4221 GI/2019

(6443)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 35]

ubZ fnYyh] vxLr 25—vxLr 31] 2019] 'kfuokj@Hkknz 3—Hkknz 9] 1941

No. 35]

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 25—AUGUST 31, 2019, SATURDAY/BHADRA 3— BHADRA—9, 1941

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

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

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

िव

िव मंालय

मंालय

(िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग

िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग

िवीय सेवाएं िवभाग)

नई दली, 29 जुलाई, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.1532

1532

1532.—भारतीय रजव बक अिधिनयम, 1934 क धारा 8 क उप-धारा (1) के खंड (घ) (ारा )द*

शि,य- का )योग करते 0ए, के23ीय सरकार, एत5ारा, 6ी अतानु च9वत:, सिचव, भारत सरकार, िव* मं;ालय, आ=थक

काय िवभाग को त?काल )भाव से और अगले आदेश- तक, 6ी सुभाष च23 गग के Bथान पर, भारतीय रजव बक के के23ीय

िनदेशक मCडल मD िनदेशक के Eप मD नािमत करती है।

[फा. सं. 6/3/2012-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार िम6, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 29th July, 2019

S.O. 1532.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Reserve

Bank of India Act, 1934, the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Atanu Chakraborty, Secretary, Government of

6444

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, as Director on the Central Board of Directors of Reserve

Bank of India, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice Shri Subhash Chandra Garg.

[F. No. 6/3/2012-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई दली, 6 अगB त, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1533

1533

1533.—राIीय कृिष और Kामीण िवकास बक अिधिनयम, 1981 (1981 का 61) क धारा 6 क उप-धारा

(1) के खंड (ग) (ारा )द* शि,य- का )योग करते 0ए, के23ीय सरकार, भारतीय रजव बक के परामश से एत5ारा,

6ी महेश कुमार जैन के Bथान पर सु6ी रेवती अOयर, िनदेशक, के23ीय बोड को अिधसूचना क तारीख से अथवा अगले आदेश-

तक, जो भी पहले हो, राIीय कृिष और Kामीण िवकास बक (नाबाड) के िनदेशक मCडल मD अंशकािलक िनदेशक नािमत करती

है।

[फा. सं. 7/11/2018-एसी]

पी. के. Rसंह, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2019

S.O. 1533.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the National

Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 (61 of 1981), the Central Government, in consultation with the

Reserve Bank of India, hereby nominates Ms Revathy Iyer, Director, Central Board as part-time Director on the Board of

Directors of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) from the date of notification and until

further orders whichever is earlier vice Shri Mahesh Kumar Jain.

[F. No. 7/11/2018-AC]

P. K. SINGH, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 8 अगB त, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1534

1534

1534.—भारतीय Bटेट बक अिधिनयम, 1955 (1955 का 23) क धारा 20 क उप-धारा (1) के साथ

पठत धारा 19 के खCड (ख) (ारा )द* शि,य- का )योग करते 0ए, के23ीय सरकार, एत5ारा, 6ी दनेश कुमार खारा

(ज2 म ितिथ: 28.8.1961), )बंध िनदेशक, भारतीय Bटेट बक के कायकाल को दनांक 9.8.2019 से अगले दो वष क अविध

के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश- तक, जो भी पहले हो, बढ़ाती है।

[फा. सं. 2/1/2016-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार िम6, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2019

S.O. 1534.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of section 19 read with sub-section (1) of section

20 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the Central Government, hereby extends the term of office of

Shri Dinesh Kumar Khara (date of birth: 28.8.1961), Managing Director, State Bank of India for a further period of two

years with effect from 9.8.2019, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

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

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6445

नई द ली, 8 अगB त, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1535

1535

1535.— बककारी कंपनी (उप9म- का अजन एवं अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (3)

के खंड (ख) (ारा )द* शि,य- का )योग करते 0ए, के23ीय सरकार, एत5ारा, 6ी पंकज जैन (अपर सिचव, भारत सरकार,

िव* मं;ालय, िव*ीय सेवाएं िवभाग) को त?काल )भाव से और अगले आदेश- तक, 6ी रिव िम*ल के Bथान पर पंजाब

नैशनल बक के िनदेशक मCडल मD िनदेशक नािमत करती है।

[फा. सं. 6/3/2012-बीओ-I (खंड-II)]

संजय कुमार िम6, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2019

S.O. 1535.— In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Pankaj

Jain (Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services) as Director on

the Board of Directors of Punjab National Bank, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice Shri Ravi Mital.

[F. No. 6/3/2012-BO-I (Vol. II)]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 8 अगB त, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1536

1536

1536.— भारतीय Bटेट बक अिधिनयम, 1955 (1955 का 23) क धारा 19 के खंड (ड.) (ारा )द*

शि,य- का )योग करते 0ए, के23ीय सरकार, एत5ारा, 6ी रिव िम*ल (िवशेष सिचव, भारत सरकार, िव* मं;ालय, िव*ीय

सेवाएं िवभाग) को त?काल )भाव से और अगले आदेश- तक, 6ी राजीव कुमार के Bथान पर भारतीय Bटेट बक के के23ीय

िनदेशक मCडल मD िनदेशक नािमत करती है।

[फा. सं. 6/3/2012-बीओ-I (खंड-II)]

संजय कुमार िम6, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2019

S.O. 1536.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of section 19 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955

(23 of 1955), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Ravi Mital (Special Secretary, Government of India,

Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services) as Director on the Central Board of Directors of State Bank of

India, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice Shri Rajiv Kumar.

[F. No. 6/3/2012-BO-I (Vol. II)]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 13 अगB त, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1537

1537

1537.—राIीयकृत बक ()बंध और )कण उपबंध) Bकम, 1970 के पैरा 3 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठत

बककारी कंपनी (उप9म- का अजन और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 क धारा 9 क उप-धारा 3 के खंड (ग) (ारा )द*

शि,य- का )योग करते 0ए, के23ीय सरकार, एत5ारा, नीचे दी गई सारणी के कालम (3) मD िविनWदX Yि,य- को उ,

सारणी के कालम (2) मD िविनWदX Yि,य- के Bथान पर कालम (1) मD िविनWदX बक- के बोड मD त?काल )भाव से और अगले

आदेश- तक, िनदेशक के Eप मD नािमत करती हैः-

6446

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

बक आफ इंिडया

6ी एस. सी. मुमू

6ी सुZत दास (ज2म ितिथ: 21.7.1963)

युनाइटेड बक आफ इंिडया

सु6ी साधना वमा

6ी राजेश कुमार (ज2म ितिथ: 26.9.1965)

इिCडयन ओवरसीज बक

6ी िनमल च2द

सु6ी रीनी अिजथ (ज2म ितिथ: 29.4.1968)

बक आफ महाराI

6ी जी. 6ीकुमार

6ी एम. के. वमा (ज2म ितिथ: 3.1.1957)

[फा. सं. 6/3/2011-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार िम6, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2019

S.O. 1537.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3 of the

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

nominates the persons specified in column (3) of the table below as Director on the Board of the Banks specified in

column (1) thereof, in place of the persons specified in column (2) of the said table, with immediate effect and until

further orders:-

(1)

(2)

(3)

Bank of India

Shri S. C. Murmu

Shri Subrata Das (Date of birth: 21.7.1963)

United Bank of India

Ms Sadhana Varma

Shri Rajesh Kumar (Date of birth: 26.9.1965)

Indian Overseas Bank

Shri Nirmal Chand

Ms Reeny Ajith (Date of birth: 29.4.1968)

Bank of Maharashtra

Shri G. Sreekumar

Shri M. K. Verma (Date of birth: 3.1.1957)

[F. No. 6/3/2011-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

िवदेश मंालय

(सी.पी.वी. भाग)

नई द ली, 13 अगB त, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1538

1538

1538.—राजनियक और क-सुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) क

धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण मD वैधािनक आदेश ।

एतद् (ारा, कD 3 सरकार भारत के )धान क-सलावास, ज़ांजीबार मD 6ी नेहिमनलेन हाओकप, सहायक अनुभाग

अिधकारी को दनांक 13 अगBत 2019 से सहायक क-सुलर अिधकारी के तौर पर क-सुलर सेवाc के िनवहन के िलए

)ािधकृत करती है।

[सं. टी-4330/01/2016]

टी. अजुdeला जमीर, िनदेशक (सी.पी.वी.)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6447

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 13^th August, 2019

S.O. 1538.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

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

Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate General of India, Zanzibar to perform the consular

services with effect from 13 August, 2019.

[No. T-4330/01/2016]

T. AJUNGLA JAMIR, Director (CPV)

नई द ली, 20 अगB त, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1539

1539

1539.—राजनियक और क-सुलीय अिधकारी (शपथ एवं फस) के अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 41) क

धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण मD वैधािनक आदेश ।

एतद् (ारा, कD 3 सरकार भारत के )धान क-सलावास, दुबई मD 6ी सािहल अKवाल, सहायक अनुभाग अिधकारी को

दनांक 20 अगBत 2019 से सहायक क-सुलर अिधकारय- के तौर पर क-सुलर सेवाc के िनवहन के िलए )ािधकृत करती है।

[सं. टी-4330/03/2018]

टी. अजुdeला जमीर, िनदेशक (सी.पी.वी.)

New Delhi, the 20^th August, 2019

S.O. 1539.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

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

Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate General of India, Dubai to perform the Consular

services with effect from 20^th August 2019.

[No. T-4330/03/2018]

T. AJUNGLA JAMIR, Director (CPV)

वा

वा य

य

य और परवार क या

और परवार क या

और परवार क याण मंालय

ण मंालय

( वा

वा

वा य

य

य और परवार क या

और परवार क या

और परवार क याण िवभाग

ण िवभाग

ण िवभाग)

नई द ली, 14 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1540

1540

1540.—भारतीय आयु=वfान परषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा (2)

(ारा )द? त शिg तय- का )योग करते 0ए, के2 3 सरकार, भारतीय आयु=वfान परषद से परामश करके उ, अिधिनयम क

)थम अनुसूची मD, िनhिलिखत, और संशोधन करती है, अथात्:-

उ, )थम अनुसूची मD:-

क) ‘मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीषक के अधीन “द तिमलनाडू

डॉ. एमजीआर मेिडकल िवkिवlालय, चेmई” के सामने अंितम )िविX के पnात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिoिiकरण’ [िजसे

इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संबंिधत )िविX के संबंध मD िनhिलिखत अंत:Bथािपत कया जाएगा. अथात्:-

6448

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(2)

(3)

“मिजBटर िचEग: (pलािBटक सजरी)

एम.सीएच(pलािBटक सजरी)

(यह एक मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता होगी जब यह चDगलपqटू

मेिडकल कॉलेज, चDगलपqटू मD )िशिoत कए गए छा;- के संबंध

मD 2010 को या बाद मD द तिमलनाडू डॉ. एमजीआर मेिडकल

िवkिवlालय, चेmई (ारा )द* होगी।

नोट:

नोट: 1. दी गई ऐसी मा2यता अिधसूचना क तारीख से अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण

करवाना होगा।

2. मा2यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क )9या वही होगी जो मा2यता )दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

3. अपेिoत मा2यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने मD िवफल रहने पर, परणाम BवEप, िनरपवाद Eप से, संबंिधत

tातको*र पाu9म मD )वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[फा. सं. यू-12012/17/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस. नं. 3198237]

पी. के. बंदोपाvयाय, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 14^th February, 2019

S.O. 1540.— 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 :-

against “The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai”, 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 (Plastic Surgery)”

M.Ch (Plastic Surgery)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai in

respect of students being trained at Chengalpattu Medical College,

Chengalpattu on or after 2010).

Note:

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

which it shall have to be renewed.

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

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

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[F. No. U-12012/17/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3198237]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6449

नई द ली, 14 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1541

1541

1541.—भारतीय आयु=वfान परषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा (2)

)थम अनुसूची मD, िनhिलिखत, और संशोधन करती है, अथात्:-

उ, )थम अनुसूची मD

‘मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है] शीषक के अधीन ‘‘डॉ. एनटीआर

BवाBwय िवfान िवkिवlालय, िवजयवाड़ा, आंy )देश” के सामने अंितम )िविX के पnात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए

संिoिiकरण’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संबंिधत )िविX के संबंध मD िनhिलिखत अंत:Bथािपत कया

जाएगा. अथात्:-

(2)

(3)

“मिजBटर िचEग: (पेिडया स सज री)

एम.सीएच (पेिडया स सज री)

(यह एक मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता होगी जब यह गांधी मेिडकल

कॉलेज, िसकंदराबाद मD )िशिoत कए गए छा;- के संबंध मD 2006

को या बाद मD डॉ. एनटीआर BवाBwय िवfान िवkिवlालय,

िवजयवाड़ा, आंy )देश (ारा )द* होगी।

नोट:

नोट: 1. tातको*र पाu9म को दी गई ऐसी मा2यता अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण

करवाना होगा।

2. मा2यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क )9या वही होगी जो मा2यता )दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

3. अपेिoत मा2यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने मD िवफल रहने पर,परणाम BवEप, िनरपवाद Eप से संबंिधत

tातको*र पाu9म मD )वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[फा. सं. यू-12012/20/2019/एमई-I/एफटीएस.नं. 3198243]

पी. के. बंदोपाvयाय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 14^th February, 2019

S.O. 1541.—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 :-

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)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Magister Chirurgiae (Paediatrics Surgery)”

M.Ch (Paediatrics Surgery)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada in respect of

students being trained at Gandhi Medical College, Secundrabad on

or after 2006).

Note:

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

it shall have to be renewed.

6450

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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

concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[F. No. U-12012/20/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3198243]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 14 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1542

1542

1542.—भारतीय आयु=वfान परषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा (2)

(ारा )द? त शिg तय- का )योग करते 0ए के2 3 सरकार, भारतीय आयु=वfान परषद से परामश करके उ, अिधिनयम क

)थम अनुसूची मD, िनhिलिखत, और संशोधन करती है।

उ, )थम अनुसूची मD

‘मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता’ शीषक के अधीन [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है ] “िशoा ओ अनुसंधान

िवkिवlालय, भुवनेkर” के सामने अंितम )िविX के पnात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिoिiकरण’ [ िजसे इसके आगे

कालम(3) कहा गया है ] से संबंिधत )िविX के संबंध मD िनhिलिखत अंत:Bथािपत कया जाएगा. अथात्:-

(2)

(3)

‘डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (पेिडयाzgस)”

एमडी (पेिडयाzgस)

(यह एक मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता होगी जब यह

इंिBट{ूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस एंड एसयूएम

अBपताल, भुवनेkर मD 2018 को या बाद मD )िशिoत

कए गए छा;- के संबंध मD िशoा ओ अनुसंधान

िवkिवlालय,, भुवनेkर (ारा )द* होगी।)

नोट:

1. दी गई ऐसी मा2यता अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2. मा2यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क )9या वही होगी जो मा2यता )दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

3. अपेिoत मा2यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने मD िवफल रहने पर, परणामBवEप, िनरपवाद Eप से, संबंिधत

tातको*र कोस मD )वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[फा. सं. यू-12012/16/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस नं. 3198235]

पी. के. बंदोपाvयाय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 14^th February, 2019

S.O. 1542.—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 :-

against “Siksha O Anusandhan University, Bhubaneswar”, 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:-

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6451

(2)

(3)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Doctor of Medicine (Paediatrics)”

MD (Paediatrics)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted

Siksha

Anusandhan

University,

Bhubaneswar in respect of students being trained at

Institute of Medical Sciences & SUM Hospital,

Bhubaneswar. on or after 2018).

Note:

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

which it shall have to be renewed.

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

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

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[F. No. U-12012/16/2019-ME-I/FTS No.3198235]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 14 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1543

1543

1543.—भारतीय आयु=वfान परषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा (2)

)थम अनुसूची मD, िनhिलिखत, और संशोधन करती है:-

उ, )थम अनुसूची मD:-

‘मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता’ शीषक के अधीन [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है ] “महाराI BवाBwय

िवfान िवkिवlालय, नािसक” के सामने अंितम )िविX के पnात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिoिiकरण’ [ िजसे इसके आगे

कालम(3) कहा गया है ] से संबंिधत )िविX के संबंध मD िनhिलिखत अंत:Bथािपत कया जाएगा, अथात्:-

(2)

(3)

“माB टर ऑफ सजरी (जनरल सजरी)”

माB टर ऑफ सजरी (जनरल सजरी)

(यह एक मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता होगी जब यह

ईएसआई-पीजीआईएमएसआर,

ईएसआई

अBपताल,

अंधेरी(पूव), मुंबई मD 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16,

2016-17 अकादिमक स; मD )वेश पाए छा;- के संबंध मD

महाराI BवाBwय िवfान िवkिवlालय, नािसक (ारा

)द* होगी)।

[फा. सं. यू-12012/14/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस नं. 3198168]

पी. के. बंदोपाvयाय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 14^th February, 2019

S.O. 1543.—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:-

6452

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In the said Schedule :-

against “Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik”, 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 (General Surgery)”

MS (General Surgery)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik in respect of

students admitted for the academic year 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16,

2016-17 at ESI-PGIMSR, ESI-Hospital, Andheri (E), Mumbai.)

[F. No. U-12012/14/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3198168]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 14 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1544

1544

1544.—भारतीय आयु=वfान परषद अिधिनयम,1956(1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप- धारा (2)

)थम अनुसूची मD, िनhिलिखत, और संशोधन करती है, अथात् :-

उ, )थम अनुसूची मD:-

क) ‘मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता’ [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है ] शीषक के अधीन “केरल BवाBwय

िवfान िवkिवlालय, तृ}शूर” के सामने अंितम )िविX के पnात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिoिiकरण’ [ िजसे इसके आगे

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (फारDिसक मेिडिसन)”

एमडी (फारDिसक मेिडिसन)

(यह एक मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता होगी जब यह

गवनमDट मेिडकल कॉलेज, तृ}शूर मD 2012 को या बाद मD

)िशिoत कए गए छा;- के संबंध मD केरल BवाBwय िवfान

िवkिवlालय, तृ}शूर (ारा )द* होगी।)

[फा. सं. यू-12012/130/2018-एमई-I/एफटीएस नं. 3187727]

पी. के. बंदोपाvयाय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 14^th February, 2019

S.O. 1544.—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 :-

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:-

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6453

(2)

(3)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Doctor of Medicine (Forensic Medicine)”

MD (Forensic Medicine)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur in respect of

students being trained at Government Medical College, Thrissur on

or after 2012).

