Gazette contains multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ;एनद्ध 04/0007/2003—05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

प्राध्किार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

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

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

भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

का(cid:3)मकका(cid:3)मकका(cid:3)मकका(cid:3)मक,,,, लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालयलोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालयलोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालयलोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय

(का(cid:4)मक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग) (का(cid:4)मक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग) (का(cid:4)मक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग) (का(cid:4)मक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल, 2019

काकाकाका. आ. . आ. . आ. . आ. 691691691691....—दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम 1946 (1946 के अधिनियम संख्या 25) के अनुभाग 6 के साथ पढ़े जाने वाले अनुभाग-5 के उप अनुभाग (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों के प्रयोग में कें % सरकार, हिमाचल प्रदेश की राज्य सरकार, गृह िवभाग की सहमति अधिसूचना (अनुभाग ए) की अधिसूचना संख्या ,ह (ए) ए (9) 31/ 2018 दिनांक 20 मार्च 2019, के तहत, दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस के सदस्यों के अधिकार व अधिकार क्षेत्र का विस्तार प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट संख्या 0133 दिनांक 16/11/2018 के अंतर्गत धारा 409, 419, 465, 466 तथा 471, भारतीय दंड संिहता, पुलिस थाना शिमला पूर्व, शिमला हिमाचल प्रदेश, के रूप में भी उसी के साथ जुड़े अन्य मामलों के लिए या किसी भी अपराध या प्रयास के संबंध में या

उसके संबंध में अपराध या साजिश या उसी लेनदेन के दौरान किए गए अपराधों या अपराधों के संबंध में भारत संघ के 2288 GI/2019

(2767)

2768 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अधिकार क्षेत्र के भीतर किसी भी आपराधिक अधिनियम के तहत शामिल अपराधों के अन्वेषण के लिए संपूर्ण हिमाचल प्रदेश

में किया जाता है ।

[फा. सं. 228/47/2018-एवीडी-II]

एस.पी.आर. त्रिपाठी, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 26th April, 2019

S.O. 691.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Home (Section-A) vide Notification No. Home (A)A(9)31/2018 dated 20/03/2019, hereby extends the powers and Jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Himachal Pradesh for investigation of FIR No. 0133 dated 16/11/2018 U/s 409, 419, 465, 466 & 471 IPC, Police Station Shimla East, Distt. Shimla, Himachal Pradesh as also for the other matters connected with the same and for any offence or attempt, abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the said offence or offences or offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts including offences covered under any other Criminal Act within the jurisdiction of Union of India.

[F. No. 228/47/2018-AVD-II]

S.P.R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

स्वास्वास्वास्वास्थ्यस्थ्यस्थ्यस्थ्य और परिवार कल्या और परिवार कल्या और परिवार कल्या और परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालयण मंत्रालयण मंत्रालयण मंत्रालय

((((स्वास्वास्वास्वास्थ्यस्थ्यस्थ्यस्थ्य और परिवार कल्या और परिवार कल्या और परिवार कल्या और परिवार कल्याण िवभागण िवभागण िवभागण िवभाग))))

नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 692692692692....—भारतीय आयु@वAान परिषद् अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) की धारा 11 की उप- धारा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Eए के न्% सरकार, भारतीय आयु@वAान परिषद् से परामर्श करके उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में, निम्नलिखित, और संशोधन करती है:-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में:-

।) 'मान्यताप्राप्त आयु@वAान अर्हता'शीर्षक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] "छत्रपति शाLजी महाराज मेिडकल विMविद्यालय, लखनऊ" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पPात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा. अर्थात्:-

(2)

(3)

"डिप्लोमा इन ऑब्स्टेट्रिक्स एंड गायनेकॉलोजी"

(डीजीओ)

(यह एक मान्यता प्राप्त आयु@वAान अर्हता होगी जब यह

मोती लाल नेहरू मेडिकल कॉलेज, इलाहाबाद में के वल

2012 को या बाद में प्रवेश पाए छात्रों के संबंध में छत्रपति

शाLजी महाराज मेडिकल विMविद्यालय, लखनऊ द्वारा

प्रदत्त होगी।)

[सं. सी-18018/6/2017-एमई-I/एफटीएस-3130920]

, अवर सिचव

पी. के . बंदोपा(cid:7)याय[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2769

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2019

. S.O. 692.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule-

a) against "Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj Medical University, Lucknow" under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2) (3)

"Diploma in Obstetrics & Gynecology" (DGO)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj Medical University, Lucknow in respect of students admitted at Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad on or before 2012)

[No. C-18018/6/2017-ME-I/FTS-3130920]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2019

काकाकाका....आ. आ. आ. आ. 693693693693....—भारतीय आयु@वAान परिषद अधिनियम,1956(1956 का 102) की धारा 11 की उप-धारा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Eए के न्% सरकार, भारतीय आयु@वAान परिषद से परामर्श करके उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में, निम्नलिखित, और संशोधन करती है:-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में:-

क) 'मान्यताप्राप्त आयु@वAान अर्हता'शीर्षक के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] "आर्यभ' नॉलेज विMविद्यालय, पटना" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पPात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संबंिधत प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा. अर्थात्:-

(2)

(3)

"डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (जनरल मेिडिसन)"

एमडी (जनरल मेिडिसन)

(यह एक मान्यता प्राप्त आयु@वAान अर्हता होगी जब यह

जवाहरलाल नेहरू मेडिकल कॉलेज, भागलपुर में के वल

अकादमिक सत्र वर्ष 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 और

2016-17 में प्रबेश पाए छात्रों के संबंध में आर्यभ' नॉलेज

विMविद्यालय, पटना द्वारा प्रदत्त होगी।)

[सं. यू-12012/05/2019-एमई-I/3194671]

पी. के . बंदोपाध्याय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 27th February, 2019

S.O. 693.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule-

a) against "Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading2770 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (³)], the following shall be inserted, namely:

(2) (3)

"Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)" MD (General Medicine)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna in respect of students admitted at Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Bhagalpur in the academic year 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015- 16 and 2016-17 only)

[No. U.12012/05/2019-ME-I/3194671]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2019

काकाकाका....आ.आ.आ.आ. 694694694694....—भारतीय आयु@वAान परिषद अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102) की धारा 11 की उप- धारा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Eए के न्% सरकार, भारतीय आयु@वAान परिषद से परामर्श करके उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में, निम्नलिखित, और संशोधन करती है:-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में:-

क) 'मान्यताप्राप्त आयु@वAान अर्हता'शीर्षक के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] "के रल स्वास्थ्य विAान वध विMविद्यालय, तृश्शूर" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पPात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा. अर्थात्:-

(2)

(3)

"डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन(रेडियो डॉयgोसिस)"

एमडी (रेिडयो डॉयgोसिस)

(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त आयु@वAान अर्हता होगी जब यह

गवनर्मेंट मेडिकल कॉलेज, को'ायम, के रल 1 में के वल

अकादमिक सत्र 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 और

2014-15 अकादमिक सत्र में प्रवेश पाए छात्रों के संबंध में

के रल स्वास्थ्य विAान वध विMविद्यालय, तृश्शूर द्वारा

प्रदत्त होगी।)

[सं. यू-12012/05/2019-एमई- I/3194671] पी. के . बंदोपाध्याय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 27th February, 2019

S.O. 694.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule-

a) against "Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2) (3)

"Doctor of Medicine (Radio-Diagnosis) MD (RadioDiagnosis)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur in[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2771 respect of students admitted at Government Medical College, Kottayam, Kerala in the academic year 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 only).

[No. U-12012/05/2019-ME-I/3194671]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल, 2019

काकाकाका....आ. आ. आ. आ. 695695695695....—भारतीय आयु@वAान परिषद अधिनियम,1956(1956 का 102) की धारा 11 की उप- धारा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Eए के न्% सरकार, भारतीय आयु@वAान परिषद से परामर्श करके उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में, निम्नलिखित, और संशोधन करती है:-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में:-

।) 'मान्यता प्राप्त आयु@वAान अर्हता'शीर्षक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] "के रल स्वास्थ्य विAान

विMविद्यालय, तृश्शूर" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पPात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [िजसे इसके आगे

कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा. अर्थात्:-

(2)

(3)

"डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (फिज़िकल मेडिसिन एंड एमडी (फिज़िकल मेडिसिन एंड रिहैब्लिटेशन) रिहैब्लिटेशन)"

(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त आयु@वAान अर्हता होगी जब यह

गवनर्मेंट मेडिकल कॉलेज, को'ायम में 2015 को या बाद

में प्रशिक्षित किए गए छात्रों के संबंध में के रल स्वास्थ्य

विAान विMविद्यालय, तृश्शूर द्वारा प्रदत्त होगी।)

नोट:नोट:नोट:नोट: 1. दी गई ऐसी मान्यता अधिसूचना जारी होने की तारीख से अधिकतम 5 वर्ष के लिए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2. मान्यता के 'नवीकरण' की प्रjिया वही होगी जो मान्यता प्रदान करने के लिए लागू होती है।

3. अपेक्षित मान्यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने में विफल रहने पर, परिणामस्वरूप, िनरपवाद रूप से, संबंिधत lातकोत्तर कोर्स में प्रवेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[सं. यू-12012/93/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस-3204216]

पी. के . बंदोपा(cid:7)याय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2019

S.O. 695.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule-

I) against "Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2) (3)

"Doctor of Medicine (Physical Medicine MD (Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation) and Rehabilitation )"

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur in respect of students2772 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] being trained at Government Medical College, Kottayam on or after 2015).

Note:

1. The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon which it shall have to be renewed.

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

3. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U-12012/93/2019-ME-I/3204216]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल, 2019

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 696696696696....—भारतीय आयु@वAान परिषद अधिनियम,1956(1956 का 102) की धारा 11 की उप-धारा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Eए के न्% सरकार, भारतीय आयु@वAान परिषद से परामर्श करके उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में, निम्नलिखित, और संशोधन करती है:-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में:-

।) 'मान्यताप्राप्त आयु@वAान अर्हता'शीर्षक के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] "आर्यभ' नॉलेज विMविद्यालय, पटना" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पPात और 'पंजीकरण के िलए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा. अर्थात्:-

(2)

(3)

"मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी (जनरल सर्जरी)"

एमएस (जनरल सर्जरी)

(यह एक मान्यता प्राप्त आयु@वAान अर्हता होगी जब यह

जवाहरलाल नेहरू मेडिकल कॉलेज, भागलपुर में 2016 को

या बाद में प्रशिक्षित किए गए छात्रों के संबंध में आर्यभ'

नॉलेज विMविद्यालय, पटना द्वारा प्रदत्त होगी।)

3. अपेक्षित मान्यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने में विफल रहने पर, परिणामस्वरूप, निरपवाद रूप से, संबंिधत lातकोत्तर कोर्स में प्रवेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[सं. यू-12012/92/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस-3204209]

पी. के . बंदोपाध्याय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2019

S.O. 696.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule-

I) against "Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2773

(²) (³)

"Master of Surgery (General Surgery)" MS (General Surgery)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna in respect of students being trained at Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Bhagalpur on or after 2016).

Note:

1. The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon which it shall have to be renewed.

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

3. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U-12012/92/2019-ME-I/FTS-3204209]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल, 2019

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 697697697697....—भारतीय आयु@वAान परिषद अधिनियम,1956(1956 का 102) की धारा 11 की उप-धारा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Eए के न्% सरकार, भारतीय आयु@वAान परिषद से परामर्श करके उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम

अनुसूची में, निम्नलिखित, और संशोधन करती है:-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में:-

क) 'मान्यताप्राप्त आयु@वAान अर्हता'शीर्षक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] "आर्यभ' नॉलेज

विMविद्यालय, पटना" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पPात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3)

कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा. अर्थात्:-

(2)

(3)

"डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (जनरल मेिडिसन)"

एमडी (जनरल मेिडिसन)

(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त आयु@वAान अर्हता होगी जब यह mी

ष्णा मेिडकल कॉलेज, मुजफरनगर में 2016 को या बाद में

प्रशिक्षित किए गए छात के संबंध में आर्यभ' नॉलेज

विMविद्यालय, पटना द्वारा प्रदत्त होगी।)

[सं. यू-12012/85/2019-एमई -I/एफटीएस-3203849]

पी. के . बंदोपाध्याय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2019

S.O. 697.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule-

2774 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(2) (3)

"Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine)" MD (General Medicine)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna in respect of students being trained as Sri Krishna Medical College, Muzzaffarpur on or after (2016).

Note:

1. The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon which it shall have to be renewed.

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

3. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U-12012/85/2019-ME-I/FTS-3203849]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल, 2019

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 698698698698....—भारतीय आयु@वAान परिषद् अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) की धारा 11 की उप- धारा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Eए के न्% सरकार, भारतीय आयु@वAान परिषद् से परामर्श करके उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में, निम्नलिखित, और संशोधन करती है:-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में:-

।) मान्यताप्राप्त आयु@वAान अर्हता' शीर्षक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] "ए.पी. सिह

विMविद्यालय, रीवा" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पPात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3)

(2)

(3)

"डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (एनिस्थिसीयॉलोजी)"

एमडी (एनिस्थिसीयॉलोजी)

(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त आयु@वAान अर्हता होगी जब यह

श्याम शाह मेडिकल कॉलेज, रीवा में 2016 को या बाद में

प्रशिक्षित किए गए छात्रों के संबंध में ए.पी. सिह

विMविद्यालय, रीवा

द्वारा प्रदत्त होगी।)

[सं. यू-12012/86/2019-एमई -I/एफटीएस-3203859]

पी. के . बंदोपाध्याय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2019

S.O. 698.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule-

I) against "A.P. Singh University, Rewa", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2775

(²) (³)

"Doctor of Medicine (Anaesthesiology)" MD (Anaesthesiology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by A.P. Singh University, Rewa in respect of students being trained at Shyam Shah Medical College, Rewa on or after 2016).

Note: 1. The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon which it shall have to be renewed.

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

3. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U-12012/86/2019-ME-I/FTS-3203859]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल, 2019

काकाकाका.आ. .आ. .आ. .आ. 699699699699....—भारतीय आयु(cid:17)व(cid:19)ान प(cid:21)रषद् अिधिनयम,1956(1956 का 102) क(cid:26) धारा 11 क(cid:26) उप-

धारा (2) (cid:29)ारा (cid:30)द(cid:31)त शि"तय# का (cid:30)योग करते &ए के () सरकार, भारतीय आयु(cid:17)व(cid:19)ान प(cid:21)रषद् से परामश, करके उ- अिधिनयम क(cid:26) (cid:30)थम अनुसूची म2, िन3िलिखत, और संशोधन करती है:-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में:-

।) 'मान्यताप्राप्त आयु@वAान अर्हता'शीर्षक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] "डॉ.एन.टी.आर. स्वास्थ्य

विAान विMविद्यालय, िवजयवाड़ा" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पPात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [िजसे इसके आगे

(2)

(3)

"डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (फिज़ियॉलोजी)"

एमडी (फिज़ियॉलोजी)

(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त आयु@वAान अर्हता होगी जब यह

भास्कर मेडिकल कॉलेज, येंकापल्ली में 2018 को या बाद में

प्रशिक्षित किए गए छात्रों के संबंध में डॉ.एन.टी.आर.

स्वास्थ्य विAान विMविद्यालय, िवजयवाड़ा द्वारा प्रदत्त

होगी।)

[सं. यू-12012/87/2019-एमई - I/एफटीएस-3203869]

पी. के . बंदोपा(cid:7)याय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2019

S.O. 699.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule :-

2776 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

I) against "Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2) (3)

"Doctor of Medicine (Physiology)" MD (Physiology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada in respect of students being trained at Bhaskar Medical College, Yenkapally on or after 2018).

Note:

1. The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon which it shall have to be renewed.

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

3. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U-12012/87/2019-ME-I/FTS-3203869]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल, 2019

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 700700700700....—भारतीय आयु@वAान परिषद् अिधिनयम,1956(1956 का 102) की धारा 11 की उप- धारा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Eए के न्% सरकार, भारतीय आयु@वAान परिषद् से परामर्श करके उक्त अधिनियम की

प्रथम अनुसूची में, निम्नलिखित, और संशोधन करती है:-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में:-

।) 'मान्यताप्राप्त आयु@वAान अर्हता'शीर्षक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] "राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य

विAान विMविद्यालय, जयपुर" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पPात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [िजसे इसके आगे

(2)

(3)

"डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (इम्युनो हेमाटॉलोजी एंड ब्लड एमडी(इम्युनो हेमाटॉलोजी एंड ब्लड ट्रांसrयूज़न) ट्रांसrयूज़न)"

(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त आयु@वAान अर्हता होगी जब यह

एसएमएस मेडिकल कॉलेज, जयपुर में 2018 को या

बाद में प्रशिक्षित किए गए छात्रों के संबंध में राजस्थान

स्वास्थ्य विAान विMविद्यालय, जयपुर द्वारा प्रदत्त

होगी।)

नोट:नोट:नोट:नोट: 1. दी गई ऐसी मान्यता अिधसूचना जारी होने की तारीख से अधिकतम 5 वर्ष के लिए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

[सं. यू-12012/89/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस-3203975]

पी. के . बंदोपाध्याय, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2019

S.O. 700.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule :-

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2777

I) against "Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2) (3)

"Doctor of Medicine (Immuno Haematology & MD (Immuno Haematology & Blood Blood Transfusion) Transfusion)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur in respect of students being trained at SMS Medical College, Jaipur on or after 2018).

Note:

1. The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon which it shall have to be renewed.

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

3. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U-12012/89/2019-ME-I/FTS -3203975]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 701701701701....—भारतीय आयु@वAान परिषद् अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) की धारा 11 की उप- धारा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Eए के न्% सरकार, भारतीय आयु@वAान परिषद् से परामर्श करके उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में, निम्नलिखित, और संशोधन करती है:-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में-

।) 'मान्यताप्राप्त आयु@वAान अर्हता'शीर्षक के अधीन[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] "एनआईएमएस विMविद्यालय, जयपुर" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पPात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा. अर्थात्:-

(2)

(3)

"मजिस्टर चिरूर्गी (न्यूरो सर्जरी)"

एमसीएच(न्यूरो सर्जरी)

(यह एक मान्यता प्राप्त आयु@वAान अर्हता होगी जब यह

नेशनल इंस्टीtूट मेडिकल सांइसिस एंड रिसर्च, जयपुर

राजस्थान में 2018 को या बाद में प्रशिक्षित किए गए छात्रों

के संबंध में एनआईएमएस विMविद्यालय, जयपुर द्वारा

प्रदत्त होगी।)

[सं. यू-12012/90/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस-3203976]

पी. के . बंदोपाध्याय, अवर सचिव2778 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the ¹st April, ²⁰¹⁹

S.O. 701.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule :-

I) against "NIMS University, Jaipur", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2) (3)

"Magister Chirurgiae (Neuro Surgery)" M.Ch (Neuro Surgery)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by NIMS University, Jaipur in respect of students being trained at National Institute of Medical Science & Research, Jaipur, Rajasthan on or after 2018).

Note:

1. The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon which it shall have to be renewed.

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

3. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U-12012/90/2019-ME-I/FTS -3203976]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 702702702702....—भारतीय आयु@वAान परिषद् अिधिनयम, 1956(1956 का 102) की धारा 11 की उप- धारा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Eए के न्% सरकार, भारतीय आयु@वAान परिषद् से परामर्श करके उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में, निम्नलिखित, और संशोधन करती है:-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में-

।) 'मान्यताप्राप्त आयु@वAान अर्हता' शीर्षक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] "पPिम बंगाल

स्वास्थ्य विAान विMविद्यालय, कोलकाता" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पPात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [िजसे

इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संबंधित प्रविष्टि के संबंध में निम्नलिखित अंत:स्थापित किया जाएगा. अर्थात्:-

(2)

(3)

"मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी (ऑrथॉलमॉलोजी)"

एमएस(ऑrथॉलमॉलोजी)

(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त आयु@वAान अर्हता होगी जब यह

मिदनापुर मेडिकल कॉलेज, मिदनापुर में 2016 को या बाद

में प्रशिक्षित किए गए छात्रों के संबंध में पPिम बंगाल

स्वास्थ्य विAान विMविद्यालय, कोलकाता द्वारा प्रदत्त

होगी।)

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2779

[सं. यू-12012/88/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस-3203974]

पी. के . बंदोपाध्याय, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2019

S.O. 702.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule-

I) against "West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2) (3)

"Master of Surgery (Ophthalmology)" MS (Ophthalmology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by West Bengal University of Health Sciences, Kolkata in respect of students being trained at Midnapore Medical College, Midnapore. on or after 2016).

Note:

1. The recognition so granted shall be for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of notification, upon which it shall have to be renewed.

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

3. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required shall invariably result in stoppage of admission to the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[No. U-12012/88/2019-ME-I/FTS -3203974]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल, 2019

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 703703703703....—भारतीय आयु@वAान परिषद् अिधिनयम,1956(1956 का 102) की धारा 11 की उप-धारा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Eए के न्% सरकार, भारतीय आयु@वAान परिषद् से परामर्श करके उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में, निम्नलिखित, और संशोधन करती है:-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में:-

'मान्यताप्राप्त आयु@वAान अर्हता' शीर्षक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] "राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य

विAान विMविद्यालय, बेंगलुरू" के सामने अंतिम प्रविष्टि के पPात और 'पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्तिकरण' [िजसे इसके आगे

(2)

(3)

"डिप्लोमा इन रेडियो डॉयgोसिस" डीएमआरडी

(यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त आयु@वAान अर्हता होगी जब यह

विजयनगर इंस्टीtूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस, बेलारी,

कर्नाटक में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे छात्रों और 2017-182780 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] तक के बैच में प्रवेश पाए छात्रों के संबंध में राजीव गांधी

स्वास्थ्य विAान विMविद्यालय, बेंगलुरू द्वारा प्रदत्त

होगी।)

[सं. यू-12012/96/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस-3204253]

पी. के . बंदोपाध्याय, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2019

S.O. 703.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said Schedule :-

I) against "Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore", under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2) (3)

"Diploma in Radio-Diagnosis" DMRD

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore in respect of students being trained at Vijaynagar Institute of Medical Sciences, Bellary, Karnataka and students admitted upto the batches 2017-18).

[No. U-12012/96/2019-ME-I/FTS -3204253]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 8 मई, 2019

का.आ.का.आ.का.आ.का.आ. 704704704704....—कें %ीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाईन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य क्षेत्र के भीतर उक्त अधििनयम के अधीन भारत पेट्रोलियम कापuरेशन लिमिटेड (बीपीसीएल) की बिना - पनकी पाइपलाइन परियोजना के सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृ त्यों का पालन करने के लिए अतिरिक्त प्रभार पर mी प्रेम नारायण सिह,डिप्टी कलेक्टर,कानपुर, उत्तर प्रदेश को भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉपोरेशन लिमिटेड में प्राधिकृ त करती है।

यह अधिसूचना जारी होने की तारीख से लागू होगी।

[फा. सं. आर–11025(15)/3/2019–ओ आर-I/ई–29921]

शान्तनु धर, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2019

S.O. 704.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government herby authorizes Shri. Prem Narayan Singh, Deputy Collector, Kanpur, U.P on additional charge to Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. (BPCL) to perform the functions of[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2781 Competent Authority(s) in the State of Uttar Pradesh for Bina-Panki pipeline project of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. under the said Act.

This notification will be effective from the date of its issue.

[F. No. R-11025(15)/3/2019-OR-I/E-29921]

SANTANU DHAR, Under Secy.

वाणिज्य एवं उद्योग मंत्रालयवाणिज्य एवं उद्योग मंत्रालयवाणिज्य एवं उद्योग मंत्रालयवाणिज्य एवं उद्योग मंत्रालय

(वाणिज्य विभाग)(वाणिज्य विभाग)(वाणिज्य विभाग)(वाणिज्य विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 2 मई, 2019

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 705705705705....—के न्%ीय सरकार, निर्यात (गुणवत्ता नियंत्रण एंव निरीक्षण) नियम, 1964 के िनयम 12, के उपिनयम (2) के साथ पठित, निर्यात (गुणवत्ता नियंत्रण एंव निरीक्षण) अधिनियम, 1963 (1963 का 22) की धारा 7 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते Eए, मैसर्स मित्रा एस.के . प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, द्वार संख्या : 8-45-9/2/1, B.C विध्या नगर कॉलोनी, चौथी गली, िनकट (ओल्ड) सी बी आई डाउन, विशाखापxनम - 530003 को इस अिधसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए-

(क) खनिज और अयस्क – समूह 1, अर्थात, लौह अयस्क, मैंगनीज अयस्क, फे रोमैंगनीज तथा बाक्साइट; और

(ख) खनिज और अयस्क – समूह 2, अर्थात, jोम कं सन्ट्रेट सहित jोम अयस्क,

भारत सरकार के वाणिज्य मंत्रालय की शासकीय राजपत्र में प्रकाशित, दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अिधसूचना सं॰ का.आ. 3975 तथा दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अिधसूचना सं॰ का.आ. 3978 के तहत प्रकाशित अधिसूचना में उपाबz अनुसूचियों में विनि{दष्ट jमश: उक्त खनिज और अयस्क का विशाखापxनम एवं गंगावरम पत्तन में निर्यात से पूर्व निरीक्षण करने के िलए निम्नलिखित शत| के अधीन एक अभिकरण के }प में मान्यता देती है, अर्थात्:

(i) यह अिभकरण, खनिज और अयस्क समूह-। के निर्यात (निरीक्षण) नियम, 1965 तथा खनिज और अयस्क समूह-।। के निर्यात (निरीक्षण) नियम, 1965 के िनयम 4 के अधीन निरीक्षण की पzति की जाँच करने के लिये निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा निमित्त नामनि{दष्ट अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी; और

(ii) यह अिभकरण, इस अिधसूचना के अधीन अपने कायu के पालन में निदेशक (निरीक्षण और गुणवत्ता नियंत्रण) निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा समय-समय पर, लिखित रूप में, दिए गए ऐसे निद(cid:127)शों से आबz होंगी ।

[फा. सं. के -16014/3/2019-निर्यात निरीक्षण]

संतोष कु मार सारंगी, संयुक्त सचिव (निर्यात निरीक्षण िवभाग)

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2019

S.O. 705.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognizes M/s Mitra S.K. Private Limited, Door no. 8-45-9/2/1/ B.C Vidyanagar Colony, 4th Lane, Near Old CBI Down, Visakhapatnam – 530003, as an agency for a period of three years from the date of publication of this notification, for the inspection of-

(a) Minerals and Ores-Group I, namely the Iron Ore, Manganese Ore, Ferromanganese and Bauxite ; and (b) Minerals and Ores-Group II, namely the Chrome Ore including Chrome Concentrate;

as specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce, published in the official Gazette vide number S.O. 3975, dated the 20th December, 1965, and S.O. 3978, dated the2782 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 20th December, 1965 respectively, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores at Visakhapatnam and Gangavaram Ports, subject to the following conditions, namely: -

(i) the said agency shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores - Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965 and Export of Minerals and Ores - Group II (Inspection) Rules, 1965;

(ii) the said agency shall, in performance of its function as specified in this notification shall be bound by such directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council, may give in writing from time to time.

[F. No. K-16014/3/2019 - Export Inspection] SANTOSH KUMAR SARANGI, Jt. Secy. (Export Inspection Division)

िविविविवद्युद्युद्युद्युतततत मंत्रालयमंत्रालयमंत्रालयमंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 6 मई, 2019

का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. का.आ. 706706706706....—के न्%ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10, के उपिनयम (4) के अनुसरण में विदधुत मंत्रालय के प्रशासनिक नियंत्राधीन राष्ट्रीय िवदधुत प्रशिक्षण प्रतिष्ठान के जल िवदधुत प्रशिक्षण कें %, नंगल पंजाब जिसके 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारीवृ ंद ने हिदी का कार्यसाधक Aान प्राप्त कर िलया है, को एतदद्वारा अिधसूिचत करती है ।

[सं. 11011/9/2017-हिदी]

राज पाल, आ@थक सलाहकार

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2019

S.O. 706.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify the Hydro Power Training Centre, Nangal, Punjab of National Power Training Institute under the administrative control of Ministry of Power, where 80% of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. 11011/9/2017-Hindi]

RAJ PAL, Economic Adviser

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

नई दिल्ली, 1 मई, 2019

dk-avk- 707.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,;j bafM;k lsVl ,;jiksVZ fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa 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; ,ukZdqye ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k% 7@2015) dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28@04@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20013@02@2019-vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1)

,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2019

S.O. 707.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Earnakulam (Ref. No. 7/2015) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2783 management of M/s. Air India Sats Airport Services Pvt. Ltd. Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 28.04.2019.

[No. L-20013/02/2019-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri. V.Vijaya Kumar, B. Sc., LLM, Presiding Officer

(Thursday the 7thday of March, 2019)

ID No. 7/2015

Workman :

Sri. Sunil S, T.C No 71/1358, Shajan House, Valiyathura, Vallakkadavu PO, Thiruvananthapuram 695008. By M/s Karukapadath Associates

Management:

Air India Sats Airport Services Pvt. Ltd.

Air India Building, Vellayambalam,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695010.

By Adv, R Lakshmana Iyer & Adv.T L Sreeram.

AWARD

The case came up for final hearing on 07.03.2019 and this Tribunal cum Labour Court on the same day passed the following:

1. The workman filed this petition under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 with the prayer for setting aside the order of dismissal dated 22.06.2014 and pass consequential ordersfor re-instating the workman in service with all consequential benefits.

2. According to the petitioner he was appointed by the management as Ramp-Handi man with effect from July 2011 and continued to work with them till 22.06.2014. On 22.06.2014 he was prevented from discharging his duties stating that he is dismissed from service. The case of the petitioner is that the order of dismissal without even conducting a disciplinary inquiry is illegal and contrary to settled law.

3. The case of the management is that the workman was appointed on a fixed term contract from 29.06.2011 for a period of 3 years. On completion of 3 years term, the employer- employee relationship ceased to exist. Some action was initiated against the petitioner for unauthorised absence. In the meantime, on 28.06.2014 the fix term contract of engagement of the workman stood expired and thereafter his engagement ceased to exist. 4. The petitioner workman filed certain documents and proof affidavit. However he failed to come forward to give evidence. There was no representation for the petitioner when the matter is posted for evidence and hence the petitioner is called absent and set exparte. There was no representation for the management also for the last two postings and the management is also called absent and setex parte.

5. It is felt that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter and hence an award is passed dismissing the claim.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Assistant, transcribed and typed by him and corrected and passed by me on this 07th day of March, 2019.

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer Appendix : Nil.

2784 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 1 मई, 2019

dk-avk- 708.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

eSllZ ओ.एन.जी.सी. fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa 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; अहमदाबाद ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 641@2004) dks izdkf"kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28@04@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&20040@49@1995&vkbZ- vkj- (lh&1]

,e- ds- flag, vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2019

S.O. 708.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad (Ref. No. 641/2004) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. ONGC Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 28.04.2019.

[No. L-20040/49/1995-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 13th March, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 641/2004

The Officer on Special Duty, (Projects), ONGC Ltd., Gandhar Project, Ankleshwar (Gujarat) …First Party V/s. Late Solanki Balvantbhai Devjibhai, Legal Heir Akash Gohil At and Post Sisodra, Tal. Ankleshwar, Bharuch (Gujarat) - 394810 …Second Party

For the First Party : Shri C.S. Naidu For the Second Party : Shri Prabhatsinh Parmar

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-20040/49/95–IR(C- I) dated 03.09.1996 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether Shri Solanki Balvantbhai Devjibhai is justified in claiming that he was an employee of Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Now Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Gandhar Project, Ankleshwar and that his services were illegally terminated w.e.f. 03.03.1992? If so, to what relief the said workman is entitled and from which date?"

1. The reference dates back to 03.09.1996 and received on 19.09.1996 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After issuing notice to the parties, second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 3 on 29.11.1996 and the first party ONGC Ltd. submitted the written statement Ex. 15 on 25.01.2001.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2785

3. The second party workman Solanki Balvantbhai Devjibhai in his statement of claim Ex. 3 has alleged that he had been working as Khalasi in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'ONGC' in a high risk zone required and having special skills at high pressure oil wells. He used to work near the opening of the mouth of wells where a special type of oil valve known as Christmas Tree Valve are installed. The place of section in which he used to work is known as Exploration Business Group (EBG) logging reservoir section. He used to work for 12 hours a day; sometimes he was required to work for 24 hours or even for 48 hours continuously. He worked with fullest of efficiency, zeal, skill, responsibility and devotion but unfortunately, his services were terminated w.e.f. 03.03.1992 without giving reasons. He had been serving under direct guidance and supervision of ONGC but was wrongly treated as a contract labour while if-so-facto he had never been a contract labour as per the ingredients of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, hereinafter referred to as 'Act', because while engaged by the ONGC, he never obtained any licence for contract under the said Act nor the ONGC sanctioned him any contract to do contract work. The true facts were that the work was of a highly perennial nature and without performing the nature of his work, the exploration of oils from the oil wells were impossible. The extracted crude oil from the oil wells which he used to do was the essential business and monopoly of business of ONGC. He has further alleged that after termination of his service, the ONGC immediately thereafter on 03.03.1992 engaged fresh workmen with a monthly wages of Rs.887/- per month. The details of the workmen engaged after his termination are as under:

Serial No.	Name	Place of Residence
1	Sajid Usmangani	Hansot
2	Yadav Indrajit S.	Ankleshwar
3	S.C. Garbee	ONGC Colony
4	Madanlal	Bhatha
5	Jahir Hamid Rasul	Telva
6		Shaikh S.G. Telva
7	R.B. Hansoti	Sajod
8	B.J. Patel	Adol
9	Jitendrasing Ravat	ONGC Colony
10	Ashwin Rana	Bharuch
11	Indrajit	Bharuch
12	Ashok	ONGC Colony
13	Basir Shaikh	Kapalsadi

Thus the termination of his service was being in violation of the provisions of Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, null and void. He has further alleged that the first party has devised a peculiar system of giving employment to the workmen by making minor changes in their names in the manner like Solanki Bachubhai D., Solanki Bansibhai D. and Solanki Bhanu D. The intention of the ONGC was only to deprive the workman the benefits of continuous of service. The workman worked for more than 240 days and was entitled for automatic permanent status after the completion of 180 days as provided in the certified standing order for contingent employee of ONGC. He has further alleged that he was being paid consolidated pay of Rs.870/- per month instead of regular pay scale of Khalasi being as 1156-25-1306-30-1456-35-1526. Thus he has prayed for declaring his termination of service as illegal, reinstatement with full back wages declaring him as permanent employee and any other relief as the Tribunal deems fit along with Rs.5000/- as expenses of the reference.

4. The first party ONGC in the written statement Ex. 15 submitted that the workman was not a permanent employee and he was a contingent employee, the services of which were governed by certified standing orders known as "Certified Standing Orders for Contingent Employees of ONGC", therefore, the workman being a contingent employees does not deserve the reliefs sought by him in his statement of claim.

5. The workman vide list Ex. 16 and Ex. 17 submitted the documents like Identity Cards showing him as contingent labour from 10.07.1991 to 30.07.1991, 04.04.1991 to 30.06.1991 and 23.07.1991 to 21.10.1991, summery of attendance from November 1990 to March 1992, type of wells where he worked etc. The second2786 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] party workman also submitted the copies of the office order regarding certified standing orders known as "Certified Standing Orders for Contingent Employees of ONGC".

6. The first party vide list Ex. 27 submitted the zerox copies of contingent bills of 01.06.1991 and 30.04.1992 showing that the expenditure involved in the payment of wages to the contingent workmen, casual labourers shall be met out of the budget under the relevant head of account.

7. The second party workman moved an application Ex. 20 for production of documents detailed in the application for the just disposal of case but the ONGC by way of affidavit submitted that the documents are not traceable.

8. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:

i. Whether Shri Solanki Balvantbhai Devjibhai is justified in claiming that he was an employee of Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Now Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Gandhar Project, Ankleshwar and that his services were illegally terminated w.e.f. 03.03.1992?

ii. To what relief, if any, the concerned workman is entitled?

9. Issue No. i and ii: As both the issues are interrelated, therefore, are decided together. The burden of proof of these issues lies on the second party workman who was examined vide affidavit Ex. 12 reiterating the averments made in the statement of claim. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he applied by way of moving an application for job in ONGC but he has not proof of it because it would have been with ONGC. He did not face interview and was not given any appointment letter from ONGC. It is true that the permanent workmen of ONGC are used to be issued Identity Cards with the seal and signature of ONGC. He does not know that the permanent employees of ONGC are used to be given the pay slips every month and in the pay slips, the provident fund deduction are used to be shown. He admitted that his name was on the contingency of ONGC and wages are paid accordingly. He was paid the wages by way of vouchers and he was not employed as a permanent employee of ONGC. He was paid a fixed salary of Rs.887/- per month. He did not work as a workman of ONGC. He studied up to 12th standard. The details of pay slips would have been with ONGC. The ONGC used to obtain the Identity Card for deposition after the completion of work but the work he used to do was of a permanent nature but was discharged stating that the work has been completed. He has 5 family members which he used to sustain them.

10. The first party ONGC examined the witness named Ramchandra Devi Reddy vide document Ex. 25 reiterating the averments made in the written statement and in his cross-examination, he has stated that the work of retaining any person in job or terminating the job is done by R & P Section of ONGC. This workman never worked under him. He has no personal knowledge regarding him but he has admitted on the basis of record that this workman was not engaged through any contractor treating him as a contract worker but he was paid the wages through vouchers but wage register and muster roll are not being maintained regarding the contingency labour.

11. I heard the arguments of the advocates of the parties and considered the oral and documentary evidence of the parties available on the record. From the perusal of the evidence, it is clearly establishes that this workman worked for 2 years from 06.11.1990 to 03.03.1992 and the Para 14 of Certified Standing Orders for Contingent Employees of ONGC provides as under:

"(i) For terminating the employment of a workman, notice in writing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provided that where a temporary workman is not entitled to one month's notice under the Industrial Disputes Act, he shall be given at least 7 days' notice for termination of employment. Alternatively, wages shall be paid in lieu of notice. (ii) The services of a workman shall not be terminated as punishment unless he has been given an opportunity of explaining the charges of misconduct alleged against him in the manner prescribed in Clause 16. (iii) Where the employment of any workman is terminated, the wages earned by him and other dues, if any shall be paid before the expiry of the second working days from the day on which his employment is terminated."

12. The first party witness Ramchandra Devi Reddy has expressed ignorance regarding the service of any such notice on this workman. He has also expressed ignorance that after the termination of the workman, junior workmen were not engaged.

13. It is noteworthy that this workman has died of Carcinoma on 17.08.2017 as appears from the documents submitted by the legal heirs of the workman who have been ordered to be substituted vide application Ex. 35 on 09.04.2018.

