1607 GI/2021
(713)
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. 12]
नई दिल् ली, मार्च 21—मार्च 27, 2021 िजनवार/फाल् गुन 30, 1942—र्ैत्र 6, 1943
No. 12] NEW DELHI, MARCH 21– MARCH 27, 2021, SATURDAY/ PHALGUNA 30, 1942 –CHAITRA 6, 1943
इस भाग में जभन् न ृष् सं् ा िी िाती िै 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)
जवत्त मंत्राल
(रािस्ट् व जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 22 मार्च, 2021
का.आ. 288.—केन्री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के
जन म 10 के उृजन म (4) के अनुसरण में रािस्ट्व जवभाग के अिीन, आ ुक् त का का ाचल (ले ा ृरीक्षा)
सी.िी.एस.टी. सेंरल टैक्स, सीमा िुल्क एवं केंरी उत्ृाि िुल्क, भोृाल, जिसके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमचर्ारर ों
ने जिन्िी का का च सािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िै, को अजिसूजर्त करती िै।
[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2017-जिन्िी-2 डीओआर]
डॉ. सतीि र्ंर, जनिेिक (रािभाषा)
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-08042021-226404
CG-DL-W-08042021-226404
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-08042021-226404
CG-DL-W-08042021-226404
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-08042021-226404
CG-DL-W-08042021-226404
714 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 27, 2021/CHAITRA 6, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2021
S.O. 288.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose
of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies, Office of The Commissioner (Audit)
CGST, Central Tax, Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal where more than 80% staff have acquired the working
knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. E-11017/3/2017-Hindi-II DOR]
Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, Director (OL)
नई दिल्ली, 22 मार्च, 2021
का.आ. 289.—केन्री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के
जन म 10 के उृजन म (4) के अनुसरण में रािस्ट्व जवभाग के अिीन, प्रिान आ ुक् त का का ाचल केंरी वस्ट् तु एवं
सेवा कर, ृुणे-I, जिसके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमचर्ारर ों ने जिन्िी का का च सािक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जल ा िै, को
अजिसूजर्त करती िै।
[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2017-जिन्िी-2 डीओआर]
डॉ. सतीि र्ंर, जनिेिक (रािभाषा)
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2021
S.O. 289.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose
of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies, Office of The Pr.Commissioner, Central
goods and service tax, Pune-I, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. E-11017/3/2017-Hindi-II DOR]
Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, Director (OL)
नई दिल्ली, 22 मार्च, 2021
का.आ. 290.—केन्री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के
जन म 10 के उृजन म (4) के अनुसरण में रािस्ट्व जवभाग के अिीन, आ ुक् त का का ाचल केंरी वस्ट् तु सेवा कर व
के.उ. िुल् क (ले ा ृरीक्षा- ाने), मुंबई, जिसके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमचर्ारर ों ने जिन्िी का का च सािक ज्ञान
प्राप् त कर जल ा िै, को अजिसूजर्त करती िै।
[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2017-जिन्िी-2 डीओआर]
डॉ. सतीि र्ंर, जनिेिक (रािभाषा)
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2021
S.O. 290.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose
of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies, Office of The Commissioner, CGST and
C.Ex. Audit Thane, Mumbai, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. E-11017/3/2017-Hindi-II DOR]
Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, Director (OL)
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 27, 2021/र्ैत्र 6, 1943
715
नई दिल्ली, 22 मार्च, 2021
का.आ. 291.—केन्री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के
जन म 10 के उृजन म (4) के अनुसरण में रािस्ट्व जवभाग के अिीन, केंरी अप्रत् क्ष कर एवं सीमा िुल्क बोडच,
जन ाचत संविचन मिाजनिेिाल , नई दिल् ली, जिसके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमचर्ारर ों ने जिन्िी का का च सािक ज्ञान
प्राप्त कर जल ा िै, को अजिसूजर्त करती िै।
[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2017-जिन्िी-2 डीओआर]
डॉ. सतीि र्ंर, जनिेिक (रािभाषा)
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2021
S.O. 291.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose
of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies, Central Board of Indirect Taxes &
Customs Directorate General of Export Promotion, New Delhi, where more than 80% staff have acquired the
working knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. E-11017/3/2017-Hindi-II DOR]
Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, Director (OL)
नई दिल्ली, 22 मार्च, 2021
का.आ. 292.—केन्री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के
जन म 10 के उृजन म (4) के अनुसरण में रािस्ट्व जवभाग के अिीन, आ ुक्त का ाचल केंरी िी.एस.टी. एवं सेंरल
एक् साइि आ ुक् ताल , सूरत, जिसके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमचर्ारर ों ने जिन्िी का का च सािक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर
जल ा िै, को अजिसूजर्त करती िै।
1. का ाचल सिा क आ ुक् त, माल व सेवाकर एवं केंरी उत् ृाि िुल् क, मंडल-I, सूरत
2. का ाचल सिा क आ ुक् त, माल व सेवाकर एवं केंरी उत् ृाि िुल् क, मंडल-II, सूरत
3. का ाचल सिा क आ ुक् त, माल व सेवाकर एवं केंरी उत् ृाि िुल् क, मंडल-III, सूरत
4. का ाचल सिा क आ ुक् त, माल व सेवाकर एवं केंरी उत् ृाि िुल् क, मंडल-IV, सूरत
5. का ाचल सिा क आ ुक् त, माल व सेवाकर एवं केंरी उत् ृाि िुल् क, मंडल-V, सूरत
6. का ाचल सिा क आ ुक् त, माल व सेवाकर एवं केंरी उत् ृाि िुल् क, वलसाड़ मंडल
7. का ाचल सिा क आ ुक् त, माल व सेवाकर एवं केंरी उत् ृाि िुल् क, नवसारी मंडल
8. का ाचल सिा क आ ुक् त, माल व सेवाकर एवं केंरी उत् ृाि िुल् क, ताृी मंडल
9. का ाचल सिा क आ ुक् त, माल व सेवाकर एवं केंरी उत् ृाि िुल् क, वाृी मंडल-I, वाृी
10. का ाचल सिा क आ ुक् त, माल व सेवाकर एवं केंरी उत् ृाि िुल् क, वाृी मंडल-II, वाृी
11. का ाचल सिा क आ ुक् त, माल व सेवाकर एवं केंरी उत् ृाि िुल् क, वाृी मंडल-III, वाृी
12. का ाचल सिा क आ ुक् त, माल व सेवाकर एवं केंरी उत् ृाि िुल् क, उम् बरगांव मंडल
[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2017-जिन्िी-2 डीओआर]
डॉ. सतीि र्ंर, जनिेिक (रािभाषा)
716 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 27, 2021/CHAITRA 6, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2021
S.O. 292.— In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose
of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies, C.G.S.T & Central Excise
Commissionerate, Surat, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
1. Office Assistant Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Division-I, Surat
2. Office Assistant Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Division -II, Surat
3. Office Assistant Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Division-III, Surat
4. Office Assistant Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Division-IV, Surat
5. Office Assistant Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Division-V, Surat
6. Office Assistant Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Valsad Division
7. Office Assistant Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Navsari Division
8. Office Assistant Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Tapi Division
9. Office Assistant Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Vapi Division-I, Vapi
10. Office Assistant Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Vapi Division-II, Vapi
11. Office Assistant Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Division-III, Vapi
12. Office Assistant Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Umargam Division
[F. No. E-11017/3/2017-Hindi-II DOR]
Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, Director (OL)
नई दिल्ली, 22 मार्च, 2021
का.आ. 293.—केन्री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के
जन म 10 के उृजन म (4) के अनुसरण में रािस्ट्व जवभाग के अिीन, मु् आ ुक्त का ाचल केंरी माल एवं
सेवाकर, र्ंडीगढ़ (क्षेत्र), जिसके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमचर्ारर ों ने जिन्िी का का च सािक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जल ा िै,
को अजिसूजर्त करती िै।
[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2017-जिन्िी-2 डीओआर]
डॉ. सतीि र्ंर, जनिेिक (रािभाषा)
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2021
S.O. 293.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose
of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies, Office of The Chief Commissioner of
Central goods and services tax (Chandigarh Region), Chandigarh, where more than 80% staff have acquired the
working knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. E-11017/3/2017-Hindi-II DOR]
Dr. SATISH CHANDRA, Director (OL)
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 27, 2021/र्ैत्र 6, 1943
717
(जवत्ती सेवाएं जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 22 मार्च, 2021
का.आ. 294.—बीमांकक अजिजन म, 2006 (2006 का 35) की िारा 12 की उृ-िारा (2) के ंड ( )
(iii) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केन्री सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, सुश्री िजक्षता िास के स्ट् ान ृर श्री अजमत
अग्रवाल, अृर सजर्व, जवत्ती सेवाएं जवभाग को तत्काल प्रभाव से, अगले आिेिों तक, भारती बीमांकक संस्ट् ान
की ृररषि के सिस्ट् के प ृ में नाजमत करती िै।
[फा. सं. एम-18013/01/2011-बीमा-I]
जवनोि कुमार, अवर सजर्व
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2021
S.O. 294.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) (iii) of sub-section (2) of Section 12 of
the Actuaries Act, 2006 (35 of 2006), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Amit Agrawal, Additional
Secretary, Department of Financial Services as a member of the Council of the Institute of Actuaries of India
vice Ms. Dakshita Das with immediate effect, till further orders.