[F. No. U.12012/130/2018-ME-I/FTS No. 3187727]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 15 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1545

1545

1545.—भारतीय आयु=वfान परषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2)

)थम अनुसूची मD, िनhिलिखत, और संशोधन करती है।

उ, )थम अनुसूची मD ‘मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता’ शीषक के अधीन [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है ]

“गुजरात िवkिवlालय, अहमदाबाद” के सामने अंितम )िविX के पnात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिoिiकरण’ [ िजसे इसके

आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है ] से संवंिधत )िविX के संबंध मD िनhिलिखत अंत:Bथािपत कया जाएगा, अथात्:-

(2)

(3)

‘डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (फामाकॉलोजी)”

एमडी (फामाकॉलोजी)

(यह एक मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता होगी जब

यह अहमदाबाद ~युिनिसिपल कॉरपोरेशन मेिडकल

एयुकेशन zBट मेिडकल कॉलेज, अहमदाबाद मD

2018 को या बाद मD )िशिoत कए गए छा;- के

संबंध मD गुजरात िवkिवlालय, अहमदाबाद (ारा

)द* होगी।)

‘डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (फिजयालोजी)”

एमडी (फिजयालोजी)

(यह एक मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता होगी जब

यह अहमदाबाद ~युिनिसिपल कॉरपोरेशन मेिडकल

एयुकेशन zBट मेिडकल कॉलेज, अहमदाबाद मD

2018 को या बाद मD )िशिoत कए गए छा;- के

संबंध मD गुजरात िवkिवlालय, अहमदाबाद (ारा

)द* होगी।)

नोट:

1. दी गई ऐसी मा2यता अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2. मा2यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क )9या वही होगी जो मा2यता )दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

3. अपेिoत मा2यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने मD िवफल रहने पर, परणामBवEप, िनरपवाद Eप से, संबंिधत

tातको*र कोस मD )वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[फा. सं. यू-12012/19/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस नं. 3198242]

पी. के. बंदोपाvयाय, अवर सिचव

6454

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15^th February, 2019

S.O. 1545.—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 :-

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

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

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

(2)

(3)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)”

MD (Pharmacology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

Gujarat University, Ahmadabad in respect of students being

trained at Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Medical Education

Trust Medical College, Ahmedabad on or after 2018).

“Doctor of Medicine (Physiology)”

MD (Physiology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

Gujarat University, Ahmadabad in respect of students being

trained at Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Medical Education

Trust Medical College, Ahmedabad on or after 2018).

Note:

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

which it shall have to be renewed.

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

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

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[F. No. U-12012/19/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3198242]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 15 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1546

1546

1546.— भारतीय आयु=वfान परषद अिधिनयम,1956(1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा (2)

)थम अनुसूची मD, िनhिलिखत, और संशोधन करती है, अथात्:-

उ, )थम अनुसूची मD:-

क) ‘मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता’ [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम (2) कहा गया है ] शीषक के अधीन “द तिमलनाडू

इसके आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है ] से संबंिधत )िविX के संबंध मD िनhिलिखत अंत:Bथािपत कया जाएगा, अथात:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (पेिडयाzgस)“

एमडी(पेिडयाzgस)

(यह एक मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता होगी जब यह

मुकाि~बका

इंBटी{ूट

ऑफ

मेिडकल

सांइिसस,

क2याकुमारी मD 2018 को या बाद मD )िशिoत कए गए

छा;- के संबंध मD द तिमलनाडू डॉ. एमजीआर मेिडकल

िवkिवlालय, चेmई (ारा )द* होगी)।

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6455

नोट:

करवाना होगा।

2. मा2यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क )9या वही होगी जो मा2यता )दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

tातक पाu9म मD )वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[फा. सं. यू-12012/18/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस. नं. 3198238]

पी. के. बंदोपायाय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 15^th February, 2019

S.O. 1546.—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 :-

against “The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai”, 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 (Paediatrics)”

MD (Paediatrics)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Chennai in

respect of students being trained at Sree Mookambika Institute of

Medical Sciences, Kanyakumari on or after 2018).

Note:

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

which it shall have to be renewed.

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

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

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[F. No. U-12012/18/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3198238]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 27 फरवरी, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1547

1547

1547.— भारतीय आयु=वfान परषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप- धारा

(2) (ारा )द? त शिg तय- का )योग करते 0ए के2 3 सरकार, भारतीय आयु=वfान परषद से परामश करके उ, अिधिनयम

क )थम अनुसूची मD, िनhिलिखत, और संशोधन करती है:-

उ, )थम अनुसूची मD:-

।) ‘मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता’ शीषक के अधीन [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है ] “केरल BवाBwय िवfान

िवkिवlालय, तृ}शूर” के सामने अंितम )िविX के पnात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिoिiकरण’ [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम(3)

कहा गया है ] से संबंिधत )िविX के संबंध मD िनhिलिखत अंत:Bथािपत कया जाएगा. अथात्:-

6456

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (रेिडयोडॉय€ोिसस)”

एमडी (रेिडयोडॉय€ोिसस)

(यह एक मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता होगी जब यह

गवनमDट मेिडकल कॉलेज, कोायम, केरल मD केवल

अकादिमक स; 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 व

2014-15 मD )वेश पाने वाले छा;- के संबंध मD केरल

BवाBwय िवfान िवkिवlालय, तृ}शूर (ारा )द* होगी।)

[फा. सं. यू-12012/05/2019-एमई-I/3194671]

पी. के. बंदोपाvयाय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 27^th February, 2019

S. O. 1547.—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 :-

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 (Radiodiagnosis)

MD (Radio-diagnosis)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur in respect of

students admitted at Government Medical College, Kottayam,

Kerala in the academic year 2011-12, 2012-13,2013-14 & 2014-15

only).

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

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 6 माच, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1548

1548

1548.—भारतीय आयु=वfान परषद अिधिनयम,1956(1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2)

)थम अनुसूची मD, िनhिलिखत, और संशोधन करती है, अथात्:

उ, )थम अनुसूची मD

।) ‘मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता’ शीषक के अधीन [ िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है ] “गीतांजिल

िवkिवlालय, उदयपुर” के सामने अंितम )िविX के पnात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिoिiकरण’ [ िजसे इसके आगे

कालम(3) कहा गया है ] से संवंिधत )िविX के संबंध मD िनhिलिखत अंत:Bथािपत कया जाएगा, अथात्:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (एिनिBथिसयॉलोजी)”

एमडी(एिनिBथिसयॉलोजी)

(यह एक मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता होगी जब यह गीतांजिल

मेिडकल कॉलेज एंड अBपताल, उदयपुर मD )िशिoत कए जा रहे

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6457

छा;- के संबंध मD 2018 को या बाद मD गीतांजिल िवkिवlालय,

उदयपुर (ारा )द* होगी।)

नोट:

करवाना होगा।

2. मा2यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क )9या वही होगी जो मा2यता )दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

3. अपेिoत मा2यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने मD िवफल रहने पर, परणामBवEप, िनरपवाद Eप से संबंिधत

tातको*र कोस मD )वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[फा. सं. यू-12012/50/2019-एमई-1/एफटीएस नं. 3200606]

पी. के. बंदोपायाय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 6^th March, 2019

S.O. 1548.—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 “Geetanjali University, Udaipur”, 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 (Anaesthesiology)”

MD (Anaesthesiology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

Geetanjali University, Udaipur in respect of students being trained

at Geetanjali Medical College & Hospital, Udaipur or after 2018).

Note:

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

which it shall have to be renewed.

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

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

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[F. No. U-12012/50/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3200606]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

6458

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 7 माच, 2019

का.

का. आ.

आ.

आ. 1549

1549

1549.—भारतीय आयु=वfान परषद अिधिनयम,1956(1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा (2)

)थम अनुसूची मD, िनhिलिखत, और संशोधन करती है, अथात:-

उ, )थम अनुसूची मD .—

(I) ‘मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता ’[िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] शीषक के अधीन ‘गु‚ नानक देव

िवkिवlालयय, अमृतसर” के समo अंितम )िविX के पnात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिoिiकरण’ [िजसे

इसके

आगे

कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संबंिधत )िविX के संबंध मD िनhिलिखत अंत:Bथािपत कया जाएगा अथात:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन(Bपोट मेिडिसन)”

एमडी (Bपोट मेिडिसन)

(यह एक मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता होगी जब यह गु‚

नानक देव िवkिवlालयय मD अकादिमक स; 2011-12,

2012-13, और 2013-14 मD )वेश पाए छा;- के संबंध मD

गु‚ नानक देव िवkिवlालयय, अमृतसर (ारा )द* होगी)।

[फा. सं. जैड-12012/35/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस. नं. 3200130]

पी. के. बंदोपाvयाय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2019

S.O. 1549.—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 “Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar”, 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 (Sport Medicine)”

MD (Sport Medicine)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

Guru Nanak Dev University, in respect of students admitted for the

academic year 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 only at Guru Nanak

Dev University, Amritsar)

[F. No. U-12012/35/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3200130]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 3 अ)ैल, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1550

1550

1550.—भारतीय आयु=वfान परषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2)

)थम अनुसूची मD, िनhिलिखत, और संशोधन करती है, अथात:-

उ, )थम अनुसूची मD .—

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6459

(I)

‘मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता’ [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] शीषक के अधीन “राजीव गांधी वाय

राजीव गांधी वाय

िवान िव िव!ालय, ब$गलु&

िवान िव िव!ालय, ब$गलु&” के सामने अंितम )िविX के पnात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिoिiकरण’ [िजसे इसके आगे

कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संबंिधत )िविX के संबंध मD िनhिलिखत अंत:Bथािपत कया जाएगा. अथात:-

(2)

(3)

” डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (पेिडयाzgस)”

एमडी (पेिडयाzgस)

(यह एक मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता होगी जब यह

बेलगाम इंBटी{ूट ऑफ मेिडकल सांइिसस, बेलगाम मD 2015

को या बाद मD )िशिoत कए गए छा;- के संबंध राजीव

गांधी BवाBwय िवfान िवkिवlालय, बDगलुE (ारा )द*

होगी)।

नोट:

नोट: 1.ऐसी दी गई ऐसी मा2यता अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2. मा2यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क )9या वही होगी जो मा2यता )दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

3. अपेिoत मा2यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने मD िवफल रहने पर, परणाम BवEप, िनरपवाद Eप से संबंिधत

tा*को*र कोस मD )वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[फा. सं. यू-12012/100/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस-3204351]

पी. के. बंदोपायाय, संयु, सिचव

New Delhi, 3rd April, 2019

S.O. 1550.—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)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Doctor of Medicine (Paediatrics)” MD (Paediatrics)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore in respect

of students being trained at Belgaum Institute of Medical Sciences,

Belgaum on or after 2015).

Note:

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

which it shall have to be renewed.

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

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

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[F. No. U-12012/100/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3204351]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

6460

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 1 अ)ैल, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1551

1551

1551.—भारतीय आयु=वfान परषद अिधिनयम,1956(1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप-धारा (2)

)थम अनुसूची मD, िनhिलिखत, और संशोधन करती है:-

उ, )थम अनुसूची मD:-

(।) ‘मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता’शीषक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] “केरल BवाBwय िवfान

कहा गया है] से संबंिधत )िविX के संबंध मD िनhिलिखत अंत:Bथािपत कया जाएगा. अथात्:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (फिज़कल मेिडिसन एंड

रहैि„लटेशन)”

एमडी (फिज़कल मेिडिसन एंड रहैि„लटेशन)

(यह एक मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता होगी जब यह

गवनमDट मेिडकल कॉलेज, कोायम मD 2015 को या बाद मD

)िशिoत कए गए छा;- के संबंध मD केरल BवाBwय िवfान

िवkिवlालय, तृ}शूर (ारा )द* होगी।)

नोट:

1. दी गई ऐसी मा2यता अिधसूचना जारी होने क तारीख से अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका

नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2. मा2यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क )9या वही होगी जो मा2यता )दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

3. अपेिoत मा2यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने मD िवफल रहने पर, परणामBवEप, िनरपवाद Eप से, संबंिधत

tातको*र कोस मD )वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

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

पी. के. बंदोपाvयाय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2019

S.O. 1551.—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

students being trained at Government Medical College, Kottayam

on or after 2015).

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6461

Note:

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

which it shall have to be renewed.

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

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

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

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

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 3 अ)ैल, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1552

1552

1552.—भारतीय आयु=वfान परषद अिधिनयम,1956(1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप- धारा (2)

)थम अनुसूची मD, िनhिलिखत, और संशोधन करती है:-

उ, )थम अनुसूची मD:-

(।) ‘मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता’शीषक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] “अमृता िवk

िवlापीठम िवkिवlालय” के सामने अंितम )िविX के पnात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिoिiकरण’ [िजसे इसके आगे

कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संबंिधत )िविX के संबंध मD िनhिलिखत अंत:Bथािपत कया जाएगा. अथात्:-

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर

ऑफ

मेिडिसन

(डमाटॉलोजी,

वेनरोलॉजी

एंड लेपरसी)”

एमडी (डीवीएल)

(यह एक मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता होगी जब यह

अमृता Bकूल ऑफ मेिडिसन, ए~स, कोची, मD 2014 को या

बाद मD )िशिoत कए गए छा;- के संबंध मD अमृता िवk

िवlापीठम िवkिवlालय (ारा )द* होगी।)

नोट:

नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2. मा2यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क )9या वही होगी जो मा2यता )दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

3. अपेिoत मा2यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने मD िवफल रहने पर, परणामBवEप, िनरपवाद Eप से, संबंिधत

tातको*र कोस मD )वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[फा. सं. यू-12012/98/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस-3204309]

पी. के. बंदोपाvयाय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 3^rd April, 2019

S.O. 1552.—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 :-

6462

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(I)

against “Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham University”, under the heading ‘Recognized Medical Qualification’

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

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

(2)

(3)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Doctor of Medicine (Dermatology, Venereology & MD (DVL)

Leprosy”)”

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham University in

respect of students being trained at Amrita School of

Medicine, AIMS, Kochi on or after 2014).

Note:

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

which it shall have to be renewed.

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

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

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[F. No. U-12012/98/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3204309]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 2 मई, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1553

1553

1553.—भारतीय आयु=वfान परषद अिधिनयम,1956 (1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप-धारा (2)

(ारा )द? त शिg तय- का )योग करते 0ए के2 3 सरकार, भारतीय आयु=वfान परषद से परामश करके उ, अिधिनयम

क )थम अनुसूची मD, िनhिलिखत, और संशोधन करती है:-

उ, )थम अनुसूची मD:-

(।) ‘मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता’शीषक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] “केरल BवाBwय

िवfान िवkिवlालय, तृ}शूर” के सामने अंितम )िविX के पnात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिoिiकरण’ [िजसे इसके

आगे कालम(3) कहा गया है] से संबंिधत )िविX के संबंध मD िनhिलिखत अंत:Bथािपत कया जाएगा. अथात्:-

(2)

(3)

“माBटर ऑफ सजरी (ओटो-रहीनो-ले…रंगोलोजी)”

एमएस (ईएनटी)

(यह एक मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता होगी जब यह

गवनमDट मेिडकल कॉलेज, तृ}शूर मD 2014 को या बाद मD

)िशिoत कए गए छा;- के संबंध मD केरल BवाBwय िवfान

िवkिवlालय, तृ}शूर (ारा )द* होगी।)

नोट:

नोट: 1. दी गई ऐसी मा2यता अिधसूचना जारी होने क तारीख से अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका

नवीकरण करवाना होगा।

2. मा2यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क )9या वही होगी जो मा2यता )दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

3. अपेिoत मा2यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने मD िवफल रहने पर, परणामBवEप, िनरपवाद Eप से, संबंिधत

tातको*र कोस मD )वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[फा. सं. यू-12012/122/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस-3206183]

पी. के. बंदोपाvयाय, अवर सिचव

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6463

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2019

S.O. 1553.—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 :-

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)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Master of Surgery (Oto-Rhino-Laryngology)”

MS (ENT)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when granted by

Kerala University of Health Sciences, Thrissur in respect of

students being trained at Government Medical College, Thrissur on

or after 2014).

Note:

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

which it shall have to be renewed.

