3386 GI/2018

(4363)

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

REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 25]

ubZ fnYyh] twu 24—twu 30] 2018] 'kfuokj@ vk"kk<+ 3—vk"kk<+ 9] 1940

No. 25]

NEW DELHI, JUNE 24—JUNE 30, 2018, SATURDAY/ ASADHA 3—ASADHA 9, 1940

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

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

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

िव मंालय

(िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग

िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग

िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग)

नई दली, 4 जून, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 987

987

987.—भारतीय रजव बक अिधिनयम, 1934 क धारा 8 क उपधारा (4) के साथ पठत उपधारा (1) के खंड (क) &ारा

'द( शि*य+ का 'योग करते .ए, के01ीय सरकार, एत2ारा, 3ी महेश कुमार जैन (ज0म ितिथः 5.5.1961), 'बंध िनदेशक एवं मु9य

कायकारी अिधकारी, आईडीबीआई बक को उनके पदभार <हण करने क तारीख से तीन वष क अविध के िलए या अगले आदेश+ तक, जो

भी पहले हो, भारतीय रजव बक के िड@टी-गवनर के पद पर िनयु* करती है।

[फा. सं. 1/6/2013-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

4364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2018/ASADHA 9, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2018

S.O. 987.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) read with sub-section (4) of

section 8 of The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Mahesh Kumar Jain

(Date of Birth: 5.5.1961), MD & CEO, IDBI Bank as Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India for a term of three years

from the date of assumption of charge or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 1/6/2013-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

शुि

शुि-प

प

नई दली, 4 जून, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 988

988

988.—भारत सरकार, िव( मंCालय, िव(ीय सेवाएं िवभाग क 05 अ'ैल, 2018 क अिधसूचना सं9या का. आ.

665, जो भारत के राजपC भाग-II, खDड 3, उप-खंड (ii) मE 'कािशत .ई थी, क तािलका के Fतंभ (2) मE ‘देबािशश पांडा’ के Fथान पर

‘देबाशीष पDडा’ पढ़ा जाए।

[फा.सं. 6/3/2012-बीओ-I]

Gानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2018

S.O. 988.—In the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial

Services, number S.O.655, dated the 5^th of April 2018, published in part II, sub-section (ii) of section (3) of the Gazette

of India, in column (2) of the table, for the words “Shri Debashish Panda”, read “Shri Debasish Panda”.

[F. No. 6/3/2012-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

कृिष एवं कसान क या

कृिष एवं कसान क याण मंालय

ण मंालय

(कृिष अनुसंधान एवं िशा िवभाग

कृिष अनुसंधान एवं िशा िवभाग

कृिष अनुसंधान एवं िशा िवभाग)

नई दली, 18 जून, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 989

989

989.—के01ीय सरकार, कृिष एवं कसान क याण मंCालय कृिष अनुसंधान एवं िशIा िवभाग, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय

'योजन+ के िलए 'योग) िनयमावली 1976 के िनयम 10 के उपिनयम (4) के अनुसरण मE भा.कृ.अ.प.-राK Lीय पादप अनुवांिशक संसाधन

Mयूरो, IेCीय कायालय, काजरी परसर, जोधपुर, राजFथान को, िजसमE 80 'ितशत से अिधक कमचारय+ ने िह0 दी का कायसाधक Gान

'ा@ त कर िलया है, एतद्&ारा अिधसूिचत करती है।

[फा. सं.13-10/2009-Pहदी/165-98]

राजेश कुमार, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMER WELFARE

(Department of Agricultural Research and Education)

New Delhi, the 18th June, 2018

S.O. 989.—In pursuance of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for offcial purpose of the

Union) Rules 1976, the Central Government, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmer Welfare, Department of Agricultural

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 30] 2018@vk"kk<+ 9] 1940

4365

Research & Education hereby notifies the ICAR- Reagioanl Office of National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources,

CAZRI Complex, Jodhpur, Rajasthan where more than 80% of staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F.No. 13-10/2009-Hindi/165-98]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 25 जून, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 990

990

990.—के01ीय सरकार, कृिष सहकारता एवं कसान क याण मंCालय कृिष अनुसंधान एवं िशIा िवभाग, राजभाषा (संघ

के शासकय 'योजन+ के िलए 'योग) िनयमावली 1976 के िनयम 10 के उपिनयम (4) के अनुसरण मE भा0कृ0अ0प0-भारतीय चारागाह

एवं चारा अनुसंधान संसाधन, R वािलयर रोड झांसी के पिTमी IेCीय अनुसंधान के0 1, अिवकानगर (राजFथान) को, िजसमE 80 'ितशत से

अिधक कमचारय+ ने िह0 दी का कायसाधक Gान 'ा@ त कर िलया है, एतद्&ारा अिधसूिचत करती है।

[फा. सं.13-10/2009-Pहदी/202-36]

राजेश कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2018

S.O. 990.—In pursuance of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Offcial Language (use for offcial purpose of the

Union) Rules 1976, the Central Government, Ministry of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmer Welfare, Department of

Agricultural Research & Education hereby notifies the ICAR-Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Gwalior

Road Jhansi, Western Region Research Centre, Avidknagar, Rajasthan where more than 80% of staff have acquired the

working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. 13-10/2009-Hindi/202-36]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

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

([kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 21 twu] 2018

dk-vk- 991-—dsUæh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e (4) ds

vuqlj.k esa] miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=kky; ([kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k foHkkx) ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu

fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d deZpkjho`Un us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks jkti=k esa vfèklwfpr djrh

gS %&

1- dsUæh; HkaMkj.k fuxe]

{ks=kh; dk;kZy;] os;jgkÅ¯lx dkWEIysDl]

jkokHkkVk] Mkd?kj&chjxkao

jk;iqj&493321

¹la- bZ&11011@1@2008&¯gnhº

dey nÙkk] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Food and Public Distribution)

New Delhi, the 21st June, 2018

S.O. 991.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purpose of the

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

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

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

4366

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2018/ASADHA 9, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Central Warehousing Corporation,

Regional Office, Warehousing Complex,

Rawabhata, P.O. Birgaon

Raipur-493321

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

KAMAL DATTA, Jt. Secy.

वा

वा य

य

य एवं

एवं

एवं परवार क या

परवार क या

परवार क याण मंालय

ण मंालय

( वा

( वा य

य

य एवं

एवं

एवं परवार क! या

परवार क! या

परवार क! याण िवभाग

ण िवभाग

ण िवभाग)

नई द ली, 16 अU तूबर, 2012

का.आ.

का.आ. 992

992

992.—के01ीय सरकार भारतीय आयुVवGान परषद अिधिनयम, 1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप- धारा

(2) &ारा 'दZ त शिU तय+ का 'योग करते .ए भारतीय आयुVवGान परषद से परामश करने के बाद, एत2ारा िव[िव\ालय के नामावली

मE परवतन के कारण उ* अिधिनयम क 'थम अनुसूची मE िन]िलिखत और संशोधन करती है, अथात्:-

क) उ* 'थम अनुसूची मE "िबहार िव[िव\ालय" और "आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार" से सcबंिधत 'िविdय+ को

जोड़ा जायगा और "आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार" के सामने शीषक 'मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता' (इसके बाद

कॉलम (2) के fप मE संदVभत) के अ0तगत अंितम 'िविd और उससे सcबंिधत 'िविd के बाद शीषक 'पंजीकरण के िलए

संपेIण' (इसके बाद कॉलम (3) के fप मE संदVभत) के अंतगत िन]िलिखत अंतःFथािपत कया जायगा, नामतः

"बैचलर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन और बैचलर ऑफ सजरी"

एम.बी.बी. एस.

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"एनेिFथिशया मE िड@लोमा

डी ए

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"बाल FवाFgय मE िड@लोमा"

डी सी एच

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"'सूित एवं hी रोग मE िड@लोमा"

डी जी ओ

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 30] 2018@vk"kk<+ 9] 1940

4367

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"अिFथ रोग िवGान मE िड@लोमा"

डी ऑथj

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"िचकZसा िवकरण िनदान मE िड@लोमा"

डी एम आर डी

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (संवेदना हरण िवGान)"

एम डी (संवेदना हरण िवGान)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (जैव रसायन)"

एम डी (जैव रसायन)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (चम रोग Gान, रितज रोग िवGान एवं कुd

रोग)"

एम डी (डी वी एल)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (फॉरEिसक मेिडिसन/ फॉरEिसक मेिडिसन एवं

िवष िवGान)"

एम डी (एफ एम/ एफ एम एवं टी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (जनरल मेिडिसन)"

एम डी (जनरल मेिडिसन)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

4368

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2018/ASADHA 9, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (माईmोबायोलॉजी)"

एम डी (माईmोबायोलॉजी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (बाल िचकZसा)"

एम डी (बाल िचकZसा)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (पैथोलॉजी)"

एम डी (पैथोलॉजी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (फामाकोलॉजी)"

एम डी (फामाकोलॉजी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (भौितक िचकZसा एवं पुनवास)"

एम डी (पी एम आर)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (फिजयोलॉजी)"

एम डी (फिजयोलॉजी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 30] 2018@vk"kk<+ 9] 1940

4369

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (मनोिचकZसा)"

एम डी (मनोिचकZसा)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (िवकरण िनदान/िवकरण)"

एम डी (आर डी/ िवकरण)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (रेडीयोथैरेपी)"

एम डी (रेडीयोथैरेपी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (समािजक एवं िनवारक िचकZसा/ सामुदाियक

िचकZसा)"

एम डी (एस पी एम / सामुदाियक िचकZसा)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन/माFटर ऑफ़ सजरी (एनाटॉमी)"

एम डी/एम एस (एनाटॉमी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन/माFटर ऑफ़ सजरी ('सूित एवं hी रोग)”

एम डी/एम एस (ओ बी जी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन/माFटर ऑफ़ सजरी (नेC रोग िवGान)"

एम डी/एम एस (नेC रोग िवGान)"

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

4370

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2018/ASADHA 9, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

“माFटर ऑफ़ सजरी (ऑटो राईनो लैnरगोलोजी)"

एम एस (ई एन टी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

“माFटर ऑफ़ सजरी (जनरल सजरी)"

एम एस (जनरल सजरी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

“माFटर ऑफ़ सजरी (अिFथ रोग िवGान)"

एम एस (अिFथ रोग िवGान)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह पटना

मेिडकल कॉलेज अFपताल पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"बैचलर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन और बैचलर ऑफ सजरी"

एम.बी.बी. एस.

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह नालंदा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे िव\ाVथय+ के

सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार &ारा दनांक

6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई हो )।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (संGाहरण िवGान)"

एम डी (संGाहरण िवGान)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह नालंदा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे िव\ाVथय+ के

सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार &ारा दनांक

6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई हो )।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (बायोकैिमFLी)”

एम डी (बायोकैिमFLी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह नालंदा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे िव\ाVथय+ के

सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार &ारा दनांक

6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई हो )।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (चम रोग िवGान, यौन रोग िवGान एवं कुd

रोग)"

एम डी (डीवीएल)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह नालंदा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे िव\ाVथय+ के

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 30] 2018@vk"kk<+ 9] 1940

4371

सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार &ारा दनांक

6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई हो )।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (फोरEिसक िचकZसा/फोरEिसक िचकZसा एवं

टोकसीलोजी)

एम डी (एफ एम/एफ एम एवं टी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह नालंदा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे िव\ाVथय+ के

सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार &ारा दनांक

6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई हो )।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (जनरल मेिडिसन)"

एम डी (जनरल मेिडिसन)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह नालंदा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे िव\ाVथय+ के

सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार &ारा दनांक

6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई हो )।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (माईmोबायोलॉजी)"

एम डी (माईmोबायोलॉजी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह नालंदा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे िव\ाVथय+ मE

सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार &ारा दनांक

6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई हो )।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (बाल रोग िवGान)"

एम डी (बाल रोग िवGान)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह नालंदा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे िव\ाVथय+ के

सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार &ारा दनांक

6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई हो )।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (फामाकोलॉजी)"

एम डी (फामाकोलॉजी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह नालंदा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे िव\ाVथय+ के

सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार &ारा दनांक

6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई हो )।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (फजीओलोजी)"

एम डी (फजीओलोजी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह नालंदा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे िव\ाVथय+ के

सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार &ारा दनांक

6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई हो )।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (समािजक एवं िनवारक िचकZसा/ सामुदाियक

िचकZसा)"

एम डी (एस पी एम / सामुदाियक िचकZसा)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह नालंदा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे िव\ाVथय+ के

सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार &ारा दनांक

6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई हो )।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन/माFटर ऑफ़ सजरी (एनाटॉमी)"

एम डी/एम एस (एनाटॉमी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह नालंदा

4372

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2018/ASADHA 9, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

मेिडकल कॉलेज, पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे िव\ाVथय+ के

सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार &ारा दनांक

6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई हो )।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन/माFटर ऑफ़ सजरी ('सूित एवं hी रोग)”

एम डी/एम एस (ओ बी जी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह नालंदा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे िव\ाVथय+ के

सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार &ारा दनांक

6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई हो )।

“माFटर ऑफ़ सजरी (ऑटो राईनो लैnरगोलोजी)"

एम एस (ई एन टी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह नालंदा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे िव\ाVथय+ के

सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार &ारा दनांक

6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई हो )।

“माFटर ऑफ़ सजरी (जनरल सजरी)"

एम एस (जनरल सजरी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह नालंदा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे िव\ाVथय+ के

सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार &ारा दनांक

6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई हो )।

“माFटर ऑफ़ सजरी (अिFथ रोग िवGान)"

एम एस (अिFथ रोग िवGान)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह नालंदा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे िव\ाVथय+ के

सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार &ारा दनांक

6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई हो )।

"बैचलर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन और बैचलर ऑफ सजरी"

एम.बी.बी. एस.