[F. No. M-18013/01/2011-Ins.I]
VINOD KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 22 मार्च, 2021
का.आ. 295.—बीमांकक अजिजन म, 2006 (2006 का 35) की िारा 12 की उृ-िारा (2) के ंड ( )
(i) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केन्री सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, जवत्त मंत्राल का प्रजतजनजित्व करने के जलए
श्री लजलत कुमार के स्ट् ान ृर श्री सुिीर श् ाम, आर् चक सलािकार, जवत्ती सेवाएं जवभाग को तत्काल प्रभाव से,
अगले आिेिों तक, भारती बीमांकक संस्ट् ान की ृररषि के सिस्ट् के प ृ में नाजमत करती िै।
[फा. सं. एम-18013/01/2011-बीमा-I]
जवनोि कुमार, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2021
S.O. 295.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the
Actuaries Act, 2006 (35 of 2006), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Sudhir Shyam, Economic
Advisor, Department of Financial Services as a member of the Council of the Institute of Actuaries of India to
represent the Ministry of Finance vice Shri Lalit Kumar with immediate effect, till further orders.
[F. No. M-18013/01/2011-Ins.I]
VINOD KUMAR, Under Secy.
आिेि
नई दिल्ली, 23 मार्च, 2021
का.आ. 296.—केन्री सरकार, बैंककारी जवजन मन अजिजन म, 1949 (1949 का 10) की िारा 22 की
उृ-िारा (5) के उृबंिों के अंतगचत बैंककंग कंृनी (सिकारी बैंकों को छोड़कर) द्वारा की िाने वाली अृील के संबंि
में जनणच लेने के जलए श्री ृंकि िैन, अृर सजर्व, जवत्ती सेवाएं जवभाग, जवत्त मंत्राल , भारत सरकार को
नामोदिष्ट करती िै। इसे आम सूर्ना के जलए प्रकाजित दक ा िाता िै।
[फा. सं. 7/103/2020-बीओए-I]
ज्ञानोतोष रा , अवर सजर्व
718 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 27, 2021/CHAITRA 6, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ORDER
New Delhi, the 23rd March, 2021
S.O. 296.—Shri Pankaj Jain, Additional Secretary in the Department of Financial Services, Ministry of
Finance, Government of India is designated by the Central Government to decide the appeal of a banking
company (other than a co-operative bank), preferred under the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 22 of the
Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949). This is published for general information.
[F. No. 7/103/2020-BOA.I]
JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.
जविेि मंत्राल
(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)
नई दिल् ली, 14 मार्च, 2021
का.आ. 297—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के
ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि ।
एतद्द्वारा, केंर सरकार भारत के िूतावास मैजिड में श्री ुवराि ससंि हुड्डा सिा क अनुभाग अजिकारी को
दिनांक 14 मार्च 2021 से सिा क कोंसुलर अजिकारी के तौर ृर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवचिन के जलए प्राजिकषत
करती िै।
[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2020]
जव्णु कुमार िमाच, जनिेिक (सीृीवी)
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 14th March, 2021
S.O. 297.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers
(Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Yuvraj Singh Hooda,
Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Embassy of India Madrid, to perform the Consular
services with effect from 14.03.2021.
[F. No. T.4330/01/2020]
VISHNU KUMAR SHARMA, Director (CPV)
नई दिल् ली, 14 मार्च, 2021
का.आ. 298.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के
ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि ।
एतद्द्वारा, केंर सरकार भारत के िूतावास मास्ट्को में श्री अरुण कुमार जनिी सिा क को दिनांक 14 मार्च
2021 से सिा क कोंसुलर अजिकारी के तौर ृर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवचिन के जलए प्राजिकषत करती िै।
[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2015]
जव्णु कुमार िमाच, जनिेिक (सीृीवी)
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 27, 2021/र्ैत्र 6, 1943
719
New Delhi, the 14th March, 2021
S.O. 298.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers
(Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Arun Kumar, Personal
Assistant as Assistant Consular Officer in Embassy of India Moscow, to perform the Consular services with
effect from 14.03.2021.
[F. No. T. 4330/01/2015]
VISHNU KUMAR SHARMA, Director (CPV)
नई दिल् ली, 16 मार्च, 2021
का.आ. 299.—रािनज क और कोंसुली अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजन म, 1948 की िारा 2 के
ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि ।
एतद्द्वारा, केंर सरकार भारत के िूतावास, िनोई में श्री िीृक कुमार जत्रृा ी और श्री उमेि ृंत सिा क
अनुभाग अजिकारी को दिनांक 16 मार्च 2021 से सिा क कोंसुलर अजिकारी के तौर ृर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवचिन
के जलए प्राजिकषत करती िै।
[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2017]
जव्णु कुमार िमाच, जनिेिक (सीृीवी)
New Delhi, the 16th March, 2021
S.O. 299.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers
(Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Deepak Kumar Tripathy
and Shri Umesh Pant, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in Embassy of India, Hanoi to
perform the Consular services with effect from 16.03.2021.
[F. No. T. 4330/01/2017]
VISHNU KUMAR SHARMA, Director (CPV)
स्ट्वास्ट्् और ृररवार कल् ाण मंत्राल
(स्ट् वास्ट् ् और ृररवार कल् ाण जवभाग)
नई दिल् ली, 19 फरवरी, 2021
का.आ. 300.—िंतजर्दकत्सक अजिजन म, 1948 (1948 का 16) की िारा 3 के तित प्रित्त िजक्त ों का
प्र ोग करते हुए, केंर सरकार स्ट्वास्ट्् और ृररवार कल् ाण मंत्राल सं., का.आ. 430 दिनांदकत 24 िनवरी,
1984 में भारत सरकार की अजिसूर्ना में एतद्द्वारा जनम्नजलज त संिोिन करती िै, अ ाचत:
2.
“िारा 3 के ंड (ङ) के अंतगचत नाजमत” िीषच के तित उक्त अजिसूर्ना में जनम्नजलज त को इसमें
अन्त: स्ट् ाजृत दक ा िाएगा, अ ाचत:
सिस्ट् का नाम
प्रकार
राज् का प्रजतजनजित्व से प्रभावी
डॉ.
रािीव
गुप्ता,
बीडीएस,
एमडीएस, 504/11, जतवारी गली,
कै ल-136027, िरर ाणा
नाजमत
िरर ाणा
13.08.2020
[फा. सं. वी.12025/167/2020-डीई]
कुमार प्रणव, अवर सजर्व
720 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 27, 2021/CHAITRA 6, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of Health and Family Welfare)
New Delhi, the 19th February, 2021
S.O. 300.—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:
2.
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. Rajeev Gupta, BDS, MDS, 504/11,
Tiwari Street, Kaithal – 136 027,
Haryana
Nominated
Haryana
13.08.2020
[F. No. V. 12025/167/2020-DE]
KUMAR PRANAV, Under Secy.
नई दिल् ली, 24 फरवरी, 2021
का.आ. 301.—िंत जर्दकत् सा अजिजन म, 1948 (1948 का 16) की िारा 3 के अंतगचत प्रित् त िजक्त ों
का प्र ोग करते हुए, केंर सरकार एतिद्वारा भारत सरकार, स्ट् वास्ट् ् एवं ृररवार कल् ाण मंत्राल की दिनांक
24 िनवरी, 1984 की अजिसूर्ना सं् ा का.आ. 430 में जनम् नजलज त संिोिन करती िै, नामत:
2. उक् त अजिसूर्ना में, ‘िारा 3 के ड (ड.) के अंतगचत नाजमत’ िीषच के तित उसमें जनम् नजलज त प्रजवजष्ट की
िाएगी, नामत:
सिस्ट् का नाम
जवजि
प्रजतजनजित् व वाला राज्
प्रभावी िोने की तारी
डॉ. प्रमोि कुमार गांरा, प्रोफेसर एवं
जवभागाध् क्ष, ओरल और मेक् सील् लोफेजस ल
सिचरी जवभाग, श्री बालािी डेन् टल कॉलेि,
मोइनाबाि, रंगा रेड्डी जिला, तेलंगाना
नाजमत
तेलंगाना
17.12.2020
[फा. सं. वी.12025/1/2021-डीई]
कुमार प्रणव, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 24th February, 2021
S.O. 301.—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:
2.
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. Pramod Kumar Gandra, Professor
& HOD,
Deptt. Of Oral & Maxillofacial
Surgery,
Sri Balaji Dental College, Moianabad,
Ranga Reddy District, Telangana
Nominated
Telangana
17.12.2020
[F. No. V. 12025/1/2021-DE]
KUMAR PRANAV, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 27, 2021/र्ैत्र 6, 1943
721
नई दिल् ली, 3 मार्च, 2021
का.आ. 302.—िंत जर्दकत् सा अजिजन म, 1948 (1948 का 16) की िारा 3 के अंतगचत प्रित् त िजक्त ों
का प्र ोग करते हुए, केंर सरकार एतिद्वारा भारत सरकार, स्ट् वास्ट् ् एवं ृररवार कल् ाण मंत्राल की दिनांक
24 िनवरी, 1984 की अजिसूर्ना सं् ा का.आ. 430 में जनम् नजलज त संिोिन करती िै, नामत:
2. उक् त अजिसूर्ना में, ‘‘िारा 3 के ड (घ) के अंतगचत जनवाचजर्त’’ िीषच के तित उसमें जनम् नजलज त प्रजवजष्ट की
िाएगी, नामत:
सिस्ट् का नाम
माध् म
प्रजतजनजि जवश् वजव्ाल
दिनांक से प्रभावी
‘’प्रोफेसर (डॉ.) संि ससंि, डीन, िंत
जर्दकत् सा
संका ,
िाजम ा
जमजल ा
इस्ट् लाजम ा, नई दिल् ली
नाजमत
िाजम ा जमजल ा इस्ट् लाजम ा,
जवश् वजव्ाल नई दिल् ली
02.01.2021
[फा. सं. वी.12025/15/2021-डीई]
कुमार प्रणव, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2021
S.O. 302.—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:
2.
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.