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

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

to the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[F. No. U-12012/122/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3206183]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 2 मई, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1554

1554

1554.—भारतीय आयु=वfान परषद अिधिनयम,1956(1956 का 102) क धारा 11 क उप धारा(2)

)थम अनुसूची मD, िनhिलिखत, और संशोधन करती है अथात:-

उ, )थम अनुसूची मD

‘मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता’ शीषक के अधीन [िजसे इसके आगे कालम(2) कहा गया है] “चेीनाद अकादमी

ऑफ रसच एंड एयुकेशन(डी~ड िवkिवlालय)” के सामने अंितम )िविX के पnात और ‘पंजीकरण के िलए संिoिiकरण’

[िजसे इसके आगे कालम (3) कहा गया है] से संवंिधत )िविX के संबंध मD िनhिलिखत अंत:Bथािपत कया जाएगा. अथात्:—

(2)

(3)

“डॉgटर ऑफ मेिडिसन (मेिडकल गेBzोएंzोलोजी)”

एमडी (मेिडकल गेBzोएंzोलोजी)

(यह एक मा2यता )ाi आयु=वfान अहता होगी जब यह

चेीनाद अBपताल एंड रसच इंBटी{ूट, कांचीपुरम मD 2017

को या बाद मD )िशिoत कए गए छा;- के संबंध मD चेीनाद

अकादमी ऑफ रसच एंड एयुकेशन (डी~ड िवkिवlालय)

(ारा )द* होगी।

6464

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नोट:

1. दी गई ऐसी मा2यता अिधसूचना क तारीख से अिधकतम 5 वष के िलए होगी और उसके बाद इसका नवीकरण

करवाना होगा।

मा2यता के ‘नवीकरण’ क )9या वही होगी जो मा2यता )दान करने के िलए लागू होती है।

अपेिoत मा2यता का समय से नवीकरण करवाने मD िवफल रहने पर, परणामBवEप, िनरपवाद Eप से, संबंिधत

tातको*र कोस मD )वेश बंद हो जाएगा।

[फा. सं. यू-12012/117/2019-एमई-I/एफटीएस नं. 3205817]

पी. के. बंदोपाvयाय, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 2^nd May, 2019

S.O. 1554.—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 :-

against “Chettinad Academy of Research and Education (Deemed University)”, under the heading ‘Recognized

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

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

(2)

(3)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Doctor of Medicine (Medical Gastroenterology)”

DM (Medical Gastroenterology)

(This shall be a recognized medical qualification when

granted by Chettinad Academy of Research and

Education (Deemed University) in respect of students

being trained at Chettinad Hospital & Research Institute,

Kancheepuram on or after 2017).

Note:

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

which it shall have to be renewed.

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

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

the concerned Postgraduate Courses.

[F. No. U-12012/117/2019-ME-I/FTS No. 3205817]

P. K. BANDYOPADHYAY, Under Secy.

व

व मंालय

मंालय

नई द ली, 28 अगB त, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1555

1555

1555.—कD 3ीय रेशम बोड अिधिनयम, 1948 (1948 का 61) क धारा-8ग क उप-धारा (2) के खC ड (क)

तथा धारा-8ग क उप-धारा (1) (ारा )द* शि,य- का )योग करते 0ए कD 3 सरकार कD 3ीय रेशमकट बीज सिमित के

परामश के प} चात, यह राय है क रेशमकट बीज क गुणव? ता को िविनयिमत करना आव} यक और समीचीन है और

इसिलए उg त सिमित क िसफारश- पर रेशमकट बीज क अिधसूिचत कB म अथवा )जाितय- के 2 यूनतम गुणव? ता मानक-

तथा शत† को िन~ नानुसार अिधसूिचत करती है:-

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6465

एनएन (VII): )ािधकृत मलबरी बाइवो टाइन रेशमकट हाइिZड

तािलका

तािलका 1:

1: मलबरी

मलबरी

मलबरी रेशमक'ट

रेशमक'ट

रेशमक'ट हाइि+ड

हाइि+ड

हाइि+ड बी.कोन.

बी.कोन.

बी.कोन.1x

1x बी.कोन.

बी.कोन.

बी.कोन.4

4 केकेकेके मानदंड

मानदंड

.सं.

हाइि ड

रा य/े/अंचल

रयरंग के आंकड़े

जनन

मता

(सं या)

अंडजो पि"

(%)

उ तरजीिवत

कोकून उपज/

100

डीएफएलएस

(%क'ा)

) यूपीकरण

दर (%)

कोकून क+

सं या/%क'ा

बी.कोन.1x

बी.कोन.4

पूव- एवं उ तर-पि/मी

े

(पि/म

बंगाल,

ओिडशा,

मिणपुर,

िमजोरम,

मेघालय,

नागाल2ड)

≥500

≥90

≥60

≥90

≥550

कोकून

कोकून क' -कृित

क' -कृित

कोकून का

भार (Kाम)

कवच का भार

(सी.Kाम)

कवच

(%)

कोकून का आकार

कोकून का रंग

कोकून बीज

≥1.600

≥32.00

≥19

ह के दबाव वाले ड~ बैल

ऑफ ‡ हाइट

मv यम

री0लंक

री0लंक के आंकड़े

के आंकड़े

फलामDट क लंबाई

(मी)

फलामDट का भार

(सी.Kाम)

फलामDट का

आकार (डी)

रीRलंग क

oमता (%)

कˆ ची रेशम

(%)

B वˆ छता (p वाइ्ंट)

≥850

25.20

≥2.42

≥88

≥14.50

≥90

जनक

जनक: : : :

तािलका

तािलका 2 :

2 :

2 : बाईवो टा

बाईवो टा

बाईवो टाइन

इन

इन मलबरी रेशमक'ट जनक बीज

मलबरी रेशमक'ट जनक बीज

9.सं.

नB ल

)जनन

oमता

(सं‰ या)

अंडजो? पि*

(%)

उ? तरजीिवत

कोकून उपज/

100

डीएफएलएस

(कKा)

p यूपीकरण दर

(%)

कोकून क सं‰ या/कKा

बी.कोन.1

≥450

≥90

≥80

≥60

≥80

≥575

कोकून

कोकून क'

क'

क' -कृित

-कृित

कोकून का

भार (Kाम)

कवच का भार

(सी.Kाम)

कवच

(%)

कोकून का आकार

कोकून का रंग

कोकून बीज

≥1.500

≥28.00

≥19

ह के दबाव वाले ड~ बैल

ऑफ ‡ हाइट

मv यम

6466

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

री0लंक

री0लंक के आंकड़े

के आंकड़े

फलामDट क लंबाई

(मी)

फलामDट का भार

(सी.Kाम)

फलामDट का

आकार (डी)

रीRलंग क

oमता (%)

कˆ ची रेशम (%)

B वˆ छता (p वाइ्ंट)

≥750

22.71

≥2.70

≥89

≥14.84

≥90

तािलका

तािलका 3 :

3 :

3 : बाईवो टा

बाईवो टा

बाईवो टाइन

इन

इन मलबरी रेशमक'ट जनक बीज

मलबरी रेशमक'ट जनक बीज

9.सं.

नB ल

)जनन oमता

(सं‰ या)

अंडजो? पि*

(%)

उ? तरजीिवत

कोकून उपज/

100

डीएफएलएस

(कKा)

p यूपीकरण दर

(%)

कोकून क

सं‰ या/कKा

बी.कोन.4

≥450

≥90

≥80

≥60

≥85

≥580

कोकून

कोकून क'

क'

क' -कृित

-कृित

कोकून का

भार (Kाम)

कवच का भार

(सी.Kाम)

कवच (%)

कोकून का आकार

कोकून का रंग

कोकून बीज

≥1.550

≥30.00

≥19.00

ह के दबाव वाले ड~ बैल

ऑफ ‡ हाइट

मv यम

री0लंक

री0लंक के आंकड़े

के आंकड़े

फलामDट क

लंबाई (मी)

फलामDट का भार

(सी.Kाम)

फलामDट का

आकार (डी)

रीRलंग क

oमता (%)

कˆ ची रेशम (%)

B वˆ छता (p वाइ्ंट)

≥740

22.25

≥2.7

≥88

≥14.32

≥90

एनएन (VIII): )ािधकृत मलबरी बाईवो टाइन रेशमकट डबल हाइिZड

तािलका

तािलका 1: मलबरी बाईवो टा

मलबरी बाईवो टा

मलबरी बाईवो टाइन रेशमक'ट डबल

इन रेशमक'ट डबल

इन रेशमक'ट डबल हाइि+ड

हाइि+ड

हाइि+ड केकेकेके मानदंड

मानदंड

9.सं.

हाइिZड

रा य/oे;/अंचल

रय3रंग

रय3रंग के आंकड़े

के आंकड़े

मौसम

)जनन

oमता

(सं‰ या)

अंडजो? पि*

(%)

उ? तरजीिवत

कोकून उपज/

100

डीएफएलएस

(कKा)

p यूपीकरण

दर (%)

कोकून क

सं‰ या/कKा

जी11 x

जी19

(जीईएन1

x 2सी) x

(4एस x

4डी) ) ) )

दिoण

oे;

अथात कनाटक,

आंy

)देश,

तेलंगाना,

तिमलनाडु,

महारा‹ z

सभी

मौसम

≥550

≥95.0

≥93.0

≥ 70.0

≥ 93.0

≥550

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6467

कोकून

कोकून क'

क'

क' -कृित

-कृित

कोकून का

भार (Kाम)

कवच का

भार

(सी.Kाम)

कवच (%)

कोकून का

आकार

कोकून का रंग

कोकून बीज

≥1.820

≥ 0.410

≥ 22.5

हाइिZड का

आकार

ऑफ ‡ हाइट

मv यम

री0लंक

री0लंक के आंकड़े

के आंकड़े

फलामDट क

लंबाई (मी)

फलामDट का

भार (सी.Kाम)

फलामDट का

आकार (डी)

रीRलंग क

oमता (%)

कˆ ची रेशम (%)

B वˆ छता (p वाइ्ंट)

≥ 975

≥ 31.6

≥ 2.96

≥82.0

≥17.8

≥94

जनक

जनक: : : :

तािलका

तािलका 2: बाइवो टा

बाइवो टा

बाइवो टाइन

इन

इन मलबरी रेशमक'ट जनक बीज

मलबरी रेशमक'ट जनक बीज

रय3रंग

रय3रंग आंकडे

आंकडे

आंकडे:

9.सं.

नB ल

आंकड़ो का Œोत

)जनन

oमता

(सं‰ या)

अंडजो? पि*

(%)

उ? तरजीिवत

कोकून उपज/

100

डीएफएलएस

(कKा)

p यूपीकरण

दर (%)

कोकून क

सं‰ या/कKा

जीईएन1

(ओवल)

सीएसआरएंडटीआई,

मैसूर

≥ 535

≥90

≥92

≥62.0

≥ 92

≥580

2सी (ओवल)

सीएसआरएंडटीआई,

मैसूर

≥ 530

≥90

≥92

≥62.0

≥92

≥580

4एस (ड~ बैल) सीएसआरएंडटीआई,

मैसूर

≥ 500

≥90

≥ 60.0

≥90

≥600

4डी (ड~ बैल)

सीएसआरएंडटीआई,

मैसूर

≥ 480

≥90

≥60.0

≥90

≥600

री0लंग

री0लंग आंकडे

आंकडे

आंकडे:

.सं.

न3 ल

आंकड़े का 4ोत

कोकून

का

भार

('ाम)

कवच

भार

(सीजी)

कवच

ितशत

(%)

%फलाम7ट

क+

लंबाई

(मी)

%फलाम7ट

का भार

(सीजी)

%फलाम7ट

क+

मता

(%)

मता

(%)

क9 ची

रेशम

(%)

3 व9 छता

() वाइंट)

जीईएन1

(ओवल)

सीएसआरएंडटीआई,

मैसूर

1.72

40.2

23.4

≥ 900

≥ 25.0

≥ 2.50

≥ 85

≥

81.4

≥ 94

2सी

(ओवल)

सीएसआरएंडटीआई,

मैसूर

1.72

37.1

21.5

≥ 875

≥ 25.8

≥ 2.65

≥ 85

≥

17.6

≥ 94

6468

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4एस

(ड; बैल)

सीएसआरएंडटीआई,

मैसूर

1.63

35.3

21.6

≥ 875

≥ 25.3

≥ 2.60

≥ 82

≥

16.5

≥ 94

4डी

(ड; बैल)

सीएसआरएंडटीआई,

मैसूर

1.59

33.8

21.3

≥ 850

≥ 25.0

≥ 2.75

≥82

≥

16.8

≥ 94

एएन

एएन (IX)

(IX)

(IX): )ािधकृत मलबरी म टीवो टाइन एवं बाइवो टाइन रेशमकट हाइिZड

तािलका

तािलका 1:

1: मलबरी

मलबरी

मलबरी रेशमक'ट एम

रेशमक'ट एम

रेशमक'ट एम6डीपीसी

डीपीसी

डीपीसी X (

X (

X (एसके

एसके

एसके6 x

6 x

6 x एसके

एसके

एसके7)

7) केकेकेके मानदंड

मानदंड

.सं.

हाइि ड

रा य/े/अंचल

रयरंग के आंकड़े

जनन

मता

(सं या)

अंडजो पि"

(%)

उ तरजीिवत

कोकून उपज/

100

डीएफएलएस

(%क'ा)

) यूपीकरण

दर (%)

कोकून क+

सं या/%क'ा

एम6

डीपीसी

(एसके

xएसके

पूव- े एवं उ तर पूव- े के

रा य अथा>त, पि/म बंगाल,

ओिडशा,

झारखंड,

िबहार,

असम,

अ?णाचल

देश,

मिणपुर, मेघालय, िमजोरम,

नागाल2ड, िस%Bम, िपुरा

≥500

≥90

≥55

≥90

≥600

कोकून क' -कृित

कोकून का

भार(Kाम)

कवच का भार

(सीजी)

कवच (%)

कोकून का

आकार

कोकून का रंग

कोकून बीज

≥1.650

≥30.00

≥17.50

लंबा अंडाकार

सुनहरा पीला

मv यम

री0लंग

री0लंग के आंकड़े

के आंकड़े

फलामDट

क लंबाई

(मी)

फलामDट

का भार

(सीजी)

फलामDट का

आकार (डी)

रीRलंग oमता (%)

कˆ ची रेशम (%)

B वˆ छता (p वाइंट)

≥700

22.8

≥2.50

≥83

≥12.50

≥86

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6469

जनक

जनक: : : :

तािलका

तािलका 1:

1: बाइवो टा

बाइवो टा

बाइवो टाइन

इन

इन मलबरी रेशमक'ट जनक बीज

मलबरी रेशमक'ट जनक बीज

रय3रंग के आंकड़े

रय3रंग के आंकड़े:

9.सं.

नB ल

)जनन

oमता

(सं‰ या)

अंडजो? पि*

(%)

उ? तरजीिवत

कोकून उपज/

100

डीएफएलएस

(कKा)

p यूपीकरण दर

(%)

कोकून क सं‰ या/कKा

एसके6 x

SK7

≥450

≥90

≥80

≥55

≥80

≥580

कोकून क' -कृित

कोकून का भार

(Kाम)

कवच का

भार

(सीजी)

कवच (%)

कोकून का आकार

कोकून का रंग

कोकून बीज

≥1.450

≥28.00

≥18

ड~ बैल

‡ हाइट

मv यम

री0लंग के आंकड़े

फलामDट क लंबाई

(मी)

फलामDट का

भार (सीजी)

फलामDट का

आकार (डी)

रीRलंग oमता

(%)

कˆ ची रेशम (%)

B वˆ छता (p वाइंट)

≥750

22.1

≥2.70

≥85

≥13.24

≥86

तािलका

तािलका 2 :

2 :

2 : म टी

म टी

म टीवो टा

वो टा

वो टाइन

इन

इन मलबरी रेशमक'ट जनक बीज

मलबरी रेशमक'ट जनक बीज

रय3रंग के आंकड़े

रय3रंग के आंकड़े:

.सं.

न3 ल

जनन

मता

(सं या)

अंडजो पि"

(%)

उ तरजीिवत

कोकून उपज/

100 डीएफएलएस

(%क'ा)

) यूपीकरण दर (%)

कोकून क+ सं या/%क'ा

1 ^{एम6डीपीसी}

≥400

≥90

≥35

≥85

≥850

कोकून क' -कृित

कोकून का भार(Kाम)

कवच का

भार

(सीजी)

कवच (%)

कोकून का

आकार

कोकून का रंग

कोकून बीज

≥1.250

≥19.00

≥15.00

RBपंडल

पीला

मv यम

6470

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

री0लंग

री0लंग के आंकड़े

के आंकड़े

फलामDट क लंबाई

(मी)

फलामDट का

भार (सीजी)

फलामDट का

आकार (डी)

रीRलंग

oमता (%)

कˆ ची रेशम (%)

B वˆ छता (p वाइंट)

≥500

13.08

≥2.2

≥75

≥7.5

≥80

[फा. सं. 25017/12/2015-रेशम)]

अिनल कुमार, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF TEXTILES

New Delhi, the 28th August, 2019

S.O. 1555.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section-8C and clause (a) of sub-section

(2) of section-8C of the Central Silk Board Act, 1948 (61 of 1948), the Central Government after consultation with the

Central Silkworm Seed Committee is of the opinion that it is necessary and expedient to regulate the quality of silkworm

seed and therefore, on the recommendations of the said Committee notifies the minimum quality standards and

conditions for notified kind or varieties of silkworm seed as follows:

AN (VII): Authorised Mulberry Bivoltine Silkworm hybrid

Table 1: Parameters of the mulberry silkworm hybrid B.Con.1x B.Con.4

Sl.

No.

