Gazette contains multiple Subjects

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

प्राध्किार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक WEEKLY

सं. 27] नई दिल्ली, जुलाई 8— जुलाई 14, 2018, शनिवार/आषाढ़ 17—आषाढ़ 23, 1940

No. 27] NEW DELHI, JULY 8—JULY 14, 2018, SATURDAY/ASADHA 17—ASADHA 23, 1940

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

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

भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड ;iiद्ध

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्राालय

नई दिल्ली, 4 जुलाई, 2018

का.आ. 1055.—केंद्र सरकार, राजभाषा ;संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोगद्ध नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम ;4द्ध के अनुसरण में प्रसार भारती, दूरदर्शन महानिदेशालय ;सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्राालयद्ध के निम्नलिखित अध्ीनस्थ कार्यालयों, जिनके 80% से अध्कि कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हदी का कार्यसाध्क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को अधिसूचित करती है :-

1. दूरदर्शन केंद्र, पणजी

2. दूरदर्शन अनुरक्षण केंद्र, नाशिक

[पफा. सं. ई-11017/10/2017-हदी]

डॉ. माध्ुरी गुप्ता, संयुक्त निदेशक ;राजभाषाद्ध MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2018

S.O. 1055.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under Prasar Bharti, Directorate

3716 GI/2018

(4521)4522 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 14, 2018/ASADHA 23, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] General, Doordarshan (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting), whereof more than 80% of the staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :

1. Doordarshan Kendra, Panaji,

2. Doordarshan Maintenance Centre, Nashik

[F. No. E-11017/10/2017- Hindi]

Dr. MADHURI GUPTA, Jt. Director (O.L.)

नई दिल्ली, 4 जुलाई, 2018

का.आ. 1056.—केंद्र सरकार, राजभाषा ;संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोगद्ध नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम ;4द्ध के अनुसरण में प्रसार भारती, आकाशवाणी महानिदेशालय ;सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्राालयद्ध के निम्नलिखित अध्ीनस्थ कार्यालयों, जिनके 80% से अध्कि कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हदी का कार्यसाध्क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को अधिसूचित करती है :-

1. विज्ञापन प्रसारण सेवा, आकाशवाणी, तिरुवनंतपुरम

2. आकाशवाणी, सूरतगढ़

3. आकाशवाणी, उदयपुर

4. आकाशवाणी, नजीबाबाद

5. आकाशवाणी, रायपुर

[पफा. सं. ई-11017/10/2017-हदी]

डॉ. माध्ुरी गुप्ता, संयुक्त निदेशक ;राजभाषाद्ध

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2018

S.O. 1056.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under Prasar Bharti, Directorate General, All India Radio (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting), whereof more than 80% of the staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :

1. Advertisement Broadcasting Service, All India Radio, Thiruvananthapuram

2. All India Radio, Suratgarh

3. All India Radio, Udaipur

4. All India Radio, Najibabad

5. All India Radio, Raipur

[F. No. E-11017/10/2017- Hindi]

Dr. MADHURI GUPTA, Jt. Director (O.L.)

कृ षि एवं किसान कल्याकृ षि एवं किसान कल्याकृ षि एवं किसान कल्याकृ षि एवं किसान कल्याण मंत्रालयण मंत्रालयण मंत्रालयण मंत्रालय

((((कृ िषकृ िषकृ िषकृ िष,,,, सहकारिता सहकारिता सहकारिता सहकारिता एवं किसान कल्याएवं किसान कल्याएवं किसान कल्याएवं किसान कल्याणणणण िवभागिवभागिवभागिवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई, 2018

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 1057105710571057....————के न्(cid:12) सरकार, ब(cid:14)-राज्य सहकारी सिमित िनयमावली, 2002 के िनयम 31 के उप-िनयम (क) के माध्यम से प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते (cid:14)ए (cid:31)ी जलज (cid:31)ीवास्तव, भा.प्र.से. (यूटी-84), अपर सिचव, भारत सरकार, कृ षि एवं किसान कल्याण मंत्रालय कृ िष, सहकारिता एवं किसान कल्याण िवभाग को एमएससीएस अिधिनयम, 2002 के खंड 99 के उप-खंड (2) के प्रयोजनार्थ अपीलीय अिधकारी के पद पर नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. एल-11012/2/2003-एल एंड एम]

सुशील कु मार झा, अवर सिचव[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 14, 2018/आषाढ़ 23, 1940 4523

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS WELFARE

(Department of Agriculture, Co-operation and Farmers Welfare)

New Delhi, the 5th July, 2018

S.O. 1057.—In exercise of the powers conferred vide sub-rule (a) of Rule 31 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Rules, 2002, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Jalaj Srivastava, IAS (UT-84), Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Co-operation and Farmers Welfare, as Appellate Authority for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 99 of the MSCS Act, 2002.