14. The Gujarat High Court in SCA No. 3348 of 1988, 1997 (a), Guj. Law Reporter, Page 61, ONGC V/s Maheshwari Devi, has held that it would be discriminatory to not hold a person completing 180 days of attendance in a short period of 12 consecutive months would not be entitled for status of a temporary employee and also would not be entitled to the notice as provided under Clause 1 of the Standing Order No. 14 and such construction of the Standing Order would clearly militate against the right of equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the right of equality in matters relating to employment as enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution of India and may have the effect of rendering the Standing Order itself to be open to challenge under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2787

15. The first party referred M.P. State Agro Industry Development Corporation Ltd. V/s S.C. Pandey, 2006 SC C (L&S) 434, wherein it has been held that the post of temporary employee by way of recruitment procedure is a State Instrumentality. He has also referred State of M.P. V/s Arjunlal D., 2006 SC C (L&S) 429, reiterating the aforesaid law. Both these judgements are not applicable in this case and it is laughable that the advocate of the first party does not know the basis law. It is a well established law that the procedure of termination if it is given in the rules of organisation, then that shall be followed. Otherwise also where there has been contract between the employer and employee regarding which regulations are framed then those regulations must be obeyed.

16. In the present case, the ONGC framed/issued the Certified Standing Orders for Contingent Employees of ONGC and the Para 14 of it clearly states that the services of a workman shall not be terminated as a punishment unless he has been given an opportunity of explaining the charges of misconduct and also a workman who has completed 180 days in 12 consecutive months shall be considered a temporary workman and if he has completed 240 days in 12 consecutive months, he shall be considered for conversion as a regular employee. The workman in this case completed 2 years of service without any break, as the first party witness expressed ignorance regarding it, therefore, the termination of his service without any notice was illegal and he was also entitled for regularisation at the time of termination because he was not subjected to any departmental enquiry for any misconduct. The ONGC has failed to explain as to why he was not regularised.

Thus the workman was entitled for reinstatement without any back wages on the principles of 'no work no pay'. However his legal heirs will be entitled for appointment in dying in harness rules if eligible.

17. Thus the issues are decided in the light of the observation made in Para 16. The legal heirs shall be entitled for back wages from the date of reinstatement till the date of death of the workman at the rate of wages admissible at that point of time.

18. The legal heirs of the workman may move an application before ONGC for appointment for dying in harness rules within a month from the publication of the award and the ONGC shall pass order on application within a month from the date of moving of application.

19. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 मई, 2019

dk-avk- 709.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] (1947 1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj izca/krarz ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k अहमदाबाद ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k (114@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@05@2019 izkIr gqvk Fkk 1

[la- ,y&12012@45@98&vkbZ vkj (ch&1)]

ch. ,l. fc'V] अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2019

S.O. 709.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 114/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/05/2019.

[ No. L-12012/45/98–IR (B-1)]

B.S. BISHT, 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 02nd April, 20192788 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Reference: (CGITA) No- 114/2004

The Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Bhadra, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001 …First Party V/s. Shri Kishor S. Gupta, C/o Gujarat Rajya General Kamdar Mazdoor Panchayat, 211, 2nd Floor, Relief Shopping Centre, Near GPO, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380001 … Second Party

For the First Party : Shri B.K. Oza

For the Second Party : Shri H.B. Mansuri

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/45/98–IR(B-I) dated 23.09.1998 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 management of State Bank of India is justified in terminating the services of Shri Kishor S. Gupta w.e.f. 01.02.1993 and not considering for regular employment is justified? If not what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

1. The reference dates back to 23.09.1998 and received on 28.09.1998 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After issuing notice to the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 5 on 21.12.1998 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 9 on 05.04.1999. The case was listed for argument.

3. On 02.04.2019, the second party workman Kishor S. Gupta and the first party State Bank of India, Ahmedabad submitted the settlement Ex. 23 vide application Ex. 22 stating that the matter has been resolved by way of onetime payment of Rs.200000/- (Rupees Two Lac) in the favour of second party workman Kishorbhai S. Gupta vide Bankers Cheque No. 355002 dated 30.03.2019 along with Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) in the favour of Shri H.B. Mansuri, advocate of second party workman vide Bankers Cheque No. 355001 dated 30.03.2019 and nothing has been left for further resolution. The said settlement Ex. 23 is read over and explained to the parties. They admitted the terms and conditions of the settlement. Therefore, the settlement Ex. 23 is accepted by the Tribunal.

4. Thus the reference is disposed of in the light of the settlement Ex. 23. The settlement Ex. 23 shall remain the part of the award.

5. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 ebZ] 2019

dk-vk- 710.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj भारतीय स्टेट बैंक ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] अहमदाबाद ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1270@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@05@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

ch. ,l. fc'V] अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2019

S.O. 710.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1270/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/05/2019.

[No. L-12012/539/98–IR (B)-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2789

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

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

Ahmedabad, Dated 08th April, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No- 1270/2004

1. The Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India, 7th Floor, Bhadra, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

2. The Zonal Manager, State Bank of India, 7th Floor, Paradise Complex, Sayajigunj, Baroda (Gujarat) – 394220

3. The Manager,

State Bank of India, Service Branch, 2nd Floor, Akshar Complex, Behind Rang Upavan, Makkaipool, Surat (Gujarat) – 395001 …First Parties

V/s.

Mr. Champakbhai Devjibhai Umarigar, New Navsat Street, Village Umara, Surat (Gujarat) - 395001 …Second Party

For the First Parties : Shri A.B. Gogia

For the Second Party : Shri P.F. Baxi

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/539/98–IR (B-1) dated 22.04.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the concerned workman Shri Champakbhai Devjibhai Umarigar has put in continuous service in the Bank as per provisions of Section 25-B?"

And

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India through its officers in terminating/discontinuing the services of the workman Shri Champakbhai Devjibhai Umarigar w.e.f. 14.01.1998 on/with the plea of abolition/cancellation of the waiting list of temporary employees is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?"

1. The reference dates back to 22.04.1999 and received on 09.06.1999 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After issuing notice to the parties, both the parties submitted their statement of claim and written statement as the case may be. The case was listed for cross-examination of parties.

3. On 08.04.2019, the second party workman Champakbhai Devjibhai Umarigar and the first party State Bank of India, Surat and others submitted the settlement Ex. 36 stating that the matter has been resolved by way of onetime payment of Rs.200000/- (Rupees Two Lac) in the favour of second party workman Champakbhai Devjibhai Umarigar vide Demand Draft No. 427234 dated 04.04.2019 along with Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) in the favour of Shri P.F. Baxi, advocate of second party workman vide Demand Draft No. 427236 dated 04.04.2019 and nothing has been left for further resolution. The said settlement Ex. 36 is read over and explained to the parties. They admitted the terms and conditions of the settlement. Therefore, the settlement Ex. 36 is accepted by the Tribunal.

4. Thus the reference is disposed of in the light of the settlement Ex. 36. The settlement Ex. 36 shall remain the part of the award.

5. The award is passed accordingly.

2790 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 1 ebZ] 2019

dk-avk- 711.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj भारतीय स्टेट बैंक ds izca/krarz ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] अहमदाबाद ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1371@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@05@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

ch. ,l. fc'V] अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2019

S.O. 711.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1371/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/05/2019.

[No. L-12012/121/2001–IR (B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, 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 08th April, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1371/2004

1. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, L.H.O., Bhadra, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad

2. The Regional Manager,

State Bank of India,Paradise Complex, Sayajigunj, Baroda – 390005

3. The Manager,

State Bank of India, Timalya Wad Branch, Timalya Wad, Surat (Gujarat)

4. The Manager,

State Bank of India, Service Branch, Second Floor, Akshar Complex, Behind Rang Upuvan, Nanpura, Makaipul, Surat (Gujarat) - 395003 …First Party

V/s.

Shri Dineshchandra Manilal Maisuriya, Suthar Falia, at & Post Amari, Taluka, Navsari (Gujarat) …Second Party For the First Parties : Shri A.B. Gogia For the Second Party : Shri P.F. Baxi

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/121/2001- IR(B-I) dated 16.10.2001 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the concerned workman Shri Dineshchandra Manilal Maisuriya has put in 'continuous service' in the bank as per provisions of Section 25-B? If so, whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Ahmedabad through its officers in terminating the services of the workman Shri Dineshchandra Manilal[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2791 Maisuriya w.e.f. 31.01.1997 with the plea of abolition/cancellation of the waiting list of temporary employees is justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

1. The reference dates back to 16.10.2001 and received on 01.11.2001 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After issuing notice to the parties, both the parties submitted their statement of claim and written statement as the case may be. The case was listed for evidence of the second party.

3. The case was dismissed on 15.02.2017 in the absence of the evidence of the second party workman. The second party workman moved an application for restoration vide Misc. Application (CGITA) No. 28/2017 which is allowed on 08.04.2019 and the reference is restored to its original number.

4. On 08.04.2019, the second party workman Dineshchandra Manilal Maisuriya and the first party State Bank of India, Surat and others submitted the settlement Ex. 29 stating that the matter has been resolved by way of onetime payment of Rs.200000/- (Rupees Two Lac) in the favour of second party workman Dineshchandra Manilal Maisuriya vide Demand Draft No. 774198 dated 05.04.2019 along with Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) in the favour of Shri P.F. Baxi, advocate of second party workman vide Demand Draft No. 774195 dated 05.04.2019 and nothing has been left for further resolution. The said settlement Ex. 29 is read over and explained to the parties. They admitted the terms and conditions of the settlement. Therefore, the settlement Ex. 29 is accepted by the Tribunal.

5. Thus the reference is disposed of in the light of the settlement Ex. 29. The settlement Ex. 29 shall remain the part of the award.

6. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 ebZ] 2019

dk-avk- 712.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj भारतीय स्टेट बैंक dss izca/krarz ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] अहमदाबाद ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 150@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@05@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

ch. ,l. fc'V] अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2019

S.O. 712.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 150/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/05/2019.

[No. L-12012/187/98–IR (B)-1)]

B. S. BISHT, 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 02nd April, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No- 150/2004

1. The Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India, Office Manager's Department, Local Head Office, Post Box No. 300, Bhadra, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

2. The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India, Branch Office, Bhadra, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 3800012792 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ³. The Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bhadra, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001 …First Parties

V/s.

Mr. Kantibhai S. Parmar, Jaj Keshv Ni Chawl, Behind Nutah Mill, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) - 380001 …Second Party

For the First Parties : Shri B.K. Oza

For the Second Party : Shri Prabhatsinh Parmar

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/187/98– IR(B-I) dated 13.01.1999 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 management of State Bank of India is justified in terminating the services of Shri Kantibhai Somabhai Parmar by way of retrenchment vide order dated 19.11.1997 just after 3 months of settlement dated 05.08.1997 for reinstatement? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

1. The reference dates back to 13.01.1999 and received on 21.01.1999 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After issuing notice to the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 5 on 15.12.1999 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 6 on 13.11.2000. The case was listed for argument.

3. On 02.04.2019, the second party workman Kantilal S. Parmar and the first party State Bank of India, Ahmedabad and others submitted the settlement Ex. 53 stating that the matter has been resolved by way of onetime payment of Rs.175000/- (Rupees One Lac Seventy Five Thousand) in the favour of second party workman Kantilal S. Parmar vide Bankers Cheque No. 759946 dated 26.03.2019 along with Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) in the favour of Shri Prabhatsinh Parmar, advocate of second party workman vide Bankers Cheque No. 759945 dated 26.03.2019 and nothing has been left for further resolution. The said settlement Ex. 53 is read over and explained to the parties. They admitted the terms and conditions of the settlement. Therefore, the settlement Ex. 53 is accepted by the Tribunal.

4. Thus the reference is disposed of in the light of the settlement Ex. 53. The settlement Ex. 53 shall remain the part of the award.

5. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 ebZ] 2019

dk-avk- 713.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj भारतीय स्टेट बैंक ds izca/krarz ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] अहमदाबाद ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1272@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@05@2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

ch. ,l. fc'V] अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2019

S.O. 713.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1272/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/05/2019.

[No. L-12012/11/99–IR (B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2793

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 08th April, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No- 1272/2004

1. The Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India, 7th Floor, Bhadra, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

2. The Zonal Manager, State Bank of India, 7th Floor, Paradise Complex, Sayajigunj, Baroda (Gujarat) – 394220

3. The Manager,

State Bank of India, Udhna-Udognagar, P.B. No. 1, Surat (Gujarat) – 394210 …First Parties

V/s.

Mrs. Savitaben Rameshchand Rana, Near Hari Om Dying, J.P. Nagar, 2, Near Mangubhai Chatwale, Wed Road, Surat (Gujarat) …Second Party

For the First Parties : Shri A.B. Gogia

For the Second Part : Shri P.F. Baxi

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/11/99–IR (B-1) dated 06.05.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the concerned workman Smt. Savitaben Rameshchand Rana has put in continuous service in the Bank as per provisions of Section 25-B?"

And

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India through its officers in terminating/discontinuing the services of the workman Smt. Savitaben Rameshchand Rana w.e.f. 06.08.1998 on/with the plea of abolition/cancellation of the waiting list of temporary employees is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?"

1. The reference dates back to 06.05.1999 and received on 09.05.1999 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After issuing notice to the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 9 on 03.07.2000 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 10 on 08.04.2002. The case was listed for cross-examination of parties.

3. On 08.04.2019, the second party workwoman Savitaben Rameshchand Rana and the first party State Bank of India, Surat and others submitted the settlement Ex. 33 stating that the matter has been resolved by way of onetime payment of Rs.200000/- (Rupees Two Lac) in the favour of second party workwoman Savitaben Rameshchand Rana vide Demand Draft No. 329201 dated 04.04.2019 along with Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) in the favour of Shri P.F. Baxi, advocate of second party workwoman vide Demand Draft No. 329196 dated 04.04.2019 and nothing has been left for further resolution. The said settlement Ex. 33 is read over and explained to the parties. They admitted the terms and conditions of the settlement. Therefore, the settlement Ex. 33 is accepted by the Tribunal.

4. Thus the reference is disposed of in the light of the settlement Ex. 33. The settlement Ex. 33 shall remain the part of the award.

5. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer2794 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 1 ebZ] 2019

dk-vk- 714.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos ds izca/krarz ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] अहमदाबाद ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 02@2018) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@05@2019 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk1

ch. ,l. fc'V] अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2019

S.O. 714.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/05/2019.

[No. L-41011/17/2017–IR (B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, 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 03rd April, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No- 02/2018

The Divisional Railway Manager (E), Western Railway, Mumbai Central, Mumbai – 400008 …First Party

V/s.

The President, Railways Retired Employees Association, D-29, Anandnagar, Near Science College, Godhra (Gujarat) – 389001 …Second Party

For the First Party : None For the Second Part : None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/17/2017–IR(B-I) dated 05.01.2018 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 the management of Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Mumbai in denying compassionate allowance to Shri Sursing Mana who removed from service on 08.07.2009 on the ground of absenteeism is legal and justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

1. The reference dates back to 05.01.2018 and received on 22.01.2018 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After receiving the schedule of reference from Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi, notices were issued to both the parties on 14.05.2018 to appear on 14.06.2018 but the second party workman and his union did not prefer to submit the statement of claim. Thereafter, despite giving 6 more opportunities on 07.08.2018, 11.09.2018, 30.10.2018, 26.12.2018, 13.02.2019 and 03.04.2019, the second party workman and his union refrained to submit statement of claim.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2795

3. Thus it appears that the second party workman and his union are not willing to prosecute the reference.

4. Therefore, the reference is disposed of in the absence of the statement of claim of the second party workman and his union with the observation as under: "the action of the management of Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Mumbai in denying compassionate allowance to Shri Sursing Mana who removed from service on 08.07.2009 on the ground of absenteeism is legal and justified."

5. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 ebZ] 2019

dk-avk- 715.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj भारतीय स्टेट बैंक ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k अहमदाबाद ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1280@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@05@2019 izkIr gqvk FkkA

ch. ,l. fc'V] अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2019

S.O. 715.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1280/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/05/2019.

[No. L-12012/4/99–IR (B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, 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 08th April, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1280/2004

1. The Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India, 7th Floor, Bhadra, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

2. The Zonal Manager, State Bank of India, 7th Floor, Paradise Complex, Sayajigunj, Baroda (Gujarat) – 394220

3. The Manager,

State Bank of India, Bhattar Road (Surat) Branch, Harkishan Building, Surat (Gujarat) - 395003

4. The Manager,

State Bank of India, Prakash Society (Surat) Branch, Surya Kiran Apartment, Near St. Zavier's School, Ghod-dhod, Surat (Gujarat) – 395003 ...First Parties2796 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

V/s.

Shri Rajeshbhai Kondubhai Narge, Room No. 41-81378, Navsari Bazar, Bombay Gate Gali, Chamadiya Chawl, Surat (Gujarat) - 395003 …Second Party

For the First Parties : Shri D.C. Gandhi For the Second Party : Shri P.F. Baxi

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/4/99–IR(B-I) dated 06.05.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the concerned workman Shri Rajeshbhai Kondubhai Narge has put in continuous service in the Bank as per provisions of Section 25-B?"

And

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India through its officers in terminating/discontinuing the services of the workman Shri Rajeshbhai Kondubhai Narge w.e.f. 07.09.1998 on/with the plea of abolition/cancellation of the waiting list of temporary employees is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?"

1. The reference dates back to 06.05.1999 and received on 09.06.1999 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After issuing notice to the parties, both the parties submitted their statement of claim and written statement as the case may be. The case was listed for evidence of the second party.

3. On 08.04.2019, the second party workman Rajeshbhai Kondubhai Narge and the first party State Bank of India, Surat and others submitted the settlement Ex. 30 stating that the matter has been resolved by way of onetime payment of Rs.200000/- (Rupees Two Lac) in the favour of second party workman Rajeshbhai Kondubhai Narge vide Demand Draft No. 774193 dated 05.04.2019 along with Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) in the favour of Shri P.F. Baxi, advocate of second party workman vide Demand Draft No. 774194 dated 05.04.2019 and nothing has been left for further resolution. The said settlement Ex. 30 is read over and explained to the parties. They admitted the terms and conditions of the settlement. Therefore, the settlement Ex. 30 is accepted by the Tribunal.

4. Thus the reference is disposed of in the light of the settlement Ex. 30. The settlement Ex. 30 shall remain the part of the award.

5. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 ebZ] 2019

dk-avk- 716.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k अहमदाबाद ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 15@2017) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@05@2019 izkIr gqvk FkkA

ch. ,l. fc'V] अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2019

S.O. 716.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/05/2019.

[No. L-41011/21/2016–IR (B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2797

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 11th April, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 15/2017

1. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer,

O/o The Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Near Chamunda Bridge, Asarwa, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

2. The Sr. Divisional Engineer (Mechanical), O/o The Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Near Chamunda Bridge, Asarwa, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

3. The Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer, O/o The Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Near Chamunda Bridge, Asarwa, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) 4. The General Manager,

Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020 …First Parties

V/s.

The Joint Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Sanand Railway Station, 28/B, Narayanpark, Behind Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) …Second Party

For the First Party : Shri M.M. Makhija

For the Second Part : Shri R.S. Sisodiya

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/21/2016– IR(B-I) dated 07.03.2017 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 the management of Western Railway, Mumbai to :- (1) Not to grant promotion to Shri Pravin Kumar Vaghela was justified and (2) Un-authorisedly deduct from salary of Shri Dhulabhai, Technician III under Senior Section Engineer (C&W), Western Railway, Ahmedabad are justified? If not, then what relief the said workmen are is entitled to?"

1. The reference dates back to 07.03.2017 and received on 22.03.2017 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After receiving the schedule of reference from Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi, notices were issued to both the parties. They were served but neither of the parties submitted the statement of claim or written statement as the case may be.

3. Today on 11.04.2019, Shri R.S. Sisodiya, The Joint Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Sanand Railway Station, 28/B, Narayanpark, Behind Chandkheda Railway Station, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad requested to withdraw the reference.

4. Therefore, the reference is disposed of as withdrawn.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 ebZ] 2019

dk-vk- 717.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj भारतीय स्टेट बैंक ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

2798 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k अहमदाबाद ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 88886@@@@2002002002005555) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@05@2019 izkIr gqvk Fkk1

ch. ,l. fc'V] अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2019

S.O. 717.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 86/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/05/2019.

[No. L-12012/465/99–IR (B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, 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 08th April, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 86/2005

1. The Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

2. The Chief Manager,

State Bank of India, Salabatpura, Surat (Gujarat) …First Parties

V/s.

Smt. Vanitaben T. Rathod, C/o Mukeshbhai B. Tailor, Imamwada Muglisara, Opp. Cambay Class, Surat (Gujarat) …Second Party

For the First Parties : Shri D.C. Gandhi

For the Second Party : Shri L.M. Patil

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/465/99– IR(B-I) dated 28.09.2005 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 the management of State Bank of India, Surat, Ahmedabad in terminating the services of Smt. Vanitaben T. Rathod w.e.f. 1994 and not absorbing her with retrospective effect i.e. date of absorption of her junior is justified or not? If not, to what relief he is entitled to and from which date?"

1. The reference dates back to 28.09.2005 and received on 06.10.2005 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After issuing notice to the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 6 and the case was listed for filing of written statement by the first party.

3. On 08.04.2019, the second party workwoman Vanitaben T. Rathod and the first party State Bank of India, Surat and others submitted the settlement Ex. 16 stating that the matter has been resolved by way of onetime payment of Rs.200000/- (Rupees Two Lac) in the favour of second party workwoman Vanitaben T. Rathod vide Demand Draft No. 329199 dated 04.04.2019 along with Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) in the favour of Shri L.M. Patil, advocate of second party workwoman vide Demand Draft No. 329197 dated 04.04.2019 and nothing has been left for further resolution. The said settlement Ex. 16 is read over and explained to the parties. They admitted the terms and conditions of the settlement. Therefore, the settlement Ex. 16 is accepted by the Tribunal.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2799

4. Thus the reference is disposed of in the light of the settlement Ex. 16. The settlement Ex. 16 shall remain the part of the award.

5. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 ebZ] 2019

dk-vk- 718.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj भारतीय स्टेट बैंक ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k अहमदाबाद ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1212121288886@@@@2002002002004444) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@05@2019 izkIr gqvk FkkA

ch. ,l. fc'V] अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2019

S.O. 718.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1286/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/05/2019.

[No. L-12012/151/99–IR (B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, 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 08th April, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1286/2004

1. The Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India, 7th Floor, Bhadra, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

2. The Zonal Manager,

State Bank of India, 7th Floor, Paradise Complex, Sayajigunj, Baroda (Gujarat)–390005

3. The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India, Gandhav, Valsad (Gujarat) - 396370

4. The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India, Billimora (Gujarat)-396370

5. The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India, GIDC, Navsari (Gujarat) – 396370

6. The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India, Navsari Branch, Navsari (Gujarat) – 396370 …First Parties

V/s.

Shri Jairambhai Ravjibhai Ahir, Village and Post Kachholi, Via, Amalsad, Taluka Gajdevi, Valsad (Gujarat) - 396370 …Second Party

For the First Parties : Shri D.C. Gandhi

For the Second Party : Shri P.F. Baxi2800 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/151/99– IR(B-I) dated 29.07.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the concerned workman Shri Jairambhai Ravjibhai Ahir has put in continuous service in the Bank as per provisions of Section 25-B?"

And

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India through its officers in terminating/discontinuing the services of the workman Shri Jairambhai Ravjibhai Ahir w.e.f. 30.11.1996 on/with the plea of abolition/cancellation of the waiting list of temporary employees is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?"

1. The reference dates back to 29.07.1999 and received on 11.08.1999 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After issuing notice to the parties, both the parties submitted their statement of claim and written statement as the case may be. The case was listed for cross-examination of the second party.

3. On 08.04.2019, the second party workman Jairambhai Ravjibhai Ahir and the first party State Bank of India, Surat and others submitted the settlement Ex. 37 stating that the matter has been resolved by way of onetime payment of Rs.200000/- (Rupees Two Lac) in the favour of second party workman Jairambhai Ravjibhai Ahir vide Demand Draft No. 483371 dated 04.04.2019 along with Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) in the favour of Shri P.F. Baxi, advocate of second party workman vide Demand Draft No. 483369 dated 04.04.2019 and nothing has been left for further resolution. The said settlement Ex. 37 is read over and explained to the parties. They admitted the terms and conditions of the settlement. Therefore, the settlement Ex. 37 is accepted by the Tribunal.

4. Thus the reference is disposed of in the light of the settlement Ex. 37. The settlement Ex. 37 shall remain the part of the award.

5. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 ebZ] 2019

dk-vk- 719.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyosss ds izca/krarz ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k अहमदाबाद ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 768@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@05@2019 izkIr gqvk FkkA

ch. ,l. fc'V] अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2019

S.O. 719.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 768/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/05/2019.

[No. L-41012/110/93–IR (B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2801

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

Present : Pramod Kumar Chaturvedi,Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated 11th April, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 768/2004

1. The General Manager,

Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020

2. The Chief Workshop Manager, Western Railway, Post Dahod, Panchmahal (Gujarat) …First Parties

V/s.

1. The Joint Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, A-49, Sant Kabirnagar, Akota, Baroda (Gujarat) 2. Sukliben Sakarabhai D., C/o The President, General Workmen's Union, Sinduri Mata Devasthan, Near S.T. Nagar Road, Godhra (Gujarat) - 389001 …Second Party

For the First Parties : Shri M.M. Makhija

For the Second Party : Shri J.K. Ved & Shri Prabhatsinh Parmar

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41012/110/93– IR(B-I) dated 23.03.1995 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 Chief Works Manager, Loco Workshop, Dahod in terminating the services of Shri Sakarabhai D., Rigger w.e.f. 30.05.1991 is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and what directions are necessary in the matter?"

1. The reference dates back to 23.03.1995 received from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. In response to the notice issued to the parties, the second party union submitted the statement of claim Ex. 3 on 11.07.1998 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 7 on 27.01.2003.

3. The second party in his statement of claim Ex. 3 has alleged that the workman Sakarabhai D. worked for more than 17 years with the first party The Chief Workshop Manager, Western Railway, Post Dahod, Panchmahal, hereinafter referred to as 'first party'. Despite his blotless carrier and service, he was served a charge-sheet dated 14.12.1990 with a charge of 239 days absence from service. He explained his absent before the enquiry officer in the departmental enquiry that he was suffering with mental disorder and was also an illiterate schedule tribe but his submission was turned around. He has further alleged that the documents mentioned in the charge-sheet were not shown to him and the railway doctor issued him a medical fitness certificate. He was legally entitled to get treatment from a private doctor as per Para 537 of the Indian Railway Medical Manual and on this very ground, the charge- sheet was liable to be struck down but to no result in the enquiry. He explained his absence in the enquiry that he was suffering with mental sickness but same was not considered while awarding the punishment. Therefore, he has prayed that the termination order dated 30.05.1991 be declared as null and void and directing the first party to reinstate him with back wages.

4. The first party in his written statement Ex. 9 partly admitting the averments made in the statement of claim submitted that this workman was working as Rigger in Loco Workshop, Dahod since last several years but his service was not satisfactory. He remained absent from duty from 13.02.1990 to 09.10.1990 without permission. Therefore, he was served with a charge-sheet on 14.12.1990. He did not attend the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted in a regular manner following the due procedure. He was held guilty for the said charge in the enquiry, therefore, the disciplinary authority removed him from service and his appeal was rejected with a detailed reasoned2802 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] order. He has been in a habit of regular absent during his whole service, therefore, his termination cannot be held unjust and illegal.

5. The workman Sakarabhai D. expired on 12.03.2007; therefore, vide application Ex. 10, his widow named Sukliben Sakarabhai D. was substituted as legal heir of the deceased workman. The first party vide list Ex. 21 submitted the service record of the deceased workman.

6. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:

i. Whether the action of the Chief Works Manager, Loco Workshop, Dahod in terminating the services of Shri Sakarabhai D., Rigger w.e.f. 30.05.1991 is legal, proper and justified?

ii. To what relief, if any, the widow named Sukliben Sakarabhai D. of the deceased workman is entitled?

7. Issue No. i and ii: As both the issues are interrelated, therefore, are decided together. The burden of proof of these issues lies on the second party workman and his widow Sukaliben Sakarabhai D. submitted her affidavit Ex. 7 reiterating the averments made in the statement of claim and has not said anything contrary to her examination-in- chief.

8. I heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the evidence available on record. It is an admitted fact that the deceased workman had been working as Rigger in the workshop Dahod for 17 years and was removed from service after conducting a departmental enquiry for a charge of 239 days long absence from duty. The first party has submitted the service record admitting the fact that the workman worked for 17 years from 27.09.1974 to 30.05.1991. The advocate for the first party admitted that the widow of the deceased workman may move an application before the appropriate authority for pension.

9. I would like to reproduce the provisions of the Rule 65 of the Railway Service Pension Rules, 1993 as under:

"65. Compassionate allowance - (1) A railway servant who is dismissed or removed from service shall forfeit his pension and gratuity.

Provided that the authority competent to dismiss or remove him from service may, if the case is deserving of special consideration, sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding two-thirds of pension or gratuity or both which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on compensation pension. "

10. I perused the punishment order which reveals that the deceased workman was removed from immediate effect but the order was silent regarding the pension and gratuity, therefore, in the light of the Rules 65 (1) of Railway Service Pension Rules, 1993 considering the illiteracy, tribal and mental sickness of the deceased workman, the Railway ought to have ordered two-third pension to the workman. But now the workman has died and his widow is in financial distress, therefore, it would be appropriate that the railway authority ought to have granted family pension to the widow of the deceased workman.

11. The widow named Sukliben Sakarabhai D. of the deceased workman named Sakarabhai D. shall apply for the family pension to the appropriate authority and the appropriate authority shall considered it favourably within 30 days from moving of application by the widow of the deceased workman.

12. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 ebZ] 2019

dk-vk- 720.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kra=z ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k अहमदाबाद ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1212121268@8@8@8@2002002002004444) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@05@2019 izkIr gqvk FkkA

ch. ,l. fc'V] अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2019

S.O. 720.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1268/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01.05.2019.

[No. L-12012/599/98–IR (B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2803

ANNEXURE

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

AHMEDABAD

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

Ahmedabad, Dated 08th April, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1268/2004

1. The Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India, 7th Floor, Bhadra, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

2. The Zonal Manager, State Bank of India, 7th Floor, Paradise Complex, Sayajigunj, Baroda (Gujarat) – 394220

3. The Manager,

State Bank of India, Salabatpura, (Surat) Branch, Maharaj Chambers, Mahatma Wadi, P.B. No. 168, Surat (Gujarat) - 395002

4. The Manager,

State Bank of India, Udhna-Udognagar, P.B. No. 1, Surat (Gujarat) – 394210 …First Parties

V/s.

Mr. Harshad Govindbhai Patel, Banglow No. 1, Sunivas Row House, Ambica Niketan, Surat (Gujarat) - 395003 …Second Party

For the First Parties : Shri A.B. Gogia For the Second Party : Shri P.F. Baxi

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/599/98– IR(B-I) dated 30.03.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the concerned workman Shri Harshad Govindbhai Patel has put in continuous service in the Bank as per provisions of Section 25-B?"

And

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India through its officers in terminating/discontinuing the services of the workman Shri Harshad Govindbhai Patel w.e.f. 30.09.1997 on/with the plea of abolition/cancellation of the waiting list of temporary employees is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?"

1. The reference dates back to 30.03.1999 and received on 05.04.1999 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After issuing notice to the parties, both the parties submitted their statement of claim and written statement as the case may be. The case was listed for cross-examination of parties.

3. On 08.04.2019, the second party workman Harshad Govindbhai Patel and the first party State Bank of India, Surat and others submitted the settlement Ex. 35 stating that the matter has been resolved by way of onetime payment of Rs.200000/- (Rupees Two Lac) in the favour of second party workman Harshad Govindbhai Patel vide Demand Draft No. 329198 dated 04.04.2019 along with Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) in the favour of Shri P.F. Baxi, advocate of second party workman vide Demand Draft No. 329200 dated 04.04.2019 and nothing has been left for further resolution. The said settlement Ex. 35 is read over and explained to the parties. They admitted the terms and conditions of the settlement. Therefore, the settlement Ex. 35 is accepted by the Tribunal.

2804 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 1 ebZ] 2019

dk-vk- 721.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/krar= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k अहमदाबाद ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1212121299@@@@2002002002004444) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@05@2019 izkIr gqvk FkkA

ch. ,l. fc'V] अवर सिचव

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2805

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/404/99– IR(B-I) dated 19.07.2000 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 management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Jagdishbhai Jamalbhai Parmar w.e.f. 16.07.1999 is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

6. The reference dates back to 19.07.2000 and received on 05.08.2000 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

7. After issuing notice to the parties, both the parties submitted their statement of claim and written statement as the case may be. The case was listed for evidence of the second party.

3. On 08.04.2019, the second party workman Jagdishbhai Jamalbhai Parmar and the first party State Bank of India, Surat and others submitted the settlement Ex. 31 stating that the matter has been resolved by way of onetime payment of Rs.200000/- (Rupees Two Lac) in the favour of second party workman Jagdishbhai Jamalbhai Parmar vide Demand Draft No. 427233 dated 04.04.2019 along with Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) in the favour of Shri P.F. Baxi, advocate of second party workman vide Demand Draft No. 427235 dated 04.04.2019 and nothing has been left for further resolution. The said settlement Ex. 31 is read over and explained to the parties. They admitted the terms and conditions of the settlement. Therefore, the settlement Ex. 31 is accepted by the Tribunal.

4. Thus the reference is disposed of in the light of the settlement Ex. 31. The settlement Ex. 31 shall remain the part of the award.

5. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 ebZ] 2019

dk-vk- 722.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/krarz ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k अहमदाबाद ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1212121260@@@@2002002002004444) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-05-2019 izkIr gqvk FkkA

ch. ,l. fc'V] अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2019

S.O. 722.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1260/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01.05.2019.

[No. L-12012/383/98–IR (B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, 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 08th April, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1260/2004

1. The Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India,

7th Floor, Bhadra, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

2. The Regional Manager,2806 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] State Bank of India,

Region – III, Zonal Office, 7th Floor, Paradise Complex, Sayajigunj, Baroda (Gujarat) – 394220

3. The Manager,

State Bank of India, Service Branch, 2nd Floor, Akshar Complex, Behind Rang Upavan, Makkaipool, Surat (Gujarat) – 395003 …First Parties

V/s.

Mr. Santhosh Kumar Nathuram More, Navsari Bazar, Behind Bombay Gate, Chamdiya Ki Chawl, Room No. 45, Surat (Gujarat) - 395003 …Second Party For the First Parties : Shri A.B. Gogia For the Second Party : Shri P.F. Baxi

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/383/98– IR(B-I) dated 11.03.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the concerned workman Shri Santhosh Kumar Nathuram More has put in continuous service in the Bank as per provisions of Section 25-B?"

And

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India through its officers in terminating/discontinuing the services of the workman Shri Santhosh Kumar Nathuram More w.e.f. 28.02.1997 on/with the plea of abolition/cancellation of the waiting list of temporary employees is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?"

1. The reference dates back to 11.03.1999 and received on 26.03.1999 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After issuing notice to the parties, both the parties submitted their statement of claim and written statement as the case may be. The case was listed for evidence of the second party.

3. On 08.04.2019, the second party workman Santhosh Kumar Nathuram More and the first party State Bank of India, Surat and others submitted the settlement Ex. 33 stating that the matter has been resolved by way of onetime payment of Rs.200000/- (Rupees Two Lac) in the favour of second party workman Santhosh Kumar Nathuram More vide Demand Draft No. 774197 dated 05.04.2019 along with Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) in the favour of Shri P.F. Baxi, advocate of second party workman vide Demand Draft No. 774196 dated 05.04.2019 and nothing has been left for further resolution. The said settlement Ex. 33 is read over and explained to the parties. They admitted the terms and conditions of the settlement. Therefore, the settlement Ex. 33 is accepted by the Tribunal.

4. Thus the reference is disposed of in the light of the settlement Ex. 33. The settlement Ex. 33 shall remain the part of the award.

5. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 ebZ] 2019

dk-vk- 723.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe jsyos izca/krar= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k अहमदाबाद ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 83838383@@@@2020202011115555) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-05-2019 izkIr gqvk FkkA

ch. ,l. fc'V] अवर सिचव[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2807

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2019

S.O. 723.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 83/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01.05.2019.

[No. L-41011/59/2015–IR (B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, 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 11th April, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 83/2015

1. The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Asarwa, Near Chamunda Bridge, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

2. The Chief Medical Officer,

Western Railway, Sabarmati Railway Hospital, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) …First Parties

V/s.

The Joint Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Sanand Railway Station, PO Nidh Road, Sanand, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) …Second Party

For the First Parties : Shri H.R. Raval

For the Second Party : Shri R.S. Sisodiya

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41011/59/2015– IR(B-I) dated 26.11.2015 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 demand of the Joint Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, Ahmedabad against the Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Ahmedabad to appoint the sons of Late Shri Bula Sakra, Shri Babubhai Bhula Sakra under compassionate ground is justified? If yes, then what relief Shri Babubhai Bhula Sakra is entitled to?"

1. The reference dates back to 26.11.2015 and received on 16.12.2015 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

4. Therefore, the reference is disposed of as withdrawn.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 1 ebZ] 2019

dk-vk- 724.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/krar= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V vkSn~;ksfxd2808 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k अहमदाबाद ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1212121284@@@@2002002002004444) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-05-2019 izkIr gqvk FkkA

ch. ,l. fc'V] अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2019

S.O. 724.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1284/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01,05,2019.

[No. L-12012/137/99–IR (B-1)]

B. S. BISHT, 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 08th April, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No. 1284/2004

1. The Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India, 7th Floor, Bhadra, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001

2. The Zonal Manager, State Bank of India, 7th Floor, Paradise Complex, Sayajigunj, Baroda (Gujarat) – 394220

3. The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India, Navsari (Gujarat) 4. The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India, Billimora (Gujarat) …First Parties

V/s.

Shri Navnitbhai Raghubhai Patel, Village and Post Vasma, Kacchiawadi, Taluka Jalalpore, Navsari (Gujarat) …Second Party

For the First Parties : Shri D.C. Gandhi For the Second Part : Shri P.F. Baxi

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/137/99– IR(B-I) dated 28.07.1999 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the concerned workman Shri Navnitbhai Raghubhai Patel has put in continuous service in the Bank as per provisions of Section 25-B?"

And

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India through its officers in terminating/discontinuing the services of the workman Shri Navnitbhai Raghubhai Patel w.e.f. 05.07.1997 on/with the plea of[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2809 abolition/cancellation of the waiting list of temporary employees is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?" 1. The reference dates back to 28.07.1999 and received on 17.08.1999 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After issuing notice to the parties, both the parties submitted their statement of claim and written statement as the case may be. The case was listed for cross-examination of the second party.

3. On 08.04.2019, the second party workman Navnitbhai Raghubhai Patel and the first party State Bank of India, Surat and others submitted the settlement Ex. 33 stating that the matter has been resolved by way of onetime payment of Rs.200000/- (Rupees Two Lac) in the favour of second party workman Navnitbhai Raghubhai Patel vide Demand Draft No. 483372 dated 04.04.2019 along with Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) in the favour of Shri P.F. Baxi, advocate of second party workman vide Demand Draft No. 483370 dated 04.04.2019 and nothing has been left for further resolution. The said settlement Ex. 33 is read over and explained to the parties. They admitted the terms and conditions of the settlement. Therefore, the settlement Ex. 33 is accepted by the Tribunal.

4. Thus the reference is disposed of in the light of the settlement Ex. 33. The settlement Ex. 33 shall remain the part of the award.

5. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मई, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 725725725725.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार मेसर्स भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि{दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्%ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं mम न्यायालय, चेन्नई के पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 28/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्%ीय सरकार को 02.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आई आर (एम)]

डी....के .... िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2019

S.O. 725.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 28/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation of India and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 02.05.2019.

