6843 GI/2018

(6553)

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- 48]

ubZ fnYyh] fnlEcj 2—fnlEcj 8] 2018] 'kfuokj@vxzgk;.k 11—vxzgk;.k 17] 1940

No. 48]

NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 2—DECEMBER 8, 2018, SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA 11— AGRAHAYANA 17, 1940

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

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

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

िव मंालय

(िवीय सेवाएं िवभा

िवीय सेवाएं िवभा

िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग)

नई द ली, 7 िसत बर, 2018

का.आ.

का.आ. 1704

1704

1704.—भारतीय टेट बक अिधिनयम, 1955 (1955 का 23) क धारा 20 क उप-धारा (1) के साथ

पठत धारा 19 के ख"ड (ख) $ारा %द& शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, के./ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, सु0ी अंशुला कांत (ज. म

ितिथ: 7.9.1960) को उनके पदभार =हण करने क तारीख से और उनक अिधवBषता आयु %ाE करने क तारीख (अथाFत

30.9.2020) तक अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, भारतीय टेट बक मH %बंध िनदेशक के पद पर िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 2/1/2016-बीओ-I]

Jानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

6554

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 8, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 7^th September, 2018

S.O. 1704.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of section 19 read with sub-section (1) of section

20 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the Central Government, hereby appoints Ms Anshula Kant

(DoB: 7.9.1960) as Managing Director of the State Bank of India, with effect from the date of her taking over charge of

the post and till the date of her attaining the age of superannuation (i.e., 30.9.2020) or until further orders, whichever is

earlier.

[F. No. 2/1/2016-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 19 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ. .

का. आ. .1705

1705

1705—राK Lीयकृत बक (%बंध और %कणF उपबंध) कम 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठत

बककारी कंपनी (उपOम) का अजFन और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 क धारा 9 क उपधारा (3) के खंड (क) $ारा %दP त

शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, भारतीय टेट बक के उप-%बंध िनदेशक, सु0ी पQजा चुंदुS (ज. म

ितिथ 2.8.1961) को कायFभार =हण करने क तारीख से तथा अिधवBषता क आयु %ाT त करने क तारीख (अथाFत्

31.8.2021) तक अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, इंिडयन बक मH %बंध िनदेशक एवं मुX य कायFकारी अिधकारी के

पद पर िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/2/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2018

S.O. 1705.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1970, the Central Government, hereby

appoints Ms. Padmaja Chunduru (DoB: 2.8.1961), Deputy Managing Director, State Bank of India, as Managing

Director & Chief Executive Officer in Indian Bank with effect from the date of assumption of office, or till attaining the

age of superannuation (i.e., 31.8.2021), or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/2/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 19 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1706

1706

1706.—राK Lीयकृत बक (%बंध और %कणF उपबंध) कम 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठत

शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, भारतीय टेट बक के उप-%बंध िनदेशक, 0ी मृP युंजय महापाY (ज. म

ितिथ 3.5.1960) को कायFभार =हण करने क तारीख से तथा अिधवBषता क आयु %ाT त करने क तारीख (अथाFत्

31.5.2020) तक अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, [सिडकेट बक मH %बंध िनदेशक एवं मुX य कायFकारी अिधकारी

के पद पर िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/2/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2018

S.O. 1706.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1970, the Central Government, hereby

appoints Shri Mrutyunjay Mahapatra (DoB 3.5.1960), Deputy Managing Director, State Bank of India, as Managing

Director & Chief Executive Officer in Syndicate Bank with effect from the date of assumption of office and till attaining

the age of superannuation (i.e., 31.5.2020), or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/2/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 8] 2018@vxzgk;.k 17] 1940

6555

नई द ली, 19 िसत बर, 2018

का

का. आ.

. आ.

. आ. 1707

1707

1707.—राK Lीयकृत बक (%बंध और %कणF उपबंध) कम 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठत

शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH/ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, भारतीय टेट बक के उप-%बंध िनदेशक, 0ी कणFम सेकर (ज. म ितिथ

1.7.1960) को कायFभार =हण करने क तारीख से तथा अिधवBषता क आयु %ाT त करने क तारीख (अथाFत् 30.6.2020)

तक अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, देना बक मH %बंध िनदेशक एवं मुX य कायFकारी अिधकारी के पद पर िनयुI त

करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/2/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2018

S.O. 1707.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1970, the Central Government, hereby

appoints Shri Karnam Sekar (DoB 1.7.1960), Deputy Managing Director, State Bank of India, as Managing Director &

Chief Executive Officer in Dena Bank with effect from the date of assumption of office and upto the date of his attaining

the age of superannuation (i.e., 30.6.2020), or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/2/2018-BO.I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 19 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1708

1708

1708.—राK Lीयकृत बक (%बंध और %कणF उपबंध) कम 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठत

शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, भारतीय टेट बक के उप-%बंध िनदेशक, 0ी प लव महापाY (ज. म

ितिथ 25.2.1961) को कायFभार =हण करने क तारीख से तथा अिधवBषता क आयु %ाT त करने क तारीख (अथाFत्

28.2.2021) तक अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, सHLल बक ऑफ इंिडया मH %बंध िनदेशक एवं मुX य कायFकारी

अिधकारी के पद पर िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/2/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2018

S.O. 1708.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1970, the Central Government, hereby

appoints Shri Pallav Mohapatra (DoB 25.2.1961), Deputy Managing Director, State Bank of India, as Managing Director

& Chief Executive Officer in Central Bank of India with effect from the date of assumption of office, and till attaining

the age of superannuation (i.e., 28.2.2021), or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/2/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 19 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1709

1709

1709.—राK Lीयकृत बक (%बंध और %कणF उपबंध) कम 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठत

शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, यूिनयन बक ऑफ इंिडया के कायFपालक िनदेशक, 0ी अतुल कुमार

गोयल (ज. म ितिथ 26.12.1964) को दनांक 2.11.2018 को या इसके प_ चात् कायFभार =हण करने क तारीख से तीन वषF

क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, यूको बक मH %बंध िनदेशक एवं मुX य कायFकारी अिधकारी के

पद पर िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/2/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

6556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 8, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2018

S.O. 1709.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1970, the Central Government, hereby

appoints Shri Atul Kumar Goel (DoB 26.12.1964), Executive Director, Union Bank of India as Managing Director &

Chief Executive Officer in UCO Bank, for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office on or

after 2.11.2018, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/2/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 19 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1710

1710

1710.—राK Lीयकृत बक (%बंध और %कणF उपबंध) कम 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठत

शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, [सिडकेट बक के कायFपालक िनदेशक, 0ी सीएच. एस. एस.

मिलकाजुFन राव (ज. म ितिथ 22.1.1962) को कायFभार =हण करने क तारीख से तीन वषF क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले

आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, इलाहाबाद बक मH %बंध िनदेशक एवं मुX य कायFकारी अिधकारी के पद पर िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/2/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2018

S.O. 1710.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1970, the Central Government, hereby

appoints Shri Ch. S. S. Mallikarjuna Rao, (DoB 22.1.1962) Executive Director, Syndicate Bank as Managing Director &

Chief Executive Officer in Allahabad Bank, for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office,

and or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/2/2018-BO.I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 19 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1711

1711

1711.—राK Lीयकृत बक (%बंध और %कणF उपबंध) कम 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठत

शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, इलाहाबाद बक के कायFपालक िनदेशक, 0ी एस. हरशंकर (ज. म

ितिथ 19.5.1961) को कायFभार =हण करने क तारीख से तथा अिधवBषता क आयु %ाT त करने क तारीख (अथाFत्

31.5.2021) तक अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, पंजाब एंड [सध बक मH %बंध िनदेशक एवं मुX य कायFकारी

अिधकारी के पद पर िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/2/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2018

S.O. 1711.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1980 read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1980, the Central Government, hereby

appoints Shri S. Harisankar (DoB 19.5.1961), Executive Director, Allahabad Bank as Managing Director & Chief

Executive Officer in Punjab & Sind Bank with effect from the date of assumption of office and upto the date of his

attaining the age of superannuation (i.e., 31.5.2021), or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/2/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 8] 2018@vxzgk;.k 17] 1940

6557

नई द ली, 19 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1712.

1712.

1712.—राK Lीयकृत बक (%बंध और %कणF उपबंध) कम 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठत

शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, भारतीय टेट बक के उप-%बंध िनदेशक, 0ी जे. पैकरीसामी (ज. म

ितिथ 28.2.1961) को कायFभार =हण करने क तारीख से तथा अिधवBषता क आयु %ाT त करने क तारीख (अथाFत्

28.2.2021) तक अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, आं`ा बक मH %बंध िनदेशक एवं मुX य कायFकारी अिधकारी के

पद पर िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/2/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2018

S.O. 1712.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1980 read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1980, the Central Government, hereby

appoints Shri J Packirisamy (DoB 28.2.1961), Deputy Managing Director, State Bank of India, as Managing Director &

Chief Executive Officer in Andhra Bank with effect from the date of assumption of office, or till attaining the age of

superannuation (i.e., 28.2.2021), or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/2/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 19 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1713

1713

1713.—राK Lीयकृत बक (%बंध और %कणF उपबंध) कम 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठत

शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, युनाइटेड बक ऑफ इंिडया के कायFपालक िनदेशक, 0ी अशोक कुमार

%धान (ज. म ितिथ 8.5.1960) को दनांक 1.10.2018 को या इसके प_ चात् कायFभार =हण करने क तारीख से तथा

अिधवBषता क आयु %ाT त करने क तारीख (अथाFत् 31.5.2020) तक अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, युनाइटेड

बक ऑफ इंिडया मH %बंध िनदेशक एवं मुX य कायFकारी अिधकारी के पद पर िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/2/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2018

S.O. 1713.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1970, the Central Government, hereby

appoints Shri Ashok Kumar Pradhan (DoB 8.5.1960), Executive Director, United Bank of India as Managing Director &

Chief Executive Officer in United Bank of India with effect from the date of assumption of office on or after 1.10.2018

and upto the date of his attaining the age of superannuation (i.e., 31.5.2020), or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/2/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 19 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1714

1714

1714.—राK Lीयकृत बक (%बंध और %कणF उपबंध) कम 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठत

शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, इंिडयन बक के कायFपालक िनदेशक, 0ी ए. एस. राजीव (ज. म ितिथ

15.5.1964) को दनांक 1.12.2018 को या इसके प_ चात् कायFभार =हण करने क तारीख से तीन वषF क अविध के िलए

अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, बक ऑफ महाराK L मH %बंध िनदेशक एवं मुX य कायFकारी अिधकारी के पद पर

िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/2/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

6558

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 8, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2018

S.O. 1714.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1970, the Central Government, hereby

appoints Shri A. S. Rajeev (DoB 15.5.1964), Executive Director, Indian Bank as Managing Director & Chief Executive

Officer in Bank of Maharashtra, for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office on or after

1.12.2018, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/2/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 19 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1715

1715

1715.—भारतीय रजवF बक अिधिनयम, 1934 (1934 का 2) क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (1) के $ारा

%दP त शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, 0ी राकेश जैन (ज.म ितिथ 18.8.1957) को उनक िनयुि(

क अिधसूचना क तारीख से चार वषF क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, भारतीय रजवF बक के

दिaणी थानीय बोडF मH सद य िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 6/1/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2018

S.O. 1715.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Reserve Bank of India Act,

1934 (2 of 1934), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Rakesh Jain (DoB: 18.8.1957) to be a Member of the

Southern Local Board of the Reserve Bank of India, for a period of four years from the date of notification of his

appointment, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 6/1/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 19 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1716

1716

1716.—भारतीय रजवF बक अिधिनयम, 1934 (1934 का 2) क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (1) के $ारा

%दP त शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, 0ी राघवे. / नारायण दूबे (ज.म ितिथ 29.3.1958) को उनक

िनयुि( क अिधसूचना क तारीख से चार वषF क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, भारतीय रजवF

बक के उP तरी थानीय बोडF मH सद य िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 6/1/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2018

S.O. 1716.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Reserve Bank of India Act,

1934 (2 of 1934), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Raghvendra Narayan Dubey (DoB: 29.3.1958) to be a

Member of the Northern Local Board of the Reserve Bank of India, for a period of four years from the date of

notification of his appointment, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 6/1/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 19 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1717

1717

1717.—भारतीय रजवF बक अिधिनयम, 1934 (1934 का 2) क धारा 8 क उप-धारा (1) के खंड (ख)

$ारा %दP त शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, उP तरी थानीय बोडF से सु0ी रेवती अcयर (ज.म ितिथ