[F.No. L-11012/2/2003-L & M]

SUSHIL KUMAR JHA, Under Secy.

iksr ifjogu ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 11 tqykbZ] 2018

dk-vk- 1058-—tcfd ljdkj us ns'k esa ukSogu vkSj ukSpkyu ds mn~ns'; ls jk"Vªh; tyekxksZa ¼,uMCY;w½ ds fofu;eu ,oa fodkl gsrq Hkkjrh; varnsZ'kh; tyekxZ vf/kfu;e] 1985 ds rgr Hkkjrh; varnsZ'kh; tyekxZ izkf/kdj.k ¼vkbZMCY;w,vkbZ½ dh LFkkiuk dh gS ftlds dk;ksZa esa vU; ckrksa ds lkFk&lkFk jk"Vªh; tyekxksZa dk fodkl] j[kj[kko vkSj csgrj mi;ksx rFkk ukSogu ,oa ukSpkyu ds fy, Hkwfe dk LokfeRo( blds fy, ;kstukvksa dks rS;kj djuk( jk"Vªh; tyekxksZa ds fy, volajpukRed lqfo/kkvksa dh LFkkiuk( laj{k.k mik; rFkk izf'k{k.k dk;Z vkSj ukSogu vkSj ukSpkyu dh lqfo/kk ,oa lqj{kk ds fy, vko';d vU; dk;Z djuk rFkk jk-t- ds lq/kkj dk;Z 'kkfey gSaA

vkSj tcfd vkbZMCY;w,vkbZ dh tyekxZ fodkl ifj;kstuk ¼ts,eohih½ ds varxZr Øe'k% okjk.klh vkSj lkfgcxat esa fodflr dh tk jgh eYVh ekWMy VfeZuy ifj;kstukvksa dh lgk;rk ,oa vuqiwj.k ds fy, ljdkj us okjk.klh esa kbZV foyst vkSj ykWftfLVd gc ifj;kstuk rFkk lkfgcxat esa DyLVj&de&ykWftfLVd ikdZ LFkkfir djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k gSA

vkSj tcfd mi;qZDr mn~ns'; ds fy, l`ftr dh tkus okyh lHkh lEifRr;ksa ,oa ifjlEifRr;ksa dk vf/kdkj izkf/kdj.k esa fufgr gksxkA

vc blfy, ljdkj vkns'k nsrh gS fd ^^okjk.klh esa sV foyst vkSj ykWftfLVd gc ifj;kstuk** rFkk ^^lkfgcxat esa DyLVj&de&ykWftfLVd ikdZ** ifj;kstukvksa ds fy, ,d ifj;kstuk izca/ku bdkbZ ds lkFk vkbZMCY;w,vkbZ dks dk;kZUo;u ,tsUlh ds :i esa ukfer fd;k tkrk gSA

[सं. आईडब्ल्यूटी-11011/55/2017-आईडब्ल्यूटी]

panzef.k jkmr] funs'kd ¼vkbZMCY;wVh½

MINISTRY OF SHIPPING

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2018

S.O. 1058.—WHEREAS Government has set up the Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWAI) through the Inland Waterways Authority of India, Act, 1985 for the regulation and development of National Waterways (NWs) in the county for the purpose of shipping and navigation and for matters connected therewith, which inter alia, include development, maintenance and better utilization of the NWs and the appurtenant land for shipping and navigation and preparation of schemes for the same; setting up of infrastructural facilities for NWs and carrying out conservancy measures and training works and all other acts necessary for the safety and convenience of shipping and navigation and improvement of the NWs.

AND WHEREAS the Government has decided to set up a Freight Village and Logistics Hub project at Varanasi and Industrial Cluster-cum-Logistics Park at Sahibganj to support and complement the multimodal terminal projects at Varanasi and Sahibganj respectively being developed under IWAI's Jal Marg Vikas Project (JMVP).

AND WHEREAS, all the properties and assets to be created for the above purpose, shall be vested in the Authority.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Central Government orders that the said IWAI shall be designated as the Implementing Agency, with a Project Management Unit, for the "Freight Village and Logistics Hub at Varanasi" and "Industrial Cluster-cum-Logistics Park at Sahibganj" projects.