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह ए. एन.

मगध मेिडकल कॉलेज, पटना मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो )।

"बैचलर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन और बैचलर ऑफ सजरी"

एम.बी.बी. एस.

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह जवाहर

लाल मेिडकल कॉलेज, भागलपुर मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो )।

"बैचलर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन और बैचलर ऑफ सजरी"

एम.बी.बी. एस.

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह दरभंगा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, लहरयासराय मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 30] 2018@vk"kk<+ 9] 1940

4373

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो )।

"अिFथ रोग िवGान मE िड@लोमा"

डी ऑथj

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह दरभंगा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, लहरयासराय मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (संGाहरण िवGान)"

एम डी (संGाहरण िवGान)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह दरभंगा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, लहरयासराय मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो )।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (फोरEिसक िचकZसा/फोरEिसक िचकZसा एवं

टोकसीलोजी)

एम डी (एफ एम/एफ एम एवं टी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह दरभंगा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, लहरयासराय मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो )।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (जनरल मेिडिसन)"

एम डी (जनरल मेिडिसन)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह दरभंगा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, लहरयासराय मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो )।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (माईmोबायोलॉजी)"

एम डी (माईmोबायोलॉजी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह दरभंगा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, लहरयासराय मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो )।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (बाल रोग िवGान)"

एम डी (बाल रोग िवGान)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह दरभंगा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, लहरयासराय मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो )।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (पैथोलॉजी)"

एम डी (पैथोलॉजी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह दरभंगा

4374

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2018/ASADHA 9, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

मेिडकल कॉलेज, लहरयासराय मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (फामाकोलॉजी)"

एम डी (फामाकोलॉजी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह दरभंगा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, लहरयासराय मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो )।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (फजीओलोजी)"

एम डी (फजीओलोजी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह दरभंगा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, लहरयासराय मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो )।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (मनोिचकZसा)"

एम डी (मनोिचकZसा)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह दरभंगा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, लहरयासराय मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (रेिडयो िनदान/रेिडयोलोजी)"

एम डी (आरडी/ रेिडयोलोजी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह दरभंगा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, लहरयासराय मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो)।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन (सामािजक एवं िनवारक िचकZसा/ सामुदाियक

िचकZसा)"

एम डी (एस पी एम / सामुदाियक िचकZसा)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह दरभंगा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, लहरयासराय मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो )।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन/माFटर ऑफ़ सजरी (एनाटॉमी)"

एम डी/एम एस (एनाटॉमी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह दरभंगा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, लहरयासराय मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो )।

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 30] 2018@vk"kk<+ 9] 1940

4375

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन/माFटर ऑफ़ सजरी ('सूित एवं hी रोग)”

एम डी/एम एस (ओ बी जी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह दरभंगा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, लहरयासराय मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो )।

"डॉUटर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन/माFटर ऑफ़ सजरी (नेC रोग िवGान)"

एम डी/एम एस (नेC रोग िवGान)"

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह दरभंगा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, लहरयासराय मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क

गई)।

“माFटर ऑफ़ सजरी (ऑटो राईनो लैnरगोलोजी)"

एम एस (ई एन टी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह दरभंगा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, लहरयासराय मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो )।

“माFटर ऑफ़ सजरी (जनरल सजरी)"

एम एस (जनरल सजरी)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह दरभंगा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, लहरयासराय मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो )।

“माFटर ऑफ़ सजरी (अिFथ रोग िवGान)"

एम एस (अिFथ रोग िवGान)

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह दरभंगा

मेिडकल कॉलेज, लहरयासराय मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो )।

"बैचलर ऑफ़ मेिडिसन और बैचलर ऑफ सजरी"

एम.बी.बी. एस.

(यह एक मा0यता'ाe िचकZसा अहता होगी जब यह 3ी कृKण

मेिडकल कॉलेज, मुजpफरपुर मE 'िशिIत कए जा रहे

िव\ाVथय+ के सcब0ध मE आयभb नॉलेज िव[िव\ालय, िबहार

&ारा दनांक 6.9.2011 को अथवा उसके पTात 'दान क गई

हो )।

[सं. यू-12012/59/2012-एमई(पी-II)]

अिनता िCपाठी, अवर सिचव

4376

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2018/ASADHA 9, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 16th October, 2012

S.O. 992.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council

Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the

following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

(a)

In the said First Schedule before “Bihar University, Bihar” and entries thereto “Aryabhatta Knowledge

University, Bihar” shall be added and against “Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar” under the heading ‘Recognized

Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation

for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2)

(3)

“Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery”

MBBS

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Diploma in Anaesthesia”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Diploma in Child Health”

DCH

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Diploma in Obstetrics & Gynaecology”

DGO

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Diploma in Orthopaedics”

D.Ortho.

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Diploma in Medical Radio Diagnosis”

DMRD

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine (Anaesthesiology)”

MD(Anaesthesiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine (Biochemistry)”

MD(Biochemistry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 30] 2018@vk"kk<+ 9] 1940

4377

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine (Dermatology, Venerology

MD(DVL)

& Leprosy”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine (Forensic Medicine / Forensic

MD(FM/FM&T)

Medicine & Toxicology”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)”

MD(General Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)”

MD(Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine (Paediatrics)”

MD(Paediatrics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine(Pathology)”

MD(Pathology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine(Pharmacology)”

MD(Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine(Physical Medicine &

MD(PMR)

Rehabilitation)”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine(Physiology)”

MD(Physiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine(Psychiatry)”

MD(Psychiatry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

4378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2018/ASADHA 9, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine(Radio Diagnosis /Radiology)”

MD(Radio Diagnosis/ Radiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine(Radiotherapy)”

MD(Radiotherapy)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine(Social & Preventive Medicine/

MD(SPM/Community Medicine)

Community Medicine)”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery(Anatomy)”

MD/MS(Anatomy)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery(Obstetrics

MD/MS(OBG)

& Gynaecology)”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine/ Master of Surgery(Ophthal-

MD/ MS (Ophthalmology)

mology)”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Master of Surgery(Oto-Rhino-Laryngology)”

MS(ENT)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Master of Surgery(General Surgery)”

MS(General Surgery)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Master of Surgery(Orthopaedics)”

MS(Orthopaedics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Patna Medical

College Hospital, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery”

MBBS

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 30] 2018@vk"kk<+ 9] 1940

4379

in respect of students being trained at Nalanda Medical

College, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine(Anaesthesiology)”

MD(Anaesthesiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Nalanda Medical

College, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine(Biochemistry)”

MD(Biochemistry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Nalanda Medical

College, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine(Dermatology, Venerology

MD(DVL)

& Leprosy)”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Nalanda Medical

College, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine(Forensic Medicine/Forensic

MD(FM/FM&T)

Medicine & Toxicology)”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Nalanda Medical

College, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine(General Medicine)

MD(General Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Nalanda Medical

College, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine(Microbiology)

MD(Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Nalanda Medical

College, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine(Paediatrics)”

MD(Paediatrics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Nalanda Medical

College, Patna on or after 6.09.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine(Pharmacology)”

MD(Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Nalanda Medical

College, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine(Physiology)

MD(Physiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Nalanda Medical

College, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

4380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2018/ASADHA 9, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Doctor of Medicine (Social & Preventive Medicine/

MD(Social & Preventive Medicine/Community Medicine)

Community Medicine)”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Nalanda Medical

College, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery(Anatomy)”

MD/MS (Anatomy)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Nalanda Medical

College, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery(Obstetrics

MD/ MS (OBG)

& Gynaecology)”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Nalanda Medical

College, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Master of Surgery (Oto-Rhino-Laryngology)”

MS (ENT)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Nalanda Medical

College, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Master of Surgery(General Surgery)”

MS (General Surgery)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Nalanda Medical

College, Patna on or after 6.09.2011.)

“Master of Surgery(Orthopaedics)”

MS (Orthopaedics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Nalanda Medical

College, Patna on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery”

MBBS

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at A.N. Magadh

Medical College, Gaya on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery”

MBBS

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Jawaharlal Nehru

Medical College, Bhagalpur on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery”

MBBS

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Darbhanga Medical

College, Laheriasarai on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Diploma in Orthopaedics”

D.Ortho.

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 30] 2018@vk"kk<+ 9] 1940

4381

in respect of students being trained at Darbhanga Medical

College, Laheriasarai on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine(Anaesthesiology)”

MD(Anaesthesiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Darbhanga Medical

College, Laheriasarai on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine(Forensic Medicine/Forensic

MD (FM/FM&T)

Medicine & Toxicology”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Darbhanga Medical

College, Laheriasarai on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine(General Medicine)”

MD (General Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Darbhanga Medical

College, Laheriasarai on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine(Microbiology)”

MD(Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Darbhanga Medical

College, Laheriasarai on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine (Paediatrics)”

MD(Paediatrics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Darbhanga Medical

College, Laheriasarai on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine(Pathology)”

MD (Pathology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Darbhanga Medical

College, Laheriasarai on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)”

MD (Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Darbhanga Medical

College, Laheriasarai on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine (Physiology)”

MD (Physiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Darbhanga Medical

College, Laheriasarai on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine (Psychiatry)”

MD (Psychiatry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Darbhanga Medical

College, Laheriasarai on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine (Radio Diagnosis/ Radiology)”

MD(Radio Diagnosis/ Radiology)

4382

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2018/ASADHA 9, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Darbhanga Medical

College, Laheriasarai on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine(Social & Preventive Medicine/

MD(SPM/Community Medicine)

Community Medicine)”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Darbhanga Medical

College, Laheriasarai on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine/ Master of Surgery(Anatomy)”

MD / MS(Anatomy)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Darbhanga Medical

College, Laheriasarai on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine / Master of Surgery (Obstetrics

MD / MS (OBG)

& Gynaecology)”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Darbhanga Medical

College, Laheriasarai on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Doctor of Medicine / Master of Surgery

MD/ MS (Ophthalmology)

(Ophthalmology)”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Darbhanga Medical

College, Laheriasarai on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Master of Surgery (Oto-Rhino-Laryngology)”

MS (ENT)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Darbhanga Medical

College, Laheriasarai on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Master of Surgery (General Surgery)”

MS (General Surgery)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Darbhanga Medical

College, Laheriasarai on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Master of Surgery (Orthopaedics)”

MS (Orthopaedics)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Darbhanga Medical

College, Laheriasarai on or after 6.9.2011.)

“Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of

MBBS

Surgery”

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when

granted by The Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Bihar

in respect of students being trained at Shri Krishna

Medical College, Muzaffarpur on or after 6.09.2011.)

[No. U-12012/59/2012-ME(P-II)]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 30] 2018@vk"kk<+ 9] 1940

4383

पोत परवहन मंालय

नई द ली, 22 जून, 2018

िवषय:

उवरक+ के तटीय संचलन हेतु वािणिq यक पोत परवहन अिधिनयम, 1958 क धारा 406 के तहत रयायत।

का.आ.

का.आ. 993

993

993.—

जबक, कृषक+ क आय को दोगुना करना भारत सरकार क घोिषत नीित का मु9 य आधार है, तथा जबक कृषक+ क आय बढाने

के िलए कृिष के इनपुtस जैसे अu छी कोट के उवरक+ और बीज+ क उपलM धता मE सुधार लाने क संबंिधत आवw यकता है। देश

के िविभ0 न िहF स+ तक माल प.ंचाने हेतु परवहन x यवF था और लॉिजिF टक को लचीला और िवw वसनीय बना कर इनपुtस क

उपलM धता मE वांिछत सुधार लाया जा सकता है।

जबक, कृषक+ क आय को दोगुना बनाने क सिमित, कृिष, सहयोग तथा कृषक क याण िवभाग, कृिष तथा कृषक क याण

मंCालय क रपोट कृषक+ को वैिw वक F तर पर 'ितF पधy बनाने के िलए एक रणनीित बनाने पर जोर देती है। ऊपर उि ल िखत

रपोट उZ पादन लागत को कम करने के िलए िमbी के F वाF g य के आधार पर उवरक+ क संतुिलत माCा के उपयोग पर भी 'काश

डालती है, तथा बताती है क वांिछत माCा, 'कार तथा कमत मE उवरक+ क अनुपलM धता कृषक+ के िलए नुकसान पैदा करती

है।

जबक, िविभ0 न 'कार क परवहन संबंधी बाधा{ के कारण देश के कुछ भाग+ मE उवरक+ क उपलM धता मE िवलc ब होने क

रपोट िमली है, िजसके कारण सतत और लागत कुशल उZ पादन सुिनिw चत करने के िलए परवहन कनेिU टवीटी और लॉिजिF टक

आधारत संरचना को समयब| तरीके से उवरक+ तथा कृषक+ क अ0 य आवw यकता{ के भंडारण और परवहन मE सIम होना

चािहए।

जबक, जल आधारत परवहन मE रेल तथा सडक आधारत परवहन क तुलना मE माल के परवहन क 'ितटन-कमी लागत मE

छठवE भाग तक क कमी लाने के साथ ही साथ लंबी दूरी तक माल के परवहन से होने वाले 'ितटन-कमी <ीनहाउस गैस

उZ सजन को एक ितहाई तक कम करने क Iमता है।

जबक जल आधारत परवहन के मा}यम, िजनमE तटीय पोत परवहन शािमल है, जो क तुलनाZमक fप से सFता परवहन

मा}यम होने के कारण उवरक+ को प.ँचाने मE कफायती fप से सIम होगा तथा इस वजह से उZपादकता मE संपूण लागत मE

कमी लाएगा।

जबक तटीय माग &ारा सिMसडीकृत उवरक+ का आवागमन ेट सिMसडी क 'ितपूVत के िलए योRय है जो क 0यूLीएंट आधारत

सिMसडी (एन बी एस) नीित के अंतगत उवरक के तटीय आवगमन को बढ़ावा देगा।

जबक सागरमाला कायmम क राीय पर'े‚य योजना उवरक+ के तटीय आवागमन के िलए 6-7 िमिलयन टन 'ित वष क

Iमता का अनुमान करता है।

जबक वािणिqयक पोत परवहन अिधिनयम 1958 क धारा 406 के अनुसार कोई बाहर का पोत और भारत के नागरक

अथवा भारत मE िनगिमत कcपनी अथवा भारत मE पंजीकृत कोआपरेटव सोसाइटी &ारा चा„टड कए गए के अलावा कोई अ0य

पोत जो उपयु* अिधिनयम क धारा 21 के खDड (ख) मE िविन…द† अपेIा{ को पूरा करते ह, वे इस धारा के अंतगत नौवहन

महािनदेशालय &ारा 'द( लाइसEस के तहत ही भारत के अंदर अथवा उसके बाहर कसी प(न या Fथान से समु1 मE ले जा सकE गे।

जबक रािजFटरी हेतु िनधारत प(न+ पर पोतो के पंजीकरण के आधार पर भारतीय पोत धारा 406 के अंतगत लाइसEस के िलए

अनुमोदत माने जाते ह और इ0हE तटीय ˆापार के िलए अनुमित 'ाe है।

10.

जबक अ0य पोत जो भारत के नागरक अथवा भारत मE िनगिमत कcपनी अथवा भारत मE पंजीकृत को-ऑपरेटव सोसाइटी &ारा

चा„टड कए गए हो, को भारत के अंदर तथा बाहर कसी Fथान से समु1 मE जाने के िलए धारा 406 के अंतगत लाइसEस क

आवwयकता होगी और इसिलए उ0हE तटीय ˆापार के िलए अनुमित 'ाe है।

11.

जबक ˆापार को बढ़ावा देना तथा भारत मE x यापार करने मE आसानी भारत सरकार का 'मुख fप से जोर दये गए IेC+ मE

एक है और कागj के नौवहन एवं जलयान+ के परचालन के िलए 'mया{ को सरल करने क आवwयकता है।

12.

अत: के0 1 सरकार वािणिq यक पोत परवहन अिधिनयम, 1958 क धारा 406 क उप-धारा (3) के अंतगत 'दZ त शिU तय+ का

'योग करते .ए कE 1 सरकार इसे जनिहत मE आवwयक और समीचीन मानते .ए एतत &ारा िनदेश देती है क:

12.1

िवदेश x यापार महािनदेशक, वािणq य एवं उ\ोग मंCालय &ारा अपनाए एवं संशोिधत कए गए भारतीय x यापार वगyकरण

(आईटीसी), हामjनाइq ड 'णाली (एचएस) मE 2-आंकड+ वाला कोड 31 मE िवVनदK ट उवरक के समु1 &ारा परवहन के िलए

तटीय x यापार मE शािमल होने वाले भारत के नागरक अथवा भारत मE िनगिमत कcपनी अथवा भारत मE पंजीकृत को-ऑपरेटव

सोसाइटी &ारा चा„टड कए गए पोत+ पर धारा 406 क उप-धारा (1) के 'ावधान लागू नह‰ ह+गे।

4384

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2018/ASADHA 9, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12.2

पैरा 12.1 पर पोत+ के िलए छूट इन शत‹ के अधीन भी होगी, क नौवहन क जानकारी अनुबंध – I पर िनधारत फॉमŒट मE

नौवहन महािनदेशक को 'F तुत कर दी जाएगी तथा इसे भारत के पZ तन से पोत के चलने से कम से कम 24 घंटे पहले dgsd6-

[email protected] ई-मेल पर नौवहन महािनदेशक के साथ साझा करना होगा।

12.3

उपरोU त रयायत िनc निलिखत शत के अधीन होगी क भारतीय नौसेना, तट रIक, राq य समु1ी पुिलस एवं सीमा शु क के

साथ-साथ भारतीय कानून 'वतन एजेि0 सय+ को उU त पोत+/mू के वाF तिवक परचय पC+ क पुिd करने के िलए कसी भी समय

समु1 मE इन पोत+ पर बोड करने क अनुमित होगी।

13.

पूववतy रयायतE x यापार करने क आसानी के िलए और के0 1 सरकार के अिधकार के 'ित िबना कसी पूवा<ह के जो भी हो, इस

आदेश के कसी भी 'ावधान मE परवतन/संशोधन करने के िलए जनिहत मE दी गई ह।

14.

यह आदेश तZ काल 'भाव से लागू होगा और इसे अगले आदेश होने तक वैध माना जाएगा, जब तक इसमE संशोधन न कया जाए

अथवा वािपस न िलया जाए।

15.

इसे सIम 'ािधकारी के अनुमोदन से जारी कया जाता है।

[फा. सं. एस डMयू-15011/7/2015-सी एस]

संजय िम(ल, अवर सिचव

अनुबंध

अनुबंध-I

नौवहन महािनदेशालय के साथ साझा क जाने वाली जानकारी के िलए फॉमŒट

(i)

मािलक और ऑपरेटर का नाम एवं पता

(ii)

आई एम ओ सं9या सिहत पोत का नाम

(iii)

पोत का }वज

(iv)

चाटर क अविध

ट&पणी :

ट&पणी : नौवहन महािनदेशालय के साथ ई-मेल [email protected] पर साझा कए गए दFतावेज िशPपग कcपनी अथवा ऑपरेटर के

'ािधकृत हFताIर &ारा िडजीटल fप मE अथवा अ0य fप से हFताIरत कए जाएं।

MINISTRY OF SHIPPING

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2018

Subject: Relaxation under Section 406 of Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 for coastal Movement of Fertilizers

S.O. 993.—

Whereas doubling farmers’ income is a core fulcrum of the stated policy of the Government of India and whereas

to enhance farmers’ income, there is the related need to improve access to farm inputs such as good quality fertilizers and

seeds. The desired improvement in access to inputs can be achieved by enabling transportation and logistics to be flexible

and reliable for transporting goods within various parts of the country.

Whereas the Report of the Committee on Doubling Farmers’ Income, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation

and Farmers’ Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers’ Welfare calls for a strategy towards enabling farmers to

compete at a global scale.The aforementioned report also highlights application of a balanced dose of fertilizers on the

basis of soil health as a requirement for reducing the cost of production, and that unavailability of fertilizers in the

desired quantity, type and cost is a disadvantage for farmers.

Whereas there have been reports of delay in availability of fertilizer in some parts of the country due to transport

bottlenecks of various kinds and thus the transport connectivity and logistics infrastructure needs to enable storage and

transportation of fertilizers and other inputs to the farmers,in a timely manner,to ensure sustainable and cost efficient

production.

Whereas water borne transportation has the potential of simultaneously reducing the per tonne-km cost of

transporting goods to one-sixth as well as reducing the greenhouse gas emission per tonne-km of transporting the goods

over long distances by one-third, compared to rail and road based transportation.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 30] 2018@vk"kk<+ 9] 1940

4385

Whereas water borne transportation modes, including coastal shipping, being comparatively cheaper modes of

transport would enable cost efficient transportation of fertilizers and, thus, enable overall cost reduction in production.

Whereas movement of subsidized fertilizers by coastal route also qualifies for reimbursement of freight subsidy

which will encourage the coastal movement of fertilizer, under the Nutrient Based Subsidy (NBS) policy.

Whereas the National Perspective Plan of the Sagarmala Programme estimates a potential of 6-7 Million Tonnes

Per Annum for coastal movement of fertilizers.

Whereas as per Section 406 of Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, no Indian ship and no other ship chartered by a

citizen of India or a company incorporated in India or a cooperative society registered in India, which satisfies the

requirements specified in clause (b) of section 21 of the above state Act shall be taken to sea from a port or place within

or outside India except under a license granted by the Director General, Shipping under this section.

Whereas Indian ships by virtue of the registration of ships at designated ports of registry are deemed approved for

license under Section 406, and have allowance for coasting trade.

10.

Whereas other ships which may be chartered by citizens of India or a company incorporated in India or a

corporate society registered in India still require to be granted license under Section 406 to be taken to sea from a port or

place within or outside India and therefore have allowance for coasting trade.

11.

Whereas promotion of trade and ease of doing business in India is one of the major thrust areas of the

Government of India, and there is a need to simplify processes for shipping of cargo and operation of vessels.

12.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under proviso of section 406 of the Merchant

Shipping Act, 1958, the Central Government being of the opinion that it is necessary and expedient in the public interest,

hereby directs that:

12.1

The provisions of sub-section (1) of section 406 shall not apply to ships chartered by citizen of India or a

company incorporated in India or a cooperative society registered in India to engage in the coasting trade of India for the

carriage by sea of fertilizers specified in the Indian Trade Classification (ITC), Harmonized System (HS) under 2-digit

code 31, as adopted and modified by the Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry.

