4913 GI/2017

(5195)

jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05

REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 34]

ubZ fnYyh] vxLr 20—vxLr 26] 2017] '[email protected] 29—Hkkæ 4] 1939

No. 34]

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 20—AUGUST 26, 2017, SATURDAY/ SRAVANA 29—BHADRA 4, 1939

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

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

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

वा

वा य

य

य एवं प रवार क या

एवं प रवार क या

एवं प रवार क याण मंालय

ण मंालय

( वा

( वा य

य

य एवं परवार क या

एवं परवार क या

एवं परवार क याण िवभाग)

ण िवभाग)

नई द ली, 17 अगत, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 1957

1957

1957.—जबक भारतीय आयुवान परषद (संशोधन) अ# यादेश, 2013 क( धारा 3क क( उप-धारा (1)

*ारा +द, शि.य/ का +योग करते 1ए दनांक 5 नवंबर, 2013 को भारतीय आयुवान परषद का पुनग3ठन कया गया

था।

और जबक भारतीय आयुवान अिधिनयम, 1956 (1956 का 102) क( धारा 3 क( उप-धारा (1) के खंड (ख) के

अनुसरण म8 तथा संबंिधत िव: विव;ालय *ारा सूिचत अनुसार क8 >ीय सरकार िन? निलिखत को भारतीय आयुवान परषद

के सद य के @प म8 इस अिधसूचना के जारी होने से पांच वष3 क( अविध के िलए नािमत करती है।

अब, इसिलए, उपयु3E त अिधिनयम क( धारा 3 क( उप-धारा (1) के +ावधान के अनुसरण म8 क8 > सरकार एतFारा

भारत सरकार तG कालीन वा H य मंIालय के दनांक 9 जनवरी, 1960 क( अिधसूचना संK या का.आ. सं.138 म8 िन? न

संशोधन करती है, नामत:

5196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

वा H य एवं परवार क याण मंIालय, भारत सरकार क( दनांक 6 नवंबर, 2013 क( का.आ. 3325 (अ) क(

अिधसूचना तथा इसम8 कए गए संशोधन/ म8 अंितम +िविP के बाद तथा इससे संबंिधत +िविP म8 िन? निलिखत को शािमल

कया जाए, नामत:

Q.सं.

िव: विव;ालय का नाम

नािमत सद य का िववरण

चयन +Qया

48.

वीर कुंवर Rसह िव: विव;ालय,

आरा, िबहार

डॉ. िवजय शंकर Rसह, 0/85, डॉEटस3

कॉलोनी, कंकरबाग, पटना |

िनवरोध िनवा3िचत

[सं. वी-11013/02/2016-एमईपी]

अिमत िबवास, 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 05^th 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 06^th 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.

पेपेपेपेोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय

ोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय

नई दली, 18 अगत, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 1958

1958

1958.—केीय सरकार, पेोिलयम एवं खिनज पाइपलाइन

)

भूिम म" उपयोग के अिधकार का अज%न

(

अिधिनयम

1962

)

1962

का

(

, क& धारा (क) के खंड (2) के अनुसरण म", नीचे दी गई अनुसूची के तंभ 1 म" उिलिखत *ि+ को, उ+

अनुसूची के तंभ 2 म" क& त,थानी .िवि/ म" उिलिखत 0े1 के संबंध मे उ+ अिधिनयम के अधीन स0म .ािधकारी के कृ,य4 का

िनव%हन करने के िलए .ािधकृत करती है, अथा%त :—

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5197

.ािधकारी का नाम और पता

( 1)

अिधका8रता का 0े1

( 2 )

9ी अजय :सह बड़ाईक ( झा. .. से. )

स0म .ािधकारी

इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपBरेशन िलिमटेड

पारादीप हिदया दुगा%पुर एल. पी. जी. पाइपलाइन ऑगम"टेशन एवं

18" हिदया बरौनी .ोडFट पाइपलाइन प8रयोजना

देवघर पैलेस , तीसरा तल , वी आई पी चौक

जसीडीह, देवघर - 814 142 (झारखंड )

झारखंड राGय

यह अिधसूचना जारी होने क& तारीख से लागू होगी |

[फा. सं. आर-25011/14/2012/48578-ओआर-I (पाट%)]

पवन कुमार, 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

( 1)

Area of Jurisdiction

( 2 )

Shri Ajay Singh Baraik,

JAS

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 )

State of 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 दली, 21 अगत, 2017

का.आ.

का.आ. 1959

1959

1959.—केीय सरकार को लोकिहत म" यह आवIयक .तीत होता है क पारादीप (ओिड़शा) से हैदराबाद

(तेलंगाना) तक पेोिलयम उ,पाद4 के प8रवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपBरेशन िलिमटेड के Jारा "पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन"

िबछाई जानी चािहए;

और केीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के .योजन के िलए यह आवIयक .तीत होता है क ऐसी भूिम मे जो इस से

उपाबM अनुसूची म" वNणत है और िजस म" उ+ पाइपलाइन िबछाऐ जाने का .ताव है, उपयोग के अिधकार का अज%न कया जाए;

अत: अब, केीय सरकार, पेोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइस (भूिम म" उपयोग के अिधकार का अज%न) अिधिनयम,1962

(1962 का 50) क& धारा 3 क& उपधारा (1) Jारा .दO शि+य4 का .योग करते Pए, उस भूिम म" उपयोग के अिधकार का अज%न करने

के अपने आशय क& घोषणा करती है;

कोई *ि+, जो उ+ अनुसूची म" वNणत भूिम म" िहतबM है, उस तारीख से िजसको इस अिधसूचना से यु+ भारत के राजप1

क& .ितयाँ साधारण जनता को उपलTध करा दी जाती है, इU&स दन के भीतर भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के िलए उस म"

उपयोग के अिधकार के अज%न के सVबध म" 9ी दलीप कुमार महांित, स0म .ािधकारी, इंिडयन ऑयल कॉपBरेशन िलिमटेड, पारादीप -

हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन प8रयोजना, तृतीय तल, आलोक भारती टावर ,शहीद नगर,भुवनेI वर -751007, ओिड़शा को िलिखत Xप म"

आ0ेप भेज सकेगा I

अनुसूची

गोिड़पड़ा

185/2270

732

743

744

741

742

763

716

716/3092

764

765

715

714

766

713

710/2302

709

705

706

684

तहसील - ओडगाँ

िजला - नयागढ़

राGय -ओिड़शा

गाँव का नाम

Yलॉट नं.

