4825 GI/2018

(5221)

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

REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 34]

ubZ fnYyh] vxLr 26—flrEcj 1] 2018] 'kfuokj@Hkkæ 4—Hkkæ 10] 1940

No. 34]

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 26—SEPTEMBER 1, 2018, SATURDAY/ BHARDA 4— BHARDA 10, 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)

वा

वा य

य

य और

और

और परवार

परवार

परवार क या

क या

क याण मंालय

मंालय

( वा

वा

वा य

य

य और

और

और परवार

परवार

परवार क या

क या

क याण िवभाग

िवभाग

िवभाग)

नई दली, 4 जनवरी, 2018

का

का.आ.

.आ.

.आ. 1268

1268

1268.—मंालय क अिधसूचना सं.यू.12012/736/2015-एमई-।(पी-।।) दनांक 15.12.2015 के अनुम म के

सरकार एतदारा, कॉलेज ािधकारयो ारा वेश रोके जाने के कारण, भारतीय आयु#व$ान परषद अिधिनयम,1956 क थम

अनुसूची म, िन(िलिखत और संशोधन करती है।

उ+ थम अनुसूची म ‘मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता’ शीष.क के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है]

“एनआरआई मेिडकल कॉलेज एंड जनरल अ/पताल, गुंटूर, आं0 देश” के सामने अंितम िवि1 के प2ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए

संि4ि,करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संवंिधत िवि1 के संबंध म िन(िलिखत अंत:/थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा.त्:—

5222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(2)

(3)

“िड8लोमा इन आपथालमॉलोजी”

डीओ

(यह एक मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता होगी जब यह

केवल 2017-18 अकादिमक स तक वेश पाए छा: के

संबंध म, डॉ.एनटीआर /वा/;य िव$ान िव<िव=ालय,

िवजयवाड़ा, आं0 देश ारा द> होगी।

[फा. सं. यू-12012/28/2016-एमई.-।]

डी. वी. के. राव, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2018

S.O. 1268.—In continuation to the Ministry’s Notification No.U.12012/736/2015-ME.I dated 15.12.2015, the

Central Government, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 due to stoppage of admission by the college authorities:-

In the qualifications mentioned against “NRI Medical College & General Hospital, Guntur, Andhra

Pradesh” under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], against the

following qualifications and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration” [ hereinafter

referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely-

(2)

(3)

“Diploma in Ophthalmology”

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by Dr. NTR University of Health

Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in respect

of students admitted upto the academic session

2017-18 only.)

[F.No. U.12012/28/2016-ME-I]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

नई दली, 4 जनवरी, 2018

का

का.आ.

.आ.

.आ. 1269

1269

1269.— मंालय क अिधसूचना सं.यू.12012/72/2012-एमई-। (पी-।।) दनांक 06.11.2012 के अनुम म के

अनुसूची म, िन(िलिखत और संशोधन करती है।

संि4ि,करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संवंिधत िवि1 के संबंध म िन(िलिखत अंत:/थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा.त्:-

(2)

(3)

“िड8लोमा इन ऑथ@पीिडAस”

डीऑथ@

(यह एक मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता होगी जब यह

केवल 2017-18 अकादिमक स तक वेश पाए छा: के

संबंध म, डॉ.एनटीआर /वा/;य िव$ान िव<िव=ालय,

िवजयवाड़ा, आं0 देश ारा द> होगी।

[फा. सं. नं. यू-12012/28/2016-एमई.-।]

डी. वी. के. राव, अवर सिचव

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5223

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2018

S.O. 1269.— In continuation to the Ministry’s notification No.U.12012/72/2012-ME(P.II) dated 06.11.2012,

the Central Government, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 due to stoppage of admission by the college authorities:-

In the qualifications mentioned against “NRI Medical College & General Hospital, Guntur, Andhra

Pradesh” under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], against the

following qualifications and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration”[ hereinafter referred

to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely-

(2)

(3)

“Diploma in Orthopaedics”

D.Ortho

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by Dr. NTR University of Health

Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in respect

of students admitted upto the academic session

2017-18 only.)

[No. U.-12012/28/2016-ME-I]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

नई दली, 4 जनवरी, 2018

का

का.आ.

.आ.

.आ. 1270

1270

1270.—मंालय क अिधसूचना सं.यू.12012/15/2013-एमई-।(पी-।।) दनांक 23.04.2013 के अनुम म के

अनुसूची म, िन(िलिखत और संशोधन करती है।

(2)

(3)

“िड8लोमा इन चाइड हैथ”

डीसीएच

(यह एक मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता होगी जब यह

केवल 2017-18 अकादिमक स तक वेश पाए छा: के

संबंध म, डॉ.एनटीआर /वा/;य िव$ान िव<िव=ालय,

िवजयवाड़ा, आं0 देश ारा द> होगी।

[फा. सं. यू-12012/28/2016-एमई.।]

डी. वी. के. राव, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2018

S.O. 1270.— In continuation to the Ministry’s Notification No.U.12012/15/2013-ME(P.II) dated 23.04.2013,

the Central Government, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 due to stoppage of admission by the college authorities:-

In the qualifications mentioned against “NRI Medical College & General Hospital, Guntur, Andhra

Pradesh” under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], against the

following qualifications and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration”[ hereinafter referred

to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely-

5224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(2)

(3)

“Diploma in Child Health”

DCH

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by Dr. NTR University of Health

Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in respect

of students admitted upto the academic session

2017-18 only.)

[F. No.U.-12012/28/2016-ME.-I]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

नई दली, 4 जनवरी, 2018

का

का.आ.

.आ.

.आ. 1271

1271

1271.— मंालय क अिधसूचना सं.यू.12012/61/2012-एमई-।(पी-।।) दनांक 19.10.2012 के अनुम म के

सरकार एतदारा, कॉलेज ािधकारय: ारा वेश रोके जाने के कारण, भारतीय आयु#व$ान परषद अिधिनयम,1956 क थम

अनुसूची म, िन(िलिखत और संशोधन करती है।

उ+ थम अनुसूची म ‘मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता’शीष.क के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] “एनआरआई

मेिडकल कॉलेज एंड जनरल अ/पताल, गुंटूर, आं0 देश” के सामने अंितम िवि1 के प2ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संि4ि,करण’ [िजसे

इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संवंिधत िवि1 के संबंध म िन(िलिखत अंत:/थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा.त्:-

(2)

(3)

“िड8लोमा इन ऑEसटेGAस एंड गाइिनकॉलोजी”

डीजीओ

(यह एक मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता होगी जब यह

केवल 2017-18 अकादिमक स तक वेश पाए छा: के

संबंध म, डॉ.एनटीआर /वा/;य िव$ान िव<िव=ालय,

िवजयवाड़ा, आं0 देश ारा द> होगी।

“िड8लोमा इन डमHटॉलोजी, वेनरालोजी एंड लेसी ”

डीडीवीएल

(यह एक मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता होगी जब यह

केवल 2017-18 अकादिमक स तक वेश पाए छा: के

संबंध म, डॉ.एनटीआर /वा/;य िव$ान िव<िव=ालय,

िवजयवाड़ा, आं0 देश ारा द> होगी।

“िड8लोमा इन एिन/थीिसया ”

डीए

(यह एक मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता होगी जब यह

केवल 2017-18 अकादिमक स तक वेश पाए छा: के

संबंध म, डॉ.एनटीआर /वा/;य िव$ान िव<िव=ालय,

िवजयवाड़ा, आं0 देश ारा द> होगी।

“िड8लोमा इन रेिडयो-डायKोिसस ”

डीएमआरडी

(यह एक मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता होगी जब यह

केवल 2017-18 अकादिमक स तक वेश पाए छा: के

संबंध म, डॉ.एनटीआर /वा/;य िव$ान िव<िव=ालय,

िवजयवाड़ा, आं0 देश ारा द> होगी।

[फा. सं. यू-12012/28/2016-एमई.-।]

डी. वी. के. राव, अवर सिचव

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5225

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2018

S.O. 1271.—In continuation to the Ministry’s Notification No.U.12012/61/2012-ME(P.II) dated 19.10.2012, the

Central Government, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 due to stoppage of admission by the college authorities:-

In the qualifications mentioned against “NRI Medical College & General Hospital, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh”

under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], against the following

qualifications and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration”[ hereinafter referred to as

column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely-

(2)

(3)

“Diploma in Obstetrics & Gynaecology”

DGO

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by Dr. NTR University of Health

Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in respect

of students admitted upto the academic session

2017-18 only.)

“Diploma in Dermatology, Venerology & Leprosy”

DDVL

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by Dr. NTR University of Health

Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in respect

of students admitted upto the academic session

2017-18 only.)

“Diploma in Anaesthesia”

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by Dr. NTR University of Health

Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in respect

of students admitted upto the academic session

2017-18 only.)

“Diploma in Radio Diagnosis”

DMRD

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by Dr. NTR University of Health

Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in respect

of students admitted upto the academic session

2017-18 only.)

[F. No.U.-12012/28/2016-ME.-I]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

नई दली, 4 जनवरी, 2018

का

का.आ.

.आ.

.आ. 1272

1272

1272.— मंालय क अिधसूचना सं.यू.12012/481/2015-एमई-।(पी-।।) दनांक 14.08.2015 के अनुम म के

अनुसूची म, िन(िलिखत और संशोधन करती है।

उ+ थम अनुसूची म ‘मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता’शीष.क के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] “एनआरआई

(2)

(3)

“िड8लोमा इन टुवरAयलूिसस एंड चे/ट िडसीसीस”

डीटीसीडी

(यह एक मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता होगी जब यह

केवल 2017-18 अकादिमक स तक वेश पाए छा: के

5226

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

संबंध म, डॉ.एनटीआर /वा/;य िव$ान िव<िव=ालय,

िवजयवाड़ा, आं0 देश ारा द> होगी।

[फा. सं. यू-12012/28/2016-एमई.-।]

डी. वी. के. राव, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2018

S.O. 1272.— In continuation to the Ministry’s Notification No.U.12012/481/2015-ME(P.II) dated 14.08.2015,

the Central Government, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 due to stoppage of admission by the college authorities:-

In the qualifications mentioned against “NRI Medical College & General Hospital, Guntur, Andhra

Pradesh” under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], against the

following qualifications and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration”[ hereinafter referred

to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely-

(2)

(3)

“Diploma in Tuberculosis & Chest Diseases”

DTCD

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by Dr. NTR University of Health

Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in respect

of students admitted upto the academic session

2017-18 only.)

[F. No.U.-12012/28/2016-ME.-I]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

शुि

शुि-प

प

नई दली, 20 जुलाई, 2018

का

का.आ.

.आ.

.आ. 1273

1273

1273.—इस िवभाग क अिधसूचना सं.यू-12012//01/2017-एमई-। दनांक 01.02.2017 के अनुम म और

भारतीय आयु#व$ान परषद अिधिनयम,1956(1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2) ारा दM त शिA तय: का योग करते Oए,

के सरकार, भारतीय आयु#व$ान परषद से परामश. करके उ+ अिधिनयम क थम अनुसूची म, िन(िलिखत, और संशोधन करती है,

अथा.त:-

उ+ अनुसूची म –

(क) ) ) ) “केरल

केरल

केरल वाय

वाय

वाय िवान

िवान

िवान िविवालय

िविवालय

िविवालय, , , , तृशूर

तृशूर

तृशूर” केकेकेके सम

सम

सम ‘पंजीकरण

पंजीकरण

पंजीकरण केकेकेके िलए

िलए

िलए संििकरण

संििकरण

संििकरण’ कालम

कालम

कालम(3)

3) शीष"क

शीष"क

शीष"क केकेकेके अंतग"त

अंतग"त

अंतग"त माटर

माटर

माटर ऑफ

ऑफ

सज"री

सज"री(ईएनटी

ईएनटी

ईएनटी) ) ) ) ‘मा'यता

मा'यता

मा'यता (ा

(ा

(ा आयु*वान

आयु*वान

आयु*वान अह"ता

अह"ता

अह"ता होगी

होगी

होगी जब

जब

जब यह

यह

यह जुबली

जुबली

जुबली िमशन

िमशन

िमशन मेिडकल

मेिडकल

मेिडकल कालेज

कालेज

कालेज व अनुसंधान

अनुसंधान

अनुसंधान संथान

संथान

संथान म-म-म-म- 2015

2015

2015 क.

क.

क. बजाए

बजाए

2014

2014 अथवा

अथवा

अथवा उसके

उसके

उसके प/ात

प/ात

प/ात (िशित

(िशित

(िशित 0कए

0कए

0कए गए

गए

गए छा3

छा3

छा3 को

को

को केरल

केरल

केरल वाय

वाय

वाय िवान

िवान

िवान िविवालय

िविवालय

िविवालय, , , , तृशूर

तृशूर

तृशूर 4ा

4ा

4ारा

रारा

रा (द6

(द6

(द6 होगी।

होगी।

[सं. यू-12012/01/2017-एमई-।(पाट. 3)]

डी. वी. के. राव, अवर सिचव

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 20th July, 2018

S.O. 1273.—In continuation to this Department’s Notification No.U.12012/01/2017-ME-I dated 01.02.2017 and

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:-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5227

In the said Schedule –

(a) against “Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur” under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’

(column 3), the Master of Surgery (ENT) qualification shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by

Kerala University of Health Sciences in respect of students being trained at Jubilee Mission Medical College &

Research Institute on or after 2014 instead of 2015”.

[No.U.-12012/01/2017-ME-I (Pt.3)]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

नई दली, 31 जुलाई, 2018

का

का.आ.

.आ.

.आ. 1274

1274

1274.—भारतीय आयु#व$ान परषद अिधिनयम,1956(1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2) ारा दM त

शिA तय: का योग करते Oए के सरकार, भारतीय आयु#व$ान परषद से परामश. करके उ+ अिधिनयम क थम अनुसूची म,

िन(िलिखत, और संशोधन करती है।

उ+ थम अनुसूची म

(i) मायताा, [आयु#व$ान अह.ता’शीष.क के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] “डॉ.एनटीआर /वा/;य िव$ान

िव<िव=ालय, िवजयवाड़ा” के सामने अंितम िवि1 के प2ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संि4ि,करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा

गया है] से संवंिधत िवि1 के संबंध म िन(िलिखत अंत:/थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा.त्:—

(2)

(3)

“मिज/Gार िचPगQ पीडीएGक सज.री”

एम.सीएच (पीडीएGक सज.री)

(यह एक मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता होगी जब यह

गुंटूर मेिडकल कॉलेज, गुंटूर म िशि4त कए गए छा:

के संबंध म 2017 को या बाद म डॉ.एनटीआर /वा/;य

िव$ान िव<िव=ालय, िवजयवाड़ा, ारा द> होगी।

(ii) ‘मायताा, [आयु#व$ान अह.ता’शीष.क के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] “चौधरी चरण Rसह िव<िव=ालय” के

सामने अंितम िवि1 के प2ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संि4ि,करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संवंिधत िवि1 के

संबंध म िन(िलिखत अंत:/थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा.त्:—

(2)

(3)

“डॉAटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(रेिडयोडॉयKोिसस)”

एमडी(रेिडयोडॉयKोिसस)

(यह एक मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता होगी जब यह

सर/वती इंि/टSूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस, हापुड़ म

िशि4त कए गए छा: के संबंध म 2017 को या बाद

म डॉ चौधरी चरण Rसह िव<िव=ालय, ारा द>

होगी।

(iii) ‘मायता ा, [आयु#व$ान अह.ता’शीष.क के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] “राजीव गांधी /वा/;य िव$ान

िव<िव=ालय, बगलुU” के सामने अंितम िवि1 के प2ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संि4ि,करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया

है] से संवंिधत िवि1 के संबंध म िन(िलिखत अंत:/थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा.त्:—

(2)

(3)

“डॉAटर ऑफ मेिडिसन/मा/टर ऑफ सज.री(ऑपथालमॉलोजी)”

एमडी/एमएस(ऑपथालमॉलोजी)

(यह एक मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता होगी जब यह

हसन इंि/टSूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस, हसन म

5228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

िशि4त कए गए छा: के संबंध म 2017 को या बाद

म राजीव गांधी /वा/;य िव$ान िव<िव=ालय, बगलुU

ारा द> होगी।

(iv) ‘मायताा, [आयु#व$ान अह.ता’शीष.क के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] “मVय देश मेिडकल सांईस

िव<िव=ालय, जबलपुर” के सामने अंितम िवि1 के प2ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संि4ि,करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया

है] से संवंिधत िवि1 के संबंध म िन(िलिखत अंत:/थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा.त्:—

(2)

(3)

“डॉAटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(माइोबॉलोजी)”

एमडी (माइोबॉलोजी)

(यह एक मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता होगी जब यह

गजरा राजा मेिडकल कॉलेज, Wवािलयर म िशि4त कए

गए छा: के संबंध म 2017 को या बाद म मVय देश

मेिडकल सांईस िव<िव=ालय, जबलपुर ारा द>

होगी।

(v) ‘मायताा, [आयु#व$ान अह.ता’शीष.क के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] “केरल /वा/;य िव$ान िव<िव=ालय,

तृYशूर” के सामने अंितम िवि1 के प2ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संि4ि,करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संवंिधत

िवि1 के संबंध म िन(िलिखत अंत:/थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा.त्:—

(2)

(3)

“डॉAटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (रेिडयोडॉयKोिसस/ रेिडयॉलोजी)”

एमसीएच(यूरोसज.री)

(यह एक मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता होगी जब यह

टी.डी मेिडकल कॉलेज, आलपुझा म िशि4त कए गए

छा: के संबंध म 2016 को या बाद म /वा/;य िव$ान

िव<िव=ालय, तृYशूर ारा द> होगी।

“मा/टर ऑफ सज.री (आथ@पीिडAस)”

एमएस(आथ@पीिडAस)

(यह एक मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता होगी जब यह

अकादमी ऑफ मेिडकल सांइसेज, पेरयारम कुZूर म

िशि4त कए गए छा: के संबंध म 2016 को या बाद

म केरल /वा/;य िव$ान िव<िव=ालय, तृYशूर ारा

द> होगी।

(vi) ‘मायताा, [आयु#व$ान अह.ता’शीष.क के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] “िन[स िव<िव=ालय(डी[ड

िव<िव=ालय), जयपुर” के सामने अंितम िवि1 के प2ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संि4ि,करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया

है] से संवंिधत िवि1 के संबंध म िन(िलिखत अंत:/थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा.त्:—

(2)

(3)

“डॉAटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (साइकयाGी)”

एमडी(साइकयाGी)

(यह एक मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता होगी जब यह

नेशनल इंि/टSूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस एंड रसच.,

जयपुर म िशि4त कए गए छा: के संबंध म 2017 को

या बाद म िन[स िव<िव=ालय(डी[ड िव<िव=ालय),

जयपुर ारा द> होगी।

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5229

(vii) ‘मायताा, [आयु#व$ान अह.ता’शीष.क के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] “संतोष िव<िव=ालय, गािजयाबाद” के

संबंध म िन(िलिखत अंत:/थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा.त्:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉAटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (फारिसक मेिडिसन)”

एमडी(फारिसक मेिडिसन)

(यह एक मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता होगी जब यह

संतोष मेिडकल कॉलेज, गािजयाबाद म िशि4त कए

गए छा: के संबंध म 2011 को या बाद म िन[स

िव<िव=ालय(डी[ड िव<िव=ालय), जयपुर ारा द>

होगी।

(viii) ‘मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता’शीष.क के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] “तीथ]कर महावीर िव<िव=ालय,

मुरादाबाद, उ>र देश ” के सामने अंितम िवि1 के प2ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संि4ि,करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया

है] से संवंिधत िवि1 के संबंध म िन(िलिखत अंत:/थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा.त्:—

(2)

(3)

“डॉAटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (फामा.कॉलोजी)”

एमडी(फामा.कॉलोजी)

(यह एक मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता होगी जब यह

तीथ]कर महावीर मेिडकल कॉलेज एंड रसच. सटर,

मुरादाबाद, उ>र देश म िशि4त कए गए छा: के

संबंध म 2018 को या बाद म तीथ]कर महावीर

िव<िव=ालय, मुरादाबाद, उ>र देश ारा द> होगी।

“मा/टर ऑफ सज.री (ईएनटी)”

एमएस(ईएनटी)

(यह एक मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता होगी जब यह

तीथ]कर महावीर मेिडकल कॉलेज एंड रसच. सटर,

मुरादाबाद, उ>र देश म िशि4त कए गए छा: के

संबंध म 2017 को या बाद म तीथ]कर महावीर

िव<िव=ालय, मुरादाबाद, उ>र देश ारा द> होगी।

नोट

नोट:

दान क गई ऐसी मायता अिधसूचना क तारीख से अिधकतम 5 वष. के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण

करवाना होगा।

मायता के ‘नवीकरण’ क या वही होगी जो मायता दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

अपेि4त मायता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने म िवफल रहने पर, परणाम/वUप, िनरपवाद Uप से, संबंिधत

^ातको>र कोस_ म वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[फा. सं.यू-12012/71/2018-एमई.।(एफटीएस.3165307)]

डी. वी. के. राव, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2018

S.O. 1274.—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:—

5230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In the said Schedule -

(i)

against “Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijaywada, A.P”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical

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

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

(2)

(3)

“Magistrar Chirurgiae Paediatric Surgery”

M.Ch (Paediatric Surgery)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by Dr. NTR University of Health

Sciences, Vijaywada, A.P in respect of students

being trained at Guntur Medical College, Guntur

on or after 2017.

(ii)

against “Ch. Charan Singh University”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter

referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for

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

(2)

(3)

“Doctor of Medicine (Radiodiagnosis)”

MD (Radiodiagnosis)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by Ch. Charan Singh University in

respect of students being trained at Saraswati

Institute of Medical Sciences, Hapur on or after

2017).

(iii)

against “Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical

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

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

(2)

(3)

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

MD/MS (Ophthalmology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of

Health Sciences, Bangalore in respect of students

being trained at Hassan Institute of Medical

Sciences, Hassan, on or after 2017).

iv)

against “Madhya Pradesh Medical Science University, Jabalpur”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical

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

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

(2)

(3)

“Doctor of Medicine (Microbiology)”

MD (Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by Madhya Pradesh Medical

Science University, Jabalpur in respect of students

being trained at Gajra Raja Medical College,

Gwalior, on or after 2017).

(v)

against “Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical

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

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

(2)

(3)

“Doctor of Medicine (Radio diagnosis/

M.Ch (Neurosurgery)

Radiology)”

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur in respect of students being

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5231

trained at T.D Medical College, Alappuzha or

after 2016).

“Master of Surgery (Orthopedics)

MS (Orthopedics)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by Kerala University of Health

Sciences, Thrissur in respect of students being

trained at Academy of Medical Sciences,

Pariyaram, Kannur or after 2016).

(vi)

against “NIMS University (Deemed University), Jaipur”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical

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

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

(2)

(3)

“Doctor of Medicine (Psychiatry)”

MD (Psychiatry)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by NIMS University (Deemed

University), Jaipur in respect of students being

trained at National Institute of Medical Sciences &

Research, Jaipur or after 2017).

(vii)

against “Santosh University, Ghaziabad”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter

referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for

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

(2)

(3)

“Doctor of Medicine (Forensic Medicine)”

MD (Forensic Medicine)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by Santosh University, Ghaziabad in

respect of students being trained at Santosh

Medical College, Ghaziabad or after 2011).

(viii)

against “Teerthanker Mahaveer University, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh”, under the heading ‘Recognized

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

heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration’ [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted,

namely:—

(2)

(3)

“Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)”

MD (Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when

granted

Teerthanker

Mahaveer

University, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh in respect

of students being trained at Teerthanker Mahaveer

Medical

College

and

Research

Centre,

Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh or after 2018).

“Master of Surgery (ENT)”

MS (ENT)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when

granted

Teerthanker

Mahaveer

University, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh in respect

of students being trained at Teerthanker Mahaveer

Medical

College

and

Research

Centre,

Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh or after 2017).

Note:

The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of' 5 years from the date of notification, upon which it

shall have to be renewed.

The procedure for 'Renewal' of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.

5232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions to the

concerned Postgraduate Courses

[F. No.U.12012/71/2018-ME-I (FTS -3165307]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

नई दली, 1 अग/ त, 2018

का

का.आ.

.आ.

.आ. 1275

1275

1275.—मंालय क अिधसूचना सं.यू.12012/01/2017-एमई-I(पी-7) दनांक 29.12.2017 के अनुम म के

अनुसूची म, िन(िलिखत और संशोधन करती है।

(2)

(3)

“िड8लोमा इन ओटोरिहनोिलaरगोलोजी”

डीएलओ

(यह एक मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता होगी जब यह

केवल 2017-18 अकादिमक स तक वेश पाए छा: के

संबंध म, डॉ.एनटीआर /वा/;य िव$ान िव<िव=ालय,

िवजयवाड़ा, आं0 देश ारा द> होगी।

[फा. सं. यू-12012/28/2016-एमई. I]

डी. वी. के. राव, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 1st August, 2018

S.O. 1275.—In continuation to the Ministry’s Notification No.U.12012/01/2017-ME-I(P-7) dated 29.12.2017,

the Central Government, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 due to stoppage of admission by the college authorities:-

In the qualifications mentioned against “NRI Medical College & General Hospital, Guntur, Andhra

Pradesh” under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], against the

following qualifications and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for Registration”[ hereinafter referred

to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely—

(2)

(3)

“Diploma in Otorhinolaryngology”

DLO

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification

when granted by Dr. NTR University of Health

Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh in respect

of students admitted upto the academic session

2017-18 only.)

