5925 GI/2019

(7693)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 48]

ubZ fnYyh] uoEcj 24—uoEcj 30] 2019] 'kfuokj@vxzgk;.k 3—vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

No. 48] NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 24— NOVEMBER 30, 2019, SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA 3— AGRAHAYANA—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, 18 िसत बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 2006

2006

2006.—रा ीयकृत बक (बंध और कण उपबंध) कम, 1970 के पैरा 3 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठत

बककारी कंपनी (उपम! का अजन और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (3) के खंड (ग) $ारा द% त

शि'य! का योग करते +ए, के./ीय सरकार, एत0ारा, 1ी दीपक कुमार (ज.म ितिथ: 1.8.1964) को त%काल भाव से

अथवा अगले आदेश! तक, सु1ी रेनी अजीत के थान पर इि8डयन ओवरसीज बक के िनदेशक म8डल म: िनदेशक नािमत करती

है।

[फा. सं. 6/3/2011-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार िम1, अवर सिचव

7694

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 18th September, 2019

S.O. 2006.—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 Shri Deepak Kumar (date of birth : 1.8.1964) as Director on the Board of Directors of Indian Overseas Bank

with immediate effect and until further orders, vice Ms Reeny Ajith.

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

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई द ली, 1 अ; तूबर, 2019

का

का. आ.

. आ.

. आ. 2007

2007

2007.—रा=ीयकृत बक (बंध और कण उपबंध) कम, 1970 के पैरा 8 के उप-पैरा (1) के साथ पठत

बककारी कंपनी (उपम! का अजन और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (3) के खंड (क) $ारा द?

शि'य! का योग करते +ए, के./ीय सरकार, एतद$ारा, इलाहाबाद बक के बंध िनदेशक एवं मु@य कायकारी अिधकारी

1ी सीएच. एस. एस. मिलकाजुन राव (ज.म ितिथ 22.1.1962) को कायभार Aहण करने क तारीख से दनांक

18.9.2021 तक अथवा अगले आदेश! तक, जो भी पहले हो, पंजाब नैशनल बक म: बंध िनदेशक एवं मु@य कायकारी

अिधकारी के पद पर िनयु' करती है।

[फा. सं. 4/2/2018-बीओ-I]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 1st October, 2019

S.O. 2007.—In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the

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

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

Shri Ch. S. S. Mallikarjuna Rao (date of birth: 22.1.1962), Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer in Allahabad

Bank as Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer in Punjab National Bank, with effect from the date of

assumption of office, till 18.9.2021 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

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

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 21 अ; तूबर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 2008

2008

2008.—रा=ीयकृत बक (बंध और कण उपबंध) कम, 1970 के खंड (3) के उप-खंड (1) के साथ पठत

बककारी कंपनी (उपम! का अजन और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1970 (1970 का 5) क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (3) के खंड (ज)

और उप-धारा (3-क) $ारा द? शि'य! का योग करते +ए, के./ीय सरकार, एत0ारा, 1ी गौतम गुहा (ज.म ितिथः

16.1.1955) को पुन: नािमत कए जाने क अिधसूचना क तारीख से एक वष क अविध के िलए या बक के आमेलन, अथात

31.3.2020 तक अथवा अगले आदेश! तक, जो भी पहले हो, इलाहाबाद बक के िनदेशक म8डल म: अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी

िनदेशक के पद पर पुन: नािमत करती है।

[फा. सं. 6/1/2018-बीओ-I (खंड-III)]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7695

New Delhi, the 21st October, 2019

S.O. 2008.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (3-A) of

section 9 of The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) read with sub-

clause (1) of clause (3) of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, Central

Government hereby re-nominates Shri Gautam Guha (DoB: 16.1.1955) as part-time non-official director on the Board of

Directors of Allahabad Bank, from the date of notification of his re-nomination for a period of one year, or until the

amalgamation of the bank i.e. 31.3.2020, or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.

[F. No. 6/1/2018-BO-I (Vol.III)]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 21 अ; तूबर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 2009

2009

2009.—रा=ीयकृत बक (बंध और कण उपबंध) कम, 1970 के खंड (3) के उप-खंड (1) के साथ पठत

और उप-धारा (3-क) $ारा द? शि'य! का योग करते +ए, के./ीय सरकार, एत0ारा, 1ी पDनाभन िवEल दास

(ज.म ितिथः 2.5.1950) को पुन: नािमत कए जाने क अिधसूचना क तारीख से एक वष क अविध के िलए या बक के

आमेलन, अथात 31.3.2020 तक अथवा अगले आदेश! तक, जो भी पहले हो, इंिडयन बक के िनदेशक म8डल म: अंशकािलक

गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक के पद पर पुन: नािमत करती है।

[फा. सं. 6/1/2018-बीओ-I (खंड-III)]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 21st October, 2019

S.O. 2009.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (3-A) of

section 9 of The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) read with sub-

clause (1) of clause (3) of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, Central

Government hereby re-nominates Shri Padmanaban Vittal Dass (DoB: 2.5.1950) as part-time non-official director on the

Board of Directors of Indian Bank, from the date of notification of his re-nomination for a period of one year, or until the

amalgamation of the bank i.e. 31.3.2020, or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.

[F. No. 6/1/2018-BO-I (Vol.III)]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 21 अ; तूबर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 2010

2010

2010.—रा=ीयकृत बक (बंध और कण उपबंध) कम, 1970 के खंड (3) के उप-खंड (1) के साथ पठत

और उप-धारा (3-क) $ारा द? शि'य! का योग करते +ए, के./ीय सरकार, एत0ारा, सु1ी वंदना कुमारी जेना

(ज.म ितिथः 10.7.1955) को पुन: नािमत कए जाने क अिधसूचना क तारीख से एक वष क अविध के िलए या बक के

आमेलन, अथात 31.3.2020 तक अथवा अगले आदेश! तक, जो भी पहले हो, Fसिडकेट बक के िनदेशक म8डल म: अंशकािलक

गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक के पद पर पुन: नािमत करती है।

[फा. सं. 6/1/2018-बीओ-I (खंड-III)]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 21st October, 2019

S.O. 2010.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (3-A) of

section 9 of The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) read with sub-

clause (1) of clause (3) of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, Central

Government hereby re-nominates Ms Vandana Kumari Jena (DoB: 10.7.1955) as part-time non-official director on the

7696

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Board of Directors of Syndicate Bank, from the date of notification of her re-nomination for a period of one year, or until

the amalgamation of the bank i.e. 31.3.2020, or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.

[F. No. 6/1/2018-BO-I (Vol.III)]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 21 अ; तूबर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 2011

2011

2011.—रा=ीयकृत बक (बंध और कण उपबंध) कम, 1970 के खंड (3) के उप-खंड (1) के साथ पठत

और उप-धारा (3-क) $ारा द? शि'य! का योग करते +ए, के./ीय सरकार, एत0ारा, 1ी जी. रमेश (ज.म ितिथः

25.6.1956) को पुन: नािमत कए जाने क अिधसूचना क तारीख से एक वष क अविध के िलए या बक के आमेलन, अथात

31.3.2020 तक अथवा अगले आदेश! तक, जो भी पहले हो, Fसिडकेट बक के िनदेशक म8डल म: अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी

िनदेशक के पद पर पुन: नािमत करती है।

[फा. सं. 6/1/2018-बीओ-I (खंड-III)]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 21st October, 2019

S.O. 2011.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (3-A) of

section 9 of The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) read with sub-

clause (1) of clause (3) of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, Central

Government hereby re-nominates Shri G. Ramesh (DoB: 25.6.1956) as part-time non-official director on the Board of

Directors of Syndicate Bank, from the date of notification of his re-nomination for a period of one year, or until the

amalgamation of the bank i.e. 31.3.2020, or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.

[F. No. 6/1/2018-BO-I (Vol.III)]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 21 अ; तूबर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 2012

2012

2012.—रा=ीयकृत बक (बंध और कण उपबंध) कम, 1970 के खंड (3) के उप-खंड (1) के साथ पठत

और उप-धारा (3-क) $ारा द? शि'य! का योग करते +ए, के./ीय सरकार, एत0ारा, 1ी एस. रघुनाथ (ज.म ितिथः

24.5.1957) को पुन: नािमत कए जाने क अिधसूचना क तारीख से एक वष क अविध के िलए या बक के आमेलन, अथात

31.3.2020 तक अथवा अगले आदेश! तक, जो भी पहले हो, केनरा बक के िनदेशक म8डल म: अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी

िनदेशक के पद पर पुन: नािमत करती है।

[फा. सं. 6/1/2018-बीओ-I (खंड-III)]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 21st October, 2019

S.O. 2012.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (3-A) of

section 9 of The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) read with sub-

clause (1) of clause (3) of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, Central

Government hereby re-nominates Shri S. Raghunath (DoB: 24.5.1957) as part-time non-official director on the Board of

Directors of Canara Bank, from the date of notification of his re-nomination for a period of one year, or until the

amalgamation of the bank i.e. 31.3.2020, or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.

[F. No. 6/1/2018-BO-I (Vol.III)]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7697

नई द ली, 21 अ; तूबर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 2013

2013

2013.—रा=ीयकृत बक (बंध और कण उपबंध) कम, 1980 के खंड (3) के उप-खंड (1) के साथ पठत

बककारी कंपनी (उपम! का अजन और अंतरण) अिधिनयम, 1980 (1980 का 40) क धारा 9 क उप-धारा (3) के खंड

(ज) और उप-धारा (3-क) $ारा द? शि'य! का योग करते +ए, के./ीय सरकार, एत0ारा, सु1ी माला 1ीवातव (ज.म

ितिथः 4.11.1954) को पुन: नािमत कए जाने क अिधसूचना क तारीख से एक वष क अविध के िलए या बक के आमेलन,

अथात 31.3.2020 तक अथवा अगले आदेश! तक, जो भी पहले हो, ओरयंटल बक आफ कामस के िनदेशक म8डल म:

अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक के पद पर पुन: नािमत करती है।

[फा. सं. 6/1/2018-बीओ-I (खंड-III)]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 21st October, 2019

S.O. 2013.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (3-A) of

section 9 of The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (40 of 1980) read with sub-

clause (1) of clause (3) of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1980, Central

Government hereby re-nominates Ms Mala Srivastava (DoB: 4.11.1954) as part-time non-official director on the Board

of Directors of Oriental Bank of Commerce, from the date of notification of her re-nomination for a period of one year,

or until the amalgamation of the bank i.e. 31.3.2020, or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.

[F. No. 6/1/2018-BO-I (Vol.III)]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 21 अ; तूबर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 2014

2014

2014.—रा=ीयकृत बक (बंध और कण उपबंध) कम, 1970 के खंड (3) के उप-खंड (1) के साथ पठत

और उप-धारा (3-क) $ारा द? शि'य! का योग करते +ए, के./ीय सरकार, एत0ारा, 1ी िबजू वर; के (ज.म ितिथः

22.12.1965) को अिधसूचना क तारीख से एक वष क अविध के िलए अथवा अगले आदेश! तक, जो भी पहले हो, बक आफ

बड़ौदा के िनदेशक म8डल म: अंशकािलक गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक के पद पर पुन: नािमत करती है।

[फा. सं. 6/1/2018-बीओ-I (खंड-III)]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 21st October, 2019

S.O. 2014.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (3-A) of

section 9 of The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) read with sub-

clause (1) of clause (3) of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, Central

Government hereby re-nominates Shri Biju Varkkey (DoB: 22.12.1965) as part-time non-official director on the Board of

Directors of Bank of Baroda, for a period of one year from the date of this notification, or until further orders, whichever

is earlier.

[F. No. 6/1/2018-BO-I (Vol.III)]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

नई द ली, 21 अ; तूबर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 2015

2015

2015.—रा=ीयकृत बक (बंध और कण उपबंध) कम, 1970 के खंड (3) के उप-खंड (1) के साथ पठत

और उप-धारा (3-क) $ारा द? शि'य! का योग करते +ए, के./ीय सरकार, एत0ारा, 1ी कृणIपा रमेश (ज.म ितिथः

7698

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13.1.1957) को पुन: नािमत कए जाने क अिधसूचना क तारीख से एक वष क अविध के िलए या बक के आमेलन, अथात

31.3.2020 तक अथवा अगले आदेश! तक, जो भी पहले हो, यूिनयन बक आफ इंिडया के िनदेशक म8डल म: अंशकािलक

गैर-सरकारी िनदेशक के पद पर पुन: नािमत करती है।

[फा. सं. 6/1/2018-बीओ-I (खंड-III)]

एस. आर. मेहर, उप सिचव

New Delhi, the 21st October, 2019

S.O. 2015.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (3-A) of

section 9 of The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) read with sub-

clause (1) of clause (3) of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, Central

Government hereby re-nominates Shri Krishnappa Ramesha (DoB: 13.1.1957) as part-time non-official director on the

Board of Directors of Union Bank of India, from the date of notification of his re-nomination for a period of one year, or

until the amalgamation of the bank i.e. 31.3.2020, or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.

[F. No. 6/1/2018-BO-I (Vol.III)]

S. R. MEHAR, Dy. Secy.

परमाणु

परमाणु ऊजा

ऊजा

ऊजा िवभाग

िवभाग

(परमाणु खिनज अवेषण एवं अनुसंधान िनदेशालय

परमाणु खिनज अवेषण एवं अनुसंधान िनदेशालय

परमाणु खिनज अवेषण एवं अनुसंधान िनदेशालय)

हैदराबाद, 17िसतबर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 2016

2016

2016.—जबक सेवाJ या लाभ! या छूट दान करने हेतु पहचान दतावेज़ के Nप म: आधार काड का

उपयोग सरकारी िवतरण या को सरल, पारदPशता तथा दQ बनाता है तथा यह लाभाPथय! को सुिवधाजनक तथा सुगम

तरीके से अपनी हकदारी को सीधे ाS करने म: समथ बनाता है तथा आधार कसी क पहचान िसT करने के िलए तुत

करने वाले ब+ दतावेज! को जUरत को ख़%म करता है ।

और जबक नीचे क तािलका म: िविनYदZ सेवाJ, लाभ! तथा छूट म: भारत क समेकत िनिध से +ए [य/

िव?पोषण शािमल है :

तािलका

सं

सेवा का ना

सेवा का नाम

य लाभ ह"तांतरण के उ&े'य हेतु

प(ा लाभाथ* / स,वस इनेबलस/

एएमडी छा^वृि? कायम – एएमडीएसपी

इस कार का भुगतान ाS करने वाले

िव_ाथ`गण

एएमडी - ोजे;ट समर ेFनग ोAाम तथा िवaान एवं वाद-िववाद

ितयोिगता

भुगतान ाS करने वाले िव_ाथ` तथा

कमचारी

अतः, आधार (िव?ीय तथा अ.य छूट, लाभ तथा सेवाJ के लिQत िवतरण) अिधिनयम, 2016 (2016 का 18) क

धारा 7 के ावधान! के अनुसरण म: परमाणु ऊजा िवभाग, परमाणु खिनज अ.वेषण एवं अनुसंधान िनदेशालय (पखिन) म: क:/

सरकार ए?$ारा िनiिलिखत को अिधसूिचत करती है, ---

1. (1)

उपयु' तािलका म: िविनYदZ योजनाJ के तहत लाभ लेने के इjछुक [ि'य! (पा^ लाभाथ` या सPवस

इनेबलस) के िलए आधार रखना या आधार माणीकरण करने का माण तुत करना ए?$ारा अपेिQत है |

(2)

उपयु' तािलका म: िविनYदZ योजनाJ के तहत लाभ लेने के िलए इjछुक [ि' िजनका अभी तक आधार के

िलए पंजीकृत नहl +आ है, उ.ह: आधार के िलए आवेदन करना होगा बशतm वह उपयु' अिधिनयम क धारा 3 के

ावधान! के अनुसार आधार लेने के िलए पा^ हो तथा ऐसा [ि' आधार के िलए पंजीकृत होने के िलए आधार

नामांकन के कसी क:/ (www.uidai.gov.in) पर सूची उपलpध) म: जा सकते ह |

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7699

उस [ि' को आधार िमलने तक उपयु' योजनाJ के तहत लाभ िनiिलिखत दतावेज! को तुत करने पर दए

जाएंगे :

(क)

(i)

आधार पंजीयन आईडी पच` यद वह पंजीकृत +आ/+ई है; अथवा

(ii) पैराAाफ 1 के उप-पैराAाफ (2) म: िविनYदZ अनुसार आधार पंजीयन के िलए कए गए अनुरोध क

एक ित तथा

(ख)

(i) फोटो सिहत बक पासबुक; या (ii) मतदाता पहचान-प^ (iii) पैन काड; या

(ग)

(iv) पासपोट या (v) tाइFवग लाइस:स; या (vi) राशन काड; या (vii) सरकार $ारा जारी फोटो पहचान

प^

इसके अितर' पखिन क संबंिधत एज:सी के अिधकारी $ारा उनसे संबंिधत योजनाJ के िलए उपयु' दतावेज! क

जाँच क जाएगी ।

2.(1)

लाभ! के सुिवधाजनक Nप से तथा िबना जदीबाजी दान करने के िलए पखिन क संबंिधत एज:सीयां सभी

[वथाएं कर:गी तथा उपयु' योजनाJ के तहत लाभ! को ाS करने के िलए सPवस इनेबलस या लाभाPथय!

को आधार क जUरत के बारे म: जागUक करने हेतु नोटस के माvयम से [ापक चार-सार कर:गी तथा यद

वे पंजीकृत नहl ह तो उ.ह: समीप के पंजीयन के./! म: पंजीकृत करवाने हेतु सलाह द:गी |

3. यह अिधसूचना काशन क तारीख से लागू होगी ।

[सं. पखिन-535/1/2019/शा.V/1424]

एम. बी. वमा, िनदेशक, पखिन

DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY

(ATOMIC MINERALS DIRECTORATE FOR EXPLORATION AND RESEARCH)

Hyderabad, the 17th September, 2019

S.O. 2016.—Whereas the use of Aadhaar as identity document for delivery of services or benefits or subsidies

simplifies the Government delivery processes, brings in transparency and efficiency and enables beneficiaries to get their

entitlement directly in a convenient and seamless manner and Aadhaar obviates the need for producing multiple

documents to prove one’s identity.

And whereas the services, benefits and subsidies specified in the Table below involve expenditure incurred/funded from

the Consolidated Fund of India.

TABLE

Sl.

No.

Name of the Service

Eligible beneficiaries / Service enables for the

purpose of Direct Benefit Transfer

AMD Studentship Programme - AMDSP

Students who are recipient of such payment

AMD – Project Summer Training Programme and

Science and Elocution Competition

Students and employees who are recipients of such

payment

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provisions of section 7 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and

other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (18 of 2016) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central

Government in the Department of Atomic Energy, Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research hereby

notified the following, namely : —

(1)

Individuals (eligible beneficiaries or service enablers) desirous of availing benefits under the schemes

specified in the Table above are hereby required to furnish proof of possession of Aadhaar or undergo

Aadhaar authentication.

(2)

An individual desirous of availing benefits under the schemes specified in the above Table and is not

yet enrolled for Aadhaar shall have to apply for Aadhaar in case he / she is entitled to obtain Aadhaar

7700

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

as per the provisions of section 3 of said Act and such individual may visit any Aadhaar enrolment

center (list available at www.uidai.gov.in) to get enrolled for Aadhaar : —

Provided that till the time Aadhaar is assigned to the individual, benefits under the said schemes shall be given

to the individual, subject to the production of the following documents, namely : —

(a)

(i)

Aadhaar enrolment ID slip if he or she has enrolled: or

(ii)

a copy of request made for Aadhaar enrolment as specified in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph

1; and

(b)

(i)

Bank Passbook along with Photo; or (ii) Voter’s ID card; or (iii) PAN card; or (iv) Passport;

or (v) Driving License; or (vi) Ration card; or (vii) Photo ID card issued by the Government;

Provided further that the above said documents shall be checked by an officer of the concerned agency of the

AMD, for their respective scheme.

(1)

In order to provide convenient and hassle free delivery of benefits, the concerned agencies of AMD shall

make all the arrangements including wide publicity through notices shall be given to service enablers or

beneficiaries to make them aware of the requirement of Aadhaar to receive the benefits under the said

schemes and in case they are not enrolled, they may be advised to get themselves enrolled at the nearest

enrolment centers.

This notification shall come into effect from the date of its publication.

[No. AMD-535/1/2019/ADM.V/1424 ]

M. B.VERMA, Director, AMD

मानव

मानव संसाधन िवकास

संसाधन िवकास

संसाधन िवकास मंालय

मंालय

(उ0 च

उ0 च

उ0 चतर

तर

तर िश ा

िश ा

िश ा िवभाग

िवभाग

िवभाग)

(राजभाषा भाग)

नई द ली, 11 नव बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 2017

2017

2017.—के. /ीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के शासकय योजन! के िलए योग) िनयम, 1976 के िनयम 10

के उप िनयम 4 के अनुसरण म:, मानव संसाधन िवकास मं^ालय ( कूल िशQा एवं साQरता िवभाग) के अंतगत िन निलिखत

कायालय! को, ऐसे कायालय के Nप म:, िजसके 80 ितशत से अिधक कमचारी-वृ. द ने िह. दी का कायसाधक aान ाI त कर

िलया है, अिधसूिचत करती है:—

क:/ीय िव_ालय, नं.-2, रेल िडp बा कारखाना +सैनपुर, कपूरथला, पंजाब - 144602

क:/ीय िव_ालय, (सीमा सुरQा बल) रामपुरा, फािज का, पंजाब - 152123

क:/ीय िव_ालय, मथाना, माफत सरकारी ाथिमक िव_ालय, सै; टर-4ए, शहरी संपदा िजला – कुNQे^,

हरयाणा-136118

क:/ीय िव_ालय कोI पल, सरकारी मॉडल उj चतर ाइमरी कूल कपस, कोI पल-583231 कनाटक

क:/ीय िव_ालय मैसूN, जी आई टी बी ेस कॉ Iले; स, पो ट ऑफस िसTाथ नगर, मैसूN - 570011 कनाटक

क:/ीय िव_ालय सी.आर.पी.एफ. येलहंका, दो~ाब लापुर मेन रोड, ब:गलुN – 560064

क:/ीय िव_ालय हावेरी, डी आई ई टी कै पस, करजगी रोड, हावेरी, कनाटक -581110

क:/ीय िव_ालय नं. 3 बेलगावी, ल मी नगर, भैरवनाथ नगर, पो ट €फस मj छे, बेलगावी- 590014 कनाटक

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7701

क:/ीय िव_ालय 2, मंगलूN, एककूर, कंकनाडी पो ट, मंगलूN-575002

10.

क:/ीय िव_ालय रायचूर, आशापुर रोड रायचुर-584101 कनाटक

11.

क:/ीय िव_ालय तुमकूN, अमलापुर अरकेरे पो ट, कोर‚गेरे मेन रोड, तुमकुN-572106 कनाटक

12.

क:/ीय िव_ालय िवजयपुरा अफ़जलपुर ट; के, िवजयपुरा (बीजापुर) – 586102 कनाटक

13.

क:/ीय िव_ालय कावार नेवेल बेस, पी ओ अरगा, कावार 581324 कनाटक

14.

क:/ीय िव_ालय कोडगु, नए कोट भवन के सामने, िव_ानगर, मड़ीकेरी-571201, कनाटक

15.

क:/ीय िव_ालय बागलकोट, सं. 63-अ, वृ. दावन से; टर नवानगर, बागलकोट-587103 कनाटक

16.

क:/ीय िव_ालय चे. नपटना, माफत सेरक चर िशQण कूल वंदरागगुI पे गांव, पो ट €फस ब:गलुN – मैसूN माग,

चे. नपटना तालुक, रामनगर िजला – 562161, कनाटक

17.

क:/ीय िव_ालय क:/ीय िच; कमगलुN, डाइट िबFडग कै पस रामनह ली, िच; कमगलुN-577101

18.

क:/ीय िव_ालय िशवमोगा, वि~नकोI प के पास, संतेकडूN, एन आर पुर/ शृंगेरी हाई वे रोड, िनदगे पो ट, िशवमोगा,

कनाटक – 577222

19.

क:/ीय िव_ालय के आर पुरम, डीज़ल लोको शैड कृ णराजपुरम, ब:गलुN - 560036 कनाटक

20.

क:/ीय िव_ालय चामराजनगर, मादापुर पो ट, चामराजनगर- 571313 कनाटक

21.

क:/ीय िव_ालय मं…ा बी होसुN कालोनी केरगोडु होबली, मं…ा तालुक/िजला -571402 कनाटक

22.

क:/ीय िव_ालय िचकोडी, िवधायक राजकय म†डल िव_ालय भवन, िवपरीत पंचायत तालुक कायालय, िनकट िमनी

िवधान सौधा, िचकोड़ी, िजला बेलगांव-591201 कनाटक

23.

क:/ीय िव_ालय उडुपी डी आई ई टी क:पस, आई टी आई कॉलेज के बगल म:, गित नगर, अलेवूर मिणपाल, पो ट

उडुपी -576104 कनाटक

24.

क:/ीय िव_ालय दावणगेरे, अवरगो ला, कNर िचरंजीवी एAो फूड के सामने, कोण् डाजी रोड दावणगेरे - 577589

कनाटक

25.

क:/ीय िव_ालय एम ई जी एवं क:/, स:ट ज†. स चच माग, ब:गलुN-560042 कनाटक

26.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, वायु सेना टेशन हकमपेट, िसकंदराबाद - 500 014 (तेलंगाना)

27.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, एनटीपीसी रामगुंडम, ‡ योितनगर – 505215 (तेलंगाना)

28.

क:/ीय िव_ालय नं. 2, िवजयवाड़ा, मालिडp बा कारखाना कॉलोनी, गुंटुप ली, िवजयवाड़ा- 521241 (आंˆ देश)

29.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, ओएनजीसी, बेस कॉ पले; स, लालाचेNवु, राजमहे. /ी – 533106 (आंˆ देश)

30.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, मछलीपEणम, बाईपास रोड, गोपाल नगर, कृ णा िजला - 521 001 (आंˆ देश)

31.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, एनएफसी नगर, घटकेसर, मेड़चल – मलकाजिगर, िजला- िसकंदराबाद - 501 301 (तेलंगाना)

32.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, बोI पापुरम रोड, व:कटिगरी, ने लूर िजला- 524 404 (आंˆ देश)

7702

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

33.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, एलुN, गोप. नपालेम, ड:डुलुN मंडल, िजला – पि‰ चम गोदावरी - 534450 (आंˆ देश)

34.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, कड़पा, एसटीएम टाउनिशप के िनकट, . यू र स के पास कड़पा-516 001 (आंˆ देश)

35.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, करीमनगर, एल एम डी अलुगुनूर, करीमनगर- 505 527 (तेलगांना)

36.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, िमयालगुडा, एनएसपी Aाउंड के सामने, िजला – नलग!डा- 508 207 (तेलंगाना)

37.

क:/ीय

िव_ालय,

महबूबाबाद,

एस

सी

ग स

हॉ टल

‘बी’

न. दामुरी

नगर

कॉलोनी,

महबूबाबाद – 506 101 (तेलंगाना)

38.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, तेनाली, के एस एम हाई कूल, च:चुपेट, तेनाली, गुंटूर िजला – 522 202 (आंˆ देश)

39.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, माफत एम पी पी कूल, सुभाष नगर, िसPस ला – 501 301 (तेलंगाना)

40.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, माफत मधु़ मलंचा जूिनयर कॉलेज, बे ला गांव, श; कर नगर, पो ट – बोधन - 503180

(तेलंगाना)

41.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, झरासंगम, (िजला) संगारे~ी – 502 246 (तेलंगाना)

42.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, राजमपेट, सरकारी जूिनयर कॉलेज परसर के पीछे, सर वतीपुरम, राजमपेट, कड़पा (िजला) 516

115 (आंˆ देश)

43.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, काकनाडा, व सापाकला – 533 005 (आंˆ देश)

44.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, मंिचयाल, डोर नं. 12-597/3, वे लमप ली चौर ता, मंिचयाल – 504 208 (तेलंगाना)

45.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, स% तेनप ली, एम आर ओ ऑफस के सामने, मु@ य माग, िजला-गुंटूर – 522 403 (आंˆ देश)

46.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, मलकापुरम, गांधीAाम पो ट, िवशाखाप% तनम – 530 005 (आंˆ देश)

47.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, नं. 1, 1ीिवजयनगर, 104 एरया इंडि यल इ टेट, िवशाखाप% तनम – 530 007 (आंˆ देश)

48.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, नं. 2, 1ीिवजयनगर, 104 एरया इंडि यल इ टेट, िवशाखाप% तनम – 530 007 (आंˆ देश)

49.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, नं. 1, नौसेनाबाग, िवशाखाप% तनम- 530005 (आंˆ देश)

50.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, नं. 2, नौसेनाबाग, िवशाखाप% तनम- 530005 (आंˆ देश)

51.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, वा टेयर, आंˆ ‡ योित ेस के पीछे, ताडीचे‚लापालेम, िवशाखाप?नम – 530 016 (आंˆ देश)

52.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, इ पात संयं^, िवशाखाप% तनम – 530 032

53.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, एन ए डी िवशाखाप% तनम, एन ए डी (पो ट) िवशाखाप% तनम – 530 009 (आंˆ देश)

54.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, भा.नौ.पो. कFलग, भीमुिनपEनम, िवशाखाप% तनम - 531 163 (आंˆ देश)

55.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, 1ीकाकुलम, पेŒापाडु, ईनाडु ऑफस के पास, एन एच-16, 1ीकाकुलम- 532 401 (आंˆ देश)

56.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, िवजयनगरम, सात मंदर के पास, बाबामेEा, िवजयनगरम- 535 002 (आंˆ देश)

57.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, राजमप ली, गोइरािलक!डा ितNमलनाधा वामी मंदर परसर, राजमप ली गांव, पेददरिवडु

मंडल, मरकापुर, िडवीजन, पो ट चेतलिमतला, िजला काशम- 523 320 (आंˆ देश)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7703

58.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, भुवनिगर, ए एल एन रे~ी मेमोरयल गवनम:ट ग स जूिनयर कॉलेज, बंजारा िह स यदादरी

भुवनिगर िजला- 508 116 (तेलंगाना)

59.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, आदलाबाद, िनPमित क:/, दसनापुर, पुरातन डी एम हाउस, आदलाबाद- 504 001

60.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, औरंगाबाद, पो ट- जोिगया, िजला- औरंगाबाद – 824101

61.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, रेल पिहया कारखाना, बेला (सारण), िजला- सारण (िबहार) - 841221

62.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, हरनौत सवारी िडp बा, मर मत कारखाना, हरनौत - 803110

63.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, सी.आर.पी.एफ. झपहाँ, मुजफरपुर (िबहार) – 842004

64.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, शंकरपुरी, पो ट- तकया, सासाराम, िजला- रोहतास (िबहार)- 821113

65.

क:/ीय िव_ालय, शाहदरा, p लॉक – 6, िखचड़ीपुर, द ली - 91

[फा. सं. 11011-2/2018-रा.भा.ए.]

