5908 GI/2018

(6061)

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- 41]

ubZ fnYyh] vDrwcj 14—vDrwcj 20] 2018] 'kfuokj@vkf'ou 22—vkf'ou 28] 1940

No. 41]

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 14—OCTOBER 20, 2018, SATURDAY/ASVINA 22— ASVINA 28, 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)

dkfeZd] yksd f’kdk;r rFkk isa’ku ea=ky;

¼dkfeZd ,oa izf’k{k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2018

dk-vk- 1487-&dsanzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo’ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e

la[;k 25½ dh /kkjk 6 ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsjy jkT;

ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] fr:oariqje dh fnukad 27 vDrwcj] 2017 dh vf/klwpuk la[;k th vks ¼,e,l½

218@2017@gkse }kjk nh x;h lgefr ls iqfyl Fkkuk&dq:foykumxM+ fr:oariqje] dsjy esa iathd`r okn vijk/k

la[;k&948@2017 ds vUos"k.k rFkk mijksDr vijk/k ls tqM+s gq, ekeyksa ds vUos"k.k ds fy, fnYyh fo’ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj {ks=kf/kdkj dk foLrkj laiw.kZ dsjy jkT; ds laca/k esa djrh gSA

[Qk- la- 228@01@2018&,ohMh&II]

,l- ih- vkj f=ikBh] voj lfpo

6062

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2018/ASVINA 28, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2018

S.O. 1487.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6

of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the

consent of State Government of Kerala Home (M) Department issued vide Notification No. G.O (Ms). No.

218/2017/Home Dated Thiruvananthapuram 27.10.2017 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the

members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of the State of Kerala for the investigation of

offences involved in Crime No. 948/2017 of Kuruvilangad Police Station, registered in connection with

illegal human trafficking and the matters related thereto.

[F. No. 228/01/2018-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 vDrwcj] 2018

dk-vk- 1488-&dsUnz ljdkj fnYyh fo’ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e la- 25½ dh /kkjk 6

ds lkFk ifBr 5 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, tEew ,oa d’ehj jkT; ljdkj] flfoy lfpoky;]

x`g foHkkx] Jhuxj dh vf/klwpuk ,lvkjvks 338 la- Home/AR/151/2017 fnukad 8 vxLr] 2018 }kjk izkIr lgefr ls

fuEufyf[kr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ rFkk muesa mfYyf[kr vijk/kksa ds laca/k esa ;k mlls lEc) iz;kl] nq"izsj.kk rFkk "kM;a= rFkk

mlh laO;ogkj ds vuqØe esa fd, x, vFkok mUgh rF;ksa ls mRiUu fdUgh vU; vijk/k ;k vijk/kksa dk vUos"k.k ,oa tk¡p djus

ds fy, fnYyh fo’ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj {ks=kf/kdkj dk foLrkj lEiw.kZ tEew ,oa d’ehj jkT; eas

djrh gS%&

(1) izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la- 11@2018 iqfyl LVs’ku VOJ u/s 5(2) PC Act Svt 2006 r/w 3/25 Arms Act.

(2) izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la- 18@2018 iqfyl LVs’ku VOK u/s 5(2) PC Act Svt 2006, 120-B RPC

vkSj 3/25 Arms Act.

[Qk- la- 228@41@2018&,ohMh &II]

,l- ih- vkj- f=ikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2018

S.O. 1488.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section(1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the

consent of State Government of Jammu and Kashmir, Civil Secretariat, Home Department, Srinagar issued

vide Notification SRO 338 No. Home/AR/151/2017 dated 8^th August, 2018, hereby extends the powers and

jurisdiction of the Members of Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of the State of Jammu and

Kashmir to investigate and inquire into the offences and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to or

in connection with the offences in the below mentioned FIRs and in other offences committed in the course of

same transaction(s) or arising out of the same facts :-

Case FIR No. 11/2018 P/S VOJ under Section 5(2) P.C. Act Svt. 2006 r/w Section 3/25 Arms

Act.

Case FIR No. 18/2018 P/S VOK under Section 5(2) P.C. Act Svt. 2006, 120-B RPC and Section

3/25 Arms Act.

[F. No. 228/41/2018-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 20] 2018@vkf'ou 28] 1940

6063

िवदेश मं ालय

(सी.पी.वी. भाग)

नई द ली, 5 अ तूबर, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 1489

1489

1489.—राजनियक और क सुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 क धारा 2 के खंड

(क) के अनुसरण म वैधािनक आदेश ।

एतद् ारा, क सरकार भारत के धान क सलावास, दुबई म ी िजते , सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को दनांक

5 अ टूबर 2018 से सहायक क सुलर अिधका%रय के तौर पर क सुलर सेवा& के िनव'हन के िलए ािधकृत करती है।

[सं. टी. 4330/03/2018]

काश च द, िनदेशक (क सुलर)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 5th October, 2018

S.O. 1489.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and

Consular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints

Shri Jitendra, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate General of India, Dubai

to perform the Consular services with effect from 5^th October 2018 .

[No. T. 4330/03/2018]

PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)

उपभोा मामले, खा और सावजिनक िवतरण मं ालय

(उपभोा मामले िवभाग)

(भारतीय मानक यूरो)

नई दली, 11 अ तूबर, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 1490

1490

1490.—भारतीय मानक .यूरो (माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम 4 के उपिनयम (5) के अनुसरण म

भारतीय मानक .यूरो एतदारा अिधसूिचत करता है क िजन लाइसस के िववरण नीचे अनुसूची म दए गए ह>, वे ?वीकृत

कर दए गए ह>:-

अनुसूची

सं.

लाइसस सं

वीकृत करने

क ितिथ वष

क ितिथ वष/ / / /

माह

लाइससधारी का नाम व पता

भारतीय मानक का

शीष

भा मा सं (भाग

भा मा सं (भाग/ / / /

अनुभाग)

अनुभाग) : : : : वष

वष

6500033809

20180717

मेसस राजा टीस ायवेट िलिमटड

एस एफ सं 123/1,

ितमलयमपालयम,

वेलदावलम रोड, मदुरै,

कोयब ूर– 641 105.

कं#$ट बलन के िलए

उ( शि* िविपत

इ पात स,रए एवं

तार

IS 1786 : 2008

6500033708

20180731

मेसस रामदे-स मोटस

एस एफ सं 231,3A,3B,4A, शांित

िगयस फौ1ी रोड,

कोयब ूर– 641 402

कृिष और पानी क$

आपू6त के उ7े8य के

िलए साफ, शीतल

जल के िलए मोनोसेट

पप

IS 9079 : 2002

6064

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2018/ASVINA 28, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6590006416

20180731

मेसस 9ी अमन ;वेलरी

सं. 2, ई=रन कोिवल >ीट,

ित?पुर – 641 604

वण एवं वण

िम9धातुएं, आभूषण/

िश पकारी – शुDता

एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

6590006517

20180731

मेसस वैEवी तंगा मािलगै

419, मुFय सडक, पेदुरै,

ईरोड– 638 052.

वण एवं वण

िम9धातुएं, आभूषण/

िश पकारी – शुDता

एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 11]

मीना@ी गणेशन, वैAािनक ‘एफ’ एवं मुख

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2018

S.O. 1490.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

(Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence

particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No.

Licence No.

Grant

Date

Name and Address (Factory) of the

Party

Title of the Standard

IS No. Part/

Sec. Year

6500033809

20180717

M/s. Raja Steels Private Limited

SF No. 123/1,

Thirumalayampalayam,

Velanthavalam Road, Madukkarai,

Coimbatore – 641 105.

High Strength Deformed

Steel Bars and Wires for

Concrete Reinforcement

IS 1786 : 2008

6500033708

20180731

M/s. Ramdevs Motors

SF No. 231,3A,3B,4A,Shanthi Gears

Foundry Road,

Coimbatore – 641 402

Electric Monoset Pumps

for Clear, Cold Water for

Agricultural and Water

Supply Purposes

IS 9079 : 2002

6590006416

20180731

M/s. Sri Amman Jewellery

No. 2, Easwaran Kovil Street,

Tirupur – 641 604

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

6590006517

20180731

M/s. Vaishnave Thanga Maligai

419, Main Road, Perundurai,

Erode – 638 052.

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

[No. CMD/13:11]

MEENAKSHI GANESAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

नई दली, 11 अ तूबर, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 1491

1491

1491.—भारतीय मानक .यूरो (माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम 4 के उपिनयम (5) के अनुसरण म

कर दए गए ह>:-

अनुसूची

सं.

लाइसस सं

वीकृत करने क

ितिथ वष

ितिथ वष/ / / / माह

माह

लाइस

लाइससधारी का नाम व पता

सधारी का नाम व पता

भारतीय मानक का शीष

भा मा सं (भाग

भा मा सं (भाग/ / / /

अनुभाग)

अनुभाग) : : : : वष

वष

6590006618

20180807

मेसस वािण ;वेस

पुराना सं. 124, नया सं. 167, ए

एल जी हाउस,

रेस कॉस, कोयब ूर – 641 018

वण एवं वण िम9धातुएं,

आभूषण/ िश पकारी –

शुDता एवं मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 20] 2018@vkf'ou 28] 1940

6065

6500034104

20180821

मेसस ए वी एम पाइ?स

एस एफ सं. 119, Hकलाकाला

तोIम,

हॉि पटल >ीट, सरवनमपIी,

कोयब ूर – 641 035

पेयजल आपू6त के िलए

अ?लाि टकृत पी वी सी

पाइप

IS 4985 : 2000

6500033910

20180827

मेसस देवकृष एKा िस टस

743-1A, 9ी एम के के एLलेव,

मरापेIै रोड, पोलाची,

कोयब ूर– 642 001

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद

िमनरल जल के अलावा)

IS 14543 : 2016

6500034003

20180828

मेसस 9ी अमन एKा

141-A, पी के जी ऑयल िमल के

पीछे,

चेिNमलै रोड, कागयम,

ित?पुर– 638 701

पैकेजबंद पेय जल (पैकेजबंद

िमनरल जल के अलावा)

IS 14543 : 2016

[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 11]

मीना@ी गणेशन, वैAािनक ‘एफ’ एवं मुख

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2018

S.O. 1491.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

(Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence

particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No.

Licence No.