28.5.1954) को उनक िनयुि( क अिधसूचना क तारीख से चार वषF क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी

पहले हो, भारतीय रजवF बक के कH /ीय िनदेशक मंडल मH िनदेशक िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 6/1/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2018

S.O. 1717.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Reserve Bank

of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934), the Central Government hereby nominates Ms. Revathy Iyer (DoB: 28.5.1954) from

Northern Local Board to be Director on the Central Board of Directors of Reserve Bank of India, for a period of four

years from the date of notification of her appointment or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 6/1/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 8] 2018@vxzgk;.k 17] 1940

6559

नई द ली, 19 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1718

1718

1718.—भारतीय रजवF बक अिधिनयम, 1934 (1934 का 2) क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (1) के $ारा %द&

शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, सु0ी रेवती अcयर (ज. म ितिथ 28.5.1954) को उनक िनयुि( क

अिधसूचना क तारीख से चार वषF क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, भारतीय रजवF बक के

उ&री थानीय बोडF मH सद य िनयुI त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 6/1/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2018

S.O. 1718.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Reserve Bank of India Act,

1934 (2 of 1934), the Central Government hereby appoints Ms. Revathy Iyer (DoB: 28.5.1954) to be a Member of the

Northern Local Board of the Reserve Bank of India, for a period of four years from the date of notification of her

appointment or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 6/1/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 19 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1719

1719

1719.—भारतीय रजवF बक अिधिनयम, 1934 (1934 का 2) क धारा 8 क उप-धारा (1) के खंड (ख)

$ारा %दP त शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, पूवe थानीय बोडF से %ो. सिचन चतुवfदी (ज.म ितिथ

26.10.1967) को उनक िनयुि( क अिधसूचना क तारीख से चार वषF क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी

पहले हो, डॉ. निचकेत मधुसूदन मोर के थान पर भारतीय रजवF बक के कH /ीय िनदेशक मंडल मH िनदेशक िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 6/1/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2018

S.O. 1719.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Reserve Bank

of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934), the Central Government hereby nominates Prof. Sachin Chaturvedi (DoB: 26.10.1967)

from Eastern Local Board to be Director on the Central Board of Directors of Reserve Bank of India vice Dr. Nachiket

Madhusudan Mor, for a period of four years from the date of notification of his appointment or until further orders,

whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 6/1/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 19 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1720

1720

1720.—भारतीय रजवF बक अिधिनयम, 1934 (1934 का 2) क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (1) के $ारा

%दP त शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, %ो. सिचन चतुवfदी (ज.म ितिथ 26.10.1967) को उनक

बक के पूवe थानीय बोडF मH सद य िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 6/1/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 19^th September, 2018

S.O. 1720.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Reserve Bank of India Act,

1934 (2 of 1934), the Central Government hereby appoints Prof. Sachin Chaturvedi (DoB: 26.10.1967) to be a Member

of the Eastern Local Board of the Reserve Bank of India, for a period of four years from the date of notification of his

appointment, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 6/1/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 20 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1721

1721

1721.—राK Lीयकृत बक (%बंध और %कणF उपबंध) कम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठत

बककारी कंपनी (उपOम) का अजFन और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (3) के खंड (क) $ारा %दP त

शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH/ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, बक आफ इंिडया के महा%बंधक, 0ी अJेय कुमार आजाद (ज. म ितिथ

5.4.1961) को दनांक 22.1.2019 को या इसके पhात कायFभार =हण करने क तारीख से तथा अिधवBषता क आयु %ाT त

6560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 8, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

करने क तारीख (अथाFत् 30.4.2021) तक अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, पंजाब नैशनल बक मH कायFपालक

िनदेशक के पद पर िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 20^th September, 2018

S.O. 1721.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1970, the Central Government, hereby

appoints Shri Agyey Kumar Azad (Date of Birth: 5.4.1961), General Manager, Bank of India, as Executive Director in

Punjab National Bank with effect from the date of assumption of office on or after 22.1.2019 and up to the date of his

attaining the age of superannuation (i.e., 30.4.2021), or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 20 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1722

1722

1722.—राK Lीयकृत बक (%बंध और %कणF उपबंध) कम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठत

शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, पंजाब नैशनल बक के महा%बंधक, 0ी गोपाल [सह गुसाi (ज. म

ितिथ 3.1.1962) को कायFभार =हण करने क तारीख से तीन वषF क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले

हो, यूिनयन बक आफ इंिडया मH कायFपालक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 20^th September, 2018

S.O. 1722.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1970, the Central Government, hereby

appoints Shri Gopal Singh Gusain, (Date of Birth: 3.1.1962) General Manager, Punjab National Bank as Executive

Director in Union Bank of India, for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office, or until

further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 20 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1723

1723

1723.—राK Lीयकृत बक (%बंध और %कणF उपबंध) कम, 1980 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठत

बककारी कंपनी (उपOम) का अजFन और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1980 क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (3) के खंड (क) $ारा %दP त

शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, िवजया बक के महा%बंधक, 0ी िवजय दुबे (ज. म ितिथ 7.8.1963)

को दनांक 1.11.2018 को या इसके पhात कायFभार =हण करने क तारीख से तीन वषF क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले

आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, ओरयंटल बक आफ कामसF मH कायFपालक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 8] 2018@vxzgk;.k 17] 1940

6561

New Delhi, the 20^th September, 2018

S.O. 1723.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1980 read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1980, the Central Government, hereby

appoints Shri Vijay Dube (Date of Birth: 7.8.1963), General Manager, Vijaya Bank as Executive Director in Oriental

Bank of Commerce, for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office on or after 1.11.2018, or

until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 20 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1724

1724

1724.—राK Lीयकृत बक (%बंध और %कणF उपबंध) स् कम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठत

शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH/ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, पंजाब नैशनल बक के महा%बंधक, 0ी आलोक 0ीवातव (ज. म ितिथ

22.11.1962) को दनांक 23.1.2019 को या इसके पhात कायFभार =हण करने क तारीख से तीन वषF क अविध के िलए

अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, से.Lल बक आफ इंिडया मH कायFपालक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 20^th September, 2018

S.O. 1724.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1970, the Central Government, hereby

appoints Shri Alok Srivastava (Date of Birth: 22.11.1962), General Manager, Punjab National Bank as Executive

Director in Central Bank of India, for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office on or after

23.1.2019, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 20 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1725

1725

1725.—राK Lीयकृत बक (%बंध और %कणF उपबंध) कम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठत

शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, केनरा बक के महा%बंधक, 0ी हेमंत कुमार टमटा (ज. म ितिथ

6.3.1962) को दनांक 31.12.2018 को या इसके पhात कायFभार =हण करने क तारीख से तीन वषF क अविध के िलए

अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, बक आफ महाराk मH कायFपालक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 20^th September, 2018

S.O. 1725.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1970, the Central Government, hereby

appoints Shri Hemant Kumar Tamta (Date of Birth: 6.3.1962), General Manager, Canara Bank as Executive Director in

Bank of Maharashtra, for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office on or after 31.12.2018,

or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

6562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 8, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 20 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1726

1726

1726.—राK Lीयकृत बक (%बंध और %कणF उपबंध) कम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठत

शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, यूिनयन बक आफ इंिडया के महा%बंधक, 0ी पी. आर. राजगोपाल

(ज. म ितिथ 14.7.1967) को दनांक 1.3.2019 को या इसके पhात कायFभार =हण करने क तारीख से तीन वषF क अविध

के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, इलाहाबाद बक मH कायFपालक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 20^th September, 2018

S.O. 1726.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1970, the Central Government, hereby

appoints Shri P. R. Rajagopal (Date of Birth: 14.7.1967), General Manager, Union Bank of India as Executive Director in

Allahabad Bank, for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office on or after 1.3.2019, or until

further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 20 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1727

1727

1727.—भारत सरकार, िव& मंYालय (िव&ीय सेवाएं िवभाग) क दनांक 19.09.2018 क अिधसूचना

के माlयम से के./ीय सरकार $ारा इंिडयन बक के कायFपालक िनदेशक 0ी ए. एस. राजीव को दनांक 1.12.2018 को या

इसके पhात कायFभार =हण करने क तारीख से तीन वषF क अविध के िलए या अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, बक आफ

महाराk मH %बंध िनदेशक एवं मुXय कायFकारी अिधकारी के पद पर िनयु( कया गया।

राK Lीयकृत बक (%बंध और %कणF उपबंध) कम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठत बककारी कंपनी

(उपOम) का अजFन और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (3) के खंड (क) $ारा %दP त शि(य) का %योग

करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, यूिनयन बक आफ इंिडया के महा%बंधक, 0ी िशनॉय िव_ वनाथ िवnल (ज. म ितिथ

19.3.1962) को कायFभार =हण करने क तारीख से तीन वषF क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो,

0ी ए. एस; राजीव के थान पर इंिडयन बक मH कायFपालक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 20^th September, 2018

S.O. 1727.—Vide Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Financial Services), notification

dated 19.9.2018, Central Government appointed Shri A. S. Rajeev, Executive Director, Indian Bank, as Managing

Director and Chief Executive Officer in Bank of Maharashtra, for a period of three years with effect from the date of

assumption of office on or after 1.12.2018, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking Companies

(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the Nationalised

Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1970, the Central Government, hereby appoints Shri Shenoy

Vishwanath Vittal (Date of Birth: 19.3.1962), General Manager, Union Bank of India as Executive Director, Indian

Bank, vice Shri A. S. Rajeev, for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office, or until further

orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 8] 2018@vxzgk;.k 17] 1940

6563

नई द ली, 20 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1728

1728

1728.—राK Lीयकृत बक (%बंध और %कणF उपबंध) कम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठत

शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, िवजया बक के महा%बंधक, 0ी अजय के. खुराना (ज. म ितिथ

17.3.1964) को कायFभार =हण करने क तारीख से तीन वषF क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो,

[सिडकेट बक मH कायFपालक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 20^th September, 2018

S.O. 1728.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1970, the Central Government, hereby

appoints Shri Ajay K. Khurana (Date of Birth: 17.3.1964), General Manager, Vijaya Bank as Executive Director in

Syndicate Bank, for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office, or until further orders,

whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 20 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1729

1729

1729.—भारत सरकार, िव& मंYालय (िव&ीय सेवाएं िवभाग) क दनांक 19.09.2018 क अिधसूचना

के माlयम से के./ीय सरकार $ारा यूिनयन बक आफ इंिडया के कायFपालक िनदेशक 0ी अतुल कुमार गोयल को दनांक

2.11.2018 को या इसके पhात कायFभार =हण करने क तारीख से तीन वषF क अविध के िलए या अगले आदेश) तक, जो

भी पहले हो, यूको बक मH %बंध िनदेशक एवं मुXय कायFकारी अिधकारी के पद पर िनयु( कया गया।

करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, बक आफ इंिडया के महा%बंधक, 0ी दनेश कुमार पूनमच.द गगF (ज. म ितिथ

20.9.1961) को कायFभार =हण करने क तारीख से तीन वषF क अविध के िलए तथा अिधवBषता क आयु %ाT त करने क

तारीख (अथाFत् 30.9.2021) तक अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, 0ी अतुल कुमार गोयल के थान पर यूिनयन

बक आफ इंिडया मH कायFपालक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 20^th September, 2018

S.O. 1729.—Vide Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Financial Services), notification

dated 19.9.2018, Central Government appointed Shri Atul Kumar Goel, Executive Director, Union Bank of India, as

Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer in UCO Bank, for a period of three years with effect from the date of

assumption of office on or after 2.11.2018, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking Companies

(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the Nationalised

Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1970, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Dinesh

Kumar Poonamchand Garg (Date of Birth: 20.9.1961), General Manager, Bank of India as Executive Director in Union

Bank of India, vice Shri Atul Kumar Goel, for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office, or

till attaining the age of superannuation (i.e., 30.9.2021), or until further orders, whichever is earliest.

