1124 GI/2021

(475)

रजिस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजिक

WEEKLY

सं. 09]

नई दिल् ली, फरवरी 28—मार्च 6, 2021 िजनवार/फाल् गुन 9— फाल् गुन 15, 1942

No. 09] NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 28– MARCH 6, 2021, SATURDAY/ PHALGUNA 9 –PHALGUNA 15, 1942

इस भाग में जभन् न ृष्‍ सं्‍ ा िी िाती िज जिससे दक ि ृष क संकलन के प ृ में र ा िा सके

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

भाग II— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्राल ों (रक्षा मंत्राल को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूर्नाएं

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

कार्मचक, लोक जिका त और ृेंिन मंत्राल

(कार्मचक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 2 मार्च, 2021

का.आ. 174.—केन् र सरकार, एतद्द्वारा दिल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25)

की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, मिाराष्ट्र राज् सरकार के

गषि जवभाग, मुंबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई 2021/सीआर 11/ृॉल-2, दिनांक 15.01.2021 के माध् म से िारी

सिमजत से, श्री साबले, वसूली अजिकारी, बैंक ऑफ बड़़ौिा, िलगांव के जवप द्ध भ्रष्टार्ार जनवारण अजिजन म,

1988 (1988 का 49) के तित दिनांक 12.01.2021 को ििच जिका त; जिसके आिार ृर दिनांक 18.01.2021

को एक सीबीआई मामला, आरसी/ृूणे/2021/ए/0001 ििच दक ा ग ा िज, से िुड़े अृराि(िों) का अन्वेषण त ा ऐसे

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-09032021-225727

CG-DL-W-09032021-225727

476 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अृराि(िों) से िुड़े ा उससे संबद्ध दकसी िु्‍प्र ास, िु्‍प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र एवं/अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए

गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों

की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (का ोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 18.01.2021 से) समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज् में

करती िज।

[फा. सं. 228/06/2021-एवीडी-II]

एस. ृी. आर. जत्रृा ी, अवर सजर्व

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2021

S.O. 174.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No. CBI 2021/CR 11/POL-2. dated 15.01.2021 of

Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the

members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 18.01.2021) to the whole State of

Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 12.01.2021 against Shri

Sable, Recovery Officer, Bank of Baroda, Jalgaon under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988);

based on which a CBI Case, RC/Pune/2021/A/0001 has been registered on 18.01.2021 and any attempt,

abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence

committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/06/2021-AVD-II]

S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

स्ट् वास्ट् थ् एवं ृठरवार कल् ाण मंत्राल

(स्ट् वास्ट् थ् एवं ृठरवार कल् ाण जवभाग)

नई दिल् ली, 27 िनवरी, 2021

का.आ. 175.—डेंठिस्ट्ि एक्ि, 1948 (1948 का 16) की िारा 3 में प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए,

केन्री सरकार द्वारा स्ट्वास्ट्थ् एवं ृठरवार कल् ाण मंत्राल , भारत सरकार के दिनांक 24 िनवरी, 1984 के

का. आ. सं. 430 में एतद्द्वारा जनम्नजलज त संिोिन दक ा ग ा िज, अ ाचत्:

“िारा 3 के ण्ड (ड) के तित र् जनत” िीषच के तित उि अजिसूर्ना में जनम्नजलज त सजममलत दक ा ग ा

िज, अ ाचत्:

सिस्ट् का नाम

जवजि

ूजनवर्सचिी जिसका

प्रजतजनजित्व दक ा ग ा

प्रभावी जतज

डॉ. बी. एस. सुरेि,

प्रोफेसर,

सुब्ब ा िंत जवज्ञान संस्ट् ान, जिमोगा,

कनाचिक

नाजमत

रािीव गांिी ूजनवर्सचिी ऑफ

िेल् साइंसेि, बैंगल़ौर,

कनाचिक

19.12.2020

[फा. सं. वी. 12025/2/2021-डीई]

कुमार प्रनव, अवर सजर्व

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गुन 15, 1942

477

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2021

S.O. 175.—In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948),

the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India

in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare No. S. O. 430 dated 24th January, 1984, namely:

In the said notification under head “elected under clause (d) of Section 3”, the following shall be

inserted therein, namely:

Name of the member

Mode

University represented

w.e.f.

“Dr.

B.S.

Suresh,

Professor,

Subbaiah

Institute

Dental

Sciences, Shimoga, Karnataka

Elected

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health

Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka

19.12.2020”

[F. No. V. 12025/2/2021-DE]

KUMAR PRANAV, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 27 िनवरी, 2021

का.आ. 176.—डेंठिस्ट्ि एक्ि, 1948 (1948 का 16) की िारा 3 में प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए

सा. आ. सं. 430 में एतद्वारा जनम्नजलज त संिोिन दक ा िाता िज, अ ाचत्:

“िारा 3 के ण्ड (ङ) के तित नाजमत” िीषच के तित उि अजिसूर्ना में जनम्नजलज त सजममलत दक ा ग ा

िज, अ ाचत्:

सिस्ट् का नाम

जवजि

राज् जिसका प्रजतजनजित्व दक ा ग ा

प्रभावी जतज

डॉ. सुरेन्र अग्रवाल,

िंत जर्दकत्सक,

मकान नं. 8, फेि -2, ठरवेरा िाउन माता

मंदिर, एमएनएआईिी के ृास, िी. िी

नगर, भोृाल 462003,

मध् प्रिेि

नाजमत

मध् प्रिेि

09.07.2020

[फा. सं. वी. 12025/124/2020-डीई]

कुमार प्रनव, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2021

S.O. 176.—In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948),

the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India

in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare No. S.O. 430 dated 24thJanuary, 1984, namely:

In the said notification under head "nominated under clause (e) of Section 3", the following shall be

inserted therein, namely:

Name of the Member

Mode

State represented

w.e.f

Dr. Surendra Agrawal, Dentist, H. No.

8, Phase-2, Reviera Town Mata

Mandir, Near MNAIT, T.T. Nagar,

Bhopal 462 003, Madhya Pradesh

Nominated

Madhya Pradesh

09.07.2020

[F. No. V. 12025/124/2020-DE]

KUMAR PRANAV, Under Secy.

