/2593 00 00 27 983/2594 00 00 28 983/2769 00 00 46 998 00 04 83 999 00 00 80 1002 00 05 84 1001 00 03 94 1001/2380 00 03 52 923 00 00 95 924 00 04 17 920 00 03 56 924/2190 00 01 39 919 00 01 93 919/2657 00 01 78 925 00 02 27[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5213
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
913 00 00 10
911 00 03 29
912 00 01 38
900 00 02 15
899 00 06 47
898 00 05 48
878/2383 00 02 80
878/2204 00 02 42
878/2384 00 01 80
879 00 00 16
777/2257 00 00 10
877 00 06 89
876 00 04 60
875/2213 00 06 97
1054/2207 00 00 10
875/2214 00 04 68
874/2373 00 04 65
1054/2361 00 00 97
874 00 05 11
874/2372 00 00 42
1060 00 14 57
1065 00 02 98
873 00 00 76
873/2535 00 01 48
1066 00 08 89
872 00 00 46
872/2503 00 00 17
1067/2379 00 00 88
1067 00 05 16
1068 00 00 10
1069 00 00 22
करड़ारघुनाथपुर 707/768 00 00 67
708 00 15 58
721 00 07 64
722 00 07 86
724 00 03 40
5214 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
661 00 01 07 664 00 04 19 662 00 04 97 663 00 00 89 643 00 06 03 439 00 00 10 440 00 04 75 436 00 05 82 435 00 03 83 433 00 04 16 432 00 04 35 432/790 00 02 72 394 00 03 41 392 00 00 62 393 00 06 17 364 00 07 41 363 00 10 59 351 00 02 68 350 00 09 84 334 00 00 38 338 00 02 27 339 00 05 09 340 00 01 67 341 00 06 77 321 00 00 26 321/833 00 00 42 321/844 00 00 93 321/845 00 01 00 321/846 00 01 01 321/847 00 00 84 242 00 01 12 240 00 01 40 122 00 00 75 121 00 04 43 118 00 01 18 120 00 01 84 119 00 00 99[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5215
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
73 00 00 42
74 00 00 27
78 00 01 87
80/737 00 04 90
80 00 03 63
91 00 04 02
90 00 03 42
88 00 02 04
89 00 01 82
बड़पुट 629 00 07 94
624 00 03 31
623 00 03 61
622 00 00 38
620 00 03 79
621 00 00 10
619 00 00 91
618 00 06 28
617 00 03 67
647 00 00 10
580 00 01 13
581 00 03 36
569 00 00 81
582 00 01 06
567 00 03 65
564 00 09 52
565 00 00 11
387 00 03 59
386 00 02 28
388 00 00 10
385 00 02 77
382 00 03 04
413 00 08 26
419 00 01 69
418 00 11 74
420 00 00 10
421 00 05 49
5216 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
355 00 01 51 426 00 04 69 343 00 05 68 343/1832 00 02 73 339 00 01 48 340 00 01 56 342 00 00 10 341 00 04 27 337 00 00 10 335 00 04 54 334 00 00 47 323 00 02 47 302 00 02 62 303 00 08 92 304 00 01 17 191 00 03 85 195 00 02 33 194 00 01 16 193 00 00 26 184/2044 00 01 80 192 00 01 27 185 00 00 68 184 00 03 57 185/2066 00 00 39 175/1869 00 05 49 176 00 06 49 211 00 10 98 213 00 05 31 214 00 01 19 14 00 13 59 12 00 06 50 012/2251 00 05 00 61 00 17 02 75 00 00 60 73/1988 00 00 27 74 00 04 91 71 00 05 60[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5217
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
77 00 01 38
90 00 02 25
88 00 00 93
87 00 06 59
92 00 00 10
86 00 01 40
मPलिआ 1058 00 14 49
1059/1405 00 00 39
1061/1403 00 08 75
1061 00 07 55
1072 00 00 12
1070 00 03 53
1069 00 02 00
1067 00 02 21
1068 00 01 34
1052 00 01 39
1035 00 00 13
1036 00 01 22
1036/1662 00 02 58
1040 00 00 59
1042 00 10 17
1043/1414 00 00 68
1043 00 03 11
1041 00 04 16
1043/1413 00 03 46
548/1408 00 03 01
548/1409 00 00 27
548 00 01 29
548/1617 00 00 80
542 00 02 65
543 00 04 54
541/1559 00 00 60
541 00 04 48
438 00 00 35
440 00 00 33
440/1392 00 02 22
5218 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
451 00 01 12
452 00 00 48
455 00 03 37
483 00 02 97
481 00 00 53
480 00 04 70
489 00 01 06
479 00 01 86
478 00 01 77
475 00 00 10
477/1461 00 05 70
477 00 00 79
477/1462 00 08 87
468 00 00 10
293 00 11 71
258 00 02 76
259 00 03 40
270 00 00 10
263 00 00 13
259/1525 00 01 87
262 00 00 17
261 00 03 15
260 00 00 68
261/1540 00 00 10
के न्दुपलि 80 00 01 28
80/688 00 00 10
81 00 05 90
79 00 00 10
82 00 02 75
83 00 00 79
84 00 00 18
78 00 11 29
77 00 14 90
नन्दिघोर 2620 00 01 89
2625 00 04 78
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939
5219
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2596 00 11 96 2595 00 00 10 2580 00 08 48 2567 00 00 10 2581 00 03 58 2565 00 08 96 2563 00 05 45 2566 00 00 10 2566/4584 00 00 10 2564 00 00 33 2557 00 07 87 2556 00 03 54 2554 00 01 56 2553 00 00 36 2551 00 00 10 2551/4585 00 00 10 2550 00 02 82 2547 00 04 56 2546 00 00 23 2544 00 00 17 2544/4329 00 00 16 2545 00 03 43 2537 00 02 20 2539 00 03 18 2538 00 00 88 2540 00 02 58 2535 00 01 33 2535/3497 00 01 55 2534 00 02 53 2533 00 04 84 2531 00 07 31 2532 00 01 40 2508 00 06 08 2509 00 03 20 2517 00 02 52 2516 00 00 89 2510 00 06 335220 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2496 00 08 68
2495 00 03 46
462 00 09 95
462/3762 00 04 03
456 00 01 31
456/4370 00 01 76
456/4484 00 01 47
456/4405 00 01 35
457 00 01 50
453 00 04 89
452 00 08 32
450/3908 00 01 20
450/3909 00 04 33
450 00 01 75
450/4464 00 01 25
449 00 07 48
399 00 08 76
398 00 01 37
397 00 01 85
393 00 09 10
392 00 06 47
380/3832 00 00 76
10.3906 00 07 59
12 00 05 31
47 00 00 15
46 00 00 97
45 00 03 77
21 00 10 73
44 00 00 13
20/3705 00 00 10
20 00 05 43
20/3704 00 01 86
19 00 00 43
16 00 10 04
15 00 06 30
1 00 03 81
ओस्तिआ 147 00 07 90
153/661 00 02 70
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939
5221
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
144 00 01 83
155 00 00 42
143 00 05 84
142 00 00 66
141 00 04 84
127 00 00 10
127/759 00 00 10
140 00 00 56
134 00 02 91
128 00 00 82
133 00 05 55
131 00 00 10
129 00 06 63
130 00 10 44
91 00 02 27
163 00 04 17
90 00 02 46
90/761 00 02 47
88 00 01 93
89/745 00 02 35
89 00 07 39
86 00 02 68
67 00 01 34
68 00 01 88
69 00 03 39
71 00 04 63
72 00 09 02
रगिड़मड़ा 676 00 03 40
675 00 16 63
607 00 00 15
615 00 09 92
609/749 00 00 10
613 00 02 77
612 00 07 57
611 00 00 83
610 00 03 36
610/835 00 03 07
5222 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
596/802 00 01 30 593 00 01 77 592/757 00 03 00 534 00 06 44 534/823 00 02 35 534/824 00 01 82 533 00 02 21 532 00 08 32 528 00 01 10 528/838 00 01 98 521 00 03 92 527/710 00 08 47 527/711 00 03 67 256 00 02 36 256/808 00 04 22 255 00 09 20 258 00 00 10 254 00 00 96 254/795 00 02 70 254/ 00 01 94 260 00 00 10 245/689 00 06 88 261/700 00 01 42 262 00 02 23 263 00 05 05 78 00 02 33 107 00 02 10 107/814 00 01 40 107/833 00 01 49 124 00 07 60 125 00 00 25 125/763 00 00 30 125/764 00 00 25 126 00 01 35 127 00 10 14 128 00 02 82 135/750 00 00 10[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5223
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
158 00 07 90
161 00 07 63
160 00 08 30
162 00 03 76
163 00 02 63
164 00 03 42
165 00 02 72
190 00 00 57
191 00 02 88
192/724 00 00 79
193 00 00 66
192 00 04 71
195 00 08 61
197 00 04 99
198 00 01 58
बाउँ शगािड़आ 283 00 00 19
279 00 00 22
पल्लिगुन्ठासाहि 173 00 01 61
170 00 06 29
171 00 04 16
172 00 01 31
141 00 02 02
143 00 00 10
142 00 06 92
146 00 03 93
148 00 27 89
120 00 13 87
119 00 08 66
119/255 00 02 14
118 00 04 06
118/257 00 01 28
60 00 01 10
60/192 00 05 27
113 00 02 68
61 00 00 63
61/217 00 01 28
5224 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
68 00 03 72
66 00 05 22
64 00 01 13
49 00 05 91
50 00 02 53
50/228 00 01 97
45 00 02 51
गुन्ठासाहि 958 00 01 09
958/1091 00 00 94
1002 00 02 09
959 00 04 95
959/1072 00 07 07
959/1073 00 02 35
960 00 01 54
962 00 02 44
961 00 04 98
964 00 03 48
963 00 02 19
965 00 04 37
991 00 00 49
986 00 12 82
984 00 02 56
560 00 03 02
459 00 07 87
455 00 02 34
454 00 02 00
453 00 01 15
445 00 00 54
451 00 00 10
451/1089 00 00 10
451/1102 00 00 10
452 00 02 72
444 00 01 35
443 00 01 15
442 00 00 64
447 00 07 02
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939
5225
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
440 00 00 41
295 00 14 40
438 00 01 12
437 00 03 08
301 00 03 90
301/1106 00 03 07
301/1107 00 03 01
431 00 02 28
430 00 01 04
302 00 09 37
309 00 01 28
308 00 03 71
307 00 06 16
315 00 00 87
316 00 00 69
306 00 06 30
325 00 03 53
324 00 01 79
323 00 03 81
325/1026 00 05 53
322 00 01 71
326 00 00 10
332 00 12 29
347 00 04 04
333 00 08 46
341 00 04 92
342 00 04 46
343 00 04 15
258 00 03 68
257 00 00 46
256 00 05 61
255 00 01 09
244 00 02 30
245 00 03 21
241 00 00 93
कोरिपठा 1342 00 01 75
5226 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1321 00 09 07 1322 00 03 43 1324 00 02 04 1326 00 01 64 1327 00 07 83 1311 00 00 10 1309/1445 00 05 94 1328 00 00 11 1309 00 02 30 1310 00 05 59 580 00 01 12 580/1652 00 02 55 576 00 00 47 575 00 13 53 573 00 02 74 574 00 00 13 541 00 08 66 541/1491 00 01 16 540 00 02 49 542 00 06 99 545 00 02 37 545/1443 00 04 79 1472 00 07 20 1471 00 09 28 529 00 01 60 528 00 01 12 549 00 06 05 527 00 01 65 527/1504 00 00 99 523 00 02 89 524 00 01 64 522 00 07 12 521 00 05 33 518 00 05 49 518/1564 00 04 19 518/1566 00 04 37 477 00 01 27[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5227
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
421 00 01 30
422 00 04 06
423 00 09 34
424 00 07 16
425 00 05 99
391 00 00 16
389 00 02 96
427 00 02 35
388 00 00 21
388/1616 00 04 12
388/1714 00 04 12
428 00 00 51
387 00 08 17
386 00 04 33
356 00 02 25
सरमरेइसािह 223 00 00 88
566 00 05 59
221 00 09 19
225 00 29 52
234 00 00 71
231 00 03 45
232 00 08 43
233 00 04 90
134 00 01 73
241/541 00 01 49
240 00 00 10
116/539 00 05 79
116/540 00 20 85
116/538 00 06 19
293 00 00 78
294 00 07 15
295 00 01 82
291 00 00 68
291/581 00 00 85
291/583 00 00 89
291/593 00 00 28
5228 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
313 00 02 63
316 00 00 89
310 00 02 17
320 00 02 12
320/584 00 02 05
306 00 02 36
321 00 03 03
322 00 06 69
323 00 03 65
324 00 13 85
326 00 04 01
325 00 01 28
कइबलपुर 299 00 12 98
298 00 05 71
298/706 00 07 15
297 00 03 15
296 00 04 51
295 00 05 54
304 00 00 87
305 00 04 40
314 00 00 17
314/794 00 00 21
311 00 01 13
312 00 14 84
309 00 00 17
309/741 00 00 17
309/742 00 00 16
309/743 00 00 17
309/744 00 00 16
308 00 00 84
308/737 00 00 64
308/738 00 00 43
308/739 00 00 43
308/740 00 00 43
253 00 00 82
252 00 01 39
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939
5229
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
96 00 03 57
94 00 02 00
95 00 02 28
73 00 04 66
74 00 06 69
75 00 02 50
76 00 01 00
77 00 06 35
78 00 02 65
72 00 05 69
70 00 03 83
67 00 07 70
66 00 00 80
71 00 01 19
14 00 00 24
14/785 00 00 13
18 00 06 90
19 00 02 71
20 00 06 33
23/670 00 03 31
23 00 00 44
22 00 03 92
22/757 00 01 09
25 00 07 82
26 00 03 06
26/718 00 01 53
26/719 00 01 86
26/720 00 01 37
29 00 00 30
29/766 00 00 38
29/767 00 00 63
30 00 10 66
रिबगािड़आ 328 00 02 71
313 00 03 76
320 00 01 78
319 00 04 15
5230 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
199 00 04 15
215 00 08 25
215/426 00 04 35
217 00 01 42
218 00 03 77
220 00 07 58
192 00 00 59
191 00 02 47
191/359 00 02 57
191/362 00 01 44
191/414 00 01 76
190 00 03 17
190/360 00 01 50
190/391 00 01 04
188 00 05 32
189 00 01 84
187 00 06 15
179 00 06 22
185 00 07 07
183 00 10 32
कु ^मबाकं तरा 1103 00 00 10
1104 00 02 50
1127 00 06 66
1128 00 01 64
1130 00 03 99
1130/2379 00 02 14
1129 00 00 10
1131 00 02 45
1133 00 00 37
1133/2629 00 00 37
1132 00 06 15
1138 00 00 16
2045 00 04 13
2039 00 00 76
2044 00 00 10
2040 00 04 16
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939
5231
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2034 00 03 80
2035 00 00 61
2035/2350 00 01 48
2033 00 01 80
2014 00 06 86
2015 00 02 01
2026 00 00 59
2017 00 04 08
2017/2367 00 02 29
2018 00 02 62
2019 00 03 05
2011 00 02 33
2004 00 01 37
2003 00 06 08
2002 00 00 10
गोदरकणा 57 00 00 10
55 00 08 04
56 00 03 81
46 00 02 03
46/79 00 02 06
46/80 00 02 07
47 00 00 29
46/69 00 03 50
44 00 10 14
43 00 02 51
42 00 05 97
23 00 00 10
23/73 00 00 10
23/83 00 00 10
40 00 02 06
41 00 06 23
38 00 00 37
37 00 00 26
32 00 05 81
31 00 02 23
28 00 00 13
5232 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
भािलआिड़िह 1254 00 01 31
1253 00 04 42
1253/1434 00 02 22
1252 00 01 37
1249 00 00 22
1250 00 07 89
1248 00 00 83
1244 00 10 10
1245 00 02 66
1247 00 00 12
1247/1483 00 00 10
1246 00 03 01
1194 00 08 76
1143 00 03 04
1143/1534 00 02 27
1144 00 00 92
1147 00 00 82
1142 00 00 83
1142/1533 00 00 43
1141 00 02 34
1148 00 01 26
1149 00 01 59
1140 00 01 60
1105 00 06 49
1152 00 03 09
1154 00 00 60
1153 00 03 55
1104 00 08 98
1100 00 07 11
1101 00 06 87
1099 00 02 62
1099/1511 00 02 73
1098/1422 00 00 54
1098/1423 00 04 06
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939
5233
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1098 00 08 19
देओगाँ 583 00 01 52
582 00 00 10
581/1511 00 05 04
581 00 04 05
580 00 04 04
580/1585 00 01 50
580/1529 00 00 59
579 00 00 47
574 00 03 79
576 00 00 10
575 00 04 28
564 00 06 19
568 00 06 40
563 00 03 16
563/1540 00 01 03
563/1565 00 01 62
551 00 00 94
548 00 04 22
547 00 00 16
546 00 00 65
545 00 02 41
544 00 04 38
549 00 01 25
664 00 02 90
534 00 00 15
533 00 00 67
531 00 00 69
532 00 06 16
535 00 02 67
535/1587 00 00 47
530 00 01 32
528 00 01 58
528/1569 00 00 92
5234 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
519/1475 00 01 33 519 00 00 10 519/1476 00 01 59 520 00 02 96 521 00 00 18 514 00 03 00 513 00 05 77 488 00 00 92 451 00 10 53 453 00 00 10 449 00 07 73 455 00 00 55 450 00 00 52 448 00 02 11 760 00 00 89 761 00 01 39 759 00 04 35 758 00 09 33 872 00 02 16 766 00 00 41 768 00 00 10 767 00 00 67 771/1442 00 02 45 771 00 06 72 871 00 04 65 772 00 01 29 861 00 02 28 860 00 02 84 773 00 00 62 853 00 00 13 854 00 00 73 859 00 01 04 858 00 07 72 857/1523 00 00 10 835 00 10 16[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5235
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
832 00 02 43 833 00 03 43 834 00 00 23 832/1595 00 02 43 832/1599 00 02 43 929 00 01 31 945 00 02 03 931 00 05 92 944 00 00 10 937 00 01 51 936 00 05 87 935 00 00 25 932 00 07 23 1032 00 00 62 1031 00 01 51 1030 00 04 84 1029 00 05 80 1028 00 06 48 1027 00 00 10 1053/1432 00 03 99 1055 00 03 42 1054 00 03 07 1433 00 00 25 1057 00 00 30 1056 00 01 54 1058 00 04 75 1063 00 09 39 1062 00 00 98 1066 00 05 47 1073 00 02 17 63 00 09 86 44 00 02 75 1078 00 00 10 1077 00 05 23 1074 00 04 955236 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1254 00 00 55 1248 00 00 61 1247 00 01 58 1253 00 00 89 1246 00 03 49 1247/1496 00 00 50 1245 00 02 16 1244 00 10 92 1240 00 00 90 1241 00 16 72 1228 00 00 73 1290 00 04 23 1225 00 00 93 1292 00 00 26 1291 00 03 99 1295 00 05 08 1296 00 02 19 1302 00 00 47 1301 00 10 45 1303 00 00 46 1306 00 02 76 1307 00 06 45 1310 00 00 94 1309 00 01 70 1308 00 01 97 1309/1532 00 02 36 1313 00 02 05 1317 00 00 10 1314 00 05 79 1316 00 03 64 1315 00 00 97 1319 00 01 66 1324 00 04 06 1323 00 00 22 1325 00 03 05[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5237
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
कु राल 3817 00 16 59
3818 00 02 58
3953 00 01 56
3952 00 07 72
3981/4601 00 00 88
3995 00 13 38
3994 00 01 46
3996 00 02 90
3993 00 00 10
4000 00 02 53
4002 00 00 71
4001 00 01 14
3999 00 17 20
4014 00 00 21
4004 00 00 91
4013 00 04 08
4013/4953 00 01 31
4005 00 01 74
4012 00 00 43
4011 00 01 30
4006 00 01 98
4007 00 01 58
4010 00 00 26
4038 00 04 11
4035 00 07 52
4034 00 29 78
4091 00 00 10
4091/4805 00 00 16
4092 00 03 32
4097 00 03 22
4096 00 05 04
4096/4860 00 14 89
4096/4489 00 01 08
3164 00 05 48
4102 00 08 76
5238 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
4106 00 07 61 4240 00 06 00 4238 00 04 41 4237 00 05 47 4225 00 09 99 4224 00 07 18 4223 00 02 20 4218 00 10 07 4162/4391 00 01 30 4162 00 01 40 4162/4590 00 03 19 4162/4730 00 00 82 4590 00 03 19 4164 00 01 00 4168 00 14 57 4169 00 02 84 4207/4412 00 18 09 4175 00 00 10 4198 00 01 03 4178 00 04 77 4179 00 10 60 3063 00 04 68 3062 00 04 86 3061 00 00 16 3058 00 04 44 3055 00 02 57 3056 00 07 57 3024 00 00 29 3025 00 03 78 3053/4423 00 02 29 3026 00 06 15 3027 00 01 79 3028 00 01 70 2997 00 03 17 2968 00 14 83 2968/4773 00 01 23 2968/4307 00 00 20[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5239
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2887/4930 00 01 35
2888 00 14 46
2896 00 00 38
2890 00 06 41
2895 00 01 87
2891 00 16 29
2858 00 01 91
2900/4422 00 17 07
2854 00 00 19
2854/5651 00 00 19
2843 00 02 63
2843/4766 00 02 62
2842 00 05 34
2841 00 00 47
2840/4436 00 04 51
2840 00 05 23
2839 00 00 33
2819 00 02 73
2819/5606 00 02 30
2817 00 01 62
2818 00 00 41
2814 00 07 83
2813 00 09 18
2812 00 00 85
2811 00 03 16
2810 00 04 69
2805 00 03 05
2806 00 07 75
2807 00 09 31
2807/4757 00 01 73
2796 00 00 11
2795 00 00 91
हनुमन्तिआ 185 00 09 45
185/1316 00 04 15
185/1315 00 03 13
186/1317 00 04 05
5240 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
243 00 02 43 242 00 00 10 242/1416 00 00 10 241 00 16 85 242/1218 00 04 38 234 00 01 36 233 00 04 06 233/1391 00 02 80 233/1528 00 00 17 232 00 50 04 232/1512 00 05 41 247 00 00 68 231 00 08 39 252 00 01 40 312 00 07 40 269 00 04 20 268 00 02 43 267 00 00 74 270 00 00 83 270/1412 00 00 46 256 00 09 01 264 00 06 02 265 00 05 70 277 00 00 31 668 00 00 12 668/1478 00 00 10 668/1479 00 00 10 668/1483 00 00 10 667 00 04 44 662/1250 00 10 60 662 00 05 19 662/1364 00 05 27 663 00 02 35 719 00 05 95 717 00 00 10[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5241
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1167 00 12 01
1166 00 00 84
723 00 00 93
1165 00 09 39
1163/1278 00 02 29
1160 00 00 31
1160/1428 00 00 16
1160/1429 00 00 16
1159 00 07 95
1155 00 03 73
1153 00 06 39
1156 00 01 29
1154 00 03 18
1157 00 00 24
1151 00 00 52
नाउरिआगोड़ा 471 00 03 58
473 00 01 83
472 00 00 44
470 00 00 57
474 00 02 83
468 00 00 10
467 00 02 62
475 00 00 37
466/605 00 00 09
477/609 00 00 24
466 00 00 46
466/736 00 05 58
456 00 01 47
455 00 06 85
250 00 01 87
158 00 00 36
159 00 06 59
160 00 06 07
161 00 00 20
5242 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
171 00 04 64
172 00 05 23
170/635 00 00 93
241 00 16 56
185/704 00 01 32
184 00 02 05
185 00 08 18
186 00 00 04
187 00 01 57
188 00 01 59
183 00 00 14
189 00 00 87
192 00 00 10
191 00 06 08
194 00 00 57
126 00 07 59
125 00 11 22
महे_रपुर 18 00 00 67
14 00 05 39
17 00 04 53
13 00 03 68
11 00 03 22
12 00 05 27
8 00 03 01
6 00 01 08
[फा. सं. आर-25011/25/2017-ओआर- I (पार्ट)]
पवन कु मार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2017
S.O. 1959.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip (Odisha) to Hyderabad (Telangana),"Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline" should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the schedule annexed hereto;
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5243Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty-one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri Dillip Kumar Mohanty, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 3rd Floor, Alok Bharati Tower, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar- 751007, (Odisha).
SCHEDULE
| Tehsil : ODAGAON | District : NAYAGARH | State : ODISHA | ||
| Name of the Village | Plot No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
732 00 00 41 743 00 03 52 744 00 03 14 741 00 01 32 742 00 07 69 763 00 01 85 716 00 00 27 716/3092 00 05 85 764 00 06 06 765 00 03 83 715 00 00 58 714 00 05 35 766 00 01 90 713 00 00 18 710/2302 00 13 92 709 00 00 63 705 00 00 39 706 00 07 41 684 00 01 80 685 00 04 17 686 00 00 10 675 00 03 44 676 00 03 77 673 00 04 07 669/2261 00 00 105244 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
650 00 03 88 651 00 00 29 652 00 00 92 653 00 02 67 655 00 08 61 655/2303 00 03 71 609/2431 00 14 65 617 00 02 30 610 00 01 75 610/2857 00 06 26 611 00 00 29 604 00 05 51 602 00 00 35 603 00 03 38 603/2307 00 02 14 577/2239 00 03 61 526 00 01 26 525 00 01 35 524 00 00 48 47 00 08 70 102 00 01 79 104 00 00 61 104/2954 00 00 10 104/3118 00 00 11 103 00 04 24 103/2278 00 04 19 95 00 03 91 108 00 06 89 94 00 01 70 93 00 02 61 110 00 09 07 109 00 03 67 121 00 01 74 271 00 00 59 270 00 03 31 270/2619 00 02 98[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5245
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
266 00 00 10
261 00 04 74
258 00 01 73
258/2271 00 04 07
259 00 02 07
255 00 03 58
255/2505 00 05 47
253 00 00 10
254 00 05 46
247 00 04 80
246 00 05 45
246/2390 00 03 63
244 00 02 36
244/2349 00 00 18
245 00 07 54
231 00 00 15
168 00 08 05
224 00 00 11
221 00 09 42
209 00 02 02
208 00 00 10
210 00 05 41
211 00 00 50
205 00 03 51
204 00 00 85
204/2336 00 02 06
JAGIRIKHAIRPATI 259 00 03 19
258 00 02 26
255 00 02 52
256 00 00 14
253 00 02 65
252 00 00 24
251 00 00 10
9 00 04 33
62 00 03 34
5246 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
63 00 05 78
64 00 02 12
60 00 03 73
58 00 02 89
60/752 00 00 10
57 00 00 10
59 00 07 05
15 00 01 25
32 00 01 70
16 00 01 10
31 00 02 87
30 00 06 55
29 00 02 89
27 00 00 33
21 00 00 90
23 00 05 40
19/724 00 01 59
98 00 03 45
MAJHIAKHAND 737 00 07 21
602/1533 00 05 76
606 00 00 97
607 00 00 32
618 00 03 93
608 00 03 37
609 00 01 86
617 00 00 44
611 00 02 85
610 00 00 45
647 00 05 12
646 00 00 27
645 00 06 70
644 00 02 85
640 00 00 10
641 00 00 74
642 00 01 92
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939
5247
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
689 00 04 23 690 00 03 11 691 00 01 61 692 00 06 25 693 00 01 88 741 00 02 31 767 00 04 84 767/1608 00 02 41 766 00 07 61 798 00 00 12 807 00 06 67 801 00 02 51 802 00 00 16 803 00 01 05 804 00 03 43 805 00 01 31 823 00 08 13 824 00 01 62 825 00 00 78 826 00 00 43 827 00 02 88 820 00 05 56 821 00 01 96 822 00 01 73 829 00 00 10 460 00 05 54 363 00 01 05 356 00 02 22 357 00 02 58 355 00 00 53 354 00 00 65 353 00 00 88 352 00 02 73 351 00 01 49 340 00 02 28 368 00 00 935248 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
380/1583 00 00 57
324 00 09 50
325 00 05 39
323 00 09 72
323/1546 00 00 39
317 00 15 41
398 00 00 45
BHALIADIHI 1472 00 00 47
1473/2472 00 02 80
1473 00 03 68
1471 00 02 56
1474 00 00 67
1474/2658 00 01 61
1470 00 01 31
1475 00 07 51
1477 00 03 40
1478 00 00 96
1479 00 03 35
1483 00 00 39
1479/2338 00 01 74
1482 00 02 58
1481 00 02 35
1481/2651 00 02 49
1264 00 00 72
1266 00 01 93
1265 00 01 52
1268 00 03 92
1269 00 21 82
1270 00 00 59
1254 00 01 32
137 00 08 09
136 00 03 88
171 00 06 83
168 00 06 43
166 00 02 11
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939
5249
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
163/2449 00 03 14 163 00 02 37 182 00 08 40 183 00 00 80 185 00 06 24 186 00 01 56 196 00 02 36 197 00 06 25 195 00 00 90 198 00 04 18 199 00 00 10 200 00 04 03 206 00 00 10 249 00 06 24 250 00 06 21 255/2339 00 00 10 255 00 04 20 254 00 03 60 244 00 12 36 253/2451 00 01 03 243 00 00 27 239 00 04 60 238 00 00 10 241 00 01 81 240 00 04 41 297 00 00 41 299 00 06 47 232 00 04 32 302 00 08 25 231 00 00 11 301 00 01 00 303 00 05 40 305 00 02 75 306 00 06 90 462 00 01 17 465 00 01 445250 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
468 00 01 99
GOLGAN 1474/2388 00 02 02
1357 00 05 31
1372 00 01 87
1372/2415 00 04 92
1358 00 00 83
1359 00 03 29
1371 00 00 69
1370 00 02 51
1360 00 03 31
1369 00 04 62
1377 00 00 10
1378 00 05 84
1380 00 01 82
1379 00 00 10
1381 00 01 70
1331 00 00 80
1330 00 03 01
1329 00 03 28
1328 00 09 72
1327 00 02 07
1317 00 04 14
1322 00 00 10
1319 00 02 63
1320 00 01 42
1306 00 03 48
1305 00 06 32
1303 00 09 41
1293 00 02 53
1292 00 01 77
1291 00 01 06
1443 00 02 02
1282 00 05 34
1281 00 01 52
1452 00 03 84
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939
5251
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1266 00 01 41
1263 00 01 28
1264 00 02 79
1265 00 02 47
1261 00 00 37
1248 00 03 16
1245 00 08 62
1237 00 05 46
1238 00 01 39
1239 00 01 13
1234 00 07 96
1233 00 07 30
1232 00 03 40
1 00 02 52
DHUSUMA 1564 00 03 28
1522/1654 00 03 58
1521 00 00 74
1520 00 06 78
1523 00 06 45
1517 00 00 39
1517/1864 00 00 67
1524 00 05 92
1514/1753 00 00 54
1514 00 00 34
1525 00 02 49
1513 00 02 51
1526/1608 00 00 16
1526 00 01 82
1527/1789 00 01 60
1527/1788 00 03 17
1527 00 07 02
1512/1610 00 00 10
1511 00 02 88
687 00 02 38
688 00 00 18
5252 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
686 00 05 81 679 00 02 10 677 00 05 74 670 00 00 47 673 00 02 49 672 00 01 34 671 00 00 90 674 00 00 10 621 00 04 61 624 00 06 97 622 00 03 32 623 00 07 32 628 00 03 39 619 00 03 14 610 00 14 24 629 00 01 04 609 00 04 40 608/1676 00 00 97 608 00 05 34 608/1677 00 03 48 608/1678 00 00 10 607 00 07 81 566/1653 00 00 10 606 00 02 60 576 00 04 64 573 00 00 10 574 00 00 70 575 00 01 79 572 00 00 10 577 00 04 93 585 00 00 10 578 00 02 59 579 00 00 10 580 00 05 77 581 00 02 34 524 00 01 32[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5253
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
521 00 00 16
SIKHAR PUR 2711 00 00 87
2710 00 04 19
2709 00 14 37
2704 00 00 10
2708 00 07 68
2707 00 00 82
2722 00 05 10
2706 00 04 36
2686 00 08 41
2686/4884 00 02 66
2683 00 00 82
2688 00 00 18
2687 00 03 78
2672 00 05 25
2668 00 07 55
2664 00 08 19
2665 00 13 08
921/4240 00 01 92
921 00 01 50
912 00 02 92
909 00 00 10
909/4388 00 00 10
910 00 00 48
910/4652 00 00 65
910/4842 00 00 57
911 00 06 34
911/4902 00 03 09
915 00 03 01
917 00 02 82
917/4392 00 03 15
837 00 02 96
838 00 02 18
836 00 00 82
838/4386 00 01 86
5254 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
843 00 00 14 843/4387 00 03 37 846 00 05 07 851 00 13 26 856 00 02 57 854 00 01 18 855 00 02 07 859 00 05 78 817 00 02 27 813 00 01 63 814 00 01 82 815 00 02 41 816 00 02 52 770 00 03 13 771 00 00 48 770/4272 00 00 33 772 00 00 86 783 00 00 50 782 00 08 80 779 00 00 13 778 00 03 37 777 00 03 32 775 00 00 10 776 00 07 35 776/4362 00 05 09 787 00 00 49 698 00 05 31 560 00 07 86 565 00 02 15 556 00 00 10 556/4661 00 00 10 555 00 08 05 566 00 02 02 553 00 05 23 552/4074 00 00 15 552 00 05 85[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5255
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2916 00 00 10 545 00 01 21 546 00 04 25 544 00 02 35 544/4898 00 06 53 539 00 01 96 2934 00 04 30 2935 00 02 29 538/4267 00 02 58 2936 00 05 31 2950 00 05 25 2949 00 00 91 2951 00 03 25 2952 00 06 54 2954 00 02 27 2955 00 01 89 2956 00 00 10 2956/4782 00 00 10 2957 00 07 67 2966 00 01 20 2965 00 12 67 2970 00 06 30 2972/4270 00 01 51 2971/4250 00 00 18 2972/4151 00 07 98 2973 00 13 56 2972 00 01 78 2984 00 02 58 2985 00 03 29 3008 00 05 88 3009 00 13 21 3020 00 00 74 3010 00 00 30 3019 00 05 37 3019/4834 00 02 28 3019/4835 00 02 385256 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
ASURDHIPA 633 00 02 48
633/1321 00 02 80
634 00 10 19
641 00 00 80
644 00 02 79
643 00 00 92
646 00 03 78
645 00 01 47
649 00 02 60
650 00 00 54
648 00 00 22
683 00 02 50
684 00 03 08
685 00 00 55
682 00 02 32
679 00 01 90
678 00 01 59
680 00 00 57
677 00 05 56
676 00 01 09
675 00 01 97
669 00 03 79
670 00 02 26
673 00 00 10
671 00 02 03
662 00 02 68
661 00 08 18
750 00 03 05
759 00 02 46
758 00 00 34
805 00 08 44
804 00 00 47
806 00 13 07
814 00 15 17
808 00 02 19
809 00 00 10
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939
5257
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
816 00 02 87
817 00 11 36
877/1232 00 01 21
HARIHARPUR 2136/2162 00 01 02
2022 00 01 33
2023 00 23 38
2021 00 00 10
1873 00 03 30
1874 00 04 58
1875 00 06 35
1867 00 03 78
1859 00 00 11
1860 00 10 54
1861 00 02 50
1862 00 01 99
1850 00 05 31
1850/2620 00 00 85
1853 00 01 69
1847 00 02 65
1846 00 03 73
1854 00 00 19
1854/2669 00 01 10
1855 00 01 43
1844 00 01 87
1720 00 03 38
984 00 04 94
985 00 00 85
986 00 02 77
987 00 05 80
983 00 00 84
983/2550 00 00 27
983/2562 00 00 28
983/2593 00 00 27
983/2594 00 00 28
983/2769 00 00 46
5258 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1002 00 05 84 1001 00 03 94 1001/2380 00 03 52 923 00 00 95 924 00 04 17 920 00 03 56 924/2190 00 01 39 919 00 01 93 919/2657 00 01 78 925 00 02 27 917 00 07 05 909 00 06 35 910 00 04 45 913 00 00 10 911 00 03 29 912 00 01 38 900 00 02 15 899 00 06 47 898 00 05 48 878/2383 00 02 80 878/2204 00 02 42 878/2384 00 01 80 879 00 00 16 777/2257 00 00 10 877 00 06 89 876 00 04 60 875/2213 00 06 97 1054/2207 00 00 10 875/2214 00 04 68 874/2373 00 04 65 1054/2361 00 00 97 874 00 05 11 874/2372 00 00 42 1060 00 14 57 1065 00 02 98 873 00 00 76[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5259
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
872/2503 00 00 17
1067/2379 00 00 88
1067 00 05 16
1068 00 00 10
1069 00 00 22
KARADARAGHUNATHPUR 707/768 00 00 67
708 00 15 58
721 00 07 64
722 00 07 86
724 00 03 40
725 00 07 62
658 00 04 41
660 00 07 12
661 00 01 07
664 00 04 19
662 00 04 97
663 00 00 89
643 00 06 03
439 00 00 10
440 00 04 75
436 00 05 82
435 00 03 83
433 00 04 16
432 00 04 35
432/790 00 02 72
394 00 03 41
392 00 00 62
393 00 06 17
364 00 07 41
363 00 10 59
351 00 02 68
350 00 09 84
334 00 00 38
338 00 02 27
339 00 05 09
5260 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
321 00 00 26
321/833 00 00 42
321/844 00 00 93
321/845 00 01 00
321/846 00 01 01
321/847 00 00 84
242 00 01 12
240 00 01 40
122 00 00 75
121 00 04 43
118 00 01 18
120 00 01 84
119 00 00 99
65 00 02 29
66 00 02 73
72 00 01 82
73 00 00 42
74 00 00 27
78 00 01 87
80/737 00 04 90
80 00 03 63
91 00 04 02
90 00 03 42
88 00 02 04
89 00 01 82
BARPUT 629 00 07 94
624 00 03 31
623 00 03 61
622 00 00 38
620 00 03 79
621 00 00 10
619 00 00 91
618 00 06 28
617 00 03 67
647 00 00 10
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939
5261
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
582 00 01 06 567 00 03 65 564 00 09 52 565 00 00 11 387 00 03 59 386 00 02 28 388 00 00 10 385 00 02 77 382 00 03 04 413 00 08 26 419 00 01 69 418 00 11 74 420 00 00 10 421 00 05 49 357 00 01 83 356 00 02 44 354/1986 00 01 74 355 00 01 51 426 00 04 69 343 00 05 68 343/1832 00 02 73 339 00 01 48 340 00 01 56 342 00 00 10 341 00 04 27 337 00 00 10 335 00 04 54 334 00 00 47 323 00 02 47 302 00 02 62 303 00 08 92 304 00 01 17 191 00 03 85 195 00 02 33 194 00 01 16 193 00 00 265262 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
185 00 00 68
184 00 03 57
185/2066 00 00 39
175/1869 00 05 49
176 00 06 49
211 00 10 98
213 00 05 31
214 00 01 19
14 00 13 59
12 00 06 50
012/2251 00 05 00
61 00 17 02
75 00 00 60
73/1988 00 00 27
74 00 04 91
71 00 05 60
76 00 07 61
95 00 00 12
78 00 00 10
77 00 01 38
90 00 02 25
88 00 00 93
87 00 06 59
92 00 00 10
86 00 01 40
MAHULIA 1058 00 14 49
1059/1405 00 00 39
1061/1403 00 08 75
1061 00 07 55
1072 00 00 12
1070 00 03 53
1069 00 02 00
1067 00 02 21
1068 00 01 34
1052 00 01 39
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939
5263
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1040 00 00 59 1042 00 10 17 1043/1414 00 00 68 1043 00 03 11 1041 00 04 16 1043/1413 00 03 46 548/1408 00 03 01 548/1409 00 00 27 548 00 01 29 548/1617 00 00 80 542 00 02 65 543 00 04 54 541/1559 00 00 60 541 00 04 48 438 00 00 35 440 00 00 33 440/1392 00 02 22 444 00 01 56 443 00 01 15 447 00 02 31 451 00 01 12 452 00 00 48 455 00 03 37 483 00 02 97 481 00 00 53 480 00 04 70 489 00 01 06 479 00 01 86 478 00 01 77 475 00 00 10 477/1461 00 05 70 477 00 00 79 477/1462 00 08 87 468 00 00 10 293 00 11 71 258 00 02 765264 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
263 00 00 13
259/1525 00 01 87
262 00 00 17
261 00 03 15
260 00 00 68
261/1540 00 00 10
KENDUPALI 80 00 01 28
80/688 00 00 10
81 00 05 90
79 00 00 10
82 00 02 75
83 00 00 79
84 00 00 18
78 00 11 29
77 00 14 90
NANDIGHORE 2620 00 01 89
2625 00 04 78
2624 00 03 72
2623 00 07 15
2614 00 01 31
2596 00 11 96
2595 00 00 10
2580 00 08 48
2567 00 00 10
2581 00 03 58
2565 00 08 96
2563 00 05 45
2566 00 00 10
2566/4584 00 00 10
2564 00 00 33
2557 00 07 87
2556 00 03 54
2554 00 01 56
2553 00 00 36
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939
5265
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2547 00 04 56 2546 00 00 23 2544 00 00 17 2544/4329 00 00 16 2545 00 03 43 2537 00 02 20 2539 00 03 18 2538 00 00 88 2540 00 02 58 2535 00 01 33 2535/3497 00 01 55 2534 00 02 53 2533 00 04 84 2531 00 07 31 2532 00 01 40 2508 00 06 08 2509 00 03 20 2517 00 02 52 2516 00 00 89 2510 00 06 33 2512 00 03 31 2513 00 06 03 2514 00 00 55 2496 00 08 68 2495 00 03 46 462 00 09 95 462/3762 00 04 03 456 00 01 31 456/4370 00 01 76 456/4484 00 01 47 456/4405 00 01 35 457 00 01 50 453 00 04 89 452 00 08 32 450/3908 00 01 20 450/3909 00 04 335266 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
449 00 07 48
399 00 08 76
398 00 01 37
397 00 01 85
393 00 09 10
392 00 06 47
380/3832 00 00 76
10.3906 00 07 59
12 00 05 31
47 00 00 15
46 00 00 97
45 00 03 77
21 00 10 73
44 00 00 13
20/3705 00 00 10
20 00 05 43
20/3704 00 01 86
19 00 00 43
16 00 10 04
15 00 06 30
1 00 03 81
OSTIA 147 00 07 90
153/661 00 02 70
154 00 01 85
144 00 01 83
155 00 00 42
143 00 05 84
142 00 00 66
141 00 04 84
127 00 00 10
127/759 00 00 10
140 00 00 56
134 00 02 91
128 00 00 82
133 00 05 55
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939
5267
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
91 00 02 27
163 00 04 17
90 00 02 46
90/761 00 02 47
88 00 01 93
89/745 00 02 35
89 00 07 39
86 00 02 68
67 00 01 34
68 00 01 88
69 00 03 39
71 00 04 63
72 00 09 02
RAGARIMARA 676 00 03 40
675 00 16 63
607 00 00 15
615 00 09 92
609/749 00 00 10
613 00 02 77
612 00 07 57
611 00 00 83
610 00 03 36
610/835 00 03 07
597 00 03 90
596 00 02 39
596/802 00 01 30
593 00 01 77
592/757 00 03 00
534 00 06 44
534/823 00 02 35
534/824 00 01 82
533 00 02 21
532 00 08 32
528 00 01 10
528/838 00 01 98
5268 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
527/711 00 03 67 256 00 02 36 256/808 00 04 22 255 00 09 20 258 00 00 10 254 00 00 96 254/795 00 02 70 254/ 00 01 94 260 00 00 10 245/689 00 06 88 261/700 00 01 42 262 00 02 23 263 00 05 05 78 00 02 33 107 00 02 10 107/814 00 01 40 107/833 00 01 49 124 00 07 60 125 00 00 25 125/763 00 00 30 125/764 00 00 25 126 00 01 35 127 00 10 14 128 00 02 82 135/750 00 00 10 130 00 09 15 131 00 05 45 132 00 05 32 158 00 07 90 161 00 07 63 160 00 08 30 162 00 03 76 163 00 02 63 164 00 03 42 165 00 02 72 190 00 00 57[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5269