[F. No. 4/5/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

6564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 8, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 20 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1730

1730

1730.—राK Lीयकृत बक (%बंध और %कणF उपबंध) कम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठत

शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, इलाहाबाद बक के महा%बंधक, 0ी शांित लाल जैन (ज. म ितिथ

1.1.1965) को कायFभार =हण करने क तारीख से तीन वषF क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो,

बक आफ बड़ौदा मH कायFपालक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 20^th September, 2018

S.O. 1730.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1970, the Central Government, hereby

appoints Shri Shanti Lal Jain (Date of Birth: 1.1.1965), General Manager, Allahabad Bank, as Executive Director in

Bank of Baroda for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office, or until further orders,

whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 20 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1731

1731

1731.—राK Lीयकृत बक (%बंध और %कणF उपबंध) कम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठत

शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, पंजाब नैशनल बक के महा%बंधक, 0ी मानस रंजन िबवाल (ज. म

ितिथ 1.5.1962) को दनांक 1.3.2019 को या इसके पhात कायFभार =हण करने क तारीख से तीन वषF क अविध के िलए

अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, यूिनयन बक आफ इंिडया मH कायFपालक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 20^th September, 2018

S.O. 1731.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1970, the Central Government, hereby

appoints Shri Manas Ranjan Biswal (Date of Birth: 1.5.1962), General Manager, Punjab National Bank, as Executive

Director in Union Bank of India, for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office on or after

1.3.2019, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 20 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1732

1732

1732.—भारत सरकार, िव& मंYालय (िव&ीय सेवाएं िवभाग) क दनांक 19.09.2018 क अिधसूचना

के माlयम से के./ीय सरकार $ारा युनाइटेड बक आफ इंिडया के कायFपालक िनदेशक 0ी अशोक कुमार %धान को दनांक

1.10.2018 को या इसके पhात कायFभार =हण करने क तारीख से तथा अिधवBषता क आयु %ाE करने क तारीख (अथाFत

31.5.2020) तक अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, युनाइटेड बक आफ इंिडया मH %बंध िनदेशक एवं मुXय

कायFकारी अिधकारी के पद पर िनयु( कया गया।

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 8] 2018@vxzgk;.k 17] 1940

6565

करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, केनरा बक के महा%बंधक, 0ी अिजत कुमार दास (ज. म ितिथ 1.4.1961) को कायFभार

=हण करने क तारीख से तीन वषF क अविध के िलए अथवा अिधवBषता क आयु %ाT त करने क तारीख (अथाFत्

31.3.2021) तक अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, 0ी अशोक कुमार %धान के थान पर युनाइटेड बक आफ

इंिडया मH कायFपालक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 20^th September, 2018

S.O. 1732.—Vide Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Financial Services), notification

dated 19.9.2018, Central Government appointed Shri Ashok Kumar Pradhan, Executive Director, United Bank of India

as Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer in United Bank of India with effect from the date of assumption of

office on or after 1.10.2018 and up to the date of his attaining the age of superannuation (i.e., 31.5.2020), or until further

orders, whichever is earlier.

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking Companies

(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the Nationalised

Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1970, the Central Government, hereby appoints

Shri Ajit Kumar Das (Date of Birth: 1.4.1961), General Manager, Canara Bank as Executive Director, United Bank of

India, vice Shri Ashok Kumar Pradhan, for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office, or

till attaining the age of superannuation (i.e., 31.3.2021), or until further orders, whichever is earliest.

[F. No. 4/5/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 20 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1733

1733

1733.—राK Lीयकृत बक (%बंध और %कणF उपबंध) कम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठत

शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, युनाइटेड बक आफ इंिडया के महा%बंधक, 0ी संजय कुमार (ज. म

ितिथ 7.11.1962) को कायFभार =हण करने क तारीख से तीन वषF क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी

पहले हो, युनाइटेड बक आफ इंिडया मH कायFपालक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 20^th September, 2018

S.O. 1733.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the Central Government, hereby

appoints Shri Sanjay Kumar (Date of Birth: 7.11.1962), General Manager, United Bank of India as Executive Director in

United Bank of India, for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office, or until further orders,

whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 26 िसत बर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1734

1734

1734.—राK Lीयकृत बक (%बंध और %कणF उपबंध) कम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठत

शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, देना बक के महा%बंधक, 0ी िवOमादPय [सह खीची (ज. म ितिथ

24.7.1962) को दनांक 1.10.2018 को या इसके पhात कायFभार =हण करने क तारीख से तीन वषF क अविध के िलए

अथवा अगले आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, बक आफ बड़ौदा मH कायFपालक िनदेशक के पद पर िनयुI त करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/5/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

6566

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 8, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 26^th September, 2018

S.O. 1734.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1970, the Central Government, hereby

appoints Shri Vikramaditya Singh Khichi (Date of Birth: 24.7.1962), General Manager, Dena Bank as Executive Director

in Bank of Baroda, for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office on or after 1.10.2018, or

until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/5/2018-BO-I]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 1 अI तूबर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1735

1735

1735.—राK Lीयकृत बक (%बंध और %कणF उपबंध) कम, 1970 के पैरा=ाफ 11 के उप-पैरा=ाफ (2)

$ारा %दP त शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, यह एतद$ारा जनसाधारण क सूचना के िलए है क के./ीय सरकार, दनांक

13.8.2018 क %भावी ितिथ से देना बक के िनदेशक मंडल मH अंशकािलक गैर-कायFकारी िनदेशक के Sप मH 0ी जी.

गोपालकृKणन $ारा दए गए Pयाग-पY को वीकार करती है।

[फा. सं. 6/18/2015-बीओ-I]

Jानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 1^st October, 2018

S.O. 1735.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 11 of the Nationalised Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, it is hereby notified for public information that the Central

Government has accepted the resignation tendered by Shri G. Gopalakrishna as part-time non-official Director on the

Board of Directors of Dena Bank, with effect from 13.8.2018.

[F. No. 6/18/2015-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 11 अI तूबर, 2018

का. आ.

का. आ. 1736

1736

1736.—राK Lीयकृत बक (%बंध और %कणF उपबंध) कम, 1970 के खंड 8 के उप-खंड (1) के साथ पठत

शि(य) का %योग करते ,ए, कH /ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, बक आफ बड़ौदा के %बंध िनदेशक एवं मुXय कायFकारी अिधकारी,

0ी पी. एस. जयकुमार (ज. म ितिथ 8.4.1962) के कायFकाल को उनक िनयुि( क वतFमान अिधसूिचत तीन वषF क अविध,

जो दनांक 12.10.2018 को समाE हो रही है, को एक और वषF अथाFत दनांक 12.10.2019 तक के िलए अथवा अगले

आदेश) तक, जो भी पहले हो, बढ़ाती है।

[फा. सं. 4/2/2015-बीओ-I]

Jानोतोष राय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 11^th October, 2018

S.O. 1736.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the Central Government, hereby

extends the term of office of Shri P. S. Jayakumar (date of birth: 8.4.1962) as Managing Director and Chief Executive

Officer, Bank of Baroda for a further period of one year beyond his currently notified period of appointment of three

years that expires on 12.10.2018, i.e., till 12.10.2019, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 4/2/2015-BO-I]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 8] 2018@vxzgk;.k 17] 1940

6567

isVªksfy;e ,oa izkÑfrd xSl ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 26 uoEcj] 2018

dk- vk- 1737-&dsUæh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe es mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj ds vtZu½

vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ¼ftls bles blds Ik’pkr mä vf/kfu;e dgk x;k½ dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu

tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e ,oa xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la- dk- vk- 1583¼v½ rkjh[k 29@06@2017 tks

Hkkjr ds jkti= la- 27 rkjh[k 02@07@2017 ls 08@07@2017 dks çdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] }kjk ml vf/klwpuk es layXu

vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe es dsjy jkT; es Hkkjr iSVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM dh dksfPp fjQkujh ls lsye rd æfor

isVªksfy;e xSl ds ifjogu ds fy, dksfPp dks;EcVwj lsye ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk ds ek/;e ls dksfPp lsye ikbiykbu

çkbosV fyfeVsM }kjk ,d ikbiykbu fcNkus ds ç;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh;

vkSj mä jkti= vf/klwpuk dh çfr;ka turk dks rkjh[k 18 vxLr] 2017 ls 8 flrEcj] 2017 ds chp miyC/k djk

nh xbZ Fkh;

vkSj l{ke çkf/kdkjh us] mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu ] dsaæh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns nh gS;

vkSj dsaæh; ljdkj us] mä fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds Ik’pkr] vkSj ;g lek/kku gks tkus ij dh mä Hkwfe

ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy, visf{kr gS] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gS ;

vr% vc dsanh; ljdkj] mä vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] ;g

?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd bl vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph es fofufnZ"V Hkwfe es ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk

vtZu fd;k tkrk gS ;

vkSj dsaæh; ljdkj mä vf/kfu;e fd /kkjk 6 fd mi/kkjk ¼4½ }kjk çnÙk 'kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k nsrh gS

fd mä Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj bl ?kks"k.kk ds çdk'ku fd rkjh[k dks dsaæh; ljdkj es fufgr gksus fd ctk,] lHkh

foYyaxeksa ls eqä] dksfPp lsye ikbiykbu çkbosV fyfeVsM es fufgr gksxkA

vuqlwph

jkT;: dsjy

ftyk: ,sjukdqye

rkyqd: vkyqok

uke xzke

losZ uEcj

{ks=Qy

gsDVs;j

,fj;k

Áfr oxZehVj

eVwj ¼[k.M la- 27½

1/11

1/12

3/1

3/2

3/5

3/6

4/1

4/2

7/1

7/2

7/7

7/8

7/9

7/11

9/1

9/2

9/6

9/22

264/7

264/8

6568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 8, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

265/2

265/5

265/6

265/7

265/8

265/9

265/10

324/9

333/13

vaxekyh ¼[k.M la- 12½

88/2

88/3

88/4

89/6

89/7

89/8

90/1

90/2

90/3

90/4

110/3

110/4

110/8

110/9

116/1

116/2

166/3

117/1

117/2

117/3

117/4

118/1

118/5

118/6

207/6

207/7

207/8

207/15

208/3

209/1

209/2

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 8] 2018@vxzgk;.k 17] 1940

6569

vaxekyh ¼[k.M la- 12½

209/3

209/4

209/5

209/16

215/9

215/10

215/12

216/1

216/2

216/3

216/8

216/10

216/12

216/13

21/14

Rkqjowj ¼[k.M la- 13½

92/1

92/5

92/6

92/7

92/8

93/2

93/3

93/9

93/10

100/1

100/3

100/4

100/5

101/1

101/2

101/4

101/5

101/6

101/10

101/11

101/15

102/7

102/8

102/9

102/10

6570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 8, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Rkqjowj ¼[k.M la- 13½

102/11

102/12

102/13

102/14

102/15

104/2

104/6

104/7

104/8

104/9

109/3

109/4

IkkjDdMoq ¼[k.M la- 4½

122/8

122/13

122/16

122/19

124/2

jkT; % dsjy

ftyk@,sjukdqye

Rkkyqd % d.k;Uuwj

fr:okudqye ¼[k.M la- 10½

567/3

[Qk- la- vkj&12031@196@2017&vksvkj&I@bZ&19746]

uksol fdUMks] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 26^th November, 2018

S.O. 1737.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas SO No. 1583 dated 29.06.2017 published in Govt. of India Gazette No. 27 dated 02.07.2017 to 08.07.2017 issued

under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in the Land)

Act, 1962 (Central Act 50 of 1962) (herein after referred to as said Act), the Central Government declared its intention to

acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying

pipeline for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Kochi Refinery of Bharat Petroleum Corporation

Limited in the State of Kerala to Salem in the State of Tamilnadu.

AND, Whereas, the copies of the said Gazette notifications have been made available to the public between

18.08.2017 to 08.09.2017

AND, Whereas, the Competent Authority in pursuance of sub section (1) of section 6 of the said Act has

submitted his report to the Central Government.

AND, Whereas, the Central Government, after considering the said report, is satisfied that the Right of User in

the said land specified in the schedule appended should be acquired.

Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of the Section 6 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby declared that the Right of User in the Land specified in the schedule appended to this

notification are hereby acquired.