478 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल् ली, 27 िनवरी, 2021

का.आ. 177.—डेंठिस्ट्ि एक्ि, 1948 (1948 का 16) की िारा 3 में प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए

का. आ. सं. 430 में एतद्वारा जनम्नजलज त संिोिन दक ा ग ा िज, अ ाचत्:

िज, अ ाचत्:

सिस्ट् का नाम

जवजि

ूजनवर्सचिी जिसका

प्रजतजनजित्व दक ा ग ा

प्रभावी जतज

डॉ. जवकास िुृर,

प्रोफेसर एवं प्रमु ,

मु एवं मेक्सीलोफेजस ल सिचरी

जवभाग,

गोआ डेंिल कॉलेि एवं अस्ट्ृताल,

बेमबोजलन, गोआ

नाजमत

गोआ ूजनवर्सचिी, गोआ

13.11.2018

[फा. सं. वी. 12025/143/2020-डीई]

कुमार प्रनव, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2021

S.O. 177.—In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948),

the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India

in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare No. S.O. 430 dated 24th January, 1984, namely:

In the said notification under head “elected under clause (d) of Section 3”, the following shall be

inserted therein, namely:

Name of the member

Mode

University represented

w.e.f.

“Dr. Vikas Dhupar, Professor &

Head,

Dept..

Oral

Maxillofacial Surgery, Goa Dental

College & Hospital, Bambolim, Goa

Elected

Goa University, Goa

13.11.2018”

[F. No. V. 12025/143/2020-DE]

KUMAR PRANAV, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 2 मार्च, 2021

का.आ. 178.—भारत के रािृत्र, असािारण, भाग-II, िारा 3 में दिनांक 17 िून, 2016 को प्रकाजित,

स्ट्वास्ट्थ् और ृठरवार कल् ाण मंत्राल भारत सरकार की अजिसूर्ना का.आ 2157 (अ) में, जन म 6(i)(o) के तित

क्रम सं. 3 और उससे संबंजित प्रजवष्टी को, 16 िून, 2021 तक की अवजि के जलए, जनम्नजलज त से प्रजतस्ट् ाजृत दक ा

िाता िज:-

जन म 6(i)(ढ़)

डॉ. राकेि कुमार, - सिस्ट्

अध् क्ष के ओएसडी,

राष्ट्री ृरीक्षा बोडच,

नई दिल्ली

[फा. सं. वी. 11025/48/2020-एमईृी]

अजमत जबस्ट्वास, अवर सजर्व

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गुन 15, 1942

479

New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2021

S.O. 178.—In the notification of Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

number S.O. 2152(E) dated 17th June, 2016 published in Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3,

under Rule 6(i)(o), the serial number 3 and the entries relating thereto shall be substituted as under for a period

upto 16th June, 2021:-

Under Rule 6(i)(o)

Dr. Rakesh Sharma,

-Member

OSD to President,

National Board of Examinations,

New Delhi.

[F. No. V. 11025/48/2020-MEP]

AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.

नई दिल् ली, 2 मार्च, 2021

का.आ. 179.—भारत के रािृत्र, असािारण, भाग-II, िारा 3 में प्रकाजित, स्ट्वास्ट्थ् और ृठरवार कल् ाण

मंत्राल भारत सरकार की अजिसूर्ना का.आ. 4247 (अ) दिनांक 25 नवंबर, 2020 के अनुक्रम में, केंर सरकार,

27 िुलाई, 2021 तक की अवजि के जलए, जनम्नजलज त व्यजि को नाजमत करती िज:-

जन म 6(i)( )

डॉ. मीनू बािृे ी,

- उृाध् क्ष

प्रोफेसर और एर्ओडी,

बाल जर्दकत्सा जवभाग, एमस, नई दिल्ली।

[फा. सं. वी. 11025/48/2020-एमईृी]

अजमत जबस्ट्वास, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2021

S.O. 179.— In continuation to the notification of Government of India in the Ministry of Health and

Family Welfare number S.O. 4247(E) dated 25th November, 2020 published in Gazette of India, Extraordinary,

Part-II, Section 3, the Central Government hereby nominates following person for a period upto 27th July,

2021:-

Under Rule 6(i)(b)

Dr. Minu Bajpai, Professor & HoD,

-Vice-president

Department of Paediatric Surgery,

AIIMS, New Delhi.

[F. No. V. 11025/48/2020-MEP]

AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy.

वाजणज् एवं उद्योग मंत्राल

(वाजणज् जवभाग)

नई दिल् ली, 28 दिसम बर, 2020

का.आ. 180.—केन्री सरकार, जन ाचत (गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) अजिजन म, 1963 (1963 का

22) की िारा 7 की उृिारा (1) के सा ृठ त जन ाचत (गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) जन म, 1964 के जन म

12, के उृजन म (2) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, मजससच जमत्रा एस. के. प्राइवेि जलजमिेड, मोिर िाउस

480 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

बंगलास, स्ट्कूल रोड, ओ ा, गुिरात -361350 (जिसे एतद्ृश्चात उि अजभकरण माना िाएगा) को इस अजिसूर्ना

के िासकी रािृत्र में प्रकािन की तारी से तीन वषच की अवजि के जलए, वाजणज् मंत्राल की िासकी रािृत्र

में प्रकाजित भारत सरकार की अजिसूर्ना के सा अनुसूर्ी में जनर्िच्‍ ि दिनांक 20 दिसमबर, 1965 की अजिसूर्ना

की सं्‍ ा का.आ. 3975 त ा दिनांक 20 दिसमबर, 1965 की अजिसूर्ना सं. का.आ. 3978 के तित प्रकाजित

अजिसूर्ना में उृाबद्ध अनुसूर्ी में जवजनर्िचष्ट जनि और अ स्ट् क – समूि-1 अ ाचत, ल़ौि अ स्ट्क, त ा बॉक्साइि,

कजलजसनेड बाक्साइि बॉक्साइि सजित; और जनि और समूि-2 अ ाचत, ज़ ंक कॉन्सरेि सजित ज़ ंक अ स्ट् क, के

जन ाचत से ृूवच जनरीक्षण करने के जलए जनम्नजलज त ितों के अिीन ओ ा, ृोरबंिर, कांडला एवं मुंिरा ृत्तन में उक् त

जनि एवं अ स्ट् क के जनरीक्षण करने के जलए एक अजभकरण के प ृ में मान् ता िेती िज, अ ाचत् :

(i)

ि अजभकरण, जनि और अ स्ट्क समूि-। के जन ाचत (जनरीक्षण) जन म, 1965 जनि और अ स्ट्क समूि-II