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
192 00 04 71
195 00 08 61
197 00 04 99
198 00 01 58
BAUNSAGARIA 283 00 00 19
279 00 00 22
PALLIGUNTHASAHI 173 00 01 61
170 00 06 29
171 00 04 16
172 00 01 31
141 00 02 02
143 00 00 10
142 00 06 92
146 00 03 93
148 00 27 89
120 00 13 87
119 00 08 66
119/255 00 02 14
118 00 04 06
118/257 00 01 28
60 00 01 10
60/192 00 05 27
113 00 02 68
61 00 00 63
61/217 00 01 28
112 00 03 90
63 00 02 78
68 00 03 72
66 00 05 22
64 00 01 13
49 00 05 91
50 00 02 53
50/228 00 01 97
45 00 02 51
5270 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
GUNTHASAHI
958/1091 00 00 94
1002 00 02 09
959 00 04 95
959/1072 00 07 07
959/1073 00 02 35
960 00 01 54
962 00 02 44
961 00 04 98
964 00 03 48
963 00 02 19
965 00 04 37
991 00 00 49
986 00 12 82
984 00 02 56
560 00 03 02
459 00 07 87
455 00 02 34
454 00 02 00
453 00 01 15
445 00 00 54
451 00 00 10
451/1089 00 00 10
451/1102 00 00 10
452 00 02 72
444 00 01 35
443 00 01 15
442 00 00 64
447 00 07 02
448 00 03 06
449 00 02 42
441 00 00 10
440 00 00 41
295 00 14 40
438 00 01 12
437 00 03 08
301 00 03 90
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939
5271
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
430 00 01 04
302 00 09 37
309 00 01 28
308 00 03 71
307 00 06 16
315 00 00 87
316 00 00 69
306 00 06 30
325 00 03 53
324 00 01 79
323 00 03 81
325/1026 00 05 53
322 00 01 71
326 00 00 10
332 00 12 29
347 00 04 04
333 00 08 46
341 00 04 92
342 00 04 46
343 00 04 15
258 00 03 68
257 00 00 46
256 00 05 61
255 00 01 09
244 00 02 30
245 00 03 21
241 00 00 93
KORPITHA 1342 00 01 75
1318 00 00 23
1330 00 01 18
1319 00 00 10
1321 00 09 07
1322 00 03 43
1324 00 02 04
1326 00 01 64
5272 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1309/1445 00 05 94 1328 00 00 11 1309 00 02 30 1310 00 05 59 580 00 01 12 580/1652 00 02 55 576 00 00 47 575 00 13 53 573 00 02 74 574 00 00 13 541 00 08 66 541/1491 00 01 16 540 00 02 49 542 00 06 99 545 00 02 37 545/1443 00 04 79 1472 00 07 20 1471 00 09 28 529 00 01 60 528 00 01 12 549 00 06 05 527 00 01 65 527/1504 00 00 99 523 00 02 89 524 00 01 64 522 00 07 12 521 00 05 33 518 00 05 49 518/1564 00 04 19 518/1566 00 04 37 477 00 01 27 473 00 00 25 471 00 04 66 472 00 11 45 421 00 01 30 422 00 04 06[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5273
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
391 00 00 16
389 00 02 96
427 00 02 35
388 00 00 21
388/1616 00 04 12
388/1714 00 04 12
428 00 00 51
387 00 08 17
386 00 04 33
356 00 02 25
SARMAREISAHI 223 00 00 88
566 00 05 59
221 00 09 19
225 00 29 52
234 00 00 71
231 00 03 45
232 00 08 43
233 00 04 90
134 00 01 73
241/541 00 01 49
240 00 00 10
116/539 00 05 79
116/540 00 20 85
116/538 00 06 19
293 00 00 78
294 00 07 15
295 00 01 82
291 00 00 68
291/581 00 00 85
291/583 00 00 89
291/593 00 00 28
296 00 03 24
297 00 01 53
312 00 02 33
313 00 02 63
5274 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
320 00 02 12
320/584 00 02 05
306 00 02 36
321 00 03 03
322 00 06 69
323 00 03 65
324 00 13 85
326 00 04 01
325 00 01 28
KAIBALPUR 299 00 12 98
298 00 05 71
298/706 00 07 15
297 00 03 15
296 00 04 51
295 00 05 54
304 00 00 87
305 00 04 40
314 00 00 17
314/794 00 00 21
311 00 01 13
312 00 14 84
309 00 00 17
309/741 00 00 17
309/742 00 00 16
309/743 00 00 17
309/744 00 00 16
308 00 00 84
308/737 00 00 64
308/738 00 00 43
308/739 00 00 43
308/740 00 00 43
253 00 00 82
252 00 01 39
251 00 00 96
97 00 00 96
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939
5275
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
95 00 02 28
73 00 04 66
74 00 06 69
75 00 02 50
76 00 01 00
77 00 06 35
78 00 02 65
72 00 05 69
70 00 03 83
67 00 07 70
66 00 00 80
71 00 01 19
14 00 00 24
14/785 00 00 13
18 00 06 90
19 00 02 71
20 00 06 33
23/670 00 03 31
23 00 00 44
22 00 03 92
22/757 00 01 09
25 00 07 82
26 00 03 06
26/718 00 01 53
26/719 00 01 86
26/720 00 01 37
29 00 00 30
29/766 00 00 38
29/767 00 00 63
30 00 10 66
RABIGARIA 328 00 02 71
313 00 03 76
320 00 01 78
319 00 04 15
318 00 06 74
5276 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
199 00 04 15
215 00 08 25
215/426 00 04 35
217 00 01 42
218 00 03 77
220 00 07 58
192 00 00 59
191 00 02 47
191/359 00 02 57
191/362 00 01 44
191/414 00 01 76
190 00 03 17
190/360 00 01 50
190/391 00 01 04
188 00 05 32
189 00 01 84
187 00 06 15
179 00 06 22
185 00 07 07
183 00 10 32
KURUMBANKTARA 1103 00 00 10
1104 00 02 50
1127 00 06 66
1128 00 01 64
1130 00 03 99
1130/2379 00 02 14
1129 00 00 10
1131 00 02 45
1133 00 00 37
1133/2629 00 00 37
1132 00 06 15
1138 00 00 16
2045 00 04 13
2039 00 00 76
2044 00 00 10
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939
5277
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2036 00 08 92
2034 00 03 80
2035 00 00 61
2035/2350 00 01 48
2033 00 01 80
2014 00 06 86
2015 00 02 01
2026 00 00 59
2017 00 04 08
2017/2367 00 02 29
2018 00 02 62
2019 00 03 05
2011 00 02 33
2004 00 01 37
2003 00 06 08
2002 00 00 10
GODARKANA 57 00 00 10
55 00 08 04
56 00 03 81
46 00 02 03
46/79 00 02 06
46/80 00 02 07
47 00 00 29
46/69 00 03 50
44 00 10 14
43 00 02 51
42 00 05 97
23 00 00 10
23/73 00 00 10
23/83 00 00 10
40 00 02 06
41 00 06 23
38 00 00 37
37 00 00 26
32 00 05 81
5278 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
29 00 06 31
30 00 00 87
28/71 00 00 26
BHALIADIHI 1254 00 01 31
1253 00 04 42
1253/1434 00 02 22
1252 00 01 37
1249 00 00 22
1250 00 07 89
1248 00 00 83
1244 00 10 10
1245 00 02 66
1247 00 00 12
1247/1483 00 00 10
1246 00 03 01
1194 00 08 76
1143 00 03 04
1143/1534 00 02 27
1144 00 00 92
1147 00 00 82
1142 00 00 83
1142/1533 00 00 43
1141 00 02 34
1148 00 01 26
1149 00 01 59
1140 00 01 60
1105 00 06 49
1152 00 03 09
1154 00 00 60
1153 00 03 55
1104 00 08 98
1100 00 07 11
1101 00 06 87
1099 00 02 62
1099/1511 00 02 73
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939
5279
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1095 00 00 10
873 00 02 56
1098 00 08 19
DEOGAN 583 00 01 52
582 00 00 10
581/1511 00 05 04
581 00 04 05
580 00 04 04
580/1585 00 01 50
580/1529 00 00 59
579 00 00 47
574 00 03 79
576 00 00 10
575 00 04 28
564 00 06 19
568 00 06 40
563 00 03 16
563/1540 00 01 03
563/1565 00 01 62
551 00 00 94
548 00 04 22
547 00 00 16
546 00 00 65
545 00 02 41
544 00 04 38
549 00 01 25
664 00 02 90
534 00 00 15
533 00 00 67
531 00 00 69
532 00 06 16
535 00 02 67
535/1587 00 00 47
530 00 01 32
528 00 01 58
5280 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
527 00 00 26 519/1474 00 00 90 519/1475 00 01 33 519 00 00 10 519/1476 00 01 59 520 00 02 96 521 00 00 18 514 00 03 00 513 00 05 77 488 00 00 92 451 00 10 53 453 00 00 10 449 00 07 73 455 00 00 55 450 00 00 52 448 00 02 11 760 00 00 89 761 00 01 39 759 00 04 35 758 00 09 33 872 00 02 16 766 00 00 41 768 00 00 10 767 00 00 67 771/1442 00 02 45 771 00 06 72 871 00 04 65 772 00 01 29 861 00 02 28 860 00 02 84 773 00 00 62 853 00 00 13 854 00 00 73 859 00 01 04 858 00 07 72 857/1523 00 00 10[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5281
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
830 00 01 09 832 00 02 43 833 00 03 43 834 00 00 23 832/1595 00 02 43 832/1599 00 02 43 929 00 01 31 945 00 02 03 931 00 05 92 944 00 00 10 937 00 01 51 936 00 05 87 935 00 00 25 932 00 07 23 1032 00 00 62 1031 00 01 51 1030 00 04 84 1029 00 05 80 1028 00 06 48 1027 00 00 10 1053/1432 00 03 99 1055 00 03 42 1054 00 03 07 1433 00 00 25 1057 00 00 30 1056 00 01 54 1058 00 04 75 1063 00 09 39 1062 00 00 98 1066 00 05 47 1073 00 02 17 63 00 09 86 44 00 02 75 1078 00 00 10 1077 00 05 23 1074 00 04 955282 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1252 00 04 70 1254 00 00 55 1248 00 00 61 1247 00 01 58 1253 00 00 89 1246 00 03 49 1247/1496 00 00 50 1245 00 02 16 1244 00 10 92 1240 00 00 90 1241 00 16 72 1228 00 00 73 1290 00 04 23 1225 00 00 93 1292 00 00 26 1291 00 03 99 1295 00 05 08 1296 00 02 19 1302 00 00 47 1301 00 10 45 1303 00 00 46 1306 00 02 76 1307 00 06 45 1310 00 00 94 1309 00 01 70 1308 00 01 97 1309/1532 00 02 36 1313 00 02 05 1317 00 00 10 1314 00 05 79 1316 00 03 64 1315 00 00 97 1319 00 01 66 1324 00 04 06 1323 00 00 22 1325 00 03 05[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5283
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
KURAL 3817 00 16 59
3818 00 02 58
3953 00 01 56
3952 00 07 72
3981/4601 00 00 88
3995 00 13 38
3994 00 01 46
3996 00 02 90
3993 00 00 10
4000 00 02 53
4002 00 00 71
4001 00 01 14
3999 00 17 20
4014 00 00 21
4004 00 00 91
4013 00 04 08
4013/4953 00 01 31
4005 00 01 74
4012 00 00 43
4011 00 01 30
4006 00 01 98
4007 00 01 58
4010 00 00 26
4038 00 04 11
4035 00 07 52
4034 00 29 78
4091 00 00 10
4091/4805 00 00 16
4092 00 03 32
4097 00 03 22
4096 00 05 04
4096/4860 00 14 89
4096/4489 00 01 08
3164 00 05 48
4102 00 08 76
4105 00 02 20
5284 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
4106 00 07 61 4240 00 06 00 4238 00 04 41 4237 00 05 47 4225 00 09 99 4224 00 07 18 4223 00 02 20 4218 00 10 07 4162/4391 00 01 30 4162 00 01 40 4162/4590 00 03 19 4162/4730 00 00 82 4590 00 03 19 4164 00 01 00 4168 00 14 57 4169 00 02 84 4207/4412 00 18 09 4175 00 00 10 4198 00 01 03 4178 00 04 77 4179 00 10 60 3063 00 04 68 3062 00 04 86 3061 00 00 16 3058 00 04 44 3055 00 02 57 3056 00 07 57 3024 00 00 29 3025 00 03 78 3053/4423 00 02 29 3026 00 06 15 3027 00 01 79 3028 00 01 70 2997 00 03 17 2968 00 14 83 2968/4773 00 01 23[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5285
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2888 00 14 46
2896 00 00 38
2890 00 06 41
2895 00 01 87
2891 00 16 29
2858 00 01 91
2900/4422 00 17 07
2854 00 00 19
2854/5651 00 00 19
2843 00 02 63
2843/4766 00 02 62
2842 00 05 34
2841 00 00 47
2840/4436 00 04 51
2840 00 05 23
2839 00 00 33
2819 00 02 73
2819/5606 00 02 30
2817 00 01 62
2818 00 00 41
2814 00 07 83
2813 00 09 18
2812 00 00 85
2811 00 03 16
2810 00 04 69
2805 00 03 05
2806 00 07 75
2807 00 09 31
2807/4757 00 01 73
2796 00 00 11
2795 00 00 91
HANUMANTIA 185 00 09 45
185/1316 00 04 15
185/1315 00 03 13
186/1317 00 04 05
5286 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
242 00 00 10 242/1416 00 00 10 241 00 16 85 242/1218 00 04 38 234 00 01 36 233 00 04 06 233/1391 00 02 80 233/1528 00 00 17 232 00 50 04 232/1512 00 05 41 247 00 00 68 231 00 08 39 252 00 01 40 312 00 07 40 269 00 04 20 268 00 02 43 267 00 00 74 270 00 00 83 270/1412 00 00 46 256 00 09 01 264 00 06 02 265 00 05 70 277 00 00 31 668 00 00 12 668/1478 00 00 10 668/1479 00 00 10 668/1483 00 00 10 667 00 04 44 662/1250 00 10 60 662 00 05 19 662/1364 00 05 27 663 00 02 35 719 00 05 95 717 00 00 10 718 00 04 39 1168 00 04 81[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5287
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
723 00 00 93
1165 00 09 39
1163/1278 00 02 29
1160 00 00 31
1160/1428 00 00 16
1160/1429 00 00 16
1159 00 07 95
1155 00 03 73
1153 00 06 39
1156 00 01 29
1154 00 03 18
1157 00 00 24
1151 00 00 52
NAURIAGORA 471 00 03 58
473 00 01 83
472 00 00 44
470 00 00 57
474 00 02 83
468 00 00 10
467 00 02 62
475 00 00 37
466/605 00 00 09
477/609 00 00 24
466 00 00 46
466/736 00 05 58
456 00 01 47
455 00 06 85
250 00 01 87
158 00 00 36
159 00 06 59
160 00 06 07
161 00 00 20
166 00 09 61
170 00 01 08
170/718 00 03 89
5288 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
170/635 00 00 93
241 00 16 56
185/704 00 01 32
184 00 02 05
185 00 08 18
186 00 00 04
187 00 01 57
188 00 01 59
183 00 00 14
189 00 00 87
192 00 00 10
191 00 06 08
194 00 00 57
126 00 07 59
125 00 11 22
MAHESWARPUR 18 00 00 67
14 00 05 39
17 00 04 53
13 00 03 68
11 00 03 22
12 00 05 27
8 00 03 01
6 00 01 08
[F. No. R-25011/25/2017-OR-I (Pt.)]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्त, 2017
का.का.का.का.आ.आ.आ.आ. 1960196019601960.—के न्(cid:16)ीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पंजाब राज्य में गांव : झुिगयां, िजला :
शहीद भगतसिह नगर से हिमाचल प्रदेश के गांव : पेखुबेला, जिला: उना तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कापBरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पीएजेपीएल- उना ब्रांच पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।
और, के न्(cid:16)ीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए ऐसी भूमि जिसके भीतर पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपाबM अनुसूची में वNणत है, के उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करना आवश्यक है ।
अतः अब, के न्(cid:16)ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूिम में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Pए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ।
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5289कोई *क्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वNणत भूमि से हितबM है, उक्त अधिनियम, की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) के अधीन जारी की गयी अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दिये जाने की तारीख से इUीस दिनों के भीतर, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन या भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में आक्षेप, लिखित रूप मे 9ी देवराज शर्मा, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कापBरेशन लिमिटेड (पाइपलाइन प्रभाग), पीएजेपीएल-उना ब्रांच पाइपलाइन परियोजना, 346, कमला कु ं ज, डी. सी. कालोनी, उना (हिमाचल प्रदेश)-174303 को कर सके गा ।
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| िजला – उना राज्य –िहमाचल प्रदेश | |||||||
| k. सं. | तहसील का नाम | गांव का नाम | हदबस्त नं. | खसरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
1 हरोली बाथडी 476 1573 00 15 30
1126 00 01 08
1127 00 00 90
1125/4 00 01 10
1125/3 00 01 20
1125/2 00 01 45
1125/1 00 03 10
1124/1 00 00 60
3302/2 00 05 35 3302/1 00 05 50 3131 00 24 66 2955 00 02 70 2652 00 01 56
679//5/3/2 00 03 08
620/314 00 03 15
5290 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1243/1141 00 07 55
1242/1141 00 02 15
1158/2 00 03 80
1318/1176 00 18 24
2206/1359 00 02 73 1328 00 02 80 2266/515 00 01 55 2267/515 00 02 26 2272/523 00 00 20 2271/523 00 02 30 2207/523 00 00 35 2277/528 00 00 88 2268/522 00 00 20 2269/522 00 00 20
1007 00 09 18
[फा. सं. आर-25011/20/2017-ओआर-I/48705]
पवन कु मार, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2017
S.O. 1960.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum Products from Village : Jhungian, District : Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar of Punjab State to Village: Pekhubela, District : Una of Himachal Pradesh, PAJPL - Una Branch Pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein.
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may within 21 days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub-section (1) of the section 3 of said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein of laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri. Devraj Sharma, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, PAJPL-Una Branch Pipeline Project, 346, Kamla Kunj, D.C. Colony, Una (Himachal Pradesh) -174303.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5291SCHEDULE
| District - Una State - Himachal Pradesh | |||||||
| S. No. | Name of Tehsil | Name of Village | Hadbast No. | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mtr. | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
1 Haroli Bathari 476 1523 00 15 30
1126 00 01 08
1127 00 00 90
1125/4 00 01 10
1125/3 00 01 20
1125/2 00 01 45
1125/1 00 03 10
1124/1 00 00 60 2 Haroli Keluwa
3302/3 00 00 20
3302/2 00 00 35
3302/1 00 05 50
3131 00 24 66
2955 02 02 70
2652 00 01 56 3 Haroli Bat Kalan 473 679// 5/3/1 00 03 08
6769// 5/3/2 00 03 08 4 Haroli Tahiwal Nichla 472 621/314 00 03 33
620/314 00 03 15 5 Una Laladi 470 6434 00 00 20 6 Una Uday pur 224 1197/2 00 01 05
1197/1 00 26 40
1243/1141 00 07 55
1242/1141 00 02 15
1158/2 00 03 80
1318/1176 00 18 24 7 Una Nangran Jhikla 222 2210/1663 00 00 78
2206/1359 00 02 73
1328 00 02 80
2266/515 00 01 55
2267/515 00 02 26
2272/523 00 00 20
2271/523 00 02 30
2270/523 00 00 35
2277/528 00 00 88
2268/522 00 00 20
2269/522 00 00 20 8 Una Pekhubela 1009 00 03 60
1007 00 09 18
[F. No. R-25011/20/2017-OR-I/48705]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
5292 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय
(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग) (उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग) (उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग)(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग)
((((भारतीय मानक ब्यूरोभारतीय मानक ब्यूरोभारतीय मानक ब्यूरोभारतीय मानक ब्यूरो))))
नई दिल्ली, 17 अगस्त, 2017
काकाकाका....आआआआ. . . . 1961196119611961.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:-
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| 3. स ं. | लाइसेंस सं | स्वीकृ त करने की तिथि वर्ष/ माह | लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता | भारतीय मानक का शीर्ष | भा मा सं (भाग/ अनुभाग) : वर्ष |
| 1. | 6500025103 | 20170417 | म ेसर्स कर्पगम ज्वेल्स 98, बज़ार सडक, सत्यामंगलम - 638401 | स् वर्ण एवं स् वर्ण मि=धातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल् पकारी – शु>ता एवं म ुहरांकन | IS 1417 : 2016 |
[सं. सीएमडी/13 : 11]
टी. कलैवाणन, वै?ानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi, the 17th August, 2017
S.O. 1961.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
| Sl. No. | Licence No. | Grant Date | Name and Address (Factory) of the Party | Title of the Standard | IS No. Part/ Sec. Year |
| 1. | 6500025103 | 20170417 | M/s. Karpagam Jewels 98, Bazaar Street, Sathyamangalam-638401 | Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/ Artefacts- Fineness and Marking | IS 1417 : 2016 |
[No. CMD/13:11]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head
नई दिल्ली, 17 अगस्त, 2017
काकाकाका....आआआआ. . . . 1962196219621962.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियमन 5 के उपविनियमन (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शाई गई तारीख से रद्द/ स्थगित कर दिया गया है:-
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5293अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| 3. स ं. | लाइसेंस सं सी एम/ एल- | लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता | स्थगित किए गए/ रद्द किए गए लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/ प्र3म सम्ब> भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक | रद्द होने की ितिथ |
| 1. | 6119055 | म ेसर्स रमेश हाईटेक पम्प्स प्रायवेट िलिमटड 1040, भारितयार रोड, पी. एन. पालयम, कोयम्बत्तूर -641037 | IS 9079 : 2002 क ृ िष एवं जल आपूJत के लिए साफ और ठंडे पानी क े बिजली के मोनोसेट पम्प | 04/04/2017 |
[सं. सीएमडी/13 : 13]
टी. कलैवाणन, वै?ानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख
New Delhi, the 17th August, 2017
S.O. 1962.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
| Sl. No. | Licence No. CM/L- | Name & Address of the Licensee | Article/ Process with relevant Indian Standard covered by the licence cancelled/ suspension | Date of Cancellation |
| 1. | 6119055 | M/s. Ramesh Hitechk Pumps Private Limited 1040, Bharatiyar Road, P. N. Palyam , Coimbatore -641037 | IS 9079 : 2002 Electric Monoset Pumps For Clear, Cold Water For Agricultural And Water Supply Purposes | 04/04/2017 |
[No. CMD/13 : 13]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head
नई दिल्ली, 17 अगस्त, 2017
काकाकाका....आआआआ. . . . 1963196319631963.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:-
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| 3. स ं. | लाइसेंस सं | स्वीकृ त करने की ितिथ वर्ष/ माह | लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता | भारतीय मानक का शीर्ष | भा मा सं (भाग/ अनुभाग) : वर्ष |
| 1. | 6500025204 | 20170509 | म ेसर्स गायत्री मिनरल्स एस एफ सं. 461/1, कालीपालयम, िवजयमपालयम के रास्ते, वेल्लामडै पोस्ट, कोयम्बत्तूर - 641110 | प ैके जबंद पेय जल (पैके जबंद िमनरल जल के अलावा) | IS 14543 : 2004 |
| 2. | 6500025305 | 20170511 | म ेसर्स एिलम एPा इंडस्ट्रीस 110/34, विवेकानन्दर सालै, व ेSटुकSटुवलसु कलक्टरेट पोस्ट, इरोड – 638011 | प ैके जबंद पेय जल (पैके जबंद िमनरल जल के अलावा) | IS 14543 : 2004 |
| 3. | 6500025406 | 20170512 | म ेसर्स वी-गार्ड इंडस्ट्रीस िलिमटड KK12,KK13,KK14,KK15, िसपकोट इंडस्ट्रियल Uोथ सेंटर, पेVन्दुरै, ईरोड - 638052 | सौर सपाट पXिका संUाहक – भाग 1- अपेक्षाएँ | IS 12933 : Part 1 : 2003 |
| 4. | 6590000117 | 20170516 | म ेसर्स जे.पी. ज्वेलर्स 5/9, ई[रन कोिवल स्ट्रीट, इ ंिडयन बैंक के पास, तिVप्पुर - 641604 | स् वर्ण एवं स् वर्ण मि=धातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल् पकारी – शु>ता एवं मुहरांकन | IS 1417 : 2016 |
| 5. | 6590000218 | 20170516 | म ेसर्स जे पी वेल्लि मािलगै 7-9, ई[रन कोिवल स्ट्रीट, म ुिनिसपाल कार्यालय के पास, तिVप्पुर - 641604 | स् वर्ण एवं स् वर्ण मि=धातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल् पकारी – शु>ता एवं मुहरांकन | IS 1417 : 2016 |
| 6. | 6500025507 | 20170517 | म ेसर्स ग्लोबल मिनरल्स स ं. 254, विरप्पमपालयम बै-पास, विलरसमपXी, ईरोड - 638107 | प ैके जबंद पेय जल (पैके जबंद िमनरल जल के अलावा) | IS 14543 : 2004 |
| 7. | 6590000412 | 20170522 | म ेसर्स जे पी वेल्लि मािलगै 7-9, ई[रन कोिवल स्ट्रीट, म ुिनिसपाल कार्यालय के पास, तिVप्पुर - 641604 | चाँदी एवं चाँदी मि=धातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल् पकारी – शु>ता एवं मुहरांकन | IS 2112 : 2014 |
| 8. | 6590000311 | 20170522 | म ेसर्स पी पी पी ज्वेलरी 17, पोन स्ट्रीट, ईरोड - 638001 | स् वर्ण एवं स् वर्ण मि=धातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल् पकारी – शु>ता एवं मुहरांकन | IS 1417 : 2016 |
| 9. | 6500025608 | 20170523 | म ेसर्स डी एम एफ पम्प्स स ं.125, दक्षिण सडक नं. 4, आवारमपालयम, गणपित, कोयम्बत्तूर - 641006 | गहरे कु ओं के िलए निम्मजनीय पम्पसेट | IS 14220 : 1994 |
| 10. | 6500025709 | 20170523 | म ेसर्स ए जी एन सिमेंट इंडस्ट्रीस एस एफ सं. 708, तिSटुपारैतोXम, क ु लन्दै गौन्डनवलसु, अिवनािशपालय पोस्ट, कांगयम, तिVप्पुर - 638701 | पोर्टलेन्ड पॉ`जालाना सिमेंट- भाग 1- aलै एश आधारित | IS 1489 : Part 1 : 1991 |
| 11. | 6590000513 | 20170530 | म ेसर्स भरणी ज्वेलर्स 166, कॉवेरी रोड, ईरोड - 638003 | स् वर्ण एवं स् वर्ण मि=धातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल् पकारी – शु>ता एवं मुहरांकन | IS 1417 : 2016 |
[सं. सीएमडी/13 : 11]
टी. कलैवाणन, वै?ानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख
New Delhi, the 17th August, 2017
S.O. 1963.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the following schedule:
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5295SCHEDULE
| Sl. No. | Licence No. | Grant Date | Name and Address (Factory) of the Party | Title of the Standard | IS No. Part/ Sec. Year |
| 1. | 6500025204 | 20170509 | M/s. Gayathri Minerals SF No. 461/1, Kalipalayam, Viayampalayam Via, Vellamadai Post, Coimbatore - 641110 | Packaged Drinking Water (other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water) | IS 14543 : 2004 |
| 2. | 6500025305 | 20170511 | M/s. Elim Aqua Industries 110/34, Vivekanandhar Salai, Vettukattuvalasu Collectorate Post , Erode - 638011 | Packaged Drinking Water (other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water) | IS 14543 : 2004 |
| 3. | 6500025406 | 20170512 | M/s. V Guard Industries Limited KK12,KK13,KK14,KK15, SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre, Perundurai, Erode - 638052 | Solar Flat Plate Collector - Part 1 Requirements | IS 12933 : Part 1 : 2003 |
| 4. | 6590000117 | 20170516 | M/s. J.P. Jewellers 5/9, Easwaran Kovil Street, Near Indian Bank, Tirupur - 641604 | Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/ Artefacts- Fineness and Marking | IS 1417 : 2016 |
| 5. | 6590000218 | 20170516 | M/s. JP Velli Maaligai 7-9, Easwaran Kovil Street, Near Municipal Office, Tirupur - 641604 | Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/ Artefacts- Fineness and Marking | IS 1417 : 2016 |
| 6. | 6500025507 | 20170517 | M/s. Global Minerals No. 254, Veerappampalayam Bye Pass, Villarasampatti, Erode - 638107 | Packaged Drinking Water (other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water) | IS 14543 : 2004 |
| 7. | 6590000412 | 20170522 | M/s. JP Velli Maaligai 7-9, Easwaran Kovil Street, Near Municipal Office, Tirupur - 641604 | Silver and Silver Alloys, Jewellery/ Artefacts- Fineness and Marking | IS 2112 : 2014 |
| 8. | 6590000311 | 20170522 | M/s. PPP Jewellery 17, Ponn Street, Erode - 638001 | Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/ Artefacts- Fineness and Marking | IS 1417 : 2016 |
| 9. | 6500025608 | 20170523 | M/s. DMF Pumpps No.125, South Street No.4, Avarampalayam, Ganapathy, Coimbatore - 641006 | Openwell Submersible Pumpsets | IS 14220 : 1994 |
| 10. | 6500025709 | 20170523 | M/s. AGN Cement Industries SF No 708, Thittuparaithottam, Kulandai Goundenvalasu, Avinashipalayam Post, Kangayam, Tirupur - 638701 | Portland Pozzolana Cement Part 1 Fly ash Based | IS 1489 : Part 1 : 1991 |
| 11. | 6590000513 | 20170530 | M/s. Bharani Jewellers 166, Cauvery Road, Erode - 638003 | Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/ Artefacts- Fineness and Marking | IS 1417 : 2016 |
[No. CMD/13:11]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head5296 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 17 अगस्त, 2017
काकाकाका....आआआआ. . . . 1964196419641964.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियमन 5 के उपविनियमन (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शाई गई तारीख से रद्द/ स्थिगत कर दिया गया है:-
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| 3. स ं. | लाइसेंस सं सी एम/ एल- | लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता | स्थगित किए गए/ रद्द किए गए लाइसेंस के अ ंतर्गत वस्तु/ प्र3म सम्ब> भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक | रद्द होने की ितिथ |
| 1. | 6519980 | म ेसर्स पी पी पी ज्वेलरी स ं. 17, पोन्न स्ट्रीट, ईरोड -638001 | IS 1417 : 2016 स् वर्ण एवं स् वर्ण मि=धातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल् पकारी – शु>ता एवं मुहरांकन | 12/05/2017 |
| 2. | 6500016203 | म ेसर्स डेकसक्ते पोली eेप्पिग वायर द. सं. 12, कोवै इंडस्ट्रियल पार्क , कोविलपालयम पोस्ट, कोयम्बत्तूर - 641 107 | IS 8783 (Part 4/ Sec 3): 1995 निम्मजन मोटरों के वाइंडिग तार- भाग 4- अलग अलग तारों कि विशिष्टि – अनुभाग 3- पोलीयस्टर और पोलीप्रोपीलीन सोधित वाइंडिग तार | 16/05/2017 |
| 3. | 6880793 | म ेसर्स कल्याण ज्वेलर्स इंडिया प्रायवेट िलिमटड 166/ 4,5,6, कॉवेरी रोड, कVन्गलपालयम, ईरोड -638003 | IS 1417 : 2016 स् वर्ण एवं स् वर्ण मि=धातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल् पकारी – शु>ता एवं मुहरांकन | 19/05/2017 |
| 4. | 6339675 | म ेसर्स पैलेट इंडस्ट्रीस एस एफ सं. 76-A,9/13-B, पलनीसामी नायडु कॉलनी, दूसरा सडक, कालापXी रोड, सिविल एरॉhॉम पोस्ट, अरियलूर, कोयम्बत्तूर -641014 | IS 9079 : 2002 क ृ षि एवं जल आपूJत के लिए साफ और ठंडे पानी के बिजली के मोनोसेट पम्प | 24/05/2017 |
| 5. | 6201848 | म ेसर्स एस के एस एक्ससरीस अiयर तोXम, सुन्डकामुतूर रोड, क ु मारापालयम (पोस्ट), कोयम्बत्तूर -641026 | IS 9079 : 2002 क ृ षि एवं जल आपूJत के लिए साफ और ठंडे पानी के बिजली के मोनोसेट पम्प | 25/05/2017 |
[सं. सीएमडी/13 : 13]
टी. कलैवाणन, वै?ानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख
New Delhi, the 17th August, 2017
S.O. 1964.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5297SCHEDULE
| Sl. No. | Licence No. CM/L- | Name & Address of the Licensee | Article/ Process with relevant Indian Standard covered by the licence cancelled/ suspension | Date of Cancellation |
| 1. | 6519980 | M/s. P.P.P. Jewellery No. 17, Ponn Street , Erode -638001 | IS 1417 : 2016 Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/ Aertefacts- Fineness and Marking | 12/05/2017 |
| 2. | 6500016203 M/s. Daksakthe Poly Wrapping Wire D. No. 12, Covai Industrial Park, Kovil Palayam Post, Coimbatore - 641 107 | IS 8783 (Part 4/ Sec 3): 1995 Winding Wires for Submersible Motors – Part 4: Specification for Individual Wires- Section 3: Polyester and Polypropylene Insulated Wires | 16/05/2017 | |
| 3. | 6880793 | M/s. Kalyan Jewellers India Private Limited 166/ 4,5,6, Cauvery Road, Karungalpalayam, Erode -638003 | IS 1417 : 2016 Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/ Artefacts- Fineness and Marking | 19/05/2017 |
| 4. | 6339675 | M/s. Pilot Industires SF No. 76-A,9/13-B, Palanisamy Naidu Colony, 2nd Street, Kalapatty Road, Civil Aerodrome Post, Ariyalur, Coimbatore-641014 | IS 9079 : 2002 Electric Monoset Pumps For Clear, Cold Water For Agricultural And Water Supply Purposes | 24/05/2017 |
| 5. | 6201848 | M/s. S K S Accessories Iyer Thottam, Sundakamuthur Road, Kumarapalayam (P.O.), Coimbatore -641026 | IS 9079 : 2002 Electric Monoset Pumps For Clear, Cold Water For Agricultural And Water Supply Purposes | 25/05/2017 |
[No. CMD/13 : 13]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head
नई दिल्ली, 17 अगस्त, 2017
काकाकाका....आआआआ. . . . 1965196519651965.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:-
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| 3. स ं. | लाइसेंस सं | स्वीकृ त करने की तिथि वर्ष/ माह | लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता | भारतीय मानक का शीर्ष | भा मा सं (भाग/ अनुभाग) : वर्ष |
| 1. | 6500025810 | 20170605 | म ेसर्स कु न्सन्स पाइप्स प्रायवेट िलिमटड एस एफ सं. 458/1,458/2,459/1A,459/2, व ेल्लमडि, कोयम्बत्तूर -641110 | प ेय जल पूJत के लिए असुघkित पी वी सी पाइप | IS 4985 : 2000 |
| 2. | 6590000614 | 20170612 | म ेसर्स कल्याण ज्वेलर्स इंडिया लिमिटड 166/4,5,6, एन ए, कॉवेरी रोड, कVन्गलपालयम, ईरोड -638003 | स् वर्ण एवं स् वर्ण मि=धातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल् पकारी – शु>ता एवं मुहरांकन | IS 1417 : 2016 |
| 3. | 6500025911 | 20170612 | म ेसर्स वVणास हेवन्ली वाटर एस एफ सं. 625, लlमी फाम्र्स, सिVवाणि मुख्य रोड, मदुवरायापुरम, काVnया पोस्ट, कोयम्बत्तूर-641114, | प ैके जबंद पेय जल (पैके जबंद िमनरल जल के अलावा) | IS 14543 : 2004 |
| 4. | 6500026004 | 20170614 | म ेसर्स टेक्स्मो इंडस्ट्रीस (पम्प डिविशन III) एस एफ सं. 323/1, 324/1, 325/2C, उVमन्डमपालयम, वेल्लैकिनर गाँव, कोयम्बत्तूर- 641029. | गहरे कु ओं के लिए निम्मजनीय पम्पसेट | IS 14220: 1994 |
| 5. | 6500026105 | 20170621 | म ेसर्स =ी कन्दन इंजीनियoरग स ं. 6, 8वाँ सडक, धरणी नगर एक्स्टेंशन, गणपतिपुदुर, गणपति, कोयम्बत्तूर- 641006 | निम्मजनीय पम्पसेट | IS 8034: 2002 |
| 6. | 6590000715 | 20170621 | म ेसर्स =ी परमे[री ज्वेलर्स 31, वेलायुतन स्ट्रीट, अन्तियूर, ईरोड-638501 | स् वर्ण एवं स् वर्ण मि=धातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल् पकारी – शु>ता एवं मुहरांकन | IS 1417 : 2016 |
| 7. | 6500026307 | 20170628 | म ेसर्स ऑरोन्ज पम्प्स एnड मोटर्स 34, मुगाम्बिगै नगर, गणपति, कोयम्बत्तूर- 641 006 | साफ, ठंडे पानी के िलए अपकें qीय पुनVत्पादक पम्प | IS 8472: 1998 |
| 8. | 6500026408 | 20170628 | म ेसर्स एस जे पम्प्स 62-B/1, आवारमपालयम, कु लत्तु तोXम, कोयम्बत्तूर-641004. | साफ, ठंडे पानी के िलए अपकें qीय पुनVत्पादक पम्प | IS 8472: 1998 |
| 9. | 6500026206 | 20170628 | म ेसर्स आर्यन मोटर्स (इंडिया) प्रायवेट िलिमटड एस एफ सं.128/1, नरसिम्मननायकनपालयम, मेटूपालयम रोड, कोयम्बत्तूर - 641031 | निम्मजनीय पम्पसेट के िलए मोटर | IS 9283: 2013 |
[सं. सीएमडी/13 : 11]
टी. कलैवाणन, वै?ानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख
New Delhi, the 17th August, 2017
S.O. 1965.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
| Sl. No. | Licence No. | Grant Date | Name and Address (Factory) of the Party | Title of the Standard | IS No. Part/ Sec. Year |
| 1. | 6500025810 | 20170605 | M/s. Kunsons Pipes Pvt Ltd SF No. 458/1,458/2,459/1A,459/2, Vellamadi, Coimbatore -641110 | Unplasticized PVC Pipes for potable water supplies | IS 4985 : 2000 |
| 2. | 6590000614 | 20170612 | M/s. Kalyan Jewellers India Limited 166/4,5,6, NA, Cauvery Road, Karungalpalayam,, Erode -638003 | Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/ Artefacts - Fineness and Marking | IS 1417 : 2016 |
| 3. | 6500025911 | 20170612 | M/s. Varunas Heavenly Water SF No. 625,Lakshme Farms, Siruvani Main Road, Mathuvarayapuram,, Karunya Post, Coimbatore-641114, | Packaged Drinking Water (other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water) | IS 14543 : 2004 |
| 4. | 6500026004 | 20170614 | M/s. Texmo Industries (Pump Division III) SF No. 323/1, 324/1, 325/2C, Urumandampalayam, Vellakinar Village, Coimbatore- 641029. | Openwell Submersible Pumpsets | IS 14220: 1994 |
| 5. | 6500026105 | 20170621 | M/s. Sri Kandan Engineering No. 6, 8th Street, Dharani Nagar Extension, Ganapathyputhur, Ganapathy, Coimbatore - 641006 | Submersible Pumpsets | IS 8034: 2002 |
| 6. | 6590000715 | 20170621 | M/s. Sri Parameswari Jewellers 31, Velayuthan Street, Anthiyur Erode-638501 | Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/ Artefacts - Fineness and Marking | IS 1417 : 2016 |
| 7. | 6500026307 | 20170628 | M/s. Orange Pumpss And Motorss 34, Mugambhigai Nagar, Ganapathy, Coimbatore- 641 006 | Centrifugal Regenerative Pumps for clear, cold water | IS 8472: 1998 |
| 8. | 6500026408 | 20170628 | M/s. SJ Pumps, 62-B/1,Avarampalayam, Kulathu Thottam, Coimbatore-641004. | Centrifugal Regenerative Pumps for clear, cold water | IS 8472: 1998 |
| 9. | 6500026206 | 20170628 | M/s. Aryen Motors (India) Private Limited SF No.128/1, Narasimmanaickenpalayam, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore - 641031 | Motors for Submersible Pumpsets | IS 9283: 2013 |
[No. CMD/13:11]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head5300 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 17 अगस्त, 2017
काकाकाका....आआआआ. . . . 1966196619661966.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियमन 5 के उपविनियमन (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शाई गई तारीख से रद्द/ स्थगित कर दिया गया है:-
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| 3. स ं. | लाइसेंस सं सी एम/ एल- | लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता | स्थगित किए गए/ रद्द किए गए लाइसेंस के अ ंतर्गत वस्तु/ प्र3म सम्ब> भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक | रद्द होने की ितिथ |
| ज ून 2017 - शून्य |
[सं. सीएमडी/13 : 13]
टी. कलैवाणन, वै?ानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख
New Delhi, the 17th August, 2017
S.O. 1966.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
| Sl. No. | Licence No. CM/L- | Name & Address of the Licensee | Article/ Process with relevant Indian Standard covered by the licence cancelled/ suspension | Date of Cancellation |