0े1फल

हेFटयर

एयर

वग% मीटर

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5199

685

686

675

676

673

669/2261

670

664/2294

664/2293

650

651

652

653

655

655/2303

609/2431

617

610

610/2857

611

604

602

603

603/2307

577/2239

526

525

524

102

104

104/2954

104/3118

103

103/2278

108

110

5200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

109

121

271

270

270/2619

264

265

262

266

261

258

258/2271

259

255

255/2505

253

254

247

246

246/2390

244

244/2349

245

231

168

224

221

209

208

210

211

205

204

204/2336

जािग8र खइरप8ट

259

258

255

256

253

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5201

252

251

61/948

60/752

19/724

मिझआँख[ड

737

602/1533

606

607

618

608

609

617

611

610

647

646

645

644

640

5202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

641

642

643

651

651/1578

689

690

691

692

693

741

767

767/1608

766

798

807

801

802

803

804

805

823

824

825

826

827

820

821

822

829

460

363

356

357

355

354

353

352

351

340

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5203

368

380

380/1573

380/1583

324

325

323

323/1546

317

398

भािलआिडही

1472

1473/2472

1473

1471

1474

1474/2658

1470

1475

1477

1478

1479

1483

1479/2338

1482

1481

1481/2651

1264

1266

1265

1268

1269

1270

1254

137

136

171

168

166

167

5204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

165

164

163/2449

163

182

183

185

186

196

197

195

198

199

200

206

249

250

255/2339

255

254

244

253/2451

243

239

238

241

240

297

299

232

302

231

301

303

305

306

462

465

466

464

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5205

468

गोलगाँ

1474/2388

1357

1372

1372/2415

1358

1359

1371

1370

1360

1369

1377

1378

1380

1379

1381

1331

1330

1329

1328

1327

1317

1322

1319

1320

1306

1305

1303

1293

1292

1291

1443

1282

1281

1452

1453

1267/2378

1267

1266

5206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1263

1264

1265

1261

1248

1245

1237

1238

1239

1234

1233

1232

धुसुमा

1564

1522/1654

1521

1520

1523

1517

1517/1864

1524

1514/1753

1514

1525

1513

1526/1608

1526

1527/1789

1527/1788

1527

1512/1610

1511

687

688

688/1592

678

686

679

677

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5207

670

673

672

671

674

621

624

622

623

628

619

610

629

609

608/1676

608

608/1677

608/1678

607

566/1653

606

576

573

574

575

572

577

585

578

579

580

581

524

525

523

522

521

िशखर पुर

2711

2710

5208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2709

2704

2708

2707

2722

2706

2686

2686/4884

2683

2688

2687

2672

2668

2664

2665

921/4240

921

912

909

909/4388

910

910/4652

910/4842

911

911/4902

915

917

917/4392

837

838

836

838/4386

841

842

843

843/4387

846

851

856

854

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5209

855

859

817

813

814

815

816

770

771

770/4272

772

783

782

779

778

777

775

776

776/4362

787

698

560

565

556

556/4661

555

566

553

552/4074

552

551

547

548

2916

545

546

544

544/4898

539

2934

5210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2935

538/4267

2936

2950

2949

2951

2952

2954

2955

2956

2956/4782

2957

2966

2965

2970

2972/4270

2971/4250

2972/4151

2973

2972

2984

2985

3008

3009

3020

3010

3019

3019/4834

3019/4835

3018

असुरढपा

633

633/1321

634

641

644

643

646

645

649

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5211

650

648

683

684

685

682

679

678

680

677

676

675

669

670

673

671

662

661

750

759

758

805

804

806

814

808

809

815

798

798/1323

816

817

877/1232

ह8रहरपुर

2136/2162

2022

2023

2021

1873

1874

5212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1875

1867

1859

1860

1861

1862

1850

1850/2620

1853

1847

1846

1854

1854/2669

1855

1844

1720

984

985

986

987

983

983/2550

983/2562

983/2593

983/2594

983/2769

998

999

1002

1001

1001/2380

923

924

920

924/2190

919

919/2657

925

917

909

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5213

910

913

911

912

900

899

898

878/2383

878/2204

878/2384

879

777/2257

877

876

875/2213

1054/2207

875/2214

874/2373

1054/2361

874

874/2372

1060

1065

873

873/2535

1066

872

872/2503

1067/2379

1067

1068

1069

करड़ारघुनाथपुर

707/768

708

721

722

724

725

658

5214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

660

661

664

662

663

643

439

440

436

435

433

432

432/790

394

392

393

364

363

351

350

334

338

339

340

341

321

321/833

321/844

321/845

321/846

321/847

242

240

122

121

118

120

119

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5215

80/737

बड़पुट

629

624

623

622

620

621

619

618

617

647

580

581

569

582

567

564

565

387

386

388

385

382

413

419

418

420

421

357

356

5216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

354/1986

355

426

343

343/1832

339

340

342

341

337

335

334

323

302

303

304

191

195

194

193

184/2044

192

185

184

185/2066

175/1869

176

211

213

214

012/2251

73/1988

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5217

मPिलआ

1058

1059/1405

1061/1403

1061

1072

1070

1069

1067

1068

1052

1035

1036

1036/1662

1040

1042

1043/1414

1043

1041

1043/1413

548/1408

548/1409

548

548/1617

542

543

541/1559

541

438

440

440/1392

444

443

5218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

447

451

452

455

483

481

480

489

479

478

475

477/1461

477

477/1462

468

293

258

259

270

263

259/1525

262

261

260

261/1540

केदुपिल

80/688

निदघोर

2620

2625

2624

2623

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5219

2614

2596

2595

2580

2567

2581

2565

2563

2566

2566/4584

2564

2557

2556

2554

2553

2551

2551/4585

2550

2547

2546

2544

2544/4329

2545

2537

2539

2538

2540

2535

2535/3497

2534

2533

2531

2532

2508

2509

2517

2516

2510

2512

2513

5220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2514

2496

2495

462

462/3762

456

456/4370

456/4484

456/4405

457

453

452

450/3908

450/3909

450

450/4464

449

399

398

397

393

392

380/3832

10.3906

20/3705

20/3704

ओितआ

147

153/661

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5221

154

144

155

143

142

141

127

127/759

140

134

128

133

131

129

130

163

90/761

89/745

रगिड़मड़ा

676

675

607

615

609/749

613

612

611

610

610/835

597

5222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

596

596/802

593

592/757

534

534/823

534/824

533

532

528

528/838

521

527/710

527/711

256

256/808

255

258

254

254/795

254/

260

245/689

261/700

262

263

107

107/814

107/833

124

125

125/763

125/764

126

127

128

135/750

130

131

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5223

132

158

161

160

162

163

164

165

190

191

192/724

193

192

195

197

198

बाउँशगािड़आ

283

279

पिलगुठासािह

173

170

171

172

141

143

142

146

148

120

119

119/255

118

118/257

60/192

113

61/217

112

5224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

50/228

गुठासािह

958

958/1091

1002

959

959/1072

959/1073

960

962

961

964

963

965

991

986

984

560

459

455

454

453

445

451

451/1089

451/1102

452

444

443

442

447

448

449

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5225

441

440

295

438

437

301

301/1106

301/1107

431

430

302

309

308

307

315

316

306

325

324

323

325/1026

322

326

332

347

333

341

342

343

258

257

256

255

244

245

241

कोरिपठा

1342

1318

1330

5226

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1319

1321

1322

1324

1326

1327

1311

1309/1445

1328

1309

1310

580

580/1652

576

575

573

574

541

541/1491

540

542

545

545/1443

1472

1471

529

528

549

527

527/1504

523

524

522

521

518

518/1564

518/1566

477

473

471

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5227

472

421

422

423

424

425

391

389

427

388

388/1616

388/1714

428

387

386

356

सरमरेइसािह

223

566

221

225

234

231

232

233

134

241/541

240

116/539

116/540

116/538

293

294

295

291

291/581

291/583

291/593

296

297

5228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

312

313

316

310

320

320/584

306

321

322

323

324

326

325

कइबलपुर

299

298

298/706

297

296

295

304

305

314

314/794

311

312

309

309/741

309/742

309/743

309/744

308

308/737

308/738

308/739

308/740

253

252

251

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5229

97/709

14/785

23/670

22/757

26/718

26/719

26/720

29/766

29/767

रिबगािड़आ

328

313

320

319

318

315

5230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

316

199

215

215/426

217

218

220

192

191

191/359

191/362

191/414

190

190/360

190/391

188

189

187

179

185

183

कु^मबाकंतरा

1103

1104

1127

1128

1130

1130/2379

1129

1131

1133

1133/2629

1132

1138

2045

2039

2044

2040

2041

2037

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5231

2036

2034

2035

2035/2350

2033

2014

2015

2026

2017

2017/2367

2018

2019

2011

2004

2003

2002

गोदरकणा

46/79

46/80

46/69

23/73

23/83

5232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

28/71

भािलआिड़िह

1254

1253

1253/1434

1252

1249

1250

1248

1244

1245

1247

1247/1483

1246

1194

1143

1143/1534

1144

1147

1142

1142/1533

1141

1148

1149

1140

1105

1152

1154

1153

1104

1100

1101

1099

1099/1511

1098/1422

1098/1423

1097

1095

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5233

873

1098

देओगाँ

583

582

581/1511

581

580

580/1585

580/1529

579

574

576

575

564

568

563

563/1540

563/1565

551

548

547

546

545

544

549

664

534

533

531

532

535

535/1587

530

528

528/1569

529

527

5234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

519/1474

519/1475

519

519/1476

520

521

514

513

488

451

453

449

455

450

448

760

761

759

758

872

766

768

767

771/1442

771

871

772

861

860

773

853

854

859

858

857/1523

835

837

836

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5235

830

832

833

834

832/1595

832/1599

929

945

931

944

937

936

935

932

1032

1031

1030

1029

1028

1027

1053/1432

1055

1054

1433

1057

1056

1058

1063

1062

1066

1073

1078

1077

1074

1076

1251

5236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1252

1254

1248

1247

1253

1246

1247/1496

1245

1244

1240

1241

1228

1290

1225

1292

1291

1295

1296

1302

1301

1303

1306

1307

1310

1309

1308

1309/1532

1313

1317

1314

1316

1315

1319

1324

1323

1325

1326

1327

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5237

कुराल

3817

3818

3953

3952

3981/4601

3995

3994

3996

3993

4000

4002

4001

3999

4014

4004

4013

4013/4953

4005

4012

4011

4006

4007

4010

4038

4035

4034

4091

4091/4805

4092

4097

4096

4096/4860

4096/4489

3164

4102

4105

4243

5238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4242

4106

4240

4238

4237

4225

4224

4223

4218

4162/4391

4162

4162/4590

4162/4730

4590

4164

4168

4169

4207/4412

4175

4198

4178

4179

3063

3062

3061

3058

3055

3056

3024

3025

3053/4423

3026

3027

3028

2997

2968

2968/4773

2968/4307

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5239

2887

2887/4930

2888

2896

2890

2895

2891

2858

2900/4422

2854

2854/5651

2843

2843/4766

2842

2841

2840/4436

2840

2839

2819

2819/5606

2817

2818

2814

2813

2812

2811

2810

2805

2806

2807

2807/4757

2796

2795

हनुमितआ

185

185/1316

185/1315

186/1317

5240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

197

243

242

242/1416

241

242/1218

234

233

233/1391

233/1528

232

232/1512

247

231

252

312

269

268

267

270

270/1412

256

264

265

277

668

668/1478

668/1479

668/1483

667

662/1250

662

662/1364

663

719

717

718

1168

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5241

1168/1543

1167

1166

723

1165

1163/1278

1160

1160/1428

1160/1429

1159

1155

1153

1156

1154

1157

1151

नाउ8रआगोड़ा

471

473

472

470

474

468

467

475

466/605

477/609

466

466/736

456

455

250

158

159

160

161

166

170

5242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

170/718

171

172

170/635

241

185/704

184

185

186

187

188

183

189

192

191

194

126

125

महे_रपुर

[फा. सं. आर-25011/25/2017-ओआर- I (पाट%)]

पवन कुमार, 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;

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5243

Now, 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.