“Prof. (Dr.) Sanjay Singh, Dean,
Faculty of Dentistry, Jamia Millia
Islamia, New Delhi
Elected
Jamia Millia Islamia University,
New Delhi
02.01.2021”
[F. No. V. 12025/15/2021-DE]
KUMAR PRANAV, Under Secy.
नई दिल् ली, 5 मार्च, 2021
का.आ. 303.—िंत जर्दकत् सा अजिजन म, 1948 (1948 का 16) की िारा 3 के अंतगचत प्रित् त िजक्त ों
का प्र ोग करते हुए, केंर सरकार एतिद्वारा भारत सरकार, स्ट् वास्ट् ् एवं ृररवार कल् ाण मंत्राल की दिनांक
24 िनवरी, 1984 की अजिसूर्ना सं् ा का.आ. 430 में जनम् नजलज त संिोिन करती िै, नामत:
2. उक् त अजिसूर्ना में, ‘िारा 3 के ड (घ) के अंतगचत नाजमत’ िीषच के तित उसमें जनम् नजलज त प्रजवजष्ट की िाएगी,
नामत:
सिस्ट् का नाम
जवजि
प्रजतजनजि
जवश् वजव्ाल
प्रभावी िोने की
तारी
‘‘डॉ. आर.के जतवारी, प्रिानार्ा च एवं प्रोफेसर,
डॉ. जिआउद्दीन अिमि डेन् टल कॉलेि, मेजडजसन
संका , अलीगढ़ मुजस्ट्लम जवश् वजव्ाल , अलीगढ़,
उत् तर प्रिेि
नाजमत
अलीगढ़ मुजस्ट्लम
जवश् वजव्ाल ,
अलीगढ़, उत् तर प्रिेि
02.12.2018
[फा. सं. वी.12025/4/2021-डीई]
कुमार प्रणव, अवर सजर्व
722 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 27, 2021/CHAITRA 6, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 5th March, 2021
S.O. 303.—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:
2.
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. R. K. Tiwari,
Principal & Professor,
Dr. Ziauddin Ahmed Dental College,
Faculty of Medicine, Aligarh Muslim
University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh
Elected
Aligarh
Muslim
University,
Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh
02.12.2018”
[F. No. V. 12025/4/2021-DE]
KUMAR PRANAV, Under Secy.
नई दिल् ली, 9 मार्च, 2021
का.आ. 304.—िंत जर्दकत् सा अजिजन म, 1948 (1948 का 16) की िारा 3 के अंतगचत प्रित् त िजक्त ों
का प्र ोग करते हुए, केंर सरकार एतिद्वारा भारत सरकार, स्ट् वास्ट् ् एवं ृररवार कल् ाण मंत्राल की दिनांक
24 िनवरी, 1984 की अजिसूर्ना सं् ा का.आ. 430 में जनम् नजलज त संिोिन करती िै, नामत:
2. उक् त अजिसूर्ना में, ‘िारा 3 के ड (ड.) के अंतगचत नाजमत’ िीषच के तित उसमें जनम् नजलज त प्रजवजष्ट की
िाएगी, नामत:
सिस्ट् का नाम
जवजि
प्रजतजनजित् व वाला राज्
प्रभावी िोने की तारी
डॉ. उि वीर गांिी, सिस्ट् , ृजिम बंगाल
िंत जर्दकत् सा ृररषि, ृूताच भवन, कमरा सं.
303, तीसरा तल, साल् ट लेक जसटी,
कोलकत् ता-700091, ृजिम बंगाल
नाजमत
ृजिम बंगाल
01.06.2020
[फा. सं. वी-12025/125/2020-डीई]
कुमार प्रणव, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 9th March, 2021
S.O. 304.—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:
2.
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. Udey Vir Gandhi,
Member, West Bengal Dental Council,
Purta Bhawan, room No.303, 3rd Floor,
Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700 091,
West Bengal
Nominated
West Bengal
01.06.2020
[F. No. V. 12025/125/2020-DE]
KUMAR PRANAV, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 27, 2021/र्ैत्र 6, 1943
723
जव्ुत मंत्राल
नई दिल् ली, 19 मार्च, 2021
का.आ. 305.—केंरी सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के
जन म 10 के उृ जन म (4) के अनुसरण में जव्ुत मंत्राल के प्रिासजनक जन ंत्रणािीन ृावर जग्रड कारृोरेिन
ऑफ इंजड ा जलजमटेड के जनम् नजलज त का ाचल ों जिनके 80 प्रजतित कमचर्ारीवषंि ने सिंिी का का चसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त
कर जल ा िै, को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजर्त करती िै:-
1. ृावर जग्रड कारृोरेिन ऑफ इंजड ा जलजमटेड,
765/400 के.वी. ृूसलंग स्ट्टेिन एवं + 800 के.वी. एर्वीडीसी टर्मचनल, र्ांृा
ग्राम – तागा, तिसील – अकलतारा,
जिला – िांिजगर – र्ांृा, 495668 (छत्तीसगढ़)
2.
ृावर जग्रड कारृोरेिन ऑफ इंजड ा जलजमटेड,
765/400 के.वी. जिक्राृुर उृकेंर,
इंजड न ऑ ल ृम्ृ के सामने, कसारी फाटा,
ृुणे-अिमिनगर िाईवे,
जिक्राृुर-412208 (मिाराष्ट्र)
3.
ृावर जग्रड कारृोरेिन ऑफ इंजड ा जलजमटेड,
765/400 के.वी. तमनार ृूसलंग उृकेंर,
तमनार के नििीक, ग्राम भेंरा, रा गढ़ रोड,
घरघोड़ा बा ृास प्वाइंट के सामने,
जिला – रा गढ़, 496111 (छत्तीसगढ़)
[फा. सं. 11011/9/2017-सिंिी]
राि ृाल, वररष्ठ सलािकार
MINISTRY OF POWER
New Delhi, the 19 March, 2021
S.O. 305.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official
Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify the following offices of the Power
Grid Corporation of India Limited under the administrative control of Ministry of Power, where 80% of the staff
have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:
1. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited,
765/400 KV Pooling Station & +800 KV HVDC Terminal, Champa
Village: Taga, Tehsil: Akaltara,
Distt: Janjgir-Champa, 495668 (Chhattisgarh)
2.
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited,
765/400 K.V. Shikrapur Sub-Station,
Opp. Indian Oil Pump, Kasari Phata,
Pune-Ahmednagar Highway,
Shikrapur-412208 (Maharashtra)
3.
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited,
765/400 KV Tamnar Pooling Sub-Station,
Near Tamnar, Village: Bhendra, Raigarh Road,
Gharghoda (Opp. Gharghoda Bypass Point),
Distt. Raigarh – 496111 (Chhattisgarh)
[F. No.11011/9/2017-Hindi]
RAJ PAL, Senior Adviser
724 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 27, 2021/CHAITRA 6, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
उृभोक् ता मामले, ा् और सावचिजनक जवतरण मंत्राल
( ा् और सावचिजनक जवतरण जवभाग)
नई दिल् ली, 23 मार्च, 2021
का.आ. 306.—केन् री सरकार रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के
जन म 10 के उृ जन म (4) के अनुसरण में उृभोक् ता मामले, ा् और सावचिजनक जवतरण मंत्राल ( ा् और
सावचिजनक जवतरण जवभाग) के प्रिासजनक जन ंत्रणािीन जनम्नजलज त का ाचल , जिसके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक
कमचर्ारीवषन् ि ने जिन् िी का का चसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िै, को रािृत्र में अजिसूजर्त करती िै:-
1.
: भारती ा् जनगम
मंडल का ाचल , नलगोंडा
(तेलंगाना क्षेत्र के अंतगचत)
[फा. सं. ई-11011/1/2008-जिन् िी (321924)]
मुक् ता िे र, सं ुक् त सजर्व
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Food and Public Distribution)
New Delhi, the 23rd March, 2021
S.O. 306.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose
of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the
administrative control of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution (Department of Food &
Public Distribution), whereof more than 80% of staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:
1.
:
Food Corporation of India
Divisional Office, Nalgonda
(under Telangan Region)
[F. No. E-11011/1/2008-Hindi (321924)]
MUKTA SHEKHAR, Jt. Secy.
नागर जवमानन मंत्राल
नई दिल्ली, 22 मार्च, 2021
का.आ. 307.—केन् री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग), जन म, 1976 के
जन म-10 के उृ-जन म (4) के अनुसरण में, नागर जवमानन मंत्राल के अंतगचत भारती जवमानृत् तन प्राजिकरण के
जनम् नजलज त का ाचल ों, जिनमें 80 प्रजतित कार्मचकों द्वारा सिंिी का का चसािक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जल ा ग ा िै, को
एतद्द्वारा अजिसूजर्त करती िै।
1. भारती जवमानृत् नन प्राजिकरण, क्षेत्री मु् ाल िजक्षणी क्षेत्र, र्ेन् नई ।
2. भारती जवमानृत् तन प्राजिकरण, बेंगलुप िवाईअड्डा
[फा. सं. ई. 11014/9/2015-रा.भा.]
अंिुमाली रस्ट् तोगी, सं ुक् त सजर्व
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 27, 2021/र्ैत्र 6, 1943
725
MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2021
S.O. 307.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for the Official
Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies the following offices of the
Airports Authority of India, under Ministry of Civil Aviation, where 80% staff have acquired the working
knowledge of Hindi.
1. Airports Authority of India, Regional Headquarters Southern Region, Chennai
2. Airports Authority of India, Bengluru Airport.
[F. No. E-11014/9/2015-OL]
ANGSHUMALI RASTOGI, Jt. Secy.