[No. IWT-11011/55/2017-IWT]

CHANDRAMANI ROUT, Director (IWT)4524 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 14, 2018/ASADHA 23, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

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

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

((((को$िच को$िच को$िच को$िच शाखा शाखा शाखा शाखा))))

को7िच, 22 जून, 2018

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1059105910591059....————भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) िविनयम, 1988 के िविनयम (4) के उपिविनयम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिनके विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, को लाइसेंस प्रदान किए गए हैं:-

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

01010101 अप्रैल अप्रैल अप्रैल अप्रैल 2017201720172017 से से से से 31313131 मार्च मार्च मार्च मार्च 2018201820182018 तक स्वीतक स्वीतक स्वीतक स्वीकृकृकृकृ तततत किए गए किए गए किए गए किए गए लाइसेंसोंलाइसेंसोंलाइसेंसोंलाइसेंसों की सूचीकी सूचीकी सूचीकी सूची

[सं. के न्(cid:12)ीय प्रमाणन विभाग/13 : 13]

के . कदिरवेल, वै\ानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

(KOCHI BRANCH)

Kochi, the 22nd June, 2018

S.O. 1059.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

Licence granted during 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018

[No. CMD/13:13]

K. KADIRVEL, Scientist 'F' & Head

को7िच, 22 जून, 2018

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 1060106010601060....————भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) िविनयम, 1988 के िविनयम (5) के उपिविनयम (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत(cid:135)ारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द /स्थगित कर दिया गया है :-

अनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूचीअनुसूची

20170401 ºÉä 20180331 iÉEò रद्रद्रद्रद्दददद ÊEòªÉä MÉB लाइस(cid:6)स(cid:7) EòÒ ºÉÚSÉÒ

[सं. के न्(cid:12)ीय प्रमाणन विभाग/13 : 13]

के . कदिरवेल, वै\ानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख

Kochi, the 22nd June, 2018

S.O. 1060.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

LIST OF LICENCES CANCELLED FROM 20170401 to 20180331

[No. CMD/13:13]

K. KADIRVEL, Scientist 'F' & Head4540 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 14, 2018/ASADHA 23, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3म3म3म3म औरऔरऔरऔर रोजगाररोजगाररोजगाररोजगार मंत्रालयमंत्रालयमंत्रालयमंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 9 जुलाई, 2018

काकाकाका....आआआआ.... 1061106110611061....————राष्ट्रपति, (cid:31)ी अवतार चन्द डोगरा पीठासीन अिधकारी, के न्(cid:12) सरकार औद्योगिक अिधकरण -सह -(cid:31)म न्यायालय सं. 1, दिल्ली को दिनांक 20.07.2018 से छ: माह की आगे की अविध तक अथवा िनयिमत पदस्थ अिधकारी नियुक्ति तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, पीठासीन अिधकारी, कें (cid:12) सरकार औद्योगिक अिधकरण- सह- (cid:31)म न्यायालय सं. 2, दिल्ली के पद का अतिरिक्त प्रभार स(cid:138)पते है ।

[सं. ए-11016/03/2015-सीएलएस-II]

अजय मिलक, अवर सिचव MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2018

S.O. 1061.—The President is pleased to extend the period of additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.2, Delhi entrusted to Shri Avtar Chand Dogra, Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1, Delhi for a further period of 06 months with effect from 20.7.2018, or till the appointment of a regular incumbent, or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.

[No. A-11016/03/2015-CLS-II]

AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 9 जुलाई, 2018

का.आ. 1062.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 17/2010द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 09.07.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/62/2009-आईआर ;बी-Iद्ध]

बी. एस. बिष्ट, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2018

S.O. 1062.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 09.07.2018.

[No. L-12012/62/2009-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 17/2010

Date of Passing Award – 1st June, 2018

Between :

1. The Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India, Main Branch, Bhubaneswar.

2. The Asst. General Manager,

State Bank of India, LHO, Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bhubaneswar (Orissa) …1st Party-Managements

(And)

Shri Rajendra Kumar Sahoo, S/o. Late Shri Premananda, At./Po. Biswanathpur, Via./Ps. Balipatna, Dist. Khurda (Orissa)

…2nd Party-Workman

Appearances :

M/s. Subrat Mishra, Advocate             …       For the 1st Party-Managements
M/s. Trilochan Lenka, Advocate           …       For the 2nd Party-Workman

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-12012/62/2009 – IR(B-I), dated 24.9.2010 read with letter of even number dated 06.02.2012 in exercising its authority conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short "The Act") have referred for an adjudication of an industrial dispute with the schedule "Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Main Branch, Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Shri Rajendra Kumar Sahoo w.e.f. 22.05.2006, is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled"?