संजय कुमार िस. हा, संयु; त सिचव

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education)

(O. L. UNIT)

New Delhi, the 11th November, 2019

S.O. 2017.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the Ministry of Human

Resource Development, (Department of School Education & Literacy) as office, whose more than 80% members of the

staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:—

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, NO-2, RCF, HUSSAINPUR, KAPURTHALA, PUNJAB – 144602

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA (BSF), RAMPURA, FAZILKA, PUNJAB- 152123

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, MATHANA, C/O GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL, SECT-4A, URBAN

ESTATE, DISTT- KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA-136118

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA KOPPAL, GOVT. MODAL HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL CAMPUS,

KOPPAL -583231 KARNATAKA

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA MYSURU, GITB PRESS COMPLEX, PO SIDHARTHA NAGAR, MYSURU

-570011 KARNATAKA

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA CRPF YELAHANKA, DODDABALLAPUR MAIN ROAD,

BENGALURU -560064

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA HAVERI, DIET CAMPUS, KARJAGI ROAD, HAVERI, KARNATAKA PIN

CODE -581110

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA NO. 3 BELAGAVI, LAXMI NAGAR, BHAIRAVNATH NAGAR, PO

MACHHE, BELAGAVI -590014 KARNATAKA

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA NO. 2 MANGALURU, EKKUR, KANKANADY POST,

MANGALURU -575002

10.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA RAICHUR, ASHAPUR ROAD RAICHUR -584101 KARNATAKA

11.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA TUMAKURU, AMALAPURA ARAKERE POST, KORATAGERE MAIN

7704

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ROAD, TUMAKURU -572106 KARNATAKA

12.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA VIJAYAPURA AFZALPUR TAKKE, VIJAYAPURA (BIJAPUR) -586102

KARNATAKA

13.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA KARWAR NAVAL BASE, P O ARGA, KARWAR -581324 KARNATAKA

14.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA KODAGU, OPP. TO NEW COURT BUILDING, VIDYANAGAR

MADIKERI -571201 KARNATAKA

15.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA BAGALKOT, NO. 63- A BRINDAVAN SECTOR NAVANAGAR,

BAGALKOT -587103 KARNATAKA

16.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA CHENNAPATNA, C/O SERICULTURE TRG SCHOOL VANDARAGUPPE

VILL., PO BENGALURU – MYSURU ROAD, CHENNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGRA

DIST. - 562161 KARNATAKA

17.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA CHIKKAMAGALURU, DIET BUILDING CAMPUS RAMANAHALLI,

CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577101

18.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SHIVAMOGGA NEAR VADDINAKOPPA, SANTEKADURU N R PURA/

SHRINGERI HIGHWAY ROAD NIDIGE POST, SHIVAMOGGA KARNATAKA -577222

19.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA K R PURAM DIESEL LOCO SHED KRISHNARAJAPURAM BENGALURU

– 560036 KARNATAKA

20.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA CHAMRAJNAGAR, MADAPUR POST, CHAMRAJNAGAR – 571313

KARNATAKA

21.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA MANDYA, B HOSURU COLONY KERAGODU HOBLI MANDYA

TALUK/ DIST. - 571402 KARNATAKA

22.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA CHIKKODI, MLA GOVT. MODEL SCHOOL BUILDING, OPPOSITE

PANCHAYAT TALUKA, NEAR MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, CHIKODI, DISTRICT BELAGAVI -

591201 KARNATAKA

23.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA UDUPI, DIET CAMPUS, NEXT TO ITI COLLEGE PRAGATHI NAGAR,

ALEVOOR MANIPAL POST UDUPI -576104 KARNATAKA

24.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA DAVANGERE AVARGOLLA, OPP KARUR CHIRANJEEVI AGRO FOOD,

KONDAJJI ROAD DAVANGERE -577589 KARNATAKA

25.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA MEG & CENTRE, SAINT JOHNS CHURCH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560042

KARNATAKA

26.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA AFS, HAKIMPET, SECUNDERABAD- 500014 (TELANGANA)

27.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, NTPC, RAMAGUNDAM, JYOTHI NAGAR- 505 215 (TELANGANA)

28.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA NO-2, VIJAYWADA WAGON WORKSHOP COLONY, GUNTUPALLI,

VIJAYAWADA – 521241 (ANDHRA PRADESH)

29.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, ONGC, BASE COMPLEX, LALACHERUVU, RAJAHMUNDRY – 533106

(ANDHRA PRADESH)

30.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, MACHILLIPATNAM, BY PASS ROAD, GOPAL NAGAR, KRISHNA

DISTRICT-521 001 (ANDHRA PRADESH)

31.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, NFC NAGAR, GHATKESAR, MEDCHAL, MALAKAJAGIRI DISTRICT,

SECUNDERABAD- 501 301 (TELANGANA)

32.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, BOPPAPURAM ROAD, VENKATAGIRI, NELLORE DISTRICT – 524 404

(ANDHRA PRADESH)

33.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, ELURU, GOPPANPALEM, DENDULUR MANDAL, WEST GODAWARI

DIST- 534 450

34.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, KADAPA, ADJACENT TO STM TOWNSHIP, NEAR NEW RIMS,

KADAPA-516 001 (ANDHRA PRADESH)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7705

35.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, KARIMNAGAR, LMD ALUGUNOOR, KARIMNAGAR- 505 527

(TELANGANA)

36.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, MIRYALAGUDA, NSP GROUNDS, DIST- NALGONDA- 508 207

(TELANGANA)

37.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, MAHABUBABAD, SC GIRLS HOSTEL ‘B’ NANDAMURI NAGAR

COLONY, MAHABUBABAD – 506 101 (TELANGANA)

38.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, TENALI, KSM HIGH SCHOOL, CHENCHUPETA, TENALI, DIST.

GUNTUR- 522 202 (ANDHRA PRADESH)

39.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, SIRICILLA, C/O MPP SCHOOL, SUBHASH NAGAR, SIRICILLA- 505 301

(TELANGANA)

40.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, BODHAN, C/O MADHU MALANCHA, JUNIOR COLLEGE, BELLA

VILLAGE, SHAKKARNAGAR, POST – BODHAN - 503 180 (TELANGANA)

41.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, JHARASANGAM (DIST) SANGAREDDY- 502 246 (ANDHRA PRADESH)

42.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, RAJAMPET, GOVT JUNIOR COLLEGE CAMPUS BACK SIDE,

SARASWATHIPURAM, RAJAMPET, KADAPA (DISTRICT) 516 115 (ANDHRA PRADESH)

43.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, KAKINADA, VALASAPAKALA- 533 005 (ANDHRA PRADESH)

44.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, MANCHERIAL DOOR NO 12-597/3 BELLAMPALLY CHAURASTA,

MANCHERIAL- 504 208 (TELANGANA)

45.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, SATTENAPALLI OPP. TO MRO OFFICE MAIN ROAD, GUNTUR , DIST-

522403 (ANDHRA PRADESH)

46.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, MALKAPURAM, GANDHIGRAM POST, VISAKHAPATNAM- 530 005

(ANDHRA PRADESH)

47.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA NO-1, SRIVIJAYANAGAR, 104 AREA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM-530 007 (ANDHRA PRADESH)

48.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA NO-2, SRIVIJAYANAGAR, 104 AREA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM-530 007 (ANDHRA PRADESH)

49.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA NO-1, NAUSENABAGH, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 005 (ANDHRA

PRADESH)

50.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA NO-2, NAUSENABAGH, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 005 (ANDHRA

PRADESH)

51.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, WALTAIR, BEHIND ANDHRA JYOTHI PRESS, THADICHETLAPALEM,

VISAKHAPATNAM-530 016 (ANDHRA PRADESH)

52.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, STEEL PLANT, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 032 (ANDHRA PRADESH)

53.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, NAD VISAKHAPATNAM, NAD (PO) VISKHAPATNAM- 530 009

(ANDHRA PRADESH)

54.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, INS KALINGA, BHEEMUNIPATNAM, VISKHAPATNAM – 531 163

(ANDHRA PRADESH)

55.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, SRIKAKULAM, PEDDAPADU, NEAR EENADU OFFICE, NH-16,

SRIKAKULAM- 532 401 (ANDHRA PRADESH)

56.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, VIZIANAGARAM, NEAR SEVEN TEMPLES, BABAMETTA,

VIZIANAGARAM-535 002 (ANDHRA PRADESH)

57.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, RAJAMPALLY, GODRALIKONDA, TIRUMALANADHA SWAMI

TEMPLE PREMISES, RAJAMPALLY VILLAGE, PEDDARAVEEDU MANDAL, MARKAPUR

DIVISION, POST CHETLAMITLA, PRAKASHAM DIST- 523 320 (ANDHRA PRADESH)

58.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, BHONGIRI, ALN, REDDY MEMORIAL GOVT GIRLS JUNIOR

COLLEGE, BANJARA HILLS, YADADRI, BHUVANAGIRI DIST. BHONGIRI- 508 116

(TELANGANA)

7706

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

59.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, ADILABAD, NIRMITHI KENDRA, DASANAPUR, OLD DM HOUSE,

ADILABAD- 504 001

60.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, AURANGABAD, POST- JOGIA, DISTT – AURANGABAD- 824101

61.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, RAIL WHEEL PLANT, BELA (SARAN), DISTT- SARAN (BIHAR)-841221

62.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, HARNAUT CARRIAGE REPAIR WORKSHOP, HARNAUT-803110

63.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, CRPF JHAPHAN, MUZAFFARPUR (BIHAR) - 842004

64.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, SHANKARPURI, POST-TAKIA, SASARAM, DISTT- ROHTAS

(BIHAR)-821113

65.

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, SHAHDARA, BLOCK-6, KHICHRIPUR, DELHI - 91

[F. No. 11011-2/2018-रा.भा.ए.]

SANJAY KUMAR SINHA, Jt. Secy.

नई द ली, 27 नव बर, 2019

का.आ

का.आ 2018

2018

2018.—सावजिनक थान (अनिधकृत अिधभोिगय! क बेदखली) अिधिनयम, 1971 (1971 का 40) क

धारा 3 म: द? शि'य! का योग करते +ए क:/ सरकार एतद$ारा 1ी चंदर ताप राघवे, संयु' रिजार, संपदा

अिधकारी, दली िवŽिव_ालय, क:/ सरकार के राजपि^त अिधकारी के रक के समकQ अिधकारी होने के नाते उ'

अिधिनयम के उŒे‰याथ संपदा अिधकारी िनयु' करती है, जो दली िव‰ विव_ालय के शासिनक िनयं^ण के अंतगत

सावजिनक थान के संबंध म: दली म: उसके Qे^ािधकार क थानीय सीमाJ के अंतगत उ' अिधिनयम के अंतगत या इसके

$ारा संपदा अिधकारी को सपे गए दािय%व! का िनवाह कर:गे और द? शि'य! का योग कर:गे।

[फा. सं. 4-15/2019-सीयू.II]

सुबोध कुमार िघिडयाल, िनदेशक

New Delhi, the 27th November, 2019

S.O. 2018.—In exercise of the power conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised

Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Chander Pratap Raghave, Joint

Registrar, Estates Officer, University of Delhi, being an officer equivalent to the rank of a gazetted officer of the Central

Government, as Estate Officer for the purposes of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the

duties imposed, on the Estate Officer by or under the said Act within the local limits of his jurisdiction in Delhi in respect

of the public premises under the administrative control the University of Delhi.

[F. No. 4-15/2019-CU.II]

SUBODH KUMAR GHILDIYAL, Director

पैोिलयम

पैोिलयम और

और

और ाकृितक

ाकृितक

ाकृितक गैस मंालय

गैस मंालय

नई दली, 20 नव बर, 2019

का

का. . . . आ. . . . 2019

2019

2019.—के./ीय सरकार, पैोिलयम एवं खिनज पाईपलाइन क धारा 2 खंड (ए) के अनुसरण म: (भूिम म:

उपयोग के अिधकार का अजन) अिधिनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50), उ' अिधिनयम के अधीन नुमालीगढ़ रफाइनरी

िलिमटेड क पारादीप उड़ीसा से लेकर नुमालीगढ़, असम तक समPपत का तेल का पाइपलाइन, उड़ीसा रा‡य के अंतगत

(Qे^ािधकार का Qे^: उड़ीसा रा‡य क िजला जगतFसगपुर, क:/पारा, भदरक और बालासोर( िबछाने के िलए नीचे दी गयी

सारणी मे वPणत ािधकारी के उ' अिधिनयम के अंतगत सQम ािधकारी के काय’ का िनवहन करने के िलए एत$ारा

ािधकृत करती है, अथात :

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7707

ािधकारी का पदनाम

अिधकार का Qे^

अशोक कुमार बाग, ओएएस (एसएजी), सेवािनPवत

ओिडशा रा‡य के अंतगत

आरटीओ चौक, नजदीक रेिडयो टेशन

पीओ/पीएस: बालनगीर िजला बालनगीर-767001

[फा. सं. आर-11025(14)/2/2019-ओआर-I/ई-32402]

पी. सोमा कुमार, अवर सिचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2019

S.O. 2019.—In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of

Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby authorizes the Authority mentioned in the

table below to perform the functions of Competent Authority in the state of Odisha under the said Act for laying of

dedicated Crude Oil Pipeline of Numaligarh Refinery Ltd from Paradip, Odisha to Numaligarh, Assam (Area of

Jurisdiction: District of Jagatsinghpur, Kendrapara, Bhadrak and Balasore in Odisha), namely :

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Designation of Authority

Area of Jurisdiction

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mr. Ashok Kumar Bag, OAS (SAG) Retd

At RTO Chowk, Near Radio Station

PO/PS: Balangir, Dist: Banalgir-767001

Within State of Odisha

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

[F. No. R-11025(14)/2/2019-OR-I/E-32402]

P. SOMA KUMAR, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2019

dk-vk- 2020-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

;wukbVsM cSad vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydRrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 103@2015½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-11-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12011@75@2015&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2019

S.O. 2020.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 103/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of United Bank of India, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.11.2019.

[No. L-12011/75/2015-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

7708

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 103 of 2015

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of United Bank of India

AND

Their workmen

Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management

: None

On behalf of the Workmen

: None

State: West Bengal.

Industry: Banking

Dated: 13^th November , 2019

AWARD

By Order No.L-12011/75/2015-IR(B-II) dated 09.11.2015 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of United Bank of India, Kolkata (South) Regional Office in depriving

the eligible employees of the Bank in violating the Bipartite settlement dated 2^nd January, 1996 (copy enclosed)

by not engaging the service as Special Assistant on temporary basis, where the post of special Assistant is lying

vacant for a considerable period for the interest of the business of the Bank and its employees from their retiral

benefits is legal or justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?”

When the case was listed last for hearing, none of the parties were present. It transpires from record that this

reference is pending in this Tribunal since 26.11.2015 and the union entered appearance and filed its statement of claim,

but the management never appeared inspite of all opportunities. The union, however, has not adduced any evidence in

support of its claim as made in the statement of claim inspite of sufficient opportunities. Union is found absent since

20.05.2019, i.e., on two consecutive dates.

On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the union has no grievance at present

in respect of assignment of job of Special Assistant on temporary basis as mentioned in the order of reference. Therefore,

there exists no dispute for adjudication.

Therefore, the reference is disposed of accordingly.

Justice RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

The 13^th November, 2019

ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2019

dk-vk- 2021-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼a1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lSUVªy

cSad vkQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydRrk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 30@2010½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 19-11-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@38@2010&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7709

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2019

S.O. 2021.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2010) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.11.2019.

[No. L-12012/38/2010-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 30 of 2010

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India, Kolkata

AND

Their workmen

Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management

: None

On behalf of the Workmen

: Mr. C.R. Kanjilal, Vice President of the union

State: West Bengal.

Industry: Banking

Dated: 11^th November, 2019

AWARD

By Order No.L-12012/38/2010-IR(B-II) dated 24.09.2010 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether employer-employee relationship existed between Shri Sanjay Sutradhar and the Central Bank of

India in relation to Hill Cart Road Branch, Siliguri? If yes, whether the termination of Shri Sanjay Sutradhar

from the service w.e.f. 31^st December, 2007 is justified and legal? What relief the workman is entitled for?”

Statement of claim has been filed on behalf of the workman, Shri Sanjay Sutradhar in which it has been pleaded

that he was appointed in Service with effect from 01.01.1986 as a Sub Staff (Peon) at Siliguri Branch of the Central Bank

of India. It is alleged that that he has served the bank for the last 22 years doing multifarious kinds of jobs, viz. telephone

receiver cleaning, computer machine cleaning, water supply to bank staff, looking after scooters, cycles, four wheelers

etc of bank staff. He was paid monthly wages ranging from Rs.800/= to Rs.3000/= per month since January, 1986 to

December, 2007. Earlier wages were paid to him through vouchers and thereafter by debiting bank’s account and

crediting savings bank account of the workman concerned. It is further alleged that since January, 2008 he is jobless by

verbal order of the Chief Manager. The local management of the bank, knowing fully well that the workmen worked in

the capacity of sub-staff and there existed employer – employee relationship, fabricated the idea of outside agency. It is

also alleged that the workman was paid Festival Advance, Puja Advance in the year 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. He was

also sanctioned House Building Loan to the tune of Rs.65000/=. He has worked for more than 240 days within a block of

12 calendar months for several years since 1986 to December, 2007, but the management instead of making the workman

permanent by extending the benefit of grade and scale to him, terminated his services on 31^st December, 2007 without

any show cause notice and without any chargesheet. Thus, provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

have been violated.

In reply the management of the bank has pleaded that Shri Sutradhar was engaged for providing service as

outside service provider and collecting money in lieu of his service provided to the customers and also paid nominal

charges for cleaning computers and intercom of the branch. He was not appointed as a staff by following usual process of

appointment of staff. He was never appointed or worked as casual worker. The bank has paid Rs.3000/= only at the time

towards his service to the bank as a service provider which was subsequently credited monthly towards his service to the

customers and nominal charges for cleaning computers and intercom and it was withdrawn/discontinued not at one go,

but as per request of the workman concerned in installments of Rs.150/= per month since June, 2006.

7710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The union has also filed its rejoinder reiterating its earlier stand taken in statement of claim.

The union has examined Shri Sanjay Sutradhar the workman concerned as a witness in which he has stated that

earlier he was paid Rs.30/= per day for some months and then Rs.800/= per month with effect from April, 1986 and

Rs.2000/= during the period of 2005 and as per Chief Manager’s order dated 18.01.2006 the amount was increased from

Rs.2000/= to Rs.2500/= from January, 2006. He has also stated that Festival Advance of Rs.1750/= during the period of

2004 and Rs.3000/= during 2005 have also been paid by the bank. He has further claimed that he was eligible to work as

a permanent sub-staff in the bank, but his name was not sponsored by the bank. He has completed more than 240 days in

several blocks of 12 calendar months during 1986 to January, 2007, but he was discontinued by the bank without any

explanation. The bank cross-examined the witness, but it was not concluded. Thereafter no one appeared on behalf of the

bank to cross-examine the witness. Hence his cross-examination was closed. Despite giving sufficient opportunity the

management did not adduce any evidence in support of its pleading.

Thus it appears from the record that the claim of the union on behalf of the workman concerned is that he has

worked for last 22 years as a casual Class-IV staff since 1986 to December, 2007 on monthly wages ranging from

Rs.800/= to Rs.3000/= per month which was being credited to his Savings Bank Account. Thus he was in continuous

service of the bank as he had worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months since 1986 till December, 2007. It is

claimed that his non-engagement by the bank without following the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1947) is illegal. The bank in its written statement has pleaded that the

workman concerned was engaged for providing service as an outside serviced provider and collecting money in lieu of

his services provided to the customers and also paid nominal charges for cleaning computers and intercom of the bank.

He was never appointed by following usual procedure for appointment. Thus, it is evident from the pleadings of the

parties that there is no denial of period of work so done by the workman concerned by the management, except that the

workman concerned was engaged as outside service provider.

Now, before coming to compliance of provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947, it would be proper to deal

with status of the workman concerned. It is material to note that neither of the parties have filed any documentary

evidence in this regard. The management has also not filed any document to show that the workman concerned was

engaged as outside service provider and he was charging money or commission for the services rendered to the

customers of the bank. Continuous service of the workman is proved by the letter issued by the Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India to the Chief Manager, Siliguri Branch of the bank in which it had been asked from the Chief

Manager of the branch as to why successive Branch Managers continued to engage Shri Sutradhar. This letter has been

filed by the union as Ext. W-02. Where the engagement of the workman concerned by the bank has been admitted as

above, burden lies on the management to show as to in what capacity he was engaged. In a letter sent by the Deputy

General Manager of the bank to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) – I, Kolkata, Ext. W-06 it is stated that his

service was entirely on ad hoc basis. Where there is no documentary evidence directly to prove the status of engagement

of the workman concerned, it is the preponderance of evidence which decides the issue. A letter addressed to the Chief

Manager, Siliguri Branch, Ext. W-07 indicates that the workman concerned was engaged on monthly basis for upkeep of

cycle stand. It is mentioned in the letter that the workman concerned had been receiving allowance of Rs.2000/= per

month for the last 16 years. Therefore, a request had been made in this letter to enhance the allowance from Rs.2000/= to

Rs.2500/=. The Chief Manager has passed his order on this application accepting the request of the workman concerned

to increase the allowance from Rs.2000/= to Rs.2500/= with effect from January, 2006. On behalf of the workman

concerned copy of Savings Bank Passbook has been filed as Ext. W-08 which shows that he had been receiving

Rs.2500/= and also Rs.1000/= on monthly basis. Rs.1000/= had been drawn through seperate bill. No explanation has

been given on record as to how the Chief Manager had increased the allowance from Rs.2000/= to Rs.2500/= and why he

was being paid regularly on monthly basis, if he was not engaged by the bank or he was engaged as outside service

provider for services to the customers.

In oral evidence the workman concerned has stated that he was engaged by the bank during the period 1986 to

2007 as casual sub-staff for which he was paid ranging from Rs.800/= per month to Rs.2000/= till 2005 and thereafter

Rs.2500/= with effect from January, 2006. His duty was to upkeep the cycle, scooters etc. of the staff members and car of

the Branch Manager in garage. The payments were made through credit vouchers to his Savings Bank Account No.

30637. No oral evidence has been given by the bank to controvert the statement of the workman concerned. Hence there

is no reason to disbelieve the claim of the workman concerned that there existed relationship of employer and employee.

Where the engagement of the workman concerned by the bank is established, the question arises whether his

service was discontinued following the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947? Section 25F of the Act reads as

follows:

“25F. Condition 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 –

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7711

(a)

the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the resons for retrenchjment and

the period of notice 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 year 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.”

10.

Thus where the workman has been in continuous service in not less than one year, the employer has to follow

certain procedure as given in Section 25F before retrenching the workman. The words “continuous service” has been

defined in Section 25B of the Act of 1947 according to which a workman is in continuous service for a period one year,

if during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of reference he has actually worked for not less than 240

days. The case of the workman concerned is that he had worked for 240 days during the preceding 12 months, therefore,

he cannot be denied the protection given under Section 25F of the Act of 1947. As it has been seen above, the claim of

the workman concerned that he had worked from 1986 to 2007 continuously has not been denied by the bank, except

saying that he had been engaged merely as an outside service provider for which no evidence is adduced by the bank.

Therefore, in view of uncontroverted evidence of the workman concerned there is no reason to disbelieve that he had

worked for more than 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of reference. The bank had also

issued a circular dated 12^th March, 1991 with regard to absorption of temporary employees who have put in 240 days of

service. This circular is Ext. W-04 which is also filed by the management.

11.

In view of above, it is sufficiently established that the services of the workman concerned were terminated by

the bank without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. Therefore, the act of the management

is illegal and the workman concerned shall be deemed to be in continuous service as before. Accordingly the workman

concerned is entitled for reinstatement in service from the date of his termination. He is also entitled for 50% of back

wages which may be found due to him.

Award is passed accordingly.

Justice RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

The 11^th November, 2019

ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2019

dk-vk- 2022-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼a1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc

,.M fla/k cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 11@2008½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 19-11-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&12012@10@2008&vkbZvkj ¼ch-II½]

lhek caly] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2019

S.O. 2022.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2008) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No

2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab & Sind Bank, and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.11.2019.

[No. L-12012/10/2008-IR(B-II)]

SEEMA BANSAL, Section Officer

7712

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 2: NEW DELHI

PRESENT : SMT. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 11/2008

Date of Passing Award : 9^th October, 2019

Between :-

Shri Paramjit Singh Nanda

R/o. BH-18, GF West Shalimar Bagh,

Delhi 110088.

…Workman/Claimant

AND

The Chief Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank,

Zonal Office, Delhi –II, B-38 Indl Area,

Naraina, New Delhi 110028.

…Management

Appearances :-

Shri Rajesh Kaushik, A/R

For the Workman

Ms. Kittu Bajaj, A/R

For the Management

AWARD

This award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide letter

No.L-12012/10/2008/IR(B-II) dated 31.03.2008 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

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

‘Whether the action of the management of Punjab & Sind Bank, in compulsory retiring their workman

Shri Paramjeet Singh Nanda we.f. 31.1.2007 is just, fair and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?’

Both parties were put to notice and the claimant Paramjit Singh filed his statement of claim, contending that he

was working as clerk cum cashier at Gurgaon Branch of the Management. He used to discharge his duties with utmost

devotion, honesty and sincerity but inspite of that, a false and frivolous charge sheet dated 4/1/2005 was issued to him,

with the allegations that the workman tried to avail a Housing Loan of Rs.15 lacs from IDBI, New Delhi without any

permission from the Competent Authority and had submitted a fabricated statement of his SB A/c No.9337 to the IDBI,

incorporating wrong credit entries to show inflated salary and balance therein besides recasting Form-16 wherein he

wrongfully incorporated his designation as CCC Manager Computer & also forged the signatures of Shri V.K Gupta,

previous Branch Manager on Form No.16 falsely showing his annual income as Rs.2,99,688/- as against his actual

income of Rs.1,94,300/-. It is alleged that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse & erroneous as no proper

opportunity of being heard was afforded to the workman and orders passed pursuant to the same are in violation of the

Principle of Natural Justice. The Disciplinary Authority did not consider workman’s blotless service career for a period

of 27 years and passed order dated 31/1/2007 whereby extreme punishment of compulsorily retirement has been

awarded which is highly disproportionate and harsh. Appeal preferred by the workman was also dismissed by the

Appellate Authority without considering that the workman has already filed a criminal complaint against the overzealous

agent Shri Sachin Kumar for having committed offence of cheating and forgery which is pending before the court of

concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi. Prayer has been made for declaring the action of the

Management to be unjust and illegal and for reinstatement of the workman into service with full back wages and other

consequential benefits.

Management resisted the claim of the Workman by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections

have been taken inter-alia that the punishment awarded to the workman is just, legal and proportionate to the misconduct

as enunciated in the charge sheet dated 4/1/2005 which was duly served and proved in a departmental enquiry held in

consonance with the principle of natural justice.. To avail a loan of Rs.15 lacs from IDBI, the workman had fabricated

statement of his SB Account No.9337, recasted from No.16 and fabricated salary certificate incorporating fictitious and

incorrect entries relating to his salary, annual income and designation etc and thereby he projected wrong facts to the

IDBI. The workman wrongfully incorporated his designation as CCC, Manager Computer in Form 16 and forged the

signatures of previous Branch Manager Shri V.K. Gupta . Against his actual basic salary of Rs.9740/-, he showed his

basic salary at Rs.14120/- in the salary statement. Being a banker, the workman was having implicit knowledge that

within his source of income, loan to the tune of Rs.15 lacs was not permissible but still he applied for a loan without

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7713

permission from the employer. The plea of the agent doing fraud with the bank to pass undue benefit to the customers to

the detriment of their principal is not correct. From the issuance of cheque of processing amount, the workman had the

intent of availing a housing loan from IDBI by concealing facts from his employer. The findings of the Inquiry Officer

as well as Disciplinary authority are independent, cogent and based on the record. Prayer has been made for dismissal of

the claim petition.

Rejoinder was filed on behalf of the workman wherein he reiterated the averments made in the claim petition

and denied the allegations as made in reply/written statement of the Management.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 12/3/2009:-

Whether the departmental enquiry conducted in this case was legal, just and fair and was not in

violation of the principle of natural justice ? If not what directions are called for in this case?

ii)

As per terms of the reference ?

iii)

Relief.

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

and relied on the documents detailed therein. On the other hand, the Management examined three witnesses namely Shri

Ashok Sachdeva, Chief Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank as MW1; Shri Satyavrat Arya, Senior Manager as MW2 and Shri

Vinod Kumar Gupta as MW2 (sic.MW3).

I have gone through the records carefully. My findings on issue No.2 and 3 are as follows, as issue No.1 being

preliminary issue stands already decided vide order dated 19/9/2016.

Issue No.2 and 3 :-

At the outset I may mention that vide detailed order dated 19/9/2016 my learned Predecessor decided 1ssue

No.1 against the Management observing that MW1 was neither the Enquiry Officer, nor Presenting Officer nor he

remained present during enquiry and even original record of enquiry was not filed before the Tribunal. Since the

Management in its written statement had reserved its right to adduce evidence in case the departmental enquiry is set

aside, the matter was posted for evidence of the Management to prove misconduct on the part of the workman. In this

respect, the Management examined two witnesses namely Shri Satyavrat Arya and Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta. As such,

now I proceed to decide as to whether the Management has been able to prove misconduct on the part of the

workman/claimant.

Perusal of the record shows that the workman/claimant was issued a charge sheet, copy of which is Ex.M-1,

alleging that he had applied for a Housing Loan of Rs.15 lacs from IDBI, New Delhi without any permission from the

Competent Authority and had submitted a fabricated statement of his SB A/c No.9337 to the IDBI, incorporating

wrong credit entries to show inflated salary and balance therein besides recasting Form-16 wherein he wrongfully

incorporated his designation as CCC Manager Computer & also forged the signatures of Shri V.K Gupta,

previous Branch Manager on Form No.16 falsely showing his annual income as Rs.2,99,688/- as against his actual

income of Rs.1,94,300/-.

10-

The testimony of the claimant/workman is in line with the averments made in the claim petition. He placed

reliance on the final report under Section 173 Cr.PC in the case FIR No.299 of 2008 of PS Prashant Vihar as well report

of CSL as Ex.WW1/1 and WW1/2. The workman was cross examined at length on the point of availing housing loan

by him jointly with his wife from IDBI Bank and on domestic enquiry conducted against him but nothing material came

out on record to shake his testimony. From the testimony of the claimant/workman as well as documents filed on record,

it is evident that the workman/claimant has got registered a case under Section 406/420/463/467/468/471 IPC against one

Sachin Kumar, DSA ( Direct Selling Agent) of IDBI Bank.

11-

Testimony of MW2 Satyvrat Arya is not of much help to the case of the Management inasmuch as he deposed

in his cross examination that he canld not name the persons who informed about the wrong documents submitted by the

workman. He claimed that he (the informer) was from IDBI but admitted that no individual/official from IDBI was

examined during the departmental enquiry. He showed his ignorance if the original of the alleged forged documents

were produced before the Inquiry Officer at the time of departmental inquiry proceedings. This witness also could not

say if Shri V.K. Gupta, previous Manager of the Bank whose signatures were allegedly forged was examined as a witness

in the departmental enquiry. He deposed that he had not come across any guidelines, restricting a bank employee from

taking loans from any other bank than his employer bank. He could not say if the workman had availed loan from any

other bank.

12-

Although testimony of MW3 Vinod Kumar Gupta whose signatures were allegedly forged and fabricated in

recasted Form-16 by the workman/claimant for availing loan from IDBI, is in line with the averments made in the

written statement as well as charges framed in the charge-sheet Ex.M-1, however, same can not take the place of

7714

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

proof, inasmuch the Management has neither examined any official from IDBI nor produced original documents

to show that the workman had actually recasted and submitted forged & fabricated documents Form-16 & salary

certificate to the IDBI. He explained in his cross examination that he had correctly stated in his affidavit about Rs.16

lakhs (housing loan) applied by the workman, whereas as per record the workman had applied for Rs.15 lakhs towards

Housing Loan to IDBI. He also admitted that during the course of departmental enquiry, he had not testified as a

witness. In case the signatures of this witness being a Senior Officer of the Management Bank were forged by the

claimant, then as to why he did not appear as a witness before the Enquiry Officer in the domestic enquiry. No

explanation for the same has come forward from the side of the Management. The claimant has filed on record a

copy of the criminal complaint lodged against the agent Sachin Kumar for having committed offence of cheating and

forgery as Ex.WW1/6 and copy of the order dated 16/4/2008 (Ex.WW1/7) passed by the Court of Shri Amit Bansal,

Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi whereby police was directed to register an FIR. His version that the police has already

registered an FIR at PS Prashant Vihar has gone unchallenged. In cross examination, he explained and filed on record

copy of Final report under Section 173 of Cr.PC in case FIR No.299 of 2008 of PS Prashant Vihar as Ex.E-1/1 and CFSL

report as Ex.E-1/2. CFSL report Ex.E-1/2 prima facie shows that standard signatures marked S-1 to S-2 and A-1 to A-3

of Shri Paramjit Singh Nanda were not matching with the signatures Q-1 to Q-5 appearing on Home Loan Application

Form, statement of account, salary certificate and form-16 purported to be of Shri Paramjit Singh Nanda.