श्रम और रोिगार मंत्राल
नई दिल्ली, 17 मार्च, 2021
का.आ. 308.—केन्री सरकार, कमचर्ारी राज् बीमा अजिजन म, 1948 (1948 का 34) की िारा 91क
के सा ृर त िारा 88 द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, आईआरईएल (भारत) जलजमटेड के कार ानों और
स्ट् ाृनों के जन जमत कमचर्ारर ों को उक्त अजिजन म के प्रर्ालन से छूट प्रिान करती िै। ि छूट रािृत्र में इस
vf/klwpuk ds tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy-, प्रभावी jgsxhA
2.
उक्त छूट जनम्नजलज त ितों के अध् िीन िै; अ ाचत्:-
(1)
कार ाना और स्ट् ाृना छूट प्राप्त कमचर्ारर ों के नाम और ृिनाम जवजनर्िचष्ट करते हुए, कमचर्ारर ों का
एक रजिस्ट्टर र ेगी;
(2)
कमचर्ारी उक्त अजिजन म के अिीन ऐसे फा िे प्राप्त करते रिेंगे जिनको ृाने के जलए वे इस अजिसूर्ना
द्वारा िी गई छूट प्रिान करने की तारी से ृूवच संित्त अंििानों के आिार ृर िकिार िो िाते िैं;
(3)
छूट प्राप्त अवजि के जलए, दि कोई अजभिा ृिले िी दकए िा र्ुके िों, तो वे वाृस निीं दकए िाएंगे;
(4)
उक्त कार ाने और स्ट् ाृना का जन ोिक उस अवजि की बाबत जिसके िौरान उस कार ाने ृर उक्त
अजिजन म (जिसे इसमें इसके ृिात उक्त अवजि किा ग ा िै) प्रर्ालन के अध् िीन ा ऐसी
जववरजण ां, ऐसे प्रप ृ में और ऐसी जवजिजष्ट ों से ुक्त िोगी िो कमचर्ारी राज् बीमा (सािारण)
जवजन म, 1950 के अिीन उसे उक्त अवजि की बाबत िेनी अृेजक्षत िोती ीं;
(5)
उक्त अजिजन म की िारा 45 की उृ िारा (1) के अिीन जनगम द्वारा जन ुक्त दक ा ग ा कोई
सामाजिक सुरक्षा अजिकारी ा इस प्र ोिन के जलए जनगम का इस जनजमत्त प्राजिकषत कोई अन्
ृििारी-
(i)
उक्त अजिजन म की िारा 44 की उृ िारा (1) के अिीन, उक्त अवजि के जलए प्रस्ट्तुत दकसी
जववरणी में अंतर्वचष्ट जवजिष्ट ों को सत् ाजृत करने; ा
(ii)
ि अजभजनि न के जलए दक कमचर्ारी राज् बीमा (सािारण) जवजन म, 1950 द्वारा
ाअृेजक्षत रजिस्ट्टर और अजभले उक्त अवजि के जलए र े ग े े ा निीं; ा
726 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 27, 2021/CHAITRA 6, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(iii) ि अजभजनि न के जलए दक कमचर्ारी, जन ोिक द्वारा दि े गए उन फा िों को, जिसके
फलस्ट्वप ृ इस अजिसूर्ना के अिीन छूट िी िा रिी िै, नकि में और वस्ट्तु प ृ में ृाने का
िकिार िै ा निीं; ा
(iv)
ि अजभजनि न के जलए दक उस अवजि के िौरान, िब उक्त कार ाने और स्ट् ाृना के संबंि में
अजिजन म के उृबंि प्रवषत्त े, ऐसे दकन्िीं उृबंिों का अनुृालन दक ा ग ा ा ा निीं,
जनम्नजलज त का च करने के जलए सिक्त िोगा-
(क) प्रिान ा अव्यवजित जन ोिक से अृेक्षा करना दक वि उसे ऐसी िानकारी िे जिसे इस
अजिजन म के प्र ोिन के जलए आवश् क समझता िै ; ा
( ) ऐसे प्रिान ा अव्यवजित जन ोिक के अजिभोगािीन, दकसी कार ाने, स्ट् ाृना,
का ाचल ा अन् ृररसर में दकसी भी उजर्त सम ृर प्रवेि करना और उसके प्रभारी
से ि अृेक्षा करना दक वि कार्मचक के जन ोिन और मििूरी के संिा से संबंजित ऐसे
ले ा, बजि ां और अन् िस्ट्तावेि, ऐसे जनरीक्षक ा अन् ृििारी के समक्ष प्रस्ट्तुत करें
और उनकी ृरीक्षा करने िें ा ऐसी िानकारी िें जिसे वे आवश् क समझते िैं; ा
(ग) प्रिान ा अव्यवजित जन ोिक की, उसके अजभकताच ा सेवक की, ा ऐसे दकसी व्यजक्त
को, िो ऐसे कार ाने, स्ट् ाृना, का ाचल ा अन् ृररसर में ृा ा िाए, ि जवश्वास
करने का ुजक्त ुक्त कारण िै दक वि कमचर्ारी िै, ृरीक्षा करना; ा
(घ) ऐसे कार ाने, स्ट् ाृना, का ाचल ा अन् ृररसर में र े गए दकसी रजिस्ट्टर, ले ा,
बिी ा अन् िस्ट्तावेि की नकल तै ार करना ा उद्धरण लेना;
(ङ) ाजस्ट् जत अन् िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करना ।
6.
जवजनवेि ा जनगमीकरण के मामले में, प्रिान की गई छूट स्ट्वत: रद्द िो िाएगी और तब नई इकाई को छूट के
जलए समुजर्त सरकार को आवेिन करना िोगा ।
[सं. एस-38014/02/2021-एस एस-I]
मिन र्ौरजस ा, अवर सजर्व
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2021
S.O. 308.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 88 read with section 91 A of the Employees’
State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of
factories and establishments of IREL (India) Limited from the operation of the said Act. The exemption shall
be effective for a period of one year from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.
2.
The exemption is subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(1) the factories and establishments shall maintain a register of the employees specifying the names
and designations of the exempted employees;
(2) the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act to which they would
have been entitled to on the basis of the contribution paid prior to the date from which exemption
granted by this notification operates;
(3) the contribution for the exempted period, if already paid, shall not be refundable;
(4) the employer of the said factory and establishment shall submit in respect of the period during
which that factory was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 27, 2021/र्ैत्र 6, 1943
727
period), such returns in such forms and containing such particulars as were due from it in respect
of the said period under the Employees’ State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950;
(5)
a Social Security Officer appointed by the Corporation under sub-section (1) of section 45 of the
said Act or other official of the Corporation authorised in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose
of —
(i)
verifying the particulars contained in any return submitted under sub-section (1) of
section 44 of the said Act for the said period; or
(ii)
ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the
Employees’ State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or
(iii)
ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to the benefits provided by
the employer in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is
being granted under this notification; or
(iv)
ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Act had been complied with during the
period when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory and
establishment to be empowered to —
(a) require the principal or immediate employer to him such information as he may
consider necessary for the purpose of this Act; or
(b) at any reasonable time enter any factory, establishment, office or other premises
occupied by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and
require any person found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other
official and allow him to examine accounts, books and other documents relating to
the employment of personal and payment of wages or to furnish to him such
information as he may consider necessary; or
(c) examine the principal or immediate employer, his agent or servant, or any person
found in such factory, establishment, office or other premises or any person whom
the said inspector or other official has reasonable cause to believe to have been an
employee ; or
(d) make copies of or take extracts from any register, account book or other
document maintained in such factory, establishment, office or other premises;
or
(e) exercise such other powers as may be specified.
(6)
in case of disinvestment or corporatisation, the exemption granted shall stand cancelled and then the
new entity may apply to the appropriate Government for exemption.
[No. S-38014/02/2021-SS-I]
MADAN CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 17 मार्च, 2021
का.आ. 309.—केन्री सरकार, कमचर्ारी राज् बीमा अजिजन म, 1948 (1948 का 34) की िारा 91क
के सा ृर त िारा 88 द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, राष्ट्री केजमकल्स एंड फटीलाइज़सच जलजमटेड
(रॉम्बे ूजनट) के कार ानों और स्ट् ाृनाओं के जन जमत कमचर्ारर ों को उक्त अजिजन म के प्रर्ालन से छूट प्रिान
करती िै। ि छूट रािृत्र में इस अजिसूर्ना के प्रकाजित gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, प्रभावी
jgsxhA
2.
