This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ;एनद्ध 04/0007/2003—05 REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

प्राध्किार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक WEEKLY

सं. 7] नई दिल्ली, पफरवरी 11—पफरवरी 17, 2018, शनिवार/माघ 22—माघ 28, 1939

No. 7] NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 11—FEBRUARY 17, 2018, SATURDAY/ MAGHA 22—MAGHA 28, 1939

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके

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

भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड ;iiद्ध

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्राालयों ;रक्षा मंत्राालय को छोड़करद्ध द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविध्कि आदेश और अध्सिूचनाएं

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

वित्त मंत्रालयवित्त मंत्रालयवित्त मंत्रालयवित्त मंत्रालय

((((वित्तीय सेवाएं विभागवित्तीय सेवाएं विभागवित्तीय सेवाएं विभागवित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग))))

नई दिल्ली, 15 फरवरी, 2018

का.आका.आका.आका.आ. 276. 276. 276. 276....————पेंशन निधि विनियामक और विकास प्राधिकरण अधिनियम, 2013 (2013 का 23) की धारा 4 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते (ए, के न्+ीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, ,ी सुप्रतिम बंधोपाध्याय (जन्म ितिथ 17.01.1958) को पदभार 3हण करने की तारीख से पांच वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा 62 वर्ष की आयु पूरी होने तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, इनमें से जो भी पहले हो, पेंशन निधि विनियामक और विकास प्राधिकरण (पीएफआरडीए) में पूर्णकालिक सदस्य (वित्त) के पद पर नियुक्त करती है।

[फा.सं. 190201/1/2014–पीआर]

मुदिता मि,ा, िनदेशक

677 GI/2018

(1493)1494 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2018/MAGHA 28, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 15th February, 2018

S.O. 276.—In exercise of powers conferred by Section 4 of the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 2013 (23 of 2013), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Supratim Bandopadhyay (D.O.B. 17.01.1958) as a Whole-Time Member (Finance) in the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA) for a period of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office, or till the age of 62 years, or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.

[F.No. 190201/1/2014-PR]

MUDITA MISHRA, Director

उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग) (उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग) (उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग) (उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग)

((((भारतीय मानक ब्यूरोभारतीय मानक ब्यूरोभारतीय मानक ब्यूरोभारतीय मानक ब्यूरो))))

नई दिल्ली, 6 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 277277277277....————भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम 4 के उपिनयम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अिधसूिचत करता है कि िजन लाइसेंसों के िववरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

[सं. सीएमडी/13 : 11]

टी. कलैवाणन, वै]ानिक 'जी' एवं प्रमुख[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 17, 2018/माघ 28, 1939 1495

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 6th February, 2018

S.O. 277.—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

[No. CMD/13:11] T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'G' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 6 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 278278278278....————भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम 4 के उपिनयम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अिधसूिचत करता है कि िजन लाइसेंसों के िववरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

[सं. सीएमडी/13 : 11]

टी. कलैवाणन, वै]ानिक 'जी' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 6th February, 2018

S.O. 278.—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

[No. CMD/13:11] T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'G' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 6 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 279279279279....————भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम 4 के उपिनयम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अिधसूिचत करता है कि िजन लाइसेंसों के िववरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

[सं. सीएमडी/13 : 11]

टी. कलैवाणन, वै]ानिक 'जी' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 6th February, 2018

S.O. 279.—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

[No. CMD/13:11] T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'G' & Head1500 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2018/MAGHA 28, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 6 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 280280280280....————भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम 4 के उपिनयम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अिधसूिचत करता है कि िजन लाइसेंसों के िववरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृ त कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

[सं. सीएमडी/13 : 11]

टी. कलैवाणन, वै]ानिक 'जी' एवं प्रमुख1502 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2018/MAGHA 28, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 6th February, 2018

S.O. 280.—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

[No. CMD/13:11]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'G' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 6 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 281281281281....———— भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) िविनयम, 1988 के िविनयम (5) के उपिविनयम (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतxद्वारा अिधसूिचत करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द /स्थिगत कर दिया गया है :-

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

टी. कलैवाणन, वै]ानिक 'जी' एवं प्रमुख1504 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2018/MAGHA 28, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 6th February, 2018

S.O. 281.—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

[No. CMD/13:13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'G' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 6 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 282282282282....———— भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) िविनयम, 1988 के िविनयम (5) के उपिविनयम (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अिधसूिचत करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द /स्थिगत कर दिया गया है :-

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

[सं. सीएमडी/13:13]

टी. कलैवाणन, वै]ानिक 'जी' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 6th February, 2018

S.O. 282.—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

[No. CMD/13:13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'G' & Head[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 17, 2018/माघ 28, 1939 1505

नई दिल्ली, 6 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 283283283283....———— भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) िविनयम, 1988 के िविनयम (5) के उपिविनयम (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत|ारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द /स्थगित कर दिया गया है :-

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

[सं. सीएमडी/13:13]

टी. कलैवाणन, वै]ानिक 'जी' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi, the 6th February, 2018

S.O. 283.—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

[No. CMD/13:13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'G' & Head

नई दिल्ली, 6 फरवरी, 2018

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 284284284284....———— भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) िविनयम, 1988 के िविनयम (5) के उपिविनयम (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतxद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द /स्थिगत कर दिया गया है :-

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

[सं. सीएमडी/13:13]

टी. कलैवाणन, वै]ानिक 'जी' एवं प्रमुख1506 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2018/MAGHA 28, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 6th February, 2018

S.O. 284.—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

[No. CMD/13:13]

T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'G' & Head

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्राालय

नई दिल्ली, 7 पफरवरी, 2018

का.आ. 285.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार महाप्रबंध्क, दूरसंचार जिला, नडियाड ;गुजरातद्ध और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट [संदर्भ ;सीजीआईटीएद्ध संख्या 364/2004] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01.02.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/172/2000-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2018

S.O. 285.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. (CGITA) No. 364/2004] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager, Telecom District, Nadiad (Gujarat) & Other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 01.02.2018.

[No. L-40012/172/2000-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 23rd January, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 364/2004

1. The General Manager,

Telecom District, Nadiad (Gujarat)[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 17, 2018/माघ 28, 1939 1507 2. The Divisional Railway Manager,

D/o Telecom, Anand

…First Party

V/s

Shri Rayajibhai S.Patel, C/o Shri R.C. Pathak, 4, Deeplex Apartment, Nehru Park, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) …Second Party

For the First Party : Shri P.V. Kharsani

For the Second Party : Shri R.C. Pathak

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/172/ 2000–IR(DU) dated 27.12.2000 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 Deptt. of Telecom in terminating the services of Shri Rayajibhai S. Patel w.e.f. 01.11.1994 is fair and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

1. The reference dates back to 27.12.2000. Both the parties were served. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 3 on 11.07.2001 before Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad along with the vakalatpatra Ex. 4 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 6 on 04.10.2005 along with the vakalatpatra Ex. 5 that too before the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad.

2. The second party moved an application Ex. 7 on 17.09.2008 for production of documents by the first party mentioned therein and the first party submitted the reply Ex. 8 on 12.03.2009 stating that the documents are 5 years old, hence weeded out. Thereafter, the second party workman stopped to appear in this tribunal despite knowledge of the reference, therefore, a fresh notice Ex. 9 was sent to both the parties to appear on 28.04.2011. Shri P.V. Kharsani, advocate for the first party and Shri Chintan Gohel, advocate for the second party appeared in furtherance of the notice. On 26.09.2017, both the advocates of the respective parties agreed to dispose of the application Ex. 7 at the time of final argument of the reference. The case was fixed for 21.11.2017 for evidence of the second party. On 21.11.2017 and today on 23.01.2018, the second party failed to lead evidence and Shri Chintan Gohel, advocate for the second party stated in writing that the second party workman has not been in his contact, therefore, unable to lead evidence.

3. Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the reference.

4. Thus the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party with the observation as under: "the action of the Deptt. of Telecom in terminating the services of Shri Rayajibhai S. Patel w.e.f. 01.11.1994 can be said to be fair and justified."

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 पफरवरी, 2018

का.आ. 286.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार जिला इंजीनियर टेलीग्रापफ, भारतीय डाक और टेलीग्रापफ विभाग, जामनगर ;गुजरातद्ध और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब(

नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय,

अहमदाबाद के पंचाट [संदर्भ ;सीजीआईटीएद्ध संख्या 621/2004] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01.02.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/191/1993-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2018

S.O. 286.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. (CGITA) No. 621/2004] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the District Engineer Telegraphs, Indian Post and Telegraphs Department, Jamnagar (Gujarat) & Other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 01.02.2018.