13-

In the light of aforesaid, this Tribunal is of considered view that the Management has not led any cogent

evidence to substantiate its stand that the workman had submitted forged & fabricated documents like SB account

statement, salary certificate, form-16 etc. to the IDBI Bank for securing housing loan of Rs.15 lakhs. As such, the

Management has failed to prove that the workman misconducted himself by forging and fabricating documents.

However, it is not in dispute that the claimant/workman had applied for a housing loan but no permission of the

Management Bank was sought by him. This fact is so evident from para 12 of his own affidavit Ex.WW1/A which is in

consonance with para 10 of the statement of claim wherein he has stated as under :-

“ The workman had applied for a housing loan in a situation when real estate market is highly inflationary,

prices of real estate during last one year having risen at a rate more than 100 per cent in last one year alone. I

further say that the past experience shows that who invested in real estate had received such dividend that

repayment was not at all difficult. I further say that the repayment was intended to be done from the rental

income to be received and partly from my and my wife’s combined savings which would not have posed any

difficulty in repayment…. …….”

It was incumbent upon the workman/claimant who was already in service for the last over 25 years to seek necessary

permission/approval of the Competent Authority for availing loan of building home. The workman/claimant has neither

pleaded nor proved that he had sought permission/approval of the Management Bank for seeking housing loan from

IDBI. As such, it can be concluded that there was misconduct on the part of the workman/claimant, in not seeking

permission of the Management Bank while applying for a housing loan. But the said misconduct of the workman

was/is not too grave to impose major punishment like compulsorily retiring him from service, rather same warrants a

minor penalty. There would be unnecessary delay if the matter is remanded back to the Management for imposing

penalty upon the workman/claimant keeping in view the aforesaid act of misconduct proved against the workman.

Needless to mention here that Section 11-A of the Act empowers this Tribunal not only to interfere with the quantum of

punishment in appropriate cases & to direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms & conditions if any, as it thinks

fit in lieu of discharge or dismissal, but also to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or

gravity of the misconduct. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Versus Rawel Singh, 2008 AIR (SCW) 2099; B.C. Chaturvedi Versus Union

of India and others, 1996(1) SCT 617 ; of Punjab & Hayana High Court in the case/s of Punjab National Bank Vs.

The Presiding Officer, CGIT & another 2012 (2) SLR 631; Harnek Singh Versus State of Haryana & others

2010(3) SLR 276 and Joginder Lal Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala & another 1996() SCT

436). As such, the impugned order dated 31/1/2007 passed by the Management on the basis of report of the Enquiry

Officer, can not be legally sustained. Resultantly, the action of the Management in compulsorily retiring the

workman/claimant w.e.f. 31/1/2017 is held to be quite harsh and disproportionate to the act of his proved misconduct.

14-

Now the residual question is whether the claimant/workman is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of

back wages and/or reinstatement of service with full or partial back wages, keeping in mind the misconduct on the part of

the workman/claimant as discussed hereinabove. It is not in dispute that claimant was a regular employee, working as

clerk -cum -cashier in the employment of the Management. Moreover, the job of the workman was/is of perennial and

regular nature and he had already rendered service of 27 years’ when he was compulsorily retired from service w.e.f.

31/1/2007 vide impugned order. During the course of arguments, this Tribunal was informed that the workman having

born on 1^st October, 1957 has already crossed the age of his superannuation. Had he been in service, he would have

superannuated from service on 30/9/2017. As such, the relief of reinstatement of the workman into service has become

infructuous.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7715

15-

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 it has to plead and also lead cogent

evidence to prove that the employee/workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to

the wages he/she was 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.”

16-

A Bench of three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v.

Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (1979) 2 SCC 80 held that relief of reinstatement with continuity of

service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken

away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously

deprived the workman of his earnings. If thus the act of employer is found to be totally illegal and arbitrary, in that

eventuality the workman is required to be reinstated, with full back wages. Plain common sense also dictates that the

removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the

workmen alongwith payment of back wages.

17.

In the case of Bholanath Lal and others Vs. Shree Om Enterprises (P) Ltd., Manu/DE/1922/2018 (decided

on 10/5/2018), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while considering the question of illegal termination and reinstatement held

as under :-

“The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the

statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman,

then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such

cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere

with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a possibility of forming a different

opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer’s obligation to pay

the same The courts must always keep in view that that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service,

the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee./workman and there is no justification to give a

premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/ workman

his dues in the form of full back wages.”

18-

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal considers it expedient in the

interest of justice to award partial back wages instead of full back wages. The workman/clamant is held entitled to get

80% (eighty per cent) back wages, from the date of his termination till he attained the age of superannuation. These

issues are accordingly answered in favour of the workman.

ORDER

The reference is answered on the contest in favour of the workman. The order passed by the Management

regarding compulsorily retiring the workman/claimant from service on 31/1/2007 is held to be unjustified and

unwarranted. It is ordered that the workman shall be deemed to be in service w.e.f. 1/2/2007 till 30/9/2017. It is also

ordered that the claimant shall be entitled to 80 per cent back wages for the period from 1/2/2007 till 30/9/2017, however,

subject to adjustment of amount of pension if any paid to the workman for the aforesaid period. Arrears shall be

calculated and be paid by the Management to the claimant within four months from the date of publication of the Award,

failing which the claimant/workman will be entitled to recover the same alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of

publication of the Award till realization. Award is passed accordingly. Let copy of this Award be sent for publication

as required under Section 17 of the Act.

The reference is accordingly answered.

Dictated & corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

9^th October, 2019

7716

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई द ली, 19 नव बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 2023

2023

2023.—औ_ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म: के./ीय सरकार

मेसस बा को िलिमटेड के बंधतं^ के संबT िनयोजक! और उनके कमकार! के बीच अनुबंध म: िनYदZ औ_ोिगक िववाद म:

के./ीय सरकार औ_ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म .यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं@या 40/2012) को कािशत करती है

जो के./ीय सरकार को 19.11.2019 को ाS +आ था।

[सं. एल-43012/3/2011-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2019

S.O. 2023.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 40/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. BALCO Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

19.11.2019.

[No. L-43012/3/2011-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/40-2012

Shri Abhay Singh

Near Pradip Atta Chakki, Pratappur Raod

Kedarpur, Ambikapur (CG)

…Workman/Union

Versus

The Chief Executive Officer,

BALCO Ltd.,

Balco Plant,

District Korba(CG)

…Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 18^th day of October, 2019)

As per letter No dated 22/2/2012 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-43012/3/2011-IR(M): The dispute under reference relates to:

2. “Whether the action of the management of BALCO Limited in terminating the services of

Shri Abhay Singh S/o Shri Tulsi Singh, Ex-Supply Labour w.e.f. March,2009 without giving any

notice/reasonable opportunity of retrenchment benefits is legal and justified ? What relief the

workman is entitled to and from what date.?”

After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.

The case of the Workman is that he was first appointed as unskilled worked in Ambikapur office of the

management company by appointment letter issued vide AG M(Mines ) on 1-1-1998 and has been in continuous service

of the company till 9-1-2009. He was dismissed from service without any charge and without any notice or

compensation which is against law and is liable to be set aside. The workman has prayed for the relief of his

re-instatement treating him as regular employee with benefits.

The case of management is that workman was never appointed as an employee of AGM (Mines ) and has not

power to appoint any person in the company hence any such letter is without any authority. In fact the workman was

employee of the contractor engaged by the company. There was no relation of employer and employee between the

workman and the management at any point of time accordingly it has been prayed that the reference be answered against

the workman.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7717

At the stage of evidence, no evidence was adduced by workman hence closing his evidence management was

directed to file their evidence. The workman absented himself during the proceedings. Management filed affidavit of its

witnesses as examination-in-chief and proved documents exhibit M-1 to M-5, to be referred to as and when required. At

the stage of argument also the workman absented himself hence argument of learned counsel for Management

Shri A. K. Shashi was heard. I have gone through the record as well.

The reference is the fact in issue in the case in hand.

Certain provisions of law which is required to be mentioned here are being mentioned as follows:-

Section 2(oo) of Industrial Disputes Act:

2[(oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any any

reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not

include— (a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the

age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned

contains a stipulation in that behalf;

2 [25N. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.—(1) No workman employed in any industrial

establishment to which this Chapter applies, 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 three

months’ 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; and (b) the prior

permission of the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by that Government by

notification in the Official Gazette (hereafter in this section referred to as the specified authority) has

been obtained on an application made in this behalf. (2) An application for permission under sub-section

(1) shall be made by the employer in the prescribed manner stating clearly the reasons for the intended

retrenchment and a copy of such application shall also be served simultaneously on the workmen

concerned in the prescribed manner. (3) Where an application for permission under sub-section (1) has

been made, the appropriate Government or the specified authority, after making such enquiry as it

thinks fit and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the employer, the workmen

concerned and the persons interested in such retrenchment, may, having regard to the genuineness and

adequacy of the reasons stated by the employer, the interests of the workmen and all other relevant

factors, by order and for reasons to be recorded in writing, grant or refuse to grant such permission and

a copy of such order shall be communicated to the employer and the workmen. (4) Where an application

for permission has been made under sub-section (1) and the appropriate Government or the specified

authority does not communicate the order granting or refusing to grant permission to the employer

within a period of sixty days from the date on which such application is made, the permission applied for

shall be deemed to have been granted on the expiration of the said period of sixty days. (5) An order of

the appropriate Government or the specified authority granting or refusing to grant permission shall,

subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), be final and binding on all the parties concerned and shall

remain in force for one year from the date of such order. 1. Sub-section (6) re-numbered as sub-section

(10) by Act 49 of 1984, s. 4 (w.e.f. 18-8-1984). 2. Subs. by s. 5, ibid., for section 25N (w.e.f. 18-8-1984). 33

(6) The appropriate Government or the specified authority may, either on its own motion or on the

application made by the employer or any workman, review its order granting or refusing to grant

permission under sub-section (3) or refer the matter or, as the case may be, cause it to be referred, to a

Tribunal for adjudication: Provided that where a reference has been made to a Tribunal under this sub-

section, it shall pass an award within a period of thirty days from the date of such reference. (7) Where no

application for permission under sub-section (1) is made, or where the permission for any retrenchment

has been refused, such retrenchment shall be deemed to be illegal from the date on which the notice of

retrenchment was given to the workman and the workman shall be entitled to all the benefits under any

law for the time being in force as if no notice had been given to him. (8) Notwithstanding anything

contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, the appropriate Government may, if it is satisfied

that owing to such exceptional circumstances as accident in the establishment or death of the employer or

the like, it is necessary so to do, by order, direct, that the provisions of sub- section (1) shall not apply in

relation to such establishment for such period as may be specified in the order. (9) Where permission for

retrenchment has been granted under sub-section (3) or where permission for retrenchment is deemed to

be granted under sub-section (4), every workman who is employed in that establishment immediately

before the date of application for permission under this section shall be entitled to receive, at the time of

retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every completed

year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months.]

7718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The settled proposition of law is that the burden to prove the fact that he was in the continuous service of

management for a period of 240 days or more on the date preceding the date of his termination there is no evidence on

record to this effect, hence the claim of the workman that he was in continuous service of Management for a period of

more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination is held not proved. Accordingly, the disengagement of

workman is held justified in law and the workman is held entitled to no relief.

Accordingly the award is passed as follows:-

The action of Management in disengaging the workman due to the fact that he was not in continuous

service for a period of more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination is held justified in law.

The Workman is held entitled to no relief.

10.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India,Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 19 नव बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 2024

2024

2024.—औ_ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म: के./ीय सरकार

मेसस मगनीज ओर इंिडया िलिमटेड के बंधतं^ के संबT िनयोजक! और उनके कमकार! के बीच अनुबंध म: िनYदZ औ_ोिगक

िववाद म: के./ीय सरकार औ_ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म .यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं@या 95/2007) को कािशत

करती है जो के./ीय सरकार को 19.11.2019 को ाS +आ था।

[सं. एल-27012/2/2007-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2019

S.O. 2024.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 95/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Manganese Ore (I) Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

19.11.2019.

[No. L-27012/2/2007-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

NO. CGIT/LC/R/95-2007

MOI Kamgaar Sangathan

The General Secretary,

Katol Road,Chhaaoni,

Behind Durga Mandir,

Moil Staff Colony

Nagpur-13

…Workman/Union

Versus

The General Manager(P)

Manganese Ore(I)Ltd.,

3 Mount Extension,

Sadar, P.O.Box No.34

Nagpur-440001

…Management

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7719

AWARD

(Passed on this day 22^nd October, 2019)

As per letter No dated 11/09/2007 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-27012/2/2007- IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the Management for not considering the compassionate appointment of the

dependants of the workman Sh. Jeevanlal Ramtake on being declared dead is just and legal as per

the Department’s Rules and Regulations? If not, to what relief the dependent is entitled?’’

After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.

Jevevanlal Ramteka was working as an employee of the employer company as holage operator in Ukawa

Mines. He was suffering from medical illness. He left his place of residence on or about February-1998 with or without

knowledge of his family members . He became untraceable. A complaint was filed with the police station on 3.9.98 and

the information to this effect was given to the Management. Despite of this, the Management issued dismissal order

against Jevanlal on 16-2-2000 on the basis of an ex-parte inquiry against him on the basis of his absenteeism which is

against the law .Since the workman is not traceable, he is presumed to be dead, and on this basis his dependent son

Krishna made an application on compassionate ground for appointment which was not considered. A dispute was

raised after failure of conciliation, a report was sent by Labour commissioner to government who made the present

reference to the award. Accordingly the workman union has prayed that dependent son of the workman be given

appointment on compassionate ground.

The case of Management is that worker Jeeveanlal absented himself, hence a charge- sheet was issued against

him on 31-5-1998. He did not submit any reply. A departmental inquiry was ordered to be conducted vide order dated

December-1998 and H.N.Chaourasia Manager was appointed as inquiry officer. The inquiry officer sent notices to the

workman on his address. Notices were got published in daily newspaper. Even then the workman did not appear. It

came out that the workman was reported sick in the dispensary on 31.1.98 but he failed to report for duty or at dispensary

thereafter, hence the inquiry was proceeded ex-parte against the workman. The Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry

report holding the charge of absenteeism from 1-2-98 to 31-5-98. The workman was again issued show cause notice on

the basis of the inquiry. He did not respond hence he was terminated from service vide order dated 16-2-2000. It has

further been pleaded that there is no provision for giving compassionate appointment to dependent of workman who has

been terminated from service. Accordingly it has been prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.

At the stage of evidence the applicant union absented itself . The Union filed photocopy of identity card of

workman, photocopy of letter dated 13.9.2005 and its reply as well copy of charge sheet which are admitted by

Management hence marked as exhibit W-1 to W-4. No oral evidence was adduced by workman.

Management filed affidavit of its witness as his examination-in-chief who proved the inquiry papers exhibit M-

1 to M-20. None was present from the side of the workman to cross-examine, inspite of the fact that fresh speed post

notices were sent to them were served.

Closing opportunity of cross-examination of Management witness, arguments of learned counsel for

Management were heard and records have been perused by me.

The reference is the fact in issue in the case In hand.

10.

From the evidence of Management it is proved that workman Jeevanlal was dismissed from service for the

charge of unjustified absenteeism . No rule or any provision has been cited from the side of the workman to show that

compassionate appointment is to be given even to the dependent of a dismissed employee. As regards to the presumed

civil death of a workman Jeevanlal, there is no evidence on record in this respect.

11.

Hence in the light of above discussion, the action of management in not considering the compassionate

appointment of dependent son of workman Jeevanlal Ramtake on being declared dead is held just and legal and the

applicant side is held entitled to no relief.

7720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Accordingly the award is passed as follows:-

The action of management in not considering the compassionate appointment of dependent son

of workman Jeevanlal Ramtake on being declared dead is held just and legal .

The applicant side is held entitled to no relief.

12.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.

Date:-22-10-2019

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई द ली, 19 नव बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 2025

2025

2025.—औ_ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म: के./ीय सरकार

मेसस िह. दु तान कॉपर िलिमटेड के बंधतं^ के संबT िनयोजक! और उनके कमकार! के बीच अनुबंध म: िनYदZ औ_ोिगक

िववाद म: के./ीय सरकार औ_ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म .यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं@या 27/2009) को कािशत

करती है जो के./ीय सरकार को 19.11.2019 को ाS +आ था।

[सं. एल-43012/10/2009-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2019

S.O. 2025.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 27/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Hindustan Copper Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

19.11.2019.

[No. L-43012/10/2009-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

vuqca/k

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj lh

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj lh-th

th-vkbZ

vkbZ

vkbZ-VhVhVhVh- izdj.k la

izdj.k la

izdj.k la- 27 / 2009

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh %

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh % jk/kkeksgu prqosZnh

jsQjsUl ua

jsQjsUl ua. -L-43012/10/2009–IR(M) fnu

fnu

fnukad

kad

kad 31/08/2009

gfjizlkn feJk iq= Jh x.kir jke]

ekQZr lkaoj ey 'kkL=h]

laLd`r ikB'kkyk [ksrM+h] ftyk&>qU>quw] HkwriwoZ gsYij [ksrM+h dkWij dkWEiysDl] [ksrM+h]

ftyk&>qU>quw] ¼jktLFkku½

v/s

1- tujy eSustj]

fgUnqLrku dkWij fyfeVsM+]

ds-lh-lh- [ksrM+h uxj] ftyk&>qU>quw jkt-

2- dkfeZd vf/kdkjh]

[ksrM+h dkWij dkWEiysDl] [ksrM+h]

ftyk&>qU>quw] ¼jktLFkku½

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7721

3- dk;Zdkjh eq[; izcU/k ¼;kaf=d½

vuq'kklfud vf/kdkjh ¼izkf/kdkjh½]

[ksrM+h dkWij dkWEiysDl] [ksrM+h]

ftyk&>qU>quw] ¼jktLFkku½

4- mi&egkizcU/kd ¼[knku½

ds-lh-,e- vuq'kklfud vf/kdkjh]

[ksrM+h dkWij dkWEiysDl]

[ksrM+h] ftyk&>qU>quw] ¼jktLFkku½

5- eq[; izcU/kd ¼dkfeZd½]

[ksrM+h dkWij dkWEiysDl]

[ksrM+h] ftyk&>qU>quw] ¼jktLFkku½

izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls

% Jh vkj-lh- tSu & izfrfuf/k

foi{khx.k dh rjQ ls

% Jh v'kksd oekZ & vfHkHkk"kd

% % % % vf/kfu.kZ;

vf/kfu.kZ;

vf/kfu.kZ; %

fnukad % 25-10-2019

Je ea=ky; Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 31-08-2009 dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls vkxs ek=

vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 mi/kkjk ¼1½ ¼?k½ ,oa 2 ¼,½ ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrXkZr iznRr 'kfDr;ksa ds iz;ksx esa fuEukafdr

fookn bl vf/kdj.k dks lanfHkZr fd;k x;kA

“Whether the action of the management of KCC in dismissing the services of Shri Hari Prasad, Miner vide

order dated 11/12/2000 on the basis of ex-parte proceedings on the charge of absenteeism while has was in

Jail/custody for involving in a criminal offence is just and fair? What relief the workman is entitled to and from

which date?”

mDr fookn izkIr gksus ij vf/kdj.k }kjk mHk;i{k dks lwpuk i= tkjh dj vkgwr fd;k x;k rFkk izkFkhZ dks funsZ'k

fn;s x;s fd og vius nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr djsaA

izkFkhZ us fnukad 21-12-2009 dks vius nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;kA nkos ds laf{kIr rF; bl izdkj of.kZr gaSA

izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa lsok 'krksZa ds lEcU/k esa fufeZr LFkk;h vkns'kksa ds vuq:i lk{kkRdkj esa p;u fd;s

tkus ds ckn gsYij ds in ij N% ekg dh ifjoh{kk ij dh xbZA izkFkhZ us fnukad 23-7-76 dks mDr in ij dk;ZHkkj laHkkykA

yxHkx 23 o"kZ lsok djus ds mijkUr fnukad 13-11-99 dks izkFkhZ vius ikfjokfjd dk;Z djus ds fy;s vodk'k izkFkZuk i=

izLrqr dj vius LFkk;h fuokl ij x;kA fo"ke ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds dkj.k izkFkhZ us fnukad 15-11-99 ls vodk'k c<+kus gsrq izkFkZuk

i= le;≤ ij vizkFkhZ la[;k 3 dks izsf"kr fd;saA bu izkFkZuk i=ksa ij vizkFkhZ us vodk'k Lohd`r vFkok vLohd`r djus dh

lwpuk ugha nhA vizkFkhZ la[;k 3 us fnukad 21-7-2000 dks izkFkhZ dks vkjksi i= tkjh fd;k] tks mls ugaha feykA vizkFkhZ us

LFkk;h vkns'kksa ds izko/kkuksa dh vogsyuk djrs gq, ,oa izkFkhZ dks dksbZ volj u nsrs gq, tkWap vf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;kA ;g

vkjksi i= fof/k fo:) gSA izkFkhZ dks tkap dh frfFk ls lwfpr ugha fd;k x;k vkSj u gha cpko dk volj fn;k x;kA vkjksi

i= l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk ugha fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa gksus ls mifLFkr ugha gks ldkA bl rF; dh lwpuk ftyk

dkjkxkj ds ek/;e ls vizkFkhZx.k dks Hksth x;hA izkFkhZ ds fo:) takp dk;Zokgh mlds U;kf;d vfHkj{kk ls eqDr gksus rd

LFkfxr j[kuh pkfg;s FkhA fdUrq izkFkhZ dks fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ volj u nsrs gq, fnukad 11-12-2000 dks lsok ls c[kkZLr dj

fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ us bl vkns'k ls O;fFkr gksdj vihy izLrqr dh fdUrq ml ij dksbZ fu.kZ; dh lwpuk izkFkhZ dks ugha nh xbZA

le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k Hkh le>kSrk lEHko ugha gqvkA fnukad 11-12-2000 dks izkFkhZ dk lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk fof/k

7722

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fo:) gSA vr% vkns'k dks 'kwU; ?kksf"kr dj izkFkhZ dks leLr osru HkRrksa lfgr inLFkkfir fd;k tkus dk vokMZ ikfjr fd;k

tkosA

fnukad 15-4-2010 dks vizkFkhZ @ foi{khx.k us izfrmRrj izLrqr dj nkos ds rF;ksa dks vLohdkj fd;kA mudk dFku

gS fd izkFkhZ dks fnukad 21-7-2000 ds iwoZ Hkh vuq'kklughurk ds fy;s vkjksi i= fn;s x;s FksA izkFkhZ us vodk'k izkFkZuk i=

izLrqr ugha fd;s vkSj fiNyh frfFk vafdr dj QthZ rS;kj fd;saA izkFkhZ us mlds iqfyl ;k U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa jgus dk rF;

tkucw>dj fNik;kA bu izkFkZuk i=kas ij mlds gLrk{kj Hkh dwVjfpr gaSA izkFkhZ dk dksbZ vodk'k Lohdkj ugha gqvkA izkFkhZ }kjk

fn;s x;s vfUre irs ij mls mifLFkr gksus ds fy;s i= ,oa rkj izsf"kr fd;s x;s tks mls izkIr Hkh gq,A U;k;ky; }kjk

nks"k&flf) ds mijkUr izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr dk dkj.k Hkh fo|eku FkkA izkFkhZ ds fo:) LFkk;h vkns'kksa ds vuqlkj tkap

vf/kdkjh dh fu;qfDRk dj tkap dk;Zokgh dh xbZA fnukad 11-12-2000 dks l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk n.Mkns'k Hkh fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ

lwpuk gksus ij Hkh tkap dk;Zokgh esa mifLFkr ugha gqvkA izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr vihy dks vLohdkj dj mls lwfpr dj fn;k x;k

FkkA izkFkhZ dks U;k;ky; us N% o"kZ ls vf/kd vof/k ds dkjkokl ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;kA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ,d nks"k&fl)

O;fDr dks lsok esa ysuk vkSj lsok dh fujUrjrk j[kuk fof/kor ugha gSA ;fn izkFkhZ ds fo:) dh xbZ tkap vuqfpr ,oa fu;e

fo:) ikbZ tkosa rks foi{khx.k dks lk{; izLrqr djus dk volj fn;k tkosaA vr% okn vLohdkj fd;k tkosaA

pwafd ;g izdj.k izkFkhZ ds fo:) dh xbZ tkap dk;Zokgh ls lEcfU/kr gS blfy;s bl vf/kdj.k }kjk ?kjsyw tkap dh

'kq)rk dk ijh{k.k vf/kfu.kZ; ds iwoZ fd;k x;kA fnukad 9-5-2011 dks i`Fkd ls vkns'k ikfjr djrs gq, esjs iwokZf/kdkjh }kjk

foi{khx.k }kjk dh xbZ ?kjsyw tkap dh 'kq)rk dks mfpr ,oa oS/k ugha ik;k x;kA

rRi'pkr foi{khx.k dks izkFkhZ ds fo:) vkjksi dks izekf.kr djus gsrq lk{; dk volj fn;k x;kA foi{khx.k us

lk{; esa Jh ih-ih-,u- 'kekZ vflLVsUV eSustj ¼,p-vkj-½ dks ijhf{kr fd;kA izys[kh; lk{; esa izn'kZ& ,e 1 ls ,e 11 rd

izys[k iznf'kZr fd;sa x;sA rRi'pkr izkFkhZ us viuh lk{; esa Loa; izkFkhZ gjhizlkn feJk dks ijhf{kr fd;kA izkFkhZ ls dh xbZ

izfrijh{kk esa izn'kZ& MCY;w 1 ls MCY;w 9 rd izys[kksa dks iznf'kZr fd;k x;kA

fnukad 26-9-2019 dks eSuas mHk;i{k ds ijLij fojks/kh rdksZa dks lk{; ds lanHkZ esa lquk o /;kuiwoZd fopkj fd;kA

vfHkHkk"kd foi{khx.k dk ;g rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ us vius nkos esa ikfjokfjd dk;Z ds fy;s vodk'k izkFkZuk i= izLrqr

djuk dgk gS tcfd mls iqfyl }kjk fxjQ~rkj dj U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa fHktok;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ us vius tsy esa gksus dh

dksbZ lwpuk foi{khx.k dks ugah nhA izkFkhZ dks mlds fn;s x;s vfUre irs ij i= O;ogkj fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ ds lHkh vodk'k

izkFkZuk i=ksa dks vLohdkj dj fn;k x;k Fkk vkSj mls mifLFkr gksus dk funsZ'k fn;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ foi{khx.k ds dkj.k ;k

muds "kM;U= ls dkjkxkj esa ugha x;k oju vius vijk/k ds dkj.k jgkA og N% o"kZ ls vf/kd vof/k rd tsy esa jgk vkSj

mldh ;g vuqifLFkfr izkFkhZ us Hkh Lohdkj dh gSA foi{khx.k }kjk LFkk;h vkns'kksa ds vuq:i l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk vkjksi i=

tkjh dj tkap dk;Zokgh lEiUu dh xbZA izkFkhZ dk tks irk foi{khx.k dks ns j[kk Fkk mlh ij leLr i= O;ogkj fd;k x;kA

ysfdu izkFkhZ mifLFkfr ugha gqvkA blfy;s foo'k gksdj l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk izkFkhZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;kA mUgksaus izn'kZ

,e&4 LFkk;h vkns'k] izn'kZ ,e&5 'kfDr;ksa ds izR;k;kstu lEcfU/k vkns'k vkSj izn'kZ ,e&6 dk;kZy; vkns'k dh vkSj /;ku

vkd`"V djrs gq, ;g dgk gS fd fdlh ewy izkf/kd`r vf/kdkjh ds vuqifLFkfr jgus ij dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh dks ewy vf/kdkjh

dh 'kfDr;ka iz;ksx djus dk vf/kdkj izkIr gSA pawfd izkFkhZ dks fof/kor% lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k gS vkSj vc og lsokfuo`fRRk

vk;q Hkh ikj dj pqdk gS] mls lsok esa iqu% fy;s tkus vkSj foxr osru izkIr djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gSA mUgksusa vius rdZ

ds leFkZu esa fuEukafdr U;kf;d n`"VkUr izLrqr fd;s %&

¼1½

1996 ,-vkbZ-vkj- ¼S.C.½ 2618 QkbZtj fy- cuke etnwj dkaxzslA

¼2½

2014 ,y-vkbZ-lh- 451 ¼xqokgkVh mPp U;k;ky;½ [kksxsu pUn cksjk cuke n LVsV vkWQ vklke o vU;A

¼3½

2010 ¼2½ ,l-,y-vkj- 505 ¼dydRrk mPp U;k;ky;½ Jh lq'khy dqekj lkgk cuke ;wdks cSad o vU;A

¼4½

2014 ¼1½ ts-lh-vkj- ¼>kj[k.M+ mPp U;k;ky;½ xksj[kukFk cuke lsUVªy dksy QhYMl fyfeVsM+ jkaphA

10-

vfHkHkk"kd izkFkhZ us foi{kh izfrfuf/k ds rdksZa dk fojks/k djrs gq, ;g dgk gS fd foi{khx.k izkFkhZ ds fo:) tkjh fd;s

x;s vkjksi i= ds vfrfjDr fdlh vU; vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd ugha dj ldrs gSaA izkFkhZ ds fo:) vkjksi i=

LFkk;h vkns'k dh /kkjk 39 ¼1½ (iii) ds vUrxZr dRrZO; ls vknru vuqifLFkr jgus ds lEcU/k esa tkjh fd;k x;k gSA bl

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7723

vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd] fd;k gh ugha tk ldrk gSA LFkk;h vkns'kksa ds fu;e 39 ¼1½ (iii) ds v/khu tks nqjkpj.k

of.kZr fd;s x;s gS muesa vodk'k Lohd`r djk;s fcuk ;k fcuk leqfpr dkj.k ds vknru vuqifLFkr jgus dks bl izdkj dk

nqjkpj.k ugaha ekuk x;k gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij lsok ls i`Fkd djus dk n.M fn;k tk ldsaA lsok ls i`Fkd djus dk n.Mkns'k

l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh ugha fd;k x;k gS] D;ksafd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr dkfeZd vf/kdkjh }kjk dh xbZ gS vkSj lsok lekfIr dk

vkns'k mi egkizcU/kd ¼[knku½ }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ ds dkjkxkj esa fu:) gksus dk rF; foi{khx.k ds vfHkKku esa

lsok lekIr djus ds iwoZ gh tkap ds nkSjku vk pqdk Fkk] D;ksafd izkFkhZ dks Mkd ls Hksts x;s i=ksa ij ;g vadu fo|eku Fkk

**fd izkIrdRrkZ >wU>wuq dkjkxkj esa cUn gS] okil HkstkA** bl izdkj foi{khx.k ;g ugha dg ldrs gS fd izkFkhZ ds tsy esa jgus

dh mUgsa dksbZ lwpuk ugha FkhA blh dkj.k vf/kdj.k }kjk tkap dk;Zokgh dks nwf"kr ekuk x;k gSA izkFkhZ ds nks"k fl) fd;s

tkus vFkok N% o"kZ rd dkjkxkj esa jgus ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr djus esa foi{khx.k l{ke ugha gS D;ksafd ;s rF;

tkap ds nkSjku fo|eku gh ugha FksA vr% nkok Lohdkj dj izkFkhZ dh fujarj lsok eku dj foxr ifjykHk iznku djus dk

vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkosaA mUgksuas vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa fuEukafdr U;kf;d n`"VkUr izLrqr fd;s %&

¼1½

,-vkbZ-vkj- 1980 ¼S.C.½ 2054 LVhy vkWFkksfjVh bf.M;k cuke ih-vks- yscj dksVZ ,V ckSdkjksa LVhy flVh

/kuckn o vU;

¼2½

2011 ¼128½ ,Q-,y-vkj- 421 ,;j bf.M;k fyfeVsM eqEcbZ cuke 'k'khdyk tkVo o vU;