Hybrid

States/ Regions/ zones

Rearing data

Fecundity

(No)

Hatchability

(%)

Survival

Cocoon

yield/

100 dfls

(kg)

Pupation

rate (%)

No of

cocoons/kg

B.Con.1x

B.Con.4

Eastern

and

North-

Eastern region (West

Bengal,

Odisha,

Manipur,

Mizoram,

Meghalaya, Nagaland)

≥500

≥90

≥60

≥90

≥550

Cocoon characters

Cocoon

Weight (g)

Shell Weight

(cg)

Shell

(%)

Cocoon shape

Cocoon colour

Cocoon grain

≥1.600

≥32.00

≥19

Dumbbell with mild

constriction

Off white

Medium

Reeling data

Filament Length (m)

Filament Weight

(cg)

Filament size (d)

Reelability

(%)

Raw Silk

(%)

Neatness (points)

≥850

25.20

≥2.42

≥88

≥14.50

≥90

Parents:

Table 2 : Bivoltine mulberry silkworm parent seed

Sl.No

Race

Fecundity

(No)

Hatchability

(%)

Survival

Cocoon

yield/

100 dfls

(kg)

Pupation rate

(%)

No of cocoons/kg

B.Con.1

≥450

≥90

≥80

≥60

≥80

≥575

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6471

Cocoon characters

Cocoon

Weight (g)

Shell Weight

(cg)

Shell (%)

Cocoon shape

Cocoon colour

Cocoon grain

≥1.500

≥28.00

≥19

Mild constricted

dumbbell shaped

Off white

Medium

Reeling data

Filament Length

(m)

Filament Weight

(cg)

Filament

size (d)

Reelability

(%)

Raw Silk (%)

Neatness (points)

≥750

22.71

≥2.70

≥89

≥14.84

≥90

Table 3 : Bivoltine mulberry silkworm parent seed

Sl.No

Race

Fecundity

(No)

Hatchability

(%)

Survival

Cocoon yield/

100 dfls (kg)

Pupation

rate (%)

No of cocoons/kg

B.Con.4

≥450

≥90

≥80

≥60

≥85

≥580

Cocoon characters

Cocoon

Weight

(g)

Shell Weight

(cg)

Shell (%)

Cocoon shape

Cocoon

colour

Cocoon grain

≥1.550

≥30.00

≥19.00

Mild constricted dumbbell

shaped

Off white

Medium

Reeling data

Filament

Length (m)

Filament

Weight (cg)

Filament size

(d)

Reelability

(%)

Raw Silk (%)

Neatness (points)

≥740

22.25

≥2.7

≥88

≥14.32

≥90

AN (VIII): Authorised Mulberry Bivoltine Silkworm double hybrid

Table 1: Parameters of the Mulberry bivoltine silkworm double hybrid

Sl.

No.

Hybrid

States/

Regions/

zones

Rearing data

Season

Fecundity

(No)

Hatchability

(%)

Survival

Cocoon

yield/

100 dfls

(kg)

Pupation

rate (%)

No of

cocoons/kg

G11 x

G19

(GEN1 x

2C) x (4S

x 4D)

South

Zone

viz

Karnataka,

Andhra

Pradesh,

Telangana,

Tamil Nadu

and

Maharashtra

All

seasons

≥550

≥95.0

≥93.0

≥ 70.0

≥ 93.0

≥550

Cocoon characters

Cocoon

Weight (g)

Shell Weight

(cg)

Shell

(%)

Cocoon shape

Cocoon colour

Cocoon grain

≥1.820

≥ 0.410

≥ 22.5

Hybrid shape

White

Medium

Reeling data

Filament

Length (m)

Filament

Weight (cg)

Filament

size (d)

Reelability

(%)

Raw Silk (%)

Neatness (points)

≥ 975

≥ 31.6

≥ 2.96

≥82.0

≥17.8

≥94

6472

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Parents:

Table 2: Bivoltine mulberry silkworm parent seed

Rearing data:

Sl.No

Race

Data source

Fecundity

(No)

Hatchability

(%)

Survival

Cocoon

yield/

100 dfls

(kg)

Pupation

rate (%)

No of

cocoons/kg

Gen1

(Oval)

CSR&TI,

Mysore

≥ 535

≥90

≥92

≥62.0

≥ 92

≥580

2C (Oval)

CSR&TI,

Mysore

≥ 530

≥90

≥92

≥62.0

≥92

≥580

(Dumbbell)

CSR&TI,

Mysore

≥ 500

≥90

≥ 60.0

≥90

≥600

(Dumbbell)

CSR&TI,

Mysore

≥ 480

≥90

≥60.0

≥90

≥600

Reeling data:

Sl.

Race

Data

Source

Cocoon

Weight

(g)

Shell

Weight

(cg)

Sell

percentage

(%)

Filament

length

(m)

Filament

weight

(cg)

Filament

Reelability

(%)

Reelaility

(%)

Raw

silk

(%)

Neatness

(points)

GEN1

(Oval)

CSR&TI,

Mysore

1.72

40.2

23.4

≥ 900

≥ 25.0

≥ 2.50

≥ 85

≥ 81.4

≥ 94

2C (Oval)

CSR&TI,

Mysore

1.72

37.1

21.5

≥ 875

≥ 25.8

≥ 2.65

≥ 85

≥ 17.6

≥ 94

(Dumbbel)

CSR&TI,

Mysore

1.63

35.3

21.6

≥ 875

≥ 25.3

≥ 2.60

≥ 82

≥ 16.5

≥ 94

(Dumbbel)

CSR&TI,

Mysore

1.59

33.8

21.3

≥ 850

≥ 25.0

≥ 2.75

≥82

≥ 16.8

≥ 94

AN (IX): Authorised Mulberry Multivoltine & Bivoltine silkworm hybrid

Table 1: Parameters of the mulberry silkworm hybrid M6DPC X (SK6 x SK7)

Sl.

No.

Hybrid

States/ Regions/ zones

Rearing data

Fecundity

(No)

Hatchability

(%)

Survival

Cocoon

yield/

100 dfls

(kg)

Pupation

rate (%)

No of

cocoons/kg

M6DPC

X (SK6

xSK7)

Eastern Zone & North Eastern

Zone States viz.,

West Bengal,

Odisha, Jharkhand,

Bihar,Assam,

Arunachal Pradesh,

Manipur,Meghalaya,Mizoram,

Nagaland,Sikkim,Tripura

≥500

≥90

≥55

≥90

≥600

Cocoon characters

Cocoon

Weight (g)

Shell Weight

(cg)

Shell (%)

Cocoon shape

Cocoon colour

Cocoon grain

≥1.650

≥30.00

≥17.50

Elongated

Oval

Golden Yellow

Medium

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6473

Reeling data

Filament

Length

(m)

Filament

Weight

(cg)

Filament

size (d)

Reelability (%)

Raw Silk (%)

Neatness (points)

≥700

22.8

≥2.50

≥83

≥12.50

≥86

Parents:

Table 1: Bivoltine mulberry silkworm parent seed

Rearing data:

Sl.No

Race

Fecundity

(No)

Hatchability

(%)

Survival

Cocoon

yield/

100 dfls

(kg)

Pupation rate

(%)

No of cocoons/kg

SK6 x

SK7

≥450

≥90

≥80

≥55

≥80

≥580

Cocoon characters

Cocoon Weight (g)

Shell Weight

(cg)

Shell (%)

Cocoon

shape

Cocoon colour

Cocoon grain

≥1.450

≥28.00

≥18

Dumbell

White

Medium

Reeling data

Filament Length

(m)

Filament

Weight (cg)

Filament

size (d)

Reelability

(%)

Raw Silk (%)

Neatness (points)

≥750

22.1

≥2.70

≥85

≥13.24

≥86

Table 2 : Multivoltine mulberry silkworm parent seed

Rearing data:

Sl.No

Race

Fecundity

(No)

Hatchability

(%)

Survival

Cocoon yield/

100 dfls (kg)

Pupation rate

(%)

No of cocoons/kg

M6DPC

≥400

≥90

≥35

≥85

≥850

Cocoon characters

Cocoon Weight (g)

Shell Weight

(cg)

Shell (%)

Cocoon

shape

Cocoon

colour

Cocoon grain

≥1.250

≥19.00

≥15.00

Spindle

Yellow

Medium

Reeling data

Filament Length

(m)

Filament Weight (cg)

Filament size (d)

Reelability

(%)

Raw Silk (%)

Neatness (points)

≥500

13.08

≥2.2

≥75

≥7.5

≥80

[F. No. 25017/12/2015-Silk]

ANIL KUMAR, Under Secy.

6474

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

वािण7 य

वािण7 य एवं

एवं

एवं उ!ोग

उ!ोग

उ!ोग मंालय

मंालय

(वािण7 य

वािण7 य

वािण7 य िवभाग

िवभाग

िवभाग)

नई द ली, 3 जून, 2019

का

का. . . . आ. . . . 1556

1556

1556.—के23ीय सरकार राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय )योजन- के िलए )योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10

के उप िनयम (4) के अनुसरण मD वािणय िवभाग के अंतगत आने वाले गवनमDट ई–माकŽ ट pलेस (जेम) कायालय को

अिधसूिचत करती है, िजनके 80 )ितशत अिधकारय- ने Rहंदी का कायसाधक fान )ाi कर िलया है : -

गवनमDट ई – माकŽ ट pलेस (जेम)

जीवन भारती िबRडंग

तीसरा तल,

नई दली – 110001

[फा. सं. ई-11012/2/2019-Rहंदी]

हरीश कुमार शमा, अपर महािनदेशक (पू=त)

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce )

New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2019

S. O. 1556.—In pursuance of the sub-rule (4) of the rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes

of Union) rules, 1976, The Central Govt. hereby notifies Government E-Market place (Gem) under the Department of

Commerce, whereof 80% the Staff have acquired a working knowledge of Hindi: -

Government E-market place (GEM)

Jeevan Bharti Building

Third Floor

New Delhi – 110001

[F. No. E-11012/2/2019-Hindi]

HARISH KUMAR SHARMA, Addl. Director General (Supply)

9म एवं रोजगार मंालय

नई दली, 19 अगB त, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1557

1557

1557.—औlोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण मD के23ीय

सरकार मेसस आयु,, नगरपािलका परषद, नई दली और अ2य एवं उनके कमचारी के )बंधतं; के संब िनयोजक- और

उनके कमकार- के बीच अनुबंध मD िनWदX औlोिगक िववाद मD के23ीय सरकार औlोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म 2यायालय-1,

नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं‰या 08/2017) को )कािशत करती है जो के23ीय सरकार को 16.08.2019 को )ाi 0ए थे।

[सं. एल-42011/118/2016-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6475

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 19^th August, 2019

S.O. 1557.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 08/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

Commissioner, New Delhi Municipal Council, New Delhi & Others, and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 16.08.2019.

[No. L- 42011/118/2016-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

COURT No. 1: DELHI

ID No. 8/2017

Shri Jagdish Kumar S/o Late Shri Kishan Chand

Through

The General Secretary,

Municipal Employees Union, Aggarwal Bhawan,

GT Road, Tiz Hazari,

Delhi – 110 054

…Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

New Delhi Municipal Council,

Palika Kendra,

Parliament Street,

New Delhi - 110 001

…Management

AWARD

A reference was received from Ministry of Labour and Employment vide Order No.L-42011/118/2016-IR(DU) dated

12.01.2017 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in

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

“Whether the action of the management of New Delhi Municipal Corporation in regularizing Shri Jagdish

Kumar S/o late Shri Kishan Chand with effect from 02.01.2007 instead of June 2001 is fair and legal? If not, to

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

Claim statement was filed on behalf of the claimant averring therein that the claimant joined the management as

Khalasi/Assistant Line Mate on temporary muster roll with effect from 23.08.1991 though he was appointed against a job

of permanent nature. His counterparts were paid salary in proper pay scale and allowances. As per the practice and

various resolutions of the management, the claimant was supposed to be taken as RMR employee on completion of 500

days, which the claimant completed in June 1995 but he was taken as RMR employee only with effect from 11.06.002.

Further when an RMR employee completes six years, the management is required to regularize the employee. In the

instant case, though the claimant had completed 500 days in June 1995 and six years thereafter in June 2001, but the

claimant was regularized only with effect from 02.01.2007. Thus, the action of the management is illegal, bad, unjust

and malafide. Payment of lesser wages than those doing identical work amounts to unfair labour practice as provided in

Section 2(R) read with Item No.10 of the Fifth Schedule and read with 35-T punishable under Section 25-U of the Act,

violative of Article 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India and exploitation of labour. Management has neither

framed any rules or regulation nor has it got passed from UPSC or notified in the official Gazette. Management, further,

does not have any certified Standing Orders governing the working conditions of workers engaged on muster roll/part-

time/seasonal workers. Hence, the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)

Act, 1946 are applicable. Demand notice was served on the management on 24.07.2015 to which the management had

not replied to the same. Finally, it has been prayed that the management be prevailed upon to regularize the services of

the claimant on the post of Assistant Line Mate with retrospective effect from June 2001 alongwith all arrears and

consequential benefits.

6476

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Claim was demurred by the management taking various preliminary objections, inter alia that the reference has

been made mechanically, claim being stale and being barred under Section 2(j) and 2(s) of the Act as management is

neither an ‘industry’ nor is the claimant a ‘workman’ as defined under the Act. Further it is also alleged that the claim is

not supported by documents or witnesses. The dispute has also not been espoused by the Union. Management has

denied the remaining material averments contained in the statement of claim.

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

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

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

(i)

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

(ii)

In terms of reference.

Workman in support of his case examined himself as WW1 and tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.WW1/A

and relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/12. Thereafter matter was listed for evidence of the management.

In the meanwhile, it was stated by Shri M.S. Rawat, learned A/R for the management that management is ready

and willing to regularize the services of the claimant with effect from 01.09.2001 with all consequential benefits.

Statement of Shri Kamal Rai, Deputy Director, New Delhi Municipal Council was recorded to this effect on 31.01.2019.

Management, vide office order dated 15.02.2019, regularized the services of Shri Jagdish Kumar with effect from

01.09.2001 with all consequential benefits. However, despite affording several opportunities for payment of arrears to

the claimant, i.e. on 28.02.2019, 28.03.2019, 25.04.2019, 30.05.2019 and 04.07.2019, management failed to make

payment of arrears to the claimant on one pretext or the other.

In view of the forgoing, management is directed to release payment of arrears to Shri Jagdish Kumar, the

claimant herein, consequent to his regularization on 01.09.2001. An award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent

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

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

Dated : August 6, 2019

नई दली, 19 अगB त, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1558

1558

1558.—औlोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण मD के23ीय

सरकार मेसस अशोक होटल, नई द ली और अ2य एवं उनके कमचारी के )बंधतं; के संबं िनयोजक- और उनके कमकार- के

बीच अनुबंध मD िनWदX औlोिगक िववाद मD के23ीय सरकार औlोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म 2यायालय-1,

नई दली के पंचाट (संदभ सं‰या 23/2017) को )कािशत करती है जो के23ीय सरकार को 16.08.2019 को )ाi 0ए थे।

[सं. एल-42025/03/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 19^th August, 2019

S.O. 1558.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 23/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-1 New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Ashok

Hotel, New Delhi & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on 16.08.2019.

[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6477

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No.1, NEW DELHI

ID No. 23/2017

Shri Rajamanickam S/o. Shri Parma Shivam,

Represented by Shri S.S. Upadhayay,

President of Ashok Hotel Mazdoor Janta Union,

C-47 Staff Quarters, Ashok Hotel,

50-B, Chankyapuri, New Delhi.

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

The Management of Ashok Hotel,

50-B, Chankyapuri,

New Delhi -21.

…Management

AWARD

This Award shall dispose of a claim petition directly filed by the workman/claimant Shri Rajamanickam under Section 2-

A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) with the averments that the workman was working with the

Management of Ashok Hotel w.e.f. 1^st March, 2016 as a South Indian Cook and was posted in Room Service kitchen of

Ashok Hotel. It is pleaded that the Management of Ashok Hotel –i.e.the Ex-Chief appointed the claimant verbally after

taking proper interview and test. The Management rather than paying salary directly to the claimant, started paying the

same through contractor M/s Lion Manpower Solution. The applicant worked throughout the year from March, 2016

till he was removed/refused from duty w.e.f. 5/11/2016. The claimant worked 8 hours a day in the shift duty as per order

of Ex Chef posted in the Room Service Kitchen of Ashok Hotel and Ex-Chef of the Hotel used to assign and supervise

his job which was of perennial nature. It is also pleaded that the claimant completed 240 days in the year 2016 from

1/1/2016 to 5/11/2016 and while removing him from service, the Management did not give him any notice or notice pay

and as such violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. It is further pleaded that Shri Amit Wahedra with the

connivance of contractor M/s Lion Manpower wrote a letter dated 11/8/2016 and 9/11/2015 for taking action of removal

against the claimant. Regarding illegal removal from duty, the claimant sent a letter to the General Manager of Ashok

Hotel on 9/11/2016 but to no response. The claimant was Member of the Ashok Hotel Mazdoor Janta Union who took

up his case with the Labour Department, Central Government but to no avail and as such, the said department issued a

certificate dated 13/1/2017. The claimant is unemployed and facing great financial problem. Prayer has been made for

reinstatement of the workman with continuity of services and full back wages.

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

objections inter-alia that there does not exist relationship of employer-employee between the Management and the

claimant, as the claimant was never engaged or recruited by the Management. Management was not responsible for

terminating the services of the claimant. The claimant was the employee of M/s Lion Mankpower Solutions Pvt. Ltd. As

such, the claim petition is not maintainable. Each and every allegations of the claimant have been denied. Prayer has

been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 9/3/2018 :-

Whether the claim is not legally maintainable in view of the preliminary objections ?

As in terms of reference (sic. statement of claim) ?

Relief.

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

Ex.WW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/8. It would not be out of place to mention here that the

Management opted not to participate in the proceedings and as such, matter was proceeded ex parte against the

Management vide order dated 29/5/2018. The Management neither cross examined the claimant WW1, nor adduced any

evidence in rebuttal.

I have heard Shri S.S.Upadhyay, A/R for the claimant and have gone through the records carefully. My findings

on the above issues are as follows.

6478

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Issue No.1 to 3 :-

All these issues are being taken up together as they can be disposed of by common discussion.

Onus was upon the claimant to prove relationship of employee-employer between him and the Management of

Ashok Hotel.

Excepting for the bald statement that he worked with the Management of Ashok Hotel w.e.f. 1^st March, 2016 as

a South Indian Cook and was posted in Room Service kitchen of Ashok Hotel, and further that the Management of

Ex-Chief of Ashok Hotel appointed the claimant verbally after taking proper interview and test, the claimant has not filed

on record any documentary evidence to substantiate his version that he was the employee of the Management. The

claimant himself has filed and relied on number of documents. WW1/1 (colly.) are the copies of the pay slips of the

claimant for the months from March, 2016 to August, 2016, perusal of which shows that the name of the employer

issuing the pay-slips is M/s Lion Manpower Solutions Pvt. Ltd. , Plot No.10, 3^rd Floor 15-C, B-1 Vasant Kunj, New

Delhi. Perusal of the same also shows that wages/salary used to be paid to the claimant after deduction of PF and ESI

contributions. Document Ex.WW1/2 is the copy of the passbook of the claimant holding his bank account with SBI,

Trilokpuri Branch, Delhi and the credit entries of NIFT made on 12/4/2016, 13/5/2016, 13/6/2016 and 12/7/2016,

14/7/2016, 11/8/2016 clearly depict that ECS towards wages/salary of the claimant was made by M/s Lion Manpower.