2. The case of the disputant workman, in short, as emerged from his statement of claim is that he joined initially as a temporary Messenger on daily wage basis in the management-Bank on 20.11.1980 and his engagement was with certain interim breaks. In the year 1988, State Bank of India, Orissa had published an advertisement inviting applications to fill- up 140 posts of Messengers in their different branches situated through-out the State of Odisha. He applied for the posts and appeared in the interview conducted by the Management of State Bank of India. Becoming successful in the test his name was found in Sl. No. 126 of the panel list of the year 1990. Having found in the panel list he was issued with an appointment letter to work as a Messenger in the Bhubaneswar Main Branch and posted at Fund Settlement Link Office situated in the 2nd Floor, SBI Main Branch, Bhubaneswar on deputation basis from the Main Branch. His monthly wages was disbursed to him through his S.B. A/c. No. 10872436541, SBI Main Branch, Bhubaneswar. The 1st Party- Management has also issued an I.D. Card in his favour. Due to some bipartite settlement between the management of SBI and Employees Staff Federation the initial panel list was modified on several occasions and the panel list was valid upto 31.3.1997. However, being appointed by the 1st Party-Management he worked as a Messenger with utmost sincerity and faithfull-ness at F.S.L.O., Bhubaneswar till he was retrenched all of a sudden by the 1st Party-Management No. 2 with effect from 17.5.2006. He received Rs. 23,829/- as retrenchment compensation and Rs. 5,295/- towards notice pay at the time of his retrenchment. It is his claim he was in continuous service of Messenger from 19.6.1995 to 17.5.2006 which is more than eleven years and his retrenchment was without any reason, whereas other Messengers were allowed to continue in service which is a gross violation of the provisions of the I.D. Act. As such, he raised a dispute before the labour machinery resulting in the reference as mentioned earlier. He has prayed for his reinstatement with back wages and other service benefits.

3. Being noticed the 1st Party-Managements have contested his claim denying the averments of the applicant and taking a stand that the applicant was never appointed against any regular post or as a permanent Messenger. He was not given continuous engagement of 240 days in a year and his engagement was on daily wage basis and intermittent due to exigencies of work in the management branch. In order to give an opportunity for permanent absorption to ex-temporary employees/daily wagers in the various branches of the management Bank and keeping in view the various settlements entered into between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management of the State Bank of India eligible persons including the workman called to an interview conducted by the Management-Bank. The persons who ranked better than the workman were absorbed in the Bank whereas the disputant could not be absorbed as the panel lapsed on 31.3.1997. Being aggrieved the workman and some others preferred a Writ vide O.J.C. No. 3028/1997 before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa challenging therein the appointment of Messengers in the Bank pursuant to those bipartite settlements. By virtue of interim stay order dated 17.3.1997 passed in the above writ the workman continued to work at the branch. The said writ having been dismissed and the panel list having been lapsed with effect from 31.3.1997 the disputant did not have any right to claim appointment or to continue in the service of temporary nature. According to the Management a S.L.P. was also preferred against the order of dismissal of the writ by the Hon'ble High Court and the said S.L.P. having been dismissed on 16.7.1999 the temporary employment of the disputant workman should have been discontinued. But, due to over-sight he continued at the Main Branch, Bhubaneswar in temporary capacity despite the fact that he was a surplus temporary daily wager. When a decision was taken to discontinue his service he was retrenched with effect from 17.5.2006 after payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as required under the provisions of the I.D. Act. A further stand has been taken by the Managements that the disputant and three others raised a similar dispute for same cause of action before the Hon'ble High Court vide Writ Petition No.

6163/2006 and the said writ petition squarely covers the present dispute. The said writ is yet to be disposed of and as such the dispute raised in the present reference is not maintainable. Thus, the Managements have challenged the maintainability of the reference as well as its merit and prayed for its rejection on the grounds mentioned above.

4. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties issues have been settled on the following lines:-

1. Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Shri Rajendra Kumar Sahoo with effect from effect from 22.05.2006, is legal and justified?

2. If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled?

5. The disputant workman has examined himself and an ex-employee of his erstwhile branch of the Management Bank and filed documents like copy of experience certificate starting joining date 20.11.1980, copy of news paper advertisement, copy of note of General Manager dated 3.2.2001, copy of the Bank Account No. 10872436541, copy of I- card issued by the State Bank of India, copy of By-law of the Management, copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, copy of the salary sheet for October, 1995, copy of the termination order dated 17.5.2006, copy of the protest letter dated 12.6.2006 of the workman, copy of certificate of the workman, copy of physically handicapped certificate of the workman and copy of the letter of the Bank reflecting protected workman to A.G.M., SBI, Bhubaneswar which are marked as Ext.-1 to Ext.-13 in support of his claim whereas, the Management has examined its copy of the settlement dated 17.11.1987, copy of the settlement dated 16.7.1988, copy of the settlement dated 27.10.1988, copy of the settlement dated 9.1.1991, copy of the minutes of the conciliation proceedings with settlement dated 30.7.1996, copy of the writ petition bearing O.J.C. No. 3028/1997, copy of the order dated 15.5.1998 of the Hon'ble High Court in O.J.C. 2787/1997, copy of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 3082/1999, copy of the writ petition No. 6163/2006 and copies of the letter dated 17.5.2006 and copies of corresponding undelivered postal envelop with regard to compliance of Section 25-F of the Act and exhibited the documents like Ext.-1 to Ext.-10 to deny the claim of the disputant.

FINDINGS

6. Since all the issues are inter-related to each other for the sake of convenience they are taken into consideration simultaneously.