12.2

The relaxation for ships at Para 12.1shall further be subject to the conditions that the information about the

charter/voyage will be submitted to the Director General of Shipping in the format prescribed in Annexure 1 and must be

shared at least 24 hours prior to sail of ship from the port in India, by email at [email protected].

12.3

The aforesaid relaxation shall be subject to the following condition that Indian law enforcement agencies

including inter alia Indian Navy, Coast Guard, State Maritime Police and Customs, shall be allowed to board such ships

any time in the sea for ascertaining the bonafide credentials of the said ships/crew.

13.

The forgoing relaxation has been put in place in public interest, for ease of doing business and without prejudice

to the right of the Central Government, whatsoever, to alter/modify any of the provisions of this order, going forward.

14.

This order shall come into force with immediate effect, and continue to be valid till further order, unless

otherwise amended or withdrawn.

15.

This issues with the approval of competent authority.

[F.No. SW-15011/7/2015-CS]

SANJAY MITAL, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2018

dk-vk- 994-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nh gksVy

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

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;&2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 16@2010) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-06-

2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@55@2009&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

4386

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2018/ASADHA 9, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2018

S.O. 994.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Mumbai (Ref. No. 16/2010) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of The Hotel Corporation of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

07.06.2018.

[No. L-11012/55/2009-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/16 of 2010

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

THE HOTEL CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.

The Chief Executive Officer,

The Hotel Corporation of India Ltd., DFC Unit,

Transport Annexe Building, Air-India Complex,

Old Airport, Santacruz [East],

Mumbai – 400 029.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Shri.Ramchandra B. Ghewade,

606, B-Building, 6^th Floor,

VrindavanApartment ,Yeshwant Nagar,

Kamble Marg, Opp. Shiv Sena Shakha,

Vakola, Santacruz [East],

Mumbai – 400 055.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Ms. Geeta Raju, Advocate

FOR THE WORKMEN

Mr. M.B. Anchan, Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 22^nd May, 2018.

AWARD

This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and

sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-11012/55/2009 – IR (CM-I) dated 02.02.2010. The terms of reference

given in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the action of the management of The Hotel Corporation of India Limited (HCL) in terminating

Shri R.B. Ghewade, Steward, from services by w.e.f. 29.05.2008 is justified and legal ? To what relief is the

workman concerned entitled ?“

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices. They appeared through their

respective representatives.

The second party workman has filed statement of claim Ex.7. According to the second party workman, he was

employed as a Handyman in the year 1976 firstly as a casual worker on daily wages @ Rs.4/- per day. Thereafter he was

given his appointment as a staff of the first party company as Handyman on probation on 6 months by their letter dt.

17.12.76 and he was advised to report on duty from 1.1.77 as per terms set out in the appointment letter dt. 17.12.76.

Until he became Assistant Steward, he worked as Handyman which required him to watch the vests used for cooking and

also assist Stewards and Assistant Stewards, pantry staff and cook etc. in his capacity as Handyman. His basic pay was

then Rs.85/- p.m. and Rs.65/- p.m. as D.A. He has been the member of the United Labour Union, the representative

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 30] 2018@vk"kk<+ 9] 1940

4387

union of the staff of DFC/HCIL, the first party company until his services were terminated by the order of Appellate

Authority of the first party company dt.30.12.2008.

It is also the case of the second party workman that in the year 2005, United Labour Union submitted charter of

general demands on behalf of the staff of DFC and in the same demanded that the promotion should be made according

to law. The second party workman’s case for promotion from the grade of Assistant Stewardship was to be made. While

the said demands were pending consideration by the first party company, a letter was received by the second party

workman dt.9.2.05 from the first party company requiring him to produce the caste certificate. By his letter dt. 23.2.05,

the second party workman submitted his affidavit dt. 23.2.05 setting out the facts that caste stated in school leaving

certificate was wrong and that he has already obtained a certificate of his caste on or about 7.11.76 from Tahsildar at

Makahazan in Ratnagiri. However, by letter dt. 23.11.05 / 8.2.06, charge sheet dt. 8.2.06 was given to him holding as

under.

“That the second party workman has committed following misconduct under the Model Standing Orders:

Clause no. 22(d) – Theft, fraud, or dishonesty in connection with the employer’s business property.

Clause no. 22(i) – Commission of any act subversive to discipline or good behavior.”

According to the concerned workman, he was called upon to give explanation to the said charge sheet on 10.2.06.

He sent a reply to the first party company. His explanation was not accepted by the management. Thereafter the enquiry

started on or about 9.5.06. Secretary of the United Labour Union Miss S.V. Navalkar was to represent him in the enquiry

proceedings but his request was turned down by Mr. Kale taking objection to that request. Enquiry Officer refused to

grant permission on the ground that General Secretary was advocate and not a co-worker. Therefore the second party

workman moved to the Industrial Court alleging that the action of the first party company was unfair labour practices as

the E.O. has no right to refuse the General Secretary of the representative union to defend the cause of the staff.

Thereafter the first party company informed the court that it had no objection to allow the General Secretary of the union

Miss S.V. Navalkar to appear for the second party workman in the enquiry against him.

According to the concerned workman, he opposed the appearance of Mr. Kale as management representative.

However, the E.O. rejected his objection and allowed Mr. Kale to proceed with the enquiry. The second witness of the

management Mr S.K. Patil was not available on the dates kept for hearing. He could not be made available for cross

examination due to his retirement. As such the management representative and the E.O. had planned to close the cross

examination of this witness abruptly and discharged the said witness. Even the E.O. and the management representative

were putting and recording questions and answers as they like and on many occasions second party workman’s

representative had objected to this method adopted by the E.O. and the management representative. Even E.O. did not

allow second party workman to examine his witnesses nor the E.O. allowed the second party workman to submit his

written arguments on the evidence recorded. E.O. made wrong note of the answers given by the second party workman

in the enquiry. As such the enquiry was not fair and was not in accordance with the law.

It is also the case of the second party workman that the first party company had not furnished the list of

documents, list of witnesses. The E.O. in his findings had come to the conclusion contrary to the record of the evidence

by the E.O. The enquiry was not fair and just. The charge sheet has been vague. The allegations in the charge sheet

were not explained. The charges are vague and as such the concerned workman is prejudiced by the management by not

clearly explaining the charge sheet, the circumstances which constituted the alleged misconduct under clause 22 (d) of

Model Standing Orders.

It is also the case of the second party workman that Mr. Ashok Tambe who was the complainant at whose

instance the enquiry started was not examined as a witness of the management and therefore the second party workman

has been clearly deprived from bringing on record positive facts.

According to the concerned workman, he was not permitted to examine Mr. Sukhtankar as his witness and the

refusal to examine him has caused prejudice to him. Even the E.O. had not noted the questions put in cross examination

in the manner they were asked to, and recorded the questions & answers in improper style which he adopted to confuse

the second party workman. As such the E.O. made wrong recording. The E.O. also refused to allow Mr. Rao to produce

the service regulations under which the code of discipline for which the charge sheet was given. For the staff of DFC,

the services were governed by the code of conduct for HCIL and not Model Standing Orders as reflected in the order dt.

30.12.08 passed by the Appellate Authority. As such the E.O’s performance was not fair & just and was pre-judicial to

the defence of the second party workman.

10.

It is also the case of the concerned workman that the findings of the E.O. are perverse. The E.O. in his findings

has not recorded that the second party workman had given application stating that he has objection to Mr. Kale

conducting the part of the representative of the management. The findings of the E.O. that the workman has admitted the

document is not correct since the second party workman had admitted certificate particulars given by his father who had

4388

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2018/ASADHA 9, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

given information to the school at the time of getting admitted in the school. Even the original certificate that is school

leaving certificate of the second party workman is not produced during the enquiry but the Xerox copy is produced. As

such the findings of the E.O. based on Xerox copy has no value. The evidence relied upon by the E.O. i.e. the

commentary of swamy, author of book on commentary on the Constitution of India to prove the existence of the proof as

regards the rule of reservation appointment is improper and therefore story put up by the management that the reservation

policy was in existence at the time of recruitment of second party workman in 1976 was not correct. As such the E.O.

failed to consider that he gets the promotion on account of his seniority and not on reserved appointment and as such the

findings of the E.O. that the second party workman did not attend Sane Guruji Vidyalyay is contrary to the case of

witness of the company Mr. Patil who deposed that the second party workman was never the student of Sane

GurujiVidyalyay.

11.

It is then case of the concerned workman that the E.O. was biased and non cooperative. The enquiry was sheer

farce as co-employee Mr. Ashok Tambe, Assistant Manager, Mr. Kale, E.O., Mr. Suvarna and V.P. of HCIL, DFC

Mr. Patil Lakra had complained to remove second party workman on the ground of his caste for benefitting the

co-employee Mr. Ashok Tambe who happened to be SC/ST and also the Secretary of SC/ST Employees’ Association.

12.

According to the second party workman, even the disciplinary authority did not apply his to the facts of the

matter. The Appellate authority though indicated that he would consider if anything can be done to reduce the penalty

and directed the concerned workman to give fresh appeal memo focusing on penalty part only has not considered fresh

appeal memo and confirmed the dismissal penalty of the second party workman. As such both the V.P. & M.D. erred in

holding that the charges set out in the charge sheet can be said to be legally applicable to the case of second party

workman.

13.

It is thus case of the concerned workman that the disciplinary rules which were applicable to the first party

company were prevented from being brought on record in the enquiry proceedings. The charge sheet referred to General

Disciplinary Rules which are known Model Standing Orders which infact were not applicable to first party company in

the absence of specified rules on discipline for the employees of the first party company. As such the main defect in the

charge sheet remained which entitled the second party workman to submit that the charge was illegal, unjust and uncalled

for.

14.

It is then case of the concerned workman that the material before the Appellate authority regarding notification of

the Govt. of Maharashtra prohibiting the dismissal of the employee on the ground of caste consideration and the

involvement latter on by the SC/ST Association to recommend lenient penalty and not dismissal from the service of the

person who served without blemish for nearby 30 years. These points had not been considered by disciplinary authority

and therefore order of Appellate authority also deserved to be quashed. Second party workman is therefore asking to

hold & declare that the enquiry conducted by the first party company against him is not legal & proper and the findings

of the E.O. are perverse. He is therefore asking to direct the company to reinstate him with full back wages, continuity of

service from the date of his dismissal i.e. from 27/29-5-08 and other consequential benefits.

15.

The first party company resisted claim by filing written statement Ex.9 contending therein that the concerned

workman has played a fraud on the first party company by mis-representing himself to be of “Hindu Chambar caste”

which is classified as SC community and obtained an employment as Handyman against reserved post. He had furnished

a forged school leaving certificate to show that he belongs to said SC group and even his promotions to the next higher

posts were on the basis of caste. These facts has been proved in the enquiry and in view of grave and serious nature of

charges the concerned workman was issued the charge sheet under the Model Standing Orders applicable to him in

respect of act of misconduct proved against him. The second party workman fully participated in the enquiry along with

his Defence Representative of his choice. The enquiry conduct was fair & proper and the findings are not perverse. The

first party company conducted domestic enquiry by duly complying with the principles of nature justice.

16.

It is then contention of the first party company that a complaint was issued from the Air Corpn. SC/ST

Employees’ Association [DFC Unit] that the declaration made by the concerned workman at the time of his appointment

was false and he did not belong to reservation category. In view of that the first party company directed the second party

workman to produce valid caste certificate to which the second party workman submitted his reply which was not

satisfactory. Even during the enquiry whatever documents were produced by both the parties and recorded copies of the

same were handed over to both the parties. First party company produced two witnesses in this enquiry. The said

witnesses were made available for cross-examination by the second party workman. The second party workman cross-

examined both the management witnesses at length. Shri S.K. Patil, Principal of Sane Guruji Night High School was

called as management witness No.2 and he led his evidence before the E.O. Second party workman wanted to produce

two witnesses but failed to produce the witnesses and also failed to disclose their names and thereafter the enquiry was

closed on 6.9.07. E.O. submitted his report on 28.11.07 holding the concerned workman guilty of charges leveled

against him. The notice was served to the second party workman to make the final decision in the matter by letter

dt.28.11.07 which was received by the concerned workman on 3.12.07. He submitted his explanation on 7.12.07 which

was not found satisfactory and thereby the first party company issued show cause notice to him dt. 7.3.08. The second

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 30] 2018@vk"kk<+ 9] 1940

4389

party workman replied the said letter by letter dt. 2.4.08. Explanation submitted by him was not satisfactory and thereby

his services came to be terminated by letter dt. 29.5.08. The second party workman applied to M.D. vide letter dt. 3.6.08

and it was observed that the submission made by the second party workman in his appeal have already been taken into

account by the V.P. The M.D. therefore agreed the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority.