के जन ाचत (जनरीक्षण) जन म, 1965 के जन म 4 के अिीन जनरीक्षण की ृद्धजत की िााँर् करने के जल े जन ाचत

जनरीक्षण ृठरषि् द्वारा जनजमत्त नामजनर्िचष्ट अजिकाठर ों को ृ ाचप्त सुजविाएं िेगी; और

(ii) ि अजभकरण, इस अजिसूर्ना के अिीन अृने का ो के ृालन में जनिेिक (जनरीक्षण और गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण)

जन ाचत जनरीक्षण ृठरषि द्वारा सम -सम ृर, जलज त प ृ में, दिए गए जनिेिों से आबद्ध िोंगी ।

[फा. सं. के-16014/9/2020-जन ाचत जनरीक्षण]

दिवाकर ना जमसरा, सं ुि सजर्व

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2020

S.O. 180.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control

and Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/s Mitra S.K. Private Limited, Motor

House Bunglows, School Road, Okha, Gujarat-361350, as an agency for a period of three years with effect from

the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette , for the inspection of Minerals & Ores-

(Group-I), namely, Iron Ore and Bauxite including calcined bauxite, and (Group-II), namely, Zinc ores

including zinc concentrates as specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India

in the Ministry of Commerce, published in the official Gazette vide number S.O. 3975, dated the 20th

December, 1965, and S.O. 3978 dated the 20th December, 1965 respectively, prior to export of the said

Minerals and Ores at Okha Port, Porbandar, Kandla and Mundra Ports subject to the following conditions,

namely: -

(i)

the said agency shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in

this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores - Group I

(Inspection) Rules, 1965 and the Export of Minerals and Ores - Group II (Inspection) Rules, 1965;

(ii)

the said agency, in performance of their function as specified in this notification shall be bound by such

directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give in

writing from time to time.

[F. No. K-16014/9/2020-Export Inspection]

DIWAKAR NATH MISRA, Jt. Secy.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गुन 15, 1942

481

नई दिल् ली, 26 फरवरी, 2021

का.आ. 181.—सावचिजनक ृठरसर (अनजिकषत कब्िा िारकों की बेि ली) अजिजन म, 1971 (1971 के

40) की िारा 3 के द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए केंर सरकार एतद्द्वारा जनम्नजलज त ताजलका के कॉलम (1)

में उजल्लज त अजिकारी को सरकार के रािृजत्रत अजिकारी स्ट्तर के समतुल् अजिकारी िोते हुए उि अजिजन म के

आि से दि स्ट्िेि रेज़डंग कॉृोरेिन ऑफ इंजड ा जलजमिेड में संृिा अजिकारी जन ुि करती िज िो प्रित्त िजि ों का

प्र ोग करेंगे और उि ताजलका के कॉलम (2) में संगत प्रजवजष्ट में उजल्लज त सावचिजनक ृठरसरों के संबंि में उि

अजिजन म के तित संृिा अजिकारी ृर लागू कतचव्यों का जनवाचि करेंगे।

ताजलका

(1)

(2)

श्री अिोक कुमार स्ट्वजन, उृ मिाप्रबंिक (जवत्त), दि

स्ट्िेि रेज़डंग कॉृोरेिन ऑफ इंजड ा जलजमिेड,

िवािर व्याृार भवन, िॉलस्ट्िॉ मागच, नई दिल्ली।

कोई भी ृठरसर िो एसिीसी से संबंजित िो अ वा

एसिीसी द्वारा ा उसकी और से ृट्टे अ वा लाइसेंस ृर

जल ा ग ा िो में इसके आवासी ृठरसरों के सा -सा

का ाचल ृठरसर, भूजम, कोई अन् ृठरसर ा कोई भवन

ा दकसी भवन का जिस्ट्सा, उसमे बगीर्ा, मजिान त ा

ऐसे भवन अ वा भवन के जिस्ट्से आदि से संबंजित

आउििाउस, दि कोई िो, िाजमल िज।

[फा. सं. 6/6/2006-एफिी (एसिी)]

रािेंिर ज़संि, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2021

S.O. 181.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of

Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints the officer

mentioned in column (1) of the Table below, being an officer equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officer of the

Government, to be Estate Officer in The State Trading Corporation of India Limited, for the purpose of the said

Act, who shall exercise the powers and perform the duties of Estate Officer, as conferred under the said Act, in

respect of the Public Premises specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table.

TABLE

(1)

(2)

Shri Ashok Kumar Swain, Deputy General

Manager

(Finance),

The

State

Trading

Corporation of India Limited, Jawahar Vyapar

Bhawan, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi.

Any Premises belonging to, or taken on Lease or

License by, or on behalf of the STC which includes its

Residential premises as well as Office Premises, Land,

any other Premises or any building or part of a building

including garden, grounds and outhouses, if any,

pertaining to such building or part of a building etc.

[F. No. 6/6/2006-FT(ST)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

482 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

श्रम एवं रोिगार मंत्राल

ubZ fnYyh] 19 Qjojh] 2021

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj eSllZ lh-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@Je U;k;ky; ua- &1] /kuckn ds iapkV {¼lanHkZ f'kdk;r izdj.k

la[;k 06@2013 ¼lanHkZ la[;k 58@92 ls mRiUu½}dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-05-2019 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y-20012@39@1992-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½]

jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo

ृाि ठिप्ृणी:– मूल अजिसूर्ना भारत सरकार के साप्ताजिक रािृत्र भाग II - ंड -3 उृ- ंड (ii) में अजिसूर्ना सं्‍ ांक

का.आ. 1410 दिनांक 01 िून 2017 द्वारा प्रकजित की ग ी ी।

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2021

S.O. 182.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

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

1, Dhanbad {Comp. Case No.06 of 2013, (Arising out of Reference No.58/92)} as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 21.05.2019.

[No. L-20012/39/1992-IR(C-I)]

RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.