[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL- CUM – LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Present : DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 28/2019

Friday, the 29th March, 2019

BETWEEN

Sri S. Bharthi Mohan S/o N. Sivananthm,2810 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] No. 7/59B, Mariamman Kovil 2nd Street,

C. Pallavaram Chennai-600043 : 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager : 2nd Party/1st to 4 Respondent Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. No. 1, Raganathan Garden 11th Main Road, Annanagar West Chennai-600040 2. The Manager : 32A, T.S. Krishna Nagar, Mugappair, Anna Nagar West Chennai-600050

3. Sqn.LDr. V. Venkatadri (Retd.) : New No. 20, 18th Avenue Ashok Nagar Chennai-600083 4. Mr. S. Ramachandran : New No. 6 (Old No. 11), Damodaran St. Kellys Chennai-600010

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : Party in Person For the 2nd Party/Respondents 1 to 4 : None

ORDER

This is an Application under 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act Filed by one Mr. S. Bharathi Mohan, The Applicant case in brief is that he was employed under the Respondents through the 4th Respondent-Contractor as a pump operator with a monthly salary of Rs. 14,700/- and alongwith Bonus and other Allowances, on the strength of an agreement dated 01.08.2004. While the matter stood thus, he was terminated from service without any prior notice under section 25 of the ID Act. The Applicant urges, he moved the appropriate Authority by his petition under section 33(c)(2) of the ID Act claiming compensation and benefits owing to his termination. But to his ill luck the petition was dismissed. With this backdrop the petitioner claims to set aside the order of the termination and his reinstatement with all financial benefits for his service period from 1995 to 2007.

2. During the course hearing the Learned Counsel moves this petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 4180 days in filing of the Application under 2A of the ID Act. He assigns the reason of the delay that the petitioner moved the appropriate Authority for compensation owing to his termination which was dismissed on 29.01.2010 occasioning him to approach the Deputy Labour Commissioner (C), Chennai on dated 08.01.2013 which is still pending disposal. He further assigns the reason that his relevant file was misplaced in the office of the Union, which was received only on 17.12.2018. Thereafter the Applicant files this Application under 2A of the ID Act. Hence, prays to condone the delay and admit the case.

3. In view of the facts discussion held supra and on through perusal of the Office Note, the Claim Statement and other documents including the delay condonation petition, it undoubtedly appears that there is inordinate delay of 4190 days in filing of the Applications. In order to bring the instant Application within the admit of the amended provision under 2A Act, it is to be seen if the Applicant approaches this Forum-The Industrial Tribunal after exhausting all pre requisites of the conditions contemplated under the provision of 2A (2) of the Act. Admittedly the amended insertion under 2A of the ID Act is a beneficiary legislation for workmen, which provides a right in favour of the workmen to approach directly to the appropriate the Forum under the Act to get immediate relief.

Section 2A sub clause (2) of the ID Act reads as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything contained is Section 10 any such workmen as is specified in Sub-section (1) may,

make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to

therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation

Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the

Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudication upon the dispute , xx xx xx xx

xx xx xx xx xx Section 2A of sub clause (3) reads as follows

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2811

"The application referred to in Sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the

expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service

as specified in Sub-section (1)"

4. In combined reading of both the section it needs to see if the Applicant has filed the Application within a period of 3 years from the date of the alleged termination. And also to see if the Applicant approached the Labour Machinery within the period of 3 years and after expiry of 45 days of such approach, has filed the instant Applications under 2A (2) before this Tribunal. In a meticulous perusal and scrutiny on the documents available on record, it is found that except a petition to condone delay, the Applicant failed to produce a single scrap of documents relating to his appointment, termination, or any copies of the petition showing to have moved before the Labour Machinery. On further perusal of the Office Note it is found that the Applicant was provided with sufficient opportunity to produce the relevant documents. The Applicant when fails to produce any document regarding his approach to Labour Machinery-Conciliation Officer, did not turn-up to convince the delay of 4190 (as per the Office Note). In filing of the Applications. On the other hand the reason assigned by the Applicant in his petition to condone delay does not sound reasonable. The petition to condone the delay of 4190 days is rejected, being devoid of any merit.

5. In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs the Application filed by the Applicant deserves not maintainable under the provisions under section 2(2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

The case in ID 28 of 2019 stands dismissed.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मई, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 726726726726.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार मेसर्स भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में

नि{दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्%ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं mम न्यायालय, चेन्नई के पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 29/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्%ीय सरकार को 02.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आई आर (एम)]

डी....के .... िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2019

S.O.726.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 29/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation of India and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 02.05.2019.

[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM–LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Present : DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 29/2019

Friday, the 29th March, 2019

BETWEEN

Sri G. Gnanavel, S/o Ganesan, No. 10, Nalvaravu Street, MMDA Colony, Arumbakkam, Chennai-600106 : 1st Party/Petitioner2812 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] AND 1. The General Manager Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. No. 1, Raganathan Garden 11th Main Road, Annanagar West Chennai-600040 : 2nd Party/1st 1 to 4 Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner            :    Party in Person
For the 2nd Party/Respondents 1 to 4    :    None

ORDER

This is an Application under 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act Filed by one Mr. G. Gnavavel, The Applicant case in brief is that he was employed under the Respondents through the 4th Respondent-Contractor as a pump operator with a monthly salary of Rs. 14,700/- and alongwith Bonus and other Allowances, on the strength of an agreement dated 01.08.2004. While the matter stood thus, he was terminated from service without any prior notice under section 25 of the ID Act. The Applicant urges, he moved the appropriate Authority by his petition under section 33(c)(2) of the ID Act claiming compensation and benefits owing to his termination. But to his ill luck the petition was dismissed. With this backdrop the petitioner claims to set aside the order of the termination and his reinstatement with all financial benefits for his service period from 1995 to 2007.

Section 2A sub clause (2) of the ID Act reads as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything contained is Section 10 any such workmen as is specified in Sub-section (1) may,

make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to

therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation

Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the

Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudication upon the dispute , xx xx xx xx

xx xx xx xx xx Section 2A of sub clause (3) reads as follows

"The application referred to in Sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the

expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service

as specified in Sub-section (1)"

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2813

4. In combined reading of both the section it needs to see if the Applicant has filed the Application within a period of 3 years from the date of the alleged termination. And also to see if the Applicant approached the Labour Machinery within the period of 3 years and after expiry of 45 days of such approach, has filed the instant Applications under 2A (2) before this Tribunal. In a meticulous perusal and scrutiny on the documents available on record, it is found that except a petition to condone delay, the Applicant failed to produce a single scrap of documents relating to his appointment, termination, or any copies of the petition showing to have moved before the Labour Machinery. On further perusal of the Office Note it is found that the Applicant was provided with sufficient opportunity to produce the relevant documents.The Applicant when fails to produce any document regarding his approach to Labour Machinery-Conciliation Officer, did not turn-up to convince the delay of 4190 (as per the Office Note). In filing of the Applications. On the other hand the reason assigned by the Applicant in his petition to condone delay does not sound reasonable. The petition to condone the delay of 4190 days is rejected, being devoid of any merit.

5. In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs the Application filed by the Applicant deserves not maintainable under the provisions under section 2(2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

The case in ID 29 of 2019 stands dismissed.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मई, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 727727727727.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार मेसर्स भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में

(संदर्भ संख्या 30/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्%ीय सरकार को 02.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आई आर (एम)]

डी.... के .... िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2019

S.O. 727.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 30/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the of management M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation of India and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 02.05.2019.

[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

CHENNAI

Present : DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 30/2019 Friday, the 29th March, 2019

BETWEEN

Sri M. Jambulingam S/o Muthaiah No. 54-B, 2nd Street B.V. Colony, Vyasarpadi Chennai-600039 : 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. No. 1, Raganathan Garden2814 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ¹¹th Main Road, Annanagar West

Chennai-600040 2. The Manager

32A, T.S. Krishna Nagar, Mugappair, Anna Nagar West Chennai-600050

3. Sqn.LDr. V. Venkatadri (Retd.)

New No. 20, 18th Avenue Ashok Nagar Chennai-600083

4. Mr. S. Ramachandran New No. 6 (Old No. 11), Damodaran St. Kellys Chennai-600010

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : Party in Person For the 2nd Party/Respondents 1 to 4 : None

ORDER This is an Application under 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act Filed by one Mr. Jambulingam, S/o Muthaiah. The Applicant case in brief is that he was employed under the Respondents through the 4th Respondent-Contractor as a pump operator with a monthly salary of Rs. 14,700/- and alongwith Bonus and other Allowances, on the strength of an agreement dated 01.08.2004. While the matter stood thus, he was terminated from service without any prior notice under section 25 of the ID Act. The Applicant urges, he moved the appropriate Authority by his petition under section 33(c)(2) of the ID Act claiming compensation and benefits owing to his termination. But to his ill luck the petition was dismissed. With this backdrop the petitioner claims to set aside the order of the termination and his reinstatement with all financial benefits for his service period from 1995 to 2007.

Section 2A sub clause (2) of the ID Act reads as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything contained is Section 10 any such workmen as is specified in Sub-section (1)

may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to

therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation

Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the

Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudication upon the dispute , xx xx xx xx

xx xx xx xx xx Section 2A of sub clause (3) reads as follows

"The application referred to in Sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the

expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of

service as specified in Sub-section (1)"

4. In combined reading of both the section it needs to see if the Applicant has filed the Application within a period of 3 years from the date of the alleged termination. And also to see if the Applicant approached the Labour Machinery within the period of 3 years and after expiry of 45 days of such approach, has filed the instant Applications under 2A (2) before this Tribunal. In a meticulous perusal and scrutiny on the documents available on record, it is found that except a petition to condone delay, the Applicant failed to produce a single scrap of documents relating to his appointment, termination, or any copies of the petition showing to have moved before the Labour Machinery. On further perusal of the Office Note it is found that the Applicant was provided with sufficient opportunity to produce the relevant documents. The Applicant when fails to produce any document regarding his approach to Labour Machinery-Conciliation Officer, did not turn-up to convince the delay of 4190 (as per the Office Note). In filing of the Applications. On the other hand the reason[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2815 assigned by the Applicant in his petition to condone delay does not sound reasonable. The petition to condone the delay of 4190 days is rejected, being devoid of any merit.

5. In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs the Application filed by the Applicant deserves not maintainable under the provisions under section 2(2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

The case in ID 30 of 2019 stands dismissed.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मई, 2019

का. आ.का. आ.का. आ.का. आ. 728728728728.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार मेसर्स भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में

(संदर्भ संख्या 31/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्%ीय सरकार को 02.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आई आर (एम)]

डी....के .... िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2019

S.O. 728.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 31/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/LabourCourt, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation of India and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 02.05.2019.

[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM – LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Present : DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 31/2019 Friday, the 29th March, 2019

BETWEEN

Smt. G. Mariyammal D/o G. Chellapa No. 4/151, Anna Street, Polachalur Chennai-600074 : 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager : 2nd Party/Respondent 1 to 4

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. No. 1, Raganathan Garden 11th Main Road, Annanagar West Chennai-600040

2. The Manager

32A, T.S. Krishna Nagar, Mugappair, Anna Nagar West Chennai-600050

3. Sqn.LDr. V. Venkatadri (Retd.)

New No. 20, 18th Avenue Ashok Nagar Chennai-600083

4. Mr. S. Ramachandran

New No. 6 (Old No. 11), Damodaran St. Kellys Chennai-6000102816 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner                :        Party in Person
For the 2nd Party/Respondents 1 to 4        :        None

ORDER

This is an Application under 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act Filed by one Smt. G. Mariyammal, The Applicant case in brief is that he was employed under the Respondents through the 4th Respondent-Contractor as a pump operator with a monthly salary of Rs. 14,700/- and alongwith Bonus and other Allowances, on the strength of an agreement dated 01.08.2004. While the matter stood thus, he was terminated from service without any prior notice under section 25 of the ID Act. The Applicant urges, he moved the appropriate Authority by his petition under section 33(c)(2) of the ID Act claiming compensation and benefits owing to his termination. But to his ill luck the petition was dismissed. With this backdrop the petitioner claims to set aside the order of the termination and his reinstatement with all financial benefits for his service period from 1995 to 2007.

Section 2A sub clause (2) of the ID Act reads as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything contained is Section 10 any such workmen as is specified in Sub-section (1)

may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein

after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the

appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or

Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudication upon the dispute , xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx Section 2A

of sub clause (3) reads as follows

"The application referred to in Sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the

expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as

specified in Sub-section (1)"

5. In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs the Application filed by the Applicant deserves not maintainable under the provisions under section 2(2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

The case in ID 31 of 2019 stands dismissed.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2817

नई दिल्ली, 3 मई, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 729729729729.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार मेसर्स भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में

(संदर्भ संख्या 32/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्%ीय सरकार को 02.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आई आर (एम)]

डी....के .... िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2019

S.O. 729.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 32/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation of India and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 02.05.2019.

[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Present : DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 32/2019

Friday, the 29th March, 2019

BETWEEN

Sri M. Gunasekaran S/o C. Mani Old No. 36/1, New No. 42, Kanni Mulla Ganapathi Nagar, Thirumullaivayal, Ambattur, Chennai-600043 : …1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager : …2nd Party/Respondent 1 to 4 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. No. 1, Raganathan Garden 11th Main Road, Annanagar West Chennai-600040

2. The Manager 32A, T.S. Krishna Nagar, Mugappair, Anna Nagar West Chennai-600050

3. Sqn.LDr. V. Venkatadri (Retd.) New No. 20, 18th Avenue Ashok Nagar Chennai-600083

4. Mr. S. Ramachandran New No. 6 (Old No. 11), Damodaran Street Kellys Chennai-6000102818 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Appearance: For the 1st Party/Petitioner : Party in Person For the 2nd Party/Respondents 1 to 4 : None

ORDER

This is an Application under 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act Filed by one Mr. M. Gunasekaran, The Applicant case in brief is that he was employed under the Respondents through the 4th Respondent-Contractor as a pump operator with a monthly salary of Rs. 14,700/- and alongwith Bonus and other Allowances, on the strength of an agreement dated 01.08.2004. While the matter stood thus, he was terminated from service without any prior notice under section 25 of the ID Act. The Applicant urges, he moved the appropriate Authority by his petition under section 33(c)(2) of the ID Act claiming compensation and benefits owing to his termination. But to his ill luck the petition was dismissed. With this backdrop the petitioner claims to set aside the order of the termination and his reinstatement with all financial benefits for his service period from 1995 to 2007.

2. Due the course hearing the Learned Counsel moves this petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 4180 days in filing of the Application under 2A of the ID Act. He assigns the reason of the delay that the petitioner moved the appropriate Authority for compensation owing to his termination which was dismissed on 29.01.2010 occasioning him to approach the Deputy Labour Commissioner (C), Chennai on dated 08.01.2013 which is still pending disposal. He further assigns the reason that his relevant file was misplaced in the office of the Union, which was received only on 17.12.2018. Thereafter the Applicant files this Application under 2A of the ID Act. Hence, prays to condone the delay and admit the case.

3. In view of the facts discussion held supra and on through perusal of the Office Note, the Claim Statement and other documents including delay condonation petition, it undoubtedly appears that there is inordinate delay of 4190 days in filing of the Applications. In order to bring the instant Application within the admit of the amended provision under 2A Act, it is to be seen if the Applicant approaches this Forum-The Industrial Tribunal after exhausting all pre requisites of the conditions contemplated under the provision of 2A (2) of the Act. Admittedly the amended insertion under 2A of the ID Act is a beneficiary legislation for workmen, which provides a right in favour of the workmen to approach directly to the appropriate the Forum under the Act to get immediate relief.

Section 2A sub clause (2) of the ID Act reads as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything contained is Section 10 any such workmen as is specified in Sub-section (1)

may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to

therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation

Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the

Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudication upon the dispute , xx xx xx xx

xx xx xx xx xx Section 2A of sub clause (3) reads as follows

"The application referred to in Sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the

expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as

specified in Sub-section (1)"

4. In combined reading of both the section it needs to see if the Applicant has filed the Application within a period of 3 years from the date of the alleged termination. And also to see if the Applicant approached the Labour Machinery within the period of 3 years and after expiry of 45 days of such approach, has filed the instant Applications under 2A (2) before this Tribunal. In a meticulous perusal and scrutiny on the documents available on record, it is found that except a petition to condone delay, the Applicant failed to produce a single scrap of documents relating to his appointment, termination, or any copies of the petition showing to have moved before the Labour Machinery. On further perusal of the Office Note it is found that the Applicant was provided with sufficient opportunity to produce the relevant documents.The Applicant when fails to produce any document regarding his approach to Labour Machinery-Conciliation Officer, did not turn-up to convince the delay of 4190 (as per the Office Note). In filing of the Applications. On the other hand the reason assigned by the Applicant in his petition to condone delay does not sound reasonable. The petition to condone the delay of 4190 days is rejected, being devoid of any merit.

5. In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs the Application filed by the Applicant deserves not maintainable under the provisions under section 2(2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

The case in ID 32 of 2019 stands dismissed.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मई, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 730730730730.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार मेसर्स भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2819 नि{दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्%ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं mम न्यायालय, चेन्नई के पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 33/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्%ीय सरकार को 02.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आई आर (एम)]

डी....के .... िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2019

S.O. 730.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 33/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation of India and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 02.05.2019.

[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

CHENNAI

Present : DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer I.D. No. 33 of 2019 Friday, the 29th March, 2019

BETWEEN

Sri M. Umamageswara Rao, S/o Dharamaraj, No. 67/9, Lakshmi Plot, 2nd Cross Street Sathya Nagar, Padi Chennai-600050 AND 1. The General Manager A Govt. of India Under Taking Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. No. 1, Raganathan Garden 11th Main Road, Annanagar West Chennai-600040 2. The Manager Company Owner Company Operated Outlet, 32A, T.S. Krishna Nagar, Mugappair, Anna Nagar West Chennai-600050 3. Sqn.LDr. V. Venkatadri (Retd.) New No. 20, 18th Avenue Ashok Nagar Chennai-600083 4. Mr. S. Ramachandran New No. 6 (Old No. 11), Damodaran Street, Kellys Chennai-660010 Appearance: For the 1st Party/Petitioner : Party in Person For the 2nd Party/Respondents 1 to 4 : None

ORDER

This is an Application under 2A (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act Filed by one Mr. M. Umamageswara Rao, The Applicant case in brief is that he was employed under the Respondents through the 4th Respondent-Contractor as a pump operator with a monthly salary of Rs. 14,700/- and alongwith Bonus and other Allowances, on the strength of an agreement dated 01.08.2004. While the matter stood thus, he was terminated from service without any prior notice under2820 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] section 25 of the ID Act. The Applicant urges, he moved the appropriate Authority by his petition under section 33(c) (2) of the ID Act claiming compensation and benefits owing to his termination. But to his ill luck the petition was dismissed. With this backdrop the petitioner claims to set aside the order of the termination and his reinstatement with all financial benefits for his service period from 1995 to 2007.

Section 2A sub clause (2) of the ID Act reads as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything contained is Section 10 any such workmen as is specified in Sub-section (1) may,

make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after

the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate

Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall

have powers and jurisdiction to adjudication upon the dispute , xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx Section 2A of sub clause

(3) reads as follows

"The application referred to in Sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the

expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as

specified in Sub-section (1)"

5. In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs the Application filed by the Applicant deserves not maintainable under the provisions under section 2(2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

The case in ID 33 of 2019 stands dismissed.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मई, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 731731731731.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार मेसर्स भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में

(संदर्भ संख्या 34/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्%ीय सरकार को 02.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आई आर (एम)]

डी....के .... िहमांशु, अवर सिचव[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2821

New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2019

S.O. 731.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 34/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation of India and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 02.05.2019.

[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

CHENNAI

Present : DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 34 of 2019

Friday, the 29th March, 2019

BETWEEN

Sri K. Ramesh, S/o Karuppaiah No. 12/54, Kannasadan Street, Mogapair East, Thiruvallur District, Chennai-600037

AND

1. The General Manager

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

No. 1, Raganathan Garden 11th Main Road, Anna Nagar East Chennai-600040

2. The Manager

32A, T.S. Krishna Nagar, Mugapair, Anna Nagar West Chennai-600050

3. Sqn.LDr. V. Venkatadri (Retd.) New No. 20, 18th Avenue Ashok Nagar Chennai-600083 4. Mr. S. Ramachandran New No. 6 (Old No. 11), Damadaran Street Kellys Chennai-660010

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : Party in Person For the 2nd Party/Respondents 1 to 4 : None

ORDER This is an Application under 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act Filed by one Mr. K. Ramesh, The Applicant case in brief is that he was employed under the Respondents through the 4th Respondent-Contractor as a pump operator with a monthly salary of Rs. 14,700/- and alongwith Bonus and other Allowances, on the strength of an agreement dated 01.08.2004. While the matter stood thus, he was terminated from service without any prior notice under section 25 of the ID Act. The Applicant urges, he moved the appropriate Authority by his petition under section 33(c)(2) of the ID Act claiming compensation and benefits owing to his termination. But to his ill luck the petition was dismissed. With this backdrop the petitioner claims to set aside the order of the termination and his reinstatement with all financial benefits for his service period from 1995 to 2007.

2. During the course hearing the Learned Counsel moves this petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 4180 days in filing of the Application under 2A of the ID Act. He assigns the reason of the delay that the petitioner moved the appropriate Authority for compensation owing to his termination which was dismissed on2822 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 29.01.2010 occasioning him to approach the Deputy Labour Commissioner (C), Chennai on dated 08.01.2013 which is still pending disposal. He further assigns the reason that his relevant file was misplaced in the office of the Union, which was received only on 17.12.2018. Thereafter the Applicant files this Application under 2A of the ID Act. Hence, prays to condone the delay and admit the case.

Section 2A sub clause (2) of the ID Act reads as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything contained is Section 10 any such workmen as is specified in Sub-section

(1) may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute

referred to therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the

Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such

application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudication upon the

dispute , xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx Section 2A of sub clause (3) reads as follows

"The application referred to in Sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal

before the expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise

termination of service as specified in Sub-section (1)"

5. In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs the Application filed by the Applicant deserves not maintainable under the provisions under section 2(2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

The case in ID 34 of 2019 stands dismissed.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मई, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 732732732732.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार मेसर्स भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में

(संदर्भ संख्या 35/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्%ीय सरकार को 02.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आई आर (एम)]

डी....के .... िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2019

S.O. 732.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 35/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation of India and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 02.05.2019.

[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2823

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Present : DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 35/2019

Friday, the 29th March, 2019

BETWEEN

Sri G. Irudhayaraj, S/o Gnanasundaram, No. 12/203, Small Street, Pulicat Post, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District Pin-601205 : 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager : 2nd Party/1st Respondent A Govt. of India Undertaking,

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. No. 1, Raganathan Garden 11th Main Road, Annanagar West Chennai-600040

2. The Manager : 2nd Party/2nd Respondent

32A, T.S. Krishna Nagar, Mugappair, Anna Nagar West Chennai-600050

3. Sqn.LDr. V. Venkatadri (Retd.) : 2nd Party/3rd Respondent

New No. 20, 18th Avenue Ashok Nagar Chennai-600083

4. Mr. S. Ramachandran : 2rd Party/4th Respondent

New No. 6 (Old No. 11), Damodaran St. Kellys Chennai-600010

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : Party in Person For the 2nd Party/Respondents 1 to 4 : None

ORDER

This is an Application under 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act Filed by one Mr. G. Iruthayaraj, The Applicant case in brief is that he was employed under the Respondents through the 4th Respondent-Contractor as a pump operator with a monthly salary of Rs. 14,700/- and alongwith Bonus and other Allowances, on the strength of an agreement dated 01.08.2004. While the matter stood thus, he was terminated from service without any prior notice under section 25 of the ID Act. The Applicant urges, he moved the appropriate Authority by his petition under section 33(c)(2) of the ID Act claiming compensation and benefits owing to his termination. But to his ill luck the petition was dismissed. With this backdrop the petitioner claims to set aside the order of the termination and his reinstatement with all financial benefits for his service period from 1995 to 2007.

3. In view of the facts discussion held supra and on through perusal of the Office Note, the Claim Statement and other documents including the delay condonation petition, it undoubtedly appears that there is inordinate delay of 4190 days in filing of the Applications. In order to bring the instant Application within the admit of the amended provision under 2A Act, it is to be seen if the Applicant approaches this Forum-The Industrial Tribunal after exhausting all pre requisites of the conditions contemplated under the provision of 2A (2) of the Act. Admittedly the amended insertion under 2A of the2824 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ID Act is a beneficiary legislation for workmen, which provides a right in favour of the workmen to approach directly to the appropriate the Forum under the Act to get immediate relief.

Section 2A sub-clause (2) of the ID Act reads as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything contained is Section 10 any such workmen as is specified in Sub-section (1) may,

make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after

the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate

Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall

have powers and jurisdiction to adjudication upon the dispute , xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx Section 2A of sub clause

(3) reads as follows

"The application referred to in Sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the

expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as

specified in Sub-section (1)"

5. In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs the Application filed by the Applicant deserves not maintainable under the provisions under section 2(2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

The case in ID No. 35 of 2019 stands dismissed.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मई, 2019

का. आ.का. आ.का. आ.का. आ. 737373733333.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार मेसर्स भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में

(संदर्भ संख्या 36/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्%ीय सरकार को 02.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आई आर (एम)]

डी....के .... िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2019

S.O. 733.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 36/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation of India and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 02.05.2019.

[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2825

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Present : DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 36/2019

Friday, the 29th March, 2019

BETWEEN

Sri P. Paul Raj S/o P. John, No. 250, Bharathi Nagar, 2nd Street, Villivakkam, Chennai-600049 : 1st Party/Petitioner AND

1. The General Manager, : 2nd Party/1st Respondent

A Govt. of India Under taking, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, No. 1 Ranganathan Garden, 11th Main Road, Anna Nagar East, Chennai-600040

2. The Manager : 2nd Party/2nd Respondent

Company Owner Company Operated Outlet 32A, T.S. Krishna Nagar, Mugappair, Anna Nagar West , Chennai-600050

3. Sqn. LDr. V. Venkatadri (Retd.) : 2nd Party/3rd Respondent New No. 20, 18th Avenue, Ashok Nagar

Chennai-600083 4. Mr. S. Ramachandran : 2rd Party/4th Respondent

New No. 6 (Old No. 11), Damodaran Sreet,

Kellys, Chennai-600010

Appearance: For the 1st Party/Petitioner : Party in Person For the 2nd Party/Respondents 1 to 4 : None

ORDER

This is an Application under 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act Filed by one Mr. P. Paul Raj, The Applicant case in brief is that he was employed under the Respondents through the 4th Respondent-Contractor as a pump operator with a monthly salary of Rs. 14,700/- and alongwith Bonus and other Allowances, on the strength of an agreement dated 01.08.2004. While the matter stood thus, he was terminated from service without any prior notice under section 25 of the ID Act. The Applicant urges, he moved the appropriate Authority by his petition under section 33(c)(2) of the ID Act claiming compensation and benefits owing to his termination. But to his ill luck the petition was dismissed. With this backdrop the petitioner claims to set aside the order of the termination and his reinstatement with all financial benefits for his service period from 1995 to 2007.

Section 2A sub clause (2) of the ID Act reads as follows:

2826 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"The application referred to in Sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the

expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as

specified in Sub-section (1)"

4. In combined reading of both the section it needs to see if the Applicant has filed the Application within a period of 3 years from the date of the alleged termination. And also to see if the Applicant approached the Labour Machinery within the period of 3 years and after expiry of 45 days of such approach, has filed the instant Applications under 2A (2) before this Tribunal. In a meticulous perusal and scrutiny on the documents available on record, it is found that except a petition to condone delay, the Applicant failed to produce a single scrap of documents relating to his appointment, termination, or any copies of the petition showing to have moved before the Labour Machinery. On further perusal of the Office Note it is found that the Applicant was provided with sufficient opportunity to produce the relevant documents. The Applicant when fails to produce any document regarding his approach to Labour Machinery- Conciliation Officer, did not turn-up to convince the delay of 4190 (as per the Office Note). In filing of the Applications. On the other hand the reason assigned by the Applicant in his petition to condone delay does not sound reasonable. The petition to condone the delay of 4190 days is rejected, being devoid of any merit.

5. In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs the Application filed by the Applicant deserves not maintainable under the provisions under section 2(2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

The case in ID No. 36 of 2019 stands dismissed.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मई, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 734734734734.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार मेसर्स भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में

(संदर्भ संख्या 37/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्%ीय सरकार को 02.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आई आर (एम)]

डी....के .... िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2019

S.O. 734.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 37/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation of India and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 02.05.2019.

[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Present : DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 37/2019

Friday, the 29th March, 2019

BETWEEN

Sri C. Udhaya Sankar S/o Chinnasamy, No. 65, Thennaimara Street, Kathalampattu, Vellore-632312 : 1st Party/Petitioner[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2827

AND

1. The General Manager : 2nd Party/1st Respondent A Govt. of India Under Taking Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. No. 1, Raganathan Garden 11th Main Road, Annanagar Eest Chennai-600040 2. The Manager : 2nd Party/2nd Respondent

Company Owner Company Operated Outlet 32A, T.S. Krishna Nagar, Mugappair, Anna Nagar, West Chennai-600050

3. Sqn.LDr. V. Venkatadri (Retd.) : 2nd Party/3rd Respondent New No. 20, 18th Avenue Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600083 4. Sri. S. Ramachandran : 2rd Party/4th Respondent New No. 6 (Old No. 11), Damodaran St. Kellys Chennai-600010

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : Party in Person For the 2nd Party/Respondents 1 to 4 : None

ORDER

This is an Application under 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act Filed by one Mr. C. Udhaya Sankar, The Applicant case in brief is that he was employed under the Respondents through the 4th Respondent-Contractor as a pump operator with a monthly salary of Rs. 14,700/- and alongwith Bonus and other Allowances, on the strength of an agreement dated 01.08.2004. While the matter stood thus, he was terminated from service without any prior notice under section 25 of the ID Act. The Applicant urges, he moved the appropriate Authority by his petition under section 33(c)(2) of the ID Act claiming compensation and benefits owing to his termination. But to his ill luck the petition was dismissed. With this backdrop the petitioner claims to set aside the order of the termination and his reinstatement with all financial benefits for his service period from 1995 to 2007.

Section 2A sub-clause (2) of the ID Act reads as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything contained is Section 10 any such workmen as is specified in Sub-section (1)

may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein

after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the

appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or

Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudication upon the dispute , xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx Section 2A

of sub-clause (3) reads as follows :-

"The application referred to in Sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the

expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as

specified in Sub-section (1)"

2828 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

⁴. In combined reading of both the section it needs to see if the Applicant has filed the Application within a period of ³ years from the date of the alleged termination. And also to see if the Applicant approached the Labour Machinery within the period of 3 years and after expiry of 45 days of such approach, has filed the instant Applications under 2A (2) before this Tribunal. In a meticulous perusal and scrutiny on the documents available on record, it is found that except a petition to condone delay, the Applicant failed to produce a single scrap of documents relating to his appointment, termination, or any copies of the petition showing to have moved before the Labour Machinery. On further perusal of the Office Note it is found that the Applicant was provided with sufficient opportunity to produce the relevant documents. The Applicant when fails to produce any document regarding his approach to Labour Machinery- Conciliation Officer, did not turn-up to convince the delay of 4190 (as per the Office Note). In filing of the Applications. On the other hand the reason assigned by the Applicant in his petition to condone delay does not sound reasonable. The petition to condone the delay of 4190 days is rejected, being devoid of any merit.

5. In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs the Application filed by the Applicant deserves not maintainable under the provisions under section 2(2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

The case in ID No. 37 of 2019 stands dismissed.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मई, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 735735735735.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार मेसर्स भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में

(संदर्भ संख्या 38/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्%ीय सरकार को 02.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आई आर (एम)]

डी....के .... िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2019

S.O. 735.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 38/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation of India and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 02.05.2019.

[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIA LTRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Present : DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 38/2019

Friday, the 29th March, 2019

BETWEEN

Mr. S. Pitchai, S/o Sembulingam, No. 7/463, Kamarajar Street, M.K. B. Nagar, Ambattur Chennai-600053

: 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager : 2nd Party/1st Respondent[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2829 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. No. 1, Raganathan Garden, 11th Main Road, Annanagar West Chennai-600040

2. The Manager : 2nd Party/2nd Respondent

32A, T.S. Krishna Nagar, Mugappair, Anna Nagar West Chennai-600050

3. Sqn.LDr. V. Venkatadri (Retd.) : 2nd Party/3rd Respondent New No. 20, 18th Avenue Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600083 4. Mr. S. Ramachandran : 2rd Party/4th Respondent New No. 6 (Old No. 11), Damodaran St. Kellys Chennai-600010

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : Party in Person For the 2nd Party/Respondents 1 to 4 : None

ORDER

This is an Application under 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act Filed by one Mr. S. Pitchai, The Applicant case in brief is that he was employed under the Respondents through the 4th Respondent-Contractor as a pump operator with a monthly salary of Rs. 14,700/- and alongwith Bonus and other Allowances, on the strength of an agreement dated 01.08.2004. While the matter stood thus, he was terminated from service without any prior notice under section 25 of the ID Act. The Applicant urges, he moved the appropriate Authority by his petition under section 33(c)(2) of the ID Act claiming compensation and benefits owing to his termination. But to his ill luck the petition was dismissed. With this backdrop the petitioner claims to set aside the order of the termination and his reinstatement with all financial benefits for his service period from 1995 to 2007.

Section 2A sub-clause (2) of the ID Act reads as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything contained is Section 10 any such workmen as is specified in Sub-section (1)

may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein

after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the

appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or

Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudication upon the dispute , xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx Section

2A of sub clause (3) reads as follows :-

"The application referred to in Sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the

expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as

specified in Sub-section (1)"

4. In combined reading of both the section it needs to see if the Applicant has filed the Application within a period of 3 years from the date of the alleged termination. And also to see if the Applicant approached the Labour Machinery within the period of 3 years and after expiry of 45 days of such approach, has filed the instant Applications under 2A (2) before this Tribunal. In a meticulous perusal and scrutiny on the documents available on record, it is found that2830 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] except a petition to condone delay, the Applicant failed to produce a single scrap of documents relating to his appointment, termination, or any copies of the petition showing to have moved before the Labour Machinery. On further perusal of the Office Note it is found that the Applicant was provided with sufficient opportunity to produce the relevant documents. The Applicant when fails to produce any document regarding his approach to Labour Machinery-Conciliation Officer, did not turn-up to convince the delay of 4190 (as per the Office Note). In filing of the Applications. On the other hand the reason assigned by the Applicant in his petition to condone delay does not sound reasonable. The petition to condone the delay of 4190 days is rejected, being devoid of any merit.

5. In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs the Application filed by the Applicant deserves not maintainable under the provisions under section 2 (2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

The case in ID 38 of 2019 stands dismissed.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मई, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 736736736736.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार मेसर्स भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में

(संदर्भ संख्या 39/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्%ीय सरकार को 02.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आई आर (एम)]

डी....के .... िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2019

S.O. 736.—in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 39/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation of India and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 02.05.2019.

[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Present : DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 39/2019

Friday, the 29th March, 2019

BETWEEN

Sri S. Nagaraj, S/o M. Subramaniyan, No. 18/25, Gandhi Street, Elango Nagar, Menambedu Ambattur Chennai-600053 : 1st Party/Petitioner

AND 1. The General Manager : 2nd Party/1st Respondent

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. No. 1, Raganathan Garden 11th Main Road, Annanagar West Chennai-600040[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2831 2. The Manager : 2nd Party/2nd Respondent

32A, T.S. Krishna Nagar, Mugappair, Anna Nagar West, Chennai-600050

3. Sqn.LDr. V. Venkatadri (Retd.) : 2nd Party/3rd Respondent New No. 20, 18th Avenue Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600083 4. Mr. S. Ramachandran : 3rd Party/4th Respondent New No. 6 (Old No. 11), Damodaran St. Kellys, Chennai-600010

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : Party in Person For the 2nd Party/Respondents 1 to 4 : None

ORDER

This is an Application under 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act Filed by one Mr. S. Nagaraj, The Applicant case in brief is that he was employed under the Respondents through the 4th Respondent-Contractor as a pump operator with a monthly salary of Rs. 14,700/- and alongwith Bonus and other Allowances, on the strength of an agreement dated 01.08.2004. While the matter stood thus, he was terminated from service without any prior notice under section 25 of the ID Act. The Applicant urges, he moved the appropriate Authority by his petition under section 33(c)(2) of the ID Act claiming compensation and benefits owing to his termination. But to his ill luck the petition was dismissed. With this backdrop the petitioner claims to set aside the order of the termination and his reinstatement with all financial benefits for his service period from 1995 to 2007.

Section 2A sub clause (2) of the ID Act reads as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything contained is Section 10 any such workmen as is specified in Sub-section (1)

may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein

after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the

appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or

Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudication upon the dispute , xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx Section

2A of sub clause (3) reads as follows :-

"The application referred to in Sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the

expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as

specified in Sub-section (1)"

4. In combined reading of both the section it needs to see if the Applicant has filed the Application within a period of 3 years from the date of the alleged termination. And also to see if the Applicant approached the Labour Machinery within the period of 3 years and after expiry of 45 days of such approach, has filed the instant Applications under 2A (2) before this Tribunal. In a meticulous perusal and scrutiny on the documents available on record, it is found that except a petition to condone delay, the Applicant failed to produce a single scrap of documents relating to his appointment, termination, or any copies of the petition showing to have moved before the Labour Machinery. On further perusal of the Office Note it is found that the Applicant was provided with sufficient opportunity to produce the relevant documents. The Applicant when fails to produce any document regarding his approach to Labour Machinery-Conciliation Officer, did not turn-up to convince the delay of 4190 (as per the Office Note). In filing of the Applications. On the other hand2832 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the reason assigned by the Applicant in his petition to condone delay does not sound reasonable. The petition to condone the delay of 4190 days is rejected, being devoid of any merit.

5. In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs the Application filed by the Applicant deserves not maintainable under the provisions under section 2(2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

The case in ID 39 of 2019 stands dismissed.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मई, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 737737737737.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार मेसर्स भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में

(संदर्भ संख्या 40/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्%ीय सरकार को 02.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आई आर (एम)]

डी....के .... िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2019

S.O. 737.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 40/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation of India and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 02.05.2019.