GODIPARA

185/2270

732

743

744

741

742

763

716

716/3092

764

765

715

714

766

713

710/2302

709

705

706

684

685

686

675

676

673

669/2261

670

664/2294

5244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

664/2293

650

651

652

653

655

655/2303

609/2431

617

610

610/2857

611

604

602

603

603/2307

577/2239

526

525

524

102

104

104/2954

104/3118

103

103/2278

108

110

109

121

271

270

270/2619

264

265

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5245

262

266

261

258

258/2271

259

255

255/2505

253

254

247

246

246/2390

244

244/2349

245

231

168

224

221

209

208

210

211

205

204

204/2336

JAGIRIKHAIRPATI

259

258

255

256

253

252

251

5246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

61/948

60/752

19/724

MAJHIAKHAND

737

602/1533

606

607

618

608

609

617

611

610

647

646

645

644

640

641

642

643

651

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5247

651/1578

689

690

691

692

693

741

767

767/1608

766

798

807

801

802

803

804

805

823

824

825

826

827

820

821

822

829

460

363

356

357

355

354

353

352

351

340

368

380

5248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

380/1573

380/1583

324

325

323

323/1546

317

398

BHALIADIHI

1472

1473/2472

1473

1471

1474

1474/2658

1470

1475

1477

1478

1479

1483

1479/2338

1482

1481

1481/2651

1264

1266

1265

1268

1269

1270

1254

137

136

171

168

166

167

165

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5249

164

163/2449

163

182

183

185

186

196

197

195

198

199

200

206

249

250

255/2339

255

254

244

253/2451

243

239

238

241

240

297

299

232

302

231

301

303

305

306

462

465

466

5250

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

464

468

GOLGAN

1474/2388

1357

1372

1372/2415

1358

1359

1371

1370

1360

1369

1377

1378

1380

1379

1381

1331

1330

1329

1328

1327

1317

1322

1319

1320

1306

1305

1303

1293

1292

1291

1443

1282

1281

1452

1453

1267/2378

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5251

1267

1266

1263

1264

1265

1261

1248

1245

1237

1238

1239

1234

1233

1232

DHUSUMA

1564

1522/1654

1521

1520

1523

1517

1517/1864

1524

1514/1753

1514

1525

1513

1526/1608

1526

1527/1789

1527/1788

1527

1512/1610

1511

687

688

688/1592

5252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

678

686

679

677

670

673

672

671

674

621

624

622

623

628

619

610

629

609

608/1676

608

608/1677

608/1678

607

566/1653

606

576

573

574

575

572

577

585

578

579

580

581

524

525

523

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5253

522

521

SIKHAR PUR

2711

2710

2709

2704

2708

2707

2722

2706

2686

2686/4884

2683

2688

2687

2672

2668

2664

2665

921/4240

921

912

909

909/4388

910

910/4652

910/4842

911

911/4902

915

917

917/4392

837

838

836

838/4386

841

5254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

842

843

843/4387

846

851

856

854

855

859

817

813

814

815

816

770

771

770/4272

772

783

782

779

778

777

775

776

776/4362

787

698

560

565

556

556/4661

555

566

553

552/4074

552

551

547

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5255

548

2916

545

546

544

544/4898

539

2934

2935

538/4267

2936

2950

2949

2951

2952

2954

2955

2956

2956/4782

2957

2966

2965

2970

2972/4270

2971/4250

2972/4151

2973

2972

2984

2985

3008

3009

3020

3010

3019

3019/4834

3019/4835

3018

5256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ASURDHIPA

633

633/1321

634

641

644

643

646

645

649

650

648

683

684

685

682

679

678

680

677

676

675

669

670

673

671

662

661

750

759

758

805

804

806

814

808

809

815

798

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5257

798/1323

816

817

877/1232

HARIHARPUR

2136/2162

2022

2023

2021

1873

1874

1875

1867

1859

1860

1861

1862

1850

1850/2620

1853

1847

1846

1854

1854/2669

1855

1844

1720

984

985

986

987

983

983/2550

983/2562

983/2593

983/2594

983/2769

998

5258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

999

1002

1001

1001/2380

923

924

920

924/2190

919

919/2657

925

917

909

910

913

911

912

900

899

898

878/2383

878/2204

878/2384

879

777/2257

877

876

875/2213

1054/2207

875/2214

874/2373

1054/2361

874

874/2372

1060

1065

873

873/2535

1066

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5259

872

872/2503

1067/2379

1067

1068

1069

KARADARAGHUNATHPUR

707/768

708

721

722

724

725

658

660

661

664

662

663

643

439

440

436

435

433

432

432/790

394

392

393

364

363

351

350

334

338

339

340

5260

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

341

321

321/833

321/844

321/845

321/846

321/847

242

240

122

121

118

120

119

80/737

BARPUT

629

624

623

622

620

621

619

618

617

647

580

581

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5261

569

582

567

564

565

387

386

388

385

382

413

419

418

420

421

357

356

354/1986

355

426

343

343/1832

339

340

342

341

337

335

334

323

302

303

304

191

195

194

193

184/2044

5262

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

192

185

184

185/2066

175/1869

176

211

213

214

012/2251

73/1988

MAHULIA

1058

1059/1405

1061/1403

1061

1072

1070

1069

1067

1068

1052

1035

1036

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5263

1036/1662

1040

1042

1043/1414

1043

1041

1043/1413

548/1408

548/1409

548

548/1617

542

543

541/1559

541

438

440

440/1392

444

443

447

451

452

455

483

481

480

489

479

478

475

477/1461

477

477/1462

468

293

258

259

5264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

270

263

259/1525

262

261

260

261/1540

KENDUPALI

80/688

NANDIGHORE

2620

2625

2624

2623

2614

2596

2595

2580

2567

2581

2565

2563

2566

2566/4584

2564

2557

2556

2554

2553

2551

2551/4585

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5265

2550

2547

2546

2544

2544/4329

2545

2537

2539

2538

2540

2535

2535/3497

2534

2533

2531

2532

2508

2509

2517

2516

2510

2512

2513

2514

2496

2495

462

462/3762

456

456/4370

456/4484

456/4405

457

453

452

450/3908

450/3909

450

5266

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

450/4464

449

399

398

397

393

392

380/3832

10.3906

20/3705

20/3704

OSTIA

147

153/661

154

144

155

143

142

141

127

127/759

140

134

128

133

131

129

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5267

130

163

90/761

89/745

RAGARIMARA

676

675

607

615

609/749

613

612

611

610

610/835

597

596

596/802

593

592/757

534

534/823

534/824

533

532

528

528/838

521

5268

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

527/710

527/711

256

256/808

255

258

254

254/795

254/

260

245/689

261/700

262

263

107

107/814

107/833

124

125

125/763

125/764

126

127

128

135/750

130

131

132

158

161

160

162

163

164

165

190

191

192/724

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5269

193

192

195

197

198

BAUNSAGARIA

283

279

PALLIGUNTHASAHI

173

170

171

172

141

143

142

146

148

120

119

119/255

118

118/257

60/192

113

61/217

112

50/228

5270

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

GUNTHASAHI

958

958/1091

1002

959

959/1072

959/1073

960

962

961

964

963

965

991

986

984

560

459

455

454

453

445

451

451/1089

451/1102

452

444

443

442

447

448

449

441

440

295

438

437

301

301/1106

301/1107

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5271

431

430

302

309

308

307

315

316

306

325

324

323

325/1026

322

326

332

347

333

341

342

343

258

257

256

255

244

245

241

KORPITHA

1342

1318

1330

1319

1321

1322

1324

1326

1327

5272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1311

1309/1445

1328

1309

1310

580

580/1652

576

575

573

574

541

541/1491

540

542

545

545/1443

1472

1471

529

528

549

527

527/1504

523

524

522

521

518

518/1564

518/1566

477

473

471

472

421

422

423

424

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5273

425

391

389

427

388

388/1616

388/1714

428

387

386

356

SARMAREISAHI

223

566

221

225

234

231

232

233

134

241/541

240

116/539

116/540

116/538

293

294

295

291

291/581

291/583

291/593

296

297

312

313

316

5274