Grant

Date

Name and Address (Factory) of the

Party

Title of the Standard

IS No. Part/

Sec. Year

6590006618

20180807

M/s. Vaaruni Jewels

Old No. 124, New No. 167, ALG House,

Race Course,

Coimbatore – 641 018

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

6500034104

20180821

M/s. AVM Pipes

SF No. 119, Kilakkala Thottam,

Hospital Street, Saravanampatti,

Coimbatore – 641 035

Unplasticized PVC

Pipes for Potable Water

Supplies

IS 4985 : 2000

6500033910

20180827

M/s. Devkrish Aqua Systems

743-1A, Shri MKK Enclave,

Marapettai Road, Pollachi ,

Coimbatore – 642 001

Packaged Drinking

Water (other than

Packaged Natural

Mineral Water)

IS 14543 :

2016

6500034003

20180828

M/s. Sri Amman Aqua

141-A, PKG Oil Mill Backside,

Chennimalai Road, Kangayam,

Tirupur – 638 701

Packaged Drinking

Water (other than

Packaged Natural

Mineral Water)

IS 14543 :

2016

[No. CMD/13:11]

MEENAKSHI GANESAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

6066

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2018/ASVINA 28, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दली, 11 अ तूबर, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 1492

1492

1492.—भारतीय मानक .यूरो (माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयम 4 के उपिनयम (5) के अनुसरण म

कर दए गए ह>:-

अनुसूची

सं.

लाइसस सं

वीकृत करने क

ितिथ वष

ितिथ वष/ / / / माह

माह

लाइससधारी का नाम व पता

भारतीय मानक

भारतीय मानक का शीष

का शीष

भा मा सं (भाग

भा मा सं (भाग/ / / /

अनुभाग)

अनुभाग) : : : : वष

वष

6500034205

20180905

मेसस अजता ?ला ट

6/174, ऊतुकुली रोड, पगलयूर,

िवजयामंगलम (पो ट), पेदुरै,

ईरोड – 638 056

Qसचाई उप कर –

उRसजक$ पाइप प7ितयाँ

IS 13488 : 2008

6500034306

20180906

मेसस केिपटल इंड >ीस

एस एफ सं. 632/3B-3, के एस

एन इंडि >यल ए टेट,

मोलापालयम रोड, वेलानैपIी,

कोयब ूर– 641 048

एक फेजी छोटी ए.सी.

और यूिनवसल िबजली के

मोटर

IS 996 : 2009

6590006820

20180906

मेसस मीना ;वेलरी

426-430, िTची रोड, Qसगनलूर,

एस बी आई के पास, कोयब ूर –

641 005

चाँदी एवं चाँदी

िम9धातुएं, आभूषण/

िश पकारी – शुDता एवं

मुहरांकन

IS 2112 : 2014

6590006719

20180906

मेसस कैलैराजन कॉपरेशन

दुकान सं. 6, पहला

माला,कॉपरेशन कॉ?लेLस,

(9ी कृUणा वीVस के ऊपर), #ॉस

कट रोड, गाँधीपुरम,

कोयब ूर – 641 012

वण एवं वण

िम9धातुएं, आभूषण/

िश पकारी – शुDता एवं

मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

6590006921

20180907

मेसस 9ी भगवती िसवस

714-716, वासवी टॉवस, राजा

>ीट,

कोयब ूर – 641 001

चाँदी एवं चाँदी

िम9धातुएं, आभूषण/

िश पकारी – शुDता एवं

मुहरांकन

IS 2112 : 2014

6500034710

20180920

मेसस िमक$ िम ट डॉयरी फुड

ायवेट िलिमटड

एस एफ 43/1-4, एस एफ 65/1,

2, 3, 4B, 7B, 8, 9, 10B,

11B, 12B, 14B,15B,

पIाकारमपालयम गाँव, पेदुरै,

ईरोड – 638 057

मलाईरिहत दूध पाऊडर

– भाग 1 – सामाय Xेड

IS 13334

(Part1) : 2014

6500034609

20180920

मेसस वासती इंजीिनयYरग

सं. 5/79-5, वेलानैपIी मुFय

सडक,

वेलानैपIी, कोयब ूर –

641 048

गहरे कुZ के िलए

िनमजनीय पपसेट

IS 14220 : 1994

6500034508

20180920

मेसस िवRया एXो इंड >ीस

97, अमनकुलम रोड, पी. एन.

पालयम, कोयब ूर - 641 037

िनमजनीय पपसेट

IS 8034 : 2002

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 20] 2018@vkf'ou 28] 1940

6067

6500034407

20180920

मेसस िवRया एXो इंड >ीस

97, अमनकुलम रोड, पी. एन.

पालयम, कोयब ूर - 641 037

िनमजनीय पपसेट के

िलए मोटर

IS 9283 : 2013

10.

6590007014

20180920

मेसस कै गोड

10/688 C4D, वािडपेट, गूडलूर

बाज़ार, गूडलूर, नीलिगरीस –

643 211

वण एवं वण

िम9धातुएं, आभूषण/

िश पकारी – शुDता एवं

मुहरांकन

IS 1417 : 2016

11.

6500034811

20180927

मेसस सी आर मोटस ायवेट

िलिमटड

सं. 1, नज?पा गौडर >ीट,

तेLकू तोIम, िलगनूर पो ट,

पी.एन. पुदुर,

कोयब ूर– 641 041

लाइन ऑपरेटड तीन

फेजी ए.सी. मोटर (अई ई

कोड) “द\ता वग]करण

एवं कायका,रता िविश^”

IS 12615 : 2018

[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 11]

मीना@ी गणेशन, वैAािनक ‘एफ’ एवं मुख

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2018

S.O. 1492.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

(Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence

particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No.

Licence No.

Grant

Date

Name and Address (Factory) of

the Party

Title of the Standard

IS No. Part/

Sec. Year

6500034205

20180905

M/s. Ajantha Plast

6/174,Uthukuli Road, Pagalayur,

Vijayamangalam (P.O.),

Perundurai,

Erode – 638 056

Irrigation Equipment -

Emitting pipes system

IS 13488 : 2008

6500034306

20180906

M/s. Capital Industries

SF No. 632/3B-3, KSN Industrial

Estate, Molapalayam Road,

Vellanaipatti,

Coimbatore – 641 048

Single phase a.c.

Induction Motors for

General Purpose

IS 996 : 2009

6590006820

20180906

M/s. Meena Jewellery

426-430, Trichy Road,

Singanallur, Near SBI,

Coimbatore – 641 005

Silver and Silver

Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 2112 : 2014

6590006719

20180906

M/s. Kailairajan Corporation

Shop No. 6, 1^st Floor, Corporation

Complex,

(Above Sri Krishna Sweets),

Cross Cut Road, Gandhipuram,

Coimbatore – 641 012

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

6590006921

20180907

M/s. Sri Bhagavathi Silvers

714-716, Vasavi Towers,

Raja Street,

Coimbatore – 641 001

Silver and Silver

Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 2112 : 2014

6068

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2018/ASVINA 28, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6500034710

20180920

M/s. Milky Mist Dairy Food

Private Limited

SF 43/1-4, SF

65/1,2,3,4B,7B,8,9,10B,11B,12B,

14B,15B, Pattakarampalayam

Village, Perundurai,

Erode – 638 057

Skimmed Milk

Powder –

Part 1: Standard

Grade

IS 13334 (Part 1):

2014

6500034609

20180920

M/s. Vasanthi Engineering

No.5/79-5, Vellanaipatti Main

Road,

Vellanaipatti,

Coimbatore – 641 048

Openwell

Submersible Pumpsets

IS 14220 : 1994

6500034508

20180920

M/s. Vithya Agro Industries

97, Ammankulam Road, P. N.

Palayam,

Coimbatore - 641 037

Submersible Pumpsets

IS 8034 : 2002

6500034407

20180920

M/s. Vithya Agro Industries

97, Ammankulam Road, P. N.

Palayam,

Coimbatore - 641 037

Motors for

Submersible Pumpsets

IS 9283 : 2013

10.

6590007014

20180920

M/s. Sky Gold

10/688 C4D, Vadipet,

Gudalur Bazaar, Gudalur,

Nilgiris – 643 211

Gold and Gold Alloys,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Fineness and Marking

IS 1417 : 2016

11.

6500034811

20180927

M/s. C R Motors Private Limited

No. 1, Nanjappa Gounder Street,

Therkku Thottam, Liganur Post,

P.N.Pudur,

Coimbatore – 641 041

Line Operated Three

Phase a.c. Motors (IE

CODE) “Efficiency

Classes and

performance

IS 12615 : 2011

[No. CMD/13:11]

MEENAKSHI GANESAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

नई दली, 11 अ तूबर, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 1493

1493

1493.— भारतीय मानक .यूरो (माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयमन 5 के उपिविनयमन (6) के

अनुसरण म भारतीय मानक .यूरो एतदारा अिधसूिचत करता है क िनD न िववरण वाले लाइसस को उनके आगे दशा'ई गई

तारीख से रF/ ?थिगत कर दया गया है:—

अनुसूची

सं.

लाइस$स

लाइस$स संसंसंसं

सी

सी एम

एम

एम/ / / / एल

एल

एल-

लाइस$सधारी का नाम व

पता

&थिगत (कए गए

&थिगत (कए गए/र* (कए गए लाइस$स के अंतगत

र* (कए गए लाइस$स के अंतगत

व&तु

व&तु/"म स-ब/ भारतीय मानक का शीषक

"म स-ब/ भारतीय मानक का शीषक

र* होने क3

ितिथ

जुलाई 2018

जुलाई 2018 - शू5य

शू5य

[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 13]

मीना@ी गणेशन, वैAािनक ‘एफ’ एवं मुख

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 20] 2018@vkf'ou 28] 1940

6069

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2018

S.O. 1493 .—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

(Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars

of which are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No.

Licence No.

CM/L-

Name & Address of the

Licensee

Article/ Process with relevant

Indian Standard covered by the

licence cancelled/ suspension

Date of

Cancellation

JULY 2018 - NIL

[No. CMD/13:13]

MEENAKSHI GANESAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

नई दली, 11 अ तूबर, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 1494

1494

1494.—भारतीय मानक .यूरो (माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयमन 5 के उपिविनयमन (6) के अनुसरण

म भारतीय मानक .यूरो एतदारा अिधसूिचत करता है क िनH िववरण वाले लाइसस को उनके आगे दशा'ई गई तारीख से

रF/ ?थिगत कर दया गया है:—

अनुसूची

सं.