[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Present : DIPTI MOHAPATRA, LL.M. Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 40/2019

Friday, the 29th March, 2019

BETWEEN

Mr. B. Rajan, S/o Bakthavatchalam No. 31/A, Bajanai Koil Street West Mogappair, Near 7th Block No. 622 Chennai-600037 : 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager : 2nd Party/1st Respondent

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. No. 1, Raganathan Garden 11th Main Road, Annanagar West Chennai-600040

2. The Manager : 2nd Party/2nd Respondent

32A, T.S. Krishna Nagar, Mugappair, Anna Nagar West Chennai-600050

3. Sqn.LDr. V. Venkatadri (Retd.) : 2nd Party/3rd Respondent[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2833 New No. 20, 18th Avenue Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600083 4. Mr. S. Ramachandran : 2rd Party/4th Respondent New No. 6 (Old No. 11), Damodaran St. Kellys, Chennai-600010

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : Party in Person For the 2nd Party/Respondents 1 to 4 : None

ORDER

This is an Application under 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act Filed by one Mr. B. Rajan, The Applicant case in brief is that he was employed under the Respondents through the 4th Respondent-Contractor as a pump operator with a monthly salary of Rs. 14,700/- and alongwith Bonus and other Allowances, on the strength of an agreement dated 01.08.2004. While the matter stood thus, he was terminated from service without any prior notice under section 25 of the ID Act. The Applicant urges, he moved the appropriate Authority by his petition under section 33(c)(2) of the ID Act claiming compensation and benefits owing to his termination. But to his ill luck the petition was dismissed. With this backdrop the petitioner claims to set aside the order of the termination and his reinstatement with all financial benefits for his service period from 1995 to 2007.

Section 2A sub clause (2) of the ID Act reads as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything contained is Section 10 any such workmen as is specified in Sub-section (1) may,

make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after

the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate

Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall

have powers and jurisdiction to adjudication upon the dispute , xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx Section 2A of sub clause

(3) reads as follows

"The application referred to in Sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the

expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as

specified in Sub-section (1)"

2834 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5. In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs the Application filed by the Applicant deserves not maintainable under the provisions under section 2(2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

The case in ID 40 of 2019 stands dismissed.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मई, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 738738738738.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार मेसर्स भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में

(संदर्भ संख्या 41/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्%ीय सरकार को 02.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आई आर (एम)]

डी....के .... िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2019

S.O. 738.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 41/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation of India and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 02.05.2019.

[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Present : DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 41/2019

Friday, the 29th March, 2019

BETWEEN

Mr. D. Poomaran, S/o Desinghu, No. W-16, Thai Nagar, Pothur Village, Pammathukulam Post Redhills, Chennai-600052 : 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager : 2nd Party/ Respondent 1 to 4

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. No. 1, Raganathan Garden 11th Main Road, Annanagar West Chennai-600040

2. The Manager : 2nd Party/2nd Respondent

32A, T.S. Krishna Nagar, Mugappair, Anna Nagar West Chennai-600050[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2835 3. Sqn.LDr. V. Venkatadri (Retd.) : 2nd Party/3rd Respondent New No. 20, 18th Avenue Ashok Nagar Chennai-600083 4. Mr. S. Ramachandran : 2rd Party/4th Respondent New No. 6 (Old No. 11), Damodaran St. Kellys Chennai-600010

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : Party in Person For the 2nd Party/Respondents 1 to 4 : None

ORDER

This is an Application under 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act Filed by one Mr. D. Poomaran, The Applicant case in brief is that he was employed under the Respondents through the 4th Respondent-Contractor as a pump operator with a monthly salary of Rs. 14,700/- and alongwith Bonus and other Allowances, on the strength of an agreement dated 01.08.2004. While the matter stood thus, he was terminated from service without any prior notice under section 25 of the ID Act. The Applicant urges, he moved the appropriate Authority by his petition under section 33(c)(2) of the ID Act claiming compensation and benefits owing to his termination. But to his ill luck the petition was dismissed. With this backdrop the petitioner claims to set aside the order of the termination and his reinstatement with all financial benefits for his service period from 1995 to 2007.

Section 2A sub clause (2) of the ID Act reads as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything contained is Section 10 any such workmen as is specified in Sub-section (1) may,

make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after

the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate

Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall

have powers and jurisdiction to adjudication upon the dispute , xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx Section 2A of sub clause

(3) reads as follows

"The application referred to in Sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the

expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as

specified in Sub-section (1)"

2836 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5. In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs the Application filed by the Applicant deserves not maintainable under the provisions under section 2(2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

The case in ID 41 of 2019 stands dismissed.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मई, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 739739739739.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार मेसर्स भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में

(संदर्भ संख्या 42/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्%ीय सरकार को 02.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आई आर (एम)]

डी....के .... िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2019

S.O. 739.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 42/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation of India and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 02.05.2019.

[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Present : DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 42/2019

Friday, the 29th March, 2019

BETWEEN

Mr. R. Thirumurugan, S/o Ramamoorthi, No. 7/3, Vairamkulam 2nd Street, Chittu Oragadam, Ambattur, Chennai-600053 : 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager : 2nd Party/ Respondent 1 to 4

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. No. 1, Raganathan Garden 11th Main Road, Annanagar West, Chennai-600040

2. The Manager :

32A, T.S. Krishna Nagar, Mugappair, Anna Nagar West, Chennai-600050

3. Sqn.LDr. V. Venkatadri (Retd.) : New No. 20, 18th Avenue Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600083 4. Mr. S. Ramachandran :

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2837

New No. 6 (Old No. 11), Damodaran St. Kellys Chennai-600010

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : Party in Person For the 2nd Party/Respondents 1 to 4 : None

ORDER

This is an Application under 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act Filed by one Mr. R. Thirumurugan, The Applicant case in brief is that he was employed under the Respondents through the 4th Respondent-Contractor as a pump operator with a monthly salary of Rs. 14,700/- and alongwith Bonus and other Allowances, on the strength of an agreement dated 01.08.2004. While the matter stood thus, he was terminated from service without any prior notice under section 25 of the ID Act. The Applicant urges, he moved the appropriate Authority by his petition under section 33(c)(2) of the ID Act claiming compensation and benefits owing to his termination. But to his ill luck the petition was dismissed. With this backdrop the petitioner claims to set aside the order of the termination and his reinstatement with all financial benefits for his service period from 1995 to 2007.

Section 2A sub clause (2) of the ID Act reads as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything contained is Section 10 any such workmen as is specified in Sub-section (1) may,

make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein after

the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate

Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the Labour Court or Tribunal shall

have powers and jurisdiction to adjudication upon the dispute , xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx Section 2A of sub clause

(3) reads as follows

"The application referred to in Sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the

expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as

specified in Sub-section (1)"

5. In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs the Application filed by the Applicant deserves not maintainable under the provisions under section 2(2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

The case in ID 42 of 2019 stands dismissed.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer2838 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 3 मई, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 740740740740.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार मेसर्स भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड एवं अन्य के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में

(संदर्भ संख्या 43/2019) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्%ीय सरकार को 02.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आई आर (एम)]

डी....के .... िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2019

S.O. 740.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 43/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation of India and others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 02.05.2019.

[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Present : DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 43/2019

Friday, the 29th March, 2019

BETWEEN

Mr. Hilal Ahmed, S/o Zaheer Ahamed No. 4, Chada Sahib Street Royapettah, Mishapet Chennai-600014 : 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager : 2nd Party/ Respondent 1 to 4

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. No. 1, Raganathan Garden 11th Main Road, Annanagar West Chennai-600040

2. The Manager

32A, T.S. Krishna Nagar, Mugappair, Anna Nagar West Chennai-600050

3. Sqn.LDr. V. Venkatadri (Retd.) New No. 20, 18th Avenue Ashok Nagar Chennai-600083 4. Mr. S. Ramachandran New No. 6 (Old No. 11), Damodaran St. Kellys Chennai-600010[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2839

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : Party in Person For the 2nd Party/Respondents 1 to 4 : None

ORDER

This is an Application under 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act Filed by one Mr. Hilal Ahmed, The Applicant case in brief is that he was employed under the Respondents through the 4th Respondent-Contractor as a pump operator with a monthly salary of Rs. 14,700/- and alongwith Bonus and other Allowances, on the strength of an agreement dated 01.08.2004. While the matter stood thus, he was terminated from service without any prior notice under section 25 of the ID Act. The Applicant urges, he moved the appropriate Authority by his petition under section 33(c)(2) of the ID Act claiming compensation and benefits owing to his termination. But to his ill luck the petition was dismissed. With this backdrop the petitioner claims to set aside the order of the termination and his reinstatement with all financial benefits for his service period from 1995 to 2007.

Section 2A sub clause (2) of the ID Act reads as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything contained is Section 10 any such workmen as is specified in Sub-section (1)

may, make an application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute referred to

therein after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the Conciliation

Officer of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the dispute, and in receipt of such application the

Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and jurisdiction to adjudication upon the dispute , xx xx xx xx

xx xx xx xx xx Section 2A of sub clause (3) reads as follows

"The application referred to in Sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the

expiry of three years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of

service as specified in Sub-section (1)"

5. In view of the discussion held in preceding paragraphs the Application filed by the Applicant deserves not maintainable under the provisions under section 2(2A) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

The case in ID 43 of 2019 stands dismissed.

DIPTI MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer2840 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 6 मई, 2019

का. आ.का. आ.का. आ.का. आ. 741741741741.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार इंडियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि{दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्%ीय

सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/mम न्यायालय, बंगलौर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 10/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्%ीय

सरकार को 06.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/3/2014-आई आर (बी-II)]

सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2019

S.O. 741.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 10/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Bank and their workmen received by the Central Government on 06/05/2019.

[No. L-12011/3/2014-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT

BANGALORE

Dated : 23rd April 2019

Present : Justice Smt. Rathnakala, Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 10/2014

I Party

II Party

1. The President, Indian Bank Employees Union, C/o India Bank, 10,K.G.Road, BANGALORE 560 009.

The General Manager (p), Indian Bank, Zonal Office, 4th Floor, (East Wing) Raheja Towers, No. 26-27, M.G. Road, BANGALORE 560 001.

2. Sh. M. Sundara, S/o Late Siddaiah, Muddahalli Navilur Post, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore Dist.

Advocate I Party : Advocate for II Party: Mr. Muralidhara : Mr. P. Udayashankar Rai

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No.L-12011/3/2014 IR(B-II) dated 04.06.2014 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act' hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank over unjust denial of pension to Shri M. Sundara,

Clerk-cum-shroff of Mandya Branch, retired from the services of the Bank on voluntary cessation is justified? If

not, to what relief the aggrieved workman Shri M. Sundara is entitled to?"

1. The case of the 1st Party is, that Sh. M Sundara, Ex Clerk-cum-Shroff, Mandya Branch was declared by the 2nd Party as having voluntarily left the job w.e.f 03.02.2006 but, they have denied the pensionary benefits to him, he had rendered honest and devoted service to the Bank; during 2005-06 due to domestic problems he could not attend the duties. The 2nd Party/Management invoking Clause 33 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 02.06.2005, recorded voluntary cessation of employment by him w.e.f 03.02.2006. The 2nd Party introduced Indian Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 to provide pensionary benefits to those who exercised their option in writing to become the member of the Employees Pension Fund; Sh. Sundara exercised his option in writing and the same was registered by the Bank in their records, thus he is a member of the Employees Pension Fund Trust; his employment was not termination on account of any[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2841 misconduct so as to entail forfeiture of his entire past service. However, 2nd Party did not determine his pensionary benefits despite several representations. The action of the Management in denying pensionary benefit has offended Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, prayer for a direction to the 2nd Party, to determine his entitlement for pension under the provisions of the Pension Regulations and to pay the arrears of pension from 03.06.2006 along with interest.

2. As per the counter statement placed by the 2nd Party, an employee who has voluntarily abandoned the service of the Bank in terms of Clause 33 of the Bipartite Settlement is not entitled for pension. There are no rules or regulations enabling such employees who have voluntarily abandoned the services of the Bank or deemed to have voluntarily abandoned the services of the Bank. The 1st Party remained unauthorizedly absent from duty continuously for more than 90 days. After issuing notice for being unauthorizedly absent and issuing a final notice dated 01.02.2006, 2nd Party deemed to consider him as voluntarily abandoned the services of the Bank. As per Regulation No. 22 of the Indian Bank Pension Regulation 1995, the Bank is entitled to forfeiture all his entire past service and he will not be qualified for pensionary benefit.

3. Both parties have adduced their evidence. Ex W-1 to Ex W-6 are marked for the 1st Party and Ex M-1 is marked for the 2nd Party.

4. Parties are not at dispute regarding unauthorized absence of Sh. M. Sundara during 2005-06. The Bank has treated his case as voluntary cessation of service in terms of Clause 33 of VII Bipartite Settlement dated 02.06.2005; now they have invoked the Regulation No 22 of the Indian Bank Pension Regulation 1995, which reads as under:-

"Forfeiture of Service", among other things it is stated as follows :-

(i) Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank shall entail forfeiture of this entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits.

(ii) An interruption in the service of a Bank employee entails forfeiture of his past service, except in the following cases, namely

(a) ......................................................

(b) ......................................................

5. It is obvious that, voluntary cessation of employment is not covered within the frame of Rule 22. But, argument of Learned Counsel for the 2nd Party is, the word resignation appearing in sub rule 1 has to be construed with a broader meaning which also includes any other form of resigning from duty including by way of unauthorized absence. Any narrow meaning to the word resignation would subvert the whole purpose of the pension scheme and hence voluntary cessation shall also to be interpreted in the same equivalence as that of resignation. Any other interpretation on para 22 that voluntary cessation of service is not covered, will defeat the very object/spirit of the Regulation 22 of the Pension Regulation 1995. If a contrary interpretation is allowed all the employees who want to resign, will resort to the unlawful method of abstaining from work or unauthorized absence to claim the benefit of pension. Deserting the service of the Bank through unauthorized absence is actually worse than resignation. In the light of Regulation 22 of the Pension Regulation 1995 read with Clause 33 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 02.06.2005, 1st Party is not entitled for pensionary benefits.

6. It is the further contention of the 2nd Party, payment of pension while retiring through compulsory retirement is entirely different and certainly not applicable to the present circumstance. In the case of compulsory retirement the Disciplinary Authority depending upon the gravity of misconduct of the concerned employee will impose appropriate punishment and the same analogy cannot be drawn to the case of the employee voluntarily abandoning the service of the Bank by unauthorized absence.

7. Admittedly Sh. M Sundara had rendered service from 10.06.1978 to 2005 without any break; his unauthorized absence is not considered by the Management as a misconduct it is a unilateral action of the management in treating him as 'voluntarily left the service of the Bank in terms of Clause 33 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 02.06.2005'. The Apex Court in the matter of Syndicate Bank, Bangalore vs Satya Srinath (2007-II-LLJ 258 ) wherein the fact was, the Bank Official who's leave application seeking for extension of leave on medical ground was denied, and the Bank had ordered her premature retirement and denied pension of 20 years of service, intervened and held that, she did not fall either in the category of herself seeking voluntary retirement or in the category of one deemed to have voluntarily retired, as per clause 17(a) of the V Bipartite Settlement. She falls in the 3rd Category which is not contemplated in the Regulation. By holding so, the Apex court further held that, she could not be denied the benefit of 20 years of service when she comes within the pension scheme who were in service prior to 1986 and retired before 29.09.1995. Thus, her entitlement for pension was declared by the Judgment of the Division Bench of our Hon'ble High Court.

8. It is worthwhile to reproduce the observation of our Hon'ble High Court in the same matter [Smt. Sathya Srinath vs Syndicate Bank...... (ILR 2003 KAR 2605)] at para 21, "Further, the cessation of service of the appellant brought about by the management by its order dated 30.12.1992 cannot be regard as the resignation of the Appellant for the purpose of application of Pension Rules. Resignation of an employee is covered by separate provisions under the SHASTRI's2842 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] award and in terms of the said award, in case of resignation, the employee concerned has to submit a notice of resignation to the management and it comes into effect automatically after the expiry of the notice period. In the case of J.K. COTTON SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS COMPANY LIMITED vs STATE OF U.P, the Supreme Court held that if an employee makes his intention to resign his job to the employer it is a case of resignation. Similar is the view of the Supreme Court in MOTIRAM vs PARANDER wherein it was held that resignation means the spontaneous relinquishment of ones own right in relation to an office. Resignation connotes the act of giving up or relinquishing the office. It may be bilateral or unilateral depending upon whether the rule requires acceptance or not. The essence of resignation is that the initiative to resign should come from the employee concerned and that initiative should be voluntary and out of free will. Unless these two conditions co-exist, mere cessation of service brought about by a method de hors the voluntary action of the employee could not be regarded as a resignation of the employee. In this case, it is nobody's case that the Appellant submitted any notice of resignation. On the otherhand, it is a matter of record that the Appellant in reply to the notice from the employer, sought for extension of time and made clear her intention to resume duties".

9. It is sheer argumentative to say that voluntary cessation can be brought within the Regulation 22 of the pension scheme. Since, the voluntary cessation of service is not prohibited expressly by the Rules, I do not see justification on the part of the Bank in refusing the benefits of the Indian Bank Pension Regulation 1995 to the workman herein. The rule is applicable to such of the employees who were on the service of the Bank after January 1 1986 and who have retired on or after December 1 1993 but, before the notified date and Sh. M. Sundara thus qualifies himself for the benefits of Pension Regulation, like any other employee who have opted for pension scheme.

10. In the light of the above, the management is not justified in rejecting the relief of the pension scheme to the 1st Party workman. Hence, the following

AWARD

The reference is accepted, the 2nd Party is directed to implement the benefits of Indian Bank Pension Regulation 1995 to the workman Sh. M. Sundara, Ex Clerk-cum-Shroff of Mandya Branch, w.e.f 03.06.2006. The accrued pension amount shall be calculated along with simple interest of 6% per annum w.e.f 03.06.2006 and be paid within 60 days of publication of the Award. Otherwise the amount shall carry future interest of 8% per annum.

(Dictated, corrected and signed by me on 23rd April, 2019)

JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 6 मई, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 742742742742.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार सिडिके ट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि{दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्%ीय

सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/mम न्यायालय, बंगलौर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 18/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्%ीय

सरकार को 06.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/151/2005-आई आर (बी-II)]

सीमा बंसल, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2019

S.O. 742.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 18/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen received by the Central Government on 06/05/2019.

[No. L-12011/151/2005-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2843

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT

BANGALORE

DATED : 23RD APRIL, 2019

PRESENT : Justice Smt. Rathnakala, Presiding Officer

C.R No. 18/2006

I Party

II Party

The General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association, 2nd Floor, Near to Tourist Hotel, Anand Rao Circle, Bangalore – 560009.

The General Manager (P), Syndicate Bank, General Manager's Office No. 69, 9th Main, 3rd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560011

Advocate for I Party : Sh.Muralidhara

Advocate for II Party: Sh. Ramesh Upadhyaya

AWARD

The Central Government vide Order No.L-12011/151/2005-IR(B-II) dated 28.04.2006 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act' hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication.

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank in imposing the punishment of reduction in basic pay by one stage, non-releasing of annual increment as on 01.02.2004 and effecting recovery of Rs. 19,945.89 as financial loss from Smt. R.E. Jane, Clerk, Syndicate Bank, Shoolay Branch, Bangalore is legal and justified? If not, to what relief she is entitled to?"

1. The claim of the 1st Party Smt. R.E. Jane is, she was working as a Clerk at Shoolay, Bangalore Branch of the 2nd Party, she was issued charge sheet on the allegation of gross misconduct of "doing act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank involving the Bank in financial loss" vide clause 5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002. Since, she denied the charges Domestic Enquiry was formed. The Enquiry Officer held her guilty of misconduct, she submitted her remarks to the findings of the enquiry, she was proposed with the punishment of reduction in basic pay by one stage for a period of one year vide the letter of Disciplinary Authority dated 22.10.2003 and thereafter the punishment order was confirmed. Her appeal against the punishment order was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide his proceedings dated 25.03.2004; the Disciplinary Authority vide his administrative order dated 22.04.2004 directed to recover a sum of Rs. 15,000/- with commercial rate of interest and the same was recovered from her salary, she was due for annual increment on 01.02.2004 and same was released after one year i.e., 01.02.2005. The Findings of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and the consequent punishment order is backed.

2. The counter statement of the 2nd Party is to the effect that, there is no valid reason for the Disciplinary Authority to differ from the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Taking into consideration the records and being convinced that, the proposed punishment would not be disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct committed; the Disciplinary Authority confirmed the proposed punishment. This Tribunal passed award on 28.11.2006 thereby dismissing the reference since, the 1st Party had not filed the claim statement and did not prosecute the proceedings though several opportunity was given. The charge was proved in the enquiry based on the oral and documentary evidence; punishment imposed is proportionate to the gravity of misconduct.

3. It is from records that, vide order dated 28.11.2006, the reference was rejected and the 1st Party workman filed an Miscellaneous application which was registered as Misc No. 17/2006, the award passed on 28.11.2006 was thus recalled and the matter was opened.

4. On the rival pleadings two preliminary issues were framed, one regarding the fairness of Domestic Enquiry another regarding the question, whether the 1st Party workman Smt. R.E. Jane is a workman under section 2(s) of the Act.

5. The 1st Party gave up its challenge to the Fairness of the Domestic Enquiry. Thus, the Fairness of the Domestic Enquiry is ordered affirmatively in favour of the 1st Party. Both have addressed arguments.

6. The allegation of the charge sheet dated 05.05.2003 read thus :-

(i) That you have been working as Clerk at Shoolay Branch, Bangalore, since 16.06.2000 and while functioning in your position as such, the following circumstances appear against you :

(ii) That M/s LIC Housing Finance Ltd., Bangalore who is maintaining Current A/c No.1690 with our Shoolay2844 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Branch, Bangalore, have been issued with Cheque book containing cheque leaves Nos. ⁸⁶³⁵⁰¹ to ⁸⁶⁴⁶⁰⁰. Out of the said cheque book, a cheque bearing No. 863520 dated 22.08.02 for Rs.60,000/- was presented for payment across the counter on 22.08.02. After the said cheque was passed by the Section Officer, payment was made by you as you were working as Cashier on 22.08.2002.

(iii) That the account holders M/s. LIC Housing Finance Ltd., has subsequently lodged a complaint with the Bank saying that the cheque in question was not issued by them and that a sum of Rs. 60,000/- has been fraudulently withdrawn from the said account.

(iv) That with regard to the above cheque, it is observed that the said cheque was an A/c Payee crossed cheque, drawn in favour of "overseas" and was presented for payment across the counter.

(v) That as per para 2.8.2 of Manual of Instructions (Volume-I), when cheques are presented for payment in cash, the cheque should be scrutinised to see that it is free from any of the defects. Further, before paying the amount, the cashier should ensure that the cheque is properly passed and that only on being satisfied that the cheque is properly passed, the amount should be paid.

(vi) That as per the guidelines mentioned under para 2.9.0 of Manual of Instructions on "passing of cheques, a crossed cheque" should not be paid in cash over the counter. Further as per the guidelines mentioned under para 2.10.0 of Manual of Instructions (Volume-I) on "crossing of cheques", cash cannot be paid over the counter for crossed cheques.

(vii) That in terms of the above said guidelines, even though the section officer had passed for payment of a crossed cheque, the same shall not be a proper passing because crossed cheque cannot be passed for payment across the counter and as such the cashier cannot make payment of the cheque which is not properly passed.

(viii) From the above circumstances, it is evident that you have made payment of Rs. 60,000/- against a crossed cheque across the counter in violation of the guidelines cited above. You have also failed to notice that the above cheque has been drawn in favour of "overseas" which is vague and not referring to any individual. You have also failed to observe that since the cheque was marked A/c Payee it should have been presented either in clearing by the other Banker or should have been transferred to an account in the name of "overseas". As such you have failed to perform your duties as expected of you as per the guidelines.

(ix) Thus, the negligence/lapses on your part as narrated above facilitated perpetration of fraud resulting in withdrawal of Rs. 60,000/- from Current A/c 1690, thereby the Bank incurred financial loss. Your above acts are detrimental to the interest of the Bank besides tarnishing the image and reputation of the Bank.

(x) The above acts of commissions and omissions reported against you constitute Gross Misconduct within the meaning of clause 5 of the Bipartite Settlement (Memorandum of Settlement) dated 10.04.2002. You are therefore charged with the Gross Misconduct of "doing act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank involving the Bank in financial loss" vide clause 5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement (Memorandum of Settlement) dated 10.04.2002.

7. During the enquiry on behalf of the Management 2 witnesses were examined and 13 documents were marked. 1st Party examined herself and marked 3 documents.

8. First witness for the management/the then Branch Manager deposed to the effect that, a letter dated 02.12.2002 was received from LIC Housing Finance Limited requesting to reimburse the amount of Rs. 60,000/- which is fraudulently withdrawn from their Current Account maintained with the Bank. He identified the photocopy of the cheque for Rs. 60,000/- pertaining to the Current Account of the LIC and the letter received from LIC. MW-1 identified the relevant documents and deposed to the effect that, a cheque dated 22.08.2002 received from LIC was entered and debited in the computer by Smt. Jayalakshmi, Clerk and passed the cheque to the CSE, Cashier made the payment. It was an Account payee cheque and the payee is mentioned as "Overseas". The signature of the person who obtained the cash is not there on the back of the cheque. When a crossed cheque is presented at the branch we cannot make cash payment. In such case before making payment the crossing should be cancelled, cash cannot be paid against such cheque. MW-2 was the Investigating Officer who recorded the statements of witnesses and probed the documents.

9. The defence of the 1st Party was, she was orally entrusted with extra responsibility of debiting, clearing cheques on 22.08.2002 which is actually supervisory in nature, the cheque was debited and was duly passed for payment by the Passing Authority as self drawn cheque with signature verified and passed for payment seal along with date and signature of the passing authority; no debit scroll was maintained at the Branch as required under the rules of MOI (Manual Instruction) concerning to the 2nd Party. There was no Scroll Officer as envisaged under the MOI and it was not scrolled with Sl. No. Since, the cheque was crossed she informed the passing officer about the same for which he replied that crossing cancellation would be done subsequently and she should make the cash payment of the cheque. It was the usual practice of the LIC Housing Finance Ltd., to send crossed cheques for cash withdrawals and signature for crossing cancellation used to be obtained either prior to the payment or after the payment as per the directions from the passing authority. She identified the culprit who is incidentally the employee of LIC Housing Finance Ltd., and ultimately it resulted in his arrest. Paid vouchers were duly bundled and thereafter signed by the Head of the Branch after the due scrutiny of the vouchers and the cash vouchers bundles were kept in double lock. Hence, she had no opportunity to verify whether crossing was cancelled on cheque.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2845

10. The Enquiry Officer analysed the evidence and also the various grounds of defence and concluded that, the Cashier has failed to perform her duty as expected by her and the 1st Party workman only to justify her lapse of making payment of an Account payee crossed cheque in violation of MOI, she failed to observe the account payee crossing and so also the passing officer. The cheque which has been passed with the defect cannot be said to have been passed properly. The defect apparent on the face of the cheque and which was within the knowledge of CSE was overlooked by her before making payment. Therefore, due to the contributory negligence of the Clerk, Passing Officer and the Cashier the Bank incurred a loss of Rs. 60,000/- for which all the three are accountable.

11. Whatever be the interpretation of clause MOI, the fact remains that the 1st Party while in cash counter had made payment of Rs. 60,000/- in an account payee cheque. The Disciplinary Authority considered all her remarks to the Enquiry Report. On her contention that Passing Officer had instructed her to make payment against the crossing cheque due to which she made payment. The Disciplinary Authority held that "........ even then the cashier shall not carry out such instructions of the Officer in violation of MOI when crossing was not cancelled. Having made the payment without getting the crossing cancelled, she cannot totally disassociate from the transaction nor avoid her responsibility/accountability". The Disciplinary Authority further observed that, the Bank has already paid Rs. 60,000/- to the LIC and all the three Officials are responsible for the loss arising out of their misconduct. A sum of Rs. 30,000/- is accepted by the Passing Officer and Rs. 15,000/- by the Counter Clerk as their share of total loss of Rs. 60,000/-.

AWARD

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated, corrected and signed by me on 23rd April, 2019)

JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 6 मई, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 743743743743.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार कांदला पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि{दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्%ीय

सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/mम न्यायालय, , , , अहमदाबाद (गुजरात) के पंचाट ((((संदर्भ संख्या 123/2012) को प्रकाशित करती

है जो के न्%ीय सरकार को 06.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. एल-37011/07/2011-आई आर (बी-II)]

सीमा बंसल,,,, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2019

S.O. 743.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 123/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Kandla Port Trust and their workmen received by the Central Government on 06/05/2019.

[No. L-37011/07/2011-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer2846 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [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 03rd April, 2019

Reference: (CGITA) No- 123/2012

The Chairman, Kandla Port Trust, Administrative Office, P.B. No. 50, Gandhidham (Gujarat) – 370201 …First Party V/s. The General Secretary, Transport and Dock Workers' Union, 21, Yogesh Building, Plot No. 586, 12-C, Gandhidham, Kutch (Gujarat) – 370201 …Second Party

For the First Party : Shri K.V. Gadhia

For the Second Party : Shri N.H. Rathod

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-37011/07/2011– IR(B-II) dated 30.08.2012 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 the management of Kandla Port Trust in not enlisting Shri Mohmed Ismail Saicha as Daily Rates Worker although he has worked for 240 days, is legal and justified? What relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

1. The reference dates back to 30.08.2012 and received on 10.09.2012 from Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi for adjudication and passing the award.

2. After issuing notice to the parties, the second party submitted the statement of claim Ex. 6 on 05.08.2013 and the first party submitted the written statement Ex. 7 on 26.11.2013.

3. The second party workman in his statement of claim has alleged that he had been working as Khalasi since the month of October, 1982 continuously and worked till July 1983 for more than 240 days in the calendar year but his service were terminated without giving notice and notice pay violating the provisions of Section 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, he has prayed that he may be reinstated as daily rate worker.

4. The first party in his written statement Ex. 7 submitted that the second party workman Mohmed Ismail Saicha was not a workman within the definition of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The averments made in the statement of claim are not true. The reference has been moved after a period of 27 years; therefore, the reference is liable to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues arise:

i. Whether the action of the management of Kandla Port Trust in not enlisting Shri Mohmed Ismail Saicha as Daily Rates Worker although he has worked for 240 days, is legal and justified?

ii. To what relief, if any, the concerned workman is entitled?

6. Issue No. i and ii: As both the issues are interrelated, therefore, are decided together. The burden of proof of these issues lies on the second party workman who submitted the affidavit Ex. 8 reiterating the averments made in the statement of claim and has not said anything contrary to his examination-in-chief. In his cross- examination, he has stated that he has filed his case enlisting him as daily rate worker where he worked till 1983. Thereafter, he did not report for work and moved the case in 2012. He was not given any appointment letter. His date of birth is 01.03.1964.

7. The first party did not prefer to give any oral evidence. 8. The second party workman has filed documents vide list Ex. 9 regarding the engagement of non-pool daily rated/part-time persons, approved list of daily rated/part-time persons who have worked prior to 31.12.2001, certificate of working days of the workman etc.

9. I heard and considered the evidences and arguments of learned counsel of the parties available on the record. The workman has already admitted in his cross-examination that he worked till the year 1983. Thereafter, he did not report for work and has filed this reference after a delay of more than 27 years. He has also not lead any[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2847 evidence that he would have worked for more than 240 days in any calendar year. Thus the reference is not maintainable in the light of the aforesaid evidence of the workman. The delay in moving the reference is so high that the workman deserves no relief. Thus both the issues are decided against the workman. The reference is dismissed.

10. The award is passed accordingly.

P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 6 मई, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 744744744744.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) ) ) ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार मेसर्स मैसूर मिनरल्स (िलिमटेड) के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि{दष्ट औद्योगिक

विवाद में के न्%ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं mम न्यायालय, , , , बेंगलूर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 119/2007) को प्रकाशित

करती है जो के न्%ीय सरकार को 03.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. एल-29012/57/2006-आई आर (एम)]

डी. के . िहमांशु,,,, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2019

S.O. 744.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 119/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation the management of M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 03/05/2019.

[No. L-29012/57/2006-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 10thAPRIL 2019

Present : JUSTICE SMT. RATHANAKALA, Presiding Officer,

C R No.119/2007

I Party

II Party

The Managing Director, Mysore Minerals Limited, No. 39, M G Road, BANGALORE – 560 001.

Sri Beeregowda, S/o late Ninge Gowda, Chattna Halli, Ananthi Post, Bagur Hobli, ChannarayapatnaTaluk, HASSAN DIST.

Appearances

I Party : Shri K T Govinde Gowda, Advocate II Party : Sh. T K VedaMurthy, Advocate

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labourvide order No. L-29012/57/2006-IR(M) dated 24.08.2007 in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as "The Act") (14 of 1947) referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Mysore Minerals Limited in terminating the services/ superannuating the services of Sh. Beeregowda w.e.f. 29/6/1998 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. The case of the 1st party workman is, he joined the service of the II Party on 25.05.1982 at its Mines Unit viz. Byrapura Chromite Mines, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District while joining service he had furnished his age as 28 years i.e., date of birth being 25.05.1954 as per the horoscope maintained by his parents. Same date of birth is mentioned in all his statutory records, he was entitled to continue in service upto 25.05.2012.

3. It is further stated,1st Party subjected him to medical examination and refused employment w.e.f. 29.06.1998 on the plea that he has reached superannuation age of 58 years, termination order is issued, he is unemployed and has a2848 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] dependent family, the 2nd Party officials obtained his signature on various applications and submitted his application to EPF authorities. They have terminated many of his co-workers. In one such case of the workman (Smt. K Dundamma vs. MML WP No. 5615/2001(S-RES)) was reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service by the order of the Hon'ble High Court. Similar WP 2610/2001 connected with other cases are also allowed on 01.06.2006. The 2ndParty had not provided safety measures to work in the Mines. There was no proper working/service condition. During 1995 – 1996 they entrusted some of the mining development works in Hassan District to some private contractors without following due process of law. Because of this transaction they faced administrative problems, there was no production and they suffered loss, ultimately they decided to terminate the workers illegally by resorting to so called medical examination during the year 1998. The medical examination was conducted by one MBBS Doctor but not by Doctor of Rank of Assistant Civil Surgeon as defined under rule 19(C) of mines act. He is terminated from service on the basis of Medical examination Report. Age certificate issued by Medical Officer summarily and in a blind manner. They have no right to refuse employment to him, remove his name from the Muster Rolls in unilateral manner without following due process of law. Hence, prayer for a direction to reinstate the 1stParty workman retrospectively with continuity of service etc.

4. The claim allegation is assailed by the 2nd Party in its written statement on following lines; he had not produced any authenticated document regarding his date of birth, his alleged horoscope is concocted one. It is further contended that upon the intervention of the employee's union of the 2nd Party the 1st Party was subjected to medical examination and he was not allowed to work after 26.02.2001 since he had reached the age of superannuation. Medical Examination is conducted as per the mines rules 1955 and same does not affect any of the provisions of the mines rules. Delay in raising the dispute is not supported by any valid material. He is not entitled for any relief. He was relieved after he attained the age of superannuation, with all terminal benefits. During the medical examination he was found to be more than 58 plus years (Ex W-1). He has not questioned the said report before the appellate board prescribed under the Mines Rules 1955.

5. Both parties have adduced their evidence, the workman has examined himself as WW 1 and produced documents Ex W-1 to Ex W-5. On behalf of the 2nd Party their Assistant Manager / MW 1 was examined.

6. As such the 1st Party workman is terminated from service w.e.f. 26.02.2001. Going by his version he would have reached superannuation of 58 years on 25.05.2012. For the purpose of statutory records B Records, EPF Records and Service Record his date of birth was mentioned as 25.05.1954 on the basis of Horoscope as provided by him.

7. The 2nd Party has its own certified standing orders i.e., MML (Officers and Employees) Conditions of Service, Conduct and Disciplinary Proceedings Rules:

Rule /clause 18.0 pertaining to the age of superannuation reads thus:

18.1 : Every Officer/ Employee of the Company shall attain the age of Superannuation on his reaching the age of 58 years and shall retire from the services of the company.

18.2 : The age and date of birth of the Officer / Employee as recorded in the records of the Company shall be the determining factor for retirement.

18.3 : A change in the date of birth as entered in the Company records can only be affected on a Judgement of a Competent Court. Except on a Judgement of a Court the date of birth once recorded will not be changed at the request of the Officer/ Employee under any Circumstances.

Termination further is governed by Rule 24 which reads thus

" Rule / Clause 24.0 – Termination :

24.1 : The Services of a permanent officer / Employee can be terminated either by the company or by the Officer / Employee himself by issue of three month's notice, or payment of three month's salary in lieu of such notice.

24.2 : A resignation tendered by an Officer/Employee would become final on its acceptance by the company. However, where the Management finds it expedient, it may refuse to accept the resignation in which event the relation of employer-employee between the parties continues to subsist."

8. The 2ndparty neither changed the date of birth which was accepted earlier nor did they conduct any disciplinary action for submitting wrong date of birth. It is also a fact at that point of time there was mass termination on the ground of either overage or medically unfit condition. They have not obtained permission for such termination/retrenchment as warranted by Section 25N(1) of ID Act. Ex W – 1 is the copy of the medical certificate in Form No. O which is identified by MW 1. It is certified to the extent that he appears to be 55 years plus of age. For taking such opinion except for clinical examination they have not subjected him to Radiological examination.

9. He is a manual worker not knowing intricacy of legal procedure. For not challenging the medical certificate before Appellate Authority due to ignorance shall not give advantage over him to the 2nd Party Management. Wherefore, the termination of the 1st Party on the ground of attaining superannuation is illegal and cannot be sustained. Ofcourse, there is delay of 9 years in raising the dispute. It is also obvious that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka allowed a Writ Petition of a similarly placed workman who was removed from service on the similar ground and the Writ Appeal thereon came[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2849 to be dismissed. The 1stParty herein has mustered courage thereafter to raise present industrial dispute. At the same time one has to see through the plight of an illiterate workman who is thrown out of his livelihood in the midway of his life.

10. Wherefore, this tribunal is of the considered opinion that the delay in raising the dispute shall not be an obstacle to set right the injustice caused on the illegal termination of the I party workman.

11. His reinstatement at this stage is out of question since he is aged more than 60 years as per his own contention. Considering the illegality of the termination and also the delay in raising the dispute in the considered opinion of this tribunal, lumpsum compensation of Rs. 1 lac would do complete justice in the matter.

AWARD Reference is accepted. 2ndParty is directed to pay lumpsum compensation of Rs. 1 lac to the 1stParty workman Sh. Beeregowda within 60 days from the date of publication of award failing which the amount shall carry future interest @ 8% per annum.

(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 10th April 2019)

JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, , , , 6 मई,,,, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 745745745745.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार मेसर्स मैसूर मिनरल्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि{दष्ट औद्योगिक

विवाद में के न्%ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं mम न्यायालय, , , , बेंगलूर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 74/2007) को प्रकाशित

करती है जो के न्%ीय सरकार को 03.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. एल-29012/10/2007-आई आर (एम)]

डी. के . िहमांशु,,,, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2019

S.O. 745.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 74/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation the management of M/s Mysore Minerals Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 03/05/2019.

[No. L-29012/10/2007-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 10th APRIL 2019

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer

C R No. 74/2007

I Party

II Party

The Managing Director, Mysore Minerals Limited, No. 39, M G Road, BANGALORE – 560 001.

Sri Chowdegowda, S/o Late Kampini Gowda, MML Workers, Hebalu Village, Bathikere Post, Nuggehalli Hobli, ChannarayapatnaTaluk, HASSAN DIST.