AND, further, in exercise of powers conferred by sub section (4) of the section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said lands shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government

vest free from all encumbrances in the Kochi – Salem Pipeline Private Limited.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 8] 2018@vxzgk;.k 17] 1940

6571

SCHEDULE

STATE : KERALA DISTRICT : ERNAKULAM TALUK : ALUVA

VILLAGE

SURVEY NUMBERS

AREA

HECTARES

ARES

SQMTRS

MATTOOR BLOCK. No. 27

1/11

1/12

3/1

3/2

3/5

3/6

4/1

4/2

7/1

7/2

7/7

7/8

7/9

7/11

9/1

9/2

9/6

9/22

264/7

264/8

265/2

265/5

265/6

265/7

265/8

265/9

265/10

324/9

333/13

ANGAMALI BLOCK No. 12

88/2

88/3

88/4

89/6

89/7

89/8

90/1

90/2

90/3

90/4

110/3

110/4

110/8

110/9

116/1

116/2

166/3

117/1

6572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 8, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANGAMALI BLOCK No. 12

117/2

117/3

117/4

118/1

118/5

118/6

207/6

207/7

207/8

207/15

208/3

209/1

209/2

209/3

209/4

209/5

209/16

215/9

215/10

215/12

216/1

216/2

216/3

216/8

216/10

216/12

216/13

216/14

THURAVOOR BLOCK No. 13

92/1

92/5

92/6

92/7

92/8

93/2

93/3

93/9

93/10

100/1

100/3

100/4

100/5

101/1

101/2

101/4

101/5

101/6

101/10

101/11

101/15

102/7

102/8

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 8] 2018@vxzgk;.k 17] 1940

6573

THURAVOOR BLOCK No. 13

102/9

102/10

102/11

102/12

102/13

102/14

102/15

104/2

104/6

104/7

104/8

104/9

109/3

109/4

PARAKKADAVU BLOCK No. 4

122/8

122/13

122/16

122/19

124/2

STATE : KERALA

DISTRICT:

ERNAKULAM

TALUK : KANAYANNUR

THIRUVANKULAM

BLOCK No. 10

567/3

[F. No. R-12031/196/2017-OR-I/E-19746]

NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2018

dk-vk- 1738-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]

,e@,l izwMsaf’k;y vkbZlhvkbZlhvkbZ ,lsV eSustesaV daiuh fyfeVsM 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 ua- 1 fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 39@2009½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27-11-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@150@2008&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2018

S.O. 1738.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 39/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s The Prudential

ICICI Asset Management Company Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

27.11.2018.

[No. L-12012/150/2008–IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

6574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 8, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

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

ID No. 39/2009

Shri Dharamvir Singh S/o Shri Ramrashi Singh

R/o. 196, Savitri Nagar,

New Delhi 110017.

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

M/s The Prudential ICICI Asset Management Company Ltd.,

23, Barakhamba Road, Narayan Road,

12^th Floor, New Delhi 110001.

… Management

AWARD

This award shall dispose of a reference which was received from Ministry of Labour & Employment vide letter

No.L-12012/150/2008-IR(B-1) dated 8-12-2008 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as

under::-

“Whether the contract between the management of Prudential ICICI Asset Management Company Ltd., New

Delhi and the contractor M/s ServiceMax Pvt. Ltd. with regard to the employment of Shri Dharamvir Singh

S/o. Shri Rashi Singh, is sham and bogus? If yes, whether the action of the principal employer i.e.

M/s. Prudential ICICI Asset Management Pvt. Ltd. is terminating service of the above workman

w.e.f. 4-12-2003 is just, fair and legal ? If not, to what relief is he entitled ?’’

Both the parties were put to notice. Shri Dharamvir Singh, claimant has filed statement of claim with the

averment that he was appointed by the management on 1/6/1997 as Housekeeping boy cum office boy cum Field Worker

at its Barakhamba Road office and since then he kept on discharging his duties with devotion and honesty and never

afforded any opportunity of complaint whatsoever to the Management. He was engaged for a post of regular nature.

Neither any appointment letter, nor any salary slip or fund slip was issued to him by the Management However, when he

demanded increment of his salary and regularization of his services, the Management fraudulently put his services under

a contractor without intimating him, w.e.f. 30/11/2004. An agreement dated 30/11/2004 was entered into between the

Management and the contractor M/s. Service Max Facilities Management Pvt. Ld. which was in conspiracy and in

violation of the provisions of the Act. Ultimately, services of the workman were terminated by the Management on

4/12/2005 without any notice or written order. Then he approached the Conciliation Officer but to no avail. It is

pleaded that services of the workman have been termination without any notice or payment of compensation in lieu of

notice pay and same is illegal. Prayer has been made for reinstatement of the workman with full back wages and

consequential benefits.

The claim was contested by the management who filed written statement and took preliminary objections that

the claimant was not engaged by the Management at any point of time and as such there existed no employer-employee

relationship between the Management and the claimant and hence, he is not the workman. It is alleged that the

Management had entered into agreement dated 30/11/2004 with M/s Service Max Facilities Ltd., the contractor and

pursuant thereto, the contractor deputed around 100 persons including the claimant for housekeeping and allied jobs and

is still continuing. The claimant was paid salary by M/s Service Max Facility Pvt. Ltd., and his contribution towards PF,

ESI was also made by the said contractor. However, the claimant was involved in various nefarious activities including

forgery, fraud and manipulation of the documents which caused wrongful loss to the Management and hence, the

Management informed & requested the contractor to withdraw him from his deployment with the company and thereafter

his services were withdrawn by the contractor w.e.f. 4/12/2005. Entire dues of the claimant after his withdrawal were

cleared by M/s. Service Max Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. and balance salary of Rs.1101/- was accepted by the

claimant from the said contractor in the presence of Assistant Labour Commissioner on 17/3/2006. It has been denied

that the agreement dated 30-11-2004 between the Management and contractor is bogus or was entered to harass the

workman. It has also been stated that the claimant is gainfully employed. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the

claim petition.

It is a matter of record that the Management had filed an application for impleading the contractor M/s. Service

Max Facility Pvt. Ltd. being a necessary party. However, in view of the pleadings of the claimant and the reference sent

by the appropriate Govt., my learned Predecessor vide order dated 16/11/2009 had declined the said application and

while observing that no other issue except in terms of reference, arises, parties were called to lead their respective

evidence.

In support of his case, the claimant examined himself as WW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit

Ex.WW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/4. On the other hand, the Management examined one

Shri Ashish Tiwari, Manager (Admn.) as MW1 who also tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A and

relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 and Ex.MW1/2. Management also examined one Shri Lal Singh, Personnel Officer

of M/s Service Max Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. who also tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW2/A.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 8] 2018@vxzgk;.k 17] 1940

6575

The agreement entered into between the Management M/s ICICI Prudential Asset Management Co. Ltd. and

M/s. Service Max Facility Management Company Ltd. has been filed on record as Ex.MW1/2. Crucial question arises

for consideration is whether the contract Ex.MW1/2 is sham and bogus and whether the action of the Management in

terminating the service of the claimant w.e.f. 4/12/2005 is unjust and illegal, as alleged by the claimant. I may mention

that the contract Ex.MW1/2 was executed on 30/11/2004 by the Management in favour of M/s. Service Max Facility

Management Pvt. Ltd. for providing housekeeping and cleaning the office premises of the Management vis-à-vis daily

disposal of garbage, removal of waste papers, vaccum cleaning of carpeted areas, curtains/blinds etc. etc. and it was a

fixed contract for one year commencing from 1/12/2004 upto 30/11/2005.

Although there is nothing on the face of the document/contract Ex.MW1/2 to suggest that the said contract is

sham and bogus, however, it will be worthwhile to refer to the oral as well as documentary adduced on record by the

parties to ascertain the truth. The affidavit Ex.WW1/A filed by the claimant is in line with the averments made in the

claim petition. According to the claimant, he was appointed by the Management M/s. ICICI Prudential Asset

Management Co.Ltd. without issuing any appointment letter or any other sort of document as on 1/6/1997. He has just

filed on record documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/4 viz. four vouchers (meant for expenses) for payment of Rs.6500/-

each made by the Management company towards housekeeping expenses incurred in May, 2004, June, 2004, July, 2004

and August, 2004 wherein name of the claimant Dharamvir has been written. He has been cross examined at length and

denied the suggestion of the Management that he was engaged by M/s Service Max Facility Management Company Ltd.

or that there was no relationship of employer-employee between the Management M/s Prudential ICICI and himself.

However, he admitted in his cross examination (recorded on 17/1/2013) that he is gainfully employed and working with

M/s. Sucheta Enterprises where he has been working for the last about five years

MW1 Ashish Tiwari has supported the case of the Management and according to his version, the contract

between the Management & the contractor M/s Service Max is a duly & properly executed agreement and further that the

claimant amongst other persons was deployed by the contractor with the Management only pursuant to the agreement

dated 30/11/2014 and that there was no direct link between the Management and the claimant herein.

10.

MW2 Lal Singh has also supported the case of the Management and deposed that the company M/s Service Max

Facility Management Pvt. Ltd., had entered into contract/agreement dated 30-11-2004 with M/s. Prudential ICICI Asset

Management Company Ltd. for housekeeping and allied jobs and pursuant to the said contract, the company had deputed

100 persons at various Branch Offices location of the Management company and that claimant was one of the person

deployed by M./s Service Max Facility. He specifically deposed that the claimant Dharamveer Singh was employee of

M/s. Service Max and was paid salary by it, besides his contributions towards PF, ESI were also made by M/s. Service

Max. He deposed that services of the claimant were never terminated by M/s Service Max but left the service of M/s

Service Max from 4/12/2005. In cross examination he clarified that the claimant was issued a warning letter for the

misconduct as mentioned in para 8 of his affidavit. He also clarified that in the presence of Assistant Labour

Commissioner, the claimant Dharamveer Singh on 17/3/2006 also accepted the balance salary of Rs.1101/ from his

employer M/s. Service Max Facility Management Pvt. Ltd.

It is well settled that a person/witness may tell a lie but not the documents and further that, documentary

evidence is more credible than the oral evidence. Same appears to be the case of the claimant herein.

As mentioned above, the claimant has not filed on record any cogent & credible documents, excepting the four

vouchers of expenses (Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/4) to substantiate his claim that he was engaged or appointed by the

Management in the year 1997 and that he worked with the Management M/s Prudential ICICI Asset Management Co.

prior to his alleged termination w.e.f. 4/12/2005. It is pertinent to mention here that the vouchers Ex.WW1/1 to WW1/4

depicts payment by the Management towards housekeeping expenses and not the payment towards wages etc. The

claimant tried to deny suggestion that on the documents Ex.WW1/M-2 to M-5 which are extracts of Register of Payment

of Wages maintained by M/s Service Max Facility wherein details of wages and deductions towards ESIs etc. for the

months from January, 2005 to November, 2005 have been shown, there appears his signatures. The claimant has,

however, admitted that his wages for December, 2015 were paid to him by M/s Service Max through voucher before the

Conciliation Officer. The copy of the order/proceeding dated 17/3/2006 of the Conciliation Officer in this respect is

available on the record and same is now marked as C-1 which shows that the claimant had accepted Rs.1101/- towards

arrears of his salary/wages for five days of December, 2005. On the face of this document Mark C-1, it does not

appear to logic that the claimant was not employee of M/s Service Max rather of M/s Prudential ICICI Asset

Management, as alleged by him, inasmuch as no explanation has come forward as to why he accepted the final payment

from M/s Service Max before the Conciliation Officer. This clearly belies the stand of the claimant that he was not the

employee of M/s Service Max or that he was employee of the Management M/s Prudential ICICI. Furthermore, the

claimant WW1 has admitted in his cross examination that ESI card, photocopy of which is Ex.WW1/M-6 , entire

particulars of himself and his family are mentioned. He also admitted that his signatures appears at point-A on

nomination & declaration form Ex.WW1/7. This document Ex.WW1/7 is the declaration of the workman/claimant

under the Employees Provident Fund & same is certified by his employer M/s Service Max Facility Management

Pvt.Ltd.. In the face of document Ex.WW1/7 (which is dated 1/1/2005) coupled with the admission of the claimant that

his wages for December, 2015 were paid to him by M/s Service Max through voucher before the Conciliation Officer, it

stands proved that during the year 2005 M/s Service Max Facility Management Pvt.Ltd. was the appointing authority of

the claimant herein and the said company was the pay master. Once the claimant was the employee of M/s Service Max

Facility Management Pvt.Ltd. from Jan., 2005 till December, 2005, the plea of the claimant that he was engaged by M/s.

Prudential ICICI or that his services were illegally terminated by M/s Prudential ICICI is not sustainable in the eyes of

law, rather it supports the case of the Management that the claimant was never engaged by it.

6576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 8, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

There is another aspect of the matter. Document Ex.WW1/M-1 is the prescribed application form , duly filled

in by the claimant Dharambir Singh s/o. Ram Rashi, submitted to M/s. Service Max. This form is also dated 1/1/2005

and bears the signatures of the claimant. The column “work experience” has been left “blank”, which impliedly shows

that earlier the claimant had not worked anywhere. Had the claimant worked with M/s ICICI Ltd. since the year 1997

till prior to submission of the declaration form, he as an ordinary prudent person, must have mentioned his previous/past

experience in the said document Ex.WW1/M-1 submitted to M/s Service Max Facility, particularly when in the

“reference/witness” column, he has given the name of his brother Dharampal (clerk, in ICICI Bank, NBCC Building).

11.

Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the claimant has failed to

prove that the contract Ex.MW1/2 between the Management and the contractor M/s Service Max Facility Management

Pvt. Ltd,. was really a camouflage or sham one. The claimant has also failed to prove that there existed any relationship

of employee-employer between him and the Management. Necessary corollary thereof is that no role in terminating the

services of the claimant can be attributed to the Management herein. In the scenario of the present case, this Tribunal is

constrained to dismiss the claim petition of the workman. This award is accordingly passed. Let a copy of the award be

sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Date: 3.10.2018

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2018

dk-vk- 1739-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] ds

izca/kra= esllZ drj ,vjost 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@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 102@2017½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-11-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20013@02@2018&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&1½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2018

S.O. 1739.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, New

Delhi (Ref. No. 102/2017) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Qatar Airways, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 26.11.2018.

[No. L-20013/02/2018–IR(CM-1)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR

COURT No.1: ROOM No. 511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075

ID No.102/2017

Shri Ajeet Singh s/o late Shri Dinesh Tyagi,

R/o House No.102, Noble Enclave,

Behind Rotary Public School, Sector 22,

Gurugram, Haryana

…Workman

Versus

M/s. Qatar Airways,

11A/12B,

Import Wing III, Cargo Terminal,

IGI Airport,

New Delhi – 110 037

…Management

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 8] 2018@vxzgk;.k 17] 1940

6577

AWARD

Present dispute has been raised by Shri Ajeet Tyagi (in short the workman) under the provisions of sub-section

(2) of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). A period of 45 days stood expired from the

date of making his application before the Conciliation Officer. Sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act empowers him

to file a dispute before this Tribunal, without being referred by the appropriate Government. His contention stands

substantiated by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Act. Workman has been given a right by the Act

to approach this Tribunal in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of her service, without a

dispute being referred by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act. Since dispute was

within the period of limitation, as enacted by sub section (3), and answered requirements of sub-section (2) of section 2-

A of the Act, it was registered as an industrial dispute, even without being referred for adjudication by the appropriate

Government, under section 10(1) (d) of the Act.

It has been averred in the statement of claim that the workman was working with Qatar Airways (hereinafter

referred to as the management ) as Cargo Administration Co-ordinator and was later on re-designated as Cargo Sales &

Service Executive and his last drawn wages was Rs.68,400.00. However, the workman was not having any executive

power or did he have power to take policy decision. On 13.06.2016 a false and frivolous show cause notice was served

on the claimant and later on a departmental enquiry was conducted against him. Instead of conducting a fair and proper

enquiry, the workman was being forced to submit his resignation. Thereafter, the company directed the claimant to

submit his belongings, which he did except his laptop. The management placed him under suspension with effect from

21.06.2016. Another show cause notice was issued on 23.06.2016 with a view to improvise the charges in the first show

cause notice. The enquiry proceedings were not conducted independently and the workman was forced to sign the

proceedings. Finally, the workman was terminated vide letter dated 06.01.2017, alongwith with enquiry report dated

16.12.2016 was annexed. Demand notice was also sent to the management on 24.01.2017 to which the management did

not respond. Finally, it has been prayed that the management be directed to reinstate the claimant with all consequential

benefits.

Written statement was filed on behalf of the claimant. The management denied in extensor and in extremity

each and every allegation/averment/contention/claim/ demand made by the workman as being absolutely false, baseless,

misconceived, untenable incorrect and being made on surmises and conjectures. Shri Ajeet Singh is not a ‘workman’ as

per the definition under section 2(s) of the Act. Termination of the workman is neither illegal nor detrimental to the

established provisions of law as his employment is subject to performance. The management has denied the remaining

material averments contained in the statement of claim. Finally, it has been prayed that the claim may be dismissed due

to its frivolous and vague nature.

Rejoinder was filed on behalf of the claimant, wherein the averments contained in the statement of claim were

reiterated and the averments contained in the statement of defence were denied.

Based on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

(i) Whether the enquiry conducted by the management is just, fair and legal?

(ii) Whether termination of the claimant is against the principles of natural justice, as alleged?

(iii) Whether the claimant does not fall within the definition of ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID

Act?

(iv) Whether the claimant is entitled for reinstatement, with back wages as alleged?

In the meanwhile, an application was moved by the management for filing of amended written statement and

also for treating issue No.(i) and (iii) as preliminary issue. An application was also moved by the claimant under Section

36 (3 & 4) read with Section 36(2) of the Act and the case was listed for reply and consideration on the applications and

the case was listed for 12.10.2018.

On 03.10.2018, a joint application under Section 151 CPC and Section 12(3) of the Act was moved on behalf of

the management and the claimant for early hearing as the matter has been amicably settled between themselves vide

Memorandum of settlement Ex.C-1, which is duly signed by both the parties. Statement of both the parties, i.e. Shri

Ajeet Tyagi and Shri Balagopal Balachandran, Cargo Manager, North India, Qatar Airways recorded separately. Copy

of receipt signed by the workman and witnesses by the A/R for the claimant Shri Mohan Nair is Ex.C-2 and cheque

No.670666 dated 24.08.2018 for Rs.3,55,548.00 is Ex.C-3. In view of the memorandum of settlement Ex.C-1, there

remains no grievance between the parties. The claim now stands settled amicably vide settlement agreement Ex.C-1,

receipt Ex.C-2 and cheque Ex.C-3, which shall form integral part of this Award. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let

this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for

publication.

Dated : 15.10.2018

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

6578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 8, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 27 uoEcj] 2018

dk-vk- 1740-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] ds

izca/kra= esllZ xyQ ,vj 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@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 143@2018½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 26-11-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&11012@01@2018&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I ½]

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2018

S.O. 1740.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, New

Delhi (Ref. No. 143/2018) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Gulf Air, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 26.11.2018.

[No. L-11012/01/2018– IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

COURT No.1: ROOM No.511, DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, DELHI – 110 075

ID No. 143/2018

Gulf Air Employee Association,

22/63, West Patel Nagar,

New Delhi 110 008

…Workman

Versus

(i)

M/s. Gulf Air,

Room No.711, Ansal Bhawan,

16, K.G. Marg,

New Delhi – 110 001

(ii)

The Country Manager,

M/s. Gulf Air, Maker Chambers,

5, Ground Floor,

Nariman Point,

Mumbai 400 021

…Management

AWARD

A reference was received from Central Government under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A)

of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act), by this Tribunal, vide letter No.L-11012/01/2018-

IR(CM-I) dated 26.03.2018, for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:

“Whether the demand of Gulf Air Employee’s Association, New Delhi against the management of M/s. Gulf Air

relating to increase in salary, HRA, Conveyance Allowance, Meal Allowance, Loan Facility Bonus, Medical

Allowance, LTA and Educational Allowance are fair, proper and justified? If yes, what relief they are 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, workman union opted not to file their claim statement with the Tribunal.

Further, on receipt of the above reference, notice was also sent to the workman union as well as the

management. Neither the postal article, referred above, was received back undelivered nor was it observed by the

Tribunal that postal services remained affected during the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in

favour of the fact that the above notice was served upon the workman union. Despite service of the notice, the workman

union opted to abstain from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on their behalf. Thus, it is clear that the

workman union is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the workman union has neither put in their appearance nor have they led any evidence so as to prove their

cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute/Claim’ award.

However, it will not debar the claimant union from seeking relief afresh as there is no adjudication of the reference on

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 8] 2018@vxzgk;.k 17] 1940

6579

merits. An award is, accordingly, passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under

Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

Dated : October 31, 2018

A.C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 uoEcj] 2018

dk-vk-1741-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] gkaxdkax

vkSj 'ka?kkbZ cSafdax fuxe fyfeVsM ds izca/k ra= 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 ua- 1] fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 29-11-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&212012@117@2006&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

Ckh- ,l- fc"V] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 29th November, 2018

S.O. 1741.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Hong Kong and

Sanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 29.11.2018.

[No. L-12012/117/2006– IR(B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No.2, DWARKA

COURTS COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.

ID No. 1/2007

Shri Geeta Rajagopalan

45,Surya Kiran Apartments, Near Krishi Apartments.

Bodella, Vikas Puri, New Delhi.

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

The Hong Kong And Sanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.

52/60 , M., P.O Box No. 128 Mumbai 400001.

Mumbai.

…Management/Respondent

AWARD

In the present case, matter was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.2,

New Delhi vide letter No.L-12012/117/2006-IR(B-I) dated 09.01.2007 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-

section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute,

terms of which are as under:

“Whether the resignation from service tendered w.e.f. 30.04.2003 by Ms. Gita Rajagopalan Ex-

Confidential Secretary is voluntarily or under the coercion of management of HSBC ? If it is under

coercion , to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?”

Both parties were put to notice and the claimant., Ms Geeta Rajagopalan filed statement of claim. It is clear

from the statement of claim that claimant has challenged the so called resignation dated 31.01.2003 as alleged to be

illegal.

Management resisted the claim of the Workman, by filing counter reply to the claim statement.

The Claimant in support of her case examined herself as W.W.1 and tendered her affidavit Ex.WW1/A

alongwith documents.

On the other hand, the Management in support of its defence examined their witnesses.

However, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.

The claimant Ms.Geeta Rajagopalan vide separate statement made before this Tribunal on 05.10.2018 stated that

she has settled the matter in terms of MOS dated 05.10.2018, which is duly signed by her with the management in full &

final settlement of claims, by accepting an amount of Rs.24,00,000 /- (Rs. Twenty four Lakhs) by way of demand draft

bearing No. 497573 dated 03.10.2018 drawn on Hong Kong And Sanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.

6580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 8, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Similarly, statement of Shri Arun Prasad Keshri, Vice President was also recorded who has accepted the

statement of the claimant and stated that matter has been finally settled between the parties. Since the claimant has

accepted a sum of Rs. Rs.24,00,000 /- (Rs. Twenty four Lakhs) by way of demand draft bearing No. 497573 dated

03.10.2018 drawn on Hong Kong And Sanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. as full and final settlement of all her claims, as

such, it is held that the claim/dispute of the workman/claimant stands finally settled. Statement of the parties shall form

integral part of this Award. Award is passed accordingly.

Dated: 5 October, 2018

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 uoEcj] 2018

dk-vk-1742-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] esllZ

vksfj,aVy ba’;ksjsal daiuh fyfeVsM 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; ua- 1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 06@2011½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22-11-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- tsM&16025@4@2018&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

Mh- ds- fgeka’kq] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th November, 2018

S.O. 1742.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 06/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

the management of M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 22.11.2018.

[No. Z-16025/4/2018– IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH

ID No. 6/2011

Jagdev Singh s/o. Shri Sohan Singh,

R/o. Bhaini Arora,

PO Pakhowal, Distt Ludhiana.

… Workman/Claimant

Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd

Surindra Building, SCO 109-111, Sector 17-D,

Chandigarh

2. The Branch Manager,

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd

Branch Office-III, SCO 40, Feroze Gandhi Market,

Ludhiana 141001.

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd

Regd. Office, Oriental House, Post Bx No7037,

A-25-27 Asaf Ali Road, Delhi.

Through its Chairman cum Management Director

2. Chief Manager (Manager Canteen),

SBI, Sector 17, Office Admn. Department,

Zonal Office, Punjab, SBI,

Sector 17, Chandigarh.

... Management/Respondents

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 8] 2018@vxzgk;.k 17] 1940

6581

AWARD

This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government under

clause (d) of sub-section 1 & 2-A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for

adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:-

‘Whether the action taken by the Assistant Manager (Disciplinary Authority, Oriental Insurance Company

Chandigarh of removal from service of workman Shri Jagdev s/o. Shri Sohan Singh, ex-sub staff w.e.f.

30/6/2008 is just, fair and legal ? To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ?’

Both parties were put to notice and the claimant Jagdev Singh filed his statement of claim with the averments

that he was appointed as sub-staff (class IV employee) by the Management w.e.f. 18/11/1985 and he performed manual

duties. His last drawn salary was Rs.10,000/- per month. He was issued a charge sheet by the Management vide letter

dated 15/12/2006 about absence from duty, to which he gave his reply dated 2/1/2007. Thereafter a departmental

enquiry was conducted by Shri A.K.Aggarwal, Assistant Manager DO-II, Ludhiana and on the basis of enquiry report,

the Regional Manager of the company passed order dated 30/6/2008 about his removal from service. It is pleaded that

the order is wrong and illegal inasmuch as the claimant was not absent from duty rather he could not perform duty due to

prolonged illness. Due to his serious illness, he could not effectively participate in the enquiry proceedings and the

Enquiry Officer wrongly proceeded ex parte against him. It is alleged that the disciplinary authority without considering

his helplessness due to his prolonged serious illness agreed with the report of the Enquiry Officer and passed the

termination order without application of mind. It is also alleged that he was not granted personal hearing by the

Disciplinary Authority. Even otherwise, charge of absence from duty is not such a grave charge for which extreme

punishment of removal from service was given to the workman. Prayer has been made for reinstatement with continuity

of service and full back wages.