लाइस$स सं

सी एम

सी एम/ एल

एल

एल-

लाइस$सधारी का नाम व पता

&थिगत (कए गए

&थिगत (कए गए/र* (कए गए लाइस$स के अंतगत

र* (कए गए लाइस$स के अंतगत

व&तु

व&तु/"म स-ब/ भारतीय मानक का शीषक

"म स-ब/ भारतीय मानक का शीषक

र* होने क3

ितिथ

अग&त 2018

अग&त 2018 - शू5य

शू5य

[सं. सी एम डी/3 : 13]

मीना@ी गणेशन, वैAािनक ‘एफ’ एवं मुख

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2018

S.O. 1494.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

(Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars

of which are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No.

Licence No.

CM/L-

Name & Address of the

Licensee

Article/ Process with relevant Indian

Standard covered by the licence

cancelled/ suspension

Date of

Cancellation

AUGUST 2018 - NIL

[No. CMD/13:13]

MEENAKSHI GANESAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

6070

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2018/ASVINA 28, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दली, 11 अ तूबर, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 1495

1495

1495.—भारतीय मानक .यूरो (माणन) िविनयम 1988 के िविनयमन 5 के उपिविनयमन (6) के अनुसरण

म भारतीय मानक .यूरो एतदारा अिधसूिचत करता है क िनD न िववरण वाले लाइसस को उनके आगे दशा'ई गई तारीख से

रF/ ?थिगत कर दया गया है:—

अनुसूची

सं.

लाइस$स सं

सी एम

सी एम/ एल

एल

एल-

लाइस$सधारी का नाम व

पता

&थिगत (कए गए

&थिगत (कए गए/ र* (कए गए लाइस$स के अंतगत

र* (कए गए लाइस$स के अंतगत

व&तु

व&तु/ / / / "म स-ब/ भारतीय मानक का शीषक

"म स-ब/ भारतीय मानक का शीषक

र* होने क3

ितिथ

िसतंबर 2018

िसतंबर 2018 - शू5य

शू5य

[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 13]

मीना@ी गणेशन, वैAािनक ‘एफ’ एवं मुख

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2018

S.O. 1495.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

(Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licence particulars

of which are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No.

Licence No.

CM/L-

Name & Address of the

Licensee

Article/ Process with relevant Indian

Standard covered by the licence

cancelled/ suspension

Date of

Cancellation

SEPTEMBER 2018 - NIL

[No. CMD/13:13]

MEENAKSHI GANESAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head

isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2018

dk-vk-1496.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu) vf/kfu;e]

1962 (1962 dk 50) dh /kkjk 2 ds [k.M (d) ds vuqlj.k esa] Jh ,Œ d¢Œ oLRkkuh] izkURk vf/kdkjh] eqanjk] xqTkjkRk ljdkj dks

jkT; ljdkj l¢ eqanjk & HkfB.Mk ikbiykbu d¢ l{ke izkf/kdkjh ds vfRkfjDRk dk¸kZHkkj feyu¢ ij xqTkjkRk jkT; {ks= ds Hkhrj

mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu] eqanjk & HkfB.Mk ikbiykbu foLRkkj ifj;¨Tkuk ds fy, l{ke izkf/kdkjh ds d`R;ksa dk fuoZgu djus

ds fy, izkf/kd`r djrh gS

[Qk- la- vkj&12031@2@2018&vksvkj&I@bZ&26406]

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2018

S.O. 1496.—In pursuance of Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines

(Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby authorizes

Shri A. K. Vastani, Prant Officer, Mundra, on getting the additional charge from the state government, to

function as Competent Authority for the Mundra-Bathinda Pipeline Extension Project of HPCL–Mittal

Pipelines Limited, under the said Act within the territory of State of Gujarat.

[F. No. R-12031/2/2018-OR-I/E-26406]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 20] 2018@vkf'ou 28] 1940

6071

ubZ fnYyh] 17 vDrwcj] 2018

dk-vk-1497.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds

mifu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky; ds iz’kkfud fu;a=.kk/khu lkoZtfud {ks= ds miØeksa ds

fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa dks ftuds 80 ;k vf/kd izfr’kr deZpkjho`Un us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS]

vf/klwfpr djrh gS %&

1- jktca/k VfeZuy]

bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs’ku fyfeVsM]

xkao& jktca/k] iksLV& nqxkZiqj]

ftyk& cnZoku

if’pe caxky&713212

2- ekynk fMiks]

bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs’ku fyfeVsM]

ekynk dksVZ jsyos LVs’ku ds fudV]

IkksLV& Ukkxs’kojiqj]

ftyk& ekynk]

if’pe caxky&732142

[la- 11011@1@2017 ¼fgUnh½]

Å"kk fcUtksyk] la;qDr funs’kd ¼jktHkk"kk½

New Delhi, the 17th October, 2018

S.O. 1497.—In Pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language ( Use for official

purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the public

sector Undertakings under the administrative staff have acquired working Knowledge of Hindi :-

Rajbandh Terminal,

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Village – Rajbandh,/ post – Durgapur,

District – Bardwan,

West Bengal – 713212

Malda Depot,

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Near Malda Court Railway Station,

Post – Nageshwarpur,

District – Malda,

West Bengal – 732142

[No. 11011/1/2017(Hindi)]

USHA BINJOLA, Jt. Director (OL)

ubZ fnYyh] 17 vDrwcj] 2018

dk-vk- 1498.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds ‘’kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds

mifu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky; ds iz’kkfud fu;a=.kk/khu lkoZtfud {ks= ds miØeksa ds

fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;ksa dks ftuds 80 ;k vf/kd izfr’kr deZpkjho`Un us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS]

vf/klwfpr djrh gS %&

1- xsy ¼bafM;k½ fyfeVsM

gSnjkckn {ks=h; dk;kZy;]

ekWM~;wy ua0 105]

izFke rky] ,u,lvkbZlh]

bZ,eMhchih fcfYMax] deyk Ukxj]

MkW- ,- ,l- jko uxj] bZlhvkbZ,y]

¼iksLV½] gSnjkckn & 500062

[la- 11011@1@2017 ¼fgUnh½]

Å"kk fcUtksyk] la;qDr funs’kd ¼jktHkk"kk½

6072

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2018/ASVINA 28, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 17th October, 2018

S.O. 1498.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official

purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the central government hereby notifies the following offices of the public

sector Undertakings under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, in which 80

or more percent of the staff have acquired working Knowledge of Hindi :-

GAIL ( India) Ltd.

Hydarabad Regional Office,

Module No. 105, First floor,

NSIC, EMDBP Building,

Kamla Nagar, Dr. A. S. Rao Nagar,

ECIL (Post), Hydarabad

[No. 11011/1/2017(Hindi)]

USHA BINJOLA, Jt. Director (OL)

Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2018

dk-vk-1499-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]

izca/kd] Hkkjr bysDVªkfuDl fyfeVsM] ekphyhiV~Vue vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds

iapkV

¼LC No. 217/2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-09-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42025@03@2018&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

jktsanz tks’kh] mi funs’kd

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2018

S.O. 1499.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (LC No. 217/2004) of the Central Government Industrual Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Manager,

Bharat Electronics Limited, Machilipatnam and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

20.09.2018.

[No. L-42025/03/2018–IR(DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM-LABOUR COURT

AT HYDERABAD

Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan, Presiding Officer

Dated the 2nd day of August, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No.217/2004

Between: Sri M.V.S. R Krishna Rao,

D. No.11/794, Vijayaraghava Chambers, Rabertsonpet,

Machilipatnam.

…Petitioner

AND

The Manager (Production),

Bharat Electronics Ltd.,

Machilipatnam.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 20] 2018@vkf'ou 28] 1940

6073

The General Manager,

Bharat Electronics Ltd.,

Bangalore.

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : M/s. G. Vidya Sagar, K. Udaya Sree, P. Sudheer Rao & D. Madhusudhan, Advocates

For the Respondent: M/s P. Nageswara Sree, K. Raghuram Reddy & Ch. Venkata Raju, Advocates

AWARD

Sri M.V.S.R. Krishna Rao, who worked as Technician (who will be referred to as the workman) has

filed this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Bharat

Electronics Ltd., seeking for declaring the proceeding No.422/01/11552/2001-02 dated 11.7.2001 issued by

the Respondents as illegal, arbitrary, and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondents to

reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service,

back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

The Brief averments made by the Petitioner in the claim petition are as follows:

The case of the Petitioner in brief is that, the Petitioner joined in service under the Respondent management

as a technician in the year 1984. After completion of three years of service on 10.10.1987 the Petitioner was

ranked in wage group III with basic pay of Rs.595/- pm. the Petitioner was also confirmed with effect from

9.3.88 in his service basing on his good performance. Since the date of his appointment. The Petitioner has

been discharging his duties to the entire satisfaction of his authorities. It is submitted that while the Petitioner

was discharging his duties as Wage Group III employee, on 28.3.98 the Respondent issued one notice alleging

that the Petitioner absented his regular duties w.e.f. 23.2.1998 to 7.3.1998 on medical grounds and without

leave and without any intimation. The Petitioner is deemed to have left the service of the company voluntarily

under 9(c) of the Certified Standing Orders. After receipt of the notice the Petitioner submitted an explanation

denying the charges levelled against him stating that he was suffering from low back pain for the past two

years and he was undergoing treatment from time to time. It is further submitted that without considering the

same the Respondents issued charge sheet bearing No.422/01/11552/2000-1 dated 31.1.2001 alleging that

(a)unauthorized absence as per Standing Orders 15(1)(e); (b) willful insubordination or disobedience of any

lawful orders of the superiors [Standing Orders 15(1)(a)]; (c) Commission of an act of subversive discipline

[Standing Order 15 (1) (h)], as per the certified Standing Orders of the company and also within the general

meaning of misconduct. After receipt of the charge sheet the Petitioner submitted his explanation through his

counsel on 2.2.2001 stating that he has been suffering from low back pain for the last two years and he was

getting treatment from time to time and the same was informed to the Respondents’ company along with

medical certificates. It is also submitted that instead of considering the above explanation submitted by the

Petitioner the Respondent passed order for a Departmental enquiry into the alleged unauthorized absence and

misconduct and accordingly an inquiry was conducted. It is submitted that after completion of the enquiry the

Enquiry Officer submitted the report dated 30.4.2001 holding the charges proved against the Petitioner. The

Petitioner submitted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and there was no

evidence before the Enquiry Officer to show that the Petitioner has committed all the irregularities as alleged

by the Respondents. After receipt of the enquiry report the Petitioner submitted his objection to the enquiry

report on 19.5.2001 stating that the Enquiry Officer being biased has caused great injustice to the Petitioner

and the Enquiry Officer failed to consider his legal defence and also failed to discuss the material aspects

available in the record and reasonable opportunity was not given to the Petitioner to defend his case properly.