[No. L-40012/191/1993-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director1508 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2018/MAGHA 28, 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 19th January, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 621/2004

1. The District Engineer Telegraphs,

India Post and Telegraphs Department, Jamnagar (Gujarat)

2. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Phones),

Indian Post and Telegraphs Department, Jamnagar (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The President, Saurashtra Employees Union, Umesh Commerical Complex, 213-214, 2nd Floor, Near Chaudhary High School, Rajkot (Gujarat)– 360001

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri B.D. Thakkar

For the Second Party : Shri B.B. Gogia

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/191/93– IR(DU) dated 05.04.1995 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 Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamnagar in terminating the services of Shri Jadeja Amarsinh, Ex-casual labour is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

1. The reference dates back to 05.04.1995. The second party workman submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 on 07.08.1996 while pending the matter in the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot alongwith the vakalatpatra Ex. 4 and documents vide list Ex. 5 on the same day.

2. The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 6 on 07.08.1996 in the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot alongwith the documents vide list Ex. 11. The Industrial Tribunal did not dispose of the reference in the absence of the evidence of the parties.

3. On creation of this tribunal and vide order number Z-22019/6/2007-IR (C-II) dated 19.10.2010 of the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, the reference was transferred to this tribunal, record was received in this tribunal on 02.11.2010. Both the parties appeared in this tribunal but since then the second party did not prefer to lead oral evidence despite giving dozen of opportunities to lead evidence.

4. Today on 19.01.2018, Advocate Kajal L. Kalwani, on behalf of the second party's legal heirs, as the second party has died, informs the tribunal that her legal heirs are not interested to contest the case.

5. Thus the reference is disposed of as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 पफरवरी, 2018

का.आ. 287.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार निदेशक, मूंगपफली रिजर्व निदेशालय, जूनागढ़ ;गुजरातद्ध एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 17, 2018/माघ 28, 1939 1509 निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट [संदर्भ ;सीजीआईटीएद्ध संख्या 68/2014] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19.12.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/36/2014-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2018

S.O. 287.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. (CGITA) No. 68/2014] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director, Directorte of Groundnut Research, Junagadh (Gujarat) and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19.12.2017.

[No. L-42012/36/2014-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 22nd November, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 68/2014

The Director, Directorate of Groundnut Research (DGR), Ivanagar, PB No. 5, Junagadh (Gujarat) – 362001

…First Party

V/s

Smt. Jayaben Bhimabhai Khania and others, Pura Plot, Village Ivanagar, Post – Timbawadi, Junagadh (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri H.R. Raval

For the Second Party : Shri P.C. Chaudhary

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-42012/36/ 2014-IR(DU) dated 21.07.2014 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Directorate of Groundnut Research (DGR), Junagadh in not granting the temporary status to Smt. Jayaben Bhimabhai, Maluben Mujri, Mariyam Husain and Laxmiben Balu, all casual labourers working since last more than 20 years is justified?"

And

"Whether the action of the management of Directorate of Groundnut Research (DGR), Junagadh in not granting the temporary status to Smt. Jayaben Bhimabhai, Maluben Mujri, Mariyam Husain and Laxmiben Balu, casual labourers without acceding monetary benefits is justified? If not, what relief, the applicants are entitled to?"1510 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2018/MAGHA 28, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1. The reference dates back to 21.07.2014. The second party workman submitted the statement of claim Ex. 8 on 25.01.2017 alleging that he has been working with the first party The Director, Directorate of Groundnut Research (DGR),Ivanagar, PB No. 5, Junagadh, since last 24 years as a driver. The first party give an advertisement number 22/15 to the post of Technical T1 driver in a daily newspaper to which the workman applied but the first party vide letter dated 11.03.2016 rejected his application without assigning any reason on administrative ground. The second party workman is educated to the level of B.A.L.L.B. and personally represented against the said rejection vide letter dated 12.01.2015 to Indian Counsel of Agricultural Research, New Delhi hereinafter referred to as "ICAR". The ICAR disposed of his letter vide letter dated 12.05.2015 directing the first party to take decision at local level. The first party represented against the representation of the ICAR but the ICAR did not agree to the letter of the first party. He has further alleged that he represented before the first party for his regularisation of service as his rights were guaranteed under Article 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The first party was having a need of driver and he was serving the first party as driver for last 24 years, therefore, depriving him to regularise him in service amounts to violation of principle of natural justice as well as provisions of Industrial Dispute Act. He has further alleged that he was appointed in the year 1994 as a temporary driver and the first party was initially having 4 vehicles viz. Ambassador, Mahindra Jeep, Tata Sumo and Matador Mini Bus but there were only three sanctioned post of driver. Seeing the quantity of four vehicles and only three sanctioned post of drivers, he was engaged and wages were determined and paid to him as per the Government of India Rules. He has further alleged that he was illegally terminated from service w.e.f. 04.06.2006, therefore, he raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal vide Reference No. 1759/2009 which was decided by way of compromise and he was reinstated along with continuity of service with back wages but the terms of settlement regarding back wages and regularisation on the basis of the ban of recruitment of drivers imposed by the Government of India. He has further alleged that his work is of permanent nature, therefore, his service must be regularised seeing the continuity of service for 24 years. He has relied upon the judgement of Uma Devi and other judgements decided by the apex court. All the documents referred in the statement of claim have also been annexed with the statement of claim.

2. The first party vide his written statement Ex. 9 admitted all the averments made in the statement of claim but submitted that the first party establishment is a Government organisation, thus governed by the rules and regulations framed by Government of India and ICAR. He has not been fulfilling the criteria prescribed by the Government of India for regularisation of service including granting the temporary status. Therefore, the regularisation of the second party workman beyond the scope of the powers of the first party. The first party has also annexed the documents concerning the service of the workman.

3. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues are framed:

i. Whether the action of the management of Directorate of Groundnut Research (DGR), Junagadh in not granting the temporary status to Smt. Jayaben Bhimabhai, Maluben Mujri, Mariyam Husain and Laxmiben Balu, all casual labourers working since last more than 20 years is justified?

ii. Whether the action of the management of Directorate of Groundnut Research (DGR), Junagadh in not granting the temporary status to Smt. Jayaben Bhimabhai, Maluben Mujri, Mariyam Husain and Laxmiben Balu, casual labourers without acceding monetary benefits is justified?

iii. To what relief, if any, the applicants are entitled to?

4. Issue No. i & ii: Both the issues are interrelated, therefore, shall be decided together. To prove his case, the second party workman has submitted the affidavit Ex. 11 reiterating the averments made in the statement of claim Ex. 8 and all the averments are supported with the documents submitted by both the parties. The only question arises as to whether a workman who has served for 24 years in the absence of the rules of Government of India, can be regularised or may be granted temporary status? The workman in his cross-examination has not said anything contrary to the averments made in the statement of claim but he has admitted that initially there were four vehicles and three sanctioned post of drivers and there was a ban by the Government of India to further recruit one more driver. He has also stated that he was recruited through a proper channel of employment exchange. He has also admitted in his cross- examination that out of four vehicles, one vehicle has recently met a major accident. He has also replied that he can wait for his regularisation of service till February, 2018 when one driver out of the three regular drivers will retire. Thus it will be equitable and in consonance of principles of natural justice that the second party workman (driver) who has rendered a long 24 years of service with the first party must be regularised in service, the day on which one driver out of the three regular drivers retires. Both the issues are decided accordingly.

5. Issue No. iii: In the light of the aforesaid findings given in the issues no. i & ii, this issue is decided with a direction to the first party to regularise the services of the second party workman as a permanent employee of the first party organisation w.e.f. 01.03.2018.

6. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 17, 2018/माघ 28, 1939 1511

नई दिल्ली, 7 पफरवरी, 2018

का.आ. 288.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार जिला इंजीनियर, टेलीग्रापफ, दूरसंचार विभाग, जामनगर ;गुजरातद्ध और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके

कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट [संदर्भ ;सीजीआईटीएद्ध संख्या 991/2004] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15.12.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/150/1994-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2018

S.O. 288.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. (CGITA) No. 991/2004] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the District Engineer, Telegraphs, Department of Telecommunication, Jamnagar (Gujarat) & Other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15.12.2017.