उक्त छूट जनम्नजलज त ितों के अिीन िै; अ ाचत्:-
(1) कार ाना और स्ट् ाृना छूट प्राप्त कमचर्ारर ों के नाम और ृिनाम जवजनर्िचष्ट करते हुए, कमचर्ारर ों
का एक रजिस्ट्टर र ेगी;
728 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 27, 2021/CHAITRA 6, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(2) कमचर्ारी उक्त अजिजन म के अिीन ऐसे फा िे प्राप्त करते रिेंगे जिनको ृाने के जलए वे इस
अजिसूर्ना द्वारा िी गई छूट प्रिान करने की तारी से ृूवच संित्त अंििानों के आिार ृर िकिार िो
िाते िैं;
(3) छूट प्राप्त अवजि के जलए, दि कोई अजभिा ृिले िी दकए िा र्ुके िों, तो वे वाृस निीं दकए
िाएंगे;
(4) उक्त कार ाने और स्ट् ाृना का जन ोिक उस अवजि की बाबत जिसके िौरान उस कार ाने ृर उक्त
अजिजन म (जिसे इसमें इसके ृिात उक्त अवजि किा ग ा िै) प्रर्ालन के अध् िीन ा ऐसी
जववरजण ां, ऐसे प्रप ृ में और ऐसी जवजिजष्ट ों से ुक्त िोगी िो कमचर्ारी राज् बीमा (सािारण)
जवजन म, 1950 के अिीन उसे उक्त अवजि की बाबत िेनी अृेजक्षत िोती ीं;
(5) उक्त अजिजन म की िारा 45 की उृ िारा (1) के अिीन जनगम द्वारा जन ुक्त दक ा ग ा कोई
सामाजिक सुरक्षा अजिकारी ा इस प्र ोिन के जलए जनगम का इस जनजमत्त प्राजिकषत कोई अन्
ृििारी-
(i) उक्त अजिजन म की िारा 44 की उृ िारा (1) के अिीन, उक्त अवजि के जलए प्रस्ट्तुत दकसी
जववरण में अंतर्वचष्ट जवजिष्ट ों को सत् ाजृत करने; ा
(ii) ि अजभजनि न के जलए दक कमचर्ारी राज् बीमा (सािारण) जवजन म, 1950 द्वारा
ाअृेजक्षत रजिस्ट्टर और अजभले उक्त अवजि के जलए र े ग े े ा निीं; ा
(iii) ि अजभजनि न के जलए दक कमचर्ारी, जन ोिक द्वारा दि े गए उन फा िों को, जिसके
फलस्ट्वप ृ इस अजिसूर्ना के अिीन छूट िी िा रिी िै, नकि में और वस्ट्तु प ृ में ृाने का
िकिार िै ा निीं; ा
(iv) ि अजभजनि न के जलए दक उस अवजि के िौरान, िब उक्त कार ाने और स्ट् ाृना के संबंि में
अजिजन म के उृबंि प्रवषत्त े, ऐसे दकन्िीं उृबंिों का अनुृालन दक ा ग ा ा ा निीं,
जनम्नजलज त का च करने के जलए सिक्त िोगा-
(क) प्रिान ा अव्यवजित जन ोिक से अृेक्षा करना दक वि उसे ऐसी िानकारी िे जिसे इस
अजिजन म के प्र ोिन के जलए आवश् क समझता िै ; ा
( ) ऐसे प्रिान ा अव्यवजित जन ोिक के अजिभोगािीन, दकसी कार ाने, स्ट् ाृना,
का ाचल ा अन् ृररसर में दकसी भी उजर्त सम ृर प्रवेि करना और उसके प्रभारी
से ि अृेक्षा करना दक वि कार्मचक के जन ोिन और मििूरी के संिा से संबंजित ऐसे
ले ा, बजि ां और अन् िस्ट्तावेि, ऐसे जनरीक्षक ा अन् ृििारी के समक्ष प्रस्ट्तुत करें
और उनकी ृरीक्षा करने िें ा ऐसी िानकारी िें जिसे वे आवश् क समझते िैं; ा
(ग) प्रिान ा अव्यवजित जन ोिक की, उसके अजभकताच ा सेवक की, ा ऐसे दकसी व्यजक्त
को, िो ऐसे कार ाने, स्ट् ाृना, का ाचल ा अन् ृररसर में ृा ा िाए, ि जवश्वास
करने का ुजक्त ुक्त कारण िै दक वि कमचर्ारी िै, ृरीक्षा करना; ा
(घ) ऐसे कार ाने, स्ट् ाृना, का ाचल ा अन् ृररसर में र े गए दकसी रजिस्ट्टर, ले ा,
बिी ा अन् िस्ट्तावेि की नकल तै ार करना ा उद्धरण लेना;
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 27, 2021/र्ैत्र 6, 1943
729
(ङ) अन् िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करना िैसा जवजनर्िचष्ट दक ा िाए।
6.
जवजनवेि ा जनगमीकरण के मामले में, प्रिान की गई छूट स्ट्वत: रद्द िो िाएगी और तब नई इकाई को छूट के
जलए समुजर्त सरकार को आवेिन करना िोगा ।
[सं. एस-38014/15/2020-एस एस-I]
मिन र्ौरजस ा, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 17th March, 2021
S.O. 309.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 88 read with section 91 A of the Employees’
State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of
factories and establishments of Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited (Trombay Unit) from the
operation of the said Act. The exemption shall be effective for a period of one year from the date of publication
of this notification in the Official Gazette.
2.
The exemption is subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(1) the factories and establishments shall maintain a register of the employees specifying the names
and designations of the exempted employees;
(2) the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act to which they would
have been entitled to on the basis of the contribution paid prior to the date from which exemption
granted by this notification operates;
(3) the contribution for the exempted period, if already paid, shall not be refundable;
(4) the employer of the said factory and establishment shall submit in respect of the period during
which that factory was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said
period), such returns in such forms and containing such particulars as were due from it in respect
of the said period under the Employees’ State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950;
(5)
a Social Security Officer appointed by the Corporation under sub-section (1) of section 45 of the
said Act or other official of the Corporation authorised in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose
of —
(i)
verifying the particulars contained in any return submitted under sub-section (1) of section
44 of the said Act for the said period; or
(ii) ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees’
State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or
(iii) ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to the benefits provided by the
employer in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being
granted under this notification; or
(iv) ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Act had been complied with during the
period when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory and establishment
to be empowered to —
(a)
require the principal or immediate employer to him such information as he may
consider necessary for the purpose of this Act; or
(b)
at any reasonable time enter any factory, establishment, office or other premises
occupied by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require
any person found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other official and
allow him to examine accounts, books and other documents relating to the
employment of personal and payment of wages or to furnish to him such information
as he may consider necessary; or
(c)
examine the principal or immediate employer, his agent or servant, or any person
found in such factory, establishment, office or other premises or any person whom
730 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 27, 2021/CHAITRA 6, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the said inspector or other official has reasonable cause to believe to have been an
employee ; or
(d)
make copies of or take extracts from any register, account book or other document
maintained in such factory, establishment, office or other premises; or
(e)
exercise such other powers as may be specified.
(6)
in case of disinvestment or corporatisation, the exemption granted shall stand cancelled and then the
new entity may apply to the appropriate Government for exemption.
[No. S-38014/15/2020-SS-I]
MADAN CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली , 18 मार्च, 2021
का.आ. 310.—राष्ट्रृजत, श्री सोमा िे र िेना, ृी ासीन अजिकारी, केन्री सरकार औ्ोजगक अजिकरण
सि श्रम न् ा ाल , कानृुर को दिनांक 05.03.2021 से एक वषच तक की अवजि अ वा जन जमत ृिाजिकारी की
जन ुजक्त तक अ वा अगले आिेिो तक इनमें िो भी ृिले िो, केन्री सरकार औ्ोजगक अजिकरण सि श्रम
न् ा ाल , ल नऊ के ृी ासीन अजिकारी के ृि का अजतररक्त प्रभार सौृते िै ।
[सं. अ-11016/02/2019-सीएलएस-II]
सतीि र्न्िर, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2021
S.O. 310.—The President is pleased to entrust the additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow to Shri Soma Shekhar Jena, Presiding
Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur for a period of one year with effect
from 05.03.2021 or till the appointment of a regular incumbent or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.
[No. A-11016/02/2019-CLS-II]
SATISH CHANDER, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 18 मार्च, 2021
का.आ. 311.—राष्ट्रृजत, श्रीमती प्रजणता मोिंती, ृी ासीन अजिकारी, केन्री सरकार औ्ोजगक
अजिकरण सि श्रम न् ा ाल सं. 2, दिल्ली को दिनांक 11.03.2021 से एक वषच तक की अवजि अ वा जन जमत
प ृ से ृि भरे िाने तक अ वा अगले आिेिो तक केन्री सरकार औ्ोजगक अजिकरण सि श्रम न् ा ाल सं. 1,
दिल्ली के ृी ासीन अजिकारी के ृि का अजतररक्त प्रभार जवस्ट्तषत करते िै ।
[सं. अ-11016/02/2019-सीएलएस-II]
सतीि र्न्िर, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 18th March, 2021
S.O. 311.—The President is pleased to extend the additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1, Delhi entrusted to Smt. Pranita Mohanty,
Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.2, Delhi for a further period of
one year with effect from 11.03.2021 or till joining of a regular incumbent, or until further orders, whichever is
the earliest.
[No. A-11016/02/2019-CLS-II]
SATISH CHANDER, Under Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 27, 2021/र्ैत्र 6, 1943
731
ubZ fnYyh] 23 ekpZ] 2021
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼14 dk 1947½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj esllZ MCY;w-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;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 06/99½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-03-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012@19@1999-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-2½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 23rd March, 2021
S.O. 312.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 06/1999) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. W.C.L and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.03.2021.
[No. L-22012/19/1999-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI S. S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/06/99
Date: 15.02.2021
Party No. 1
:
The Chairman-cum-M.D.,
Western Coal Fields. Ltd. Coal Estate,
Civil Lines Nagpur
Nagpur - 440001
VERSUS
Party No. 2
:
The President, Coal Mines Engineering workers Association,
Zonal Office, Javi Chowk, Shobhapur Colony,
Po: Patharkheda, Distt-Betul, Pin-460449.
AWARD
(Dated: 15.02.2021)
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 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the
industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited and their
union, Coal Mines Engineering workers Association, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/19/1999-IR
(CM-II) dated 08.09.1999, with the following schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of WCL i.e. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
WCL, Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur and his Steering Committee communicated on 01.04.1998
in regard to a decision that the meeting will not be held henceforth with C.M.E.W.A. Union
under I.R. System is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said Union is entitled?’’
2.
On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and
written statement and accordingly, the union, Coal Mines Engineering workers Association, (‘The
Petitioner/Party No. 2” in short), filed the statement of claim and the management of the Western Coalfields
Limited (“Party No. 1” in short) filed its written statement.
3.
The case of the Union is that management i.e. party No.1 W.C.L. issued a letter on dated: 01/04/1998
for suspension of Steering Committee Meeting to which, they opposed and filed a case before Labour
Commissioner Nagpur and Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court No. 660/99, in which, Hon’ble High
Court issued notice to the W.C.L. and Labour Commissioner Nagpur also issued letter in case file No. ALCN -1
(4) /2016 I.D., but management did not fixed date or time of concerned steering committee meeting. ALC closed
their proceedings due to pending of this matter in C.G.I.T.