Subsequently, the Respondent issued show cause notice dated 28.5.2001 proposing major punishment of

dismissal from service. It is also submitted that the action of the management in dismissing the Petitioner

from service the proceeding dated 11.7.2001 is illegal and arbitrary and unjust. It is further submitted that

before passing the order of dismissal, the Respondents have not taken into consideration of the past service

record of the Petitioner and the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is too harsh. The only allegation against

the Petitioner was that he unauthorizedly absented to his regular duties w.e.f. 23.2.1998 to 7.3.1998 which is

not so grave. It is further submitted that the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority

challenging the dismissal order dated 11.7.2001 with a request to reinstate him into service. But the Appellate

Authority rejected the appeal without assigning any valid reasons and finding no other alternative after

exhausting all the remedies the Petitioner was compelled to file this present application seeking relief

mentioned above.

6074

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2018/ASVINA 28, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3. The brief averments of the counter filed by the Respondents are as follows:

The Respondents filed counter denying the allegations made in the claim statement. The Respondent in its

counter has challenged the maintainability of the claim application. It is submitted that the

Manager(Production) and the General Manager are the officers of M/s. Bharat Electronics Limited. The

Petitioner cannot have any grievance against the above said officers in their individual capacities as well as,

the Respondents are not the necessary and proper party to the present proceedings. In any case the Manager

(Production) and the General Manager are personally liable to pay any amounts to the Petitioner. it is also

stated that the averments made by the Petitioner in his claim statement is not correct. The stand of the

Petitioner that he worked continuously in his duty from the date of his joining without any unblemished

record is not correct. Previously the Petitioner suffered the punishment of stoppage of 3 increments vide order

No.422/11552/19999/531 dated 6.5.99 for the proved misconduct of absence without leave from 9.3.1998

vide memo No.422/01/11552/98, dated 28.3.1998. The Petitioner had also suffered the punishment of

demotion to the next lower grade i.e., to the grade of Wage IV vide order No.422/01/11552/2000-2001 for

proved misconduct of engaging himself in private trade or business and unauthorized absence from duty vide

charge No.422/01/11552/1999 dated 24.7.1999. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that he worked

continuously without any break from service is totally false. Sufficient opportunity had been given to the

Petitioner to participate in the domestic enquiry. The Petitioner has participated in the enquiry and after

recording the evidence of both the sides the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report. The Respondent

management basing on the enquiry report has passed the order of dismissal. The Petitioner is not entitled to

get any relief including the relief of reinstatement into service. The management has rightly taken the decision

for dismissal of the Petitioner from service. The allegation of the Petitioner is false and frivolous. The

management has rightly passed the order considering all the aspect which needs no interference.

The domestic enquiry conducted in this case by the Respondents was challenged by the Petitioner and

after hearing both the sides, this court held the domestic enquiry conducted by the management as legal and

valid vide order dated 23.7.2009.

I have already heard the counsels for both the sides in this matter.

In view of the pleadings of both the parties, the following points are required to be determined:

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd., in dismissing the Petitioner

Sri M.V.S.R. Krishna Rao, w.e.f. 11.7.2001 vide proceedings No.422/01/11552/2001-02 dated

11.7.2001 is

legal and justified?

II.

If not, to what relief the Petitioner is entitled for?

Point No.I:

The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the

Petitioner joined in the service of the Respondents’ management as a technician apprentice in the year 1984

and after completion of 3 years of service on 10.10.88 he was ranked in the wage Group III, and basing on

his good performance, his appointment was confirmed w.e.f. 9.3.88 as Wage Group III employee and since

the date of his appointment the Petitioner was discharging his duties to the entire satisfaction of his superiors.

while the Petitioner was in duty, as a wage Group III employees, the Respondents issued one memo on

28.3.98 alleging that the Petitioner absented in his duty w.e.f. 23.2.1998 to 7.3.1998 on medical grounds and

without leave and without any intimation. The Management also issued charge sheet to the Petitioner who

had submitted his explanation to the charge sheet given by the Respondents’ management. But the

Respondents’ management conducted one domestic enquiry. Though in the domestic enquiry, the Petitioner

had participated, but the enquiry was not conducted fairly following the principles of natural justice, and

without considering the submission of the Petitioner, the Enquiry Officer held the charges levelled against the

Petitioner were proved and submitted his report. The Petitioner submitted his explanation to the enquiry

report and it was not considered by the Disciplinary Authority, and order was passed for dismissal of the

Petitioner from service. The Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was also not

considered. While passing the order, the Respondents did not consider the past conduct of the Petitioner who

had an unblemished service career. The Learned Counsel of the Petitioner also submitted that the Petitioner

was suffering from acute low back pain and was undergoing treatment in the hospital from time to time. After

his dismissal from service he has been facing severe financial constraints and has been facing difficulties in

eaking out his livelihood as because he has faced mental agony towards financial problem. The punishment

imposed on the Petitioner is highly disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged charges and the order of

dismissal passed by the Respondents’ management is irregular, untenable and unconstitutional and opposed

to public policy. The order of dismissal is in violation of the principles of natural justice. As the Petitioner

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 20] 2018@vkf'ou 28] 1940

6075

was not given reasonable opportunity to submit his defence such an order was passed. He further contended

that the Petitioner is the sole earning member of his family, unless the Petitioner is reinstated into service he

will put to serious and irreparable loss. In support of his contentions he relied on a decision of the Hon'ble

Apex Court reported in the case of Chhel Singh Vs. Gramin Bank reported in 2014 (13) SCC page 166,

wherein their Lordships held that, neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the inquiry authority had held that the

medical certificates submitted by the Petitioner herein were forged or fabricated and that in absence of such

evidence and finding, it was not open to the inquiry or the Disciplinary Authority to disbelieve the medical

certificates without any valid reason. As such his contentions in the present case, is that though the Petitioner

has submitted his medical certificates to the Respondent management. but, without taking the same into

consideration, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to hold that the charges against the Petitioner were held proved.

He also relied on another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, decided in the case of Chairman cum Managing

Director, Coal India Ltd., Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhrui reported in 2009(15) SCC 620, wherein it was

contended that in the above case the apex Court had considered a similar case of unauthorized absence

wherein the employee was removed from service. The Hon’ble Court framed an issue at para 15 of the

judgement stating that whether the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to the proved

charge of unauthorized absence for more than six months? The Hon’ble Court after referring to various

charge sheeted employee laws regarding the doctrine of proportionality has held in para -20 of the judgement

that one of the tests applied while dealing with the quantum of punishment: would be any reasonable

employer have imposed such punishment in like circumstances, and that obviously a reasonable employer is

expected to take into consideration measure, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other relevant

circumstances and exclude irrelevant matters before imposing punishment. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court set aside the order of removal from service and directed reinstatement of the Petitioner into service. As

per his contention in the given case, the period of unauthorized absence is from 23.2.98 to 7.3.98, i.e., about

one month, due to such absence no pecuniary loss is caused to the Respondents’ company. The punishment

imposed on the Petitioner is too harsh basing on the gravity of the charge levelled against the Petitioner.

therefore, the order of dismissal is liable to be set aside in view of the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court. He

also relied on another decision decided in the case of Bhagwan Lal Arya Vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi

(2004 (4) SCC 560) wherein their Lordships held that unauthorized absence for more than 2 months on the

ground of medical benefits can not be termed as grave misconduct and thus, the order of dismissal from

service is disproportionate to the charges alleged. The Learned Counsel further submitted that in view of the

decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is disproportionate and the

same is liable to be set aside. The Petitioner has already rendered more than 16 years of service with the

Respondents’ and since the date of his appointment i.e., 1984 to 11.7.2001, till the punishment order without

any break. The Respondents imposed major punishment of dismissal from service which is illegal arbitrary

and unjust. It is submitted to set aside the dismissal order and direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner

into service with full back wages and all other attendant benefits.

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Petitioner was in the

habit of remaining unauthorizedly absent. The Petitioner has not come to the court with clean hand. The

Petitioner has not disclosed about his past conduct. Previously due to unauthorized absence he has been

given punishment for stoppage of three increments vide order No. 422/11552/19999/531 dated 6.5.99 for the

proved misconduct of absence without leave from 9.3.1998 vide memo No.422/01/11552/98, dated 28.3.1998.

The Petitioner also suffered the punishment of demotion to the next lower grade i.e., to the grade of Wage IV

vide order No.422/01/11552/2000-2001 for proved misconduct of engaging himself in the private trade or

business and unauthorized absence from duty vide charge No.422/01/11552/1999 dated 24.7.1999. The

Petitioner was not regular to his duties. The stand of the Petitioner that he worked continuously without any

break from service is totally false and he had an unblemished character is also not correct. The Respondents

management has considered the past conduct of the Petitioner and imposed the punishment. The enquiry was

conducted by the management by following the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner has fully

participated in the enquiry and put forth his grievances before the Enquiry Officer who, after considering all

the matters available before him has submitted his report holding the charges levelled against the Petitioner as

proved. Sufficient opportunity had been given to the Petitioner to participate in the domestic enquiry and

submit his explanation to the enquiry report. After receipt of the explanation of the Petitioner the Disciplinary

Authority was agreed to the findings of the Enquiry Officer and passed the order of punishment for dismissal

from service. The Appellate Authority after considering all the aspects rejected the appeal. The Respondents

management has rightly passed the dismissal order which needs no interference.