Documents Ex.WW1/3 and Ex.WW1/4 neither pertain to the claimant, nor pertain to the year 2016 during which the

claimant allegedly worked with the Management through contractor, rather the same shows that the Management of

Ashok Hotel had sent communications dated 28/7/2008, 26/8/2008 and 3/11/2008 to M/s Recruitment Bureau regarding

deployment of manpower. WW1/5 is the copy of Certified Standing Orders of Ashok Hotel, New Delhi and this is also

of no help to the case of the claimant. WW1/6 is the copy of the letter dated 9-11-2016 which the claimant had sent to

the Management praying that Mr. Gaurav –Chief or the other concerned Officer be advised to allow him to perform his

duty. In this very letter he himself has mentioned that he had received a letter dated 1/1/2016 of M/s Lion Manpower

Solutions Pvt. Ltd. on 8/11/2016 issuing warning to him for improvement of his conduct . Document Ex.WW1/7

(colly.) which are letters dated 11/8/2016 and 9/11/2016 issued by the Manager (HR) of Ashok Hotel to M/s Lion

Manpower Solutions Pvt. Ltd. goes to show that the claimant was the employee of M/s Lion Manpower Solutions Pvt.

Ltd. but was deployed as a Cook at Ashok Hotel of the Management herein.

10.

It is fairly settled that if the contract is for supply of labour, necessarily the labour supplied by the contractor

will work under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer but that would not make the worker a

direct employee of the principal employer, if the salary is paid by a contractor. The control test and organization test are

also the factors which can be said to be decisive. With a view to elicit the answer, the Court/Tribunal is required to

consider several factors vis-a-vis- who is the appointing authority, who is a paymaster, who can dismiss; how long

alternative service lasts, the extent & control of supervision; the nature of the job – professional or skilled work etc. etc,

which would have a bearing on the result. To this view I am fortified by the decisions of the Apex Court in Workman

Vs. Coates of India Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 547; Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union Vs. Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd;(2005) SCC 51; Balwant Rai Saluja Vs. Air India Ltd (2014) 9 SCC 407; Ram Singh Vs. Union

Territory, Chandigarh (2004) 1 SCC 126; Workman of Nilgiri Coop Marketing Society Vs. State of Tamilnadu

(2004) 3 SCC 4514; Union of India and another Vs. Aryulmozhi Iniarasu and others (2011) 9 SCR 1.

11-

It is evident from the documents Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW1/2 as referred to above that wages/salary to the

claimant used to be paid by the contractor M/s Lion Manpower Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and deductions towards PF

contribution and ESI have been deducted from his wages/salary by the contractor. There is nothing on record to suggest

that services of the claimant were terminated by the Management of Ashok Hotel, as was alleged by the claimant. On the

contrary, perusal of the letters Ex.WW1/7 (colly.) shows that the Management of Ashok Hotel had complained to the

contractor M/s Lion Manpower Solution Pvt. Ltd. regarding the punctuality and behaviour of the claimant. Once the

salary/wages as well as benefits of PF and ESI were provided to the claimant by M/s Lion Manpower Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

as is evident from documents Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW1/2 and on the complaints of the Management of Ashok Hotel vide

its letter Ex.WW1/7, the contractor M/s Lion Manpower Solutions Pvt. Ltd had terminated the services of the claimant,

this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the claimant was the employee of M/s Lion Manpower Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and

that there does not exist relationship of employee & employer between the claimant and Management of Ashok Hotel.

12.

It is not the case of the claimant herein that the contract between the Management of Ashok Hotel and M/s Lion

Manpower Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was sham and bogus. M/s. Lion Manpower Solutions Pvt. Ltd. who was the employer of

the claimant herein and was the contractor of the Management of Ashok Hotel, has not been arrayed as a party to the

statement of claim and no relief against M/s Lion Manpower Solution Pvt. Ltd. has been claimed by the claimant, for

the reasons best known to him. This is despite the fact that before the Conciliation Officer, the claimant had raised an

industrial dispute against the Management of Ashok Hotel as well as against M/s Lion Manpower Pvt. Ltd., which fact is

so mentioned in the certificate dated 13/1/2017 issued under Section 2-A(2) of the Act by the Office of Deputy Chief

Labour Commissioner, Parliament Street, New Delhi and the said certificate is now marked as Ex,.C-1 (for ready

reference).

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6479

13.

It would not be out of place to mention here that it has become trend by the Union/s not to implead the

contractor and to seek relief of reinstatement with full back wages against the principal employer, despite the fact that

they were engaged by the contractor and were subsequently deployed with the principal employer for completion of

project or for providing manual services.

14.

As already held, there does not exist relationship of employee & employer between the claimant and

Management of Ashok Hotel. Merely because the Management of Ashok Hotel had sent communication/s to the

contractor M/s Lion Manpower Solutions Pvt. Ltd. regarding the conduct and behavior of the claimant, it would be

improper to conclude that services of the claimant were terminated by the Management of Ashok Hotel. As such, the

claim of the claimant that his services were illegally terminated by the Management of Ashok Hotel in violation of the

provisions of Section 25-F of the Act or that he is entitled to get reinstatement into service with full back wages, is not

tenable.

15.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed hereinabove, this Tribunal is constrained

to hold that the claim filed by the claimant is without any merits and that he is not entitled to get any relief whatsoever as

claimed. Award is passed accordingly.

Date : 06.08.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दली, 19 अगB त, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1559

1559

1559.—औlोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण मD के23ीय

सरकार मेसस आयुg त, दिoणी द ली नगर िनगम, नई द ली और अ2य एवं उनके कमचारी के )बंधतं; के संब िनयोजक-

और उनके कमकार- के बीच अनुबंध मD िनWदX औlोिगक िववाद मD के23ीय सरकार औlोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म 2यायालय,

नई दली-1 के पंचाट (संदभ सं‰या 53/2017) को )कािशत करती है जो के23ीय सरकार को 16.08.2019 को )ाi 0ए थे।

[सं. एल-42011/121/2016-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 19^th August, 2019

S.O. 1559.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court -1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi & Others, and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 16.08.2019.

[No. L-42011/121/2016-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1, DELHI

ID No. 53/2017

Shri Prem Singh S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh, represented by

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

Jam Nagar House, Shah Jahan Road,

New Delhi

…Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

South Delhi Municipal Corporation,

9^th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road,

New Delhi 110 002

…Management

6480

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Reference under Section 10 sub section (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) was received

from the Central Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment vide it orders No.L-42011/121/2016-IR(DU) dated

02.03.2017 for adjudication of the industrial dispute with the following terms:

‘Whether the workman Shri Prem Singh S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh is entitled for the pay scale of Rs.3053-4590

revised from time to time, i.e. of Garden Choudhary from 16.11.1999 till 03.09.2014? If not, then what relief

the workman is entitled to?’

Both the parties were put to notice and the workman Shri Ashok Kumar filed his statement of claim, wherein it

is alleged that initially he was appointed as mali with effect from 01.04.1988 and was allowed to perform work of

Chaudhary with effect from 16.11.1999 by the competent officers of Horticulture Department under Shahdara South

Zone. He has been working continuously working in Shahdara Sough Zone, East Delhi Municipal Corporation, and he is

presently working in Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar under South Delhi Municipal Corporation, since 17.06.2000. Presently,

he is working with Central zone of Horticulture Department. However, he has been denied pay scale of Chaudhary,

revised from time to time. No qualification is prescribed for promotion to the post of Garden Chaudhary. Management

has fixed different pay scales to their employees including mali, Chaudhary etc. in accordance to their job and non grant

of proper pay scale of Chaudhary to the workman is forced labour and management is indulging in unfair labour practice.

The workman has got payment of salary in the lower pay scale of mali, i.e. Rs.2550-3200 revised from time to time and

has been denied the scale of Chaudhary, i.e. Rs.3050-4590 for his performing the duty of Chaudhary with effect from

16.11.1999. Action of the management is alleged to be illegal & unjustified and against the policy of equal pay for equal

work. There is also reference to the judgment of Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in the matter of Municipal

Corporation of Delhi vs. Sultan Singh wherein also plea of the MCD regarding non-payment of wages of Chaudhary to

malis who are doing working of Chaudhary, was turned down by the Hon’ble High Court in judgement dated

27.07.2011.

Similarly situated workmen who were performing duty of Chaudhary were granted pay scale of Chaudhary

from the date when they were asked to perform duty on the higher post. Management challenged the order dated

27.07.2011 of Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.7947/2010 in the matter of MCD Vs. Sultan

Singh & others before Hon’ble Supreme court of India by Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.20069/2011 and the said

Special Leave Petition has been dismissed and withdrawn on 09.04.2012. In spite of this, management did not comply

with the order of payment of hieher post of salary to the malis who were discharging duties of choudhary. The Hon’ble

Division Bench of Delhi High Court in WP(C) No.5453/2012 titled Sultan Singh vided its order dated 15.03.2013

directed the management to pay the wages of higher post . In response to this order, management allowed equal pay for

equal work attached to the post of choudhary. Hence the action of the management in not granting pay scale and status

of choudhary with effect from 16.11.1999 is unfair and illegal. Finally it has been prayed that the workman be granted

pay scale of choudhary from 16.11.1999 to 03.09.2014 alongwith all consequential benefits.

Claim was demurred by the management taking various preliminary objections, inter alia that the present

dispute not being an industrial dispute as no demand notice has been served upon the management, claim being

misconceived, stale etc. On merits, management has admitted the factum of engagement of the claimant as mali on

01.04.1988 and promotion to the post of Garden Chaoudhary with effect from 03.09.2014. The management has denied

the remaining material facts contained in the statement of claim. Finally, it is prayed that the claim petition may be

dismissed.

From the pleadings of the parties, vide a order dated 05.05.2016, following issues were framed:

(i)

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

(ii) In terms of reference

Claimant in order to prove his case against the management examined himself as WW1 and tendered in

evidence his affidavit Ex.WW1/A. He also relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW1/5. Management, in order to

rebut the case of the claimant examined Shri Sahender Pal Singh Singh, Assistant Director(Horticulture) as MW1, who

tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and also relied on document Ex.MW1/1.

I have heard Shri B.K. Prasad, A/R for the claimant and Ms.Savita Chauhan, A/R for the management.

Findings on Issue No.(i)

It is clear from the preliminary objections taken in the written statement by the management that the

management has raised objection that no demand notice has been served upon the management nor the MCD General

Mazdoor Union has any locus standi to raise the present dispute as the union is not a recognized union of the

management. To my mind, there is no requirement of law that a dispute can be raised only by a recognized union. In

this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Kripa

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6481

Shankar Jaiswal (AIR 1961 (2) SC Report 1) wherein also objection was taken on behalf of the management that the

union was not a registered under the Trade Union Act on the date of the settlement and said plea was rejected by

observing as under:

‘Held, that for a dispute to constitute an industrial dispute it is not a requisite condition that it should be

sponsored by a recognized union or that allthe workmen of an industrial establishment should be parties to it. A

settlement arrived at in course of conciliation proceedings falls within Section 18(3)(a) and (d) of the Industrial Disputes

Act and as such binds all the workmen though an unregistered union or only some of workmen may have raised the

dispute. The absence of notice under Section 11(2) by the Conciliation Officer does not affect the jurisdiction of the

conciliation officer and its only purpose is to apprise the establishment that the person who is coming is the conciliation

officer and not a stranger. Any contravention of Section 12(6) in not submitting the report within 14 days may be a

breach of duty on the part of the conciliation officer ; it does not affect the legality of the proceedings which terminated

as provided in Section 20(2) of the Act.

Equally merit-less is the plea taken by the management that the present dispute is not sponsored or espoused

by substantial number of workmen. It is fairly settled position in law that even non-espousal of a case by the union

would not deprive the workman of the relief to which the workman is otherwise entitled under the law. Such view

appears to have been taken in the case of Nazrul Hassan Siddiqui vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial cum Labour Court

Bombay (1997) Lab.I.C. 1807. In the above cited case also contention was raised by the management that the dispute

dies not fall within the definition of ‘industrial dispute’ and the same has not been referred or supported by substantial

section of workmen. High Court rejected the plea of the management by placing reliance upon the decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (AIR 1960 SC 777), which it was observed as

under:

‘We have already noticed that an industrial dispute can be raised by a group of workmen or by a union even

though neither of them represent the majority of the workmen concerned; in other words, the majority rule on

which the appellant’s construction of Section 19(6) is based is inapplicable in the matter of the reference under

Section 10 of the Act. Even a minority group of workmen can make a demand and thereby raise an industrial

dispute which in a proper case would be referred or adjudication under Section 20.’

10.

In view of the ratio of the judgement discussed above, it is clear that espousal of a dispute by the union is not

sine qua non for adjudication of such dispute in terms of Section 10 of the Act.

11.

Admittedly, in the present case, reference has been made under Section 10 sub Section (2A) of the Act for

adjudication. It is now well settled position in law that when a reference has been made for adjudication to the Tribunal

or Labour Court, as the case may be, it is paramount duty of the court to decide the same on merits, irrespective of the

pleas taken by the management. The dispute in the case in hand cannot be said to be stale for the simple reason that there

is no previous adjudication of the matter between the parties from a competent court nor that there is inordinate delay in

approaching this Tribunal by the workman.

12.

It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager (2014)

Lab.I.C. 4266 - (2014) 10 SCC 301 that a reference for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal can be made by the

appropriate Government at any time and provisions of Limitation Act does not apply. There are clear observations in the

above judgement that industrial dispute is to be decided by the Tribunal or Labour Court on merits, irrespective of the

pleadings on limits. Therefore, ratio of law in the case of ‘Nedungadi Bank Limited Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty & ors’

(supra) and State Co-op Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam (supra) is not applicable to the case in hand as there is no

inordinate delay nor workman is guilty of delay and laches in approaching the court. Consequently, this issue is decided

in favour of the workman and against the management.

Findings on Issue No.(ii)

13.

Now, the main issue which requires determination in the case in hand is whether the workman herein is

entitled for grant of pay scale of 3050-4590 as revised from time to time alongwith consequential benefits for the period

16.11.1999 till 03.09.2014. It is clear from pleadings of the parties that initially the workman herein was appointed as

mali on 01.04.1988 and was later on promoted to the post of Garden Choudhary on 04.09.2014. This fact has been

admitted even by the management in para 3 of the preliminary objections as well as in para 4 of Ex.MW1/A.

14.

There is also evidence on record that the workman herein was performing duty as officiating Chaudhary. It is

clear from perusal of order dated 16.11.1999 that services of the workman Shri Prem Singh was deputed to work at SLF

site Mandawali to supervise the work of muster beldar and his designation has been mentioned as ‘Mali (working as

Choudhary)’. Claimant, in order to prove his case, has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.WW1/A, wherein material

averments contained in statement of claim has been reiterated. It is specifically alleged in the affidavit that he was doing

work of acting Chaudhary with effect from 16.11.1999.

6482

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

15.

Similarly situated other workers who were performing duties of Chaudhary, i.e. acting Chaudhary have been

granted pay scale of Garden Chaudhary after judgement dated 27.07.2011 rendered by the Hon’ble High Court in the

case of MCD vs. Sultan Singh as well as MCD vs. Mahipal(WP 5550 of 2010). Operating portion of the judgement in

Sultan Singh (supra) of the Hon’ble Division Bench is as under:

“28.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances it is apparent that the claim of the respondents have always

been that they should be paid the difference in pay of Mali/Chowkidar and the Garden Chaudhary as they were made to

work on the post of Garden Chaudhary whereas the petitioner had first denied that they worked as Garden Chaudharies,

then took the plea that the Assistant Director (Horticulture) was not competent to ask the respondents to work as Garden

Chaudharies and that the respondents cannot be appointed to the post of Garden Chaudharies in accordance with the

recruitment rules. There is no doubt that respondents are not claiming appointment to the post of Garden Chaudharies on

account of having worked on ad-hoc basis on the post of Garden Chaudhary contrary to rules or that some of them not

having the requisite qualifications are entitled for relaxation.

29. In the entirety of facts and circumstances therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out any

such grounds which will impel this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to set aside the

orders of the Tribunal dated 29th January, 2010 and 7th October, 2010 as no illegality or un- sustainability or perversity

in the orders of the Tribunal has been made out.

30. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost.”

16.

It is further clear that SLP was also filed by MCD before the Hon’ble Apex Court by special leave application

No. S20069/2011 MCD vs. Sultan Singh and others which was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated

09.04.2012. It was clarified that since the workmen were discharging duties to the post of Garden Chaudhary, as such,

workmen were entitled for the salary of Garden Chaudhary and competent authority need not look into anything else

except the fact that the workman had worked as Garden Chaudhary. .

17.

It is not out of place to mention here that even if the claimant herein was not a party in Sultan Singh case

referred above, judgement of the Hon’ble High Court is binding on the management and management is required to

implement the same in letter and spirit and the same is judgement in rem, and all similarly situated workmen are required

to be accorded the benefit of the said judgement of the Hon’ble High Court, which have become final. There is no

question of even plea of delay and laches when management had not led any evidence to prove the same. The Hon’ble

High Court has decided an abstract proposition of law, i.e. a mali who is performing duty as officiating/acting

Chaudhary is entitled to the salary/wages of Chaudhary. Law is fairly settled that if a person is working on a higher post,

on adhoc or temporary basis, even such workman is entitled to salary/wages of higher post, unless rules or regulations

specifically provides otherwise. I find support to this view from Secretary vs. Lieutenant Governor Port Blair (1998

Lab.I.C. 598), yet in another case, Hon’ble Apex Court while considering that question of grant of benefits to similarly

situated employees who were not party to the writ petition or lis in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar

Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347 observed as under:

“The moot question which requires determination is as to whether in the given case, approach of the Tribunal and

the High Court was correct in extending the benefit of earlier judgment of the Tribunal, which had attained finality

as it was affirmed till the Supreme Court. The legal principles that can be culled from the judgments, cited both

by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under:

(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically

situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to

discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be

applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to

time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule

would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not

to be treated differently.