Appearances

I Party : Shri K T Govinde Gowda, Advocate II Party : Sh. T K Veda Murthy, Advocate

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-29012/10/2007-IR(M) dated 16.05.2007 in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes2850 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] [भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2851 8. The 2nd party neither changed the date of birth which was accepted earlier nor did they conduct any disciplinary action for submitting wrong date of birth. It is also a fact at that point of time there was mass termination on the ground of either overage or medically unfit condition. They have not obtained permission for such termination/retrenchment as warranted by Section 25N(1) of ID Act. For taking the opinion that the 1st Party workman has crossed the superannuation, except for clinical examination they have not subjected him to Radiological examination.

9. He is a manual worker not knowing intricacy of legal procedure. For not challenging the medical certificate before Appellate Authority due to ignorance shall not give advantage over him to the 2nd Party Management. Wherefore, the termination of the 1st Party on the ground of attaining superannuation is illegal and cannot be sustained. Ofcourse, there is delay of 9 years in raising the dispute. It is also obvious that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka allowed a Writ Petition of a similarly placed workman who was removed from service on the similar ground and the Writ Appeal thereon came to be dismissed. The 1stParty herein has mustered courage thereafter to raise present industrial dispute. At the same time one has to see through the plight of an illiterate workman who is thrown out of his livelihood in the midway of his life.

AWARD

Reference is accepted. 2ndParty is directed to pay lumpsum compensation of Rs. 1 lac to the 1stParty workman Sh. Chowedegowda within 60 days from the date of publication of award failing which the amount shall carry future interest @ 8% per annum.

(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 10th April 2019)

JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 6 मई, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 746746746746.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार मेसर्स मैसूर मिनरल्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि{दष्ट औद्योगिक

विवाद में के न्%ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं mम न्यायालय, बेंगलूर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 08/2008) को प्रकाशित

करती है जो के न्%ीय सरकार को 03.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. एल-29012/81/2007-आई आर (एम)]

डी. के . िहमांशु,,,, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2019

S.O. 746.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 08/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation the management of M/s Mysore Minerals Limited and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 03/05/2019.

[No. L-29012/81/2007-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 10th APRIL 2019

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer2852 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

C R No. 08/2008

I Party

II Party

The Managing Director, Mysore Minerals Limited, No. 39, M G Road, BANGALORE – 560 001.

Smt. Narsamma, W/o Late Hanumaiah, MML Worker, Chevenahalli Village, Nagar Navile Post, BagurHobli, ChannarayapatnaTaluk, HASSAN DIST.

Appearances

I Party : Shri K T GovindeGowda, Advocate II Party : Sh. T K VedaMurthy, Advocate

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-29012/81/2007-IR(M)dated 06.02.2008 in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as "The Act") (14 of 1947) referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the termination of Smt. Narasamma by the management of Mysore Minerals Limited w.e.f. 2/6/1998 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. The case of the 1st party workman is, she joined the service of the 2ndParty on 02.08.1984 at its Mines Unit viz. Thagadur Chromite Mines, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District, while joining service she had furnished his age as 35 years i.e., date of birth being 03.11.1945 as per the horoscope maintained by her parents. Same date of birth is mentioned in all his statutory records, she was entitled to continue in service upto 03.11.2004.

3. It is further stated,1stParty was subjected to medical examination and refused employment 02.06.1998 on the plea that she has reached superannuation age of 58 years, termination order is issued, she is unemployed and has a dependent family, the 2nd Party officials obtained her signature on various applications and submitted his application to EPF authorities. They have terminated many of her co-workers. In one such case of the workman(Smt. K Dundamma vs. MML WP No. 5615/2001(S-RES)) was reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service by the order of the Hon'ble High Court. Similar WP 2610/2001 connected with other cases are also allowed on 01.06.2006. The 2ndParty had not provided safety measures to work in the Mines. There was no proper working/service condition. During 1995 – 1996 they entrusted some of the mining development works in Hassan District to some private contractors without following due process of law. Because of this transaction they faced administrative problems, there was no production and they suffered loss, ultimately they decided to terminate the workers illegally by resorting to so called medical examination during the year 1998. The medical examination was conducted by one MBBS Doctor but not by Doctor of Rank of Assistant Civil Surgeon as defined under rule 19(C) of mines act. She is terminated from service on the basis of Medical examination Report. Age certificate issued by Medical Officer summarily and in a blind manner. They have no right to refuse employment to her, remove her name from the Muster Rolls in unilateral manner without following due process of law. Hence, prayer for a direction to reinstate the 1stParty workman retrospectively with continuity of service etc.

4. The claim allegation is assailed by the 2nd Party in its written statement on following lines; she had not produced any authenticated document regarding his date of birth, her alleged horoscope is concocted one. It is further contended that upon the intervention of the employee's union of the 2nd Party the 1st Party was subjected to medical examination and she was not allowed to work after 02.06.1998 since she had reached the age of superannuation. Medical Examination is conducted as per the mines rules 1955 and same does not affect any of the provisions of the mines rules. Delay in raising the dispute is not supported by any valid material. She is not entitled for any relief. She was relieved after attaining the age of superannuation, with all terminal benefits. During the medical examination she was found to be more than 58 years. She has not questioned the said report before the appellate board prescribed under the Mines Rules 1955.

5. Both parties have adduced their evidence, the workman has examined herself as WW 1 and produced documents Ex W-1 to Ex W-5. On behalf of the 2nd Party their Assistant Manager / MW 1 was examined.

6. As such the 1st Party workman is terminated from service w.e.f. 02.06.1998. Going by her version she would have reached superannuation of 58 years on 03.11.2004. For the purpose of statutory records B Records, EPF Records and Service Record her date of birth was mentioned as 03.11.1945 on the basis of Horoscope as provided by her.

7. The 2nd Party has its own certified standing orders i.e., MML (Officers and Employees) Conditions of Service, Conduct and Disciplinary Proceedings Rules:

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2853

Rule /clause 18.0 pertaining to the age of superannuation reads thus:

18.1 : Every Officer/ Employee of the Company shall attain the age of Superannuation on his reaching the age of 58 years and shall retire from the services of the company.

18.2 : The age and date of birth of the Officer / Employee as recorded in the records of the Company shall be the determining factor for retirement.

Termination further is governed by Rule 24 which reads thus

" Rule / Clause 24.0 – Termination :

24.1 : The Services of a permanent officer/Employee can be terminated either by the company or by the Officer / Employee himself by issue of three month's notice, or payment of three month's salary in lieu of such notice.

8. The 2ndparty neither changed the date of birth which was accepted earlier nor did they conduct any disciplinary action for submitting wrong date of birth. It is also a fact at that point of time there was mass termination on the ground of either overage or medically unfit condition. They have not obtained permission for such termination/retrenchment as warranted by Section 25N(1) of ID Act. For taking the opinion that she has crossed superannuation, except for clinical examination they have not subjected her to Radiological / Scientific examination.

9. She is a manual worker not knowing intricacy of legal procedure. For not challenging the medical certificate before Appellate Authority due to ignorance shall not give advantage over her to the 2nd Party Management. Wherefore, the termination of the 1st Party on the ground of attaining superannuation is illegal and cannot be sustained. Ofcourse, there is delay 10 years in raising the dispute. It is also obvious that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka allowed a Writ Petition of a similarly placed workman who was removed from service on the similar ground and the Writ Appeal thereon came to be dismissed. The 1stParty herein has mustered courage thereafter to raise present industrial dispute. At the same time one has to see through the plight of an illiterate workman who is thrown out of his livelihood in the midway of his life.

11. Her reinstatement at this stage is out of question since she is aged more than 60 years as per her own contention. Considering the illegality of the termination and also the delay in raising the dispute in the considered opinion of this tribunal, lumpsum compensation of Rs. 50,000.00 would do complete justice in the matter.

AWARD

Reference is accepted. 2nd Party is directed to pay lumpsum compensation of Rs. 50,000.00 to the 1stParty workman Smt. Narsamma within 60 days from the date of publication of award failing which the amount shall carry future interest @ 8% per annum.

(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 10th April 2019)

JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 6 मई, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 747474747777.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार मेसर्स मैसूर मिनरल्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि{दष्ट औद्योगिक

विवाद में के न्%ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं mम न्यायालय, , , , बेंगलूर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 33/2008) को प्रकाशित

करती है जो के न्%ीय सरकार को 03.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. एल-29012/33/2008-आई आर (एम)]

डी. के . िहमांशु,,,, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2019

S.O. 747.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 33/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour2854 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation the of management M/s Mysore Minerals Limited and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 03/05/2019.

[No. L-29012/33/2008-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

DATED : 4th APRIL 2019

PRESENT : JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer

C R No. 33/2008

I Party

II Party

The Managing Director, Mysore Minerals Limited, No. 39, M G Road, BANGALORE – 560 001.

Sri Sannaiah, S/o Late Sh. Rangappa, Hullenahalli, Agrahara Belaguli Post, Nuggehalli Hobli, ChannarayapatnaTaluk, HASSAN DIST.

Appearances

I Party : Shri K T GovindeGowda, Advocate II Party : Sh. T K Veda Murthy, Advocate 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-29012/33/2008-IR(M) dated 02.04.2008 in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as "The Act") (14 of 1947) referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the termination of Shri Sannaiah by the management of Mysore Minerals Limited w.e.f. 26/2/2001 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. The case of the 1st party workman is, he joined the service of the 2ndParty on 02.08.1984 at its Mines Unit viz. Jambur Chromite Mines. While joining service he had furnished his age as 38 years i.e., date of birth being 02.08.1956 as per the horoscope maintained by his parents. Same date of birth is mentionedin all his statutory records, he was entitled to continue in service upto 02.08.2015.

3. It is further stated, 2nd Party subjected him to medical examination on 26.02.2001. They refused work to him, on the plea that he has reached superannuation age of 58 years, termination order is issued, he is unemployed and has a dependent family. The 2nd Party officials obtained his signature on various applications and submitted his application to EPF authorities. They have terminated many of his co-workers. In one such case of the workman (Smt. K Dundamma vs. MML WP No. 5615/2001(S-RES)) was reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service by the order of the Hon'ble High Court. Similar WP 2610/2001 with connected cases is also allowed on 01.06.2006. The 2ndParty had not provided safety measures to work in the Mines. There was no proper working/service condition. During 1995 – 1996 they entrusted some of the mining development works in Hassan District to some private contractors without following due process of law. Because of this transaction they faced administrative problems, there was no production and they suffered loss, ultimately they decided to terminate the workers illegally by resorting to so called medical examination during the year 1998. The medical examination was conducted by one MBBS Doctor but not by Doctor of Rank of Assistant Civil Surgeon as defined under rule 19(C) of mines act. He is terminated from service on the basis of Medical examination Report. Age certificate is issued by the Medical Officer summarily and in a blind manner. They have no right to refuse employment to him or to remove his name from the Muster Rolls in unilateral manner without following due process of law. Hence, prayer for a direction to reinstate the 1stParty workman retrospectively with continuity of service etc.

4. The claim allegation is assailed by the 2nd Party in its written statement on following lines; he had not produced any authenticated document regarding his date of birth, his alleged horoscope is concocted one. It is further contended that on the intervention of the employee's union of the 2nd Party the 1st Party was subjected to medical examination and he was not allowed to work after 26.02.2001, since he had reached the age of superannuation. Medical Examination is conducted as per the mines rules 1955 and same does not affect any of the provisions of the mines rules. Delay in raising the dispute is not supported by any valid material. He is not entitled for any relief. He was relieved with all terminal[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2855 benefits after he attained the age of superannuation. He has not questioned the Medical report before the Appellate Board as prescribed under the Mines Rules 1955.

5. Both parties have adduced their evidence, the workman has examined himself as WW 1 and produced documents Ex W-1 to Ex W-5. On behalf of the 2nd Party their Assistant Manager/MW 1 was examined.

6. As such the 1st Party workman is terminated from service w.e.f. 26.02.2001. Going by his version he would have reached superannuation of 58 years on 02.08.2015. For the purpose of statutory records like B Record, EPF and Record his date of birth was mentioned as 02.08.1956 on the basis of Horoscope provided by him.

7. The 2nd Party has its own certified standing orders i.e., MML (Officers and Employees) Conditions of Service, Conduct and Disciplinary Proceedings Rules:

Rule /clause 18.0 pertaining to the age of superannuation reads thus:

18.1 : Every Officer/ Employee of the Company shall attain the age of Superannuation on his reaching the age of 58 years and shall retire from the services of the company.

18.2 : The age and date of birth of the Officer/Employee as recorded in the records of the Company shall be the determining factor for retirement.

Termination further is governed by Rule 24 which reads thus

"Rule/Clause 24.0–Termination :

24.1 : The Services of a permanent officer/Employee can be terminated either by the company or by the Officer/Employee himself by issue of three month's notice, or payment of three month's salary in lieu of such notice.

8. The 2ndparty neither changed the date of birth which was accepted earlier nor did they conduct any disciplinary action for submitting wrong date of birth. It is also a fact, at that point of time there was mass termination on the ground of either overage or medically unfit or temporary unfit condition. They have not obtained permission for such termination/retrenchment as warranted by Section 25N(1) of ID Act. Ex W – 1 is the copy of the medical certificate which is identified by MW 1. It is certified to the extent that he appears to be 55 years plus of age. For taking such opinion except for clinical examination, they have not subjected him to Radiological examination.

9. He is a manual worker, not knowing intricacy of legal procedure. For not challenging the medical certificate before Appellate Authority due to ignorance shall not give advantage over him to the 2nd Party Management. Wherefore, the termination of the 1st Party on the ground of attaining superannuation is illegal and cannot be sustained. Ofcourse, there is delay of more than 7 years in raising the dispute. It is also obvious that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka allowed a Writ Petition of a similarly placed workman who was removed from service on the similar ground and the Writ Appeal thereon came to be dismissed. The 1stParty herein has mustered courage thereafter to raise present industrial dispute. At the same time one has to see through the plight of an illiterate workman who is thrown out of his livelihood in the midway of his life.

11. The reinstatement at this stage is out of question since he is aged more than 60 years as per his own contention. Considering the illegality of the termination and also the delay in raising the dispute in the considered opinion of this tribunal, lumpsum compensation of Rs. 1 lac would do complete justice in the matter.

AWARD

Reference is accepted. 2ndParty is directed to pay lumpsum compensation of Rs. 1 lac to the 1stParty workman Sh. Sannaaiah within 60 days from the date of publication of award failing which the amount shall carry future interest @ 8% per annum.

(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 4th April 2019)

JUSTICE SMT. RATHNAKALA, Presiding Officer2856 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 6 मई, 2019

का. आ.का. आ.का. आ.का. आ. 748748748748.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार मेसर्स हिन्दुस्तान जिक लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि{दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्%ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं mम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट ((((संदर्भ संख्या 53/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्%ीय सरकार को 03.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. एल-43011/1/2012-आई आर (एम)]

डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2019

S.O. 748.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 53/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Hindustan Zinc Limited and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 03/05/2019.

[No. L-43011/1/2012-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

vuqca/kvuqca/kvuqca/kvuqca/k

lhlhlhlh----thththth----vkbZvkbZvkbZvkbZ----VhVhVhVh---- izdj.kizdj.kizdj.kizdj.k lalalala---- 53535353/2012

Reference No. L-43011/1/2012-IR (M) dt.:- 04 04- 2012

04 04- 2019

mHk; i{k vkt Hkh mifLFkr ugha gq, u gh ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dh izekf.kr izfr izLrqr dh gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; jktLFkku] }kjk S.B. C.W. Pet. No. 8007/12 fgUnqLrku ftad fy- cuke ;wfu;u vkWQ bf.M;k o vU; esa lksyg vU; lacaf/kr fjV ;kfpdkvksa ds lkFk ikfjr vkns'k dh oSc&izfr baVjusV ds ek/;e ls izkIr dh xbZ tks layXu i=koyh jgsA

bl vkns'k esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk bl fookn izdj.k esa Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk fnukad 04-04-2012 dks lanfHkZr vkS/kksfxd fookn la- L-43011/1/2012-IR (M) ds laca/k esa fuEukafdr vf/ker O;Dr fd;k gS

"The reference order dated 26.7.2010 and 4.4.2012 are in itself illegal in so far as there was no retrenchement or terminations of the workmen, who had opted for the benefits under the voluntary retirement scheme…………………..Therefore the terms of reference are hereby quashed and set-aside."

bl U;kf;d vkns'k ds vuqlkj bl vf/kdj.k dks lEizsf"kr mDr vkS|ksfxd fookn] oLrqr% 'ks"k u jgus ls vfLrRo esa ugha ekuk x;k gS rFkk vikLr dj fn;k x;k gS&blfy, bl vf/kdj.k }kjk dksbZ vf/kfu.kZ;u bl reference esa fd;k tkuk laEHko ugh ajgk gSA vr% ;g izdj.k blh izdkj mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gSA dsUnz ljdkj dks /kkjk 17 ¼1½ vkS/kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e d svarxZr lwpukFkZ o izdk'kukFkZ izsf"kr fd;k tkosaA izdj.k fu.khZr esa lfEefyr gks o vfHkys[kkxkj esa tek gksA

jk/kk eksgu prqosZnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

नई दिल्ली, 6 मई, 2019

का. आ.का. आ.का. आ.का. आ. 749749749749.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार मेसर्स एयरपोर्ट अथॉरिटी ऑफ इ(िcid:130)डया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि{दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्%ीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं mम न्यायालय-1, दिल्ली के पंचाट ((((संदर्भ संख्या 93/2016) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्%ीय सरकार को 03.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आई आर (एम)]

डी. के . िहमांशु,,,, अवर सिचव[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2857

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2019

S.O. 749.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 93/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-1, Delhi 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 their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 03/05/2019.

[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

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. 93 of 2016

General Secretary, Indian Airports Kamgar Union (IAKU), Through its General Secretary, Qr No.B-140 Pocket A, INA Colony, New Delhi. ...Workmen/Claimant`

Versus

The Chairman, Airports Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjang Airport, New Delhi 110003. …Management/Respondent

AWARD

This Award shall dispose of a complaint preferred by the workmen under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Briefly stated facts of the case as pleaded in the complaint are that the working hours of the employees of International Airports Authority of India which were fixed in the year 1972 and in respect of employees of National Airports Authority was fixed in the year, were from 9-30 AM to 5-30 PM and this continued to be so even after formation of Airports Authority of India in the year 1995. Management issued a circular No.02 of 2012 dated 17/1/2012 whereby employees were sought to be prematurely retired on attaining the age of 50 years, on the ground of inefficiency or doubtful integrity or on the ground of medical unfitness. The workmen/Union raised an industrial dispute and the Appropriate Government vide order dated 19/2/2014 referred the dispute before the Tribunal for adjudication which was registered as 39 of 2014. It is pleaded that during pendency of aforesaid dispute, the Management issued a circular No.1/2016 dated 6.1.2016 whereby working hours of the non-operational staff has been changed from 9-30 AM to 6-00 PM (with half an hour lunch break from 1-30 PM to 2.00 PM) instead of 9-30AM to 5-30 PM, which act of the Management is stated to be illegal, unjust and bad in law because as per provisions of Section 42(2)(b) and 43 of the Airport Authority of India, following three pre-conditions as imposed by the Legislature, for any rules and regulations to be made under the Act, were effective :-

(i) Prior approval of the Central Govt. (ii) Notification in the official gazette (iii) Laying of the rules and regulations before each House of Parliament and agreement or disagreement of both the Houses of Parliament for making or not making the rules & regulations.

It is stated that without taking prior permission of the Tribunal/Labour Court, the impugned circular dated 6-1-2016 regarding change in working hours, has been issued by the Management and same is in utter violation of Section 33 of the Act. Even otherwise, the impugned circular has been issued without any notice as required under Section 9-A of the Act and as such the said circular is void ab initio. The workmen/Union made a representation dated 14/3/2016 to the Management, asking to withdraw the circular dated 6/1/2016 but to no response. Hence, prayer has been made for passing an Award, holding that the circular dated 6/1/2016 regarding change of working hours for non-operational duties of the staff from 9-30 AM to 5-30 PM to 9-30 to 6 PM as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Section 33 read with Section 9-A of the Act and for directing the Management to restore the working hours as 9-30 AM to 5-30PM and pay over-time wages for the period worked by the workmen in excess by 30 minutes.

2. Management has resisted the claim of the Workmen Union and filed written statement, taking preliminary objections that the complaint under Section 33-A of the Act is not maintainable inasmuch as no conditions of service have been changed to the prejudice of the workmen and that the present complaint does not even remotely relates to the disputes in2858 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ID No.39 of 2014 pending before the Tribunal. The complainant Union under the garb of present complaint has sought to challenge the Airport Authority of India (General Conditions of Service & Remuneration of Employees) Regulation, 2003 which were duly formulated under Section 42 of the Airports Authority of India Act and as such, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of regulations 2003 duly formulated under the Act. It is alleged that the present complaint is misuse of the process of law and that the Complainant Union has not approached with clean hands. It is also alleged that the working hours of the organization have been changed in accordance with law and after following the procedure and in accordance with powers conferred by Section 42 of Airport Authority of India Act, 1994 and Airport Authority of India (General Conditions of Service & Remuneration of Employees) Regulation, 2003 framed thereunder. It is prayed that present complaint under Section 33-A is not maintainable and that complainant Union is not entitled to any relief.

3. Rejoinder was filed on behalf of the workman/claimant, whereby the case as set up in the claim petition has been reiterated and allegations made in the written statement have been denied.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 21/12/2016 :-

(i) Whether the complaint under Section 33-A of the ID Act is not maintainable and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the matter as alleged ?

(ii) Whether circular No.1/2016 dated 6/1/2016 is arbitrary and illegal as alleged ? (iii) Relief

5. The Claimant Union in support of its case examined Shri GA. Rudrappa, General Secretary as WW1 who tendered his affidavit Ex.WW1/A & relied on the documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/14, whereas Management examined one Shri Rajiv Duggal, Deputy General Manager (HR) who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A alongwith authority letter Ex.MW1/1.

6. I have heard Shri K.K. Aggarwal, A/R for the workmen Union and Ms. Neha Bhatnagar, A/R for the Management and have gone through the records carefully. My findings on the above issues are as followsw.

Issue No.1 and 2 :

7. Both these issues being inter-related are taken up together and the same can be disposed of by common discussion.

8. During the course of arguments, learned A/R for the workmen Union strenuously argued that the circular No. 1/2016 dated 6/1/2016 whereby working hours for General shift/non operational staff were increased by half an hour i.e. from 9.30 AM to 5.30 PM, to 9.30 AM to 6.00 PM,, has been issued during pendency of similar dispute (bearing ID No. 39 of 2014) without prior approval of the Tribunal/Labour Court as required under Section 33(1)(a) of the Act and same has been done without any monetary benefits to the workmen, which caused prejudice to the interest of workers inclusive of members of Workmen Union. He also submitted that the Management has violated the provisions of Section 9-A of the Act for changing the existing service condition of the employees by increasing working hours and change in time, without giving notice to the workmen and the claimant Union. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lokmat Newspapers P. Ltd. Vs. Shankar Prasad, 1999 II CLR 433, to stress that a notice under Section 9-A of the Act was required to be issued by the employer, prior to the altering the service conditions of the workers.

9. Per contra, learned A/R for the Management argued that the present complaint under Section 33-A of the Act is not maintainable inasmuch as subject matter of the complaint in question and the pending reference are not connected and are all together different and independent of each other and therefore, the provisions of Section 33 of the Act are not attracted. He also contended that the working hours of the organization have been changed in accordance with law and after following the procedure and in accordance with powers conferred by Section 42 of Airport Authority of India Act, 1994 and Airport Authority of India (General Conditions of Service & Remuneration of Employees) Regulation, 2003 framed thereunder. As such, the present complaint under Section 33-A of the Act is not maintainable and same be dismissed.

10. At the outset I may mention that Section 33 of the Act clearly provides that during pendency of the proceedings either before the Conciliation Officer or Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, no employer shall alter or change the conditions of service of the workman without written permission/approval from the authority before which such proceedings are pending. In case of contravention of the provisions of Section 33 by any employer, aggrieved employee has been given a right to make a complaint in writing under Section 33-A of the Act before the Authority before whom such proceedings were pending at the time of retrenchment/discharge etc. of the workman.

11. It is fairly settled that where Section 33 of the Act is contravened by the Management during the pendency of proceedings, any employee aggrieved by such contravention has a right to file a complaint against such contravention which is to be adjudicated as a dispute in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Legislature in its wisdom has made Special Provision under Section 33-A of the Act, for adjudication as to whether conditions of service, etc. of the employees were changed during pendency of proceedings. Under Section 33(1)(a) of the Act, no employer is entitled to alter the conditions of service of the workers which are subject matter of the pending disputes. This Section, thus, provides protection to a workman, provided an industrial dispute is pending and alteration in the service condition is with regard to any matter connected with the dispute and such alteration is prejudicial to his interest. For invoking violation[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2859

of Section 33(1)(a) of the Act, what is to be considered is whether the particular matter in regard to which the

complaint of alteration of service is made, is one which can be said to be connected with an industrial dispute

which is already pending. It is only where the alteration effected by the employer and the dispute pending before

the Tribunal is connected, then the said Section comes into play. If the alteration of conditions of service is not

connected with the subject matter of the pending dispute, the workman would not be entitled to the protection of

Section 33(1)(a) of the Act. To this view I am fortified by the decision of our own High Court in the case of

M/s Richa & Company Vs. Suresh Chand W.P. (C) No. 10744/2006 and other cases – decided on 12/9/2008).

12. It is worthwhile to mention here that as against a circular No.02 of 2012 dated 17/1/2012 regarding premature retirement of workers on attaining the age of 50 years, on the ground of inefficiency or doubtful integrity or on the ground of medical unfitness, issued by the Management, an industrial dispute bearing ID No.39 of 2014 by the workmen Union was raised, as the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour vide order dated 19/2/2014 had referred the dispute for adjudication before this Tribunal and the terms of reference of the said dispute were as follows which is also evident from document Ex.MW1/W-3 :-

"Whether the action of the Management of Airports Authority of India in making compulsory retirement of employees on the basis of AAI circular No.02/2012 dated 17.1.2012 on premature retirement is legal ? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?''

It is, thus, evident that the term of reference of the dispute/s pending before the Tribunal was pertaining to premature retirement of workers on attaining the age of 50 years, on the ground of inefficiency or doubtful integrity or on the ground of medical unfitness. However, the alteration in conditions of service allegedly brought about by the Management vide circular dated 6/1/2016 (Ex. WW1/1) is about review/increase of working hours of the workmen, to be more precise that the working hours for non operational duties were changed from 9.30 AM to 5.30 PM, to 9.30 AM to 6.00 PM. To my mind, a change in work timings can not be said to be a matter connected with the pending disputes ID No.39 of 2014 which pertains to premature retirement of workers on attaining the age of 50 years, on the ground of inefficiency or doubtful integrity or on the ground of medical unfitness. As such, the present complaint under Section 33-A of the Act is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

12. There is another aspect of the matter. Section 33(2)(a) of the Act gives a right to the employer to alter the conditions of service of a workman, in regard to any matter not connected with the pending industrial dispute, which were applicable to him immediately before the commencement of the proceedings in respect of that industrial dispute, provided such alteration has been made in accordance with the standing orders applicable to the concerned workman or where there are no such standing orders, in accordance with the terms of contract whether express or implied, between the employer and the workman. The proviso that has been appended to Section 33(2) applies only to clause (b) of Section 33(2) of the Act and not to clause (a) thereof. So, if the alteration has been brought about in accordance with the standing orders or the terms of contract between the employer and the workman, then no prior approval of the Tribunal is required. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lord Krishna Textile Mills Vs. its Workmen, AIR 1961 SC 860, with respect of provisions of Section 33(2)(a) of the Act had held as under :-

"….It is obvious that in cases of alteration of conditions of service falling under Section 33(2)(a) no such approval is required and the right of the employer remains unaffected by any ban."

In Strawboard Mfg. Co. Vs. Gobind, LLJ Vol.II 1962 it was held that sub section 2(a) of Section 33 of the Act on the other hand, gives power to the employer to alter any conditions of service not connected with the dispute and this the employer can do without approaching at all the Tribunal where the disputes may be pending.

13. As mentioned above, alteration in conditions of service allegedly brought about by the Management vide circular dated 6/1/2016 (Ex. WW1/1) is relating to review/increase of working hours of the workmen and the same was not a matter connected with the pending disputes ID No.39 of 2014 relating to premature retirement of workers on attaining the age of 50 years, on the ground of inefficiency or doubtful integrity or on the ground of medical unfitness. Case of the Management is that working hours for non operational staff have been changed in accordance with law and after following the procedure and in accordance with powers conferred by Section 42 of Airport Authority of India Act, 1994 and Airport Authority of India (General Conditions of Service & Remuneration of Employees) Regulation, 2003 framed thereunder. Perusal of the record shows that WW1 G.A. Rudrappa, General Secretary of the Workmen Union has admitted that under Section 42(4) of Airport Authority of India Act, 1994, Airport Authority of India has got powers to frame regulations but he volunteered that for that prior approval of the Govt. is required. He also admitted that notification dated 23/5/2003 (Ex.MW1/W-1) was published in the Gazette.

14. It is fairly settled that Sub-Section 2(a) of Section 33 of the Act gives power to the employer to alter any conditions of service not connected with the dispute and this the employer can do without approaching at all the Tribunal/Court where the dispute may be pending.

15. It is, thus, apparent that the dispute (ID No. 39 of 2014) pending before the Tribunal pertaining to compulsory retirement at the age of 50 years on the ground of inefficiency or doubtful integrity or on the ground of medical unfitness, was not connected to dispute about review/increase of working hours.

16. Having regard to the ratio of aforesaid rulings and the facts of this case, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that there is no violation of Section 33(1)(a) of the Act as the subject matter involved regarding the working hours/timings of the workmen was/is different & distinct from the subject matter of pending dispute concerning compulsory retirement.

2860 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Therefore, the circular bearing No.1/2016 dated 6/1/2016 regarding review/increase of working hours of the non- operational staff can be held to be arbitrary or illegal. Consequently, both these issues are decided against the Workmen Union and in favour of the Management.

Relief :-

17. In view of my findings on issue No.1 and 2 above, it is held that the claimant/Workmen Union is not entitled to any relief and the claim petition is dismissed, however, with no orders as to costs. Award is passed accordingly.

Dated : 12/4/2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 6 मई, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 750750750750.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार मेसर्स mी सीमेंट लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में नि{दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्%ीय सरकार औद्योगिक न्यायधिकरण एवं mम न्यायालय, अजमेर के पंचाट ((((संदर्भ संख्या 06/2017) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्%ीय सरकार को 03.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आई आर (एम)]

डी. के . िहमांशु,,,, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2019

S.O. 750.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 06/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ajmer now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Shree Cement Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03/05/2019.

[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

vuqca/kvuqca/kvuqca/kvuqca/k

U;k;kf/kdj.k] vtesj ¼jkt0½ Je U;k;ky; ,oa vkS|kJe U;k;ky; ,oa vkS|kJe U;k;ky; ,oa vkS|kJe U;k;ky; ,oa vkS|ksfxdsfxdsfxdsfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] vtesj ¼jkt0½ U;k;kf/kdj.k] vtesj ¼jkt0½ U;k;kf/kdj.k] vtesj ¼jkt0½

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh&Jh ,lihBklhu vf/kdkjh&Jh ,lihBklhu vf/kdkjh&Jh ,lihBklhu vf/kdkjh&Jh ,l----,u,u,u,u---- Vsyj ] vkjVsyj ] vkjVsyj ] vkjVsyj ] vkj----,p,p,p,p----tstststs----,l,l,l,l

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

izdj.k la[;k lhvkbZVhvkj ua- 06@2017

lh vkbZ ,l ua- 27@17

&&&&&

Jh vt;flag fllksfn;k iq= Jh xqekuflag fllksfn;k tkfr jktiwr fuoklh eq0iks0 xksfoanx< rglhy ihlkaxu ftyk vtesj gky fuoklh 'kkjnk Ldwy ds ikl] fuEcsVh jksM] eqdke iksLV jkl rglhy tSrkj.k ftyk ikyh ¼jkt0½

&izkFkhZ

cukecukecukecuke

1. Jh iadt vxzoky] egkizca/kd] Jh lhesaV fyfeVsM] ekbZUl jkl] rglhy tSrkj.k ftyk ikyh]

2. Jh eukst esgyk] lhfu;j okbZl izslhMsaV] Jh lhesaV fyfeVsM] bZdkbZ jkl rglhy tSrkj.k ftyk ikyh]

3. Jh lat; esgrk] lhfu;j okbZl izslhMsaV ¼ilZuy½] Jh lhesaV fyfeVsM] ckaxMuxj] C;koj ftyk vtesj ¼jkt0½] 4. Jh lqjs'kpan lqFkkj] lhfu;j okbZl izslhMasaV] Jh lhesaV fyfeVsM] ckaxMuxj] C;koj ftyk vtesj

&vizkFkhZx.k

&&&&&[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2861 mifLFkfrmifLFkfrmifLFkfrmifLFkfr

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh ,y ,l jkBkSM] vf/koDrk

vizkFkh dh vksj ls % Jh vkj-ds- tSu ¼vf/koDrk½ izfrfuf/k

&&&&&&

&% vokMZ %& &% vokMZ %& &% vokMZ %& &% vokMZ %& fnukad 18-3-2019

&&&&&

1. izkFkhZ }kjk vizkFkhZx.k ds fo:} viuk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse varZxr /kkjk 2 , vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 fnukad 10-7-2017 dks izLrqr dj mlesa vfHkopu fd, x, gS fd mls iwoZ dk;Zdkjh funs'kd Jh ,e ds fla?kh Jh lheasV fy0 ;wfuV&3] ckaxM uxj] C;koj }kjk fnukad 28-10-2006 dks nks o"kZ ds fy, ds fy, Vªsuh vkWijsVj ds in ij fu;qfDr iznku dh xbZA izkFkhZ dks fnukad 31-10-2007 dks fu;qfDr i= fn;k x;kA fnukad 01-05-2010 ls dEiuh izca/ku us izkFkhZ dh dEiuh easa VsDuhf'k;u ds in ij fu;qfDr duQeZ djrs gq, duQjes'ku ysVj fnukad 29-4-2008 dks tkjh fd;k x;k rFkk izkFkhZ dk dk;ZLFky Jh lhesaV fyfeVsM] bZdkbZ jkl ftyk ikyh j[kk x;kA izkFkhZ dks vPNh ijQksjesal ds fy, c/kkbZ i= Hkh fn;k o ekbfuax esV ds fy, lfVZfQdsV vkWQ dEihVsal tkjh fd;k x;k fdUrq dk;Z vkWijsVj dk fy;k tkrk FkkA izkFkhZ dks dEiuh esa fu;qfDr ds i'pkr yxkrkj 8 ?k.Vs o mlls ,DlsosVj vkWijsVj ds :i esa dk;Z djus ls izkFkhZ dks ikbZYl dh xaHkhj chekjh gks xbZA ftldk jktdh; vk;qosZn fpfdRlky;] C;koj esa bZykt gqvk vkSj vkt Hkh bZyktjr gSA izkFkhZ }kjk is Lyhi esa ,Mh'kuy ,l ,Q , rFkk cksul vafdr djrs gq, Hkh Hkqxrku ugha djus ls izkFkhZ us dEiuh izca/ku ls Hkqxrku dh ekax dh rks ukjkt gks x, o izkFkhZ dks lsoki`Fkd djus dk ekul cuk fy;k ,oa gjoDr vuqfpr ijs'kku fd;k tkus yxkA MEij dk Mkyk mapk djus] {kerk ls vf/kd ynku djus] MEij dk iqjkus o ttZj gksus] Jfedksa dh tku tksf[ke esa Mkyus] tkap futh MkDVj ls djok fjiksVZ Jfed dks ugha nsus vkfn lfgr Toyar eqn~nksa ij izca/ku dks voxr djok;k x;k fdUrq fuokj.k ugha fd;kA dEiuh izca/ku us fnukad 10-02-2016 ls izkFkhZ dk dEiuh esa dk;Z ij vkus tkus dk xsV can djok fn;k rFkk fnukad 09-03-2016 ls izkFkhZ dks fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ds eLVj jksy ls uke dkV lsoki`Fkd dj fn;k ,oa lsoki`FkDdj.k dh lwpuk izkFkhZ dks ugha nh o uksfVl cksMZ ij pLik dj nhA lgdfeZ;ksa ls irk pyk rFkk ;g Hkh tkudkjh feyh fd izkFkhZ dk LFkkukUrj.k nqHkkZouk ls jk;iqj ¼NRrhlx<½ flLVj dUluZ esa dj fn;kA izkFkhZ us tkudkjh gksus ij lsoki`FkDdj.k o LFkkukUrj.k i= dh izca/kd ls ekax dh fdUrq ugha fn, u gh dk;Z ij mifLFkr gksus fn;k x;kA vizkFkhZ dEiuh esa izkFkhZ dk fu;fer fu;kstu gS exj vkS/kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds vkns'kkRed izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk ugha dj izkFkhZ dks fof/k fo:} rjhds ls lsoki`Fkd dj fn;kA lsoki`Fkd djus ls iwoZ uk rks mlds fo:} tkap gh djokbZ xbZ vkSj uk gh Li"Vhdj.k ekaxk vkSj uk gh xokg lcwr is'k djus dk volj fn;kA Jfed fgrs'k Vkad dh ikfjokfjd ifjfLFkfr ds dkj.k 47 fnu ckn LFkkukUrj.k jn~n dj iwoZ dk;ZLFky ij okil ys fy;kA izkFkhZ us lgk;d Je vk;qDr] dsUnzh; Je foHkkx] vtesj ds le{k le>kSrk okrkZ gsrq fookn izLrqr fd;kA exj vizkFkhZx.k ds ogka ij tokc ugha nsus vkSj vuqifLFkr jgus ij dsUnzh; Je vk;qDr] vtesj us izek.k i= tkjh dj Je U;k;ky; ,oa vkS/kksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] vtesj ds le{k izdj.k nk;j djus dk lq>ko fn;kA var esa izkFkZuk dh xbZ gS fd fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh tkosA

2. vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls mDr Dyse izkFkZuki= dk tokc izLrqr dj mldks enokj vLohdkj djrs gq, vfHkopu fd, gS fd izkFkhZ Jh lhesaV jkl bZdkbZ ,oa mlls lacaf/kr [kku esa dk;Zjr jgkA mDr bZdkbZ rglhy tSrkj.k ftyk ikyh esa fLFkr gS tks fd tks/kiqj fMohtu ds v/khu gSA lqyg vf/kdkjh ,oa lgk;d Je vk;qDr] dsUnzh;] vtesj us /kkjk 2&, rgr mDr fookn dks bl U;k;ky; esa izLrqr djus dh dkuwuh Hkwy dh gSA mDr fookn ikyh ftys ls lacaf/kr gksus ls bl izdj.k dh lquokbZ ckcr {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gSA izkFkhZ }kjk mBk;s x, dfFkr fookn tks/kiqj esa fLFkr Je U;k;ky; ,oa vkS/kksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] tks/kiqj }kjk gh fu.khZr fd;k tk ldrk gS tgka mldk {ks=kf/kdkj gSA dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk Je U;k;ky; ,oa vkS/kksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj dh LFkkiuk dbZ o"kksZ iwoZ dh tk pqdh gS ftls lEiw.kZ jktLFkku dk {ks=kf/kdkj gSA vr% lqyg vf/kdkjh ,oa lgk;d Je vk;qDr] vtesj }kjk dfFkr fookn dks mDr U;k;kf/kdj.k ds lEeq[k gh Hkstk tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSA dEiuh dh jk;iqj bZdkbZ dh vuq'ka"kk ij vizkFkhZ dEiuh ds jkl bZdkbZ ls lacaf/kr ekbZUl esa dk;Zjr Jh vt;flag fllksfn;k] Jh f'koizlkn ,oa Jh j.kohjflag xqtZj dks vizkFkhZ ds dk;kZy; vkns'k fnukad 06-02-2016 ds tfj;s rqjar izHkko ls jk;iqj LFkkukUrfjr dj fn;k x;k ,oa jk;iqj ds vf/kdkjh dks lwfpr dj fn;kA izkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 18-2-2016 dks ,d i= izsf"kr dj mlds mDr LFkkukUrj.k ds rF;ksa dks mYysf[kr dj ikbZYl dh chekjh gksus ls 15 ekpZ rd M;wVh Toksbu ugha dj ikus ds dFku fd,A lkFk esa jksxh mipkj i= Hkh izLrqr fd;k ftl ij izkFkhZ ds gLrk{kj ugha FksA vizkFkhZ dEiuh ds jk;iqj ekbZUl ds mDr vf/kdkjh }kjk fnukad 17-03-2016 dks jkl fLFkr ekbZUl ds ofj"B egkizca/kd dks ,d i= fy[kk x;k ftlds }kjk mUgksaus tkudkjh nh fd ftu 3 O;fDr;ksa dks LFkkukUrfjr fd;k x;k Fkk mlesa flQZ Jh j.kohjflag xqtZj }kjk gh LFkkukUrfjr LFkku ij mifLFkfr nh xbZA mDr i= dh izkfIr ds i'pkr vizkFkhZ dEiuh ds i= fnukad 23-03-2016 }kjk izkFkhZ dks lwfpr fd;k x;k fd muds }kjk LFkkukUrfjr LFkku ij mifLFkfr ugha nh xbZ rFkk os fnukad 09-02- 2016 ls yxkrkj vuqifLFkr py jgs gSA mDr i= }kjk izkFkhZ dks iqu% fgnk;r nh xbZ fd og 48 ?k.Vs ds Hkhrj2862 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] jk;iqj esas mifLFkr ntZ djk;sa ,oa vuqifLFkfr ds laca/k esa mfpr Li"Vhdj.k nsosaA izkFkhZ }kjk mDr i= ds ckotwn jk;iqj fLFkr bZdkbZ esa mifLFkfr ugha nhA vizkFkhZ }kjk i= fnukad 29-3-2016 ls izkFkhZ dks lwfpr fd;k fd mlus mDr i= fnukad 23-3-2016 ds ckotwn Hkh mifLFkfr ugha nh gS o og fcuk dkj.k ds vukf/kd`r :i ls vuqifLFkr py jgk gS ,oa ftlds pyrs ;g eku fy;k x;k fd og dk;Z djus dks bPNqd gh ugha gSA izkFkhZ }kjk fuf'pr le; lhek esa gh dk;Z fd;k tkrk jgk ,oa ftl LFkku ij izkFkhZ dk;Zjr Fkk ogka lHkh e'khuksa esa muds pkydksa ds fy, vkjkenk;d okrkuqdwfyr dsfcu Fks] ftlls fd e'khu pkyd iw.kZ lqjf{kr o LoLFk okrkoj.k esa dk;Z djrs FksA lkFk gh le; le; ij lacaf/kr deZpkfj;ksa ds LokLFk; dk ijh{k.k vizkFkhZ }kjk vius fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh }kjk lqfuf'pr fd;k gqvk Fkk ,oa ekbZUl ds fu;eksa ds vuqlkj ekbZUl esa dk;Zjr lHkh Jfedksa dk esfMdy ¼xgu fpfdRlk ijh{k.k½ djk;k tkrk gSA ftls Mk;jsDVj tujy vkWQ ekbUl lsQ~Vh ds }kjk voyksdu@tkap fd;k tkrk gSA vizkFkhZ ds ekbUl esa djhc 455 O;fDr fu;ksftr gS ftlesa yxHkx 108 MEij vkWijsVj ds in ij dk;Zjr gSA ikbZYl dksbZ ,slh chekjh ugha gS tks fd ekbZUl esa dk;Z djus ls gksrh gksA izkFkhZ }kjk igyh ckj vius i= fnukad 18-2-2016 }kjk ;g tkfgj fd;k x;k fd mls dfFkr :i ls ikbYl dh chekjh gSA blls iwoZ mlds }kj dHkh Hkh mDr izdkj dh f'kdk;r dk;Zjr jgrs gq, ugha dh xbZA izkFkhZ }kjk mlds LFkkukUrj.k ds i'pkr gh ikbZYl dh dfFkr chekjh dh dgkuh xdj fnukad 9-2-2016 ls vukf/kd`r :i ls vuqifLFkr jgus yxk ftlds laaca/k esa le; le; ij izkFkhZ dks lwpuk nh xbZA vizkFkhZ }kjk vkS/kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh fdlh Hkh /kkjk dk mYya?ku ugha fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk ;g dgh Hkh dFku ugha fd;k x;k gS fd mlds }kjk Hkh LFkkukUrj.k jn~n djkus ckcr dksbZ dk;Zokgh dh xbZ cfYd izkFkhZ }kjk tkucq>dj chekjh dh vkM ysdj LFkkukUrfjr txg ij Toksbfuax ugha nh xbZ ftlds fy, Lo;a izkFkhZ ftEesnkj gSA lgk;d Je vk;qDr ds le{k vizkFkhZ }kjk vius i= fnukad 20-7-2016 ds tfj;s foLr`r fVIi.kh izLrqr dh xbZ FkhA ftl ij xkSj fd, fcuk gh mDr vf/kdkjh }kjk izek.k i= tkjh dj fn;k x;k ,oa mldk laKku ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ugha fy;k tk ldrk gSA var esa muds }kjk lqyg vf/kdkjh ,oa lgk;d Je vk;qDr] vtesj }kjk vkS/kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 2&, ds rgr tkjh izek.k i= fnukad 21-9-2018 ij dksbZ dk;Zokgh djus dk {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gksus ,oa izkFkhZ Hkh jkgr dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugh gksus dk dFku djrs gq, LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse [kkfjt fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA

3. mHk; i{kdkjku ds vfHkopuksa ,oa miyC/k lkexzh ds e/; utj fnukad 10-01-2016 dks U;k;ky; }kjk fuEukafdr fookn fcUnq fojfpr fd, x,%&

1. vk;k izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ laLFkku }kjk fnukad 9-3-2016 dks fcuk fdlh lwpuk ds eLVjjksy ls uke dkVdj fof/kd izko/kkuksa ds mYya?ku esa lsoki`Fkd dj fn;k x;k\

2. vk;k fd gLrxr izdj.k dks bl vf/kdj.k dks {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gS\

3. vuqrks"k\

4. izkFkhZ us viuh ekSf[kd lk{; esa , Mc-1 vt;flag fllksfn;k Lo;a dks ijhf{kr djok;k ,oa izys[kh; lk{; esa izn'kZ Mc-1 yxk;r Mc-22 nLrkost iznf'kZr djok, x, gS A vizkFkhZx.k us viuh ekSf[kd lk{; esa ,u , Mc- 1 iadt vxzoky] ,u , Mc-2 ds lh 'kekZ] ,u , Mc-3 iq"isanz dqekj Hkkj}kt dks ijhf{kr djok;k tkdj izys[kh; lk{; esa izn'kZ ,e&1 yxk;r ,e&5 ,oa izn'kZ ,e&10 yxk;r ,e&12 nLrkost iznf'kZr djok;s x;s gS A

5. cgl vafre lquh x;h A izkFkhZ dh vksj ls mlds LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse ds nksgjko ds lkFk rdZ jgs gS fd izkFkhZ ls foijhr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa dk;Z fy;k tkrk Fkk ftu foijhr ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks vizkFkhZ laLFkku dh tkudkjh esa ekSf[kd rkSj ij dbZ ckj yk;k fdarq vizkFkhZ laLFkku }kjk dksbZ dk;Zokghs ugh dh x;h A vizkFkhZ laLFkku ds vf/kdkjh izkFkhZ ls nqHkkZouk j[kus yxs vkSj izkFkhZ dk rFkkdfFkr Vz~kalQj vizkFkhZ laLFkku }kjk vius dkxtksa esa gh dj fn;k x;k tcfd ,slk dksbZ LFkkukarj.k i= vFkok vkns'k izkFkhZ dks u rks fn;k x;k u gh lwpuk nh x;h tks vizkFkhZ laLFkku dh nqHkkZouk dks Li"V :i ls izdV djrk gS A izkFkhZ ds LFkkukarj.k dh dk;Zokgh nqHkkZouk iwoZd jgh gS A izkFkhZ us Mk;jsDVj tujy vkWQ ekbal lsQ~Vh dks Hkh foijhr ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh f'kdk;r dh Fkh ftl dkj.k vizkFkhZ laLFkku ds fo:) tkap gqbZ ftldh tkap fjiksVZ i=koyh ij gS A LFkkukUrj.k dh lwpuk izkFkhZ dks fdlh rjhds ls ugh nh x;h u gh ;g Vz~kalQj vkWMZj yxkrk gS bldk eksM vkWQ fMyhojh D;k gS ;g Li"V ugh gS A bldh dksbZ jlhn ikorh ;k Mkd jlhn Hkh ugh gS A izkFkhZ ds lsok i`FkDdj.k ls[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2863 igys izkFkhZ ls dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k ugh fy;k x;k A okfuZax i= dh jlhn ;k ikorh Hkh i=koyh ij ugh gS A bldh fnukad ls ysdj nks fnu rd ljdkjh NqV~Vh Fkh A Mkd tkjh gh ugh gks ldrh Fkh fQj Hkh blesa vMrkyhl ?kaVs dk gh VkbZe vafdr gS A lsokeqDr vkns'k esa izkFkhZ dks fn- 9-3-16 ls vuqifLFkr crk;k gS tcfd fdlh vU; nLrkost esa ,slk ugha gS vuqifLFkfr ds ckjs esa dksbZ pktZ'khV fn;k tkuk ;k izkFkhZ ls dkbZ Li"Vhdj.k pkguk Hkh dgha izdV ugh gksrk gS A izkFkhZ chekj jgk Fkk bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ us i=koyh ij izpwj ek=k esa nLrkost is'k fd;s gSa ftudk fdlh rjg ls [kaMu ughs gS A izkFkhZ us NqV~Vh dk izkFkZuk i= Hkh fn;k Fkk tks Lo;a vizkFkhZx.kksa dk Lohd`r rF; gSA chekjh ds nLrkost Hkh i=koyh ij gS A vizkFkhZx.k dh lkf{k;ksa us izkFkhZ dh lsok i`FkDdj.k ls iwoZ uksfVl tkap vkfn dh Hkh tkudkjh ugh gksuk ntZ djok;k gS vf/kdrj lk{; esa mUgksusa tkudkjh ugha gksuk ntZ djok;k gS ftlls Li"V gS fd os lgh lk{; U;k;ky; esa ugha nsuk pkgrs Fks rFkk mudh lk{; fo'oluh; ugha gSA izkFkhZ ls ch bZ ,e ,y Maij ij dk;Z fy;k tkrk Fkk ftldh dSisflVh ipkl Vu Fkh fQj Hkh mlesa iSalB Vu eky ynok;k tkrk Fkk A ftl ckcr~ i=koyh ij lk{; miyc/k gS A vizkFkhZ lk{kh ,u , Mc-2 ds lh 'kekZ vizkFkhZ laLFkku dh fdlh rjg ls enn ugh djrk gS A vizkFkhZ lk{kh ,u , Mc-3 iq"isanz Hkkj}kt us izkFkhZ }kjk j[ks x;s rF;ksa esa gh vf/kdrj dks Lohdkj fd;k gSA vizkFkhZ lk{kh izkFkhZ dks vkjksi i= fn;s tkus o izkFkhZ ls Li"Vhdj.k pkgus ds laca/k esa Hkh euk djrs gSA izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa vizkFkhZ laLFkku }kjk /kkjk 25 ,Q dh iykuk ugh dh x;h gS D;ksafd u rks izkFkhZ dks uksfVl fn;k x;k u gh dksbZ fjVzz~sapesaaV HkRrk fn;k x;k izkFkhZ ls dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k bR;kfn Hkh ugh fy;k x;k u tkap dh x;h vizkFkhZx.k }kjk izkFkhZ dh dh x;h lsokeqfDr xyr o voS/k gS rFkk izkFkhZ iw.kZ osru ifjykHk lfgr lsok esa iquZLFkkiuk dk vf/kdkjh gS A lsokeqfDr voS/k gksus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ Lor% gh csd ostst izkfIr dk vf/kdkjh gS D;ksafd vizkFkhZx.k ;g fl} ugha dj ik, gS fd izkFkhZ xsuQwy ,EiykW;esaV esa Fkk ftldk fd Hkkj vizkFkhZx.k ij gh FkkA vizkFkhZx.k dh dksbZ lk{; ekus tkus ;ksX; {ks=kf/kdkj ds laca/k esa ugha gSA {ks=kf/kdkj ds laca/k esa vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls vafre LVst ij mBk, x, ,rjkt Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha gSA foi{kh dEiuh C;koj esa fLFkr gksus rFkk mldk eq[;ky; C;koj esa fLFkr gksus rFkk izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr o VfeZus'ku vkns'k C;koj ls tkjh gksus rFkk le>kSrk okrkZ vtesj esa gh gksus rFkk /kkjk 2&, vkS/kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dk izek.k i= Hkh bl U;k;ky; ds ckjs esa gh tkjh gksus rFkk Jfed fu;kstd dk laca/k Hkh C;koj esa gh mRiUu gksus ds vk/kkj ij bl U;k;ky; dks gLrxr izdj.k ckcr {ks=kf/kdkj gksuk crkrs gq, dsoy ikyh esa [kku gksus ,oa izkFkhZ ds dk;Z djus ds vk/kkj ij gh bl U;k;ky; dk {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gksuk ekus tkus ;ksX; ugha gksus ds rdZ fn, x, gS rFkk var esa izkFkhZ dk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse Lohdkj fd;k tkrs gq, mDr vuqrks"k fn;s tkus dhs izkFkZuk dh x;h gS A muds }kjk vius rdksZ ds leFkZu esa fuEukafdr U;kf;d n`"Vkar Hkh is'k fd, x, gS%&

1. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk flfoy vihy la[;k 1756@2010 vkj,lvkjVhlh t;iqj cuke Qwypan e`rd tfj;s fof/kd izfrfuf/k esa ikfjr fjiksVsZcy fu.kZ; fnukad 20-9-2018

2. ,vkbZvkj 1979] ,l lh 75] fgUnqLrku fVu odZl izk0fy0 cuke ,EiykWf;t vkWQ fgUnqLrku fVu odZl]

3. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk flfoy vihy la[;k 346@2015 t'kesj flag cuke LVsV vkWQ gfj;k.kk esa ikfjr uksu&fjiksVsZcy fu.kZ; fnukad 13-1-2015]

4. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk flfoy vihy la[;k 4160@2008 ih d:iS;k e`rd tfj;s fof/kd izfrfuf/k cuke fn tujy eSustj fr:osyqoj VzkaliksVZ dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM esa ikfjr fjiksVsZcy fu.kZ; fnukad 12-10-2017]

5. ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk flfoy vihy la[;k 6767@2013 nhikyh xq.Mq losZ'k cuke dzkafr twfu;j v/;kid egkfo|ky; o vU; esa ikfjr fjiksVsZcy fu.kZ; fnukad 12-08-2013

6. [kaMu esa fo}ku vf/koDrk izfrfuf/k vizkFkhZx.k ds rdZ jgs gS fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr o mlds i'pkr~ mldk fuEcsVh ekbu esa dk;Z djuk fuZfookn gS rFkk bl rF; dks izkFkhZ }kjk viuh ftjg esa Hkh Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd og jkl ftyk ikyh esa mDr ekbu esa gh dke djrk FkkA {ks=kf/kdkj ds fcUnq ij vizkFkhZ lkf{k;ksa dh eq[; ijh{kk dh lk{; ij izkFkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ ftjg ugha gSA izkFkhZ ds vfHkopuksa o lk{; esa Hkkjh fojks/kkHkkl gSA lkjh dgkuh izkFkhZ us LFkkukUrj.k ds ckn esa >waBh x 2864 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

gS u gh izkFkhZ dh dksbZ enn djrs gSA izn'kZ ,e&1 izkFkZuk i= izkFkhZ dks Lo;a izkFkhZ }kjk fjykbZ fd;k x;k gS ftlesa izkFkhZ dks LFkkukUrj.k dh tkudkjh gksuk mYysf[kr gS D;ksafd blesa mlus u;s LFkku ij Toksbu djus ds fy, chekjh ds dkj.k le; pkgk gS og ;g ugha dg ldrk gS fd mls LFkkukUrj.k dh tkudkjh ugha FkhA vizkFkhZ lkf{k;ksa }kjk ek= tkudkjh ugh gksus ckcr~ fn;s x;s dFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij mDr rF;ksa dks fl) ugh ekuk tk ldrk gS A Mhth,e,l dh tkap fjiksVZ esa ,slk ugh fy[kk gqvk gS fd ;s izkFkhZ dhs f'kdk;r ij vk/kfjr gS A bl laca/k esa tokc vizkFkhZ laLFkku }kjk ns fn;k x;k ftl i'pkr~ dksbZ dk;Zokgh Mh th ,e ,l }kjk vizkFkhZ laLFkku ds fo:) ugh dh x;h A izkFkhZ ds vdsys dk LFkkukarj.k ugh fd;k x;k Fkk A rhu O;fDr;ksa dk LFkkukarj.k fd;k x;k Fkk A ;g nqHkkohZ drbZ ugh gks ldrk gS A tkudkjh gksus ds ckn Hkh izkFkhZ }kjk LFkkukarfjr LFkku ij dk;Z ij mifLFkr ugh gksdj yxkrkj vuqifLFkr jguk mlds }kjk lsok dk vfHkR;tu ekus tkus ;ksX; gS vkSj bl rjg izkFkhZ }kjk oLrqr% lsok dk vfHkR;tu fd;k x;k gS A vkbZ Mh ,DV dh /kkjk 25 ,Q izdj.k esa ykxw ugha gksrh gS A mDr ifjLFkfr esa fdlh izdkj dh tkap vko';d ugh Fkh vkSj bl dkj.k izkFkhZ dh lsok eqfDr voS/k ugha Bgjk;h tk ldrh gS A izkFkhZ lsokeqfDr ds i'pkr~ xsuQqy ,aiykW;esaV esa ugh gks] ,slh izkFkhZ dhs IyhfMax Hkh ugha gS u gh bldh dksbZ lk{; gS A mDr vfHkopu djds izkjafHkd rkSj ij fl} djus dk ftEek Hkh izkFkhZ ij gh FkkA izkFkhZ }kjk rks vius LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa vuqrks"k gh of.kZr ugha fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ fdlh izdkj ds vuqrks"k dk vf/kdkjh ugh gS A bl Je U;k;ky; dks dsoy vtesj ftys esa mRiUu vkS/kksfxd fookn dk gh {ks=kf/kdkj fn;k x;k gSA Lohd`r rkSj ij izkFkhZ ikyh ftys ds jkl LFkku ij fLFkr [kku esa gh dk;Zjr jgk gSA ftl {ks= dk bl U;k;ky; dks {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gSA /kkjk 2&, vkS/kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds izek.k i= esa bl U;k;ky; esa fookn mBkus ckcr nh xbZ jk; ufyVh gSA mBk;k x;k fookn fdlh Hkh izdkj ls bl U;k;ky; esa pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA var esa izkFkhZ dk Dyse izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;h gS A vius rdksZ ds leFkZu esa fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d n`"Vkar is'k fd;s x;s gS%&

1. 2004 ,y ,y vkj 1103 dsasnzh; fo|ky; laxBu cuke nkeksnj izlkn ikaMs o vU;]

2. 2007 ,y ,y vkj 390 ';ke lqanj vxzoky cuke eS0 Xyksc fMVSfDVo ,tsalh izk0 fy0 o vU;]

3. ¼1999½ 1 lqizhe dksVZ dslst 300 fliyk fy0 cuke t;dqekj vkj o vU;]

4. 2001 ,y,y vkj 548 LVsV cSad vkWQ bafM;k cuke vatk;u lkU;ky]

5. 2015 ,y ,y vkj 169 dkaihVsaV flD;qfjVh lfoZlst cuke xouZesaV vkWQ ,u lh Vh vkWQ nsgyh o vU;]

6. 2018 ,y ,y vkj 933 foykl xuifr ikfVy cuke lq;ksx cSdosy olarnknk vkS|ksfxd olkgr] lkaxyh o vU;]

7. 2001 ¼2½ lqizhe dksVZ dslst 289 ,Mhlu~l isaV~l ,aM dsfedYl fy0 cuke odZeSu fjiztsaVsM ckb nh lSdszVz~h ¼, ih ,aM lh½ vflLVsaV~l ,slksfl,'ku o vU;]

8. 2018 ,y ,y vkj 752 d:ukdj.k cuke Hkkjrh bysDVz~ksfuDl fy0 fjiz-ckbZ bV~l ps;jeSu de eSusftax Mk;jsDVj o vU;]

9. 2018 ¼2½ lqizhe dksVZ dslst ¼,y ,aM ,l½ 395 ih d:iS;k e`rd Fkzw yhxy

fjiztsaVsfVo cuke tujy eSustj fFk:oYywoj Vz~kaliksVZ dkjiksjs'ku fy0]

10. 2016 ,y ,y vkj 1244 bathfj;j bu phQ okVj fjlksZlst fMikVZesaV Hkksiky cuke ekugj.k]

11. 2005 ,y ,y vkj 275 dsanzh; fo|ky; laxBu o vU; cuke ,l lh 'kekZ]

12. 2006 ,y ,y vkj 214 ;w ih LVsV czklos;j dkjiks-fy0 o vU; cuke mn; ukjk;.k ikaMs]

13. 2018 ,y ,y vkj 727 ,p ih LVsV dkWi-ekdsZfVax ,aM datwelZ QsMjs'ku fy0 cuke uSulq[k]

14. 2015 ,y ,y vkj 160 Hkkouxj E;qfufliy dkjiksjs'ku o vU; cuke tMstk xksoqHkk NkuqHkk o vU; A

15. 2002 ¼2½ ,y,y,u] 306 eSustesaV vkQ csLV ,.M dzkEiVu baft0 fy0 cuek ih-vks-1 ,Mh'kuy yscj dksVZ]

16. euq@,l-lh-@0237@1967 odZesu vkWQ Jh jaxfoykl eksVlZ izk0fy0 o vU; cuke Jh jaxfoykl eksVlZ izk0fy0]

17. euq@,e-ih-@223@2012 ,p ih esfMdy ,.M lsYl fjiztsaVsfVo ,lksfl;s'ku o vU; cuke lhfu;j tujy eSustj] dsefyu fy0

18. euq@ds-,-@3483@2018 fn esustesaV vkWQ gsoysV isd;kMZ bf.M;k lsYl izk0 cuke fn lsdsVjh] fefuLVzh vkWQ yscj] xoZuesaV vkWQ dukZVd]

19. euq@MhbZ@3081@2015 'ksysUnz dqekj cuke fn lsdsVjh ¼yscj½ o vU;

7. mHk; i{kdkjku dh vksj ls fn, rdksZ rFkk mHk; i{kksa dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ds vfHkerksa rFkk lacaf/kr fof/k dks fopkj esas ysrs gq, i=koyh dk Hkyh Hkkafr ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2865 8. mHk; i{kksa dh vksj ls izLrqr ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; dk lq{e fo'ys"k.k ,oa ifj'khyu ls Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ lk{kh , Mc-1 vt;flag fllksfn;k }kjk viuh eq[; ijh{kk ds 'kiFk i= esa vius vfHkopukuqlkj gh rF; ntZ djok;s x;s gS A bl lk{kh }kjk viuh lk{; eas iznf'kZr izn'kZ Mc-1 f'kdk;r i= vUrxZr /kkjk 12 vkS/kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh izfr gSA izn'kZ MCY;w&2 lgk;d Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½] vtesj dk i= fnukad 21-9-2016 ,oa mlds lkFk i=kuqlkj izn'kZ MCy;w&3 vkS/kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ¼la'kks/ku½ 2010 dh /kkjk 2&, ¼2½ ds rgr tkjh izek.k i= gS ftlesa izkFkhZ dks bl U;k;ky; esa igqapus dks leFkZ fd, tkus ds m}s'; ls tkjh fd;k tkuk of.kZr gSA izn'kZ MCy;w&4 mldks Vz~sfuax vkWijsVj ij vizkFkhZx.k ds laLFkku Jh lhesaV fy0 }kjk j[ks tkus dk vkWQj ySVj fn- 28-10-06 dh izfr gS A izn'kZ Mc- 5 mlds fu;qfDr i= fn- 31-10-2007 dh izfr gS A ftlesa mldh Vz~sfuax iwjh gksus ij mls VSDuhf'k;u ¼ekbal½ ds rkSj ij izkscs'ku ij fu;qDr fd;k x;k gS ftl fu;qfDr i= ds en ua-3 esa of.kZr 'krZ esa mldk ,d foHkkx ls nwljs foHkkx esa] ,d ;wfuV ls nwljh ;wfuV esa] ,d lkbV ls nwljh lkbV esa] ,d LFkku ls nwljs LFkku dh gksfYMax daiuh ;k ,slkfl,V daiuh ;k flLVj daluZ esa rcknyk fd;s tkus dh 'krZ mfYyf[kr gSA izn'kZ Mc-6 izkFkhZ dks duQeZ fd, tkus dk i= fnukad 29-4-2008 gSA izn'kZ MCy;w&7 QkeZ vkWQ vikbaVesaV vkQ dkaihVsaV ilZu dh fnukad 15-12-2014 dh izfr gS ftlesa izkFkhZ dks fuacsVh ykbe LVksu ekbal esa fu;qDr fd;k tkuk of.kZr gS A izn'kZ Mc-8 izkFkhZ dh lsysjh ds C;kSjs dk fiaazVvkbV gSA izn'kZ MCy;w&10 o MCy;w&11 Jh pkaney eksnh jktdh; vk;qoZsn fpfdRlky;] C;koj dh jksx ifpZ;k fnukad 22-3-2016 ,oa 7-3-2016 dh izfr gS ftuesa mlds jDrk'kZ dh chekjh crkbZ xbZ gSA izn'kZ MCy;w&12 [kku lqj{kk funs'kd mRrjh vapy] xkft;kckn dk i= fnukad 10-6-2016 ftlesa vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk MEij dh ckWMh dh mapkbZ ckSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k fd;k x;k ,rjkt gSA mDr lk{kh , Mc-1 vt;flag fllksfn;k }kjk viuh ftjg esa lk{; nh x;h gS fd 2008 ls 2016 rd jkl esa tgka jgrk Fkk ml irs ls eSausa dEiuh dks lwfpr dj fn;k FkkA irs dh ekbZUl vkfQl esa ,Iyhds'ku nh FkhA ,Iyhds'ku dh izfr fjdkMZ ij is'k ugha dh gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd fu;qfDr ds ckn fyEcsVh ekbZUl esa gh dke fd;k Fkk ijUrq fu;qfDr ds ckn 1 fnu C;koj JhlhesaV eas dke fd;k FkkA C;koj JhlhesaV esa ,d fnu tks dke djuk crkrk gwa ml fnu dsoy Toksbu gh fd;k Fkk dk;Z ugha fd;k FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd Toksbfuax ds ckn tc rd lsokvksa ls ugha gVk;k Fkk eSa fyEcsVh ekbZUl jkl esa gh dke djrk FkkA fyEcsVh ekbUl ikyh ftys esa fLFkr gS jkl ftyk Hkh ikyh ftys esa gh fLFkr gSA eSa ,DldsosVj pykrk FkkA ,DldsosVj e'khu ,-lh- gksrh gsA 'kiFki= dh en la[;k&5 esa vafdr izca/ku ds f[kykQ f'kdk;rksa ckcr eSusa dHkh Hkh fyf[kr esa f'kdk;r ugh nh FkhA ;g ckr lgh gS fd esjs VzkalQj ds ckn eSusa izn'kZ ,e&1 izca/kd dks Hkstk Fkk fd eSa ugha tk ldrkA izn'kZ ,e&1 is'k djus ds 2 o"kZ iwoZ ls gh ikbZYl dh chekjh jgh gks rks ,slk dksbZ izek.k eSusa fjdkMZ ij is'k ugha fd;k gSA esjk LFkkukUrj.k jk;iqj] NRrhlx< djk x;k Fkk mldh lwpuk VsfyQksu ls feyh FkhA izn'kZ MCy;w&5 esjk fu;qfDr i= gS ftldh en la[;k&3 esaa vafdr rF; lgh gS ftl ij ekdZ , ls ch Mkyk x;k gSA iw.kZ LoLFk gksus ckcr eSusa lwpuk lk/kkj.k Mkd ls izca/ku dks Hksth FkhA mldk dksbZ izek.k is'k ugha fd;k gSA ;g lgh gS fd eq>s ,l ,Q , vykmal tc rd eSa dk;Zjr Fkk eq>s feyrk FkkA 'kiFki= dh en la[;k&8 esa vfu;ferrkvksa ds laca/k esa dksbZ f'kdk;r izca/ku ls fyf[kr esa ugha djh Fkh u gh fdlh nq?kZVuk ckcr lwfpr fd;k FkkA eq>s LFkkukUrj.k dh lwpuk ds ckn LoLFk gksus ds ckn LoLFk gksus esa 2 efgus dk le; yxk FkkA

9. vizkFkhZ lk{kh ,u , Mc-1 iadt vxzoky }kjk viuh eq[; ijh{kk ds 'kiFk i= esa Lo;a dk rsbl o"kZ ls vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa dk;Zjr jg dj o"kZ 2008 ls 2016 rd ds nkSjku daiuh ds fuacsVh ekbal esa ekbal eSustj ds in ij dk;Zjr gksuk crkdj vizkFkhZx.k ds vfHkopukuqlkj gh lk{; nh x;h gS A bl lk{kh }kjk viuh lk{; esa iznf'kZr izn'kZ ,e&1 izkFkhZ ds i= fnukad 18-2-2016 dh izfr gS ftlesa mlus fnukad 6-2-2012 dks mldk LFkkukUrj.k jk;iqj dj fn, tkus ij mlds 8&10 ls ikbZYl dh chekjh ls mldk T;knk xzLr gksuk rFkk MkDVj ijke'kZ ls csM jsLV dks etcwj gksuk o fnukad 15 ekpZ rd M;wVh Toksbu ugha dj ikuk ,oa LoLFk gksrs gh dEiuh dks lwpuk nsuk of.kZr fd;k gSA izn'kZ ,e&2 fnukad 12-2-2016 dk jksxh mipkj i= jktdh; fpfdRlky; jkl dk gS ftlesa mlds CyhfMax crkbZ xbZ gSA izn'kZ ,e&3 vflLVsaV tujy eSustj ekbal ds lh 'kekZ ,u , Mc-2 }kjk ,u , Mc-1 iadt vxzoky dks fy[ks x;s i= fn- 20-1-16 dh izfr gS ftlesa ,d 'kkWoy vkWijsVj o nks Maij vkWijsV dh jk;iqj esa vko';drk crk;h x;h gS A izn'kZ ,e&4 baVj vkWfQl eheks gS ftlesa izkFkhZ lfgr dqy rhu vkWijsVlZ ds Vz~kalQj ckcr~ lwpuk ,u , Mc-1 iadt vxzoky }kjk ,u , Mc-2 ds lh 'kekZ dks fn- 8-2-16 dks nh x;h gS A izn'kZ ,e&5 ,u , Mc-2 ds lh 'kekZ }kjk ,u , Mc-1 iadt 'kekZ dks fy[ks x;s i= fn- 17-3-16 dh izfr gS ftlesa j.kohjflag ds vykok izkFkhZ lfgr nks LFkkukarfjr O;fDr;ksa dk fjiksVZ ugh fd;k tkuk of.kZr fd;k x;k gS A bl lk{kh dks ftjg dh lk{; ds nkSjku izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izn'kZ MCy;w&18 yxk;r 21 fn[kkdj Hkh iz'u fd, x, gS ftuesa ls izn'kZ MCy;w&18 vizkFkhZ i{k ds vkFkksjkbTM flXusVjh dk i= gS ftlesa izkFkhZ dh fpfdRlh; vk/kkj ij LFkkukUrfjr LFkku ij Toksbu djus dh le; lhek fnukad 15-3-2016 ds ckn dh fopkj esa ysus rRi'pkr mlds }kjk fldusl lfVZfQdsV ugha Hksts tkus ,oa u gh fjiksVZ djus ds rF; of.kZr djrs gq, mls 48 ?k.Vs esa jk;iqj Toksbu djus ds rFkk fnukad 9-2-2016 ls vukf/kd`r vuqifLFkfr ds ckjs esa Li"Vhdj.k nsus ckcr izkFkhZ dks fy[kk x;k gSA izn'kZ2866 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] MCy;w&19 izkFkhZ dk VfeZus'ku i= gS ftlesa mldh fnukad 9-3-2016 ls vuqifLFkfr crkrs gq, mldk uke eLVj jksy ls gVk;k tkuk of.kZr gSA izn'kZ MCy;w&20 ftlesaa vizkFkhZ laLFkku ds dk;kZy; vkns'k fn- 6-2-16 dh izfr gS ftlesa izkFkhZ lfgr rhu O;fDr;ksa ds ekbal fMikVZesaV ;wfuV 3 ls 8] jkl ls ekbal fMikVZesaV jk;iqj ¼cyksnk cktkj½ LFkkukarj.k fd;k tkuk of.kZr gSA izn'kZ Mc-21 Mk;jsDVj vkWQ lsQ~Vh dks vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk fn, x, tokc dh izfr gSA bl vizkFkhZ lk{kh ,u , Mc-1 iadt vxzoky }kjk viuh ftjg dh lk{; esa lk{; nh x;h gS fd ;g dguk xyr gS fd izkFkhZ dk LFkkukarj.k jk;iqj NRrhlx< fd;s tkus dh lwpuk ugh nh gks A ;g lgh gS fd izkFkhZ dks nh x;h lwpuk i=koyh ij is'k ugh dh x;h gS A lwpuk O;fDrxr nh x;h FkhA lwpuk ckcr~ dksbZ fyf[kr nLrkostkr~ is'k ugh fd;k x;k gS A eq>s /;ku ugha gS fd vt;flag us viuh chekjh dh lwpuk gesa nh ;k ughaA izn'kZ ,e&1 dk /;ku ugha gS] vkfQl esa nh gksxhA izn'kZ&MCyw&19 dh izkfIr jlhn okil izkIr gqbZ ;k ugha tkudkjh ugha gSA izn'kZ MCy;w&18 izkFkhZ dks feyk ;k ugha] tkudkjh esa ugha gSA izn'kZ MCy;w&20 esa tks fy[kk og lgh gSA gekjs laLFkku esa LVsf.Max vkMZj cus gq, gS ;k ugha eq>s tkudkjh ugh gSA lsoki`Fkd djus ls iwoZ izkFkhZ dks uksfVl fn;k vFkok bldh tkudkjh eq>s ughs gS A izkFkhZ dks lsoki`Fkd ls iwoZ dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k fy;k x;k ;k ugha tkudkjh ugha gSA izn'kZ MCy;w&21 Mhth,e,l dk i= gS ftlesa of.kZr dFku lgh gSA izn'kZ MCy;w&12 i= gesa izkIr gqvk Fkk blesa of.kZr dFku lgh gSA

10. vizkFkhZx.k ds vxys lk{kh ,u , Mc-2 ds lh 'kekZ }kjk viuh eq[; ijh{kk ds 'kiFk i= esa Lo;a dk vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa o"kZ 2008 ls dk;Zjr gksuk rFkk o"kZ 2016 esa daiuh dh ,l vkj lh ih jk;iqj ekbal NRrhlx< esa lgk;d tujy eSustj ds in ij dk;Zjr gksuk crkdj i= fn- 20-1-16] 8-2-16 o 17-3-16 dh iqf"V esa rF; ntZ djok;s x;s gS ftjg esa bl lk{kh }kjk lk{; nh x;h gS fd ;g lgh gS fd geus izn'kZ ,e&3 ds }kjk jkl lhesaV dks fjDok;jesaV ekaxh Fkh ftlds tokc esa izn'kZ ,e&4 ds }kjk gesa lwpuk nh x;h Fkh A izn'kZ ,e&5 esjs }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k gS A

11. vizkFkhZx.k ds vxys lk{kh ,u , Mc-3 iq"isanz dqekj Hkkj}kt }kjk viuh eq[; ijh{kk ds 'kiFk i= esa Lo;a dks vizkFkhZ laLFkku ij mik/;{k ¼dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud½ crkdj vizkFkhZx.k ds vfHkopukuqlkj gh lk{; nh x;h gSA bl lk{kh }kjk viuh lk{; esa izn'kZ ,e&10 ls izn'kZ ,e&12 Hkh iznf'kZr djok;s x;s gS A bl lk{kh }kjk iznf'kZr nLrkostksa esa izn'kZ ,e&10 izkFkhZ dh mifLFkfr iaftdk dh izfr gSA izn'kZ ,e&11@1 o"kZ 2016 ds esfMdy ,Dthfeus'ku lfVZfQdsV dh fjlhIV ds jftLVj dh izfr o izn'kZ ,e&11@2 vksojVkbZe ostst rFkk izn'kZ ,e&11@3 jftLVj vkWQ dEiulsVjh Mst vkWQ jsLV rFkk izn'kZ ,e&12 czsdvi vkWQ lsysjh dh QksVks izfr;k gSA bl lk{kh }kjk viuh ftjg dh lk{; esa lk{; nh x;h gS fd esjh tkudkjh esa ugha gS fd 23-3-2016] 24-3-2016 dks gksyh dk vodk'k gks o 25-3-2016 dks xqMQzkbMs dk vodk'k gksA izn'kZ&MCyw&22 ij iksLVesu dk fjekdZ , ls ch gS] izn'kZ MCy;w&22 ij Mkd ?kj dh eksgj Li"V ugha gS ;g lgh gSA ;g izn'kZ MCy;w&22 ij ykSVdj dEiuh ds ikl dc vk;k ugha crk ldrkA MCy;w&19 laLFkku }kjk izkFkhZ dks fnukad 29-3-2016 dks tkjh fd;k x;k FkkA ;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ&19 ij fnukad 9-3-2019 vafdr gS tks fd , ls ch gS tks lgh fy[kk gS vt[kqn dgk fd bl ij vksoj jkbfVax utj vk jgh gSA ;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ MCy;w&23 i j , ls ch ij iksLVesu dk fjekdZ gS tks lgh gSA ;g Mkd ykSVdj laLFkku dks dc izkIr gqbZ bldh tkudkjh eq>s ugha gSA dk;kZy; vkns'k fnukad 6-2-2016 tks fd izn'kZ MCy;w&20 gS }kjk izkFkhZ dks LFkkukUrj.k dh lwpuk nh xbZ FkhA ftl ij izkFkhZ dh izkfIr ugha gSA izn'kZ MCy;w&22 izkFkhZ dks fMyhoj ugha gqvk ;k ugha esjh tkudkjh esa ugha gSA esjh tkudkjh esa ugha gS fd izkFkhZ ds }kjk Jfed fgr esa eqn~ns mBk, x, gksA ;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ MCy;w&18 esa izkFkhZ ds fnukad 9-3-2016 ls vuqifLFkr crk;k x;k gS mlds laaca/k esa dksbZ vkjksi i= nsdj Li"Vhdj.k ugha ekaxk x;k gS vkSj tkap Hkh ugha djokbZ xbZ gSA esjh tkudkjh esa ugha gS fd eLVjjksy ls uke gVkuk lsoki`Fkd dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gksA gekjs laLFkku esa LVsf.Max vkMZj cus gq, gSA ;g lgh gS fd LVsf.Max vkMZj ds rgr geus dksbZ tkap izkFkhZ ds fo:} ugha dh FkhA ;g esjh tkudkjh esa ugha gS fd izn'kZ MCy;w&12 esa mBk;s x, fcUnq [kku lqj{kk funs'kd xkft;kckn }kjk takp ds ckn mBk, x, ;k ughaA ;g dguk xyr gS fd izkFkhZ ds }kjk Jfed fgr esa mBk, x, eqn~nksa dh otg ls mldks ukSdjh ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k rFkk mldk LFkkukUrj.k jk;iqj fd;k x;kA esjh tkudkjh esa ugha gS fd izkFkhZ us laLFkku dks le; le; ij esfMdy vodk'k ds fy, jksxh mipkj iphZ nh gksA esjh tkudkjh esa ugha gS fd izn'kZ MCy;w&10 o 11 laLFkku dks izkIr gq, vFkok ughaA