¼3½

1999 ¼II½ ,y-,y-ts- 514 ¼S.C.½ LVsV cSad vkWQ bf.M;k cuke Vh-ts- ikWyA

¼4½

¼2015½ 1 ,l-lh-lh- ¼L&S½ 251 NSyflag cuke ,e-th-ch-xzkeh.k cSad ikyh o vU;A

¼5½

2013 ¼139½ ,Q-,y-vkj- 541 nhikyh xqUMq lokZls cuke dzkUrh twfu;j v/;kid egkfo|ky; o vU;A

¼6½

flfoy vihy uEcj 6188@2019 t;Urh HkkbZ jkoth HkkbZ iVsy cuke E;wufliy dkmfUly uj[ksM+ o vU;

fu.kZ; frfFk 21-8-2019 ¼loksZPp U;k;ky;½

11-

mHk;i{k ds rdksZa] izLrqr dh xbZ lk{; ,oa fof/kd n`"VkUrksa esa ikfjr fof/k ij euu ds i'pkr bl fookn esa

fuEukafdr fopkj.kh; fcUnq mRiUu gq, gSa ftudk Øfed fu.kZ; fd;k tk jgk gS %&

fcUnq la[;k 1 %&

fcUnq la[;k 1 %& D;k foi{khx.k izkFkhZ ds fo:) fnukad 15-11-99 ls 31-5-2000 rd fcuk iwoZ lwpuk fn;s ,oa vodk'k

Lohd`r djok;s] vuqifLFkr jgus dk vkjksi izekf.kr djus esa lQy gq, gSa \

fcUnq la[;k 2 %&

fcUnq la[;k 2 %& D;k foi{khx.k }kjk vkjksi izekf.kr dj fn;s tkus dh n'kk esa izkFkhZ ds fo:) ikfjr n.Mkns'k izekf.kr

LFkk;h vkns'kksa dh /kkjk 39 ¼1½ (iii) ds izko/kkuksa ds vuq:i l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr fd;k x;k gS\

fcUnq la[;k 3 %&

fcUnq la[;k 3 %& vuqrks"k \

12-

fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k 1

fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k 1 %&%&%&%& foi{kh ds lk{kh Jh ih-ih-,u-'kekZ us vius l'kiFk dFku esa ;g dgk gS fd gjhizlkn

feJk fnukad 15-11-99 ls viuh M~;wVh ls fujUrj fcuk Lohd`r vodk'k ds vuqifLFkr Fkk] blfy;s 21 tqykbZ 2000 dks mlds

fo:) vkjksi i= ?kj ds LFkk;h irs ij fHktok;k x;kA lk{kh dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd fnukad 25-11-99 dks Jfed us Mkd ls

cSd&MsfVax djrs gq,s fnukad 15-11-99 ls 30-11-99 dh vof/k ds vodk'k ds fy;s i= izsf"kr fd;k Fkk] ftlesa ikfjokfjd

ijs'kkuh ds dkj.k vodk'k pkgk x;k FkkA izkFkhZ us ;g rF; tkucw>dj fNik;k Fkk fd og fnukad 15-11-99 ls gh iqfyl ,oa

U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa FkkA bl izdkj og fnukad 15-11-99 ls fujUrj fcuk vuqefr ds dk;ZLFky ls vuqifLFkr Fkk vkSj lsokeqfDr

ds vkns'k rd dHkh mifLFkr ugha gqvkA izkFkhZ Jfed ds gktjh jftLVj dh izfr izn'kZ& ,e 8 dk mYys[k djrs gq, lk{kh us

dgk gS fd bl jftLVj esa fnukad 15-11-99 ls twu 2000 rd izkFkhZ dh fujUrj vuqifLFkfr ntZ gSA bl lEcU/k esa lk{kh us

izn'kZ& ,e 11] izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr tokc dk tokc tks mlus {ks=h; Jek;qDr dsUnzh; t;iqj ds le{k 23-12-2008 dks izLrqr

fd;k gS dk mYys[k Hkh fd;k gSA mYys[kuh; ;g Hkh gS izkFkhZ Loa; us izn'kZ& ,e 11 tokc ds tokc ij Loa; ds gLrk{kj

gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gS] vkSj i`"B 2 ij , ls ch bckjr lgh gksuk Hkh dgk gSA bl tokc ds tokc izn'kZ& ,e 11 esa izkFkhZ us

;g fy[kk gS fd ** ¼izn'kZ ,e 11 dk isjk 2 ½** D;ksafd izkFkhZ fnukad 15-11-99 ls 5-4-2003 rd U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa QkStnkjh

izdj.k esa jgk FkkA bl dkj.k bl nkSjku izkFkhZ Loa; }kjk ;wihlh@jftLVMZ i= }kjk mDr izkFkZuk i= fHktokus dk iz'u gh

iSnk ugha gksrk gSA D;ksafd bl nkSjku dksbZ Hkh i= fHktok;s tkrs rks v/kh{kd dkjkxkg ds ek/;e ls gh fHktok;s tk ldrs FksA

7724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ ds gLrk{kj 'kqnk dkxtksa dk fdlh O;fDr }kjk mi;ksx djrs gq, mDr i= izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls

mldh tkudkjh esa yk;s cxSj o cxSj lgefr ds fHktok;s gSA**

13-

izkFkhZ ls dh xbZ izfrijh{kk esa izkFkhZ us izn'kZ MCY;w 2 rFkk izn'kZ MCY;w 4 ls 9 vodk'k izkFkZuk i=ksa ij Loa; ds

gLrk{kj u gksuk dgk gS vkSj ;g Hkh dgk gS fd vodk'k dk n'kkZ;s x;s dkj.k **?kjsyw ijs'kkuh** dk vadu Hkh mlds }kjk ugha

fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ Li"V dgrk gS fd vodk'k ds lEcU/k esa ,slk dksbZ vkosnu mlus izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa

;g HkyhHkkafr Li"V gks tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ us fnukad 15-11-99 dks iqfyl }kjk mls vfHkj{kk esa ys fy;s tkus ij foi{kh izcU/ku

dks okLrfod dkj.k lwfpr u djrs gq, dksbZ vodk'k izkFkZuk i= izLrqr ugha fd;kA tks vodk'k izkFkZuk i= foi{khx.k dks

Mkd }kjk izsf"kr fd;s x;s os izkFkhZ }kjk gLrk{kfjr ugha Fks ,oa okLrfod dkj.k n'kkZrs gq, Hkh izsf"kr ugha fd;s x;sA izkFkhZ ;fn

fnukad 15-11-99 dks gh Loa; dk izkFkZuk i= okLrfod rF;ksa dk o.kZu djrs gq,s foi{khx.k dks izsf"kr djrk rks foi{khx.k

}kjk lEHkr% mls rRle; fuyfEcr djrs gq, vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh izkjEHk dh tk ldrh FkhA izkFkhZ us rks vius nkos ds pj.k

la[;k 8 esa Hkh Loa; ds U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa gksus dk dkj.k izkFkZuk i= esa of.kZr djus ds LFkku ij ikfjokfjd fo"ke fLFkfr;ksa

vkSj lkekftd nkf;Ro dh iwfrZ ** dkj.k n'kkZ;s gSaA bl izdkj lk{; ds ifj'khyu ls izkFkhZ dks fnukad 15-11-99 ls fcuk

vodk'k Lohd`r djk;s vFkok iwoZ lwpuk fn;s fcuk vuqifLFkr jguk izekf.kr gksrk gSA izkFkhZ dh vuqifLFkfr dh vof/k vkjksi

i= izn'kZ& ,e 1 ds vuqlkj 30-6-2000 rd fcuk vodk'k Lohd`r djk;s vuqifLFkr jgus ds lUnHkZ esa gSA tks izkFkhZ Loa; dh

Lohd`fr] izn'kZ& ,e 8 mifLFkfr iaftdk vkSj foi{kh dh v[kf.Mr lk{; ds vk/kkj ij izekf.kr gSA tgkW rd izkFkhZ ds bl

vk{ksi dk iz'u gS fd vkjksi i= l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh ugha fd;k x;k] & lk{; ls izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ 210&320

:i;s ds osrueku esa 210 :i;s osru ij fu;qDr gqvk FkkA izn'kZ ,e 5 vkns'k fnukad 8-2-1980 ls egkizca/kd us layXu

vuqlwph ds vuqlkj 'kfDr;ksa dk izR;k;kstu fd;k gSA bl vuqlwph ea eq[; bathfu;jksa] mi egkizca/kdksa o [kku v/kh{kdksa dks

:i;s 650 ls 1200 osru rd ds deZdkjksa dh vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fRr @lsok i`FkDdj.k o c[kkZLrxh ds flok; lHkh 'kkfLr;k¡

vkjksfir djus gsrq l'kDr fd;k x;k gSA vuqlwph ds Hkkx&II esa vuq'kklfud ekeyksa esa fofgr izf/kdkfj;ksa dks vuq'kklfud

izkf/kdkjh Hkh ekuk x;k gS] tks izkFkhZ ds lanHkZ esa eq[; bathfu;j ¼;kaf=d½ gSA bUgh vkns'kksa esa ;g izko/kku Hkh gS fd

vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh ds ofj"Brj vf/kdkjh dks Hkh vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh dh 'kfDr;k¡ izkIr gksxhA izkFkhZ dks vkjksi i=

dk;Zdkjh eq[; izca/kd ¼;kaf=d½ }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k gS tks eq[; bathfu;j ¼;kaf=d½ ls ofj"Brj izkf/kdkjh gksus ls vkjksi i=

tkjh djus gsrq l{ke izekf.kr gksrk gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g vk{ksi lkjoku ugha gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dh ;g

vuqifLFkfr LFkk;h vkns'kksa dh /kkjk 39 ¼1½ (iii) ds vUrxZr dnkpkj izekf.kr gksrh gSA vr% ;g fcanq izkFkhZ ds fo:) fu.khZr

fd;k tkrk gSA

14-

fcUnq la[;k 2 %&

fcUnq la[;k 2 %& bl fcUnq ds vUrxZr ;g n`"VO; gS fd D;k foi{khx.k }kjk vkjksi izekf.kr dj fn;k tkus dh

fLFkfr esa ikfjr fd;k x;k n.M+kns'k LFkk;h vkns'kksa dh /kkjk 39 ¼1½ (iii) ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlj.k esa gSA izn'kZ& ,e 1 izkFkhZ

ds fo:) tkjh fd;k x;k vkjksi i= fnukad 21-7-2000 gSA bl vkjksi i= esa izkFkhZ dks ;g lwfpr fd;k x;k gS fd mldk

nqjkpj.k LFkk;h vkns'kksa dh /kkjk 39 ¼1½ (iii) ds vUrxZr vknru M~;wVh ls vuqifLFkr jguk gS vkSj rn~uqlkj mlds fo:)

vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh dh tkuh gaSA izn'kZ& ,e 4 foi{kh ds izekf.kr LFkk;h vkns'k gaSA foi{kh ls ;gh vis{kk gS fd og

vkjksi i= esa of.kZr vuq'kklfud izko/kkuksa ds vuq:i gh izkFkhZ ds fo:) dk;Zokgh djsaA izn'kZ& ,e 1 vkjksi i= esa feF;k

lwpuk nsuk ;k dksbZ lwpuk gh ugha nsuk vFkok fdlh vijk/k esa nks"k fl)h ds mijkUr dkjkokflr gksus laca/kh dnkpkj ds

vkjksi ugha yxk;s x;s gSA blfy;s foi{kh }kjk tkjh fd;s x;s vkjksi i= izn'kZ& ,e&1 esa of.kZr dnkpkj ls ijs fdlh vU;

nqjkpj.k ds lEcU/k esa vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk fof/kr% visf{kr ugha FkkA

15-

izekf.kr LFkk;h vkns'kksa dh /kkjk 39 ¼1½ esa ;g Li"V izko/kku gS fd ,d deZdkj dks mlds }kjk fd;s x;s

d`R;ksa@yksiksa ds fy;s ¼blh /kkjk dh mi/kkjk 1 (i) ls (iii) rd of.kZr½ ,d ekg esa 2 izfr'kr etnwjh dh jkf'k ds vFkZnaM ls

;k psrkouh vFkok ifjfuUnk ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;k tk ldrk gSA ,slk vFkZn.M fofgr izkf/kdkjh }kjk ,sls d`R;ksa vFkok

yksiksa ds fy;s vf/kjksfir gksxk] tks /kkjk 8 osru Hkqxrku vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj vuqeksfnr fd;k tkosaA

16-

/kkjk 39 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ (iii) ds vUrxZr fcuk vodk'k Lohd`r djk;s vknru vuqifLFkfr ;k fcuk i;kZIr dkj.k

yxkrkj 10 fnu ls vf/kd vuqifLFkr jgus lEcfU/k d`R;@yksi dk gh mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA bl d`R; vFkok yksi ds fy;s

/kkjk 39 ¼1½ ds vUrxZr foi{khx.k ek= vFkZn.M] psrkouh ;k ifjfuUnk dk n.M gh izkFkhZ ds fo:) ikfjr dj ldrs FksA

izekf.kr LFkk;h vkns'kksa dh /kkjk 39 ¼2½ ds vUrxZr naM ds :i esa deZdkj dh lsoklekfIr ,oa c[kkZLr fd;s tkus dk izko/kku

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7725

fd;k x;k gS fdUrq izn'kZ& ,e 1 vkjksi i= esa foi{khx.k us /kkjk 39 ¼2½ ds vUrxZr of.kZr fdlh nqjkpj.k dk vkjksi izkFkhZ

deZdkj ds fo:) yxk;k gh ugha gSA blfy;s foi{khx.k izkFkhZ ds fo:) izekf.kr gq, vkjksi ds fy;s /kkjk 39 ¼1½ esa fd;s x;s

izko/kkuksa ds vuq:i gh n.Mkns'k ikfjr djus dks izkf/kd`r gaS] mlls ijs ughaA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk LVhy vkWFkksfjVh

bf.M;k cuke ih-vks- yscj dksVZ /kuckn ds fu.kZ; esa ;g vf/ker O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd tc dEiuh ds fufEkZr fu;e ¼ftUgsa

funs'kd e.My us vuqeksfnr fd;k gks½] eq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh dks vkjksi i= tkjh djus ,oa tkap lfefr xfBr djus gsrq

izkf/kd`r ugha djrs gksa rks ,slh tkap lfefr }kjk fn;s x;s fu"d"kZ ds vk/kkj ij deZdkj ds fo:) ikfjr lsoklekfIr dk

vkns'k oS/k ugha gSA blh izdkj ,l-ch-vkbZ- cuke Vh-ts-ikWy ds fu.kZ; esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us ;g dgk gS fd tc lsok

fu;eksa esa xEHkhj nqjkpj.k gsrq lsoklekfIr ds n.M dk izko/kku ugha gks rks cSd dks vius lsok fu;eksa dh ifjlhek esa gh Loa;

dks vkc) djuk pkfg;s& mYya?ku gksus ij n.M+kns'k esa gLr{ksi visf{kr gSA ekuuh; cEcbZ mPp U;k;ky; us Hkh ,;j bf.M;k

cuke 'k'khdyk tkVo ds fu.kZ; esa dgk gS tc mifuns'kd dks dksbZ vuq'kklfud ,oa vihyh; 'kfDr;ka izkIr uk gks rks

deZdkj ds fo:) ikfjr lsoklekfIr dk vkns'k oS/k ugaha gksxkA

17-

bu fu.kZ;ksa esa ikfjr fof/k ds izdk'k esa ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd izn'kZ& ,e 5 vkns'k ftlds lkFk layXu vuqlqph ds

Hkkx izFke esa ps;jeSu }kjk mlds vf/kuLFk izkf/kdkjh;ksa dks] ftlesa egk izcU/kd@miegk izcU/kd @[kku v/kh{kd@ eq[;

bfUtfu;j lfEefyr gaS] dks fofHkUu vuq'kklfud 'kfDr;ka izR;k;ksftr dh xbZ gSA bl rkfydk ds ifj'khyu ls ;g Li"V gks

tkrk gS fd bu izkf/kdkfj;ksa dks] tks Hkh vuq'kklfud 'kfDr;ka izR;k;ksftr dh xbZ gS muesa vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fRr] lsok ls

i`FkDdj.k ,oa c[kkZLrxh lfEefyr ugha gSA izn'kZ& ,e 9 n.M+kns'k fnukad 11-12-2000] miegkizcU/kd ¼[knku½ vuq'kklfud

izkf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k gS fdUrq izR;k;kstu vkns'k izn'kZ&,e&5 ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd

miegkizcU/kd gh ugha oju~ egkizcU/kd dks Hkh izkFkhZ dh lsoklekIr djrs gq, mls c[kkZLr djus dh 'kfDr izR;k;ksftr ugha

dh xbZ FkhA foi{kh dh vkSj ls izLrqr ekuuh; lokZsPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; QkbZtj fy- cuke etnwj dkaxzsl esa ;g

vf/ker O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd daiuh ds LFkkbZ vkns'kksa ds varxZr izca/ku] deZdkj dh fcuk vodk'k Lohd`r djok;s

vizkf/kd`r vuqifLFkfr ds vk/kkj ij lsoklekfIr gsrq l{ke gS& rF;kRed fHkUurk ds dkj.k foi{kh ds rdZ dks iq"V ugha djrk

gS D;ksafd naM+kns'k LFkkbZ vkns'kksa ds vuqlj.k esa ikfjr gh ugha fd;k x;k gSA blfy;s izn'kZ& ,e 9 n.M+kns'k }kjk izkFkhZ dh

lsok lekfIr djus dk vkns'k vuq'kklfud vf/kdkjh dh 'kfDr;ksa ls ijsa ikfjr fd;k tkuk izekf.kr gksrk gS tks voS/k gSA vr%

;g fcanq izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA

fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k 3 %& vuqrks"k

18-

izkFkhZ ds fo:) ikfjr n.M+kns'k izn'kZ& ,e 9 vizkf/kd`r O;fDr }kjk tkjh n.M+kns'k izekf.kr gksus rFkk izekf.kr

LFkk;h vkns'kksa dh /kkjk 39 ¼1½ (iii) ds izko/kkuksa ds fo:) gksus ls izkFkhZ dh lsok lekIr fd;k tkuk vfof/kiw.kZ izekf.kr gqvk

gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us NSyflag cuke ,e-th-ch-xzkeh.k cSad ikyh o vU; ds fu.kZ; esa ;g ekxZn'kZu fn;k gS fd ,d

ckj lsoklekfIr dk vkns'k vikLr dj fn;s tkus ij] lsok esa iqu% LFkkiu ls bUdkj fd;s tkus ds fdlh vk/kkj ds vHkko esa]

deZdkj Lor% lsok esa iqu%LFkkfir gks tkrk gSA bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ fnukad 11-12-2000 ls iqu% lsok eas in LFkkfir gksus dk

vf/kdkjh izekf.kr gksrk gSA izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls izkFkhZ dh lsok esa fujUrjrk foxr osru ifjykHkksa lfgr iznku djus dk fuosnu

fd;k x;k gSA bl lEcU/k esa izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; nhikyh xqUMq lokZls cuke dzkUrh

twfu;j v/;kid egkfo|ky; rFkk t;Urh HkkbZ jkoth HkkbZ iVsy cuke E;wufliy dkmUlhy uj[ksM+ esa ikfjr vf/ker dk

voyEc fy;k x;k gSA bu fu.kZ;ksa esa ikfjr fof/k ds vuqlkj tc ,d deZdkj tks mlds fu;kstd ds voS/k d`R; ls ihfMr gks]

dks foxr ifjykHkksa ds Hkqxrku ls bUdkj djuk fu;kstd dks mDr Hkqxrku ds nkf;Ro ls mUeqDr djrs gq, iqjLd`r djus tSlk

gksxkA fdUrq bUgha fu.kZ;ksa esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us ;g Hkh dgk gS fd lsok esa fujUrjrk rFkk foxr osru Hkqxrku ds

lk/kkj.k fu;e ij ;g focU/ku vo'; gS fd U;k;ky; deZdkj dh lsok vof/k] fd;s x;s nqjkpj.k dh izd`fr rFkk vU; leku

ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij Hkh fopkj djsaA lk/kkj.kr% ,d deZdkj] ftldh lsoklekIr dj nh xbZ gks rFkk og foxr osru izkIr djuk

pkgrk gks] ls ;g vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd og vf/kdj.k ds le{k U;wure ;g vfHkopu djsa ;k l'kiFk dFku djsa fd og

lqlaxr vof/k esa dgha Hkh ykHkizn fu;kstu esa fu;ksftr ugha jgk gS ;k fdlh U;wurj% osru ij fu;ksftr jgk gSA bl vfHkopu

ds mijkUr ;fn fu;kstd foxr osru ds Hkqxrku ls cpuk pkgrk gks rks og bl rF; dk vfHkopuksa es ek/;e ls [k.Mu djsa

7726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

,o¡ fo'olfu; lk{; ls ;g Hkh izekf.kr djsa fd deZdkj ykHkktZu gsrq fu;ksftr jgk gS vFkok ftruk osru mls feyrk Fkk

mruk og vftZr dj jgk FkkA tc deZdkj ds fo:) fdlh dnkpkj dk vkjksi izekf.kr gks fdUrq fn;k x;k n.M dnkpkj ds

lekuqikfrd uk gks rks U;k;ky; dks ;g foosdkf/kdkj izkIr gS fd og iw.kZ foxr osru dk Hkqxrku u fnyok;sA ;fn vkjksi

izekf.kr ugha gqvk gks vFkok nqjk'k;% iwoZd feF;k vkjksi yxk;k x;k gks] rc gh iw.kZ osru Hkqxrku djokuk vkSfpR;iw.kZ gksxkA

19-

bu fu.kZ;ksa esa ikfjr fof/k ,oa bl fookn ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fopkj ds mijkUr fuEukafdr ifjn`';

n`f"Vxr gksrk gS (

¼1½

izkFkhZ Loa; ds lk{; ds vuqlkj og fnukad 15-11-99 ls 14-2-2006 rd ftyk dkjkx`g >wU>wuq esa vfHkj{kk esa

fu:) jgk gSA izkFkhZ us ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlus fxjQ~rkjh ds ckn foi{kh dks dksbZ vodk'k

izkFkZuk i= u rks fn;k vkSj u gha fHktok;kaA mlus dksbZ lwpuk foi{kh dks ugha nhA izkFkhZ ds dkjkx`g esa

jgus ds dkj.k Li"V :i ls] mlus foi{khx.k ds ykHkkFkZ dksbZ dk;Z djrs gq, lsok ugha nhA

¼2½

izkFkhZ us u rks vius nkos ds vfHkdFku esa u gha vius lk{; ds 'kiFk i= esa U;kf;d vfHkj{kk ls mUeqDr gksus

ds ckn Hkh vfu;ksftr jgus vFkok dksbZ ykHkiw.kZ fu;kstu izkIr u djus dk dksbZ vfHkopu@dFku fd;k gSA

bl fLFkfr esa LoHkkfod :i ls foi{kh dks izkFkhZ ds fdlh ykHkiw.kZ fu;kstu esa u jgus ds rF; dk

izR;k[;ku ,oa fo[k.Mu djus dk dksbZ volj gh ugha feykA blfy;s ;g mi/kkfjr fd;k tk ldrk gS fd

izkFkhZ dkjkx`g ls NwVus ds ckn fdlh ykHkiw.kZ fu;kstu esa jgk gS rFkk mldk vFkksZiktZu lsok ds nkSjku

izkIr ifjykHk ls U;wurj Hkh ugha jgkA

20-

foi{kh dh vkSj ls [kksxsu pUn cksjk cuke LVsV vkWQ vklke ds fu.kZ; esa ekuuh; xksokgkVh mPp U;k;ky; }kjk

ikfjr fu.kZ; dk voyEc fy;k x;k gSA bl fu.kZ; esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us dgk gS fd tc deZdkj rhu o"kZ pkj ekg

rd gR;k ds vijk/k esa dkjkx`g esa jgk gks fdUrq lUnsg dk ykHk ikdj nks"k eqDr fd;k x;k gks& rFkk deZdkj fcuk

lwpuk@vodk'k Lohd`fr ds vuqifLFkfr jgus dk nks"kh ik;k x;k gks] rks vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh ds naM ds dkj.k ;g ugha dgk

tk ldrk fd mls nks ckj nf.Mr fd;k x;k gSA vuq'kklfud tkap dk gR;k ds fopkj.k ls dksbZ ljksdkj ugaha gSA deZdkj

vuqifLFkfr dh vof/k dk osru ikus dks blfy;s vf/kd`r ugha gS fd fu;kstd dks deZdkj ls dksbZ lsok izkIr ugha gqbZA

21-

xksj[kukFk cuke lsUVªy dksy QhYMl fyfeVsM+ jkaph ds fu.kZ; esa ekuuh; >kj[k.M mPp U;k;ky; us ;g Li"V dgk

gS fd tc deZpkjh tsy esa fu:) jgus ds dkj.k dRrZO; ij vuqifLFkr jgk gks rks **dk;Z ugha rks osru ugaha** ds fl)kUr ds

vk/kkj ij mls osru ns; ugha gksxkA nkf.Md izdj.k fdlh r`rh; i{k }kjk lafLFkr gqvk gSA og izcU/ku dk nkf;Ro ugah gSA

izcU/ku us deZdkj dks dk;Z djus ls ugha jksdk gSA

22-

mHk;i{k }kjk izLrqr fu.kZ;ksa esa ikfjr fof/k ,oa rF;ksa ij fopkj ds i'pkr bl vf/kdj.k dk ;g lqfopkfjr vfHker

gS fd pwafd izkFkhZ vius gh nq"d`R; ds dkj.k vius fu;kstd dks fcuk lwfpr fd;s ,oa fcuk vodk'k Lohd`r djk;s dkjkx`g esa

fu:) jgk rFkk izkFkhZ us dkjkx`g ls NwVus ds i'pkr Hkh csjkstxkj jgus vFkok de vk; vftZr djus lEcU/kh dksbZ dFku ugha

fd;k ,oa lk{; izLrqr ugaha dh] blfy;s ;g mi/kkfjr fd;k tk;sxk fd og ykHk okys fu;kstu esa dgha vU;= /kuktZu djrk

jgkA bl fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dks foxr osru ,oa ifjykHk dk Hkqxrku foi{kh ls djok;k tkuk fof/k& iw.kZ ,oa U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugha

gksrk gSA

23- mi;qDrZ foospu ds mijkUr izkFkhZ ¼gjhizlkn feJk½ ds fo:) yxkrkj vuqifLFkr jgus ds vkjksi ij vf/kdj.k }kjk dh

xbZ tkap ds mijkUr vkjksi izekf.kr gqvk gS] fdUrq bl vkjksi gsrq fn;k x;k n.M+ foi{kh ds izekf.kr LFkk;h vkns'kksa dh /kkjk

39 ¼1½ (iii) esa fofgr n.M+ ds izko/kku ds vuq:i u gksus ls U;k;ksfpr ,oa fof/k lEer ugha gSA vr% foi{khx.k }kjk ikfjr

lsoklekfIr n.M+kns'k fnukad 11-12-2000 dks vikLr djrs gq, izkFkhZ dks foi{kh dh lsok esa iqu% LFkkfir fd;k tkrk gSA izkFkhZ

fnukad 15-11-99 ls mldh lsok fuo`fRr dh frfFk rd foxr osru ,oa vkfFkZd ifjykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA izkFkhZ }kjk

iqfyl@U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa O;frr vof/k vgZd lsok ds :i esa lax.kuh; u ekurs gq, foi{kh] lsok fuo`fRr dh frfFk rd izkFkhZ

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7727

dks izekf.kr LFkk;h vkns'kksa @lsok fu;eksa ds vuq:i ns; dfYir inksUufr nsrs gq,] lsokfuo`fRr ifjykHk dh lax.kuk djsaA

rn~uqlkj Hkqxrku rhu ekg dh vof/k esa djsaA

24-

vf/kfu.kZ; rn~uqlkj ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA Je eU=ky; }kjk bl ekeys esa U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lanfHkZr fookn dk mRrj

mi;qZDrkuqlkj fn;k tkrk gSA

25-

vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfrfyfi dsUnzh; ljdkj dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrXkZr izdk’kukFkZ

izsf"kr dh tkosA

jk/kk eksgu prqoZsnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh

नई द ली, 19 नव बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 2026

2026

2026.—औ_ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म: के./ीय सरकार

मेसस भारत पेोिलयम काप’रेशन िलिमटेड के बंधतं^ के संबT िनयोजक! और उनके कमकार! के बीच अनुबंध म: िनYदZ

औ_ोिगक िववाद म: के./ीय सरकार औ_ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म .यायालय, एनीकुलम के पंचाट (संदभ सं@या 10/2012)

को कािशत करती है जो के./ीय सरकार को 5.11.2019 को ाS +आ था।

[सं. एल-30012/7/2011-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2019

S.O. 2026.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 10/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 5.11.2019.

[No. L-30012/7/2011-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

ERNAKULUM

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

(Friday the 4^thday of October 2019, 12 Asvina 1941)

ID No. 10/2012

Workman

Shri S. Jayakrishnan, House No. X/334, ThirumuppamVariam,

N. Parur, Ernakulam- 693520.

By Adv. Paulson C. Varghese

Management

The General Manager, BPCL, Kochi Refinery,

Ambalamughal, Cochin.

By Adv.Menon & Pai

This case coming up for final hearing on 7-8-2019 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 4-10-2019 passed

the following

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.

L-30012/7/2011-IR(M) dated 16-2-2012 referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

7728

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The dispute referred is

“Whether the action of the management of M/S BPCL Kochi Refinery with its headquarter at Mumbai in

dismissing the services of Shri S.Jayakrishnan, Staff No. 84194, Cochin AFS vide order dated 8-4-2010 is legal

and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

It is seen that this Tribunal vide order dated 31-8-2012 passed a No Dispute Award in this case and is notified

by Government of India in the Gazette dated 10-10-2012. The management filed IA No. 120/2012 to set-aside the

exparte order dated 31-8-2012. This IA was allowed and the matter was restored to file for final adjudication.

The workman entered appearance and filed claim statement. The workman was employed as General Workman

B in the management establishment. During 2002, the 2^nd child of the workman was born with serious and complicated

congenital problems and he was forced to take leave continuously to take care of his child and wife in the hospital. He

was infact taking care of the family of his wife also and his mother-in-law also fell sick due to old age illness. Due to

aforesaid reasons, he has taken all his eligible leave. Further his child died on 4-2-2006. After the demise of his child, his

wife developed reactive depression which put the workman into severe problems. By that time his mother-in-law was

also completely bed-ridden. His mother-in-law also expired during that period. The management initiated disciplinary

action against the workman alleging that he took unauthorized leave without any permission. His unauthorized absence

happened in the aforesaid circumstances. The plight of the workman was known to the management and they promised

not to take any further action considering the situation of the workman. On 2-2-2009, his services were temporarily

transferred to AFS Nedumbaserry Airport in the Marketing Division. Though the services of the workman was

temporarily transferred to AFS, his service conditions, allowances and other terms of employment were governed by long

term settlements which were applicable to the category of workman of BPCL. The workman was under the impression

that the leave benefits are also governed by the long term settlements of his parent company, BPCL. The leave benefits at

AFS and his parent organization BPCL were distinct and the leave benefits was rather much inferior to that of BPCL.

Accordingly the workman has taken the eligible leave as if his leave rules are not changed. He was not informed of any

change in this leave rules. The workman took 12 days leave with permission from the concerned officials during

9-2-2009. As per the leave rules in the AFS, he was entitled to avail more than 24 days privilege leave as he has already

served more than 9 months at AFS without availing any leave. further an employee working at AFS is eligible for 8 days

leave for every quarter. However as per the leave rules of BPCL, the workman is entitled to leave of 2 days eligible extra

for 11 months service rendered. Hence the workman had not availed any unauthorized leave as alleged by the

management. The services of the workman was apprised good by AFS Nedumbaserry.

The domestic enquiry conducted against the workman is done in complete violation of the principles of natural

justice. He was not given full opportunity to establish his innocence. Even if the enquiry report is found to be valid, the

charges proved against him are not grave enough to award the capital punishment of dismissal from service. There are

many employees and trade Union leaders in the management who made unauthorisely absent but continued to be with the

management even today. Disciplinary action was taken against the workman only because he was not part of any Union.