(2) However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as

acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the

same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the

Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the

judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as

fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.

(3) However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was

judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the

Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the

benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6483

decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularization and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors.

v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that

benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated

expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment,

those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their

petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.”

18. In view of the discussions made herein above, it is held that the workman herein, Shri Prem Singh is entitled to the

pay scale of Garden Chaudhary with effect from 03.09.2014 and as a corollary, management is liable pay the difference

of wages of mali vis-a-vis Garden Chaudhary from the date when the workman herein was performing duties and

functions of Garden Chaudhary till the date he was promoted as Garden Chaudhary, i.e. from 16.11.1999 to 03.09.2014.

An award is accordingly passed. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

Date : 07.08.2019

नई दली, 19 अगB त, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.1560

1560

1560.—औlोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण मD के23ीय

सरकार मेसस अv यo, एनडीएमसी, नई द ली और अ2य एवं उनके कमचारी के )बंधतं; के संब िनयोजक- और उनके

कमकार- के बीच अनुबंध मD िनWदX औlोिगक िववाद मD के23ीय सरकार औlोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म 2यायालय,

नई दली-1 के पंचाट (संदभ सं‰या 141/2017) को )कािशत करती है जो के23ीय सरकार को 16.08.2019 को )ाi 0ए

थे।

[सं. एल-42025/03/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 19^th August, 2019

S.O. 1560.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 141/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court New Delhi - 1 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

Chairman, NDMC, New Delhi & Others, and their workmen which were received by the Central Government on

16.08.2019.

[No. L-42025/03/2019-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No.1, NEW DELHI

DID No. 141/2017

Shri Chahan Pal Singh S/o. Shri Nirman Singh

r/o. A-T/67/21, East Gokulpuri,

Delhi 110094.

…Workman

Versus

The Chairman,

M/s. NDMC, Palika Kendra,

New Delhi 110001.

… Management

6484

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

This is a claim filed directly by the Workman/claimant Shri Chahan Pal Singh under Section 2(A) of the Industrial

Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), with the averments that workman was employed with the

Management as a Beldar w.e.f. 14/10/2012, whereas he was performing his duties as Pump Operator at the office of

Executive Enginner (R-11), Civil Engg. Department of the Management. His last drawn wages were Rs.12000/- per

month. He neither gave any chance to the Management regarding his work, conduct and punctuality, nor any memo or

notice or warning letter was issued to him by the Management during his entire service period. He was raising his

demand continuously for regularization of his services in the establishment of Management as he had completed 508

working days continuously. On 30/9/2015 when he reported for duty, he was refused to do so without any notice or

chargesheet and thus, the Management illegally terminated his services w.e.f. 30/9/2015 without any notice or notice pay.

Demand notice dated 22/2/2016 for reinstatement of the claimant was sent to the Management which was duly served

upon the Management Bank but to no response. The claimant thereafter approached the Conciliation Officer but to no

avail. The claimant has prayed that Management be directed to reinstate him with full back wages and with all

consequential benefits.

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

objections that the claim is barred under Section 2(J) and 2(S) of the Act as the claimant is neither a workman nor the

Management is an industry as per the provisions of the Act. It is alleged that the claimant has filed the present claim in

the name of Chahan Pal Singh, whereas as per records of the Management he had given his name as Chayan Pal Singh.

While stating that the workman joined and worked as Beldar on daily wage basis w.e.f. 15/10/2012, the other allegations

of the claimant including that he was not allowed to perform duty on 30/9/2015 and that he had completed 240 days

regular service and thus, was entitled to get benefit of regularization, are all denied. Prayer has been made for dismissal

of the claim petition.

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

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

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 8/03/2018 :-

Whether termination of the services of the claimant is illegal and against the provisions of ID Act ?

Whether the claimant is entitled with full back wages ?

Whether the claimant is neither the workman under Section 2 of the ID Act nor the Management is an

industry as per the provisions of ID Act ?

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

alongwith documents Ex.WW1/1 and Ex.WW1/2. .

On the other hand, the Management in order to rebut the case of the claimant examined Shri Chhoti Lal Verma,

Executive Engineer (Civil) as MW1 and he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A alongwith document

Ex.MW1/1 (colly.).

Issue No.1 to 3 :-

All these issues being inter connected are being taken up together and they can be conveniently disposed of by

common discussion.

Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the Management strongly contended that there is no relationship of employer and

employee between the Management & claimant, nor the claimant has completed 240 days of service in a calendar year,

preceding to his alleged termination. As such, the claimant is not a workman as per definition under Section 2(S) of the

Act. It was also contended that onus is also upon the claimant to prove that he was in the employment of the

Management and has completed more than 240 days in a calendar year. It was further contended that the Management

being being a civil body directly under the control of Govt. of India is not an industry as per Section 2(j) of the Act.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Claimant invited the attention of this Tribunal to the

written statement filed on behalf of the Management. In this respect, specific attention of this Tribunal was invited to

para 1 to the reply on merits, wherein it has been stated that the workman joined and worked as Beldar on daily wages

w.e.f. 15/10/2012. Therefore, it was urged that contention of the Management that claimant was not employee/ workman

of the Management,

10)

There is no dispute about preposition of law that onus to prove that claimant was in the employment of

Management is always on the workman/claimant and it is for the workman to adduce evidence to prove factum of her

employment with the Management Bank. Such evidence may be in form of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6485

record of his/her appointment or engagement for that year to show that he/she has worked with the employer for 240 days

or more in a Calendar year. In this regard, reference may be made to Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Sowaran

Singh, (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 481 as well as Director Fisheries Terminated Division Vs. Bhikubhai

Meghajibhai Gavda (2012) 1 SCC 47.

11-

This Tribunal has to consider the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on record so as to decide the

question of relationship of employer and employee between the Management and the claimant herein. In this respect, it

is appropriate to refer to the affidavit ExWW1/A of the claimant. It is clear from the perusal of the affidavit Ex.WW1/A

that it is in consonance with the pleadings i.e. statement of claim filed by the claimant. In cross examination he admitted

that he was appointed temporarily and no appointment letter was issued to him. He denied the suggestion that he had not

performed duty for 240 days continuously with the Management in any calendar year. The claimant has filed on record

copy of the information received under RTI Act from the office of the Management as Ex.WW1/1.

11)

The Management has examined Shri Chhoti Lal Verma, Executive Engineer who admitted in his cross

examination that the workman/claimant had joined the Management office on 14/10/2012 and the document Ex.WW1/1

was issued by their office. He also admitted that the claimant had worked with the Management for 508 days as

mentioned in Ex.WW1/1.

12)

A perusal of document Ex.WW1/1 clearly shows that the workman had performed duty during the period from

15/10/2012 to 5/9/2014, for a total period of 508 days which includes 252 day in the year 2013 and 195 days in the year

2014. This belies the contention of the Management that the claimant had not continuously worked for 240 days in any

calendar year. There is specific statement of the claimant that he was engaged by the Management on 14/10/2012 ,

though neither any letter of appointment was issued to her, nor any interview letter was issued. From the document

Ex.WW1/1 it stands proved on record that prima facie there exists relationship of employer-employee between the

Management and claimant herein.

13-

It is also well settled position ikn law that when relationship of employer-employee stands proved between the

parties, then onus will shift upon the employer/management to show that the claimant has not worked for 240 days or

more in a calendar year or that the services of the claimant was terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Act

or in accordance with Standing Order applicable to the establishment concerned. Since in the case in hand, it stands

clearly proved from the pleadings and evidence on record, especially the document Ex.WW1/1 that the claimant was

duly engaged by the Management as a Beldar as such, it clearly establishes relationship of employer-employee between

the Management and claimant. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs.

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

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

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

service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a

person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not

make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There

is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on

regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary,

part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a

workman.”

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

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

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

14)

As discussed above, in the case in hand engagement of the claimant as Beldar stands proved and that the

Management has not filed any document in the form of abstract of attendance of claimant or other such workers so as to

show that claimant has not completed 240 days in a calendar year. In such circumstances, statement of the claimant who

appeared as WW1 and testified that he worked from 14/10/2012 till 30/9/2015 when his services were terminated, can

not be brushed aside .

15)

Net result of the aforesaid discussion is that there is relationship of Employer-employee between the

Management and the claimant herein. MW1 Chhoti Lal Verma – sole witness examined by the Management has

admitted that no notice was served upon the claimant prior to his termination , nor any charge sheet was filed against

him. This impliedly substantiate the version of the claimant that his services were terminated by the Management on

30/9/2015 without issuing any notice or payment of compensation/notice pay viz. one month’s salary in lieu of such

notice as required under Section 25-F of the Act.

16)

I may mention that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act which provides for conditions precedent to

retrenchment of workmen, are absolute and inexorable and it reads as under :-

6486

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“25-F : Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen –

No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an

employer shall be retrenched by that employer until –

(a)

The workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the

period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the

notice;

(b)

The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen

days’ average pay for every completed years of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six

months; and

(c)

Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be

specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.”

The above provision makes it clear that the employer is required to give notice to the appropriate Government apart-from

giving one month’s notice in writing or one month’s wages in lieu of the notice and payment of retrenchment

compensation to the concerned workman. There is nothing on record to show that any retrenchment compensation was

paid to the claimant by the Management. There is also nothing on record to show that any notice or notice pay was given

by the Management prior to termination of the claimant herein. As such, the Management has violated the provisions of

Section 25-F of the Act.

17)

There is long line of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of

Section 25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the

provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will render action of the Management to be illegal and void under the law.

18)

Since there is no evidence on record that any valid notice was issued by the Management to the workman at the

time of termination or in lieu of such notice, any compensation was paid to him, as such action of the Management in

terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 30/9/2015 is held to be illegal and void.

19)

Now the residual question arises for consideration is as to whether the claimant/workman is entitled to

reinstatement with back wages or compensation in lieu thereof, It stands proved on record that claimant was worked

with the Management for 508 days from 15/10/2012 to 5/9/2014 as is apparent from document Ex.WW1/1. His version

that his last drawn wages were Rs.12000/- per month has gone unchallenged. However, the claimant has neither pleaded

nor adduced any evidence to show that he has been unemployed since after his termination or that he is not gainfully

employed or that he was employed on lesser wages than that he was getting from the Management. Onus was upon the

claimant to plead and prove that he is not gainfully employed which he has failed to discharge.

20)

The Hon’ble Apex Court in case “Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya”

reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under :

“The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are :

In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the

normal rule.

ii)

Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting

back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority

or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages.

If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence

to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages

he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of

proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its

existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the

employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the

employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.”

Although there is no evidence on record to prove that the claimant is not gainfully employed since after his termination,

however this Tribunal is conscious of the fact that once a workman is retrenched/terminated by his employer, it gets time

to find another suitable job. No doubt, the claimant worked with the Management as Beldar on daily wage basis for a

period of 508 days during the period from 14/10/2012 to 5/9/2014 but with intervals/breaks as is apparent from document

Ex.WW1/1. There is nothing on record to show that the claimant had been working against a sanctioned post or as a

permanent employee rather he was admittedly working as Beldar on daily wage basis. Latest trend itself discernable

from the various pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Apex Court is that when a person has been engaged on daily

wage basis or for doing temporary kinds of work, in that situation full back wages are not to be awarded. There are

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6487

number of factors which are required to be considered by the Tribunal while considering the question of reinstatement

with back wages. It has been held in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad Vs. Food Corporation of India (2014) 7 Supreme

Court cases 190 as under :-

“ Relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given

fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure.

Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. An order of retrenchment

passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not,

however, automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman

has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly daily wages has not

been found to be proper by the Supreme Court and instead compensation has been awarded. The Supreme

Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee. The

reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination

is found to be illegal, because of non payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily

required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the

management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation.

21) Having regard to the recent judicial trends and nature & duration of service rendered by the claimant, an amount of

Rs.2 lakhs (Rupees Two Lakhs) appears to be just and reasonable and the same is payable to the claimant herein by the

Management. In case this compensation amount is not paid within one month from the date of publication of this Award,

then the claimant will be entitled to recover the same alongwith interest @ 6% per annum till realization of the amount.

Award is passed accordingly.

Let copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.

Dated : 07.08.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दली, 19 अगB त, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1561

1561

1561.—औlोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण मD के23ीय

सरकार मेसस आयुg त, नई द ली नगरपािलका परषद, नई द ली और अ2य एवं उनके कमचारी के )बंधतं; के संब

िनयोजक- और उनके कमकार- के बीच अनुबंध मD िनWदX औlोिगक िववाद मD के23ीय सरकार औlोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म

2यायालय, नई दली-1 के पंचाट (संदभ सं‰या 153/2016) को )कािशत करती है जो के23ीय सरकार को 16.08.2019 को

)ाi 0आ था।

[सं. एल-42011/70/2016-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 19^th August, 2019

S.O. 1561.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 153/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court New Delhi - 1 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

Commissioner, New Delhi Municipal Council, New Delhi & Others, and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 16.08.2019.

[No. L-42011/70/2016-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

6488

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

COURT No.1, DELHI – 110 075

ID No. 153/2016

Shri Shyam Sunder S/o Shri Kishan Chand,

Represented by

The General Secretary,

Municipal Employees Union, Aggarwal Bhawan,

Delhi – 110 054

…Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

New Delhi Municipal Council,

Palika Kendra,

Parliament Street,

New Delhi - 110 001

…Management

AWARD

A reference was received from Ministry of Labour and Employment vide Order No.L-42011/70/2016-IR(DU) dated

23.08.2016 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2 A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in

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

“Whether the action of the management of New Delhi Municipal Corporation in not regularizing the services of

the workman, Shri Shyam Sunder S/o Shri Kishan Chand with effect from 02.01.2007 instead of March 2000

alongwith arrear of difference is fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which

date?”

At the outset, it is pertinent to mention here that the claimant expired on 03.08.2016 and an application was

moved on behalf of Smt. Usha Sachdeva for substitution of her name being the legal heir of the late claimant. The

application was unopposed and hence was allowed vide order dated 31.01.2017. Claim statement was filed on behalf of

the claimant by Ms.Usha Sachdeva averring therein that the claimant joined the management as Khalasi on muster roll

with effect from 01.09.1990 though he was appointed against a job of permanent nature. The late claimant made several

representations for his regular appointment but the management did not consider the same. Ultimately, his services were

terminated on 06.04.1999. The late claimant challenged the said termination by through an industrial dispute and during

the course of conciliation proceedings, management reinstated him on 18.08.1999. Since the late claimant was not paid

wages during the period 06.04.1999 to 17.08.1999, he raised an industrial dispute before the Hon’ble Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal No.1, who vide an award held that the late claimant is entitled to wages for the per the above period.

Subsequently, the late claimant was regularized with effect from 02.01.2007.

As per the practice and various resolutions of the management, the late claimant was supposed to be taken as

RMR employee on completion of 500 days, which the claimant completed in March 1994 but he was taken as RMR

employee only with effect from 11.06.002. Further when an RMR employee completes six years, the management is

required to regularize the employee. In the instant case, though the claimant had completed 500 days in March 1994 and

six years thereafter in June March 2000, but the claimant was regularized only with effect from 02.01.2007. Thus, the

action of the management is illegal, bad, unjust and malafide. Payment of lesser wages than those doing identical work

amounts to unfair labour practice as provided in Section 2(R) read with Item No.10 of the Fifth Schedule and read with

35T punishable under Section 25U of the Act, violative of Article 14, 16 & 39(d) of the Constitution of India and

exploitation of labour. Management has neither framed any rules or regulation nor has it got passed from UPSC or

notified in the official Gazette The management further does not have any certified Standing Orders governing the

working conditions of workers engaged on muster roll/part-time/seasonal workers. Hence, the Model Standing Orders

framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are applicable. Demand notice was served on the

management on 24.07.2015 to which the management had not replied to the same. Finally, it has been prayed that the

management be prevailed upon to regularize the services of the claimant on the post of Assistant Line Mate with

retrospective effect from June 2001 alongwith all arrears and consequential benefits.

Claim was demurred by the management taking various preliminary objections, inter alia that the reference has

been made mechanically, claim being stale and being barred under Section 2(j) and 2(s) of the Act as management is

neither an ‘industry’ nor is the claimant a ‘workman’ as defined under the Act. Further it is also alleged that the claim is

not supported by documents or witnesses. The dispute has also not been espoused by the Union. Management has

denied the remaining material averments contained in the statement of claim.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6489

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

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

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

(i)

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

(ii)

In terms of reference.

Workman in support of his case examined himself as WW1 and tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.WW1/A

and relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/6. Thereafter matter was listed for evidence of the management.

In the meanwhile, it was stated by Shri M.S. Rawat, learned A/R for the management that management is ready

and willing to regularize the services of the claimant with effect from 01.09.2001 with all consequential benefits.

Statement of Shri Kamal Rai, Deputy Director, New Delhi Municipal Council was recorded to this effect on 31.01.2019.

Management, vide office order dated 15.02.2019, regularized the services of late Shri Shyam Sunder with effect from

01.09.2001 with all consequential benefits. However, despite affording several opportunities for payment of arrears to

the legal heirs of the claimant, i.e. on 28.02.2019, 28.03.2019, 25.04.2019, 30.05.2019 and 04.07.2019, management

failed to make payment of arrears to the claimant on one pretext or the other.