Foot Note:- The principal Notification , in pursuance of the Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947

(14 of 1947), was published in the gazette of India vide Notification No. S.O. 1410 dated

01.06.2017

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A COMPLAINT U/S 33(A) OF I.D ACT, 1947

COMPLAINT NO. 6/2013

(Arising out of Ref. No. 58/92)

Ministry order no. 20012/39/92-IR(C-1)

Binod Rajak, & 58 Ors ……………………………….………..…..Complainants

Vrs

Project Officer, Swang washery M/S. CCL ………………………….Opposite party

Present :- Shri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances

For complainant : Shri D. Mukherjee, Advocate

For opposite party : Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate

Industry :-Coal

Dated. 21.04.2017

AWARD

This complaint is filed by the complainant collectively on behalf of all the 58 workmen. After receipt

of the complainant, both parties are noticed. The complainat including Mahendra Rajak files an application U/S

33A of the I.D Act, that during the pendency of the lis of Reference No. 58 of 1992, the management/opp.Party

has started diciplinary proceedings against them without permission of the Tribunal, and seek redress to restore

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गुन 15, 1942

483

their job.

It is also submited by the complainant the award of Ref 58 of 92 passed on 03.10.1996 in which

Opp.Party/management is directed to regularise the services of the concerned workmen w.e.f. 11.12.1990. The

award was confirmed by the single bench of High Court, Division Bench as well as confirmed by Hon’ble

Supreme Court being reported in L.L.N 2001 (4) 135 and the judgement was delivered on 30.08.2001.

It is further submitted by the complainant that ultimately seeing no other alternative the

management/opp. Party agreed to provided service to the concerned workmen with intention not to provide

employment to the concerned workmen. . The judgement of the Hon’ble Suprement Court was passed in 2001

still then the Opp.Party regularised the concerned workmen in the year 2010 after determining the exact age of

persons still then the so-called medical officer determined the exact age of the persons, then the concerned

workmen were issued chargesheet by the management in the year 2012 on the alleged ground of giving false

information regarding age by invoking clause 26.9 of the standing order.

During the pendency of LC Application No. 10 of 2003 which is also arising out of Ref 58/92 , the

management changed the service condition of the concerned workmen by issuing chargesheet and by

conducting enquiry and the management is contemplating to dismiss the concerned workmen from service that

too without taking any prior approval of the Tribunal so that the complainant prays to quash the chargesheet and

not to proceed the enquiry and not to dismiss the concerned workmen from services till the pendency of the case

as mentioned above.

On the other hand management submitted that the reference case already been exhausted after it is

travelling to High Court to Apex Court and the management implemented the award as per the memorandum of

settlement.

It was the settlement that as per the identification of Union leader, the workmen will be taken to job

and some of them have been taken. It is further submitted that serious, allegation received, that the workman

appointed as per award were not real beneficiary. Many fake persons entered into job in the name of the persons

in the award even changing their names and father names for which the management started disciplinary enquiry

against many and stop giving employment to rest.

It is also submitted by the Opp.Party that the complainant were submitted prescribed format and

claimed themselves as beneficiaries of the award. After implementation of the award the opp/Party received

complaints from the various corner regarding the complainant that the complainant are not the real workmen

concerned of Ref. Case no. 58/92 and are not bona-fide beneficiary, accordingly the opp/party consitituted a

committee for examination of disputed identity of the applicant.

The committee after examination the matter submitted its report mentioning their in that the

complainants submitted false information regarding their name, father’s name, address, and age etc and

fraudulently obtained employment in CCL. Accordingly proceeded for misconduct under clause 26.9 and 26.22

of the certified standing order, the opp/party issued charge sheets to the applicants. The issuance of chargesheet

for commission of misconduct is not the change of service condition of an employee.

During the pendency of the case one Mahendra Rajak tried to intervene stating that he is the real

beneficiery and not the persons who is in job as Mahendra Rajak. Though he was not impleaded as party, the

Management was asked to enquire into the matter. During the final hearing the so called intervener filed the

order of the management that the said Mahendra Rajak was dismissed from Job on the ground of impersonator

and fraud . This being the situation there is malafides in giving appointment also.

10.

But from the case it reveals that the M.O.S has not been entered into in clean hands and which is the

out come of ingenuness and fraudulent act. Though this Tribunal thought that the MOS was genuine, now it is

not like that. The case is of 1992, question of impersonation is primafacie seen.

11.

Hence the management is directed to remove all the workman who are in employment on the basis of

MOS pending enquiry. As directed by Higher Court all parties may approach this Tribunal for proper

identification and to restore Industrial peace. For this delicate issue, the Tribunal also proceeded to spot for a

circuit and to hear the matter and also took evidence as adduced by the parties, there.

12.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the application filed by the

complainant is rejected. The Opp.Party is to act upon the award soon after it is published in the official gazettee,

since fraud has no legs to stand for a longer time.

This is my award .

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

484 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल् ली, 24 फरवरी, 2021

का.आ. 183

—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सरकार प्रबंिक / जनिेिक, स्ट्कूिर इंजड ा जलजमिेड, सरोिनी नगर, ल नऊ ( ूृी) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों

और श्री िान्तनु व 154 अन् और श्री मनीष ृवार और 11 अन् और श्री अरुण कुमार, 529 के/444 ृंत नगर,

ुरंम नगर, ल नऊ ( ूृी) कामगार के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक

अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल , ल नऊ के ृंर्ाि (संिभच सं्‍ ा 13/2019) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा

िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को 18.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ ा।

[सं. एल-42011/245/2018-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2021

S.O. 183.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 13/2019) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

Labour Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The Manager/Director, Scooter India Limited, Sarojni Nagar, Lucknow (UP) and Sh. Shantanu & 154 ors &

Sh. Manish Pawar & 11 others Sh. Arun Kumar, 529 K/444 Pant Nagar, Khuramm Nagar, Lucknow, Worker

which was received by the Central Government on 18.02.2021.

[No. L-42011/245/2018 -IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : P. K. SRIVASTAVA, HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 13/2019

Ref. No. L-42011/245/2018-IR(DU) dated 04.02.2019

BETWEEN :

Sh. Shantanu & 154 ors & Sh. Manish Pawar & 11 others

Sh. Arun Kumar, 529 K/444 Pant Nagar, Khurram Nagar

Lucknow – 266022.

Vs.

Manager/Director

Scooter India Limited, Sarojni Nagar

Lucknow – 226008

AWARD

By order No. L-42011/245/2018-IR(DU) dated 04.02.2019, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“KYA PRABANDHAN, SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW DWARA SARV SHRI

SHANTANU VA 154 ANYA AUR SARV SHRI MANISH SINGH PAWAR VA ANYA 11

SUCHIYAN SNLAGN KO UNKE PAD KE ANUSAAR SEVA MEIN NIYAMIT NA KARNA

NYAYOCHIT EVAM VAIDH HAI? YADI NAHI TO KAAMGAAR KIS RAAHAT KO PAANE KA

KAQDAAR HAI?”