| JUNE 2017 – NIL |
[No. CMD/13 : 13]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head
नई दिल्ली, 17 अगस्त, 2017
काकाकाका....आआआआ. . . . 1967196719671967.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:-
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| ". ". ". ". स ं. सं. सं. सं. | लाइसेंस सं | स्वीकृ त करने स्वीकृ त करने स्वीकृ त करने स्वीकृ त करने की तिथि वर्ष की तिथि वर्ष/ / / / की तिथि वर्ष की तिथि वर्ष माहमाहमाहमाह | लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता | भारतीय मानक का भारतीय मानक का भारतीय मानक का शीर्ष | भा मा सं भा मा सं (भाग/ / / / (भाग अनुभाग) अनुभाग) : : : : वर्ष अनुभाग) वर्ष वर्षवर्ष |
| 1. | 6500026509 | 20170711 | म ेसर्स एस एन इंडस्ट्रीस 31, अतिकु XैतोXम, तोXिपालयम रोड, चिन्नियापालयम (पोस्ट), कोयम्बत्तूर -641062. | साफ, ठंडे पानी के लिए अपकें qीय प ुनVत्पादक पम्प | IS 8472: 1998 |
| 2. | 6500026610 | 20170711 | म ेसर्स सी.आ.आई. पम्प्स प्रायवेट लिमिटड य ूिनट : रागो इंडस्ट्रीस 10/150, मसागौन्डन चेXिपालयम, | जलकल के लिए स्लूस वाल्व | IS 14846: 2000 |
| ओरैsालपालयम, कु न्नत्तुर पोस्ट, कोयम्बत्तूर - 641107. | |||||
| 3. | 6500026812 | 20170714 | म ेसर्स एस वी एस मिनरल्स 250/1, पेरियाकोम्बु तोXम, न ेल्लुतुरै रोड, आलियार पोस्ट, पोल्लाची- 642101 | प ैके जबंद पेय जल (पैके जबंद िमनरल जल क े अलावा) | IS 14543: 2004 |
| 4. | 6500026711 | 20170714 | म ेसर्स कोवर्तना वाटर यूनिट-2, 3/224-D, अंडिपालयम, कनsमपालयम, तिVप्पुर -641666 | प ैके जबंद पेय जल (पैके जबंद िमनरल जल क े अलावा) | IS 14543: 2004 |
| 5. | 6500026905 | 20170714 | म ेसर्स जय=ी प्लास्टिक्स 241-G, पेरूर सडक, मणि राइस मिल इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, क ु मारापालयम (पोस्ट), कोयम्बत्तूर -641026 | प ैके जबंद िमनरल जल एवं पैके जबंद पेय जल को पैक करने के पात्र | IS 15410: 2003 |
| 6. | 6500027006 | 20170718 | म ेसर्स कर पम्प्स =ी अलगु अम्मन इंजीनियoरग 151/1, रामासामी लैऔट सं. 3, आवारमपालयम, कोयम्बत्तूर-641006 | निम्मजनीय पम्पसेट | IS 8034: 2002 |
| 7. | 6590000816 | 20170718 | म ेसर्स कु बेरालlमी तंगामालिगै दरवाजा सं. 29, बंग्ला सडक, पेVन्दुरै, ईरोड - 638052 | स् वर्ण एवं स् वर्ण मि=धातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल् पकारी – शु>ता एवं मुहरांकन | IS 1417 : 2016 |
| 8. | 6590000917 | 20170719 | म ेसर्स कु बेरालlमी तंगामालिगै दरवाजा सं. 29, बंग्ला सडक, पेVन्दुरै, ईरोड - 638052 | चाँदी एवं चाँदी मि=धातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल् पकारी – शु>ता एवं मुहरांकन | IS 2112 : 2014 |
| 9. | 6500027107 | 20170724 | म ेसर्स आर्रटेक शीट मेटल फै ब्रिके शन 16/1, रैनबो इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, चिन्नावेदमपXी, गणपित, कोयम्बत्तूर- 641006. | फायर फाइoटग के लिए प्राथमिक सहायता नली-रील के विनिदvश | IS 884: 1985 |
| 10. | 6590001018 | 20170728 | म ेसर्स वJणका ज्वेलर्स साइट सं. 9, एन एस आर रोड, साई बाबा सॉलनी, कोयम्बत्तूर - 641011 | स् वर्ण एवं स् वर्ण मि=धातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल् पकारी – शु>ता एवं मुहरांकन | IS 1417 : 2016 |
| 11. | 6590001111 | 20170731 | म ेसर्स वJणका ज्वेलर्स साइट सं. 9, एन एस आर रोड, साई बाबा सॉलनी, कोयम्बत्तूर - 641011 | चाँदी एवं चाँदी मि=धातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल् पकारी – शु>ता एवं मुहरांकन | IS 2112 : 2014 |
[सं. सीएमडी/13 : 11]
टी. कलैवाणन, वै?ािनक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख
New Delhi, the 17th August, 2017
S.O. 1967.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the following schedule:
5302 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]SCHEDULE
| Sl. No. | Licence No. | Grant Date | Name and Address (Factory) of the Party | Title of the Standard | IS No. Part/ Sec. Year |
| 1. | 6500026509 | 20170711 | M/s. S N Industriess 31, Athikuttaithottam, Thottiapalayam Road, Chinniapalayam (P.O.), Coimbatore-641062. | Centrifugal Regenerative Pumps for Clear, Cold Water | IS 8472: 1998 |
| 2. | 6500026610 | 20170711 | M/s. C.R.I Pumps Private Limited, Unit : Rago Industries, 10/150, Masagounden Chettipalayam, Oraikkalpalayam, Kunnathur Post, Coimbatore-641107. | Sluice Valve for Water Works Purposes | IS 14846: 2000 |
| 3. | 6500026812 | 20170714 | M/s. SVS Minerals, 250/1, Periyakombu Thottam, Nelluthurai Road, Aliyar Post, Pollachi-642101 | Packaged Drinking Water (other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water) | IS 14543: 2004 |
| 4. | 6500026711 | 20170714 | M/s. Kovartna Water Unit-2, 3/224-D, Andipalayam, Kanakkampalayam, Tirupur-641666 | Packaged Drinking Water (other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water) | IS 14543: 2004 |
| 5. | 6500026905 | 20170714 | M/s. Jaishri Plastics 241-G, Perur Road, Mani Rice Mill Indl. Estate, Kumarapalayam (P.O.), Coimbatore- 641026 | Containers for Packaging of Natural Mineral Water and Packaged Drinking Water | IS 15410: 2003 |
| 6. | 6500027006 | 20170718 | M/s. Kar Pumps Sri Alazhu Amman Engineering 151/1, Ramasamy Layout No 3, Avarampalayam ,Coimbatore-641006 | Submersible Pumpsets | IS 8034: 2002 |
| 7. | 6590000816 | 20170718 | M/s. Kuberalaxmi Thangamaligai Door No. 29, Bungalow Street, Perundurai, Erode-638052 | Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/ Artefacts- Fineness and Marking | IS 1417 : 2016 |
| 8. | 6590000917 | 20170719 | M/s. Kuberalaxmi Thangamaligai Door No. 29, Bungalow Street, Perundurai, Erode-638052 | Silver and Silver Alloys, Jewellery/ Artefacts- Fineness and Marking | IS 2112 : 2014 |
| 9. | 6500027107 | 20170724 | M/s. Arrtech Sheet Metal Fabrication 16/1, Rainbow Industrial Area, Chinnavadapatti, Ganapathy, Coimbatore-641006. | Specification for First-Aid hose-Reel For Fire Fighting | IS 884: 1985 |
| 10. | 6590001018 | 20170728 M/s. Varnika Jewellers | Site No. 9, NSR ROAD, Saibaba Colony, Coimbatore -641011 | Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/ Artefacts- Fineness and Marking | IS 1417 : 2016 |
| 11. | 6590001111 | 20170731 M/s. Varnika Jewellers | Site No. 9, NSR ROAD, Saibaba Colony, Coimbatore -641011 | Silver and Silver Alloys, Jewellery/ Artefacts- Fineness and Marking | IS 2112 : 2014 |
[No. CMD/13:11]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5303
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्त, 2017
काकाकाका....आआआआ. . . . 1968196819681968.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियमन 5 के उपविनियमन (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शाई गई तारीख से रद्द/ स्थगित कर दिया गया है:-
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| 3. स ं. | लाइसेंस सं सी एम/ एल- | लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता | स्थगित किए गए/ रद्द किए गए लाइसेंस के अ ंतर्गत वस्तु/ प्र3म सम्ब> भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक | रद्द होने की ितिथ |
| ज ुलाई 2017 - शून्य |
[सं. सीएमडी/13 : 13]
टी. कलैवाणन, वै?ानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2017
S.O. 1968.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
| Sl. No. | Licence No. CM/L- | Name & Address of the Licensee | Article/ Process with relevant Indian Standard covered by the licence cancelled/ suspension | Date of Cancellation |
| JULY 2017 – NIL |
[No. CMD/13 : 13]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्त, 2017
काकाकाका....आआआआ. . . . 1969196919691969.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियमन 5 के उपविनियमन (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शाई गई तारीख से रद्द/ स्थगित कर दिया गया है:-
अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची
| 3. स ं. | लाइसेंस सं सी एम/ एल- | लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता | स्थगित किए गए/ रद्द किए गए लाइसेंस के अ ंतर्गत वस्तु/ प्र3म सम्ब> भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक | रद्द होने की ितिथ |
| अगस् त 2017 - शून्य |
[सं. सीएमडी/13 : 13]
टी. कलैवाणन, वै?ानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख5304 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2017
S.O. 1969.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
| Sl. No. | Licence No. CM/L- | Name & Address of the Licensee | Article/ Process with relevant Indian Standard covered by the licence cancelled/ suspension | Date of Cancellation |
| August 2017 – NIL |
[No. CMD/13 : 13]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head
श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्राालय
नई दिल्ली, 14 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1970.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार जैट एअरवेज ई. प्रा. लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, मुम्बई के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 1/04 ऑपफ 2005द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-11012/27/2004-आईआर ;सीएम-Iद्ध]
एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 14th August, 2017
S.O. 1970.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/04 of 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Jet Airways India Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.08.2017.
[No. L-11012/27/2004-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, MUMBAI
Present : JUSTICE S .V. S. RATHORE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/4 OF 2005
Parties : Employers in relation to the management of
Jet Airways India Pvt.Ltd
And
Their workman (Shamim Y. Shaikh)
Appearances :
For Jet Airways : Mrs. Pooja Kulkarni, Adv. For the Workman : Shri Vipan B.Kumar, Adv.[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5305
State
: Maharashtra
Mumbai, dated the 7th July, 2017
AWARD PART-II
1. This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:
फ्क्या मै. जैट एअरवेज ;इ.द्ध प्रा. लिमिटेड के प्रबध्तंत्रा द्वारा कर्मकार श्री शमीम वाई. शेख आपिफस अटेण्डेण्ट की सेवाएँ आदेश
दिनांक 25.10.2001 द्वारा बर्खास्त किया जाना विध्वित उचित एवं न्यायसंगत है? यदि नही ंतो कर्मकार किस राहत के पात्रा है?य्
2. According to the statement of claim the workman Shamim Y.Shaikh joined the first party on 13.12.1993 as office attendant at Amarchand Mansion, Colaba, Mumbai in Sales and Marketing Department. The workman was transferred to the office of the first party at S.M.Centre, Andheri (East) w.e.f. 24.9.1997. The first party prevented the workman from performing his duties w.e.f. 19.6.2001. In newspaper Midday of 6.9.2001 the workman read a notice published by the first party in respect of a chargesheet and enquiry proceedings against him. The workman, with an intention to participate in the enquiry, went to the office of the first party at S.M.Centre on 10.9.2001 at 4.00pm but he was not allowed to enter the premises by the watchman of the first party. The enquiry conducted against the workman was never legal, fair and proper and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse. Moreover, the punishment awarded to the workman is unduly harsh and disproportionate. The workman has, therefore, prayed that he be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service.
3. According to the written statement filed by the first party the workman was employed as office attendant w.e.f. 1.5.1994. The workman was relocated as office attendant in the Flights Operations Department, Mumbai on 18.6.2001 and he was asked to report to Manager (Technical Training.) However, the workman refused to accept the said letter. The said letter was, therefore, sent to the workman at his residential address by registered AD as well as under certificate of posting on the same day but the workman refused to accept the letter sent by registered AD. The workman continued to remain absent from work w.e.f. 19.6.2001 without assigning any reason and, therefore, the first party vide letter dated 5.7.2001 called upon the workman to immediately report for duty at the changed location i.e. Flight Operations Department and he was also called upon to submit his explanation in writing for his unauthorised absence. The said show cause notice was sent to the workman by registered AD but the same returned undelivered with the remark "Refused". A chargesheet was then issued against the workman on 25.7.2001. The chargesheet was sent to the workman by registered AD but the envelope returned undelivered with the remark "Refused". A departmental enquiry was conducted on 6.8.2001 but the Enquiry Officer did not proceed with the enquiry and adjourned the enquiry to 16.8.2001. Again the Enquiry Officer did not proceed with the enquiry ex parte and adjourned the enquiry to 28.8.2001. The Enquiry Officer again adjourned the enquiry to 10.9.2001 since the workman refused to accept serviced of any communication sent to him by registered AD, therefore, the first party published a notice in the daily newspaper Midday in its issue dt.6.9.2001 but the workman did not attend the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer held the workman guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Competent Authority after perusal of the entire material on record concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and awarded the punishment of dismissal from service w.e.f. 24.10.2001. The first party has denied all the allegations narrated in the statement of claim. According to the written statement the workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. During first part of the Award, affidavit of evidence of the workman Shamim Y. Shaikh was filed on behalf of the workman. While dealing with the Issues No. 1 and 2 in the first party of the Award, the Tribunal reached the conclusion that there is no evidence of rebuttal on the point that the workman was prevented from attending the enquiry proceedings and on the basis of the same, it was held that the enquiry against him cannot be said to be fair and proper and this Tribunal opined that the findings of the Enquiry Office are perverse. The first party was given an opportunity to prove the charges against the workman, by leading evidence before this Tribunal. In compliance of the same, the affidavit of Rajesh Jagadish Muley, Manager, HR dated 1.8.2014 was filed alongwith supporting documents and the workman also filed his affidavit dated 2.6.2015. No documentary evidence was filed on behalf of the workman. However, on behalf of the management, the entire enquiry proceedings alongwith the original registered/UPC letters which were sent to the workman which returned with the remark 'Refused' have also been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the workman has argued that in this case, the workman was prevented from attending the enquiry proceedings and also from joining the duty. Therefore, the proceedings were held to be perverse. Apart from it, it is admitted fact that Standing Orders applies to the service of the workman and in compliance said order neither the enquiry officer was notified nor the Appellate Authority was notified which has prejudiced the interest of the workman. It has also been argued that the charge against the workman was of habitual absence but there is virtually no evidence that he was habitual absentee. The allegation against him was only for one absence and one absence howsoever long it may be, it cannot be termed as habitual absence. He has argued that show cause notice was issued5306 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] on 5.7.2001 and chargesheet was issued on 25.7.2001 and he was dismissed vide order dated 24.10.2001. He has also argued that first part of the Award was challenged by the Management by filing writ petition No. 98/2013, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide judgement dated 18.3.2013. It has also been argued that the termination order was passed by the Area Manager and not by the General Manager, therefore, the order of termination was passed by an authority which was lower in rank to the appointing authority who was the General Manager. He has also argued that the contents of paragraph 11, 13, 14 and 16 of the workman's affidavit have not been rebutted and no evidence has been led to prove the charge. The witness produced in support of the case of the management was not aware of any fact because he joined service after the dismissal of the workman in the year 2006, therefore, his evidence has no evidentiary value. Learned counsel for the workman has also argued that in this background, the workman deserves to be re-instated with full back wages in the alternative, he has argued that even if the case of the management is taken to be proved, for arguments sake only, even then the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate to his misconduct which was his first time absence for a short period.
6. On behalf of the first party, it has been argued that the workman has not filed his appointment letter to show that the General Manager is Appointing Authority. It has been argued that in the affidavit of evidence the workman has stated about several letters sent to the company including the Chairman of the Company but not even a copy of single such letter has been filed in support of his assertion. The Company made all efforts to inform him about this date, place and time of the enquiry but he refused to accept the registered letters and such refusal goes against him to show that he did not participated in the enquiry deliberately, therefore, he cannot at this stage take an excuse that he was not permitted to participate in the enquiry. It has also been argued that in the cross-examination, the workman has made certain statements which were absolutely contrary to his stand taken in his first affidavit. It has also been argued that even if the Court reaches the conclusion that the punishment awarded to the workman is disproportionate even then, the workman may be reinstated but he shall not be entitled for back wages because it has nowhere been pleaded that he remained unemployed during the entire period after his dismissal.
7. Now the argument advanced by the counsel for the parties shall be considered in the background of the evidence and the documentary evidence available on record.
8. The workman in his evidence has admitted that he has not given his complete address in the affidavits but in his cross-examination he has admitted that the addresses mentioned in the envelopes which have been filed and proved by MW-1 bears his correct address. Most of the letters which were sent through registered post were received back with the remark 'refused'. However, subsequent three letters have been received with the remark 'left' or no such person reside on such address. He in his cross-examination has also admitted that he was re-located to Flight Operations at Chemtex Building vide letter dated 18.6.2001 and he did not report to duty there. However, he has also stated that the said transfer order was not communicated to him. He has also admitted that he never went to Chemtex Building Office during the entire period of his alleged absence.
9. The management witnesses has deposed before this Tribunal only on the basis of the documents. He was not even in the service of the first party at the time when the entire incident and dismissal took place. He joined service in the year 2006 i.e. much after the date of dismissal which was in the year 2001.
10. In this case no other witness was produced on behalf of the management. The submission of the learned counsel for the workman is that Santosh Chalke the Area Manager and Surendra Kripal are still in the service of the management and these persons were the best witness to support the case of the administration but they have been deliberately withheld. Therefore, the evidence of MW-1 cannot be relied upon because the management has withheld the best evidence which was in the form of the other two witnesses mentioned above.
11. So far as the service of different notices through registered post is concerned law is settled that such communication has to be considered sufficient personal service when it is received back with the remark refused/left. On this point reference may be made to the following pronouncements.
Madan and Co. vs. Wazir Jaivir Chand (Reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 630-Supreme Court). In paragraph 6Hon'ble Apex Court has opined as under.
"If we interpret the provision as requiring that the letter must have been actually delivered to the addressee, we would be virtually rendering it a dead letter. The letter cannot be served where, as in this case, the tenant is away from the premises for some considerable time. Also, an addressee can easily avoid receiving the letter addressed to him without specifically refusing to receive it. He can so manipulate matters that it gets returned to the sender with vague endorsements such as "not found", "not in station", "addressee has left" and so on. It is suggested that a landlord, knowing that the tenant is away from station for some reasons, could go through the motions of posting a letter to him which he knows will not be served. Such a possibility cannot be excluded. But, as against this, if a registered letter addressed to a person at his residential address does not get served in the normal PG NO 990 course and is returned, it can only be attributed to the addressee's own conduct. If he is staying in the premises, there is no reason why it should not be served on him. If he is compelled to be away for some time, all that he has to do is to leave necessary[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5307 instructions with the postal authorities either to detain the letters addressed to him for some time until he returns or to forward them to the address where he has B gone or to deliver them to some other person authorised by him. In this situation, we have to choose the more reasonable, effective, equitable and practical interpretation and that would be to read the words "served" as "sent by post", correctly and properly addressed to the tenant, and the word "receipt" as the tender of the letter by the postal peon at the address mentioned in the letter. No other interpretation, we think, will fit the situation as it is simply not possible for a landlord to ensure that a registered letter sent by him gets served on, or is received by, the tenant."
In the case of Alavi Haji vs. Palapetty Muhammed and Anr. 2007 AIR SCW 3578-Supreme Court in paragraph 14 Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under.
"Section 27 gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. In view of the said presumption, when stating that a notice has been sent by registered post to the address of the drawer, it is unnecessary to further aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business. This Court has already held that when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement "refused" or "not available in the house" or "house locked" or "shop closed" or "addressee not in station", due service has to be presumed. [Vide Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1604; State of M.P. v. Hiralal & Ors., (1996)7 SCC 523 and V. Raja Kumari v. P.Subbarama Naidu & Anr. 2004(4) RCR(Criminal) 933 : 2005(1) Apex Criminal 58 : (2004)8 SCC 774]. It is, therefore, manifest that in view of the presumption available under Section 27 of the Act, it is not necessary to aver in the complaint under Section 138 of the Act that service of notice was evaded by the accused or that the accused had a role to play in the return of the notice unserved."1992 AIR SCW 1747 2004 AIR SCW 6344.
In the case of New Globe Transport Corporation v. Magma Shrachi Finance Ltd AIR 2011 Calcutta 72 Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in paragraph 11 has observed as under.
"The learned Arbitrator sent the award in an envelope by register post with acknowledgment due card on 8th August, 2008 which returned with postal endorsement 'Not Claimed'. The envelop is sufficiently stamped. The petitioner is receiving letters and correspondences at the said address and it was not case of the petitioner that the office was closed or for any other reason the envelop was not received by their office. Subsequent letters and correspondences all were received from the same address. Accordingly there should not be any doubt to presume that the envelop which was sent at the office of the petitioner, was in fact tendered by the postman at the same address but the same has not been accepted. Mr. Bose cited a judgment deliver by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court in case of Arun Banerjee & Ors. versus Baidya Nath Mullick & Ors. reported in 2008 volume 3 Calcutta Law Times High Court 338 wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench have held that "The notice was sent on behalf of the plaintiffs to the original defendant under registered post with A/D and the same was returned with the postal endorsement 'Not Claimed', which is tantamount to a good service. The notice itself has validly terminated his tenancy with the end of the month of May, 1979 and the same appears to be legal, valid and sufficient."
12. Admittedly, the workman has not reported to the place of his relocation i.e. Chemtex Building during the period of his entire absence but his defence is that the said re-location order was not communicated to him and he continuously went to joint his duties in the office at S.M. Centre where he was not permitted to enter the office. In this case, the show cause notice for absence was issued on 5.7.2001. The workman was chargesheeted on 25.7.2001 and the dismissal order was passed on 24.10.2001. Admittedly, the workman has not participated in the enquiry but as stated earlier, efforts on behalf of the management were made to inform him about the date, time and place of the enquiry. So after refusal of the registered post, he cannot take the stand that he was not aware of the enquiry proceedings.When Award Part-I was passed by this Tribunal , these documents were not on record. Here it is pertinent to mention that the witness in his cross-examination has admitted that his address on the envelope is correct but the last three envelopes were returned with the remark "no such person resides" on thesaid address or with the remark "left". So virtually these remarks appears to be manipulated. Admittedly, the workman was living on the said address. So now the workman in these background cannot take a defence that he was not aware of the enquiry proceedings. His main defence is that he was physically prevented from taking part in the said enquiry proceedings and also to join his duties. He has given evidence on this point. In the first part of the Award it was the finding of this Tribunal that there was no evidence to the contrary that he was not prevented from attending the office or he was not prevented physically to take part in the enquiry proceedings. This fact still remains unrebutted because the evidence of management witness Rajesh Jagdish Muley on this point cannot be treated to be at all relevant evidence because admittedly he was not even in the employment of the management at the relevant time. Whether the workman was physically prevented from attending the enquiry proceedings or joining the duties or not, can be deposed only by the persons who were present there at the5308 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] relevant time. There cannot be any record to this effect and this witness has given evidence only on the basis of the record. So the point that the workman was physically prevented from joining the duties still remains unrebutted in the second part. When the evidence of the workman that he was prevented physically from joining his duties remains unrebutted that question to prove his absence from duty cannot be decided against him. It is true that the workman in his cross-examination has admitted that he was re-located vide order dated 18.6.2001. MW-1 Rajesh Jagdish Muley has filed some documents alongwith his affidavit of evidence. Ex.M-11 is the re-location order dated 18.6.2001. Another letter Ex.M-11 has been filed which is also dated 18.6.2001. It has been sent by Santosh Chalke, Area Manager at his address to the workman. This letter reads as under.
"Mr. Shaikh,
We refer to the letter dated June 12, 2001 advising relocation of your services with the immediate effect. The said letter was offered to you by the undersigned in his office at about 1715 hrs, after reading over and explaining the contents of the same to you. However, you refused to accept the aid letter after knowing and understanding contents of the same.
Therefore, the said letter is being sent to you along with this letter by Registered A.D. Post as well as a copy of the same 'Under Certificate of Posting'.
Perusal of this letter shows that the order advising re-location of service was offered to the workman on June 12, 2001 but no such letter or order dated 12.6.2001 has been filed on behalf of the management. It also appears to be doubtful that when the order of re-location was passed on 18.6.2001 what was the need and urgency on the same date to send such a letter by the Area Manager. This letter itself shows that the re-location order was not served on the workman and in absence of the letter dated 12.6.2001, as mentioned in Ex.M-11, it cannot be said that the workman was aware of his re-location order. In absence of any information about his re-location if he went to join duty at S.M.Building and was physically prevented from joining his duties there, then his absence from duty cannot be proved . Letter dated 5.7.2001 Ex.M-12 sent by Santosh Chalke, Area Manager also shows that the order dated 18.6.2001 was not communicated to the workman. In this letter, it is mentioned that the workman has declined to receive the order dated 18.6.2001 and there is no mention of any order of re-location dated 12.6.2001. Therefore, even in the second part, the management has failed to prove its charge against the workman. Accordingly, the workman is entitled to the relief.
13. The question of not notifying the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority loses all its significance as the enquiry is being conducted by the Tribunal.
14. The ground that he was dismissed by Area Manager and not by General Manager has also become meaningless as the workman has not filed his appointment letter showing that he was appointed by General Manager. Apart from it, there is evidence to the effect that General Manager, Manager HR and Area Manager are competent to make appointment.
15. Now coming to the relief, it has been argued on behalf of the management that the workman has nowhere pleaded at any stage either in his statement of claim or in his affidavit of evidence that he remained unemployed after his dismissal from service. Therefore, back wages cannot be granted in his favour. On this point, learned counsel for the management has placed reliance on the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Thankur Singh Rawat and Ors. Vs Jagjit Industries Ltd (2006) I LLJ 775 Del. Attention of this Tribunal was drawn towards the following part of this judgement.
"The Courts have held that full back wages can be denied to the workman if the workman was gainfully employed during the course of his unemployment arising out of the illegal termination of his services. It is also a settled law that it is for the management to prove that workman was gainfully employed during the period from his illegal termination to reinstatement. The onus is always on the management to prove the fact. However, in the present case, the workman is totally silent about the fact whether he was unemployed during the period of his illegal termination to the date of order. It was for the workman to assert the said fact in his statement of claim as well as affidavit. Perusal of record reveals that workman has nowhere stated that he was unemployed during the course of his unemployment. In my opinion, without such assertion, the management is not supposed to prove the fact that workman was gainfully employed. Had the workmen pleaded such fact before the Court, the onus certainly was on the management to prove otherwise."
If the workman does not even plead that he was unemployed is the management then required to plead the state of employment of the workman? The Labour Court says 'No' and the writ Court accepts this answer. It is to be noted that the state of employment or unemployment of the workman is within the special knowledge of the workman and therefore it should be his first duty to make an assertion that he was unemployed. Having so asserted in his statement of claim he may even state on oath about his state of unemployment for nothing more is required to prove his side of the case. It will then be for the management to assert or prove if the workman was at all employed."[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5309 16. The aforementioned pronouncement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi applies with full force in the facts of the instant case. There is not even a single word either in the statement of claim or in the affidavits filed by the workman that he remained unemployed. His employment was a fact which was within the exclusive personal knowledge of the workman and in view of the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act the burden to prove such facts which are within the personal knowledge of a person lies on such person. Since no such averment of statement has been made so workman is not entitled to the full back wages. But definitely the workman is entitled to some damages as he has suffered because of his wrong dismissal from service.In the considered opinion of the Court. 15% of back wages would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the order of dismissal from service of the workman was not in accordance with law. The workman shall be reinstated in service without delay with continuity in service only for the purpose of fixing his present wages. However, he shall not be entitled for back wages during the period from date of his absence till the date of his reinstatement. However, as damages, he shall be paid only 15% of his back wages.