The claim was contested by the Management who filed written reply & took preliminary objections inter alia

that the workman/claimant has been a habitual absentee from duty and two warnings were issued to him in the year 1987

and 1988 and he again repeated his misconduct of unauthorized absence from duty for 212 days. A proper departmental

enquiry was held and proper opportunity was granted to the claimant/workman to defend himself but he failed to

convince the Management regarding his habitual absenteeism to perform duty. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated

against the workman in right order. On the basis of enquiry report, the workman was removed from service vide order

dated 30/6/2008. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

Perusal of the record shows that although no specific issues have been framed in this case by my learned

Predecessor, however vide detailed order dated 28/5/2014 passed by my learned Predecessor it has been held that the

inquiry has been conducted fairly and properly, following the principle of natural justice. Parties were directed to lead

their respective evidence. The workman/claimant examined himself as WW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.W-1 whereby

he reiterated his own case as set up in the claim petition. He deposed that only charge against him was absence from

duty and he has not committed any act of moral turpitude and thus the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service

was not warranted and same is extreme & excessive. He also deposed that his absence from duty was not willful &

intentional but due to his prolonged illness beyond his control. He further deposed that the Competent Authority did not

grant him personal hearing and hence principles of natural justice were violated. In cross examination, he admitted that

he was given two warning letters in 1987 and 1988 for being absent from duty but volunteered that he was ill during that

period.

On the contrary, Management examined Shri R.K. Dhupper, Regional Manager as MW1 and he tendered his

evidence by way of affidavit M-1. He categorically deposed that the employee has been a habitual absentee and he

remained absent from duty for 212 days. The workman had abandoned his post as he continuously remained absent for

96 days without any intimation or information to the concerned office . Departmental enquiry and disciplinary

proceedings were initiated against the workman/official after assigning reasonable opportunities to defend himself but he

failed to convince the Management regarding his habitual absenteeism. In cross examination this witness clarified that

the only charge against the workman was absence from duty He could not say if the workman was suffering from

anxiety and depression. He denied the suggestion that the punishment awarded to the workman was excessive.

It is evident from the pleadings and evidence adduced on record by the parties that the claimant was proceeded

ex parte during the enquiry proceedings conducted against him. The case of the claimant is that he could not perform his

duties due to his prolonged illness, whereas case of the Management is that the claimant has been a habitual absentee and

he remained absent from duty for 212 days and that is why disciplinary action was taken against him. It is pertinent to

mention here that as per the suggestion given to the witness of the Management, the claimant was suffering from anxiety

and depression. However, the claimant has not filed on record any medical papers to show that he was suffering from

anxiety & depression and/or that his illness was such a grave that he remained absent from duty for 212 days.

It is fairly settled that in case the Disciplinary Authority contemplates to impose penalty upon the charged

official on the basis of enquiry report, personal hearing is also required to be afforded to the charged official before

imposing penalty/punishment qua his misconduct. The version of the claimant that he was not afforded any hearing by

the Disciplinary Authority has gone unchallenged. No doubt the impugned order dated 30/6/2008 recites that a copy of

the enquiry report was forwarded to the claimant/workman vide letter dated 7/4/2008 for making representation if any

against the findings of the enquiry report. However, the impugned order does not reflect that before passing the

impugned order, the Disciplinary Authority had afforded opportunity of personal hearing to the workman. Even MW1

Shri R.K. Dhupper, Regional Manager did not contradict the version of the claimant in this respect, nor any other

6582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 8, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

evidence has been adduced by the side of the Management to show that opportunity of hearing was afforded to the

claimant before passing the impugned order. As such, the impugned order can not be hold good in the eyes of law.

Even otherwise, the claimant has submitted that the quantum of punishment awarded to him is highly excessive.

It is pertinent to mention here that there were no serious allegations against the workman, like embezzlement or

misappropriation or insubordination or any grave misconduct involving moral turpitude. Rather, there was charge of

unauthorized absence from duty for about 7 months against the sub-staff (class IV employee) of the Management. To

my mind, the quantum of punishment awarded to the workman/claimant by the Management in respect of his misconduct

viz. removal from service, is disproportionate. Needless to mention here that Section 11-A of the Act empowers this

Tribunal to interfere with the quantum of punishment. Reference in this respect may be made to the decisions of Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Versus Rawel Singh, 2008 AIR (SCW) 2099; of

Punjab & Hayana High Court in the case/s of Punjab National Bank Vs. The Presiding Officer, CGIT & another

2012 (2) SLR 631; Harnek Singh Versus State of Haryana & others 2010(3) SLR 276 and Joginder Lal Versus

The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala & another 1996() SCT 436.

The facts and circumstances of the case of Joginder Lal (supra) are almost akin to the instant case, inasmuch as

in that case the workman had absented from duty for about six months without any plausible explanation and in the

inquiry proceedings initiated against him, he did not join even after publication of a notice in the newspaper and in the ex

parte proceedings, the Enquiry Officer had held the workman guilty of the charge leveled against him and the

Disciplinary Authority vide notice issued to the workman had called upon to him to show cause against the proposed

penalty and even then the workman did not appear before the Competent Authority resulting in passing of the order of

termination from service. Since there was no allegation against the said workman of previous misconduct, the Hon’ble

High Court held that the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service was not warranted and the same was substituted

with penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect.

10.

In the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (supra) wherein also the workman absented from duty

without sanction of leave & did not participate in the enquiry proceedings, the Labour Court passed an award for

reinstating the workman with back wages, holding that the dismissal of workman was grossly disproportionate &

excessively high and Hon’ble High Court confirmed the same, the Apex Court while not disturbing the award so far as

reinstatement of the workman was concerned, set aside the Award relating to payment of back wages to the workman and

it was held that though the workman will be entitled to consequential benefits but he will not be entitled to back wages

for the period for which he has not worked.

11.

Having regard to the law enunciated in the aforesaid rulings as well as the facts of the instant case, this

Tribunal is of the considered view that the quantum of punishment awarded to the workman/claimant by the

Management viz. removal from service in respect of his misconduct, is disproportionate & excessively high and same is

liable to be substituted. To my mind, the ends of justice would be met if the workman is ordered to be reinstated into

service, however, without any back wages for the period during which he has not worked but the claimant/workman will

be entitled for future benefits. Award is passed accordingly.

Date : 1.11.2018

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

ubZ fnYyh] 30 uoEcj] 2018

dk-vk-1743-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] esllZ

vks-,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; 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; vgenkckn+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 541@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-11-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30011@92@2002&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

Mh- ds- fgeka’kq] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th November, 2018

S.O. 1743.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 541/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

20.11.2018.

[No. L-30011/92/2002– IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 8] 2018@vxzgk;.k 17] 1940

6583

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 25^th October, 2018

Reference (CGITA) No. 541/2004

1. The Group General Manager (P),

ONGC Ltd.,

Mehsana Project, Palavasana,

Mehsana (Gujarat) – 384002

2. M/s. Multipurpose Manpower Management Service Pvt. Ltd.,

White House,

Opp. Dudhsagar Dairy, Highway Road,

Mehsana (Gujarat) – 384002

3. M/s. Chansama Taluka Sarvoday Mazdoor Sahakari Mandli,

Urmi Shopping Centre,

New B.K. Cinema, S.T. Workshop Road,

Mehsana (Gujarat)

…First Parties

V/s

The Secretary,

ONGC Labour Union,

8, Samarpan Shopping Complex, High Road,

Mehsana (Gujarat) – 384002

…Second Party

For the First Parties

: Shri C.S. Naidu

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/92/2002–

IR(M) dated 17.03.2003 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Group General Manager (Projects), ONGC Ltd., Mehsana in engaging Raju

Benjamin, Imitiaz Hussain, Makwana Narendra Sureshchandara, Aarshad Hussain and Israr Hussain through

M/s Multipurpose Management Services Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Chansama Taluka Sarvodaya Majdoor Kamdar

Sahakari Mandli Ltd. in abolished/prohibited categories notified by Government of India under Contract Labour

Act is fair and justified? If yes, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?”

1. The reference dates back to 17.03.2003 and received on 02.04.2003 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. The second party union submitted the statement of claim Ex. 5 on 08.06.2003 along with application for interim

relief Ex. 6. The first party submitted the written statement and the case was listed for cross-examination of the

second party workmen.

3. On 23.10.2018, the second party union moved applications Ex. 33, 34, 35 and 36 for deletion of names of the

workmen detailed in the list Ex. 36 annexed with the application Ex. 35, from the reference and the dispute as

well. The opposite first party ONGC Ltd. has no objection. The names of the workmen detailed in the list Ex. 36

annexed with the application Ex. 35 are as under:

S. No.

Name of the Workman

Serial No. in the list annexed with the

Schedule of Reference

Anwar Benjamin Pathan

Listed in Schedule of Reference

Narendrakumar Makwana

Listed in Schedule of Reference

Arshadhusain Istiyahusain Khan

Listed in Schedule of Reference

6584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 8, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Imtiyazhusain Isiyaqhusain Khan

Listed in Schedule of Reference

Israhusain Istiyaqhusain Khan

Listed in Schedule of Reference

The said applications were allowed on 23.10.2018 and names of the aforesaid workmen were deleted on the

same date.

4. As all the workmen have got their names deleted from the reference, therefore, no dispute has left for

adjudication.

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

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 uoEcj] 2018

dk-vk- 1744-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] esllZ

vks-,u-th-lh- fyfeVsM ,oa vU; ds izca/k ra= 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; vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la-1381@2004½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-11-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&30011@24@2002&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

Mh- ds- fgeka’kq] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th November, 2018

S.O. 1744.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1381/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. O.N.G.C. Limited and other workman, which was received by the Central Government on

20.11.2018.

[No. L-30011/24/2002– IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 23^rd October, 2018

Reference (CGITA) No. 1381/2004

1. M/s. International Engineering and Marine Works,

C/o ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project, P.O. Bhatpore,

Surat (Gujarat) – 394518

2. M/s. Samar Construction,

C/o ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project, P.O. Bhatpore,

Surat (Gujarat) – 394518

3. M/s. Yogeshwar Engineering Services,

C/o ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project, P.O. Bhatpore,

Surat (Gujarat) – 394518

4. Mr. D.J. Patel Contractor,

C/o ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project, P.O. Bhatpore,

Surat (Gujarat) – 394518

5. M/s. S.S. Construction,

12/14, Nishant Shopping Centre, 7, Bungalows, Andheri (W),

Mumbai – 400055

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 8] 2018@vxzgk;.k 17] 1940

6585

6. The Group General Manager (P),

C/o ONGC Ltd., Hazira Project, P.O. Bhatpore,

Surat (Gujarat) – 394518

…First Parties

V/s

The President,

Rashtriya Mazdoor Union,

Poolbari Naka, Salatwada,

Baroda (Gujarat) – 390001

…Second Party

For the First Parties

: None

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/24/2002–

IR(M) dated 28.02.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the union to regularise the services of Shri Manojkumar and 18 others as permanent

and direct employees of ONGC Ltd., Surat with time scale of pay of their category of work equivalent to their

similar placed regular employees of ONGC Ltd., from first date of entry in the Company, by declaring the

contract as ‘sham contract’ is fair and justified? If so, to what relief the concerned 19 workmen are entitled and

from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?”

1. The reference dates back to 28.02.2001 and received on 11.03.2001 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. The second party union submitted the statement of claim Ex. 12 on 28.03.2003 but the first party ONGC Ltd.

and all the contractors detailed in the top of the reference did not prefer to submit the written statements.

3. Some of the workmen namely Bhagu M. Nayka and Chandrashekhar Ram moved the application Ex. 23 and 24

for deletion of their names from the reference which was allowed on 25.04.2016. Since then, neither the second

party union Rashtraiya Mazdoor Union nor the first parties appeared before the Tribunal to contest their case.

4. Thus it appears that the second party union or their remaining workmen are not willing to prosecute the

reference.

5. Therefore, the reference is disposed of as not pressed in non-prosecution of the case by the parties.

P.K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 uoEcj] 2018

dk-vk-1745-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]

esllZ ,;jiksVZ vFkkWfjVh vkWQ bf.M;k ,oa vU; ds izca/k ra= 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; vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 55@2012½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-11-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&11011@10@2011&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

Mh- ds- fgeka’kq] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th November, 2018

S.O. 1745.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 55/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Airport Authority of India and other and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 20.11.2018.