The present industrial disputed between Shri Shantanu & 154 others and Shri Manish Pawar & 11 other

and the management of Scooters India Limited had been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication; however, no

list of workmen, as mentioned in the schedule of reference, had been enclosed with the order of reference. The

Statement of Claim had been filed by Shantanu and 142 others only, mentioning their service number.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गुन 15, 1942

485

The case of the workmen, in brief is that the workmen submitted their application for their engagement

as advance trade/diploma trainees in pursuance to notification dated 03.08.2013 of the management; and were

called for interview vie letter dated 30.01.2013. It has been stated that post interview they were selected as

Advance Trade Trainees on different trades for a fixed period of two years at fixed stipend and engagement

letter was issued accordingly. The workmen have stated that after satisfactory completion of term of

engagement, their term for engagement was further extended by two years by a common order, which kept on

extending from time to time for two years’ spell each. The workmen have contended that their selection had

been made in terms of para 1.2.11 of the Standing Order and are working as on date and also getting all befits

like CPF, ESI and other facilities at par with regular employees of the Company, therefore, they are entitled for

regularization under Rules, particularly in terms of the fact that the work and posts are available with the

Company as they have engaged as many as 300 retired employees. Accordingly, the workmen have prayed that

the management be directed to consider their candidature for regularization on their respective posts with all

consequential service benefits.

The management of the Scooters India Limited has disputed the claim of the workmen, filing its

written statement; wherein it has been submitted that the Company was referred to BIFR in the year 2010 due

losses and was out of BIFR in the year 2015 for the losses and in order to overcome the losses Company

inducted Advance Diploma Trainees/Diploma Trainees so that the production and in turn profit of the Company

could be increased. It has been stated by the management that the workmen were inducted in the company as

trainees with fixed stipend @ minimum wages of semi-skilled worker notified by the Central Government per

month with all-inclusive benefits such as CPF & ESI etc.; however, they are not regular employees of the

Company. The management has stated that the applicants are ‘workman’ as per para 1.2.11 of the standing

order of the company, which means any person employed in the company, including an apprentice; but such

apprentices cannot claim regularization. It has also been submitted by the Company that it is Government of

India enterprises and is governed by rules and regulations of Government of India; moreover, the Company is

under heavy loss and being financial condition very critical, the company is undergoing the process of

disinvestment, as such, under circumstances the regularization could not be done. Accordingly, the

management has prayed that the claim of the workmen be rejected being devoid of any merit.

The workmen have filed their rejoinder; wherein have reiterated the facts already mentioned in the

statement of claim.

The parties filed documentary evidence in support of their respective claim and forwarded oral as well

as written submissions.

Heard learned counsel of both the parties at length and perused entire evidence available on record.

The learned counsel for workmen has submitted that the workmen, under dispute, has been inducted in

the Company, initially for two years, in pursuance to notification dated 03.08.2013, issued by the Company, for

engagement of Advance Diploma Trainees after going through the formalities mentioned in the said notification

dated 03.08.2013, the workmen have been inducted for a fixed period of two years on a fixed stipend. It has

been contended by the learned counsel that after expiry of said period of two years, the management kept on

extending their engagement as trainees from time to time in spell of two years till date and has deprived them

from their legitimate right of regularization. The learned counsel has submitted that keeping in view going on

disinvestment process of the Company the right of the workmen, on disinvestment, be protected; moreover, they

are entitled for regularization, as they are ‘workman’ ad defined in para 1.2.11 of the Standing Order and their

selection had been made against substantive posts and have completed the period of probation and their period

of training is being extended from time to time. The learned counsel has argued that the nature of workmen

being performed by the workmen is at par with that of regular employees and the management has engaged as

many as 300 retired employees which shows that posts and work, both is available with the Company; hence the

workmen are entitled for regularization. He has relied upon:

(i)

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1878 of 2016 Oil and Natural Gas Corporation

vs Krishan Gopal & Others decided on 07.02.2020.

10.

In rebuttal, the learned counsel for management has argued that workmen have been engaged as

Advance Trade Trainees of a specific term and their terms of engagement had clearly been mentioned in the

letter engagement, which provided that their service shall stand automatically terminated on the expire of the

period of engagement and the company will have no obligation to offer them any appointment and the workmen

will have no right, lien or preference for any appointment, after the expiry of the training period, in any vacancy

or post which may occur in future. The learned counsel has submitted that workmen were initially engaged for

2 years and thereafter engagement of some of the workmen were extended for 03 months and some were

extended for 06 months and for some this extension for a year, as per need of their training. The learned counsel

has argued that workman have accepted terms and conditions of engagement; and after completion of their

training, their contract was extended for a further fixed period; and having accepted the terms and conditions of

engagement, the workmen cannot claim any benefit. He has relied upon:

486 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(i)

2006 (4) SCC 1 State of Karnataka v. Umadevi

(ii)

2014 (7) SCC 190 Hari Nandan Prasad & another vs Employer I/R To Management of FCI &

another.

11.

Heard intellect submissions of the learned counsel of both the parties and scanned law cited by them

during the course of oral and written submissions.

12.

The workmen have come up with a case that they have been engaged by the management of Scooters

India Limited as Advance Diploma Trainees for a fixed period, initially for a period of two years in the year

2014, after calling for application and conducting an interview; however, the term of engagement is being

extended from time to time and are still working with the opposite parties. It is the specific case of the workmen

that sanctioned posts and work is available there, still the management is not considering them for regularization

and is extending their term of engagement, which amounts to unfair labour practice. The workmen have also

submitted that they are enjoining privileges at par the regular employee, such as CPF, ESI etc. and have

completed their probation period in terms of para 4.2.3 of the Standing Order; hence eligible for consideration

for regularization; moreover, it has also been asserted by the workmen that in the event of disinvestment, their

rights may be protected.

13.