The management filed Written Statement denying the above allegations. The workman was employed in the

manufacturing department of the management. The workman was dismissed from the service for his unauthorized

absence of 97 days during the period 1-4-2007 to 31-12-2007 and 14 days during the period from 1-1-08 to 31-3-2008

and 165 days during the period from 1-4-08 to 31-12-2008. For the unauthorized absence for the period from 1-4-2007 to

31-3-2008, a showcause notice dated 20-6-2008 was issued to the workman. Since his explanation to the showcause

notice was not satisfactory, a chargesheet was issued and an Enquiry Officer was appointed as per the Certified

Standing Orders of the Company. Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry complying with the provisions of natural justice

and also as per the provisions of Certified Standing Orders and submitted his report. The workman fully participated in

the enquiry, submitted defence evidence and produced defence documents. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on

8-12-2008 finding that the charges against the workman are proved. For his unauthorised absence for the period from

1-4-08 to 31-12-08, another showcause notice dated 7-5-2009 was issued. Since the explanation given by the workman

was not satisfactory another domestic enquiry was initiated as per the provisions of Certified Standing Orders, Clause

29.11 for habitual absenteeism. After conducting a proper enquiry complying with the provisions of natural justice, the

Enquiry Officer submitted his findings on 22-8-2009. The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved against the

workman. The copies of the above two Enquiry Reports were forwarded to the workman on 30-9-2009 giving him an

opportunity to submit his representation on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. He submitted his reply on 15-10-2009.

The Disciplinary Authority after perusing the Enquiry file, report and evidence on record, accepted the findings of the

Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority also noticed that the workman was unauthorisely absent during earlier

spells also from 2000 to 31-3-2007. He was also warned in the first instance and punishment of reversion to the lowest

basic pay in the same scale of pay was awarded on 31-12-2007. The Disciplinary Authority after considering all the

above facts proposed a penalty of “dismissal from service of the company”. Even in the representation against the

proposed punishment, the workman did not give any valid and convincing reasons for his actions. Hence the workman

was dismissed from service vide order dated 8-4-2010. The family problems faced by workman is not a valid ground for

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7729

unauthorized absence for pretty long time. The workman was deputed to AFS, Nedumbaserry on 2-2-2009 only after the

disciplinary action was taken for unauthorized absence from 1-4-2007 to 31-12-2008. The domestic enquiry was

conducted fully complying with the principles of natural justice and in accordance with the Certified Standing Orders of

the company. The workman fully participated in both the enquiries and examined himself as defence witness, submitted

defence evidence and produced defence documents. The punishment of dismissal awarded to the workman is

proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by him. Maximum leniency was given to the workman and he

doesnot deserve any further leniency for the offence proved against him. The management has not resorted to any unfair

labour practice. There is no arbitrariness in the matter of taking disciplinary action. In case the Tribunal finds that the

enquiry is vitiated for any reason, the management may be given an opportunity to prove the charges against the

workman by adducing additional evidence.

The workman filed rejoinder denying the allegations in the written statement. He asserted that his leave of

absence from 1-1-2008 to 31-8-2008 was not unauthorized. He has availed only the available leave to his credit. The

workman further reiterated that the charges even if it is proved donot warrant an extreme punishment of dismissal from

the service.

On completion of pleadings, the Enquiry Officer was examined as MW-1 and the Enquiry files were marked as

Exhibit M-1 & M-2.

Having completed pleadings, the issues to be decided in the ID are:-

(1)

Whether the enquiry conducted against the workman was proper and legal?

(2)

Whether the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority is proportionate to the charges proved

against the workman?

(3)

Relief?

10.

Issue No. 1-

The issue whether the disciplinary enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner and following principles

of natural justice was taken up as a preliminary issue. It is seen that there is no serious dispute regarding the fact that the

workman was unauthorisely absent for pretty long period during 2007-2008. The first chargesheet is issued for

unauthorized absence of 130 days from 1-4-2007 to 31-3-2008. Since the explanation of the workman dated 3-7-08 was

found to be unsatisfactory, it was decided to hold the domestic enquiry into the misconduct and a chargesheet and notice

of enquiry dated 28-8-2008 was issued to the workman for the misconduct of habitual absenteeism(Clause 29.11 of

Certified Standing Orders). An Enquiry Officer was appointed, he read out the charges and explained the same to the

workman. The workman participated in the enquiry, appeared as defence witness, submitted defence evidence and

produced 3 defence documents. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 2-12-2008 finding that the workman was

unauthorisely absent for 111 days during the period from 1-4-2007 to 31-3-2008. Another showcause notice was issued

to the workman for his unauthorized absence of 165 days from 1-4-08 to 31-12-2008 along with the abstract of the

attendance records. His explanation dated 26-5-2009 was found to be unsatisfactory and the management decided to hold

domestic enquiry against a chargesheet dated 19-6-2009 issued to him for habitual absenteeism under Clause 29.11 of

Certified Standing Orders. An independent Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry. A Presenting Officer

was also appointed in the matter. The Presenting Officer introduced the documents in the enquiry. The workman

participated in the enquiry, appeared as defence witness and produced defence documents. The Enquiry Officer returned

the finding that the charges against the workman are proved. Copies of the above two enquiry reports were forwarded to

the workman on 30-9-2009 and he submitted his representation on the above two enquiry reports on 15-10-2009. The

Disciplinary Authority found that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner and the explanation by the

workman was not satisfactory. The Disciplinary Authority also noticed that the workman was a habitual absentee and he

was also punished earlier for his unauthorized absence. After considering all the above facts, the Disciplinary Authority

proposed the punishment of dismissal of service from the company. The workman was directed to offer his comments

on the proposed punishment. The explanation submitted by him was not convincing and there was no extenuating

circumstance to award a lesser punishment. After considering all the above factors, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a

punishment of dismissal from the service of the company.

11.

On a perusal of Exhibit M-1 & M-2 Enquiry files, it is seen that the Enquiry Officer conducted the

proceedings as required under provisions of Certified Standing Orders of the company. The charges levelled against the

workman was explained to him by the Enquiry Officer at the initial stages of the proceedings. He was allowed to cross-

examine the management witness which he did not do. The workman was allowed to engage his own defence assistant

and produce documents on his side. The workman examined himself as a witness in the enquiry and adduced defence

documents which were considered by the Enquiry Officer. The charges levelled against the workman are of such nature

7730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that it can be proved through documentary evidence. Hence it is seen that there is no denial of opportunity to the

workman in both the enquiries.

12.

Hence I am inclined to conclude that the enquiry conducted against the workman by the management was fair

and proper and following the principles of natural justice. A preliminary order to that effect was issued on 15-7-2019.

Hence Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the management and against the workman.

13.

Issue No. 2-

Having found that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner, the scope of interference with the punishment

awarded to the workman is very limited. The counsel for management argued that the workman was a chronic absentee

and he was also chargesheeted on earlier occasions for the same offence. However there is no improvement in his

attendance. The counsel for the workman pleaded that, viewed from any angle, the ultimate punishment of dismissal

from the company for absenteeism is shockingly disproportionate and is required to be interfered by this Tribunal. The

workman through various letters communicated to the management the circumstances which warranted him to stay away

from the company. According to him, his 2^nd child was born with congenital issues which required prolonged treatment

in the hospital. It was also pleaded by the workman that the child died inspite of the best efforts taken by him. The

counsel for the workman also pointed out that during the course of treatment of his child, his mother-in-law, who was

staying with him, also fell sick and the workman was the only person to take care of the family. His mother-in-law also

expired after long treatment. As per Clause 30.5 of the Certified Standing Orders, the management ought to have

considered these extenuating circumstances before awarding this extreme punishment of dismissal from service. The

management has not denied any of the pleadings of the workman.

14.

Hence in the circumstances of the case, I am inclined to hold that the punishment awarded to the workman by

the management is shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved against him.

Hence issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the workman and against the management.

15.

Issue No. 3-

It has come out in evidence that the workman had a satisfactory record of service inspite of his unauthorized absence in

the company. It has also come out in evidence that his attendance has improved inspite of short spells of absenteeism. It

is felt that the workman should be given one more opportunity to improve himself and tender his service to the

management company.

16.

Considering all the above circumstances, it is felt that interest of justice would be met if the workman is

reinstated in service without backwages but with continuity of service.

Hence the issue is decided in favour of the workman and against the management.

Considering all the facts, circumstances, pleadings and evidence, an Award is passed holding that the dismissal

of the workman from Cochin AFS vide order dated 8-4-2010 is disproportionate to the charges proved against him and

he is directed to be reinstated in service with continuity of service but without backwages.

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

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and passed by me on this the 4^th day of October, 2019.

V. VIJAYA KUMAR, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the workman

Nil

Witness for the Management

MW-1 Shri K.N.Madhava Pai on 19-3-2019

Exhibits for the workman

Nil

Exhibits for the Management:-

- Enquiry File Vol-2

M-2

- Enquiry File Vol-1

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7731

नई द ली, 19 नव बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 2027

2027

2027.—औ_ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म: के./ीय सरकार

मेसस राज थान रा‡ य टंग टन िवकास िनगम के बंधतं^ के संबT िनयोजक! और उनके कमकार! के बीच अनुबंध म: िनYदZ

औ_ोिगक िववाद म: औ_ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म .यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं@या 07/1993) को कािशत करती

है जो के./ीय सरकार को 19.11.2019 को ाS +आ था।

[सं. एल-25012/34/1992-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2019

S.O. 2027.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 07/1993) of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jaipur now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Rajasthan

State Tungsten Development Corporation and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

19.11.2019.

[No. L-25012/34/1992-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

vuqca/k

dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh %& lrh'k dqekj O;kl]ftyk U;k;k/kh'k laoxZ

dsl uacj lh-vkbZ-Vh- 07@93]

lh-vkbZ-,l- 29@2018]

jSQjSal% dsUnz ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh dk vkns'k Øekad ,y-&

25012/34/92-IR [Misc] Whereas the central Government dated-5-5-93-

Jh eksguflag iq= Jh Nxuflag] fuoklh xkao&>xMokl] iksLV&Msxkuk] ftyk&ukxkSj

---izkFkhZ ;wfu;u

cuke

1- Mk;jsDVj bUpktZ] jktLFkku jkT; VaxLVu fodkl fuxe] [kfut Hkou]

---frydekxZ]t;iqj

2- fgUnqLrku ftad fyfeVsM] Msxkuk VaxLVu izkstsDV] Msxkuk] ftyk ukxkSj ¼jkt-½

---foi{khx.k

mifLFkr %

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls % dksbZ mifLFkr ugha gSa

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls % dksbZ mifLFkr ugha gSa

vf/kfu.kZ;

fnuakd % 27-03-2019

1- dsUnz ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYYkh ls mijksDr vkns'k ds tfj;s fuEu vuqlwph dk fookn vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq bl vf/kdj.k

dks fnuakd 13-5-93 dks izkIRk gqvk gSA

"Whether the action of the Management of R.S.T.D.C. Degana Unit, Dist.Nagaur, in not allowing the Site

Mate Shri Mohan Singh Rathore to join his duties on 18.7.85 and there after terminating his services through

termination order dated 10.1.86 published in Dainik Navjyoti dated 11.1.86 is justified, proper & Legal ? If

not,to what relief the workman is entitled ?’’

3- izdj.k ntZ jftLVj fd;k tkdj mHk; i{kdkjku dks uksfVl tkjh fd, x,A izkFkhZ dh vksj ls dsUnzh; Je foHkkx }kjk

vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ izsf"kr vf/klwpuk ds lanHkZ esa LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse foi{kh Mk;jsDVj bUpktZ] jktLFkku jkT; VaxLVu fodkl

fuxe] [kfut Hkou] fryd ekxZ] t;iqj ds fo#) fnuakd 8-9-93 dks U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr dj vfHkdFku fd;k x;k

fd izkFkhZ Jfed dh fu;qfDr fnuakd 1-4-1974 dks osru J`a[kyk 420&740 esa lkbVesV ds in ij vizkFkhZ laLFkku esa gqbZ Fkh] tks

rRle; ekbUl ,.M ft;ksykWth foHkkx] jktLFkku ljdkj ds v/khu FkkA lu 1974 esa izkFkhZ laLFkku e; Jfedksa rFkk mudh

leLr ysunkfj;ksa o nsunkfj;ksa ds rRle; fo|eku jktLFkku [kfut rFkk vkS|ksfxd fodkl fuxe dks lkSaik x;k rFkk lu

7732

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1979 esa mDr laLFkku dks jktLFkku jkT; [kfut fodkl fuxe ds v/khu fn;k x;k vkSj 1984 esa mDr laLFkku jktLFkku

jkT; VaxLVu fodkl fuxe fy- dks gLRkkarfjr dj fn;k x;kA mlds ckn vizkFkhZ la-1 us izkFkhZ Jfed dks vkjksi i= la- 2275

fnuakd 24-5-85 tkjh fd;k] ftlesa izkFkhZ Jfed ij 8 vkjksi yxk;s x;s Fks] ftldk mlus tokc fnuakd 3-6-85 dks izsf"kr djrs

gq;s lHkh vkjksiksa dks cscqfu;kn] eux<ar] fujk/kkj o vLi"V gksuk crkrs gq;s vLohdkj fd;kA mlds i'pkr fnuakd 6-7-85 dks

Hkh ,d vU; vkjksii= mls fn;k x;k ftlesa fcuk vuqefr viuh M;wVh ls vuqifLFkr jgus dk vkjksi yxk;k x;k] ftldk Hkh

izkFkhZ us tokc fnuakd 18-7-85 dks izLrqr dj fn;k rRi'pkr fnuakd 27-9-85 dks mls ,d vkjksii= fcuk lwpuk ds M;wVh ls

vuqifLFkr jgus ckcr vkSj ns fn;k x;k]ftlls Hkh izkFkhZ us tokc izLRkqr dj vLohdkj dj fn;k x;kA ftudh tkap djus gsrq

tkap vf/kdkjh dh fu;qfDr dh xbZ] ftleas izkFkhZ Jfed dks lquokbZ dk i;kZIr volj ugha fn;k x;k vkSj vkjksiksa dks tkap ls

fl) ekurs gq;s izkFkhZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd djus dk n.M iznku fd;k x;k]tks fd fuEu vk/kkjksa ij voS/k gS] D;ksafd

vkjksiksa esa fy;s x;s c;ku rFkk nLrkostkr dh udysa rFkk lk{khx.k o nLrkostkr dh lwph izkFkhZ Jfed dks vkjksii= ds lkFk

ugha nh xbZ rFkk yxk;s x;s vkjksi eux<ar ,oa vLi"V gSaA vr% izkFkhZ dk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse Lohdkj fd;k tkdj Jfed dk

lsok i`FkDdj.k vkns'k fnuakd 10-1-86 vikLr djrs gq;s Jfed dks fnuakd 18-7-85 ls iw.kZ osru izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh

?kksf"kr fd;k tk;s rFkk lsok dh fujarjrk ekurs gq;s lHkh ns; ykHk ifjykHk fnyk;s tkus ds vkns'k pkgs x;s gSaA

4- vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls mijksDr LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse dk tokc izLRkqr djrs gq;s vfHkdFku fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ

eksguflag dh lsok,sa iwoZ esa gh fnuakd 10-1-86 dks lekIr dh tk pqdh FkhAvr% os vizkFkhZ la- 2 ds fu;kstu esa dHkh ugha jgs]

blfy, vizkFkhZ la- 2 okn eas vko';d i{kdkj ugha gksus dk mYys[k djrs gq;s of.kZr fd;k fd izkFkhZ nSfud osru ij esV gSYij

ds in ij fu;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk] ftldks fnuakd 1-4-78 ls osru J`a[kyk 295&500 esa fu;fer fd;k x;k rFkk mlds i'pkr

le; le; ij la'kksf/kr osru J`a[kykvksa dk ykHk nsrs gq;s mldk osru fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ Jfed us vkjksii= fnuakd

24-5-85 ds izlax esa lEiUu tkap izfØ;k esa tkap vf/kdkjh ds le{k mifLFkr gksdj Lo;a dk cpko i{k izLrqr fd;k Fkk] mlus

xokgksa ls ftjg dh o Lo ;a ds xokgksa ds c;ku djk;s ftuls vizkFkhZ ds izfrfuf/k us ftjg dh] bl izdkj tkap ,di{kh;

ugha gksuk crkrs gq;s vfHkdFku fd;k gS fd tkap eas nks"kh ik;s tkus ij tkap izfrosnu vuq'kklfud vf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr

fd;k tkus ij mls lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj izkd`frd U;k; ds fl)karksa ds vuqlkj leLr dk;Zokgh dh tkdj

n.Mkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ Jfed dks fdlh izdkj dk ykHk izkIRk djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gksuk crkrs gq;s mldk

LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse [kkfjt fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA

5- bl izØe ij izkFkhZ Jfed ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k us tkfgj fd;k fd izkFkhZ dh muds ikl dksbZ lwpuk ugha gS vkSj u gh

mldk dksbZ irk gSA vizkFkhZ ds fo}ku izfrfuf/k Hkh mifLFkr ugha gSaA

6- pwafd i=koyh dkQh yacs le; ls cgl esa fu;r gSA vr% i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA

7- izkFkhZ Jfed us jsQjsUl bl vk'k; dk izLRkqr fd;k fd mldk fnuakd 10-1-86 dk nSfud uoT;ksfr v[kckj esa izdkf'kr

lsok i`FkDdj.k dk vkns'k lgh gS vFkok ugha \

8- bl ij U;k;kf/kdj.k us mHk; i{k dks lqudj Jfed ds fo#) dh xbZ tkap dks lgh ,oa 'kq) gksuk ik;k FkkA tkap

dk;Zokgh eas izkFkhZ Jfed us viuh mifLFkfr nhA gkykWfd mlus ;g izfrj{kk yh Fkh fd og ;wfu;u ds dk;Z ls ckgj jgrk

gS] tcfd tkap eas ml ij ;g vkjksi Fkk fd og M;wVh ij mifLFkr ugha jgrk gS vkSj viuh M;wVh ls vyx jgrk gS] fdUrq

foHkkxh; tkap esa mlus fdlh izdkj dh mifLFkfr ugha nh vkSj u gh ;g Li"V fd;k fd og ;wfu;u ds dke ls ckgj x;k

FkkA tkap esa lk{khx.k us mls uksfVl rkehy djokus ckcr lk{; nh vkSj mlus jftLVªh yh Hkh ugha vkSj ysus ls bUdkj dj

fn;kA

9- bl izdkj miyC/k lk{; ls Li"V gksrk gSZ fd izkFkhZ Jfed ekg vizsy esa 6 fnu]ebZ esa 5 fnu o twu esa 4 fnu gh dk;Z

ij vk;k Fkk vkSj mlus fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ izkFkZuki= Hkh ugha fn;kA bl izdkj ;g izekf.kr gS fds izkFkhZ Jfed tkucw>dj

vius drZO; ij mifLFkr ugha gqvkA foHkkxh; tkap esa mlds fo#) vkjksi dks tkap esa izekf.kr ik;k x;kA vuq'kklfud

vf/kdkjh us lquokbZ djus ds ckn tks lsoki`FkDdj.k dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gS] og gekjh jk; esa fcydqy lgh gSA

10- vr% mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij bl izdj.k esa fuEu vokMZ ikfjr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gS] tks blh vuq#i ikfjr

fd;k tkrk gSA

vokMZ

11- vr% jktLFkku ftad fyfeVsM ds izcU/ku }kjk Jfed Jh eksguflag dh fnuakd 10-01-86 ls dh xbZ lsokeqfDr mfpr

,oa oS/k gS rFkk mDr Jfed fdlh izdkj dh jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA ekeys ds rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr esa i{kdkjku [kkpkZ

viuk&viuk Lo;a ogu djsxsaA

12- vf/kfu.kZ; fy[kk;k tkdj vkt fnuakd 27-3-2019 dks gLrk{kj dj lquk;k x;kA vf/kfu.kZ; dh izfr dsUnz ljdkj dks

izdk'kukFkZ fu;ekuqlkj izsf"kr dh tkosA

lrh'k dqekj O;kl] U;k;k/kh'k

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7733

नई द ली, 19 नव बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 2028

2028

2028.—औ_ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म: के./ीय सरकार

मेसस उदयपुर िमनरल डेवलपम:ट िस. डीकेट ा. िलिमटेड के बंधतं^ के संबT िनयोजक! और उनके कमकार! के बीच अनुबंध

म: िनYदZ औ_ोिगक िववाद म: औ_ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म .यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदभ सं@या 11/1992) को

कािशत करती है जो के./ीय सरकार को 19.11.2019 को ाS +आ था।

[सं. एल-29012/74/1991-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2019

S.O. 2028.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/1992) of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jaipur now as

shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Udaipur

Mineral Development Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

19.11.2019.

[No. L-29012/74/1991-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

vuqca/k

dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj

dsl ua

dsl ua- lh

lhlh

lh-vkbZ

vkbZ

vkbZ-VhVhVhVh- 11@1992

11@1992

jSQjSal

jSQjSal % dsUnz ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh dk vkns’k Øekad

,y&29012@74@91& vkbZ-vkj- ¼fofo/k½ fnukad 16-06-1992

Jh tgku flag iq= Jh ghjk flag] xzke ,oa iksLV&lySeiqj dyka]

ok;k cYyHkx<] rglhy oSj] ftyk&Hkjriqj

---izkFkhZ

cuk

cuke

phQ ,DthD;wfVo] eS- mn;iqj feujy MSoyieSaV flUMhdsV izk- fy-] HkhyokM+k

---vizkFkhZ

mifLFkr

ihihihihBklhu vf/kdkjh% J

klhu vf/kdkjh% J

klhu vf/kdkjh% Jhefr :ik xqIrk]

hefr :ik xqIrk]

hefr :ik xqIrk] vkj

vkj

vkj-,p

,p-tstststs-,l

,l-

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh vkj- lh- tSu

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh :fiu dkyk

fnukad vokMZ % 03

fnukad vokMZ % 03- 09090909- 2019

2019

vf/kfu.kZ;

Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ea=ky; dh mijksDr vkKk dzekad ls fuEu vuqlwph dk fookn vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq bl vf/kdj.k dks

izkIr gqvk gS &

^^D;k phQ ,DthD;wfVo odZl] mn;iqj feujy MoyiesaV flaMhdsaV] HkhyokM+k ds }kjk Jfed Jh tgku flag dks

fnukad 12

fnukad 12-7-91 ls lsok ls c[kkZLr fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS| gS] ;fn ugha rks Jfed fdl ykHk dk vf/kdkjh gS

91 ls lsok ls c[kkZLr fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS| gS] ;fn ugha rks Jfed fdl ykHk dk vf/kdkjh gS

91 ls lsok ls c[kkZLr fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS| gS] ;fn ugha rks Jfed fdl ykHk dk vf/kdkjh gS\********

mDr funsZ'k bl vf/kdj.k dks izkIr gksus ij izdj.k ntZ jftLVj fd;k tkdj mHk; i{kdkjku~ dks uksfVl tkjh fd;s

x;sA izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse is'k dj vfHkdFku fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr foi{kh laLFkku esa 7-4-1987

dks eSdsfudy bapktZ ds in ij gqbZ FkhA fnukad 20-5-91 rd izkFkhZ us foi{kh ds ;gka fujUrj dk;Z fd;k rFkk mldk dk;Zdky

larks"kizn jgk gSA fnukad 21-5-91 ls 13-6-91 rd foi{kh laLFkku esa gM+rky jghA fnukad 14-6-91 dks izkFkhZ }kjk M~;wVh ij tkus

ij mls M~;wVh ij ugha fy;k x;kA izkFkhZ dh cfgu ds iq= dh 'kknh gksus ls izkFkhZ us fnukad 24-6-91 ls 7-7-91 rd dk

vodk'k izkFkZuk nsdj pyk x;k] tgka ij og chekj gksus ls fnukad 21-7-91 rd chekj jgkA bl chp izkFkhZ dks fnukad

15-7-91 dks iathd`r Mkd ls ,d i= feyk ftlesa mldk uke eLVjksy ls dkVs tkus rFkk fnukad 12-7-91 ls ukSdjh ls

7734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

c[kkZLr djus dh lwpuk nh xbZA izkFkhZ Jfed dks ukSdjh ls fudkyus ls iwoZ foi{kh laLFkku }kjk mls dksbZ vkjksi i= ugha

fn;k x;k vkSj u gh dksbZ ?kjsyw tkap dh xbZA foi{kh laLFkku }kjk mls lsokeqDr djus ls iwoZ dksbZ uksfVl o uksfVl osru

ugha fn;k x;kA izkFhkZ dks lsokeqDr djrs le; foi{kh laLFkku esa izkFkhZ ls twfu;j Jfed dk;Zjr Fks rFkk vc Hkh dk;Zjr gS

rFkk foi{kh }kjk u;s Jfedksa dh Hkh HkrhZ dh xbZ gSA foi{kh laLFkku }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,Q] 25 th]

,oa 25 ,p rFkk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds fu;e 77 o 78 dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gS] tks vuqfpr o voS/k gSA vUr esa

izkFkhZ Jfed us mldh lsok dks fujUrj ekurs gq;s mls iqu% lsok easa fy;s tkus rFkk iw.kZ osru ykHk fnyk;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh

gSA

foi{kh laLFkku dh vksj ls LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse dk tokc is'k dj vfHkdFku fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dh foi{kh

laLFkku esa vizsy 1987 esa fu;qfDr vo'; gqbZ Fkh ysfdu mls fnukad 1-4-89 ls eSdsfudy bapktZ dh fu;fer osru J`a[kyk ij

fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ dk dk;Zdky larks"kizn ugha jgk gSA foi{kh laLFkku esa lHkh ekbal o xzkbf.Max ;wfuV ij [kku

etnwj dkaxzsl HkhyokM+k }kjk gM+rky djok;s tkus ij izkFkhZ Jfed Hkh fnukad 21-5-91 ls 13-6-91 rd gM+rky ij jgk FkkA

gM+rky lekfIr ij fnukad 14-6-91 dks izkFkhZ foi{kh laLFkku esa M~;wVh ij mifLFkr ugha gqvk vkSj fcuk lwpuk o vodk'k

Lohd`r djk;s fcuk vius dk;Z ls fnukad 13-6-91 ls 12-7-91 rd xSj gkftj jgkA izkFkhZ Jfed dks viuh M~;wVh ls fnukad

13-6-91 ls fcuk lwpuk o vodk'k Lohd`fr ds vuqifLFkr gksus ls foi{kh ds LFkkbZ vkns'k 11 ¼[k½ dh mi/kkjk 7 ds vuqlkj

fnukad 26-6-91 dks ,d uksfVl dzekad 1095 tkjh dj rhu fnol ds vanj M~;wVh ij mifLFkr gksus dk funsZ'k fn;k x;kA

mDr uksfVl izkFkhZ dks fnukad 1-7-91 dks izkIr gks x;k ysafdu mlds ckn Hkh izkFkhZ M~;wVh ij mifLFkr ugha gqvkA ftlls

foi{kh laLFkku }kjk fuxe ds LFkkbZ vkns'k ds rgr ;g ekurs gq;s fd izkFkhZ lsok dk bPNqd ugha gS] mls vkns'k fnukad

12-7-91 ls lsoki`Fkd dj fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk vodk'k gsrq dksbZ izkFkZuk i= foi{kh dks ugha fn;k x;kaA izkFkhZ ds uksfVl ckn

rkehy gksus ds ckn Hkh mifLFkr ugha gksus ij mlds fo:) tkap fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha FkkA izkFkhZ ij vkS|ksfxd

fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 th o ,p ;k vkS-fo-vf/k- 1958 ds fu;e 77 o 78 ykxw ugha gksrs gSaA foi{kh }kjk vf/kfu;e ds

fdlh izko/kku dk mYya?ku ugha fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ Jfed dk lsokeqfDr vkns'k mfpr ,oa oS/k gSA var esa izkFkhZ dk LVsVesaV

vkWQ Dyse [kkfjt fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA

foi{kh laLFkku }kjk fnukad 8-8-95 dks izkFkhZ Jfed ds nqjkpj.k dks fl) djus ckcr~ lk{; is'k djus dk volj

pkgus ij U;k;kf/kdj.k ds vkns'k fnukad 7-9-1996 }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed ij yxk;s x;s vkjksi ds laca/k esa lk{; is'k djus dh

vuqefr nh xbZA foi{kh dh vksj ls lk{; esa xokg Jh ts-ih- tSu ,oa Hkwjkyky 'kekZ dk 'kiFk i= is'k gqvk gS ftuls izkFkhZ

izfrfuf/k }kjk ftjg dh xbZA nLrkosth lk{; esa foi{kh dh vksj ls nLrkostkr~ izn'kZ ,e&1 yxk;r ,e&8 iznf'kZr gq;s gSaA

izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls dksbZ lk{; is'k ugha gksus ij U;k;kf/kdj.k ds vkns'k fnukad 24-2-1999 }kjk lk{; izkFkhZ can dh xbZA

U;k;kf/kdj.k ds vkns'k fnukad 27-2-2004 }kjk izkFkhZ dh lk{; [kksys tkus ckcr~ izLrqr izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;k x;kA

foi{kh dh vksj ls izLrqr xokg Jh ts-ih- tSu ,oa Jh Hkwjkyky 'kekZ us viuh lk{; ds eq[; ijh{k.k esa LVsVesaV esa

mYysf[kr rF;ksa dks nksgjk;k x;k gSA izfrijh{kk esa Jh ts-ih- tSu us dFku fd;k gS fd og 1 tuojh 1990 ls flrEcj 92 rd

phQ ,DthD;wfVo ds in ij jgkA Je le>kSrk vf/kdkjh us gM+rky dks voS/kkfud ?kksf"kr fd;k Fkk] vkns'k ;gka is'k ugha gSA

tgku flag dks fnukad 26-6-91 dks M~;wVh ij mifLFkr gksus dk uksfVl fn;k x;k] mlls igys dksbZ uksfVl ugha fn;k x;kA

fnukad 25-6-91 dks tgku flag dk dksbZ i= ugha vk;k] fyQkQs esa [kkyh dkxt vk;k FkkA fnukad 26-6-91 ds uksfVl] fnukad

12-7-91 ds i= dh jftLVªh dh jlhn] ,-Mh- ;wihlh jlhn is'k ugha dh gSA tgku flag us 6-7-91 ds i= }kjk vodk'k izkFkZuk

i= o M;wVh TokbZu dh lwpuk Hksth gksxh] ysfdu esjs ikl ugha vkbZA mls ekabl eSustj dks lwpuk nsuh pkfg;s FkhA fnukad

12-7-91 ds i= ls igys ekabl eSustj us mls fyf[kr esa 9-7-91 ds i= }kjk ;g lwpuk Hksth Fkh fd tgku flag M~;wVh ls

vuqifLFkr py jgk gSA

lk{kh Jh Hkwjkyky 'kekZ us Hkh izfrijh{kk esa dFku fd;k gS fd ;g xyr gS fd izkFkhZ fnukad 13-6-91 ds ckn M~;wVh

ij vk;k gks vkSj mls M~;wVh ij ugha fy;k gksA ?ksofj;k xzkbZf.Max ;wfuV ij dk;Zjr Jfed viuk vodk'k izkFkZuk i= ?ksofj;k