.On consideration of the rival contentions of both the sides it is noticed that the enquiry conducted by

the management was challenged before this Tribunal and after considering all the aspects this Tribunal has

6076

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2018/ASVINA 28, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondents’ management is legal and valid. It is seen that

the Department has conducted the enquiry following the principles of natural justice and the Petitioner has

been given ample opportunity to put forth his grievances before the Respondents management. The Petitioner

has stated that he had unblemished service career. But, during the course of enquiry, the Petitioner has

disclosed that previously he had been punished on the allegation of unauthorized absence, and there was

stoppage of three increments and also he had been punished for the charges of misconduct about his

involvement in private trade or business. Though for the last time he has been punished only for unauthorized

absence but the Respondents management after considering all the past conduct of the Petitioner has passed

the order. If the employee of the management will act violating the rules and guidelines of the management,

and will not be dutiful obviously the management will be collapsed, and there will be no discipline in the

Department. If lenient view will be taken against a wrong doer, obviously others will be encouraged to

commit similar offences and the management can not run smoothly. The Petitioner has not come to the court

in clean hand and has not disclosed his past conduct. When the Petitioner has not come to the court with

clean hands he should not expect to get equitable relief. Therefore in this case, no reasonable grounds are

available to take any lenient view in favour of the Petitioner and it is held that the management has rightly

passed the dismissal order which needs no interference.

Thus, Point No.I is answered accordingly.

10.

Point No.II: In view of the findings given in Point No.I, the Petitioner is not entitled to get any relief.

Hence, order.

Thus, Point No.II is answered accordingly.

ORDER

The action of the management of M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd., in dismissing the Petitioner Sri

M.V.S.R. Krishna Rao, w.e.f. 11.7.2001 vide proceedings No.422/01/11552/2001-02 dated 11.7.2001 is legal

and justified. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

Award is passed accordingly.

Dictated to Smt P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 2^nd

day of August, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2018

dk-vk-1500-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] {ksf=;

izca/kd] yklZu ,aM Vqczks fyfeVsM] gSnjkckn&8 vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV

¼LC No. 138/2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-09-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42025@03@2018&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

jktsanz tks’kh] mi funs’kd

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 20] 2018@vkf'ou 28] 1940

6077

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2018

S.O. 1500.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (LC No. 138/2006) of the Central Government Industrual Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the a Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Regional

Manager, Larsen & Toubro Limited, Hyderabad and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on

20.09.2018.

[No. L-42025/03/2018– IR(DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri Muralidhar Pradhan , Presiding Officer

Dated the 10^th day of August, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No.138/2006

Between:

Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav,

S/o Seetaram Yadav,

Ro H.No.2-98, Main Road, Nanakaramguda,

Sherlingampally Mandal,

Hyderabad.

… Petitioner

AND

The Regional Manager,

M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited,

ECC Division, D.No.6-3-1109/1,

Navbharat Chamber, Rajbhavan Road,

Hyderabad – 8.

The Project Manager,

M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited,

ECC Division, Microsoft Campus site,

Building No.3, Gachibouli,

Hyderabad

..Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. K. Ajay Kumar, Sudha, & M. Govind. Advocates

For the Respondent:

M/s. G. Vidyasagar, K. Udayasree, P. Sudheer Rao & D. Madhusudhan,

Advocates

AWARD

Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav who worked as Driver (who will be referred to as workman) has filed this

petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents M/s. Larsen & Toubro

Limited seeking for declaring the oral termination order dated 17.7.2006 issued by the Respondent

management as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently directing the Respondent to reinstate

the Petitioner into service duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back

wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems fit.

6078

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2018/ASVINA 28, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner joined as Driver in the Respondent management in the year 1994 and was discharging his

duties as per the instruction of the superiors and working continuously there with clean record of service and

as such he was working to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors. The Petitioner worked with the

Respondents on various sites and worked for more than 240 days in each completing year. The Respondent

terminated the service of the Petitioner on 28.12.2002 for which he raised the dispute before this Tribunal

which was numbered as ID No.7/2005. It is submitted that during the pendency of the above dispute, the

Respondent reinstated the Petitioner into service and provided all the benefits, the Petitioner did not contest

the above dispute and this court passed a nil award by an order dated 31.1.2006. It is further stated that on

17.7.2006 while the Petitioner was in service, the second Respondent orally terminated the service of the

Petitioner which is illegal, unjust and contrary to the law and amounts to retrenchment as per the provisions

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also stated that on 18.7.2006, the Petitioner reported to duty and

requested to Respondent No.2 for permission to discharge his duties. The Respondent No.2 did not permit the

Petitioner to discharge his duties with effect from 18.7.2006. The Petitioner submitted that though he has

approached several times to the Respondents management the Respondent did not permit the Petitioner to

discharge his duties. When all his efforts were vain, the Petitioner made representation on 26.7.2006 to the

Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District Circle, Hyderabad who issued notice to the

Respondents and tried to arrange a meeting of conciliation, and asked the Respondents for reply. But the

Respondents did not submit any reply and the matter was not settled there. The Petitioner has submitted that

the Respondents through People Care Consulting sent a demand draft No.038071 dated 11.8.2006 for

Rs.5512/- towards full and final settlement of the dispute. It is further submitted that after the termination of

service of the Petitioner, the Respondents’ management had neither issued one month prior notice nor paid

one month notice pay or retrenchment compensation to the Petitioner. The Respondents terminated the

service of the Petitioner by oral order dated 17.7.2006 which is illegal unjust, and contrary to Law and in

violation of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioner also submitted that the Respondents

management have not taken any disciplinary action into any of the charges before terminating the services of

the Petitioner. the Petitioner further submitted that he has not committed misconduct nor there was any

malafide intention to cause dislocation of work or financial loss to the Respondents’ industry. He has never

acted against the interest of the Respondents’ management. Since the date of termination the Petitioner has

never employed anywhere else and due to termination of his service he is unable to provide food and water to

his family members. With these averments, the Petitioner submitted to declare the action of the management

in terminating the Petitioner from service, orally as illegal and unjustified and direct the Respondents’

management to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, back wags and other benefits as the court

may deem fit and proper.

The Respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the petition, with the averments

in brief which runs as follows:

In their counter they have challenged the maintainability of the dispute raised by the Petitioner. It is stated

that there is no employer and employee relationship between the Respondents and the Petitioner and as such

there is no privity of contract between the parties. The Petitioner was employed by a contractor namely

People Care Consultants. As such people’s Care Consultants is the proper and necessary party to the present

proceedings and its presence is required for adjudicating the matter in dispute. The Petitioner is in habit of

making untenable claims with an intention of making unlawful gains. The Petitioner has approached this

Tribunal with unclean hands and is guilty of gross suppression of material facts. The allegation made by the

Petitioner are totally misconceived and false. It is stated that once the Petitioner was working at various sites

of the Respondents as casual labour. The allegation of the Petitioner that he was working under the

Respondents at the time of termination of his service is false and the allegation of the Petitioner that he was

illegally terminated by oral order is false. The Petitioner has been engaged by the Respondents management

for specific project and after completion of that project, the Petitioner was advised not to come. The

Petitioner was never deployed as a driver on casual basis at various projects under taken by the Respondents’

management from time to time. The allegation of the Petitioner is that he was engaged to work under the

Respondents’ at various sites and has worked for more than 240 days in each completing year is false. The

Petitioner had worked for the project of construction of the Multi Level Car Parking for the Microsoft

building from 28.2.2006 till 17.7.2006. The construction of the subject Microsoft site was completed in the

month of July, 2006 after which the Petitioner was disengaged. The question of the alleged retrenchment of

the Petitioner does not arise. The averment of the Petitioner that he had worked for 240 days continuously is

only to maintain the present application. The Petitioner has filed ID No.7/2005 for wrongful gains on false

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 20] 2018@vkf'ou 28] 1940

6079

and created grounds. It is stated that admittedly an amount of Rs.5512/- has been paid to the Petitioner

towards notice pay and retrenchment compensation, which was sought to be paid to the Petitioner by the sub

contractor. The mandatory requirement under the relevant provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has

been complied with and the present petition is not maintainable in the eye of law. The allegation of the

Petitioner that he has become unemployed is totally false. With the above averments the Respondents

submitted for dismissal of the claim of the Petitioner.

The Petitioner is examined himself as WW1 and marked seven documents as Ex.W1 to W7. The

Respondents’ management examined Sri R. Ramana Kumar, Cluster Accounts and Administration Manager

as MW1 and Sri Saida Reddy Anumola, Asst. Accounts Manager as MW2 and marked four documents as

Exs.M1 to M4 on behalf of the management.

I have already heard arguments from both the sides.

The Points for determination are:

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Larsen & Toubro

Limited in terminating the

services of Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Driver w.e.f. 17.7.2006 orally is legal and justified?

II.

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

III. If not, to what other relief he is entitled?

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner was working under the 2^nd

Respondent in the year 1994 as a Driver. His work was perennial in nature. He worked at various areas of

Andhra Pradesh and worked for more than 240 days in a year. The Respondents terminated his service on

28.2.2002 for which the Petitioner raised the dispute before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Hyderabad and the same was numbered as ID 7/2005. During the pendency of the above

dispute, the Respondents reinstated the Petitioner into service. He was under the impression that he would get

all the benefits for which he did not contest the case and the case was disposed of and a nil award was passed

on 31.1.2006. He also contended that without assigning any reason by an oral order dated 17.7.2006, the

second Respondent orally terminated the service of the Petitioner. On 18.7.2006, the Petitioner requested

Respondent No.2 for permission to join his duties but he did not allow him to work. There after, on

26.7.2006 he made one representation to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District Circle,

Hyderabad who arranged a meeting of the Respondents and the Petitioner. But the Respondents did not

turn up. He also contended that the 2^nd Respondent through People Care Consulting sent a demand draft

bearing No.038071 dated 11.8.2006 for Rs.5512/- towards full and final settlement. But the Respondents’

management have neither issued one month prior notice nor paid one month notice pay or retrenchment

compensation to the Petitioner while terminating him from service which is illegal, unjust and contrary to the

provisions of law and amounts to retrenchment, in violation of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

He further contended that the Respondents’ management has not taken any disciplinary action into any of the

charges before terminating the services of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not committed any misconduct

nor there was any malafide intention to cause dislocation of work or financial loss to the Respondents’

industry. It is also contended that the Petitioner has remained unemployed and due to termination of his

service he is unable to provide bread and butter to his family members. Lastly, he contended that this court

may set aside the termination order passed by the Respondents’ management against the Petitioner and direct

the Respondents’ management to reinstate him into service.

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents contended that in fact

the Petitioner has never joined in the service of the Respondents’ management in the year 1994 as a Driver.