732 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 27, 2021/CHAITRA 6, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
According to the petitioner, they are being represented by their workers’, so they prayed that, this
Tribunal direct to the management of WCL/party No. 1 to allow them in participating in Steering Committee
Meeting. They also prayed that, management withdrew their letter dated 01.04.1998 in regard to a decision that
meeting will not be held henceforth with the petitioner’s association.
5.
By filing reply by the management/Party No. 1, they opposed petitioner’s association demand, by
asserting that, petitioner had filed the proceedings before the ALC (C) and Hon’ble High Court, vide Writ
Petition No. 660/1999. So, present petition is not tenable. They also asserted that, Hon’ble High Court
disposed this Writ Petition on 21.09.2015. According to the management/Party No. 1, Hon’ble High Court
directed that, “Union should take such other steps as are open to it in law including issuance of notice of change
or then making appropriate representation for ventilation of its grievance”.
6.
According to the management/party No. 1, para 2 of the statement of claim is denied being misleading,
because Hon’ble High Court did not give any order to the management/party No. 1 to give representation to the
petitioner as alleged in the said letter dated 06.11.2015. They also asserted that, letters dated 10.06.2016,
28.07.2016 and 23.01.2018; the applicant made false statement and demanded that, Hon’ble High Court did not
pass any such order. They also asserted that, petitioner did not come before this Tribunal with clean hand and
they are not entitled to any relief much less as claim in the present matter. According to the management, WCL
has been carrying out meeting in order to regulate Industrial Relation with the representative of five central
Trade Union. According to the management/Party No. 1, “A Joint Steering has been constituted by it for the
purpose of i) formulation and evaluation of Action plan and budgets, ii) Resources Utilization – optimum
utilization of mines capacity, human resources and equipments, iii) Cost/Profitability, iv) Quality of Coal,
V) Safety, Vi) Employees welfare and Vii) Environment protection”.
7.
According to the management/party No. 1, on the basis on membership of the applicant being craft
union, though not entitled to get representation in the Steering Committee. It also asserted that “resolution dated
clearly shows that the Code of Conduct of the year 1987 was of adopted on 02.10.1992 and the Steering
Committee is working as per the said Code of Conduct”. It also asserted that “Most of the Members of the
applicant are also members of one or the other of the five Central Trade Unions and as such no prejudice would
be caused to the applicant even if it does not get representation in I.R. Committee nor the applicant has pointed
out any express prejudice caused to it. WCL cannot encourage the bilateral discussion with any union other than
5 central Trade Unions as these unions cover 100% employees of WCL as their members and further WCL has
signed a Code of Conduct with the above named 5 Central Trade Unions, which is successfully in operation for
last three decades. On the other hand if the applicant is permitted representation, it will lead to growth of
multiple Unions and intra Union rivalry and would cause unrest and will destroy the very system and it would
be very difficult for the management to handle the problems. It is submitted that as the applicant Union is not
signatory to code of conduct”.
8.
According the management as objection “as the objection is raised by the above said 5 Central Trade
Unions, the present matter cannot be decided in their absence. -------------- However the applicant has not
bothered to join the above named 5 Central Trade Unions in the present proceeding”. They also pray that
statement of claim liable to be rejected on this above grounds.
9.
Point of Determination :
(A) Whether management’s order dated 01/04/1998 is legal and justified?
(B) Whether petitioner’s union entitled to any relieve.
Reasons for Decisions
10.
At this stay Mr. S.N. Khan, Advocate of Party No.2 appears on 05/02/2021 filed their written argument
by raising following important points which are given below:-
i.
“Participatory management schemes, joint steering committee and industrial relation system at
par with the other Trade Union Organizations. ---------------- The Hon’ble High Court in its
Judgment dated 21/09/2015 has observed that the Coal India limited has permitted Applicant’s
participation in I.R. System. ----------------- That Hon’ble High Court has also observed that the
status of the Applicant in not in dispute”.
ii.
“In case it is there, the Management have already adopted and in the fray of Multi Union System,
which they themselves have endorsed. So what is the difficulty in case one more Union will be
added on genuine grounds and for the real welfare and well-being of the member workmen”.
iii.
“Hold that the Prayer/Relief seek out by the Applicant is genuine and legal in the interest of
Justice in view of Natural Justice and Art-14 & 16 of Constitution”.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 27, 2021/र्ैत्र 6, 1943
733
11.
On behalf of management Party No. 1 Mr. Dharma Adhakari filed the written statement waizing
following points:-
i.
“The meeting with CMEWA, which were made on few occasions based on the direction of CIL,
will not be held henceforth and the employees who may be members of CWMA may raise/take
up their issues through their respective Union under IR system”.
ii.
“It is submitted that Western Coal Filed has been carrying out meetings in order to regulate
Industrial relations with the representative of Five Central Trade Unions. A joint steering is
constituted by it for the purpose of i) formulation and evaluation of Action plan and budgets, ii)
Resources utilization- optimum utilization of mines capacity, human resources and equipments,
iii) Cost/Profitability, iv) Quality of Coal, v) safety, vi) Employees welfare and vii) Environment
protection”.
iii.
“The participation of the applicant Union or any other union was opposed by the five Central
Unions who had signed the Code of Conduct and accordingly a resolution was passed by those
five Central Trade Unions on 11.04.1994. It is submitted that resolution dated clearly shows that
the Code of Conduct of the year 1987 was of adopted on 02.10.1992 and the Steering Committee
is working as per the said Code of Conduct”.
iv.
“It is submitted that as the applicant Union is not signatory to code of conduct and as the
objection is raised by the above said 5 Central Trade Unions, the present matter cannot be
decided in their absence”.
v.
“On the other hand the management has lead the evidence in the matter but the applicant union
did not bother to cross examine the witness of the management inspite of sufficient opportunities.
It is thus submitted that the evidence of the management has gone un-opposed and thus it has to
be accepted for the purpose of passing of the award. -------------- The claim made by the applicant
is without any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs”.
12.
On perusal of the record it appears that Hon’ble High Court decided above Write Petition No. 660/99
on 21/09/2015 i.e. Hon’ble High Court decided Write Petition with the following direction, “Hence, with said
liberty to the petitioners and keeping all rival contentions in this respect open, we dispose of the present write
petition. Rule discharged. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs” and A.L.C. closed petitioner matter on 04-June-2018 with direction “Hence, the matter is closed and
treated as otherwise disposed of - this report is submitted under Section 12 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
1947”.
13.
On perusal of the record it appears that, in this petition i.e. in statement of claim, petitioner did not
make parties to other five union, because Hon’ble High Court in the above Write Petition 660/99, directed that,
“Similarly validity or otherwise of resolution dated 11.04.1994 cannot be examined by this Court in the absence
of above mentioned five Trade Unions”. On perusal of the record, it appears that, nobody appears on behalf of
union from long time i.e. from 25/10/2018. So they did not file any evidence i.e. evidence on affidavit or
document. They also did not file list of members of their association, did not represent for five trade unions,
which are recognized by management i.e. Party no.1. Nothing is on record to show that, they are prejudice
some way or other way.
14.
On perusal of the record it appears that in para no. 7 & 8, Hon’ble High Court observe that, “The status
of the petitioners is not in dispute. The reply affidavit filed on 06.08.1999 by Respondent No. 2 Western Coal
Fields shows an assertion that there are other small unions and practically it is impossible to deal with those
small unions”. ----------------- In para no. 8 Hon’ble High Court observed that, “The Code of Conduct is in place
since 02.10.1992. It casts certain obligations upon the signatories to it. The Unions have to refrain from
resorting to unfair practices and all parties have to try their best to maintain tranquility in Western Coal Fields
Limited at all levels. ------------------- The perusal of resolution dated 11.04.1994 shows that it is passed by
representatives of Central Trade Unions viz. above mentioned five Trade Unions. Thus, Unions have expressed
serious concern about Western Coal Fields Limited issuing circular, giving the benefits of check off systems and
other facilities to unions affiliated to NLO. In 1978, it was agreed between Central Trade Unions and the Coal
India and the Union of India that representation will be given only for IR system check off system etc. to the
Unions represented by the signatories to said resolution. ------------------- Thus, Respondent No. 2 – Western
Coalfields Limited is acting in furtherance of the resolution dated 11.04.1994. The five major Trade Unions
have opposed that resolution”. ---------------- In para no. 9 Hon’ble High Court observed that, “The petitioners
have not pointed out any express prejudice caused to any of its members in the body of the petition. Similarly,
validity or otherwise of resolution dated 11.04.1994 cannot be examined by this Court in the absence of above
mentioned five Trade Unions”.
734 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 27, 2021/CHAITRA 6, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15.
On the contrary management filed evidence on affidavit of Shri. R.K. Singh on 13/03/2020, but
representative of association and their advocates did not receive a copy of this evidence on affidavit. Neither
they prayed for cross-examination nor they participated in proceedings. It shows that, petitioner’s association
did not take interest to proceed further. It also appears that, in statement of claim, they did not challenge the
resolution dated on. 11.04.1994 (In para No. 9Hon’ble High Court order dated on. 21.09.2015. On the contrary
management filed so many corresponding letter as well as Minutes/Resolution dated on. 22.07.1995,
15.03.1997, 11.04.1994 & copy of the Code of Conduct dated on. 26.09.1992. It shows that, statement of claim
does not mention these facts. Party no. 2/Union or Association did not produce any evidence to contradict the
management evidence. So in my humble opinion, it is not possible to over look the Code of Conduct dated
22.06.1992 & Resolution dated 11.04.1994. In absence of above mentioned five Trade Unions, so this
claim/reference is dismissed with cost. Petitioner/Association is not entitled to any relief.