17.

It is then case of the first party company that at the time when the second party workman submitted his

application in the prescribed form, he made declaration in application form that he belongs to Chambar Caste which is

notified by the government as S.C. but then school leaving certificate submitted by the second party workman was found

to be fake and false. Even during enquiry the concerned workman was given full opportunity to cross examine the

management witness No.2 Shri S.K. Patil. He was given opportunity to defend himself through his D.R. Miss. Navalkar

who is a practicing advocate. It is thus denied by the first party company that the E.O. closed enquiry even after the D.R.

raised objection that the cross examination of management witness – 2 was not over.

18.

According to the first party company the departmental enquiry can be conducted by an employee of the company

in his capacity as E.O. There is no bar in any way on appointing the company’s officer as E.O. The E.O. has not

abruptly closed the cross examination of witness No.2 Mr. Patil. He was made available for the cross examination to the

second party workman. The second party workman had cross examined him at length and therefore the contention of

concerned workman to the effect that E.O. refused to permit him to bring his witnesses is denied by the first party

company.

19.

It is also contention of the first party company that author Mr. Swamy in his complimentary on the Constitution

of India emphasis the protection of all rights of SC & backward classes and during the enquiry the evidence of Mr. Rao

on behalf of the management has shown that the policy on recruitment is followed by the first party company and no

injustice is done to the second party workman. As such the enquiry held against the concerned workman is fair & proper

and the findings of the E.O. are based on evidence.

20.

It is then case of the first party company that the charge sheet was issued to the second party workman according

to the Model Standing Orders which is applicable to the second party workman. The enquiry was also conducted as per

the Model Standing Orders and therefore the question of producing the service regulation of HCIL did not arise. Even

there is no question of approaching the first party company by the second party workman again for taking lenient view as

he had committed mistake and as such the punishment of dismissal of service awarded to the second party workman is

just & proper.

21.

It is then case of the first party company that the second party workman has got the promotion on the basis of his

declaration as SC and he was considered for the post of Steward in the year 1995. The second party workman never

declared himself as belonging to OBC prior to 28.2.05. Even during enquiry the second party workman confessed that at

the time of appointment the declaration made by him was incorrect and therefore he did not deserve any leniency with

respect to the punishment of dismissal awarded to him for the grave & serious misconduct committed by him. The M.D.

agreed with the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority since he found that there was no merit in the

appeal and the same deserves to be rejected. As such there is no question of granting lesser punishment. So according to

the first party company there was no lacuna in the decision of Appellate Authority. The first party company has thus

sought rejection of the reference.

22.

The second party workman filed rejoinder Ex.10 and reiterated that recruitment of the Handyman was not on the

basis of reserve post for SC group. It was open category. It is then contended that HCIL disciplinary rules are applicable

to the employees of HCIL-DFC unit. The disciplinary rules are different from the agreement terms of service and hence

merely because of agreement of each of the unit of the HCIL are different that does not mean that the rules of discipline

of HCIL employee for HCIL employees are different for each unit employees of HCIL.

23.

It is reiterated that the plea of the first party company that the workman was taken up in the reserve category is

untenable and unwarranted. What is contended is that the promotions that were granted to the workman prior to 2005

had always been on the seniority grounds and not on the reservation policy.

24.

It is again reiterated that the concerned workman was not allowed to put the questions to the management

witnesses and even cross examination of the witness Shri S.K. Patil was not thoroughly done. The E.O. did not allow the

concerned workman to put the questions to the management witnesses in the enquiry proceedings and as such E.O. was

biased. Even the complainant Shri Ashok Tambe of SC/ST Employees’ Association was not examined to establish the

fact of assignment. Original roster was not produced in the evidence and what has been produced are the Xerox copies

which do not tally with original roster. The Roster-keeper was also not examined and therefore roster has no evidentially

value. Therefore the concerned workman is entitled to be reinstated in service w.e.f. 28.5.08 with continuity in service

and consequential benefits.

4390

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2018/ASADHA 9, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

25.

Following issues are framed at Ex.12. I reproduce the issues along with my findings thereon for the reasons to

follow:

Sr. No.

Issues

Findings

Whether the inquiry conducted by the management against the

second party workman was fair and proper ?

Yes

Whether the findings of inquiry officer are perverse ?

If not, Whether the punishment of termination from the service

is adequate to the alleged misconduct ?

Yes

What relief the workman is entitled to ?

What order ?

As per final order

REASONS

Issue No.1 & 2.

26.

So far this issue is concerned, the concerned workman in his cross examination has admitted that during enquiry

proceedings, copies of all the papers filed in the enquiry proceedings were given to him. He even admits that the copies

of the documents produced by the management were also given to him. Admittedly, he received the enquiry report. As

per his glaring admission, his services came to be dismissed for filing false school certificate. Ms. Sunder Navalkar was

his D.R. during enquiry proceedings as against him. She admits that the concerned workman participated in the enquiry

along with her and she even cross examined the first witness. It appears from the evidence on record and on going

through the enquiry proceedings that the workman participated in the enquiry, he was represented by Ms. Navalkar who

is an advocate and also an active member of the union.

27.

Even then the Learned Counsel for the concerned workman submitted that during enquiry proceedings, certain

documents came to be exhibited without following the procedure but then after taking objection by the D.R.,

the documents were taken on record subject to objection and in that way the documents came to be exhibited as

K, L, M, N, O are not proved documents.

28.

In this respect, it can be said that the documents exhibited as M, N, O were handed over to the second party

workman at the time of enquiry. The documents are referred to in the evidence and therefore they are relevant because

Ex. M is the letter of the concerned workman dt. 20.9.05 addressed to the Head Master of Sane Guruji School whereas

the Ex. N is the school leaving certificate of the concerned workman which was forwarded to the Head Master for

verifying its correctness and in response to the same the Head Master reverted the said school certificate with

endorsement that this school leaving certificate is not issued by the school. Ex. O is the letter of Head Master of Sane

Guruji School addressed to the Manager wherein he had mentioned that G.R. No. 360 issued to one GaikwadRanjana

Robert and GhevadeRamchandraBabu, the concerned workman is not the student of the said school namely Sane Guruji

School. It cannot be said therefore that the E.O. without giving an opportunity to the concerned workman or his D.R. has

taken on record these documents. Neither the first party company nor the second party workman objected to any of the

documents produced in the enquiry. When the proceedings were going on and it clearly appears from the enquiry

proceedings that both the parties were given opportunity by the E.O. to submit their documents. The documents

submitted by the first party company are being taken during the enquiry proceedings by the E.O. since the documents are

relevant.

29.

It is then submission of the Learned Counsel for the concerned workman that question No.28 asked to the witness

namely Rao during the enquiry was recorded by the E.O. in otherwise manner which is not correct. In short the

submission is that the recording of the questions and answers by the E.O. during enquiry proceedings is incorrect. This

submission is also not acceptable since the concerned workman did not take objection to the recording of the questions

and answers by the E.O. during enquiry proceedings and then it appears that opportunity was given to the D.R. to cross

examine Mr. Rao. Mr. Rao was cross examined and then the matter was adjourned to 10.9.96 for bringing another

witness Mr. Patil.

30.

In respect of the evidence of Mr. Patil, it has been pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the concerned

workman that though defence representative for the concerned workman wanted to cross examine Mr. Patil further, it

was not allowed by the Inquiry officer and Inquiry officer made a note that the management representative closes the

cross examination of Mr. Patil. In this view the submission is that there was no fair enquiry by the Inquiry officer.

31.

In this respect, on going through the enquiry proceedings, it can be seen that Mr. Patil, Management witness was

cross examined by the D.R. on 27.7.07. Near about 22 questions were asked to him in his cross examination by the D.R.

and then thereafter the E.O. noted that the cross examination concerning the school leaving certificate submitted by the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 30] 2018@vk"kk<+ 9] 1940

4391

charge sheeted employee Ex.1 is satisfactorily completed and no further cross examination is required. It appears that

thereafter the D.R. objected and the E.O. has overruled the said objection of the D.R. on the ground that the admission

register form 344 to 435 is not relevant to the charge sheet and therefore no further cross examination is required. It is

thereafter the management representative informed to the E.O. that the examination of the witness of management is over

and the management did not want to produce any more witness. It appears therefore that the sufficient opportunity was

given to the D.R. to cross examine Mr. Patil, he was cross examined by the D.R. by putting near about 22 questions and

further objection was overruled on the ground that admission register form 344 to 435 was not relevant to the charge

sheet. That does not mean that the opportunity was not given to the D.R. to cross examine Mr. Patil. Mr. Patil was made

available for cross examination and he was cross examined during the course of enquiry. It is for the E.O. to decide as to

which question was relevant and which was not. If he did not allow the irrelevant questions to be put, that does not mean

that the enquiry was not fair & proper and that the opportunity was not given to cross examine the witness of the

management.

32.

Precisely, it is submission of the Learned Counsel for the management that Shri S.K. Patil, Principal of Sane

Guruji School was produced by the management as witness No.2 and he was made available for the cross examination to

the concerned workman. Mr. Patil has answered all the questions put to him in his cross examination by the second party

workman in the enquiry but on the contrary second party workman failed to produce the witnesses nor disclosed the

names of their witnesses even after sufficient opportunity was given to the second party workman to examine the

witnesses on his behalf. On going through the enquiry proceedings, it certainly appears to me that Mr. Patil was cross

examined during the enquiry proceedings by the D.R.

33.

It is then submission of the Learned Counsel for the concerned workman that during enquiry the E.O. refused

the second party workman to bring his witness Mr. Sukhtankar and also during enquiry the E.O. denied opportunity to

second party workman to defend their case. However, on going through the enquiry proceedings, it appears that E.O.

upheld the objection put by the management in respect of question No. 65 & 67. It cannot be said that the E.O. had not

considered the objections of the second party workman during the course of enquiry but then objections were raised to

question No. 69, 70, 72, 73 and 74 by the management representative on the ground that the questions are irrelevant and

the E.O. had upheld the objections. That does not mean that the enquiry was improper & unfair. What is necessary is

that the opportunity to put up his defence has to be given to the concerned workman and it certainly appears on going

through the enquiry proceedings that the copy of charge sheet was given to the concerned workman, he replied the same

then the management has examined 2 witnesses, they were cross examined by the D.R. who is an advocate and active

member of the union, copies of documents relied upon by the management are given to the D.R. and opportunity was

also given to rebut these documentary evidence to the D.R. Merely saying that some questions are wrongly recorded or

the objection of the D.R. were not considered by the E.O. does not mean that the E.O. was biased or that no fair enquiry

was conducted.

34.

It is the case of second party workman that he was employed as a Handyman in the year 1976 firstly as a casual

worker on daily wages @ of Rs 4/- per day. Thereafter he submitted his application for regular appointment on 19.8.1976

and that time he was called upon to submit prescribed application form for such employment. As the said form was in

English the officer in-charge of said department Mr. Kotian filled the particulars in English on 9.9.1976. after making

enquiry with him and then he signed the said form in the presence of Mr. kotian. In his evidence the second party stated

that he had no reason to believe at the time of submitting application that the school leaving certificate was necessary to

register his caste. He believed that the said certificate was relevant for noting his birth date and in-fact at the time of

appointment for the post of Handyman there was no reservation of service for the employees on the ground of caste and

hence the question of caste at the time of appointment as Handyman did not arise. As such the evidence of the concerned

workman is to the effect that initial appointment as Handyman was not on the basis of caste.

35.