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

310

320

320/584

306

321

322

323

324

326

325

KAIBALPUR

299

298

298/706

297

296

295

304

305

314

314/794

311

312

309

309/741

309/742

309/743

309/744

308

308/737

308/738

308/739

308/740

253

252

251

97/709

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5275

14/785

23/670

22/757

26/718

26/719

26/720

29/766

29/767

RABIGARIA

328

313

320

319

318

315

5276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

316

199

215

215/426

217

218

220

192

191

191/359

191/362

191/414

190

190/360

190/391

188

189

187

179

185

183

KURUMBANKTARA

1103

1104

1127

1128

1130

1130/2379

1129

1131

1133

1133/2629

1132

1138

2045

2039

2044

2040

2041

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5277

2037

2036

2034

2035

2035/2350

2033

2014

2015

2026

2017

2017/2367

2018

2019

2011

2004

2003

2002

GODARKANA

46/79

46/80

46/69

23/73

23/83

5278

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

28/71

BHALIADIHI

1254

1253

1253/1434

1252

1249

1250

1248

1244

1245

1247

1247/1483

1246

1194

1143

1143/1534

1144

1147

1142

1142/1533

1141

1148

1149

1140

1105

1152

1154

1153

1104

1100

1101

1099

1099/1511

1098/1422

1098/1423

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5279

1097

1095

873

1098

DEOGAN

583

582

581/1511

581

580

580/1585

580/1529

579

574

576

575

564

568

563

563/1540

563/1565

551

548

547

546

545

544

549

664

534

533

531

532

535

535/1587

530

528

528/1569

5280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

529

527

519/1474

519/1475

519

519/1476

520

521

514

513

488

451

453

449

455

450

448

760

761

759

758

872

766

768

767

771/1442

771

871

772

861

860

773

853

854

859

858

857/1523

835

837

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5281

836

830

832

833

834

832/1595

832/1599

929

945

931

944

937

936

935

932

1032

1031

1030

1029

1028

1027

1053/1432

1055

1054

1433

1057

1056

1058

1063

1062

1066

1073

1078

1077

1074

1076

5282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1251

1252

1254

1248

1247

1253

1246

1247/1496

1245

1244

1240

1241

1228

1290

1225

1292

1291

1295

1296

1302

1301

1303

1306

1307

1310

1309

1308

1309/1532

1313

1317

1314

1316

1315

1319

1324

1323

1325

1326

1327

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5283

KURAL

3817

3818

3953

3952

3981/4601

3995

3994

3996

3993

4000

4002

4001

3999

4014

4004

4013

4013/4953

4005

4012

4011

4006

4007

4010

4038

4035

4034

4091

4091/4805

4092

4097

4096

4096/4860

4096/4489

3164

4102

4105

4243

5284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4242

4106

4240

4238

4237

4225

4224

4223

4218

4162/4391

4162

4162/4590

4162/4730

4590

4164

4168

4169

4207/4412

4175

4198

4178

4179

3063

3062

3061

3058

3055

3056

3024

3025

3053/4423

3026

3027

3028

2997

2968

2968/4773

2968/4307

2887

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5285

2887/4930

2888

2896

2890

2895

2891

2858

2900/4422

2854

2854/5651

2843

2843/4766

2842

2841

2840/4436

2840

2839

2819

2819/5606

2817

2818

2814

2813

2812

2811

2810

2805

2806

2807

2807/4757

2796

2795

HANUMANTIA

185

185/1316

185/1315

186/1317

197

5286

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

243

242

242/1416

241

242/1218

234

233

233/1391

233/1528

232

232/1512

247

231

252

312

269

268

267

270

270/1412

256

264

265

277

668

668/1478

668/1479

668/1483

667

662/1250

662

662/1364

663

719

717

718

1168

1168/1543

1167

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5287

1166

723

1165

1163/1278

1160

1160/1428

1160/1429

1159

1155

1153

1156

1154

1157

1151

NAURIAGORA

471

473

472

470

474

468

467

475

466/605

477/609

466

466/736

456

455

250

158

159

160

161

166

170

170/718

171

5288

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

172

170/635

241

185/704

184

185

186

187

188

183

189

192

191

194

126

125

MAHESWARPUR

[F. No. R-25011/25/2017-OR-I (Pt.)]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 21 अग त, 2017

का.

का.आ.

आ.

आ. 1960

1960

1960.—केीय सरकार को लोकिहत म" यह आवIयक .तीत होता है क पंजाब राGय म" गांव : झुिगयां, िजला :

शहीद भगत:सह नगर से िहमाचल .देश के गांव : पेखुबेला, िजला: उना तक पेोिलयम उ,पाद4 के प8रवहन के िलए इंिडयन ऑयल

कापBरेशन िलिमटेड Jारा पीएजेपीएल- उना aांच पाइपलाइन िबछाई जानी चािहए ।

और, केीय सरकार को यह .तीत होता है क ऐसी पाइपलाइन िबछाने के .योजन के िलए ऐसी भूिम िजसके भीतर

पाइपलाइन िबछाई जाने का .ताव है और जो इस अिधसूचना से उपाबM अनुसूची म" वNणत है, के उपयोग के अिधकार का अज%न करना

आवIयक है ।

अतः अब, केीय सरकार, पेोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म" उपयोग के अिधकार का अज%न) अिधिनयम, 1962

(1962 का 50) क& धारा 3 क& उपधारा (1) Jारा .दO शि+य4 का .योग करते Pए उस भूिम म" उपयोग के अिधकार का अज%न करने के

अपने आशय क& घोषणा करती है ।

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5289

कोई *ि+, जो उ+ अनुसूची म" वNणत भूिम से िहतबM है, उ+ अिधिनयम, क& धारा 3 क& उपधारा (1) के अधीन जारी क&

गयी अिधसूचना से यु+ भारत के राजप1 क& .ितयां साधारण जनता को उपलT ध करा दये जाने क& तारीख से इU&स दन4 के भीतर,

उसम" उपयोग के अिधकार का अज%न या भूिम के नीचे पाइपलाइन िबछाए जाने के संबंध म" आ0ेप, िलिखत Xप मे 9ी देवराज शमा%,

स0म .ािधकारी, इंिडयन ऑयल कापBरेशन िलिमटेड (पाइपलाइन .भाग), पीएजेपीएल-उना aांच पाइपलाइन प8रयोजना, 346,

कमला कुंज, डी. सी. कालोनी, उना (िहमाचल .देश)-174303 को कर सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

हरोली

बाथडी

476

1573

1126

1127

1125/4

1125/3

1125/2

1125/1

1124/1

gjksyh

dsyqok

3302/3

3302/2

3302/1

3131

2955

2652

gjksyh

cV dyka

473

679//5/3/1

679//5/3/2

gjksyh

Vgyhoky fupyk

472

621/314

620/314

gjksyh

yyM+h

470

6434

muk

mn;iqj

224

1197/2

1197/1

िजला – उना

राGय –िहमाचल .देश

k. सं.

तहसील का

नाम

गांव का नाम

हदबत नं.

खसरा सं.

0े1फल

हेFटयर

एयर

वग% मीटर

5290

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1243/1141

1242/1141

1158/2

1318/1176

muk

uaxM+k f>dyk

222

2210/1663

2206/1359

1328

2266/515

2267/515

2272/523

2271/523

2207/523

2277/528

2268/522

2269/522

muk

is[kwcsyk

1009

1007

[फा. सं. आर-25011/20/2017-ओआर-I/48705]

पवन कुमार, 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.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5291

SCHEDULE

Haroli

Bathari

476

1523

1126

1127

1125/4

1125/3

1125/2

1125/1

1124/1

Haroli

Keluwa

3302/3

3302/2

3302/1

3131

2955

2652

Haroli

Bat Kalan

473

679// 5/3/1

6769// 5/3/2

Haroli

Tahiwal Nichla

472

621/314

620/314

Una

Laladi

470

6434

Una

Uday pur

224

1197/2

1197/1

1243/1141

1242/1141

1158/2

1318/1176

Una

Nangran Jhikla

222

2210/1663

2206/1359

1328

2266/515

2267/515

2272/523

2271/523

2270/523

2277/528

2268/522

2269/522

Una

Pekhubela

1009

1007

[F. No. R-25011/20/2017-OR-I/48705]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

District - Una

State - Himachal Pradesh

S. No.

Name of

Tehsil

Name of Village

Hadbast No.

Khasara No.

Area

Hectare

Are

Sq. Mtr.

5292

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

उपभोा मामले, खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मंालय

(उपभोा मामले िवभाग)

(भारतीय मानक यूरो

भारतीय मानक यूरो

भारतीय मानक यूरो)

नई दली, 17 अग त, 2017

का

का.आ. . . . 1961

1961

1961.—भारतीय मानक यूरो (माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम 4 के उपिनयम (5) के अनुसरण म' भारतीय

मानक यूरो एतद)ारा अिधसूिचत करता है क िजन लाइस'स0 के िववरण नीचे अनुसूची म' दए गए ह1, वे वीकृत कर दए गए ह1:-

अनुसूची

सं.

लाइस'स सं

वीकृत करने

क6 ितिथ वष9/

माह

लाइस'सधारी का नाम व

पता

भारतीय मानक का शीष9

भा मा सं (भाग/

अनुभाग) : वष9

6500025103

20170417

मेसस9 कप9गम ;वेस

98, बज़ार सडक,

स<यामंगलम - 638401

वण9

एवं

वण9

िम=धातुएं,

आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शु>ता एवं

मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

[सं. सीएमडी/13 : 11]

टी. कलैवाणन, वै?ािनक ‘एफ’ एवं मुख

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

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 दली, 17 अग त, 2017

का

का.आ. . . . 1962

1962

1962.—भारतीय मानक यूरो (माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयमन 5 के उपिविनयमन (6) के अनुसरण म'

भारतीय मानक यूरो एतद)ारा अिधसूिचत करता है क िनB िववरण वाले लाइस'स0 को उनके आगे दशा9ई गई तारीख से रD/ थिगत

कर दया गया है:-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5293

अनुसूची

सं.