[F. No. U.12012/28/2016-ME.I]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

नई दली, 9 अग/ त, 2018

का

का.आ.

.आ.

.आ. 1276

1276

1276.—भारतीय आयु#व$ान परषद अिधिनयम,1956(1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2) ारा दM त

िन(िलिखत, और संशोधन करती है, अथा.त्:—

उ+ थम अनुसूची म

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5233

(।)

‘मायताा, [आयु#व$ान अह.ता’शीष.क के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] “केरल /वा/;य िव$ान िव<िव=ालय,

तृYशूर, केरल” के सामने अंितम िवि1 के प2ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संि4ि,करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से

संवंिधत िवि1 के संबंध म िन(िलिखत अंत:/थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा.त्:—

(2)

(3)

“डॉAटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(गे/GोएंGोलोजी)”

एमडी(गे/GोएंGोलोजी)

(यह एक मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता होगी जब यह

गवन.मट मेिडकल कॉलेज, कोbायम, केरल म 2016 को

या बाद म िशि4त कए गए छा: के संबंध म केरल

/वा/;य िव$ान िव<िव=ालय, तृYशूर, केरल ारा द>

होगी।)

(।।)

‘मायताा, [आयु#व$ान अह.ता’ शीष.क के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] “गुजरात िव<िव=ालय,

अहमदाबाद” के सामने अंितम िवि1 के प2ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संि4ि,करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से

संवंिधत िवि1 के संबंध म िन(िलिखत अंत:/थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा.त्:—

(2)

(3)

“डॉAटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (पैथॉलोजी)”

एमडी (पैथॉलोजी)

(यह एक मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता होगी जब यह

अहमदाबाद [युिनिसिपल काप@रेशन मेिडकल एcयुकेशन

G/ट मेिडकल कॉलेज, अहमदाबाद म 2018 को या बाद

म िशि4त कए गए छा: के संबंध म गुजरात

िव<िव=ालय, अहमदाबाद ारा द> होगी।)

।।।)

‘मायताा, [आयु#व$ान अह.ता’शीष.क के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] “पदमdी डॉ. डी. वाई.पाटल

िव<िव=ालय, नबe मुंबई” के सामने अंितम िवि1 के प2ात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संि4ि,करण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया

है] से संवंिधत िवि1 के संबंध म िन(िलिखत अंत:/थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा.त्:—

(2)

(3)

“डॉAटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(इमरजसी मेिडिसन)”

एमडी(इमरजसी मेिडिसन)

(यह एक मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता होगी जब यह

पदमdी डॉ. डी. वाई.पाटल मेिडकल कॉलेज, नबe मुंबई

म 2015 को या बाद म िशि4त कए गए छा: के

संबंध म पदमdी डॉ. डी. वाई.पाटल िव<िव=ालय,

नबe मुंबई ारा द> होगी।)

(IV)

‘मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता’शीष.क के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] “राजीव गांधी /वा/;य िव$ान

है] से संवंिधत िवि1 के संबंध म िन(िलिखत अंत:/थािपत कया जाएगा. अथा.त्:—

(2)

(3)

“मा/टर ऑफ सज.री(सोशल एंड िवटव मेिडिसन/मेिडिसन/क[युिनटी)”

एमएस (सोशल एंड िवटव मेिडिसन/ मेिडिसन/ क[युिनटी)

(यह एक मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता होगी जब यह

खाजा बंदा नवाज इंि/टSूट ऑप मेिडकल सांइिसस, गुलबगा.

म 2017 को या बाद म िशि4त कए गए छा: के संबंध म,

5234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

राजीव गांधी /वा/;य िव$ान िव<िव=ालय, बगलुU ारा

द> होगी।)

“डॉAटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(इमरजसी मेिडिसन)”

यह एक मायता ा, आयु#व$ान अह.ता होगी जब यह एम.

एस. रामfया मेिडकल सांइिसस, गुलबगा. म 2017 को या

बाद म िशि4त कए गए छा: के संबंध म, राजीव गांधी

/वा/;य िव$ान िव<िव=ालय, बगलुU ारा द> होगी।)

नोट

नोट:

ऐसी दी गई मायता अिधसूचना क तारीख से 5वष. के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

मायता के ‘नवीकरण’ क या वही होगी जो मायता दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

अपेि4त मायता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने म िवफल रहने पर, परणाम/वUप, िनरपवाद Uप से, संबंिधत ^ाMको>र

कोस. म वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[फा. सं. यू-12012/81/2018-एमई-1 (एफटीएस नं.3166942)]

डी. वी. के. राव, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 9th August, 2018

S.O. 1276.— 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:—

In the said Schedule —

(i)

against “Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical

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

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

(2)

(3)

“Doctor of Medicine (Gastroenterology)”

MD (Gastroenterology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur in

respect of students being trained at Government Medical

College, Kottayam on or after 2016.

(ii)

against “Gujarat University, Ahmedabad”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’ [hereinafter

referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ‘Abbreviation for

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

(2)

(3)

“Doctor of Medicine (Pathology)”

MD (Pathology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Gujarat University, Ahmedabad in respect of

students being trained at Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation

Medical Education Trust Medical College, Ahmedabad on or

after 2018).

iii)

against “Padamshree Dr. D.Y. Patil University, Navi Mumbai”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical

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

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

(2)

(3)

“Doctor of Medicine (Emergency Medicine)”

MD (Emergency Medicine)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Padamshree Dr. D.Y. Patil University,

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5235

Navi Mumbai in respect of students being trained at

Padamshree Dr. D.Y. Patil Medical College, Navi Mumbai,

on or after 2015).

(iv)

against “Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical

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

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

(2)

(3)

“Master of Surgery (Social & Preventive Medicine/

MS (Social & Preventive Medicine/Medicine/Community

Medicine/Community)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,

Bangalore in respect of students being trained at Khaja

Banda Nawaz Institute of Medical Sciences, Gulbarga, on or

after 2017).

“Doctor of Medicine (Emergency Medicine)”

MD (Emergency Medicine)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences,

Bangalore in respect of students being trained at M.S.

Ramaiah Medical College, Bangalore, on or after 2017).

Note:

The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of' 5 years from the date of notification, upon which it

shall have to be renewed.

The procedure for 'Renewal' of recognition shall be same as applicable for the award for recognition.

Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions to the

concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[F. No. U.12012/81/2018-ME-I (FTS -3166942]

D. V. K. RAO, Under Secy.

कोयला मंालय

नई दली, 28 अग/त, 2018

का

का.आ. . . . 1277

1277

1277.—कोयला धारक 4े (अज.न और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20) (िजसे इसम इसके पY चात् उA त

अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी क गई भारत सरकार के कोयला मंालय क अिधसूचना संi यांक

का. आ. 3238(अ), तारीख 2 जुलाई, 2018 भारत के राजप, भाग II, खंड 3, उप-खंड (ii), तारीख 4 जुलाई, 2018 ारा कािशत

होने पर उA त अिधसूचना से संलW न अनुसूची म वjणत भूिम और ऐसी भूिम (िजसे इसम इसके पY चात् उA त भूिम कहा गया है), म या

उस पर के सभी अिधकार, उA त अिधिनयम क धारा 10 क उपधारा (1) के अधीन, सभी िव लंगम: से मुA त होकर, आM यंितक Uप म

के ीय सरकार म िनिहत हो गए है;

और, केीय सरकार को यह समाधान हो गया है क दामोदर घाटी िनगम, डीवीसी टावस., कोलकाता (िजसे इसम इसके प2ात्

“सरकारी कंपनी” कहा गया है), ऐसे िनबंधन: और शत_ का िजह केीय सरकार इस िनिम> अिधरोिपत करना उिचत समझे, अनुपालन

करने के िलए रजामंद है;

अतः, अब, केीय सरकार, उ+ अिधिनयम क धारा 11 क उप-धारा (1) ारा द> शि+य: का योग करते Oए, यह िनदेश

देती है क इस कार िनिहत उ+ भूिम म या उस पर के सभी अिधकार केीय सरकार म इस कार िनिहत बने रहने के बजाए, तारीख

4 जुलाई, 2018 से िन(िलिखत िनबंधन: और शत_ के अधीन रहते Oए उ+ सरकारी कंपनी म िनिहत Oआ समझा जायेगा, अथा.त्:—

(1)

सरकारी कंपनी,उ+ अिधिनयम के उपबंध: और अय सुसंगत िविध के अधीन यथा अवधारत ितकर, Eयाज, नुकसानी

इMयाद से संबंिधत और वैसी ही मद: क बाबत् सभी संदाय करेगी ;

5236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(2)

सरकारी कंपनी ारा शत. (1) के अधीन, संदेय रकम का अवधारण करने के योजन: के िलए उ+ अिधिनयम क धारा 14

के अधीन एक अिधकरण का गठन कया जाएगा और ऐसे कसी अिधकरण और उ+ अिधकरण क सहायता करने के

िलए िनयु+ qि+य: के संबंध म, उपगत सभी qय, उ+ सरकारी कंपनी ारा वहन कए जाएंगे और इसी कार, िनिहत

उ+ भूिम म या उस पर के अिधकार: के िलए या उनके संबंध म अपील आद िविधक काय.वािहय: क बाबत उपगत सभी

qय भी सरकारी कंपनी ारा वहन कए जाएंगे ;

(3)

सरकारी कंपनी, केीय सरकार, उसके पदधारय: क, ऐसे कसी अय qय के संबंध म 4ितपू#त करेगी जो इस कार

िनिहत उ+ भूिम म पूव@+ अिधकार: के बारे म केीय सरकार या उसके पदधारय: ारा या उनके िवPr कहe

काय.वािहय: के संबंध म आवYयक हो ;

(4)

सरकारी कंपनी के पास केीय सरकार के पूव. अनुमोदन के िबना, उ+ भूिम म इस कार िनिहत पूव@+ अिधकार: को

कसी अय qि+ को अंतरत करने क शि+ नहe होगी; और

(5)

सरकारी कंपनी, ऐसे िनदेश: और शत_ का पालन करेगी, जो केीय सरकार ारा, जब कभी आवYयक हो, उ+ भूिम के

िविश1 4े: के िलए दये जाएं या अिधरोिपत कए जाएं।

[फा.सं. 43015/34/2017-एलए एtड आईआर]

राम िशरोमिण सरोज, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 28th August, 2018

S.O. 1277.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal,

number S.O. 3238(E), dated the 2^nd July, 2018, published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii),

dated the 4^th July, 2018, issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and

Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the land and all rights in or over the lands

described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land) vested absolutely in

the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act;

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Towers, Kolkata

(hereinafter referred to as “the Government Company” ) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the

Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that all rights in or over the said land so vested shall, with effect from the 4^th July, 2018

instead of continuing to vest in the Central Government, be deemed to have been vested in the said Government

Company, subject to the following terms and conditions namely:—

(1)

the Government Company shall make all payments in respect of compensation, interest, damages, etc. and

the like, as determined under the provisions of the said Act and other relevant law;

(2)

a Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of the said Act, for the purpose of determining the amount

payable by the Government Company under condition (1) and all expenditure incurred in connection with

any such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the Tribunal shall be borne by the said Government

Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals, etc., for or

in connection with the rights, in or over the said land, so vested, shall also be borne by the Government

Company;

(3)

the Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government, its officials against any other

expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central

Government or its officials regarding the aforesaid rights in the said land so vested;

(4)

the Government Company shall have no power to transfer the aforesaid rights in the said land so vested, to

any other person without the prior approval of the Central Government ; and

(5)

the Government Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the

Central Government for particular areas of the said land as and when necessary.

[ F. No. 43015/34/2017–LA & IR ]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5237

नई दली, 30 अग/त, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 1278

1278

1278.—केीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक 4े (अज.न और िवकास) अिधिनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20) (िजसे इसम

इसके प2ात उ+ अिधिनयम कहा गया है) क धारा 7 क उप-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के कोयला मंालय क अिधसूचना

संiया का. आ. 1103(अ), तारीख 09 माच., 2018 ारा और भारत के राजप, भाग II, खtड 3, उप-खtड (ii), तारीख 12 माच.,

2018 म कािशत क गई थी, उस अिधसूचना से संलK अनुसूची म िविन}द1 30.00 हेAटेयर (लगभग) या 74.13 एकड़ (लगभग) माप

वाली भूिम म या उस पर के सभी अिधकार: का अज.न करने के अपने आशय क सूचना दी थी ;

और स4म ािधकारी ने उ+ अिधिनयम क धारा 8 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार को अपनी रपोट. दे दी है ;

और केीय सरकार का पूव@+ रपोट. पर िवचार करने के प2ात् और पि2म बंगाल सरकार के परामश. करने के प2ात् यह

समाधान हो गया है क इससे संलK अनुसूची म यथावjणत 30.00 हेAटेयर (लगभग) या 74.13 एकड़ (लगभग) माप वाली भूिम म या

उस पर के सभी अिधकार: का अज.न कया जाना चािहए;

अत:, अब, के ीय सरकार, उ+ अिधिनयम क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (1) ारा दM त शिA तय: का योग करते Oए यह

घोषणा करती है क, इससे संलK अनुसूची म यथावjणत 30.00 हेAटेयर (लगभग) या 74.13 एकड़ (लगभग) माप वाली भूिम म या

उस पर के सभी अिधकार अ#जत कए जाते ह€ ;

इस अिधसूचना के अंतग.त आने वाले 4े के रेखांक संiया जीएम/जेएनआर/ल€ड/सीबीए/2018/119, तारीख 16 जून, 2018

का िनरी4ण िजला कलAटर, पि2म बद.वान, पि2म बंगाल के काया.लय या कोयला िनयंक, 1, काउंिसल हाउस /Gीट, कोलकाता–

700001 के काया.लय या िनदेशक तकनीक, परयोजना और योजना, ई/टन. कोलफ‚स िलिमटेड, संAटोरया, डाकघर दशेरगढ़,

िजला पि2म बद.वान, पि2म बंगाल - 713333 के काया.लय म कया जा सकता है।

अनुसूची

झांजरा – जामगोरा Eलॉक, रानीगंज कोलफ‚स

िजला - बद.वान (पि2म बंगाल)

[ रेखांक संiया जीएम/जेएनआर/ल€ड/सीबीए/2018/119, तारीख 16 जून, 2018 ]

सभी अिधकार:

म सं॰

मौजा

( …ाम)

जे.एल. संiया

पुिलस /टेशन

(थाना)

िजला

4े हेAटेयर म

ट8पिणयां

ितलबोनी

फरीदपुर

बद.वान

0.85

भाग

लौदोहा

फरीदपुर

बद.वान

6.26

भाग

चक लौदोहा

फरीदपुर

बद.वान

14.64

भाग

जामगोरा

फरीदपुर

बद.वान

8.25

भाग

कुल: 30.00 हेAटेयर (लगभग) या 74.13 एकड़ ( लगभग )

मौजा-जामगोरा म अ#जत कए गए 8लाट संiयांक: 510 (भाग), 533 (भाग), 534 से 537, 481 (भाग), 540 (भाग), 544

(भाग), 545 से 556, 559 (भाग), 611 और 611/3374.

मौजा- चक लौदोहा म अ#जत कए गए 8लाट संiयांक: 13 (भाग), 48 (भाग), 49 (भाग), 50 से 54, 55 (भाग), 77, 78, 79

(भाग), 89 (भाग), 90 से 98, 100 से 118, 119 (भाग), 120, 124 (भाग), 72/151 (भाग) और 103/176.

मौजा-लौदोहा म अ#जत कए गए 8लाट संiयांक: 599 से 601, 631 (भाग), 632 से 635, 636 (भाग), 638 (भाग), 639,

640, 641 (भाग), 642, 643, 702, 708 (भाग), 711 (भाग), 713 से 715, 716 (भाग), 717 (भाग) और 718 (भाग).

मौजा- ितलाबोनी म अ#जत कए गए 8लाट संiयांक: 325, 327, 333 (भाग), 334, 335 (भाग), 336, 337 (भाग) और 339.

5238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

सीमा वण"न:

पैच - 1

क-ग

रेखा, Rबदु ‘क’ से ारंभ होती है (जोक शुPआती िबदु है /तािवत 4े का और पूवQ भाग 8लॉट संiया 481

मौज़ा – जामगोरा का) और िबदु ‘ख’ के बीच से जोक 8लॉट संiया 544 का उ>री और पि2मी सीमा रेखा है

मौजा जामगोरा से होकर और िबदु िबदु ‘ग’ पर िमलती है (जोक सामाय िबदु है 8लॉट संiया 151 मौजा

चक – लौदोहा और उ>र-पि2मी कोना है 8लाट संiया 545 मौजा – जामगोरा का) ।

ग-थ

रेखा, िबदु ‘ग’ से ारंभ होती है और Rबदु ‘घ’, ‘ड.’, ‘च’, ‘छ’, ‘ज’, ‘झ’, ‘ञ’, ‘ट, ‘ठ’, ‘ड’ ‘ढ’ और ‘त’ से गुजरते

Oए मौज़ा – चक लौदोहा के 8लॉट संiया 151 के उ>री और पि2मी भाग, 8लॉट संiया 98, 77, 78 उ>र

सीमा, 8लॉट संiया 55 के बीच, 8लॉट संiया 54, 52, 51, 8लॉट संiया 150 के पि2मी सीमा, 8लॉट संiया 13

और 49, 48 के बीच से होकर और िबदु ‘थ’ पर िमलती है (जोक 8लॉट संiया 611 और 610 मौज़ा- जामगोरा

का पि2मी कोना है)।

थ- द

रेखा, िबदु ‘थ’ से ारंभ होती है और 8लॉट संiया 611 क मौज़ा- जामगोरा के दि4णी सीमा के बीच से गुजरती

है और िबदु ‘द’ पर िमलती है (जोक पूवQ सीमा के 8लॉट संiया 611 मौज़ा जामगोरा और 8लॉट संiया 79 क

मौज़ा-चक लौदोहा क पि2मी सीमा रेखा का) ।

द-ध

रेखा, िबदु ‘द’ से ारंभ होती है और 8लॉट संiया 79 के दि4णी सीमा रेखा के बीच से होकर , 8लॉट संiया 89

के उ>री भाग से, 8लॉट संiया 110 के दि4णी सीमा रेखा से, 8लाट संiया 124 के उ>री भाग से, 8लाट सयंiया

120 के दि4ण-पि2मी, 8लॉट संiया 119 के मVय से होते Oए और िबदु ‘ध’ पर िमलती है (जोक 8लॉट संiया

117 मौज़ा- चक लौदोहा का दि4ण-पि2मी कोना है)।

ध – क

रेखा, िबदु ‘ध’ से ारंभ होती है और िबदु ‘न’ से होते Oए 8लॉट संiया 561, 558, 557 क उ>री सीमा रेखा

से, 8लॉट संiया 533 के बीच से, 8लॉट संiया 529 के ऊपर से, 8लॉट संiया 510 के पि2मी भाग से, 8लॉट संiया

537 के दि4ण-पूवQ सीमा से, 8लॉट संiया 510 के पि2मी भाग से, 8लॉट संiया 538 मौज़ा- जामगोरा क

उ>री सीमा से होते Oए और िबदु ‘क’ पर िमलती है (जोक शुPआती िबदु है /तािवत 4े और 8लॉट संiया

481 मौज़ा- जामगोरा का) ।

पैच 2

1 – 9

रेखा, िबदु 1 से ारंभ होती है (जोक 8लॉट संiया 702 मौज़ा- लौदोहा का उ>र-पूवQ कोना है) और िबदु 2, 3,

4, 5, 6, 7 और 8 से गुजरती है और 8लॉट संiया 702 क उ>री सीमा रेखा के बीच से, 8लॉट संiया 708 क

पूवQ, उ>री और पि2मी सीमा रेखा से, 8लॉट संiया 711, 713, 714, 715, 642 क उ>री सीमा रेखा से,

8लॉट संiया 638 के बीच से, 8लाट संiया 636 के बीच और उ>री सीमा रेखा से, 8लॉट संiया 631 के दि4णी

भाग से, 8लॉट संiया 632 के उ>री- पि2म कोने से, 8लॉट संiया 601 के पूवQ, उ>री और पि2मी सीमा रेखा से

होते Oए और िबदु 9 पर िमलती है (जोक 8लॉट संiया 599 मौज़ा- लौदोहा का उ>री-पि2म कोना है)।

9 – 12

रेखा, िबदु 9 से ारंभ होती है और िबदु 10 और 11 से हाते Oए 8लॉट संiया 325 क पि2मी और दि4णी

सीमा है, 8लॉट संiया 327 क दि4णी सीमा रेखा, 8लॉट संiया 333, 335, 337, 641 और 718 मौज़ा-

ितलाबोनी के बीच से होते Oए और िबदु 12 पर िमलती है (जोक 8लाट संiया 718 क मौज़ा- लौदोहा क पूवQ

सीमा है) ।

12- 1

रेखा, िबदु 12 से ारंभ होती है और 8लॉट संiया 717, 716, 711 और 708 मौज़ा- लौदोहा के बीच से होते Oए

और िबदु 1 पर िमलती है (जोक 8लाट संiया 702 मौज़ा- लौदोहा का उ>र-पूवQ कोना है)।

[ फा.सं. 43015/15/2017-एलए एtड आईआर ]

राम िशरामिण सरोज, अवर सिचव

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5239

New Delhi, the 30^th August, 2018

S.O. 1278 .—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal S.O. number 1103

(E), dated the 09^th March, 2018, issued under sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and

Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India, Part

II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 12^th March, 2018, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire

the lands measuring 30.00 hectares (approximately) or 74.13 acres (approximately) and all rights in or over such land

specified in the Schedule appended to that notification;

And whereas, the Competent Authority in pursuance of section 8 of the said Act has made his report to the

Central Government;

And whereas, the Central Government after considering the aforesaid report and after consulting the

Government of West Bengal, is satisfied that the lands measuring 30.00 hectares (approximately) or 74.13 acres

(approximately) and all rights in or over such lands as described in Schedule appended hereto should be acquired;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 9 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that all rights in or over such lands measuring 30.00 hectares (approximately) or 74.13 acres

(approximately) as described in Schedule annexed hereto, are hereby acquired.

The plan bearing number GM/JNR/LAND/CBA/2018/ 119, dated the 16^th June, 2018 of the area covered by this

notification may be inspected in the office of the Collector, Pashchim Burdwan, West Bengal or in the office of the Coal

Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata- 700001 or in the office of the Director Technical, Project and Planning,

Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria, P.O. Dishergarh, District – Pashchim Burdwan, West Bengal– 713333.

SCHEDULE

Jhanjra – Jamgara Block, Raniganj Coalfields

District –Burdwan ( West Bengal)

[Plan Bearing number GM/JNR/LAND/CBA/2018/ 119,dated the 16^th June, 2018]

All Rights:

Sl. No.

Mouza (Village)

J.L. number

Police

Station

(Thana)

District

Area

hectares

Remarks

Tilaboni

Faridpur

Burdwan

0.85

Part

Laudoha

Faridpur

Burdwan

6.26

Part

Chak Laudoha

Faridpur

Burdwan

14.64

Part

Jamgora

Faridpur

Burdwan

8.25

Part

Total: 30.00 hectares (approximately) or 74.13 acres (approximately)

Plot numbers acquired in Mouza- Jamgora: 510(P), 533(P), 534 to 537, 481(P), 540(P), 544(P), 545 to 556,

559(P), 611 and 611/3374.

Plot numbers acquired in Mouza- Chak Laudoha: 13(P), 48(P), 49(P), 50 to 54, 55(P), 77, 78, 79(P), 89(P), 90 to

98, 100 to 118, 119(P), 120, 124(P), 72/151(P) and 103/176.

Plot numbers acquired in Mouza- Laudoha: 599 to 601, 631(P), 632 to 635, 636(P), 638(P), 639, 640, 641(P),

642, 643, 702, 708(P), 711(P), 713 to 715, 716 (P), 717(P) and 718(P).

Plot numbers acquired in Mouza- Tilaboni: 325, 327, 333(P), 334, 335(P), 336, 337(P) and 339.

Boundary Description:

PATCH - 1

A – C

Line starts from point A ( the starting point of the proposed area and eastern part of plot number 481 of

Mouza Jamgora) and passes through Point B the northern and western boundary line of plot number

544, of Mouza Jamgora and meets at point C (common point of plot number 151 of Mouza

Chaklaudoha and north- western corner of plot number 545 of Mouza Jamgora) .