There is no employer and employee relationship between the Respondents’ and the Petitioner and as such

there is no privity of contract between the parties. The Petitioner was employed by a sub-contractor namely

People Care Consultants. The Petitioner has not impleaded the said People’s Care Consultants as a party to

the present proceedings and its presence is required for adjudicating the matter in dispute. The Petitioner has

wantonly avoided to implead the sub-contractor as party in the present proceeding. The case is also liable to

be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of the present Respondents. The Petitioner

is not a workman within the meaning of Sec.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such the present

dispute is not maintainable at all. The allegation of the Petitioner that he was illegally terminated from

service vide oral order dated 17.7.2006 is totally false. The Petitioner is required to prove this allegation

strictly. It is further contended that as the nature of business and activity attached to Respondents No.1

company is of sporadic and intermittent in nature and do not require employees like drivers, etc., on full

time basis which was in the practice of deploying such drivers on casual basis at its project site, for each of

6080

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2018/ASVINA 28, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

its specific projects, so that such deployment lasts during the execution of the project and ceased with the

completion of the specific project and such deployment were/or co-terminus with the specific projects. He

also contended that such deployments used to be done by the Respondents’ company through the contractors/

sub-contractors which is necessary expertise in such areas, considering the work and business exigencies,

because such activities are incidentally and ancillary to the main construction. Thus, disengagement of such

technicians either as a result of completion of the project or the specific work, does not amount to

retrenchment within the meaning of Sec.2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, because they fall under

the exception carved out under sub-section (bb) thereof. He also contended that the Petitioner was deployed

as a driver on casual basis on various projects undertaken by the first Respondent company from time to time

and all such deployments ceased with the cessation of the respective projects. The allegation of the

Petitioner that he has worked for the project of construction of the Multi Level Car Parking for the Microsoft

building from 28.2.2006 till 17.7.2006 is totally false. The construction of the subject Microsoft site was

completed in the month of July, 2006 after which the Petitioner was disengaged. Therefore, the question of

the alleged retrenchment of the Petitioner does not arise. The allegation of the Petitioner that he had worked

for 240 days continuously is only to maintain the present application. The allegation of the Petitioner that he

was terminated from service on 28.12.2002 and during the pendency of ID No.7/2005 he was reinstated into

service were totally false. At the time when the Petitioner was working at Ravulapalem and as the work of

the said site had come an end , an amount of Rs.5512/- has been paid to the Petitioner towards notice full and

final settlement. But the Petitioner had falsely initiated ID No.7/2005. It is further contended that during the

pendency of ID No.7/2005 the Petitioner had approached the Respondents on 9.4.2003 stating that he was in

dire need of employment to support his family, and requested the management for employment. The

Petitioner also undertook that he would withdraw the above case, and it was wrongly filed against the

managements. The Petitioner also undertook that he would not file any similar legal case in any court of Law

and would not insist for joining service in a particular site of the company. The Petitioner has also executed a

letter dated 10.4.2003 to that effect. The above stated ID was dismissed for non-appearance of the Petitioner

and again the Petitioner has filed the present petition after completion of the project, apparently with a

malafide intention for unlawful gain. The allegation of the Petitioner that he has been terminated from service

w.e.f. 17.7.2006 is totally false. When the Petitioner has not been employed by the Respondents’ company,

the question of removal from service does not arise. It is also contended that the job of construction of the

subject building was completed in the month of July, 2006 itself. So there was no question of alleged

retrenchment of the Petitioner by the Respondents on completion of the project work. The above said fact was

also brought to the notice of the sub-contractor who in turn informed the Petitioner. But the Petitioner has

suppressed the above facts and has proceeded to file the present litigation. The allegation of the Petitioner that

the Dy. CLC(C), Hyderabad arranged their joint meeting and the Respondents did not attend the meeting is

also false. It is also contended that an amount of Rs.5512/- has been paid to the Petitioner towards notice

pay and retrenchment compensation, which was sought to be paid to the Petitioner by the sub contractor. The

mandatory requirement under the relevant provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been complied

with, and the present petition is not maintainable in the eye of law and deserves to be dismissed. It is also

submitted that the Petitioner has already taken employment and only filed this petition in order to harass the

Respondents.

On consideration of the rival contentions of the counsels of both the sides, it is seen that, admittedly,

ID No.7/2005 had been filed by the Petitioner as revealed from the copy of the reference available in the case

record. The Petitioner has not relied on any document to prove that he had joined under the Respondents in

the year 1994. The Petitioner workman in his examination in chief has stated that he joined in the service of

the Respondents’ management in the year 1994 and he admitted that he has not produced any document to

show that he worked with the Respondents since the year 1994 and continued there up to the year 2002. In

view of the admission of the workman that he worked under Respondents since 1994 and continued there

upto 2002 is not accepted. The documents relied on by the workman shows that he has joined as a driver on

temporary and casual basis only. He has joined as a driver but his tenure of employment was casual and

temporary @ Rs.100.96 per day and his wage period was fortnightly by order dated 1.1.2002. This clearly

shows that he engaged in the service of the Respondents as a casual driver. During the period of his service

he had filed an application before the Legal Services Authority under Sec.12(f) of the Legal Services

Authority Act, 1987, wherein he has mentioned that he engaged under the Respondents as long back as on

1.1.2002 and worked till 20.6.2002, and was suddenly ousted from service without any reason. The matter

was settled before the Chairman, Legal Service Authority by order dated 3.2.2004, wherein it has been from

the side of the Respondents that the Petitioner failed to discharge his duty on 27.12.2002 and the Petitioner is

removed from service for his insubordination and disobedience and the Petitioner submitted a letter

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 20] 2018@vkf'ou 28] 1940

6081

admitting to withdraw his case. The Petitioner also signed in that settlement receipt. And the Petitioner was

advised to move the competent authority to agitate for his rights. And with the above observation the claim of

the Petitioner was closed. Similarly, the workman in his cross examination admitted that he has no knowledge

of Peoples Care Consultancy. But in his claim petition for workman has admitted that he has received a sum

of Rs.5512/- through DD from Peoples Care Consultancy, this shows that the Petitioner has knowledge about

the Peoples Care Consultancy but he is reluctant to disclose the above fact. MW1 and MW2 in their evidence

have also admitted that the Petitioner was working for the Respondents. MW2 has also specifically admitted

that the Petitioner has worked as a casual worker and the management has issued service certificate to the

workers. Similarly MW1 admitted about payment of vouchers to the Petitioner under Ex.W8 series. But

stated that the signature of the contractor is available in the pay slips. He also he admitted that those pay slips

vide Ex.W8 (bunch) are pay slips of the company. He also admitted that Respondent No.2 has issued

appointment order vide Ex.W1 in favour of the Petitioner for construction work. MW1 admitted that

retrenchment compensation was paid to the Petitioner, but bonus has not been paid and the retrenchment

compensation has been paid as per the statute. But he denied to the suggestion of the Petitioner that they

have issued temporary appointment order under Ex.W1, so they are bound to issue termination order at the

time of terminating the Petitioner. He admitted that as per clause 1-24 hours notice in writing is required to be

issued on either side but he is unable to say whether such notice has been served by either parity in this case

or not. On consideration of the evidence adduced by both the sides it is made clear that the Petitioner

workman was working as a casual driver under Respondents management since the year 2002. But not in

between 2002 and 2003, he has been retrenched from service and again as per the intervention of the Legal

Services Authority, he was taken into service, and in the year 2006 he was working under a sub-contractor and

a sum of Rs.5512/- has been paid to him. Since the Petitioner was working as Driver under the Respondents

for the work site, his service had been required regularly. Even though no document has been produced from

the side of the Petitioner to show that he has worked for more than 240 days in a year, but considering the

nature of duty of a driver, it is to be held that the work of the Petitioner as a driver was perennial in nature,

and he had worked for 240 days in a year and the services of the Petitioner were not terminated by following

the procedure laid down under Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. at the time of termination he

should be issued one month notice in writing, indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the Petitioner

should have been paid one month wage in lieu of the notice and he was not paid the retrenchment

compensation of 15 days average pay for every completed year of service. Therefore, the termination or

retrenchment of the Petitioner in this case is in violation of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Since the Respondents have not given one month notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment

and the Petitioner was not paid one month wages in lieu of notice and further the Petitioner was not paid

retrenchment compensation of 15 days average pay for every completed year of service. The retrenchment or

termination of the Petitioner is illegal. In view of the discussion made above, it is made clear that the

termination of service of the Petitioner w.e.f. 17.7.2006 is illegal and not justified and the Respondents are

directed to reinstate the Petitioner into service as a casual temporary driver without back wages.

Thus, Point Nos I, II & III are answered accordingly.

ORDER

The termination of service of the Petitioner Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Driver, w.e.f. 17.7.2006 is

illegal and not justified and the Respondents are directed to reinstate the Petitioner into service as a casual

temporary driver without back wages. The Respondents are also directed to consider the Petitioner for

conversion into full time casual driver under the relevant rules and scheme. If, the Petitioner is not entitled or

eligible under the said rules for conversion into full time casual labourer the Respondents are at liberty to

retrench the Petitioner only by following the procedures laid down for retrenchment under the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this

the 10^th day of August, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

6082

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2018/ASVINA 28, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1; Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

MW1: Sri R. Ramana Kumar

MW2: Sri Saida Reddy Anumola

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1:

Office letter of Respondent company dt.1.1.2002

Ex.W2:

Employment card of Respondent company

Ex.W3:

Photostat copy of internal communication office letter of Respondent company dt.28.11.2001

Ex.W4:

Photostat copy of reference order of Ministry of Labour and Employment dt.28.10.2004

Ex.W5:

Photostat copy of representation of WW1 to the Dy.CLC(C) 26.7.2006

Ex.W6:

Photostat copy of office lr. of Peoples Care Consultancy, Hyderabad

Ex.W7:

Photostat copy of petition u/s.12(f) of L.S.A. Act, 1987 and order of Lok Adalat

Ex.W8:

Bunch of Pay slips

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1:

Attendance card for the month of May, 2006

Ex.M2:

Attendance card for the month of July, 2006

Ex.M3:

Service certificate dt.28.8.2009

Ex.M4:

Service certificate dt.28.8.2009

ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2018

dk-vk-1501-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]

egkizca/kd] ch,l,u,y] if’pe xksnkojh ftyk] vka/zk izns’k ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds

iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 60/2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-09-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40011@38@2007&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

jktsanz tks’kh] mi funs’kd

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2018

S.O. 1501.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 60/2007) of the Central Government Industrual Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General

Manager, BSNL, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 20.09.2018.