लाइस'स सं

सी एम/ एल-

लाइस'सधारी का नाम व पता

थिगत कए गए/ रD कए गए लाइस'स के अंतग9त

वतु/ 3म सEब> भारतीय मानक का शीष9क

रD होने क6

ितिथ

6119055

मेसस9 रमेश हाईटेक पEHस ायवेट

िलिमटड

1040, भारितयार रोड,

पी. एन. पालयम,

कोयEबIूर -641037

IS 9079 : 2002

कृिष एवं जल आपूJत के िलए साफ और ठंडे पानी

के िबजली के मोनोसेट पEप

04/04/2017

[सं. सीएमडी/13 : 13]

टी. कलैवाणन, वै?ािनक ‘एफ’ एवं मुख

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

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 दली, 17 अग त, 2017

का

का.आ. . . . 1963

1963

1963.—भारतीय मानक यूरो (माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम 4 के उपिनयम (5) के अनुसरण म' भारतीय

अनुसूची

सं.

लाइस'स सं

वीकृत करने

क6 ितिथ वष9/

माह

लाइस'सधारी का नाम व पता

भारतीय मानक का शीष9

भा मा सं

(भाग/

अनुभाग) : वष9

6500025204

20170509

मेसस9 गायOी िमनरस

एस एफ सं. 461/1, कालीपालयम,

िवजयमपालयम के राते, वेलामडै

पोट, कोयEबIूर - 641110

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद

िमनरल जल के अलावा)

IS 14543 :

2004

6500025305

20170511

मेसस9 एिलम एPा इंडQीस

110/34, िववेकानRदर सालै,

वेSटुकSटुवलसु कलTटरेट पोट, इरोड

– 638011

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद

िमनरल जल के अलावा)

IS 14543 :

2004

5294

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6500025406

20170512

मेसस9 वी-गाड9 इंडQीस िलिमटड

KK12,KK13,KK14,KK15,

िसपकोट इंडिQयल Uोथ स'टर,

पेVRदुरै, ईरोड - 638052

सौर सपाट पWXका संUाहक –

भाग 1- अपेYाएँ

IS 12933 :

Part 1 :

2003

6590000117

20170516

मेसस9 जे.पी. ;वेलस9

5/9, ई[रन कोिवल Qीट,

इंिडयन ब1क के पास, ितVHपुर -

641604

वण9 एवं वण9 िम=धातुएं,

आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शु>ता

एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 :

2016

6590000218

20170516

मेसस9 जे पी वेिल मािलगै

7-9, ई[रन कोिवल Qीट,

मुिनिसपाल काया9लय के पास,

ितVHपुर - 641604

वण9 एवं वण9 िम=धातुएं,

आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शु>ता

एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 :

2016

6500025507

20170517

मेसस9 \लोबल िमनरस

सं. 254, िवरHपमपालयम बै-पास,

िवलरसमपXी, ईरोड - 638107

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद

िमनरल जल के अलावा)

IS 14543 :

2004

6590000412

20170522

मेसस9 जे पी वेिल मािलगै

7-9, ई[रन कोिवल Qीट,

मुिनिसपाल काया9लय के पास,

ितVHपुर - 641604

चाँदी एवं चाँदी िम=धातुएं,

आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शु>ता

एवं मुहरांकन

IS 2112 :

2014

6590000311

20170522

मेसस9 पी पी पी ;वेलरी

17, पोन Qीट,

ईरोड - 638001

वण9 एवं वण9 िम=धातुएं,

आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शु>ता

एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 :

2016

6500025608

20170523

मेसस9 डी एम एफ पEHस

सं.125, दिYण सडक नं. 4,

आवारमपालयम, गणपित,

कोयEबIूर - 641006

गहरे कु] के िलए िनEमजनीय

पEपसेट

IS 14220 :

1994

10.

6500025709

20170523

मेसस9 ए जी एन िसम'ट इंडQीस

एस एफ सं. 708, ितSटुपारैतोXम,

कुलRदै गौRडनवलसु, अिवनािशपालय

पोट, कांगयम, ितVHपुर - 638701

पोट9लेRड पॉ`जालाना िसम'ट-

भाग 1- aलै एश आधाWरत

IS 1489 :

Part 1 :

1991

11.

6590000513

20170530

मेसस9 भरणी ;वेलस9

166, कॉवेरी रोड,

ईरोड - 638003

वण9 एवं वण9 िम=धातुएं,

आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शु>ता

एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 :

2016

[सं. सीएमडी/13 : 11]

टी. कलैवाणन, वै?ािनक ‘एफ’ एवं मुख

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:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5295

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No.

Licence No.

Grant

Date

Name and Address (Factory) of the

Party

Title of the Standard

IS No. Part/

Sec. Year

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6590000311

20170522

M/s. PPP Jewellery

17, Ponn Street,

Erode - 638001

Gold

and

Gold

Alloys,

Jewellery/

Artefacts-

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

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’ & Head

5296

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दली, 17 अग त, 2017

का

का.आ. . . . 1964

1964

1964.—भारतीय मानक यूरो (माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयमन 5 के उपिविनयमन (6) के अनुसरण म'

कर दया गया है:-

अनुसूची

सं.

लाइस'स सं

सी एम/ एल-

लाइस'सधारी का नाम व पता

थिगत कए गए/ रD कए गए लाइस'स के

अंतग9त वतु/ 3म सEब> भारतीय मानक

का शीष9क

रD होने क6

ितिथ

6519980

मेसस9 पी पी पी ;वेलरी

सं. 17, पोb Qीट,

ईरोड -638001

IS 1417 : 2016

वण9 एवं वण9 िम=धातुएं, आभूषण/

िश पकारी – शु>ता एवं मुहरांकन

12/05/2017

6500016203

मेसस9 डेकसdे पोली eेfHपग वायर

द. सं. 12, कोवै इंडिQयल पाक9,

कोिवलपालयम पोट,

कोयEबIूर - 641 107

IS 8783 (Part 4/ Sec 3): 1995

िनEमजन मोटर0 के वाइंfडग तार- भाग 4-

अलग अलग तार0 क िविशिg – अनुभाग 3-

पोलीयटर और पोलीोपीलीन सोिधत

वाइंfडग तार

16/05/2017

6880793

मेसस9 कयाण ;वेलस9 इंिडया ायवेट

िलिमटड

166/ 4,5,6, कॉवेरी रोड, कVRगलपालयम,

ईरोड -638003

IS 1417 : 2016

वण9 एवं वण9 िम=धातुएं, आभूषण/

िश पकारी – शु>ता एवं मुहरांकन

19/05/2017

6339675

मेसस9 पैलेट इंडQीस

एस एफ सं. 76-A,9/13-B, पलनीसामी

नायडु कॉलनी, दूसरा सडक, कालापXी रोड,

िसिवल एरॉhॉम पोट, अWरयलूर,

कोयEबIूर -641014

IS 9079 : 2002

कृिष एवं जल आपूJत के िलए साफ और ठंडे

पानी के िबजली के मोनोसेट पEप

24/05/2017

6201848

मेसस9 एस के एस एTससरीस

अiयर तोXम, सुRडकामुतूर रोड,

कुमारापालयम (पोट),

कोयEबIूर -641026

IS 9079 : 2002

कृिष एवं जल आपूJत के िलए साफ और ठंडे

पानी के िबजली के मोनोसेट पEप

25/05/2017

[सं. सीएमडी/13 : 13]

टी. कलैवाणन, वै?ािनक ‘एफ’ एवं मुख

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:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5297

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

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

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

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

6339675

M/s. Pilot Industires

SF No. 76-A,9/13-B, Palanisamy

Naidu Colony, 2^nd 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

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 दली, 17 अग त, 2017

का

का.आ. . . . 1965

1965

1965.—भारतीय मानक यूरो (माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम 4 के उपिनयम (5) के अनुसरण म' भारतीय

अनुसूची

सं.

लाइस'स सं

वीकृत करने

क6 ितिथ वष9/

माह

लाइस'सधारी का नाम व पता

भारतीय मानक का शीष9

भा मा सं

(भाग/

अनुभाग) : वष9

6500025810 20170605

मेसस9 कुRसRस पाइHस ायवेट िलिमटड

एस एफ सं.

458/1,458/2,459/1A,459/2,

वेलमिड, कोयEबIूर -641110

पेय जल पूJत के िलए

असुघिkत पी वी सी पाइप

IS 4985 :

2000

6590000614 20170612

मेसस9 कयाण ;वेलस9 इंिडया िलिमटड

166/4,5,6, एन ए, कॉवेरी रोड,

कVRगलपालयम, ईरोड -638003

वण9 एवं वण9 िम=धातुएं,

आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शु>ता

एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 :

2016

5298

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6500025911 20170612

मेसस9 वVणास हेवRली वाटर

एस एफ सं. 625, लlमी फाEस9,

िसVवािण मुmय रोड, मदुवरायापुरम,

काVnया पोट, कोयEबIूर-641114,

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद

िमनरल जल के अलावा)

IS 14543 :

2004

6500026004 20170614

मेसस9 टेTमो इंडQीस

(पEप िडिवशन III)

एस एफ सं. 323/1, 324/1, 325/2C,

उVमRडमपालयम, वेलैकनर गाँव,

कोयEबIूर- 641029.