C – Q

Line starts from point C and passes through point D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O and P the northern

and western part of plot number 151 of Mouza Chaklaudoha, northern boundary of plot numbers

5240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

98,77, 78, middle of plot number 55, northern boundary of plot numbers 54, 52, 51, western boundary

of plot number 150, through plot numbers 13 and 49, 48 and meets at point Q ( western corner of plot

number 611 and 610 of Mouza Jamgora ).

Q – R

Line starts from point Q and passes through southern boundary line of plot number 611 of Mouza

Jamgora and meets at point R (eastern boundary of plot number 611 of Mouza Jamgora and western

boundary of plot number 79 of Mouza Chaklaudoha).

R – S

Line starts from point R and passes through southern boundary of plot number 79, northern part of plot

number 89, southern boundary of plot number 110, northern part of plot number 124, south-western

corner of plot number 120, middle of plot number 119 and meets at point S (south –west corner of plot

number 117of Mouza Chaklaudoha).

S – A

Line starts from point S and passes to Point T along the northern boundary of plot numbers 561, 558,

557, middle of plot number 533, above northern part of plot number 529, western part of plot number

510, south eastern boundary of plot number 537, western part of plot number 510, northern boundary

of plot number 538 of Mouza Jamgora and meets at point A (the starting point of the proposed area and

eastern part of plot number 481 of Mouza Jamgora).

PATCH - 2

1 – 9

Line starts from point 1 ( the north- east corner of plot number 702 of Mouza Laudoha) and passes

through point 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 along the northern boundary line of plot number 702, eastern,

northern and western boundary of plot number 708, northern boundary of plot numbers 711, 713, 714,

715, 642, middle of plot number 638, middle and northern boundary of plot number 636, middle of plot

number 631, north- west corner of plot number 632, east, north and west boundary of plot number 601

and meets at point 9 (north- west corner of plot number 599 of Mouza Laudoha) .

9 – 12

Line starts from point 9 and passes through point 10 and 11 along western and southern boundary of

plot number 325, southern boundary of plot number 327, middle of plot numbers 333, 335, 337, 641

and 718 of Mouza Tilaboni and meets at point 12 ( eastern boundary of plot number 718 of Mouza

Laudoha) .

12- 1

Line starts from point 12 and passes through middle of plot number 717, 716, 711 and 708 of Mouza

Laudoha and meets at point 1( the north- east corner of plot number 702 of Mouza Laudoha)

[F.No. 43015/15/2017- LA & IR]

RAM SHIROMANI SAROJ, Under Secy.

पे:ोिलयम और (ाकृितक गैस मंालय

नई दली, 16 अग/ त, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 1279

1279

1279.— के ीय सरकार ने पेोिलयम और खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अज.न) अिधिनयम

1962, (1962 का 50) क धारा 2 के खt ड (अ) के अनुसरण म 01 अग/त, 2014 को भारत के राजप म कािशत, भारत सरकार के

पेोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय क अिधसूचना संi या का. आ. 1979(E) तारीख 28 जुलाई, 2014 म िन[ निलिखत Uप म संशोधन

संशोधन

करती है

करती है:

“dी के. एस. रेŽी, चालन बधक ” श=द3

श=द3

श=द3 के

के

के थान

थान

थान पर

पर

पर, “dी सी. राजेश कुमार, वर चालन बधक, ” श=द

श=द

श=द रखे जाएंगे

रखे जाएंगे

रखे जाएंगे।

यह अिधसूचना जारी होने क. तारीख से लागू होगी

यह अिधसूचना जारी होने क. तारीख से लागू होगी ।

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/239/2017-ओआर-I/ई-13892]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 16th August, 2018

S.O. 1279.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of

Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the

notification of Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. 1979(E) dated 28^th July 2014,

published in the Gazette of India on 1^st August, 2014 namely:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5241

In the said notification, for the words “Shri K. S. Reddy, Operations Manager” the words “Shri C. Rajesh

Kumar, Senior Operations Manager” shall be substituted.

The notification is applicable from the date of issue.

[F. No. R-11025(11)/239/2017-OR-I/E-13892]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दली, 16 अग/ त, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 1280

1280

1280.—केीय सरकार, पेGोिलयम एवं खिनज पाइपलाइन (भूिम म उपयोग के अिधकार का अज.न)अिधिनयम,

1962, (1962 का 50), क धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण म तारीख 23 जुलाई, 2017 से 29 जुलाई, 2017 को भारत के सा,ािहक

राजप मे कािशत, भारत सरकार के पेGोिलयम और ाकृितक गैस मंालय क अिधसूचना संiया का.आ.1721, 4 जुलाई, 2017 म

िन(िलिखत Uप से संशोधन करती है, अथा.त :-

उ+ अिधसूचना म, “dी महेश कुमार” शEद: के /थान पर “dी रित राम” शEद रखे जाएंगे।

यह अिधसूचना जारी होने क तारीख से लागू होगी ।

[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)/239/2017-ओआर-I/ई-13892]

पवन कुमार, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 16th August, 2018

S.O. 1280.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of

Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 ( 50 of 1962) the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the

notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. S.O. No 1721 dated 4 July 2017,

published in the weekly Gazette of India from 23 July, 2017 to 29 July, 2017 namely:-

In the Said Notification, for the words “Shri Mahesh Kumar” the words “Shri Rati Ram” shall be substituted.

This notification is applicable from the date of issue.

[F. No. R-11025(11)/239/2017-OR-I/E-13892]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1281-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] funs'kd]

Hkkjrh; Ñf"k vuqla/ku laLFkku] ubZ fnYyh ,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; la- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 50@2014) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@14@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2018

S.O. 1281.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 50/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director,

Indian Agriculture Research Institute, New Delhi and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

16.08.2018.

[No. L-42011/14/2014-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

5242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No.1, DWARKA COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI

ID No. 50/2014

Ram Manohar Mehto and others

As represented by

The Executive Member Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Sangh,

Krishi Mela Maidan, Pusa,

IARI, Pusa, New Delhi.

…Workmen/Claimants

Versus

The Director,

Indian Agriculture Research Institute,

IARI, New Delhi.

…Management/ Respondent

AWARD

In the present case, matter was referred to this Tribunal, vide letter No.L-42011/14/2014/IR(DU) dated

12.03.2014 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:-

‘Whether non payment of 1/30^th of Pay at the minimum of relevant pay-scale +DA to the workman Shri Ram

Manohar Mehto and others in the tune of instructions of F.No.24(6)/99-CPN dated 16.12.1988 and non

regularization of their services till date are just, fair and legal ? If no, what relief the workmen concerned are

entitled to ?

Both parties were put to notice and 92 Workmen namely R.M. Mehto and others filed statement of claim

through authorised representative of the Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Sangh. As per the averments made in the

claim petition, the workmen have been working under the Management as daily rated workmen since 1980 and list of

such workmen showing their names, father’s name and date of appointment is Annexure-A of the claim petition. The

said workmen had put in 240 days regular service in each calendar year since the date of their initial appointment on

daily rate till filing of the claim petition. It is alleged that as per judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Surinder Singh and others Vs. Engineer in Chief, CPWD, daily rated workmen are to be paid their wages at par with their

regular counterpart workmen. Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT) had also issued necessary orders to all the

Ministries/Govt. of India for implementation of above order of Hon’ble Apex Court. Indian Council of Agricultural

Research had also issued an order dated 16/12/1988 to all its Institutes/Departments for implementation of aforesaid

orders. It is also alleged that the Management of IARI, Pusa New Delhi has not granted the regular pay scale to these

workmen at part with their regular counterpart despite aforesaid orders. The concerned workmen have been raising their

demands regularly since long before the Management but to no avail and even they had served a notice of hunger strike

w.e.f.8/4/2013 and thereafter they approached Conciliation Officer vide petition dated 25/4/2013 but to no result. Thus,

prayer has been made for passing award for grant of temporary status w.e.f. 1/9/1993 to all eligible workmen/applicants;

to pass award for grant of 1/30^th of pay at minimum of relevant permanent pay scale as per order dated 16/12/1988 and to

pass award for regularization of services of the workmen w.e.f. 11/12/2006 as per the scheme framed by the DOPT.

Management has resisted the claim of the Workman and filed written reply, taking preliminary objections that

the present claim is vague as the claimants have failed to provide their nature of work and they have also failed to show

that they were employed by the management of DPL’s for performing the job as that similar to regular supporting staff

and that they were not performing the work of seasonal or intermittent nature of job. It has been alleged that the

claimants had not completed 240 days of service every year with the management and as such their claim for extending

temporary status and regularization of their service is liable to be rejected. It is also alleged that since the orders have

been made effective from 1/9/1993 and it was clear that the daily paid labour will not be eligible for grant of temporary

status, if such daily paid labour will were not in employment as on 1/9/1993 and had not put in service for 240 days of

continuous in that year. Such instructions were issued by ICAR vide letter dated 14/3/1995. It is further alleged that

IARI has been paying all the employees their legitimate dues and other facilities in accordance with law. Prayer has been

made for dismissal of claim petition.

Rejoinder was filed on behalf of the workmen/claimants, whereby the case as set up in the claim petition has

been reiterated and allegations made in the written statement have been denied.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 15/3/2016 :-

(i)

Whether the reference is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objections ?

(ii)

As in terms of reference ?

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5243

The Claimants in support of their case examined as many as 90 witnesses who tendered their affidavits as WW1

to WW 90 respectively and they all relied on the documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/13, whereas Management did not

adduce any evidence to rebut the case of the workmen despite number of opportunities were granted to it. As such, this

Tribunal vide order dated 16/1/2018 was constrained to fix up the matter for arguments.

Issue No.1 and 2 :-

At the outset I may mention that though preliminary objection regarding locus standi of the Union in filing the

claim petition was taken by the Management in its written statement, however A/R for the Management had not pressed

the same and made statement before this Tribunal on 4/7/2016.

During pendency of the proceedings, an application was filed on behalf of the workmen for impleadment of

remaining workmen, which was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 24/2/2015 and as such, the claim petition

pertains to 102 workmen whose details are given in the Annexure-I (which is now marked as Mark C-1).

I may mention that deposition of WW1 Ram Manohar Mehto and other workmen is in line with the averments

made in the claim petition. He deposed that he had been engaged by the Management on 16/11/1985 and as per

instructions of his superiors, he used to do work like cutting grass, giving water in the fields and spreading pesticides etc.

He filed on record the seniority list issued by DPL as Ex.WW1/1 wherein his name finds mentioned at Sl.No.51.

Ex.WW1/2 is the copy of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Surinder Singh Vs. Engineer in Chief,

CPWD; Ex.WW1/3 is the copy of instructions/order dated 16-12-1988 issued by the Management; Ex.WW1/4 is the

copy of the O.M. dated 6/6/2002 issued by the D.O.P.T. regarding regularization of daily rated/casual workers working

in various departments of the Government and who have completed 240 days in a calendar yea; Ex.WW1/5 is the copy

of the minutes/finding of the meeting of the Committee constituted by IARI concerning payment of wages and

applications of various provisions of ESI Act/Scheme to the daily paid labourers working at their Institute; Ex.WW1/6 is

the copy of recommendations dated 7/10/1999 made by National Bureau of Plan Genetic Resources, Pusa Campus, New

Delhi to the effect that casual labourers deployed at NBPGR Exp.Stn., Issapur, are eligible for payment of same pay as

that of regular Group D employees; Ex.WW1/7 is the copy of the letter dated 30/5/2012 whereby representation of Daily

Paid Labourers working under the Management for implementation of order/guidelines dated 16/12/88 was forwarded by

Chief Admn. Officer of IARI to the Deputy Secretary (CS), Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) Krishi

Bhawan, New Delhi; Ex.WW1/9 is the reminder issued by IARI to ICAR, Krishi Bhawan; Ex.WW1/8 is the copy of the

communication dated 10/1/2014 sent by ICAR to the Joint Director of IARI, conveying the decision that demand of daily

paid labourers at IARI for grant of 1/30^th of pay at the minimum of relevant scale may not be acceded to; Ex.WW1/10 is

the copy of letter whereby Asst.Chief Technical Officer of Farm Operation Services Unit of ICAR had furnished

information to Asstt.Administrative Officer (Personnel-III), IARI, regarding nature of work being done by daily rated

workers and their attendance sheet for the months of January, 2015 to March, 2015.; Ex.WW1/12 is the list of daily paid

labourers who were paid ad-hoc bonus for the year 2001-02 and Ex.WW1/13 is purported to be copy of order dated

14/6/2016 issued by DOPT (but not filed on court record). Version of the other workmen who were examined as WW2

to WW90 is akin to the statement of WW1 and they also disclosed the seniority number at which their name found

mentioned in the Seniority List Ex.WW1/1 issued by the Management. In cross examination, this witness as well as all

other workmen who were examined as WW2 to WW90 denied the suggestion that they had not worked for 240 days in a

calendar year and as such, they had not applied for regularization under the regularization of Management Scheme. They

also denied the suggestion that they were not performing similar duties being performed by regular incumbents.

10.

From the pleadings and evidence adduced on record by the parties, it is manifest that 102 Nos. of workmen

(whose particulars are detailed in the list Mark-C-1) were engaged by the Management as daily rated labourers at

different intervals between 16-11-1985 to 26/10/2002, and they were performing misc. duties as per requirement vis-à-

vis cleaning the farm area and/or office premises, lifting bio-mass, cutting grass, cleaning drains, to make assistance in

bowing and seeding of crops; to assist the Mechanics/Experts in lifting the equipments; to carry weights; shifting of old

records, distribution of daks from one branch to another etc. etc., which fact is manifest from document Ex.WW1/10.

Thus, it is apparent that work being performed by the workmen herein are of regular and perennial nature and that they

have been entrusted with the same nature of work as is being done by regular employee of the Management. The

Management has not adduced any evidence to the contrary to rebut the case of the workmen or to prove its stand that the

workmen were simply engaged for seasonal and/or intermittent nature of work.

11.

I may also mention that all the workmen in their depositions have specifically deposed that they worked under

the Management for more than 240 days in a calendar year and denied the suggestion to the contrary given by the side of

the Management. The Management has not adduced any evidence on record to rebut the case of the workmen. Needless

to mention that casual/part time workers do come within the purview of definition of workman as provided under Section

2(S) of the Act. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal

Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Courtt 2532, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of

Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of “workman” has observed as under :-

5244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/

contract of service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for

deciding whether or not a person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The

definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a

person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which

it can be inferred that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing whole

time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages

or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman.”

It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or

contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a

person would be covered by the definition of “workman” as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act.

12.

As such, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that there exists relationship of Employer-employee between the

Management and the claimants herein.

13.

It is worthwhile to mention here that Indian Council of Agricultural Research had issued guidelines dated

16/12/1988 (Ex.WW1/3) inter-alia to the effect that the casual workers who have been entrusted with the same nature of

work as is being done by a regular employee, may be paid @ 1/30^th of the pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale

plus dearness allowance for work for 8 hours a day. As discussed above, this Tribunal has already noticed that work

being performed by the workmen herein are of regular and perennial nature and that they have been entrusted with the

same nature of work as is being done by regular employee of the Management.

14.

Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, 2017Lab.L.C. 427

while upholding the principle of “equal pay for equal work” even for temporary employees observed as under :-

“The principle of “equal pay for equal work” can be extended to temporary employees (differently described as

work-charged, daily wage, casual, adhoc, contractual and the like). It is fallacious to determine artificial

parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, can not be paid less than another,

who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides

being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a

lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his

self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his

dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as

compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a

domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels

involuntary subjugation.”

15.

In view of the above and the fact that since the workmen herein while performing their duties were doing the job

as being done by a regular employee, they were very much eligible and entitled to the wages in terms of the

guidelines/order dated 16/12/1988 as referred to above. Consequently, the action of the Management in not granting the

workmen herein 1/30^th of pay at the minimum of relevant pay-scale + DA in terms of aforesaid guidelines dated

16/12/1988 (Ex.WW1/3) is unjustified, unfair and illegal.

16.

Now the crucial question arises for consideration is whether the workmen herein are entitled to the relief of

regularization of their services and if so, since when.

17.

It is a matter of record that vide aforesaid guidelines/order dated 16/12/1988 (Ex.WW1/3) it was also directed

that in so far as the regularization of casual workers who are doing the same type of job as that of regular employees is

concerned, the same should be done according to the existing instructions as and when vacancies arises and that places

vacated by such casual workers should not be filled up. The Management has not adduced any evidence on record to

suggest as to what steps it has taken to regularize the services of the workmen in terms of the aforesaid circular and as to

what prevented them to do so, particularly when the workmen have been doing the work as that is performed by a regular

employee. It seems that the Management had engaged the workmen herein in irregular manner against sanctioned posts

and thus, paying wages to them on regular basis for the last many many years.

18.

It is also pertinent to mention here that the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Secretary State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi and others (civil appeal No. 3595-3612/1999 etc.) had

issued directions to the Union of India, State Govt. and their instrumentalities to take steps to regularize as a one time

measure the services of qualified workers appointed against sanctioned posts in irregular manner. Pursuant thereto,

Department of Personnel & Training, Govt. of India had issued an office memorandum dated 11/12/2006 (which is

marked as Mark C-2) alongwith copy of the aforesaid judgment for implementation of the directions of the Apex Court.

19.

The Management has not adduced any evidence as to what steps were taken by it for implementation of the

order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as to why they have not regularized the services of the workmen herein despite

issuance of Office Memorandum dated 11/12/2006 (Mark C-2) by the Department of Personnel & Training, Govt. of

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5245

India. To my mind, the workmen herein were/are eligible and entitled to be regularized in terms of the aforesaid office

memorandum. As such, the action of the Management in not regularizing the services of the workmen is unjustified,

unfair and illegal.

Relief :-

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the considered view that

the workmen/claimants are entitled to get 1/30^th of pay at the minimum of relevant pay-scale + DA in terms of

instructions bearing F.No.24(6)/99-CPN dated 16.12.1988 and they are also entitled to be regularized in terms of the

DOPT’s memo dated 11/2/2006. The award is passed accordingly.

Date : 08.08.2018

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1282-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] egkfuns'kd

(dk;Z)] lhihMCY;wMh] fuekZ.k Hkou] ubZ fnYyh ,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; la- 2] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 43@2010) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-08-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42025@03@2018&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2018

S.O. 1282.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 43/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director

General (Works), CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 02.08.2018.

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

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 1, DWARKA COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI

ID No. 43/2010

Shri Laljeet Yadav and 2 others,

CPWD Mazdoor Union,

Room No.95, Barracks No.1/10,

Jam Nagar House, Shahjahan Road,

New Delhi

…Workmen

Versus

Director General (Works),

CPWD, Nirman Bhawan,

New Delhi 110011

…Management

AWARD

This is a claim filed directly by Shri B.K.Prasad on behalf of the Workmen/claimants namely Shri Laljeet

Yadav s/o.late Munshi Yadav , Satish Kumar s/o. Sumer Singh and Ajay Kumar s/o. Bika Das under Section 2(A) of the

Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), with the averments that workmen Laljeet Yadav & Satish

Kumar were engaged by the Management as Wiremen on 23/3/1988 and 20/10/98 respectively, whereas workman Ajay

Kumar was engaged as Khalasi by the Management on 20/10/1998 and they all worked under Executive Engineer

(Electrical), Division No.XIV, Sub Division IV, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi and their services were terminated illegally

on 14/10/2009, in violation of the common order dated 23/11/2000 passed by Hon’ble High Court in CWPs

Nos. 2888/99, 727/2000 and 728/2000, prohibiting the contract labour in CPWD. Pursuant thereto, Ministry of Labour

5246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

issued notification dated 21/7/2002 prohibiting the employment of workmen like wiremen, Khalasi etc. on contract basis.

Thereafter the workmen herein & some others approached Conciliation Officer for grant of equal wages for equal work

and for regularization of their services. After adopting necessary procedure, Appropriate Government vide its order

dated 18/2/2005 referred the dispute to CGIT-cum-Labour Court No.2, New Delhi for adjudication, which was registered

as ID No.20/2005 and culminated into Award passed on 19/9/2007, holding that the workmen are entitled to be treated

as daily wager of the Management after 21/7/2002 and are entitled to all benefits of daily wagers. The Management

assailed the said Award before Hon’ble High Court vide W.P. No. 7561/2008 which is still pending adjudication.

Despite pendency of the said Writ, Shri Manoj Kumar Executive Engineer of Electrical Division XIV terminated the

services of three workmen on 14/10/2009, without taking prior permission or intimating Hon’ble High Court. It has been

pleaded that initially the workmen were working through fake contractor on a perennial nature of job and each of them

have completed 240 days in a calendar year. The Management has violated all the norms and indulged in unfair labour

practice while terminating the services of the workmen and did not issue one month notice or paid notice pay and

compensation as required under Section 25F(a) and (b ) of the Act and even cause of termination was not intimated to the

workmen. Prayer has been made for reinstatement of the workmen into services w.e.f. 14/10/2009 on the same position

with full back wages alongwith all consequential benefits.

The claim petition has been resisted by the Management who filed written statement and took preliminary

objections that there has been no relationship of employer and employee between the Management and the claimants.

The claimants being employees of the contracting agency did not come within the definition of “workman” as provided

under Section 2(S) of the Act. The claimants were engaged by the contractor/s who were awarded contract by CPWD.

The claimant had never been employees of the Management and they had not worked at any point of time under the

direct supervision of the Management. The Executive Engineer acted as per rules and regulations Tenders are awarded

after scrutinizing technical and financial credibility of the contractors and eligible party is selected for genuine

agreement. The contractors employ their own labourers to execute the work awarded to them. The Management does

not maintain any record of such contract labourer so deployed by the contractors. Prayer has been made for dismissal of

the claim petition .

The claimant/workman filed rejoinder/replication and denied all the allegations made by the Management and

reiterated their own case as set up in the claim petition.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 15/04/2013 :-

(1)

Whether award dated 19/9/2007 passed in ID No.20/2005 titled as Laljeet Yadav and others Vs.

Central Public Works Department, operation of which has been injucted by High Court of Delhi,

creates obligation on the Management not to treat the claimants as contract labour during the

interregnum period ? If so, its effet ?

(2)

Whether claimants are entitled to relief of reinstatement in service of the management ?

5. The Claimants in support of their case examined themselves as W.W.1 to WW3 and tendered their respective

affidavits Ex.WW1/A to Ex.WW1/C and relied on the documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/3.

On the other hand, the Management in order to rebut the case of the claimants examined Shri M.P.Sharma,

Executive Engineer, Electrical Division-XIV, CPWD as MW1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit

Ex.MW1/A alongwith documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/12.

Issue No. 1 and 2 :

Both these issues are being taken up together for the purpose of discussion and they can be conveniently

disposed of.

Testimony of the workmen who appeared in the witness box as WW1 to WW3 is in line with the averments

made in the claim petition. According to them, they were under the employment of Management/CPWD through

contractors for perennial nature of job and have completed more than 240 days in a calendar year before they were

terminated on 14/10/2009 by one Shri Manoj Kumar, Executive Engineer (Electrical), CPWD by indulging in unfair

labour practices. The Management even did not pay one month’s notice or notice pay etc. to them prior to their

termination. In the cross examination, they stated that no appointment letter was issued to them by CPWD and that one

Thekedar (contractor) would come and pay the salary/wages to them and other workers.

MW1 M.P.Sharma, the sole witness examined by the Management deposed that it was the contractor/s who

engaged the workman for completion of the job assigned to the contractors as per contract. In fact, the workmen did not

work at any point of time under the direct control & supervision of the Management. He filed on record copies of

agreements Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/11 to stress that for the work of running and maintenance of EI DG & Pump Set,

contracts were awarded on annual basis to different eligible contractor/s after scrutinizing their technical and financial

creditability. In cross examination, this witness admitted that workmen concerned were continuously employed even

after change of contractors from time to time. To the query whether any notice or notice pay & compensation was paid

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5247

by the Management to the workmen at the time of their termination, this witness replied that since workmen were

employees of contractors, it was not required.

10.

It is a matter of record that vide common order dated 23/11/2000 (Ex.WW1/1) passed in CWP No.2888/99,

727/2000 and 728/2000 in relation to contract labour workers who were engaged by different contractors of Central

Public Works Department and who were working in the Electrical Division of CPWD as Wiremen, Hon’ble High Court

of Delhi had given following directions to the respondents viz. UOI and CPWD :-

1. The services of these contract workers shall not be substituted with other contract workers i.e. if the respondent

require to employ contract workers in the jobs assigned to these contract workers, then they will not replace

the present contract workers with fresh contract workers.

2. In case of contract with a particular contractor who has engaged these petitioners/contract workers comes to an

end, the said contract may be renewed and if that is not possible and the contract is given to some other

contractor, endeavour should be made to continue these contract workers with the new contractor. It would be

without prejudice to the respective stand of the parties before the “appropriate government” and their

continuation would depend upon the decision taken by the Govt to abolish or not to abolish the contract labour

system.

3. These directions shall not apply in those cases where the particular contract of maintenance etc. given by other

establishment to the CPWD earlier has ceased to operate with the result that CPWD is not having the

work/contract any longer. In those cases it would be open to the CPWD to disengage such contract workers as

not required any longer in the absence of work/job/particular activity with the CPWD.