Per contra, the management of the Scooters India Limited has come up with a case that the workman

had been initially been engaged as inducted Advance Diploma Trainees/Diploma Trainees with fixed stipend @

minimum wages of semi-skilled worker notified by the Central Government per month with all-inclusive

benefits such as CPF & ESI etc.; however, they are not regular employees of the Company. The management

has admitted that the applicants are ‘workman’ as per para 1.2.11 of the standing order of the company, which

means any person employed in the company, including an apprentice; but such apprentices cannot claim

regularization. Moreover, it is also the case of the management that it is a Government of India enterprises and

is governed by rules and regulations of Government of India; also the Company is under heavy loss and being

financial condition very critical, the company is undergoing the process of disinvestment, as such, under

circumstances the regularization could not be done.

14.

Having regard to the rival pleadings of the parties, it comes of that the applicants who are admittedly

included in the category of ‘workman’ were engaged as Advance Diploma Trainees/Diploma Trainees, after

calling for applications and inducting interview etc., for a fixed period, with fixed stipend @ minimum wages of

semi-skilled worker notified by the Central Government per month with all-inclusive benefits such as CPF &

ESI etc.; however their period of training had been extended from time to time in spells of two years and most

of them are still working with the Company as trainees. Now the applicant workmen are claiming for their

regularizations as according to them they have successfully completed term of probation and the exercise of

management in extending their term of engagement from time to time amounts to unfair labour practice, more

particularly where there is availability of sanctioned post and work also.

15.

In this connection, it is noteworthy to mention here that the workmen had been engaged as ‘trainees’

for a certain period of time and on completion thereof their term of engagement is being extend from time to

time; however, the term ‘trainee’ has been defied in the clause dealing with the classification of employees,

provided in Standing Order of the Company as follows:

1.3

Classification of Employees

Workmen of the company shall be classified as under:-

1.3.1

Permanent

1.3.2

Probationer

1.2.3

Temporary

1.3.4

Trainee

1.3.5

Casual

1.3.6

Apprentice

1.3.1

“Permanent Workman”………………….

1.3.2

“Probationer” …………………….

1.3.3

“Temporary Workman” ……………..

1.3.4

“Trainee” is a leaner recruited under the Company’s training scheme on a fixed stipend

and will be governed by terms of appointment/agreement bond, executed between the company and

the trainee.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गुन 15, 1942

487

1.3.5

“Casual workman” ……………..

1.3.6

“Apprentice” …………..

The workmen have contended that by virtue of extension of period of their engagement, they have

completed their ‘probation’. The term ‘probation’, provided under Standing Orders of the Company reads

asunder:

“4.2

Probation

1.2.1

The probation period shall be six months for all categories of workman viz.

Unskilled, Semi-skilled and Skilled which period can be extended by further period

not exceeding six months at the discretion of the Manager.

4.2.2

A probationer shall be deemed to continue as such until he is expressly confirmed

in writing.

4.2.3

During the probation period, the services of any workman can be terminated

without notice on either side, without assigning any reason. After satisfactory

completion of probation, about which he will be informed in writing, the notice

period will be one month on either side or pay in lieu thereof.

4.2.4

Satisfactory completion of probation period or otherwise shall depend on the

conduct and performance of the workman during the period of probation including

his achieving the productivity norms set for his job by the management.

It is the case of the workmen that they have successfully competed their mandatory period of

‘probation’, which is for six months only; however the management has not initiated the process of their

regularization just to deprive them of their legitimate rights at par with other regular employees; and his action

of the management amounts to unfair labour practice. The workmen have contended that the practice of unfair

labour practice be checked. As per Section 2(ra) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, unfair labour practice

means any of the practices specified in the Fifth Schedule, which is reproduced hereunder:

Unfair Labour Practice

I.- On the part of employers and trade unions of employers.

10.

To employ workmen as “badalis”, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as

such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent

workmen.

Admittedly, the workmen have been engaged as Advance Diploma Trainees, after advertising the

requirement and taking their interview etc.; however, this enragement was for a period of 02 years only, which

was going to be expired automatically on expiry of said period. It is evident from paper No. M-8/18 that the

term of engagement/contractual service of as many as 139 workmen had been extended for a period of one year

vide order dated 14.01.2016; likewise period of engagement/contractual service of 13 such workmen and 14

workmen, had been extended for one year through separate order dated 04.02.216 and 29.06.2016 respectively.

Thereafter, service contract for further one year was extended in respect of 128 workmen, 13 workmen and 11

workmen through separate order dated 16.01.2016, 08.02.2017 and 16.02.2017. Also, there are other office

orders, on record to show that the management of Scooters India Limited issued orders regarding extension of

contractual service of the workmen for one year each in the in the year 2018, 2019 and even in year 2020 also,

though their number varies in each order as few of them were relieved. The workmen in their statement of

claim have pleaded that the Company has engaged as many as 300 retired employees, meaning thereby there is

availability of work as well as posts, which not denied by the management in its reply; whereby it could be well

inferred that management of the Company that has not only work but also the sanctioned post; but instead of

regularizing the services of the workmen so engaged as Advanced Diploma Trainees, keeps on extended their

term of engagement just to deprive them of their rights at par with the regular employees of the Company,

which amounts to unfair labour practice, quoted herein above.

16.

The management has cited Umadevi’s case, which is not applicable with regard to the industrial

establishments; moreover, the case of Hari Nandan Prasad is not applicable in the present case, the facts being

different. In the Hari Nandan case the appellants were casual workers; where as the workmen in the present

case were duly resituated after following due process. However, Hon’ble Apex Court, in Hari Nandan case has

observed as under:

“29.

A close scrutiny of the two cases, thus, would reveal that the law laid down in those cases is

not contradictory to each other. In U.P. Power Corporation, tis Court has recognized the powers of

the Labour Court and at the same time emphasized that the Labour is to keep in mind that there

488 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

should not be any direction of regularization if this offends the provisions of Art. 14 of the

Constitution, on which judgment in Umadevi is primarily founded. On the other hand, in Bhonde

case, the Court has recognized the principle that having regard to statutory powers conferred upon

the Labour Court/Industrial Court to grant certain reliefs to the workmen, which includes the relief

of giving the status of permanency to the contract employees, such statutory power does not get

denuded by the judgment in Umadevi’s case. It is clear from the reading of this judgment that such

a power is to be exercised when the employer has indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling up

the permanent post even when available and continuing to workers on temporary/daily wage basis

and taking the same work from them and making them some purpose which were performed by the

regular workers but paying them much less wages. It is only when a particular practice is found to

be unfair labour practice as enumerated in Schedule IV of MRTP and PULP Act and it necessitates

giving direction under Section 30 of the said Act, that the Court would give such a direction.