गहरे कु] के िलए िनEमजनीय

पEपसेट

IS 14220:

1994

6500026105 20170621

मेसस9 =ी कRदन इंजीिनयoरग

सं. 6, 8^वाँ सडक, धरणी नगर एTट'शन,

गणपितपुदुर, गणपित, कोयEबIूर-

641006

िनEमजनीय पEपसेट

IS 8034:

2002

6590000715 20170621

मेसस9 =ी परमे[री ;वेलस9

31, वेलायुतन Qीट, अिRतयूर,

ईरोड-638501

वण9 एवं वण9 िम=धातुएं,

आभूषण/ िश पकारी – शु>ता

एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 :

2016

6500026307 20170628

मेसस9 ऑरोRज पEHस एnड मोटस9

34, मुगािEबगै नगर, गणपित,

कोयEबIूर- 641 006

साफ, ठंडे पानी के िलए

अपक'qीय पुनV<पादक पEप

IS 8472:

1998

6500026408 20170628

मेसस9 एस जे पEHस

62-B/1, आवारमपालयम, कुलIु

तोXम,

कोयEबIूर-641004.

साफ, ठंडे पानी के िलए

अपक'qीय पुनV<पादक पEप

IS 8472:

1998

6500026206 20170628

मेसस9 आय9न मोटस9 (इंिडया) ायवेट

िलिमटड

एस एफ सं.128/1,

नरिसEमननायकनपालयम, मेटूपालयम

रोड, कोयEबIूर - 641031

िनEमजनीय पEपसेट के िलए

मोटर

IS 9283:

2013

[सं. सीएमडी/13 : 11]

टी. कलैवाणन, वै?ािनक ‘एफ’ एवं मुख

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

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5299

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

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

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

6500026105

20170621

M/s. Sri Kandan Engineering

No. 6, 8^th Street, Dharani Nagar

Extension, Ganapathyputhur,

Ganapathy,

Coimbatore - 641006

Submersible Pumpsets

IS 8034: 2002

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

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

6500026408

20170628

M/s. SJ Pumps,

62-B/1,Avarampalayam,

Kulathu Thottam,

Coimbatore-641004.

Centrifugal Regenerative

Pumps for clear, cold

water

IS 8472: 1998

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’ & Head

5300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दली, 17 अग त, 2017

का

का.आ. . . . 1966

1966

1966.—भारतीय मानक यूरो (माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयमन 5 के उपिविनयमन (6) के अनुसरण म'

कर दया गया है:-

अनुसूची

सं.

लाइस'स सं

सी एम/ एल-

लाइस'सधारी का नाम व पता

थिगत कए गए/ रD कए गए लाइस'स के

अंतग9त वतु/ 3म सEब> भारतीय मानक का

शीष9क

रD होने क6

ितिथ

जून 2017 - शूRय

[सं. सीएमडी/13 : 13]

टी. कलैवाणन, वै?ािनक ‘एफ’ एवं मुख

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 दली, 17 अग त, 2017

का

का.आ. . . . 1967

1967

1967.—भारतीय मानक यूरो (माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम 4 के उपिनयम (5) के अनुसरण म' भारतीय

अनुसूची

सं.

लाइस%स सं

&वीकृत करने

क( ितिथ वष

क( ितिथ वष/ / / /

माह

लाइस%सधारी का नाम व पता

भारतीय मानक का

शीष

भा मा सं

(भाग

(भाग/ / / /

अनुभाग)

अनुभाग) : : : : वष

वष

6500026509

20170711

मेसस9 एस एन इंडQीस

31, अितकुXैतोXम, तोWXपालयम रोड,

िचिbयापालयम (पोट), कोयEबIूर -641062.

साफ, ठंडे पानी के

िलए अपक'qीय

पुनV<पादक पEप

IS 8472:

1998

6500026610

20170711

मेसस9 सी.आ.आई. पEHस ायवेट िलिमटड

यूिनट : रागो इंडQीस

10/150, मसागौRडन चेWXपालयम,

जलकल के िलए लूस

वाव

IS 14846:

2000

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5301

ओरैsालपालयम, कुbIुर पोट, कोयEबIूर -

641107.

6500026812

20170714

मेसस9 एस वी एस िमनरस

250/1, पेWरयाकोEबु तोXम,

नेलुतुरै रोड, आिलयार पोट, पोलाची-

642101

पैकेजबंद पेय जल

(पैकेजबंद िमनरल जल

के अलावा)

IS 14543:

2004

6500026711

20170714

मेसस9 कोवत9ना वाटर यूिनट-2,

3/224-D, अंिडपालयम, कनsमपालयम,

ितVHपुर -641666

पैकेजबंद पेय जल

(पैकेजबंद िमनरल जल

के अलावा)

IS 14543:

2004

6500026905

20170714

मेसस9 जय=ी HलािटTस

241-G, पेtर सडक,

मिण राइस िमल इंडिQयल एटेट,

कुमारापालयम (पोट), कोयEबIूर -641026

पैकेजबंद िमनरल जल

एवं पैकेजबंद पेय जल

को पैक करने के पाO

IS 15410:

2003

6500027006

20170718

मेसस9 कर पEHस =ी अलगु अEमन इंजीिनयoरग

151/1, रामासामी लैऔट सं. 3,

आवारमपालयम, कोयEबIूर-641006

िनEमजनीय पEपसेट

IS 8034:

2002

6590000816

20170718

मेसस9 कुबेरालlमी तंगामािलगै

दरवाजा सं. 29, बं\ला सडक, पेVRदुरै,

ईरोड - 638052

वण9 एवं वण9

िम=धातुएं, आभूषण/

िश पकारी – शु>ता

एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 :

2016

6590000917

20170719

मेसस9 कुबेरालlमी तंगामािलगै

दरवाजा सं. 29, बं\ला सडक, पेVRदुरै,

ईरोड - 638052

चाँदी एवं चाँदी

िम=धातुएं, आभूषण/

िश पकारी – शु>ता

एवं मुहरांकन

IS 2112 :

2014

6500027107

20170724

मेसस9 आर9टेक शीट मेटल फैिuकेशन

16/1, रैनबो इंडिQयल एWरया, िचbावेदमपXी,

गणपित,

कोयEबIूर- 641006.

फायर फाइoटग के

िलए ाथिमक

सहायता नली-रील के

िविनदvश

IS 884:

1985

10.

6590001018

20170728 ^{मेसस9 वJणका ;वेलस9}

साइट सं. 9, एन एस आर रोड,

साई बाबा सॉलनी, कोयEबIूर - 641011

वण9 एवं वण9

िम=धातुएं, आभूषण/

िश पकारी – शु>ता

एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 :

2016

11.

6590001111

20170731 ^{मेसस9 वJणका ;वेलस9}

साइट सं. 9, एन एस आर रोड,

साई बाबा सॉलनी, कोयEबIूर - 641011

चाँदी एवं चाँदी

िम=धातुएं, आभूषण/

िश पकारी – शु>ता

एवं मुहरांकन

IS 2112 :

2014

[सं. सीएमडी/13 : 11]

टी. कलैवाणन, वै?ािनक ‘एफ’ एवं मुख

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

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

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

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

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

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

6500027006

20170718

M/s. Kar Pumps Sri Alazhu Amman

Engineering

151/1, Ramasamy Layout No 3,

Avarampalayam ,Coimbatore-641006

Submersible Pumpsets

IS 8034:

2002

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

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

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5303

नई दली, 21 अग त, 2017

का

का.आ. . . . 1968

1968

1968.—भारतीय मानक यूरो (माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयमन 5 के उपिविनयमन (6) के अनुसरण म'

कर दया गया है:-

अनुसूची

सं.

लाइस'स सं

सी एम/ एल-

लाइस'सधारी का नाम व पता

थिगत कए गए/ रD कए गए लाइस'स के

अंतग9त वतु/ 3म सEब> भारतीय मानक का

शीष9क

रD होने क6

ितिथ

जुलाई 2017 - शूRय

[सं. सीएमडी/13 : 13]

टी. कलैवाणन, वै?ािनक ‘एफ’ एवं मुख

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 दली, 21 अग त, 2017

का

का.आ. . . . 1969

1969

1969.—भारतीय मानक यूरो (माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयमन 5 के उपिविनयमन (6) के अनुसरण म'

कर दया गया है:-

अनुसूची

सं.

लाइस'स सं

सी एम/ एल-

लाइस'सधारी का नाम व पता

थिगत कए गए/ रD कए गए लाइस'स के

अंतग9त वतु/ 3म सEब> भारतीय मानक का

शीष9क

रD होने क6

ितिथ

अग त 2017 - शूRय

[सं. सीएमडी/13 : 13]

टी. कलैवाणन, वै?ािनक ‘एफ’ एवं मुख

5304

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

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1970-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tSV

,vjost bZ- izk- fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1@04 vkWiQ 2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 03-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@27@2004&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

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.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5305

State

Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 7^th July, 2017

AWARD PART-II

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:

¶D;k eS- tSV ,vjost (b-) izk- fyfeVsM ds izc/ra=k }kjk deZdkj Jh 'kehe okbZ- 'ks[k vkfiQl vVs.Ms.V dh lsok,¡ vkns'k

fnukad 25-10-2001 }kjk c[kkZLr fd;k tkuk fof/or mfpr ,oa U;k;laxr gS\ ;fn ugh arks deZdkj fdl jkgr ds ik=k gS\¸

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.