4. If the decision is taken to abolish the contract labour in particular job/work/process in any of the

office/establishments of CPWD (as per the terms of reference contained in Resolution dated 30^th March,

2000), as per the judgement of the Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation (supra), such contract

workers would be entitled to be absorbed with CPWD and would be entitled to claim the benefits in terms of

aforesaid judgement. In case the decision of the “appropriate Government” is not to abolish contract labour

system in any of the works/job/ process in any offices/establishments of CPWD, the effect of that would be

that contract labour system is permissible and in that eventuality CPWD shall have the right to deal with these

contract workers in any manner it deems fit.

5. Such contract labours who are still working shall be paid their wages regularly as per the provisions of Section

21 of the Act and in those cases where the contractor fails to make payment of wages, it shall be the

responsibility of the CPWD –the principal employer to make the payment of wages.

6. The exercise undertaken by the “appropriate Government” u/section 10 of the Act starting with the formation of

a Committee by Resolution dated 30^th March, 2000 should be completed as expeditiously as possible and in

any case within a period of six months from today.”

11.

Govt. of India issued notification dated 31/7/2002 (Ex.W”W1/2) under Section 10 of the Contract Labour

(Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short “CLRA Act”), thereby prohibiting employment of contract labour in the

offices/establishments of CPWD for the process, operation or work specified in the Schedule appended therein, which

inter-alia included Electrician, Wiremen, Khalasi (Electrical), Fitter, Plumber, Mechanic etc. etc.

12.

It is worthwhile to mention here that in a celebrated decision in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs.

National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1, the Apex Court while extracting provisions of Section 10 of

CLRA Act observed in para 68 that following consequences do follow on issuing a notification under Section 10(1) of

the CLRA Act :-

(1)

Contract labour working in the establishment concerned at the time of issue of notification will cease to

function;

(2)

The contract of principal employer with the contractor in regard to the contract labour comes to an end;

(3)

no contract labour can be employed by the principal employer in any process, operation or other work in the

establishment to which the notification relates at any time thereafter;

(4)

the contract labour is not rendered unemployed as it generally assumed but continues in the employment of

the contractor as the notification does not severe the relationship of master and servant between the

contractor and the contract labour;

(5)

the contractor can utilize the services of the contract labour in any other establishment in respect of which no

notification under Section 10(1) has been; issued where all the benefits under the CLRA Act which were

being enjoyed by it, will be available’;

5248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(6)

if a contractor intends to retrench his contract labour, he can do so only in conformity with the provisions of

ID Act.

After taking note of the definition of the terms “contract labour”, “contractor”, “principal employer” and

“workman”, as provided in CLRA Act and decisions in other cases, the Constitution Bench of Apex Court observed in

para 105 as under :-

“The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to be construed liberally in favour of the class for whose

benefit it is intended, does not extend to reading in the provisions of the Act what the legislature has not

provided whether expressly or by necessary implication, or substituting remedy or benefits for that provided by

the Legislature. We have already noticed above the intendment of the CLRA Act that it regulates the conditions

of service of the contract labour and authorizes in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract labour system by the

appropriate Government on consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act

among other relevant factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors, in our view provides no ground

for absorption of contract labour on issuing notification under sub-section (1) of Section 10. Admittedly,

when the concept of automatic absorption of contract labour as a consequence of issuing notification under

Section 10(1) by the appropriate Govt. is not alluded to either in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and

the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 13 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and 25

of CLRA Act. It is not for the High Courts or this Court to read in some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or

substitute for penal consequences specified in Section 23 and 25 a different sequel, be it absorption of contract

labour in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of

the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of

interpretative legislation and as such, clearly impressible. We have already held above, on consideration of

various aspects that it is difficult to accept that Parliament intended absorption of contract labour on issue of

abolition notification under Section 10(1) of CLRA Act.”

The decision rendered by the Apex Court makes it amply clear that even where the work of an establishment is

carried out by employment of contract labour prohibited because of the notification issued under Section 10(1) of the

CLRA Act, no automatic absorption of the contract labour can be ordered.

13.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India (supra) also laid down detailed principles

in regard to service conditions of the contract labour coming up for adjudication subsequent to issuance of prohibition

notification and the same are reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience :-

125(5)-On issuance of prohibition notification under Sec. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of

contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to

conditions of service, the Industrial Tribunal/Court will have to consider the question whether the contractor has

been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or

for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere

ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the

benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so-called contract

labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize

the services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned subject to the conditions as may be

specified by it for that purpose in the light of the following para 6 hereunder.

125(6) If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act

in respect of the establishment concerned has been issued by the Appropriate Government, prohibiting

employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work of any establishment and where in such

process, operation or other work of the establishment, the principal employer intends to employ regular

workmen, he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and if necessary,

by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately, taking into consideration the age of the workers at

the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic

qualification other than technical qualifications.”

14.

It is a matter of record that an award dated 19/9/2007 (Ex.WW1/3) was passed by Central Govt. Industrial

Tribunal No.II whereby workmen Laljeet Yadav and others who were performing their duties as Wiremen and/or

Khaslasi under Electrical Division No.4, Sub-Division No.2, CPWD were held entitled to be treated as daily wager of

the Management after 21/7/2002 inasmuch as the Management had continued them after 21/7/2002 even after

prohibition of contract labour. The workmen were also held entitled to all benefits of daily wagers.

15.

It is also a matter of record that the Management has assailed the aforesaid Award dated 19/9/2007 (ExWW1/3),

by moving W.P. No. 7561/2008 which is still pending adjudication before Hon’ble High Court. Management has filed

on record copy of the order dated 24/10/2008 whereby Hon’ble High Court while issuing notice of the writ petition to the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5249

opposite/affected parties had directed that the effect & operation of the impugned Award dated 19/9/2007 shall remain

stayed till further orders. Further, vide order dated 1/6/2011 Hon’ble High Court while directing the writ petition to be

listed in due course, ordered the interim stay to be continued in the meanwhile.

16.

It is pertinent to mention here that as per the pleadings and evidence adduced on record workmen/claimants

Laljeet Yadav & Satish Kumar) were engaged as Wiremen on 23/3/1988 and 20/10/1998 respectively, while workman

Ajay Kumar was engaged as Khalasi on 20/10/1998. It is manifest from the Award (Ex.WW1/3) rendered by the

Presiding Officer of CGIT-II that workmen/ claimants had in fact worked under the control & supervision of the

contractor/s and used to get their salaries through contractor under whom they worked. The workmen acted according to

the contractor and not according to the Management. Although the Presiding Officer of CGIT-II vide Award Ex.WW1/3

has held the claimants/workmen to be entitled to be treated as daily wager of the Management after 21/7/2002 because

the Management had continued them after 21/7/2002 even after prohibition of contract labour, but this Tribunal can not

lost sight of the fact that the said Award has not attained finality, since the said Award is impugned before Hon’ble

High court in writ petition and effect & operation of the said Award has been stayed till further orders, by the Hon’ble

High Court. Thus, it would be improper to conclude that the workmen/claimants ipso-facto became the employees of the

principal employer i.e. CPWD in view of the Award (Ex.WW1/3) passed on 19/9/2007.

17.

There is no dispute about preposition of law that initial onus to prove relationship of employee and employer is

always on the workmen/claimants but the said relationship has been virtually admitted by the Management in its reply as

well as evidence adduced on record in the instant case. It is appropriate to mention here that the Management has come

with a specific plea that the workmen in the present case are directly not the employee of the Management/CPWD but

that of the contractor/s to whom contracts were awarded from time to time since the time of engagement of the workmen.

It is appropriate to refer to the statement of MW1 M.P.Sharma – sole witness examined by the Management – who has

admitted in his cross examination that workmen concerned were continuously employed even though contractor/s kept

on changing from time to time. He has also admitted that no notice of termination was given to the workmen, as the

workmen were the employee of the Contractor at the relevant time. At this stage it is worthwhile to emphasise that

every contractor who is awarded contract for performing certain work/job, is required to assist & answerable to the

Principal Employer and in such a way, the Principal Employer exercises direct control in certain regards over the

contractor/s and indirect control over the workmen so engaged by the said contractor, as is clear from the Scheme of the

Act. Thus, there existed relationship of employee and employers between the workmen and Management.

18.

It is apparent from the record that before ordering termination of workmen herein, no notice in terms of Section

25-F of the Act was given tby the contractors and/or Principal Employer. This fact is duly admitted by MW1

Shri M.P.Sharma, witness of the Management in his cross examination. Even the workmen have not been paid one

month’s salary in lieu of such notice as required under Section 25-F of the Act.

19.

The workmen while appearing as WW1 to WW3 have categorically deposed that even the Management did not

pay one month’s notice or notice pay and compensation to them and that they are still unemployed from the date when

their services were terminated w.e.f.14/10/2009. The Management has not adduced any evidence to show that the

claimant is gainfully employed somewhere else or that the workmen are in a position to make their both ends meet by

doing any work. Even if it is assumed that the workmen are doing some intermittent or adhoc work to make their both

ends meet, that would not itself amount to gainful employment. In the circumstances, it is held that action of the

Management in terminating the service of the workmen is totally illegal and wrong and is in violation of Section 25-F of

the Act.

20.

There is long line of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of

Section 25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the

provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will render whole action of the Management to be illegal and wrong under the law.

21.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in case “Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya”

reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under :

“The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are :

(i)

In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is

the normal rule.

(ii)

Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back

wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the

Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the

employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to

prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages

he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the

burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments

about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore,

5250

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and

prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar

emoluments.”

22.

The Hon’ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of

termination of a workman’s service/employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the

mandate of Section 25F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometime

as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of

service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month’s notice or

pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the

employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. (Anoop

Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).

23.

A Bench of 3 Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v.

Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (1979) 2 SCC 80 held that relief of reinstatement with continuity of

service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken

away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously

deprived the workman of his earnings. If thus the employer is found to be totally, in that eventuality the workman is

required to be reinstated, with full back wages. Plain common sense also dictates that the removal of an order

terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen alongwith

payment of back wages.

24.

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudan Singh, reported as 2005

SCC (L&S) 716 observed as under :-

“8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination

of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors

like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy

or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment namely, whether ad hoc, short

term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like

should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important

factors which has to be taken into consideration is the length of service, which the workman had rendered

with the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are

wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at this age

and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However,

where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the

complete period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is

often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. A regular service of permanent character cannot be

compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calander year.”

25.

Having regard to the legal position as discussed above and the fact that the workmen having been engaged as far

back as sometimes in the year 1988 (as Wiremen & Khalasi) to perform the job of regular and perennial nature, this

Tribunal is of the firm view that the workmen herein are entitled for reinstatement into service with 50 per cent back

wages inasmuch as termination of the claimants/workmen is per-se illegal and the claimants/workmen are not gainfully

employed anywhere since after their termination. Award is passed accordingly.

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1283-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] dk;Zdkjh

vfHk;ark (fo|qr)] lhihMCY;wqMh] liQnjtax vLirky] ubZ fnYyh 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; la- 1] fnYyh ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 228@2015) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42011@73@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2018

S.O. 1283.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 228/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Executive

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5251

Engineer (Electrical), CPWD, Safadarjung Hospital, New Delhi & Others and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 16.08.2018.

[No. L-42011/73/2012-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

COURT No.1: ROOM No.511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075

ID No. 228/2015

The General Secretary,

CPWD Mazdoor Union

C/o Room No.95, Barracks No.1/10,

Jam Nagar House, Shahjahan Road,

New Delhi – 110 001

…Workmen

Vs.

The Executive Engineer (Electrical)

CPWD, Safdarjung Hospital,

New Delhi - 110 029

The Medical Superintendent,

Safdarjung Hospital,

Ring Road,

New Delhi- 110 029

…Managements

AWARD

A reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No.L-42011/73/2012-IR(DU) dated

27.10.2015 under clause (d) of the sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947(in short the Act) from the Central Government for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are detailed

as under:

‘Whether the termination of 29 workmen (list enclosed) by the management of CPWD with effect from

16.03.2010 is just, fair and legal? If not, what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?’

Claim statement has been filed by the workmen with the averments that they had been working for the

management of CPWD under the supervision of Executive Engineer (Electrical), CPWD, Electrical Division, Safdarjung

Hospital, New Delhi. Details of the workmen are as under:

Sl. No.

Name of workman

Father’s name

Date of joining

Md. Earul Hque

Late Md. Woarash SK

02.01.1994

Sunder Singh

Sh.Gyan Chand

12.04.1994

Ved Prakash

Sh.Sita Ram

09.04.1994

Surender Singh

Sh.Arjun Singh

25.05.1995

Dhirender Singh Negi

Sh.Satye Singh Negi

12.04.1994

Vijay Kumar

Sh.Jay Prakash

21.02.2002

Sunil Kate

Sh.Ram Chander Kate

07.02.2003

Laxman

Sh.Mahinder Singh

14.02.2007

Kundan Paswan

Sh.Mohan Paswan

14.07.2003

10.

Chander Shekhar Paswan

Sh.Mohan Paswan

24.03.2007

11.

Akash Gupta

Late Sh.Arun Kumar Gupta

27.09.2002

12.

Ashok Kumar

Lt Sh. Ram Ashish Prasad

27.09.1990

5252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13.

Saurabh Singh

Sh.Kundan Singh

10.10.2006

14.

Anup Kumar

Sh.Ram Nath

20.02.2003

15.

Laxman Singh

Sh.Virender Singh

01.11.1999

16.

Jitender Singh

Sh.Mahipal Singh

09.03.2003

17.

Raj Kumar

Sh.Surajbhan

20.11.1997

18.

Manoj Kumar

Sh.Jag Shram Johri

08.09.1995

19.

Sajan Joseph

Sh.P.J.Joseph

13.05.2004

20.

Brij Kishore Majhi

Sh.Babu Lal Majhi

05.03.1997

21.

Shyam Bahadur

Sh. Badri Prasad

06.10.2003

22.

Ramjeet

Lt.Sh.Devi Choudhary

20.04.2000

23.

Dharmender

Sh.Ammi Lal

05.05.1999

The services of the above workmen were terminated with effect from 16.03.2010 without following the procedure

as envisaged under Section 25-F, G, H and Section 33 of the Act. .

It is the case of the workmen that they were engaged by the management for operating the lift as Lift Operators

and all of them have been performing the duty of Lift Operators in Safdarjung Hospital under the management.

It is further alleged that management unlawfully employed these workmen through some fake contractors i.e. M/s

Swastik Enterprises and now the work has been handed over to M/s Olympian Elevators & Engg. Co. Ltd. Initially, the

workmen were employed through M/s Skylark (India) and thereafter M/s Bharat Elevators but the workmen have been

performing their duties in the same manner under the supervision of Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Junior

Engineer of the said Division. There are averments that office of Regional Labour Commissioner vide its letter dated

23.3.2009 addressed to Sh. Surinder Singh, admitted that contractor did not obtain any licence for operating lift in

Safdarjung Hospital and the management of CPWD did not procure registration to operate the lift. 64 workmen through

National Trade Union Congress has raised a dispute for regularization of their service with CPWD and during pendency

of the dispute, the services of the claimants were done away with without obtaining prior permission/approval from the

Conciliation Officer. Hence termination of the claimants on 16.03.2010 is non-est. Termination of the workmen is also

violative of Section 29 of the Act. Management has retained juniors to the claimants herein. The claimants have

completed more than 240 days in a calendar year but their services have been terminated without giving one month

notice on pay in lieu thereof.

The officers of CPWD alongwith the contractor are acting in collusion with each other to gain monetary benefits

by adopting unfair practices. The officers of CPWD in collusion with contractor are not paying wages to the workmen

under the Minimum Wages Act, fixed for skilled workmen. The management of CPWD has total control over the

workmen and the contractor is alleged to be sham. Workmen are performing their duties as regularly employed

employees but the workmen have been denied equal wages and minimum wages which their counterparts are getting.

There is also reference to the judgment of Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors vs. National Union Waterfront Workers &

Ors (2001) 7 SCC 1. Since the management have not obtained the registration certificate under section 7 of C.L.Act nor

the contractor has obtained licence under section 12 of the said Act, so the above contract was only sham, camouflage

and illegal.

It is alleged that daily rated workers in the category of Generator Operator have been getting their wages in time

scale therefore, workmen herein are also entitled to the same wages which are being denied to them, from the date of

their initial employment. Several hundreds of workers were appointed against direct recruitment quota in the trades in

which the claimants are engaged through the said sham contract and were regularized by the management ignoring the

claimants herein just to perpetuate the vested interests of the concerned officials of the in collusion with the dummy

contractor and agent of the management. The jobs being performed by the claimants is regular and perennial in nature.

Some of the regular lift operators who have been getting regular pay scales with allowances and other facilities are

S/Shri Birender Singh Dhyani, Mariyappan, Harish Chand, Krishan Gopal, Jaggi, Ranjet, Ram Kalesh and Tej Pal. One

Shri Prem Singh Rawat was on daily wages with the management at Safdarjung Hospital was granted permanent status

and transferred to Lady Harding Hospital. It is alleged in para 15 of the statement of claim that daily rated workers in the

category of Generator Operator have been getting their wages in time scale plus DA, ADA, HRA, CCA etc. therefore,

workmen herein are also entitled to the same wages which are being denied to them, from the date of their initial

employment. Reference has been made by the claimant union to the judgements of Steel Authority of India Vs. National

Union Waterfront Workers (2001) 7 SCC 1, Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board Vs Suresh (199) 1 LLJ

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5253

1086),Hussain Bhai vs Alath Factory, M/s Indian Framers Fertilizers Co-op Ltd. vs Industrial Tribunal –I, Allahabad

(2002 Lab.IC 1091). Finally, it has been prayed that the workmen may be reinstated in service with full back wages with

al consequential benefits.

The claim was contested by the management who filed written statement and took certain preliminary objections

inter alia of there being no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the management,

management not being an ‘industry’ as defined under the Act, maintainability and locus standi etc. On merits, it is

specifically denied that workmen have been working for the management of CPWD under the supervision of Executive

Engineer etc. It has also been denied that workmen were engaged as Lift Operators by the management. It is alleged that

the claimants have been working for M/s Swastik Enterprises and M/s Olympian Elevator& Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. It is

denied that the contractor did not obtain any licence for operating lift in Safdarjung Hospital and management also did

not procure registration certificate under the C.L.R.A Act. Management has denied the other material averments

contained in the statement of claim. With this background, a prayer is made for rejection of the claim.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, this Tribunal vide order dated 07.09.2016, framed the following issues.

(i)

Whether the reference is not legally maintainable in veiwo of the various preliminary objections?

(ii)

In terms of reference

10.

The claimants, in support of their case, examined Shri Mohd. Earul Hoque as WW1, whose affidavit is

Ex.WW1/A and he also relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/6. Averments made in the affidavit are on the

similar lines as made in the statement of claim. Management, in order to rebut the case of claimants, examined Shri

Ranjan Paul as MW1 whose affidavit is Ex.MW1/A and he relied on documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/4.

11.

I have heard Shri B.K. Prasad, A/R for the claimant and Ms.Avtar Kaur Dhingra & Shri Chaman Sharma, A/Rs

for the management.

Findings on Issue Nos.(i) and (ii)

12.

Both these issues are being taken up together for the purpose of discussion as the same are inter related and can be

easily disposed of. Before I proceed to consider the comparative merits of the submissions, raised on behalf of either of

the parties, it is necessary to refer to the ratio of judgement by a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Steel

Authority of India and others Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and others (2001) 7 SCC 1) wherein Supreme

Court was primarily concerned with the meaning of the expression ‘appropriate Government’ as used in Section

2(1)(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and in Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 in relation to State Government or the Central government. The other issue involved before the Apex Court was

the automatic absorption of contract labour in the establishment of the principal employer as a consequence of abolition

notification issued under Section 10-A of the CLRA Act 1970. Supreme Court while partly overruling the judgement in

Air India Statutory Corporation vs. United Labour Union (1997 (9) SCC 377) prospectively held that neither section 10

of the CLRA Act nor any other provisions of the Act, whether expressly or by necessary implication, provides for

automatic absorption of the contract labour on issuance of notification under the said section, prohibiting contract labour

and consequently principal employer is not required to absorb contract labour working in such establishments. In the

said case, another incidental issue whether relationship of master and servant between the principal employer and

contract labour emerges after issuance of notification under section 10 of the CLRA Act was also considered by the

Court. After discussing the entire spectrum of the case law on the subject in Para 125 of the judgement, it was held as

under:

(3)

Neither Section 10 of the CLRA Act nor any other provision in the Act, whether expressly or by necessary

implication, provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing a notification by appropriate

Government under sub-section (1) of Section 10, prohibiting employment of contract labour, in any

process, operation or other work in any establishment. Consequently the principal employer cannot be

required to order absorption of the contract labour working in the concerned establishment;

“(4) We overrule the judgment of this Court in Air India case prospectively and declare that any direction

issued by any industrial adjudicator/any court including the High Court, for absorption of contract labour

following the judgment in Air India case shall hold good and that the same shall not be set aside, altered of

modified on the basis of this judgment in cases where such a direction has been given effect to and it has

become final.”

(5) On issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of

contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to

conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor

has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the

establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is

5254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the

workers of the benefit there-under. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so

called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed

to regularize the services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned subject to the conditions as

may be specified by it for that purpose in the light of para 6 hereunder.

(6)

If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act in

respect of the establishment concerned has been issued by the appropriate Government, prohibiting

employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work of any establishment and where in

such process, operation or other work of the establishment the principal employer intends to employ

regular workmen, he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and,

if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately, taking into consideration the age

of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to

academic qualifications other than technical qualifications.”

13. A critical examination judgement in SAIL case (supra) would show that this judgement shines like a pole star in

the galaxy of precedents in the field of industrial laws and provides a beacon light to all those who are lost in the mist of

legal confusion. It is further clear from the above judgements that purpose of issuance of notification appears to be clear

and Parliament has intended to create a bar by incorporating provision on engagement of contract labour in any

establishment covered by such prohibition notification. Thus, no option is left with the employer to employ contract

labour in the category of jobs mentioned in the said notification. In fact, Section 10 is enacted to work as a permanent

solution to the problem and there is no legal justification for engagement of contract labour after issuance of such

notification issued under Section 10 of the CLRA Act and incase of violation, employer can be imposed with punishment

under Section 21 to 23 of the CLRA Act.

14.

Supreme Court in International Airport Authority of India vs. International Air Cargo Workers Union (2009 (13)

SCC 37) again considered the question of contract labour as well as impact of issuance of notification under Section 10

of the CLRA Act, and held as under:

‘20. But where there is no abolition of contract labour under section 10 of CLRA Act, but the contract labour

contend that the contract between principal employer and contractor is sham and nominal, the remedy is purely

under the ID Act. The principles in Gujarat Electricity Board continue to govern the issue. The remedy of the

workmen is to approach the industrial adjudicator for an adjudication of their dispute that they are the direct

employees of the principle employer and the agreement is sham, nominal and merely a camouflage, even when

there is no order under section 10(1) of CLRA Act. The industrial adjudicator can grant the relief sought if it

finds that contract between principal employer and the contractor is sham, nominal and merely a camouflage to

deny employment benefits to the employer and that there is in fact a direct employment, by applying tests like:

who pays the salary; who has the power to remove/dismiss from service or initiate disciplinary action; who can

tell the employee the way in which the work should be done, in short who has direction and control over the

employee. But where there is no notification under section 10 of the CLRA Act and where it is not proved in

the industrial adjudication that the contract was sham/nominal and camouflage, then the question of directing

the principal employer to absorb or regularize the services of the contract labour does not arise. The tests that

are applied to find out whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor may not automatically

apply in finding out whether the contract labour agreement is a sham, nominal and is a mere camouflage. For

example, if the contract is for supply of labour, necessarily, the labour supplied by the contractor will work

under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer but that would not make the worker a

direct employee of the principal employer, if the salary is paid by contractor, if the right to regulate employment

is with the contractor, and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor. The principal employer

only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labour, when such labour is assigned/allotted/sent to

him. But it is the contractor as employer, who chooses whether the worker is to be assigned/allotted to the

principal employer or used otherwise. In short worker being the employee of the contractor, the ultimate

supervision and control lies with the contractor as he decides where the employee will work and how long he

will work and subject to what conditions. Only when the contractor assigns/sends the worker to work under the

principal employer, the worker works under the supervision and control of the principal employer but that is

secondary control. The primary control is with the contractor.

15.

It is clear from pleadings as well as evidence on record that the workmen herein were engaged by the management

of CPWD in the year 1994 and onwards. It is further clear from matrix of the case that the workmen herein were

admittedly doing work for the benefit of CPWD and it was not an independent or individual work of the so called

contractor in whose employment they have been shown in the evidence adduced by the management .

16.

In the case in hand, management has not taken care to implead or examine the so called contractor, in whose

employment the claimants herein have been shown to be working . To my mind, he was the best witness to depose about

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5255

the nature of work which was being performed by the claimants herein and his evidence as to under whose supervision

claimants herein were working would have been very relevant and vital. I am not in agreement with contention of the

learned A/R for the management that the workmen should have called the contractors as witness or impleaded him as a

party so as to unfold the truth. Since the contractor is admittedly an agent of the principal employer and there is privity

of contract between the management of CPWD and the contractor, in such a situation, management having all the

relevant documents in its possession so as to show that what work was allotted, what was the nature of work which was

to be got done by the workmen through the so called contractor and amount of payable to such workmen.