In view of the forgoing, management is directed to release payment of arrears to Ms.Usha Sachdeva, legal heir

of late claimant herein, consequent to his regularization on 01.09.2001. An award is accordingly passed. Let this award

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

A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer

Dated : 06.08.2019

नई दली, 19 अगB त, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ.1562

1562

1562.—औlोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण मD के23ीय

सरकार मेसस िनमाण महािनदेशक, सीपीड„ यूडी, िनमाण भवन, नई द ली और अ2य एवं उनके कमचारी के )बंधतं; के

संब िनयोजक- और उनके कमकार- के बीच अनुबंध मD िनWदX औlोिगक िववाद मD के23ीय सरकार औlोिगक अिधकरण एवं

6म 2यायालय, नई दली-1 के पंचाट (संदभ सं‰या 164/2015) को )कािशत करती है जो के23ीय सरकार को

16.08.2019 को )ाi 0आ था।

[सं. एल-42011/74/2015-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 19^th August, 2019

S.O. 1562.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 164/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court New Delhi - 1 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

Director General of Works, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi & Others, and their workmen which were received by

the Central Government on 16.08.2019.

[No. L-42011/74/2015-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No.1, NEW DELHI

ID No. 164/2015

Shri Abhi Ram and 187 other workers,

As represented by

All India Central PWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan (Regd.)

H.No.4823, Gali No.13, Balbir Nagar Extension,

Shahdara,

Delhi 110032.

…Workmen

6490

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

The Director General of Works,

CPWD, Nirman Bhawan,

New Delhi 110011.

…Management

AWARD

This Award shall dispose of a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide its letter

No. L-42011/74/ 2015-IR(DU) dated 20.07.2015 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10

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

under:

‘Whether contract system in this case is sham and camouflage ? Whether these workmen whose particulars are

given in Annexure-I of original application are entitled for regularization in their services with effect from date

of their initial appointment and grant of pay & allowances at par with their regular counterpart. Whether

termination of workmen (list enclosed) during the pendency of conciliation proceedings can be construed as

violation of Section 33(1) for which an adjudication under Section 33-A is required ? If yes, what relief can be

given to the workmen.”

Both parties were put to notice and the claimants/workmen Abhi Ram and 187 others whose particulars are

given in Annexure-1 were appointed by the Department of CPWD through contractors for attending day to day work of

maintenance and these workmen are regularly working in the department with effect from the date/s of their employment

to the entire satisfaction of the Management though contractors were/are being replaced by the Management from time to

time and such contractors were used only for the purpose of making payments to these workmen, whereas the workmen

are working under the direct control of CPWD. The work being performed by the workmen is also recorded in the

workers’ diary as well as in Task Register & Complaint Register maintained at enquiry office level. Some of the

workmen engaged as MLDs & Computer Operators are closely working with the Officer-In-charge. Material which is

being issued to these workmen for attending day to day maintenance work is assigned by the department directly and

their work is also supervised/ inspected by the department itself. The payment of wages to these workmen is made on

monthly basis on the basis of daily attendance. The work being performed by the Workmen/claimants is of permanent

nature and they are performing the same work/job which their regular counterparts are doing. As per provisions of

Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, these workmen are entitled for receipt of payment of their wages at

par with their regular counterparts. Though there are sufficient number of sanctioned posts available with the

Management since 1992 as per order issued by Ministry of Finance, Govt of India, but same have not been filled up by

the Management. It is pleaded that some of the workmen had approached Hon’ble High Court of Delhi for abolition of

contract system in the department of CPWD and vide judgement dated 26/5/2000 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had

directed the Ministry of Labour for constitution of Advisory Board for examining the matter concerning abolition of

contract system in CPWD. Thereafter, Ministry of Labour had constituted an Advisory Board which submitted its

detailed report dated 18/12/2001, thereby prohibiting 22 posts for contract system and on that basis, Ministry of Labour

had recommended ban on 20 posts for contract system in CPWD. Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India then issued an

order/notification dated 31/7/2002 for complete ban on 15 posts for contract system in CPWD an copy of the said gazette

notification was sent to the Management of CPWD for necessary action on 23/9/2000. For implementation of gazette

notification dated 31/7/2002, the Management of CPWD also collected data of such workmen from time to time from its

field units. It is also pleaded that all these workmen/claimants are continuously working in the department of CPWD

since last 10 years or so and have also completed more than 240 days in each calendar year and as such they are legally

entitled for regularization in their respective service. It is further pleaded that pursuant to the directions of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the matter of Uma Devi Vs. State of Karnataka, the Management of CPWD had framed a scheme for

regularization of daily wage workmen of CPWD and regularized the services of junior workmen under one time

relaxation but not the claimants/ workmen herein. Some of similar workmen had filed an industrial dispute before the

Tribunal, New Delhi for similar cause and an award dated 13/2/2013 was passed in favour of the workmen. During

pendency the case, services of 14 Nos of workmen/claimants (whose details are given in Annexure-11) were terminated

by the Management without taking any permission and the Union had filed a complaint application under Section 33-A

of the Act and the workmen are entitled for protection. Prayer has been made for reinstatement of terminated workmen

with full back wages & all consequential benefits as well as for regularization of workmen/claimants whose particulars

are given in Annexure-1 from the date of their initial appointment/s.

The claim petition has been resisted by the Management of CPWD who filed its written statement and took

preliminary objections that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the parties, as all claimant are

labourers of contractor to whom contract had been awarded by the Management after inviting open tenders. The

workmen/claimants had neither been appointed nor recruited by the Management and as such they are not the workmen

as per Section 2(S) of the Act. While denying the allegations of the claimants on merits, it has been stated that since the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6491

claimants were not appointed by the Management, so question of issuing appointment letter and providing other legal

facilities does not arise All the workmen were working under the direct control and supervision of the contractor who

had engaged them to complete the work entrusted to them by various offices of CPWD spread all over India. It is denied

that all the workmen/claimants have completed more than 240 days in each calendar year . It is stated that contract

system is not sham and camouflage and as such the workmen are not entitled either for regularization in their services

from the date of their initial appointments or for grant of pay & allowances at part with their regular counterparts. Prayer

has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 05/04/2016 :-

Whether there exists relationship of employer and employees between the management and claimants as

alleged ?

As in terms of reference.

Relief.

The Claimants in support of their case examined 132 Nos. of witnesses as W.W.1 to WW132 including

Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, General Secretary of the Union as WW110. They tendered their respective affidavits

Ex.WW1/A to Ex.WW132/A and relied on documents Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/18 and Ex.WW110/1. On the other

hand, the Management in order to rebut the case of the claimants, examined Shri Ram Murti Prajapati, Executive

Engineer (Electrical), Shimla Central Division as MW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A and

relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/4 as well as on the document Ex.WW1/16.

I have heard Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, A/R for the claimants and Shri Atul Bhardwaj, A/R for the

Management and have gone through the records carefully. My findings on above issues are as follows.

Issue No. 1 to 3 :-

All these issues are taken up together as they can be conveniently disposed of by common discussion.

Case of the claimants/workmen herein is that they were engaged/ appointed by the Department of CPWD

through contractors for attending day to day work of maintenance and these workmen are regularly working in the

department with effect from the date/s of their employment to the entire satisfaction of the Management though

contractors were/are being replaced by the Management from time to time and such contractors were used only for the

purpose of making payments to these workmen, whereas the workmen are working under the direct control of CPWD.

The contract/agreement between the Management and the so called contractor/s was sham and bogus.

During the course of arguments, learned A/R appearing for the Management strenuously argued that since the

claimants were not directly appointed by the Management herein and they used to get wages from the contractor/s, there

existed no relationship of employer-employee between the parties. He relied on a number of judgements viz. Workman

Vs. Coates of India Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 547; Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union Vs. Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd;(2005) SCC 51; Balwant Rai Saluja Vs. Air India Ltd (2014) 9 SCC 407; Ram Singh Vs. Union

Territory, Chandigarh (2004) 1 SCC 126; Workman of Nilgiri Coop Marketing Society Vs. State of Tamilnadu

(2004) 3 SCC 4514; Union of India and another Vs. Aryulmozhi Iniarasu and others (2011) 9 SCR 1 to buttress his

submission that if the contract is for supply of labour, necessarily the labour supplied by the contractor will work under

the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer but that would not make the worker a direct employee of

the principal employer, if the salary is paid by a contractor.

10)

There is no dispute about preposition of law that the control test and organization test are not the only factors

which can be said to be decisive. With a view to elicit the answer, the Court/Tribunal is required to consider several

factors vis-a-vis- who is the appointing authority, who is a paymaster, who can dismiss; how long alternative service

lasts, the extent & control of supervision; the nature of the job – professional or skilled work etc. etc, which would have

a bearing on the result. It would be worthwhile to first consider the evidence adduced on record by the parties to the

dispute.

11)

Testimony of the workmen/claimants who appeared in the witness box as WW1 to WW132 is in line with the

averments made in the claim petition. Particulars of 188 Nos. of workmen/claimants in respect of whom the reference

has been sent are given in Annexure-1 and same is now exhibited as Ex.C-1. The claimants have filed on record

number of documents viz. copy of duty chart of the claimants as Ex.WW1/1 (colly.); daily workers’ diary containing

the duties assigned and performed by them as Ex.WW1/2 (colly); extract of Enquiry Office Message Register as

Ex.WW1/3 (colly.)’ attendance register of the workmen/claimants as Ex.WW1/4; copy of judgement dated 17/1/1986 of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Surender Singh and others Versus Engineer in Chief, CPWD as Ex.WW1/5;

copy of letter dated 30/9/92 issued by Director General of Works, CPWD (Ex.WW1/6-colly) regarding creation opf

additional 8982 posts in various categories of work-charged establishment for purposes of regularization of daily rated

muster roll workers of CPWD; extract of directions dated 26/5/2000 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of

6492

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Rajender Lal and others Vs. UOI and others, CWP No.8741 of 1998 as Ex.WW1/7; Minutes of Central Advisory

(Contract Labour) Board circulated vide letter dated 18/12/2001 as Ex.WW1/8 (colly.); circular letter dated 27/7/2002

(Ex.WW1/9) issued by Ministry of Labour, intimating that the Advisory Board had recommended ban for contract

system in CPWD in respect of 20 Nos of posts/jobs. Copy of notification dated 31/7/2002 issued by Ministry of Labour,

Govt. of India (Ex.WW1/10) regarding complete ban on 15 Nos. of jobs/posts for contract system in CPWD and copy of

circular dated 26/9/2002 (Ex.WW1/11) forwarding copy of aforesaid notification to all concerned by the Ministry of

Labour, GOI; Vide letter dat3ed 17/1/2003 (Ex.WW1/2) the Management of CPWD seeking status report regarding

contract labour (regulation & abolition) Act, 1970; copy of report dated 3/3/2009 (Ex.WW1/3) sent by Executive

Engineer (Electrical), Central Electrical Division, Shimla concerning the issue of contractor labour –outsourced; Copy of

the letter dated 11/3/2011 (Ex.WW1/14) sent by Management of CPWD to all its Superintending Engineers pursuant to

the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Uma Devi Vs. State of Karnataka, the Management of CPWD

regarding regularization of muster roll/ casual workers of CPWD as a one time measure; copy of the award dated

13/2/2013 (Ex.WW1/5) passed by my learned Predecessor in ID No.241/2001 (Raj Kumar s/o.Arya Ram vs. CPWD)

regarding regularization of the workman/claimant Raj Kumar.; list of workers employed by various contractors under

Shimla Central Electrical Division as Ex.WW1/16 –colly. It has come in the cross examination of these witnesses/

claimants that they had not applied for job in response to any advertisement, nor their names were sponsored by the

Employment Exchange, nor they were issued any appointment letter. They showed their ignorance if the contractor

was/is depositing the salary in their bank account/s.

12-

According to the testimony /affidavit Ex.MW 1/A of Shri Ram Murti Prajapati, Executive Engineer (Electrical),

there does not exist relationship of employer-employees between the Management of CPWD and the claimants herein.

This witness has filed on record copy of certificate of registration (Ex.MW1/4) dated 2/12/2012 obtained by Electrical

Division of CPWD at Shimla under Contract Labour (Regulation Abolition) Act, 1970. In cross examination, though

this witness tried to explain that Ex.WW1/1 –duty chart (containing 17 pages) is not an authentic document because same

is not issued by Assistant Engineer, however he admitted that as per CPWD works manual, the registers such as

attendance register, overtime register, entrance register etc. are to be issued by A.E./ Incharge of the work. He also

admitted that duty chart is verified by concerned J.E. and then it is submitted to the department as proof of the workmen

who had worked on the spot through contractor and thereafter payment is released by the department to the contractor.

He admitted that after notification dated 31/7/2002 (Ex.WW1/10), the department could not engage contract labour

covering 15 category of jobs as mentioned in the said notification.

13-

As per deposition of WW1 to WW132 coupled with the document Ex.C-1, it is evident that most of the

claimants/ workmen who were engaged for doing the work of Beldar, Sewerman, Khalasi, Operator. Wireman, Plumber.

Mason, Pumb Operator etc. during the years between 1989 to 2013 are still working as such. Duty charts, workers

diary, complaint register and attendance registers Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/4 filed on record prima facie show that the

claimants were working under the control and supervision of the Management of CPWD and not under the direct control

of so called contractors. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the Management of CPWD used to get work

done from the claimants/workmen through the contactor pursuant to the contract/agreement issued in favour of the

contactor/s, in that eventuality also the question arises for consideration is whether the said contract is a sham or

camouflage as alleged by the claimants.

14-

It is fairly settled that the ID Act as well as Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 are essentially

social and beneficial legislations. The main purpose of the CLRA Act, 1970 is to regulate the conditions of workers

under the contract labour system and to provide for its abolition by the appropriate government as provided under Section

10 of the said Act. Section 12 of the said Act bars a contractor from undertaking or executing any work through contract

labour, except under and in accordance with a licence issued. Section 23, 24 and 25 of the Act makes contravention of

the provisions of Act punishable thereunder. There is also requirement for the principal employer of the establishment to

get itself registered under the CLRA Act so as to avail the benefit of provisions of the Act.

15-

Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the celebrated case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs.

National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1 noticed the following circumstances under which contract

labour would be held to be the workmen of the principal employer :-

“107. An analysis of the cases, discussed above, shows that they fall in three classes :

(i)

Where contract labour is engaged in or in connection with the work of an establishment establishment and

employment of contract labour is prohibited either because the Industrial Adjudicator/Court ordered abolition

of contract or because the appropriate Govt. issued notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, no

automatic absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment was ordered.

(ii)

Where the contract was found to be a sham and nominal, rather a camouflage, in which case the contract

labour working in the establishment of the principal employer, were held in fact and in reality, the employees

of the principal employer himself. Indeed such cases do not relate to abolition of contract labour but present

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6493

instances wherein the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct position as a fact at the stage after

employment of contract labour stood prohibited.

(iii) Where in discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining a canteen in an establishment, the principal

employer availed the services of a contractor, the Courts have held that the contract labour would indeed be

the employees of the principal employer.

16-

In the case of Management of Ashok Hotel Vs. the Workmen (W.P. –Civil No.14828/2006 – decided on

19/2/2013), similar issue was involved and it was a case where various workmen were working continuously as

safaiwala/housemen in the kitchen department etc. and they were alleged to be working directly under the contractor who

had entered into a contract with the principal employer i.e. Ashok Hotel. Contention of the Management to the effect

that workmen were employees of the contractor was rejected and contract in the said case was held to be sham and

camouflage so as to deny direct relationship of employer (Ashok Hotel ) and the workmen.

17-

Except for the bald statement that the claimants are/were the workers of the contactor, the Management has not

filed on record any document to rebut the contention of the claimants that they were engaged by the Management and

that is why the claimants who were engaged during the years 1989 to 2013 are still working as such. The Management

of CPWD has not filed on record copy of any of the agreements/ contracts awarded to contractor/s from time to time so

as to ascertain as to whether such contract was either for completion of any project or for supply of manpower. It is

worthwhile to mention here that notification Ex.WW1/10 which specifically prohibited employment of contract labour in

the process, operation or work specified to be done by Air Conditioner Mechanic, Air Conditioner Operator, Air

Conditioner Khalasi/helper, Electrician, Wireman, Khalasi (Electrical), Carpenter, Mason, Fitter, Plumber,

Helper/ Beldar, Mechanic, Sewerman, Sweeper and Foreman, was issued as far back as 31/7/2002. The

Management of CPWD has not explained as to why it continued to engage and get the work done through contractual

workers despite prohibitory order/notification dated 31/7/2002 issued by the Government. All these circumstances lead

me to draw an inference against the Management that the contracts/agreements issued by the Management of CPWD for

getting the work done through the claimants/workmen herein from time to time are sham and camouflage and that there

existed relationship of employer-employees between the parties.

18-

It has been pleaded in para 21 & 22 of the statement of claim that some of the similar workman had filed an

industrial dispute before the Tribunal for similar cause which resulted into passing of the Award and during pendency of

the case, services of 14 Nos. of workmen whose particulars are given in Annexure-11 (now marked as Ex.C-2) were

terminated without taking any permission from the Competent Authority. As per statement Ex.C-2, services of 14 Nos.

of workmen were terminated during the period between July, 2014 to September, 2015. The claimants have filed on

record copy of the Award dated 13/2/2013 passed by learned Predecessor of this Tribunal in ID case No.241/2011 (titled

as Raj Kumar s/o. Arya Ram Vs. CPWD) as Ex.WW1/15, perusal of which shows that the award was passed on

13/2/2013 and same was in persona and not in rem, whereas services of the claimants are claimed to have been

terminated between July, 2014 to September, 2015. The claimants have not filed on record to substantiate their plea that

during pendency of the proceedings relating to the cause of these workmen/claimants, their services have been

terminated by the Management and as such provisions of Section 33-A are at all not attracted. But the fact

remains that services of 14 Nos. of workmen/claimants have been terminated without issuing any notice or without any

notice pay/compensation. The contention of the Management is that since those claimants/workmen were not employed

by the Management rather were engaged through the contractor, there arises no question of termination of the claimants/

workmen herein. This Tribunal has already held that there existed relationship of employer-employees between the

parties and that the contracts/agreements between the Management of CPWD and so called contractor/s for getting the

work done through the claimants/workmen herein from time to time are sham and camouflage. Since no notice or

compensation in lieu of notice period was given to the claimant/s by the Management and as such termination of 14 Nos.

of claimants/workmen (whose particulars are given in Ex.C-2) by the Management was in violation of provisions of

Section 25-F of the Act. This goes to show that the Management terminated the services of such claimants/workmen

in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

19-

I may mention that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act which provides for conditions precedent to

retrenchment of workmen, are absolute and inexorable and it reads as under :-

“25-F : Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen –

No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an

employer shall be retrenched by that employer until –

(a)

The workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and

the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period

of the notice;

6494

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(b)

The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to

fifteen days’ average pay for every completed years of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of

six months; and

(c)

Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be

specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.”