The specific stand of the Managements is that appointment/engagement of the disputant was purely temporary in nature and on daily wage basis due to exigencies of work and it was intermittent. He was never engaged for a continuous period of 240 days in a year. On the other hand the disputant has claimed in his statement of claim as well as in oral evidence adduced on his behalf that initially he was appointed temporarily on daily wage basis with some breaks. But, he was given appointment as a Messenger with effect from 19.6.1995 by the 1st Party-Management No. 1 and deputed to work at F.S.L.O. He worked continuously as such at F.S.L.O. till he was retrenched all of a sudden with effect from 17.5.2006. As a settled position of law the initial burden lies on the disputant to prove his engagement/employment and that he continued in the employment for more than 240 days continuously in a twelve calendar months preceded to his retrenchment. In this regard the oral testimony of the disputant workman, his other witness and the Management witness are very vital. It is emerging from their statements before this Tribunal as well as from their cross examination that the disputant was engaged by the 1st Party-Management No. 1 to discharge the duty of Messenger at F.S.L.O. for the period from 19.6.1995 to 17.5.2006 when he was retrenched from service. He was paid retrenchment compensation and notice pay at the time of retrenchment. Though, the 1st Party-Management's claim his appointment was purely temporary, daily wage basis and intermittent, the evidence led by the Management as well as by the workman clearly indicates that he was in the job of Messenger at F.S.L.O. continuously without any break from 19.6.1995 to 17.5.2006 in the minimum scale of pay prescribed for a Messenger in the Management Bank. In that view of the matter burden shifts to the Management to establish that the appointment of the disputant workman was purely temporary and casual. He was not given any regular appointment. No document is produced on behalf of the Management to show the nature of appointment of the disputant. The termination letter issued by the Management (Ext.-10) does not also disclose the nature of employment of the disputant. On the other hand, the copy of the note of the Asst. General Manager, F.S.L.O. (Ext.-3) and copy of the official correspondence between the General Manager, Main Branch and the Asst. General Manager, F.S.L.O. (marked Ext.-13) clearly reveals that the disputant being a protected employee working on minimum salary basis and he was working as a Loan Messenger in the department of F.S.L.O. and he was drawing salary from the Main Branch. The correspondences were related to the year 2001 and admitted into the evidence without any objection from the side of the Management since they relate to their official correspondence.

7. Further, it is not in dispute that being eligible for the post of Messenger he was called to an interview held by the Management and he was empanelled in a select list for his appointment against permanent vacancies. The panel list is stated to be valid till 31.3.1997 whereas, the disputant is stated to have given appointment on 19.6.1995 in the minimum scale of the post of Messenger and allowed to continue to work as such till 17.5.2006. If the validity of the empanelment list was till 31.3.1997 as per the Management's pleading, the Management has failed to explain as to how the disputant was allowed to continue in the post of Messenger temporarily and on daily wage basis till his retrenchment in the year 2006. Rather, M.W.-1 has categorically admitted in his cross examination that all casual or temporary Messengers were[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 14, 2018/आषाढ़ 23, 1940 4543 retrenched from service on expiry of the validity of the empanelment list. There is neither in the oral testimony of Management witness M.W.-1 nor there is any document or order of the Hon'ble High Court to show that the disputant was allowed to continue in service in view of the direction of the Court till his service was retrenched. M.W.-1 has admitted that there was no allegation against the disputant when he was in service. As per the provisions of the I.D. Act employment of the workman as badlie's, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status of privileges or permanent workman is an unfair labour practice. It shall not be over-looked that in the decision in the case between State of Karnataka –versus- Uma Devi pronounced on 10.4.2006 and reported in 2006(4) SCC 1 it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 53 on the following terms:-

......."There may be cases where irregular appointment (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanapppa (1967 (1) SCR 128) (AIR 1967 SC 1071) R.N. Nanjundappa (1972 (1) SCC 409) : (AIR 1972 SC 1767) and B.N. Nagarajan (1979 (4) SCC 507) : (AIR 1979 SC 1676) and referred to in Para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of Tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above – referred to and in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above-referred to and in the light of this judgement. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the Courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed"