30.

We are conscious of the fact that the aforesaid judgment is rendered under MRTP and

PULP Act and the specific provisions of that Act were considered to ascertain the powers of

conferred upon the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court by the said Act. At the same time, it also

hardly needs to be emphasized the powers of the industrial adjudicator under the Industrial Disputes

Act are equally wide. The Act deals with industrial disputes, provides for conciliation, adjudication

and settlements, and regulates the rights of the parties and the enforcement of the awards and

settlements. Thus, by empowering the adjudicator authorities under the Act, to give reliefs such as a

reinstatement of wrongfully dismissed or discharged workmen, which may not be permissible in

common law or justified under the terms of the contract between the employer and such workmen,

the legislature has attempted to frustrate the unfair labour practices and secure the policy of

collective bargaining as a road to industrial peace.”

In the instant case, there are posts with the Company and it recruited the workmen, after complying

with relevant rules, firstly, for a specified period and kept on extended their period of engagement, taking same

work from them which was performed by the regular workers but paying them less and depriving them facilities

at par with other regular employees, amounts to unfair labour practice.

17.

Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and discussions made hereinabove, the

workmen who falls in the category of ‘workman’ and presently working with the Company, being duly recruited

and having successfully competed their statutory probation period are entitled for regularization from the date

they successfully competed their probation. They shall also be entitled for all services benefits at par with other

regular employees of the Company, including back wages etc.

18.

The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly in favour of the workmen with cost of Rs.

25,000/- payable by the Company to the workmen.

19.

Award as above.

Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

LUCKNOW

29^th January, 2021

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल् ली, 24 फरवरी, 2021

का.आ. 184

—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सरकार जनिेिक, केंरी औषजि अनुसंिान संस्ट् ान, र्तर मंज ल, कजसरबाग, ल नऊ (उ.प्र ) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

जन ोिकों और श्री अिोक कुमार कामगार के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक

अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल , ल नऊ के ृंर्ाि (संिभच सं्‍ ा 60/2007) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा

िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को 18.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ ा।

[सं. एल-42012/57/2007-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गुन 15, 1942

489

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2021

S.O. 184.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 60/2007) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The Director, Central Drug Research Institute Chatar Manzil, Quiserbagh, Lucknow (UP) and Shri Ashok

Kumar Worker which was received by the Central Government on 18.02.2021.

[No. L-42012/57/2007 IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : P. K. SRIVASTAVA, HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 60/2007

Ref. No. L-42012/57/2007-IR(DU) dated 25.10.2007

BETWEEN :

Shri Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Ram Shankar

C/o Shri Sanjay Saxena, 189, New Model House

Lucknow.

The Director

Central Drug Research Institute

Chatar Manzil, Quiserbagh

Lucknow.

AWARD

By order No. L-42012/57/2007-IR(DU) dated 25.10.2007, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF CENTRAL DRUG RESEARCH

INSTITUTE, LUCKNOW, IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF THEIR WORKMAN SHRI

ashok kumar W.E.F. 01.12.1988, IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF

THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?”

The case of the workman, Ashok Kumar, in brief is that he was employed as Helper w.e.f. 01.10.1986

after following due procedure for appointment and was paid salary @ Rs. 18 /- per day. The workman has

submitted that he worked with the management upto 30.11.1988 and completed more than 240 days

continuously in each calendar year of his service; but the management terminated his services w.e.f. 01.12.1988

without any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof or any retrenchment compensation in violation to the provisions

contained in Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman has also alleged that the work is

still available with the management and it has inducted fresh hand in violation to the provisions of Section 25-G

and 25-H of the Act; and accordingly, has prayed that his termination be declared illegal and he be reinstated

with consequential benefits including full back wages.

The management of the Central Drug Research Institute has filed its written statement; wherein it has

submitted that the reference is barred by limitation and does not come within the purview of industrial dispute.

It has also submitted that the CDRI is not ‘industry’ and also this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide the

present matter as the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not application on CDRI and CSIR, New

Delhi. On merits of the case the management has pleaded that the services of the workman had been availed for

a fixed term of period w.e.f. 01.10.1986 on daily wage basis till 15.05.1987 on contractual basis and w.e.f.

16.05.1987 the security arrangement was being carried out by allowing contract to a contractor viz. M/s Ex-

Servicemen Security Group, Lucknow, therefore, the services ow the workman had been discontinued w.e.f.

15.05.1987. The management has submitted that the workman did not complete 240 days in a year preceding 12

months of his alleged termination and there was not violation in discontinuing his services at any point of time.

Accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of any merit.

490 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The workman has filed its rejoinder; wherein it has reiterated the averments already made in the

statement of claim.

The parties filed documents in support of their respective case and adduced oral evidence. The

workman has examined himself; whereas the management examined Sri Krishna Raj Singh, Section Officer, in

support of its case; and the parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of each other. None

turned up on behalf of the management to argue the case; however, the management was afforded opportunity to

file written submission, which it did not avail. The case was reserved keeping in view long pendency of the

case since 2007.

Heard workman and perused entire evidence on record.

The workman has pleaded that he was employed after following due process by the management of

CDRI 01.10.1986 and he worked 30.11.1988 for more than 240 days continuously in each calendar year of his

service; however, his services have been terminated w.e.f. 01.12.1988 without any notice or notice pay in lieu

thereof or any retrenchment compensation in violation to the provisions contained in Section 25 F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman has also pleaded that the managements has retained juniors and

has engaged fresh hand in violation to the provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act.

Per contra, the management has taken preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction of the case before

this Tribunal and the dispute being not industrial dispute and CDRI not being industry within the purview of the

provisions of the Act. Moreover, it has also contended that the workman has engaged on casual basis and his

services had been disengaged when the security arrangements were allotted to a contractor, therefore, there was

no violation to the any of the statutory provision.

10.

Having gone through rival pleadings of the parties and evidence relied upon by them, it is apparent on

the face of record that the management of CDRI has taken various preliminary objection, including lack of

jurisdiction of this Tribunal to adjudicate the present matter, therefor, the same is taken first before entering into

the others issued raised in the present industrial dispute.