[No. L-40012/150/1994-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 01st December, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 991/2004

1. The District Engineer,

Telegraphs, D/o Telecommunication, XMX Jamnagar

2. The SDO,

Telegraphs, D/o Telecommunication, XMX Jamnagar

…First Party

V/s

The President, Saurashtra Employees' Union, Baba Ama, 10/5, Junetien Plot, Swami Tahiliaram Marg, Rajkot (Gujarat)

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri H.R. Raval

For the Second Party : Shri B.B. Gogia

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/150/94- IR(DU) dated 30.11.1995 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 Erst-while department of Telegraphs and New Department of Telecom, through the Telecom District Manager, Jamnagar in discontinuing/terminating or not taking on duties, Shri Jayashankar Trivedi, valid, just and legal? If not, to what benefits the workman is entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter?"1512 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2018/MAGHA 28, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1. The reference dates back to 30.11.1995. Both the parties submitted their statement of claim on 30.07.1996 and written statement on 26.08.1996 respectively. The workman was examined on 30.07.1997 but since then he has been absent for cross-examination. His advocate Kajal L. Kalwani tried to contact the workman but she failed to trace him.

2. Therefore, it appears that the second party workman is not willing to prosecute the case.

3. Thus the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman with the observation as under:" the action of the Erst-while department of Telegraphs and New Department of Telecom, through the Telecom District Manager, Jamnagar in discontinuing/terminating or not taking on duties, Shri Jayashankar Trivedi, is valid, just and legal."

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 पफरवरी, 2018

का.आ. 289.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार निदेशक, मैसर्स ईगल नेत्रा सुरक्षा और कामक सेवाएं, मुंबई और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के

बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट [संदर्भ ;सीजीआईटीएद्ध संख्या 04/2015] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15.12.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42011/124/2014-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2018

S.O. 289.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. (CGITA) No. 04/2015] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director, M/s. Eagle Eye Security and Personnel Services, Mumbai & Other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15.12.2017.

[No. L-42011/124/2014-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 05th December, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No. 04/2015

1. The Director,

M/s Eagle Eye Security and Personnel Services, GF, Manika Apptt., Mahakali Cross Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400093

2. The Regional Director,

Indira Gandhi National Open University, Regional Centre, Village Charrodi, Opp. Nirma University, Sarkhej – Gandhinagar Highway, Ahmedabad

…First Party

V/s

The Joint Secretary, Akhil Gujarat General Mazdoor Sangh, 2nd Floor, Arab Chambers, Opp. Pattarkuva Petrol Pump, Relief Road, Ahmedabad – 380001

…Second Party[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 17, 2018/माघ 28, 1939 1513 For the First Party : Mrs. G. Vijaya Lakshmi

For the Second Party : None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-42011/124/ 2014-IR(DU) dated 09.01.2015 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 union, Akhil Gujarat General Mazdoor Sangh, Ahmedabad to reinstate with full back wages of Shri Mahavirsingh K. Pawar, Jr. Asstt. cum Typist in the establishment of the Regional Director, Indira Gandhi National Open University, Ahmedabad is justified? If so, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

1. The reference dates back to 09.01.2015. Despite the appearance of the first party vide vakalatpatra Ex. 3 on 05.12.2017 of his advocate and service of notice on second party on sometimes prior to 21.05.2015, the second party has failed to submit the statement of claim.

2. Thus it appear that the second party is not willing to prosecute the reference.

3. Thus the reference is disposed of in the absence of the statement of claim of the second party with the observation as under: "the demand of the union, Akhil Gujarat General Mazdoor Sangh, Ahmedabad to reinstate with full back wages of Shri Mahavirsingh K. Pawar, Jr. Asstt. cum Typist in the establishment of the Regional Director, Indira Gandhi National Open University, Ahmedabad is unjustified."

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 पफरवरी, 2018

का.आ. 290.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पोस्ट ऑपिफस के वरिष्ठ अध्ीक्षक, राजकोट ;गुजरातद्ध एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध

में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट [संदर्भ ;सीजीआईटीएद्ध संख्या 633/2004] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15.12.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/196/1994-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2018

S.O. 290.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. (CGITA) No. 633/2004] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Rajkot (Gujarat) and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15.12.2017.

[No. L-40012/196/1994-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 06th December, 20171514 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2018/MAGHA 28, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Reference: (CGITA) No. 633/2004

The Sr. Superintendent of Post Office, Rajkot Division, G.P.O., Rajkot (Gujarat)

…First Party

V/s

The President, Saurashtra Karmachari Sangh, 10/5, Junction Plot, Swami Tehliya Ram Marg, Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001

…Second Party

For the First Party : Shri P.M. Rami

For the Second Party : Shri B.B. Gogia

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/196/94- IR(DU) dated 09.06.1995 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Sr. Supdt. of Post Office, Rajkot Division in terminating Shri R.M. Vanzara, O/s Postman, Bhaktinagar Post Office, Rajkot with effect from 01.02.1991 just, valid and legal? If not, to what benefits the workman is entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter?"

1. The reference dates back to 09.06.1995.The second party workman submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 alleging that he was engaged as Casual Labour by the first party from 19.11.1987 to 31.01.199. He has submitted a table of working days which is reproduced as under:

He has further alleged that he worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year but his services were terminated orally without serving any one's month notice and also without paying retrenchment compensation as required under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, being the precondition in the matter. He has further alleged that the casual labours similarly situated like workman and also engaged after the workman, were retained and allowed to work and inducted them as causal labour under the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad. He has further alleged that the aforesaid action of the first party employer was violative of Section 25 F, G and H of the I.D. Act as well as violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He is still unemployed. Thus he has[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 17, 2018/माघ 28, 1939 1515 prayed for declaring the oral termination order as improper, unjust and illegal and has also prayed for reinstatement with full back wages.

2. The first party employer submitted the written statement Ex. 3 submitting that the reference is time barred having no cause of action. This tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the reference as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 17577/1995 (Civil Appeal No. 3305/1996) wherein the departmental post was declared as Non-Industry. It has been further submitted that the workman has not worked for more than 240 days in any of the calendar years. He was engaged as a substitute of the regular employee as outsider for Piecemeal Leave Arrangement of causal leave and earned leave of the permanent employee for short period and he was always relieved after the expiry of the aforesaid engagement. Therefore, the termination of his service does not arise. There is also no question of oral termination of services as on completion of specific period about engagement as outsider in leave vacancy, the arrangement is automatically discontinued on joining of regular employee who availed leave for the said period. Thus there is no question of violation of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act. It is also submitted that no junior workman to the second party workman was retained as alleged by the second party workman. Thus there was no violation of Section 25 F, G and H of the I.D. Act as well as violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

3. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:

i. Whether the action of the management of Sr. Supdt. Of Post Office, Rajkot Division in terminating Shri R.M. Vanzara, O/s Postman, Bhaktinagar Post Office, Rajkot with effect from 01.02.1991 just, valid and legal?

ii. To what benefits, if any, the workman is entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter?

4. Issue No. i& ii: The burden to prove this issue was lying on the workman who in his examination-in-chief, reiterated the averments made in the statement of claim Ex. 2 and in his cross-examination, he admitted that he was always engaged as postman in a leave vacancy of permanent or regular postman. He has worked for more than 240 day in every calendar year but he has expressed inability to submit the wages slip by which he could have proved of his engaged of more than 240 days in a year. He has admitted that he has no document to prove workman namely Upadhaya, Ramnikbhai and Rajdevbhai, junior to him were permitted to be engaged by the department after his termination as casual labour.

5. The first party examined Abijeet Varinder Singh Patel vide affidavit Ex. 15 who stated that the workman was always engaged in a leave vacancy of a permanent employee. He never worked for more than 240 day in any calendar year on temporary basis. He has not said anything contrary to his examination in chief in his cross-examination.

6. The evidence of both the parties does not establish that the workman has ever worked for more than 240 days in any calendar year as the workman himself failed to submit the wages slips given to him by the department.

7. The advocate for the workman has referred Gujarat State Machines Tools Corporation Ltd., Bhavnagar V/s Deepak J. Desai, 1987 (1) Gujarat Law Reporter 387 Gujarat High Court wherein it has been held that if a temporary worker is employed in a permanent vacancy, will be entitled for benefit of Section 25 H of the I.D. Act. This judgement is not applicable because firstly the workman has failed to prove that he worked for more than 240 days and secondly he was appointed as a substitute in place of leave vacancy of a permanent and regular employee. Thus in the absence of a vacancy of a sanctioned post, no person can be regularised.

8. She has further referred Management of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation V/s M. Boraiah AIR 1983 Supreme Court 1320 wherein it has been held that even discharge of a probationer amounts to retrenchment and requirements of Section 25 F are to be mandatorily followed. This judgement is also not applicable because the workman was neither a probationer nor a workman who have served for more than 240 days.

9. She has further referred Workman of AEIB Corporation V/s Management AEIB Corporation 1985 CJ (SC) 374 wherein the apex court has held that public holidays shall be taken into account for the purpose of reckoning the total number of days actually worked. It is noteworthy that the workman has not submitted sufficient documentary evidence regarding the holidays and actual working days.