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.

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.

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 issued

5306

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 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 the

5308

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.”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 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

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1971-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MsYVk

,vjykbZUl ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 2@32 vkWiQ 2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 03-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@22@2004&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

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, 6^th 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 29^th 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 \**

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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1972-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,vj

bf.M;k fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k dEiysaV la- ,uVhch&13 vkWiQ 2003) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20013@2@2017&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

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 :

Indian Pilots Guild

Complainant

Vikrant Sansare

Kenneth Khan

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 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 08^thday of June, 2017

AWARD

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.

Accordingly, this complaint is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.

Justice S. V. S. RATHORE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1973-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,vj

bf.M;k fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k dEiysaV la- ,uVhch&11 vkWiQ 2003) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20013@2@2017&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

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 :

Indian Pilots Guild

Complainant

Vikrant Sansare

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 08^thday of June, 2017

AWARD

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.

Accordingly, this complaint is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.

Justice S. V. S. RATHORE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1974-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iou gal

gSfydkiVj fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 2@1 vkWiQ 2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

03-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@48@2015&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 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 ?”

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

ubZ fnYyh] 14 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1975-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,vj

bf.M;k fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 2@31 vkWiQ 2000) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 03-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@123@1999&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

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 12^thMay, 2017

AWARD PART-II

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?”

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.

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.

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 ?

Yes

If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?

What order ?

As per final order

REASONS

Issue No. 1:-

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 has

5316

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.

Breach of law applicable to the establishment

Dishonesty in connection with the employer’s business and,

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

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1976-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 62@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@3@2009&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 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 15^th day of May, 2017

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?”

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.

Management engaged Advocate Dr.Eknath Jyothishi. He has also failed to appear. No Written Statement is filed

by 2^nd party management. Matter is proceeded without Written Statement.

Both parties have failed to participate in reference proceeding therefore no dispute award is passed.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1977-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nsuk cSad

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 41@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@83@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

5318

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 3^rd day of May, 2017

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?”

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.

2^nd party management filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. 2^nd party submits that the term of

reference is illegal as workman was not appointed or terminated by 2^nd party. Order of reference is vague. Period of

employment, nature of work are not shown interference order. 2^nd 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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 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. 2^nd party prays for rejection of claim.

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

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?

In Affirmative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

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.

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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1978-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSUVªy cSad

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 29@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2017

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@14@2005&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

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 Officer

5320

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 16^th day of June, 2017

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?”

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.

Workman died during pendency of reference, his LRs are brought on record.

2^nd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/3 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd 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.

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 Negative

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5321

in terminating the services of Shri Gitendra Chitriv

is legal and justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

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 2^nd 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.

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.

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

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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1979-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 14@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@220@1999&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

5322

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 25^th day of April, 2017

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?”

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.

2^nd party management filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman at Page 10/1 to 10/5. 2^nd 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 2^nd party Bank therefore reference is not tenable. 2^nd 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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 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.

Ist party filed rejoinder reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.

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?

In Negative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

As per final order.

REASONS

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.

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 8^th 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.

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. He

5324

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.

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.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5325

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman within 30 days from the date of notification of award. In

case of default, amount shall carry 9 % interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1980-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wdks cSad

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 57@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@145@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

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,

2^nd Floor, Indore

…Management

AWARD

Passed on this 30^th day of June, 2017

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?”

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.

2^nd 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 for

5326

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.

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

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 12^th

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- 1/3^rd of

scale wages with proportionate annual increment.

Learned counsel for 2^nd 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, 1/3^rd

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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1981-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 96@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@49@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 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 30^th day of June, 2017

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?”

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.

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)]

2^nd party filed Written Statement opposing claim of workman. 2^nd 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. 2^nd 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, 2^nd party submits that reference be answered in its favour. Ist party has filed rejoinder reiterating

contentions in statement of claim.

As per order dated 14-8-2013, enquiry conducted against workman is found legal.

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

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.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5329

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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1982-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nsuk cSad

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 15@2017) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@06@2017&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

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

The General Manager (HRM)

Dena Bank, Dena Corporate Centre,

C-10, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,

Banmdra East, Mumbai.

The General Manager (Field)

Dena Bank, Bank of Baroda Building,

5^th, Floor, Sansad Marg,New Delhi.

The Manager

Dena Bank, Jaipur Zone, UDB Building,

Near Hotel Mango, Govind Marg,

Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur.

AWARD

30.6.2017

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?”

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 02^ND 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.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5331

Shri 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:

The Branch Manager, Dena Bank, MI Road Branch

Incharge CTS Cell, Jaipur.

HRMS Incharge, Jaipur Zone

EDP Incharge, Jaipur Zone: For transfer of CBS User Id to CTS Cell.

The GM (NIO), Dena Bank, New Delhi.

The GM (HRM), Dena Bank Head Office, Mumbai.

Personnel File : Shri Lokesh Mishra, Special Assistant.

(signature illegible)

Dy. Zonal Manager & Disciplinary Authority

Dena Bank, Jaipur Zone.”

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.

Award as above.

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1983-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsujk cSad

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 120@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@34@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

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 Officer

5332

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

The Dy. General Manager,

Canara Bank,

Circle Office

Lucknow

2. The General Manager,

Canara Bank

Head Office

Bangalore

AWARD

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.

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?”

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.

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.

Several annexures have been enclosed alongwith the claim statement.

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 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.

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.

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.

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;

Whether the departmental enquiry conducted by the management was fair & proper?

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:

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.

(2014 (4) SCR 875 SC) Tapash Kumar Paul Vs BSNL & another.

Civil Appeal No.1020 of 2011 decision dated 13.04.2016, Raj Kumar Vs. Director of Education and

Others, Hon’ble Supreme Court.

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:

Tarun Kumar Banerjee Vs State Bank of India, Supreme Court (2000) Judgment dated 19.09.2000.

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)]

(2017) 1 UPLBEC 549(HC) Prem Narain Khanna Vs Central Bank of India & others.

2005 SCC (L&S), 567 Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank Vs Munna Lal Jain.

2005 SCC (L&S) 407 Divisional Controller KSRTC Vs A.T. Mane.

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;

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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 16 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1984-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 60@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@202@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 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 3^rd day of May 2017

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?”

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 2^nd 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.

Management filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/11 opposing claim of workman. 2^nd 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.

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, 2^nd party prays for rejection of the claim.

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)]

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?

In Affirmative

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Workman is not entitled to any relief.

REASONS

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.

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.

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 2^nd 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.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5337

From 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 दली, 18 अग त, 2017

का

का.आ. 1985

1985

1985.—केRqीय सरकार, कम9चारी रा;य बीमा अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 34) क6 धारा 91-क के साथ पWठत

धारा 88 )ारा दI शिdय0 का योग करते wए एतxारा इंिडयन रेअर अथ9 िलिमटेड, रेअर अथ9 िवभाग, उyोगमंडल केरल के

कारखान0/थापना] के िनयिमत कम9चाWरय0 को इस अिधिनयम के वत9न से छूट दान करती है। यह छूट, अिधसूचना जारी होने क6

तारीख से एक वष9 के अविध के िलए लागू रहेगी ।

उd छूट िनBिलिखत शतz के अधीन है; अथा9त्:-

(1) पूव|d थापना िजसम' कम9चारी िनयोिजत ह1, एक रिजटर रखेगी, िजसम' छूट ा} कम9चाWरय0 के नाम और पदनाम

दखाये जाय'गे;

(2)

इस छूट के होते wए भी, कम9चारी उd अिधिनयम के अधीन ऐसी सुिवधाएं ा} करते रह'गे िजनको पाने के िलए वे इस

अिधसूचना )ारा दी गई छूट के वृI होने क6 तारीख से पूव9 संदI अंशदान0 के आधार पर हकदार हो जाते ह1;

(3)

छूट ा} अविध के िलए, यद कोई अिभदाय पहले ही कए जा चुके ह0, तो वे वापस नह~ कए जाएंगे;

(4)

उd कारखाने/थापना का िनयोजक उस अविध क6 बाबत िजसके दौरान उस कारखाने/थापना पर उd अिधिनयम

(िजसे इसम' इसके पात उd अविध कहा गया है) वत9मान था ऐसी िववरिणयां, ऐसे ाtप म' और ऐसी िविशिgय0

सिहत देगा जो कम9चारी रा;य बीमा (साधारण) िविनयम, 1950 के अधीन उसे उd अविध क6 बाबत देनी अपेिYत

होती थ~;

(5)

िनगम )ारा उd कम9चारी रा;य बीमा अिधिनयम क6 धारा 45 क6 उप-धारा (1) के अधीन िनयुd कया गया कोई

िनरीYक या िनगम का इस िनिमI ािधकृत कोई अRय पदधारी;

(i)