Order
“The action of the management of WCL i.e. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, WCL, Coal
Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur and his Steering Committee communicated on 01.04.1998 in regard to a
decision that the meeting will not be held henceforth with C.M.E.W.A. Union under I.R. System is
legal and justified. Petitioner Association is not entitled to any relief.’’
S. S. GARG, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 ekpZ] 2021
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼14 dk 1947½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj esllZ MCY;w-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;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 43/2018½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-03-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-22012@26@2018-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-2½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 23rd March, 2021
S.O. 313.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. W.C.L and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.03.2021.
[No. L-22012/26/2018-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI S.S. GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/43/2018-19
Date: 28.10.2020
Party No. 1:
The General Manager,
Ballarpur Area, Western Coalfields Ltd.,
Post. Sasti, Distt. Chandrapur,
Chandrapur (M.S.)-442706.
V/s.
Party No. 2:
Shri Dayalal Ramaji Ghotekar,
C/o Smt. Vidhya Rajendra Baekar,
Friends Colony, Lakhudkar Layout,
Plot No. 59, Butibori, Tehsil: Hingna,
Nagpur-441110.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 27, 2021/र्ैत्र 6, 1943
735
AWARD
(Dated: 28th October, 2020)
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 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the
industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their
workman, Shri Dayalal Ramaji Ghotekar for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/26/2018–IR (CM-II)
dated 30.10.2018, with the following schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of WCL through its General Manager, Ballarpur Area,
Post. Sasti, Dist. Chandrapur in terminating the services of Shri Dayalal Ramaji Ghotekar, Ex-
worker, Chandrapur and in denying to reinstate Shri Dayalal Ramaji Ghotekar, Ex-Worker
with continuity of service and back wages is fair, just and legal? If not, to what relief the
concerned workman is entitled to?”
Advocate for the petitioner is absent but management’s advocate is present. Hon’ble Court’s order
dated 25.09.2020 is received, in which reference dated 30.10.2018 is quashed and set aside in following way:
High Court’s Order
“Thus we find that the order dated 30.10.2018, for the reasons as stated above cannot be
sustained on facts in the light of the policy as applicable in the matter. The order dated
30.10.2018 is thus quashed and set aside. Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. In the
circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.’’
So this reference is quashed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 2867/2019, Western Coalfields
Limited vs. Union of India & others on 25.09.2020, in presence of both parties. After mentioning the result in
the register, intimate to the Ministry with Hon’ble High Court’s order. The record is deposited in Record Room.
ORDER
As per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court, present reference is not maintainable. So it is passed
and answer of this reference is negative.
S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 ekpZ] 2021
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼14 dk 1947½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkWy bafM;k jsfM;ks 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; la[;k 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
27/2009½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-03-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-42012@93@2005-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-2½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 23rd March, 2021
S.O. 314.—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-
cum-Labour Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of All India Radio and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19.03.2021.
[No. L-42012/93/2005-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
736 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 27, 2021/CHAITRA 6, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 27/2009
Date of Passing Award- 23rd February, 2021
Between:
Shri Tejpal,
S/o Shri Johri,
Aerial Field Labourer,
C/o Delhi Labour Union,
Aggarwal Bhawan G.T Road,
Tis Hazari
Delhi- 110054.
… Claimant
Versus
The Superintending Engineer,
All India Radio,
Kingsway Camp,
Delhi- 110009.
…Management
Appearances:-
Shri Rajiv Aggarwal (A/R)
: For the claimant
Shri Saket (A/R)
: For the Management
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of M/s All India Radio, and its workman/claimant herein, under
clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter
No. L-42012/93/2005 (IR(CM-II) dated 24/03/2009 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of All India Radio in terminating the services of Shri Tejpal
w.e.f. 11/10/1999 is legal and justified? To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?”
The grievance of the claimant as stated in the claim petition is that he had joined the service of the
management on 11.12.1998 as an Aerial filed labourer. Though he was paid monthly salary of Rs. 1200/- the
management was treating him as a daily wager. He worked as such till 11.10.1999 to the fullest satisfaction of
the employer. On 11.10.1999 the management without assigning any reason and without following the
procedure laid down under law terminated his service and he was asked not to report for work any further. At
the time of termination neither any notice of termination nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to him
though by that time he had put in more than 240 days of continuous service in the employment of the
management which makes his termination illegal. Some hostility was also exhibited to the workman as his
juniors were retained in service and he was dismissed. Since then the workman is unemployed and facing acute
financial hardship. All his efforts for reinstatement went in vain and a considerable time was spent as the
authorities assured him that his file sent to the higher authorities is yet to return. Finding no other remedy on
11.12.2003 he served a demand notice on the management and waited for some time. Thereafter he filed a claim
petition before the Conciliation Officer were a conciliation proceeding was initiated. The management All India
Radio appeared and filed written statement denying the claimant to be their employee. It was also pleaded that
the claimant since was never appointed there was no order or decisions taken for his termination. On failure of
the conciliation the Appropriate Government referred the matter to the tribunal to adjudicate upon the legality of
the termination. In this claim petition the workman has prayed for setting aside the order of termination and
reinstatement into service with all consequential benefits and cost of litigation.
Being noticed the management appeared and filed written statement denying the claim of the workman
in toto. It has been specifically stated that the workman was never engaged or employed by the management nor
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 27, 2021/र्ैत्र 6, 1943
737
any salary was ever paid to him. All the allegations leveled are false and the claimant be called upon for strict
proof of the same. Thereby the management made a prayer for rejection of the claim petition.
After appearance of the management this proceeding had suffered several adjournments for evidence to
be adduced by the parties. Though the claimant had filed his evidence in form of affidavit the management did
not appear to cross examine and was set ex-parte by order dated 8th April 2013. At this juncture the management
filed an application praying to set aside the ex-parte order which was allowed and the management was given
opportunity of contesting the proceeding.
Thereafter, the claimant examined himself as WW1and filed certain documents which was marked in a
series of WW1/1 to WW1/3 and other documents marked as A,B,C subject to its relevancy or proof.
Subsequently those documents were confronted to the management witness and exhibited. These documents
include the gate pass issued by All India Radio to the claimant, the photocopy of the muster roll, copy of the
demand notice, and postal receipt, the copy of the written statement filed by the management before the
Conciliation Officer. The witness for the workman was thoroughly cross examined by the management during
the proceeding.
The management examined one of its Assistant Engineer as MW1 who besides tendering the affidavit
evidence produced two documents exhibited as MW1/1 and MW1/2 which are the bills raised by one K.K
Traders and the payment made by the management to the said K.K. Traders. In his sworn testimony he has
stated that the claimant was engaged by a contractor who was given contract for supply of labours. The
contractor was paid according to his bill and the labourers might have been paid by the contractor. There was no
direct relationship as employer and employee between the management and the workman. Thereby the
management has disowned the entire claim of the claimant.
In view of this rival pleadings and evidence the points which need to be decided are:
1. If the workman was an employee of the management.
2. If his service was illegally terminated.
3. To what relief he is entitled to.
Point No. 1
In his sworn testimony the claimant has stated that he was appointed as a labourer to work as an Aerial
Filed Labourer and the nature of the job was to cut and clean the wild for free passage of the aerial line. His
attendance alongwith other workers was being noted in the muster roll maintained by the management. For entry
into the premises of the management entry passes were being issued to him from time to time. To support this
contention he has filed the photocopy of the Muster Roll and the gate pass marked as A and B respectively.
These documents have been challenged by the management during cross examination and questions were put if
the Muster Roll contains the signature of any official of the management to which the claimant replied in
negative. But the management witness examined as MW1 during cross examination when confronted with the
said documents admitted that the gate pass was issued by the management to the claimant. Though the
management witness in his sworn testimony has stated that All India Radio in the year 1999 had engaged one
contractor having name K.K. Traders for supply of labourers for grass cutting etc and the claimant might have
been engaged by the said K.K Traders, the said statement does not inspire confidence to dismiss the claim of the
claimant that he was the employee of the management. The reasoned behind not accepting the statement of the
management witness are that the fact that one K.K. traders was the contractor for supply of labourer in the year
1999 was neither pleaded in the written statement filed before the Conciliation Officer nor in the written
statement filed in this proceeding. Thus, the oral statement of the witness for the management that the claimant
was not an employee of the management but engaged through the contractor is held to be without pleadings and
not accepted. Not only that the management witness during cross examination when was asked questions about
the contract between the management and K.KTraders he clearly admitted that no document is in possession of
the management to establish the connection between K.K.Traders and management so also between the
workman and K.K.Traders. Thus, the oral evidence of MW1 with regard to the contractor as the employer of the
claimant appears to be wrong and cannot be accepted on the face of the oral evidence supported by the
document adduced by the claimant.
It is true that the claimant has not produced any document to prove that he was getting salary from the
management All India Radio. But it should be born in mind that the employment of the claimant was in the year
1999 i.e much before the digital management came into play. Not only that the salary register etc are the
documents maintained by the management who is in dominoes position and the claimant who is a labourer has
the least access to the same. Furthermore, the labourers and the workers at the lowest rung were then paid
salaries by cash the records of which never remains with the payee. Hence it is held that non production of any
738 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 27, 2021/CHAITRA 6, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
documents relating to the salary of the workman shall not negative his claim about his employment with the
management which indirectly find support from the evidence management witness. Hence it is held that the
claimant was working as an employee of the management from 11.12.1998 to 11.10.1999.