Hkstrs gSa vkSj ogka ls mlds ikl vkrs gSaA izn'kZ MoY;w&1 dk;Zxzg.k djkus ckcr~ izkFkZuk i= ?ksofj;k ls QkWjokMZ gksdj ugha

vk;k blfy;s xokg us dgk gS fd mDr izkFkZuk i= ?ksofj;k esa is'k ugha fd;kA ?ksofj;k ds fjlhCM jftLVj esa bldk ,UVªh

ugha gSA fjlhCM jftLVj dksVZ esa is'k ugha fd;k gSA ;g xyr gS fd tgku flag fnukad 24-6-91 ls 7-7-91 rd dk vodk'k

izkFkZuk i= nsdj x;k gksA izn'kZ MoY;w&2 izkFkZuk i= tgku flag us ugha fn;kA izn'kZ MCY;w &3 tgku flag }kjk fn;k x;k

tokc gS] blds laca/k esa dksbZ tkap ugha dh xbZA izn'kZ MoY;w 4 mUgsa ugha feykA izn'kZ MoY;w&5 o 6 jksx&vkjksX; izek.k i=

mls ugha feys vkSj mudh fjlhCM jftLVj esa ,UVªh ugha gSA ?ksofj;k ls tgku flag dh vuqifLFkfr dh lwpuk Hksth xbZ Fkh] tks

izn'kZ ,e&7 o 8 gSA tgku flag }kjk mlds vodk'k izkFkZuk i= o jksx&vkjksX; izek.k i= Hkstus dh ckr dks xyr dgk gSA

eSaus mHk; i{kksa dh cgl lquhA i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd vo/;;u o voyksdu fd;k x;kA

izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k us cgl dh gS fd izdj.k esa Jfed dh e`R;q ds i'pkr~ uks fMLiqV vokMZ ikfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA

fookn ds yfEcr jgus ds nkSjku Jfed dh e`R;q gks tkus ij Jfed ds fo:) vkjksi fl) ugha ekus tk ldrsA fookn ls

lacaf/kr Jfed dh lsokeqfDr LFkkbZ vkns'kksa ds vuqlkj fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa vf/kd vof/k ds fy;s vuqifLFkr gksus ij mldk uke

eLVjkWy ls dkVdj dh xbZ gS] tks NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gSA Jfed dh Jfed eqfDr nqjkpj.k ds vk/kkj ij ugha dh

xbZA vr% fu;kstd nqjkpj.k ds vk/kkj ij lsokeqfDr dk rdZ ugha ns ldrkA vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh lk{; ls Jfed dh Wilful

Absent lkfcr ugha gksrh gS vr% mlds fo:) vkjksi fl) ugha ekus tk ldrsA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa

fuEu U;kf;d n`"Vkar is'k fd;s x;s gSa %&

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7735

2005¼3½ MoY;w-,y-lh- 616 ¼jkt- mPp U;k;ky;½ iIiwjke cuke yscj dksVZ o vU;

1995¼70½ ,Q ,y vkj 244 ¼jkt- mPp U;k;ky;½ Jhefr izse dqekjh o vU; cuke lSUVªy b.MfLVª;y fVªC;quy o

vU;A

2011¼2½ vkj ,y MoY;w 1152 ¼jkt- mPp U;k;ky;½ vkj,lvkjVhlh t;iqj cuke lq[kchj flag o vU;

1982 vkbZ ,y ,y ts 330 ¼ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky;½ ,y- jkWcVZ fMlwtk cuke lkmFkuZ jsyos o vU;A

1993¼2½ vkj ,y vkj 486 ¼jkt- mPp U;k;ky;½ ukFkwjke lSuh cuke fgUnqLrku dkWij fy- o vU;A

1996 vkbZ ,y ,y ts 152 ¼jkt- mPp U;k;ky;½ vkj,lbZch cuke yscj dksVZ o vU;A

1998 ¼2½ ,l ,y vkj 544 ¼ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky;½ miVªkWu bf.M;k fy0 cuke 'kEeh Hkku o vU;A

2015 ¼145½ ,Q ,y vkj 425 ¼ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky;½ vt; iky flag cuke gfj;k.kk os;jgkmflax dkWjiksjs'kuA

2014¼142½ ,Q ,y vkj 625 ¼ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky;½ NSy flag cuke ,ethch xkzeh.k cSad o vU;A

10- 2012¼3½ ,l lh lh 178 ¼ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky;½ d`".kdkar ch ijekj cuke ;wfu;u vkWQ bf.M;k o vU;A

vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k us cgl dh gS fd ;fn Jfed dh e`R;q ds i'pkr~ mlds fof/kd okjhlku fjdkMZ ij ugha vkrs gSa rks

Jfed dksbZ jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha jgrk gSA bl izdj.k esa Hkh izkFkhZ Jfed ds fof/kd okjhlku fjdkMZ ij ugha gSA vius

Dyse dks lkfcr djus gsrq izkFkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ lk{; ugha gSA vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh lk{; ls izkFkhZ Jfed ij yxk;s x;s

vkjksi lkfcr gksrs gSaA vr% izkFkhZ dk Dyse [kkfjt fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA

eSaus mHk; i{kksa ds rdksZa dk euu fd;k ,oa izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dk llEekuiwoZd v/;;u o voyksdu fd;k x;kA

i=koyh ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd mHk; i{kksa ds chp ;g fufoZokn rF; gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed Jh tgku flag foi{kh

laLFkku esa eSdsfudy bapktZ ds in ij dk;Zjr jgk gSA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk ,d vkifRr vius Dyse ,oa cgl esa ;g mBkbZ xbZ

gS fd vkjksih dks dksbZ vkjksi i= ugha fn;k x;k vkSj u gh dksbZ mlds fo:) dksbZ tkap dh xbZA izkFkhZ Jfed tgku flag

dks M~;wVh ls fcuk lwpuk o vodk'k Lohd`r djk;s fcuk vuqifLFkr jgus ij foi{kh laLFkku }kjk mlds LFkkbZ vkns'k 11¼[k½

dh mi/kkjk 7 ds rgr xaHkkhj nqjkpj.k esa vkns'k fnukad 12-7-91 }kjk lsoki`Fkd fd;k x;k gSA ;g lgh gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks

lsoki`Fkd djus ls iwoZ mlds fo:) dksbZ ?kjsyw tkap ugha dh xbZ ysfdu U;k;kf/kdj.k ds vkns'k fnukad 7-9-1996 }kjk

U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izkFkhZ Jfed ij yxk;s x;s vkjksi dks fl) djus ckcr~ lk{; is'k gqbZ gSA ftlls Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ

Jfed ij yxk;s x;s vkjksi ds laca/k esa tkap U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k gqbZ gS ftlesa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ xokg is'k ugha gksus

ij lk{; izkFkhZ can dh xbZ gS rFkk foi{kh dh vksj ls lk{kh Jh ts-ih- tSu o Jh Hkwjkyky 'kekZ ijhf{kr gq;s gSaA vr% izkFkhZ

izfrfuf/k dh ;g vkifRr fd izkFkhZ ds fo:) vkjksi ds laca/k esa dksbZ tkap ugha gqbZ] Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA

izkFkhZ Jfed dks lsokeqDr djus ls iwoZ foi{kh laLFkku }kjk mldks rhu fnol ds Hkhrj M~;wVh ij mifLFkr gksus ckcr~

uksfVl izn'kZ ,e&2 Øekad 1095 fnukad 26-6-91 Hkstk x;k gS] ftldh ,-Mh- jlhn izn'kZ ,e&2@1 gSA mDr uksfVl vizkFkhZ

dks izkIr gqvk gSA izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk mDr uksfVl dk tokc izn'kZ MoY;w&3 }kjk foi{kh laLFkku dks Hkstk x;k gSA ftldh

iqf"V foi{kh laLFkku dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{khx.k Jh ts-ih- tSu o Jh Hkwjkyky 'kekZ us dh gSA vr% izkFkhZ Jfed dk ;g dFku

Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks lsokeqDr djus ls iwoZ dksbZ uksfVl ugha fn;k x;kA

U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k vo/kkj.kh; fcUnq ;g gS fd foi{kh laLFkku }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed dks mlds LFkkbZ vkns'kksa ds rgr

lsoki`Fkd fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS| gS vFkok ugha\

bl laca/k esa U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k foi{kh laLFkku dh vksj ls mlds LFkkbZ vkns'k izn'kZ ,e&5 is'k fd;s x;s gSaA

ftlesa LFkkbZ vkns'kksa ds dze la[;k 11¼[k½ ds fcUnq la[;k 7 ds vuqlkj fcuk vodk'k Lohd`r djk;s xSj gkftj jguk vFkok

10 fnu ls vf/kd yxkrkj xSj gkftj jguk] dks xaHkhj nqjkpj.k ekuk gSA izkFkhZ Jfed viuh M~;wVh ls fcuk lwpuk o vodk'k

Lohd`r djk;s vuqifLFkr jgk gS] bl rF; dh foi{kh lk{khx.k us iqf"V dh gSA izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk 24-6-91 ls 7-7-91 rd dk

vodk'k izkFkZuk i= izn'kZ MCY;w&4 o izkFkhZ dh chekjh ds laca/k esa jksx&vkjksX; izek.k i= izn'kZ MCY;w&5 o 6 foi{kh laLFkku

dks Hksts tkus ls badkj fd;k gSA izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls vius cpko esa dksbZ lk{; is'k ugha dh gS ftlls ;g izekf.kr ugha

gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk vodk'k ij tkus ls iwoZ vodk'k izkFkZuk i= fn;k gks rFkk mlds }kjk mldh chekjh ds laca/k esa

jksx&vkjksX; izek.k i= foi{khas laLFkku dks fHktok;s x;s gksaA izkFkhZ }kjk izn'kZ MoY;w&3 }kjk foi{kh ds uksfVl dk tokc fn;k

x;k gS] ml tokc esa Hkh izkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 8-7-91 dks foi{kh laLFkku ds le{k mifLFkr gksus ckcr~ vafdr fd;k x;k gS]

ysfdu fnukad 8-7-91 dks Hkh izkFkhZ Jfed foi{kh laLFkku ds le{k mifLFkr ugha gqvk gS] ftldk mYys[k mlds lsoki`Fkd

vkns'k esa Hkh fd;k x;k gSA

foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed dks lsokeqDr djus ls iwoZ fu;ekuqlkj uksfVl tkjh fd;k x;k gSA mDr uksfVl izkFkhZ dks

izkIr Hkh gqvk gS] mldk tokc Hkh izkFkhZ }kjk foi{kh dks Hkstk x;k gSA mlds ckn Hkh izkFkhZ Jfed M~;wVh ij mifLFkr ugha gqvk

gSA ?ksofj;k ;wfuV ls izkFkhZ dh M~;wVh ls vuqifLFkr jgus dh lwpuk izn'kZ ,e&7 o 8 }kjk foi{kh dks nh xbZ gSA izkFkhZ Jfed

}kjk vius Dyse ds leFkZu esa dksbZ ekSf[kd lk{; is'k ugha dh xbZ gSA foi{kh lk{khx.k dh lk{; ls izkFkhZ dk fcuk lwpuk ds

7736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

o fcuk vodk'k Lohd`r djk;s M~;wVh ls vuqifLFkr jguk izekf.kr gksrk gSA izkFkhZ ds M~;wVh ij mifLFkr ugha gksus ij izkFkhZ dk

dk;Z djus dk bPNqd ugha gksuk ekurs gq;s lsok ls c[kkZLr fd;k x;k gS] tks mfpr ,oa oS/k gSA

;g lgh gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks lsokeqDr djus ls iwoZ foi{kh laLFkku }kjk mls dksbZ uksfVl is dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k

x;kA pwafd mijksDr foospukuqlkj izkFkhZ Jfed dk M~;wVh ls fcuk lwpuk o fcuk vodk'k Lohd`r djk;s M~;wVh ls vuqifLFkr

jguk fl) gksrk gSA

izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk ,d vkifRr ;g dh xbZ gS fd Jfed dh e`R;q ds i'pkr~ izdj.k esa uks fMLiqV vokMZ ikfjr ugha

fd;k tk ldrkA bl laca/k esa U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk i=koyh ij miyC/k ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ds vk/kkj ij xq.kkoxq.k ij

vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tk jgk gSA vr% izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dh mDr vkifRr Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk

nwljh vkifRr ;g dh xbZ gS fd Jfed dh e`R;q gks tkus ij mlds fo:) vkjksi fl) ugha ekus tk ldrsA bl laca/k esa

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar 1995¼70½ ,Q ,y vkj 244 ¼jkt- mPp U;k;ky;½ Jhefr izse dqekjh o vU; cuke

lSUVªy b.MfLVª;y fVªC;quy o vU; ,oa 2011¼2½ vkj ,y MoY;w 1152 ¼jkt- mPp U;k;ky;½ vkj,lvkjVhlh t;iqj cuke

lq[kchj flag o vU; esa ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk tgka ;g fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k gks

fd tkap mfpr ,oa 'kq) ugha gS rFkk dk;Zokgh ds yfEcr jgus ds nkSjku Jfed dh e`R;q gks xbZ gks rks mlds fo:) lk{;

izLrqr ugha dh tk ldrh vkSj bl vk/kkj ij lsokeqfDr vuqeksnu dks vLohdkj fd, tkus ds fu.kZ; dks lgh ekuk gSA

fopkj.kh; izdj.k esa izkFkhZ ij yxk;s x;s vkjksi ds laca/k esa tkap U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k gqbZ gSA fu;kstd dh lk{; iw.kZ gksus

ij izkFkhZ dks lk{; is'k djus dk iw.kZ volj nsrs gq;s lk{; is'k ugha djus ij lk{; dk gd can fd;k x;k gSA vr% izkFkhZ

izfrfuf/k }kjk izLrqr mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar gLrxr izdj.k esa ykxw ugha gksrs gSaA

izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk ,d vkifRr ;g dh xbZ gS fd vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr nqjkpj.k ds vk/kkj ij

ugha dh xbZ rFkk vizkFkhZ }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,Q dh ikyuk ugha dh xbZA bl laca/k esa i=koyh ds voyksdu ,oa

mijksDr foospukuqlkj Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks fcuk lwpuk o vodk'k Lohd`r djk;s M~;wVh ls vuqifLFkr gksus ds vkjksi

esa U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k tkap izLrqr dj rFkk tkap esa vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh lk{khx.k us izkFkhZ Jfed ij yxk;s x;s vkjksi dh

iqf"V dh gSA fu;kstd dh lk{; ds [k.Mu esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls i;kZIr volj nsus ds ckn Hkh dksbZ lk{; is'k ugha gqbZ gSA vr%

vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh lk{; ls izkFkhZ ij yxk;s x;s vkjksi fl) gq;s gSaA fu;kstd }kjk izkFkhZ dks laLFkku ds LFkkbZ vkns'kksa ds

rgr nqjkpj.k ds vkjksi esa lsokeqDr fd;k x;k gSA ;g lgh gS fd vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ uksfVl

osru dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;kA pwaWafd izkFkhZ }kjk vius Dyse ds leFkZu esa dksbZ lk+{; is'k ugha dh gS rFkk vizkFkhZ lk{khx.k

ls izkFkhZ ds fo:) nqjkpj.k dk vkjksi lkfcr gq;k gSA ,slkh fLFkfr esa esjs fouez er esa izkFkhZ Jfed dks uksfVl is dk Hkqxrku

fnyk;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA

izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar gLrxr izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls fHkUurk j[krs gSaA vr%

muds }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ls izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dks dksbZ ykHk ugha feyrk gSA

fopkj.kh; izdj.k esa foi{kh }kjk ,d izkFkZuk i= is'k dj dFku fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed tgku flag dh e`R;q gks

pqdh gS] izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k us Hkh mDr izkFkZuk i= dk dksbZ fojks/k ugha fd;k gS rFkk cgl ds nkSjku muds }kjk Hkh izkFkhZ dh e`R;q

gks tkuk tkfgj fd;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ ds fof/kd okjhlku mldks ns; uksfVl is dk Hkqxrku izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh

gksaxsA fu"d"kZr% izdj.k esa fuEu vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

vf/kfu.kZ;

^^phQ ,DthD;wfVo odZl] mn;i

^^phQ ,DthD;wfVo odZl] mn;iqj feujy MoyiesaV flaMhdsaV] HkhyokM+k ds }kjk Jfed Jh tgku flag dks fnukad 12

qj feujy MoyiesaV flaMhdsaV] HkhyokM+k ds }kjk Jfed Jh tgku flag dks fnukad 12

qj feujy MoyiesaV flaMhdsaV] HkhyokM+k ds }kjk Jfed Jh tgku flag dks fnukad 12-7-91 ls

91 ls

lsok ls c[kkZLr fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS| gSA izkFkhZ Jfed dsoy uksfVl is dk Hkqxrku izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA izdj.k esa

izkFkhZ Jfed dh e`R;q gksus ls mlds fof/kd okjhlk

izkFkhZ Jfed dh e`R;q gksus ls mlds fof/kd okjhlku mldks ns; uksfVl is dk Hkqxrku izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxsA**

u mldks ns; uksfVl is dk Hkqxrku izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxsA**

vf/kfu.kZ; vkt fnukad 03-09-2019 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa fy[kk;k tkdj lquk;k x;k tks dsUnz ljdkj dks izdk’kukFkZ

fu;ekuqlkj Hkstk tkosA”

:ik xqIrk] U;k;k/kh’k

नई द ली, 19 नव बर, 2019

का

का.आ.

.आ.

.आ. 2029

2029

2029.—औोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म केीय सरकार मेसस गेल

(इिडया) िलिमटेड के "बंधतं& के संब' िनयोजक) और उनके कमकार) के बीच अनुबंध म िन,द- औोिगक िववाद म केीय सरकार

औोिगक अिधकरण एवं /म यायालय-2, नई 1द2 ली के पंचाट (संदभ सं4या 10/2011) को "कािशत करती है जो केीय सरकार को

15.11.2019 को "ा8 9आ था।

[सं. एल-30011/37/2010-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7737

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2019

S.O. 2029.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 10/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. GAIL (India) Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on

15.11.2019.

[No. L-30011/37/2010-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 2, NEW DELHI

PRESENT : SMT. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 10/2011

Date of Passing Award : 14th October, 2019

Shri V. K. Gupta, General Secretary,

GAIL Employees Association,

B-35 & 36, Sector-1,

NOIDA (UP) 201301.

…Workman/Claimant

Versus

GAIL (India) Ltd., earlier known as

Gas Authority of India Ltd.,

Through its Director (HR),

16 Bhikaji Cama Place,

RK Puram,

New Delhi 110016.

… Management/Respondent

Appearances :-

None

For the Workman

Shri Amit Kumar, A/R

For the Management

AWARD

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

No.L-30011/37/2010-IR(M) dated 20.1.2011 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 demand of the GAIL’s Employees Association to step up the wages of those employees who are

senior but are getting lesser pay than their juniors, as a consequence of wage revision w.e.f. 1/1/1997 is just, fair

and legal ? To what relief they are entitled ?’

Both parties were put to notice and the claimant Union through its General Secretary Shri VK Gupta filed

statement of claim, with the averments that the claimant Union had raised an industrial dispute vide representation dated

9/1/2007 and follow up letters dated 30/7/2007 & 15/12/2008 against the Management over pay anomaly arising out of

implementation of pay revision w.e.f. 1/1/1997, which resulted into more payment to juniors upon promotion and loss to

the seniors. Conciliation proceedings were held but resulted into failure since the Management vide its reply dated

23/3/2009 denied the claim of the claimant Union and did not resolve the pay anomalies. The claimant Union has given

details in para 9 of the claim petition to allege that there are numerous cases lying pending for settlement and pay

protection replicating the anomaly of pay fixation. Claimant Union has prayed for passing an award to step up the basic

pay of senior employees upto the basic pay of t heir juniors in order to remove anomaly.

Management resisted the claim of the Claimant Union, by filing written reply and took preliminary objections

that the present claim amounts to challenging the Tripartite long term settlement dated 17/11/2000 entered into between

the Management and recognized union during the course of Conciliation proceedings. The wage revision of workmen of

GAIL is done through a process of collective bargaining/negotiation & Tripartite Long Term Settlement is signed

7738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

between Management and Trade Union under Section 2(p) & 18 of the Act. It is alleged that there was no pay anomaly

as on 1/1/1997 i.e. the date of pay revision of workmen of GAIL. The issue is a consequence of wage revision w.e.f.

1/1/1997, whereas employees who were promoted in 1996 (pre revised pay scale) drawing lesser pay than those who got

promoted in 1997 (revised pay scale) and therefore post implementation of wage revision w.e.f. 1/1/1997 and consequent

upon promotion of an employee after 1/1/1997 it was inevitable that monetary benefit would be more compared to those

promoted in pre revised pay structure. The same can not be treated as pay anomaly as the pay difference has occurred

after the date of pay revision i.e. 1/1/1997 and any pay difference between senior and junior at later date on any account

can not be treated as pay anomaly. It has been alleged that as agreed to by the claimant Union and the Management, a

Three- Member Committee was constituted to deal with the pay anomaly cases that had to give its recommendation latest

by 15/12/2006 and thereafter the claimant appeared before the Committee on 15/12/2006 and put forth their views on the

issue and requested the Committee to dispose of the cases on 20/12/2006. The Management also constituted a cross

functional Committee of Executives for exploring any matter which was possibly left out by the pay anomaly committee

in the year 2001. The cross Functional Committee examined the entire issue and found that there was no merit in the

claim as there was no pay anomaly as on 1/1/1997 i.e. the date of pay revision. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the

claim petition.

The claimant Union filed rejoinder/replication, reiterating its own case and denied the allegations made in the

written statement.

Perusal of the record shows that the claimant Union though tendered affidavit of erstwhile General Secretary

Shri V.K.Gupta as WW1/A but he did not enter the witness box after he was no more General Secretary of Claimant

Union. Thereafter affidavit of newly elected General Secretary Shri Bir Singh was also filed on record but for the

reasons best known to him, he did not enter the witness box for tendering his affidavit and cross examination, despite the

fact that number of opportunities were granted to the claimant Union and ultimately, this Tribunal was left with no option

but to close the evidence of claimant Union vide order dated 18/10/2016. Perusal of the record also shows that Shri

Dinesh, witness of the Management tendered his evidence by way of affidavit but neither the claimant nor any authorised

representative of the claimant Union appeared to cross examine the MW Shri Dinesh despite several opportunities

granted. As such, right to cross examine MW Shri Dinesh by the claimant was closed vide order dated 2/8/2018.

Onus was upon the claimant Union to prove that there was pay anomaly or that the juniors in the establishment

of Management were drawing more pay than those their seniors, due to revision of pay by the Management. It is a matter

of record that the claimant did not appear before the Tribunal from 01/08/2017 onwards despite the fact that matter was

adjourned time and again and ultimately this Tribunal was constrained to reserve the matter for passing the award.

In view of the fact that the claimant Union has not led any evidence in support of its case, this Tribunal is

constrained to pass No Dispute Award in the matter. Since the matter has not been decided on merits, there will be no

bar for the claimant to file afresh claim petition in accordance with law for adjudication of the controversy in issue or to

seek any other relief to which the claimant Union is otherwise entitled to. Award is passed accordingly.

Let a copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.

Dictated & corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

14th October, 2019

नई द ली, 19 नव बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 2030

2030

2030.—औ_ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म: के./ीय सरकार

मेसस टील अथॉरटी ऑफ इि8डया िलिमटेड एवं अ. य के बंधतं^ के संबT िनयोजक! और उनके कमकार! के बीच अनुबंध म:

िनYदZ औ_ोिगक िववाद म: के./ीय सरकार औ_ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म .यायालय-2, नई द ली के पंचाट (संदभ सं@या

129/2015) को कािशत करती है जो के./ीय सरकार को 15.11.2019 को ाS +आ था।

[सं. एल-26011/24/2015-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2019

S.O. 2030.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 129/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7739

management of M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited and other and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 15.11.2019.

[No. L-26011/24/2015-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 2, NEW DELHI

PRESENT : SMT. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 129/2015

Date of Passing Award : 14th October, 2019

The workmen (35 Nos. as mentioned in Annexure-A)

As Represented by Delhi State General Workers Congress (Regd.)

V/5-101, Sector 5 Rohini, Delhi 110085,

(now name changed to Delhi State General Workers Union

…Workmen/Claimants

Versus

The Management of Steel Authority of India Limited,

Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road,

New Delhi.

M/s. Flying Fox Security Services,

Steel Authority of India Limited,

Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road,

New Delhi.

M/s. At Home Caterers,

G-1, Magnum Commercial Complex,

New Delhi 110015.

… Management/Employer

Appearances :-

None

For the Workmen

Ms. Jaya Tomar, A/R

For the Management

AWARD

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

No.L-26011/24/2015-IR(M) dated 25.8.2015 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 the action of the management of Steel Authority of India Lt.d, New Delhi in not paying special

allowance @ Rupees one thousand only per month with effect from 1.10.2009 to the thirty five contract

workmen as per the list enclosed, is legal and justified ? If not, what relief are they entitled to ?’

Both parties were put to notice and the claimants/ workmen filed statement of claim through Shri Jagdish

Prasad, President of the Union, with the averments that the workmen Gajender Singh and others (whose names find

mention in Annexure-A) have been serving the Management of Steel Authority of India (in short “the SAIL”) as security

guards, safai karamcharis for the last 25 to 30 years to the entire satisfaction of the Management. With a view to evade

the liabilities of the workmen, the Management has adopted a practice of showing the workmen engaged through the

contractors/agencies against the permanent & perennial nature of work. The contractors so engaged by the Management

are nothing but camouflage to conceal the real relationship of employer & employees between the Management and the

workmen. It is averred that the Ministry of Steel, headed by Shri Ram Vilas Paswan, the then Minister of Steel had

declared that all the workmen employed in the establishment of SAIL through contractors/ agencies shall be paid an

increase in wages of Rs.1000/- per month w.;e.f. 1/10/2009. The Management has implemented the said decision in its

7740

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

various branches in respect of similarly placed workmen/contractor labours and have paid the said hike of Rs.1000/-,

termed as “Welfare Allowance”, in addition to their wages/salary w.e.f. 1/10/2009 but the workmen concerned who have

been working in the CMO office & shown to have been engaged through contractor/agency have not been paid the said

benefit till date, though the workmen connected to the proceedings are also entitled to such benefit/welfare allowance of

Rs.1000/- per month w.e.f.1/10/2009. It is pleaded that the action of the Management in not paying the hike/welfare

allowance of Rs.1000/- per month to the workmen herein is illegal, arbitrary & unjustified, as the similarly placed

workmen/contract labours in other offices & branches of the Management have been paid the same w.e.f.1/10/2009.

The workmen through the Union sent a letter/demand notice dated 23/10/2010 to the Management, followed by reminder

dated 9/2/2011 but to no response. Thereafter they approached the Conciliation Officer but to no avail. Prayer has been

made to answer the reference in favour of the workmen, thereby directing the Management to pay hike/welfare allowance

of Rs.1000/- per month to the workmen w.e.f. 1/10/2009 and to continue to the pay the same in future every month.

Management No.1 resisted the claim of the workman, by filing written statement, stating that the claim is not

maintainable as the claimants were not engaged by the Management No.1 but by the agency viz. Management No.2 & 3.

As such, there is no direct relationship of employer-employee between the Management No.1 and the workmen. While

denying the allegations of the claimants/workmen, it has been stated that the claimants may have been working under the

agencies like Management No.2 and 3 but not under the direct control & supervision of Management No.1. As such, the

claimants have no locus to file the statement of claim as against Management No.1. Prayer has been made for dismissal

of claim petition.

None appeared on behalf of Management No.2 and 3 since very beginning. On the pleadings of the parties,

following issues were framed by my learned Predecessor on 11/4/2017 :-

Whether the action of the management of Steel Authority of India Lt.d, New Delhi in not paying

special allowance @ Rupees one thousand only per month with effect from 1.10.2009 to the thirty five

contract workmen as per the list enclosed, is legal and justified ? If so, its effect

If not, what relief are they entitled to ?

Perusal of the record shows that despite number of opportunities granted to the workmen/claimants to adduce

evidence so as to prove their case regarding entitlement of special allowance @ Rs.1000/- per month w.e.f. 1/10/2009,

they did not lead any evidence and ultimately this Tribunal was left with no option but to close their evidence vide order

dated 14/12/2018. On the contrary, the management No.1 has examined Shri Sushvan Sengupta, Deputy General

Manager (P&A) as MW1 who filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.MW1/A and relied on the documents Ex.MW1/1

and Mark-A. Affidavit of MW1 is in conformity with the averments made in the written statement. Mark-A is the copy

of the award of contract by Management No.1 in favour of Management No.3 herein for catering service for two years

w.e.f. 1/9/2012 to 31/8/2014, whereas document Ex.MW1/1 is the copy of the GPA dated 1/7/2008 executed by the

Management of SAIL through its Executive Director D.Kobi, in favour of Shri Sushovan Sengupta to execute & sign

contracts/agreements etc. on behalf of SAIL.

Onus was upon the claimants/workmen to prove that there existed relationship of employees and employer

between them and Management No.1 herein and further that they were entitled to get hike/special allowance @ Rs.1000/-

per month w.e.f. 1/10/2009. It is a matter of record that the claimants/workmen did not cause appearance before the

Tribunal from 26/3/2018 onwards despite the fact that matter was adjourned time and again. It appeared that the

workmen/claimants were/are not interested to prosecute the case. Ultimately this Tribunal was constrained to close

evidence of the workmen vide order dated 14/12/2018. Testimony of MW1 that the claimants were engaged by the

agencies viz. Management No.2 and 3 and that Management No.1 has no role in the appointment/engagement of the

workmen connected to the proceedings, has gone unchallenged and unssaled.

In view of the fact that the claimants have not led any evidence in support of their case, this Tribunal is

constrained to pass No Dispute Award in the matter. Award is passed accordingly.

Let a copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under Section 17 of the Act.

Dictated & corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

14th October, 2019

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7741

नई द ली, 19 नव बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 2031

2031

2031.—औ_ोिगक िववाद अिधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) क धारा 17 के अनुसरण म: के./ीय सरकार

मेसस इि8डयन ऑयल काप’रेशन िलिमटेड एवं अ. य के बंधतं^ के संबT िनयोजक! और उनके कमकार! के बीच अनुबंध म:

िनYदZ औ_ोिगक िववाद म: के./ीय सरकार औ_ोिगक अिधकरण एवं 1म .यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट (संदभ सं@या

20/2016) को कािशत करती है जो के./ीय सरकार को 15.11.2019 को ाS +आ था।

[सं. एल-30011/41/2015-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के. िहमांशु, अवर सिचव

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2019

S.O. 2031.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 20/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited and other and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 15.11.2019.

[No. L-30011/41/2015-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 20 of 2016

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Haldia Refinery

AND

Their workmen

Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management : Mr. Mr. N.K. Mehta, learned counsel with Mr. S.K Sharma for Indian Oil Corpn.,

Haldia Refinery.

On behalf of the Workmen : None

State: West Bengal.

Industry: Petroleum

Dated: 7^th November, 2019.

AWARD

By Order No.L-30011/41/2015-IR(M) dated 12.02.2016 and addendum of even number dated 11.06.2018 the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Bharat Trading Corporation, contractor of IOCL, Haldia

Refinery, in denying the nine points charter of demand raised by the union is legal and/or justified? If not, what

relief theworkmen are entitled?”

When the case was taken up for hearing today, none appeared for the union, though learned counsel for Indian

Oil Corporation Ltd., Haldia Refinery was present. It transpires from record that this reference is pending in this Tribunal

since 26.02.2016 and the union never entered appearance and filed statement of claim, nor took any step to proceed with

the matter inspite of sufficient opportunity. Learned counsel for the management submitted that since the union has not

filed statement of claim, managements have nothing to answer and prayed for disposal of the case by passing an Award.

7742

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the union has no grievance at present

in respect of nine points charter of demand, as mentioned in the order of reference. Therefore, there exists no dispute for

adjudication.

Therefore, the reference is disposed of accordingly.

Justice RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata,

The 7^th November, 2019

नई दली, 20 नव बर, 2019

का.आ.