[No. L-40011/38/2007– IR(DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan , Presiding Officer

Dated the 30^th day of July, 2018

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 20] 2018@vkf'ou 28] 1940

6083

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 60/2007

Between:

Sri K.S.R.Murthy,

The District Secretary,

Dondapadu Dibba, Sanivarapu Pet (P.O.)

Eluru – 534003.

…Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

Telecom Distt.,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Eluru,

West Godavari District. (A.P.)

… Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri R. Yogender Singh, Advocate

For the Respondent :

M/s. M.C. Jacob & K. Ajay Kumar, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 40011/38/2007-IR(DU) dated

1.11.2007 referred the following dispute between the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., and their

workmen under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of BSNL, in engaging the Telecom Mechanics of Group “C”

Cadre for doing duties of Group ‘D’ is legal and/or justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are

entitled to?”

On receipt of the reference this Tribunal has registered and numbered the reference as I.D. No. 60/2007 and

issued notices to both the workmen and the management. They both appeared before the court and engaged

their respective counsels with the leave of the court and consent of either party.

The averments made in the claim statement in brief are as follows:

The Petitioner being the Secretary of their union representing their members alleged that as per the letter of

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi, Lr. No.L-40011/38/2007-IR(DU)

dated 1.11.2007 which was received on 20.11.2007, the Telecom Mechanic cadre is a technical cadre and they

should be posted in new technology area exchanges i.e., internal maintenance / external maintenance and

local numbers faults and also as per the training given to them as Telecom Mechanic. Vide Department of

Telecom, New Delhi Lr. No.27-4/87-TE.II dated 16.10.1990 they have been specified the duties of Telecom

Mechanics. The same was reiterated vide DOT Lr. No.29-1/96-TE.II dated 3.4.1996 vide letter of Chief

General Manager, Telecom, A.P. Circle, Hyd.Lr. No.TA/STB / 6-5/4 and in the monthly meeting dated

18.11.99, it has been stated that “while promoting the group-D/RMs./etc., officials to the Telecom Mechanic

cadre, they are still being allowed to work in the feeder cadre posts, which is highly irregular. The position

may be reviewed and necessary action may kindly be taken, so that the Telecom Mechanics are to be posted

and utilized in the new technology area. It is stated that the members of the Petitioner union and Branch

Secretaries were transferred to rural area exchanges from indoor Group-D to out-door duties in new

technology area exchanges on the basis of their promotion to the cadre of Telecom Mechanic and the requests

of the officials to retain them in the Group-D duties, in the same station are not considered. For example:

Sri V.YV.N. Swamy, G. Durga Rao and Sri G. Balakrishna Prasad etc., were transferred and posted to various

rural exchanges in the districts of the Petitioners. It is further stated that in view of the rules and regulations

mentioned above some group-D officials working in G.M. Office, Eluru were retained in the same Group-D

and were reinstated in the same Group-D duties, after giving promotion in Telecom Mechanics, to make

favour to a particular batch of officials and a particular union members with personal interest of the then

District Officers. It is also stated that Eight Group-D officials working in G.M. Office, Eluru and who got

6084

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2018/ASVINA 28, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

promotion to the cadre of Telecom Mechanic., even after completion of training to the cadre of Telecom

Mechanic were posted in G.M. Office in Group-D duties. The case of the Petitioner union is that they have

challenged the inaction of the Respondent office in utilizing the services of Group-C employees i.e.,

Telecom Mechanics (TMs) in Group D services inspite of the direction of the Manager and inspite of the

vacancy available in Group-C cadre. It is further stated that there were 75 vacancies of Telecom Mechanics

till the date of raising the dispute and the Respondent failed to fill up the vacancies inspite of availability of

the Telecom mechanics without assigning any reasons. It is also stated that the basic pay of Telecom

Mechanics is R.4700/- and basic pay of Group D is Rs.4000/-. The Telecom Mechanics will be trained for 8

weeks to do the duties in new technical areas but unfortunately the Respondent failed to adhere the

reasons/demand of the workers’ union, which resulted into raising the dispute. There was a conciliation

between the union and the Respondent management, but the same was resulted into failure due to the

divergent opinion of both the parties. The Petitioner union filed writ petition bearing No. 13223 of 2007,

which resulted into reference of the above dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication. it is also stated that there

are specific directions from the Telecom Department that the Telecom Mechanics should be utilized in new

technology area without engaging them in their feeder cadre. These directions were passed way back in the

year 1999 i.e., vide letter of CGMT-AP.HYD.Lr.No.TA-STV/6-5 dated 18/11/1999. But the management

during the conciliation proceedings stated that the “the bearest number of telecom Mechanics are working in

GMTD, Eluru mostly consisting of workmen employees and some employees on medical grounds and there

are working basing on their request only. ----If they are ready to work in technical area, the management has

no objection to post them in the technical area. No where, it is mentioned that casual mazdoors are to be

engaged in Group-D duties.” This shows that the Respondent by violating the Departmental order dated

18.11.1999 have posted the Telecom Mechanics in Group-D cadre. It is further stated that the Petitioner

union has intimated the above vacancy position for the entire state to the Respondents stating that in West

Godavari, there are 75 vacancies of TM, but unfortunately these vacancies are lying vacant inspite of

availability of suitable candidates, the reasons best known to the Respondent’s management. The Petitioner

has also submitted to direct the Respondent management to correct the irregular posts (TMs) in Group-D

duties in the office of the General Manager, Eluru, and to post them into technical area by filling of the

existing vacancies in West Godavari district and also pass order and such other orders and further orders as

this court deems fit and proper.

Respondent filed it’s counter with the averments in brief as follows:

The Respondent in it’s counter while denying the facts averred in the claim statement, has specifically

challenged the maintainability of the dispute raised before this Tribunal stating that the Petitioner union is

required to prove the same with cogent evidence. It is stated that the employees were mainly women

employees and basing on their request only on medical grounds and as per their willingness they have been

posted and the Department never forced any employee to work in the office. It is stated that posting and

transfers are taken place as per the policy/guidelines and not basing on the union affiliations. The

engagement of casual labourers in the Department is prohibited and there is shortage of staff in every cadre in

the Telecom Department and they have engaged them as per their requirement. It is further stated that as all

the mazdoors are taken to the main stream of the Department as Telecom Mechanics etc., the administration

decided to post some of them in the office. All the staffs with the medical problems are being considered for

posting as per the requirement, and the posting of the employees either in rural area or in the urban area is

made as per the policy of the Department. The Petitioners have not approached this Tribunal fairly and have

approached the court superseding the facts and making some false allegations against the Respondent without

any evidence. With these averments the Respondent submitted for dismissal of the claim of the Petitioner

union.

The Petitioner union have not adduced it’s evidence. Though the Petitioner union filed the chief

evidence affidavit of the witness but he failed to attend the court to face the cross examination. Only the

Respondent examined one witness as MW1.

I have already heard both the parties in this matter.

The points for determination are:

Whether the action of the management of BSNL in engaging the Telecom Mechanics of Group ‘C’

cadre for doing duties of Group ‘D’ is legal and justified?

II.

If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled for?

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 20] 2018@vkf'ou 28] 1940

6085

The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that as per the letter of the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi, the Telecom Mechanic cadre is a technical cadre

and they should be posted in new technology area exchanges, but violating the norms of the above letters,

they have been allowed to work in the feeder cadre posts, which is highly irregular. It is stated that the

members of the Petitioner union and Branch Secretaries were transferred to rural area exchanges from indoor

Group-D to out-door duties in new technology area exchanges on their promotion to the cadre of Telecom

Mechacnics. The requests of the officials to retain them in the Group-D duties, and in the same station are

not considered. It is further contended that in view of the rules and regulations mentioned above some

group-D officials working in G.M. Office, Eluru were retained in the same Group-D and were reinstated in

the same Group-D duties, after giving promotion in Telecom Mechanics, in order to make favour to a

particular batch of officials and a particular union members with personal interest of the then District

Officers. It is further contended that Eight Group-D officials working in G.M. Office, Eluru and who got

promotion to the cadre of Telecom Mechanic., even after completion of training to the cadre of Telecom

Mechanic were posted in G.M. Office in Group-D duties. It is further contended that the case of the

Petitioner union is that they have challenged the inaction of the Respondent’s office in utilizing the services

of Group-C employees i.e., Telecom Mechanics (TMs) in Group D services inspite of direction of the

Manager and inspite of vacancy available in Group-C cadre. It is further contended that there were 75

vacancies of Telecom Mechanics till the date of raising the dispute and the Respondent failed to fill up the

vacancies inspite of the availability of the Telecom mechanics without assigning any reasons. It is also

stated that the basic pay of the Telecom Mechanics is R.4700/- and the basic pay of Group D is Rs. 4000/-.

The Telecom Mechanics will be trained for 8 weeks to do the duties in new technical areas, but unfortunately

the Respondent failed to adhere the reasons/demand of the workers’ union which resulted into raising the

dispute. The action of the Respondent management is bad in the eye of law, and also irregular and arbitrary.

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the

Petitioner union is required to prove all the allegations with cogent evidence. The employees were mainly

women employees and as per their request on medical grounds and as per their willingness they have been

posted and the Department never forced any employee to work in the office. It is further contended that

posting and transfer of the employees are taken place as per the policy guidelines, and not basing on the

demand of the union. The engagement of casual labourers in the Department is prohibited and there is

shortage of staff in every cadre in the Telecom Department, and they have been engaged as per the

requirement of the Department. It is further contended that all the mazdoors are taken to the main stream of

the Department as Telecom Mechanics, and the administration decided to post some of them in the office.

All the staffs with medical problems are being considered for posting as per the requirement and the posting

of the employees either in rural area or in the urban area is made as per the policy of the Department. The

Petitioners have not approached this Tribunal fairly and have approached the court superseding the facts and

making some false allegations against the Respondent without any cogent evidence. The Learned Counsel for

the Respondent submitted to reject the claim of the Petitioner union.

Admittedly, the Petitioner union has not adduced any evidence in support of its claim even though

sufficient opportunity had been given to the Petitioner to adduce evidence. The Petitioner was failed to avail

the opportunity to prove it’s case by adducing evidence. On the other hand, the Respondent management

examined one of his employee, working as Sub-Divisional Engineer (Admn.) as MW1 who fully supported

the plea of the Respondent. The Respondent has also relied on 17 documents which are the willingness letter

of 17 employees. Those documents clearly indicate that the employees have been working in the office as

per their sweet will in the Group D cadre and they have no objection to work/discharge their duties in the

office of the General Manager/Technical side alone. These documents go to show that some of the employees

have worked in the office of the General Manager, Telecom District, Eluru for performing Group D duties.