The decision casts a duty upon the concerned government or instrumentalities to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of Courts or Tribunals, as one time measure. As per the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. –versus- M.L. Kesari & Ors. reported in 2010 AIR (SCW) 4577 the object behind the said direction in Para 53 of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi is two folds. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of the Courts or Tribunals, before the date of decision in the case of Uma Devi are considered for regularization in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the Departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employee/persons on daily wage/adhoc/casual for long period and then periodically regularized them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years. Coming to the case at hand the disputant was in employment of the Management-Banks for more than eleven years continuously and being found eligible he was also enlisted in the empanelment for his permanent absorption/appointment after being called to an interview held by the management of State Bank of India. Keeping in view the principles and observations set out by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi the disputant could have been regularized in the service by the Management on account of his engagement temporarily as a Messenger for more than ten years continuously without any protection by the order of any Courts or Tribunals. Further, the provisions enumerated in Section 25-G of the Act require that in case of any retrenchment the principle of "last come first go" should be followed unless there is any specific agreement between the employer and the worker in this behalf. No pleadings or evidence has been advanced on behalf of the 1st Party Management-Bank that procedure of retrenchment as enunciated in Section 25-G was followed while the disputant was retrenched from his service. In view of the discussions made above though, provisions of Section 25-F was complied with while retrenching him, the action/conduct of the Management allowing the disputant workman to be in employment temporarily against the job of a Messenger with minimum scale of pay for a period of more than ten years and retrenching him all of a sudden in violation of the principles set out by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi and procedure enumerated in Section 25-G clearly amounts to an unfair labour practice. Hence, the action of the management of State Bank of India, Main Branch, Bhubaneswar in terminating the service of Shri R.K. Sahoo with effect from 22.5.2006 is not legal and justified.

8. Coming to the pleadings and issue of maintainability of the reference as raised by the 1st Party-Managements in view of pendency of W.P.(C) No. 6163/2006 in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa it may be mentioned here that perusal of the Writ Application (marked as Ext.-9) reveals that pleadings and relief sought by the applicant in the said Writ are totally different than the present one. The issues raised in the present reference are totally different than the issues raised in the Writ. Further-more, there is no bar to the disputant to raise a dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act while seeking a remedy under a Writ jurisdiction. Thus, there is no reason to hold that the present reference is not maintainable on account of a pendency of a writ before the Hon'ble High Court wherein the petitioner is stated to have made a prayer for his reinstatement.

9. Coming to the point of relief to which the disputant workman is entitled to it cannot be over-sighted that as per the settled principle of the Hon'ble Apex Court reinstatement with back wages when termination is held illegal is not to be applied mechanically in all cases. It is necessary to take into consideration post of factors, such as, manner and method of appointment, nature of employment, period of employment etc. While giving a direction for reinstatement4544 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 14, 2018/ASADHA 23, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] with back wages. There may be cases where termination of a temporary or daily wager is found to be illegal on the ground it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in violation of the principle of "last come first go". There may also be the situation that persons junior to the retrenched workman may under some policy is regularized whereas, the concerned workman is retrenched. In such circumstances the retrenched workman should not be denied reinstatement unless there are some other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement. In the case at hand the disputant workman is stated to have been employed initially as a temporary Messenger on daily wage basis during the year 1981 to 1988 till he was empanelled in a selection process and he was given continuous engagement from the period 19.06.1995 to 17.05.2006. He is also found to have worked for more than eleven years continuously as a Messenger in the F.S.L.O. branch. Being eligible he was called to an interview conducted by the Management of SBI and being successful in the interview his name was found in the selection list. At the same time it cannot be over-sighted that his retrenchment is related to the year 2006 and twelve years since have been elapsed. If an award of reinstatement is given in the case at hand it would not be fruitful as the disputant is about to reach the age of superannuation in near future.

Hence, keeping in view the settled principles and facts discussed above and the amount which could have been earned by the disputant, if he was continued in service, it is just and appropriate to award a compensation of Rs. 5.0 lakhs (five lakhs) to the disputant for his alleged illegal retrenchment instead of his reinstatement. The above amount of compensation shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of publication of the award failing which the disputant workman is entitled to receive 8% interest on the said amount with effect from the date of publication of the award.

10. The reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 11 जुलाई, 2018

का.आ. 1063.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 ;1947 का 14द्ध की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार जम्मू-कश्मीर

बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्रा के संब( नियोजकोंंंंंं और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ;संदर्भ संख्या 116/2013द्ध को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11.07. 2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/94/2013-आईआर ;बी-Iद्ध]

बी. एस. बिष्ट, अनुभाग अध्किारी

New Delhi, the 11th July, 2018

S.O. 1063.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 116/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of J & K Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11.07.2018.

[No. L-12012/94/2013-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No.116 of 2013

Sh. Shafqat Salam Shah S/o Sh. Salam-Ud-Din-Shah, R/o Kaskoot, Banihal, Tehsil Banihal, District Ramban, Jammu-182146 …Workman

Versus

1. The Chairman, J & K Bank, Corporate Head Quarter,

Maulana Azad Road, Srinagar (Kashmir).

2. The President, J & K Bank, Camp Office, Zonal Head Quarter, Rail Head Complex, Near Divisional Commissioner Office, Jammu …Management[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जुलाई 14, 2018/आषाढ़ 23, 1940 4545

AWARD

Dated : 31.05.2018

1. A reference was received from the Government of India vide Letter No.L-12012/94/2013-IR(B-I), Dated 25.10.2013 under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputed Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:-

"Whether action of the Management of J & K Bank represented through the Chairman, Corporate Head

Quarter, Maulan Azad Road, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir of termination of service of Shafqat Salam

Shah S/o Salam-Ud-Din Shah from the bank w.e.f. 13.01.2012 without conducting a formal disciplinary

enquiry is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?"