17. Reference is answered accordingly.
Justice S. V. S. RATHORE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1971.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डेल्टा एअरलाईन्स के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार
औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2, मुम्बई के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 2/32 ऑपफ 2005द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-11012/22/2004-आईआर ;सीएम-Iद्ध]
एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 14th August, 2017
S.O. 1971.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/32 of 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Delta Airlines and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.08.2017.
[No. L-11012/22/2004-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/32 of 2005
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/S. DELTA AIRLINES INC.
The General Manager-India M/s. Delta Airlines Inc., Leela Gallery, 6th floor Andheri Kurla Road Andheri (East) Mumbai 400 059.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
Shri Kuldeep Singh New Heaven Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. 1/72:1:2, Palm Beach Road Sector-4, Nerul Navi Mumbai 400 706.
5310 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]APPEARANCES :
FOR THE EMPLOYERS : Mr. Sunil Shroff, Advocate FOR THE WORKMAN : Mr. Umesh Nabar, Advocate
Mumbai, dated the 29th May, 2017.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-11012/22/2004-IR (C-I), dated 14.12.2004 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
^^D;k eSllZ MsYVk ,vjykbal ds izca/kra= }kjk deZdkj Jh dqyfni flag] ofj"B lsD;qfjVh ,tsaV dks Kkiu fnukad 16&12&2003 }kjk lsokP;qr fd;k tkuk fof/kor] U;k;ksfpr ,oa lgh gS\ ;fn ugh arks deZdkj fdl jkgr ds ik= gSa \**
2. After receipt of the Reference, notices were served on both the parties. Second party Workman filed his Statement of Claim vide Ex-7. First party resisted the Statement of claim of Workman by filing their Written Statement (Ex-9). My Ld. Predecessor framed issues at Ex-12. Both parties led their evidence and matter was fixed for filing Written Arguments by both parties. Meanwhile Legal heirs of deceased workman were taken on record.
3. Today both parties appeared before this Tribunal along with their respective legal representatives. Legal heir of second party/ workman filed application (Ex-43) praying to dispose of the Reference as they have settled the dispute fully and finally with M/s. Delta Airlines and they do not wish to pursue the reference. Orders were passed on Ex-43. Accordingly I pass the following order:
ORDER
Reference is disposed of as withdrawn.
Date: 29.05.2017
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer/Judge
नई दिल्ली, 14 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1972.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एअर इण्डिया लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, मुम्बई के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या कम्पलेंट सं. एनटीबी-13 ऑपफ 2003द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-20013/2/2017-आईआर ;सीएम-Iद्ध]
एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 14th August, 2017
S.O. 1972.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. Comp. NTB-13 of 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Air India Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.08.2017.
[No. L-20013/2/2017-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 MUMBAI
Present : JUSTICE S .V. S. RATHORE, Presiding Officer
COMPLAINT NTB-13 OF 2003
Parties : 1. Indian Pilots Guild : Complainant
2. Vikrant Sansare
3. Kenneth Khan[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5311
Vs.
Air India Ltd.
: Opp. Party
Appearances :
For the Applicant
: Shri.Lancy D'Souza, Management Representative.
For the Opposite Party
: Absent
State
: Maharashtra
Mumbai, the 08th day of June, 2017
AWARD
1. In this case, an application has been moved by the complainant for withdrawing the above complaint. There is an endorsement of "No Objection" of the opposite party. It is mentioned in this application that Air India has now given recognition to the Union and, therefore, the disputes are being discussed with the respondent and may be mutually settled and prayer has been made that the above complaint may be disposed of as withdrawn. There is a verification of the Vice-President of the Indian Pilots Guilt to this application.
2. Accordingly, this complaint is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.
Justice S. V. S. RATHORE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1973.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एअर इण्डिया लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, मुम्बई के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या कम्पलेंट सं. एनटीबी-11 ऑपफ 2003द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-20013/2/2017-आईआर ;सीएम-Iद्ध]
एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 14th August, 2017
S.O. 1973.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. Comp. NTB-11 of 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Air India Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.08.2017.
[No. L-20013/2/2017-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 MUMBAI
Present : JUSTICE S .V. S. RATHORE, Presiding Officer
COMPLAINT NTB-11 OF 2003
Parties : 1. Indian Pilots Guild : Complainant
2. Vikrant Sansare
3. Kenneth Khan
Vs.
Air India Ltd.
: Opp. Party
Appearances :
For the Applicant
: Shri Lancy D'Souza, Management Representative.
For the Opposite Party
: Absent
State
: Maharashtra
5312 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]Mumbai, the 08th day of June, 2017
AWARD
1. In this case, an application has been moved by the complainant for withdrawing the above complaint. There is an endorsement of "No Objection" of the opposite party. It is mentioned in this application that Air India has now given recognition to the Union and, therefore, the disputes are being discussed with the respondent and may be mutually settled and prayer has been made that the above complaint may be disposed of as withdrawn. There is a verification of the Vice-President of the Indian Pilots Guilt to this application.
2. Accordingly, this complaint is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.
Justice S. V. S. RATHORE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1974.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पवन हंस हैलिकापटर लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार
औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2, मुम्बई के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 2/1 ऑपफ 2016द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-11012/48/2015-आईआर ;सीएम-Iद्ध]
एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 14th August, 2017
S.O. 1974.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/1 of 2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Pawan Hans Helicopter Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.08.2017.
[No. L-11012/48/2015-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2 MUMBAI
PRESENT : M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/1 of 2016
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/S. PAWAN HANS HELICOPTERS
The General Manager (P & A) & IS M/s. Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd. C-14m, Sector-I Noida Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar Uttar Pradesh 201 301
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
The President Pawan Hans Pilot's Guild Operation Department, Pawan Hans Ltd. Juhu Aerodrom, S.V. Road Vile Parle (W) Mumbai 400 056
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER : No appearance FOR THE UNION : No appearance[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5313
Mumbai, the 19th June, 2017
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-11012/48/2015-IR (CM-I), dated 11.12.2015 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the claim of applicant, Capt S.S. Kotharia for fixed emolument of Rs.69000/- p.m. for the period
from 19.01.2013 to 31.7.2013, whether applicant is entitled for 15 days salary not paid during the month of
Feb 2013 whether the applicant is entitled for reinstatement and back wages w.e.f. 25.7.2014 and whether the
termination of service w.e.f. 25.7.2014 is legal and justified? To what relief the applicant is entitled to ?"
2. After receipt of the Reference, notices were served on both the parties. Matter was adjourned on several occasions for filing Statement of Claim by second party/ Union. Second party/Union neither appeared before this Tribunal nor filed Statement of claim. Without Statement of claim, the Reference cannot be decided on merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. Orders were passed on Ex-1. Accordingly I pass the following order:
ORDER
Reference stands dismissed for want of prosecution.
Date: 19.06.2017
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1975.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एअर इण्डिया लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2, मुम्बई के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 2/31 ऑपफ 2000द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-11012/123/1999-आईआर ;सीएम-Iद्ध]
एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 14th August, 2017
S.O. 1975.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/31 of 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Air India Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.08.2017.
[No. L-11012/123/1999-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2 MUMBAI
PRESENT : M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/31 of 2000
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
AIR INDIA LIMITED
The Managing Director Air India Ltd. Air India Building Nariman Point Mumbai-400021.
AND
5314 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]THEIR WORKMAN
Mr. D.N. Vinjuda B-18, Mahalaxmi B.N. Rathod Marg Tulsiwadi Mumbai 400 034.
APPEARANCES :
FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. L.L. D'Souza, Representative FOR THE WORKMAN : In person
Mumbai, the 12th May, 2017
AWARD PART-II
1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No.L-11012/123/99 -IR (C-I) dated 07/03/2000 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of Air India Ltd., Mumbai in dismissing the services of Mr.
D.N.Winjuda, Sr. Handyman w.e.f. 11.12.1997 is legal and justified? If not to what relief is the workman
concerned entitled?"
2. After receipt of the reference notices were issued to both the parties. In response to the notice the second party workman filed his statement of claim at Ex-9.According to the workman he is permanent employee of the first party recruited on 12/10/1982 as a Sweeper, Inflight Service Department, Mumbai. In 1990 he was promoted as Sr. Handyman (Safai) and was confirmed in the post. On 27/10/1993 he had gone to Dubai as a passenger by purchasing regular ticket to purchase a colour TV and clothes. After three days he returned back. He collected the amount by encashing his savings certificate and pledging ornaments of his wife and some amount out of his savings. He returned on 31/10/1993. He paid customs duty on the goods he had imported. Same day evening at about 6.00 p.m. some officers from AIU came to his house and started questioning him. They became violent and started assaulting him in presence of wife and children. They then took him to the customs office and obtained his signature on the documents. They had also brought Mr. Solanki with them. They had taken search of his house. Nil Panchnama was prepared. They had obtained signature of his wife without reading the contents. Nothing was recovered from his house. However they have falsely shown that some gold bars were found in the cupboard. Three days thereafter the workman was arrested under some false charges. The workman was put under suspension by order dt.12/11/1993 with immediate effect. A charge sheet was issued to him dated 23/02/1994 alleging that during search in presence of Mr. L.R. Solanki, 92 gold bars of different makings were found in the locker of steel cupboard. It was alleged that the workman had concealed the gold bars in comode of first class and was charged for misconduct for breach of law, dishonesty with employers business and for act of subversive of discipline. He requested the first party not to initiate inquiry until he received the copies of the papers from Customs Department. However his request was turned down.
3. According to him the joint inquiry was commenced against he himself, Shri Godambe, Assistant Cabin Supervisor, and Shri L.R. Solanki, Handyman. He filed his reply. However he kept his right open to file a detailed reply after receipt of papers from Customs Office. The committee refused to bring the panch witnesses Mr.Shrivatsan Iyengar and Surendra Chouhan and bring as their own witnesses. E.C. under the guise of clarification helped the management story by knocking out favourable answers from the witnesses. According to him Mr. Solanki and he told before the Inquiry Committee that the panchnama was prepared in the office and no gold bar was recovered from his house. He has not brought any gold from Dubai and no gold was recovered from house. There was no first class toilet in the airbus he had travelled. There was no report of contraband rules in aircraft. The inquiry conducted was an empty formality. It was not conducted as per the rules and regulations. The inquiry was not conducted with open mind and EC sought clarification from the witnesses before cross-examination. The panchnama is a fabricated document. There is violation of natural justice in conducting the inquiry. The findings of the Inquiry officer are perverse. There is no evidence that the gold bars were found in the house of the workman. The inquiry is not fair and proper and findings of the IO are perverse. On the basis of report of IO the workman was dismissed from service. Therefore workman has raised the industrial dispute before ALC (C). As conciliation failed, on the basis of the report of ALC(C), the Labour Ministry has sent the reference to this Tribunal. The workman therefore prays that the inquiry be declared not fair and proper. The findings of the IO be declared perverse. His punishment of termination be set aside and he be directed to be reinstated in service with full back wages.
4. The first party resisted the statement of claim of the workman vide its Written statement at Ex-11. According to them the Customs Intelligence Officers with search warrant, took search of residence of the workman in presence of[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5315 two panchas. During search, in the cupboard locker the customs officers recovered two cloth bundles. On examination thereof they found 92 gold bars of 10 tolas each weighing totally 10,727.2 grams valued at Rs.38,56,421/- in international monetary value and Rs. 48,70,140/- in local monetary value. The gold was seized under panchnama. The workman confessed to have given the gold bars by Shri L.R.Solanki and Mr. S.V. Godambe working in the catering/cabin service of the Airline. The workman has travelled as passenger and smuggled the gold into India. Therefore he was arrested along with others and apart from criminal case, departmental inquiry was initiated against them. The workman was allowed to represent by defence counsel of his choice. He was given full and fair opportunity to defend his case. He was also offered an opportunity to lead evidence in his defence. The committee found the workman guilty of the all the charges leveled against him as they were based on evidence adduced by the Inquiry Committee. The punishment is proportionate to the misconduct which is grave and sensitive in nature. According to them the contents in the statement of claim are false. The reference is devoid of merit. They denied all the allegations in the statement of claim and submitted that the workman is not entitled to any relief prayed for and therefore prays that the reference be dismissed with cost.
5. The workman filed his rejoinder at Ex-12. He denied the contents in the written statement and reiterated his case put up in the statement of claim.
6. This Tribunal has passed Award Part – I on 15.07.2013 and held that the domestic enquiry held against the workman was as per principles of natural justice and the findings of the Inquiry officer are not perverse. This tribunal therefore directed the parties to argue / lead evidence on the point of quantum of punishment.
7. Second Party Workman did not adduce any evidence on the issues relating to quantum of punishment and therefore his evidence was closed. First Party Company has not also adduced evidence. Second Party Workman has not submitted any written notes of arguments. First Party Company has filed written notes of arguments Ex.41.
8. In view of that, the following are the issues for my determination and I have recorded my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:
| Sr. No. | Issues | Findings |
| 1. | Whether the action of the management of Air India Ltd., Mumbai in dismissing the services of Mr. D.N. Winjuda w.e.f. 11.12.1997 is legal and justified ? | Y es |
| 2. | If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ? | No |
| 3. | What order ? | As per final order |
REASONS
Issue No. 1:-
9. It appears that the second party workman joined the services as a Sweeper in the Inflight Service Department w.e.f. 12.10.1982. Thereafter he was employed as Senior Handyman. Enquiry was conducted on the allegations that during the search made by the Customs Intelligence Officers at the residence of second party workman on 31.10.1993 the Customs officers recovered two cloth bundles containing 92 rectangular shaped gold bars of ten tolas each weighing totally 10,727.2 grams valued at Rs.38.56 lakhs in the international market and Rs.43.70 lakhs in the local markets. From the observations of this tribunal in Award Part – I, the fact is deposed before the Inquiry officer by the witnesses examined before the Inquiry officer. The Commissioner of Customs, Sahar Airport has also confiscated 92 gold bars worth Rs.38,56,421/- under section 3 (d) (1) of Customs Act, 1962. Commissioner of Customs also imposed penalty of Rs.3 lakhs to each Shri L.R. Solanki, Shri S.V. Godambe and the workman under section 112A & B of the Customs Act. Statement of the concerned workman was recorded before the Customs officials under section 108 which is admissible even in criminal trials so also the departmental proceedings in which they admitted the charge of smuggling. As such it is held that the findings of the Inquiry officer are based on evidence.
10. Section 11 of the I.D. Act, 1947 has granted powers to the tribunal to interfere with the punishment imposed by employer if the tribunal is satisfied on the point that the punishment is not justified. But then the tribunal can interfere with the decision of the management under section 11A of the act only when it is satisfied with the punishment imposed by the management is wholly disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the concerned workman. In the decision in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India V/s. Dhandapani, AIR 2006 (SC 615) it is held that the said power of the tribunal under section 11A of the act has to be exercised judiciously and mere use of the word "disproportionate" or "grossly disproportionate" will not be sufficient. Though under Section 11 A the Tribunal has5316 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] power to reduce the quantum of punishment. It is to be done within the parameters of law. Possession of power itself is not sufficient. It has to be exercised in accordance with law. In view of this legal position it is to be seen whether punishment imposed by the employer is wholly disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the concerned workman or not?
11. Second party workman was held guilty after due enquiry of the following charges.
a) Breach of law applicable to the establishment
b) Dishonesty in connection with the employer's business and,
c) Act subversive of discipline.
12. The acts of misconduct as alleged is proved against the second party workman for which he was also imposed the penalty of Rs.3 lakhs by the competent authority under the Customs Act. It cannot be treated as misconduct of minor or a technical nature. The said misconduct is grave and serious misconduct.
13. I say so because the act of smuggling from the aircrafts belonging to the first party company is serious misconduct and it is also an offence against the state. The disciplinary authority in its order of punishment dated 17.10.1997 has observed as under:
"The misconduct for which Mr. Vinjuda has been proved guilty by the enquiry committee is a extremely serious misconduct. The workman is working in the Catering Cabin Services Section, Mumbai Station, which is a very sensitive area having direct access to runways, tarmacs, aircrafts, etc. By indulging in the act of smuggling, which has been proved beyond doubts, the workman has lost confidence of the Management for employment for the said job. The workman has also not brought out any mitigating or extenuating circumstances which would warrant a lesser punishment in his reply dated March 04, 1997.
In view of the above, I hereby award him the punishment of dismissal from services of the Company in accordance with clause 14 (4) (c) of the Model Standing Orders (C)."
14. In view of that it can be said that the disciplinary authority while imposing punishment of dismissal of the concerned workman has considered the aspect as regards the grave misconduct of the concerned workman. Even it has been considered that the workman has not brought out any mitigating or extenuating circumstances which would warrant lesser punishment. Herein in the instant reference also the concerned workman has not adduced his evidence point of quantum of punishment to show the mitigating circumstances.
15. In view of that I find that the punishment imposed on the second party workman of dismissal from services is just and proper and the same does not warrant any interference under Section 11 A of the I.D. Act. I find that the action of the management in dismissing the services of the concerned workman is legal and justified. This issued is therefore answered accordingly.
Issues Nos. 2 & 3 :-
16. In view of my findings to Issue No.1, the workman is not entitled to any relief. Reference is liable to be rejected. Thus the order:
ORDER
The Reference is rejected with no order as to costs.
Dated: 12.05.2017
M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1976.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑपफ महाराष्ट्र के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक
अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 62/2009द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16.08.2017 को प्राप्त
हुआ था।
[सं. एल-12012/3/2009-आईआर ;बी-IIद्ध]
रवि कुमार, डेस्क अध्किारी[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5317
New Delhi, the 16th August, 2017
S.O. 1976.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 62/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.08.2017.
[No. L-12012/3/2009-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/62/2009
Shri Jethu Ram Lahre, S/o Khedu Ram Lahre, Former Daftri, Sub Staff, Bank of Maharashtra, R/o Village Purena, PO Ravigram, Tehsil & Distt. Raipur
…Workman
Versus
Branch Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Byron Bazar Branch, Raipur
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 15th day of May, 2017
1. As per letter dated 15-5-09 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/3/ 2009-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Maharashtra in awarding punishment of compulsory retirement from services to Shri Jethu Ram Lahre vide order dated 14-6-06 of the management is legal and justified? What relief the workmen is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, repeatedly notices were issued to Ist party workman. Since the year 2009, workman failed to appear and participate in reference proceeding. He has not filed statement of claim. Ist party is proceeded ex- parte on 17-2-17. Case was fixed for ex parte Written Statement.
3. Management engaged Advocate Dr.Eknath Jyothishi. He has also failed to appear. No Written Statement is filed by 2nd party management. Matter is proceeded without Written Statement.
4. Both parties have failed to participate in reference proceeding therefore no dispute award is passed.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1977.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार देना बैंक के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक
अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 41/2007द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16.08.2017 को प्राप्त
हुआ था।
[सं. एल-12012/83/2006-आईआर ;बी-IIद्ध]
रवि कुमार, डेस्क अध्किारी5318 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 16th August, 2017
S.O. 1977.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Dena Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.08.2017.
[No. L-12012/83/2006-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/41/2007
Shri Dukh Ram Yadav, S/o Shri Alla Ram Yadav, Village Khurdi, PO Dudedra, Thane Arjunda, Tehsil Gunderdehi, Durg (CG)
…Workman
Versus
Regional Manager, Dena Bank, Regional Office, Rukmini Bhawan, Near Jai Ram Complex, Raipur (CG)
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 3rd day of May, 2017
1. As per letter dated 28-5-07 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/83/2006-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Dena Bank, Raipur , Regional Office, Raipur in terminating the service of the workman/ Ex-Messenger Shri Dukh Ram Yadav s/o Shri Alla Ram Yadav w.e.f. June 2001 is legal or justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 5/1 to 5/4. Case of workman is that he was initially engaged as messenger in June 1991. He worked to the satisfaction of his superiors. His service record was unblemished. He was engaged for work of balancing account book by Branch Manager, preparing demand notice, making entries in pass book, opening new accounts etc. that he was initially paid Rs.750 per month. From 1995, he was paid Rs.1000 per month, his pay was enhanced to Rs.1100 in 1998 and Rs.1200 pm in the year 2000. He was continuously working from June 91 to 2001. Instead of regularizing his services, he was terminated in June 2001 without assigning any reasons. That he worked more than 240 days during each calendar year, termination of his service amounts to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of ID Act. His services were terminated violating Section 25-F of ID Act. That he is covered as employee under Section 25 B of ID Act. His services were terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation as not paid to him. Termination of his service is in violation of Section 25-F,G of ID Act. On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.
3. 2nd party management filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that the term of reference is illegal as workman was not appointed or terminated by 2nd party. Order of reference is vague. Period of employment, nature of work are not shown interference order. 2nd party denies employer employee relationship. Ist party is not covered as workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act. Ist party has not disclosed anything about his engagement by management according to the rules of recruitment. That Government could not decide the disputed questions. It is further submitted that appointment is covered by statutory rules and regulations following prescribed procedure. That Branch Managers are responsible for smooth working of the Bank and providing customer service. Branch Manager had engaged local people on daily wages for casual nature of job. Ist party workman was not sponsored through Employment Exchange. As per the recruitment rules, Regional Manager is competent to appoint the staff considering the age not less than 18 and above 26 years following reservation policy for SC ST etc. Ist party was not appointed issuing the order. he was engaged by Branch Manager when there was temporary increase of casual[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5319 nature of work. Workman had not completed 240 days continuous service during any of the year. Engagement of workman was by way of stop gap arrangement in absence of permanent staff. Workman was not appointed or terminated by Bank. It is denied that workman was continuously working from June 91 to 2001. That management had information that workman was gainfully engaged as unskilled labour. 2nd party prays for rejection of claim.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
| (i) Whether the action of the management of Dena Bank, Raipur, Regional Office, Raipur in terminating the service of the workman/ Ex- Messenger Shri Dukh Ram Yadav s/o Shri Alla Ram Yadav w.e.f. June 2001 is legal or justified? | I n Affirmative |
| (ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?" | Workman is not entitled to any relief. |
REASONS
5. Point No.1- The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of workman. Ist party workman filed affidavit of his evidence on 26-11-2010 but he remained absent for his cross-examination. His evidence cannot be considered. Document produced by workman Exhibit W-1 is reply submitted by management before RLC. Claim of workman was opposed. Exhibit W-2 is application submitted by workman before RLC. As workman has not appeared for his cross-examination, his evidence cannot be considered.
6. Management on 15-11-16, submitted not to adduce any evidence as such there is no evidence by both sides w.r.t. claim under reference. Workman has failed to support his contentions that he worked continuously for more than 240 days preceding 12 months of termination of his services. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
7. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management of Dena Bank, Raipur , Regional Office, Raipur in terminating the service of the workman/ Ex-Messenger Shri Dukh Ram Yadav S/o Shri Alla Ram Yadav w.e.f. June 2001 is legal and proper.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1978.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल बैंक ऑपफ इंडिया के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार
औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 29/2005द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16.08.2017
को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-12012/14/2005-आईआर ;बी-IIद्ध]
रवि कुमार, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 16th August, 2017
S.O. 1978.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur 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 16.08.2017.
[No. L-12012/14/2005-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer5320 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/29/2005
Smt. Jaisheela Chitriv, wife Ku.Vijaya Chitriv, daughter Khilendra Chitriv, son- LRs of Late Shri Gitender Chitriv, S/o Ram Chandra Chitriv, Kokha, Dhibar, Post Davali, Balaghat (MP)
…Workman/LRs
Versus
Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Chitnavisganj ,7 Narsinghpur Road, Chhindwara
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of June, 2017
1. As per letter dated 25-4-05 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/14/2005-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the claim of Shri Gitendra Chitriv S/o Shri Ram Chandra Chitriv that he was engaged continuously on daily wage basis during the period from 16-11-99 to 6-10-02 by the management of Central Bank of India is correct? If so, whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in terminating the servies of Shri Gitendra Chitriv is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at Page 3/1 to 3/2. Case of workman is that he was employed by management as daily rated employee from 16-11-99. He honestly worked till 8-10-02. His services were discontinued from 8-10-02 illegally. That he continuously worked more than 240 days during each calendar year and acquired status of permanent employee. That his services were discontinued without giving order of termination. He was not given opportunity for defence. He was not engaged in any kind of misconduct. Discontinuation of his services amounts to retrenchment under ID Act. He was not paid retrenchment compensation. Management violated provisions of ID Act while discontinuing his services. Therefore action of the management is illegal and void and deserves to be set-aside. On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.
3. Workman died during pendency of reference, his LRs are brought on record.
4. 2nd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/3 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that workman alleged termination of his service without notice claiming that he worked more than 240 days, claim of workman doesnot constitute the dispute under ID Act. Workman was not appointed by Bank. His engagement ondaily wages ends at end of the day. Workman was not working as regular workers. Ist party has suppressed the facts. Ist party was given his pay for his working as casual workers. His services cannot be said as regular worker. Claimant had not continuously worked for 240 days. There was no need to issue notice to the workman or opportunity of hearing was not required. There is no substance in claim of Ist party. Management prayed for rejection of claim of workman.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
| (i) Whether the claim of Shri Gitendra Chitriv S/o Shri Ram Chandra Chitriv that he was engaged continuously on daily wage basis during the period from 16-11-99 to 6-10-02 by the management of Central Bank of India is correct and whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Gitendra Chitriv is legal and justified? | I n Negative |
| (ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?" | Workman is not entitled to any relief. |
REASONS
6. The terms of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of workman as if he was working during the period 16-11-99 to 6-0-02. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. In his affidavit, workman has stated he was employed by 2nd party sine 16-11-99 till 6-10-02. His services were discontinued on 8-10-02. Management not issued termination order, any reason for termination was not shown. He was not allowed opportunity of hearing. He was not engaged in any misconduct. He worked more than 240 days during each of the year 1999 to 2000. He was not paid retrenchment compensation. No permission was taken from appropriate Government for retrenchment of his services. In his cross, workman says he was educated upto MA. Presently he was unemployed. Occasionally he was working as labour, he was not given appointment order by Bank. He was orally terminated. He was distributing dak and doing work of discharge. He was serving tea to the staff. He not produced documents about allotment of work by Bank, his wages were not paid every day. He was paid once in a month. He was paid wages in cash. He denied that he was deposing false.
7. Management filed affidavit of witness of Shri A.K.Shafi. Management's witness in his affidavit says that claimant was called for work as per need. He was paid wages for working days. Workman had not worked for 240 days during any of the year. Management's witness died and could not be cross examined. Evidence of management's witness cannot be considered.
8. Affidavit of evidence of management's witness Raj Kumar is filed. Affidavit is devoted on the point that claimant was engaged as per need. Wages for working days were paid, workman not worked for 240 days during any of the year . in his cross, witness says he was not posted in Central Bank, Balaghat. The record of Balaghat branch was available in Regional office. He had seen said record before drafting his affidavit. Inward outward registers are maintained in the Bank. Management's witness claims ignorance about maintaining peon book., correspondence register in the Bank. He denied Annexure D-1 referred to him. Management's witness was unable to tell how many days deceased workman had worked. He denied suggestion that deceased workman was continuously working during 16-11-99 to 18-10-02. That he not seen register of attendance.
9. Legal position is settled that burden lies on workman to prove continuous working more than 240 days. Evidence of Ist party is not corroborated by any documents. Co-employee is not examined. Only statement of deceased workman is not sufficient to establish his working more than 240 days.
10. Learned counsel for Ist party Shri Chandurkar relies on judgment in Writ Petition No. 704-2012. Considering ratio held in case of Smt. Jyoti Chitnis, his Lordship allowed reinstatement with 25 % backwages for violation of Section 25-F "c". In present case, evidence of workman is not sufficient to establish 240 days continuous working. Ratio held in the case cannot be applied to case at hand. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management is not proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1979.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑपफ इंडिया के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक
अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 14/2000द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16.08.2017 को प्राप्त
हुआ था।
[सं. एल-12012/220/1999-आईआर ;बी-IIद्ध]
रवि कुमार, डेस्क अध्किारी5322 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 16th August, 2017
S.O. 1979.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.08.2017.
[No. L-12012/220/1999-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/14/2000
General Secretary, Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmachari Sangathan, Hardev Niwas, 9, Sanver Road, Ujjain
…Workman/Union
Versus
Regional Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, 22, Yashwant Niwas Road, Indore
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 25th day of April, 2017
1. As per letter dated 28-12-99 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L- 12012/220/99-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in denying regularization and terminating the services of Shri Mukesh Yadav, Ex-Sepoy w.e.f. 30-8-97 is legal and justified? If not, what relief is the disputant concerned is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at Page 3/1 to ¾. Case of workman is that on 15-5-92, he was engaged as permanent peon on daily wages. He was working honestly. He worked under Branch Manager Kulkarni, Oswal. He was paid bonus for the year 1992-93 to 1994-95. He worked continuously more than 240 days. That he had filed Writ Petition in High Court Bench Indore for regularization in service. On 30-8-97, his services were terminated without notice. That he was working continuously more than 240 days, is covered as employee under Section 25 B of ID Act. Other employees daily wage employee were continued in service. Management terminated his services. He was not paid retrenchment compensation. His services are terminated in violation of Section 25-F, G, N of ID Act. Policy of last come first go was not followed. After termination of his service, other daily wage employees were engaged. He was not provided re-employment. As such management violated Section 25-F of ID Act. On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.
3. 2nd party management filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman at Page 10/1 to 10/5. 2nd party raised preliminary objection that while making reference, Government has decided there was employer employee relationship. Relationship of employer employee is not existing between parties. Therefore reference is illegal. That Union of Ist party workman is not operating in 2nd party Bank therefore reference is not tenable. 2nd party further reiterates that workman was not employee of the Bank, he is not covered as workman under ID Act. Reference deserves to be rejected. Workman is not entitled to any relief. It is further submitted that casual workers were not appointed in accordance with the rules. Casual labours were working on daily wages on temporary basis. Temporary casual labours cannot be retrenched. As their services were engaged for a specific day. Their services come to end at end of day. Non-engagement of daily wage employees is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act. It doesnot amount to retrenchment. Ist party workman was engaged by Branch Manager as daily wager. He has no authority to appoint. The certificate issued by Branch Manager doesnot give right to regular appointment to Ist party was not engaged. Ist party was not competent to appoint him. That criteria of continuous employment provided under Section[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5323 25 B doesnot apply in the case. Ist party was intermittently engaged on contract basis. Management has not violated provisions of Section 25-F of ID Act. Branch Manager has made necessary arrangement for getting work done and amount paid to daily wager is reinstated from Bank. Ist party workman had not completed 240 days continuous service in 12 months. Ist party is not entitled for regularization, violation of Section 25 B , 25-F,G , N.H doesnot arise. Workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. Ist party filed rejoinder reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
| (i) Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in denying regularization and terminating the services of Shri Mukesh Yadav, Ex-Sepoy w.e.f. 30-8-97 is legal and justified? | I n Negative |
| (ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?" | As per final order. |
REASONS
6. Point No. 1 : The term of reference pertains to denial of regularization and termination of services of workman. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence supporting his contentions in statement of claim. That he was engaged on daily wages, badly sepoy. On 5-5-92, he was paid Rs.53/- per day. The charges were increased time to time. Last wages paid to him Rs.98/- per day. The muster roll was maintained on its basis, he was paid wages. He was paid bonus for the period 1992 to 1995. He was not paid bonus for 1996 to 30-10-97. He worked continuously more than 240 days during 15-5-92 till 30-8-97. His services were terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. From evidence of workman, documents Exhibit W-1 to 3 were seen by him with clerk N.K.Tiwari who was maintaining his attendance. Workman further explained name of clerk was Shri N.P.Tiwari. workman denies that Bank was not maintaining list of daily wage employees. That Exhibit W-1 to 3 were given to him by Mr.Bhale. He was not working at Satta Bazar branch in 1997. Exhibit W-2 doesnot bear signature of any officer, it bears only initial. He was paid bonus for 1992-96, bonus was paid after examining documents. During 1992, he was paid wages Rs.55 per day. Every year bonus was paid to him around Rakhi festival. He had seen register of payment of bonus maintained in personal section. He did not remember name of officer paying bonus to him. Exhibit W-2 doesnot bear his signature. Exhibit W-2 doesnot bear signature of the Officer but it bears initial of the Officer.
7. In his further cross, workman says Shri D.N.Kulkarni who engaged him was not earlier acquainted with him. He had visited Bank after getting knowledge about requirement of daily wage employees. His name was not sponsored through Employment Exchange. He was doing work of cleaning sweeping, drinking water and handling record. When he was engaged on daily wages, 8-10 regular employees were working in the Bank. He was engaged during leave period of regular employees. He was paid wages every day. His signatures were obtained on daily pay register by Shri N.P.Tiwari. wages were paid to him under vouchers. voucher was not signed by him. He was paid wages as per Attendance Register and payment vouchers. he was supplied copy of daily payment register, it is not produced in the case. Copy of vouchers were not supplied to him. During the year 1996, he worked for about 200-250 days. Record in that regard is available. On 30-8-97, he was stopped from working. During 30-8-96 to 30-8-97, he worked for about 200-250 days. He passed 8th standard in 1990. He was engaged during leave period of regular employee. Ist party has produced certified copy of Exhibit W-9 in R/19/00 related to payment of wages to daily wage peon. Certified copy in R/19/00 is produced by Ist party. Name of workman Mukesh is appearing at Sl.No.3. the details of the working days and payments made to workman during 1994-95 are shown in said document.
8. Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri A.B.Naik supporting contentions of management in Written Statement. That casual labours are engaged on day to day basis as per requirement on call of Branch Manager. That Ist party was engaged on daily ages. Manager has no authority to appoint person in subordinate cadre. That Ist party had not worked more than 240 days during 12 months preceding his termination. That bonus is paid for working of any person for 30 days. It has no relevance to the present case. Management's witness in his cross examination says he cannot identify workman. He was working at Satha Bazar for 2 years prior to 1997. He not received information from Branch Managers working earlier. Management's witness claims ignorance what procedure was followed before engaging workman. Permission of Controlling Authority used to be received for engaging casual labours. He was unable to tell area of the branch or the number of sanctioned post of sub staff. Payment to the casual labours was made under voucher. Name of the employee was not written on vouchers. he did not remember whether signatures of employee used to be obtained regarding the payment. During his tenure, 2-3 casual employees were working. He5324 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] claims ignorance whether any record was maintained w.r.t. casual employees. Casual employees were doing work of taking files to the concerned officers, supplying drinking water etc. Ist party workman was paid wages as per prevailing rate but document regarding prevailing rate of wages is not produced. Workman was not served notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. Evidence of Ist party and evidence of management's witness is on oath against oath. Engagement of workman is admitted, certified copy Exhibit W-10 in R/19/00 working days of workman for year 1994-95, 95-96 are shown. Payment of bonus of Ist party for year 1992 to 1995 is admitted. Management has produced documents Exhibit W-1 is copy of order of reference. Documents Exhibit W-1 to 4 produced by Ist party pertains to other persons are not relevant for deciding the claim under reference. Management produced document Exhibit M-1 policy relating to engagement of subordinate staff. Ist party had submitted application for production of documents on 21-6-07. Management in its reply contented that the documents are not preserved in the Bank for 8 years. When documents are produced , evidence of management's witness that workman not completed 240 days continuous service is without corroboration therefore evidence of workman deserves to be accepted. From evidence of Ist party workman and documents certified copy in R/19/00, workman has established that he worked more than 240 days preceding 12 months of his termination. Services of workman are terminated without giving notice, he was not paid retrenchment compensation. Therefore termination of workman is illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.
9. Point No. 2 : In view of my finding in Point No.1 termination of services of workman are illegal, question remains for consideration whether workman is entitled for reinstatement with backwages. Evidence on record shows that workman was working on daily wages from 15-5-92 till 30-8-97 for about period of 5 years. Workman was not appointed following recruitment rules rather in his affidavit of evidence, workman says he was engaged as badly peon.
10. Learned counsel for management Shri A.K.Shashi submits that badly employee is not entitled for regularization. Learned counsel relies on ratio held in case between
Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd versus Bhola Singh reported in AIR-2005-SC-1790. Their Lordship held that daily wager completing 240 days continuous service may not itself be ground for directing regularization of services. Particularly in case when workman had not been appointed in accordance with extant rules.
Further reliance is placed on case between Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation versus S.G.Kotturappa and another reported in 2005-II-LLJ-161. Their Lordship held badly workers includes only in wait list and not select list. Their service if found not suitable can be discontinued. Badly enjoys no status, holds no civil post. Termination of badly workers was held proper.
In ratio held in Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation versus T.V.Anandappa reported in 2009(17)SCC- 473. Their Lordship dealing with casual labour daily wager, badly worker held protection of ID Act 1947 not available.
In case between Suresh Kumar Verma versus State of MP and others reported in 2012/134/FLR-904. Their Lordship held petitioners were found that they were never engaged against any vacant post duly sanctioned and hence they were not found fit to be regularized.
Reliance is also placed on Jagbir Singh versus Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another reported in 2009(15)SCC-327. Their Lordship held reinstatement with full backwages in case of illegal retrenchment of daily wager not proper, instead compensation should be awarded.
In case between Accounts officer APSRTC and others versus K.V.Ramana and others reported in AIR-2007- SC-1166. Their lordship dealing with respondent appointed as contract sweeper and attender in State Transport Corporation continued as such for many years held their services cannot be regularized as their appointment were dehors rules and constitutional scheme of public employment.
Copies of award in R/12/96, 2/92 are also submitted for consideration. Each case needs to be decided considering evidence and facts. In present case, Ist party was engaged on daily wages. It is not case of management that workman was engaged as badly. The contentions of management are casual employee is not entitled to protection of ID Act. Ist party workman completed more than 240 days continuous service. He was terminated without notice. Considering above aspects in my considered view, workman is not entitled for reinstatement. Considering above aspects in my considered view, workman is not entitled for reinstatement. In view of citation relied in case of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, workman deserves to be awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management of Bank of India in denying regularization and terminating the services of Shri Mukesh Yadav, Ex-Sepoy w.e.f. 30-8-97 is illegal.