10. She has further referred Jasvir Singh V/s State of Haryana 215 Law Suits (SC) 32 wherein the apex court allowed the appeal on the ground that the workman was retrenched after working for more than 240 days without serving the notice and paying the notice pay. The appeal was allowed with cost of Rs. 25000/-. This judgement has no applicability in the present case because the workman has failed to give any evidence regarding working for more than 240 days in any calendar year.

11. She has further referred Harinandan Prasad V/s Employer I/R to Management of FCI 214 Law Suits (SC) 102 wherein the apex court denied the reinstatement being the workman out of service for last 30 years and was granted compensation in lieu of reinstatement and regularisation.

12. She has further referred BSNL V/s Gurumal 213 Law Suits (SC) 1128 wherein the apex court has held that there was no direct evidence for working more than 50 years but as an equity, a compensation of Rs. 300000/- was granted to workman.

13. She has further referred Kalamunddin M. Ansari V/s Government of India 216 AIJEL SC 235138 Gujarat wherein it has been held that the workman has completed 240 days of work. There is no absolute bar of not considering the cases of causal labours / workmen for granting temporary status as per the casual labours (grant of temporary status and regularisation) scheme 1989. It is noteworthy that it is not the case of the workman because that scheme dates back to 1989 and whosoever had been working prior to scheme, was eligible in the scheme for regularisation while the workman in his statement of claim has alleged his engagement from 1984 to 16.10.1990 and he was appointed as a substitute in leave vacancy. Therefore, he ought to have applied in the scheme for regularisation which is not the case of the workman, therefore, at the most, he may be granted some compensation.

14. She has further referred Ajabsingh V/s Sirhind Corporative Marketing cum Processing Services Society Ltd., 1999 Law Suits (SC) 433 wherein the apex court has held that the plea of delay has not been taken in the defence and the discussion of the reference on such ground is unjustified and if the plea of delay is raised, same must be required to be proved.

15. She has further referred Prabhakar V/s Joint Director, Siri Culture Department and others, 215 Law Suits (SC) wherein the apex court has held that the law of limitation does not apply to the proceedings under the I.D. Act as the words, "at any time" used in Section 10 supports that there is no period of limitation in making the order of reference but the appropriate government has to keep in mind as to whether the dispute is still existing or live dispute and has not become a stale claim and if that is so, the reference can be refused. Whether dispute is alive or it has become stale at the time when the workman approached the appropriate Government is an aspect which would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any hard and fast rule regarding the time for making the order of the reference.

16. After considering all the evidences and documentary evidences, the workman has submitted the zerox copies of working days issued by Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Rajkot which does not show that he has ever worked for more than 240 days in any calendar year. This is an admitted case of the parties that the workman was engaged on need basis as postman against the leave vacancy of a regular postman and it is also admitted fact that as and when the regular employee comes back to the office after availing his sanctioned leave, the workman was always relieved.

17. It is a settled law that the regular post in the Government Organisation can only be filled up by a due procedure of recruitment. Thus in the light of the law and evidence, there is no violation of Section 25 F, G and H of the I.D. Act as well as Article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. The workman was admittedly engaged in a leave vacancy. Had there been any permanent vacancy and same had been proved by the workman and had he worked for 240 days in preceding calendar year, the relief could have been considered. Thus this issue is decided in affirmative and against the workman.

18. On the basis of the aforesaid findings of issue no. i, the relief of regularisation cannot be granted.

19. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 पफरवरी, 2018

का.आ. 291.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मुख्य महाप्रबंध्क ;दूरसंचारद्ध, खानपुर ;गुजरातद्ध और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच,

अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट [संदर्भ ;सीजीआईटीएद्ध संख्या 537/2004] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/161/2002-आईआर;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2018

S.O. 291.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. (CGITA) No. 537/2004] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 17, 2018/माघ 28, 1939 1517 to the Chief General Manager (Telecom), Khanpur (Gujarat) & Other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2018.

[No. L-40012/161/2002-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 16th January, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 537/2004

1. The Chief General Manager (Telecom),

Gujarat Circle, BSNL, Khanpur, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

2. The Telecom District Manager,

BSNL, Ganj Market, Palanpur (B.K.) – 385001

…First Party

V/s

The Org. Secretary, The Association of Railway and Post Employees, 15, Shashi Apartment, Nr. Anjali Cinema, Vasna Road, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380007 …Second Party

For the First Party : Shri H.R. Raval

For the Second Party : Shri R.C. Pathak

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/161/ 2002–IR(DU) dated 10.02.2003 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 BSNL (Telecom Department) in terminating the services of Shri Senjiji Sarupji is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief the concern workman is entitled to and what other directions are necessary in the matter?"

1. The reference dates back to 10.02.2003. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 7 on 05.04.2005 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 10 on 22.08.2010.

2. The second party moved an application Ex. 11 for production of documents mentioned therein as alleged to be in the custody of the first party. The first party filed objections Ex. 12 alleging that these documents were too old. The documents are generally preserved for 5 years and therefore, are weeded out and cannot be filed. The said application Ex. 11 was rejected by this tribunal on 19.12.2016. Since then the second party has not been giving evidence despite giving number of last opportunities.

3. Thus it appears that second party union is not willing to prosecute the reference.

4. Thus the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party union with the observation as under: "the action of the management of BSNL (Telecom Department) in terminating the services of Shri Senjiji Sarupji is legal, proper and justified."

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer1518 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2018/MAGHA 28, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 7 पफरवरी, 2018

का.आ. 292.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार महाप्रबंध्क बीएसएनएल, राजकोट ;गुजरातद्ध एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट [संदर्भ ;सीजीआईटीएद्ध संख्या 47/2005] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15.12.2017 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/149/2004-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2018

S.O. 292.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. (CGITA) No. 47/2005] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager, BSNL Rajkot (Gujarat) and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15.12.2017.

[No. L-40012/149/2004-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 01st December, 2017

Reference: (CGITA) No- 47/2005

The General Manager, BSNL, Telecom Department, Loga Nagar, 2nd Floor, Gondal Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) - 360002 …First Party

V/s

The President, Saurashtra Employees' Union, City Shops, 3rd Floor, Opp. Jaganath Police Chowky, Dr.Yagnik Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) …Second Party

For the First Party : Shri H.R. Raval

For the Second Party : Shri B.B. Gogia

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/149/2004- IR(DU) dated 03.05.2005 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 BSNL, Rajkot in terminating the services of Smt. Kasiben M. Kurbia a part time employee w.e.f. 01.04.2004, when the matter is referred to CGIT, Rajkot vide reference no. L-40012/ 15/2004-IR(DU) dated 08.06.2004 for full time engagement is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"

1. The reference dates back to 03.05.2005.Both the parties submitted their statement of claim Ex. 6 on 08.08.2009 and written statement Ex. 9 on 11.02.2009 respectively. The second party suhmitted the affidavit of deposition Ex. 13 on 19.09.2011 but since then the second party workman has been absent for cross- examination. His advocate Kajal L. Kalwani tried to contact the workman but she failed to trace him.

2. Therefore, it appears that the second party workman is not willing to prosecute the case. 3. Thus the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman with the observation as under:" the action of the management of BSNL, Rajkot in terminating the services of Smt. Kasiben M. Kurbia a part time employee w.e.f. 01.04.2004, when the matter is referred to CGIT, Rajkot vide reference no. L-40012/15/2004-IR(DU) dated 08.06.2004 for full time engagement is legal and justified."

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 पफरवरी, 2018

का.आ. 293.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मुख्य पोस्ट मास्टर जनरल, खानपुर ;गुजरातद्धऔर अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में

निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट [संदर्भ ;सीजीआईटीएद्ध संख्या 98/2005] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/12/2003-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2018

S.O. 293.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. (CGITA) No. 98/2005] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chief Post Master General, Khanpur (Gujarat) & Other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2018.

[No. L-40012/12/2003-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present: Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 16th January, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No- 98/2005

1. The Chief Post Master General,

Gujarat Circle, Khanpur, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

2. The Manager,

Returned Letter Office, GPO Compound, Ahmedabad …First Party1520 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2018/MAGHA 28, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] V/s The Org. Secretary, The Association of Railway and Post Employees, 15, Shashi Apartment, Nr. Anjali Cinema, Vasna Road, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380007 …Second Party

For the First Party : Shri P.M. Rami For the Second Party : Shri R.C. Pathak

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/12/2003– IR(DU) dated 18.10.2005 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 Association of Railway and Post Employees, Ahmedabad from the management of Manager, Returned Letter Office of GPO, Ahmedabad for reinstatement of Shri KalubhaiDudhabhaiVaghela with full back wages and continuity of service with all consequential benefits is just and legal? If so, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?"