17.

Claimants, in order to substantiate the allegations made in the claim, has examined Shri Mohd. Earul Hoque as

WW1 whose affidavit is Ex.WW1/A. He has also tendered in evidence documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/5.. There is

also document addressed to the Executive Engineer by Deputy Director (Admn.) regarding implementation of judgement

of the judgement dated 17.01.1986 in the case of Surender Singh Vs. Engineer in Chief.

18.

Management, though examined Shri Ranjan Paul as MW1, yet his statement is not of much value so as to refute

the case of the claimants. He has admitted that contract employees are not being paid wages equal to the regular time-

scale of lift operators. It is really strange that despite issuance of notification, Department is still resorting to the practice

of engaging labour or daily rated workmen through so called contractors. In fact, workmen are not aware of the name and

antecedents of such contractors, who normally do not come to the site and work is being done under the supervision of

the officials, Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer of the management. The witness MW1 Shri Ranjan Paul was not aware

whether the contractor is duly registered with the labour authority under the CLRA Act.

19.

During the course of arguments, much stress was laid by the A/R for the claimant on the judgement in Surender

Singh case, which has been mentioned in the various correspondence of the management also. This judgement purely

details equal pay for equal work and method of calculation of daily wage to daily rated workers. Department has also

issued directions from time to time for implementation of the said judgement.

20. Now the vital question which requires determination is whether the so called contracts entered into between the

management and the contractors, which have neither been exhibited nor proved on record, as per requirement of law

are sham and bogus.

21. During the course of arguments, the learned A/Rs for the respective parties relied upon the ration of judgment in

SAIL case (supra). In the said case as discussed above, the Hon’ble Apex Court has cast a duty upon the Industrial

Adjudicator to examine in the light of facts and circumstances of each case whether so called contract entered into

between the management and the contractor is sham or nominal it is just a device to defeat the provisions of the law so as

to ensure that the workmen do not claim to be employees of the management. It is apt to mention here that CLRA Act

was enacted by the Parliament to deal with the abuse of contract labour system and the Act was framed by the Parliament

to curb abuse of contract labour by contractor. Primary object of the Act was to regulate employment under the contract

labour system in certain categories of employment. This approach is clearly discernable from the overall provisions of

the Act. Further this Tribunal has to keep in mind noble object of these social beneficial legislation which needs to be

construed in favour of the workmen.

22.

During the course of arguments, it was strongly argued on behalf of the management that he Hon’ble Court of Dr.

R.K. Yadav, Presiding Officer, Karkardooma Courts has already discarded the earlier petition filed by the workman in ID

No.12/2011 dated 08.05.2013. However, bare perusal of the award dated 08.05.2013 in ID No.12/2011 reveals that the

dispute was raised by the claimants under sub-section (2) of Section 2A of the Act and the claim that the contract entered

into between the management and the contractor was sham and bogus does not fall within the ambit of Section 2A of the

Act. For such a dispute, espousal by the union or considerable number of workmen in the establishment of the

management is required and thereafter the appropriate Government is supposed to form an opinion about existence of the

dispute and refer it for adjudication under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act. Hence, the claim was discarded for

the simple reason that the claimants cannot raise such a dispute of their own without it being referred for adjudication by

the appropriate Government.

23. This Tribunal cannot ignore the vital fact that Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948, requires establishment of a

canteen in a factory employing more than 250 workers. State Government have been given powers under the Act to

make rules requiring such canteens to be provided in the factories so as to ensure welfare of the workmen working

therein. Factories Act is otherwise a social legislation and it provides for the health, safety, welfare, working hours and

leave and other benefits for workers employed in factories. Even Section 16 of the CLRA Act specifically provides that

the appropriate Government may make rules requiring every establishment setting up one or more canteens for the use of

contract labour. There is even provision for rest rooms as well as other facilities to be provided to ensure that all these

above requirements as well as amenities which are required to be provided under the above Acts for the benefit of

contract labour in the establishment is fully complied with. Therefore, it was against this background that Apex court

held that labour working in the factor was the employee of the Company, i.e. principal employer for the purpose of

Factories Act and not for the purpose of Industrial Disputes Act.

5256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

24.

It is not the case of the management that administrative or supervisory control over the workmen was being

exercised because of statutory requirements as was the position in Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union

case(supra) and Ram Singh case (supra). Management has not whispered a word that contractor was giving directions to

the workman to do a particular kind of duty on the spot so as to show that supervisory and effective control was with the

contractor. Rather, it has been admitted by MW1 that they were giving directions to the workers who were doing work

on the spot. In the case in hand, there other peculiar factors which were not present in the authorities relied upon by the

management. There was no issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10 of the Act in most of the cases relied

upon by the management, whereas in the case on hand, vide Ex.WW2/1 prohibition notification was admittedly

issued. Workmen as per list Ex.WW1/M1 are mostly skilled and semi-skilled workmen who are admittedly performing

their duties at the respective sites as per directions of the Assistant Engineer, Junior Engineer, etc. Tribunal cannot ignore

the fact that duties of khalasi, beldaars, wiremen, lift operators, AC operator etc. is of such nature that the same can be

performed only under the directions and direct supervision of superior officers and there cannot be any role of contractor

in the performance of such duties. Management has admittedly flouted the notification Ex.WW2/1 and it was followed

more in breach than in observance. Management has neither proved any contract nor examined any contractor so as to

prove that supervisory or administrative control was that of the contractor whereas in the cases relied upon by the

managements contracts were proved on record so as to determine nature of work, control and duration of such contracts.

It was also proved in some of the cases that the contractor was marking attendance of the workmen, issuing wage slips

etc. Thus, in said cases, control over the workmen was that of the contractor whereas in the case on hand, all such

material facts are missing as the same have not been pleaded or proved on record by the management. Moreover, in the

case in hand, management has not examined any contractor nor proved/exhibited any contract awarded to the said

contractors so s to ascertain terms and conditions of the contract and nature of control which the principal employer or

contractor was to exercise upon the workmen employed at the spot. In such circumstances, this Tribunal is bound to

drawn adverse inference against the management.

25. In the case of BHEL s. State of Uttar Pradesh (2003 Lab.IC 230) Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with the question of

contract employee. It was a case where workmen were engaged as gardeners(mali and sweepers) to maintain lawns and

parks inside the factory premises of the company. Their services were terminated ion 01.12.1988 and workmen took

matter to the Labour Court, who directed the Company to reemploy them and pay compensation. Ultimately matter

reached before the Supreme Court wherein plea was taken that the workmen were engaged for working as gardeners in

the factory premises and campus of the Company and the Hon’ble Apex Court finally upheld decision of the Labour

Court by observing as under:

"5. The true test may, with brevity, be indicated once again. Where a worker or group of workers laborers, to

produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another, that other is, in fact, the

employer. He has economic control over the workers' subsistence, skill, and continued employment. If he, for

any reason, chokes off, the worker is, virtually, laid off. The presence of intermediate contractors with whom

alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex contracts is of no consequence when, on lifting the

veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment, we discern the naked truth though draped in

different perfect paper arrangement, that the real employer is the Management, not the immediate contractor,

Myriad devices, half-hidden in fold after fold of legal form depending on the degree of concealment needed the

type of industry, the local conditions and the like may be resorted to when labour legislation casts welfare

obligations on the real employer based on Articles 38, 39, 42,43 and 43-A of the Constitution. The court must

be astute to avoid the mischief and achieve the purpose of the law and not be misled by the maya of legal

appearances.’

26.

It is not out of place to mention here that in SAIL case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court approved ratio of

judgement in Hussainbhai, Calicut Vs. The Alath Factory Thezhilali Union, Kozhikode & Othrs(1978(4) SCC 257).

Supreme Court in the said case also considered the vital question of status of the workmen who have been employed

through contractor by the principal employer. Issue in the said case was hiring of workmen through contractor by

industry manufacturing ropes. Supreme Court pointed out that work done by the contract labour was integral part of the

industry concerned and the workmen were broadly under the control of the management. Payment of wages was being

made through the contractor as is the position in the present case. In order to ascertain the real nature of the contract, the

Apex Court observed that where a worker or a group of workers labour to produce goods or services and these goods or

services are for the business of another, that other is in fact the employer. He has economic control over the workers’

subsistence, skill, and continued employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off the worker is, virtually, laid off. The

presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex-contractu

is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment, Courts

discern the naked truth, though draped in different perfect paper arrangement, that the real employer is the management,

not the immediate contractor.

27.

Yet in another case, Sankar Mukherjee & Others Vs. Union of India & Others (1990 (Supp.) SCC 668), The Apex

Court considered the notification under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Prohibition) Act,1970. The

said notification by the Government of West Bengal dealt with prohibiting the employment of contract labour in 16

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5257

departments covering 65 jobs in the establishments of M/s. Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. The list of the departments and

the jobs are annexed in the schedule to the notification. One of the Departments related to Brick Department excluding

the job of loading and un-loading of bricks from wagons and trucks. On a challenge made by the affected workers that

they had been subjected to hostile discrimination so much so that the workmen doing the same job in other departments

and allied jobs in the same department have been rescued from the system of contract labour, the Supreme Court pointed

out that bricks handled by the brick department were used in furnaces of the company as refractory and incidental to the

industry carried on by the company. The petitioners herein were employed as contract labour by the company for the

last 15 to 20 years. The Supreme Court further pointed out that even though the petitioners were not doing the job of

stacking the bricks, there was no denial nor any averment or material on the record to show that the job of loading and

unloading of bricks was not incidental or alike to the stacking of the bricks. On the other hand, they are one continuous

process. That being so, the workers performing these jobs which are of perennial nature, are to be treated alike. The

Supreme Court pointed out that the workers doing the job of loading and unloading from the wagons and trucks in the

Brick Department are to be treated on par with those who are doing the job of cleaning and stacking in the said

Department. The Supreme Court further pointed out that there was o reason as to why others doing the same job should

be treated differently.

28.

During the course of arguments, great emphasis was placed by the learned counsel for the workmen on the fact

that when the nature of job done by the workmen herein is regular and perennial in nature and workers are doing same

work which was being done by regular workmen, who were admittedly drawing salary double the amount of the salary of

the workmen herein, in such a situation , so called contracts with the contractors in the face of prohibition notification

under Section 10 cannot be termed to be legally valid. Such agreements are against public policy and any agreement

against public policy is liable to be termed as a void agreement. Consequently, such a contract itself becomes void, sham,

nominal and bogus in the eyes of law, such contracts are bogus and sham in law. Since majority of the workmen are

doing the work of skilled or semi-skilled in nature, which is an integral part of the activity of the department, i.e. CPWD

as such there was no question of engaging contract labour after issuance of notification under Section 10 of the CLRA

Act.

29.

Decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Catering Cleaners of Southern Railway vs. Union of India and another

(1987 (1) SCC 700) relates to a case of contract labour engaged for cleaning catering establishments and pantry cars in

Southern Railway. The Supreme Court pointed out that although the contract system has been abolished in almost all the

other Railways, the Southern Railway persists in employing contract labour for cleaning its catering establishments and

pantry cars to serve public better. In considering the claim of the contract labour , the Supreme Court pointed out that

the work of cleaning catering establishments and pantry cars is necessary and incidental to the industry or the business of

the Southern Railway; the employment is of perennial nature and that the work required employment of sufficient

number of whole-time workmen. Thus, these factors satisfy the provisions under Section 10(2) of the CLRA Act.

Considering such facts, instead of issuing a Mandamus, the Supreme Court directed the Central Government to take

appropriate action under Section 10 of CLRA Act in the matter of prohibiting employment of contract labour in the work

of cleaning catering establishments and pantry cars in Southern Railway. The Supreme Court further directed that these

workmen, who were previously employed by the contractor on the same wages and conditions of work as are applicable

to those engaged in similar work in Western Railway, be absorbed without waiting for the decision of the Central

Government.

30. Question of contract labour was also considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suresh vs Haryana

State Electricity Board (1999 LLJ 1086). It was also a case where question of right of equality, i.e. equal pay for equal

work as well as question of contract labour was considered. In the said case also Haryana State Electricity

Board awarded contract for keeping plants and service station clean and hygienic conditions to a private

contractor. There was a stipulation in the contractor to employ minimum number of workmen. Workmen had put in

more than 240 days in a calendar year and worked for several years. Labour Court ordered their reinstatement with

continuity of services when contractor had terminated their services. Hon’ble High Court also held that there existed

relationship of employer and employee between the Electricity Board and the workmen and upheld the award of the

Labour Court. Hon’ble Apex Court also upheld the judgement of the High Court and observed that maintenance work in

the plant is not seasonal in nature and overall control of contract labour, including administrative control rested with the

Electricity Board. Neither the contractor was licenced nor Electricity Board was registered as principal

employer. Therefore, so called contract system was merely a camouflage, bogus and a smoke screen. In the case in hand

also as observed above, admittedly there is no evidence on record to show that the management was duly registered nor

there is any evidence worth the name that the so called contractor was duly licenced under the law. Work in the case in

hand is also not of seasonal nature and most of the workmen are doing this work regularly for the last several years.

Same cannot be termed to be seasonal or temporary work.

31.

Conspectus of the above judgements would clearly show that heavy duty has been case on the Industrial

Adjudicator so as to decide whether the contract in question is genuine one or sham, camouflage or bogus. As

discussed above, no such contract has been proved on record by the management, who has admittedly engaged workers

after issuance of prohibition notification Ex.WW1/1 dated 08.09.1994. No doubt, CPWD, i.e. the management has its

5258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

offices throughout the country and they are engaging labour for different projects but being an important organ of the

Government, it is expected from such a big organization that it should act like a model employer and cannot engage any

labour which is in derogation of the prohibition notification issued under Section 10 of the CLRA Act. Simply because

punishment is provided under Section 23 of the CLRA Act for contravention of the provisions regarding employment of

contract labour, that would not itself mean that the Government can engage contract labour in defiance of the statutory

prohibition or notification issued under Section 10 of the Act. The Act does not even exclude prosecution of the officers

of the State Government or any of the Instrumentalities under the State Government for contravening provisions of the

Act. However, the fact remains that no such prosecution has ever been launched against officials of CPWD for violation

of Section 23 of the CLRA Act nor any other law. In view of my detailed discussion hereinabove, it is held that so

called contracts between the management of CPWD and contractors are held to be sham, bogus or nominal; as such,

workmen are held to be directly in the employment of the management.

32.

Now, the next question which is also required to be answered by this Tribunal is whether workmen herein are

entitled for equal pay for equal pay from the date of their initial appointment or regularization of their services by the

management ? In this regard, learned A/R for the management invited attention of this Tribunal to office order

Ex.WW1/3 which deals with equal pay for equal work and method of calculation of such daily rated workers of CPWD.

Perusal of the above office order would show that the same was issued by Directorate General of Works of CPWD, New

Delhi and subject of the letter is as under:

Subject

Implementation of Supreme Court judgement dated 17.01.1986 on Surender Singh’s case

regarding equal pay for equal work’ – Method of calculation of wages of the daily rated

workers regarding

Reference have been received from some of the superintending Engineers/Executive Engineers etc.

seeking clarification regarding method of computing daily rates payable to daily rated workers of CPWD on the

concept of ‘equal pay for equal work’. It has been decided that the following formula may be adopted for the

purpose of working out daily rates of wages of daily rated workers of the CPWD:

“The total monthly emoluments admissible to regular counterparts of the daily rated workers at the

minimum of the respective scale of pay may be multiplied by number of days in a particular month after

deducting there-from the days of absence plus the days of rest falling in the week/weeks in which the worker

remained absent and the result may be divided by number of days in the month. The figure so arrived will be

the daily rate of wages of the worker. ‘

33.

During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the claimant relied upon the provisions of Rule 25(v)(a) of the

Contract Labour (Central) Rules 1971, which provides that where workmen employed by the contractor performs same

or similar kind of work as the workmen directly employed by the principal employer wage rates, holidays, hours of work

and other conditions of service of the workmen of the contractor shall be the same as applicable to the workmen directly

employed by the principal employer of the establishment for the same kind of work.

34.

Reliance was also placed upon the case of Indian Airlines vs. Central Government Labour Court (1987 (II) LLJ

512) . It was a case where question of equal pay for equal work was considered. In fact management of Indian Airlines

has engaged workers for rendering services for sanitary water supply, sewage work etc. Later on, their services were

transferred to the contractor, who terminated their services. It was held that remedy to the workmen is either to file

reference under Section 10 of the Act or file application under Section 33(C)(2) for equal wages which their regular

counter parts are getting. It was further observed that in case of less wages being paid to the contract workmen, principal

employer is bound to pay wages and recover the same from the contractor. Resultantly, it is held that workmen herein

are entitled for equal pay with their regular counterparts performing similar duties on the similar posts from the date of

their appointments.

35.

As a sequel to afore-mentioned discussions, it is held that the so called contract between management of CPWD

and its contractor, with regard to employment of the workmen whose names are mentioned in Column No.2 of Annexure

A attached to the reference order, is held to be sham, and bogus. It is further held termination of the 29 workmen as per

list annexed to the reference by the management of CPWD is held to be unjust, unfair and illegal. The claimants are

entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages. Workmen shown to be working through the

contractor are entitled to be regularized in accordance with the Regulations/policy of the management applicable in this

behalf. While regularizing services of the workmen, management is required to keep in mind their age, qualification and

length of service etc. and any policy in this behalf. An award is accordingly passed. It be sent to the appropriate

Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : August 9, 2018

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5259

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1284-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] fnYyh esVªks

jsy fuxe] fnYyh 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; la- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 255@2017) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-08-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42025@03@2018&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2018

S.O. 1284.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 255/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Delhi

Metro Rail Corporation, Delhi & Others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

10.08.2018.

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

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

COURT No.1: ROOM No.511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075

D.I.D. No. 255/2017

Shri Rakesh, S/o Shri Ramesh, through

Janhit Mazdoor Union Delhi Pradesh (Regd. No.3978),

C-9, Lal Bagh, opposite Factory A-67/2,

G.T. Karnal Road,

Azadpur, Delhi – 110033

…Workman

Versus

(i)

M/s Scan Guard Protection Services Pvt. Ltd.,

29/1A, D/S First Floor, Ashok Nagar,

Delhi – 110 018

(ii)

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation

Delhi Metro Station Samaypur Badli,

Rohini Sector 18-19,

Delhi 110 002

…Managements

AWARD

Present dispute has been raised by Shri Rakesh (in short the workman) under the provisions of sub-section (2) of

section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). A period of 45 days stood expired from the date of

making his application before the Conciliation Officer. Sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act empowers him to file a

dispute before this Tribunal, without being referred by the appropriate Government. His contention stands substantiated

by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act. Workman has been given a right by the Act to approach

this Tribunal in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of her service, without a dispute

being referred by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act. Since dispute was within

the period of limitation, as enacted by sub section (3), and answered requirements of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the

Act, it was registered as an industrial dispute, even without being referred for adjudication by the appropriate

Government, under section 10(1) (d) of the Act.

It has been averred that the workman joined M/s Scan Guard Protection Services (P) Ltd. (in short the contractor)

as House Keeper and his last drawn wages was Rs.8,300.00 per month and he was made to work with Delhi Metro Rail

Corporation (in short the management ) Delhi Metro Station at Samaypur Badli, Rohini Sector 18-19 and performed his

duties to the entire satisfaction of his superiors. The workman was deprived benefits of various beneficial

legislations/mandatory legal facilities, including PF, ESI, minimum wages despite verbal requests. His earned wages for

the period 01.03.2017 to 24.03.2017 has also not been paid to him. Demand notice was served on the management by

speed post on 29.05.2017. It is further alleged that at the time of his engagement, the management obtained his signatures

on blank paper. The workman lodged a complaint with PG portal as a result of which the management was annoyed and

started harassing the workman and finally terminated him on 24.03.2018 without any notice/notice pay or without any

5260

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

domestic enquiry, in an illegal manner, which is against the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. The workman is

unemployed since his termination. Finally, it has been prayed that he may be granted reinstatement with back wages and

all consequential benefits.

Written statement was filed on behalf of the management wherein relationship of employer and employee has

been denied between them and the workman as he was an employee of the contractor. The management entered into

service agreement with the contractor for providing services to carry out contractual responsibilities in terms of the said

service agreement. The workman was working under the direct control and supervision of the contractor. The present

dispute has been raised against two different managements who are two different legal entities and it is not specified as to

against whom he is seeking relief; hence bad and incompetent under the law. The management has denied the other

material averments contained in the statement of claim.

Written statement has also been filed by the contractor wherein it is averred that the workman was working with

them for contractual work of mechanized cleaning and housekeeping at Badli/Rohini Sector 18 stations of the

management. The workman stopped reporting for work from 24.03.2017 and finally on 10.04.2017, he submitted his

resignation, which was duly accepted by the company. In response to the PGMS complaint by the workman, a letter

dated 30.05.2017 was sent to the workman through registered post advising him to join duties but he never reported for

duties. The workman was paid minimum wages and he was also given benefit of PF and ESI as well.

Thereafter, the case was listed for filing of rejoinder and framing of issues. However, despite granting of two

opportunities, none appeared on behalf of the workman. Thus, it is clear that the workman is no more interested in

adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against

the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. However, it

will not debar the workman, Shri Rakesh, from seeking relief afresh as there is no adjudication of the reference on

merits. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under

Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication.

Dated : August 6, 2018

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1285-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] fnYyh esVªks

jsy fuxe] fnYyh 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; la- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 254@2017) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-08-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42025@03@2018&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2018

S.O. 1285.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 254/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Delhi

Metro Rail Corporation, Delhi & Others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

10.08.2018.

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

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

COURT No.1: ROOM No.511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075

D.I.D. No. 254/2017

Shri Balraj Varma, S/o Shri Naresh Varma, through

Janhit Mazdoor Union Delhi Pradesh (Regd. No.3978),

C-9, Lal Bagh, opposite Factory A-67/2,

G.T. Karnal Road,

Azadpur, Delhi – 110033

…Workman

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5261

Versus

(i)

M/s Scan Guard Protection Services Pvt. Ltd.,

29/1A, D/S First Floor, Ashok Nagar,

Delhi – 110 018

(ii)

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation

Delhi Metro Station Samaypur Badli,

Rohini Sector 18-19,

Delhi 110 002

…Managements

AWARD

Present dispute has been raised by Shri Balraj Varma (in short the workman) under the provisions of sub-section

(2) of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). A period of 45 days stood expired from the

date of making his application before the Conciliation Officer. Sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act empowers him

to file a dispute before this Tribunal, without being referred by the appropriate Government. His contention stands

substantiated by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act. Workman has been given a right by the Act

to approach this Tribunal in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of her service, without a

dispute being referred by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act. Since dispute was

within the period of limitation, as enacted by sub section (3), and answered requirements of sub-section (2) of section 2-

A of the Act, it was registered as an industrial dispute, even without being referred for adjudication by the appropriate

Government, under section 10(1) (d) of the Act.

It has been averred that the workman joined M/s Scan Guard Protection Services (P) Ltd. (in short the contractor)

as House Keeper and his last drawn wages was Rs.6,500.00 per month and he was made to work with Delhi Metro Rail

Corporation (in short the management ) Delhi Metro Station at Samaypur Badli, Rohini Sector 18-19 and performed his

duties to the entire satisfaction of his superiors. The workman was deprived benefits of various beneficial

legislations/mandatory legal facilities, including PF, ESI, minimum wages despite verbal requests. His earned wages for

the period 01.03.2017 to 17.03.2017 has also not been paid to him. Demand notice was served on the management by

speed post on 29.05.2017. It is further alleged that at the time of his engagement, the management obtained his signatures

on blank paper. The workman lodged a complaint with PG portal as a result of which the management was annoyed and

started harassing the workman and finally terminated him on 17.03.2018 without any notice/notice pay or without any

domestic enquiry, in an illegal manner, which is against the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. The workman is

unemployed since his termination. Finally, it has been prayed that he may be granted reinstatement with back wages and

all consequential benefits.

Written statement was filed on behalf of the management wherein relationship of employer and employee has

been denied between them and the workman as he was an employee of the contractor. The management entered into

service agreement with the contractor for providing services to carry out contractual responsibilities in terms of the said

service agreement. The workman was working under the direct control and supervision of the contractor. The present

dispute has been raised against two different managements who are two different legal entities and it is not specified as to

against whom he is seeking relief; hence bad and incompetent under the law. The management has denied the other

material averments contained in the statement of claim.

Written statement has also been filed by the contractor wherein it is averred that the workman was working with

them for contractual work of mechanized cleaning and housekeeping at Badli/Rohini Sector 18 stations of the

management since 01.06.2016. The workman stopped reporting for work from 19.02.2017. In response to the PGMS

complaint by the workman, a letter dated 06.05.2017 was sent to the workman through registered post stating that he had

deserted his job from 19.02.2017 and demanded an explanation from him. Again vide letter dated 09.05.2017 and

12.05.2017, the workman was advised to join duties as he had expressed his desire for reinstatement, but he never

reported for duties. The workman was paid minimum wages and he was also given benefit of PF and ESI as well.