(2) Management is directed to pay compensation Rs.1,50,000 to the workman.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5325Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1980.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक
अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 57/2009द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16.08.2017 को प्राप्त
हुआ था।
[सं. एल-12011/145/2008-आईआर ;बी-IIद्ध]
रवि कुमार, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 16th August, 2017
S.O. 1980.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.08.2017.
[No. L-12011/145/2008-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/57/2009
General Secretary, Prathadit Karmchari Kalyan Manch, F-1, Tripti Vihar, Opp.Engineering College, Ujjain (MP)
…Workman/Union
Versus
Assistant General Manager, UCO Bank, Regional Office, 380, Saket Nagar, 2nd Floor, Indore
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 30th day of June, 2017
1. As per letter dated 25-3-09by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L- 12011/145/2008-IR(B-II) .The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether Shri Harinarayan Solanki S/o Bhaggaji Solanki is entitled for payment of difference of wages as per Bipartite Settlement? What relief the concerned workmen is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party submitted statement of claim. Workman submits he was engaged as sub staff/ peon from 13-3-89. He was working for whole day for 8 hours in a day. He completed 240 days in a year. He was paid initially Rs.20 per day which was increased to Rs.25,30,35,40,45,50 for working in vacant post of peon. He was paid bonus. His services were terminated without notice. Workman claims difference of wages as per Vth & VIIIth bipartite settlement, details given in para 4 of statement of claim. Management has violated settlement. On such ground, workman prays for difference of wages as stated above.
3. 2nd party filed Written Statement raising preliminary objection. That Shri Ram Nagwanshi is claiming to be as General Secretary of Daily Wage Bank employees Union is not competent to raise and prosecute the dispute. Shri R.Nagwanshi is prosecuting several disputes, he is conversant with English Hindi language. Management is directed to engage Advocate. Ist party has not produced documents about workman represented through Union. That workman had raised dispute 140/0 claiming appointment as per letter dated 10-12-90. His engagement was as part time sweeper for5326 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] less than six hours in a week, remuneration Rs.200 per month. The nature of his work was contingent casual, revision of pay of sub staff workman is not entitled. Management reiterates workman raising dispute R/140/0 on remuneration Rs.200 per month as part time sweeper. Workman challenged termination of his service. In R/40/0, management filed Written Statement. Written Statement revealed workman engaged as part time sweeper, remuneration Rs.200 per month. It is reiterated that in his statement of claim, he had pleaded that he was engaged on daily wages/ monthly wages part time workers. Workman is not entitled to scale wages claimed by him under Bipartite Settlement.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
| (i) Whether Shri Harinarayan Solanki S/o Bhaggaji Solanki is entitled for payment of difference of wages as per Bipartite Settlement? | In Negative |
| (ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?" | Workman is not entitled to any relief. |
REASONS
5. Point No.1- The term of reference pertains to whether Ist party workman is entitled to difference of wages as per bipartite settlement. Workman has not adduced oral evidence. Representative of workman submitted that on 12th August 2014, documents produced by management admitted by Ist party Exhibit M- is application submitted by Shri Ram Nagwanshi in support of claim. Exhibit M-2 is order of engagement of Ist party workman as part time employee for working less than 6 hours in a week on remuneration Rs.200. Exhibit M-4 is application for withdrawal of R/140/01. Exhibit M-5 is copy of affidavit of evidence submitted by workman in R/140/0. Copy of award in R/140/0 is produced at Exhibit M-6. Management filed affidavit of evidence supporting whole contentions in Written Statement filed by management, copy of settlement Vth Bipartite settlement is produced at Exhibit M-7. Settlement was entered between representative of Bank employers and representative of workman All India Bank Employees Association. Clause 18 at Page 368 deals with part time employees subordinate staff. If their total working hours per week are 3 hours, remuneration Rs.60 per month, more than 3 hours- Rs.175 per month, six hours to 13 hours a week- 1/3rd of scale wages with proportionate annual increment.
6. Learned counsel for 2nd party management Shri Bhattacharjee during course of argument emphasized that workman is not a sub staff working 6 hours in a week, settlement is not applicable. Ist party is not workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act. Ist party was part time sweeper. Evidence of management's witness Sandeep Chandrapal Para-5 is clear that engagement of Ist party workman was as part time sweeper for less than six hours in a week, remuneration Rs.200 per month. Management's witness in his cross says there was no peon in Bank, only daftary was working. Ist party was not working on pay scale, he was paid Rs.200 per month for working less than six hours. In Vth Bipartite settlement clause 8 for working more than 3 hours remuneration is Rs.175 per month, for working 6 to 13 hours, 1/3rd of scale wages. Workman was engaged for less than six hours in a week, he would be entitled to remuneration Rs.175 per month. Workman is already paid Rs.200 per month more than Rs.175 for working for less than 6 hours. Therefore claim for difference of wages is not established. For above reasons, I record my finding in point no.1 in Negative.
7. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management is legal and proper.
(2) The workman Shri Harinarayan Solanki S/o Bhaggaji Solanki is not entitled for payment of difference of wages as per Bipartite Settlement.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1981.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑपफ इंडिया के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक
अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 96/2002द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16.08.2017 को प्राप्त
हुआ था।
[सं. एल-12011/49/2002-आईआर ;बी-IIद्ध]
रवि कुमार, डेस्क अध्किारी[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5327
New Delhi, the 16th August, 2017
S.O. 1981.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 96/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.08.2017.
[No. L-12011/49/2002-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/96/2002
General Secretary, National Bank Karmchari Sangathan, Hardev Nivas, 9 Sanwer Road, Ujjain
…Workman/Union
Versus
Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Ujjain
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 30th day of June, 2017
1. As per letter dated 18-6-02 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L- 12011/49/2002-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Ujjain to dismiss Shri Naval Kishore Raikwar from service w.e.f. 29-9-99 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at Page 4/ to 4/9. Case of workman is that on 31-10-97, he had taken loan of Rs.12000 from Bank of India Staff Society. After deducting amount of interest, he had paid cheque of Rs.11,160/-. Said cheque was deposited in his Account No.17569. On same day, he withdrawn amount of Rs.10,000/-. He was given one bundle of Rs.100 denomination. On 8-11-97, he had requested loan of Rs.15,000 from Bank of India Ujjain Staff Society. He was paid cheque of Rs.11,850 after deducting amount of interest. One bundle of Rs.100 denomination was received by him. On 9-12-97, he had submitted deposits claim for deposit of Rs.17000 in Account No.17569. he handed over two bundle of Rs.100 denomination to the cashier. He was returned 3 bundle of Rs.10 denomination for Rs.3000 he got prepared FD of Rs.17000, its entry is taken in Saving Account No. 17569. On 9-12-97, while he was travelling on his bullet, said bullet suddenly stopped. While he was trying to leave, police came to him and apprehended. Police seized his bullet and other documents.
3. Ist party workman further submits that on 9-12-97, there was fraud of Rs.20,000 for depositing and preparing FD. Management suspected him and issued chargesheet. Workman was also suspended. Maheshwari was appointed as Enquiry Officer, Shri Gupta appointed as Presenting Officer. Workman had given reply to the chargesheet. Management had allowed Defence Representative. However he had not appeared in the Enquiry Proceedings. That enquiry was conducted without defence representative. Opportunity for cross examination of management's witnesses was not given. Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding him guilty of charges. Without issuing notice, punishment of dismissal was imposed against him. Appeal filed by him was dismissed by Appellate Authority. Workman further submits that he is falsely implicated in the charges. Charges alleged against him are false. He was represented that he was implicated for the charge of collective fraud. Workman submits that he was not served chargesheet within 30 days. Enquiry Officer was appointed without considering his reply to the chargesheet. It is reiterated that he was not allowed to cross examine management's witness and produced his Defence Assistant. On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.
5328 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]4. 2nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. 2nd party submits that Ist party was working as Daftary at Freeganj branch, Ujjain. Bearer cheque dated 2-12-97 was issued by M/S Brijmohan Agrawal for Rs.20,000 in favour of Vikram Singh. Said cheque was presented in the credit of M/S Rekha Lalwani SB Account No.19927. Credit Voucher was prepared by Shri R.L.Gurnani was handed over to Shri Kishore Shkalye, CTO for posting in ledger. In the meantime pair of vouchers was separated by the workman. He secured Token No. 64,65 from CPO Office telling him that the token were required by deposit department. Workman himself entered details of cheque payments scroll book writing Token No.64 on reverse side of cheque. Workman received amount of Rs.20,000 from cashier Mrs. Pushpa Tiwari representing her amount was to be deposited in depositor's account. Workman handed over token No.64 to Pushpa Tiwari. Workman received two bundle of Rs.100 denomination. Workman got pay-in-slip in SB Account No. 17569 at Scroll counter. He deposited Rs.17000 cash at cash counter. He had given Rs.20,000 and received back Rs.3000. 2nd party management submits workman was suspended on 12-12-97 after the documents and vouchers Token No.65 were seized by police from workman. Chargesheet was issued to workman on 10-10-96. Details of the chargesheet are given in Para 4 of the Written Statement pertains to fraudulently receiving amount Rs.20,000 under bearer cheque dated 2-12-97 and depositing amount Rs.17,000 in his SB Account No. 17569. Enquiry Officer Shri S.L.Mahesh Lalwani was appointed, R.K.Gupta appointed as Presenting Officer. Enquiry was held on various dates, details given in Para-6 of the Written Statement. Enquiry Officer held charges against workman proved. Workman was given opportunity for cross examining witnesses but he declined to cross examine management's witness. It is reiterated enquiry is proper and legal. After Enquiry Officer submitted report holding workman guilty, showcause notice was issued. Punishment of dismissal is imposed against workman is legal. Management claims ignorance about reasons why Defence representative did not appear in the enquiry. Workman was paid his terminal dues. On such ground, 2nd party submits that reference be answered in its favour. Ist party has filed rejoinder reiterating contentions in statement of claim.
5. As per order dated 14-8-2013, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal.
6. Considering pleadings between parties and order on preliminary issue, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
| (i) Whether the misconduct alleged against workman is proved from evidence in Enquiry proceedings? | In Affirmative |
| (ii) Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed against workman is proper and legal? | In Affirmative |
| (ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?" | Workman is not entitled to any relief. |
REASONS
7. Enquiry conducted against workman is found legal as per order dated 14-8-13. Therefore charges alleged against workman are proved needs to be decided from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Chargesheet issued to workman is produced by management at Exhibit M-5 pertains to fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.20,000 producing Token No. 64 and depositing Rs.17000 in FDI and get back 3 bundles of Rs.0 denominations. Enquiry Proceeding is produced at Exhibit M-6. Shri Ram Nagwanshi was given authority as Defence Representative of workman. In statements of witnesses, Shri L.M.Ojha is devoted on the point that fraud of Rs.20,000 was committed in Freeganj branch on 9-12-97. He was informed by clerk ad officer of the Bank that several vouchers in the Bank were missing. He repeated vouchers were prepared, cheque of Rs.20,000 deposited by Mr. Gurmohan Agrawal, their entry was taken in the register. Wrong entries were taken in the payment register.2 tokens 64, 65 were obtained by workman from Kishore CTO. Workman had issued amount Rs.20,000 from cashier Pushpa Tiwari. Smt. Subadhra Chouhan discussed that workman deposited Rs.20,000- 2 bundle of Rs.100 denomination and he was returned 3 bundles of Rs.10 denomination – amount Rs.3000. evidence of Mr.Ojha is corroborated by witnesses S.S.Dalal, O.P.Pal, Dinesh Chanda. Dinesh Chanda in his statement says that DVD of Rs.30,000 voucher was stoled by him. Workman deposited Rs.7,000 in his Account, amount Rs.3000 was returned back to him. Mrs. Subadra Chouhan, Mr. Pushpa Tiwari, Kishore Kumar, Ratan Lal Gurnani corroborated evidence of Mr.Ojha and other witnesses. Ist party workman declined to cross examine all witnesses of the management. Defence Representative did not appear and cross examine witnesses of the management. Enquiry Officer submitted his report at Exhibit M-11 holding workman guilty. The original documents referred in enquiry and documents MEX-1 to 33 are produced. These documents were referred to handwriting expert. Opinion of handwriting expert Shri N.G.Deshpande is submitted. During Enquiry Proceedings, handwriting Expert Deshpande was not examined. Evidence of all witnesses of management remained unchallenged and Enquiry Officer has considered evidence of management's witnesses. As enquiry is found legal, I find no reason to re-appreciate the evidence.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 53298. Shri A.K.Shashi counsel for management relies on ratio held in case between-
Nand Kishore Prasad versus State of Bihar and others reported in 1978(3)SCC-366. Their Lordship dealing with disciplinary proceedings order short but disclosing that there was some evidence pointing to the guilt of delinquent officer.
In present case, there is unchallenged evidence of management's witnesses about fraudulent act committed by workman.
So far as ratio held in case between State Bank of Patiala and others versus S.K.Sharma reported in 1996(3)SCC-364 relates to principles of natural justice. Enquiry conducted against workman is also found legal therefore detailed discussion is not required.
9. Evidence discussed above sufficiently proves the misconduct/ charges alleged against workman. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
10. Point No.2- The punishment of dismissal imposed against workman is proper or legal needs to be decided. In view of my finding in Point No.1. Charge of fradulent act of misappropriation of Rs.20,000 proved against workman is certainly act of serious nature. Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in case between
Union Bank of India versus Vishwa Mohan reported in 1998-I-LLJ-1217. Rati held in the case pertains to in banking business absolute devotion, diligence and integrity need to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular by bank officer. If this is not observed, confidence of depositors would be impaired.
Copy of award in R/38/90, R/117/97 , Judgement in Writ Petition No108/02 are submitted for consideration. Detailed discussion is not required as charge proved against workman is of fraudulent of Rs.20,000 is of serious nature. The punishment of dismissal against workman is proper and legal. Shri A.K.Shashi also relies on ratio held in case between Post Master General, Kolkata versus Tutu Das reported in 2007(5)SCC-317.
Ratio held in the case pertains to regularization in service has no direct bearing to the case at hand and needs no consideration. For reasons discussed above, I record my finding in Point No.2 in Affirmative.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management of Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Ujjain to dismiss Shri Naval Kishore Raikwar from service w.e.f. 29-9-99 is legal and proper.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1982.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार देना बैंक के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 15/2017द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-12011/06/2017-आईआर ;बी-IIद्ध]
रवि कुमार, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 16th August, 2017
S.O. 1982.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Dena Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.08.2017.
[No. L-12011/06/2017-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY, PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. 15/2017
Reference No. L-12011/06/2017-IR (B-II) Dated: 1.5.2017
5330 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]The General Secretary Dena Bank Employees Union & Dena Bank Officers Union, Central Office via Dena Bank, M.I.Road, Jaipur.
V/s
1. The General Manager (HRM)
Dena Bank, Dena Corporate Centre, C-10, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Banmdra East, Mumbai.
2. The General Manager (Field)
Dena Bank, Bank of Baroda Building, 5th, Floor, Sansad Marg,New Delhi.
3. The Manager
Dena Bank, Jaipur Zone, UDB Building, Near Hotel Mango, Govind Marg, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur.
AWARD
30.6.2017
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:-
"Whether the action of the management of Dena Bank, Bandra, Mumbai in not revoking the suspension
of Shri Lokesh Mishra, Special Assistant is legal, just and proper? If not, what relief the said workman is
entitled to and from which date?"
2. Pursuant to the receipt of the reference order, registered notices were issued to both the parties as per the order of the tribunal dated 19.5.2017 fixing 30.6.2017 for filing statement of claim. On 30.6.2017 Sh. Lokesh Mishra, the person named in reference appeared in person & alleged that his suspension has been questioned in the reference whether non-revocation of suspension by management is legal, just & proper or not but he has already been reinstated & his suspension has been revoked by management hence, there is no need to file statement of claim. On behalf of non- applicant Sh. Bhawani Singh Rathore, Zonal Manager & Bhawana Singh, HR Officer were present. It was pointed out by Sh. Bhawani Singh Rathore, Zonal Manager that Sh. Lokesh Mishra has already been reinstated hence, the question of non-revocation as alleged in the reference does not exist. He has also pointed out to the management's memorandum JP/HRM/Revocation.Suspension/02 dated 31.3.2017 available on record about revocation of suspension & reference has been made about memorandum dated 31.3.2017 in the letter dated 15.5.2017 addressed to the tribunal informing the fact that suspension of the applicant has been revoked. The memorandum dated 31.3.2017 reads as under:-
MEMORANDUM
"Shri Lokesh Mishra, Special Assistant, Dena Bank, MI Road Branch, Jaipur Zone was suspended from the Bank's Service vide Suspension Order No. JP/HRM/SUSPENSION/02/2015 DATED 02ND February 2015 pending police enquiry/proceedings.
Keeping in view that investigation can proceed reasonably after considering his request for revocation of suspension since he is drawing full emoluments from Bank it has been decided to revoke his suspension order without prejudice to take disciplinary action against him.
Accordingly, I, as disciplinary authority having power conferred upon me and considering the recommendation of HO vide letter Ref: Disc/372/2017 dt. 30.3.2017, hereby revoke his suspension order with immediate effect on the date of receipt of this Memorandum.
Shri Lokesh Mishra is further informed that till further orders, for the period of suspension, he will not get anything but subsistence allowance which he has already got. Decision regarding payment of difference of salary and subsistence allowance will be taken after final outcome of the disciplinary case pending against him.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5331Shri Lokesh Mishra is hereby posted at CTS Cell under MI Road Branch, Jaipur Zone and thus is advised to report to Incharge CTS, Dena Bank, MI Road Branch, Jaipur Zone immediately on receipt of this order.
s/d illegible
Dy. Zonal Manager & Disciplinary Authority
Dena Bank, Jaipur Zjone
To,
Shri Lokesh Mishra
Special Assistant
Dena Bank MI Roiad Branch, Jaipur Zone.
Copy to:
1. The Branch Manager, Dena Bank, MI Road Branch
2. Incharge CTS Cell, Jaipur.
3. HRMS Incharge, Jaipur Zone
4. EDP Incharge, Jaipur Zone: For transfer of CBS User Id to CTS Cell.
5. The GM (NIO), Dena Bank, New Delhi.
6. The GM (HRM), Dena Bank Head Office, Mumbai.
7. Personnel File : Shri Lokesh Mishra, Special Assistant.
(signature illegible)
Dy. Zonal Manager & Disciplinary Authority
Dena Bank, Jaipur Zone."
3. From the fact of revocation of suspension as mentioned in memorandum dated 31.3.2017 & from the self contention of Sh. Lokesh Mishra that he does not require to file statement of claim because suspension has already been revoked, I am of the view that "No Claim Award" will be sufficient to meet the end of justice. Accordingly, "No Claim Award" is passed in the matter.
4. Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1983.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार केनरा बैंक के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 120/2011द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-12011/34/2011-आईआर ;बी-IIद्ध]
रवि कुमार, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 16th August, 2017
S.O. 1983.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 120/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.08.2017.
[No. L-12011/34/2011-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer5332 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT : RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 120/2011
Ref.No. L-12011/34/2011-IR(B-II) dated 08.11.2011
BETWEEN :
Canara Bank Employees Union C/o Canara Bank, Satya Business Park 1, Naval Kishore Road Lucknow
AND
1. The Dy. General Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office Lucknow
2. The General Manager, Canara Bank Head Office Bangalore
AWARD
1 By order No. L-12011/34/2011-IR(B-II) dated 8.11.2011 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the Secretary, Canara Bank Employees Union C/o Canara Bank, Satya Business Park, 1, Naval Kishore Road, Lucknow (espousing cdause of Sri Ram Gobind) and the Dy.General Manager/General Manager, Canara Bank, Lucknow/Bangalore for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
"WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF CANARA BANK IN IMPOSING THE
PUNISHMENT OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT ON SHRI RAM GOBIND, EX-CLERK VIDE ORDER
DATED 22.09.2009 IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?"
3. As per the claim statement W-3, the employees Union has stated in brief regarding its registration and service condition etc. The petitioner has submitted that Sri Ram Gobind was posted as Computer Terminal Operator at Gorakhpur Branch of the bank and he was served with a charge sheet dated 04.02.2008. The opposite party was although duty bound to follow the Bipartite Settlement, yet the same was ignored, the charge sheet has not been issued keeping in view the provisions of Standing Orders; it was issued by Acting DGM, but he was not a competent authority. The appointment of Enquiry Officer was also not proper and lawful. The employee was wrongly suspended by the Acting DGM, mandatory Rules were also not followed and later on the workman was awarded punishment of Compulsory Retirement although the opposite parties did not have lawful sanction for the same.
4. It has further been asserted by the Union that the alleged complainants were not summoned by the enquiry officer, opportunity to cross examine them was not afforded to the workman, and he was not permitted to defend himself properly, consequently the charge sheet is vague and ambiguous. The record and documents relied by the opposite party was not duly approved by the opposite party, unauthorized photo copies were relied upon. The Acting GM mechanically relied upon the enquiry report without application of mind and major punishment was awarded. With the aforesaid pleadings the petitioner has requested to set aside the charge sheet dated 04.02.2008 and the subsequent enquiry procedure and punishment dated 22.09.2002 as well. He has prayed to set aside the Appellate Authority's order and to reinstate the workman with all the consequential benefits. Adequate compensation has been demanded and directions have been sought to treat the period of suspension as on duty and it has been requested to initiate action against the opposite party for breach of Settlements and award and for committing unfair labour practice.
5. Several annexures have been enclosed alongwith the claim statement.
6. The management has filed written statement M-15 whereby allegations of the claim statement have been denied and opposite party has stated that the Disciplinary Authority/DGM had issued the charge sheet as per Rules. The opposite party has asserted that on 02.06.2008 a sum of Rs.38,5000/- and Rs.24,000/- was received by the workman[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5333 who was performing the duty of Cashier at the Branch and he had issued signed Counter foils to the parties but he did not credit the above amount in the respective accounts of the parties. Details have been furnished in the written statement by the opposite party. Procedure adopted during the enquiry has also been elaborately mentioned by the management.
7. The opposite party has asserted that speaking and reasoned order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority and opportunity to prefer appeal was also provided. The Appellate Authority after personal hearing disposed off the appeal vide speaking order dated 28.06.2010. Several prouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court have been mentioned in the written statement.
8. The management has stressed that as per the normal administrative functioning of the bank the competent authority had issued the charge sheet, the version submitted by the petitioner is misconceived and distorted. The punishment awarded by the authority is fully justified. The management has emphasized that information was sent to the complainants to appear before the Enquiry Officer but they did not turn up, the workman was free to produce them as defence witness but he also failed to do so. With the aforesaid averments, the opposite party has requested to adjudicate the award against the workman and as he is not entitled to any relief. Service code and other documents have been enclosed by the opposite party.
9. While reiterating the pleas taken in the claim statement and with denial of the facts alleged in the written statement, rejoinder W-16 and W-18 have been filed by the workman and thereafter another reply was filed by the management alongwith annexures.
10. The management has filed certain documents as per list M-20. Another application W-21 dated 22.04.2013 was submitted by the workman. The management filed certain documents as per list M-20.
11. Affidavit W-25 was filed by the workman as evidence and he was thoroughly cross examined by the management. The management filed affidavit M-29 of Sri Arun Srivastava, Chief Manager, Canara Bank in its evidence, he was cross examined on behalf of the workman.
12. Arguments of both the parties have been heard at length. Record has been perused thoroughly.
13. Preliminary issues were framed by the then Hon'ble Judge on 08.01.2013 as under;
1. Whether the departmental enquiry conducted by the management was fair & proper?
2. Whether the findings of Inquiry Officer are perverse?"
14. Preliminary issue no. 1 has been decided against the management vide my order dated 07.04.2015.
15. Later on management submitted affidavit of Sri Rajiv Ranjan Kumar and Sri Nand Lal as M-35 and M-42, both were duly cross examined on behalf of the workman.
16. It is an admitted fact that the workman Sri Ram Gobind was working as Computer Terminal Operator at Gorakhpur Branch of the Canara Bank and there he was served upon charge sheet dated dated 04.02.2008 for alleged misconduct. Vide order dated 07.04.2015 it has been observed by me that the management did not produce original of the documents relied upon before the enquiry officer and more over sincere endeavor was not made to produce the so called complainants during the enquiry proceedings, so as to afford an opportunity to the employee to cross examine them. It has been argued by the management that the complainants did not appear before the enquiry officer although the information was sent to them and the workman should have contacted them himself. The workman vehemently opposed this argument. Learned AR for the workman has relied upon the following prouncements:
1. Civil Appeal No. 7431 of 2008 (arising out of SLP No. 14429 of 2007 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, Roop Singh Negi Vs Punjab National Bank. Judgment dated 19.12.2008.
2. (2014 (4) SCR 875 SC) Tapash Kumar Paul Vs BSNL & another.
3. Civil Appeal No.1020 of 2011 decision dated 13.04.2016, Raj Kumar Vs. Director of Education and Others, Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. Writ No. A-32569 of 2010 dated 06.02.2012, Gurusharan Singh Duggal Vs Punjab & Sind Bank, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court.
17. The opposite party has submitted that the above Rulings do not apply to the case.
18. The Learned AR for the management has referred following Rulings to support its version:
1. Tarun Kumar Banerjee Vs State Bank of India, Supreme Court (2000) Judgment dated 19.09.2000.
2. 2003 (3) SCC, Page 583 Lalit Popli vs Canra Bank.
5334 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]3. (2017) 1 UPLBEC 549(HC) Prem Narain Khanna Vs Central Bank of India & others.
4. 2005 SCC (L&S), 567 Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank Vs Munna Lal Jain.
5. 2005 SCC (L&S) 407 Divisional Controller KSRTC Vs A.T. Mane.
6. AIR 1997 SCC 3571 Govt. of Tamil Naidu Vs K.N. Ramamurthy.
19. The workman submits that the aforesaid Rulings are not consistent with the facts in issue, in the present dispute.
20. It has been alleged by the management that the workman has received Rs.38,500/- and Rs.24000/- from Sri Shyamji Pandey, Prop M/s Hari Shankar Gupta) (Current A/C 326) and Smt. Kalawati Devi, Prop. M/s Shiv Enterprises (ODCC A/C 10216) on 02.06.2008 respectively, but did not deposit the same in their accounts on same day, and when complaint was made, the workman and his son deposited the entire amount as under;
a. Rs.11500/ and Rs.12500/ was deposited in the ODCC A/c No. 10216 of M/s Shiv Enterprises on 13.6.2008 and 14.6.2008 respectively.
b. Rs.38500/ was deposited on 13.6.2008 in Current Account 326 of M/s Hari Shanker Gupta on 13.6.2008 and gave the counter foil to the party.
21. While strongly refuting the above statements, Learned AR for the workman argues that false allegations is being leveled due to office rivalry the workman harassed unduly.
22. It has been held by this Court that the enquiry conducted by the management and enquiry was not fair and it was not according with the principle of natural justice. The most important piece of the evidence in support of the charges could have been so called deposit slip dated 13.6.2008 and 14.6.2008 whereby the management tries to emphasise that the alleed sum has later be deposited in the Bank by the workman Sri Ram Gobind and his son (name not given in the written statement para 3.)
23. The bank officials did not produce the aforesaid original deposit slip dated 13.6.2008 and 14.6.2008, neither the so called complainant were produce before the enquiry office or before this Tribunal. Who has actually presented the aforesaid sum before the concerned bank official and who has signed the "Deposit Slip", is no where mentioned by the management. No cogent relied evidence has been adduce before this Court to this regard, by the management.
24. After having heard the intellect arguments of both the Learned ARs and perusal of the record in the light of the above prouncements made by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court, it is inferred that the action of the management in imposing the punishment of Compulsory Retirement of Sri Ram Gobind vide its order dated 22.09.2009 can not be treated as legal or justified. The punishment order is set aside accordingly, and the management is directed to reinstate the workman with the all back wages and consequential benefits within 10 weeks, from the date of notification of award, failing which the management shall also pay interest @ 6% per annum to the workman.
25. Award as above.
LUCKNOW 05.05.2017
RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1984.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑपफ इंडिया के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 60/2002द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-12012/202/2001-आईआर ;बी-IIद्ध]
रवि कुमार, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 16th August, 2017
S.O. 1984.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16.08.2017.
[No. L-12012/202/2001-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5335
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/60/2002
Shri Arvind Pandit Kakde, Gandhi Colony, Lalbagh, Burhanpur, Khandwa (MP)
…Workman
Versus
Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Khandwa Region, Anand Nagar, Khandwa (MP)
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 3rd day of May 2017
1. As per letter dated 2-4-2002 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/202/2001-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Khandwa Region in terminating the services of Shri Arvind Pandit Kakde w.e.f. 1996 is justified. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at Page 5/ to 5/3. Case of workman is that he served 2nd party Bank as peon from 1991 to 1996. The documents about daily register, bonus sheet are in custody of the Bank. That he had filed petition before ALC, Bhopal. Directions were issued to reinstate him. The termination of his service is unjustified. He may be deemed in service. After termination of his service, he suffered from mental agony etc. his family members were facing starvation. The dispute has been referred. That he is educated and eligible for post of peon, he belongs to cobbler community, SC. There are several vacancies in the Bank. That Manager not followed principles of natural justice. By amendment, Ist party has pleaded that he was continuously working in the Bank from April 91 to 96. The services are arbitrarily terminated without assigning any reasons. He was not served with notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. He worked more than 240 days. Termination of his service amounts to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of ID Act. Termination of his service is in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. He was not classified as permanent employee as per Chapter 25 of Sastry Award. On such ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with backwages.
3. Management filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/11 opposing claim of workman. 2nd party raised preliminary objection that employer employee relationship is not existing between parties. Workman is nsot covered as workman under Section 2(s) of ID Act. Ist party workman was not on muster roll of the Bank. That casual employees engaged for temporary work in absence of regular staff. The claimant has not disclosed anything about his employment in the Bank. There was no question of termination of services of workman as he was engaged for casual nature of work. Government has made reference on assumptions of the facts which did not exist. Disputed questions of facts could not be decided by the Government. That reference is totally misconceived.
4. Appointments in the Bank are covered by statutory rules and regulations following prescribed procedure. That workman was not appointed by Regional Manager following recruitment rules and procedure. His name was not sponsored through Employment Exchange, management is required to follow reservation policy. Employment in the Bank is public employment guaranteed under Article 16 of the constitution. Ist party was engaged on daily wage basis for casual nature of job. He was paid wages by Manager directly. Casual employees are compensated by paying fair amounts. It is reiterated that workman was not appointed following recruitment rules. Workman was never appointed. There was no question of termination of his service. As workman was never appointed, there was no question of issuing notice for termination of his services. On such ground, 2nd party prays for rejection of the claim.
5. Management has also filed additional Written Statement denying that workman completed 240 days continuous service. That his services were terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Management contends that workman is not entitled to protection of Section 25-F of ID Act. Matter in question is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act. Workman is not entitled to reinstatement with backwages.
5336 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which arise for my consideration and determination are as under. My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:-
| (i) Whether the action of the management of Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Khandwa Region in terminating the services of Shri Arvind Pandit Kakde w.e.f. 1996 is justified? | I n Affirmative |
| (ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?" | Workman is not entitled to any relief. |
REASONS
7. The term of reference pertains to legality of termination of services of workman. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. Workman in his affidavit of evidence says since 1991, he was working as peon. He was continuously working as peon from 91 to 96. He was doing various kinds of work. His name was entered in muster roll as Arvind sometimes "A". he was paid bonus. He worked more than 240 days during each of the year. In 1996, his services were terminated without notice. Retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. In his cross-examination, he says he was engaged by Branch Manager A.K.charya he was working under A.K.Charya for 3-4 years. Post was not advertised, his name was not sponsored through Employment Exchange. Branch Manager has asked abut his name and some questions. Shri F.C.Mehra Daftary was of his acquaintance, appointment letter was not given to him. He was engaged on daily wages. He was paid wages for his working days. His signature was obtained on vouchers. whether vouchers were prepared in name of Branch Manager, he claims ignorance. He was unable to tell for how many days, he worked in April 1991, he was unable to tell how many days he worked in each year. He was paid bonus for the days he worked. His signature was obtained on vouchers and diary about payment of bonus. The vouchers of payment of bonus was prepared in his name. in 1995-96, he was paid Rs.80 per day.
8. Management filed affidavit of evidence of Ramcharan but he did not appeared for his cross examination. Management filed affidavit of evidence of Kishan. Management's witness in his affidavit of evidence says that Branch Manager in order to ensure smooth customer service engaged persons for casual nature of work when regular subordinate staff was on leave. Branch Manager is not appointing authority. Bank is required to appoint subordinate staff following SC ST policy and candidates sponsored through Employment Exchange. Workman was not deployed against vacant post. He was engaged on daily wages for casual nature of work. During 1991 to 96, workman was engaged as peon. Workman had not worked for 240 days . From evidence of management's witness, documents M-1 to 5 are admitted. In his cross, management's witness says Ist party workman worked under him for few days. Workman was paid by Branch Manager. He was unable to tell how payment was made. He denied that Ist party was doing work of peon/ messenger. He denied that workman completed more than 240 days during 1991 to 96. He claims ignorance whether workman was paid retrenchment compensation. After disengagement of workman, any other person was not engaged.
9. Ist party workman has produced documents. Exhibit W-1 copies of payment sheets of bonus for the year 92-93. Working days of workman are shown 92 days, in 991-92 – 70 days, in 1993-94- 135 days. Ist party had submitted application for production of documents. As per order dated 22-7-13, it is clear that management had claimed that documents were not maintained. Documents about payment of bonus are not preserved for 12 years. Workman was allowed to lead secondary evidence w.r.t. documents about payment of bonus which are produced at Exhibit W-1 discussed above.
10. W.r.t. diaries of casual labours, workman was to prove said fact by adducing evidence. Workman has not adduced evidence about diaries, any co-worker is not examined. Documents produced by management Exhibit M-1 to 5 pertains to the recruitment of subordinate staff, clerks etc. Evidence of workman is clear that he was engaged as casual labour. Evidence of workman is silent about his appointment following recruitment rules. Documents regarding payment of bonus clearly shows that workman not completed 240 days service. Workman is not entitled for protection of Section 25-F of ID Act.
11. On the point, learned counsel for 2nd party Shri A.K.Shashi relies on ratio held in case between-
Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and others versus Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha and another reported in 2015(2)SCC(L&S) 513. Their Lordship held burden to prove continuous service more than 240 days lies on workman.
Ratio held in case between UP State Warehousing Corporation versus PO reported in 2013-III-LLJ-213(All), it was held that burden to prove 240 days service lies on workman.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5337From evidence discussed above, workman has failed to establish that he worked continuously more than 240 days during each of the year 1991 to 1996. I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
12. Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1 workman has failed to establish his services are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act, workman has failed to prove that he was continuously working more than 240 days, claim of workman is established. Therefore reliance placed by Shri A.K.Shashi in State of UP versus Hind Mazdoor Sabha reported in 2011-LAB.I.C.4322 & judgment by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 13953 of 2015. Ratio relied by learned counsel for workman in Tapash Kumar Paul versus BSNL needs no detailed discussion. Workman is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.2.
13. In the result, award is passed as under:-
(1) The action of the management of Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Khandwa Region in terminating the services of Shri Arvind Pandit Kakde w.e.f. 1996 is proper and legal.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 18 अगस्त, 2017
काकाकाका....आआआआ.... 1985198519851985....————के न्qीय सरकार, कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की धारा 91-क के साथ पठित धारा 88 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते wए एतxारा इंिडयन रेअर अर्थ िलिमटेड, रेअर अर्थ िवभाग, उद्योगमंडल के रल के कारखानों/स्थापनाओं के िनयिमत कर्मचारियों को इस अिधिनयम के प्रवर्तन से छू ट प्रदान करती है। यह छू ट, अिधसूचना जारी होने की तारीख से एक वर्ष के अवधि के िलए लागू रहेगी ।
2. उक्त छू ट निम्नलिखित शतz के अधीन है; अर्थात्:-
(1) पूव|क्त स्थापना जिसमें कर्मचारी िनयोिजत हैं, एक रजिस्टर रखेगी, जिसमें छू ट प्राप्त कर्मचारियों के नाम और पदनाम दिखाये जायेंगे;
(2) इस छू ट के होते wए भी, कर्मचारी उक्त अिधिनयम के अधीन ऐसी प्रसुविधाएं प्राप्त करते रहेंगे िजनको पाने के िलए वे इस अिधसूचना द्वारा दी गई छू ट के प्रवृत्त होने की तारीख से पूर्व संदत्त अंशदानों के आधार पर हकदार हो जाते हैं;
(3) छू ट प्राप्त अविध के िलए, यदि कोई अिभदाय पहले ही किए जा चुके हों, तो वे वापस नह~ किए जाएंगे;
(4) उक्त कारखाने/स्थापना का िनयोजक उस अविध की बाबत िजसके दौरान उस कारखाने/स्थापना पर उक्त अिधिनयम (िजसे इसमें इसके प(cid:127)ात उक्त अविध कहा गया है) प्रवतर्मान था ऐसी िववरिणयां, ऐसे प्रारूप में और ऐसी विशिष्टियों सिहत देगा जो कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा (साधारण) िविनयम, 1950 के अधीन उसे उक्त अविध की बाबत देनी अपेक्षित होती थ~;
(5) िनगम द्वारा उक्त कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अिधिनयम की धारा 45 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन नियुक्त किया गया कोई निरीक्षक या िनगम का इस निमित्त प्राधिकृ त कोई अन्य पदधारी;
(i) धारा 44 की उप-धारा (1) के अधीन, उक्त अविध की बाबत दी गई किसी िववरण की विशिष्टयों को सत्यापित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ; अथवा
(ii) यह अभिनि(िcid:127)त करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा (साधारण) िविनयम, 1950 द्वारा यथाअपेक्षित रजिस्टर और अिभलेख उक्त अविध के िलए रखे गये थे या नह~; या
(iii) यह अभिनि(िcid:127)त करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी, िनयोजक द्वारा दिये गए उन फायदों को, िजसके फलस्वरूप इस अिधसूचना के अधीन छू ट दी जा रही है, नकद में और वस्तु रूप में पाने का हकदार बना wआ है या नह~; या
(iv) यह अभिनि(िcid:127)त करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि उस अविध के दौरान, जब उक्त कारखाने के संबंध में अिधिनयम के उपबंध प्रवृत्त थे, ऐसे किन्ह~ उपबंधों का अनुपालन किया गया था या नह~, निम्नलिखित कार्य करने के िलए सशक्त होगा:-
5338 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)](क) प्रधान या आसन्न िनयोजक से अपेक्षा करना कि वह उसे ऐसी जानकारी दे िजसे उपरोक्त निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधारी आवश्यक समझता है ; अथवा
(ख) ऐसे प्रधान या आसन्न िनयोजक के अिधभोगाधीन, किसी कारखाने, स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में किसी भी उिचत समय पर प्रवेश करना और उसके प्रभारी से यह अपेक्षा करना कि वह (cid:129)क्तियों के िनयोजन और मजदूरी के संदाय से संबंिधत ऐसे लेखा, बिहयां और अन्य दस्तावेज, ऐसे निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधारी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत करें और उनकी परीक्षा करने दें या ऐसी जानकारी दें िजसे वे आवश्यक समझते हैं; या
(ग) प्रधान या आसन्न िनयोजक की, उसके अभिकर्ता या सेवक की, या ऐसे किसी (cid:129)क्ति को, जो ऐसे कारखाने, स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में पाया जाए, यह वि[ास करने का युक्तियुक्त कारण है कि वह कर्मचारी है, परीक्षा करना; या
(घ) ऐसे कारखाने, स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में रखे गए किसी रजिस्टर, लेखा, बही या अन्य दस्तावेज की नकल तैयार करना या उ>रण लेना;
(ङ) यथानिर्धारित अन्य शक्तियों का प्रयोग करना ।
(6) िविनवेश/िनगमीकरण के मामले में, प्रदत्त छू ट स्वत: रद्द हो जाएगी और तब नए प्रतिष्ठान को छू ट हेतु समुिचत सरकार की अनुमित लेनी होगी।
[सं. एस-38014/08/2014-एस.एस.-I]
अजय मिलक, अवर सिचव
New Delhi, the 18th August, 2017
S.O. 1985.—In exercise of the power conferred by Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/establishments of Indian Rare Earth Ltd., Rare Earths Division Udyogmandal, Kerala from the operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be effective for a period of one year from the date of issue of notification.