12. vc ge fook|dksa ij muds dzekuqlkj fopkj fd;k tkuk U;k;laxr le>rs gSA

fook|d la[;k&1%&fook|d la[;k&1%&fook|d la[;k&1%&fook|d la[;k&1%&

13. bl fook|d dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZ ij jgk gSA izn'kZ Mc-5 fu;qfDr i= ds mDr of.kZr en ua- 3 ds n`f"Vxr fo}ku vf/koDrk vizkFkhZx.k ds ;g rdZ rks ekus tkus ;ksX; gS fd izkFkhZ dk tkWc Vz~kalQjscy Fkk vFkkZr~ vizkFkhZx.k ds laLFkku esa izkFkhZ dk LFkkuakrj.k ,d LFkku ls nwljs LFkku ij djus dh 'krZ mDr fu;qfDr i= esa Fkh A muds ;g Hkh rdZ ekus tkus ;ksX; gS fd Vz~klaQj lsok dk balhMsaV gS rFkk ;gh fof/k ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2004 ,y ,y vkj 1103 dsasnzh; fo|ky; laxBu cuke nkeksnj izlkn ikaMs o vU; esa izfrikfnr dh x;h gS A muds ;g rdZ Hkh ekus tkus ;ksX; gS fd izn'kZ MCy;w&20 VªkalQj vkns'k fn- 6-2-16 dh tkudkjh VfeZus'ku i= izn'kZ Mc- 19 ds tkjh gksus ls iwoZ izkFkhZ dks Fkh D;ksafd izn'kZ ,e&1 izkFkZuki= ftldks fd izkFkhZ lk{kh }kjk ,-MCy;w&1 vt;flag fllksfn;k }kjk viuh ftjg dh lk{; esa vius LFkkukUrj.k ds ckn esa mDr izkFkZuki= izca/kd dks Hkstuk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS ftlesa ;|fi LFkkukUrj.k dh frfFk fnukad 6-2-2012 of.kZr gS fdUrq ;g i=[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2867 fnukad 18-2-2016 dk gS rFkk bls Lo;a izkFkhZ us mDr izdkj vius LFkkukUrj.k ds ckn esa nsuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA blds lkFk ds jksxh mipkj i= izn'kZ ,e&2 dh frfFk fnukad 12-2-2016 gh gSA

14. vizkFkhZ laLFkku ds fo:) [kku lqj{kk funs'kky; dh tkap dh fjiksVZ fn- 10-6-16 izn'kZ MCy;w&12 ftldk tokc vizkFkhZ laLFkku dh vksj ls izn'kZ MCy;w&21 ds tfj;s fn;k x;k gS] dh f'kdk;r izkFkhZ }kjk ugha dh xbZ gks ;g vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls lk{; ds ek/;e ls izdV ugha gksrk gSA ;|fi izkFkhZ ds mDr ikbZYl dh chekjh ugha gks ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS D;ksafd mDr laca/k esa mDr izdkj jksx mipkj ifpZ;ka gS ftudh vuns[kh ugha dh tk ldrh gS fdUrq ;g chekjh mlds mDr dk;Z dh otg ls gqbZ gks ;k dksbZ vU; deZpkjh ds ,slh chekjh gqbZ gks bldh Hkh i=koyh ij dksbZ lk{; ugh gS A

15. izn'kZ Mc- 18 i= fn- 23-3-16 vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izkFkhZ dks tkjh fd;k tkuk crk;k x;k gS ftlesa mldks vMrkyhl ?kaVs esa LFkkukarfjr LFkku ij Tokbu djus dk funsZ'k fn;k x;k gS fdarq ;g i= fdl izdkj izkFkhZ dks fMyhoj fd;k x;k bldh i=koyh ij ys'k ek= Hkh lk{; ugh gSA ;|fi i=koyh ij izn'kZ&MCyw&22 o 23 fyQkQs vizkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls is'k fd, x, gS fdUrq bu ij izkFkhZ dk irk mldk ewy xzke xksfoanx< dk vafdr gS ftu ij Mkfd;s }kjk izkIrdrkZ dk ;gka ugha jguk of.kZr fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk vius LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa gh viuk gky irk 'kkjnk Ldwy ds ikl] fuacsVh jksM] eq0iks0 jkl dk of.kZr fd;k x;k gS ftlds ckjs esa vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls vius tokc esa dksbZ ,rjkt ugha fd;k x;k gS ,sls esa izkFkhZ ds jgus ds irs ds laca/k esa vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls mldh ftjg esa fd, x, iz'uks ls vizkFkhZ i{k dks Qk;nk ugha feyrk gSA mDr izn'kZ Mc-18 i= esa izkFkhZ dks fn- 9-2- 16 ls rFkk VfeZus'ku i= izn'kZ MCy;w&19 esa izkFkhZ dks fnukad 9-3-2016 ls vukf/kd`r rkSj ls vuqifLFkr crk;k x;k gS ftu nksuksa frfFk;ksa esa ,d ekg dk varj gSA budk rkRi;Z ;gh fudyrk gS fd fn- 8-3-16 rd izkFkhZ }kjk vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa dk;Z fd;k tkuk Lo;a vizkFkhZ i{k ekurk gS ;fn ,slk Fkk rks Vz~kalQj vkns'k fn- 6-2-16 izn'kZ MCy;w&20 ds ckn Hkh fn- 7-2-16 o 8-2-16 o fQj fnukad 8-3-2016 rd izkFkhZ ls vizkFkhZ laLFkku }kjk jkl ekbal esa fdl izdkj dk;Z fy;k x;k ;g rF; Hkh izkFkhZ dh vksj tkrk gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk izfrfuf/k vizkFkhZ ds ;g rdZ ekus tkus ;ksX; gS fd izn'kZ Mc-10 yxk;r Mc-11 ,oa izn'kZ ,e&2 jksx mipkj i=ksa ij izkFkhZ ds gLrk{kj ugh gS fdUrq lkekU;r;k mipkj ifpZ;ksa ij ejhtksa ds gLrk{kj ugha gksrs gS rFkk izn'kZ ,e&2 ds vk/kkj ij izn'kZ ,e&1 izkFkZuki= dks fopkj esa ysdj fnukad 15-3-2016 ds ckn fpfdRldh; vk/kkjksa ij Toksbu djus dh izkFkZuk fopkj esa fy, tkus dk rF; Lo;a vizkFkhZ i{k ds nLrkost izn'kZ MCy;w&18 esa vafdr gSA bldk ;gh rkRi;Z fudyrk gS fd Lo;a vizkFkhZ i{k us izkFkhZ dks fnukad 15-3-2016 ds ckn esaa Toksbu djus dh ekSgyr ns nh FkhA ftl i'pkr izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls tkjh mDr i= fnukad 23-3-2016 izn'kZ MCy;w&18 izkFkhZ dks izkIr gks x;k gks bldh i=koyh ij mDr foospukuqlkj dksbZ lk{; ugha gSA

16. fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZ ds ;g rdZ ekus tkus ;ksX; gS fd mDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa tcfd izkFkhZ dh Lo;a vizkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls fnukad 15-3-2016 ds i'pkr Toksbu djus dh izkFkZuk dks fopkj esa fy;k x;k gS o ekSgyr nh xbZ gS rks fQj fcuk izn'kZ Mc-18 i= dh izkFkhZ dks izkfIr ds lh/ks vizkFkhZx.k ds laLFkku }kjk izn'kZ Mc-19 ds tfj;s izkFkhZ dks vius vkns'k fn- 29-3-16 ls VfeZusV dj fn;k tkuk Hkh oS/kkfud n`f"Vdks.k ls lgh ugh Bgjk;k tk ldrk gS D;ksafd vizkFkhZx.k ds laLFkku dks vius i= fnukad 23-3-2016 izn'kZ MCy;w&18 ls izkFkhZ dks leqfpr izdkj iz;kl dj mls lwfpr djuk pkfg, Fkk rFkk izn'kZ Mc-18 i= izkFkhZ dks ifjnku djuk pkfg, Fkk ;fn mldh Mkd okil ykSV xbZ Fkh rks lgh irs ij Hksth tkuh pkfg, Fkh fQj mDr foospukuqlkj LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse ds 'kh"kZd esa izkFkhZ }kjk of.kZr mlds eqdke iksLV jkl ds gky irs dks vizkFkhZx.k }kjk [kf.Mr Hkh ugha fd;k x;k gS u gh vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls ;g lk{; gS fd mDr irs dh vizkFkhZ i{k dks tkudkjh ugha FkhA mDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2007 ,y ,y vkj 390 ';ke lqanj vxzoky cuke eS0 Xyksc fMVSfDVo ,tsalh izk0 fy0 o vU; ,oa U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2001 ,y,y vkj 548 LVsV cSad vkWQ bafM;k cuke vatk;u lkU;ky rF;ksa dh fHkUurk ds dkj.k vizkFkhZx.k dh dksbZ enn ugha djrs gSA U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2015 ,y ,y vkj 169 dkaihVsaV flD;qfjVh lfoZlst cuke xouZesaV vkWQ ,u lh Vh vkWQ nsgyh o vU; esa izca/ku dh vksj ls i= tkjh fd;k tkdj Vzz~~kalQj vkns'k dh ikyuk ugh fd;s tkus ckcr~ deZpkjh ls Li"Vhdj.k pkgk x;k Fkk ,oa deZpkjh us mldk tokc fn;k Fkk tks ifjfLFkfr Hkh gLrxr izdj.k esa ugh gS cfYd gLrxr izdj.k esa izn'kZ MCy;w&18 i= izkFkhZ dks lalqfpr ugha gksus dh mDr izdkj ifjfLFkfr gSA ftl dkj.k mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar vizkFkhZx.k dh rF;ksa dh fHkUurk ds dkj.k dksbZ lgk;rk ugh djrk gSA U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2001 ¼2½ lqizhe dksVZ dslst 289 ,Mhlu~l isaV~l ,aM dsfedYl fy0 cuke odZeSu fjiztsaVsM ckb nh lSdszVz~h ¼, ih ,aM lh½ vflLVsaV~l ,slksfl,'ku o vU; esa deZpkjh }kjk LFkkukarfjr LFkku ij tkus ls badkjh dh x;h Fkh ,slh badkjh dh gzLrxr izdj.k esa dksbZ lk{; ugh gS A U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2018 ,y ,y vkj 752 d:ukdj.k cuke Hkkjrh bysDVz~ksfuDl fy0 fjiz-ckbZ bV~l ps;jeSu de eSusftax Mk;jsDVj o vU; esa mUuhl O;fDr;ksa dk LFkkuakrj.k iz'kklfud n`f"V ls fd;k x;k Fkk tSlk Hkh rF; gLrxr izdj.k esa ugh gS A U;kf;d n`"Vakr 2018 ,y ,y vkj 727 ,p ih LVsV dkWi-ekdsZfVax ,aM datwelZ QsMjs'ku fy0 cuke uSulq[k esa ?kjsyw tkap dh x;h Fkh tks ifjfLFkfr gLrxr izdj.k esa ughs gS A gLrxr izdj.k dh mDr of.kZr ifjfLFkfr esa vizkFkhZx.k ds laLFkku dks izkFkhZ dks i= izsf"kr djds ,oa izkFkhZ dks mldh izkfIr djokdj dk;Z ij mifLFkr gksus ckcr~ psrkouh nsrs gq, Li"Vhdj.k pkgk tkuk Fkk ,oa mldh vukf/kd`r vuqifLFkfr ds ckjs esa ?kjsyw tkap dh tkuh Fkh tks Lohd`r rkSj ij ,slk vizkFkhZx.k }kjk ugh fd;k x;k gSA ,sls esa vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls fn;s x;s u rks ;g rdZ ekus tkus ;ksX; gS fd izkFkhZ Lo;a }kjk lsok dk vfHkR;tu dj fn;k x;k Fkk u gh ;g rdZ ekus tkus ;ksX; gS fd izdj.k esa /kkjk 25 ,Q2868 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] vkbZ Mh ,DV 1947 ykxw ugh gksrs gS A iwoZ esa foosfpr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls fn;k x;k ;g Hkh rdZ ekus tkus ;ksX; ughs gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk LFkkuakrj.k vkns'k dh ikyuk ugh dh tkdj yxkrkj vuqifLFkr jg dj lsok dk vfHkR;tu dj fn;k x;k FkkA mDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2018 ,y ,y vkj 933 foykl xuifr ikfVy cuke lq;ksx cSdosy olarnknk vkS|ksfxd olkgr] lkaxyh o vU; Hkh rF;ksa dh fHkUurk ds dkj.k vizkFkhZx.k dh dksbZ enn ugh djrk gSA izkFkhZ ds lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ o"kZ esa 240 dk;Z ds fnu iw.kZ ugha gksrs gks ,slk dksbZ ,rjkt vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls vius rdksZ esa ugha fy;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls /kkjk 25 ,Q vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh ikyuk Lohd`r rkSj ij ugh dh x;h gS A mDr leLr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vizkFkhZ laLFkku dh vksj ls izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ckcr~ ikfjr vkns'k fn- 29-3-16 vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gS blesa dksbZ lansg ugh gS A ifj.kkeLo:i mDr fook|d la-1 izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fofu'pr fd;k tkrk gS A

fook|d lafook|d lafook|d lafook|d la---- 2%&2%&2%&2%&

17. mDr fook|d dks fl} djus dk Hkkj vizkFkhZx.k ij jgk gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk izfrfuf/k vizkFkhZ ds ;g rdZ lgh gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk vius LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse ds 'kh"kZd esa gh Jh lhesaV fy0 dh bZdkbZ jkl rglhy tSrkj.k ftyk ikyh easa gksuk ntZ fd;k x;k gS fdUrq izdj.k esa Lohd`r rkSj ij ;g fLFkfr gS fd vizkFkhZx.k dk eq[;ky; C;koj esa fLFkr gS rFkk izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr vkns'k ,oa lsokeqfDr vkns'k Hkh ;gh ls tkjh fd, x, gS izdj.k eas le>kSrk okrkZ vtesj esa pyh gSA izek.k i= vUrxZr /kkjk 2&, vkS/kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 Hkh lgk;d Je vk;qDr] dsUnzh; vtesj }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k gSA ftlesa izkFkhZ viuk ekeyk bl Je U;k;ky; esa mBk, tkus ds leFkZ fd, tkus ds rF; ntZ gSA bl vkns'k ds fo:} vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh xbZ gS u gh fdlh izdkj ogka pqukSrh nh xbZ gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk izfrfuf/k vizkFkhZ ds ;g rdZ lgh gS fd izkFkhZ Lohd`r rkSj ij vius VfeZus'ku ds le; jkl ftyk ikyh esa gh dk;Zjr Fkk fdUrq bl laca/k easa fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZ ds ;g rdZ Hkh ekus tkus ;ksX; gS fd mHk; i{k ds e/; Jfed ,oa fu;kstd dk laca/k izkFkhZ dk fu;qfDr vkns'k C;koj ls gh tkjh gksus ls gqvk gS rFkk mldh lsokeqfDr vkns'k Hkh C;koj ls gh tkjh gqvk gSA gky gh esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk U;kf;d n`"Vkar uankjke cuke xkjosj iksyhLVj fy0 ¼2016½ 6 ,l-lh-lh- 290 esa fuEukafdr fof/k izfrikfnr dh xbZ gS%&

Though, the learned counsel on both sides had addressed in detail on several issues, we do not think it necessary to go into all those aspects mainly because in our view they are only academic. In the background of the factual matrix, the undisputed position is that the appellant was employed by the Company in Aurangabad, he was only transferred to Pondicherry, the decision to close down the unit at Pondicherry was taken by the Company at Aurangabad and consequent upon that decision only the appellant was terminated. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no cause of action at all in Aurangabad. The decision to terminate the appellant having been taken at Aurangabad necessarily part of the cause of action has arisen at Aurangabad. We have no quarrel that Labour Court, Pondicherry is within its jurisdiction to consider the case of the appellant, since he has been terminated while he was working at Pondicherry. But that does not mean that Labour Court in Aurangabad within whose jurisdiction the Management is situated and where the Management has taken the decision to close down the unit at Pondicherry and pursuant to which the appellant was terminated from service also does not have the jurisdiction. In the facts of this case both the Labour Courts have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Hence, the Labour Court at Aurangabad is well within its jurisdiction to consider the complaint filed by the appellant. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the High Court and the Industrial Court at Aurangabad and restore the order passed by the Labour Court, Aurangabad though for different reasons.

18. mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar esa izfrikfnr fof/k ds e/;utj ;g ugah ekuk tk ldrk fd izkFkhZ dks okn dkj.k bl U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj esa fcydqy Hkh iSnk ugha gqvk D;kasfd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr o VfeZus'ku vkns'k C;koj esa gh tkjh gq, gS ,oa izkFkhZ ds VehZus'ku dk fu.kZ; vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk C;koj esa gh fy;k tkuk izdV gksrk gS rFkk le>kSrk okrkZ Hkh vtesj eas gqbZ gS ,oa vizkFkhZx.k la[;k&3 o 4 dk dk;kZy; Hkh C;koj esa gh gSA vizkFkhZx.k ij izdj.k ds bl U;k;ky; }kjk ds lquokbZ fd, tkus ls izhT;wfM'k Hkh dkfjr ugha gksrk gS D;ksafd mldk eq[;ky; ,oa vizkFkhZx.k la[;k&3 o 4 dk dk;kZy; bl U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj esa gSA vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk mDr fcUnq ij izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar vizkFkhZ i{k dh dksbZ enn ugha djrs gS rFkk vizkFkhZ i{k ds rdZ ekus tkus ;ksX; ugha gS fd bl U;k;ky; dks gLrxr izdj.k dk {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gksA vr% mDr fook|d la[;k&2 vizkFkhZx.k ds fo:} o izkFkhZ ds i{k esa r; fd, tkus ;ksX; gksus ls mDr fook|d la[;k&2 vizkFkhZ i{k ds fo:} ,oa izkFkhZ ds i{k esa r; fd;k tkrk gSA

fook|d lafook|d lafook|d lafook|d la----3%&3%&3%&3%&

19. fook|d 3 vuqrks"k ds ckjs esa gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk vizkFkhZx.k ds ;g rdZ lgh gS fd izkFkhZ dh vksj ls vius vfHkopuksa o lk{; esa vius VfeZus'ku ds i'pkr~ xsuQqy ,aiykW;esaV esa ugh jgus ckcr~ ys'k ek= Hkh dFku ughs fd;k x;k gS A tcfd ,slk djus dk izkFkfed mRrjnkf;Ro Lo;a izkFkhZ ij gh Fkk A ftl i'pkr~ ghs ml mDr rF; dk [kaMu vizkFkhZx.k }kjk fd;k tkuk FkkA ;gh fof/k ekuuh; ,e ih mPp U;k;ky; }kjk U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2016 ,y ,y vkj 1244 bathfj;j bu phQ okVj fjlksZlst fMikVZesaV Hkksiky cuke ekugj.k esa izfrikfnr dh x;h gS A U;fk;d n`"Vkar 2005 ,y ,y vkj 275 dsanzh; fo|ky; laxBu o vU; esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk mDr vuqlkj gh fof/k izfrikfnr djrs gq, cSd ostst ds fy, deZdkj dk ;g izdV djuk vko';d gksuk vfHkfu/kZfjr fd;k x;k gS[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2869 fd og xsuQqy ,aiYkW;esaV esa ugh Fkk A U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2018 ¼2½ lqizhe dksVZ dslst ¼,y ,aM ,l½ 395 ih d:iS;k e`rd Fkzw yhxy esa Hkh ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;gh fof/k izfrikfnr dh x;h gSA Lo;a izkFkhZ dh vksj ls mDr fcUnq ij izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dk Hkh lkj ;gh gSA leLr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa izkFkhZ dks iwoZ osru HkRrksa o ifjykHk dk vf/kdkjh gksuk drbZ Hkh ugh ekuk tk ldrk gSa fdarq fook|d la-1 izkFkhZ ds i{k esa rFkk fook|d la[;k&2 vizkFkhZx.k ds fo:} fofu'pr fd;s tkus ls izkFkhZ vizkFkhZx.k ds ;gka iwoZjr lsok esa fujarjrk lfgr cgkyh ikus dk vf/kdkjh gksuk ekus tkus ;ksX; gS A ;|fi fo}ku vf/koDRkk vizkFkhZx.k ds }kjk bl laca/k esa fn;s x;s ;g rdZ ekus tkus ;ksX; gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa vius vuqrks"k dks Li"V ugh fd;k x;k gS fdarq izkFkhZ fdl izdkj ds vuqrks"k dk ik= gS bl ij fopkj djus dk nkf;Ro U;k;ky; dk gSA QyLo:i fook|d la-3 fujarjrk lfgr iwoZjr vizkFkhZx.k dh lsok esa cgkyh ds izkFkhZ ds vf/kdkjh gksus ds vuqrks"k dh gn rd izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fofu'pr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk izkFkhZ dk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse fo:) vizkFkhZx.k mDr izdkj gh Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ik;k tkrk gS A

vknsvknsvknsvkns'k'k'k'k

20-- vr% izkFkhZ dk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse fo:) vizkFkhZx.k vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj fd;k tkdj vizkFkhZ i{k }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr ckcr~ ikfjr vkns'k fn- 29-3-16 vuqfpr ,oa voS/k djkj fn;s tkrs gq, vizkFkhZ i{k dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd os izkFkhZ dks fujarjrk lfgr iwoZjr viuh lsok esa vfoyac cgky djs A fdarq izkFkhZ dks iwoZ osru HkRrksa o ifjykHk dk vf/kdkjh ugh gksuk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gS A [kpkZ i{kdkjku~ viuk viuk ogu djsaxs A

21- vokMZ fy[kk;k tkdj vkt fnukad 18-3-2019 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa gLrk{kj dj lquk;k x;kA vokMZ dh izfr

,l- ,u- Vsyj] U;k;k/kh'k

नई दिल्ली, 6 मई, 2019

का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. का. आ. 751751751751.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्%ीय सरकार मेसर्स टेक्नोमिन कन्स्ट्रक्शन लिमिटेड एवं हिन्दुस्तान जिक लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबz नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के

बीच अनुबंध में नि{दष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्%ीय सरकार औद्योगिक न्यायिधकरण एवं mम न्यायालय, अजमेर के पंचाट

(संदर्भ संख्या 03/2016) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्%ीय सरकार को 03.05.2019 को प्राप्त Eआ था।

[सं. जेड-16025/4/2019-आई आर (एम)]

डी. के . िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 6th May, 2019

S.O. 751.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 03/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ajmer now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Teknomin Construction and Hindustan Zinc Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03/05/2019.

[No. Z-16025/4/2019-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

vuqca/kvuqca/kvuqca/kvuqca/k

Je U;k;ky; ,oa vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] vtesj Je U;k;ky; ,oa vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] vtesj Je U;k;ky; ,oa vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] vtesj Je U;k;ky; ,oa vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] vtesj

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh&Jh ,lihBklhu vf/kdkjh&Jh ,lihBklhu vf/kdkjh&Jh ,lihBklhu vf/kdkjh&Jh ,l----,u,u,u,u----Vsyj] vkjVsyj] vkjVsyj] vkjVsyj] vkj----,p,p,p,p----tstststs----,l,l,l,l

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

izdj.k la[;kizdj.k la[;kizdj.k la[;kizdj.k la[;k& lh-vkbZ-Vh-vkj- 03@16

lh vkbZ ,l ua0 2@16

Jh iq"isanj flag iq= Jh izgykn flag tkfr jktiwr ]fuoklh & caoky rglhy ijcrlj ]Fkkuk fiyok ftyk ukxkSj] jktLFkku A &&&izkFkhZ

cukecukecukecuke2870 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1- tujy eSustj ]VsDuksfeu duLVªsD'ku fyfeVsM ]fo/;k fogkj ]iksLV dk;M vtesj ]jktLFkku 2- tujy eSustj ]fgUnqLFkku ftad fyfeVsM ]dk;M ekbZUl iksLV dk;M vtesj ]jktLFkku

&&vizkFkhZ

mifLFkfrmifLFkfrmifLFkfrmifLFkfr

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh d`".kxksiky [k=h] vf/koDrkA

vizkFkhZ la-1 dh vksj ls % Jh tokgj yky 'kekZ] vf/koDrkA

vizkFkhZ la-2 ds fo:) % ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh A

&&&&&

vf/kfu.kZ;vf/kfu.kZ;vf/kfu.kZ;vf/kfu.kZ;

fnukad 29-3-2019

1- izkFkhZ )kjk lgk;d Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½vtesj ds le{k f'kdk;r izLrqr fd;s tkus ij vUrxZr /kkjk 2 , vkS/kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 izek.k i= izkIr gksu ij bl U;k;ky; ds le{k vizkFkhZ ds fo:) viuk LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse fnukad 8-11-16 dks bl vk'k; dk izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 dEiuh )kjk vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 dEiuh dks dk;M [kku esa Hkwfexr [kku MsosyiesaV dk dk;Z flfer le; ds fy, tkjh fd;k x;k gS A vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 dEiuh )kjk dk;M ekbZUl esa [kuu ds dk;Z gsrq fu;qfDr i= tkjh djrs gq, izkFkhZ dks vLFkkbZ etnwjh in gsrq fu;qfDr iznku dh xbZ izkFkhZ us dqy osru : 12]787@& ij dk;Z djuk vkjEHk dj fn;kA vizkFkhZ la0 1 )kjk izkFkhZ dks jksM xzsMj vkWijsVj dk dk;Z djus ds fy, ck/; fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ )kjk jksM xzsMj vkWijsVj dk;Z etcwju Lohdkj djuk iMk vkSj fQj vizkFhkZ la[;k 1 )kjk dHkh izkFkhZ ls etnwjh djkbZ tkrh rks dHkh jksM xzsMj vkWijsVj dk dk;Z fy;k tkrk A vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 )kjk izkFkhZ dks dHkh Hkh jksM xzsMj vkijsVj dk fu;qfDr ;k inksUufr i= tkjh ugh fd;k x;k A izkFkhZ )kjk ,d i= fnukad 7-2-2014 dks Jheku lgk;d Je vk;qDr ,oa le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ¼dsUnzh;½vtesj dks fy[kk x;k ftlds QyLo:i vizkFhkZ la[;k 1 dEiuh )kjk dqN le; ckn izkFkhZ ds osru xzsMj esa cwBk vkjksi ykxkrs gq, izkFkhZ ds fo:) jkssM xzsMj ds {kfrxzLr djus ds pyrs vfof/kd ekax : 11]00]000@X;kjg yk[k izkFkhZ ds osru ,oa HkRrks ls dkVs tksus dk n.M rFkk lkFk gh izkFkhZ@Jfed dks vuqfpr rjhds ls fuyfEcr djus ij izkFkhZ dks fuyEcu vof/k ds nkSjku dksbZ Hkh subsistence allowance tkjh ugh fd;k tkuk o mlds ckn izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls fudky fn, tkus tSls ?kskj n.Mkns'k ls nf.Mr fd, tkus ls izkFkhZ@Jfed o izkFkhZ ds ifjokj dks vR;f/kd ekufld o vkfFkZd gkfu ogu djuh iM jgh gS tcfd izkFkhZ@Jfed dk bles dksbZ dlwj Hkh ugh gS A le>kSrk okrkZ dh foQyrk ds ifj.kke Lo:i lgk;d Je vk;qDr ,oa le>kSrk vf/kdkjh dsUnzh; )kjk izkFkhZ@Jfed dks vUrxzZr /kkjk 2 , vkS/kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ds rgr izek.k i= tkjh djrs gq, mDr fookn dks fuiVkus dks bl U;k;ky;@vkS/kksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr fd, tkus dh vuqefr iznku dj nh xbZ ftlds QyLo:i izkFkhZ@Jfed )kjk orZeku izkFkZuk i= @ LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse bl U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr fd;k tk jgk gS A var esa izkFkZuk dh gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed ds fo:) vfof/kd :i ls dk;e 11]00]000 @& dh ekax ds n.Mkns'k fnukad 13-5-15 dks jnn djrs gq, izkFkhZ @Jfed dks nwckjk ukSdjh iznku dh tkos A izkFkhZ@Jfed dk vfof/kd :i ls fuyEcu djus ij fuyEcu vof/k ds nkSjku ns; osru ,oa HkRrs tkjh djk, tkosA iqu% ukSdjh ij cgky fd, tkus dh vof/k rd dk osru tkjh djok;k tkos A fnokyh cksul tkjh fd;k tkos A 18 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt okn O;; vizkFkhZx.k ls fnyok;k tkos A[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2871 2- ryc fd;s tkus ij vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 ckotwn rkehy uksfVl ds vuqifLFkr jgk ftl ij mlds fo:) fnukad 5-4-17 dks ,d rjQk dk;Zokgh vey es ykbZ xbZ A vizkFkh la[;k 1 )kjk tfj;s vf/koDrk mifLFkr gksdj izkFkhZ ds mDr LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse dk tokc izLrqr dj izkFkhZ ds LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse dks enokj vLohdkj djrs gq, vfHkopu fd;s x;s gS fd izkFkhZ us LosPNk ls jksM xzsMj dk dk;Z nsus dh izkFkZuk dh ftl ij vizkFkhZ la- 1 us mlls jksM xzsMj dk dk;Z ysuk vkjEHk fd;k A izkFkhZ dh M;wVh ds izfr lR;fu"Bk o bZekunkjh o dk;Zdq'kyrk dks ns[krs gq, mlds osru xzsM es cdj ykijokgh ls jksM xzsMj pykus ds dkj.k mls lgh fuyfEcr fd;k x;k o fuyEcu vof/k esa vizkFkhZ la 1 ds dgus ds ckotwn fuyEcu HkRrk izkIr ugh fd;k A izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds v/khu dk;M ekbZUl esa jksM xzsMj vkijsVj ds :i es dke djus ds fy, fnuakd 20-3-2015 dks , ikjh esa fu/kkZfjr fd;k FkkA dk;Z ds nkSjku izkFkhZ us jksM xzsMj ykijokgh ls pyk dj jksM xzsMj dk {kfrxzLr dj fn;k A blls iwoZ Hkh izkFkhZ us rhu fnol iwoZ fnukad 16-3-2015 dks lh ikjh es jksM xzsMj dks ykijokgh ls pyk dj {kfrxzLr fd;k FkkA izkFkhZ dk dk;Z dHkh laUrks"kizn ugh jgk o og LosPNk ls dk;Z ls fcuk lwpuk vuqifLFkr jgus dk vknru Fkk A ftlds ckor mls fyf[kr esa psrkouh i= Hkh fn;k x;k le; le; ij psrkouh Hkh nh x;h o mlus viuh xyrh Lohdkj djrs gq, ekQh Hkh ekaxh Fkh ysfdu mlus vius dk;Z o O;ogkj esa dksbZ ifjorZu ugh fd;k o ykijokgh iw.kZ d`R; dks tkjh j[kk A mDr lHkh nqjkpj.kksa dk vadu djrs gq, vizkFkhZ la- 1 )kjk izkFkh dks fuyEcu djds vkjksi i= vius i= Øekad la[;k 198 fnukad 28-3-15 ls izkFkhZ dks fn;k ftldks izkIr djus ds ckotwn izkFkhZ us dksbZ tokc ugh fn;k o bl dkj.k vizkFkhZ la- 1 )kjk mDr vkjksiks ckor ,d tkap desVh xBu dh xbZ ftlds )kjk 14-4-15 dks bl ckor tkap dh xbZ ftles izkFkhZ us Hkh Hkkx fy;k o mlls iwNs x;s lokyks dk tokc fn;k A tkap desVh ds )kjk fnukad 14-4-15 dks iwNs x;s lokyks ds tokc esa izkFkhZ tks tokc fn;k x;k mlls izdV gS fd fnukad 20-3-15 dks izkFkhZ us fcuk fdlh l{ke vf/kdkjh@lqfifj;lZ ds vkns'k ds o mls ek= ikfdZx esa dk;Z djus ds fn;s x;s vkns'kks ds foijhr tkdj LosPNk ls ykijokgh ls xkMh pyk dj mls {kfrxzLr dj fn;kA tkap desVh ds le{k ;g Hkh rF; vk;k fd izkFkhZ dks xkMh dk esUVhusUl ikfdax esa ugh djus dh ckr Fkh rFkk xkMh pykus dk vkns'k izkFkhZ ds lqfifj;lZ Jh dUgS;kyky bUthfu;j )kjk mls ugh fn;k x;k FkkA Jh dUgS;kyky bathfu;j )kjk tkpa desVh dks ;g Hkh crk;k x;k fd izkFkhZ us ykijokgh iw.kZ rjhds ls xkMh pykbZ vkSj 'kjkc fi;s gq, Fkk vkSj og xkMh pykus yk;d ugh gSA izkFkhZ us tkap desVh ds le{k bl dFku dks Li"V :i ls Lohdkj fd;k fd mlds gkFk ls fiyj o xkMh {kfrxzLr gqbZ o vius gLrk{kj Hkh tkap desVh dh izksflafMx ij fd;s A tkap desVh ds le{k izkFkhZ ds c;kuks ls ;g rF; fufoZokn lkfcr gS fd izkFkhZ us mls fn;s x;s vkns'kks@funsZ'kks dh tkucw>dj vogsyuk djrs gq, viuh M;wVh lgh vUtke ugh nsdj o vkns'kks@funsZ'kks ds foifjr tkdj ykijokgh ls xkMh pyk dj xkMh dks uqdlku igqpk;k ftlls vizkFkhZ la- 1 dks vuko';d vkfFkZd uqdlku igqpk A izkFkhZ dk mDr d`R; Li"B :i ls xEHkhj nqjkpj.k dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS o mlds )kjk vius nqjkpj.kks dh LohdkjksfDr fd;s tkus ds dkj.k vizkFkhZ la- 1 us izkFkkZ Jfed ds jksM xzsMj dks {kfrxzzLr djus ds dkj.k mls vius i= fnukad 13-5-15 ls ;g voxr djok fn;k fd jksM xzzsMj ds {kfrxzLr gksu esa mldh ykijokgh fl) gksrh gS o mlds bl d`R; ls vizkFkhZ la- 1 dks yxHkx 11 yk[k :i;s dh gkfu gqbZ gSA mls ukSdjh ls gVk;k Hkh tk ldrk gS ysfdu ekuoh; vk/kkj ij mls pkyw o"kZ dk lkykuk bUdjhesUV jksdus dk n.M nsrs gq, o Hkfo"; es vuq'kklu c) gksdj dk;Z djus vkfn dh dqN 'krkZS ds lkFk cgky j[krs gq, mls bl i= dh izkfIr ds 24 ?kUVs esa viuh lgefr nsus ckor dgk vU;Fkk ;g eku fy;k tkosxk fd og ukSdjh dk bPNqd ugh gS A mDr i= fnukad 13-5-15 dk izkFkhZ dks lqiqnZ fd;k x;k Fkk ftldh ikorh mDr i= ij ekStwn gS A mDr i= dh izkfIr ds i'pkr izkFkhZ us uk rks dksbZ lgefr i= mDr i= ds lUnHkZ es izLrqr fd;k o uk gh dHkh vizkFkhZ ls vkdj feyk o blls fufoZokn izdV gS fd izkFkhZ Loa; viuh LosPNk ls mifLFkr ugh gks jgk gS o mlds LosPNk ls vizkFkhZ dh ukSdjh NksM nh gS A mDr o.kZukuqlkj ;g izdV ;g izdV gS fd izkFkhZ ds ekeys es vizkFkhZ la- 1 )kjk vkjksi i= fn;k x;k tkp fcBkbZ xbZ tkap esa izkFkhZ us LosPNk ls viuk c;ku fn;k o izkFkhZ )kjk mlds f[kykQ yxk;s x;s vkjksiks dh LohdkjksfDr ds dkj.k mls vizkFkhZ la- 1 )kjk i= fnukad 13-5-15 izsf"kr fd;k ftldk dksbZ tcko izkFkhZ us ugh fn;k o uk gh M;wVh ij mifLFkr gqvk aA blls izdV gS fd izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku feF;k o xyr gS fd izkFkhZ ds ekeys esa dksbZ tkap vkfn ugh fcBkbZ xbZAvar izkFkZuk dh gS fd izkFkhZ dk LVsVessUV vkWQ Dyse fujLr gksus yk;d gS tks fujLr Qjek;k tkos A

3- mHk; i{kdkjku ds vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij U;k;ky; }kjk fn- 6-6-17 dks izdj.k esa fuEufyf[kr fook+|d dk;e fd;s x;s%&

1111---- vk;k izkFkhZ ds fo:) vkjksfir nqjkpj.kks ckor vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 )kjk dh xbZ ?kjsyw tkap izkd`frd U;k; ds fl)kUrks ds vuq:i fof/klEer ,oa fu"i{k gS\

2222---- vk;k vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 )kjk izkFkhZ ds fo:) ikfjr n.Mkns'k fnukad 13-5-15 fof/k lEer ,oa nqjkpj.kksa ds laxr gS\

3333---- vk;k vizkFkhZ la- 2 ds lhfer vof/k ds dk;Z esa layXu vizkFkhZZ l[;k 1 ds ;gka dk;Zjr izkFkhZ Jfed dks vizkFkhZ l[;k 1 )kjk )s"krkiw.kZ tcju voS/kkfud rkSj ij fnukad 13-5-15 dks lsoki`Fkd dj fn;k x;k \

4444---- vk;k izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds ;gka e; fuyEcu dky ds iwoZ osru HkRrksa ,oa lu 2015 ds nhokyh cksul ,oa C;kt lfgr lsok esa iquZLFkkiuk dk fof/kd vf/kdkjh gS\2872 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 5555---- vuqrks"k \ 6- vk;k vizkFkhZ la- 1 }kjk izkFkhZ ds fo:) vkjksfir nqjkpj.k U;k;ky; esa fl) fd;s x;s gS \