1. The reference dates back to 18.10.2005.The second party union submitted the statements of claim Ex. 7 and 11 on 27.02.2006 and 16.10.2008 respectively. The first party submitted the written statement Ex. 13 on 07.05.2009.

2. The second party moved an application Ex. 16 for production of documents. In response to the application, the first party instead of filing objections, submitted the documents vide list Ex. 18 on 26.06.2012.

3. The second party submitted the affidavits Ex. 23 and 24 of its workman on 18.01.2014 and 10.02.2017 respectively but neither of the aforesaid witnesses turned up for cross-examination despite giving last opportunity on 01.04.2017, 01.08.2017, 12.09.2017 and 14.11.2017.

Thus it appears that second party union is not willing to prosecute the reference.

4. Thus the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party union with the observation as under: "the demand of the Association of Railway and Post Employees, Ahmedabad from the management of Manager, Returned Letter Office of GPO, Ahmedabad for reinstatement of Shri Kalubhai Dudhabhai Vaghela with full back wages and continuity of service with all consequential benefits is unjust and illegal."

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 पफरवरी, 2018

का.आ. 294.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार, दूरसंचार जिला इंजीनियर, दूरसंचार विभाग, सुरेंद्रनगर एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में

निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट [संदर्भ ;सीजीआईटीएद्ध संख्या 1081/2004] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/186/1996-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2018

S.O. 294.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. (CGITA) No. 1081/2004] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Telecom District Engineer, Telecom Department, Surendranagar and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2018.

[No. L-40012/186/1996-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 17, 2018/माघ 28, 1939 1521

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present:

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 12th January, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No- 1081/2004

The Telecom District Engineer, Telecom Department, Surendranagar – 363001 …First Party

V/s

The President, Saurashtra Employees Union, Umesh Commercial Complex, Officer No. 213 and 214, 2nd Floort, Near Chaudhary High School, Rajkot – 360001 …Second Party

For the First Party : Shri H.R. Raval For the Second Party : Shri B.B. Gogia

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/186/96– IR(DU) dated 04.02.1998 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 Telecom District Manager, Surendranagar in terminating the services of Shri Arjanbhai Punjabhai Dulera is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

1. The reference dates back to 04.02.1998.The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 3 on 27.04.1998 along with number of documents vide list Ex. 6 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 7. The workman was also examined on 15.12.2003 but he failed to appear for cross-examination. Thereafter, the second party was given number of dates for cross-examination till today i.e. 12.01.2018.

2. Today on 12.01.2018, the learned counsel for the second party workman Adv. Kajal L. Kalwani stated that the workman has not been in her contact since long period.

3. Thus it appears that the second party workman is not willing to prosecute the reference. 4. Thus the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party with the observation as under: "the action of the management of Telecom District Manager, Surendranagar in terminating the services of Shri Arjanbhai Punjabhai Dulera is legal and justified."

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 पफरवरी, 2018

का.आ. 295.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार, डाकघर का अध्ीक्षक, सुरेंद्रनगर एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद

में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट [संदर्भ ;सीजीआईटीएद्ध संख्या 48/2014] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/22/2014-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक1522 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2018/MAGHA 28, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2018

S.O. 295.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. (CGITA) No. 48/2014] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Superintendent of Post Officers, Surendranagar and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2018.

[No. L-40012/22/2014-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present….

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 09th January, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No- 48/2014

The Superintendent of Post Offices, Post Offices, Surendranagar Division, Surendranagar (Gujarat) …First Party

V/s

Shri A.K. Nimbark, Ex-GDS/BPM, R/o Vill.MotaAnkewalia, BO – via Dudhrej, Tal.Wadhwan, Surendranagar (Gujarat) …Second Party

For the First Party : Shri P.M. Rami

For the Second Party : Shri Ajay M. Shah

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/22/2014– IR(DU) dated 06.05.2014 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Supdt. Of Post Offices, Surendranagar Division, Surendranagar in terminating the services of Shri A.K. Nimbark, GraminDakSevak Branch Postmaster at MotaAnkevaliya, Dudhrej SO without giving and opportunity is legal and justified? If so, what relief the workman, Shri A.K. Nimbark is entitled to?"

1. The reference dates back to 06.05.2014.After receiving the reference from the appropriate authority on 21.05.2014, notices were issued to all the parties on 10.09.2015, then on 20.06.2016 to appear and submit their statement of claim or written statement as the case may be. Shri A.M. Shah and Shri P.M. Shah submitted his vakalatpatra Ex. 5 on 10.02.2016 and vide applications Ex. 7 & 8, the second party sought time for submitting the statement of claim but he failed to submit the statement of claim despite giving dates on 05.11.2015, 10.02.2016, 13.06.2016, 24.10.2016, 16.01.2017, 06.03.2017, 01.05.2017, 29.05.2017, 27.06.2017, 06.09.2017, 08.11.2017 and 09.01.2018 but to no result and Shri A.M. Shah failed to submit the statement of claim.

2. Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the reference. 3. Thus the reference is disposed of in the absence of the statement of claim of the second party with the observation as under:"the action of the management of Supdt. Of Post Offices, Surendranagar Division,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 17, 2018/माघ 28, 1939 1523 Surendranagar in terminating the services of Shri A.K. Nimbark, Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster at Mota Ankevaliya, Dudhrej SO without giving and opportunity is legal and justified."

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 पफरवरी, 2018

का.आ. 296.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार, वरिष्ठ अध्ीक्षक डाक, वडोदरा ;गुजरातद्ध एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट [संदर्भ ;सीजीआईटीएद्ध संख्या 08/2015] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/91/2014-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2018

S.O.296.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. (CGITA) No. 08/2015] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Senior Superintendent of Posts, Vadodara (Gujarat) and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2018.

[No. L-40012/91/2014-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 09thJanuary, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 08/2015

The Senior Superintendent of Posts, Department of Posts, Western Division, Fatehganj, Vadodara (Gujarat) - 390002 …First Party

V/s

Shri Gopal Kantilala Shah, F/111, Ajitanagar Society, Vibhag – 2, Karelibaugh, Vadodara (Gujarat) - 390022 …Second Party

For the First Party : Shri P.M. Rami

For the Second Party : None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/91/2014– IR(DU) dated 28.01.2015 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 Postal Department in terminating the services of Shri Gopal Kantilal Shah, Postal Assistant w.e.f. 29.10.2012 is legal, proper and just? If not, to what relief the concerned workman Shri Gopal Kantilal Shah is entitled to?"

1. The reference dates back to 28.01.2015. After receiving the reference from the appropriate authority on 09.02.2015, notices were issued to all the parties to submit their statements on 02.05.2017. Neither of the parties responded. Thereafter, all the parties were given time in-absentia to submit their submissions on 30.05.2017, 28.06.2017, 06.09.2017 and 08.11.2017. The second party workman did not submit his statement of claim despite the fact that the first party submitted the vakalatpatra of his advocate Shri P.M. Rami on 08.11.2017. It is noteworthy that the second party workman received the notice on 05.03.2017 but he did not prefer to appear and submit his statement of claim.

2. Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the reference. 3. Thus the reference is disposed of in the absence of the statement of claim of the second party with the observation as under:"the action of the Postal Department in terminating the services of Shri Gopal Kantilal Shah, Postal Assistant w.e.f. 29.10.2012 is legal, proper and just."

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 पफरवरी, 2018

का.आ. 297.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार, स्टेशन निदेशक, काकड़ापार एटॉमिक पावर स्टेशन, सूरत ;गुजरातद्ध एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के

बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट [संदर्भ ;सीजीआईटीएद्ध संख्या 72/2007] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42011/35/2007-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2018

S.O. 297.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. (CGITA) No. 72/2007] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Station Director, Kakrapar Atomic Power Station, Surat (Gujarat) and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2018.

[No. L-42011/35/2007-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 11th January, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 72/2007

The Station Director, Kakrapar Atomic Power Station, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., P.O. Anumala, Via Vyara, Surat (Gujarat) – 394651 …First Party[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 17, 2018/माघ 28, 1939 1525 V/s

The General Secretary, Kakrapar Anumathak Karmachari Sangathann, Kakrapar Atomic Power Project, Township, Post Annumala, Tal.-Vyara, Surat (Gujarat) - 394651 …Second Party

For the First Party : Shri K.V. Gadhia For the Second Party : Shri Hitesh D. Katharotiya

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-42011/35/2007– IR(DU) dated 28.06.2007 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 Kakrapar Anumathak Karamchari Sangathan for declaring 8 workers as protected workmen on the ground that Assistant Foreman, Foreman, Scientific Assistant, Sr. Assistant – II, Draftsman –III etc. are 'workmen' as defined under Section 2(I) of the Industrial Dispute Act, is legal and justified? If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

1. The reference dates back to 28.06.2007. Both the parties were issued notices immediate after receiving the reference from the Government of India. Acknowledgements of the notices were also received. The first party Kakrapar Atomic Power Station, submitted the vakalatpatra of his advocate Shri K.V. Gadhia along with written statement Ex. 8 and the second party workman submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 6 of his advocate Shri J.K. Parmar along with the statement of claim Ex. 7. Thereafter, the second party workman abstained to appear, therefore, a fresh notice Ex. 14 was issued to both the parties on 28.07.2011 to appear on 12.10.2011. On 12.10.2011, Shri A.K. Vaishya submitted the vakalatpatra of Shri Hitesh Kathoratiya but since then the second party in person remained absent and his advocate Shri Hitesh Kathoratiya every time took adjournment for leading evidence in the circumstances of physical non-appearance of the second party union's representative.