2. In response to the notice, both the parties appeared respectively. Workman herein filed statement of claim with the averment that workman was appointed as Peon-cum-Watchman on 23.12.1989 in the office of management at District Office J & K Bank Doda. The workman was also periodically transferred at various places with the State of J & K. During this period, he has worked diligently and sincerely. There was no complaint against the workman from this period. Later on, the workman was promoted from the Post of Peon-cum-Watchman to the next higher grade as Assistant Banking Associate on 11.03.2008 and was posted J & K Bank, Banihal. In the year 2009 he was transferred to Banihal and remained there till he was attached with the Executed Manager.

3. It is the case of the workman that in the year 2011, workman was attached at Zonal Office, J & K Bank, Doda and after five days, he was attached with the Personal Department Corporate Head Quarter, Srinagar vide Order dated 03.10.2011. During this period, workman came to know that his services has been terminated in the month of January 2012 for the reasons best known to the management. It is necessary to mention here that no show cause notice was served upon the management by the respondent nor he was paid any retrenchment compensation even a notice of termination was not served upon him. The workman requested the management several times for the copy of the order of termination, but of no use. However, workman got the copy of the termination order through internet.

4. The workman was under great shock and applied for copy of the order of termination as well as other documents to the management, who threatened the workman to be handed over to Police.

5. It is further alleged that workman has filed a Civil Suit for declaration before District Judge, declaring his termination to be null and void with a consequential relief of mandatory injunction commanding the respondents to be reinstated the workman in service but the same was dismissed on 20.02.2013 by learned Judicial Magistrate(Sub-Judge), delegate the workman to avail the remedy under the Act. Finally the workman has made a prayed for declaring his termination to be illegal and in the violation of the provisions of the ID Act and further prayed for reinstatement with back wages.

6. The claim was contested by the management, who filed written statement thereof and took various preliminary objections. It is admitted that service of the workman was terminated by invoking Clause 522 of the Sastry Award. The said order is legal and valid and does not warrant any interference by this Tribunal. It is also alleged in Para 2 of the written statement that integrity of the workman had become doubtful as such, his services was terminated. The management-bank had conducted detailed investigation regarding the fraud committed by the officials of the bank including the workman. The management had also sent copy of the order as well as retrenchment compensation but the same was received back as unserved. Since the management has complied with the conditions as contained in Clause 522(1) of Sastry Award as such, the termination of the workman is legal and valid and binding upon the workman.

7. Rejoinder filed on behalf of the workman to the written statement filed by management no.2 wherein the workman has reiterated his earlier stand contained in claim statement.

8. The workman in order to prove the cause against the management, examined himself as WW1 and tender in evidence his affidavit Ex.WW1. He also tender in his evidence documents Ex.W2 to W10.

9. The management has examined Sh. Joginder Pal Sharma(Assistant), whose affidavit is Exb.MW1, Sh. Parveen Kumar Gupta(Senior Executive) whose affidavit is Exb.MW2 and Sh. Wanchoo(Vice President) whose affidavit is Exb.MW2.

10. I have heard Sh. R.P. Longia AR of the workman and Sh. Sumit Batra, AR of the management.

11. It is clear from the pleadings on the record that workman was engaged by the management as Peon-cum- Watchman on 23.12.1989 and thereafter on 11.3.2018 he was promoted as Assistant Banking Associate. The management has also admitted these material facts in the written statement. It is also a admitted case of the parties that services of the workman was terminated on 13.01.2012 without issuing of any show cause notice or charge-sheet etc. The learned AR for the management in all fairness admitted that no show cause notice in terms of provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act was issued nor any charge-sheet was served upon the workman inasmuch as service of the workman was4546 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 14, 2018/ASADHA 23, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] terminated under the Clause 522(2) of the Sastry Award. In the submission of the learned AR for management, there was no requirement of holding any domestic enquiry against the workman before ordering his termination.

12. It is also clear from the perusal of affidavit of the workman Ex.W1 that it is on the similar line as the averments contained in the statement of claim. It is clear from order of termination Exb.R2 that service of the workman Sh. Shafqat Salam Shah was terminated with immediate effect on 13.01.2012. In Para 2 of this letter, there is mention of three months pay in lieu of notice. It was clearly conceded on behalf of the management that Exb.R2 was never served upon the workman nor he has received the amount of Rs.87,762/- as mentioned in copy of cheque R3. Exb.R4 is the upper cover of the letter. Exb.R6 is the endorsement of the postal order which shows that addressee, i.e. workman herein has left Jammu without his any other address. Exb.R7 is the reply furnished by the management on the RTI application filed by the workman for supplying of various documents. Exb.R9 is the copy of the complaint in Civil Suit titled Shafqat Salam Shah Vs. Chairman J & K Bank and oths.