4- fnukad 6-6-17 dh vknsf'kdkuqlkj U;k;ky; )kjk fook/kd 1 dks crkSj izkFkfed fook/kd fofuf'pr fd;k tkuk U;k;laxr ik;k x;k vkSj cgl fook|d la-1 lquh tkdj bl U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fn-24-11-17 ls mDr fook|d la-1 vizkFkhZ i{k ds fo:) rFkk izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fofu'pr fd;k x;k gS A

5- rRi'pkr~ izkFkhZ dh vksj ls , Mc-1 iq"isanz flag Lo;a izkFkhZ dh ekSf[kd lk[; ys[kc) djok;s tkrs gq, f'kd;r fn-7-2-14 dh izfr izn'kZ Mc-1 f'kdk;r fn-21-1-16 dh izfr;ka izn'kZ Mc-16 o Mc-31] ostst fLyi dh izfr izn'kZ Mc- 2 vly izn'kZ Mc-22 i= fn-28-3-15 ckcr~ fuyacu dh izfr izn'kZ Mc-3 mldh vly izn'kZ Mc-24] naMkns'k fn-13-5- 15 dh izfr izn'kZ Mc-4 mldh vly izn'kZ Mc-25] i= vly ckcr~ izkfIr nLrkost izn'kZ Mc-5] lwpuk izkfIr ds vkosnu dh izfr izn'kZ Mc-6] iksLVy vkWMZj yhQ vly izn'kZ Mc-7] iksLVy vkWMZj dh QksVks izfr izn'kZ Mc-8] , Mh ikorh vly izn'kZ Mc-9] Mkd jlhn vly izn'kZ Mc-10] izn'kZ Mc-27 o 28 ,oa QksVks izfr esa izn'kZ Mc-12] izn'kZ Mc-13] uksfVl vf/koDrk dh izfr;ka izn'kZ Mc-11] izn'kZ Mc-15] izn'kZ Mc-26] izn'kZ Mc-32] daiysu lsVYM fjIykbZ dh QksVks izfr izn'kZ Mc-14] vly izn'kZ Mc-29] izn'kZ Mc-30] izkFkZuk i= izkFkhZ ckcr~ TokbZu djus dh izfr izn'kZ Mc-17 o Mc-18 i= ,oa izek.k i= varZxr /kkjk 2 , vkbZ Mh ,DV dh izfr izn'kZ Mc-19 o Mc-20] ih ,Q QkbZuy lsVyesaV dh izfr izn'kZ Mc-21 o Mc-33 izkFkhZ dk fu;qfDr i= fn-15-2-13 vly izn'kZ Mc-23 iznf'kZr djok;s x;s gS A tcfd vizkFkhZ la-1 dh vksj ls ekSf[kd lk{; esa ,u , Mc-1 ukxqu esU;wy dh lk{; ys[kc) djokrs gq, nLrkosth lk{; esa izn'kZ ,e&1 i= fn-28-3-15 ckcr~ fuyacu ¼izn'kZ Mc-3 o Mc-24 gh½ izn'kZ ,e&2 naMkns'k fn-13-5-15 ¼izn'kZ Mc-4 o Mc-25 gh½ izn'kZ ,e&3 tkap dk;Zokghs vly izn'kZ ,e&4 tkap izfrosnu dh izfr iznf'kZr djok;s x;s gS A

6- cgl vafre lquh x;h A fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZ ds vius LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse ds nksgjko ds lkFk rdZ jgs gS fd izkFkhZ dks feF;k vkjksiksa ds vk/kkj ij dMh ls dMh 'krsZ yxkrs gq, izn'kZ Mc-25 naMkns'k fn;k x;k A izkFkhZ us ges'kk gj 'krZ dcwyh ij vizkFkhZ la-1 izkFkhZ dks fudkyuk gh pkgrk Fkk vkSj xyr 'krksZ dh vkM+ esa izkFkhZ dks dk;Z ij ugh fy;k A iwoZ esa Hkh izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ dh osru o`f) ugh djus ckcr~ f'kdk;r dh Fkh ftl ij mldh osru dh o`f) dh x;h Fkh iqu% mDr izdkj izkFkhZ dks fudkyus dh vizkFkhZ la-1 }kjk dk;Zokgh dj nh x;h ftl ij izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fof/kd uksfVl vf/koDrk ds ek/;e ls tkjh fd;s x;s A izn'kZ Mc-24 ds ek/;e ls izkFkhZ dks fuyafcr fd;k x;k fdarq blesa vafdrkuqlkj thou fuokZg HkRrk ugh fn;k x;k A izkFkhZ dk 'kks"k.k fu;sktu vizkFkhZ la-1 }kjk fd;k x;k A ;g mHk;i{kksa ds vkpj.k ls Li"V gS A ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd fu;kstd i{k Jfedksa dk lEeku~ ugh djrk gS ,oa eu&ethZ dh 'krsZ yxkdj ds mudks ncko esa j[krk gS A izkFkhZ ds fo:) vizkFkhZ la-1 }kjk dh x;h mDr dk;Zokgh Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 21 ds fo:) gS ftl dkj.k izkFkhZ us lk

7- [kaMu esa fo}ku vf/koDRkk vizkFkhZ la-1 ds rdZ jgs gS fd izkFkhZ us viuh lsokeqfDr dh frfFk vius LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa ugh nh gS mlus Lo;a us vius LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa viuk fu;kstu vLFkkbZ ekuk gS o ftjg esa Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS A izn'kZ ,e&1 o 2 i= fu;kstd dk izkFkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ [kaMu ugh fd;k x;k gS ftlls ,oa tkap dk;Zokgh esa izkFkhZ dh LohdkjksfDr ls mlds fo:) vkjksfir nqjkpj.k fl) gkrs gS A izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ dk Hkkjh uqdlku fd;k ftldks mlus foHkkxh; tkap esa Lohdkjk gS ckn esa og dke ij vk;k gh ugh o Lo;a us dke NksM fn;k A mlds dke ij vkus dh dksbZ lk{; Hkh ugh gS A izkFkhZ dc dc dke ij vk;k mldh frfFk gh ugh crk ik;k gS A mlus tku&cw>dj ds M~;wVh ls vuqifLFkr jgdj ds lsok dk mlus vfHkR;tu fd;k gS A og fdlh Hkh vuqrks"k dk ik= ugh gS A ykHkizn fu;kstu esa ugh gksus ckcr~ u rks mlds vfHkopu gS u gh dksbZ lk{; gS A izkFkhZ dk Dyse [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS A var esa izkFkhZ dk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse [kkfjt fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;h gS A vius rdksZ ds leFkZu esa muds }kjk fuEukafdr U;kf;d n`"Vkar Hkh izLrqr fd;s x;s gS%&

1. 2015 ,y ,y vkj 747 uxj ifj"kn] fcykliqj cuke cksus jke o vU;]

2. 2012 ,y ,y vkj 178 lq[knsoflag cuke nsgyh MoyiesaV vkWFkVh]

3. 2008 ,y ,y vkj 256 ij'kqjke 'kkg cuke xouZesaV vkW ,u lh Vh vkWQ nsgyh o vU;]

4. 2009 ,y ,y vkj 1135 jhtuy eSustj] cSad vkWQ cMkSnk cuke vuhrk uanzktksx]

5. 2010 ,y ,y vkj 656 nsgyh Vz~kaliksVZ dkjiksjs'ku cuke Jh fjf"k izdk'k]

6. 2010 ,y ,y vkj 778 lqHkk"k jkepanzkMqacjs cuke egkjk"Vz~ LVsV dkWjiksjsfVo ,xzhdYpj ,aM :jy MoyiesaV cSad fy0 o vU; A

8- mHk;i{kdkjku~ dh vksj ls fn;s x;s rdksZ ds en~ns utj lacaf/kr fof/k o vizkFkhZ la-1 dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ds vfHkerksa dks fopkj esa ysrs gq, i=koyh dk HkyhHkkafr xaHkhjrkiwoZd ifj'khyu fd;k x;k A[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2873 9- mHk;i{k dh vksj ls vk;h mDr ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; dk lw{e fo'ys"k.k djus ij ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk viuh eq[; ijh{kk ds 'kiFk i= es avius vfHkopukuqlkj gh lk{; ntZ djok;h x;h gS A mlds }kjk iznf'kZr nLrkostksa esa ls f'kdk;r fn-7-12-14 izn'kZ Mc-1 ls mlus etnwjh ugh cs jksM xzsMj vkWijsVj dk dk;Z djus ds fy, 2014 dks lcls iwoZ ck/; fd;k FkkA ;g lgh gS fd esjs ikl izn'kZ MCy;w&1 dh ikorh ugha gS Lor% dgk fd ysVj Hkstk Fkk A eSa ugha crk ldrk fd fdl rkjh[k dks vk, Fks ysfdu blds ckn esa esjk osru cls jksM xzsMj dk dke ugha ysrs FksA fgUnqLrku ftad us VsDuksfeu dks 5 lky ds fy, dke fn;k Fkk ;g lgh gS fd LVsVesaV vkQ Dyse esa 5 lky dh ckr ugha fy[kh gqbZ gSA eSusas izn'kZ MCy;w&1 esa , ls ch fy[kk gqvk gS fd og dke nsus ls euk dj nsrs FksA esS nloh ikl gawaA izn'kZ&,e&1 esa ,s ls ch nLr[kr esjs gSA izn'kZ,e&2 ij Hkh , ls ch nLr[kr esjs gh gSA izn'kZ ,e&3 ij Hkh nLr[kr , ls ch esjs gh gSA vt[kqn dgk fd ;g eq>ls nks ckj ekQhukek fy[kok;k vkSj dgk fd ge vkidks ukSdjh ij j[k ysaxsA izn'kZ ,e&3 ij eSus nLr[kr fcuk is [kkyh isij ij nLr[kr djok, FksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eq>s izn'kZ MCy;w&25 izkIr gksus ds ckn eSadHkh M;wVh ugha x;k vt[kqn dgk fd eSa jkstkuk vkfQl ds ckgj [kMk jgrk Fkk dksbZ ugha iqNrk Fkk fd dSls vk, gksA ukSdjh ds fy, euk dj nsrs FksA 13]05]2015] 15-05-2015 o 17]5-2015 dks eSus iqu% ukSdjh ds ckcr izkFkZuki= fn;k FkkA ;g lgh gS fd eSusa mDr frfFk;ksa dks tks i= fy[ks og i= i=koyh ij miyC/k ugha gSA

10- vizkFkhZ la-1 dk lk{kh ,u , Mc-ukxqu eSU;wy eSustj }kjk viuh eq[; ijh{kk ds 'kiFk i= esa yXkHkx vizkFkhZ ds vfHkopukuqlkj gh lk{; ntZ djok;h x;h gS A bl lk{kh }kjk iznf'kZr nLrkostksa esa ls izn'kZ ,e&1 o ,e&2 iwoZ esa foosfpr izn'kZ Mc-3]4]24 o 25 gh gS A tcfd izn'kZ ,e&3 tkap dh dk;Zokgh ,oa izn'kZ ,e&4 tkap izfrosnu dh izfr gS ftl tkap ds laca/k esa iwoZ esa fd;s x;s foospukuqlkj fojfpr fook|d la-1 vizkFkhZ ds fo:) o izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fofuf'pr dj fn;s tkus ds dkj.k vc tkap laca/kh mDr nLrksotksa dk dksbZ fo'ks"k egRo ugh jgrk gS A mDr vizkFkhZ lk{kh }kjk viuh ftjg esa lk{; nh x;h gS fd es bl dEiuh es tujy eSutj ds in ij gWw o"kZ 2013 ls gwWA ,e 1 tks gLrk{kj gS oks , Vw ch izkstsDV eSustj vuhy xksVkoV ds gLrk{kj gSA izn'kZ 3 es bUdkojh es lnL; Fkk izn'kZ 3 esa gj i`"B ij lh ls Mh gLrk{kj esjs gSA izn'kZ ,e 1 es lh ls Mh dFku lgh vafdr fd;s x;s gSA eq>s bldh tkudkjh ugh gS fd bl vof/k es izkFkhZ dks fuyEcu vof/k osru fn;k x;k ;k ugh A ;g ckr lgh gS fd izn'kZ ,e 3 ij deZdkj ij tks vkjksi yxk;k x;k gS tks fnukad 20-3-2015 ds fy;s yxk;k x;k gSA izn'kZ ,e 4 esa , Vw ch ikVZ ftles blh e'khu dk fnukad 16-12-2014 ds {kfrxzLr gksus dk fooj.k fn;k x;k gS ftldh dher pkj yk[k crkbZ x;h gSA;g ckr lgh gS fd fnukad izn'kZ ,e 4 esa , Vw ch ikVZ fnukd 16-12-14 dh ?kVuk dk fooj.k deZdkj dks izsf"kr eseskjasMe vkWQ pktZ es ugh gsA ;g ckr lgh gS fd izn'kZ ,e 2 esa ftl X;kjg yk[k :i;s dh gkfu dk o.kZu fd;k x;k gS mlesa izn'kZ ,e 4 esa , Vw ch ikVZ esa of.kZr {kfr dk lfEefyr djrs gq, fn;k x;k gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd jksM xzsMj ,d gSoh Oghdy gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd bl okgu dks pykus ds fy;s gSoh Oghdy pykus dk ykbZlasl gksuk t:jh gSA ;g ckr Hkh lgh gS fd izkFkhZ ds ikl gSoh Oghdy ykbZlsal Fkk blfy;s mls ;g dk;Z lkSik Fkk A ;g ckr lgh gS fd lu 2014 es deZdkj us igyh ckj e'khu dk Mset fd;k ftles pkj yk[k :i;s dh {kfr gqbZ A ;g ckr lgh gS fd mDRk {kfr ds fy;s geus deZdkj dks dksbZ psrkouh i= ugh fn;k A izkFkhZ us 2013 ls 2015 rd dk;Z fd;k A ;g ckr lgh gS fd deZdkj ds nks o"kZ ds dk;Zkdky esa mls dksbZ psrkouh i= fn;k gks ,slk dksbZ nLrkost i=koyh ij ugh gS Lor% dgk fd psrkouh i= fn;k Fkk A ;g eq>ss /;ku ugh gS fd psrkouh i= dc fn;k Fkk A ;g ckr lgh gS fd deZdkj us ,d f'kdk;r dh Fkh tks fd izn'kZ Mc 1 gS osru o`f)2874 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ckSrk okrkZ Hkh dkfeZd )kjk Mw;wVh T;ksbu djus ds fy;s vkxzg fd;k x;k Fkk fQj dgk fd ogka ekeyk QkbZuy ugh gqvk Fkk A ;fn izkFkhZ vius dRkZO;ks dks lgh rkSj ij vatke nsrk gS rks mls vkt Hkh dk;Z ij fy;k tk ldrk gSA fdrq vc izkFkhZ dks ge ubZ fu;qfDRk gh nsaxs o tks ge vkxqpk esa nsxsa A ;g ckr lgh gS fd gekjh QeZ dk;M ekbZUl es dk;Z dj jgh gSA

11- vc ge loZizFke fook|d la-6 rRi'pkr~ fook|d la-2]3 ,oa var esa fook|d la-4 o 5 ,dlkFk fofuf'pr fd;k tkuk U;k;laxr le>rs gS A

fook|d lafook|d lafook|d lafook|d la---- 6666 %&%&%&%&

12- bl fook|d dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj vizkFkhZ la- 1 ij jgk gS A izkFkhZ ij 'kjkc ihdj ykijokgh ls jksM xzsMj fcuk btktr ds pykdj mlds {kfrxzLr dj X;kjg yk[k :i;s dk uqdlku dj fn;s tkus ds nqjkpj.k ds vkjksi vizkFkhZ la-1 dh vksj ls izdV fd;s x;s gS A bl laca/k esa vk;s vizkFkhZ la-1 lk{kh ,u , Mc-1 ukxqu eSU;wy oDr ?kVuk ekSds ij mifLFkr Fkk ,slk mldh lk{; ls izdV ugh gksrk gS A D;ksafd mlus viuh ftjg dh lk{; esa jksM xzsMj {kfrxzLr djus dh nks ?kVuk;sa fn-16-12-14 dh ,oa fn-20-3-15 dhs crk;h gS fdarq ;g izdV ugh fd;k x;k gS fd og mDr ?kVukvksa esa ls fdlh ?kVuk ds le; mifLFkr Fkk A mDr nksuksa ?kVukvksa esa le;kof/k dk Hkh dkQh varj gS A eseksjaMe vkWQ pktZ esa fn-16-12-14 dh ?kVuk dk fooj.k ugh gksuk mDr lk{kh }kjk ftjg esa Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS rFkk ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd X;kjg yk[k :i;s dh jksM xzsMj dh {kfr mDr nksuksa ?kVukvksa esa gqbZ gS A vizkFkhZ la-1 dh vksj ls vk;h lk{; dk fo'ys'k.k djus ij ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ us mDr ?kVukvksa ds le; 'kjkc ih j[kh gks bldh dksbZ ekus tkus ;ksX; lk{; i=koyh ij ugh gS A izkFkhZ dh jksMxzsMj pykus esa fdl izdkj dh ykijokgh jgh ;g Hkh vizkFkhZ la-1 dh lk{; ls Li"V ugh gksrk gS A vizkFkhZ la-1 ds lk{kh ,u , Mc-1 ukxqu }kjk viuh eq[; ijh{kk ds 'kiFk i= esa izkFkhZ dk lqihfj;j Jh dUgS;kyky bathfu;j dks crkdj ds mldh fcuk btktr ds jksMxzsMj pykuk ntZ djok;k gS fdarq bl dUgS;kyky bathf;j dks vizkFkhZ la-1 dh vksj ls lk{; esa izLrqr ugh fd;k x;k gS ftlls btktr ugh gksus ls lacaf/kr vizkFkhZ la-1 }kjk j[ks x;s rF; Hkh Lohdkj ;ksX; ugh jg tkrs gS A blesa dksbZ 'kadk ugh gS fd vizkFkhZ la-1 }kjk izkFkhZ ls jksMxzsMj pyok;k tkrk Fkk fdarq ;g vizkFkhZ la-1 }kjk izkFkhZ dks etcwj dj izkFkhZ ls pykok;s tkus ckcr~ izkFkhZ lk{kh , Mc-1 iq"isanz dh fLFkj lk{; gS ftlds laca/k esa vizkFkhZ la- 1 dh vksj ls ;g rF; j[kk x;k gS fd vizkFkhZ la-1 gSoh okgu ykblsal /kkjh pkyd Fkk ftldh izkFkZuk ij gh jksM xzsMj pyok;k tkrk Fkk fdarq izkFkhZ }kjk ,slh dksbZ izkFkZuk dh x;h gks bldh Hkh i=koyh ij dksbZ lk{; ugh gS A lkekU;r% fu;kstd }kjk Mz~kbZoj ds osru dks cpkus dhs xjt ls gh vius lkekU; etnwjksa ls okgu pykok;s tkrs gS blesa dksbZ 'kadk ugh gS tks gh ifjfLFkfr gLrxr izdj.k esa izdV gksrh gS A izkFkhZ dh vksj ls j[kk x;k ;g rF; ekus tkus ;ksX; fLFkfr esa LFkkfir gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ lss jksMxzsMj mls etcwj dj pyok;k tkrk Fkk D;ksafd izkFkhZ dks rks izn'kZ Mc-23 }kjk Lohd`r rkSj ij etnwj ds rkSj ij gh vizkFkhZ la-1 }kjk j[kk x;k Fkk u fd pkyd ds rkSj ij vkSj ;gh rF; izkFkhZ us vius vfHkopuksa o lk{; esa j[ks gS fd mldks etnwj ds in ij j[krs gq, mls vizkFkhZ la-1 }kjk etcwj dj jksMxzsMj pyok;k tkrk Fkk ftl lk{; ij og fLFkj Hkh jgk gS A tgka rd jksMxzsMj ds {kfrxzLr gksus dk iz'u gS] ;g {kfr fdl izdkj o jksMxzsMj ds fdl Hkkx dh gqbZ ;g Hkh vizkFkhZ la-1 dh lk{; ls izdV ugh gksrk gS A rFkkfdFkr izdkj jksMxzsMj {kfrxzLr gksus ij fdrus :i;ksa dk [kpkZ gqvk bldh Hkh dksbZ lk{; i=koyh ij vizkFkhZ la-1 dh vksj ls ugh gS A vizkFkhZ la-1 }kjk X;kjg yk[k dh {kfr crk;h x;h gS fdarq ,sls dksbZ fcy ;k esdsfudy eqvk;uk fjiksVZ Hkh i=koyh ij ugh gSA bruk gh ugh izn'kZ Mc-4]25 izn'kZ ,e&2 dh 'krZ la-3 esa rFkkdfFkr {kfr dh jkf'k dh fjdojh vizkFkhZ la-2 ds laLFkku dh vksj ls fd;s tkus dk rF; ntZ gS tks ;g izdV djrk gS fd jksMxzsMj vizkFkhZ la-1 dk ugh gksdj vizkFkhZ la-2 dk Fkk rFkk jksMxzsMj vizkFkhZ la-1 dk gksus dh i=koyh ij dksbZ lk{; ugh gS A ,slh dksbZ olwyh vizkFkhZ la-2 }kjk izkjaHk dh x;h gks ,slk Hkh dksbZ nLrkost vizkFkhZ la-2 dh vksj ls i=koyh ij ugh gS A laiw.kZ ifjfLFkfr esa mDr fook|d ds rF;ksa ij lk{; vizkFkhZ la-1 ds fo:) o izkFkhZ ds i{k esa gS rFkk vizkFkhZ la-1 mDr vkjskfir nqjkpj.k izkFkhZ ds fo:) U;k;ky; esa fl) ugh dj ik;k gS A ifj.kkeLo:i mDr fook|d la-6 vizkFkhZ la-1 ds fo:) o izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fofu'pr fd;k tkrk gS A

fook|d la[;k fook|d la[;k fook|d la[;k fook|d la[;k & & & & 2222%&%&%&%&[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : मई 11, 2019/वैशाख 21, 1941 2875 13- bl fook|d dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZ ij jgk gS A fook|d la-1 vkns'k fn-24-11-17 }kjk rFkk fook|d la- 6 vkt mDr foospukuqlkj izkFkhZ ds i{k esa o vizkFkhZ ds fo:) fofu'pr fd;s x;s gS ,sls esa izkFkhZ ij vkjksfir nqjkpj.kksa ds vk/kkj ij vizkFkhZ la-1 dh vksj ls izkFkhZ ds fo:) ikfjr naMkns'k fn-13-5-15 u rks fof/k laxr Bgjk;k tk ldrk gS u gh nqjkpj.k ds laxr ekuk tk ldrk gS ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa mDr fook|d izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fofuf'pr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gksus ls izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fofuf'pr fd;k tkrk gS A

fook|d la[;k&*3%&fook|d la[;k&*3%&fook|d la[;k&*3%&fook|d la[;k&*3%&

14- bl fook|d dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj Hkh izkFkhZ ij jgk gSA Lohd`r rkSj ls izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr izn'kZ Mc- 23 ds ek/;e ls gqbZ gS fdarq blesa of.kZr vizkFkhZ la-1 dk dk;Z lekIr gks x;k gks ,slk fdlh Hkh izdkj ls izdV ugh gksrk gS A izkFkhZ ds }kjk vizkFkhZ ds fo:) fn-7-2-14 dks Hkh izn'kZ Mc-1 f'kdk;r is'k fd;s tkus ij mldh osru o`f) dh tkuk vizkFkhZ la-1 ds lk{kh ,u , Mc-1 ukxqu }kjk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS rFkk mDr foospukuqlkj fook|d la-1 o 6 izkFkhZ ds i{k esa o vizkFkhZ ds fo:) fofuf'pr fd;s x;s gS A naMkns'kksa izn'kZ Mc- 25@,e&2 ds iBu ls Li"V gS fd blesa izkFkhZ ij dbZ 'krsZ yxk;h x;h gS rFkk blesa izkFkhZ dks pkSchl /kaVksa dk gh lgefr gsrq le; fn;k x;k gS mDr naMkns'kksa ds laca/k esa fojfpr fook|d la-2 Hkh izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS ,sls esa mlds rgr izkFkhZ ds mij yxk;h x;h 'krsZ Hkh oS/k ugh ekuh tk ldrh gS A izn'kZ&17 o izn'kZ&18 izkFkZuk i= izkFkhZ }kjk vizkFkhZ la-1 dks fn;k tkuk izkFkhZ lk{kh }kjk crk;k x;k gS rFkk vizkFkhZ la-1 ds lk{kh ,u , Mc-1 ukxqu }kjk viuh ftjg dh lk{; esa izkFkhZ }kjk M~;wVh Tokbu ds fy, le>kSrk okrkZ ds nkSjku Hkh dgk tkuk viuh ftjg ds nkSjku Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS A vkxs mlus izkFkhZ dks vxwpk esa u;h fu;qfDr gh nsus dk rF; Hkh ntZ djok;k gS A izkFkhZ }kjk mDr i= izn'kZ&17 o 18 esa izn'kZ Mc-25@,e&2 'krZ la-3 tks fd mDr izdkj fjdojh ds ckjs esa gS] dk fo'ks"k rkSj ij izfrjks/k fd;k x;k gS A vizkFkhZ la-1 dh vksj ls ;|fi izkFkhZ }kjk Lo;a gh lsok vfHkR;ftr djus ds rF; j[ks x;s gS fdarq mldh vksj ls izkFkhZ dks fn;s x;s dksbZ psrkouh i= ;k uksfVl dks izLrqr ugh fd;k x;k gS u gh lsok ij vkus ds fy, vkgwr fd;s tkus dh mldh vksj ls dksbZ lk{; gS cfYd mDr izdkj izn'kZ Mc*-25@,e&2 esa mldh 'krksZ ekuus ds fy, pkSchl ?kaVksa dk gh le; fn;k x;k gS tks bl ckr dk |ksrd gS fd vizkFkhZ la-1 mDr uktk;t 'krksZ dh vkM esa izkFkhZ dks dke ij ugh ysuk pkgrk Fkk A ,sls esa fo}ku vf/koDrk vizkFkh ds ;g rdZ ekus tkus ;ksX; ugh gS fd izkFkhZ us Lo;a us dke NksM fn;k gks cfYd fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZ ds ;g rdZ ekus tkus ;ksX; gS fd izn'kZ Mc- 25@,e&2 tkjh djus ds ckn vizkFkhZ la-1 }kjk izkFkhZ dks dk;Z ij ughs fy;k tkdj mldh voS/k lsokeqfDr dj nh x;h ,sls esa mDr lsokeqfDr fn-13-5-15 ls gh ekus tkus ;ksX; gS A mDr lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ vizkFkhZ la-1 }kjk izkFkhZ dks dksbZ fjVz~ssapesaV HkRrk vFkok uksfVl fof/k vuqlkj ugh fn;k x;k gS A mlds }kjk izkFkhZ dk lsok esa vfHkR;tu crk;k x;k gS tks fl) ugh gqvk gS rFkk vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls tks mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr fd;s x;s gS os lHkh vfHkR;tu ds fcanq ij gS ftuds izdj.kksa esa mDr foosfpr rF; ugh Fks ftl dkj.k mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar vizkFkhZ la-1 dh dksbZ enn ugh djrs gS A fook|d la- 2 ds fofu'p; esa mDr naMkns'k fn-13-5-15 Hkh oS/k ugh ik;k x;k gS rFkk mDr foosfpr ifjfLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr Hkh vkbZ Mh ,DV 1947 dh /kkjk 25 ,Q ds mYya?ku esa voS/k gh izdV gksrh gS A leLr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mDr fook|d ds rF; ij lk{; izkFkhZ ds i{k esa gS vr,o mDr fook|d izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fofuf'pr fd;k tkrk gS A

fook|d la[;kfook|d la[;kfook|d la[;kfook|d la[;k 4 o 54 o 54 o 54 o 5

15- fook|d la-4 dks fl) djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZ ij jgk gS rFkk ;g fook|d vuqrks"k ds rF;ksa dks la/kkfjr djrk gS rFkk fook|d la-5 vuqrsk"k ds ckjs esa gS] ,sls esa mDr nksuksa fook|dksa dks ,dlkFk fofu'pr fd;k tkuk U;k;laxr gS A fook|d la-1]6 izkFkhZ ds i{k esa o vizkFkhZ ds fo:) fofu'pr fd;s x;s gS A fook|d la-2 rk 4 izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fofuf'pr fd;s x;s gS A fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZ ds ;g rdZ lgh gS fd i= fn-28-3-15 ckcr~ fuyacu izn'kZ Mc- 24@,e&1 esa izkFkhZ dks fuyacudky dk thou fuokZg HkRrk fn;k tkuk mfYyf[kr gS ;|fi bleas osru 'kCn fn;k x;k gS fdarq vizkFkhZ la-1 dk ;gh vk'k; gS A fuyacudky esa fuokZg HkRrk fn;s tkus dh fof/k Hkh gS fdarq thou fuokZg HkRrk izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ la-1 }kjk fn;k x;k gks] ;g izdV ugh gksrk gS A vizkFkhZ la-1 }kjk vius vfHkopuksa o lk{; esa izkFkhZ dk thou fuokZg HkRrk ysus ugh vkuk crk;k x;k gS fdarq ;g rF; mudk fo'oluh; izdV ugh gskrk gS A izkFkhZ izn'kZ Mc-24@,e&1 tkjh fd;s tkus dhs frfFk fn-28-3-15 ls naMkns'k fn-13-5-15 rd fuyafcr jgk gS rFkk bl vof/k esa og thou fuokZg HkRrk izkfIr dk gdnkj gS blesa dksbZ 'kadk ugh gS fdarq cksul dk rF; izkFkhZ dh vksj ls Li"V rkSj ij izekf.kr ugh gS A fo}ku vf/koDRkk vizkFkhZ la-1 ds ;g rdZ ekus tkus ;ksX; gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk vius vfHkopuksa o lk{; esa Lo;a dk lsokeqfDr ds i'pkr~ ykHkizn fu;kstu esa ugh gksuk ntZ ugh djok;k x;k gS A bl laca/k esa fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZ ds ;g rdZ ekus tkus ;ksX; ugh gS fd izkFkhZ ds vfHkopuksa ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd og ykHkizn fu;kstu esa ugh Fkk D;ksafd bldk dksbZ leqfpr vk/kkj izkFkhZ ds vfHkopuksa esa ugh gSA tcfd izkFkhZ dh ;g vk|ru ftEesnkjh Fkh fd og vius vfHkopuksa esa viuh lsokeqfDr ds i'pkr~ ykHkizn2876 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 11, 2019/VAISAKHA 21, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] fu;sktu esa ugh jgus ckcr~ vk/kkj ysdj ds mUgsa izkFkfed rkSj izekf.kr djrk A mlds i'pkr~ mlds [kaMu dk nkf;Ro vizkFkhZx.k ds mij vkrk gS A izkFkhZ dh mDr voS/k lsokeqfDr ds i'pkr~ mlds ykHkizn fu;sktu esa ugh gksus ds izkFkhZ ds vfHkopu o lk{; ugh gksus ls izkFkhZ viuh lsokeqfDr ds i'pkr~ iwoZ iw.kZ osru ifjykHk dh izkfIr dk gdnkj ugh ik;k tkrk gS A fdarq izkFkhZ dhs mDr izdkj lsokeqfDr voS/k ik;s tkus ij izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ la-1 dh lsok esa fujarjrk lfgr iwoZjr~ iquZLFkkiuk dk vf/kdkjh gS] blesa dksbZ 'kadk ugh gS A vikFkhZ la-1 ds lk{kh ,u , Mc-1 ukxqu dh ftjg dhs lk{; esa izkFkhZ dks u;s LFkku ij u;h fu;qfDr fn;s tkus ckcr~ ntZ djk;k x;k rF; dkuwuu Lohdkj ;ksX; ugh gS A leLr ifjfLFkfr esa izkFkhZ naMkns'k fn-13-5-15 ,oa mlds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dh mDr frfFk dks vizkFkhZ la-1 }kjk dh x;h lsokeqfDr voS/k ?kksf"kr djokrs gq, vizkFkhZ la-1 dh lsok esa fujarjrk lfgr iwoZor~ iquZLFkkiuk ds vuqrsk"k ,oa fuyacudky dhs vof/k ds fy, thou fuokZg HkRrk izkfIr ds vuqrks"k dk vf/kdkjh ik;k tkrk gS fdarq iwoZ osru ifjykHk ,oa cksul dk vf/kdkjh ugh ik;k tkrk gS A ifj.kkeLo:i mDr nksuksa fook|d mDr izdkj gh izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fofuf'pr fd;s tkrs gS rFkk izkFkhZ dk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse fo:) vizkFkhZ la-1 mDrkuqlkj vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS A

vkns'kvkns'kvkns'kvkns'k

16- vr% izkFkhZ dk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse fo:) vizkFkhZx.k vkaf'kd rkSj ij Lohdkj fd;s tkrs gq, vizkFkhZ la- 1 }kjk izkFkhZ ds fo:) ikfjr naMkns'k fn-13-5-15 o mlds vk/kkj ij mDr fnukad dks dh x;h izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr vuqfpr o voS/k ,oa 'kwU; ?kksf"kr fd;s tkrs gq, vizkFkhZ la-1 dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd og izkFkhZ dks viuh lsok esa fujarjrk lfgr iwoZor~ vfoyac iquZLFkkfir djs A lkFk gh izkFkhZ dks mlds fuyacudky dh vof/k ds thou fuokZg HkRrs dk Hkqxrku Hkh vfoyac djs A iwoZ osru ifjykHk o cksul ds vuqrks"k ds laca/k esa izkFkhZ dk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse fo:) vizkFkhZx.k vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA [kpkZ i{kdkjku~ viuk viuk ogu djsaxs A

17- vokMZ fy[kk;k tkdj vkt fnukad 29-3-19 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa gLrk{kj dj lquk;k x;kA vokMZ dh izfr fu;ekuqlkj lacaf/kr ljdkj dks okLrs xtV esa izdk'ku izsf"kr dh tkos A

,l- ,u- Vsyj] U;k;k/kh'k

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.

Thus the reference is disposed of in the light of the settlement Ex. ↩

The settlement Ex. shall remain the part of the award. 5. The award is passed accordingly. P. K. CHATURVEDI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 1st May, 2019 S.O. 721.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1299/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01.05.2019. [No. L-12012/404/99–IR (B-1)] B. S. BISHT, 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 08th April, 2019 Reference: (CGITA) No. 1299/2004 1. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, 7th Floor, Bhadra, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380001 3. The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, 7th Floor, Paradise Complex, Sayajigunj, Baroda (Gujarat) – 390005 4. The Manager, State Bank of India, Nanpura Branch, Hathugar Mohalla, Nanpura Surat (Gujarat) 5. The Manager, State Bank of India, Pardi Sery Branch, Badli Fali Ya, Surat (Gujarat) …First Parties V/s. Shri Jagdish Jamalbhai Parmar, Krishna Raw House No. 26, Palanpur Jagat Naka Palanpur Road, Surat (Gujarat) …Second Party For the First Parties : Shri D.C. Gandhi For the Second Party : Shri P.F. Baxi ↩

of ↩

(hereinafter referred as “The Act”) ( referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication: SCHEDULE “Whether the management of Mysore Minerals Limited is justified in terminating the services/premature superannuating of the services of Sri Chowedegowda w.e.f. 16/4/1998? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?” 2. The case of the 1st party workman is, he joined the service of the II Party on 07.10.1982 at its Mines Unit viz. Jamboor Chromite Mines, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District while joining service he had furnished his age as 35 years i.e., date of birth being 07.10.1947 as per the horoscope maintained by his parents. Same date of birth is mentioned in all his statutory records, he was entitled to continue in service upto 07.10.2005. 3. It is further stated, 2nd Party subjected him to medical examination on 26.02.2001.They refused work to him on 16.04.1998, on the plea that he has reached superannuation age of 58 years, termination order is issued on 22.05.1998, he is unemployed and has a dependent family, the 2nd Party officials obtained his signature on various applications and submitted his application to EPF authorities. They have terminated many of his co-workers. In one such case of the workman(Smt. K Dundamma vs. MML WP No. 5615/2001(S-RES)) was reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service by the order of the Hon’ble High Court. Similar WP 2610/2001 connected with other cases are also allowed on 01.06.2006. The 2ndParty had not provided safety measures to work in the Mines. There was no proper working/service condition. During 1995 – 1996 they entrusted some of the mining development works in Hassan District to some private contractors without following due process of law. Because of this transaction they faced administrative problems, there was no production and they suffered loss, ultimately they decided to terminate the workers illegally by resorting to so called medical examination during the year 1998. The medical examination was conducted by one MBBS Doctor but not by Doctor of Rank of Assistant Civil Surgeon as defined under rule 19(C) of mines act. He is terminated from service on the basis of Medical examination Report dated 19.02.1998. Age certificate issued by Medical Officer summarily and in a blind manner. They have no right to refuse employment to him, remove his name from the Muster Rolls in unilateral manner without following due process of law. Hence, prayer for a direction to reinstate the 1stParty workman retrospectively with continuity of service etc. 4. The claim allegation is assailed by the 2nd Party in its written statement on following lines; he had not produced any authenticated document regarding his date of birth, his alleged horoscope is concocted one. It is further contended that upon the intervention of the employee’s union of the 2nd Party the 1st Party was subjected to medical examination and he was not allowed to work after 16.04.1998 since he had reached the age of superannuation. Medical Examination is conducted as per the mines rules 1955 and same does not affect any of the provisions of the mines rules. Delay in raising the dispute is not supported by any valid material. He is not entitled for any relief. He was relieved after he attained the age of superannuation, with all terminal benefits. During the medical examination he was found to be more than 58 years. He has not questioned the said report before the appellate board prescribed under the Mines Rules 1955. 5. Both parties have adduced their evidence, the workman examined himself as WW 1 and produced documents Ex W-1 to Ex W-5. On behalf of the 2nd Party their Assistant Manager / MW 1 was examined. 6. As such the 1st Party workman is terminated from service w.e.f. 22.05.1998. Going by his version he would have reached superannuation of 58 years on 07.10.2005. For the purpose of statutory records B Records, EPF Records and Service Record his date of birth was mentioned as 02.08.1956 on the basis of Horoscope as provided by him. 7. The 2nd Party has its own certified standing orders i.e., MML (Officers and Employees) Conditions of Service, Conduct and Disciplinary Proceedings Rules: Rule/clause 18.0 pertaining to the age of superannuation reads thus: 18.1 : Every Officer/ Employee of the Company shall attain the age of Superannuation on his reaching the age of 58 years and shall retire from the services of the company. 18.2 : The age and date of birth of the Officer / Employee as recorded in the records of the Company shall be the determining factor for retirement. 18.3 : A change in the date of birth as entered in the Company records can only be affected on a Judgement of a Competent Court. Except on a Judgement of a Court the date of birth once recorded will not be changed at the request of the Officer/ Employee under any Circumstances. Termination further is governed by Rule 24 which reads thus “ Rule / Clause 24.0 – Termination : 24.1 : The Services of a permanent officer/Employee can be terminated either by the company or by the Officer/ Employee himself by issue of three month’s notice, or payment of three month’s salary in lieu of such notice. 24.2 : A resignation tendered by an Officer/Employee would become final on its acceptance by the company. However, where the Management finds it expedient, it may refuse to accept the resignation in which event the relation of employer-employee between the parties continues to subsist.” ↩