Thereafter, the case was listed for filing of rejoinder and framing of issues. However, despite granting of two

opportunities, none appeared on behalf of the workman. Thus, it is clear that the workman is no more interested in

adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against

the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award. However, it

will not debar the workman, Shri Balraj Varma, from seeking relief afresh as there is no adjudication of the case on

merits. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under

Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication.

Dated : August 6, 2018

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

5262

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1286-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] jftLVªkj]

chjcy lkguh iqjkouLifr foKku laLFkku] y[kuÅ ,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;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 02@2014)

dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-08-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42025@03@2018&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2018

S.O. 1286.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 02/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Registrar,

Birbal Sahani Puravanspati Vigyan Sansthan, Lucknow and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 21.08.2018.

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

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 02/2014

BETWEEN :

Smt. Har Kirtan Kaur

R/o 551/K/188 Bhilwan

Alambagh,Lucknow

AND

The Registrar,

Birbal Sahani Puravanspati Vigyan Sansthan,

53, Vishvavidyalaya Marg,

Lucknow (UP) 226007

AWARD

The workman has filed the petition under Section 2A of the I.D. Act. which is allegedly an industrial dispute

between Smt. Har Kirtan Kaur and the Registrar, Birbal Sahani Puravanspati Vigyan Sansthan, Lucknow for

adjudication.

The applicant in her petition W-1 dated 30.01.2014 moved under section 2A of the I.D. Act. has submitted in brief

that as per the order dated 21.10.1997 passed by the Registrar, she was appointed on the post of Telephone

Operator-cum-Receptionist, the work assigned to him was of regular nature. The petitioner has submitted that up

to 17.01.2006, she has worked for more than 240 days in every calander year, she was dis-engaged w.e.f.

18.01.2006 without any notice, charge sheet, retrenchment compensation etc, in violation of the Section 25F of

the I.D. Act.

It has further been alleged that sufficient work was available in the Opposite Party Institute and Sarva Sri Anupam

Jain, Mahesh Nair, Manoj Singh and Rahul Gupta were appointed from the open market and they were

regularized in the year 2013 which is against the violation of Section 25 of the I.D. Act. No opportunity of hearing

was provided to the applicant workman, neither she was asked to put her defence, the aforesaid action of the

management is against the principle of natural justice. Although the opposite party on the oral and written request

made by the applicant workman, has assured, yet she has not been reinstated till the date of filing the petition. The

workman has asserted that there has not been any break in her service, her salary is due, and the petition is moved

without delay, and since her retrenchment/dis-engagement, she has not got any job despite her best efforts, she is

unemployed yet. Before RLC ( C ) conciliation proceedings did not succeed, therefore the petitioner workman has

moved before this Court. With the aforesaid pleadings, request has been made by the petitioner workman to

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5263

declare the dis-engagement as illegal and to get her reinstated with salary and other consequential benefits etc.

Documents relating to the proceeding before the RLC ( C ) Lucknow have been annexed with the petition.

Separate application for condonation of delay has also been enclosed.

The management while making request to dismiss the petition has filed objection M-6 dated 20.08.2014, denying

the allegations made in the claim petition. The opposite party has asserted that application is false, baseless and

misconceived. The management has admitted that petitioner was appointed but the appointment was purely on

contractual basis, and she had no right to be continued on the post of Telephone Operator-cum- Receptionist after

expiry of the term of the contract on 17.01.2006, because it was not renewed thereafter.

The opposite party has further asserted that during the pendency of the application for conciliation before the

Labour Court (RLC (C ) Lucknow), Writ Petition no. 2765 (S/S) 2006 was filed before the Hon’ble High Court

for regularization but it was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court on 05.05.2006, as being not pressed. There has

not been any violation of the provision of the I.D. Act., and the applicant was never retrenched from her service

because her services could not be continued due to non renewal of the contract, and it is not in contravention of

the principle of natural justice. The opposite party has stressed that after approaching the Labour Authorities and

Hon’ble High Court, the petitioner has again after a gap of 8 years moved the present petition for the same cause

of action, which is not maintainable at all. With the aforesaid averments, the opposite party has requested to

dismiss the petition.

With strong denial of the counter allegation leveled in the objection filed by the management, rejoinder W-8 dated

08.01.2015 has been filed by the petitioner workman, reiterating the pleas taken in the claim statement.

With the application M-7 praying for dismissal of the petition, written statement M-8 on behalf of the opposite

party, has been filed by Dr. R.S. Singh posted as Additional Duties of Registrar, alongwith the annexures, re-

asserting the facts mentioned in objection M-6 filed earlier.

Again reply W-8 dated 03.06.2016 has been filed on behalf of the workman, admitting therein the order passed by

Hon’ble High Court.

The workman has filed the photo copy of the alleged Attendance Register and letter dated 13.11.2008 alongwith

an application W-9, copies were provided to the management.

10.

In support of the claim statement, the petitioner has filed her affidavit W-11 dated 07.02.2017, providing copy to

the management on 01.05.2017.

11.

On 07.10.2015 both the parties were heard on application M-6 (Preliminary objection raised by the management)

and reply W-8. Vide order dated 23.10.2015, application M-5 and M-6 were dismissed and it was directed by this

Court to avoid undue delay and opportunity was provided to the management to file comprehensive written

statement on the next date. Later on Written statement M-8 was filed. It is evident from the record that Learned

AR of the opposite party or any other official of the Institute, has not appeared in the Court on so many dates. On

06.12.2016 in the presence of both the parties date was fixed for workman’s evidence. Workman has filed her

affidavit in evidence. On 20.03.2017 and 01.05.2017 none appeared on behalf of the opposite party, and the Court

closed the opportunity of the opposite party to cross examine the workman-witness. However, later on the

application M-12 moved by the management to recall this order, was allowed and another date was fixed.

Meanwhile the application W-10 moved by the workman for summoning certain documents, was taken up and

opposite party on its request was asked to submit objections if any. But again neither any objection was filed nor

any adjournment was sought by the management and application W-10 was disposed of on 18.08.2017, requiring

management thereby to file the documents by next date. Again on 06.02.2018 both the parties appeared but the

management did not file any document, consequently opportunity was closed and opposite paty was requested to

cross examine the workman witness on next date i.e. 14.03.2018. Thereafter several dates were fixed but the

opposite party has refrained itself to ensure its presence in the court so as to facilitate the disposal of the case.

12.

The workman was not cross examined by the management, neither the management witness was produced before

the Court for his cross examination by the workman, despite the fact that sufficient opportunity was provided to

the management. On the date fixed for argument, again none appeared on behalf of the management.

13.

Arguments of Learned AR of the petitioner have been heard at length. Record has been scanned thoroughly.

14.

The petitioner has alleged that she was appointed vide order dated 21.10.1997 passed by the Registrar of the

opposite party Institute, on the post of Telephone Operator-cum- Receptionist and has worked till 17.01.2006

satisfactorily. It has further been emphasized that in every calander year she had worked for more than 240 days

but the management unauthorizedly and illegally dis-engaged the petitioner w.e.f. 18.01.2006 without notice,

charge sheet, retrenchment compensation etc.

15.

The petitioner has filed photo copy of the attendance sheet as well as letter dated 13.11.2008 signed by the

Registrar mentioning therein that Mrs. Sonia Khanna has been engaged on consolidated wages of Rs.5000/- per

5264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

month on contract basis for 2 months w.e.f. 13.10.2008 upto 12.12.2008. The petitioner on her affidavit W-11,

was not cross examined by the management. The evidence/affidavit filed by opposite party has also lost its legal

sanctity since the management witness could not be confronted for cross-examination by the workman.

16.

Learned AR for the workman has relied upon the following citations;

AIR 1978 Supreme Court, 548 -1978 LAB. I.C. 467 Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board. Vs A.

Rajappa and others.

2001, (88), FLR, 508, Supreme Court, Deep Chandra vs State of U.P. and another.

2008 (119) FLR 937), Allahabad High Court, State of U.P. and Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra and

another.

2004 (100) FLR (109), Allahabad High Court, State of U.P. and another and Presiding Officer, Labour

Court, Agra and another.

17.

In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in (2006) 3 SCC 276 State of U.P. vs Sheo Shanker Lal

Srivastava & others; the statement of the witness, having not been controverted would be deemed to be admitted,

there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the workman.

18.

After having heard the intellect arguments advanced on behalf of the workman, analysing the facts and evidence

available before the Court, in the light of the prouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court, it

is inferred that the said dis-engagement/retrenchment dated 18.01.2006 can not be adjudged as legal or justified.

The petitioner workman is entitled for her reinstatement accordingly as per Rules. The opposite party is directed

to ensure payment of 50% of the back wages with consequential benefits to the petitioner workman, within 10

weeks from the date of notification of the award.

19.

Award as above.

LUCKNOW

12.07.2018

RAKESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1287-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] baLisDVj]

vkj,e,l ,lVh fMfotu] chdkusj 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;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhvkbZVh 01@2000)

dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-06-2017 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42025@03@2018&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2018

S.O. 1287.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Case No. CIT 01/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

Inspector, R.M.S. S.T. Division, Bikaner & Others and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 12.06.2017.

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

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

vuqca/k

dsUnzh;

dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj

vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh % fxjh'k dqekj 'kekZ] vkj

% fxjh'k dqekj 'kekZ] vkj

% fxjh'k dqekj 'kekZ] vkj-,p

,p-tstststs-,l

,l-

dsl ua

dsl ua-lh

lhlh

lh-vkbZ

vkbZ

vkbZ-VhVhVhVh- 01@2000]

01@2000]

lhlh

lh-vkbZ

vkbZ

vkbZ-,l

,l- uauauaua-

51@2014]

jSQjsUl

dsUnz ljdkj]Je ea=ky;]ubZ fnYyh dk v

dsUnz ljdkj]Je ea=ky;]ubZ fnYyh dk vkns'k la[;k&

kns'k la[;k&

lhthvkbZVh@t;iqj@909@99&2000fnuakd 24

lhthvkbZVh@t;iqj@909@99&2000fnuakd 24-2-2000

2000

2000-

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5265

lksguyky iq= Jh esokjke ekQZr Jh larks"k HkVukxj] 18] vtqZuiqjh]

beyh okyk QkVd] fl)kFkZ eksVlZ ds ikl] t;iqj&5-

----------------

izkFkhZ

cuke

¼1½ bULisDVj] vkj-,e-,l- ,l-Vh-fMohtu]chdkusj&334001-

¼2½ iksLV ekLVj tujy] if'pe {ks=] fMohtu] jktLFkku] tks/kiqjA

---------------- vizkFkhZ

vizkFkhZ

vizkFkhZx.k

x.k

mifLFkr

mifLFkr %

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls

fo}ku izfrfuf/k Jh ch-,e-ckxMk A

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls

fo}ku izfrfuf/k Jh rst izdk'k 'kekZA

fnukad 01

fnukad 01-05

0505

05-2017

2017

vokMZ

okMZ

dsUnz ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh us mijksDr vkns'k ds tfj;s fUkEu vuqlwph dk fookn vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq

bl vf/kdj.k dks fnuakd 25-2-2000 dks izkIr gqvk gS fd& “Whether the action of the Inspector, R.M.S.,

S.T.Division, Bikaner is justified in terminating the services of Shri Sohan Lal a subsitute of extra

Departmental Employes w.e.f.12/1194 ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?

izdj.k ntZ jftLVj fd;k tkdj mHk; i{kdkjku dks uksfVl tkjh fd, x,A izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fnuakd

03-06-1999 dks LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse is'k dj vfHkdFku fd;k x;k fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr vizkFkhZ la[;k&1 ds

dk;kZy; esa fnuakd 15-02-1990 dks ,DLVªk fMikVZesaVy dsUMhMsV ds #i esa nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh ds #i esa dh

x;h FkhAizkFkhZ yxu vkSj bZekunkjh ls vizkFkhZx.k ds ;gka dk;Zjr Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ dk dk;Z larks"kizn Fkk fQj Hkh izkFkhZ

dks fnukad 12-11-1994 dks fcuk fdlh dkj.k crk;s gh Jh [ksrkjke bULisDVj us ekSf[kd vkns'k ds }kjk lsokeqDr dj

fn;k]bl ij izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ la-2 ls fnuakd 22-3-1995 dks mlds dk;kZy; esa tkdj lEidZ fd;k ijUrq dksbZ

larks"ktud mRrj ugha fn;k ;gh ugha vizkFkhZ la-2 us fnuakd 30-03-1995 dks LFkk;h HkrhZ ds fy, izkFkZuki= ekaxs

ijUrq vizkFkhZ la-2 us izkFkhZ dks dksbZ lwpuk ugha nh rFkk foi{kh la-1 o 2 us izkFkhZ dks LFkk;h inksa ij izkFkhZ dks

fu;qfDr ugha nh vkSj vU; yksxksa dks HkrhZ dj fy;kAbl ij izkFkhZ us ,d izkFkZuki= /kkjk&2&,]25&,Q th ,oa

25&,p o 2 vkj-,- o fu;e&77&78ds rgr lgk;d Je vk;qDr dsUnzh;]t;iqj ds ;gka izLrqr dh]ysfdu vizkFkhZ us

le>kSrk okrkZ esa dksbZ #fp ugha yh vkSj okrkZ vlQy gks tkus ij lgk;d Je vk;qDr dsUnzh; us vlQy okrkZ

izfrosnu Hkkjr ljdkj dks izsf"kr dj nh]ftl ij Hkkjr ljdkj us U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k ;g vkS|kfxd fookn izLrqr

fd;k gSA ftlesa izkFkhZ us vfHkdFku fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr vkS+|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 ds fofHkUu

izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku djds dh x;h gS]vr% izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr voS/k ,oa vuqfpr gS]D;ksafd izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr djus

ls iwoZ uk rks mls dkbZ dkj.k crk;k x;k vkSj uk gh dksbZ vkjksii= fn;k x;k vkSj uk gh dksbZ foHkkxh; tkap dh

x;h rFkk uk gh dksbZ lquokbZ dk volj gh fn;k x;k rFkk uk rks mls ,d ekg dk uksfVl gh fn;k x;k vkSj uk gh

uksfVl ds cnys ,d ekg dk osru fn;k x;k vkSj uk gh dksbZ NaVuh eqvkotk gh fn;k x;k]tcfd izkFkhZ Jfed us

,d dyS.Mj o"kZ esa 240fnu ls vf/kd fnuksa rd dk;Z fd;k gSA ;gh ugha izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr ds le; mlls twfu;j

vusd Jfed dk;Z dj jgs Fks rFkk izkFkhZ dks izkFkfedrk ugha nh x;h vkSj vizkFkhZx.k us uk rks dksbZ ofj"Brk lwph

cukbZ vkSj uk gh izdkf'kr dh gSA bl izdkj fu;e 77&78 dh vuqikyuk ofj"Brk lwph u cukdj dh x;h gSA

blds lkFk gh vizkFkhZXk.k }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr ds ckn vusd Jfed dks dk;Z ij j[kdj ubZ fu;qfDr;ka dh x;h

gSa]ftlesa Jh fd'kuyky o vU; O;fDr;ksa dks j[kk x;k gS rFkk izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr ds ckn vizkFkhZx.k us LFkk;h

fu;qfDr nsdj O;fDr;ksa dks j[kk gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947dh /kkjk&2vkj-,-

eas of.kZr vuQs;j yscj izsfDVl gSAvr% izkFkhZ dh mijksDRk lsokeqfDr dks voS/k ,oa vuqfpr ?kksf"kr dj izkFkhZ dh lsok,sa

fujURkj ekurs gq, mls iqu% dk;Z ij j[kok;k tkos rFkk izkFkhZ dh cdk;k leLr osru ,oa osruykHk fnyok;s tkus dh

izkFkZuk dh gSA

foi{kh foHkkx }kjk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse dk tokc izLrqr dj vfHkdFku fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks ,DLVªk

fMikVZesaVy dUMhMsV ds #i esa dHkh Hkh fu;qfDr ugha nh x;h Fkh rFkk u gh nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh ds #i esa

fu;qfDRk nh xbZ Aog fdlh bZ-Mh-esyeSu ds lkIrkfgd vodk'k ;k vU; vodk'k ij jgus ij NqVVh ij tkus okys bZ-

Mh-dh ftEEksnkjh ij mldh ,soth ds #i esa ugha curk gSA vfrfjDr foHkkxh; esyesu ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq

5266

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k viuk;h tkrh gS vkSj izkFkhZ dks crk fn;k x;k Fkk fd vfrfjDr foHkkxh; esyesu dk in fjDr gksus

ij jkstxkj dk;kZy; }kjk fu/kkZfjr izk#i esa izkFkZuki= izkIRk gksus okys izkfFkZ;ks esa ls gh p;u fd;k tkrk gS vkSj bl

izfdz;k esa izkFkhZ dk vkosnui= izkIr ugha gqvk Fkk vkSj tc izkFkhZ dks ljdkjh lsok esa fu;ekuqlkj fu;qfDr gh ugha

nh xbZ rks mldks gVk;k tkus ds fy, uksfVl fn;s tkus] ,d ekg dk osru fn;s tkus ,oa NaVuh eqvkotk vkfn ds

izko/kku ykxw ugha gksus dk vfHkdFku djrs gq, izkFkhZ dk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse [kkfjt fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izkFkhZ lk{kh 1 lksguyky dks lk{; eas ijhf{kr djok;k x;k gS] tcfd foi{kh dh vksj ls

vizkFkhZ lk{kh la-1 ds- ,e- 'kekZ o vizkFkhZ lk{kh la- 2 chjcy ehuk dks lk{; esa ijhf{kr djok;k x;k gSA

eSaus mHk; i{k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/kx.k dh cgl lquh ,oa i=koyh dk ifj'khyu fd;kA

izkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us cgl dh fd izkFkhZ dks foi{kh la[;k&1 ds dk;kZy; esa fnuakd 15-02-1990 dks

vfrfjDr foHkkxh; deZpkjh ds #i esa fu;qfDr nh xbZ Fkh] tks nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh ds #i esa nh xbZ FkhAizkFkhZ

us fnuakd 15-2-1990 ls fnuakd 12-11-1994 rd dk;Z fd;k vkSj fnuakd 12-11-1994 dks foi{kh la[;k&1 ds fujh{kd

Jh [ksrkjke us izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr dj fn;k]tcfd izkFkhZus yxkrkj djhc pkj o"kZ ls vf/kd nSfud osru Hkksxh

deZpkjh ds #i esa foi{kh foHkkx esa dk;Z fd;k gS rFkk fujUrj ,d o"kZ ds dyS.Mj esa Hkh dk;Z fd;k gS]tks 240 fnu

ls vf/kd nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh ds #i esa dk;Z djus ls izkFkhZ dks fcuk osru uksfVl fn, vkSj fcuk NaVuh

eqvkotk fn;s gh izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr dj fn;k]tcfd vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk&25 ,Q-dh ikyuk

djuk vko';d Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ ls ckn esa blds izfrdkj esa foi{khx.k ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us cgl dh fd izkFkhZ dks

dksbZ fu;qfDr ugha nh xbZ Fkh] cfYd bZ-Mh-esyesu lkIrkfgd vodk'k ij jgus ds dkj.k ,soth ds #i esa izkFkhZ dk;Z

djrk Fkk rFkk ,soth dks dksbZ osru uksfVl nsuk vko';d ugha Fkk rFkk u gh izkFkhZ us 240 fnu vodk'k esa dke

fd;k gS] blfy, vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk&25 ,Q-dh ikyuk djuk Hkh vko';d ugha FkkA

vc U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k vo/kkj.kh; fcUnq ;g gS fd D;k izkFkhZ Jfed us foi{kh foHkkx esa ,d dyS.Mj

o"kZ fujURkj lsok esa jgk gS\

bl lECkU/k esa izkFkhZ lk{kh lksguyky dh lk{; dk ifj'khyu djsa rks bl xokg us viuh eq[; ijh{kk rks

LVsVesV vkWQ Dyse esa of.kZr vfHkdFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij 'kiFki= ij nh gS rFkk ftjg esa bl xokg us crk;k gS fd

mldks foHkkx esa lqHkk"k dh txg dke ij j[kk Fkk rFkk ;g ckr mlus vius 'kiFki= esa ugha fy[kh gS rFkk

fy[kdj Hkh mldks fn;k Fkk rFkk lqHkk"k dh txg [kkyh gksus dk dksbZ foKkiu ugha fudkyk Fkk rFkk og nloha Qsy

gS mlus jkstxkj dk;kZy; esa jftLVªs'ku djok j[kk gSAfnuakd 12-11-1994 ls igys gh lqHkk"k esyesu cu pqdk Fkk

rFkk ftjg esa bl xokg us crk;k gS fd vfrfjDr foHkkxh; deZpkjh dks LFkkbZ deZpkjh vodk'k ij tkus ij j[kk

tkrk gks rks mls irk ugha gS rFkk mls 18 #i;s izfrfnu nsrs Fks rFkk mldh NqVVh jfookj rFkk gksyh nhokyh ij

feyrh Fkh rFkk ftjg esa bl xokg us crk;k gS fd o"kZ 1990 esa mlus fdrus fnu dk;Z fd;k mls ;kn ugha

gS]ysfdu mlus jfookj dks NksMdj iwjs o"kZ dk;Z fd;k gS rFkk o"kZ 1993 esa Hkh NqfVV;ksa dks NksMdj iwjk lky dke

fd;k rFkk fd'kuyky us Hkh iwjs o"kZ dke fd;k tks mlds ckn yxk]rkjh[k dk mls /;ku ugha gS]fdldh txg yxk

;g Hkh mls /;ku ugha gSA ftjg eas bl xokg us ;g Hkh crk;k gS fd mlus 'kiFki= esa txnh'k rFkk enuyky

mlls twfu;j gksuk fy[kk gS rFkk ftjg esa bl xokg us Lohdkj fd;k gS fd txnh'k o enuyky o fd'kuyky dks

LFkkbZ fu;qfDr foHkkx us fu;ekuqlkj lu 1994 esa nh] budh fu;qfDr ds f[kykQ og U;k;ky; esa ugha x;k rFkk

mlus lu 1994 esa ;g dsl fd;k gSaA

foi{kh lk{kh ds- ,e- 'kekZ us viuh eq[; ijh{kk rks tokc esa of.kZr vfHkdFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij 'kiFki= ij nh

gS rFkk ftjg esa bl xokg us crk;k gS fd og lu~ 1990 ls 1994 ds chp chdkusj esa bULiSDVj FkkA ftjg esa bl

xokg us crk;k gS fd lksguyky us mlds v/khu dke fd;k ;k ugha fjdkMZ ds vk/kkj ij bZ-Mh-,soth ds in ij

dk;Z djuk izrhr gksrk gS rFkk ftjg esa bl xokg us bl lq>ko ls bUdkj fd;k gS fd lksguyky us lu 1990 eas

nSfud osru Hkksxh ds #i esa dke fd;k gks rFkk 1990 ls 1994 esa dc&dc bZ-Mh-,soth ds in ij dk;Z fd;k gks rks

mls irk ugha gS rFkk ,slk dksbZ fjdkMZ mlus is'k ugha fd;k gS fd lksguyky deZpkjh FkkA

foi{kh lk{kh la- 2 chjcy ehuk us viuh eq[; ijh{kk rks tokc eas of.kZr vfHkdFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij 'kiFki=

ij nh gS rFkk izfrijh{k.k eas bl xokg us crk;k gS fd mlus fjdkMZ iwjk ugha ns[kk]flQZ fu;e ns[kdj vk;k gS rFkk

mlus dksbZ fjdkMZ is'k ugha fd;k gS rFkk lwjrx< esa dk;Zjr deZpkjh dc&dc] dkSu&dkSu deZpkjh vodk'k ij x;s

muds LFkku ij fdl&fdl us dk;Z fd;k gS mls irk ugha gSaA

mHk; i{k dh lk{; dk voyksdu]fo'ys"k.k ,oa foospu ls U;k;kf/kdj.k dk fouez fu"d"kZ bl izdkj gS fd

izkFkhZ lk{kh lksguyky us viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa ;g lkQ rkSj ij vfHkdFku fd;k gS fd fnuakd 15-2-1990 dks nSfud

osru Hkksxh deZpkjh ds #i esa mldks vizkFkhZ foHkkx }kjk fu;qfDr nh xbZ Fkh rFkk mls fnuakd 12-11-1994 dks

ekSf[kd vkns'k ls lsokeqDr dj fn;kAvc bl xokg dh ftjg dk ifj'khyu djsa rks mlesa Hkh ;g ckr vk;h gS fd

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5267

mlus lu 1990 ls 1993 esa vodk'k dks NksMdj iwjs o"kZ dke fd;k gS rFkk mlls twfu;j txnh'k] enu rFkk

fd'kuyky dks LFkk;h fu;qfDr foi{kh foHkkx us nh gS rFkk lu 1990 ls lu 1994 rd yxkrkj bl Jfed us

vfrfjDr foHkkxh; Jfed ds #i esa foi{kh foHkkx esa dk;Z u fd;k gks] ,slh bl xokg ds izfrijh{k.k esa foijhr

fLFkfr ugha vkbZ gS rFkk foi{kh dk tks ;g vfHkdFku jgk gS fd izkFkhZ us fdlh ds ,sot esa dke fd;k ysfdu fdlds