2. Today on 11.01.2018, Shri Hitesh Kathoratiya, the advocate of second party stated that the union has not been taking interest in the prosecution of the case; therefore, the reference is disposed of as not pressed.

3. Thus the reference is disposed of as not pressed.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 पफरवरी, 2018

का.आ. 298.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार, उप महाप्रबंध्क, पावर ग्रिड कॉर्पोरेशन ऑपफ इंडिया लिमिटेड, गांध्ीनगर ;गुजरातद्ध और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब(

नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय,

अहमदाबाद के पंचाट [संदर्भ ;सीजीआईटीएद्ध संख्या 02/2013] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42025/03/2018-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2018

S.O. 298.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. (CGITA) No. 02/2013] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Deputy General Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Gandhinagar (Gujarat) & Other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2018.

[No. L-42025/03/2018-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director1526 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2018/MAGHA 28, 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 08th January, 2018

I.D. Application : (CGITA) No. 02/2013

Babuji Ransinh Chauhan Village Baria na Muvada, Tel. Dehgam, Gandhinagar C/o Gujarat Navrachana Mazdoor Karmachari Panchayat, 9, Kabir Chambers, Off. Patelwadi, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) …Applicant

V/s

1. The Dy. General Manager,

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.,

HR Department, 400/2000 KV Sub Station,

Vasna Rathod Road, P.B. No. 9, Dehgam,

Gandhinagar – 382305

2. M/s Narendra Kumar & Co.,

A/52, Mahavir Society, Ranip, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) …Opponent

For the Applicant : Shri Govindbhai C. Dutt

For the Opposite Party No. (1) : Shri Sunil J. Joshi

For the Opposite Party No. (2) : Shri M.H. Sanghariyat

Order

1. This is an application moved by the applicant/second party workman, hereinafter referred to as applicant, alleging that he was working with the management of M/s Narendra Kumar & Co., since long as a Gardener (Mali) in the Supervision of Department of Horticulture of Power Grid Corporation of India under the guise of opposite party no. 2 M/s Narendra Kumar & Co., the contractor. His service record was clean and spotless with good conduct and behaviour. He has further alleged that the opposite party no. 1 Power Grid Corporation of India was the principle employer and M/s Narendra Kumar and Co., was its contractor. The applicant had been serving the opposite party for more than 240 days in each calendar year with a salary of Rs. 3200/- per month. The opposite parties denied him the minimum wages as prescribed under the law despite making number of complaints. The opposite parties terminated his services on 09.02.2012 on making complaints which was illegal and unjust, deserves to be quashed and set aside. He was not served any show cause notice before termination of service. Therefore, the action was violative of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act. They have also not followed the due procedure while terminating his services. He has further alleged that the junior workmen are retained while terminating his services. Thus the action was also violative of Section 25 F, G and H of the I.D. Act. Thus he has prayed for reinstatement of his service with back wages along with legal expenses of Rs. 10000/- declaring the termination of his service as illegal and unjust.

2. The opposite party no. 2 M/s Narendra Kumar and Co., in his objection Ex. 9 has submitted that the owner of the opposite party no. 2 M/s Narendra Kumar and Co., Chainsinh was seriously ill and was admitted as indoor patient in Dr. Rakesh Patel Hospital, Ranip since 10.08.2014 and is not able to submit the proper written statement, however, he has submitted that he has not been having any outsource contract with opposite party no. 1 Power Grid Corporation of India. He has further submitted that he is ready to provide work and employ[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 17, 2018/माघ 28, 1939 1527 the applicant/workman at Gujarat Composite Limited, situated at Kaaligam, District Vijaynagar as a casual labour. He has further submitted that the applicant wanted his engagement with the opposite party no. 1 Power Grid Corporation of India, which is not possible at any part in the absence of any contract with it.

3. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:

i. Whether the demand of the union, Gujarat Navrachna MazdoorKarmachari Panchayat, Ahmedabad to reinstate Shri Babuji Ransinh Chauhan (terminated on 09.02.2012) with full back wages in the establishment of the Dy. General Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. is legal and justified?

ii. To what relief, if any, the workman is entitled?

4. Issue No. i & ii: The burden of proof of these issues was on the applicant who submitted his affidavit Ex. 10 in support of his case. The opposite party no. 1 Power Grid Corporation of India did not submit his written statement, therefore, the case was ordered to proceed ex-parte against it on 22.11.2016. The opposite party no. 2 M/s Narendra Kumar and Co., today on 08.01.2018 submitted that he is ready to employ the applicant/workman to his new place of contract employment and he does not want to cross-examine the applicant/workman.

5. The applicant has not submitted any evidence as to who workman junior to him was retained by the opposite party no. 2 M/s Narendra Kumar and Co., and has also not submitted any evidence regarding working for more than 240 days in any calendar year.

6. Thus in the light of the aforesaid submissions of the opposite party no. 2 M/s Narendra Kumar and Co., both issues are decided with a direction that the applicant will report and join the M/s Narendra Kumar and Co., at the earliest as and when he desires. He will not be paid any back wages in the absence of the proper evidence on the principle of "no work no pay".

7. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 पफरवरी, 2018

का.आ. 299.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार, उप महाप्रबंध्क, पावर ग्रिड कॉर्पोरेशन ऑपफ इंडिया लिमिटेड, गांध्ीनगर ;गुजरातद्ध और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब(

नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय,

अहमदाबाद के पंचाट [संदर्भ ;सीजीआईटीएद्ध संख्या 01/2013] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42025/03/2018-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2018

S.O. 299.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. (CGITA) No. 02/2013] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Deputy General Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Gandhinagar (Gujarat) & Other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2018.

[No. L-42025/03/2018-IR (DU)] RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 08th January, 20181528 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2018/MAGHA 28, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

I.D. Application : (CGITA) No- 01/2013

JawanjiPujajiBhoi Village Bhomia, Vadadra, Tel. Dehgam, Gandhinagar C/o Gujarat Navrachana Mazdoor Karmachari Panchayat, 9, Kabir Chambers, Off.Patelwadi, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) …Applicant

V/s

1. The Dy. General Manager,

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., HR Department, 400/2000 KV Sub Station, VasnaRathod Road, P.B. No. 9, Dehgam, Gandhinagar – 382305 2. M/s Narendra Kumar & Co.,

A/52, Mahavir Society, Ranip, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) …Opponents

For the Applicant : Shri Govindbhai C. Dutt For the Opposite Party No. (1) : Shri Sunil J. Joshi For the Opposite Party No. (2) : Shri M.H. Sanghariyat

Order

1. This is an application moved by the applicant/second party workman, hereinafter referred to as applicant, alleging that he was working with the management of M/s Narendra Kumar & Co., since long as a Gardener (Mali) in the Supervision of Department of Horticulture of Power Grid Corporation of India under the guise of opposite party no. 2 M/s Narendra Kumar & Co., the contractor. His service record was clean and spotless with good conduct and behaviour. He has further alleged that the opposite party no. 1 Power Grid Corporation of India was the principle employer and M/s Narendra Kumar and Co., was its contractor. The applicant had been serving the opposite party for more than 240 days in each calendar yearwith a salary of Rs. 3200/- per month. The opposite parties denied him the minimum wages as prescribed under the law despite making number of complaints. The opposite parties terminated his services on 09.02.2012 on making complaints which was illegal and unjust, deserves to be quashed and set aside. He was not served any show cause notice before termination of service. Therefore, the action was violative of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act. They have also not followed the due procedure while terminating his services. He has further alleged that the junior workmen are retained while terminating his services. Thus the action was also violative of Section 25 F, G and H of the I.D. Act. Thus he has prayed for reinstatement of his service with back wages along with legal expenses of Rs. 10000/- declaring the termination of his service as illegal and unjust.