का.आ. 2032

2032

2032.—रा=प ित, .यायाधीश (सेवा िनवृ?) र िव./ नाथ क“ड़ को दनांक 12.11.2019 (अपरा”न) से 65

वष क आयु अथात 04.12.2021 तक अथवा अगले आदेश! तक, जो भी पहले हो, के./ीय सरकार औ_ो िगक अ िधकरण सह

1म .यायालय सं. 1/रा=ीय औ_ो िगक अ िधकरण, मुंबई के पीठासीन अ िधकारी के Nप म: िनयु' करते ह।

[सं. अ-19011/03/2019-सीएलएस-II]

सतीश च.दर, अवर स िचव

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2019

S.O. 2032.—The President is pleased to appoint Justice(Retd.) Ravindra Nath Kakkar as Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1/National Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai with effect from

12.11.2019(A/N) and till he attains the age of 65 years i.e. upto 04.12.2021 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[No. A-19011/03/2019-CLS-II]

SATISH CHANDER, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 20 uoEcj] 2019

dk-vk- 2033-&vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ

,l-bZ-lh-,y- ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k – lg - Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 186/1995½ dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-11-2019 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&22012@482@1994&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-II½]

,l- lh- jk;] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th November, 2019

S.O. 2033.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 186/1995) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s S.E.C.L and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.11.2019.

[No. L-22012/482/1994-IR(CM-II)]

S. C. RAY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/186/95

Present: P.K.Srivastava H.J.S.(Retd)

Shri M.L.Pandey

Secretary.

M.P.Koyla Mazdoor Sabha

South Jhagarakhand Colliery

District Surguja

…Workmen/Union

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7743

Versus

The General Manager

Jamuna & Kotma

Areas of SECL

Jamuna Colliery

District Shahdol (M.P.)

… Management

AWARD

(passed on this day of 21^st October, 2019)

As per letter No dated 30-10-96 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.22012/482/94-

IR(C-II) .The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the General Manager, Jamuna & Kotma Areas of SECL in not regularizing 112

workers (list enclosed) who performed various duties in Harad Incline colliery during the years 1990 and

1992 is legal and justified? If not so what relief the workmen are entitled?”

2. Further an corrigendum was issued by the appropriate Government impleading Sadhuram Gupta, Contractor at

Harad inclines also a party to the reference.

3. A corrigendum from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour No.L-22012/482/94-IR(C-II) was issued which is

as follows:-

“In the office order of even number dated 30-10-97 referring the industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of M/s S.E.C.L., Jamuna & KOtma Area and their workmen

after serial Numae 2 under the heading copy forwarded for necessary action, the following may be

added:-

Sh. Sadhu Ram Gupta, Contractor at Harad Incline.

4. After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.

5. According to the statement of claim put up by the union on behalf of the workmen Bihari and 111other as per list

enclosed with the notification were working in Harad Incline of Yamuna Kotma area of the employer company. The

employer company is a Government of India undertaking. These workmen were engaged by the Management for

mining jobs of prohibited nature. Union raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner Central for

regularization of these workmen under company rules and other benefits. Conciliation proceedings ended in failure and a

failure report was sent to ministry but Ministry refused to refer the dispute to the tribunal vide letter No.L-22012/482/94-

IR(C II) dated 5-12-1994 on the plea that the workmen in question were engaged by contractor and not by Management

hence there was no industrial dispute between management or SECL and these workmen. Acc0ording to applicant

/workmen Union filed a writ petition before High Court of M.P. which was Writ petition No.609/1995. Hon’ble High

Court directed vide its order dated 31-8-1995 to make a reference of the industrial dispute and it is in compliance of the

said order the present reference was made by the appropriate government. According to the workmen Union the services

of the workmen in question were utilized for mining job, they were deployed in mines. The management was bound to

prepare documents as required under the provisions of mines Act which are as follows:-

Form B register in respect of each workmen under Section 48 of Mines Act.

Attendance register in form No.C, Dor E depending on nature of deployment as is mentioned under

Section 48(4) of the Mines Act.

Attendance should be marked by Statutory personnel and not by contractor as directed by Director of

Mines safety vide circular No.537-646/Jabalpur dated 1-2-1985.

The vocational training be given to the workmen as per Rules 6 of Mines Vocational training Rules.

6. Also, it was alleged that these workmen worked from 1990 to 1992, engaged in work of perennial nature in violation

of NCWA Clause 11.5.0 and 11.5.1, they had completed more than 190/240 days in attendance in every year including

the year preceding the disengagement, they worked in driving of stone drifts and misc. stone cutting underground as well

overburden renewal and earth cutting which is prohibited to be taken by contractor vide Govt. of India notification dated

21-6-1988, hence engaged in work of prohibited nature which was not to be taken through a contractor, In fact the

workmen were deployed by management but for the purposes, of paying less wages, the Management engaged a

contractor who has always been smoke screen and camouflage in the eyes of law. The real employer is the Management

of the SECL and not the ghost intermediary contractor, hence there is a an employer- employee relationship between the

7744

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workmen and Management of the company..Accordingly, it has been prayed that the reference be answered holding the

action of Management in not regularizing the services of 112 workmen as per the list annexed with the notification who

performed various duties in Harad Incline during the year 1990 -1992 illegal and unjustified and further declare them

entitled to all the consequential benefits, treating them in continuous engagement from the date of their disengagement.

7. The Management company SECL has in its statement of defense pleaded that these applicant/workmen were never

engaged by the management of the company they were not engaged for work of prohibited nature or perennial nature.

The identity of the 112 workmen is also not established. The case of the workmen that they worked for more than 190-

240 days in any year under the direct control and supervision of the management company was also denied. It was also

denied that the work of driving of stone drifts and misc. stone cutting underground was taken from the

applicant/workmen continuously during the relevant period. It was further pleaded by the Management that it was the

practice that for short work, short term contracts were given, the period of which does not exceed six months.The

contractors were left free to employ workers of their choice and the Management of the company did not not have any

hold or control over them except that to see that their wages are paid by contractors in presence of representative of

management as required under Contract Labor (Regulation & Abolition ) Act 1970, hereinafter referred to by word

‘CLRA Act’. The Management has further denied that the requirements under Contract Labor Regulation& Abolition

Act 1970 have not been complied with and have pleaded that the work was never supervised by the officials of the

company except that the execution of the overall work was used to be supervised by the official of the company.

Vocational training was given to workers as it was required under Rules. Accordingly, it has been pleaded that since the

workmen were the employees of the contractor they could have best claimed relief from contractor who is a necessary

party to the reference, accordingly, the management has prayed that the reference be answered against the workmen.

8. The contractor has also filed his reply/defense wherein he has pleaded that the three work orders issued to him by the

management of the company which were order No.2004 dated 20-6-1993 order No.205 dated Jan.7.1993 and the third

order were of the same and in continuity rather the work started on 20-9-1991 and completed till 31-7-1993 i.e.

continued for a period of more than 2 years which is corroborated by the copy of bills filed by management as

ananexure-5,6 and 7 and chart Annexure-8. Also, it was submitted that the said workers worked almost every day, the

contractor used to mark their attendance for the purpose of payment and the work supervisor also used to maintain

attendance record and certified copy of payment sheet was submitted to Management for disbursement of wages. As the

contractor was made party after six years of reference, he was not bound to keep all such records as per rules beyond

three years. The main contention of the contractor is that no record is left with him as he was made party after six years

of reference and he was only required to maintain the record for three years as per rules.

The workmen union has filed rejoinder wherein they have denied the pleadings of Management.

In evidence, the Union has filed photocopy of notification of Government of India dated 21-6-88

Exhibit W-1. Rest of the documents and some original documents also which have not been proved

hence cannot be read in evidence.

The workmen/union has filed affidavits of workmen Deepchand Mahara, Ramkhilawan Sharma,

Dayaram yadav, Jagdish Baiga, Bhagwean, Ramlakhan, Minhaz, Vijay Bhadur Singh Kamal Agarwal,

Teerath Pratap Singh ,Manoj Kumar TrisholioMansingh, Ramsingh Gond, Newal Singh Gond,

Behalsingh, Chhavilal, Gangasingh, Bhupat Singh Jeevanlal, BabuwaBaiga, BechuBaiga , BhikariPaav

Ramkumar and many other witnesses, out of which only witnesses Bihari, Dayaram, Manoj Kumar

Trisholiya, Vijay bahadur Singh Minhaz, Bhagwandeen, Jagdish Baiga,Ramlakhan and Ramkhilavan

have been produced for cross-examination by Management. Rest of the witnesses were not produced

for cross-examination, hence only the statement of workmen witnesses who have been produced for

cross-examination only will be read in evidence.

Management has examined on oath two witnesses Uditya Singh, Sr.Manager Mining and Panchamlal

Singh, Deputy Manager Survey on oath . They have been cross-examined by workmen/union. The

Management has further proved the Exhibit documents following Exhibit:-

Exhibit M-1 (copy of list of distribution of work-10 pages)

Exhibit M-1 (A)(Work Order No.1121 dated 9.9.91)

Exhibit M-2 (letter/workorder dated 20-6-1993)

Exhibit M-3 (letter/work order dated 7.1.1993)

Exhibit M-4 (description of work)

Exhibit M-5, M-6,M-7 (copy of wage sheet)

Exhibit M-8 (photocopy of license of contractor)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7745

Exhibit M-9 (Form B of Contract Labor-42 pages)

Exhibit M-10 (VTC Certificate of 43 persons)

10.

Exhibit M-11 (Attendance register11

11.

Exhibit M-12 (Lamp issued register)

12.

Exhibit M-13/1 Exhibit M-13/3 (three tender notices drivage of Incline).

13.

Exhibit M-14 (photocopy of contract agreement)

14.

Exhibit M-15 & M-16 (Map and project report of mine).

9. I have heard arguments of Advocate Shri R.C.Shrivastava, learned Counsel for Workmen and Shri A.K.Shashi,

learned Counsel for Management. Parties have filed memorandum of arguments which are taken on record. I have gone

through the records, written submissions made by parties and also the case laws relied to by the parties.

10. From the perusal of the record and in the light of rival arguments, following issues, arise in the present case.

“1. Whether the workmen were engaged in work of prohibited category.

2. Whether the alleged contracts where sham and bogus, rather a camouflage to deprive theworkmen

of their benefits.

3. Whether the disengagement of workmen is justified in law and fact.

4. Whether the workmen are entitled to any benefits.”

11.

Issue No. 1-

According to the respective claims of the parties in this case, it is alleged from the side of the Workmen that the said

contract is of prohibited category on two grounds Firstly, because it was work of perennial/regular nature and

Secondly, it was prohibited by notification of Government of India dated 21-1-88.

Section 1 Sub-Section (5) of the‘CLRA Act’is relevant here which is being reproduced as follows:-

“(a) It shall not apply to establishments in which work only of an intermittent or casual nature is

performed. (b) If a question arises whether work performed in an establishment is of an intermittent or

casual nature, the appropriate Government shall decide that question after consultation with the Central

Board or, as the case may be, a State Board, and its decision shall be final.

Explanation.-- For the purpose of this sub-section, work performed in an establishment shall not be

deemed to be of an intermittent nature—

(i)

if it was performed for more than one hundred and twenty days in the preceding twelve months,

(ii)

(ii) if it is of a seasonal character and is performed for more than six months in a year.”

12. Learned Counsel for the Workmen/Union has further referred to Clause 11.5.1 of the agreement of NCWA 4/5

which reads as follows:-

“Industries shall not apply labours through contractor or engage contractor’s labour on jobs of

permanent and perennial nature.”

13. Learned Counsel further refers to Notification of Government of India dated 21-6-1988 on record which prohibits

contract labor in following jobs :-

SCHEDULE

Raising or raising-cum-selling of coal;

Coal loading and unloading:

Over burden removal and earth cutting:

Soft coke manufacturing

Driving of stone drifts and miscellaneous stone cutting underground:

7746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Provided that his notification shall not apply to the following categories:-

(a)

Quarries in the North-East Coal Field which can only be worked for a few months every year due to

heavy rainfall in the area:

(b)

Quarries located by the side of the reiven in Pency valley and similar other patch deposits which can

only be worked when the level of river has gone down and during non-rainy seasons;

(c)

Loading coal when there is mechanical failure, failure of power or irregular supply of wagon by the

railway; and

(d) Cutting tone drifts/faults which cannot be detected in advance and are of short duration, say upto

six months.

14. It is in the argument of learned Counsel of Workmen that since there was in prohibition of NCWA and CLRA Act, as

mentioned above, hence the work for which the so called contractor is alleged to have been engaged of prohibited nature

which could not be done through contractor. On the other hand, learned counsel for Management has submitted that

firstly, the work is not of perennial nature as mentioned in Section -1 Sub-Section 5 of the CLRA Act and secondly,the

evidence on record as well documents regarding the issuing of tender and work agreement as well as work order show

that the said got executed through the contractor wasof prohibitory category as mentioned in the notification dated 21-6-

1988. The Management witness Uditya Singh, Senior Manager Mining has stated in his affidavit filed as examination-in-

chief that for the purpose of starting of new mine, certain work are required to be done which are temporary/intermittent

and not prohibited under the provision of CLRA Act, were got done by contractor after the tender process. He further

stated that the contract terminated on the completion of the work and also that the work of act of excavation in rock sale

etc. for incline shaft using pickaxe cheese chiseling, neet brazing of excavation surface removal of raw shale etc.

Excavated serviceable and un serviceable within a lead of 50 M including loading in tops and unloading the same in

surface as per instructions and direction of the Project Authority for which the contract was awarded vide three work

orders mentioned as follows:-

Work order No.1888 dated 19-12-1991.

Work Order No.204 dated 20-6-1993.

Work Order No.2053 dated 7-1-1993.

He has proved these three work orders as Exhibit M-1, M-2 and M-3 and has stated that before this the

Management had invited tenders which was finalized in the name of the contractor and separate agreements were entered

into between the Management and Contractor. These witnesses further states that the order against work order no.1888

was completed on May-15-1992 within a period of six months, he has proved. The copy of measurement book relating to

this which shows the quantum of work. Similarly, work order No.204 was executed from 1-2-1993 to 10-5-1993, copy

of measurement book in this respect shows dis-engagement of 37 workers. According to this statement, the work against

the third work order No.2053 dated 7-1-1993 got completed from 12.9.1992 to 31.1.1993 (copy of measurement book

with respect to this work order is also proved). It is worth noticing here that all three measurement book has been

admitted by the Workmen Union they have been marked M-4, M-5 and M-6. One other document filed by Management

admitted by workmen/union requires to be referred here is the excavation map prepared before excavation which is

prepared by CMPDI. This map is the blue print regarding the area which is to be excavated for mining. This document is

M-15 which shows that the proposed area where the mining activity is to be conducted, consists of two inter connected

adjacent inclines which are one unit at one site. Since the work was done at one work site, is not disputed between the

parties and it is proved from the CMPDI map and statement of witnesses from both the sides, and also, it is proved that

the work continued for two years i.e. From Dec.1991 to 31-1-1993though were separate tenders were issued for this work

which was to be done at one site and were work agreements were done also were separate work orders were issued as

mentioned above from this description of evidence , this fact that firstly the work was done at one site and not at

different working site and secondly, all the work orders were for only work which continued in the three work orders.

Hence,the fact that these three work orders were issued for the same works in continuity and also that the whole

work took two years to be completed is held proved. Therefore, in the light of the this finding the case of Management

that the said order was of casual /intermittent nature to be completed within six months, hence it is not a work of

permanent or perennial nature and is liable to be rejected. On the basis of the evidence on record, the fact that the

work got executed by Management through alleged contractor was of a permanent/perennial nature for which

the contract labor is prohibited as per Section 1 of sub-section(5) of CLRA Act1970 is held proved.

15. As regards, the second ground taken by workmen that the work was of prohibited category in the light of

notification of 1988, which has been referred to earlier in this Judgment. According to the learned counsel for the

workmen the work allotted was driving of stone drifts and miscellaneous stone cutting under ground hence it was a

prohibited job for which Notification under Section 10(1) of CLRA Act was issued in 1988. On the other hand , it has

been submitted by learned counsel for management that in fact the work was allotted for drivage of stone refits and

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7747

miscellaneous stone cutting under ground was taken from the applicants. Learned counsel has referred to the Proviso-D

of the said notification of 1988 wherein cutting stone rifts/faults which cannot be detected in advance and are of short

duration say upto six months is exempted from from prohibition and has submitted that unforeseen stone layer coming

in the way while executing the work of drivage of inclined shaft are to be of short duration hence cannot be covered

under the prohibition as prohibited. This argument has been rebutted by learned counsel for workmen/union with an

argument that evidence on record in form of statement of witnesses and documents and as proved that in the garb of

drive of incline shaft in the so called agreement work of driving of stone drifts and misc. stone underground cutting was

taken from the workmen. Learned counsel has referred to the statement of the workmen witness in this respect firstly.

The workmen witness have stated that :-

“----“पैरा-1: यह क मने हरद खदान के मुहाड़ा खुदाई म सतबर 1991 से अगत 1993 तक काम कया है। यह काम

तीन पाल (श"ट) म चलता था। दोन मुहाड़ा मलकर '(येक पाल म 40-45 मजदूर काम करते थे।

पैरा-2: यह क हमको 'बंधक -वारा /नयोिजत कया गया था।

पैरा-3: यह क, हम लोग 12ल मशीन चलाने, प(थर काटने, गाड़ी भरने, टोपी (1डटोनेटर) -बा5द ले जाने तथा

ठसानी करने इ(या8द काम कया करते थे।

पैरा- 4: यह क, हमारे काय9 का /नर :ण सुपरवाईजर, 'बंधक, अ<डर मैनेजर, ओ>हरमैन, माइ/नंग सरदार -वारा

कया जाता था

16. In his cross-examination the workmen witness Bhagwandeen has stated that he was given the work of opening the

Incline. He further admits that the works which he has mentioned in para-3 of his affidavit(mentioned earlier) relates to

opening of the Incline. The Statement of other workmen witnesses is also on same lines. There is on record the statement

of two management witnesses in this respect. Management witness Uditya Singh, Senior Manager has stated that the

work which was to be executed was drivage of Incline Shaft for Harad Incline, excavation of rock/sale etc. for Incline

Shaft using pickaxe, chiseling , neet dressing of excavation surface removal of rock/shale excavation serviceable and

non-serviceable within a lead of 50M including loading and unloading the same in surface as per instructions and

directions of Project Authority. He further stated that width and height of drivage was 4.5m to 2.5m, hence it would not

be imagined that more than 42 persons were working at one drivage nor more than 14 persons could have worked in each

shift. Also that drivage of stone drifting is not mining of stone but arrangements made for mining of coal by removing

obstacles, cutting by stone. In this cross-examination on this points, he admits that for moving these drifts blasts are also

done. The projectreport proved is M-16 is very relevant in this respect.

17. From the statement as well as Project Report M-16 it is established that possibility of cutting stone drift/blasts was

not ruled out in the project report and by the management. Hence, the arguments of learned counsel for management that

it could not be detected in advance, fails in the light of above discussion. It is held proved with the work continued

for two years i.e. more than six months, hence on the basis of these proved facts Proviso-D of the notification could

not apply to the case in hand on the basis of the evidence as discussed above, it is held proved that the workmen

were engaged in driving of stone drifts and misc. stone cutting under ground while taking the work of drivage of

Incline which was known to the management in advance and they were not of a short duration of six months

rather they continued up to two years.

Accordingly the claim of the workmen union that the work done was prohibited vide notification of July-21-

1998 and was classified in a prohibited category which could not be taken by contractlabor as proved under Section

10(1) of CLRA Act.

18.

On the basis of the finding recorded above holding that firstly, the work was of perennial nature for

which employment of contractor was prohibited under Section 11.5.1 of NCWA- IV/V and secondly, the work

was of prohibited nature as provided under Clause 5 of Schedule of prohibited works in the prohibition

notification June-21-88 ,Issue No.1is answered in favor of workmen.

19.

Issue No. 2-

Before entering into examination of evidence on this issue produced from both the sides, it is proper to refer the

case laws referred to by both the side learned counsel in this respect is as under-

20. The learned Counsel for workmen/Union has referred to case law Hussainbhai, Calicut Vs. The Alath Factory

Thezhilali Union, Kozhikode and others, (1978)4 Supreme Court Cases 257. The relevant portion is reproduced

below: -

7748

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Labor and Industrial Law – Industrial Disputes Act 1947 – Section 2(s) – Employer and employee

relationship – Workmen employed by independent contractor to work in employer’s factory – Whether

“workmen” – Tests for determining

The petitioner is a factory owner manufacturing ropes. A number of workmen were engaged to make ropes

but they were hired by contractors who had executed agreements with the petitioner to get such work done.

When 29 of those workmen were denied employment, an industrial dispute was referred by the State

Government and the award was attacked on the ground that the workmen were not workmen of the petitioner

but only of the contractor. The High Court rejected the contention. Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme

Court.

Held:

The facts found are that the work done by the workmen was an integral part of the industry concerned, that

the raw material was supplied by the management, that the factory premises belonged to the management,

that the equipment used also belonged to the management, and that the finished product was taken by the

management for its own trade. The workmen were broadly under the control of the management and

defective articles were directed to be rectified by the management. This concatenation of circumstances is

conclusive that the workmen were the workmen of the petitioner. (Para-2)

The true test is where a worker or group of workers labor to produce goods or services and these goods or

services are for the business of another, that other is, in fact, the employer. He has economic control over the

workers’ subsistence, skill and continued employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off, the worker is

virtually laid off. The presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or

direct relationship ex contrctu is of no consequence, when, on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of

factors governing employment, the naked truth is discerned, and especially since it is one of the myriad

devices resorted to by managements to avoid the responsibility when labor legislation casts welfare

obligations on the real employer based on Arts. 38, 32, 42, 43 and 43A. If livelihood of the workmen

substantially depends on labor rendered to produce goods and services for the benefit and satisfaction of

enterprise, the absence of direct relationship or the presence of dubious intermediaries cannot snap the real

life-bond. If, however, there is total dissociation, in fact, between the disowning management and aggrieved

workmen, the employer is in substance and in real life-term, by another.

(i)

Learned Counsel for workmen has further referred to following case laws-

(ii)

Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Gujrat Vs. Hind Mazdoor Sabha, 1995-II-LLJ-790

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Sec. 2(k), 2(s), 10(2) – Contract Labor (Regulation & Abolition) Act

1970- Sec.10 – Abolition of contract labor – industrial dispute – jurisdiction of Labor Court under Industrial Dispute

Act – Jurisdiction of Appropriate Government has exclusive jurisdiction to decide in regard to abolition of contract

labor – section 10 of the Contract Labor Act would come into play only in cases of genuine contract and not when

contract is sham or camouflage – contract Labor abolition act does not provide for status of the contract labor after

abolition – Industrial Tribunal whether have jurisdiction to direct principal employer to absorb erstwhile workmen of

the contractor and also determine the terms and conditions – Industrial adjudicator will determine the status of a

workmen or abolition of contract labor, if industrial dispute was pending before him on date of abolition of contract

labor system by appropriate government – workmen of erstwhile contractor can raise dispute on the basis that they are

workmen of principal employer and dispute in such cases would be not for abolition of contract labor, but on the

footing that workmen were always employees of principal employer - ’’

(iii)

Secretary, Haryana Electricity Board Vs. Suresh and others, AIR-1999-SC-1160.

“(E)

Contract Labor (Regulation and Abolition) Act (37 of 1970), S.10 – Contract Labor – Absorption in

service- Electricity Board – Work of keeping plants and station clean and hygienic awarded to contractor-

work not of seasonal nature – contract itself stipulating number of employees to be engaged by Contractor –

Overall control of working of contract labor including administrative control remaining with the Board –

Board neither registered as principal employer nor contractor was licensed contractor – Contract system was

thus a mere camouflage which could be easily pierced and employer employee relationship between Board

and employee easily visualized – Employees who have worked for more than 240 days cannot therefore be

denied absorption.”

Learned counsel has referred following para(Paras 15, 17, 19),being reproduced as follows-

‘15- It would in this context, however, be convenient to note the observations of the High Court as below:-

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7749

“The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to argue that the findings of fact arrived at by the Labor

Court was not based upon proper appreciation of evidence. This plea cannot be accepted in as much as the

Labor Court has referred to the whole of the evidence lead in the case before coming to such a conclusion.

Otherwise, also in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.K. Panda’s case (supra) the findings

of fact arrived at by the Labor Court cannot be set aside in writ jurisdiction particularly when it is neither

perverse nor contrary to the record but based only on appreciation of evidence. Keeping in view the nature of

the work being carried on by the petitioner, the nature of duties which were performed by the respondents-

workmen, the continuity of the work for which the labor was employed and the fact that the wages were paid

by the petitioner-employer who supervised and controlled not only the attendance but also discipline of the

workmen in the discharge of their duties and keeping in view the conditions of contract of the employer with

Kashmira Singh, Contractor, there is no other conclusion which can be arrived at except the one that there

existing a relationship of employer and workmen between the contesting parties and the Labor Court had

rightly passed the award which is impugned in this petition.”

17-As noticed above Draconian concept of law is no longer available for the purpose of interpreting a social

and beneficial piece of legislation specially on the wake of the new millennium. The democratic polity ought

to survive with full vigour: socialist status as enshrined in the Constitution ought to be given its full play and

it is in this perspective the question arises – is it permissible in the new millennium to decry the cry of the

labor force desirous of absorption after working for more than 240 days in an establishment and having their

workings supervised and administered by an agency within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution –

the answer cannot possibly be in the affirmative – the law courts exist for the society and in the event law

courts feel the requirement in accordance with principles of justice, equity and good conscience, the law

courts ought rise up to the occasion to meet and redress the expectation of the people. The expression

‘regulation’ cannot possibly be read as contra public interest but in the interest of public.

19-It has to be kept in view that this is not a case in which it is found that there was any genuine contract

labor system prevailing with the Board. If it was a genuine contract system, then obviously, it had to be

abolished as per Section 10 of the Contract Labor Regulation and Abolition Act after following the procedure

laid down therein. However, on the facts of the present case, it was found by the Labor Court and as

confirmed by the High Court that the so called contractor Kashmir Singh was a mere name lender and had

procured labor for the Board from the open market. He was almost a broker or an agent of the Board for that

purpose. The Labor Court also noted that the Management witness Shri A.K. Chaudhary also could not tell

whether Shri Kahsmir Singh was a licensed contractor or not. That workmen had made a statement that Shri

Kashmir Singh was not a licensed contractor. Under these circumstances, it has to be held that factually

there was no genuine contract system prevailing at the relevant time wherein the Board could have acted as

only the principal employer and Kashmir Singh as a licensed contractor employing labor on his own account.

It is also pertinent to note that nothing was brought on record to indicate that even the Board at the relevant

time, was registered as principal employer under the Contract Labor Regulation and Abolition Act. Once the

Board was not a principal employer and the so called contractor Kashmir Singh was not a licensed

contractor under the Act, the inevitable conclusion that had to be reached was to the effect that the so called

contract system was a mere camouflage, smoke and a screen and disguised in almost a transparent veil which

could easily be pierced and the real contractual relationship between the Board, on the one hand, and the

employees, on the other, could be clearly visualised.’

(iv)

Bharat Bank Limited Vs. Employees of Bharat Bank Limited, AIR 1950 SC 188.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Tribunal has got wide power in given circumstances, it can

create contract between parties in the interest of justice. No other Courts vested with such power.

21. On the other hand learned Counsel for the Management referred to a judgement of Supreme Court in case The

Director SAIL India vs. IspatKhadandan Mazdoor Union civil appeal no 8081-8082 of 2011 reported in AIR 2019

SC 3601. Para 33,35,39,41,44,46,48,49 have been specifically referred to by learned counsel as follows:-

Before we may advert to examine the question in the instantappeals any further, it will be apposite to take

note of the legaleffect of the prohibition notification issued by the appropriateGovernment in exercise of

power under Section 10(1) of CLRAAct and its exposition by the Constitution Bench of this Court in

Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others (supra) overruling the judgment in Air India Statutory

Corporation and Others (supra).

The legal consequence of Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, has been noticed in paragraph 68, 88, 105 and

125 as follows : 24

7750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“68. We have extracted above Section 10 of the CLRA Act which empowers the appropriate Government

to prohibit employment of contract labor in any process, operation or other work in any

establishment, lays down the procedure and specifies the relevant factors which shall be taken into

consideration for issuing notification under sub¬section (1) of Section 10. It is a common ground that

the consequence of prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, prohibiting

employment of contract labor, is neither spelt out in Section 10 nor indicated anywhere in the Act.

In our view, the following consequences follow on issuing a notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA

Act:

(1)

contract labor working in the establishment concerned at the time of issue of notification

will cease to function;

(2)

the contract of principal employer with the contractor in regard to the contract labor comes to

an end;

(3)

no contract labor can be employed by the principal employer in any process, operation or

other work in the establishment to which the notification relates at any time thereafter;

(4)

the contract labor is not rendered unemployed as is generally assumed but continues

in the employment of the contractor as the notification does not sever the relationship of

master and servant between the contractor and the contract labor;

(5)

the contractor can utilise the services of the contract labor in any other establishment in

respect of which no notification under Section 10(1) has been issued where all the

benefits under the CLRA Act which were being enjoyed by it, will be available;

25 (6) if a contractor intends to retrench his contract labor, he can do so only in

conformity with the provisions of the ID Act. The point now under consideration is: whether

automatic absorption of contract labor working in an establishment, is implied in Section 10 of the CLRA

Act and follows as a consequence on issuance of the prohibition notification thereunder. We

shall revert to this aspect shortly. 88. If we may say so, the eloquence of the CLRA Act in not spelling

out the consequence of abolition of contract labor system, discerned in the light of various

reports of the Commissions and the Committees and the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the

Act, appears to be that Parliament intended to create a bar on engaging contract labor in the

establishment covered by the prohibition notification, by a principal employer so as to leave no option

with him except to employ the workers as regular employees directly. Section 10 is intended to work as a

permanent solution to the problem rather than to provide a onetime measure by departmentalizing

the existing contract labor who may, by a fortuitous circumstance be in a given establishment for a very

short time as on the date of the prohibition notification. It could as well be that a contractor and his

contract labor who were with an establishment for a number of years were changed just

before the issuance of prohibition notification. In such a case there could be no justification

to prefer the contract labor engaged on the relevant date over the contract labor employed for a longer

period earlier. These may be some of the reasons as to why no specific provision is made for

automatic absorption of contract labor in the CLRA Act. 105. The principle that a beneficial legislation

needs to be construed liberally in favour of the class for whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to

reading in the provisions of the Act what the legislature has not provided whether expressly

or by necessary implication, or substituting remedy or benefits for that provided by the legislature. We

have already noticed above the intendment of the CLRA Act that it regulates the conditions of service of

the contract labor and 26 authorizes in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract labor system by

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

of the Act among other relevant factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors, in our view,

provides no ground for absorption of contract labor on issuing notification under sub¬section (1) of

Section 10. Admittedly, when the concept of automatic absorption of contract labor as a

consequence of issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the appropriate Government, is not

alluded to either in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the consequence of violation of Sections

7 and 12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the

High Courts or this Court to read in some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal

consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel, be it absorption of contract labor in the

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

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

interpretative legislation and as such, clearly impermissible. We have already held above, on

consideration of various aspects, that it is difficult to accept that Parliament intended absorption of

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7751

contract labor on issue of abolition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act.

125. The upshot of the above discussion is outlined thus: (1)(a) Before 28.11.986, the determination

of the question whether the Central Government or the State Government is the appropriate

Government in relation to an establishment, will depend, in view of the definition of the

expression “appropriate Government” as stood in the CLRA Act, on the answer to a further question, is

the industry under consideration carried on by or under the authority of the Central

Government or does it pertain to any specified controlled industry, or the establishment of

any railway, cantonment board, major port, mine or oilfield or the establishment of banking or

insurance company? If the answer is in the affirmative, the Central Government will be the

appropriate Government; otherwise in relation to any other establishment the Government of the

State in which 27 the establishment was situated, would be the appropriate Government; (b) After

the said date in view of the new definition of that expression, the answer to the question referred to above,

has to be found in clause (a) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act; if (i) the Central Government

company/undertaking concerned or any undertaking concerned is included therein eo nomine, or (ii) any

industry is carried on:

(a)

by or under the authority of the Central Government, or

(b)

by a railway company; or (c) by a specified controlled industry, then the Central Government

will be the appropriate Government; otherwise in relation to any other establishment, the

Government of the State in which that other establishment is situated, will be the

appropriate Government.