,sot esa dke fd;k vkSj fdrus fnu dke fd;k] ,slk foi{kh dh lk{; ls izdV ugha gS] tcfd izkFkhZ dks rks foi{kh

foHkkx ds nLrkost ysuk eqf'dy Fkk tcfd foi{kh foHkkx dsUnzh; ljdkj dk foHkkx gS]ftlds ikl lkjk fjdkMZ

jgrk gS] tcfd 18 #i;s izfrfnu Jfed dks fn;k tkuk izkFkhZ dh lk{; ls vk;k gSA vr% ;fn izkFkhZ dks fdlh

vfrfjDr foHkkxh; deZpkjh ds ,sot esa j[kk tkrk gS rks mldk fjdkMZ foi{kh foHkkx U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k is'k dj

fLFkfr Li"V dj ldrk Fkk]ysfdu egRoiw.kZ lk{; ,soth ds #i esa dk;Z djus dk dksbZ nLrkost foi{kh dh vksj ls

is'k ugh afd;k x;k gS] cfYd izkFkhZ dh lk{; ls ;g vk;k gS fd lqHkk"k uke dk vfrfjDr foHkkxh; deZpkjh Fkk mls

esyesu cuk fn;s tkus ls mldh txg [kkyh gksus ls mlds LFkku ij izkFkhZ lu 1990 ls j[kk FkkA izkFkhZ us dksbZ

dk;Z foi{kh foHkkx eas vfrfjDr foHkkxh; deZpkjh ds #i esa ugha fd;k gks],slh Hkh dksbZ izys[kh; lk{; foIk{kh dhvksj

ls is'k dj izkFkhZ dh lk{; dk [k.Mu ugha fd;k x;k gS rFkk lu 1990 ls 1994 rd vfrfjDr foHkkxh; deZpkjh

ds #i esa izkFkhZ us dk;Z u fd;k gks],slh dksbZ foi{kh dh [k.Mudkjh lk{; ugha gS cfYd izkFkhZ Lo;a ls Hkh bl fcUnq

ij dksbZ izfrijh{k.k ugha gS rsk fQj izkFkhZ dh lk{; ij vfo'okl djus dk dksbZ dkj.k U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k ugha

gSAvr% izkFkhZ }kjk ,d dyS.Mj o"kZ esa 240 fnu dk;Z djuk izkFkhZ dh lk{; ls c[kwch lkfcr gS] rks fQj vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk&25,Q- ds vkKkid izko/kku dh ikyuk lsokeqfDr djus ls iwoZ djuk vko';d

Fkk]tks foi{kh foHkkx }kjk ugha dh xbZ gS rFkk izkFkhZ ls twfu;j dks Hkh LFkkbZ fd;k tkuk izkFkhZ dh lk{; ls vk;k gS]

blfy, izkFkhZ lksguyky foi{kh foHkkx esa iquLFkkZiu mlh in ij gksus dk gdnkj gS rFkk izkFkhZ dksa tks lsokeqDr

fd;k x;k gS]og U;k;ksfpr ugha gS rFkk izkFkhZ dks ,d fu;fer osru J`a[kyk esa ugha gksus ls mls cSd ostst ekys ds

rF; o ifjfLFkfr esa fnyk;s tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gS] cfYd izkFkhZ mlh in ij cgky gksus dk gdnkj gS rFkk

cgky gksus ds i'pkr~ ikfj.kkfed ifjykHk izkIRk djus dk gdnkj gSaA

vr% mijksDr foospu ds QyLo#i bl jsQjsULk dk fuEu izdkj mRrj nsrs gq, vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tkuk

lehphu izrhr gksrk gS%&

vf/kfu.kZ;

vr% fujh{kd vkj-,e-,l- ,lVh fMohtu chdkusj ds }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed lksguyky vfrfjDr foHkkxh;

deZpkjh dks fnuakd 12-11-1994 dks lsok i;kZolku fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gS rFkk izkFkhZ Jfed mlh in ij

iqu%cgky gksus dk gdnkj gS]tks foi{kh foHkkx izkFkhZ dks mDr in ij bl vokMZ dh frfFk ls rhu ekg ds vUnj

iquZLFkkiu djs rFkk ekeys dh rF; o ifjfLFkfr esa i{kdkj [kpkZ viuk viuk Lo;a ogu djasxsA

fxjh'k dqekj 'kekZ] U;k;k/kh'k

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1288-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] vè;{k ,oa

izca/ funs'kd] etxkao MkWd f'kifcYMj fyfeVsM] eaqcbZ ,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; la- II] eaqcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lhthvkbZVh&2@36 vkWiQ 2017) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-08-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14011@28@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2018

S.O. 1288.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT-2/36 of 2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. II, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the Chairman & Managing Director, Mazgaon Dock Shipbuilders Ltd., Mumbai and their workmen & President,

Mazgaon Dock Staff Association, Mumbai, which was received by the Central Government on 13.08.2018.

[No. L-14011/28/2016-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

5268

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/36 of 2017

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

MAZGAON DOCK SHIPBUILDERS LTD.

The Chairman & Managing Director,

Mazgaon Dick Shipbuilders Ltd.,

Dockyard Road, Mazgaon,

Mumbai – 400 010

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The President,

Mazgaon Dock Staff Association,

Dockyard Road,

Mumbai – 400 010.

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mr. P. M. Palshikar, Advocate

FOR THE WORKMEN

Absent

Mumbai, dated the 23^rd July, 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-14011/28/2016 – IR (DU) dated 28.08.2017. The terms of reference given

in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the demand of Mazgaon Dock Staff Association for introduction of Pension Scheme to the Non-

Executive (Non-technical & technical Staff, including sub staff) at par with the Pension Scheme introduced for

Executive Officers with 7% employer contribution on basic pay and D.A. with retrospective effect from

01.01.2007, is just and proper ? If so, what relief the Association / Non-Executive Employees of Mazgaon Dock

Shipbuilders Ltd. are entitled to and from which date ?“

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices.

On going through Roznama, it appears that the union is absent since 21.11.17. The union has not filed statement

of claim inspite of opportunity being given, as such the union has not raised the claim by filing statement of claim. Hence

the Reference is liable to be disposed off for want of evidence and accordingly the Reference is disposed off with no

order as to costs.

ORDER

Reference is disposed off with no order as to costs.

Date: 23.07.2018

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1289-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] eSllZ Cyw

'khYM laj{k.k usVodZ izkbosV fyfeVsM] ubZ fnYyh 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; la- 1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

45@2016) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-08-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42012@66@2016&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5269

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2018

S.O. 1289.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 45/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

M/s. Blue Shield Protection Network Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi & Others and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 06.08.2018.

[No. L-42012/66/2016-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 45 of 2016

Sh. Surinder Singh S/o. Sh. Jai Singh, R/o Vill-Raipur Rodan,

PO-Arjeheri, Tehsil-Nilokheri, Distt. Karnal(Haryana)

…Workman

Versus

M/s. Blue Shield Protection Network Pvt. Ltd. L-11,

Green Park Extension, New Delhi.

M/s. Soma Isolux Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office, Model Town,

Near Maruti Car Driving School, Ambala-Haryana

…Management

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide Letter No.L-42012/66/2016-

IR(DU) dated 20.09.2016 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

“Whether the action of the management M/s Blued Shield Protection Network Pvt. Ltd. In terminating the

services of the workman Sh. Surinder Singh S/o Sh. Jai Singh, Security Guard w.e.f. 31.03.2015 is legal

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

Notice was issued to both the parties to appear before this Tribunal. However, none appeared initially on behalf of

either party to pursue the case.

Later on, an application was moved by the workman Sh. Surinder Singh, wherein he has alleged that he has

amicably settled the matter with the management and he has no claim against the management.

Since the workman himself is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits as such, this Tribunal is left

with no option to dispose of the reference without recording any evidence. Accordingly, no dispute/no claim award is

hereby passed in view of the final settlement already arrived at between the parties. It is held that now workman is not

entitled for any relief. Let copy of this award be sent to the Central Government for publication as required under Section

17(2) of the Act.

Dated:-28.05.2018

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

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1290-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] egkizca/d]

Hkkjrh ,;jVsy fyfeVsM] paMhx<+ 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; la- 1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 30@2012) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-08-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42025@03@2018&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2018

S.O. 1290.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 30/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

5270

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

General Manager, Bharti Airtel Ltd., Chandigarh & Others and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 06.08.2018.

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

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 30 of 2012

Sh. Sandeep Kumar Sindhu, S/o Om Parkash, Age 31 years,

R/o H.No.145 (Top Floor), Sector 19, Panchkula (Haryana)

…Workman

Versus

General Manager, Bharti Airtel Ltd. Plot No.21,

IT Park, Chandigarh.

The Managing Director, Bharti Airtel Services Ltd.,

Head Office Airtel Center, Plot No.16,

Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon (Haryana)

…Management

AWARD

In the present case, workman directly filed claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1972,

regarding the forcibly termination by the management. It is alleged that workman was engaged by the management on

3.4.2007. He was performing his duty sincerely and honestly from time to time and his work was appreciated by the

management. Later on, the management verbally directed the workman not to report for duty and management have

already obtained resignation of the workman electronically.

Notice of the petition was served upon the management, who had filed reply to the claim petition. Management

had taken preliminary objections that claim is not legally maintainable. It is denied that workman was in the employment

of the management. In fact, the workman was resigned from the service vide letter dated 30.04.2012, therefore, now

claim filed by the workman is not legally maintainable.

It is clear from the record that workman has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and thereafter workman has not

appeared on several dates of hearing. Since the workman has not turned up so as to depose before this Court in support of

the allegations made in the statement of claim as such, his affidavit is of no value. This clearly shows that workman is not

interested in adjudication of the case on merits. In the absence of statement of the workman or any other admissible

evidence on record, it is held that workman has failed to prove the cause against the management. Accordingly, no

dispute/no claim award is passed. Let copy of this award be sent for publication as required under Section 17(2) of the

Act.

Dated:-28.05.2018

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

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1291-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] iksLV ekLVj

tujy] Mkd foHkkx] nsgjknwu 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; la- 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 21@2014) dks

çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-08-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40011@09@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2018

S.O. 1291.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 21/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5271

Post Master General, Department of Post, Dehradun & Others and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 06.08.2018.

[No. L-40011/09/2014-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID No. 21 of 2014

Sh. Shiv Ji Singh S/o Sh. Ram Briksh Singh,

Katoratal, Kurmanchal Colony, Kashipur,

Udham Singh Nagar, Dehradun

…Workman

Versus

The Post Master General, Department of Posts,

Uttarakhand Circle, Rajpur Road,

Dehradun and another

…Management

AWARD

Dated:- 02.07.2018

A reference was received from the Government of India vide Reference No. L-40011/09/2014-IR (DU) Dated

05.08.2014 under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(14 of 1947) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:-

“Whether the workman has earned right of absorption having been engaged for a considerable period of

time regularly even though on daily wages? And whether the management of post master general,

Uttarakhand circle should reinstate him permanent regular employee status with immediate effect?

It is clear from the statement of claim that workman was engaged on 01.04.1984 as Frash/Mali/Caretaker at Dak

Ghar, Kashipur, by the management. The workman has been working on the Post of Frash at Dak Ghar, Kashipur since

09.04.1984 and Superintendent of Post Office vide a memo No.A-217/CP Staff dated 30.12.1998 ordered the workman

to perform duty for 8 hours instead of 6 hours. The service of the workman was terminated by the management on

16.12.2010 without issuance of any show cause notice and without holding any formal enquiry against the workman. The

workman has also written to the management on 16.03.2002 and 27.11.2008 for conferring temporary status on him, but

of no views. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement with back wages.

The claim was contested by the management by filing written statement, wherein the management has accepted

the factum of engagement of workman w.e.f. 01.04.1984 as Frash. It is also admitted by the management that workman

was removed from service on 16.12.2010 as his services were not required. Moreover, the Government has not

formulated any policy for the regularisation of such casual workman. It is also admitted that on 01.01.1999 the working

hours of the workman were increased from 6 hours to 8 hours. It is also alleged that workman was not entitled for

temporary status which was given to the Group ‘D’ employees who had worked for 8 hours from November 1989 to

September 1993.

The workman in support of his case examined himself and tendered in evidence his affidavit.

It is clear from the pleadings of the parties that workman was engaged on 01.04.1984 and his services were

admittedly terminated on 16.11.2010 by the management. It is not the case of the management that workman has not

worked continuously and regularly with the management during the above period. The stand of the management is that

he could not have conferred the temporary status in view of the policy of the Government. Admittedly in the present

case, no show cause notice was served upon the workman before order of his termination by the management. This fact

has been duly admitted by the management even in the written statement. The workman was also not given one month

salary in lieu of such notice as required under Section 25-F of the Act.

There is merit in the contention of the management that workman was engaged as casual part time worker as such

he is not covered by the definition of the workman contained in Section 2(S) of the Act. In this regard, it is useful to refer

to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municpal Council, Sanaur AIR 2011 S.C.

2532 wherein the Court dealt with the definition of the workman as contained in Section 2(S) and held as under:-

5272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"The source of employment, the method of recruitment the terms and conditions of employment contract of

service, the quantum of wages/pay and the mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a

person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the act. The definition of the workman also does not

make any distinction between full-time and part-time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is

nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only a person employed on

regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is workman and the one employed on temporary,

part-time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fix hours is not a

workman."

In the above case, the Hon’ble Apex Court also referred to earlier judgments and rejected the contention of the

management that casual worker or daily wager employee are not included in the definition of workman as claimed in

Section 2(S) of the Act.

Equally settled is the position under the law when services of a workman have been terminated by the

management in violations of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, in that eventuality, the action of the management has

been held to be arbitrary and illegal and cannot stand the scrutiny of the law. Since the factum of engagement of the

workman in the year 1984 stands admitted in the pleadings and management has concededly not issued one month notice

or paid one month salary. In lieu of such notice as required under Section 25-F of the Act as such, the action of the

management in terminating the services of the workman is held to be totally arbitrary and illegal.

Now the residual question is whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement and to be regularised as

permanent employee or not? It is clear from the evidence of management that when workman was admittedly taken as

daily wager and he was also not given temporary status in view of the policy of the Government in such circumstances,

the question of regularisation or absorbing the workman permanently will not arise.

10.

It has been held in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad & Anothers Vs. Food Corporation of India and

another(2014)7 SCC 190 as under:-

“The Constitution Bench judgment in Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 has applicability in the matters

concerning industrial adjudication. In U.P. Power Corp., (2007) 5 SCC 755 the Supreme Court

emphasised the underlying message contained in Umadevi (3) case to the effect that regularisation

of a daily-wager, who has not been appointed after undergoing the proper selection procedure, etc. is

impermissible as it was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and this principle

predicated on Article 14 would apply to the Industrial Tribunal as well inasmuch as three cannot be

any direction to regularise the services of a workman in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

This would mean that the Industrial Court would not issue a direction for regularising the services

of a daily wage worker in those cases where such regularisation would tantamount to infringing the

provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. But, this would not deter the Industrial

Tribunals/Labour Courts from issuing such direction, which the industrial adjudicators otherwise

possess, having regard to the provisions of Industrial disputes Act specifically conferring such

powers. This is recognised by the Court in U.P. Power Corpn case. The Court in Maharashtra

SRTC, (2009) 8 SCC 556 also accepted the legal proposition that courts cannot direct creation of

posts”.

11.

In view of the dicta in the above case, this Tribunal cannot order regularisation or absorbing of the workman.

Moreover, when workman is out of service at the time of making the reference, the question of regularisation would not

arise.

12.

The other vital question is whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wages, it has been held

in Hari Nandan Prasad (supra) case that question of reinstatement would depend on facts of each case and relief by way

of reinstatement with back wages cannot be granted in every case.

“Relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly

inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in

contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to

meet the ends of justice. An order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may

be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, automatically passed. The award of

reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in

a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily-wagers has not been found to be proper

by the Supreme Court and instead compensation has been awarded. The Supreme Court has

distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee. The

reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the

termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice

pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5273

reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by

paying him the retrenchment compensation.”

13.

In the present case also the Tribunal is of the view that workman being daily wager cannot be ordered to be

reinstated and keeping in view the latest trends and judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is appropriate to grant

reasonable compensation. The Hon’ble apex court in the case of District Development Officer & Anr. Versus Satish

Kantilal Amrelia 2018 LLR 225 held that normally a daily wager cannot claim regularisation and payment of reasonable

compensation is always useful in such cases in the above case, Hon’ble Apex Court granted 2.50 lac (Two Lac Fifty

Thousand) as compensation in lieu of reinstatement to a daily wager who has served with the management hardly from

two to two and half year. To my mind, having overall regard of the service of the workman, i.e. during the year 1984-

2010, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lac) is held to be just and reasonable to the workman to which he is entitled. The

workman will also be entitled for interest @ 6% per annum of the amount from the date of making the reference till its

payment in case the amount is not paid within 3 months from the publication of the award. Let copy of the award be sent

to the Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 (2) of the Act.

Dated:-02.07.2018

Place : Chandigarh

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

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1292-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] xkMZu jhp

f'ki fcYMlZ ,aM bathfu;lZ fyfeVsM ds izca/u ds laca/ esa fu;ksDrk ,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;] dksydkrk ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 08@2018) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-08-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&42025@03@2018&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2018

S.O. 1292.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 08/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Management

of Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineers Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

13.08.2018.

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

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 08 of 2018

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of

Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineers Ltd.

AND

Their workmen.

Present:

Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management

Mr. Ranjay De, Ld. Counsel.

On behalf of the Workmen

Mr. Madhu Sudan Dutta, Ld. Counsel.

Dated: 6^th August, 2018.

Industry : Ship Building.

5274

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

By Order No. 220-IR/IR/10L-140/92 dated 7^th February, 1995 the Government of Government of West Bengal,

Labour Department in exercise of its powers under Section 10 read with (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

referred the following dispute to the Second Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal for adjudication:

“Whether the dismissal of service of Shri Pradip Kr. Ganguly w.e.f. 4.4.94 is justified?

What relief, if any, is he entitled to?”

Consequent upon reference of above dispute to the Second Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and thereafter

transfer of the case to this CGIT by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court by order dated 08.12.2017 passed in Petition for

Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 2556 of 2012, workman concerned challenged the validity of domestic enquiry

which was decided by this Tribunal on 26^th June, 2018.

Brief facts of the case are that the concerned workman, Shri Pradip Kumar Ganguly was a Car Driver in M/s.

Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineers Ltd. who was served with charge sheet No. 2/1992 dated 3^rd March, 1992

alleging following acts of misconduct of the certified standing orders:

“Clause - 5

Dishonesty in connection with the company’s business or properly.

Clause - 10

Threatening, intimidating and coercing other employees………. threat of assault, either

provoked or otherwise.

Clause 11

Commission of an act subversive of good behavior or discipline of the Company”

An enquiry was held by the Manager, Administration who submitted his report holding the concerned workman

guilty of the charges leveled against him. Copy of the report was forwarded to the concerned workman who submitted his

representation on 29^th March, 1994. The disciplinary authority on consideration of the chargesheet, reply to the

chargesheet, proceedings of enquiry, findings recorded in the enquiry report and representation made by the concerned

workman against the findings, concurred with the decision recorded in the said enquiry. Since the charges leveled against

the concerned workman were proved and were found grave and serious, concerned workman was dismissed from service

of the company on 4^th April, 1994.

On challenge of domestic enquiry by the concerned workman, this Tribunal vide order dated 26^th June, 2018 came

to the conclusion that the enquiry was valid and proper. Therefore, the case was fixed for hearing of parties on the point

of adequacy of punishment under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which may be reproduced below:

“11-A.

Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of

discharge or dismissal of workmen – Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a

workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of

the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that

the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or

dismissal and direct re-instatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give

such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as

the circumstances of the case may require;”

Section 11-A of the Act was incorporated with effect from 15^th December, 1971 on recommendation of

International Labour Organization to enable workman aggrieved by termination of his service to appeal against the

termination to a neutral body such as an arbitrator, a court or an arbitration committee or a similar body and that neutral

body concerned should be empowered to examine the reasons given in termination of employment. Elucidating the above

principles Hon’ble the Apex Court in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Company Ltd. v. Ludh Budh Singh, AIR 1972 SC

1031 held that where enquiry is found to be defective the employer shall have to be given a chance of evidence before the

Tribunal for justifying its action, but if it’s finding on preliminary issue is in favour of the management, then no

additional evidence need be cited by the management.

In General Secretary, South Indian Cashew Factories Workers’ Union v. The Managing Director, Kerala State

Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., 2006(6) SCALE 44 it was held by Hon’ble the Apex Court that where

the enquiry is valid and proper then in absence of allegation of unfair labour practice or victimization, the industrial

forum should not interfere with the punishment imposed. In M/s Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. N.K. Singh,

2006 (1) SCALE 559 Hon’ble the Apex Court has held that where domestic enquiry is found to be valid and proper, the

order of dismissal should not be interfered with. The relevant portion of the judgment may be reproduced below:

“8.

……….The Labour Court having found that the domestic enquiry was fair, proper and in accordance

with the principles of natural justice, should not have interfered with the order of dismissal. The High Court

clearly missed to notice that the charges were serious in nature.”

Learned counsel for the workman has submitted that even after domestic enquiry having been held legal, valid and

proper, there is scope for Industrial Tribunal to go into the merit of the case and examine whether the charges have been

proved or not. He has further submitted that the two jerricanes one filled with two and half liters of petrol and another

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5275

empty have not been produced before this Tribunal, no expert opinion was sought to identify the contents of jerrican.

There is also no evidence of alleged threatening before the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, allegations made against the

workman concerned were based on suspicion, conjectures and surmises.

Now question arises as to what is the extent of judicial review by the Industrial Tribunal under Section 11A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hon’ble the Apex Court has elaborated the ambit and scope of Section 11A of the

Industrial Disputes Act in Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. M. Mani & Anr., 2018 LLR 2. Relevant

portion of the judgment may be reproduced for better appreciation of the controversy in the case –

“17.

In our opinion, once the Labour Court upheld the departmental enquiry as being legal and proper then

the only question that survived for consideration before the Labour Court was whether the punishment of

“dismissal” imposed by the appellant to the respondents was legal and proper or it requires any interference in

its quantum.

18.

In other words, the Labour Court should have then confined its enquiry to examine only one limited

question as to whether the punishment given to the respondents was, in any way, disproportionate to the gravity of

the charge leveled against them and this, the Labour Court should have examined by taking recourse to the

provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. ………”

(Emphasis supplied by me)

Hon’ble the Apex Court by laying down the above principles of judicial review by the Industrial Tribunal under

Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act has set at rest the controversy in the case. From the above judgment it is clear

that except reviewing the action of the management with regard to the punishment, the Tribunal has no power to go into

merit of the charge leveled against the concerned workmen.

10.

In catena of judicial pronouncements Hon’ble the Apex Court has examined action of the management and has

expressed from time to time its views on power of Tribunal to examine the quantum of punishment. It has been held

several times that the Tribunal can interfere in the discretion of the management only when the punishment imposed by

the management is highly disproportionate or grossly disproportionate. In Christian Medical College Employees’ Union

& Anr. V. Christian Medical College Vellore Association & Anr., 1988 (1) LLN 9 Hon’ble the Supreme Court has

observed –

“14.

…….. Section 11-A which has been introduced since then into the Act which confers the power on the

Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court to substitute a lesser punishment in lieu of the order of discharge or

dismissal passed by the management again cannot be considered as conferring an arbitrary power on the

Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court. The power under Section 11-A of the Act has to be exercised judicially

and the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court is expected to interfere with the decision of management under

Sec. 11-A of the Act only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is highly

disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned. The Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court

has to give reasons for its decision. ……….”

Similarly, in Hombe Gowda Eductional Trust & Anr. V. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2006 (1) SCC 430 Hon’ble

the Supreme Court has held

“18.

The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is akin to one under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. While

exercising such discretionary jurisdiction, no doubt it is open to the Tribunal to substitute one punishment by

another; but it is also trite that the Tribunal exercises a limited jurisdiction in this behalf. The jurisdiction to

interfere with the quantum of punishment could be exercised only when, inter alia, it is found to be grossly

disproportionate.

19.

This Court repeatedly has laid down the law that such interference at the hands of the Tribunal should

be inter alia on arriving at a finding that no reasonable person could inflict such punishment. The Tribunal may

furthermore exercises its jurisdiction when relevant facts are not taken into consideration by the Management

which would have direct bearing on the question of quantum of punishment.

20.

Assaulting a superior at a workplace amounts to an act of gross indiscipline. The Respondent is a

teacher. Even under grave provocation a teacher is not expected to abuse the head of the institute in a filthy

language and assault him with a chappal. Punishment of dismissal from services, therefore, cannot be said to be

wholly disproportionate so as shock one’s conscience.

21.

A person, when dismissed from services, is put to a great hardship but that would not mean that a

grave misconduct should go unpunished. Although the doctrine of proportionality may be applicable in such

matters, but a punishment of dismissal from service for such a misconduct cannot be said to be unheard of.