2. The opposite party no. 2 M/s Narendra Kumar and Co., in his objection Ex. 9 has submitted that the owner of the opposite party no. 2 M/s Narendra Kumar and Co.,Chainsinh was seriously ill and was admitted as indoor patient in Dr. Rakesh Patel Hospital, Ranip since 10.08.2014 and is not able to submit the proper written statement, however, he has submitted that he has not been having any outsource contract with opposite party no. 1 Power Grid Corporation of India. He has further submitted that he is ready to provide work and employ the applicant/workman at Gujarat Composite Limited, situated at Kaaligam, District Vijaynagar as a casual labour. He has further submitted that the applicant wanted his engagement with the opposite party no. 1 Power Grid Corporation of India, which is not possible at any part in the absence of any contract with it.

3. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise: "

i. Whether the demand of the union, Gujarat NavrachnaMazdoorKarmachari Panchayat, Ahmedabad to reinstate Shri JawanjiPujajiBhoi(terminated on 09.02.2012) with full back wages in the establishment of the Dy. General Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. is legal and justified?

ii. To what relief, if any, the workman is entitled?

4. Issue No. i & ii: The burden of proof of these issues was on the applicant who submitted his affidavit Ex. 11 in support of his case. The opposite party no. 1 Power Grid Corporation of India did not submit his written statement, therefore, the case was ordered to proceed ex-parte against it on 22.11.2016. The opposite party no. 2 M/s Narendra Kumar and Co., today on 08.01.2018 submitted that he is ready to employ the applicant/workman to his new place of contract employment and he does not want to cross-examine the applicant/workman.

5. The applicant has not submitted any evidence as to who workman junior to him was retained by the opposite party no. 2 M/s Narendra Kumar and Co., and has also not submitted any evidence regarding working for more than 240 days in any calendar year.

6. Thus in the light of the aforesaid submissions of the opposite party no. 2 M/s Narendra Kumar and Co., both issues are decided with a direction that the applicant will report and join the M/s Narendra Kumar and Co., at the earliest as and when he desires. He will not be paid any back wages in the absence of the proper evidence on the principle of "no work no pay".

7. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 पफरवरी, 2018

का.आ. 300.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार, उप महाप्रबंध्क, पावर ग्रिड कॉर्पोरेशन ऑपफ इंडिया लिमिटेड, गांध्ीनगर ;गुजरातद्ध और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट [संदर्भ ;सीजीआईटीएद्ध संख्या 118/2013] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42011/32/2013-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2018

S.O. 300.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. (CGITA) No. 118/2013] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Deputy General Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Gandhinagar (Gujarat) & Other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2018.

[No. L-42011/32/2013-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 08th January, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 118/2013

1. The Dy. General Manager,

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.,

HR Department, 400/2000 KV Sub Station,1530 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2018/MAGHA 28, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Vasna Rathod Road, P.B. No. 9, Dehgam,

Gandhinagar – 382305

2. M/s Narendra Kumar & Co.,

A/52, Mahavir Society, Ranip, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) …First Parties

V/s

The General Secretary, Gujarat Navrachana Mazdoor Karmachari Panchayat, 9, Kabir Chambers, Off. Patelwadi, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) ….Second Party

For the First Party No. (1) : Shri Sunil J. Joshi

For the First Party No. (2) : Shri M.H. Sanghariyat

For the Second Party : Shri Govindbhai C. Dutt

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-42011/32/2013– IR(DU) dated 07.06.2013 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 union, Gujarat Navrachna Mazdoor Karmachari Panchayat, Ahmedabad to reinstate with full back wages of Shri Arjunsinh Pujasinh Rathod (terminated on 07.11.2011) in the establishment of the Dy. General Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., Gandhinagar is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"

1. The reference dates back to 07.06.2013. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 alleging that he was working with the management of M/s Narendra Kumar & Co., since long as a Gardener (Mali) in the Supervision of Department of Horticulture of Power Grid Corporation of India under the guise of first party no. 2 M/s Narendra Kumar & Co., the contractor. His service record was clean and spotless with good conduct and behaviour. He has further alleged that the first party no. 1 Power Grid Corporation of India was the principle employer and M/s Narendra Kumar and Co., was its contractor. The second party workman had been serving the first party for more than 240 days in each calendar year with a salary of Rs. 3200/- per month. The first parties denied him the minimum wages as prescribed under the law despite making number of complaints. The first parties terminated his services on 07.11.2011 on making complaints which was illegal and unjust, deserves to be quashed and set aside. He was not served any show cause notice before termination of service. Therefore, the action was violative of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act. They have also not followed the due procedure while terminating his services. He has further alleged that the junior workmen are retained while terminating his services. Thus the action was also violative of Section 25 F, G and H of the I.D. Act. Thus he has prayed for reinstatement of his service with back wages along with legal expenses of Rs. 10000/- declaring the termination of his service as illegal and unjust.

2. The first party no. 2 M/s Narendra Kumar and Co., in his objection Ex. 9 has submitted that the owner of the first party no. 2 M/s Narendra Kumar and Co., Chainsinh was seriously ill and was admitted as indoor patient in Dr. Rakesh Patel Hospital, Ranip since 10.08.2014 and is not able to submit the proper written statement, however, he has submitted that he has not been having any outsource contract with first party no. 1 Power Grid Corporation of India. He has further submitted that he is ready to provide work and employ the applicant/workman at Gujarat Composite Limited, situated at Kaaligam, District Vijaynagar as a casual labour. He has further submitted that the second party wanted his engagement with the first party no. 1 Power Grid Corporation of India, which is not possible at any part in the absence of any contract with it.

3. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:

i. Whether the demand of the union, Gujarat Navrachna Mazdoor Karmachari Panchayat, Ahmedabad to reinstate with full back wages of Shri Arjunsinh Pujasinh Rathod (terminated on 07.11.2011) in the establishment of the Dy. General Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., Gandhinagar is legal and justified?

ii. To what relief, if any, the workman is entitled?

4. Issue Nos. i & ii: The burden of proof of these issues was on the second party workman who submitted his affidavit Ex. 15 in support of his case. The first party No. 1 Power Grid Corporation of India did not submit his written statement, therefore, the case was ordered to proceed ex-parte against it on 22.11.2016. The first party No. 2 M/s. Narendra Kumar and Co., today on 08.01.2018 submitted that he is ready to employ the applicant/workman to his new place of contract employment and he does not want to cross-examine the second party workman.

5. The second party workman has not submitted any evidence as to who workman junior to him was retained by the first party No. 2 M/s. Narendra Kumar and Co., and has also not submitted any evidence regarding working for more than 240 days in any calendar year.

6. Thus in the light of the aforesaid submissions of the first party no. 2 M/s Narendra Kumar and Co., both issues are decided with a direction that the second party workman namely Shri Arjunsinh Pujasinh Rathod will report and join the M/s. Narendra Kumar and Co., at the earliest as and when he desires. He will not be paid any back wages in the absence of the proper evidence on the principle of "no work no pay".

7. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 पफरवरी, 2018

का.आ. 301.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार, उप-महाप्रबंध्क, पावर ग्रिड कॉर्पोरेशन ऑपफ इंडिया लिमिटेड, गांध्ीनगर ;गुजरातद्ध और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट [संदर्भ ;सीजीआईटीएद्ध संख्या 117/2013] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42011/32/2013-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2018

S.O. 301.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. (CGITA) No. 117/2013] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Deputy General Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Gandhinagar (Gujarat) & Other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2018.

[No. L-42011/32/2013-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 08th January, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 117/2013

1. The Dy. General Manager,

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., HR Department, 400/2000 KV Sub Station, Vasna Rathod Road, P.B. No. 9, Dehgam,

Gandhinagar – 3823051532 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2018/MAGHA 28, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2. M/s. Narendra Kumar & Co.,

A/52, Mahavir Society, Ranip, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) …First Parties

V/s

The General Secretary, Gujarat Navrachana Mazdoor Karmachari Panchayat, 9, Kabir Chambers, Off. Patelwadi, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) …Second Party

For the First Party No. (1) : Shri Sunil J. Joshi

For the First Party No. (2) : Shri M.H. Sanghariyat

For the Second Party : Shri Govindbhai C. Dutt

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-42011/31/2013– IR(DU) dated 07.06.2013 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 union, Gujarat Navrachna Mazdoor Karmachari Panchayat, Ahmedabad to reinstate Shri Kanusinh Ramasinh Parmar (terminated on 07.11.2011) with full back wages in the establishment of the Dy. General Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"

1. The reference dates back to 07.06.2013. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 2 alleging that he was working with the management of M/s. Narendra Kumar & Co., since long as a Gardener (Mali) in the Supervision of Department of Horticulture of Power Grid Corporation of India under the guise of first party No. 2 M/s. Narendra Kumar & Co., the contractor. His service record was clean and spotless with good conduct and behaviour. He has further alleged that the first party No. 1 Power Grid Corporation of India was the principle employer and M/s. Narendra Kumar and Co., was its contractor. The second party workman had been serving the first party for more than 240 days in each calendar year with a salary of Rs. 3200/- per month. The first parties denied him the minimum wages as prescribed under the law despite making number of complaints. The first parties terminated his services on 07.11.2011 on making complaints which was illegal and unjust, deserves to be quashed and set aside. He was not served any show cause notice before termination of service. Therefore, the action was violative of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act. They have also not followed the due procedure while terminating his services. He has further alleged that the junior workmen are retained while terminating his services. Thus the action was also violative of Section 25 F, G and H of the I.D. Act. Thus he has prayed for reinstatement of his service with back wages along with legal expenses of Rs. 10000/- declaring the termination of his service as illegal and unjust.