[No. L-11011/10/2011– IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

6586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 8, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 22^nd October, 2018

Reference (CGITA) No. 55/2012

1. The Director,

Airport Authority of India, Harni Airport,

Vadodara (Gujarat)

2. The Proprietor,

M/s. Clean ‘N’ Carewell Services, 809, Sukh Sagar Complex,

Nr. Hotel Fortune Landmark, Ashram Road, Usmanpura,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380013

…First Parties

V/s

The General Secretary,

Gujarat Mazdoor Sena, G-2, Devdarshan Apartment,

Opp. State Bank of India, Harni Road,

Vadodara (Gujarat) – 390006

…Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri J.D. Chalishajar

For the Second Party

: Shri Manoj Pandit (Union Representative)

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-11011/10/2011–

IR(M) dated 23.02.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of management of M/s CNCS Facility Solutions Pvt. Ltd., contractor of Airport Authority

of India in terminating the services of Shri Harish Kanubhai Solanki w.e.f. 01.08.2009 is legal and justified?

What relief the workman is entitled to?”

1. The reference dates back to 23.02.2012 and received on 12.03.2012 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After service of notice, the second party union submitted the statement of claim Ex. 9 alleging that the workman

Harish Kanubhai Solanki joined the service of Airport Authority of India as Sweeper on 01.04.1998 where he

worked till 31.07.2009 and was terminated on 01.08.2009 by an oral order along with other 8 Sweepers. He was

not given any notice, notice pay or compensation. The union submitted a complaint to the Assistant

Commissioner of Labour (Central) where the Airport Authority of India was asked to present his case. The first

party Airport Authority of India submitted his assurance to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central) for

taking all the sweepers into service but all the sweepers except the workman was taken into service. He again

complaint to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central) but to no result. He has also alleged that the action

of the first party Airport Authority of India is in violation of Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes

Act besides Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India being in violation of the principles of natural

justice. He has also submitted the copy of the entry pass, sweeping schedule, daily check list and pay

slips/payment vouchers from the year 2006 to 2008 vide list Ex. 10.

3. The first party vide his written statement Ex. 7 denied all the averments made in the statement of claim stating

that these workmen were the contract employee of contractor namely M/s Clean ‘N’ Carewell Services and

therefore, they are not entitled for any prayer against the first party Airport Authority of India.

4. The first party No. 2 M/s. Clean ‘N’ Carewell Services, was issued notice to submit his written statement who

did not prefer to appear and submit the written statement. Therefore, the proceedings against the first party no. 2

M/s. Clean ‘N’ Carewell Services, was ordered to proceed ex-parte.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 8] 2018@vxzgk;.k 17] 1940

6587

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

Whether the action of management of M/s. CNCS Facility Solutions Pvt. Ltd., contractor of Airport

Authority of India in terminating the services of Shri Harish Kanubhai Solanki w.e.f. 01.08.2009 is

legal and justified?

II.

To what relief, if any, the concerned workman is entitled to?

6. Both these issues are interrelated, therefore, are decided together.

7. Issue No. I and II: The burden of proof of these issues was lying on the second party workmen. The second

party union submitted the affidavit Ex. 11 of the workmen Harish K. Solanki who reiterated the averments made

in the statement of claim Ex. 9 but in the cross-examination, he has stated that he was born on 24.11.1981. He

can hardly read and write English. He does not know what has been written in the affidavit as being in English

Language. He admitted that he was not employee of Airport Authority of India. Thus it can be said that no relief

can be granted against the first party No. 1 Airport Authority of India. However as the first party No. 2

M/s. Clean ‘N’ Carewell Services has not filed his written statement and has also not contested the case.

Therefore, in the absence of the denial on the part of the first party No. 2 M/s. Clean ‘N’ Carewell Services, the

evidence of the workman can be believed that he was the employee of the first party No. 2 M/s. Clean ‘N’

Carewell Services and his services were terminated without following the due procedure given in the Industrial

Disputes Act.

8. Thus in the light of the aforesaid observations, the reference is partly ex-parte allowed against the first party

No. 2 M/s. Clean ‘N’ Carewell Services with a direction that M/s. Clean ‘N’ Carewell Services will reinstate the

workman Harish Kanubhai Solanki within 30 days from the publication of award.

9. No relief is granted against the first party no. 1 Airport Authority of India.

10. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 uoEcj] 2018

dk-vk- 1746-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] esllZ

lsaVªy os;jgkmflax dkWiksZjs’ku 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; vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 04@2016½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-11-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&42011@12@2015&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

Mh- ds- fgeka’kq] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th November, 2018

S.O. 1746.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 04/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Central Warehousing Corporation and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 20.11.2018.

[No. L-42011/12/2015– IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 22^nd October, 2018

Reference (CGITA) No. 04/2016

1. The Director Personnel,

CWC, Corporate Office,

4/1, Siri Institutional Area, August Kranti Marg, Haus Khas,

New Delhi – 110016

2. The Regional Manager,

CWC, Regional Office, Opp. Unnati Vidhyalaya, Paldi,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380007

…First Parties

6588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 8, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

V/s

The General Secretary,

CWC Employees Union,

Mahalaxmi Cross Road,

Opp. Unnati Vidhyalaya, Paldi,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380007

…Second Party

For the First Party

: Shri C.S. Naidu

For the Second Party

: None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-42011/12/2015–

IR(M) dated 14.12.2015 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of management of Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Regional Office,

Ahmedabad in not sanctioning and not granting the pension to Shri K.G. Khatri (retired on 26.09.2012), who

retired by tendering resignation from services and other such similarly situated employees is legal, proper and

justified? If so, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and what other directions are necessary in the

matter?”

1. The reference dates back to 14.12.2015 and received on 05.01.2016 from Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. All the parties issued notice Ex. 2 on 03.05.2018 to appear on 08.06.2018. Acknowledgement slips of notice

sent to the first parties were also received vide Ex. 4 & 5 while the notice sent to second party union was

received as unserved vide Ex. 3.

3. In response to the notice, the first party submitted the vakalatpatra Ex. 6 of Shri C.S. Naidu but despite giving

three more opportunities on 13.07.2018, 04.09.2018 and today on 22.10.2018, the second party has been absent

and has also refrained to submit statement of claim.

4. It is also noteworthy that the schedule of the reference discloses that the second party union has raised the issue

of non-sanction and non-grant of the pension to the employee who tendered their resignation. It is also

noteworthy that the resignation does not come within the purview of retrenchment as given in Section 2 (oo) of

the Industrial Disputes Act because voluntary retirement of the workman has not been treated as retrenchment in

the Act itself.

5. Thus in the light of the aforesaid observations, the reference is not maintainable and it also appears that the

second party workman or his union are not willing to prosecute the case.

6. Thus the reference is disposed of in the absence of the statement of claim of the second party with the

observation as under: “the action of management of Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation,

Regional Office, Ahmedabad in not sanctioning and not granting the pension to Shri K.G. Khatri (retired on

26.09.2012), who retired by tendering resignation from services and other such similarly situated employees is

legal, proper and justified.”

7. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 uoEcj] 2018

dk-vk-1747-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj]

esllZ Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe 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; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 82@2009½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-11-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&17012@7@2009&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

Mh- ds- fgeka’kq] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th November, 2018

S.O. 1747.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 82/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

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

management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 20.11.2018.

[No. L-17012/7/2009–IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 8] 2018@vxzgk;.k 17] 1940

6589

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT: M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/ 82 of 2009

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

The Sr. Divisional Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Mumbai Division-I, Yogakshema,

J. B. Marg,

MUMBAI – 400 021.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Shri Dinkar Kashinath Sonavane,

E-3/7, Municipal Colony,

Raoli Camp, Koliwada,

Mumbai – 400 037.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mr. D. H. Patil Advocate

FOR THE WORKMEN

Mr. S. K. Kharwal Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 30^th October, 2018.

AWARD PART – I

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

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

Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-17012/7/2004 – IR (M) dated 26.10.2009. The terms of reference given in

the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office No. 1,

Mumbai in removing Shri D. K. Sonawane, Peon from services of the Corporation w.e.f. 19.7.2008 is justified,

proper and in proportion to the allegations of the charges of misconduct ? What relief the workman is entitled to

and from which date ?’’

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

respective representatives.

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

working with first party corporation as Peon since 28.9.95. Since his appointment and during his tenure of his

employment with the first party, he was working very honestly, sincerely and diligently. His service record is very clear

and unblemished.

It is his case that the first party corporation issued him charge sheet dt. 1.11.07. Allegations leveled in the said

charge sheet were denied by him vide his letter dt. 11.11.07. However, management initiated enquiry with undue haste

and appointed E.O. Management proceeded with the enquiry on and from 11.12.07 and concluded the same with undue

haste within a period of two months. The finding report dt. 10.3.08 was submitted to him by the first party.

Consequently, his services came to be terminated.

It is then case of the concerned workman that the enquiry was conducted without following the principles of

natural justice and without affording him an opportunity. The E.O. was biased. Concerned workman was not explained

the procedure of the enquiry. He being the class – IV employee was not illiterate. He is unable to understand English

language but the enquiry conducted in English language which was not fair on the part of E.O. As such the E.O.

recorded evidence without explaining the concerned workman about it and that time he was made to sit outside the room

and his signatures were obtained on the enquiry proceedings. The documents were not supplied to him despite he

demanded the same. First party even did not examine the relevant witnesses while conducting the enquiry. Infact, the

enquiry was not conducted in his presence.

It is also the case of the concerned workman that the enquiry report was supplied to him after long time of more

than 1 ½ months. The said report was in English language. He was unable to understand the same and as such the

findings of the E.O. are totally perverse.

6590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 8, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

It is then case of the concerned workman that he addressed a letter dt. 31.7.08 wherein he has clearly mentioned

that statements given by Gautam Khaire, Subhash Dagade, Mrs. Indu Vasant Garpade were false and requested to

reconsider the proposed punishment but the management failed and deliberately neglected to consider his request and

dismissed him from long standing unblemished service by dismissal order dt. 19.7.08 which is not fair on the part of

concerned authority.

According to the concerned workman he has challenged the dismissal order dt. 19.7.08 in appeal dated 1.10.08.

The appellate authority failed to consider the grounds of appeal and his appeal came to be dismissed by order dt. 24.2.09

and the order was served on him by letter dt. 2.3.09. It is therefore case of the concerned workman that the said action on

the part of management in dismissing him from the service and even the order of the appellate authority dt. 24.2.09 is not

legal & proper. Action of dismissing him from service is dis-proportionate to the charges leveled against him in the said

charge sheet dt. 1.11.07. He is therefore asking for reinstatement in service with full back wages, continuity of service

and all consequential benefits w.e.f. 19.7.08.

According to the concerned workman he raised the dispute before RLC, Mumbai by filing justification of

demands dt. 20.5.09. The matter was taken up in conciliation. However, the conciliation failed and failure report dt.

6.7.09 was submitted by RLC and the matter was referred for adjudication. Hence the present reference.

10.

The concerned workman is therefore asking to declare that the action of the first party management in

dismissing him from the service by dismissal order dt. 19.7.08 be declared as illegal, ab-initio, void and the same be

quashed & set aside.

11.

The first party management resisted claim by filing written statement Ex.12. It is contended that in the past also

the second party was issued charge sheet dt. 19.5.03 for accepting money from public on the pretext of giving them /

their relatives employment in LIC and subsequently domestic enquiry was conducted in respect of the said charges where

second party was found guilty. Penalty was imposed on him vide order dt. 25.9.03 in view of which the basic pay was

reduced to minimum of scale applicable to his cadre in terms of provisions of Regulations 39 (i)(d) of LIC of India

Regulations, 1960. Another charge sheet dt. 21.1.04 was issued to the second party as he was engaged into misconduct

of accepting bribe for recruitment in LIC. In the said matter also second party was found guilty and after conducting

enquiry thereupon the first party vide order dt. 14.3.05 imposed penalty on him of withholding his 3 future increments

permanently in terms of provisions of Regulations 39 (i)(b) of LIC of India Regulations, 1960.

12.

It is contented that the concerned workman has repeated the same misconduct and charge sheet dt. 1.11.07 was

issued to him for taking Rs.30,000/- from Gautam Khaire on the pretext of giving him employment in LIC. As such the

service record of the workman is not unblemished & clean.

13.

It is then contented that the enquiry conducted against the concerned workman is as per the principles of natural

justice and full and fair opportunity was given to him. Second party has fully participated in the enquiry proceedings.

Findings submitted by the EO are not perverse and findings are based on evidence produced in the enquiry proceedings.

14.