Maintenance of discipline of an institution is equally important. Keeping the aforementioned principles in view,

we may hereinafter notice a few decisions of this Court.”

5276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(Emphasis supplied by me)

11.

Now coming to the facts of the instant case, the concerned workman, Shri Pradip Kumar Ganguly is alleged to

have been caught red-handed by Senior Assistant Security Officer while exchanging two and half liters of polythene

jerrican containing petrol with an empty jerrican with an outsider. The learned counsel for the workman has submitted

that the charges are not serious enough to dismiss him from services of the company. According to the learned counsel

for the workman a lenient approach in awarding lesser punishment would be sufficient and would serve the purpose. For

his argument learned counsel has cited Rama Kant Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors., 1982-II-LLJ 472, R.M. Parmar v.

Gujarat Electricity Board, 1983-I-LLJ 261, Alliance Mills (Lessees) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 1991-I-

LLJ 71 and Virudhachalam Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd. v. Labour Court, Cuddalore & Anr., 1995-II-LLJ 173. In above

cited cases charges leveled against the concerned workmen were not of dishonesty. From the perusal of above cases it is

not found that the charge was either of breach of peace or using indiscreet language. Therefore, the principle of

disproportionate punishment was followed by the Courts. However, in R. M. Parmar v. Gujarat Electricity Board (supra)

was a case of theft of scrap material such as nut-bolts valued at less than Rs.50/- in which Hon’ble the Gujarat High

Court held that the employee concerned was not holding any sensitive post where he had to deal with stores or cash. He

was a helper and had to do mainly physical labour. Hence lenient approach was adopted. However, Hon’ble the Apex

Court did not approve it and in Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals v. M. Mani (supra) has held

“The act of theft by an employee while on duty is a serious charge. This charge once proved in enquiry, the

employer is justified in dismissing the employee from service.”

12.

Past conduct of the workman concerned is also not a relevant factor. It cannot be said that earlier he was not

involved in any act of dishonesty. In Depot Manager, APSRTC v. B. Swamy, 2007 (5) SCALE 637 It has been observed

by Hon’ble the Apex Court

“7.

…….If he is dishonest in the performance of his duties, he is guilty of serious misconduct and the

gravity of the misconduct cannot be minimized by the fact that he was not earlier caught indulging in such

dishonest conduct. There is no guarantee that he had not acted dishonestly in the past as well which went

undetected. Even one act of dishonesty amounting to breach of faith may invite serious punishment.”

In Federal Bank Employees Union, Aluva v. Federal Bank of India, Aluva & Ors., 2008 LLR 758 on

consideration of various judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court observation made by the Division Bench of Hon’ble

Kerala High Court are relevant which can be quoted as below:

“6.

…… Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals cannot act as a benevolent dictator and grant relief

indiscriminately. Misplaced sympathy to wrong doers may do more harm to the industries. Industrial peace,

harmony, power of the management to run the establishment etc., cannot be forgotten by the Tribunals or Labour

Courts………”

13.

In view of above, it is clear that there is no scope of enquiry by the Industrial Tribunal into merit of the case. Once

the departmental enquiry is held to be legal, valid and proper, the only scope left for the Tribunal is to examine or

reappraise the action of management on the point of punishment. It is also clear that act of theft whether small or big is a

serious matter which affects industrial environment. So, it should not be taken lightly and punishment awarded by the

management should not be interfered with.

14.

Next limb of argument of the learned counsel for the workman is that the disciplinary authority was not competent

to pass order of dismissal against the concerned workman. He has submitted that the Director (Personnel) who passed the

order of dismissal was not the disciplinary authority of the concerned workman. He was much higher officer than the

disciplinary authority. Therefore, the concerned workman was deprived of his right to appeal against the order of

dismissal. He has relied on Air India Ltd. v. Sashikala Jarav (Ms.) & Anr., 2005-II-LLJ 21. Learned counsel for the

management has contended that it was the responsibility of the workman concerned to disclose in his statement of claim

as to who was his appointing authority or disciplinary authority, but the workman concerned have said nothing in his

statement of claim. Therefore, above contention of learned counsel for the workman is not tenable. Contrary to it, learned

counsel for the workman relying on Jashpal Kaur Cheema & Anr. V. M/s. Industrial Trade Links & Ors., AIR 2017 SC

3995 has contended that there is no specific denial of the pleading in which workman concerned has stated that a letter

dated 16^th April, 1994 addressed to Director (Personnel), marked Ext. 2 questioning the authority of the Director

(Personnel) was sent by him.

15.

Though there is nothing either in pleadings of the parties or in standing orders of the company on the point as to

who was the appointing or disciplinary authority of the workman concerned, but is admitted case of the company that the

Director (Personnel) was much higher in hierarchy of the officers. While deciding the representation of the concerned

workman dated 28^th March, 1994 it has been specifically mentioned in paragraph (f) of order passed by the management

on 4^th April, 1994 General Manger (Personnel) was stated to be appointing as well as disciplinary authority. Thus it is

admitted case of the company that in case of workman concerned, General Manager (Personnel) was disciplinary

authority, but the order of punishment was passed by much higher officer to the General Manager (Personnel).

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5277

16.

Learned counsel for the management relying on Balbir Chand v. Food Corporation of India, CDJ 1996 SC 354 has

submitted that where disciplinary action has been taken by officer higher in rank to the disciplinary authority, the action

cannot be said to be bad in eye of law. There is no prohibition in law that higher authority should not impose penalty. But

the facts of this case are different from that of the instant case. In Balbir Chand (supra) it was a case of joint enquiry

conducted against several delinquent officials and the highest in the hierarchy of the competent authorities who could

take disciplinary action against them was the Managing Director of the Corporation. Hon’ble the Apex Court said that

the Managing Director of the Corporation being the appellate authority should not in normal circumstances pass an order

of punishment so as to enable the delinquent employee to avail the right of appeal. Hon’ble Court further held that it

could not, however, be laid down as a rule of law that in all circumstances higher authority should consider and decide

the case imposing penalty as primary authority under the rules. The case of Balbir Chand (supra) was considered at

length by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Air India v. Sashikala (supra) and it was held that where the delinquent

employee was deprived right to appeal, the punishment order cannot be sustainable in eye of law.

17.

In the present case, the disciplinary authority was General Manager (Personnel) and Director (Personnel) was

much higher in hierarchy of officers. The Director (Personnel) is stated to be the topmost authority in the company. Now,

it could not be explained by the learned counsel for the management as to why the punishment order was passed by the

authority much higher in rank to the disciplinary authority i.e., the General Manager (Personnel). By adopting this

procedure by the company the workman concerned is certainly deprived of right to appeal against his termination order.

In such circumstances, serious prejudice is likely to be caused to the workman concerned. Therefore, the Director

(Personnel) cannot be said to be competent to pass order of punishment in the present case and consequently the order is

non est in eye of law.

18.

Learned counsel for the workman concerned has argued that where dismissal order is not sustainable in eye of

law, subsequent effect would be reinstatement of the workman, but as admittedly the workman concerned has attained

the age of superannuation, he is not entitled for reinstatement.

19.

Next question is whether the concerned workman is entitled for back wages? Learned counsel for the workman

concerned relying on Hindustan Tin Works Ltd. v. Its employees, 1978-II-LLJ 474 has pleaded for back wages. In above

case law Hon’ble the Apex Court has held that ordinarily workman whose service has been illegally terminated would be

entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the forced idleness. This was normal

rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure. But the concept of granting

back wages has undergone sea change. In the case of Allahabad Jal Sansthan v. Daya Shankar Rai, 2005 (5) SCC 124 the

Hon’ble Apex Court has held

“……… Earlier in the event of an order of dismissal being set aside, reinstatement with full back wages was the

usual result. But, now with the passage of time it came to be realized that the industry is being compelled to pay

the workman for a period during he had apparently contributed little or nothing at all, for a period that was spent

unproductively, while the workman is being compelled to go back to a situation prevailed many years ago when

he was dismissed. It is necessary for us to develop a pragmatic approach to problem dogging industrial relation.”

In the case of Allahabad Jal Sansthan (supra) the respondent had not raised any plea in his written statement that

he had been sitting idle or had not obtained any other employment in interregnum. On the question being raised by the

employer for non-entitlement of back wages on this ground, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as below:

“The learned counsel for the appellant, in our opinion, is correct in submitting that pleading to that effect in the

written statement of the workman was necessary. Not only no such pleading was raised, even in his evidence the

workman did not say that he was continued to remain unemployed.”

20.

Thus, to claim back wages, it was necessary for the concerned workman to have pleaded in his statement of claim

that he remained unemployed during the period of his dismissal and he should have also adduced evidence to that effect.

But, there is no such pleading in the statement of claim of the workman concerned, nor there is any evidence on this

point.

21.

Hon’ble the Apex Court in a large number of judicial pronouncements has pointed that payment of compensation

in place of direction to be reinstated in service in cases of this nature would sub-serve the ends of justice. In Ashok

Kumar Sharma v. Oberio Flight Service, 2010 (1) SCC 142 there was wrongful dismissal, but back wages were allowed

and simply compensation was granted. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Allahabad Jal Sansthan

(supra) and Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) and various other pronouncements of Hon’ble the Apex Court, Hon’ble

Calcutta High Court in Trinath Sethi & Anr. V. Coal India Limited & Ors., CDJ 2012 Cal HC 1039 has held that back

wages is not automatic when dismissal order is quashed. Relevant portion of the judgment having bearing on the question

in issue may be quoted below:

“………. On analysis of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Apex Court following results emerge:

(1) When the dismissal order is quashed and order of reinstatement is passed, order granting back wages is

not automatic.

5278

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(2) Grant of back wages is depended upon consideration of the pleading and the evidence adduced by the

delinquent employee identifying the fact that he was not gainfully employed otherwise during the period of

dismissal.

(3) That back wage concept will not be applied without satisfaction of the aforesaid point No. (2), but principle

of damages and compensation to be considered and dealt with to grant relief if dismissal is mid abinio.”

In P. Karupaiah (D) Thr. Lrs. V. General Manager, Thruuvallauvar Transport Corporation, CDJ 2018 SC 360 also

Hon’ble the Supreme Court has laid down that the workman concerned must adduce evidence to claim back wages.

20.

Thus from above discussion it is evident that burden lies on the workman concerned to adduce evidence that he

was not gainfully employed during the period in question. Back wages is not automatic. However, damages and

compensation may be considered in case of order of dismissal is quashed. In these circumstances, workman concerned is

not entitled to back wages. However, as lump sum compensation of Rs.6,00,000/= (Rupees six lac only) may be awarded

to him.

Awad is passed accordingly.

Dated, Kolkata,

The 6^th August, 2018

Justice RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1293-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] ch,l,u,y

ds jk;xat ,l,l, ds izca/u ds laca/ esa fu;ksDrk ,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;] dksydkrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

02@2014) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16-08-2018 dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40011@70@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jktsaæ tks'kh] mi funs'kd

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2018

S.O. 1293.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 02/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Emplayers in

relation to the Management of Rajgani SSA of BSNL and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 16.08.2018.

[No. L-40011/70/2013-IR (DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 02 of 2014

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of

Raiganj SSA of BSNL

A N D

Their workmen.

Present:

Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the

Management

On behalf of the

Mr. S. Mukherjee, Ld. Counsel with Mr. D. Sengupta,

Workmen

Ld. Counsel and Mr. S. Saha, Ld. Counsel

Dated: 9^th August , 2018.

Industry: Telecommunication.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5279

AWARD

By Order No.L-40011/70/2013-IR(DU) dated 15.01.2014 and corrigendums of even number dated 27.03.2014

and 14.07.2014 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of

the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether demand of Raiganj S.S.A. BSNL Shilpa Sahayak Union to enlist 132 numbers of the workmen as per

the list submitted at Exhibit-I, working under the Raiganj SSA of BSNL, in addition to the main list dated

09-09-03, for receiving better terms and conditions of service are legal and/or justified? If not, to what relief the

union is entitled to?”

The factual matrix of this case is that the workmen listed in list Exhibit-I of the order of reference were

performing duties of various clerical and technical jobs such as attending customer grievances, marketing, office work,

canteen work, WLL faulty telephone line maintenance, accounting works, cleaning and sweeping etc. They have been

working under the employment of BSNL continuously and uninterruptedly with their counterparts listed as casual

workmen. They were treated as unlisted casual workmen who as well as listed workmen were under direct control and

command of the management and administration. The dispute arose while a set of casual workers numbering 186 were

declared as listed casual workers in the year 1976 out of total 348 casual workers. Due to negligence of local BSNL

management at Raiganj, names of concerned workmen given in the list, Exhibit-I could not be included in the list as the

management did not provide the names of those workmen to the higher authority for enlistment. The workmen who were

treated as listed workmen used to get Rs.10,000/= after enlistment while other workers under reference getting only

Rs.2970/= as they were denied enlistment. This discriminatory policy of the management adopted against the unlisted

casual workmen wherein they have been deprived from getting equal remuneration as being provided to their comparable

set of workmen who were already treated as listed workmen. The demand of unlisted workmen for equal treatment was

also accepted and forwarded by the local management to appropriate authority for regularization in the listed roll. The

listed workmen through their union raised their written protest against the above discriminatory policy. Those 132

workmen as referred in the list Exhibit -1 have contended for their entitlement to get financial benefits including other

consequential service benefits at par with other workmen who were enlisted and regularized in service with effect from

25^th September, 2003 as listed casual workers.

Notices were issued but despite service of notice, the management of BSNL did not appear in the case and they

also did not file written statement. Therefore, the case proceeded exparte.

In support of their case the union examined one witness, namely, Shri Sushanta Bhadra and filed photo copies of

various documents which would be referred as and when required.

I have heard the learned counsel for the union. Learned counsel for the union relying on Jeevarathinam P.N. &

Ors. v. Union of india & Anr., 2000-III-LLJ(Suppl) 525, State of Punjab v. Talwinder Singh & Ors., 2004-II-LLJ 1048,

Uttar Pradesh Land Development Corporation & Anr. V. Mohd. Khursheed Anwar & Anr., (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 513 and

Surjit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2003-I-LLJ 961 has contended that the workmen are serving in the same

department and doing the same work as listed casual workmen, but due to non-enlistment, they are getting less pay than

the listed workmen. Thus on the basis of principles of equal pay for equal work the learned counsel has claimed parity in

pay.

From the material available on record it appears that there were 348 casual workers working in BSNL at Raiganj.

It is claimed that all the casual workers were performing the same duties involving various kinds of clerical and technical

jobs such as attending to customer grievance, mobile service, marketing, accounts works and cleaning and sweeping. All

the casual workers were under the control of local management of BSNL. The dispute arose when out of 348 casual

workers, 186 were enlisted as regular workmen. Rest of the workers could not be regularized due to negligence of the

local authority of BSNL to provide names of unlisted casual workers to the higher authorities. Above unlisted workmen

were left out without any criteria and reason resulting in disparity in pay. The listed workmen are getting Rs.10,000/= a

month after their enlistment whereas the unlisted workmen under reference are getting remuneration of Rs.2970/=.

The management of BSNL did not appear in the case to answer this disparity and to explain on what grounds 186

workers were listed and rest workers were left out. Evidence has been given by the workers under reference that they are

doing same duties as their counterparts are doing.

Equal pay for equal work has been accepted as constitutional goal capable of being achieved through

constitutional remedies. Where workers under reference were doing same work as their counterparts, there is no reason to

deny the same pay. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jeevarathinam P.N. & Ors. v. Union of india & Anr. (supra) has held that

once it is found that the workers were doing same work as full-fledged workers, on the ground of equal pay for equal

work, they are entitled to higher salary made available to their counterparts. In State of Punjab v. Talwinder Singh

(supra) claim of daily wagers for parity of pay scale with those on regular basis was allowed on the principle of equal pay

for equal work.

5280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Thus applying the principles of equal pay for equal work the workers under reference are certainly entitled for the

same pay as their counterparts are getting. They have been left out from regularization without their fault. The

management has also recognized that they are doing same duties and there was no criteria for enlistment, as it is evident

from document Exhibit W-01, a letter written by local management to head office.

10.

In these circumstances, demand of Raiganj S.S.A. BSNL Shilpa Sahayak Union to enlist 132 numbers of the

workmen as per the list submitted at Exhibit-I, working under the Raiganj SSA of BSNL, in addition to the main list

dated 09-09-03, for receiving better terms and conditions of service are legal and justified. These workmen are entitled to

get the same pay and benefits as available to the enlisted casual workmen.

Award is passed accordingly.

Dated, Kolkata,

The 9^th August, 2018

Justice RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 vxLr] 2018

dk-vk- 1294-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh èkkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

cSad 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; la- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 99@2013) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-08-2018

dks çkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@18@2013&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

ch- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 21st August, 2018

S.O. 1294.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 99/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21.08.2018.

[No. L-12012/18/2013-IR (B-I)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 1, DWARKA COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI

ID No. 99/2013

Vicky

S/o. Shri Jagdish,

Through Nagar Nigm Karamchari Sangh,

Delhi Pradesh,

P-2/624, Sultanpuri,

Delhi

…Workman

Versus

The Management of State Bank of India,

Through its Regional Manager,

Super Circle Excellence, 4^th Floor,

Zonal Office, Parliament Street,

New Delhi

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

East Patel Nagar,

New Delhi

…Management

AWARD

In the present case, matter was referred to this Tribunal vide letter No. L-12012/12/18/2013-IR(B-1) dated

04.06.2013 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in

short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:

‘Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the workman Shri Vicky s/o.

Shri Jagdish w.e.f. 20.10.2011 is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to. ?

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5281

Both parties were put to notice and the claimant. Mr. Vicky filed statement of claim, with the averments that he

was working as a regular daily wage sweeper cum messenger with the Management since 24/8/2008 without any break in

service with fully honesty. He gave no chance of any complaint but unfortunately the services of the claimant were

terminated from 20/10/2011 without any reason and without any show cause notice or passing any speaking order by the

Management, which act is illegal and against the principle of natural justice. Even the management has not conducted

any domestic enquiry prior to his termination, nor complied with the provisions of Section 25(f), (g) and (h) of the Act.

The claimant sent legal notice but the Management failed to respond the same. It is stated that termination of the claimant

from his services is totally illegal. He is still unemployed inspite of his best efforts to get a job. He has prayed for

reinstatement on the same post with continuity of service and full back wages cum consequential benefits.

The claim petition has been resisted by the Management who filed its written statement wherein preliminary

objection has been taken that there never existed any employer employee relationship between the Management and

claimant. The claimant has never worked for continuous 240 days in the year preceding to his purported termination.

There is no post of regular daily wage sweeper cum messenger with the Management and as such question of claimant

working on the sad post since 20/8/2008 does not arise. It is alleged that since no person by the name of Vicky ever

worked or was employed with SBI, East Patel Nagar Branch, no question of his alleged termination from services arises.

Prayer has been made for deciding the reference in favour of the Management.

The claimant/workman filed rejoinder wherein he denied all the allegations made by the Management and

reiterated his own case as set up in the claim petition.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 23/03/2015 :-

(1)

Whether there existed relationship of employer/employee between the claimant and the management as

alleged ?

(2)

As in terms of reference.

5. The Claimant in support of his case examined himself as W.W.1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A and relied

on documents Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/12.

On the other hand, the Management did not adduce any evidence to rebut the case of the claimant, and opted the

course not to participate in the proceedings and hence, the matter was proceeded ex parte against the Management vide

order dated 15/1/2018.

Issue No.1 :-

7. It is clear from the averments made in the statement of claim as well as affidavit Ex.WW1/A that the claimant was

engaged by the Management bank for the post of sweeper cum messenger, for which no appointment letter was issued.

The claimant/workman has clearly stated that he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year ad initially he was

paid salary by way of cheque and later on, salary used to be credited in his bank account. He has also deposed that his

services were terminated in the last week of October, 2011. However, no termination letter was issued to him. Shri

Mahesh Chandra was the Branch Manager and one Shri Ashish was the Regional Manager at the time of his termination.

The claimant has filed voluminous documents on record i.e. receipts of cheques as Ex.WW1/1 (colly.), receipt of

vouchers as Ex.WW1/2 as well as copy of his passbook, which show that the claimant was receiving wages from the

bank through cheques/vouchers, Perusal of various entries in the passbook of the claimant show that every month,

wages/salary used to be credited in the account of the claimant. Moreover, it is clear from the bank vouchers Ex.WW1/1

that claimant Vicky was paid wages ranging from Rs.2500 to Rs.2620/- every month. Perusal of receipt Ex.WW1/1

shows that the claimant was doing the work of cleaning of bank premises and he was paid Rs.800/- to Rs.900/- after

every 10 days and such receipts starting for the period 20-8-2008 to 30-8-2008, upto 1-9-2011 to 9-9-2011. Perusal of

such receipts shows that the same are signed by the officials of the bank.

The claimant has also filed Credit Vouchers of the SBI as Ex.WW1/5 which show that various payments were

made to the claimant by the Management bank from time to time. Name of the claimant also finds mentioned at various

places in those vouchers. There is also bank letter Ex.WW1/6 vide which claimant was authorized on behalf of the bank

to collect digital signature key. This is clearly suggestive of the fact that claimant Vicky was doing work in the

Management Bank and that plea of the Management that there is no relationship of employee-employer between the

Management and claimant, is totally false and baseless.

There is another aspect of the matter which can not be ignored. On behalf of the Management none has appeared

to controvert the voluminous documentary evidence adduced by the claimant. The claimant has proved various receipts,

which show that he was getting cleaning charges every month from the Management Bank. It is expected of the

Management to examine some official of the bank so as to controvert the stand of the claimant. But no evidence was

adduced on behalf of the Management. The law is fairly settled that if a party to a case does not enter the witness box or

examine any other witness in support of the stand taken in the respective pleadings, in that eventuality this Tribunal is

bound to draw adverse inference against the said party. The plea of the Management that no person by the name of

5282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 1, 2018/BHADRA 10, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Vicky ever worked or was employed with SBI, East Patel Nagar Branch, stands belied on the face of documentary

evidence Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/10 proved on record by the claimant.

10.

In view of the above discussion, it is thus clear that there is relationship of employer and employee between the

Management and claimant. This issue is decided accordingly in favour of the claimant and against the Management.

Issue No.2 :-

11.

A vital question for consideration before this Tribunal is whether action of the Management in terminating the

services of the workman w.e.f. 20/10/2011 is in accordance with law or in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of

the Act.

12.

Testimony of the claimant that he worked on the post of regular daily wage sweeper cum messenger with the

Management since 20/8/2008 without any break in service has gone unchallenged and unrebutted. It is the stand of the

Management that no person by the name of Vicky ever worked with them but the Management failed to prove the same.

While giving findings on issue No.1, this Tribunal on the basis of voluminous documentary adduced on record by the

claimant has held that there existed relationship of employee and employer between the claimant and Management. The

claimant in his testimony has deposed that he protested and asked the reason on the basis of which the Management had

terminated his services but the officials of the Management did not bother to speak any word upon his query. His

testimony that prior to his termination, the Management neither gave any notice nor any charge sheet nor conducted any

domestic inquiry has gone unrebutted and unassailed, as the Management has not adduced any evidence contrary thereto.

The claimant has proved on record copy of the legal notice dated 3/1/2012, as Ex.WW1/11 which was sent to the

Management bank vide Speed Post. Testimony of the claimant that the Management did not respond to the said notice

has also gone unassailed. Even in his cross examination, he deposed that no letter of termination was issued to him. In

his statement as well as cross examination, the claimant has categorically stated that he is not doing any regular job,

though he works intermittently at different places and different offices, whereas his wife is a home maker.

13.

As discussed above, it is proved that the claimant/workman was in regular service of the Management from

20/08/2008 till his termination on 20/10/2011. Since there is no evidence on record that any valid notice was issued by

the Management to the workman at the time of termination or in lieu of such notice, any compensation was paid to him,

as such action of the Management in terminating the services of the workman/claimant is held to be illegal and void.

14.

Management has not adduced any evidence to show that it has paid retrenchment compensation to the claimant in

terms of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act before or at the time of termination of the claimant. As such,

termination of the claimant can not be held to be legal or justified.

15.

There is long line of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of

Section 25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the

provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will render action of the Management Bank to be illegal and void under the law.

16.

Now the residual question is whether the claimant/workman is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of back

wages and/or reinstatement of service with full back wages. It is proved on record that claimant was continuously in the

employment of the Management since 20/8/2008. There is no show cause notice or memo issued to the

claimant/workman by the Management prior to his termination on 20/10/2011. As discussed above, engagement of the

claimant for doing intermittent nature of work and/or for cleaning the bank premises is duly proved on record on the

basis of documentary evidence Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/10. This Tribunal can not lose sight of the fact that work of

cleaning of the bank premises is of regular and perennial in nature. The Management bank has not adduced any evidence

to show as to who was/were the person/s engaged in place of claimant after his termination from the job.

18.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in case “Deepali Gundu Surwase V. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya”

reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under :

“The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are :

(i)

In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the

normal rule.

(ii)

Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back

wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court

of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer

wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that

the employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads

drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of

the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is

always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows

that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was

gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.”

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 1] 2018@Hkkæ 10] 1940

5283