(2)(a) A notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labor in any

process, operation or other work in any establishment has to be issued by the appropriate Government: (1)

after consulting with the Central Advisory Board or the State Advisory Board, as the case may be, and (2)

having regard to

(i) conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labor in the establishment in question, and (ii)

other relevant factors including those mentioned in sub¬section (2) of Section 10;

(b) Inasmuch as the impugned notification issued by the Central Government on 9¬12¬1976 does not

satisfy the aforesaid requirements of Section 10, it is quashed but we do so prospectively i.e. from the date

of this judgment and subject to the clarification that on the basis of this judgment no order passed or no

action taken giving effect to the said notification on or before 28 the date of this judgment, shall be called in

question in any tribunal or court including a High Court if it has otherwise attained finality and/or it

has been implemented.

(3) Neither Section 10 of the CLRA Act nor any other provision in the Act, whether expressly or by

necessary implication, provides for automatic absorption of contract labor on issuing a

notification by the appropriate Government under sub¬section (1) of Section 10, prohibiting

employment of contract labor, in any process, operation or other work in any establishment.

Consequently the principal employer cannot be required to order absorption of the contract labor

working in the establishment concerned.

(4) We overrule the judgment of this Court in Air India case [(1997) 9 SCC 377] prospectively and declare

that any direction issued by any industrial adjudicator/any court including the High Court, for

absorption of contract labor following the judgment in Air India case [(1997) 9 SCC 377] shall

hold good and that the same shall not be set aside, altered or modified on the basis of this judgment in

cases where such a direction has been given effect to and it has become final.

(5) On issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting

employment of contract labor or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any

contract labor in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the

question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having

undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labor for work

of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance

with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is

found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so¬called contract labor will have to be treated

as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularise the services of the

contract labor in the establishment concerned subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that

purpose in the light of para 6 hereunder.

7752

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

29 (6) If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under Section 10(1)

of the CLRA Act in respect of the establishment concerned has been issued by the appropriate

Government, prohibiting employment of contract labor in any process, operation or other work of

any establishment and where in such process, operation or other work of the establishment the principal

employer intends to employ regular workmen, he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labor,

if otherwise found suitable and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age

appropriately, taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment

by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than

technical qualifications.”

33. The exposition of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court made it clear that neither

Section 10 nor any other provision in the CLRA Act provides for automatic absorption of contract labor

on issuing a notification by the appropriate Government under Section 10(1) of

CLRAAct.Consequently, the principal employer is not required or is underlegal obligation by operation of

law to absorb the contract labor working in the establishment. 34. This court in Steel Authority of India

Ltd. and Others (supra) further held that on a issuance of notification under Section 10(1) of

the CLRA Act, prohibiting employment of contract labor in any process, operation or other work, if

an 30 industrial dispute is raised by any contract labor in regard to condition of service, it is for the

industrial adjudicator to consider whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of

having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract

labor for work of the establishment under a genuine contract, or as a mere ruse/camouflage to

evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of statutory benefits.

If the contract is found to be sham, nominal or camouflage, then the so-called labor will have to be treated

as direct employee of the principal employer and the industrial adjudicator should direct the

principal employer to regularise their services in the establishment subject to such conditions as it may

specify for that purpose in the facts and circumstances of the case.

35. On the other hand, if the contract is found to be genuine and a prohibition notification has been

issued under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, in respect of the establishment, the principal

employer intending to employ regular workmen for the process, operation or other work of the

establishment in regard to which the prohibition notification has been issued, it shall give 31 preference to

the erstwhile contract labor if otherwise found suitable, if necessary by giving relaxation of age as it

appears to be in fulfilment of the mandate of Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 36. It may

be noted that the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in

Silver Jubilee Tailoring House and Others Vs. Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments and

Another4 ; Hussainbhai, Calicut Vs. Alath Factory Thezhilali Union, Kozhikode and Others5 ; Indian

Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. Shramik Sena and Others6 and these cases have

been considered by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others(supra)

of which a detailed reference has been made by us.

37. Tests which are to be applied to find out whether the person is an employee or an independent

contractor in finding out whether the contract labor agreement is sham, nominal or a 4 1974(3) SCC

498 5 1978(4) SCC 257 6 1999(6) SCC 439 32 mere camouflage has been examined by this Court

in International Airport Authority of India Vs. International Air Cargo Workers’ Union and

Another7 by the two¬judge Bench of this Court. The relevant paras are as under:¬ “38. The tests that

are applied to find out whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor may not

automatically apply in finding out whether the contract labor agreement is a sham, nominal and is a mere

camouflage. For example, if the contract is for supply of labor, necessarily, the labor 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, if the right to regulate the employment is with the contractor, and the ultimate supervision

and control lies with the contractor.

39. The principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labor, when such

labor is assigned/allotted/sent to him. But it is the contractor as employer, who chooses whether the

worker is to be assigned/allotted to the principal employer or used otherwise. In short, worker

being the employee of the contractor, the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor

as he decides where the employee will work and how long he will work and subject to what conditions.

Only when the contractor assigns/sends the worker to work under the principal employer, the worker

works under the supervision and control of the principal employer but that is secondary control. The

primary control is with the contractor.”

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7753

38. These are the broad tests which have been laid down by this Court in examining the nature and control

of the employer and 7 2009 (13) SCC 374 33 whether the agreement pursuant to which contract labor has

been engaged through contractor can be said to be sham, nominal and camouflage.

46. To test it further, apart from the statutory compliance which every principal establishment is under an

obligation to comply with, its non¬compliance or breach may at best entail in penal consequences which is

always for the safety and security of the employee/workmen which has been hired for discharge of the

nature of job in a particular establishment. The exposition of law has been further considered in

International Airport Authority of India case(supra) where the contract was to supply of labor and

necessary labor was supplied by the contractor who worked under the directions, supervision and control

of the principal employer, that in itself will not in any manner construe the contract entered

between the contractor and contract labor to be sham and bogus per se.Thus, in our considered view, if the

scheme of the CLRA Act and other legislative enactments which the principalestablishment has to

comply with under the mandate of law and taking note of the oral and documentary evidence which came

on record, the finding which has been recorded by the CGIT under its award dated 16th September, 2009

in absence of the finding of fact recorded being perverse or being of no evidence and even if there are two

views which could possibly be arrived at, the view expressed by the Tribunal ordinarily was not

open to be interfered with by the High Court under its limited scope of judicial review under

Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and this exposition has been settled by this Court in its various

judicial precedents.

48. It is true that judgment in Dena Nath and Others (supra) is in reference to failure of compliance of

Section 7 and 12 and not in reference to Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act but if we look into the scheme of

CLRA Act which is a complete code in itself, non compliance or violation or breach of the provisions of the

CLRA Act, it result into penal consequences as has been referrd to in Sections 23 to 25 of the Act and there

is no provision which would entail any other consequence other than provided under Section 23 to 25 of the

Act.

Learned counsel for Management has further referred to a decision of Supreme Court in SLP No.33798-33799

2014,BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. Vs MAHENDRA PRASAD JAKHMOLA & ORS.

22.The relevant portion of the judgment referred to by learned counsel is being reproduced as follows:-

“We, now come to some of the judgments cited by Shri Sudhir Chandra and Ms. Asha Jain. In ‘General

Manager, (OSD), Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills, Rajnandgaon v. Bharat Lala and Another’ [2011 (1) SCC

635], it was held that the well recognised tests to find out whether contract laborers are direct employees are

as follows:

“10. It is now well settled that if the industrial adjudicator finds that the contract between the principal

employer and the contractor to be a sham, nominal or merely a camouflage to deny employment C.A. NOS.

1799-1800/ 2019 etc. (@SLP (C) Nos. 33747-33748/ 2014 etc.) benefits to the employee and that there was in

fact a direct employment, it can grant relief to the employee by holding that the workmen is the direct

employee of the principal employer. Two of the well-recognized tests to find out whether the contract laborers

are the direct employees of the principal employer are: (i) whether the principal employer pays the salary

instead of the contractor;

and (ii) whether the principal employer controls and supervises the work of the employee. In this case, the

Industrial Court answered both questions in the affirmative and as a consequence held that the first

respondent is a direct employee of the appellant” The expression ‘control and supervision’ were further

explained with reference to an earlier judgment of this Court as follows:

“12. The expression “control and supervision” in the context of contract labor was explained by this Court

in International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers’ Union thus: (SCC p.388,

paras 38-39) “38…. if the contract is for supply of labor, necessarily, the labor 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, if the right to

regulate the employment is with the contractor, and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the

contractor.

39. The principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labor, when such

labor is assigned/allotted/sent to him.

7754

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

But it is the contractor as employer, who chooses whether the worker is to be assigned/allotted to the

principal employer or used otherwise. In short, worker being the employee of the contractor, the ultimate

supervision and control lies with the contractor as he decides where the employee will work and how long he

will work and subject to what conditions. Only when the contractor assigns/sends the worker to work under

the principal employer, the worker works under the supervision and control of the principal employer C.A.

NOS. 1799-1800/ 2019 etc. (@SLP (C) Nos. 33747-33748/ 2014 etc.) but that is secondary control. The

primary control is with the contractor.” From this judgment, it is clear that test No. 1 is not met on the facts

of this case as the contractor pays the workmen their wages. Secondly, the principal employer cannot be said

to control and supervise the work of the employee merely because he directs the workmen of the contractor

‘what to do’ after the contractor assigns/ allots the employee to the principal employer. This is precisely what

paragraph 12 explains as being supervision and control of the principal employer that is secondary in nature,

as such control is exercised only after such workmen has been assigned to the principal employer to do a

particular work.

We may hasten to add that this view of the law has been reiterated in ‘Balwant Rai Saluja and Another v. Air

India Limited and Others’ [2014(9) SCC 407], as follows:

“65. Thus, it can be concluded that the relevant factors to be taken into consideration to establish an

employer-employee relationship would include, inter alia:

(i)

who appoints the workers;

(ii)

who pays the salary/remuneration;

(iii)

who has the authority to dismiss;

(iv)

who can take disciplinary action;

(v)

whether there is continuity of service; and

(vi)

extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision.

As regards extent of control and supervision, we have already taken note of the observations in

Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills case [(2011) 1 SCC 635], International Airport Authority of India case

[2009 13 SCC 374] and Nalco case [(2014) 6 SCC 756].” C.A. NOS. 1799-1800/ 2019 etc. (@SLP (C)

Nos. 33747-33748/ 2014 etc.) However, Ms. Jain has pointed out that contractors were frequently

changed, as a result of which, it can be inferred that the workmen are direct employees of BHEL.”

26. Another case Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills 2011 Vol.1 SCC 635 (para-10, 14, 16, 8 and 12) referred to by learned

counsel is also the relevant paragraphs of which are being reproduced as follows:-

“The expression ‘control and supervision’ in the context of contract labor was explained by this court in

International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers Union [2009 (13) SCC 374]

thus: “If the contract is for supply of labor, necessarily, the labor supplied by the contractor will work

under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer but that would not make the

worker a direct employee of the principal employer, if the salary is paid by contractor, if the right to

regulate employment is with the contractor, and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the

contractor. The principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labor,

when such labor is assigned/allotted/sent to him. But it is the contractor as employer, who chooses

whether the worker is to be assigned/allotted to the principal employer or used otherwise. In short,

worker being the employee of the contractor, the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor

as he decides where the employee will work and how long he will work and subject to what conditions.

Only when the contractor assigns/sends the worker to work under the principal employer, the worker

works under the supervision and control of the principal employer but that is secondary control. The

primary control is with the contractor.”

The case of Himmat Singh vs ICI India (2008) 3 SCC Preferred to by learned counsel for Management the referred

paragraphs of the judgment are being reproduced as follows:-

“A few observations made by the High Court which are relevant need to be noted. It was held by the High

Court as follows: "The labor court has held that the petitioners were not working as helpers to the fitters;

they were not paid by the company; and were engaged on contract for intermittent work i.e. they did not

have regular or permanent work. The work that the petitioners do may be similar to the work of the

workmen of the company, but they are not doing the work that is ordinary part of the industry. This is

for reason that they- ? did not have permanent work; ? were engaged in intermittent work and ?

themselves claimed to be workmen of the contractor Rehman in proceedings under Rule 25 of the Labor

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7755

Contract Act and got benefit under the same." 9. Similarly, the Labor Court noted that contractor

Rehman had applied to the administration for licence under the State Contract Labor Act and

considering the nature of the contract licence has been granted to him. 10. In Steel Authority of India

Ltd. v. Union of India &Ors. [2006(12) SC 233] it was inter-alia held as follows: "The workmen whether

before the Labor Court or in writ proceedings were represented by the same union. A trade union

registered under the Trade Unions Act is entitled to espouse the cause of the workmen. A definite stand

was taken by the employees that they had been working under the contractors. It would, thus, in our

opinion, not lie in their mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that they were also the

workmen of the principal employer. To raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in law.

Such mutually destructive plea, in our opinion, should not be http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT

OF INDIA Page 3 of 3 allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication. Common law principles of

estoppel, waiver and acquiescence are applicable in an industrial adjudication." 11. In view of the factual

position highlighted above and the ratio of the decision in Steel Authority’s case (supra), the inevitable

result is that the appeal is sans merit, deserves dismissal, which we direct with no order as to costs.

27. Airport Authority of India vs. Indian AirportKamgar 2011 Vol.1 L.L.J page-II Bombay para 32,33,37 referred

to by learned counsel for the Management. Where in, award allowing reference regarding same character of engagement

of contract labor was held now allowed in light of facts peculiar to the case referred.

Another case of Post Master General vs. Tutudas(2007)5 SCC 317.

Wherein, it has been held that illegal/improper grant of regularization to similarly situated persons does not

create and entitlement to regularization on the ground of equal treatment under article 14 of constitution as

equality is a positive concept and can not be invoked where any illegality has been committed or where no legal

right has been established.

In another case Dhampur Sugar Mills Vs Bhola Singh AIR 2005 SC page no 1790, referred to by learned counsel for

management it has been laid down that:

completion of 240 days in continuous service may not itself be ground for regularization of service

particularly in case when workmen had not been appointed in accordance with rules.

The case of Haldiya Employees Union Vs. Indian Oil Corporation 2005 CAB IC page 2078 SC also referred to by

learned counsel of which relevant paragraphs 15,16,17 & 20 specifically referred by the learned counsel are being

reproduced as follows:-

“No doubt, the respondent management does exercise effective control over the contractor on certain

matters in regard to the running of the canteen but such control is being exercised to ensure that the

canteen is run in an efficient manner and to provide wholesome and healthy food to the workmen of the

establishment. This however does not mean that the employees working in the canteen have become the

employees of the management. A free hand has been given to the contractor with regard to the

engagement of the employees working in the canteen. There is no clause in the agreement stipulating that

the canteen contractor unlike in the case of Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. & Another (supra)

shall retain and engage compulsorily the employees who were already working in the canteen under the

previous contractor. There is no stipulation of the contract that the employees working in the canteen at

the time of the commencement of the contract must be retained by the contractor. The management

unlike in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. case (supra) is not reimbursing the wages of the

workmen engaged in the canteen. Rather the contractor has been made liable to pay provident fund

contribution, leave salary, medical benefits to his employees and to observe statutory working hours. The

contractor has also been made responsible for the proper maintenance of registers, records and accounts

so far as compliance of any statutory provisions/obligations are concerned. A duty has been cast on the

contractor to keep proper records pertaining to payment of wages etc. and also for depositing the

provident fund contributions with authorities concerned. Contractor has been made liable to defend,

indemnify and hold harmless the employer from any liability or penalty which may be imposed by the

Central, State or local authorities by reason of any violation by the contractor of such laws, regulations

and also from all claims, suits or proceedings that may be brought against the management arising under

or incidental to or by reason of the work provided/assigned under the contract brought by employees of

the contractor, third party or by Central or State Government Authorities. The management has kept

with it the right to test, interview or otherwise assess or determine the quality of the employees/workers

with regard to their level of skills, knowledge, proficiency, capability etc. so as to ensure that the

employees/workers are competent and qualified and suitable for efficient performance of the work

covered under the contract. This control has been kept by the management to keep a check over the

7756

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

quality of service provided to its employees. It has nothing to do with either the appointment or taking

disciplinary action or dismissal or removal from service of the workmen working in the canteen. Only

because the management exercises such control does not mean that the employees working in the canteen

are the employee of the management. Such supervisory control is being exercised by the management to

ensure that the workers employed are well qualified and capable of rendering the proper service to the

employees of the management.”

Following settled propositions of law emerges:-

The point whether the contract is sham, bogus and camouflage will arise only when the work

contract which was allotted to the contractor was of non-prohibited category and also in cases

where though the work contract which was allotted to the contractor was of non-prohibited

category it become in prohibited category later on under the notification issued by appropriate

Government under Section 10(1) of CLRA Act.

In reaching at a point whether the work contract was sham bogus and camouflage, the relevant

facts for consideration will be as to firstly,who was to exercise the effective supervision and

control, secondly,at whose site, the workmen were engaged, thirdly, who paid the wages and

fourthly, who provided instruments and training and other facts like this is settled in the

aforesaid judgments. It is also settled that what is the effective control and supervision from

industry to industry and control and supervision is not only criteria for reaching at the

conclusion whether the work contract was sham, bogus or camouflage also what effective control

and supervision is shall differ from industry to industry fact wise.

28. Now coming into the fact and evidence in the present case in the light of settled provisions as mentioned in the case

laws referred to from both the sides. The case of workmen union on this point is that in fact the workmen were engaged

by the Management and wanted to deprive them of their legally admissible due to management set up camouflage

contractor and has given the color of work done under the contractor by a contract labor. According to the

workmen/union, the management engaged a contractor for payment of less wage as a smoke screen and a camouflage in

the eyes of law. The process of which was to deny the rights and other rights to the workmen. The workmen were

doing their duties under the strict provisions of management of SECL, they were given vocational training and issued

certificate for the job. Tools for the job was also supplied by the management. They worked under the supervision and

control of the Management, coupled with the fact that they were engaged in the work of perennial nature in violation of

NCWA as well as in violation of CLRA Act because of their work being of prohibited nature also clearly shows that the

contract and the contractor as well as theory of contract set up by management is simply a false and fake. It is sham and

camouflage to deny the workmen of their legally admissible dues which is proved from record whereas the learned

counsel for management has submitted that the over all control and supervision was that of the contractor. The

management was only concerned with the work and had limited control and supervision over the workmen. Also, it has

been submitted that instrument and vocational training was provided in the light of rules provided in this respect.

Payment of wages were made by the contractor under supervision of management as the rules provided for this, hence

the fact that the agreement was a sham and a camouflage cannot be held proved, as submitted by learned counsel for

management.

29. From the evidence in the form of witness and documents, the management does not deny that the work of the

workmen was supervised by management. According to management, it was a limited supervision and control and

management also does not deny that work was given to the management by the workmen and also that the instruments

ie; light lamp and other instruments were supplied by the management. Management also does not deny that payment of

wages was made under their supervision but has put a caveat that payment was made by the contractor under the

supervision of management as it was provided in the work agreement & rules.

30. Learned counsel for the workmen further submits that this Tribunal is obligated to lift the veil and see the facts

taking into account the total circumstances of the case in coming to the conclusion whether the contract is sham, bogus

and nongenuine. He further submits that may be apparently the work contract may appear legal but this Tribunal will

have to lift the veil in this case to do full justice between the parties . Learned counsel has referred to para-18 and 21 of

the case “General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Silchar Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission

Contractual workers union, (2008)12 Supreme Court Cases 275”.

The relevant portion of the judgement is quoted below: -

“Para-18:………… We, however, believe that this present case is not one of regularization simpliciter such

as in the case of an ad hoc or casual employee claiming this privilege. The basic issue in the present

case is the status of the workmen and whether they were the employees of ONGC or the contractor

and in the event that they were the employees of the former, a claim to be treated on a par with other

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7757

such employees. As would be clear from the discussion a little later, this was the basic issue on

which the parties went to trial, notwithstanding the confusion created by the ill-worded reference.

Para-21: Even ONGC had admitted that since 1988, there was no licensed contractor and that wages were

being paid through one of the leaders of Union, and one person who was named as contractor, was

in fact himself a workmen whose name appeared in acquaintance roll. Real issue therefore was

regarding status of workmen as employees of ONGC or of contractor, and it having found that

workmen were employees of ONGC, they would ipso facto be entitled to benefits available in that

capacity.Issue of regularization would therefore pale in insignificance. The Industrial Tribunal and

Division Bench of the High Court were justified in lifting the veil in order to determine nature of

employment.”

31. Learned Counsel for Management has referred to Judgment of Supreme Court Oshiar Prasad & Ors. Vs.

Employees in relation to management Sudam-D coal washery of BCCI Dhanbad- 2015-ILLJ-513SCpara-25

which is as follows-

It is thus clear that the appropriate Government is empowered to make a reference under Section 10 of

the Act only when "Industrial dispute exists" or "is apprehended between the parties". Similarly, it is

also clear that the Tribunal while answering the reference has to confine its inquiry to the question(s)

referred and has no jurisdiction to travel beyond the question(s) or/and the terms of the reference while

answering the reference. A fortiori, no inquiry can be made on those questions, which are not specifically

referred to the Tribunal while answering the reference.

32. The reference has been mentioned in this Judgment earlier which is regarding the action of the non-regularisation of

the workmen , whether it is legal or justified and if it is not then what relief the workmen are entitled. Hence, the fact in

issue is whether non-regularization of the workmen who performed various duties in Harad Incline Colliery since 1990

to 1992 is legal and justified or not and the relevant facts to decide the fact in issue will get settled in the light of the

pleadings of the parties in respect of their rival claims. Hence, there is no question of travelling beyond reference in this

case but while in the process of reaching at the conclusion with regard to the fact in issue, whether the so called

agreements were sham or genuine or it is camouflage to deny the workmen of their benefits under law is a

relevant fact and to record finding in this respect naturally the veil has to be lifted.

33. It is further submitted by learned counsel for workmen union that the burden of proof lies on management to prove

that the concerned workers are contract labor and also the contract is genuine. Union place reliance on the judgment

reported in the case of “Caparo Engineering India Limited Vs. Pradhanmantri Engineering Shramik Sanghthan, 2019

(1)MPLJ 147.” The relevant portion is reproduced below: -

“(b)

Evidence Act, S.102 – Burden of proof – Petitioner-company’s case that employees are contract

labor – therefore, Labor Court has rightly shifted burden on them to establish this – No error committed by

Labor Court while directing petitioner to lead evidence and prove that respondents are contract laborers

(para-31)”

34. The learned counsel for union alternatively submits that even in the circumstances, the union has not been able to

prove that they were working in prohibited category of work notified by the Government of India, even then from the

pleadings of the union, the employer-employee relationship between the management and the workmen is clearly

established.

35.In all the case laws referred to by the learned counsel for the parties, one thing is common is that the work contracts

were in non prohibited category when they were allotted to the Contractors. . They came under prohibited category only

later on whereas in the case in hand on the basis of evidence on record it has been established that the so called work

contract between the employer and contractor was prohibited by law being violative of NCWA and notification under

Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting work of that type being taken by contractors long before the contractor was

engaged to execute the work done by the principal employer. Hence the referred cases can be easily distinguished from

the case in hand on this point as mentioned earlier. It is not disputed between the parties that vocational training was

given by the Management to the workers, tools were provided by the Management to the workers. Management

exercised control and supervision on day to day working of the workmen and wages were paid in person by the

Management and its representatives. According to the Management counsel all this was done as it was so provided in the

work contract.

36. Reference of Section 2(d) of Indian Contract Act requires to be taken here which define all the contract as it is so

because CLRA Act does not define contract. Section 2(d) reads as under:-

“Contract is an agreement enforceable by law.”

7758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

According to Section 23 of Indian Contracts Act which deals with the as what consideration and object are lawful and

what not is being reproduced as follows:-

“what considerations and objects are lawful and what not-….

The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful unless-

It is forbidden by law, or

Is of such nature that,if permitted, it would defeat the provision of any law or is…………………..…….”

Similary Section 24 of the said Act is also being reproduced as follows:-

“If any part of a single consideration for one or more objects, or any or any part of several considerations

for a single object, is unlawful, the agreement is void.”

37. In the light of the above noted provisions of Indian Contract Act since even the first work agreement between the

parties was against prohibitions of law as it defeats the provisions of NCWA and Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act at the

very time it was entered into by the parties because these prohibitions were enforced before the agreement was entered

into by the parties will be void ab intio In law meaning thereby there is no contract at all as per law between the parties.

Same will be the fate of other two so called work contracts entered into by the parties after the first work agreement .

Thus it is not legally permissible on the part of Management to contend that all the work of supervision, training and

other actions detailed earlier were in the light of terms of the work agreement because the said work agreement are void

ab initio, as discussed above right from the date of the agreements. The natural inference/consequences of this will be

that it will be deemed that in fact the control of supervision of workers by Management, training of worker’s

management, providing tools and instruments by Management etc. where done by the Magistrate on their own. It cannot

be taken to be done if the work contract is void ab initio, admitted is the fact between the parties is that the said workmen

worked on the sight which was owned by the Management i.e. is to say that the work place was the premises of

Management i.e. principal employer.

38. Hence following facts are held proved in the light of above discussion which is as follows:-

(1)

The work agreement was violative of legal provisions and prohibitions from the date the parties

entered into the agreement.

(2)

Since the object of the work agreement was not to defeat the provisions of law i.e. to say not

lawful hence all the three work agreements are void ab intio from their date of inception.

(3)

As the work agreement are void ab initio, hence cannot be held that Management control and

supervision and other actions as discussed above, was done by Management in the light of the

terms of the work agreement.

39. Accordingly, in the light of above provisions, this Tribunal is constrained to hold that the work agreement

between the principal employer and allotted to contractor was sham, bogus and camouflage, defeating the

provisions of law, the sole aim of which was to deprive the workmen of their legally admissible claims, stands

proved.

Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

40. Issue No.3:-

In the light of the findings recorded earlier at Issue No.1 & 2 the workmen who were engaged via the sham and bogus

agreement as a camouflage shall be deemed to be under employment of the principal employer which is SECL and are

held so.

41. Since the Management has disputed the number and identity of the workmen annexed as a list to the reference , hence

the first question arises is how many and who of the list have been proved to be engaged and secondly whether their

disengagement is justified in law and fact or not.

42. Perusal of the record reveals that there is a list of 112 workers Annexed to the reference who to the workmen union

according workmen union were engaged in the aforesaid activity. It came out that one of the workmen Vijay at serial

No.33 has filed application dated 6-11-2006 not to press the claim due to some clerical mistake in the name of his father

for which the Union is said to have taken the matter with the Labor Ministry for correction. Hence the claim of this

workmen Vijay on this point is not considered.

43. According to the statement of defense, filed by Management it has been pleaded in para 15 of the written statement

that since the work was executed through contractor, it is not known whether the applicant workmen worked for SECL

or not.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7759

44. The contractor, in his written statement of defense has not denied the claim of the workmen/union that as many as

112 workers were engaged by them for executing the work. Perusal of the record further reveals that this contractor did

not appeal before the Court for his evidence. It also comes out that under order of Court dated 24-2-1999 the

workmen/Union filed a list, photocopy of 108 persons along with their parentage, identity, details of address but the

unfortunate thing is that there is no evidence from the side of workmen/union to prove this list. The workmen Union

should have examined the persons who checked the identity mark and after confirming their names, parentage and

address as well as the identity of the person mentioned in the list affixed their photographs.

45. In absence of this, the list cannot be read in support of the workmen/union. It further comes out that the

workmen/union has further filed an application with the list of workmen whose parentage (father’s name) not

mentioned correcting the list attached as Annexure to the reference and sought correction in the reference . Accordingly,

which has been refused on the ground that no such correction in reference is possible by Court, the correction is to be

made by the Competent Authority who has made reference. Names of such persons with respect to serial number in the

list annexed with the reference as mentioned in the said application by workmen/union is given as follows:-

Sl. Number of the

list sent by the

Govt.

Correct Name of workmen with father’s name.

12.

Tooman s/o Munshi.

33.

Vijay Bahadur Singh/ Ramavtar Singh

38.

Jawahar/ Dadan Das.

44.

Shivmurat/ Chandrama

50.

Viplav/ Chinmay

56.

Raj Kumar/ Jamuna

66.

Rakesh/ Jagdish

77.

Kamal/ Shivcharan

83.

Nathudas/ Jeetram.

Mahesh Prasad/ Ramvishal

Since the workmen/union has itself admitted that identity as of these workers as mentioned in the list, their case also is to

be considered on the point whether they were engaged or not?

46. The workmen witnesses have stated on oath that 112 workmen as mentioned in the list annexed to the reference were

engaged in the work, they worked in three shifts but their statements cannot be taken as corroborated with the work or of

the work included in the list annexed to the reference were actually engaged.

47. The workmen/union has also filed Vocational Training Certificates of 32 workers but no witness has been examined

from the side of Union to prove this list, hence this list also cannot be taken as correct of the case of workmen on the

point of identity of workmen.

48. The Management witnesses have stated on oath that only 41 out of the 42 workers were engaged in the said work,

Management has filed and proved Exhibit M-9 of 42 workers . Hence as reference the 42 workers whose Form-B has

been filed by Management is Exhibit M-11(1) to M11(42). Their case can be held proved that they were actually

engaged as claimed by the workmen/union regarding rest of the workmen, it cannot be held proved that they were also

engaged for execution of the said work or had worked under the Management.

49. Hence in the light of above discussion , only 42 workers names as follows, whose claim has been supported by

Exhibit M-9/1 to M9/42 are held to have been engaged for the execution of the work regarding the rest of the workmen,

their case is held not proved:-

S.NO.

NAME

FATHER’S/ HUSBAND’S

Bahori Singh

Shri Pream Singh

Maan Singh

Shri Battu Lal Singh

Kamleshwar Singh

Shri Ram Raton Singh

Ram singh

Shri Raton Singh

7760

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 30, 2019/AGRAHAYANA 9, 1941 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Nawal Singh

Shri Rameshaey

Bahel Singh

Shri Ramcharan Singh

Chawelal

Shri Anandram

Deepchand

Shri Loknath

Gaga

Shri Daddi

Doman

Shri Munshi

Bhupat Singh Gond

Shri Balkran Singh Gond

Jeevan Lal

Shri Jagdish

Babua

Shri Moliya

Baldave

Shri Samylal

Amritlal Vishwakarma

Shri Ramadhin Vishwakarma

Jawaharlal mehra

Shri Dadan Das

Chotelal

Shri Samylal

Baechu

Shri Bichlu

Likhari

Shri Lokai

Rajkumar

Shri Dasrath

Dilep

Shri Shyamsunder

Asharam

Shri Gullaram Kewat

Shyamlal

Shri Gheenu

Ramdas

Shri Mangal

Lalan

Shri Saiku

Jagdish

Shri Ramkumar

Shyamlal

Shri Jagdish

Ramkalun

Shri Mangaldeen

Salik Singh

Shri Suradeen

Awdesh Prasad

Shri Jailal

Raton

Shri Bihar

Arjun Singh

Shri sukhsen

Bhagwan Deen

Shri mandal

Menaj

Shri Akbar

Ram Prasad

Shri Bekai

Shivmurat

Shri Chamru kewat

Chotelal

Shri Jagdesh

Maku

Shri Lambu

Rattu

Shri Lalli

Munna

Shri K.ghai

Rameshwar

Shri Marokha

Bablu

Shri munna

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 30] 2019@vxzgk;.k 9] 1941

7761

50. Reference of Section 2(oo) of Industrial Disputes Act, Section 25(b)(2), Section 25(f) and Section 25(N) of

Industrial Dispute Act,1947 are being reproduced as follows:-

2[(oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workmen for any any

reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not

include— (a) voluntary retirement of the workmen; or (b) retirement of the workmen on reaching the age

of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workmen concerned

contains a stipulation in that behalf;

25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.—No workmen 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 workmen has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for

retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workmen has been paid in lieu of such notice,

wages for the period of the notice; (b) the workmen has been paid, at the time of retrenchment,

compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2 [for every completed year 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 3 [or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate

Government by notification in the Official Gazette].

2 [25N. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.—(1) No workmen employed in any industrial

establishment to which this Chapter applies, who has been in continuous service for not less than one year

under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until,— (a) the workmen has been given three

months’ notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or

the workmen has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice; and (b) the prior