धारा 44 क6 उप-धारा (1) के अधीन, उd अविध क6 बाबत दी गई कसी िववरण क6 िविशgय0 को स<यािपत

करने के योजनाथ9; अथवा

(ii)

यह अिभिनित करने के योजनाथ9 क कम9चारी रा;य बीमा (साधारण) िविनयम, 1950 )ारा यथाअपेिYत

रिजटर और अिभलेख उd अविध के िलए रखे गये थे या नह~; या

(iii)

यह अिभिनित करने के योजनाथ9 क कम9चारी, िनयोजक )ारा दये गए उन फायद0 को, िजसके फलवtप

इस अिधसूचना के अधीन छूट दी जा रही है, नकद म' और वतु tप म' पाने का हकदार बना wआ है या नह~; या

(iv)

यह अिभिनित करने के योजनाथ9 क उस अविध के दौरान, जब उd कारखाने के संबंध म' अिधिनयम के

उपबंध वृI थे, ऐसे कRह~ उपबंध0 का अनुपालन कया गया था या नह~, िनBिलिखत काय9 करने के िलए

सशd होगा:-

5338

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(क) धान या आसb िनयोजक से अपेYा करना क वह उसे ऐसी जानकारी दे िजसे उपरोd िनरीYक या

अRय पदधारी आव€यक समझता है ; अथवा

(ख)

ऐसे धान या आसb िनयोजक के अिधभोगाधीन, कसी कारखाने, थापना, काया9लय या अRय पWरसर

म' कसी भी उिचत समय पर वेश करना और उसके भारी से यह अपेYा करना क वह िdय0 के

िनयोजन और मजदूरी के संदाय से संबंिधत ऐसे लेखा, बिहयां और अRय दतावेज, ऐसे िनरीYक या

अRय पदधारी के समY तुत कर' और उनक6 परीYा करने द' या ऐसी जानकारी द' िजसे वे आव€यक

समझते ह1; या

(ग)

धान या आसb िनयोजक क6, उसके अिभकता9 या सेवक क6, या ऐसे कसी िd को, जो ऐसे

कारखाने, थापना, काया9लय या अRय पWरसर म' पाया जाए, यह िव[ास करने का युिdयुd कारण है

क वह कम9चारी है, परीYा करना; या

(घ)

ऐसे कारखाने, थापना, काया9लय या अRय पWरसर म' रखे गए कसी रिजटर, लेखा, बही या अRय

दतावेज क6 नकल तैयार करना या उ>रण लेना;

(ङ)

यथािनधा9Wरत अRय शिdय0 का योग करना ।

(6)

िविनवेश/िनगमीकरण के मामले म', दI छूट वत: रD हो जाएगी और तब नए ित‚ान को छूट हेतु समुिचत सरकार

क6 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.

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 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.

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1986-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 20@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-08-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@127@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

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

None

5340

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?”

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

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1987-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 25@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-08-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@18@2016&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5341

AWARD

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?”

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

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1988-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 31@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-08-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@63@2014&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

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?”

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.

The point involved in the reference is that the workman has been dismissed from his services on the ground of

long absence.

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 .

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

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1989-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 20@2010) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-08-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@97@2009&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 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?

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

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1990-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 19@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-08-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@160@2015&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

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 : Coal

5344

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?”

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.

The point involved in the reference is that the workman has been dismissed from his services on the ground of

long absence.

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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1991-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y

ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 19@2009) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-08-2017

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@14@2009&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 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?

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

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1992-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

bf.M;u vkW;y dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 122@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 18-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@26@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

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-281005

5346

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1993-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

vkbZ,uth Hkfo"; ykbiQ ba';ksjsal da- fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 57@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17012@7@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

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.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5347

AWARD

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.

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?

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.

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.

For the reasons explained above reference is answered in the above terms.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1994-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 125@2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-08-2017

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

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 18^th 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

1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The General Manager

2^nd Party/Respondent

Personnel Administration Department

Indian Overseas Bank, Regional Office

762, Anna Salai

Chennai-600002

5348

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearance :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

Sri C.R. Chandrasekaran, Advocate

For the 2^nd 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether termination of the petitioner from the service of the Respondent is justified?

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5349

(ii)

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

The Points

The petitioner has raised the dispute challenging the order of the Respondent on 20.05.2014 terminating him

from his post as Permanent Messenger.

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.

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.

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 from

5350

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 18^th July, 2017)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri J. Ravikumar

For the 2^nd 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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 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

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1995-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ¯lMhdsV

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 99@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-08-2017 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@35@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

5352

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 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.

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

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.

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)

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 9^th 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. In

5354

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.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5355

15. 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

ubZ fnYyh] 23 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1996-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wdks cSad

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 41@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-08-2017 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@113@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jfo dqekj] MsLd vf/dkjh

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-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 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

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?”

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

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 gksus ds fy, dgk ftlds vuqikyu esa izkFkhZ fnukad 23-12-06 dks lsok esa iqu% lfEefyr

gqvkA

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

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;ogkj

5358

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

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- vkxs 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

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 izfdz;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&lgk;d 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&lg&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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 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&lg&lgk;d LVkQ** ds in ij fu;qDr gksuk crk;k gSA tokcqytokc ds izLrj lkr esa ;kph us okgu pkydksa dks

**pkyd&lg&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; &izR;FkhZx.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 gSA

5360

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 esa dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ ls dfu"d deZpkjh Jh

jktsUnz xqtZj dks lsok esa 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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 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&lg&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

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1997-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la- 138@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-08-2017 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@170@1999&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

jktsUæ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

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 Chatterjee

5362

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Industry : Coal

State : West Bengal

Dated : 11^th 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?.

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,

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 17^th 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.

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

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:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 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.

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.

26^th 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

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1998-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-,u-

th-lh- fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 20@2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

22-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@50@2004&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

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/Labour

5364

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 05^thJuly, 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?”

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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 1999-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Mh-ds-

f=kosnh ,.M lUl ekcZy ekbUl ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5365

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 119@2006) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29012@38@2005&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

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 02^ndAugust, 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?”

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 notice

5366

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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 2000-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Hkkjrh;

thou chek fuxe ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 129@2012) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

22-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17011@6@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

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 03^rdAugust, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 129/2012

The Sr. Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, E & IR,

Ahmedabad Division Office,

Jeevan Prakash Building,

Tilak Marg, Post Box No. 277,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

The General Secretary,

Ahmedabad Divisional

Insurance Workers Organization,

C/o LIC of India Divisional Office,

Jeevan Prakash Building,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5367

6^th 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,

6^th 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?”

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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 2001-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

,;jiksVZ vFkkWfjVh vkWiQ bafM;k ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 304@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@32@1999&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

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 01^stAugust, 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?”

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.

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.

Thus it appears that the second party union has not been willing to lead any evidence and to prosecute the case.

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5369

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 2002-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Mh-ds-

f=kosnh ,.M lUl ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 993@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

22-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29012@78@1995&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

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 31^stJuly, 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)]

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.

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.

On the basis of the pleadings, following issues arise:

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?

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.

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.”

No relief can be granted.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 2003-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Mh-ds-

f=kosnh ,.M lUl ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 998@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

22-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29012@79@1995&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

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 31^stJuly, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 998/2004

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5371

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-29012/79/95-

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?”

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.

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.

On the basis of the pleadings, following issues arise:

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?

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.

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.”

No relief can be granted.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 2004-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Mh-ds-

f=kosnh ,.M lUl ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

5372

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 26, 2017/BHADRA 4, 1939

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 999@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

22-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29012@77@1995&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

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 31^stJuly, 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?”

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.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5373

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.

On the basis of the pleadings, following issues arise:

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?

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.

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.”

No relief can be granted.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 2005-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ lkSjk"Vª

lhesUV fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1116@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

22-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29012@20@1999&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

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 31^stJuly, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1116/2004

The Director,

M/s Saurashtra Cement Ltd.,

Near Railway Station,

PO – Ranavav,

Porbandar (Gujarat) – 360560

…First Party

5374

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?”

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.

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.

On the perusal of the pleadings, the following issues arise:

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?

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.

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.

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 3^rd , 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.

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.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 4] 1939

5375

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

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 2006-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ lkSjk"Vª

lhesUV fyfeVsM ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1117@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

22-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&29012@21@1999&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

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 31^stJuly, 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?”

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.

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.

On the perusal of the pleadings, the following issues arise:

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?

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.

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.

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 3^rd , 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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 2007-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-,u-

th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1313@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 22-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@75@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 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 31^stJuly, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1313/2004

The Group General Manager (P),

ONGC Ltd.,

Hazira Project,

P.O. Bhatpore,

Surat (Gujarat) – 394518

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?”

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)]

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.

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

ubZ fnYyh] 24 vxLr] 2017

dk-vk- 2008-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ vks-,u-

th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1320@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 22-08-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30012@83@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

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 31^stJuly, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1320/2004

The Group General Manager (P),

ONGC Ltd.,

Hazira Project,

P.O. Bhatpore,

Surat (Gujarat) – 394518

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

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 26] 2017@Hkkæ 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?”

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.

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.

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.

RAKESH SUKUL

Digitally signed by RAKESH SUKUL

Date: 2017.09.15 18:48:20 +05'30'