In this regard the management has pleaded that the CDRI is a laboratory of Council of Scientific &

Industrial Research, New Delhi (CSIR); and the CSIR being a Society is totally owned and controlled by the

Government of India and has been brought by the Government of India through its extra-ordinary Gazette dated

31.10.1986 under the jurisdiction of Central Administration Tribunal Act, 1985 vide Notification dated

31.10.1986 under the jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.

The Section 14 (2) of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is reproduced as under:

14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal.—

(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall

exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable

immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court³⁹ [***] in relation to—

(a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any All-India Service or to any civil

service of the Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or

in the defence services, being, in either case, a post filled by a civilian;

(b) all service matters concerning—

(i) a member of any All-India Service; or

(ii) a person [not being a member of an All-India Service or a person referred to in

clause (c)] appointed to any civil service of the Union or any civil post under the

Union; or

(iii) a civilian [not being a member of an All-India Service or a person referred to

in clause (c)] appointed to any defence services or a post connected with defence,

and pertaining to the service of such member, person or civilian, in connection

with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority

within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of

any corporation⁴⁰ [or society] owned or controlled by the Government;

(c) all service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the Union

concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in sub-clause (ii) or sub-

clause (iii) of clause (b), being a person whose services have been placed by a State

Government or any local or other authority or any corporation⁴⁰ [or society] or other body,

at the disposal of the Central Government for such appointment.⁴⁰ [Explanation.—For the

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गुन 15, 1942

491

removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that references to “Union” in this sub-section shall

be construed as including references also to a Union territory.]

(2) The Central Government may, by notification, apply with effect from such date as may be

specified in the notification the provisions of sub-section (3) to local or other authorities within the

territory of India or under the control of the Government of India and to corporations⁴⁰ [or

societies] owned or controlled by Government, not being a local or other authority or

corporation⁴⁰ [or society] controlled or owned by a State Government: Provided that if the Central

Government considers it expedient so to do for the purpose of facilitating transition to the scheme as

envisaged by this Act, different dates may be so specified under this sub-section in respect of

different classes of, or different categories under any class of, local or other authorities or

corporations⁴⁰ [or societies].

(3) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall also

exercise, on and from the date with effect from which the provisions of this sub-section apply to any

local or other authority or corporation⁴⁰ [or society], all the jurisdiction, powers and authority

exercisable immediately before that date by all courts (except the Supreme Court³⁹ [***]) in relation

to—

(a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any service or post in connection

with the affairs of such local or other authority or corporation⁴⁰ [or society]; and

(b) all service matters concerning a person [other than a person referred to in clause (a) or

clause (b) of sub-section (1)] appointed to any service or post in connection with the affairs

of such local or other authority or corporation⁴⁰ [or society] and pertaining to the service of

such person in connection with such affairs.

Moreover, the notification dated 31.10.1986 relied upon by the management of CDRI is as follows:

“G.S.R…………..In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 14 of the

Administrative Tribunals act, 1985 (13 of 1985), the Central Government hereby specifies the 17^th

day of November, 1986 be the date on and from which the provisions of sub-section (3) of the

Section 14 of the said Act shall apply to the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, being the

society owned or controlled by Government and makes the following amendments in the notification

of the Government of India in the Ministry of personnel, Public Grievances and Pension

(Department of Personnel & Training) No. G.S.R. 938 dated the 2^nd May, 1986, namely in the said

notification, in the Schedules after serial number 5 and entries relating thereto, the following shall

be inserted namely:-

Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. Society”

[No. A-11019/16/86-AT]

S. K. PARTHASHRTHY; Jt. Secy.”

Thus, from bare perusal of the above quoted provision of the section 14 of the Central Administrative

Tribunals Act, 1985 read with notification dated 31.10.1986, it is clear that the cases pertaining to CDRI, being

a laboratory of Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Delhi (CSIR), comes within the jurisdiction of

the Central Administrative Tribunal in terms of Section 14 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985;

and this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the present industrial dispute referred to it.

11.

Therefore, in light of above findings, the other issues raised in the present industrial dispute by the

parties, are not required to be discussed/adjudicated.

12.

The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

13.

Award as above.

Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.

LUCKNOW

02^nd February, 2021

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

492 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल् ली, 24 फरवरी, 2021

का.आ. 185

—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्री

सरकार जनिेिक, केंरी औषजि अनुसंिान संस्ट् ान र्तर मंज ल, कजसरबाग, ल नऊ (उ.प्र) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

जन ोिकों और श्री कवीन्र प्रसाि िोिी कामगार के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िचष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार

औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल , ल नऊ के ृंर्ाि (संिभच सं्‍ ा 59/2007) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक में

दि ा ा ग ा िज, प्रकाजित करती िज िो केन्री सरकार को 18.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ ा।

[सं. एल-42012/56/2007-आईआर (डी ू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2021

S.O. 185.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 59/2007) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum

Lab our Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The Director, Central Drug Research Institute, Chatar Manzil, Quiserbagh, Lucknow (UP) and Shri Kavindra

Prasad Joshi, Worker which was received by the Central Government on 18.02.2021.

[No. L-42012/56/2007 -IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : P. K. SRIVASTAVA , HJS (Retd.)

I.D. No. 59/2007

Ref. No. L-42012/56/2007-IR(DU) dated 25.10.2007

BETWEEN :

Shri Kavindra Prasad Joshi S/o Shri Basudeo

C/o Shri Sanjay Saxena, 189, New Model House

Lucknow.

The Director

Central Drug Research Institute

Chatar Manzil, Quiserbagh

Lucknow.

AWARD

By order No. L-42012/56/2007-IR(DU) dated 25.10.2007, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is:

“WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF CENTRAL DRUG RESEARCH

INSTITUTE, LUCKNOW, IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF THEIR WORKMAN SHRI

KAVINDRA PRASAD JOSHI W.E.F. 01.12.1988, IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, TO

WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?”

The case of the workman, Kavindra Prasad Joshi, in brief is that he was employed as Helper w.e.f.

01.10.1986 after following due procedure for appointment and was paid salary @ Rs. 18 /- per day. The

workman has submitted that he worked with the management upto 30.11.1988 and completed more than 240

days continuously in each calendar year of his service; but the management terminated his services w.e.f.

01.12.1988 without any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof or any retrenchment compensation in violation to the

provisions contained in Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman has also alleged that

the work is still available with the management and it has inducted fresh hand in violation to the provisions of

Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act; and accordingly, has prayed that his termination be declared illegal and he be

reinstated with consequential benefits including full back wages.

[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गुन 15, 1942

493