This sort of evidence of the concerned workman is not acceptable. It appears that in 1976 the first party company

invited application for the post of Handyman from eligible candidate as per the guidelines following the reservation

policy of government. On going through the application of the concerned workman vide Exhibit-62. It clearly appears

that the concerned workman submitted application and furnished the information that he was working with Prabhash

Press Girgaum previously as Handyman and in this application he has clearly made the declaration that he belongs to

Hindu Chambhar and as such he belongs to Schedule caste. In support, it appears that he submitted copy of the school

leaving certificate along-with the application. It is thus clear that in his application he had made declaration that he

belongs to Schedule Caste as Hindu Chambhar. That information was not in respect of his birth date but in his

application he was called upon to give information whether he belongs to Schedule Caste and he has made declaration

that he belongs to SC being Hindu Chambhar caste which is notified by the Government as Schedule Caste. In view of

that it appears that he was appointed as Handyman on 17.12.1976 by the first party company.

36.

Not only that, but the further promotion was given to the concerned workman as ‘Steward’ in the grade of pay of

Rs. 1780-20-1920-25-2120-30-2510 by internal promotion. Ex-66 is the Promotion Panel Report for the post of

‘Steward’ in the said pay scale. In this promotional panel report it has been stated that the said panel perused the personal

file of Assistant Steward and as per Promotion Roster Point 1 is reserved for SC and Point 4 is reserved for ST. it is

4392

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2018/ASADHA 9, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

further clear from this report that the concerned workman was recommended for promotion as Steward as per the

provisions contained in the Recruitment and Promotion Policy procedure and also the Government directives regarding

the reservation for SC/ST for the post filled in by promotion. It is clearly mentioned that the name of concerned workman

is recommended for the promotion as Steward being SC candidate.

37.

It appears that on 9.2.2005 letter was issued to the concerned workman mentioning there in that he has not

submitted the caste certificate at the time of his appointment since he has declared in pre-employment application form

that he belongs to SC and availed this reservation in first party corporation. By way of this letter he was advised to

submit his caste Certificate. Thereafter on 23.2.2005 the concerned workman submitted his application mentioning

therein that he belongs to Hindu Kunbi caste and submitted copy of Caste Certificate issued by Executive Magistrate,

Sanghmeshwar to show that he belongs to Kunbi caste. From the document on record it clearly appears that initially at

the time of submitting application for appointment as Handyman the concerned workman has made declaration that he

belongs to S.C. being Hindu Chambhar and also got promotion claiming himself to be S.C. But then he submitted the

Caste Certificate issued by Executive Magistrate to show that he belongs to OBC (Other Backward Classes). It cannot be

accepted that initially his appointment was not on Caste basis and he submitted the School leaving certificate believing

that it was required to be produced by him for noting the birth. It is because the record shows that he got promotion on

the basis of Schedule Caste and on the basis of declaration and School leaving certificate along-with application

submitted by him showing that he is Hindu Chambher by caste.

38.

Realizing this difficulty Ld. Advocate for the concerned workman submitted that at the time when the concerned

workman was admitted in school the information was given by his father and therefore the Xerox copy of school leaving

certificate on which the Enquiry Officer has relied is not the reliable piece of evidence and therefore the base of charge

itself not reliable.

39.

In the context, it is necessary to see that management has examined Mr. S.K. Patil the principal of Sane Guruji

Night High School situated at Andheri (E) as management witness 2. He was also made available at the time of Cross

Examination for second party workman. On the basis of his evidence the E.O. has given the finding that the certificate

submitted by concerned workman at the time of submitting Application is a ‘fake’ school leaving certificate. The Head

master of the Sane Guruji School has endorsed on school leaving certificate that he verified and found that this school

leaving certificate is not issued by the said School and it is a fake School leaving certificate . The said endorsement is at

Ex-N and it appears that the concerned workman has cross examined the MW-2 in detail with respect to Ex-N i.e. School

Leaving Certificate.

40.

It is contention of the concerned workman that he approached to the school through his father to collect School

leaving certificate in the year 1970. However the death certificate issued to the second party workman, on 8.2.2005 by

Group Panchayat, Makhajan, TalukaSangmeshwar, District Ratnagiri shows that his father expired on 8.12.1965.

41.

Even then Ld. Advocate for the concerned workman submitted that workman Mr. Ghewade in his affidavit on

oath has stated that his father was trying to get the birth Certificate while he was serving in Prabhat Press. In this view he

submitted that the concerned workman believed that the certificate was obtained by his father for showing birth

certificate and therefore there was no reason for concerned workman to submit before the authority about the caste

mentioned by him in his application on the basis of his School Leaving Certificate. Submission is to the effect that in

such circumstances even the management did not take action against the concerned workman by filling complaint to the

police on the ground that he has made false affidavit. Submission is also to the effect that the concerned workman was

not given any opportunity to adduce evidence of PrajaSamajwadi Party to prove the recognition of the said School from

the government and therefore findings of the E.O. are perverse.

42.

It is not possible to accept this submission. As seen earlier in his application itself concerned workman has made

declaration about his caste as Schedule Caste and then thereafter got promotion on the basis of reservation. That time he

did not inform to the authorities that the caste mentioned in his application is incorrect. It is only after the letter given to

him by management, he has come out a case that he belongs to OBC caste and submitted the certificate of Collector

showing that he belongs to OBC caste. In his letter to the management he submitted that the certificate issued by the

school was submitted by him to show his birth date as he believed that the certificate was necessary to show the birth

date and not the caste. It shows that concerned workman did not mention about the wrong caste mentioned in School

Leaving Certificate at any time before he was asked to submit the caste certificate.

43.

It is pertinent to note that in his affidavit dated 23.2.2005 the concerned workman has stated “ I say that if there is

any lapse found by the authorities regarding details of my caste shown in School Leaving Certificate which is based on

information supplied by father and not on my information, that lapse be condoned and no action be taken against me.”

This would show that in his affidavit also he has stated that the wrong information was supplied about his caste at

the time of submitting his application for getting appointment mentioning therein that he belongs to S.C. i.e. Hindu

Chambhar.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 30] 2018@vk"kk<+ 9] 1940

4393

44.

Ld. Advocate for the management refers to Exhibit-X which is General School Admission Register wherein

Sr No. 6 is allocated to student Gaikwad Ranjana Robert and not to the second party workman and two photocopies of

General School Admission Register wherein name of second party workman Ramchandra Babu Ghewade did not appear

anywhere in the General School Admission Register. In view of this it was pointed out that in his Cross-examination

concerned workman admitted that the School Leaving Certificate produced by him at the time of enrollment in the

Corporation is bogus. Considering all these facts, it can be said that the findings of Enquiry Officer are based on

evidence.

45.

Ld. Advocate for the management seeks to rely on the decision in case of R. VishwanathPillai V/s. State of

Kerala and others. Supreme Court (2004)2 SCC 105 to submit that, “if the appointment in the service was obtained

on the basis that the applicant belongs to SC community and when it was found by the Scrutiny committee that he did not

belong to SC Community, then the very basis of his appointment was taken away. His appointment was no appointment

in the eyes of law. He cannot claim a right to the post as he had usurped the post meant for a reserved candidate by

playing a fraud and producing false caste certificate.”

46.

He also seeks to rely on the decision in case of Bansi Ram V/s. Union of India &Ors., Delhi High Court, 2011

to submit that, “Whenever it is found that a government servant who was not qualified or eligible in terms of the

recruitment rules etc. for initial recruitment in service or had furnished false information or produced a false certificate in

order to secure appointment should not be retained in service. After inquiry as provided in Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA)

Rules, 1965 if the charges are proved, the government servant should be removed or dismissed form service and under no

circumstances any other penalty should be imposed.”

47.

Considering all these facts, I find that the inquiry conducted by the management was fair and proper and the

findings of E.O. are not perverse. Issue No. 1 & 2 are therefore answered accordingly as indicated against each of them.

ISSUE NO. 3

48.

So far this issue is concerned it appears from the pleadings of the party that second party workman made an

appeal to the managing director vide his letter dated 3/6/2008. The managing director agreed with the punishment order

passed by the disciplinary Authority and declared it as just proper and appropriate and thus the Appeal came to be

rejected.

49.

Precisely it is submission of the first party management that at the time of employment the second party workman

had furnished false information and school leaving certificate handed over to the first party company at the time of taking

up employment was found to be fake and therefore second party workman did not deserve any leniency with respect to

the punishment of dismissal awarded to him for grave and serious employment misconduct committed by him.

50.

So far the legal position is concerned, the court would not interfere with the administrative decision unless it was

illegal or suffered from procedural impropriety or irrational in the sense it was outrageous, defiance of logic or moral

standards. It is held in the decision in case of DomohPannaSagar Rural Rational Bank & Ors V/s. Munnalal Jain

CA No. 8258 of 2004 [SC] that

“Unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience

of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to shorten litigations it may, in exceptional and

rate cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course if

the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary

Authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed.”

51.

In this respect hand can be laid on the decision in case of LIC of India &Ors. V/s. S. Vasanti, Civil Appeal No.

7717 of 2014 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court with reference to decision in case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank

(Now Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank) & Anr. V/s. Rajendra Singh (2013) 12 SCC 372 has held;

“a)

when charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry, the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a

particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities.

The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary / departmental authorities and to decide the

quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the

jurisdiction of the competent authority.

Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority,

only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court.

Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of

charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to be remit the matter

back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of

penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case.”

4394

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2018/ASADHA 9, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

52.

In the facts of the present case I find that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority on account of

misconduct of the concerned workman cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate. It appears that at the time of

employment of the second party workman he had furnished false information and school leaving certificate submitted by

him to the first party company at the time of taking up the employment was found to be fake. Considering the gravity of

charges and the scope to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, I find that the punishment

of termination from service is adequate to the alleged misconduct. Issue No.3 is therefore answered accordingly in the

affirmative.

Issue No. 4 & 5.

53.

In view of my findings to the above issues, the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is liable to be

rejected. Hence order.

ORDER

The reference is rejected with no order as to costs.

Date: 22.05.2018

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2018

dk-vk- 995-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ j.kfno

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky;&2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 18@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-06-2018 dks çkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@35@2010&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)º

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2018

S.O. 995.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Mumbai (Ref. No. 18/2011) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Randive and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 15.06.2018.

[No. L-11012/35/2010-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/18 of 2011

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

M/s. RANDIVE

M/s. Ranadive,

D/21, Balgovind Co-op. Housing,

Society, Taikalwadi Road, Mahim,

Mumbai – 400 016.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Shri Sudesh Chandrakant Chavan,

384, Yadav Patilwadi, Room No. 4,

Prabhadevi,

Mumbai – 400 025.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 30] 2018@vk"kk<+ 9] 1940

4395

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mr. Satyaraj Alva, Advocate

FOR THE WORKMEN

In person

Mumbai, dated the 16^th May, 2018

AWARD

This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and

sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-11012/35/2010 – IR (M-I) dated 05.05.2011. The terms of reference given

in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the retrenchment of Shri Sudesh Chandrakant Chavan w.e.f. 03.05.2010 by M/s. Ranadive is proper

and justified ? To what the workman is entitled to get benefits and from which date?”

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices.

On going through Rozanama it appears that the concerned workman remained absent since long i.e. since

23/9/2016. The concerned workman has not filed his affidavit or any other evidence to substantiate the Statement of

Claim, despite the fact that ample opportunity is given to the concerned workman to adduce evidence by way of affidavit

or by otherwise.

It appears from the proceedings and submissions of first party that the first party has decided to close down

permanently irrevocably for good and the service of all the employees on the rolls of the firm to terminate on account of

permanent and irrevocably closing down of its business activities.

In these circumstances, it appears that the concerned workman has failed to adduce the evidence to substantiate the

claim. Therefore, the Reference is liable to be rejected for want of evidence and accordingly the Reference is rejected.

ORDER

Reference is rejected.

Date: 16.05.2018

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 twu] 2018

dk-vk- 996-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj funs'kd]

Hkkjrh; izkS|ksfxdh laLFkku] dkuiqj vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 10@2017) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-06-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@105@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 21st June, 2018

S.O. 996.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 10/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director,

Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur & Others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

13.06.2018.

[No. L-42011/105/2016-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, HJS PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, KANPUR

ID No 10/2017

Between :

Sh. Pradeep Kumar Singh,

3/86-A, Block ‘F’, Panki

Kanpur(U.P.)-208020

4396

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2018/ASADHA 9, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

And

The Director,

Indian Institute of Technology

Kalyanpur, G.T. Road,

Kanpur (U.P.)-208016.