The above provision makes it clear that the employer is required to give notice to the appropriate Government apart-from

giving one month’s notice in writing or one month’s wages in lieu of the notice and payment of retrenchment

compensation to the concerned workman. There is nothing on record to show that either any notice was issued by the

Management or notice pay/compensation was paid to the workman/claimant prior to his termination. As such, the

Management has violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

20-

There is long line of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of

Section 25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the

provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will render action of the Management to be illegal and void under the law.

21-

Since there is no evidence on record that any valid notice was issued by the Management to the workman at the

time of termination or in lieu of such notice, any compensation was paid to her, as such action of the Management in

terminating the services of 14 Nos. of workman (whose particulars are given in the statement Ex.C-2 is held to be illegal

and void.

22-

Now the residual question is whether those 14 Nos. of terminated claimants/workmen are entitled to any

incidental relief of payment of back wages and/or reinstatement of service with full/partial back wages. There is nothing

on record to suggest that any show cause notice or charge-sheet was issued to 14 Nos. of claimants/workmen by the

Management prior to their termination. Moreover, the job of the workmen as Khalasi/Beldar or Operator is considered

to be of perennial and regular nature. Even one workmen namely Chander Shekhar S/o Manohar Lal whose

services were terminated on 1-10-2014 has since been re-appointed on 1-8-2015 and as such question of his

reinstatement does not arise.

23-

As per pleadings and evidence adduced on record, the workmen whose services were terminated worked for just

about three to four years prior to their termination. It has come on record that the claimants/workmen including those

whose services were terminated were engaged through the contractor and they were not selected after undergoing any

written test or interview etc. They were/are not the regular employees of the Management of CPWD. It is fairly settled

that there are number of factors which are required to be considered by the Tribunal while considering the question of

reinstatement with back wages. It has been held in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad Vs. Food Corporation of India (2014)

7 Supreme Court cases 190 as under :-

“ Relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given

fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure.

Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. An order of retrenchment

passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not,

however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the

workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly daily wages

has not been found to be proper by the Supreme Court and instead compensation has been awarded. The

Supreme Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee.

The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the

termination is found to be illegal, because of non payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as

mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always

open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment

compensation.

24) Having regard to the recent judicial trends and duration of service rendered by the workmen whose particulars are

given in statement Ex.C-1, an amount of Rs.1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh) each appears to be just and reasonable, and such

sum is payable to each of the claimants/workmen whose particulars are given in statement Ex.C-1 (excepting Shri

Chander Shekhar s/o. Manohar Lal already re-appointed) by the Management. Legal heirs of two workmen/claimants

namely Rati Ram and Anil Thakur who have since expired, shall also be entitled to get compensation of Rs.1 lakh each

in lieu of services rendered by the deceased workmen.

25-

Now, an important question/issue arises for consideration is as to whether the workmen/claimants who are still

working with the Management are entitled to be regularized to the post/s to which they are working. It is fairly settled

that there is no fundamental right of those workers who have been employed as daily wager or temporarily or on

contractual basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. Even such workers even serving for a long

number of years will not become entitle to claim regularization if he is not working against a sanctioned post.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6495

26-

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another Vs. Food Corporation of India

2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 held as under :-

“… We are of the opinion that when there are posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice, the

Labour Court would not give direction for regularization only because a worker has continued as daily wage

worker/adhoc/temporary worker for number of year. Further, if there are no posts available, such a direction for

regularization would be impressible. In the abovesaid circumstances, giving of direction to regularise a person,

only on the basis of number of years put in by such a worker as daily wager et., may amount to backdoor entry

into the service which is an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution. Further such a direction would not be

given when the concerned worker does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question as per the

Recruitment Rules. However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularized by the

employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached

Industrial/Labour Court are at par with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally

justified, otherwise non regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious

discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the

Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality of upholding Article 14 rather than violating this

constitutional provision.”

27-

Our own High Court in the case of Project Director, Department of Rural Development Versus its

Workmen through D.P.V.V.I.E.Union (W.P. –Civil No. 17555/2005 – decided on 29/3/2019) after referring to

number of judgments including the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and

other Vs Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1 and of Delhi High Court in the case of Anil Lamba and others Vs. GNCTD WP

(Civil) No.958/2018, has observed in para 27 as under :-

“In my view, the rigors applicable for grant of regularization in cases of public employment cannot be read in

such a manner so as to take away the wide powers of an Industrial Tribunal under the ID Act. It needs no

reiteration that the basic tenets of service law are very different from those of labour law and therefore, the

safeguards put in place to protect the interests of workmen cannot be conflated with the service rules and

regulations applicable to government employees in the public sector. Both of them stand on different footing

and can neither be tested on the same touchstone nor enforced on the same manner. Therefore, I am of the

opinion that neither the decision in Uma Devi (supra) and Anil Lamba (supra) has any application to the facts of

the present case. Even otherwise, a perusal of the decision in Uma Devi (supra) shows that with respect to

the regularization of temporary employees, the Supreme Court itself had specifically carved out an

exception for those contractual employees who, though appointed regularly, had completed at least 10

years of service. In the facts of the present case, the respondents/workmen have as on date completed

more than twenty-two years of service, and therefore, even as per the decision in Uma Devi (supra), they

would be entitled to the regularization of their services.”

From the above rulings, it is clear that ordinarily the Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator should not issue direction for

regularization of the workman engaged/working on casual/daily wage basis irrespective of his length of service unless

there is a Scheme/policy of the Management & unless similarly situated workmen have been regularized by the

employer/Management under the said policy/Scheme and benefit of such scheme/policy has been declined to the

other. However, the Industrial Tribunal is vested with powers to curb unfair labour practices being adopted by

the employer/s.

28-

It is evident that most of the claimants/workmen have been working with the Management continuously and

uninterruptedly since 1989 as contractual worker and they are doing the job of Beldar, Sewerman, Khalasi,, Pump

Operator, Wireman, Plumber, etc., nature of which is considered to be perennial. The Management has deprived them

the status & privilege of permanent/regular employee. Employing workmen as “badlis”, casuals or temporaries and to

continue them as such for years together with the object of depriving them of the status & privileges of permanent

workman amounts to unfair labour practice in terms of Section 2(ra) read with Fifth Schedule of the Act. It emerges that

the Management has adopted unfair labour practice in depriving the workmen/claimants herein of the status & benefit of

permanent workman and such a practice is required to be curbed.

29-

It has also come on record that the workmen/claimants described as contractual employees, are not being paid

wages as per pay-scale for their respective categories and are paid wages less than that being paid to their regular

counter-parts. Once the workmen/claimants are doing same duties and responsibilities as are being performed by regular

employees of the Management, they are entitled to get wages at par with those of regular employees, on the

principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work”

30-

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

Lab.L.C. 427 while upholding the principle of “equal pay for equal work” even for temporary employees observed as

under :-

6496

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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

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

same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the

very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He

does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth,

and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the

lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative

enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive,

as it compels involuntary subjugation. ’’

31-

In view of the rulings and facts of the case as discussed hereinabove, it is held that the claimants shall be

deemed to be employees of the Management and they shall be entitled to get wages as per pay-scale for their respective

categories w.e.f. 20/7/2015 – the date when the matter was referred to this Tribunal by the appropriate Govt,

32-

As regards regularization of services of the workmen/claimant, it is worthwhile to mention here that the

claimants/workmen have not led any cogent evidence to show that they were eligible (age-wise and qualification-wise)

for recruitment for Government job, on the date when they were initially engaged by their respective contractor/s for

rendering services in CPWD. There is also nothing on record to suggest that the workmen/claimants are having requisite

qualification for technical post of Operator/Wireman/Electrician etc. For want of requisites for regularization of the job

of the claimants, the Management is directed to consider case of the claimants/workmen who are still working under

them, for regularization of service as per its prevailing scheme/policy within a period of three months from the date of

publication of the Award. While regularizing services of the workmen/claimants, the Management shall keep in mind

age, qualification and length of service etc. rendered by the claimants and any policy in this behalf.

Award is passed accordingly in favour of the claimants and against the Management.

Let copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.

Dated : 05.08.2019

AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer

नई दली, 19 अगB त, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 1563

1563

1563.—औlोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण मD के23ीय

सरकार मेसस आयु, (पूव), द ली नगर िनगम, द ली और अ2य एवं उनके कमचारी के )बंधतं; के संब िनयोजक- और

उनके कमकार- के बीच अनुबंध मD िनWदX औlोिगक िववाद मD के23ीय सरकार औlोिगक अिधकरण एवं 6म 2यायालय,

नई दली-1 के पंचाट (संदभ सं‰या 199/2012) को )कािशत करती है जो के23ीय सरकार को 16.08.2019 को )ाi 0ए

थे।

[सं. एल-42011/74/2012-आईआर (डीयू)]

वी. के. ठाकुर, अनुभाग अिधकारी

New Delhi, the 19^th August, 2019

S.O. 1563.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 199/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court New Delhi-1 as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

Commissioner (East), Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi & Others, and their workmen which were received by the

Central Government on 16.08.2019.

[No. L- 42011/74/2012-IR (DU)]

V. K. THAKUR, Section Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6497

ANNEXURE

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

COURT No.1, NEW DELHI

ID No.199/2012

Shri Satish s/o. Bhishan and 18 others,

As represented by

All India Central PWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan (Regd)

H.No.4823, Gali No.13, Balbir Nagar Extn.

Shahdara,

Delhi 110032.

…Workmen

Versus

The Commissioner (East),

Municipal Corporation of Delhi,

Patparganj Industrial Area,

Delhi.

…Management

AWARD

This award shall decide a reference which was made to this to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide

letter No.L-42011/74/2012/IR(DU) dated 03.12.2012 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section

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

under:-

‘Whether the action of the management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in denying the

regularization of services of Shri Satish s/o. Shri Bhishan and 18 others (as per list enclosed), Cart man (Bhaisa

Buggies Chalak) from the date of appointment shown against each workman named in the ID is justified or not ?

If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to and from which date ?’

Both parties were put to notice and the claimants Shri Satish and 9 other workmen namely Dalchand,

Madanpal, Ram Kumar, Sanjeev, Man singh, Chanderpal, Pramod, Shripal and Vinod only filed their joint statement of

claim alongwith their individual affidavits and a joint authority letter, whereas reference was received in respect of

following 19 workmen :-

Sl. No.

Name of the Workmen & Ward No.

Date of Appointment

Satish s/o Bhishan -(246/88)

May, 1999

Dharam Pal s/o Kali Charan (96/252)

January, 1996

Ashok s/o Ram Pal (88 Snah 3)

January, 1994

Sanjeev s/o Dal Chand (248)

January, 2000

Ram Dass s/o Bhawar Singh (246/88)

January, 1994

Chander Pal s/o Umrao (89/259)

January, 1999

Shalu s/o Dharam Pal (96)

November, 2005

Pramod Kumar s/o Ram Pal (89)

January, 1994

Madan Pal s/o Bhopal Singh (97/271)

September, 2001

Kaushinder s/o Rishi Pal (252/98)

February, 2000

Pushpeder s/o Dharam Pal (259)

December, 2000

Man Singh s/o Mangal (259)

January, 2000

Pramod s/o Chokhe Lal (245/88)

July, 1998

Ram Kumar s/o Jagdish

January, 2000

Vinod Kumar s/o Sahab singh (252/96)

December, 2005

Sunil s/o Vijay (252/98)

August, 1998

6498

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2019/BHADRA 9, 1941

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dal Chand s/o Udai Raj (248)

February, 2000

Vinod s/o Zile Singh (88/246)

September, 1999

Sri Pal s/o Ram Swaroop

August, 1999

It has been averred in the claim petition filed by 10 Nos. of claimants/workmen at Sl.No.1,4,6,8,. 9, 12, 14, 17, 18 and

19 above, that they are working as Cartman (Bhais Buggie Chalak) for doing the job of cleaning/sweeping

Malba/garbage from various streets in Maujpur area of Delhi under MCD (East) with effect from the respective date of

their employment as mentioned above and have put in 240 days continuous service in each calendar year and they were

being paid wages through ECS mode in their respective bank accounts. It is stated that some of the similarly situated

workmen have been regularized by the Management as per its scheme and the Management of MCD had initiated action

for preparation of seniority list of such workmen w.e.f. 1/4/1994 for which an order was circulated on 24/2/2009. It is

pleaded that the workmen are being paid wages/salaries on daily rate basis, whereas similarly situated regular workmen

are being paid proper pay-scale with allowances . The Mananagement is not regularizing the workmen to deprive the

benefits of regular pay-scale to the workmen despite the fact that Department of Personnel & Training, Govt. of India has

also issued guidelines to all the departments/Ministries for regularization of services of such workmen by way of framing

a scheme. Prayer has been made for regularizing the services of the workmen with effect from the date of their initial

dates of appointment with proper pay-scale as being paid to their regular counterparts workmen.

Management resisted the Claim petition by filing written statement and took preliminary objections to the effect

that claim petition is not maintainable as no demand notice has been served upon by the claimants; there is no

relationship of employer-employee between the parties because cartman/bhainsa buggie chalak is not a workman as per

Section 2(s) of the Act; that substitute cartman/bhainsa buggie chalaks were engaged on piecemeal sanctioned for 89

days which was renewed from time to time as and when required by the department; that the claimants never worked the

Management regularly. It has been denied the claimants have put in 240 days continuous services in each calendar year

since the date of their initial engagement.. It is alleged that as per policy of the Management vide circular dated

6/5/2010, substitute Safai Karamchari namely Dharampal s/o. Kali Charan, Ashok s/o. Ram Pal, Ram Dass s/o. Bhawan

Singh and Parmod Kumar s/o. Ram Pal have been regularized in service in phased manner policy, as per the seniority of

the workmen . It is alleged that the Managemnt provided legal facilities to all its employees as per labour laws of the

land. It has been denied that the workmen have given their consent to the Sangathan (Union) for filing their case for

regularization and as such the Sangathan (Union) has no locus standi to file the present dispute before the Tribunal for

want of legal and valid espousal. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition with heavy costs.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 11/4/2013 :-

(1)

Whether present reference is not maintainable for want of service of demand notice on the management ?

(2)

Whether dispute has not been espoused by substantial number of workmen in the establishment of the

management ?

(3)

Whether claimants are entitled for regularization of their services with the Management ?

(4)

As in terms of reference ?

In order to prove their case, the claimants examined themselves as WW1 to WW10 and filed their respective

affidavits Ex.WW1/A to Ex.WW10/A and relied on number of documents respectively filed by them and same will be

considered and discussed later on. Perusal of the record shows that the Management has not examined any witness in

support of its defence.

I have heard Shri Satish Kumar, learned A/R for the claimant as none appeared on behalf of the Management to

advance arguments. I have also gone through the records carefully. My findings on the above issues are as follows.

Issue No.1 :-

The Management has contended that since the claimants prior to filing the claim petition did not serve any

demand notice, the claim petition is not maintainable. WW1 Satish explained that he is illiterate and that he never gave

any demand in writing to the Management, asking for his regularization. Merely because no demand notice was issued

by the claimants, no prejudice ha been caused to the Management, inasmuch as claimants had approached Conciliation

Officer regarding their dispute for regularization but to no success and therefore, the matter was referred to this Tribunal

by the Appropriate Government for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. Since the workmen /claimants

engaged as Cart man (Bhaisa Buggies Chalak) are illiterate persons, it would be inappropriate to conclude that the claim

petition is not maintainable as the same would amount to defeat the claims of the poor and illiterate workmen. Once a

reference has been made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government, same is required to be adjudicated on merits,

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2019@Hkknz 9] 1941

6499

based on the pleadings and evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. This issue is, therefore, decided in favour of the

claimants.

Issue No.2 :-

The Management has taken an objection that the claim petition is not maintainable as there is no espousal to the

cause of the claimants/workmen. The workmen have relied and filed on record copy of the espousal certificate

(Ex.WW1/10) dated 21/8/2017, perusal of which shows that All India Central PWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan

(Regd.) in the meeting held on 21/7/2010 had decided to take up the cause of the claimants/workmen regarding

regularization of their services. A suggestion was given to WW1 Shri Satish that he joined membership of aforesaid

Union after filing of the present claim, which was denied by him. He was cross examined at length but nothing material

came out to show that there is no valid espousal to the cause/dispute of the claimants herein. As such, the contention of

the Management that the claim petition is not maintainable for want of espousal by the Union, is not tenable and hence,

rejected. This issue is, therefore, decided against the Management.

Issue No.3 and 4 :-

Both these issues being co-related are taken up together as they can be conveniently disposed of by common

discussion.

10.

From the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, it is manifest that the claimants are in the

employment of the Management for the last many years and there exists relationship of employer-employee between the

parties.

11.

Now the short question arises for consideration is whether the Management was under moral and legal

obligation to regularize the services of the workmen/claimants or not.

12.

It is fairly settled that there is no fundamental right of those workers who have been employed as daily wager or

temporarily or on contractual basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed/regularized in service. Even such

workers even serving for a long number of years will not become entitle to claim regularization if he is not working

against a sanctioned post. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another Vs. Food

Corporation of India 2014) 7 Supreme Court cases 190 held as under :-