2. The above exemption is subject to the following conditions namely:-
(1) The aforesaid establishments wherein the employees are employed shall maintain a register showing the name and designations of the exempted employees';
(2) Not withstanding this exemption, the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act to which they might have become entitled to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to the date from which exemption granted by this notification operates;
(3) The contributions for the exempted period, if already paid, shall not be refundable;
(4) The employer of the said factory/establishment shall submit in respect of the period during which that factory was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period), such returns in such forms and containing such particulars as were due from it in respect of the said period under the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950;
(5) Any Social Security Officer appointed by the Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section 45 of the said ESI Act or other official of the Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose of :-
(i) Verifying the particulars contained in any returned submitted under sub-section (1) of section 44 for the said period; or
(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or
(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to benefits provided by the employer in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being granted under this notification; or[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5339 (iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Act had been complied with during the period when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory to be empowered to:
(a) require the principal or immediate employer to him such information as he may consider necessary for the purpose of this Act; or
(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory, establishment, office or other premises occupied by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require any person found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other official and allow him to examine accounts, books and other documents relating to the employment of personal and payment of wages or to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary; or (c) examine the principal or immediate employer, his agent or servant, or any person found in such factory, establishment, office or other premises or any person whom the said inspector or other official has reasonable cause to believe to have been an employee ; or
(d) make copies of or take extracts from any register, account book or other document maintained in such factory, establishment, office or other premises,
(e) exercise such other powers as may be prescribed.
(6) In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the exemption granted shall become automatically cancelled and then the new entity will have to approach the appropriate Government for exemption.
[No. S-38014/08/2014-SS-I]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1986.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, ध्नबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 20/2012द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-20012/127/2011-आईआर ;सीएम-Iद्ध]
एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2017
S.O. 1986.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 20 of 2012) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 11.08.2017.
[No. L-20012/127/2011-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 20/2012
Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers : Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate For the workman : None5340 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 27/07/2017
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/127/2011-IR(CM-I) dated 29/02/2012, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Godhur Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not allowing Sh. Kishore
Manjhi, Line Mazdoor to resume his duty is fiar and justified? To what to relief the concerned
workman is entitled to?"
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But none appears on behalf of the sponsoring Union/workman. Management is present. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1987.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, ध्नबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 25/2016द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-20012/18/2016-आईआर ;सीएम-Iद्ध]
एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2017
S.O. 1987.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 25 of 2016) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 11.08.2017.
[No. L-20012/18/2016-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 25/2016
Employer in relation to the management of Sudamdih Shafti Mines of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers : Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate For the workman : None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 25/07/2017
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5341AWARD
By order No. L-20012/18/2016-IR(CM-I) dated 26/06/2016, the central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of Sudamdih Shaft Mines of M/s. BCCL in non- payment of
Monetary Compensation Smt. Shakuntala Devi, W/O Late Sachhida Nand Sah on the basis of the
Award pronounced by CGIT No.1 Dhanbad in Ref. No. 82/1998 dated 19/10/2009 is fair and justified? If
not, what relief the dependant is entitled to?"
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But after filing of written statement, none appears subsequently. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1988.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, ध्नबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 31/2015द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-20012/63/2014-आईआर ;सी-Iद्ध]
एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2017
S.O. 1988.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 31 of 2015) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 11.08.2017.
[No. L-20012/63/2014-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 31/2015
Employer in relation to the management of Govindpur Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers : Shri U.N. Lall, Advocate For the workman : Shri H.P. Gond, Rep.
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 28/07/2017
5342 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]AWARD
By order No.-L-20012/63/2015 IR (C-I), dated. 13/07/2015 the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub–Section (1) and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of New Akashkinaree Colliery under Govindpur Area of M/s.
BCCL in dismissing Sri Sohan Bhuia from the service of the Company w.e.f. 29.04.2005 is fair and
justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 03.08.2015. After receipt of reference , both parties are noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written statement on 11.01.2016. the management files their written statement-cum-rejoinder on 27.05.2016. Thereafter rejoinder & documents filed by both side.
3. The point involved in the reference is that the workman has been dismissed from his services on the ground of long absence.
4. During preliminary hearing of this case, domestic enquiry held by the management is accept by the workman as Fair & Proper, and it is revealed that the case is dismissal of workmen for long absence. But he has already out of service for 12 years. It is felt to give another chance to the workman to serve .
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee as General mazdoor Cat-1. But the workman be kept under probation for a period of two years. Therefore the question of giving back wages does not arise at all.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1989.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, ध्नबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 20/2010द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-20012/97/2009-आईआर ;सीएम-Iद्ध]
एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2017
S.O. 1989.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 20 of 2010) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 11.08.2017.
[No. L-20012/97/2009-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 20/2010
Employer in relation to the management of Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers : None[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5343 For the workman : None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 28/07/2017
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/97/2009-IR(CM-I) dated 11/02/2010, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub–section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
(i) Whether the action of the Bahujan mazdoor Union from the Management of Loyabad Coke Plant
under Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL for proper basic pay fixation as per P/R with pay protection in respect
of Sri Jadu Nandan Dusadh, Security Guard is justified and Legal? To what relief is the workman
concerned entitled and form what date?
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But none appears on behalf of the sponsoring Union/workman. Management is present. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1990.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, ध्नबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 19/2016द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-20012/160/2015-आईआर ;सी-Iद्ध]
एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2017
S.O. 1990.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 19 of 2016) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 11.08.2017.
[No. L-20012/160/2015-IR (C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 19/2016
Employer in relation to the management of P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances :
For the Employers : Shri N.M. Kumar, Advocate For the workman : Shri R.R.Ram, Rep.
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal5344 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Dated : 27/07/2017
AWARD
By order No.-L-20012/160/2015 IR (C-I), dated. 15/12/2016 the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub–Section (1) and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Hurriladih colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Laxman
Bouri, M/Loader vide letter dated 03.06.2004 is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned
workman is entitled to?"
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 22.02.2016 After receipt of reference , both parties are noticed. The Sponsoring Union files their written statement on 04.04.2016. the management files their written statement -cum-rejoinder on 17.01.2017. Thereafter rejoinder & documents filed by both side.
3. The point involved in the reference is that the workman has been dismissed from his services on the ground of long absence.
4. During preliminary hearing it is revealed that the case is dismissal of workmen for long absence. But he has already out of service for 13 years. It is felt to give another chance to the workman to serve.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee as General mazdoor Cat-1 but subject to identification. And the workman be kept under probation for a period of two years. Therefore the question of giving back wages does not arise at all.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1991.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, ध्नबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 19/2009द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-20012/14/2009-आईआर ;सीएम-Iद्ध]
एम. के. सिंह, अनुभाग अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2017
S.O. 1991.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 19 of 2009) as shown in Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 11.08.2017.
[No. L-20012/14/2009-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 19/2009
Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL
AND
Their workman
Present : Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5345
Appearances :
For the Employers : Shri U. N. Lall, Advocate For the workman : None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : 27/07/2017
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/14/2009-IR(CM-I) dated 02/04/2009, the central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub –section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
(i) Whether the action of the Management of Gondudih Colliery under Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL in
not correcting the date of birth of Shri Sohan Singh, General Mazdoor as 21/09/1958 instead of
30/05/1951 is justified and legal? (ii) To what relief the workman concerned entitled?
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are noticed. But none appears on behalf of the sponsoring Union/workman. Management is present. Case remains pending. It is felt that the disputes between the parties have been resolved in the meantime. Hence No Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1992.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स इण्डियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में
केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 122/2014द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय
सरकार को 18.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-30012/26/2014-आईआर ;एमद्ध]
राजेश कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2017
S.O. 1992.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 122/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18.08.2017.
[No. L-30012/26/2014-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT/LOK ADALAT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 122 of 2014
Between-
Shri Hari Mohan son of Shri Nirpat Singh Pal Village Dharampura Post Dhana Jeevna, Distt. Mathura (U.P.) Mathura
And
The Executive Director, India Oil Corp. Ltd., Mathura Refinery, Mathura-2810055346 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] AWARD
1. Central Government, MoL, vide Notification No. L-30012/26/2014-IR (M) dated 29.10.2014 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.
2. Whether the action of the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Mathura Refinery, Mathura, M/s. Elpine travels, Mathura in terminating the services of Sh. Hari Mohan s/o Sh. Nirpat Singh workman w.e.f. April 2010 is just fair & legal? If not what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?
3. In the instant case a reference was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labor Court, Kanpur, whereupon notice to the claimant was issued under registered post by CGIT Kanpur for filing his claim in the case.
4. On 24.05.2017, when the case was taken up neither the worker turned up nor filed his claim statement despite availing of sufficient opportunities. Therefore, it appears that the worker is not interested in prosecuting his claim before this tribunal. As such having no option left with the tribunal except to give an award in the case against worker for want of pleadings and proof.
5. For the reasons given above, award is passed against worker holding that the worker is not entitled to any relief pursuant to the present reference order for want for pleadings and proof.
6. Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1993.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स आईएनजी भविष्य लाइपफ इंश्योरेंस कं. लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक
विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 57/2012द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो
केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-17012/7/2012-आईआर ;एमद्ध]
राजेश कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 21st August, 2017
S.O. 1993.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. ING Vysya Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18.08.2017.
[No. L-17012/7/2012-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 57 of 2012
Between-
Shri Aslam Hasan Khan, Son of Sri Ajij Hasan Khan, Resident of Pachbhaiya, P.O. Bhadohi, District Sant Ravi Das Nagar, (Bhadohi)U.P.
And
The Director, Human Resources, ING Vysya Life Insurance Co. Ltd., House No. 05, Floor No. 22, M.G.Road, Bangalore, and three others.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5347AWARD
1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide notification No. L-17012/7/2012/IR-(M) dated 28.06.2012 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.
2. Whether the action of the management of ING VYSYA BANK in terminating the services of Sri Aslam Hasan Khan w.e.f. 12.12.2009 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?
3. In the instant case by a bare perusal of schedule of reference order it reveals that the dispute is with regard to workman Aslam Haan Khan and the ING VYSYA BANK over his alleged termination of service with effect from 22/12/2009, but while going through the array of parties it is quite clear that ING VYSYA LIFE INSURANCE CO. Ltd., has been arrayed as a party to the dispute. It is an apparent defect on the fact of reference order which cannot be cured by this tribunal.
4. Although the contesting parties have filed their pleadings, documentary as well as oral evidence but considering the defect in the reference order it will be a futile exercise to detail the facts of the case as the reference cannot be decided for the reasons that the defectis persisting in the reference order as pointed out above by me, therefore, the reference is left unanswered for the reasons given above.
5. For the reasons explained above reference is answered in the above terms.
SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 23 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1994.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन ओवरसीज बैंक के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, चैन्नई के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 125/2015द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-39025/01/2010-आईआर ;बी-IIद्ध]
रवि कुमार, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2017
S.O. 1994.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 125/2015) 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 23.08.2017.
[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Tuesday, the 18th July, 2017
Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 125/2015
[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Overseas Bank and their workman] BETWEEN :
Sri J. Ravikumar
: 1st Party/Petitioner
AND
: 2nd Party/Respondent
The General Manager Personnel Administration Department Indian Overseas Bank, Regional Office 762, Anna Salai Chennai-6000025348 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearance :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : Sri C.R. Chandrasekaran, Advocate For the 2nd Party/Respondent : M/s. N.G.R. Prasad, Advocates
AWARD
This is an Industrial Dispute taken on file under 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended by Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010).
1. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the petitioner in brief are these:
The petitioner had worked as Temporary Messenger at Kumbakonam Court Branch of the Respondent from 20.02.1999 to 06.07.2002. He had worked at Tirubhuvanam Branch from 02.03.2007 to 31.12.2010 without any break, in permanent vacancy. Similarly he had worked at Pookollai Branch from 04.01.2011 till he was made permanent on 23.12.2011. The petitioner was the only workman in the Sub-Staff cadre at these branches during this period. Considering the service of the petitioner as Temporary Messenger he was called for interview and the petitioner was taken as a Permanent staff w.e.f. 23.12.2011. He continued to serve at Pookollai Branch thereafter. The Respondent suddenly terminated the service of the petitioner on 20.05.2014. It was stated that the claim of the petitioner that he worked at Tirubhuvanam Branch from 02.03.2007 to 31.12.2010 is false. The petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain this unfounded allegation. The petitioner had been working as Temporary Messenger in all the three branches from 0900 AM till 0830 PM. He did all the duties as a Messenger and also had done clerical duties as instructed by the Manager. The petitioner had prepared several vouchers. The petitioner had signed vouchers for drawing conveyance expenses whenever he had to attend outdoor work. He had signed vouchers for drawing wages in different names in the year 2010 as instructed by the Branch Manager. There is no justification for the termination of the petitioner. An Award may be passed holding that termination of the petitioner from service is not legal and justified and also reinstating the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits.
2. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement contending as below:
A settlement under Section-12(3) of the ID Act was entered into between the Respondent and the recognized Trade Union on 17.02.2011 for absorption of Temporary Messengers/Sweepers, as a one-time measure, subject to satisfaction of certain educational qualification and prior service conditions. Besides other conditions a Temporary Messenger / Sweeper must have worked 240 or more days in a calendar year as on 15.11.2010 and should have continued to be working. On the basis of the settlement the Respondent issued circular regarding absorption of Temporary Messengers and Sweepers in permanent vacancies as a one-time measure. The petitioner had submitted application in Annexure-A as if he is eligible for absorption stating that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding 15.11.2010 at Tirubhuvanam Branch and had continued to work thereafter also. An interview was conducted based on the undertaking and declaration given by the petitioner and the petitioner was absorbed as Messenger by appointment letter dated 23.12.2011. The petitioner had joined as Messenger in pursuance of the appointment letter. However, on verification of the branch records it was found that the petitioner had not worked continuously for 240 days prior to the cut-off date. He had worked as casual labour on 27.03.2010, 12.06.2010 and 16.06.2010 only. The petitioner had gained employment by undue influence, he being the relative of the Office Bearer of the recognized union. The statement made by the petitioner in the application in Annexure-A given by him was not correct. Anyone who has not satisfied the requirements of the terms of the settlement is not eligible for absorption in permanent vacancy. The petitioner has given an undertaking that if the declaration made by him regarding the period of engagement is found false he is liable to be terminated from the service of the Bank. The details given by the petitioner in his application having been found false he was terminated from service by order dated 20.05.2014. The petitioner had obtained false certificate of service in connivance with the Branch Manager of the Tirubhuvanam Branch. Principles of natural justice cannot be afforded to a person who has committed fraud and misrepresentation in respect of his working period. The Central Bureau of Investigation had conducted an investigation and had found that huge bribe money was received by the Office Bearers of the Trade Union for induction of ineligible candidates as Messenger and Sweepers. The petitioner did not work for 240 days prior to the cut-off date. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
3. The petitioner has filed rejoinder in answer to the Counter Statement. He had denied the allegations in the Counter Statement and has reiterated the case in the Claim Statement.
4. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Ext.W1 to Ext.W12 and Ext.M1 to Ext.M14.
5. The points for consideration are:
(i) Whether termination of the petitioner from the service of the Respondent is justified?
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5349(ii) What, if any is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?
The Points
6. The petitioner has raised the dispute challenging the order of the Respondent on 20.05.2014 terminating him from his post as Permanent Messenger.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that he had worked as Temporary Messenger in the Respondent Bank for 288 days in Kumbakonam Court Branch and 1126 days in Tirubhuvanam Branch and had subsequently worked at Pookollai Branch also until he was made permanent in the service. He was made permanent by the Respondent after an interview and it is accordingly he started to work as Permanent Messenger at Pookollai Branch from 23.12.2011.
8. According to the Respondent it had entered into a settlement with the recognized union for absorption of Temporary Messengers and Sweepers as a temporary measure. A circular was issued and applications were called for on the basis of this settlement. The petitioner had applied for the post of Messenger asserting that he had worked for more than 240 days prior to 15.11.2010, the cut-off date mentioned in the settlement. It is the further case of the Respondent that the petitioner was taken as a Permanent Messenger after interview on the basis of the assertion made by him regarding his temporary service. However, subsequently on verification of records at Tirubhuvanam Branch it was found that he had not worked for 240 days prior to the cut-off date as claimed by him. Consequently, he had been terminated from service.
9. The termination of the petitioner from service is on the basis of Ext.M8, the Investigation Report submitted by MW1 who was the Senior Manager attached to the Enquiry Cell and had conducted investigation. Ext.M8 states that the petitioner was not continuously working during the year 2010 but had gained entry in service since he was related to an employee who was a Trade Union leader. MW1 has stated during his evidence that it was revealed as per the investigation that the petitioner had not worked at Tirubhuvanam Branch for the required days as claimed by him.
10. The petitioner had given evidence stating that he had been working for the Respodnent Bank as Temporary Messenger for a long time. He had asserted that he had started to work from February 1999 at Kumbakonam Court Branch and had been there till the middle of 2002 and had again started to work at Tirubhuvanam Branch in March 2007 and was there till the end of 2010. According to him he was the only workman in the Sub-Staff cadre at the Branch at the time. He has stated that he was doing the work of a Clerk also while he was working as Messenger and had prepared several vouchers. According to the petitioner during 2010 wages used to be paid to him in different names.
11. It could be seen from the contention of the Respondent that the single reason for termination of the petitioner from service was that he had not completed 240 days of work prior to 15.11.2010 the cut-off date given in Ext.M2, the settlement regarding absorption of temporary workman. At the instance of the petitioner the Respondent has produced the general ledgers of Tirubhuvanam and Pookallai Branch which will reveal the transactions of these branches for the period. Ext.M10 is the ledger of the Tirubhuvanam Branch for the period from 02.03.2007 to 31.12.2010. According to the Respondent the petitioner had worked in Tirubhuvanam Branch in the year 2010 only on three days i.e. on 27.03.2010, 12.06.2010 and 16.06.2010. On going through the entire entries of the ledger for the period from 15.11.2009 to 15.11.2010, the calendar year prior to the cut-off date it is seen that there are two entries in the name of Ravi (petitioner is Ravikumar). In the year 2010, apart from the dates admitted by the Respondent there is one more entry on 19.06.2010 in the name of Ravi. During this period payments are seen made under different names. Several such names were extracted during cross-examination of MW1. It was suggested to MW1 that all these are entries on payments made to the petitioner under different names during this period. However, MW1 was not in a position either to deny or to assert this suggestion. He had prepared the Investigation Report on the basis that only a few entries appeared in the name of the petitioner in the ledger during the relevant period.
12. It is to be seen whether there is any basis for the claim of the petitioner that he was working as Temporary messenger at Tirubhuvanam Branch even form the year 2007 and had continued till 2010 and was working even at the time when the application was called for. Ext.M1 is the application alongwith undertaking given by the petitioner in Annexure-A seeking appointment as Permanent Messenger on the basis of the settlement. Though the petitioner would not refer to the settlement at all in his Claim Statement he has admitted that Ext.M1 is the undertaking that is given by him. In this he has specifically stated that he had worked for 288 days as Full-Time Sweeper at Kumbakonam and 1126 days as Messenger at Tirubhuvanam Branch and then at Pookollai Branch. There are three certificates attached to this annexure, given by the Branch Managers of Kumbakonam Court, Tirubhuvanam and Pookollai respectively. The Branch Managers had asserted the claim of the petitioner that he had worked for such and such days, as per these certificates. The curious thing to be noted is that in the counter Statement that the Respondent has not denied the case of the petitioner that he had worked at Kumbakonam Court, Tirubhuvanam and Pookallai Branches. The only reason given by the Respondent for termination is that he was not there at Tirubhuvanam Branch during 2010 in which case there was no question of his completing 240 days of work in the calendar year preceding the cut-off date. Even from5350 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the absence of the denial of the Respondent in this respect it is to be assumed that the petitioner had worked at Kumbakonam Branch and had been at Tirubhuvanam Branch also even before 2010. This has been admitted by MW1 also when he was cross-examined with reference to Ext.M10. The transactions of the year 2007 and 2008 frequently refer to the petitioner as one who had received payment. The entries in Ext.M10 for the earlier period coupled with the admission of MW1 and absence of the denial of the Respondent would show that the petitioner had worked at Tirubhuvanam Branch and prior to that at Kumbakonam Court Branch. Even his service at Pookallai Branch after the cut-off date is not denied by the Respondent.
13. No doubt Ext.M10 the ledger for the relevant period would not reveal the work of 240 days by the petitioner in the calendar year prior to cut-off date. So on the basis of Ext.M10 alone it would not be possible to conclude that he had been there in the establishment during that period. However, the petitioner relied upon Ext.W12 containing the dates and numbers of the vouchers which according to him were prepared by him while he was at Tirubhuvanam Branch. He had stated that as instructed by the Branch Manager he had been preparing these vouchers. At the instance of the petitioner the Respondent has produced Ext.M14 (series) the copies of vouchers maintained at the Branch for the period from 02.01.2010 to 31.12.2010. The numbers given by the petitioner in Ext.W12 find a place among Ext.M14 (series). It is the definite case of the petitioner that the vouchers found in Ext.M14 with the numbers and dates given in Ext.W12 are in his handwriting. He has stated that these were prepared by him as instructed by the Branch Manager. MW1 was not able to assert or deny the case of the petitioner that these vouchers are in the hand of the petitioner. Thus, there is no denial of the evidence of the petitioner that these vouchers are in his hand. All these vouchers referred to by him appear in the same bold hand. In the absence of any evidence on the side of the Respondent there is no reason to reject the case of the petitioner that these vouchers were prepared by him.
14. The petitioner has been able to refer to Ext.M14 vouchers as if he is very much conversant with them. This could be done only by a person who has been dealing with it. The fact that there is no denial on the part of the Respondent regarding the work done by the petitioner in the Branch prior to the relevant period also probabalises the case of the petitioner. As could be seen, the petitioner was working in the Bank though temporarily even from 1999. Alongwith this is the fact that all the three Branch Managers had certified the service of the petitioner, not one alone. The Respondent has stated in the Counter Statement that proceedings had been taken against the Tirubhuvanam Branch for issuing a false certificate. However, it has come out during the cross-examination of MW1 that the Branch Manager had normal retirement from his service. There is nothing to show that any proceedings had been taken against him. One could understand that one Branch Manager supporting the petitioner at the instance of a Trade Union leader. However, all the Managers of three different branches had certified the work of the petitioner at the three different branches. When these aspects are taken into account the case of the petitioner that he had worked for more than 240 days during the relevant period prior to the cut-off date also at Tirubhuvanam Branch is to be accepted. In that case the termination of the petitioner is certainly illegal and unjustified. His termination was the result of an improper investigation and consequent report. The injustice is to be corrected by reinstating the petitioner in service.
On the basis of the above discussion an Award is passed as below:
The Respondent shall reinstate the petitioner in service within a month of the publication of the Award, with 75% backwages and all other attendant benefits. The arrears of pay shall be paid to the petitioner within a month of the publication of the Award. In default, interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is payable from the date of the Award.
The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 18th July, 2017)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : WW1, Sri J. Ravikumar For the 2nd Party/Respondent : MW1, Sri K. Viswanathan
Documents Marked:
On the Petitioner's side
Ext. No. Date Description
Ext.W1 Various dates Copies of Vouchers for weekly payment of wages to the First Party by the
Second Party in the years 2007 to 2010
Ext.W2 -do- Numbers relating to vouchers prepared by the First Party in 2010[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5351
Ext.W3 April 1994 SSLC mark-list of First Party
Ext.W4 16.06.1994 Transfer Certificate issued by the Government confirming his Backward Class
(Padayachi) status
Ext.W5 25.04.2011 Thirubhuvanam branch certifying First Party for having worked there
02.03.2017 to 31.123.2011
Ext.W6 28.04.2011 Pookollai branch certifying First Party for working there from 04.0.2011 Ext.W7 28.11.2011 Advice for interview on 01.12.2011 Ext.W8 28.12.2011 Appointment Order Ext.W9 20.05.2015 Termination Order Ext.W10 16.03.2015 Dispute raised before the ALC-cum-Conciliation Officer, Chennai Ext.W11 22.08.2015 First Party to ALC, Pondicherry Ext.W12 Various dates List of vouchers prepared by the petitioner in 2010
On the Management's side
Ext.No. Date Description
Ext.M1 28.04.2011 Undertaking letter given by the petitioner
Ext.M2 17.02.2011 Section 12(3) Settlement
Ext.M3 23.03.2011 Circular issued by the Respondent to all Branches
Ext.M4 23.12.2011 Appointment order issued to the petitioner
Ext.M5 09.04.2014 Central Bureau of Investigation Anti-Corruption Branch letter to the Respondent
forwarding FIR
Ext.M6 11.04.2014 Central Bureau of Investigation Anti-Corruption Branch letter to the Respondent
Ext.M7 05.05.2014 Senior Manager, Thirubhuvanam letter to Investigation Officer, Central Office
Ext.M8 09.05.2014 Investigation Officer Report
Ext.M9 20.05.2014 Termination Order issued to petitioner
Ext.M10 02.03.2007 to General Ledger Transactions in Thirubhuvanam Branch
31.12.2010
Ext.M11 04.01.2011 to General Ledger Transactions in Pookollai Branch
28.04.2011
Ext.M12 28.09.2013 Petitioner letter to Investigation Officer
Ext.M13 09.05.2014 Investigation Officer Report enclosing Senior Manager, Thirubhuvanam Branch
letter
Ext.M14 02.01.2010 to Vouchers of Thirubhuvanam Branch of Respondent.
(series) 31.12.2010
नई दिल्ली, 23 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1995.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सडीकेट बैंक के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 99/2012द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-12012/35/2012-आईआर ;बी-IIद्ध]
रवि कुमार, डेस्क अध्किारी5352 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2017
S.O. 1995.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 99/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 23.08.2017.
[No. L-12012/35/2012-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No. 99/2012
Shri Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Ram Singh, R/o 425 H, Pocket 2, Mayur Vihar, Phase I, Delhi – 100 091
…Workman
Versus
The General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Sarojini House, 6 Bhagwan Dass Road, New Delhi – 110 001
…Management
AWARD
A reference was received in the present case from the Ministry of Labour vide letter No.L-12012/35/2012-IR(B-II) dated 09/21.08.2012 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
'Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank in terminating the services of Shri Pawan Kumar, Ex-Temporary Driver with effect from 31.12.2007 is legal and justified? What relief the concerned workman is entitled to?
2. It is clear from the pleadings that the claimant, Shri Pawan Kumar was employed with Syndicate Bank, the management on the post of driver since 01.01.2004 to 31.12.2007 and he was posted at Asaf Ali Road branch and was attached to the Chief Manager. Father of the claimant was also an ex-employee of the bank. Claimant always performed his duties with due diligence and never gave any chance of complaint to the management or its officers.
3. It is the case of the claimant that he was refused to perform his job on 31.12.2007 and was told by the management that a panel of drivers would be formed in the near future and only thereafter he would be called for duties. Upon this assurance claimant kept waiting for his empanelment and also visited the office of the management several times. He was casually given driving job and the claimant was insisting for a regular but of no use. Claimant on 20.04.2011 visited the branch and came to know that a panel has been formed in the bank 8-9 months back wherein 18- 19 old drivers were empanelled, except the claimant. Claimant was highly surprised and tried to contact the management regard this but nobody gave any proper reply. Claimant has performed continuous duties in the bank without any break with effect from 01.04.2004 to 31.12.2007.
4. Claimant also served demand notice on 03.05.2011 which was duly received by the management. However, no positive action was taken on the same. Thereafter, matter was referred to the Conciliation Officer and the management has clearly admitted that panel of personal drivers was formed in the years 2008, 2009. Management, in fact, has adopted unfair labour practice of pick and choose, causing grave injury to the claimant. Claimant is still unemployed and is searching for a job after his illegal termination. Claimant has finally prayed for reinstatement in the job.
5. Claim was resisted by the management, who filed written statement taking preliminary objections that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties. Claimant was never in the employment of the management bank, as such cannot partake the character of workman under section 2(s) of the Act. In fact, he was engaged as personal driver of Shri H.R. Kamath, Chief Manager of Asaf Ali Road branch and was never appointed by the management. Having regard to the exigencies, bank permitted executives in Scale IV and above to engage personal drivers and claimed reimbursement of the connected expenses. Management has denied the other averments in the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5353 statement of claim and it is alleged that the claimant has concealed material facts in respect of his engagement as personal driver. The management is a nationalized bank and a public sector undertaking and is governed by various statutes laws and guidelines issued by the Government of India. It is also denied that on 20.04.2011, claimant visited the bank and came to know about the panel formed by the bank wherein name of 18-19 drivers similar to the claimant were empanelled except the claimant. Finally, a prayed has been made for dismissal of the claim.
6. Against this factual background, my learned predecessor, on basis of pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 25.10.2012 framed the following issues:
(i) Whether there was relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the bank?
(ii) As in terms of reference
(iii) Relief
7. Claimant, in order to prove his case against the management examined himself as WW1 and tendered in evidence his affidavit Exc.WW1/A. He has also tendered in evidence documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/11. Management, in order to rebut the case of the claimant, examined Shri S. Murali Iyer as MW1 whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A. He has also relied on documents Ex.WW1/M26, Ex.WW1/M23 to Ex.WW1/M25.
8. I have heard Shri Anil Tripathi, A/R for the claimant and Shri Rajesh Mahindru, A/R for the management.
Issue No.(i) and (ii)
9. Both these issues are inter related and can be conveniently disposed of and hence are being taken up together.
10. It is clear from the matrix of the case that the claimant is resting on the premise that he was in the employment of the management with effect from 01.01.2004 to 31.12.2007 and was performing his duties diligently. As per averments in the statement of claim there was no beak in service of the claimant and was illegally stopped from resuming his duties after 31.12.2007. Stand of the management from inception is very clear and the management has taken specific plea that there was no relationship of employer and employee between claimant and the management inasmuch as the claimant was never employed by the management at any point of time. In fact, he was the personal driver of Shri H.R. Kamath, the then Chief Manager of Asaf Ali Road branch of the management. Engagement of personal driver by the Chief Manager is in accordance with the policy and guidelines issued by the bank by the Union Government and officers of the category of Scale IV and above were permitted to engage personal drivers. Bank has never appointed the claimant as personal driver with the bank nor the bank has any administrative control over the claimant. Work of personal driver is in no way connected with routine functioning of the bank. Such drivers are being engaged by the executives in their personal capacity and bank has no role to play in the engagement or termination of such personal drivers.
11. Evidence adduced by the claimant is on the same lines as the stand taken in the statement of claim. Claimant has admitted in his cross examination that he was never issued any appointment letter by the management. However, he had given his bio-data to Shri H.R. Kamath on 01.01.2004 and copy of the same is not available with the claimant. He has further admitted that no vacancy was advertised by the bank in any newspaper and one Shri Ashok, Peon already working in the branch informed him about vacancy of a driver in the bank. Though he has denied the suggestion that he was the personal driver of Shri HR Kamath, he is also driven cars of Shri Reddy, General Manager and Shri Bal Krishna Deputy General Manager. He has driven vehicle of Shri Sharma Assistant General Manager posted at ITO branch of the bank in 2008 and 2011. At this juncture, it is necessary to point out that the case of the claimant throughout has been that he was finally refused duty from 31.12.2007. Thus, as per his own case, he is not in the employment of the bank after 31.12.2007.
12. Now, the vital question before this Tribunal is whether the claimant was engaged as personal driver of Shri H.R. Kamath, Chief Manager of Asaf Ali Road branch of the management from 01.01.2004 to 31.12.2007. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the various documents relied by the parties. It is clear from perusal of letter Ex.WW1/1 that the claimant had approached the Assistant General Manager of the bank wherein he has sought record pertaining to his engagement during the period 2004 to 2007. Letter Ex.WW1/2 is the reply to letter Ex.WW1/1 which shows that the claimant was engaged by the then Chief Manager of Asaf Ali Road branch from 01.01.2004 to 31.12.2007. Ex.WW1./3 and Ex.WW1/4 are the driving licence of the claimant. Perusal of Ex.WW1/5 shows that the claimant's date of birth is 17.10.1979 and he has hardly studied up to 9th standard. Ex.WW1/6 is the case certification which is not in dispute. Claimant has taken up the matter with the management by service Demand Notice Ex.WW1/7, wherein the claimant has reiterated the stand taken in the statement of claim. Ex.WW1/9 shows that various amounts were sanctioned as salary of the claimant as driver. Bare perusal of all these documents would show that various amounts were withdrawn by the manager of the bank so as to make payment of sundry allowances, including driver's salary. There is also mention of uniform charges Ex.WW1/M4 and in Ex.WW1/M3 there is mention of reimbursement of medical expenses to driver. In debit slip Ex.WW1/5, there is mention of conveyance charges to Pawan Kumar – Rs.50.00. In5354 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Ex.WW1/M6 there is mention of salary of Rs.4,400.00. In another debit slip there is mention of general charges – salary of driver, for going to Janpath for servicing of bank car etc. Ex.WW1/20 is the receipt issued by Shri H.R. Kamath being reimbursement of medical expenses which was incurred by the claimant Shri Pawan Kumar and his signatures are also there on the said receipt. To the similar effect is receipt Ex.WW1/20 which shows that a sum of Rs.1000.00 was received from Shri Kamath, being reimbursement for getting two sets of uniform stitched. Thus, it is clear from various debit slips mentioned above that managers of the bank were making various payments, including salary, services charges, medical expenses etc. to the claimant. Thus, I am not in agreement with the contention of the management that salary was being paid by Shri Kamath in his individual capacity and the management has never engaged the claimant as their driver. If it was really so, where is the question of making payment of medical expenses, uniform charges etc. to the claimant, when he not performing duties in the bank. Moreover, all these payments are made from the kitty of the bank.
13. Now the moot point before this Tribunal is whether the claimant herein can be termed as 'workman' so as to create relationship of employer and employee between management and the claimant. In order to appreciate submissions raised at the bar by the respective parties in respect of the status of the claimant as 'workman' for the purpose of the Act, it is necessary to reproduce the definition of workman under section 2(s) of the Act :
"workman" means any person (including an apprentice employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-
(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, function mainly of a managerial nature.
14. Bare perusal of the above definition would show that in industrial law there is no distinction between permanent or temporary employee as long as a person is in the employment and is doing any category of work, i.e. manual, unskilled etc. for the employer, he is to be treated as a workman under the industrial disputes Act and still get benefit of the same. Contention of the management that no letter of appointment was issued to the claimant regarding his engagement with the bank as driver though appears to be quite attractive, yet in view of settled legal position as well as evidence on record it is clear that the claimant was driving the car belonging to the management and it clearly suggests that the claimant was engaged to drive the above official car, i.e. Maruti 800 bearing registration No.DL 7C 7189, belonging to the management bank and not personal car of the driver.
15. Hon'ble Apex Court also in the case of Management of Sonepat Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Ajit Singh (AIR 2005 (105) FLR I) has laid down the criteria to ascertain whether a person is a workman or not and observed that a person would come within the purview of the definition of the workman if he is employed in any industry and performs any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work. It is also trite that designation given by the employer to a workman is not a decisive factor and what is important is the nature of duties being performed by such workmen so as to decide the question whether he or she is a workman under the industrial law or not.
16. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devender Singh Vs. MC Sanaur (AIR (2001) SCC 2532) wherein while interpreting provisions of Section 2(s) of the Act, which deals with definition of workman, as under:
'The source of employment, the method of recruitment, the terms and conditions of employment/contract of service, the quantum of wages/pay and the mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s)of the Act.
The definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only a person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 535515. Whenever an employer challenges the maintainability of industrial dispute on the ground that the employee is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act, what the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is required to consider is whether the person is employed in an industry for hire or reward for doing manual, unskilled, skilled, operational, technical or clerical work in an industry. Once the test of employment for hire or reward for doing the specified type of work is satisfied, the employee would fall within the definition of `workman'.
17. Since in the case on hand, claimant herein was admittedly doing work not only for the Manager of the bank but also for other officials with whom claimant was entrusted by the manager for official work, as is clear from the documents relied upon by the parties. As such, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the claimant falls within the definition of 'workman'.
18. During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the management strongly relied upon letter Ex.WW1/M23 and urged that the claimant herein could not be absorbed as per policy contained in the letter as he was not fulfilling the conditions contained in the above letter. It is clearly provided in condition No.14 of the above letter that the candidate must be driving bank vehicle for more than 6 years. Admittedly, in the present case claimant has not completed service of six years as he has worked only from 01.01.2004 to 31.12.2007. Bank has not considered the case of the claimant herein in terms of Ex.WW1/M23 in view of the stipulation of six years of services as contained in letter Ex.WW1/M23, which the claimant admittedly was not satisfying. But the case of the claimant is independent of the above letter as he was admittedly working from 01.01.2004 up to 31.12.2007 and thus has completed 240 days in a calendar year. Management cannot absolve or get rid of the consequences of engagement of the claimant solely on the ground that he was engaged by the manager as personal driver. I have gone through the ratio of judgement in M. Veerappanvs Chairman and Managing Director (2014) LLR 195. In the said case, petitioner was engaged as a personal driver by the Executive of the bank since 1983 for driving official car of the bank. Wages paid to the driver was determined and reimbursed by executives of the bank. Bank had employed the petitioner and such services were later on terminated. In the said case, it was provided by positive evidence that appointment of driver was made by the executive of the bank in his personal capacity without following recruitment rules applicable to the bank. But in the case on hand, virtually scenario is found to be different, in as much as evidence has come on record that the claimant was being paid not only salary through the management but also getting medical allowance, uniform etc and other charges from time to time. In the above case, there was no proof of salary being paid by the management whereas in the present case, evidence as discussed above, is almost ample on record that he was being paid salary from the coffers of the bank.
19. It is further clear from Ex.WW1/2, management has admitted in letter ''Shri Pawan Kumar, temporary driver with us with effect from 02.01.2004''. This letter is duly signed by the Assistant General Manager. Use of expression 'with us' and the is clearly suggestive of the fact that the claimant was employed by the Chief Manager as temporary driver. Further, the Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that reference received by this Tribunal from Ministry of Labour, Government of India, is whether termination of service of Shri Pawan Kumar by the bank is legal and justified, which also suggests that services of the claimant was terminated by the management of the bank and the only point which is to be seen is whether the said termination is illegal and unjustified. Since the claimant has completed 240 days in a calendar year as is clear from evidence on record, management was required to serve one months notice or salary in lieu of such notice as required under Section 25-F of the Act. Non-issuance of such notice or non-payment of one months' notice in lieu thereof has dealt a crippling blow to the case of the management.
20. Issuance of letter Ex.WW1/2 by the Assistant General Manager to the General Manager of the bank clearly shows that Shri Pawan Kumar was engaged as temporary driver with the bank with effect from 01.01.2004. Use of the expression in the head note of the letter 'Temporary Driver with us', by the bank is again suggestive of the fact that the claimant was not a personal driver of Shri Kamath but he was a temporary driver with the bank. Permanent licence Ex.WW1/3, Ex.WW1/4 and Ex.WW1/5 and case certificate Ex.WW1/6 is again suggestive of the fact that the bank has tried to fulfill the codal formalities required being followed for engagement of drivers who are required to possess valid driving licence under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act so as to drive any vehicle.
21. Shri Murali Iyer MW1, in his statement has also not disputed issuance of Ex.WW1/2 which is addressed by Assistant General Manager of the bank to the General Manager, as well as copy of Circular Ex.WW1/23. He has also admitted that since 2008 bank has regularized personal drivers as sub staff 3-4 times. No doubt, claimant herein has not completed requisite service of six years as on the date when policy Ex.WW1/M23 was issued by the management but the case of the claimant herein is not based on the said letter but on the plea that he has completed 240 days in a calendar year while working for the management bank. Claimant has proved the factum of engagement and also the fact of his having worked with the management as personal driver and he was admittedly driving official vehicle and was doing all types of codal work. He has been paid not only salary but also was paid medical expenses, uniform etc. If he was a personal driver engaged by Shri Kamath, there was no need for the bank to have reimbursed expenses on uniform, medical etc. Claimant was being paid by the bank as the work which was being taken from the claimant was for the benefit of the bank and not solely for the use of Shri Kamath.
5356 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]22. It is the submission of the management that the claimant herein was solely engaged by Shri H.R. Kamath as his personal driver and management has nothing to do with his engagement as driver has again been falsified by the evidence on record as it has come in the cross examination of the claimant that not only Shri H.R. Kamath, but he has also worked as driver of Shri Reddy, General Manager and Shri Bal Krishna Deputy General Manager and Shri Sharma Assistant General Manager. Moreover, overall evidence on record is also suggestive of the fact that from time to time, bank has engaged the workmen by branding them as personal drivers but fact of the matter remains that they were performing duties not solely for such managements but were doing other official work of the management also. In such a situation, this practice being followed previously by the bank so as to engage drivers by branding them as personal drivers of managers is clearly unfair trade practice and militates against beneficial and social welfare and industrial legislation. Everything appears to have been done so that the drivers cannot claim themselves to be in the employment of the management bank.
23. The other residual question is as to what relief the claimant is entitled to? It was seriously urged on behalf of the claimant that he is unemployed after his termination. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the claimant was gainfully employed after his termination. More so, in the absence of any evidence adduced by the management to this effect, version of the claimant is to be accepted.
24. Regarding claim of back wages, it has been made amply clear in Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed) and others (2013 Lab.I.C. 4249), as under:
'Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.'
25. Ratio of this judgement has been subsequently reiterated and followed by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as High Court. In such a situation, in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Courts, I am of the view that the claimant is entitled to full back wages.
26. As a sequel to my discussion herein above, it is held that termination of services of the claimant, Shri Pawan Kumar, ex-temporary driver with effect from 31.12.2007 is illegal, unjustified, against principles of natural justice and is in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Thus, the same is held to be arbitrary and illegal and as a corollary Shri Pawan Kumar, the claimant herein is ordered to be reinstated with full back wages. An award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Dated : June 14, 2017
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 23 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1996.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक
अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 41/2008द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23.08.2017 को प्राप्त
हुआ था।
[सं. एल-12012/113/2007-आईआर ;बी-IIद्ध]
रवि कुमार, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 23rd August, 2017
S.O. 1996.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5357 Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 23.08.2017.
[No. L-12012/113/2007-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
vuqca/k
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh- izdj.k la- 41/2008
Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
jsQjsUl ua.-L- 12012/113/2007 –IR(B-II) fnukad 05/02/2008
Jh jru flag HkkVh iq= Jh Hkaoj flag HkkVh fuoklh ch & 101] 'kkfUr uxj] fu;j vthr Ldwy] ,u-ch-lh- jksM+] t;iqj & ¼jktLFkku½
cuke
mi egkizcU/kd] ;wdks cSad] vapy dk;kZy;] vkdsZM baVjus'kuy] flfoy ykbal] vtesj jksM] t;iqj] jktLFkkuA
izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jh iznhi vLFkkuk & ,MoksdsV
vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jh lqjsUnz flag & ,MoksdsV
% iapkV %
fnukad % 28&06&2017
1- dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 10 mi/kkjk 1 [k.M+ (?k) ds vUrxZr fnukad 05-02- 2008 ds vkns'k ls izsf"kr fookn ds vk/kkj ij ;g izdj.k U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lafLFkr gSA dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk izsf"kr fookn fuEuor~ gS %&
"Whether the action of management of UCO Bank, Jaipur through Dy. General Manager in retrenching the services of Shri Ratan Singh Bhati, Driver cum messenger on 15.01.2007 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?"
2- LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse es fn;s x;s rF;ksa ds vuqlkj laf{kIrr% izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd izkFkhZ jru flag HkkVh dks miegkizcU/kd] {ks=h; dk;kZy;] t;iqj us fnuakd 6-4-94 dks okgu pkyd&de pijklh ds in ij fu;qDr fd;k FkkA
3- foi{kh us izkFkhZ dks fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s vkSj fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ds fnukad 11-3-95 dks lsok ls voS/k :i ls gVk fn;k Fkk ftlds fo:) izkFkhZ us lh-vkbZ-Vh- dsl ua- 1@97 jru flag HkkVh cuke fMfotuy eSustj lafLFkr fd;k Fkk ftlesa izkFkhZ dks lsok esa iquLFkkZfir fd;s tkus dk vkns'k fnukad 28-7-2000 dks ikfjr gqvk FkkA izkFkhZ dh lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk ds fo:) foi{k dh ;kfpdk ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us fujLr dh rFkk mDr ;kfpdk esa ikfjr vkns'k ds fo:) vihy ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB us fujLr dhA blds ckn foi{kh us fnukad 16-12-06 dks i= }kjk izkFkhZ dks lans'k Hkstdj lsok esa lfEefyr gkssus ds fy, dgk ftlds vuqikyu esa izkFkhZ fnukad 23-12-06 dks lsok esa iqu% lfEefyr gqvkA
4- foi{k us iqu% fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s ,oa fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ds fnukad 15-1-07 dks voS/k :i ls lsok ls gVk fn;k vkSj lsok esa okil u ysus ds dkj.k orZeku ekeyk U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq ;kph us izLrqr fd;kA vkxs izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd mlus fnukad 23-12-06 ls 15-1-07 rd fu;fer dk;Z fd;k ijUrq foi{k us fnukad 15-1-07 dks voS/k rjhds ls NaVuh vkns'k ikfjr dj fn;k tcfd izkFkhZ ls dfu"B deZpkjh Jh jktsUnz xqtZj dks lsok esa cgky j[kk x;k gSA
5- foi{k us vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,Q] 25 th RkFkk 25 ,u ds izkfo/kku dk ikyu ugha fd;k gS u gh ofj"Brk lwph rS;kj dh gS vkSj u ugha ofj"Brk ds dze esa NaVuh dh gSA fu;kstd dk ;g dFku fd izkFkhZ ds fy, dke ugha gS loZFkk vlR; gSA izkFkhZ okgu pkyd&de pijklh dk dk;Z djrk jgk gS rFkk fu;kstd ds ikl pijklh@lans'k okgd dk in fjDr gS RkFkk mlls dfu"B lans'kokgdksa dks lsok esa j[kk x;k gS vr% izkFkhZ ds lkFk foi{k }kjk vuqfpr Je O;ogkj5358 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] fd;k x;k gS tks n.Muh; gS rFkk izkFkhZ dh lsoklekfIr voS/kkfud gSA vUr esa izkFkhZ us ;kpuk dh gS fd mls foxr lEiw.kZ osru ,oa ykHk lfgr lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk;A
6- foi{k }kjk ;kfpdk ds tokc esa ;kfpdk ds izLrj ,d ds dFku dks Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd fjQjsUl U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq izsf"kr gSA izLrj 2 yxk;r rk 5 ds lEcU/k esa dgk x;k gS fd ftl izdkj fy[kk x;k gS oSlk Lohdkj ugha gSA izLrj 6 ,oa 7 ds lEcU/k esa dgk x;k gS fd bu izLrjksa ds dFku vlR; gS blfy, Lohdkj ugha gSA
7- vkxs ;g dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks okgu pkyd ds in ij cSad us u rks fu;qDr fd;k Fkk vkSj u gh cSad esa okgu pkyd dk dksbZ in fjDr FkkA okgu la[;k vkj-,u-Mh- 171 e.My izcU/kd dks O;fDrxr mi;ksx gsrq fn;k x;k Fkk ftls og Loa; vius futh mi;ksx gsrq pyk ldrs Fks ;k Lo;a O;fDrxr Lrj ij okgu pkyd j[k ldrs FksA tks okgu cSad vf/kdkjh dks fn;s x;s Fks mls mUgsa O;fDrxr :i ls gh pykuk FkkA ;fn vf/kdkjh Loa; okgu u pykdj O;fDrxr :i ls okgu pkyd j[krs gS rks cSad }kjk vf/kdkjh dks fu/kkZfjr nj ij futh okgu pkyd ds fy, iquZHkj.k fd;k tkrk gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ,sls futh okgu pkydksa dks ftUgs fu;e ,oa lsVyesUV ds vuqlkj fu;qfDr ugha nh x;h Fkh mUgsa cSad deZpkjh ekukA
8- vkxss dFku gS fd izkFkhZ us iwoZ esa 6-4-94 ls 11-3-95 rd dk;Z fd;k Fkk vkSj dk;Z dh vko';drk u gksus ij e.My vf/kdkjh us gVk fn;k Fkk ftlds fo:) ekuuh; U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk 28-7-2000 dks ;kph ds i{k esa ,okMZ ikfjr fd;k tkuk Lohdkj gS vkSj mDr ,okMZ ds vuqikyu esa izkFkhZ dks lsok esa ys fy;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fnuakd 11-3-95 ls **dke ugha rks osru ugha** ds vk/kkj ij lsok esa fcuk fujUrjrk ds iquLFkkZiuk dk vkns'k ikfjr gqvk FkkA
9- izkFkhZ dks fnuakd 16-12-08 ds iathd`r Mkd }kjk i= ds ek/;e ls lwfpr fd;k x;k fd og M;wVh ij mifLFkr gksos vkSj uksfVl esa bl ckr dk Hkh ftdz dj fn;k x;k Fkk fd mldks inLFkkiu O;fDrxr pkyd dh fjfDr miyC/k gksus ij vk/kkfjr gSA uksfVl dh QksVksizfr tokc ds lkFk layXu gSA
10- izkFkhZ dks fnuakd 16-12-06 dks lsok esa iquLFkkZfir fd;k x;k tks 23-12-06 ls 15-1-07 rd mifLFkr jgk ijUrq dk;Z o in u gksus dh otg ls /kkjk 25 ,Q ds izkfo/kku dk ikyu djrs gq, fnuakd 15-1-07 ds vkns'k }kjk izkFkhZ dks lEiw.kZ eqvkotk nsdj mldh NaVuh dj nh x;hA NaVuh vkns'k dh izfr oknksRrj ds lkFk layXu gSA NaVuh eqvkotk ls lEcfU/kr 18]950 :i;s dk is&vkMZj la[;k 266839 fnuakd 15-01-07 izkFkhZ dks fn;k x;k ftldh izfr layXu oknksRrj gSA
11- Dyse ds tokc esa Li"V :i ls ;g dgk x;k gS fd jktsUnz xqtZj dks foi{k }kjk ugha j[kk x;k gSA vkxs ;g dFku gS fd /kkjk 25 ,Q] 25 th 25 ,p RkFkk 25 M- dh dksbZ vogsyuk ugha dh x;h gSA
12- cSad esa okgu pkydksa dh fu;qfDr ds lEcU/k esa dgk x;k gS fd blds fy, cSad esa okgu pkydksa dh fu;qfDr ds fy, lsok fu;e cus gq, gS ftlds vuqlkj fu;qfDRk dh tkrh gS ftlesa vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tutkfr fd vH;kfFkZ;ksa ds fy, vkj{k.k fn;s tkus dk Hkh izkfo/kku gSA bl izdkj okgu pkydksa dh fu;qfDr fu/kkZfjr izfdzz;k ds vUrxZr dh tkrh gSA vkxs ;g dFku gS fd okgu pkyd ds Lohd`r in cSad ds ikl ugha gS blfy, dk;Z ,oa Lohd`r in ds vHkko esa vkSj izkFkhZ ds dfu"Bre gksus ds dkj.k mldh NaVuh dh x;h gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dk ;g dguk xyr gS fd mlls dfu"d pijklh ;k lans'kokgd dk;Z dj jgs gSA
13- ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd okgu pkyd &de pijklh dk dksbZ in cSad esa ugha gS blfy, bl lEcU/k esa izkFkhZ dk dFku Lohdkj ugha gSA izkFkhZ dh NaVuh djus esa vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds izkfo/kkuksa dk mYya?ku ugha fd;k x;k gS ,oa izkFkhZ dh ;kfpdk [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA
14- izkFkhZ us tokcqytokc izLrqr dj ;kfpdk ds dFku dh iqujko`fRr dh gS ,oa dgk gS fd ;kph dks okgu pkyd&de&lgkd LVkQ ds in ij fu;qfDr nh x;h FkhA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd foi{k dh lsokeqfDr dk vkns'k U;k;kf/kdj.k ds vkns'k fnuakd 28-7-2000 dh Hkkouk ds izfrdwy gSA cSad esa fu;qDr leLr futh okgu pkydksa ls dk;Z ds i'pkr lgLVkQ ds in dk dk;Z fy;k tkrk Fkk vr% leLr okgu pkydksa dk inuke okgu pkyd≶&lUns'k okgd FkkA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd ;kph ;kfpr vuqrks"k ikus dk gdnkj gSA
15- ;kfpdk ds leFkZu esa ;kph dh 'kiFk&i= lk{; esa izLrqr gS ftudh izfrijh{kk foi{k us dh gSA foi{k dh rjQ ls lk{; esa Jh uojru lksxkuh] ofj"B izcU/kd dh 'kiFk&i= izLrqr gS ftudh izfrijh{kk ;kph i{k us dh gSA
16- izys[kh; lk{; ds :i esa ;kph i{k us foi{k ds i= fnuakd 16-12-2006 RkFkk NaVuh vkns'k fnukad 15-1-2007 dh is vkMZj lfgr QksVksizfr izLrqr dh gSA blds vfrfjDr ;wfu;u ds i= fnukad 1-8-2007 dh QksVksizfr izLrqr dh gS tks deZpkfj;ksa dks lEcksf/kr gSA blds vfrfjDr ;kph us fQgfjLr ls ukS vU; vfHkys[k izLrqr dh gS tks i=koyh ij gSA foi{k dh rjQ ls dksbZ vfHkys[k ugha izLrqr gSA
17- eSuas mHk;i{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k dh cgl lquh rFkk i=koyh dk lE;d voyksdu fd;kA
18- ;kph ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us ;g cgl dh gS fd ;kph miegkizcU/kd dk O;fDrxr pkyd Fkk ysfdu mlls pijklh dk dk;Z Hkh fy;k tkrk Fkk ,oa og okgu pkyd&de pijklh ds in ij fu;qDr Fkk blfy, foi{k }kjk ;g dgdj NaVuh fd;k tkuk fd pkyd dk dksbZ in fjDr ugha Fkk fof/klaxr ugha gS rFkk ;kph dh lsokeqfDr dk vkns'k fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 th] 25 ,p ds mYya?ku dk lUnHkZ Hkh fy;k x;k gSA mDr cgl dk izfrokn[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5359 dj foi{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us cgl dh gS fd izkFkhZ O;fDrxr pkyd ds in ij j[kk x;k Fkk vkSj ekuuh; U;k;kf/kdj.k ds vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa Hkh og iqu% mlh in ij j[kk x;kA O;fDrxr pkyd dh vko';drk u jgus ds dkj.k vkSj dk;Z ds vHkko esa mls cSBkdj ugha j[kk tk ldrk Fkk vr% fof/kd izfdz;k dk vuqlj.k dj rFkk /kkjk 25 ,Q dk vuqikyu dj izkFkhZ dh foi{k }kjk NaVuh dh x;h tks vko';d Fkh rFkk ,slk fd;k tkuk fof/klaxr gSA ;g cgl Hkh dh x;h gS fd /kkjk 25 th ,oa 25 ,p ds izkfo/kku vkdf"kZr ugha gksrs gS D;ksafd izkFkhZ dks gVk;s tkus ds ckn dksbZ u;h fu;qfDr ugha dh x;h gS vkSj izkFkhZ ls dfu"d dksbZ lsok esa mldh NaVuh ds iwoZ ugha FkkA
19- mHk;i{k dh cgl ds lUnHkZ esa i{kdkjksa }kjk izLrqr lk{; dh O;k[;k vko';d gSA ;g rF; fl) djus dk Hkkj ;kph i{k ij gS fd mldh NaVuh foi{k us fof/k fo:) dh gSA ;kfpdk ds rF; rFkk foi{k }kjk ;kfpdk ds tokc esa izLrqr dFku ls ;g izdV gS fd ;kph fnukad 23-12-06 dks lsok esa iquLFkkZfir gqvk FkkA fnuakd 15-1-07 dks foi{k us vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,Q dk vuqikyu djrs gq, mldh lsok ls NaVuh dj nh vkSj NaVuh dk vkns'k fnukafdr 15- 1-07 (M-2) ikfjr djrs gq, 12]950-00 :i;s eqvkotk dh /kujkf'k ls lEcfU/kr is&vkWMZj fnukafdr 15-1-07 (M-3) izkFkhZ dks iznku fd;kA ;kph us viuh izfrijh{kk esa Lohdkj fd;k gS fd NaVuh vkns'k ,e&2 esa of.kZr jkf'k :i;k 12]950-00 dh /kujkf'k foi{k us mls ns nh gSA mDr jkf'k esa rhu ekg ds osru ds cjkcj NaVuh ls lEcfU/kr {kfriwfrZ dh jkf'k 9066- 00:i;k] uksfVl ds cnys ,d ekg ds osru dh jkf'k 2590-00 :i;k] rFkk 01 tuojh ls 15 tuojh rd dh osru dh jkf'k :i;k 1295-00 'kkfey gSA lk{kh us ;g Hkh dgk gS fd og orZeku le; esa nks&<+kbZ gtkj :i;k izfrekg dekrk gSA iqu% Loa; ;g mYys[k Hkh fd;k gS fd dHkh ugha Hkh dekrk gSA Jh uojru lksxkuh] ofj"B izcU/kd us izfrijh{kk esa dgk gS fd ;kph e.My izcU/kd ds futh okgu pkyd ds :i esa dk;Zjr FkkA ;kph us Hkh izfrijh{kk esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd og e.My izcU/kd dh xkM+h pykrk FkkA foi{kh Lkk{kh dh lEiw.kZ izfrijh{kk ds lw{e voyksdu ls ,slk dksbZ lkjoku rF; izdk'k esa ugha gS ftlls /kkjk 25 ,Q dh foi{k }kjk mYya?ku fd;s tkus dh fLFkfr curh gksA
20- ;gkW bl rF; dk mYys[k egRoiw.kZ gS fd i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g tkfgj gS fd blds iwoZ ;kph Jh jru flag HkkVh dh cSad us fnuakd 12-3-95 dks lsok lekIr dj nh Fkh ftlesa fjQjsUl ds vuqlkj jru flag pkyd ds in ij 06-4-94 ls dk;Zjr jguk crk;s x;s gSA U;k;kf/kdj.k us vius iaPkkV fnuakd 28-7-2000 }kjk lsoklekfIr vkns'k /kkjk 25 ,Q dk vuqikyu u ik;s tkus ds dkj.k fujLr fd;k ,oa izkFkhZ dh lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk gsrq vknsf'kr fd;k ftlesa foxr osru ,oa lsok dh fujUrjrk dk ykHk ugha iznku fd;k x;kA vkns'k fnuakd 28-7-2000 ds fo:) flfoy fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 88@2001 ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dihB }kjk fnukad 15-3-2001 dks fujLr dh x;h vkSj 15-3-2001 ds fo:) Mh-ch- flfoy fjV vihy 336@01 ekuuh; [k.MihB }kjk 21-2-06 dks fujLr dh x;hA foi{kh lk{kh dh izfrijh{kk ls ,slk izrhr gksrk gS ekuuh; [k.MihB ds fu.kZ; fnuakd 21-2-06 ds fo:) ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; esa vihy izLrqr dh x;h Fkh tks [kkfjt gqbZA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; dk vkns'k i=koyh ij fdlh i{k us ugha izLrqr fd;k gSA foi{kh lk{kh us Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds ckn gh 23-12-06 dks izkFkhZ dks lsok esa iquLFkkZfir fd;k x;kA
21- ;kph i{k dh rjQ ls Loa; dks fofHkUu txgksa ij fofHkUu inukeksa ls lEcksf/kr fd;k x;k gSA ;kph ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us cgl esa bl ckr dks mBkrs gq, ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd ;kph dsoy pkyd ugha cfYd pijklh dk dk;Z Hkh djrk Fkk blfy, foi{k in u gksus ds vHkko esa vU;= Hkh ;kph dks lek;ksftr dj ldrk FkkA ;g n'kkZus ds fy, fd ;kph pkyd ds vfrfjDr pijklh ds in ls tqM+s dk;Z Hkh djrk Fkk U;k;kf/kdj.k dk /;ku 12-3-95 dh lsok lekfIr ls lEcfU/kr i=koyh esa foi{kh lk{kh Jh jkethyky 'kekZ] e.My izcU/kd ds c;ku dh rjQ vkd`"V fd;k x;k fd izkFkhZ pkyd ds vfrfjDr cSad esa vU; dk;Z Hkh djrk FkkA foi{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us bl cgl dk ;g dgdj izfrokn fd;k fd ;kph dsoy O;fDrxr pkyd ds :i esa dk;Z djrk Fkk vkSj fofHkUu inukeksa ls lEcks/ku ;kph i{k }kjk U;k;kf/kdj.k dks HkVdkus ds fy, fd;k x;k gSA
22- tgkW rd Jh jketh yky 'kekZ] e.My izcU/kd ds c;ku ls fdlh ykHk ds feyus dk iz'u gS dsl la[;k 1@97 esa fnukad 12-11-99 dks Jh jketh yky ds lEiw.kZ ekSf[kd lk{; ds voyksdu ls izkFkhZ ds dsoy pkyd dk dk;Z djus ds rF; dh iqf"V gksrh gS rFkk fdlh pijklh ;k vU; in ls tqM+s dk;Z dks djus ds rF; dh iqf"V fcYdqy ugha gksrh gSA U;k;kf/kdj.k ds iquLFkkZiuk vkns'k ds voyksdu ls Hkh ;g tkfgj gS fd ftl in ij iquLFkkZfir djus dk vkns'k gS o flQZ **pkyd** dk in gS u fd **pkyd&de&pijklh** dk in gS tSlk fd ;kfpdk ds izLrj 2 esa dgk x;k gS fd ;kph dks foi{kh us **pkyd&de&pijklh** ds in ij 6-4-94 dks fu;qDr fd;k FkkA vius tokcqytokc esa ;kph us Loa; dks **pkyd≶&lgkd LVkQ** ds in ij fu;qDr gksuk crk;k gSA tokcqytokc ds izLrj lkr esa ;kph us okgu pkydksa dks **pkyd≶&lUns'k okgd** dgk gSA foi{kh lk{kh ds c;ku esa Hkh O;fDrxr pkyd ds in ij gh fu;qDr gksus dk dFku feyrk gSA izkFkhZ i{k ds fy, ;g vko';d gS fd ;g n'kkZ;s fd izkFkhZ dh NaVuh /kkjk 25 ,Q ds izkfo/kku ds mYya?ku esa dh x;h gS] ;k ;g n'kkZos fd pkyd dk dksbZ in fjDr Fkk ftlls vfLrRo esa jgrs gq, mls gVk;k x;k gS tks izkFkhZ us ugha fd;k gSA mDr O;k[;k ,oa fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gwWa fd ;kph dh /kkjk 25 ,Q ds vuqikyu ds vk/kkj ij dh x;h NaVuh esa fof/kd gLrk{ksi dh fLFkfr ugha curh gS D;ksafd /kkjk 25 ,Q ds izkfo/kku dk mYya?ku lkfcr ugha gksrk gSA
23- ;kph ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k }kjk ;kfpdk ds leFkZu esa fof/kd n`"VkUr ¼2006½ 4 lqizhe dksVZ dSlst i`"B 733] ;w-ih- LVsV jksM VªkUliksVZ dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM &vihykFkhZ cuke 'kkjnk izlkn feJk ,oa vU; &izRFkhZx.k dk lUnHkZ fy;k x;k gSA foi{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us ;g cgl dh gS m)r n`"VkUr dh fof/k O;oLFkk orZeku ekeys esa ykxw ugha gksrh gSA5360 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] eSaus mDr n`"VkUr dk lE;d~ voyksdu fd;kA m)`r n`"VkUr esa izkFkhZ 'kkjnk izlkn feJk dh fu;qfDr dUMDVj ds :i esa le;≤ ij vLFkk;h :i esa dh x;h ,oa vfUre ckj fnukad 01-9-75 ls 30-9-75 rd ,d ekg dh vof/k ds fy, bl 'krZ ds lkFk fo'kq) :i esa rnFkZ vk/kkj ij vLFkk;h :i esa dh x;h Fkh fd mldh lsok dHkh Hkh fcuk uksfVl fn;s lekIr dh tk ldrh gSA pqWafd izkFkhZ dh lsok dh vihykFkhZ dks vko';drk ugha Fkh blfy, ,d ekg ds osru ds lkFk mldh lsok fnukad 6-9-75 dks lekIr dj nh x;hA
lsokeqfDr ds vkns'k esa bl ckr dk mYys[k Fkk fd ;kph uksfVl ds cnys ,d ekg dh osru dk gdnkj gSA vihykFkhZ dk dFku Fkk fd fcuk fojks/k izR;FkhZ us lsoklekfIr vkns'k ds lkFk ,d ekg dh osru vihykFkhZ ls izkIr dhA
izR;FkhZ dh lsoklekfIr ds fo:) foHkkxh; vihy fujLr gks x;hA blds yxHkx lkr o"kZ ckn izR;FkhZ us lsoklekfIr ds fo:) le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k fookn mBk;k fd mldh fu;qfDr uoEcj 1973 esa dh x;h Fkh ijUrq mldh NaVuh m-iz- vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds izkfo/kkuksa dk ikyu fd;s fcuk lekIr dj nh x;h] vr% lsok fu;fer ekurs gq, mls foxr osru ds lkFk lsok esa iquLFkkZfir fd;k tk;A vihykFkhZ us le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k ;g vkifRr mBk;h fd izR;FkhZ us ekeyk yxHkx lkr o"kZ ckn dkQh foyEc ls mBk;k gS vr% foyEc ds vk/kkj ij ekeyk [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA lkFk gh ;g Hkh vkifRr dh x;h fd fu;qfDr vkns'k ds 'krksZa ds vuq:i mldh lsoklekfIr dh x;h Fkh rFkk izR;FkhZ ds fcuk fojks/k ,d ekg dk osru Hkh izkIr fd;k FkkA mDr fLFkfr ds ckotwn le>kSrk vf/kdkjh dh vlQy lqyg okrkZ ds vk/kkj ij ekeyk fopkj.k gsrq Je U;k;ky;] bykgkckn dks Hkstk x;k fd D;k lsoklekfIr dk vkns'k fof/k laxr gS rFkk ,slk u gksus ij izR;FkhZ fdl vuqrks"k dk gdnkj gS! Je U;k;ky; us fnukad 17-9-84 dks ,okMZ izR;FkhZ ds i{k esa bl vk/kkj ij ikfjr fd;k fd izR;FkhZ us 240 fnu lsok iwjh dj yh Fkh blfy, mldh lsok m-iz- vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds izkfo/kku ds fo:) lekIr dh x;h D;ksafd mls NaVuh eqvkotk dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;k Fkk ;|fi ,d ekg dh uksfVl ds cnys osru Hkqxrku fd;k x;k FkkA Je U;k;ky; us iwoZ foxr osru ds lkFk iquLFkkZfir dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;kA
Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV ds fo:) vihykFkhZ dh fjV ;kfpdk esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us fnukad 4-2-88 ds vUrfje vkns'k ls Je U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dks LFkfxr dj fn;k vkSj lkFk gh deZdkj dks ;kfpdk ds vfUre fuLrkj.k rd iquLFkkZfir djus rFkk 50 izfr'kr foxr osru nsus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;kA bl izdkj vUrfje vkns'k ls Je U;k;ky; dk vkns'k 50 izfr'kr foxr osru dh gn rd la'kksf/kr fd;k x;kA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds fnukad 4-2-88 ds vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa deZdkj dks fnukad 09-2-88 dks lsok esa iquLFkkZfir dj fn;k x;k ijUrq iquLFkkZiuk ds ckn deZdkj lsok ds nkSjku fcuk fVdV ;kf=;ksa dks ys tkrs gq, idM+k x;kA vr% tkWp dk;Zokgh djus ds ckn deZdkj dh lsok,a foHkkx }kjk fnukad 31-7-91 dks lekIr dj nh x;h ftlesa foHkkx }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k ;kph ds izdj.k dks yfEcr jgus ds rF; dks /;ku esa ugha j[kk x;kA fnuakd 8-7-03 dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us Je U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dh iqf"V djrs gq, vihykFkhZ dh vihy bl vk/kkj ij [kkfjt dj nh fd Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds vUrxZr Je U;k;ky; ds vkns'k esa gLr{ksi dk dksbZ ekeyk ugha curk gSa rn~uqlkj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vUrfje vkns'k fnukad 4-2-88 Hkh lekIr dj fn;k x;kA
ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds le{k fnuakd 8-7-03 ds vkns'k ds fo:) vihy ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us va'kr% Lohdkj dh ,oa Je U;k;ky; rFkk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dks la'kksf/kr dj ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k fd deZdkj iapkV dh frfFk ls lsok esa iquLFkkZiuk dh frfFk rd 50 izfr'kr foxr osru ikus dk gdnkj gS rFkk lu 1975 ls 1984 rd dh vof/k gsrq foxr osru dk gdnkj ugha gSA
mDr n`"VkUr ls izkFkhZ ds i{k esa dksbZ ykHk ugha iznku fd;k tk ldrk gS D;ksafd Je U;k;ky; us ;g ik;k Fkk fd NaVuh eqvkotk dk Hkqxrku deZdkj dks ugha fd;k x;k Fkk blfy, lsokeqfDr dk vkns'k fof/klaxr ugha Fkk tcfd izkFkhZ Jh jru flag HkkVh ds ekeys esa NaVuh eqvkotk :-9065@& dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA
24- tgkW rd /kkjk 25 th ds mYya?ku dk iz'u gS ;kfpdk ds izLrj ikWp essa dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ ls dfu"d deZpkjh Jh jktsUnz xqtZj dks lsok esaa cgky j[kk x;k gSA foi{k us tokc esa izLrj ikWp eas Li"V bUdkj fd;k gS] vr% bl rF; dks fl) djus dk Hkkj ;kph ij gS fd jktsUnz xqtZj izkFkhZ ds ckn lsok esa vk;s gS rFkk vc Hkh lsokjr gSA bl fcUnq ij izkFkhZ us dksbZ izys[kh; lk{; ugha izLrqr fd;k gS u gh foi{kh lk{kh ls bl fcUnq ij dksbZ izfrijh{kk dh x;h gSA foi{k us jktsUnz xqtZj uke ds fdlh deZpkjh dh fu;qfDr ds vfLrRo ls gh bUdkj fd;k gSA
25- ;kph ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us U;k;kf/kdj.k dk /;ku 11-7-11 dks vkosnu ds lkFk izLrqr ;wfu;u ds i= fnukad 1-8- 2007 dh rjQ vkd`"V dj ;g cgl dh fd izcU/ku us fu.kZ; fd;k gS fd O;fDrxr pkydksa dks fu;fer dj lc&LVkQ ds :Ik esa fu;qDr fd;k tk;sxkA foi{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us bldk izfrokn fd;k gS fd i= fnukad 1-8-07 ;wfu;u dk i= vius lkfFk;ksa dks gS blls izcU/ku dk dksbZ ljksdkj ugha gS vkSj izcU/ku us ,slk fu.kZ; Hkh ugha fd;k gSA ;gkW bl rF; dk mYys[k egRoiw.kZ gS fd ;kph dh NaVuh fnukad 15-1-07 dks dh x;h ,oa i= fnukad 1-8-07 vFkkZr yxHkx 7 ekg ckn dk gS vr% blls ;kph dks dksbZ ykHk ugha iznku fd;k tk ldrk gSA ;kph us /kkjk 25 ,p ds mYya?ku ds lEcU/k esa Hkh dksbZ lk{; ugha izLrqr fd;k gS u gh ;kfpdk esa mYys[k fd;k gS fd mls gVk;s tkus ds ckn foi{k us fdl O;fDr dks O;fDrxr pkyd ds in ij ;kph dks volj fn;s fcuk fu;qDr fd;k gSA mDr O;k[;k ,oa fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gwWa fd ;kph /kkjk 25 th ,oa /kkjk 25 ,p vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dk mYya?ku fl) djus esa vlQy gSA
26- ;kph us ;kfpdk esa /kkjk 25 ,u ds mYya?ku ds lEcU/k esa mYys[k fd;k gS fd mldk ikyu ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj tokcqytokc esa /kkjk 25 M (25-M) ds lEcU/k esa dgk gS fd mldk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gS ysfdu buds lEcU/k esa dksbZ[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5361 O;k[;kRed mYys[k ugha gS fd fdl izdkj budk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA bu fcUnqvksa ij cgl ds nkSjku Hkh dksbZ cy ugha fn;k x;k vr% bu /kkjkvksa ls lEcfU/kr fcUnq fo:) ;kph fuLrkfjr fd;s tkrs gSA
27- ;kfpdk ds izLrj lkr esa ;kph us foi{k ds fo:) /kkjk 25 (Vh) vuqfpr Je O;ogkj ds mYya?ku dk dFku bl vk/kkj ij izLrqr fd;k gS fd foi{k us dgk gS fd izkFkhZ ds fy, foi{k ds ikl dke ugha gS] ijUrq foi{k dk ;g dFku vlR; gS D;ksafd izkFkhZ **okgu pkyd lg pijklh**dk dk;Z djrk jgk gS rFkk fu;kstu ds ikl pijklh@lans'kokgd dk in fjDr gS rFkk ;kph ls dfu"d lans'kokgdksa dks lsok esa cgky j[kk x;k gS tks /kkjk 25 (Vh) dk mYya?ku gSA foi{k us mDr dFku dk [k.Mu vlR; dFku crkdj bUdkj djrs gq, fd;k gS vkSj dgk gS fd foi{k ds ikl okgu pkyd ds Lohd`r in ugha gS rFkk izkFkhZ ds dfu"Bre~ gksus ds dkj.k mldh NaVuh dh x;h gSA vkxs ;g dgk x;k gS fd **okgu pkyd de pijklh** dk dksbZ in cSad esa ugha gS ,oa izkFkhZ dk ;g dguk xyr gS fd mlls dfu"d pijklh ;k lans'kokgd dk;Z dj jgs gSA ;gakaWa ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd ;kph us lk{; ls u rks ;g rF; lkfcr fd;k gS fd cSad esa **pkyd≶&pijklh** dk dksbZ in gS u gh ;g lkfcr fd;k gS fd pkyd ds fy, fjfDr ds vHkko esa pijklh ds in ij yxk;s tkus dk mls fof/kd vf/kdkj Fkk] vr% vuqfpr Je O;ogkj dk dFku ;kph fl) djus esa vlQy gSA
28- i{kdkjksa ds vfHkopuksa rFkk mlds leFkZu esa iznRr lk{; dh mDr O;k[;k ,oa fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij gwWa fd ;kph bl rF; dks fl) djus esa vlQy gS fd miegkizcU/kd ds tfj;s ;wukbVsM dkeZf'k;y cSad ds izcU/ku }kjk Jh jruflag HkkVh okgu pkyd dks fnuakd 15-1-07 ls lsok ls NaVuh fd;k tkuk vuqfpr ,oa voS/kkfud gSA ;kph fdlh izdkj dk vuqrks"k ikus dk gdnkj ugha gSA ;kph dh ;kfpdk Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; ugha gS ,oa rn~uqlkj [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA iapkV rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA
29- iapkV dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrXkZr izdk'kukFkZ izsf"kr dh tk,A
Hkjr ik.Ms;] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1997.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक
अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 138/1999द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-22012/170/1999-आईआर ;सीएम-IIद्ध]
राजेन्द्र सह, अनुभाग अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2017
S.O. 1997.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 138/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18.08.2017.