The Proprietor,

M/s United Refrigeration Works,

A-5, Vivek Cinema Building, Chunniganj,

Kanpur(U.P.)-208001.

AWARD

Central Government, MOL, New Delhi, vide notification no. L-42011/105/2016-IR (DU) dated 01/03/2017 has

referred this Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

“Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur/M/s United Refrigeration

Works, Kanpur in terminating the services of Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh workman with effect from 01.02.2016 is

just fair & legal? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”

Case of the worker Pradeep Kumar Singh is that he was appointed on 1/07/2013 at substation no. 2 as Electrical

Supervisor under O.P. no.1 and his appointing authority was Shri Vinay Tiwari who deputed the worker under

Vijay Kumar, Assistant Engineer. Worker states that he was discharging his work satisfactorily but Shri Vijay

Kumar started giving him mental torture because he was interested to get appointed his real Bhatija and when he

could not success in his mission then he brought his real relatives before him who started extending threat to the

worker. It is further stated by worker that he was terminated on 22.04.2015 against which he made a complaint

before SSP/ DM Kanpur Nagar and also sent a letter to Central Labor Court, Kanpur and the Labor authorities in

turn vide letter dated 25.05.2015 through register post in which Mr. Rajeev Kapoor and the worker was directed to

put their appearance on 10.06.15 before Shri Dependra Mohan Verma, LEO and the worker get justice which was

not liked by Shri Vijay Kumar and whatever behavior was being suffered by the worker he intimated the same to

the higher officer and the higher authorities after calling the worker and Shri Vijay Tiwari tried to reconcile the

matter. In consultation with Vijay Kumar one Shri Ishwar Singh highly skilled man was posted at substation no. 2

and worker was removed from there and ultimately Ishwar Singh was appointed as electrical supervisor and the

worker was asked to perform the work of A/C audit in the premises of IIT and this work was done by the worker in

the routine manner. It is further pleaded that on 22/01/2016 under the order of Shri Vinay Tiwari worker was

placed as plant operator but he did not resume the charge and stated that w.e.f 01.02.16 he is attending his duty

daily but no work was allotted to him.

Apart from above it is stated by the worker that he was interviewed by Shri Vinay Tiwari Executive engineer in

which he was declared successful and he was allotted work at substation no. 2 which was under M/s Kapoor

Electrical Company India. He was paid fixed salary at Rs 13,000 which was paid to him by the officer of IIT and

also the same was enhanced by them but whatever staff was present at substation no. 2 their salary was enhanced

by Ministry of Labor. An amount of Rs 1560/month was deducted against EPF and Rs 227.50 was deducted by

way of contribution against ESI from his salary and in this way a total amount of Rs 11,212/- was received by him

as salary. He has further stated that he was posted as highly skilled worker in the firm of SM Engineer where he

was paid his salary Rs 461/- per day thereafter he was asked to join M/s United Refrigeration Works on 1.11.2015

thereafter from 22.01.2016 he was posted as plant operator in new IME building by way of transfer from where

w.e.f 1.02.2016 he was removed from the service.

Worker has further stated no show cause notice was ever received by him alleged to have been sent by IIT and

when meeting was organized through labor department then these notices were provided to him by one Anil

Srivastava .

Under the facts and circumstances as above, worker has requested that justice should be done in the matter.

Opposite party no. 1 that is the Director IIT Kanpur has filed their reply/ written statement, inter alia, stating that

reference order speaks existence of Industrial Dispute between Opposite party no. 1/ opposite party no. 2 and

workman as a party to the dispute which renders the impugned reference order ambiguous , self contradictory and

evasive; that without application of proper mind Central Government has referred the dispute to this Tribunal

ignoring daily wager, casual and contract labrors have no lien in the employment of public sector; that the

establishment of opposite party no. 1 does not fall in purview of Industry and there had never been the relationship

of master and servant between Opposite party no. 1 and the conserned workman in any capacity whatsoever ; that

the present matter is not an Industrial Dispute for this reason; because neither the service of the claimant is

dismissed, retrenched, terminated nor has he been deprived from the work from 01.02.16 from OP. No. 1; because

no cause of action could have accrued to the claimant from 1.02.16 against O.P. no.1 as he had never been

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 30] 2018@vk"kk<+ 9] 1940

4397

appointed by it at any point of time in any capacity and because neither prima facie any case is made out nor

balance of convenience lies in favor the claimant.

On merit management in reply to unnumbered opening para of the statement of the claim has stated that the same

are denied emphatically being contrary to the facts on record as also being not related with O.P. NO.1. Worker has

never been appointed or engaged by O.P. NO.1, however, it is stated that worker had been engaged by its

contractor in the past and lastly by O.P. NO.2. It is admitted by O.P. NO.1 that M/s Kapoor Electric

Company(India) was engaged with them as contractor and rest of the assertions are denied being fabricated,

misleading and contrary to the facts on record. In the present reference O.P. NO.1 had no role accept to ascertain

that the workers engaged by its contractors were paid wages etc as commensurate to their category of employment

fixed by Central Gov. from time to time. It is also denied by O.P. NO.1 that they had no power, authority,

jurisdiction and competence to fix or enhance the salary of claimant as he had never been its employee; however,

power was vested with the O.P. NO.2 under whose employment he had been working. On the basis of internal

working it was gathered that the claimant had in fact been engaged by M/s United Refrigeration Works, the O.P.

NO.2, the contractor of OP NO.1 w.e.f 1/11/2015 for completion of contract assigned to it and thereafter from

1/02/16, he started absenting from his duties for which workers were served letters dated 22/02/16, 2/02/16,9/03/16

which were never responded by him. He made false SMS to the district officer ultimately causing his own

appearance before Police station Kalyanpur where he regretted in writing so the services of the worker have been

dispensed by it. O.P. NO.2 vide their letter dated 1/04.2016 informed the Executive Engineer of OP NO.1 that

worker had not surrendered his identity card issued by O.P. NO.2, therefore, entry of worker in the premises of

O.P. NO.1 may not be allowed else O.P. NO.2 shall not be responsible. It is also stated by O.P. no.1 that the worker

had been engaged with M/s Kapoor Electric Company for sometimes and thereafter with M/s SM Engineer, the

contractor of O.P. NO.1 which is evident from the own contention of the worker and the documents enclosed with

the statement of the claim. The worker is habitual of accusing against his employer as well as officers of O.P. no.1.

On the basis of above it is requested by O.P. no.1 that the claim of the worker is liable to be rejected being devoid

of merit.

10.

O.P. no.2 in its written statement has stated that they have been awarded contract as per tender entered into with

IIT Kanpur for day today maintenance of AC and domestic Air conditioning unit of academic area, all hostels,

visitor hostel, VFA and Health Centers etc., which was for the period of 12 months effective from 1.11.15 . It is

also alleged as per contract O.P. no.2 had to employ, Unskilled Labor-7, Semi Skilled Labor-17, and skilled labor

4, High Skilled labor-1. All these labors have been employed to perform contract on temporary and daily wage

basis and they were paid their wages as per provisions of Minimum Wages Act and ESI and PF benefit is also

extended to the labor as per contract. Worker Pradeep Kumar Singh has been appointed as highly skilled labor and

has drawn wages for the month of Nov. 2015 to Jan. 2016 from O.P. no.2 which is not in dispute. It is further

submitted that the worker remained absent from work w.e.f 01.02.16 without giving any written or oral notice to

the firm and due to absence of the worker O.P. no.2 has to suffer work loss and accordingly due notice dated

22/02.16, 2.03.16 and 9.03.16 were dully served upon the address at 3/86 A , Block F, Panki, Kanpur of the worker

and also intimated to the concern person of IIT requiring the worker to explain the reason of his absence from his

work. Notice served upon the worker has not been deliberately received by him and returned by the postal

authority. Due to his personal grievance with officers of IIT, worker has created nuisance and threatened for

committing suicide to the officers of IIT and its management and the matter was dealt with by PS Kalyanpur and

OP NO.2 was called upon in the matter where the worker himself admitted his guilt and since he was continuously

absent from the work O.P. no.2 vide letter dated 01.04.16 addressed to the Suptd. Engineer, ITW, IIT Kanpur,

informed that worker has been terminated from the work for his misconduct by way of unnecessary absence from

the work without giving any notice to the O.P. no.2. Worker has received payment on 15.02.16 for the month of

Jan 2016 through cheque dated 13.02.16 and has admitted his absence without any notice while receiving the

cheque and no reason for his absence was explained by him. Worker was appointed on temporary/daily wages basis

hence; he has no right of work under the O.P. no.2 after committing continuous misconduct by him as above. It

appears that worker has some problem with some alleged officers of IIT and the O.P. no.2 is not concerned with his

personal grievance with the officers of IIT and his illegal demand of the post of supervisor. Worker has not

whispered even a single word in the name of complaint against O.P. no. 2 expect his termination that was done due

to misconduct committed by him. Lastly it is pleaded that due to completion of tenure of work in terms of work

contract entered into with IIT and O.P.no.2 all the workers has been discharged on Oct 2016 by O.P. no.2. And on

the basis of above the O.P. no.2 prayed that in view of facts and circumstances as explained above, the claim

petition of the worker be rejected.

11.

Worker on the order sheet dated 27.06.17 had made an endorsement that he has not to file any rejoinder in the case.

12.

Worker Pradeep Kr. Singh has examined himself as W.W.1. Opposite party no. 1 has examined Sri Vinay Kumar

Tiwari, Ex. Engineer, I.I.T, Kanpur, as M.W.1 & opposite party no.2 Proprietor United Refrigeration Works

examined its Manager Sri Anil Srivastava as WW2.

4398

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2018/ASADHA 9, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13.

Worker Pradeep Kumar Singh has filed copy of reference paper no. 4/6 and the copy of public grievance paper

no.4/7, copy of complaint to DLC 4/8-9, termination of worker order dated 30/4/15 issued by M/s Kapoor Electric

company 4/10, copy of complaint made to DLC 4/11-12. Letter send to ACM-VII Kanpur Nagar by Shri Omkar

Dixit 4/13-14 , copy of order passed by DLC with regard to the complain by worker 4/15 & 4/17 and an order of

LEO dated 19.04.16 paper no. 4/16 and 4/19 , copy of order dated 20.05.16 paper no. 4/18, 4/21 and 4/22-23 and

copy of complaint made by worker to ALC paper no. 4/24-26,4/ 27-29, paper cutting 4/30, copy of order passed by

ACM-VII Kanpur Nagar dated 20.03.16, copy of ID card of worker 4/32-33 pay slip of worker 4/34 and other

documents which shall be discussed at appropriate stage.

14.

Opposite party no. 1 has filed documents through list 9/1 which are letters dated 22.02.16, 2.03.16, 9.03.16 and

1.04.16 served to worker by opposite party no. 2 paper no. A-1 to 4, copy of complaint of worker paper no. B1-3

and letter of ACM-VII paper no. C, letter sent to ACM-VII by Omkar Dixit D to D1 and an apology tendered by

worker Pradeep Kumar Singh paper no.E, paper regarding contract with M/s Kapoor Electric Company, paper no.

F1-F36, record of attendance of employees of contractor M/s Kapoor Electric Company G1-10, paper regarding

contract with opposite party no. 2 paper no. H1-H38 and record of attendance of its employees paper no. L1-L6,

contract with M/s SM Engineers paper no. J1-J10 and record of attendance of its employees paper no. K1-K12,

written statement of opposite party no. 1 paper no. L1-L4 and letter dated 23.01.17 of IIT Kanpur ALC(C) paper

no. M1-M11.

15.

Opposite party no. 2 M/s United Refrigeration has also filed w/s paper no.6/1-7 and filed documents through list

6/8 which are letter of acceptance dated 9.10.15 by superintending Engineer to M/s United refrigeration paper no.

6/9 including terms of contract paper no. 6/10-13, order of LEO with regard grievance of worker dated 19.04.16

paper no. 6/14, grievance of worker 6/15-16 copy of cheque dated 13.02.16 received by worker 6/17 copy of

personal data of worker 6/18, copy of attendance sheet for the month of Dec. 15 and Jan 16 paper no. 6/19-22, copy

of letter sent to ACM-VII Kanpur dated 6.04.16 by Omkar Dixit paper no. 6/23-24, copy of notice dated

22.02.16,2.03.16 and 9.03.16 along with postal envelopes 6/25-29, and letter of termination dated 1/04/14 paper no.