These willingness letters go to show that the Respondent management has not compelled any of them to

perform the Group D duties. Therefore, in absence of any cogent evidence it can not be stated that the

Respondent management has illegally and arbitrarily engaged the Group C employees in Group D cadre. In

fact the Petitioner union has failed to establish the claim made by them in their claim statement. Therefore, it

can safely be stated that the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., in engaging the

Telecom Mechanics of Group ‘C’ cadre for doing the duty of Group ‘D’ is legal and justified and such action

of the Respondent management needs no interference.

Thus, Point No. I is answered accordingly.

10.

In view of the findings given in Point No.I, the Petitioner union is not entitled for any relief.

6086

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2018/ASVINA 28, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Thus, Point No.II is answered accordingly.

RESULT:

In the result, the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., in engaging the Telecom

Mechanics of Group ‘C’ Cadre for doing the duties of Group ‘D’ is legal and justified and the workmen are

not entitled to any relief as prayed for and as such the claim of the Petitioner union is dismissed. In the

circumstances stated above, there is no order as to costs.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this

the 30^th day of July, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

MW1: Sri K. Vijaya Babu

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1:

Willingness letter of Sri N. Srinivasa Rao

Ex.M2:

Willingness letter of Sri A.V. Ramulu

Ex.M3:

Willingness letter of Sri G. Navamani

Ex.M4:

Willingness letter of Sri D. Pentaiah

Ex.M5:

Willingness letter of Sri G. Sitaratnam

Ex.M6:

Willingness letter of Sri Ch. Pandu Ranga Rao

Ex.M7:

Willingness letter of Sri N. Vijaya Bharati

Ex.M8:

Willingness letter of Sri Y. LHRHR

Ex.M9:

Willingness letter of Sri A. Kanaka Rao

Ex.M10:

Willingness letter of Sri K. Nagamalleswara Rao

Ex.M11:

Willingness letter of Sri D.N.R. Raju

Ex.M12:

Willingness letter of Sri K.A. Narasamma

Ex.M13:

Willingness letter of Sri G. Sunbramanyam

Ex.M14:

Willingness letter of Sri T. Srinivasa Rao

Ex.M15:

Willingness letter of Sri R. Venkateswara Rao

Ex.M16:

Willingness letter of Sri K.V.S. Brahmam

Ex.M17:

Willingness letter of Sri A. Mary Grace

ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2018

dk-vk- 1502-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] mi

egkizca/kd] Hkkjr bysDVªkfuDl fyfeVsM] vkbZ bZ ukpkjke] gSnjkckn ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn

ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 46/2015) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-09-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&14011@09@2015&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

jktsanz tks’kh] mi funs’kd

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 20] 2018@vkf'ou 28] 1940

6087

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2018

S.O. 1502.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 46/2015) of the Central Government Industrual Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Deputy

General Manager, Bharat Electronics Limited, I E Nacharam, Hydearbad and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 20.09.2018.

[F. No. L-14011/09/2015– IR(DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

HYDERABAD

Present : Sri Muralidhar Pradhan,

Presiding Officer

Dated the 30^th day of July, 2018

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 46/2015

Between:

The President,

Bharat Electronics Contract Workers Union,

H.No.1-7-83/1/1, C/o CITU Office,

Kamalanagar, ECIL Post,

Hyderabad -500062.

… Petitioner

AND

The Deputy General Manager,

Bharat Electronics Limited,

I.E. Nacharam,

Hyderabad – 500 062.

… Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

Party in person

For the Respondent

: M/s. V. Uma Devi, N. Srinivas & A. Gopala Kishan Rao, Advocates

AWARD

This is a reference issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New

Delhi vide order No.L- 14011/09/2015 –IR(DU) dated 27.5.2015 whereunder this Tribunal is required to

adjudicate the dispute i.e.,

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics Limited, Hyderabad in not paying

skilled wages to five contract workers is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the five contract

workers are entitled to?

After receiving the above said reference, it was registered as ID No. 46/2015 in this Tribunal and

notices were issued to both the parties and secured their presence.

The case is posted for filing of claim statement and documents by the Petitioner union. At such stage,

the President of the Petitioners’ Union filed an application to withdraw the present case and accordingly, the

copy of the application was served to the Respondent.

In view of the application filed by the President of the Petitioner Union, at the consent of the

Respondent, the application is accepted and the case is allowed to be withdrawn by the Petitioner Union.

The reference is answered accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, and corrected by me on this the

30^th day of July, 2018.

MURALIDHAR PRADHAN, Presiding Officer

6088

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2018/ASVINA 28, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2018

dk-vk- 1503-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

,e@,l Cyw 'khYM izksVsD’ku usVodZ izkbosV fyfeVsM&11] ubZ fnYyh vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 54/2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-09-2018 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@75@2016&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

jktsanz tks’kh] mi funs’kd

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2018

S.O. 1503.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 54/2016) of the Central Government Industrual Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-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.-11, New Delhi & Others and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 20.09.2018.

[No. L-42012/75/2016– IR(DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SH. AVTAR CHAND DOGRA,

PRESIDING OFFICER-CUM-LINK OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, GOVERNMENT PRESS EXTENSION BUILDING,

SECTOR 18-A, CHANDIGARH-160018.

ID NO.54/2016

Sh. Rinku Kashyap, S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh, R/o Vill-Butana,

Teh-Nilokheri, Distt.Karnal (Haryana)-132117.

…Workman

Versus

M/s. Blue Shield Protection Network Pvt. Ltd. L-11, Green Park Extension, New Delhi-110016.

M/s. Soma Isolux Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office, Model Town,

Near Maruti Car Driving School., Ambala-Haryana-134003.

…Respondents

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide Letter No.L-

42012/75/2016-IR(DU) dated 21.09.2016 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:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 20] 2018@vkf'ou 28] 1940

6089

“Whether the action of the management M/s. Blue Shield Protection Network Pvt. Ltd. In

terminating the services of the workman Sh. Rinku Kashyap S/o Sh. Mohinder 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?”

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party/ies raising the dispute to file

statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this

Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of

claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant opted not

to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the managements.

The registered notice was sent on the address mentioned in the letter of reference. There is no other

address of workman available to this Court. Moreover, there is a presumption that a registered letter

sent to the addressee i.e. workman herein has been received by such addressee and rebuttal

presumption of service of notice arises in such a case. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to

abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement has been filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear

that the claimant is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the claimant has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his

cause against the managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No

Dispute/Claim Award’. Since there is no adjudication of reference or case on merits as such, it would

not preclude the workman from seeking fresh reference or filing fresh case in accordance with Law.

Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Place : Chandigarh

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

Dated : 04.09.2018

ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2018

dk-vk- 1504-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

,e@,l Cyw 'khYM izksVsD’ku usVodZ izkbosV fyfeVsM&11] ubZ fnYyh vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼ lanHkZ la[;k 44/2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-09-2018 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@65@2016&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

jktsanz tks’kh] mi funs’kd

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2018

S.O. 1504.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 44/2016) of the Central Government Industrual Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-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.-11, New Delhi & Others and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 20.09.2018.

[No. L-42012/65/2016– IR(DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

6090

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 20, 2018/ASVINA 28, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SH. AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER-CUM-LINK OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, GOVERNMENT PRESS

EXTENSION BUILDING, SECTOR 18-A, CHANDIGARH-160018

ID No. 44/2016

Sh. Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. Amar Singh, R/o Vill-Manak Majra,

P.O.-Arjehri, Teh-Nilokheri, Distt.Karnal(Haryana)

.… Workman

Versus

1. M/s. Blue Shield Protection Network Pvt. Ltd. L-11, Green Park Extension, New Delhi-110016.

2. M/s. Soma Isolux Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office, Model Town,

Near Maruti Car Driving School, Ambala-Haryana-134003

…Respondents

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide Letter No.

L-42012/65/2016-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. Blue Shield Protection Network Pvt. Ltd. In terminating the

services of the workman Sh. Ramesh Kumar Kumar S/o Sh. Amar 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?”

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the party/ies raising the dispute to file statement of

claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt

of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the

dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

On the receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the managements. The

registered notice was sent on the address mentioned in the letter of reference. There is no other address of workman

available to this Court. Moreover, there is a presumption that a registered letter sent to the addressee i.e. workman

herein has been received by such addressee and rebuttal presumption of service of notice arises in such a case.

Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement has been

filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the claimant is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the claimant has neither put in his appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause against the

managements, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim Award’. Since there

is no adjudication of reference or case on merits as such, it would not preclude the workman from seeking fresh

reference or filing fresh case in accordance with Law.

Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, for publication.

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

Place : Chandigarh

Dated: 04.09.2018

ubZ fnYyh] 26 flrEcj] 2018

dk-vk- 1505-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

,e@,l Cyw 'khYM izksVsD’ku usVodZ izkbosV fyfeVsM&11] ubZ fnYyh vkSj vU; ,oa muds deZpkjh ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 55/2016) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-09-2018 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&42012@76@2016&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

jktsanz tks’kh] mi funs’kd

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2018

S.O. 1505.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 55/2016) of the Central Government Industrual Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-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.-11, New Delhi & Others and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 20.09.2018.

[No. L-42012/76/2016–IR(DU)]

RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 20] 2018@vkf'ou 28] 1940

6091

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SH. AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER-CUM-LINK OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, GOVERNMENT PRESS

EXTENSION BUILDING, SECTOR 18-A, CHANDIGARH-160018

ID NO. 55/2016

Sh. Jitender, S/o Sh. Rampal, R/o Vill-Raipur Rodan,

Teh-Nilokheri, Distt. Karnal (Haryana)-132117.

… Workman

Versus

M/s. Blue Shield Protection Network Pvt. Ltd. L-11,Green Park Extension, New Delhi-110016.

M/s. Soma Isolux Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office, Model Town,

Near Maruti Car Driving School., Ambala-Haryana-134003.

… Respondents

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide Letter No.

L-42012/76/2016-IR(DU) dated 21.09.2016 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. Blue Shield Protection Network Pvt. Ltd. In terminating the

services of the workman Sh. Jitender S/o Sh. Ram Pal, Security Guard w.e.f. 17.12.2014 is legal and

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