[No. L-22012/170/1999-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Sri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. 138 OF 1999
PARTIES :
The management of Chanchi Victoria Area of M/s. BCCL, Burdwan
V/s
Sri Sukdeo Nunia
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the Management : Shri P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate For the Union (Workman) : Mr. Gorachand Chatterjee5362 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated : 11th May, 2012
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub Section (1) AND Sub section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its later No. L-22012/170/99-IR(CM-II) dated 31.8.1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal
SCHEDULE
Whether the action of the management of Chanchi Victoria Area of M/s BCCL in not protecting the wages of Sri Sukdeo Nunia,Auto Fiter is justified ? If not,to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?.
2. Having received the order of the Letter No. L-22012/170/99-IR (CM-II) dt. 31.08.1999 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India,Ministry of Labour,New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 138 of 1999 was registered on 14.09.1999 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said orders notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned,
3. The case of the sponsoring union for the workman Sukhdeo Nunia is that he was appointed as U.G.Loader on 11.12.1985 and posted at Laikdih deep colliery to work. Since the management of C.V.Area was in need of trained Auto Fitter in their area Auto Work Shop,Laikdih, he was transferred to the Auto Work Shop to work as Auto Fitter since 17th September, 1986 as he was found fit for the post due to having experience in the job. He kept on working as Auto Fitter against a permanent vacancy, getting the wages of U.G.loader.At last he was regularized as Auto Fitter as the L/No.7777 dt. 2/21.12.1995 with the initial Basic Pay of Cat.I which was not accepted by him. Later on after long delay & discussion, he was regularized as Auto Fitter Cat. IV with immediate effect as per L/No. 2443 dt. 25/26.10.96,but initial basic pay of Cat.IV (Rs. 70.30)which caused him to suffer monetary loss of Rs. 15.08 per day in the Basic Pay as contrasted with his previous one prior to his regularization in Cat.IV.Thereby the workman was not given Pay protection as considered by the management in the cases of other workman and his contemporaries.So he is entitled to Full Pay Protection of his wages for the period of 31.12.1995 till his regularization in Cat.IV,and his all arrears etc. thereof, as well as his normal promotion like all others fitters thereafter as per the Company's norms.
4. Whereas the case of the management with specific denials is that workman Sukhdeo Nunia on his transfer to Transport Department of Chanch Victoria Area accepted his engagement to work in the said department for repair and maintenance of the Company s various Automobiles as Trainee. As he was Piece-rated worker, he was converted to time rated designation on completion of required number of days in time rate in he year 1955 having the approval of the Competent Authority of Head Quarters, conveyed to him by the Dy.C.P.M.,C.V.Area letter No.7777 dt. 2/4.12.1995, , his basic was fixed in the initial Cat.I as per the exiting Circular of 1995 which was also accepted by him.He was required as Auto Fitter in Cat.IV in the year 1996, and was paid his wages of Cat.IV as fixed as per norms of Pay Protection.
Further the case of the Management is that as per the new circular of the company issued by the GM(MIS), letters dt. 12/13.03.99,the piece-rated U/G Loaders, who have been converted into time rate in the year 1995-96 will be paid basic as per new system of fixation,i.e., SPRA earned at the time of regularization will be added to the initial basic of the approved category and accordingly fitment will be allowed in the approved time- rate Category w.e.f.the date of his regularization/conversion. No financial benefits or arrear on this account will accure or payable..Admittedly,a proposal was already sent to the BCCL H.Qr. for fixation of basic i.e., converted category of Sri Sukhdeo Nunia ,Piece rated underground loader to Time rated Auto Fitter as per conversion Order No.7777 dt. 2/4.12.1995 and refixation of basic in Cat.IV accordingly. It is alleged that the case is already under consideration,so no valid Industrial Dispute exists. The pay Protection of the workman can be given only within the purview of the circular as a policy decision. Promotion etc. are given to a worker concerned as per provision of the cadre scheme after completing the criteria subject to vacancy. The workman is being given requreid relief as per the norms of the Company's so he is not entitled to any relieves except those relieves which are legal, bonafide and justified under the aforesaid circular of the Company.
FINDING WITH THE REASONING
5. In this case,WW I Sukhdeo Nunia (Nonia),the workman for the Union concerned has been examined. But the Management declined to examine any witness on its behalf.
On perusal and consideration of all the materials, oral & documentary, as adduced by the workman, I find the following facts indisputble:
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5363(i) The workman joined as U/G Loader at Laikdih Colliery on 11.12.1985,prior to which he had learnt Auto Mobile Works outside. As, per Note Sheet dt.21.9.96 of the Management (Ext.WI on admission). Sukhdeo Nonia came from Laikdih deep colliery on 17.9.1986,and from that date he was working Auto Fitter. On his applications identical dtt. 20.7.89 and 30.8.95(Ext.W.2 series) and the Manager (Transport) s report (Ext. w.3) about his working as the Auto Fitter for the year 17.8.1986 to 15.3.1990,he got the designation of Auto Fitter, and accordingly he was authorized as an Auto Fitter as per the office order dt.10.1.1993 (Ext. W 2/3) and his conversion in Time Rated Category as per office order dt. 20.12.1995 (Ext. W 2/9).At last, he was regularized as Auto Fitter (T),Cat. I as per the office order dt.25/26.10.1996 (Ext.W 2/7),according to which his basic pay as Auto Fitter Cat.IV was fixed at Rs. 70.3 as per the office order dt.27.1./2.3.97 (Ext. W 2/8).
(ii) Admittedly, the workman had not filed any application for his conversion of piece rated into time rated before the management ,rather it was effected as per the office order of the management in 1996-97 (Vide office Order dt. 20.12.95,Ext. 2/9).
Whereas the management used to pay the workman [piece rated wages for 10-12 years and on his regularization as Time rated worker in Cat.I, it resulted in reduction of his piece rated wages affecting his basic wages as contrasted with those of his colleagues Sukar Gope and Lal Bhadur as well as his Juniors Devendra Pandey, Sham Bihari Singh and R.D.Tiwary who are drawing their wages daily at the rate of Rs. 20-30 more than him, though his service has been 25-26 years till now. So the workman stated that action of the management in deduction of his wages as unjustified, he is entitled to pay protection of the wages due.
6. Mr.P.K.Das,Ld. Advocate for the Management in reference to the Ruling (2011 (128)FLR 458 (The HC) S.B., workman RajRappa Washery of M/s CCL Vs. Employees Raj Rappa Washery of CCL has submitted,as held therein, that in case of the demand of the union for regularization of some worker who continuously worked from 1991 to March 1999,but they failed to establish the same ; so the Award of the Tribunal that the workmen were not entitled to get any relief had no ground to interfere with it.(Para 5)' Further plea of Mr.Das,Ld. Counsel for the Management ,in view of the authority : (2011(128) fLR 928) (SC) (DB) Rajasthan & Others Vs. Daya Lal & Others .as held therein, is that 'Mere continuation of service by a temporary or adhoc or daily wages employee under cover of some interim order of the Court would not confer on him any right to be absorbed into service, as the employee was not working against a sanctioned post, so he is not entitled to claim regularization (Para 8). Since in the instant case the Workman Auto Fitter (T),Cat.I, has been regularized as Auto Fiter IV with immediate effect as the Office Order dt. 26th Oct. 1996 of the Chief Personnel Manager ,C.V./Area,(Ext. 2/7); hence none of the aforesaid authorities holds good with this case.
Viewing the aforesaid fact,it is held /awarded that the action of the management of Chanchi Victoria Area of M/s BCCL in not protecting the wages of Sri Sukdeo Nonia (Nunia),Auto Fitter, is not legally justified. Therefore it is hereby ordered that the workman is entitled to full protection of the wages w.e.f. 26.10.1996 with all consequential benefits after fixation of his basic pay of Auto Fitter Gr. IV as also in accordance with the Pay Revision of NCWA. VII
The Management is directed to implement the award within one month from the date of its receipt after its publication in the Gazette of India. Let an Award be and same is passed as per law. Send the copy of the Award to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer/Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1998.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ओ.एन.
जी.सी. लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार
औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 20/2005द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को
22.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-30012/50/2004-आईआर ;एमद्ध]
राजेश कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2017
S.O. 1998.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour5364 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22.08.2017.
[No. L-30012/50/2004-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 05th July, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 20/2005
The General Manager, ONGC Ltd., Medical Section, Ankleshwar (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
Shri Chandravadan Dhirajsingh Gadariya, Fata Talav, Gadariyawad, Bharuch (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri K.V. Gadhia
For the Second Party :
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 30012/50/2004-IR(M) dated 02.02.2005 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., C.G. Section, Ankleshwar Asset, Ankleshwar in terminating the services of Shri Chandravadan Dhirajsingh Gadariya through its contractor M/s Laxmi Constructions, Surat is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief these workmen are entitled and what other directions are necessary in the matter?"
1. The reference dates back to 02.02.2005. The second party workman submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on 28.03.2006 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 8 on 19.07.2007. The second party also submitted the number of documents vide list Ex. 12 on 15.12.2009. The workman also filed the written deposition Ex. 13 on 15.12.2009 but did not respond since then on number of dates for his cross-examination by the first party no. 1. On 17.05.2016, the legal heirs of the workman through their advocate Shri Afeedwala moved an application Ex. 19 for substituting their names in place of the workman. The said application was allowed on 22.06.2016. Since then the legal heirs of the second party did not come forward to lead evidence.
2. Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the legal heirs of the workman with the observation as under: "the action of the management of ONGC Ltd., C.G. Section, Ankleshwar Asset, Ankleshwar in terminating the services of Shri Chandravadan Dhirajsingh Gadariya through its contractor M/s Laxmi Constructions, Surat is legal, proper and justified."
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 1999.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डी.के. त्रिावेदी एण्ड सन्स मार्बल माइन्स के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5365 केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 119/2006द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो
केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-29012/38/2005-आईआर ;एमद्ध]
राजेश कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2017
S.O. 1999.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 119/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. D.K. Trivedi and Sons Marble Mines and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22.08.2017.
[No. L-29012/38/2005-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 02nd August, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 119/2006
M/s D. Trivedi and Sons Marble Mines, Jaivav, Ambaji, Banaskantha (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
Shri Yeshwantsingh N. Rathod, At Adad, Tah. Danta, Banaskantha (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri J.M.Patel For the Second Party : Shri K.K. Trivedi
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-29012/38/ 2005-IR(M) dated 01.05.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of M/s D.K. Trivedi and Sons Marble Mines, Ambaji in terminating the services of Shri Yeshwantsingh N. Rathod, Assistant Electrician (Wireman) orally with effect from 13.01.2002 without following the provisions of law is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"
1. The reference dates back to 01.05.2006. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 on 12.12.2006 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 9 on 24.07.2008. The case was listed for ex-parte evidence. The second party workman Yeshwantsingh N. Rathod who submitted his affidavit/examination in chief Ex. 10 on 27.11.2008 along with number of documents. Since then the second party workman has been absent, therefore, a fresh notice Ex. 11 was issued to both the parties to appear on 08.03.2011. The second party submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 12 of his advocate Shri K.K. Trivedi on 27.04.2011 but the second party workman did not appear. Again a fresh notice5366 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Ex. 13 was issued to the workman on 05.04.2017 to appear on 18.04.2017. This notice was serviced on the second party workman as the acknowledgement of service Ex. 14 was received but to no result. Thus the affidavit Ex. 10 has no evidentiary value being not tested by way of cross-examination because of the non-appearance of the workman despite repeated notice issued to him. Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case.
2. Thus the reference in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman, is disposed of with the observation as under: "the action of the management of M/s D.K. Trivedi and Sons Marble Mines, Ambaji in terminating the services of Shri Yeshwantsingh N. Rathod, Assistant Electrician (Wireman) orally with effect from 13.01.2002 without following the provisions of law is legal and justified."
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 2000.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार
औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 129/2012द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को
22.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-17011/6/2012-आईआर ;एमद्ध]
राजेश कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2017
S.O. 2000.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 129/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22.08.2017.
[No. L-17011/6/2012-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 03rd August, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 129/2012
1. The Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC of India, E & IR, Ahmedabad Division Office, Jeevan Prakash Building, Tilak Marg, Post Box No. 277, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
2. The General Secretary, Ahmedabad Divisional Insurance Workers Organization, C/o LIC of India Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash Building,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5367 6th Floor, Tilak Road, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) …First Party
V/s
The General Secretary, Insurance Corporation Employees Union, C/o LIC of IndiaDivisional Office, Jeevan Prakash Building, 6th Floor, Tilak Road, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri K.V. Gadhia
For the Second Party : Shri K.R. Mishra
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-17011/6/2012- IR(M) dated 04.09.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of Ahmedabad Division Insurance Workers Organization and Insurance Corporation Employees Union, Ahmedabad for canteen facility at the Divisional office, Ahmedabad similar to other Divisional Zonal, Central and some Branch Offices by the management of Sr. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ahmedabad is legal and justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to?"
1. The reference dates back to 04.09.2012. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 6 on 03.06.2013 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 7 on 27.11.2013. Since then the second party has been absent and has not been leading evidence. After giving dozens of opportunities to lead evidence, on 20.04.2017 a last opportunity in absentia was given to the second party but to no result. Thus it appears that the second party has not been willing to prosecute the case.
2. Therefore, in the absence of the evidence of the second party, the reference is disposed of with the observation as under: "the demand of Ahmedabad Division Insurance Workers Organization and Insurance Corporation Employees Union, Ahmedabad for canteen facility at the Divisional office, Ahmedabad similar to other Divisional Zonal, Central and some Branch Offices by the management of Sr. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ahmedabad is illegal and unjustified."
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 2001.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एयरपोर्ट अथॉरिटी ऑपफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में
केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 304/2004द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो
केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-11012/32/1999-आईआर ;एमद्ध]
राजेश कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2017
S.O. 2001.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 304/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Airport Authority of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22.08.2017.
[No. L-11012/32/1999-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
5368 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 01st August, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 304/2004
The Airport Director, Airport Authority of India, Ahmedabad Airport, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
The General Secretary, Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat, Shram Shakti, P.B. No. 77, Opp. Prabhat Press, Mirjapur Road, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri Naidu Associates
For the Second Party : Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat (Union)
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-11012/32/99- IR(M) dated 29.05.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat, Ahmedabad that the so called arrangement of contracts by which Shri Manubhai Dahyabhai Rathod, Shri Amrutbhai Daahyabhai Makwana, Shri Pravinkumar Ramanlal Makwana and Shri Dineshbhai Dhulabhai Parmar are engaged by the National Airport Authority of India, Ahmedabad is sham and bogus and the concerned workmen are entitled for pay and allowance and other benefits at par with the regular employees of National Airport Authority of India is legal and justified? If yes, then to what relief the concerned persons are entitled?"
1. The reference dates back to 29.05.2000. The second party union Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 along with application for interim relief Ex. 6 on 10.08.2000 and the first party submitted the joint written statement against both the aforesaid documents of the second party on 14.06.2001. The second party also submitted the counter reply Ex. 17 on 25.07.2001. Later, the first party moved an application Ex. 22 for impleading the contractor as first party no. 2, same was disposed of on 01.07.2002 as not pressed by the first party. Similarly, the application Ex. 15 for interim relief was also disposed of as not pressed on 08.07.2002. Since then the second party has been seeking time by way of moving number of applications but to no result.
2. The second party on 14.02.2017 was given last opportunity to lead his evidence on 17.04.2017 for leading evidence but to no result. Despite giving last opportunity, the second party was again given one more opportunity to lead evidence on 01.08.2017 but the second party instead of leading evidence, has failed to appear before the tribunal.
3. Thus it appears that the second party union has not been willing to lead any evidence and to prosecute the case.
4. Thus the reference is disposed of in absence of the evidence of the second party with the observation as under: "the demand of the Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat, Ahmedabad that the so called arrangement of contracts by which Shri Manubhai Dahyabhai Rathod, Shri Amrutbhai Daahyabhai Makwana, Shri Pravinkumar Ramanlal Makwana and Shri Dineshbhai Dhulabhai Parmar are engaged by the National Airport Authority of India, Ahmedabad is sham and bogus and the concerned workmen are entitled for pay and allowance and other benefits at par with the regular employees of National Airport Authority of India is legal and justified."
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5369
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 2002.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डी.के. त्रिावेदी एण्ड सन्स के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार
औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 993/2004द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को
22.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-29012/78/1995-आईआर ;एमद्ध]
राजेश कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2017
S.O. 2002.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 993/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. D.K. Trivedi and Sons and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22.08.2017.
[No. L-29012/78/1995-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 31st July, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 993/2004
The General Manager (Mines), M/s D.K. Trivdei and Sons, P.O. Ambaji, Danta, Banashantha (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
The General Secretary, Gujarat Mines and Minerals Processing Industry Workers Sangathan, 8, Mangaldeep Flats, Near Parikshit Bridge, Gandhi Ashram, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri S.B. Gogia
For the Second Party : Shri D.K. Shah
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-29012/78/95- IR(M) dated 04.01.1996 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of M/s D.K. Trivedi and Sons, in not taking on duties, discontinuing/terminating the services of Shri Kharadi Bharmabhai Manabhai at Quarry No. 1 Zarivav marble Mines, Ambaji, Danta, District Banashantha w.e.f. 06.03.1994 just, valid and legal? If not to what benefits the workman is entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter?"5370 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1. The reference dates back to 04.01.1996. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 alleging that he has been working in the first party organisation since its inception but without any assigning reasons, he was removed on 06.03.1994 without notice, notice/retrenchment pay. Therefore, he has prayed for reinstatement with back wages.
2. The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 4 denying the allegations made in the statement of claim stating that the workman himself resigned on 20.02.1994 and left the service after receiving all the dues. The written statement is enclosed with the necessary documents Ex. 5/1 to 5/3 regarding resignation letter and original vouchers of payment of wages.
3. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues arise:
i. Whether the workman left the service after tendering his resignation?
ii. Whether the services of the workman were terminated illegally?
iii. Whether the workman is entitled for any relief?
4. The burden to prove the aforesaid issues were lying on the workman and in support of his case, the second party union examined Sopliben on behalf of the workman who admitted that her husband had died and her husband himself tendered his resignation voluntarily and received all the legal dues after tendering his resignation.
5. Thus in the light of the aforesaid statement of the wife of the workman, all the issues are decided in negative and therefore, the reference is disposed of with the observation as under: "the action of the management of M/s. D.K. Trivedi and Sons, in not taking on duties, discontinuing/terminating the services of Shri Kharadi Bharmabhai Manabhai at Quarry No. 1 Zarivav marble Mines, Ambaji, Danta, District Banashantha w.e.f. 06.03.1994 just, valid and legal."
6. No relief can be granted.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 2003.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डी.के. त्रिावेदी एण्ड सन्स के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 998/2004द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-29012/79/1995-आईआर ;एमद्ध]
राजेश कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2017
S.O. 2003.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 998/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. D.K. Trivedi and Sons and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22.08.2017.
[No. L-29012/79/1995-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 31st July, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 998/2004
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5371The General Manager (Mines), M/s D.K. Trivdei and Sons, P.O. Ambaji, Danta, Banashantha (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
The General Secretary, Gujarat Mines and Minerals Processing Industry Workers Sangathan, 8, Mangaldeep Flats, Near Parikshit Bridge, Gandhi Ashram, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri S.B. Gogia
For the Second Party : Shri D.K. Shah
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-29012/79/95- IR(M) dated 05.01.1996 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. D.K. Trivedi and Sons, in not taking on duties, discontinuing/terminating the services of Shri Kharadi Amrabhai Manabhai at Quarry No. 1 Zarivav marble Mines, Ambaji, Danta, District Banashantha w.e.f. 09.03.1994 just, valid and legal? If not to what benefits the workman is entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter?"
1. The reference dates back to 05.01.1996. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 5 alleging that he has been working in the first party organisation since its inception but without any assigning reasons, he was removed on 09.03.1994 without notice, notice/retrenchment pay. Therefore, he has prayed for reinstatement with back wages.
2. The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 6 denying the allegations made in the statement of claim stating that the workman himself resigned on 20.02.1994 and left the service after receiving all the due. The written statement is enclosed with the necessary documents Ex. 5/1 to 5/3 regarding resignation letter and original vouchers regarding payment of wages.
3. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues arise:
i. Whether the workman left the service after tendering his resignation?
ii. Whether the services of the workman were terminated illegally?
iii. Whether the workman is entitled for any relief?
4. The burden to prove the aforesaid issues were lying on the workman and in support of his case, the second party union examined the workman namely Kharadi Amrabhai Manabhai who admitted that he himself tendered his resignation voluntarily and received all the legal dues after tendering his resignation.
5. Thus in the light of the aforesaid statement of the workman, all the issues are decided in negative and therefore, the reference is disposed of with the observation as under: "the action of the management of M/s. D.K. Trivedi and Sons, in not taking on duties, discontinuing/terminating the services of Shri Kharadi Amrabhai Manabhai at Quarry No. 1 Zarivav marble Mines, Ambaji, Danta, District Banashantha w.e.f. 09.03.1994 is just, valid and legal."
6. No relief can be granted.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 2004.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डी.के. त्रिावेदी एण्ड सन्स के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार5372 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 999/2004द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को
22.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-29012/77/1995-आईआर ;एमद्ध]
राजेश कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2017
S.O. 2004.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 999/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. D.K. Trivedi and Sons and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22.08.2017.
[No. L-29012/77/1995-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 31st July, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 999/2004
The General Manager (Mines), M/s D.K. Trivdei and Sons, P.O. Ambaji, Danta, Banashantha (Gujarat)
…First Party
V/s
The General Secretary, Gujarat Mines and Minerals Processing Industry Workers Sangathan, 8, Mangaldeep Flats, Near Parikshit Bridge, Gandhi Ashram, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party : Shri S.B. Gogia
For the Second Party : Shri D.K. Shah
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-29012/77/95- IR(M) dated 05.01.1996 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. D.K. Trivedi and Sons, in not taking on duties, discontinuing/terminating the services of Shri Kharadi Ganabhai Badhabhai at Quarry No. 1 Zarivav marble Mines, Ambaji, Danta, District Banashantha w.e.f. 09.03.1994 just, valid and legal? If not to what benefits the workman is entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter?"
1. The reference dates back to 05.01.1996.The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 5 alleging that he has been working in the first party organisation since its inception but without any assigning reasons, he was removed on 09.03.1994 without notice, notice/retrenchment pay. Therefore, he has prayed for reinstatement with back wages.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 53732. The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 6 denying the allegations made in the statement of claim stating that the workman himself resigned on 20.02.1994 and left the service after receiving all the due. The written statement is enclosed with the necessary documents Ex. 5/1 to 5/3 regarding resignation letter and original vouchers regarding payment of wages.
3. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues arise:
i. Whether the workman left the service after tendering his resignation?
ii. Whether the services of the workman were terminated illegally?
iii. Whether the workman is entitled for any relief?
4. The burden to prove the aforesaid issues were lying on the workman and in support of his case, the second party union examined the workman namely Kharadi Ganabhai Badhabhai who admitted that he himself tendered his resignation voluntarily and received all the legal dues after tendering his resignation.
5. Thus in the light of the aforesaid statement of the workman, all the issues are decided in negative and therefore, the reference is disposed of with the observation as under: "the action of the management of M/s. D.K. Trivedi and Sons, in not taking on duties, discontinuing/terminating the services of Shri Kharadi Ganabhai Badhabhai at Quarry No. 1 Zarivav marble Mines, Ambaji, Danta, District Banashantha w.e.f. 09.03.1994 just, valid and legal."
6. No relief can be granted.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 2005.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स सौराष्ट्र सीमेन्ट लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार
औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 1116/2004द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को
22.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-29012/20/1999-आईआर ;एमद्ध]
राजेश कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2017
S.O. 2005.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1116/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22.08.2017.
[No. L-29012/20/1999-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 31st July, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1116/2004
The Director, M/s Saurashtra Cement Ltd., Near Railway Station, PO – Ranavav, Porbandar (Gujarat) – 360560 …First Party5374 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
V/s
Shri Sarkar Jaygopal J., 12, Ranchhod Nagar Society, Opp. 15 Number School, Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360003 …Second Party
For the First Party : Shri P.S. Gogia
For the Second Party :
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-29012/20/99- IR(M) dated 06.07.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Director (Works) of Saurashtra Cement Ltd.,Ranavav, District Porbandar in not giving appointment to Shri Sarkar Jaygopal J., as Diesel Mechanic after completion of his training is just, valid and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and what directions are necessary in the matter?"
1. The reference dates back to 06.07.1999. The second party has submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 on 20.09.1999 alleging that he was appointed as Diesel Mechanic for the period of 2 years training on the monthly wages of Rs. 2000/- by the first party The Director (Works) of Saurashtra Cement Ltd., but his services were terminated on 05.08.1998 without assigning any reason despite the fact that he was assured to be absorbed as a permanent employee after completion of training. Thus the first party backed out from the promise made by way of appointment as Diesel Mechanic. The second party has also submitted the documents Ex. 9/1 to 9/8 namely Interview call letter, appointment letter, letter of extension of training period, certificate issued by opponent, demand notice, reply given to opponent company, reply given by applicant and RPAD acknowledgement.
2. The first party Saurashtra Cement Ltd. by way of written statement Ex. 7 objected to the allegations made in the statement of claim and submitted that the workman had been working as trainee. He was never appointed as regular employee. During the course of training, he represented before the company that he wanted to go for further studies at Rajkot situated Polytechnic School. It is further submitted that the first party asked him to continue his training but he refused to undergo further training. The first party also submitted the number of documents vides Ex. 19/1 to 19/6 more or less the same documents as filed by the second party.
3. On the perusal of the pleadings, the following issues arise:
i. Whether the second party was a workman?
ii. Whether the termination of the second party was illegal?
iii. Whether the workman is entitled for any relief?
4. All the issues are interrelated and therefore, will be disposed of together. The burden of prove of the aforesaid issues were lying on the second party workman. The second party workman in his deposition admitted that he was appointed as a trainee and was getting stipend at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month. He has further admitted that his training period was from 01.08.1995 to 01.08.1997. He has also admitted that as per the terms and conditions of the appointment letter, if his services were not found satisfactory, he may be discontinued by the first party. He has also admitted that despite company's offer to join the company, he did not join. He also admitted that after leaving the first party, he joined a garage as mechanic.
5. The first party submitted the affidavit Ex. 31 of Harash Kumar Sachdav reiterating the averments made in the written statement stating that the second party workman was a trainee on a monthly stipend basis. He never completed 240 days in a year. Due to his unsatisfactory working, his training period was extended for one more year.
6. It is noteworthy that the second party has been absent since the filing of his affidavit on 22.01.2009, therefore, on the basis of the written arguments of the first party, the matter is disposed of. The evidence of both the parties clearly indicates that the second party was an apprentice on monthly stipend basis for a period of 2 years and his services were extended for one more year being his services unsatisfactory. It is also noteworthy that Delhi High Court in management of M/s. Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd. V/s The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal 3rd , 2003 LLR, 401, Delhi, has held that a trade trainee appointed on a monthly stipend basis will not be termed as workman under the Industrial Disputes Act.
7. Thus on the basis of the aforesaid judgement, the second party cannot be called as a workman and as appears from the evidence that he himself left the first party organisation for further study, therefore, he cannot take advantage of his own action.
[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 53758. Thus the action of the Director (Works) of Saurashtra Cement Ltd., Ranavav, District Porbandar in not giving appointment to Shri Sarkar Jaygopal J., as Diesel Mechanic after completion of his training is just, valid and legal and no relief can be granted.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 2006.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स सौराष्ट्र सीमेन्ट लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार
औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 1117/2004द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को
22.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-29012/21/1999-आईआर ;एमद्ध]
राजेश कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2017
S.O. 2006.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1117/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22.08.2017.
[No. L-29012/21/1999-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 31st July, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1117/2004
The Director, M/s Saurashtra Cement Ltd., Near Railway Station, PO – Ranavav, Porbandar (Gujarat) – 360560 …First Party
V/s
Shri Sonraj Nitin, C/o Shri Ishwardan B. Barot, Ramnathpara, Police Line, Quarter No. 104, Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360002 …Second Party
For the First Party : Shri P.S. Gogia
For the Second Party :
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-29012/21/99- IR(M) dated 12.07.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
5376 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Director (Works) of Saurashtra Cement Ltd., Ranavav, District Porbandar not to give appointment to Shri Sonraj Nitin as Diesel Mechanic after completion of his training is just, valid and legal? If not, what directions are necessary in the matter?"
1. The reference dates back to 12.07.1999. The second party has submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 on 20.09.1999 alleging that he was appointed as Diesel Mechanic for the period of 2 years training on the monthly wages of Rs. 2000/- by the first party The Director (Works) of Saurashtra Cement Ltd., but his services were terminated on 05.08.1998 without assigning any reason despite the fact that he was assured to be absorbed as a permanent employee after completion of training. Thus the first party backed out from the promise made by way of appointment as Diesel Mechanic. The second party has also submitted the documents Ex. 9/1 to 9/8 namely Interview call letter, appointment letter, letter of extension of training period, certificate issued by opponent, demand notice, reply given to opponent company, reply given by applicant and RPAD acknowledgement.
2. The first party Saurashtra Cement Ltd. by way of written statement Ex. 7 objected to the allegations made in the statement of claim and submitted that the workman had been working as trainee. He was never appointed as regular employee. During the course of training, he represented before the company that he wanted to go for further studies at Rajkot situated Polytechnic School. It is further submitted that the first party asked him to continue his training but he refused to undergo further training. The first party also submitted the number of documents Ex. 19/1 to 19/6 more or less the same documents as filed by the second party.
3. On the perusal of the pleadings, the following issues arise:
i. Whether the second party was a workman?
ii. Whether the termination of the second party was illegal?
iii. Whether the workman is entitled for any relief?
4. All the issues are interrelated and therefore, will be disposed of together. The burden of prove of the aforesaid issues were lying on the second party workman. The second party workman in his deposition admitted that he was appointed as a trainee and was getting stipend at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month. He has further admitted that his training period was from 01.08.1995 to 01.08.1997. He has also admitted that as per the terms and conditions of the appointment letter, if his services were not found satisfactory, he may be discontinued by the first party. He has also admitted that despite company's offer to join the company, he did not join. He also admitted that after leaving the first party, he joined a garage as mechanic.
5. The first party submitted the affidavit Ex. 31 of Harash Kumar Sachdav reiterating the averments made in the written statement stating that the second party workman was a trainee on a monthly stipend basis. He never completed 240 days in a year. Due to his unsatisfactory working, his training period was extended for one more year.
6. It is noteworthy that the second party has been absent since the filing of his affidavit on 22.01.2009, therefore, on the basis of the written arguments of the first party, the matter is disposed of. The evidence of both the parties clearly indicates that the second party was an apprentice on monthly stipend basis for a period of 2 years and his services were extended for one more year being his services unsatisfactory. It is also noteworthy that Delhi High Court in management of M/s Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd. V/s The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal 3rd , 2003 LLR, 401, Delhi, has held that a trade trainee appointed on a monthly stipend basis will not be termed as workman under the Industrial Disputes Act.
7. Thus on the basis of the aforesaid judgement, the second party cannot be called as a workman and as appears from the evidence that he himself left the first party organisation for further study, therefore, he cannot take advantage of his own action. Thus the action of the Director (Works) of Saurashtra Cement Ltd., Ranavav, District Porbandar not to give appointment to Shri Sonraj Nitin as Diesel Mechanic after completion of his training is just, valid and legal and no relief can be granted.
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 2007.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ओ.एन.
जी.सी. लिमिटेड एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय
सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 1313/2004द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय
सरकार को 22.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-30012/75/2000-आईआर ;एमद्ध]
राजेश कुमार, अवर सचिव[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5377
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2017
S.O. 2007.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1313/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and Other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22.08.2017.
[No. L-30012/75/2000-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 31st July, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1313/2004
1. The Group General Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project, P.O. Bhatpore, Surat (Gujarat) – 394518
2. M/s Sagar Construction, Near Tapi Bridge, Tax Plaza, Kagdaila ONGC Road, Surat (Gujarat) – 394518 …First Party
V/s
Shri Arvind G. Patel, At. Bhatpur, Taluka Choryasi, Surat (Gujarat)
…Second Party
For the First Party :
For the Second Party :
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L- 30012/75/2000-IR(M) dated 05.07.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the contract between the management of ONGC Ltd., Surat and the Contractor M/s Sagar Construction in respect of the contractual workman Shri Arvind G. Patel is sham and bogus contract?"
"Whether the demand of the workman Shri Arvind G. Patel for treating/declaring him as direct and regular/permanent employee of ONGC Ltd. Or from the date of Notification issued by Government of India, prohibiting his alleged employment/work through the contract system is legal and justified? If so, to what relief Shri Arvind G. Patel is entitled and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?"
1. The reference dates back to 05.07.2000. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 4 along with application for interim relief Ex. 6 on 07.11.2000 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 8 on 10.04.2001 along with number of documents vide list Ex. 13. Since then the second party has not been leading evidence.
5378 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]2. The tribunal on 15.02.2017 directed to issue fresh notice to all the parties to appear on 18.04.2017, same was issued but despite the service of the notice on 18.04.2017, someone on behalf of the second party sought time to lead evidence but to no result. Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case.
3. Thus the reference in the absence of the evidence of the second party, is disposed of with the observation as under: "the contract between the management of ONGC Ltd., Surat and the Contractor M/s Sagar Construction in respect of the contractual workman Shri Arvind G. Patel is not sham and bogus contract and the demand of the workman Shri Arvind G. Patel for treating/declaring him as direct and regular/permanent employee of ONGC Ltd. Or from the date of Notification issued by Government of India, prohibiting his alleged employment/work through the contract system is not legal and justified."
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2017
का.आ. 2008.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स ओ.एन.
जी.सी. लिमिटेड एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय
सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 1320/2004द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय
सरकार को 22.08.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-30012/83/2000-आईआर ;एमद्ध]
राजेश कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2017
S.O. 2008.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1320/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Ltd. and Other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22.08.2017.
[No. L-30012/83/2000-IR (M)]
RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
Present :
Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 31st July, 2017
Reference: (CGITA) No. 1320/2004
1. The Group General Manager (P),
ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project, P.O. Bhatpore, Surat (Gujarat) – 394518
2. M/s Sagar Construction, Near Tapi Bridge, Tax Plaza, Kagdaila ONGC Road, Surat (Gujarat) – 394518 …First Party
V/s
Shri Vijay D. Patel, At. Bhatpur, Taluka Choryasi, Surat (Gujarat)
…Second Party[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : अगस्त 26, 2017/भाद्र 4, 1939 5379 For the First Party :
For the Second Party :
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/83/ 2000-IR(M) dated 05.07.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the contract between the management of ONGC Ltd., Surat and the Contractor M/s Sagar Construction in respect of the contractual workman Shri Vijay D. Patel is sham and bogus contract?"
"Whether the demand of the workman Shri Vijay D. Patel for treating/declaring him as direct and regular/permanent employee of ONGC Ltd. Or from the date of Notification issued by Government of India, prohibiting his alleged employment/work through the contract system is legal and justified? If so, to what relief Shri Vijay D. Patel is entitled and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?"
1. The reference dates back to 05.07.2000. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 6 along with application for interim relief Ex. 8 on 07.11.2000 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 10 on 10.04.2001 along with number of documents vide list Ex. 13. Since then the second party has not been leading evidence.
2. The tribunal on 15.02.2017 directed to issue fresh notice to all the parties to appear on 18.04.2017, same was issued but despite the service of the notice on 18.04.2017, someone on behalf of the second party sought time to lead evidence but to no result. Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the case.
3. Thus the reference in the absence of the evidence of the second party, is disposed of with the observation as under: "the contract between the management of ONGC Ltd., Surat and the Contractor M/s Sagar Construction in respect of the contractual workman Shri Vijay D. Patel is not sham and bogus contract and the demand of the workman Shri Vijay D. Patel for treating/declaring him as direct and regular/permanent employee of ONGC Ltd. Or from the date of Notification issued by Government of India, prohibiting his alleged employment/work through the contract system is not legal and justified."
P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.