According to the first party management, they have received a complaint dt. 20.3.07 from Bhoomi Hind Seva

Sanghathana on behalf of Gautam Madhav Khaire alleging that the second party has taken Rs.30,000/- from Gautam

Madhav Khaire on the pretext of giving him employment of Peon in LIC. On the basis of same charge sheet dt. 1.11.07

was issued to the second party workman. The reply submitted by the second party workman was baseless and therefore

the management initiated enquiry in respect of the charge sheet dt. 1.11.07. E.O. was appointed vide appointment letter

dt. 16.11.07 and the appointment of the E.O. was intimated to the second party workman. E.O. Mr. M.V. Dhamle is an

independent person. He proceeded with the enquiry on and from 11.12.07 and concluded within the period of two months

i.e. on 21.2.08. The second party workman fully participated in the enquiry. Though the proceedings were recorded in

English language, the enquiry was conducted in Marathi language. The second party workman never objected about the

enquiry during the enquiry proceedings. He never raised issue of English language earlier. He has signed the

proceedings of all the enquiry proceedings recorded on all the dates. On 11.12.07 second party workman desired not to

take any help of assisting employee and he has admitted that he has received all the documents annexed to the charge

sheet as Annexure – A from the office. Second party workman was given an opportunity to produce the documents or

the witness of his defence to which he sought time to confirm the position about his defence witnesses. But thereafter on

21.2.08, second party workman told the E.O. that he is not in a position to produce any document / witnesses in his

defence. As such the enquiry was conducted as per principles of natural justice.

15.

It is contented by the first party management that on 11.3.08 the concerned workman was given the copy of E.O.

report calling his say within the stipulated time. He acknowledged the same but failed to submit his say. Show cause

notice was issued to him on 23.4.08. Ultimately he was served with the dismissal order. The copy of the order was

displayed on the notice board since the concerned workman has not accepted the copy of the order and left the office and

subsequently remained absent. However, thereafter the second party submitted the appeal on 1.10.08. The appellate

authority came to the conclusion that the second party has not brought out any new point in the appeal which warrants

modification of penalty imposed upon him. The appeal was dismissed by order dt. 24.2.09 and the order thereof was

served on the second party by letter dt. 2.3.09. As such the enquiry conducted by the E.O. in respect of charge sheet dt.

1.11.07 is fair & proper and the findings are not perverse. The first party has thus sought dismissal of reference.

16.

Following issues are framed at Ex.14. Issue No.1 is treated as preliminary issue. Hence I reproduce the Issue

No.1 along with my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 8] 2018@vxzgk;.k 17] 1940

6591

Sr. No.

Issues

Findings

Whether the enquiry conducted by the management of Life

Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai Division I against

its Peon, Mr. Dinkar Kashinath Sonawane was fair, legal

and proper ?

Yes

Reasons

Issue No. 1.

17.

It is well settled that if the service of the employee came to be terminated after proper domestic enquiry held in

accordance with the rules of natural justice and the conclusions reached at the enquiry are not perverse, the Industrial

Tribunal is not entitled to consider the propriety or correctness of the said conclusion. But at the same time mere form of

the enquiry would not satisfy the requirements of industrial law and would protect the disciplinary action taken by the

employer from challenge. The enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held unless,

(a)

employee proceeded against has been informed clearly of the charges leveled against him.

(b)

witnesses are examined ordinarily in presence of the employee in respect of charges.

(c)

employee is given a fair opportunity to cross examine the witnesses.

(d)

he is given fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his defence.

(e)

E.O. records findings with reasons for the same in his report.

Now it is to be seen whether in the present case these requirements are complied or not ?

18.

From the evidence on record, it appears that copy of charge sheet with Annexure – A was given to the

concerned workman and the concerned workman replied the charge sheet on 11.11.07 mentioning therein that the person

who has made the complaint demanded Rs.30,000/- to him when infact he had to pay Rs.10,000/- to him. However,

considering his reply, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him vide charge sheet dt. 1.11.07 and Mr. M.V.

Dhamle was appointed as E.O. The enquiry proceedings were initiated against him under Regulations 39 of LIC of India

Regulations, 1960. On going through the enquiry proceedings, it appears that the enquiry proceedings were signed by

the concerned workman, P.O. & E.O. and the evidence of Smt. Sindu Garpade was recorded on 9.1.08 and the concerned

workman was given opportunity to cross examine the witness. Similarly, the evidence of Mr. Gautam Khaire was

recorded and the opportunity was given to the concerned workman to cross examine him. On these enquiry proceedings

there appears the signature of the concerned workman. As per proceedings dt. 21.2.08 the concerned workman was

asked whether he wanted to examine the witnesses on his behalf and the concerned workman told that he was not in a

position to produce any document or witnesses in his defence.

19.

Now the contention of the concerned workman is that the E.O. recorded the enquiry proceedings in English

language and since he is illiterate and unable to understand English, it was not fair & proper enquiry.

20.

In this respect, it is not possible to accept the contention of the concerned workman that he was made to sit

outside the enquiry room and only his signatures were being taken on the enquiry proceedings. From the enquiry

proceedings it is clear that opportunity was given to the concerned workman to ask the questions to the witnesses who

were being examined during the enquiry proceedings by the E.O. and that E.O. recorded the proceedings after explaining

the same to the concerned workman. If really it would have been a fact that the concerned workman was not explained

the proceedings then he would have taken an objection in writing during the course of the proceedings. He did not do so

at any time during the course of enquiry proceedings or thereafter. As such it appears to be an after thought contention of

the concerned workman that since the proceedings were recorded in English language it has caused prejudice to him.

21.

Learned Counsel for the concerned workman submitted that the management initiated the enquiry with undue

haste and then E.O. conducted enquiry within the period of two months. However, on going through the enquiry

proceedings it appears that EO started enquiry proceedings on 11.12.07 and fixed the next date of enquiry on 21.12.07.

On 11.12.07 all the documents enclosed Annexure – A, charge sheet, list of documents were read out and the list of

documents were provided to the concerned workman. Even concerned workman admitted that he received the

documents from office. Thereafter the enquiry proceedings were held on 2.1.08 and on 9.1.08, two witnesses were

examined. On 18.2.08 concerned workman was asked whether he wanted to produce any documents or witnesses in his

defence and thereafter next date of hearing is fixed on 21.2.08 for producing the defence witnesses. It is on 21.2.08,

concerned workman stated that he was not in a position to produce any witnesses. It cannot be said therefore that the

enquiry was conducted in haste without giving opportunity to the concerned workman.

22.

Next contention of the concerned workman was that the enquiry was not fair & proper because EO was biased

and as such enquiry was conducted without following the principles of natural justice. However, there is absolutely no

evidence to say that the EO was biased. In his evidence the concerned workman has admitted in his cross examination

that he has signed the enquiry proceedings. Admittedly, the management has sent two letters to him and his explanation

was called for, about complaint given by Bhoomi Hind Seva Sanghathana. So from the evidence of the concerned

workman it can be seen that he admits his signature on the enquiry proceedings and also admits the receipt of the enquiry

report but then has come out a case that he signed this, as he was told that everything is finished and no action will be

taken against him. This appears to be after thought contention of the concerned workman.

6592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 8, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 17, 1940

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

23.

The fact remains that the charge sheet was given to him, documents were supplied to him. He was given full

opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. He cross examined the witnesses and then he was also given an opportunity

to produce the documents and to examine the witnesses in his defence. It cannot be said therefore that he was prejudiced

at any time during the course of enquiry proceedings since the enquiry was recorded in English language. What is

necessary is that the workman is given a fair opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. He has been informed clearly of

the charges leveled against him. Witnesses are examined in presence of the workman and he has given an opportunity to

examine the witnesses in his defence. All this has been done during the course of enquiry proceedings and therefore it

will have to be said that the enquiry was fair & proper and as such fair opportunity was given to the concerned workman

during the course of enquiry.

24.

Learned Counsel for the concerned workman submitted that there was non-compliance with the provisions of

natural justice while conducting the enquiry by the E.O. He seeks to rely on the decision in case of Bombay Gas Public

Ltd. V/S. Laxman Dhanku & Ors. – II CLR – 1145 to submit that where the workman was not given adequate

opportunity of defending himself then it will have to be said that there was non- compliance with the provisions of

natural justice. Here in the instant case sufficient opportunity is given to the concerned workman. It is difficult to accept

the submission of Learned Counsel for the concerned workman that there was non- compliance with the provisions of

natural justice.

25.

Next submission of Learned Counsel for the concerned workman is that mere suspicion cannot take place of

proof even in domestic enquiries and as such the conclusion of E.O. must be based on evidence. In the context he seeks

to rely on the decision in case of Abdullah Latif Shaikh V/S. Bombay Port Trust & Ors. – 1990 [II] CLR – 190.

26.

In this respect, on going through the enquiry report, it appears that as per the charge it was alleged that the

concerned workman had takne Rs.30,000/- by signing on the stamp paper dt. 31.1.02 from Gautam Khaire on the pretext

of giving him employment in LIC. The E.O. in this respect has recorded the statement of Gautam Khaire, Indu Kharpade

& Suryakant Jadhav. Besides their evidence, the E.O. relied upon documents marked as D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4 & D-5. D-1

is letter dated 20.3.17 received from Bhoomi Hind Seva Sanghathana. D-2 is letter received from Gautam Khaire. D-3 is

letter received from Indu Kharpade. D-4 is letter received from Suryakant Jadhav. D-5 is the stamp paper showing the

payment of amount of Rs.30,000/- and as per evidence of Indu Kharpade the amount of Rs.30,000/- was given to

concerned workman by G.K. Khaire for an appointment as Peon in LIC and stamp paper D-5 was executed. It was

considered by the E.O. that the concerned workman has not rebutted the authenticity of these documents and so far

document D-2 & D-3 are concerned, the authors of these documents came forward to depose during the enquiry and their

evidence was also recorded.

27.

Considering all these facts, it appears that E.O. has considered that the concerned workman failed to maintain

absolute integrity and devotion to the duty and as such failed to serve the corporation honestly. So on going through the

enquiry report, it appears that report of the E.O. is also based on evidence and as such the findings of the E.O. are not

perverse.

28.

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

findings of the E.O. are not perverse. Issue No.1 is therefore answered accordingly as indicated against it in terms of

above observations.

29.

Hence I pass the following order.

ORDER

Enquiry held is fair & proper.

Findings of the Enquiry Officer are not perverse.

Parties are directed to argue and lead evidence on the point of quantum of punishment.

Date: 30.10.2018

M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 uoEcj] 2018

dk-vk- 1748-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj] esllZ

ekbØksVksfuDl flLVe 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; ua- 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 58@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-11-2018 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&11011@6@2008&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

Mh- ds- fgeka’kq] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIµ[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 8] 2018@vxzgk;.k 17] 1940

6593

New Delhi, the 30th November, 2018

S.O. 1748.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 58/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Microtonix Systems and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

20.11.2018.

[No. L-11011/6/2008– IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT: M. V. Deshpande Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/58 of 2008

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. MICROTONIX SYSTEMS

M/s. Microtonix Systems

87, Atur House, Mezzanine Floor,

Dr. Annie Besent Road, Worli,

Mumbai – 400 018.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Shri Mohammed Hussain Shaikh & Others,

H. No. A-48, Near Hajirabi Apartments,

Baina, Vasco Da-Gama,

Goa – 403 802.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mr. D.D. Naik Advocate

FOR THE WORKMEN

Shri M. B. Anchan Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 25^th October, 2018

AWARD

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

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

Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-11011/6/2008 – IR (M) dated 26.08.2008. The terms of reference given in

the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Microtonix systems in refusing employment to Shri Mohammed

Hussain Shaikh & 10 others (As per Anne. I) w.e.f. April, 2007 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the

workmen are entitled to ?’’

After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices.

On going through the Roznama, it appears that since 21.11.15 both the parties are absent. The concerned

workman has not filed affidavit though ample opportunity was given to him.

In the circumstance, management has filed this application contending therein that the concerned workman has

withdrawn the application filed before the Labour Commissioner vide application dt. 6.4.10. It is also mentioned in the

application that the workers are in the employment and they are not keen in pursuing this reference. As such the second

party workmen are not interested in the above matter and therefore the reference may be disposed of for want of

prosecution.

On going through the record, it appears that the concerned workmen are not interested in the above matter since

they have not filed affidavit or documentary evidence to substantiate the statement of claim preferably for the reasons

mentioned in the application itself and therefore for want of evidence reference is liable to be rejected. Hence the

reference is rejected for want of evidence and hence disposed off.

ORDER

Reference is rejected for want of evidence and hence disposed off

Date: 25.10.2018

M. V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. ALOK

KUMAR

Digitally signed by

ALOK KUMAR

Date: 2018.12.19

11:29:46 +05'30'