13. There is also copy of the entire investigation conducted by the Bank and the report is dated 14.12.2011, Exb.R10. A bare perusal of the above report shows that from the saving account of Desraj etc. certain amount was withdrawn. The details of which are mentioned in the report. There are also allegations of withdrawals and preparation in respect of other accounts and management has prima facie found the workman to be guilty of the same without holding any regular enquiry. There is nothing on the record to suggest that in the preliminary enquiry workman was associated in any manner.

14. It is also appropriate to refer to the statement of MW3. This witness has admitted that services of the workman were terminated on 03.01.2012 and no notice was served upon him before terminating his services. According to him, service of the workman was terminated as per Clause 522(1) of the Shastry Award and no enquiry was conducted before his termination. He has also made reference to the retrenchment compensation i.e. three months pay which was sent to the workman through registered post. He further admitted that the show cause notice was remained unserved upon the workman. It is further admitted that bank account of the workman has been frizzed by the management as some loan amount was due against him. It is further clear that workman was living at a different place and address and as a result of which be could not served the letter of termination.

15. Joginder Pal Sharma, MW1 is the investigating officer. He has no personal knowledge regarding the working of the workman. He has done preliminary investigation of the previous period regarding matter of fictitious withdrawal. He further drawn my attention that one Gulam Hassan Katoch was found guilty and his services were terminated later on for some other cases.

16. Now, the vital question which requires determination is whether the termination of the services of the workman in terms of provisions of Clause 522(1) of the Shastry Award is legal, valid or the same is in violation of Section 25 of the Act as well as in the principle of natural justice. I have carefully gone through the various clauses of Shastry Award Exb.R1 and Clause 522(1) read as under:-

"We now proceed to the subject of termination of employment. We give the following directions:-

(i) In cases not involving disciplinary action for misconduct and subject to clause (6) below, the employment

of a permanent employee may be 1 M of Labour. Terminated by three months' notice or on payment of

three months' pay and allowances in lieu of notice. The services of a probationary may be terminated by

one month's or on payment of a month's pay and allowances in lieu of notice."

17. It is now well settled position in law from the various pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as various High Courts that whenever service of a workman i.e. particularly regular workman, who is in continuous employment of the employer, the provisions of ID Act as well as principle of natural justice are required to be followed. Equally settled is the law that in case of one month notice was not given or one month salary in lieu of such notice was not given before terminating the services of the workman, the same would be illegal under the Act and action of the management cannot be justified on the grounds that management has followed the regulation i.e. provisions of the Shastry Award. Even otherwise, as per Sastry Award also no salary of three months was paid to the workman before his termination. There is a long line decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court the principle of natural justice are applicable to quasi judicial or administrative action and in case any adverse order is to be passed against the workman, the management is required to hold formal or domestic enquiry against such a workman before ordering his termination. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Limited, 1993 LLR 584 SC, while discussing the need for adherence to principle of natural justice held that opportunity of hearing must be given before passing an order of termination and the plea of the management that standing order gives power to the management to dispense with the service of an employee without holding any enquiry or providing any hearing was out rightly rejected by the Apex Court. It was also held that order of termination of the service of an employee visits with severe consequences of jeopardising not only his livelihood but also career and livelihood of his dependents. Principle of fair play requires that a reasonable opportunity must be given before ordering the termination. Therefore, the contention of the management that there is no requirement of adhering the principle of natural justice or giving an opportunity of hearing before ordering termination cannot be accepted in the wake of legal positions discussed above.

18. Hon'ble Apex Court in Kurukshetra University Vs. Prithvi Singh (April) 2018 LLR 371 SC, emphasised the need of holding a domestic enquiry when workman is charged with serious misconduct. It was held that termination of service of a daily wager, if he has completed service of more that 240 days during the preceding 12 months without holding domestic enquiry, is illegal, attracting reinstatement with back wages. The position in the present case is even worse, the workman was admittedly engaged vide a letter dated 23.12.1989 on the Post of Peon-cum-Watchman, and then promoted in the month of March as Assistant Banking Associate. He was regular employee and his service was finally terminated on 13.01.2002 without notice or domestic enquiry. Thus, the action of the management on the face of it is illegal and order of termination passed against the workman who has served for more than 22 years is illegal and unjustified.

19. Now the residual question is whether the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with back wages or not.

20. Since in the present case workman has admittedly put in service more than 22 years and he was regular or permanent employee of the Bank whose services have been terminated in utter violations of principle of natural justice without holding any enquiry as such this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that workman is liable to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

21. As a sequel to my mind and discussion hereinabove, it is held that action of the management in terminating the services of on 13.01.2002 without conducting any domestic enquiry is totally illegal and as a necessary corollary, it is held that the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. Let copy of this award be sent for publication as required under Section 17(2) of the Act.

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.