2. The first party No. 2 M/s. Narendra Kumar and Co., in his objection Ex. 9 has submitted that the owner of the first party No. 2 M/s. Narendra Kumar and Co., Chainsinh was seriously ill and was admitted as indoor patient in Dr. Rakesh Patel Hospital, Ranip since 10.08.2014 and is not able to submit the proper written statement, however, he has submitted that he has not been having any outsource contract with first party No. 1 Power Grid Corporation of India. He has further submitted that he is ready to provide work and employ the applicant/workman at Gujarat Composite Limited, situated at Kaaligam, District Vijaynagar as a casual labour. He has further submitted that the second party wanted his engagement with the first party No. 1 Power Grid Corporation of India, which is not possible at any part in the absence of any contract with it.

3. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:

i. Whether the demand of the union, Gujarat NavrachnaMazdoorKarmachari Panchayat, Ahmedabad to reinstate Shri Kanusinh Ramasinh Parmar (terminated on 07.11.2011) with full back wages in the establishment of the Dy. General Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. is legal and justified?

ii. To what relief, if any, the workman is entitled?

4. Issue Nos. i & ii: The burden of proof of these issues was on the second party workman who submitted his affidavit Ex. 13 in support of his case. The first party No. 1 Power Grid Corporation of India did not submit his written statement, therefore, the case was ordered to proceed ex-parte against it on 22.11.2016. The first party No. 2 M/s. Narendra Kumar and Co., today on 08.01.2018 submitted that he is ready to employ the applicant/workman to his new place of contract employment and he does not want to cross-examine the second party workman.

5. The second party workman has not submitted any evidence as to who workman junior to him was retained by the first party No. 2 M/s. Narendra Kumar and Co., and has also not submitted any evidence regarding working for more than 240 days in any calendar year.

6. Thus in the light of the aforesaid submissions of the first party No. 2 M/s. Narendra Kumar and Co., both issues are decided with a direction that the second party workman namely Shri Kanusinh Ramasinh Parmar will report and join the M/s. Narendra Kumar and Co., at the earliest as and when he desires. He will not be paid any back wages in the absence of the proper evidence on the principle of "no work no pay".

7. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 पफरवरी, 2018

का.आ. 302.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार, उप-विभागीय अध्किारी, दूरसंचार विभाग, सुरेंद्रनगर एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच,

अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट [संदर्भ ;सीजीआईटीएद्ध संख्या 1087/2004] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.01.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/185/1996-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2018

S.O. 302.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. (CGITA) No. 1087/2004] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Telecom Department, Surendranagar and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2018.

[No. L-40012/185/1996-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 12th January, 2018

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1087/2004

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Phones, Telecom Department, Surendranagar – 363001

…First Party

V/s

The President, Saurashtra Employees Union, Umesh Commercial Complex, Officer Nos. 213 and 214,1534 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2018/MAGHA 28, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2ndFloort, Near Chaudhary High School, Rajkot – 360001

…Second Party For the First Party : Shri H.R. Raval

For the Second Party : Shri B.B. Gogia

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/185/96– IR(DU) dated 12.03.1998 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 Sub-Divisional Officer, Phones, Surendranagar in terminating the services of Shri Ghanshyam R. Bhagat is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?" 1. The reference dates back to 12.03.1998.The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 3 on 25.06.1998 along with number of documents vide list Ex. 5 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 7 on 20.08.1998. Since then the second party was given number of dates for evidence till today i.e. 12.01.2018 but he did not appear. It is also noteworthy that a fresh notice Ex. 17 was issued to all the parties to appear on 18.004.2011. In response to the notice, the learned counsel for both the parties were appeared but failed to lead evidence.

2. Today on 12.01.2018, the learned counsel for the second party workman Adv. Kajal L. Kalwani stated that the workman has not been in her contact since long period.

3. Thus it appears that the second party workman is not willing to prosecute the reference.

4. Thus the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party with the observation as under: "the action of the management of Sub-Divisional Officer, Phones, Surendranagar in terminating the services of Shri Ghanshyam R. Bhagat is legal and justified.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 पफरवरी, 2018

का.आ. 303.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार, मुख्य महाप्रबंध्क, दूरसंचार जिला, खानपुर, अहमदाबाद ;गुजरातद्ध और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट [संदर्भ ;सीजीआईटीएद्ध संख्या 333/2004] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01.02.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/274/2000-आईआर ;डीयूद्ध]

राजेंद्र जोशी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2018

S.O. 303.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. (CGITA) No. 333/2004] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chief General Manager, Telecom District, Khanpur, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) & Other and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 01.02.2018.

[No. L-40012/274/2000-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present :

Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 23rd January, 2018[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : पफरवरी 17, 2018/माघ 28, 1939 1535

Reference: (CGITA) No. 333/2004

1. The Chief General Manager, Telecom District, Khanpur, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

2. The General Manager, Telecom District, Nadiad (Gujarat)

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer (T), Telephone Exchange, Cambay, Kheda (Gujarat) – 387411

…First Party

V/s

The Org. Secretary, The Association of Railway & Post Employees, 15, Shashi Apartments, Opp. Anjali Cinema, Vasna Road, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) …Second Party

For the First Party : Shri N.K. Trivedi

For the Second Party : Shri R.C. Pathak

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-40012/274/2000–IR(DU) dated 29.08.2000 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Telecom Deptt. in terminating the services of Shri Vishram Patruram w.e.f. 01.10.1994 is fair and just? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

1. The reference dates back to 29.08.2000. Both the parties were served. The second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 7 on 19.06.2002 before Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 10 on 27.08.2003 along with number of documents vide list Ex. 11 that too before the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The second party also submitted the documents vide list Ex. 12.

2. The second party moved an application Ex. 15 for production of documents by the first party on 05.03.2009. In response to that application, the first party submitted the documents vide list Ex. 16 on 05.03.2009. The second party also submitted the documents vide list Ex. 20 on 20.11.2017 but since then the second party has not been leading evidence despite giving dozen of opportunities and being given last opportunity on 29.06.2017 and also on 21.11.2017.

3. Today on 23.01.2018, the case is listed for evidence of second party workman but his advocate stated in writing that the workman has not been in his contact, therefore, unable to lead evidence. Thus it appears that the second party is not willing to prosecute the reference.

4. Thus the reference is disposed of in the absence of the evidence of the second party with the observation as under: "the action of the management of Telecom Deptt. in terminating the services of Shri Vishram Patruram w.e.f. 01.10.1994 can be said to be fair and just."

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 8 पफरवरी, 2018

का.आ. 304.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स

एलएमजे लॉजिस्टिक्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड के प्रबंध्तंत्रा के संब( नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद

में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, दिल्ली के पंचाट ;संदर्भ सं. 100/2017द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय

सरकार को 08.02.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41012/28/2016-आईआर ;बी-Iद्ध]

रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अध्किारी1536 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2018/MAGHA 28, 1939 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2018

S.O. 304.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 100/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. LMJ Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08.02.2018.

[No. L-41012/28/2016-IR (B-I)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT No.1, DELHI

ID No.100/2017

Shri Wakil Ahmad S/o Shri Nisar Ahmad, 191, Janta Jeevan Camp, C-43, Okhla Phase-2, New Delhi

…Workman

Versus

M/s. LMJ Logistics Pvt. Ltd. 54/2&3, Hanuman Lane, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001

…Management

AWARD

Central Government, vide letter No.L-41012/28/2016-IR(B-I) dated 24.04.2017, referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the demand of the union for reinstatement of the services of the workman, i.e. Shri Wakil Ahmad S/o Nasir Ahmad is justified and if yes, what relief the workman is entitled to and what direction are necessary in this respect?

2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party/ies raising the dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, Shri Wakil Ahmad opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the postal article, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained affected in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notice was served upon the workman. Despite service of the notice, the workman opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.

4. Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a 'No Dispute/Claim' award. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : January 24, 2018

A. C. DOGRA, 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.