6/30.

16.

I have heard the worker in person and AR for opposite party no. 1 and 2 and have also perused the record.

17.

M.W.1 Sri Vinay Kumari Tiwari, Ex.Engg. of opposite party no.1 has filed his affidavit in evidence stating that

opposite party no.1 has no control over the employees provided to the IIT by contractors nor they have any

relationship of master and servant between them and attendance of such employees provided by the contractor is

taken by the contractor and payment of wages is also made by the contractor. M.W.1 has also proved the

attendance register maintained by the contractor where attendance of worker is also taken. He further alleged that

the worker has never given any application for appointment nor his written examination or interview was taken and

he was never issued any appointment letter. In fact worker is in habit of making false complaint against the officers

of the opposite party no. 1 and the worker himself absconded from his duties from 01.02.16 and thereafter opposite

party no.2 has given him three notices dated 22.02.16, 02.03.16 and 09.03.16 but worker did not appear to resume

his duties and thereafter opposite party no.2 contractor has removed the worker from the service by letter dated

01.04.16 copy of letter has been proved by this witness. As worker was never in the employment of opposite party

no.1 hence question of termination of the service of the worker does not arise. His services were terminated by

opposite party no. by letter dated 1.04.16.

18.

In his cross examination the witness has denied that interviews of worker was taken by him and other officers for

his appointment. In fact worker was engaged by the contractor for the work. He further denied that the increment of

worker was granted by opposite party no.1.

19.

It appears from the cross examination of this witness that the worker did not cross examined the witness on the

point of his absence w.e.f. 1.2.16. Neither he has controverted the witness by suggesting that notices issued by

opposite party no.2 was not received by him nor he has cross examined the worker in his termination by opposite

party no.2 vide letter dated 01.04.16. As such the facts proved by the witness supported by documentary evidence

are not rebutted or challenged by the worker therefore, the testimony of M.W.1 is liable to be accepted.

20.

On behalf of opposite party no.2 M/s United Refrigeration works his manager Sri Anil Srivastava has filed his

evidence through affidavit as M.W.2 wherein he has deposed that the opposite party no.1 IIT awarded a work

tender for a period of 12 months effective from 1.11.15 by letter of acceptance dated 09.10.15 worker was engaged

on 01.11.15 and has performed the work up to Jan 16 in the category of skilled labor and received the wages as

such worker has not completed 240 days of continuous working. He absented from 01.02.16 upon which registered

notices dated 22.03.16, 02.03.16 and 09.03.16 were sent at the address of the worker but the notices were refused

and returned undelivered with the postal remark that the worker did not received notices deliberately. As such

opposite party no.2 through letter dated 01.04.16 terminated the services of the worker due to his unauthorized

absence from the place of work and he has received payment on 15.02.16 for the month of Jan., 16 vide cheque of

PNB endorsing his absence with without notice while receiving the cheque.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 30] 2018@vk"kk<+ 9] 1940

4399

21.

Worker has asked a very few questions in the cross examination where this witness admitted that the worker

Pradeep Kumar Singh was not attending his duties from 01.02.16 and therefore, the services were terminated. He

has denied that the worker has continuously attended the duties up to 20.02.16. He has also admitted that on the

address provided by the worker three notices were sent through registered post but the worker did not received the

notices. Opposite party has also filed unopened all the three envelops through which the notices were sent to the

worker. A perusal of envelops reveals that they were returned to the opposite party no.2 with remarks of postman

as refused. As such service of notices is held sufficient by refusal of worker to receive the notices. This witness has

not been cross examined on relevant points stated by him and the evidence of M.W.2 is also supported by

documentary evidence which witness has not been rebutted or controverted in his cross examination. As such the

testimony of this witness is also liable to be accepted.

22.

Worker Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh has examined himself as w.w.1 who has denied acceptance of notices sent to

him by opposite party no.2. In his cross examination. He has stated that the opposite party no.2 has changed his

post from supervisor to operator and from that day he did not work himself but he has requested to Mr. Vinay

Tiwari to allot him another work but he was not given another work. He has further admitted that he was paid his

wages by opposite party no.2 and his EPF and ESI was deducted by the contractor. He was never given any

appointment letter by IIT that is why he was not the employee of IIT. He admitted his signature on paper no.4/44

which is receiving payment of wages through cheque dated 13.02.16 wherein it is written that worker remained

absent without any information from 01.02.16 and today he has come to receive the payment.

23.

He further admitted that his attendance was taken by contractor opposite party no.2 and wages was also paid by

opposite party no.2.

24.

From the perusal of evidence of worker it is clear that he has also admitted to be the employee of opposite party

no.2 and also admitted receiving of wages through opposite party no.2. As such he has admitted the case of

opposite parties that he was the employee of opposite party no.2 from whom he was receiving his wages. He has

further admitted for not attending duties after change of work from supervisor to operator and all the three notices

sent to him by opposite party no.2 are held to be sufficiently by refusing to accept the notices. He has received the

payment for the month of Jan. through cheque of opposite party no.2 dated 13.2.16. As such it indicates that he has

received full and final payment of wages endorsing that he himself absented and now he has come to receive

wages. It is also evident that opposite party no.2 contractor given sufficient opportunity to the worker by issuing

three notices but the worker has refused to accept the same and did not resume his duties.

25.

As such termination of his service by opposite party by letter dated 01.04.16 with effect from 01.02.16 is just and

legal.

26.

One more point is to be discussed that the worker has not worked continuously for 240 days under opposite party

no.2 therefore, worker is not liable to get any benefit under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.

27.

For the reasons discussed above, it is held that the termination of services of the worker w.e.f.1.2.16 is just fair and

legal and the worker is not entitled for any relief pursuant to the present reference order.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 twu] 2018

dk-vk- 997-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jftLVªkj]

bykgkckn fo'ofo|ky;] bykgkckn ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 51@2017) dks çdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-05-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@20@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 21st June, 2018

S.O. 997.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 51/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Registrar,

Allahabad University, Allahabad and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 31.05.2018.

[No. L-42012/20/2017-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

4400

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2018/ASADHA 9, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No.51/2017

Between-

Sri Arjun Prasad Tiwari son of Nand Kishore Tiwari,

Village Janwamau Pure Negi Ka Purwa,

P.O. Saiyad Yasinpur, Kunda,

Pratapgarh U.P.

And

The Registrar,

Allahabad University,

Allahabad.

AWARD

Central Government, Mol & Employment New Delhi, vide notification no. L-42012/20/2017-IR(DU) dated

06.07.17, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Whether the worker Sri Arjun Prasad Tiwari son of Sri Nand Kishore Tiwari can be said to be the workman of

Allahabad University. 2. And if so whether the termination of the services of the worker is legal and justified? 3. If

not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date?

In this case after receipt of reference order from the Ministry, repeated notices were issued to the workman for

filing of his claim statement. Today when the case was taken up for hearing, neither the worker was present nor

any claim statement is filed in the case. The representative for the management present.

By a bare perusal of the order sheet it is amply clear that the worker has been given sufficient opportunity to file his

claim petition but on none of the dates fixed in the case worker was present before the court.

It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the worker is not interested in prosecuting his case and in the absence of claim

petition as also for want of evidence and proof the reference is bound to be decided against the worker holding that

the worker is not entitled for any relief pursuant to the present reference order.

Reference is answered accordingly against the worker.

SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 twu] 2018

dk-vk- 998-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMohtuy

bathfu;j] VsyhdkWe izkstsDV] jk;iqj ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lhthvkbZVh@,uthih@31@2009) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-06-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@64@2004&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 21st June, 2018

S.O. 998.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/31/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

Divisional Engineer, Telecom Project, Raipur and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

13.06.2018.

[No. L-40012/64/2004-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 30] 2018@vk"kk<+ 9] 1940

4401

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S. S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/31/2009

Date: 16.05.2018

Party No.1

The Divisional Engineer,

Telecom Project,

7, Sahakari Marg-II,

Choubey Colony, Raipur

Versus

Party No.2

Shri Rewa Ram Banjare

S/o Shri Jhagru Ram,

Village Akolikala,

PO: Chhatera, PS: Aarang,

Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

AWARD

(Dated: 16th May, 2018)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of The Divisional Engineer, Telecom Project (“Party No.

1” in short) and their workman, Shri Rewa Ram Banajare (the “workman” in short), for adjudication, as per letter No.L-

40012/64/2004- IR(DU) dated 23.09.2009, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Divisional Engineer, Telecom Project, BSNL, Raipur in

terminating the services of Shri Rewa Ram Banjare w.e.f. 31.12.1990 is legal and justified? It not, what

relief the workman is entitled to?”

On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, by registered post with acknowledge due. On 22.10.2009, statement of claim was filed and on 18.11.2009,

written statement was filed and on 05.04.2011, rejoinder was filed.

By filing of statement of claim, workman stated that, he was appointed as a labour on 18.04.1985, but his service

was terminated by order dated 11.12.1990, but according to the workman, his service was actually terminated on

31.12.1990.

According to the workman, he worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year, but Party No. 1 had not

given any proper opportunity being heard before termination of his service. According to the workman, he was also very

severe harassed and disproportionate punishment was passed against him.

So, he prayed that, order of termination dated 11.12.1990 is illegal, improper and unjust. So, he is entitled for

reinstatement with full back wages.

All major facts were denied by the Party No. 1 by filing written statement, but it is admitted that, workman was

terminated on 31.12.1990, because he was casual labour on the basis of contract. There was no appointment order and

the question of termination does not arise. According to the Party No. 1, workman was engaged on the availability of the

work, if work was not available, his service was not required. He was a causal labour, there is no appointment order and

the question of termination does not arise.

It was denied that, the workman worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year. All mazdoors on roll in

the year of 1990 were retrenched by the department by giving proper notice and compensation. In the same line,

workman was also terminated by giving notice and paid the compensation in 1990.

According to the Party No. 1, statement of claim is also hopeless and devoid of by limitation. According to the

Party No. 1, the workman is not entitled to any relief.

By filing rejoinder, workman asserted all most all facts, which were mentioned in the statement of claim.

According to him, he had completed more than 240 days in every calendar year. It is denied that, still work is available

with Party No. 1. He had not been paid the retrenchment compensation at the time of termination of service. According

to the workman, he filed a claim before Central Administrative Tribunal and the case was dismissed by the court. So,

this court has the jurisdiction to entertain this dispute.

4402

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2018/ASADHA 9, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

Point of determination:

Whether the action of the management in termination of service of the workman is legal and justified?

Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?

Reasons for observation:

On behalf of the workman, in support of the statement of claim, he filed evidence on affidavit on 13.09.2011. On

the contrary, on behalf of the Party No. 1, evidence on affidavit of Shri R.R. Yadav was filed, but both the parties were

not present in the court for further examination and cross-examination, so, their evidence is incomplete. As far as the

affidavits are concerned, no document was produced and proved on behalf of the both parties, so these evidences treated

as oath against oath. We fail to understand, what facts are proved and what are not proved. In my opinion, burden of

proof is lying on the workman. So, workman failed to prove those facts, which were raised in the statement of claim and

rejoinder. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

SHYAM SUNDER GARG, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 twu] 2018

dk-vk- 999-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj jftLVªkj]

bykgkckn fo'ofo|ky;] bykgkckn ,oa muds deZpkjh ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaèk esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 50@2017) dks çdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31-05-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@19@2017&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 21st June, 2018

S.O. 999.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 50/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Registrar,

Allahabad University, Allahabad and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 31.05.2018.

[No. L-42012/19/2017-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHUBHENDRA KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 50/2017

Between-

Sri Muneshwar Shukla son of Kakedeen Shukla,

Village Ojha Ka Purva ,

P.O. Saiyad Yasinpur, Kunda,

Pratapgarh U.P.

And

The Registrar,

Allahabad University,

Allahabad.

AWARD

Central Government, Mol & Employment New Delhi, vide notification no. L-42012/19/2017-IR (DU) dated

06.07.17, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % twu 30] 2018@vk"kk<+ 9] 1940

4403

Whether the worker Sri Muneshwar Shukla son of Sri Kakedeen Shukla can be said to be the workman of

Allahabad University. 2. And if so whether the termination of the services of the worker is legal and justified?

3. If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date?