Point No. 2
It is a decided principle of law that the employer and employee relationship is a question of fact and the
burden lies on him who asserts existence of the same. While answering point no.1 it has been held that the
workman has successfully established his relationship as the employee of the employer All India Radio. It is
now to be seen if the termination of the workman was made following the procedure of law or illegal for non
compliance of the same. Reference can be made to section 25F of the Id Act 1947 which precisely speaks that
no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under a
employer, shall be retrenched until the workman is given one month notice in writing or has been paid
retrenchment compensation. In this case during cross examination the management witness had admitted that no
such notice was served since the workman was not an employee of management no.1. Thereby management had
admitted non compliance of the provision of section 25-F. In the preceding paragraph it has already been held
that the management has not placed any record relating to the contract between the management and the
contractor K.K. Trader. On the contrary the muster roll filed by the claimant proves that he had worked for more
than 240 days continuously during one year for the management. In that case the mandatory provision of section
25-F was required to be complied before his termination. The non compliance of the same has made the
termination of the workman in the hands of the management illegal. In the case of Municipal Council
Sujanpur vs. Surinder Kumar reported in 2006SCC(LS)967 the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that in
terms of section 25-F and 25-B of the Id Act compliance of the requisite statutory period of service is required
to be prove by the workman on whom the burden for the same lies. In this case the workman by producing the
Muster Roll has proved that he had worked for 240days continuously for the management and the said evidence
has remained unrebutted by the management. Thus, it is held that the provisions of section 25-F having not been
complied by the management the termination of the workman is illegal.
Point No. 3
The moot question which remains to be replied is what relief can be granted to the workman. Way back
in the year 1980 the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of Surender Kumar Verma and others vs. CGIT
Delhi have observed that
“Plain commonsense dictates that the removal order terminating the service of the workman must
ordinarily lead to the reinstatement in the service of the workman. It is as if the order was never been
made and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages. But there may be exceptional circumstance which
makes it impossible for the employer to direct reinstatement with full back wages.”
In such cases the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the appropriate order would be for payment of
compensation in lieu of reinstatement. But in the case of G.M ONGC Silchar vs. ONGC Contractual Worker
Union reported in 2008 LLR 801 the Hon’ble Apex Court after giving due consideration to several
observations in different pronouncement which suggest that a workman who was put in 240 days or a
contractual worker is not entitled automatically to regularization came to hold that in appropriate cases
regularization can be ordered.
Here is a case were the workman has prayed for a relief simplicitor for reinstatement to service or by
the management which shows his anxiety for reemployment. The basic issue in the present case is the status of
the workman and whether he was an employee of All India Radio or the contractor. While adducing evidence
the workman has successfully proved that the management was engaging the claimant and many other like him
to work continuously and the Muster Roll filed by him lends support to his oral testimony. This workman as the
evidence shows was appointed on 11.12.1998 and his service was brought to an abrupt end on 11.10.1999. He
had worked for the management only for 10 months. It is not known whether the work against which the
claimant was working is still a requirement for the management. There is also no evidence to presume that the
workman still have ability to work. It is also a rule of law that for no work done no remuneration is to be paid.
While keeping all these principle in view it is held that the interest of justice shall be best served if the workman
will be compensated for the unemployment, mental agony, and litigation expenses instead of reinstatement as
prayed for. However, he is entitled to retrenchment compensation which is equivalent to 15 days of his average
pay per month against one year he had worked for the management and one month salary compensation in lieu
of notice. Hence, ordered.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 27, 2021/र्ैत्र 6, 1943
739
ORDER
The claim petition be and the same is allowed. It is held that the termination of the workman by the
management is illegal and he is entitled to retrenchment compensation of Rs. 600/- one month pay as
compensation in lieu of notice alongwith compensation of Rs. 200,000/-for the unemployment, mental agony,
and litigation expenses suffered by him for the illegal termination. The management is directed to make
payment of the compensation within 3 months from the date when this award would become executable. In the
event of none payment of the amount as directed, the amount so accrued shall carry interest @9% per annum
from the date of the notification of the award till the final payment is made. Send a copy of this award to the
Appropriate Government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
23nd February, 2021
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 24 मार्च, 2021
का.आ. 315.—केन्री सरकार, कमचर्ारी राज् बीमा अजिजन म, 1948 (1948 का 34) की िारा 91क
के सा ृर त िारा 88 द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, गेल (इंजड ा) जलजमटेड के कार ानों और स्ट् ाृनों
के जन जमत कमचर्ारर ों को उक्त अजिजन म के प्रर्ालन से छूट प्रिान करती िै। ि छूट रािृत्र में इस अजिसूर्ना के
िारी िोने की तारी से एक वषच की अवजि के जलए प्रभावी रिेगी।
2.
उक्त छूट जनम्नजलज त ितों के अध् िीन िै; अ ाचत्:-
(1)
कार ाना और स्ट् ाृना छूट प्राप्त कमचर्ारर ों के नाम और ृिनाम जवजनर्िचष्ट करते हुए, कमचर्ारर ों का
एक रजिस्ट्टर र ेगी;
(2)
कमचर्ारी उक्त अजिजन म के अिीन ऐसे फा िे प्राप्त करते रिेंगे जिनको ृाने के जलए वे इस अजिसूर्ना
द्वारा िी गई छूट प्रिान करने की तारी से ृूवच संित्त अंििानों के आिार ृर िकिार िो िाते िैं;
(3)
छूट प्राप्त अवजि के जलए, दि कोई अजभिा ृिले िी दकए िा र्ुके िों, तो वे वाृस निीं दकए िाएंगे;
(4)
उक्त कार ाने और स्ट् ाृना का जन ोिक उस अवजि की बाबत जिसके िौरान उस कार ाने ृर उक्त
अजिजन म (जिसे इसमें इसके ृिात उक्त अवजि किा ग ा िै) प्रर्ालन के अध् िीन ा ऐसी
जववरजण ां, ऐसे प्रप ृ में और ऐसी जवजिजष्ट ों से ुक्त िोगी िो कमचर्ारी राज् बीमा (सािारण)
जवजन म, 1950 के अिीन उसे उक्त अवजि की बाबत िेनी अृेजक्षत िोती ीं;
(5)
उक्त अजिजन म की िारा 45 की उृ िारा (1) के अिीन जनगम द्वारा जन ुक्त दक ा ग ा कोई
सामाजिक सुरक्षा अजिकारी ा इस प्र ोिन के जलए जनगम का इस जनजमत्त प्राजिकषत कोई अन्
ृििारी-
(i) उक्त अजिजन म की िारा 44 की उृ िारा (1) के अिीन, उक्त अवजि के जलए प्रस्ट्तुत दकसी
जववरणी में अंतर्वचष्ट जवजिष्ट ों को सत् ाजृत करने; ा
(ii) ि अजभजनि न के जलए दक कमचर्ारी राज् बीमा (सािारण) जवजन म, 1950 द्वारा
ाअृेजक्षत रजिस्ट्टर और अजभले उक्त अवजि के जलए र े ग े े ा निीं; ा
740 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 27, 2021/CHAITRA 6, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(iii)
ि अजभजनि न के जलए दक कमचर्ारी, जन ोिक द्वारा दि े गए उन फा िों को, जिसके
फलस्ट्वप ृ इस अजिसूर्ना के अिीन छूट िी िा रिी िै, नकि में और वस्ट्तु प ृ में ृाने का
िकिार िै ा निीं; ा
(iv)
ि अजभजनि न के जलए दक उस अवजि के िौरान, िब उक्त कार ाने और स्ट् ाृना के
संबंि में अजिजन म के उृबंि प्रवषत्त े, ऐसे दकन्िीं उृबंिों का अनुृालन दक ा ग ा ा ा
निीं, जनम्नजलज त का च करने के जलए सिक्त िोगा-
(क) प्रिान ा अव्यवजित जन ोिक से अृेक्षा करना दक वि उसे ऐसी िानकारी िे जिसे
इस अजिजन म के प्र ोिन के जलए आवश् क समझता िै ; ा
( ) ऐसे प्रिान ा अव्यवजित जन ोिक के अजिभोगािीन, दकसी कार ाने, स्ट् ाृना,
का ाचल ा अन् ृररसर में दकसी भी उजर्त सम ृर प्रवेि करना और उसके
प्रभारी से ि अृेक्षा करना दक वि कार्मचक के जन ोिन और मििूरी के संिा से
संबंजित ऐसे ले ा, बजि ां और अन् िस्ट्तावेि, ऐसे जनरीक्षक ा अन् ृििारी के
समक्ष प्रस्ट्तुत करें और उनकी ृरीक्षा करने िें ा ऐसी िानकारी िें जिसे वे आवश् क
समझते िैं; ा
(ग) प्रिान ा अव्यवजित जन ोिक की, उसके अजभकताच ा सेवक की, ा ऐसे दकसी व्यजक्त
को, िो ऐसे कार ाने, स्ट् ाृना, का ाचल ा अन् ृररसर में ृा ा िाए, ि जवश्वास
करने का ुजक्त ुक्त कारण िै दक वि कमचर्ारी िै, ृरीक्षा करना; ा
(घ) ऐसे कार ाने, स्ट् ाृना, का ाचल ा अन् ृररसर में र े गए दकसी रजिस्ट्टर, ले ा,
बिी ा अन् िस्ट्तावेि की नकल तै ार करना ा उद्धरण लेना;
(ङ) ाजस्ट् जत अन् िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करना ।
6.
जवजनवेि ा जनगमीकरण के मामले में, प्रिान की गई छूट स्ट्वत: रद्द िो िाएगी और तब नई इकाई को छूट के
जलए समुजर्त सरकार को आवेिन करना िोगा ।
[सं. एस-38014/03/2021-एस एस-I]
मिन र्ौरजस ा, अवर सजर्व
New Delhi, the 24th March, 2021
S.O. 315.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 88 read with section 91 A of the Employees’
State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of
factories and establishments of GAIL (India) Limited from the operation of the said Act. The exemption shall
be effective for a period of one year from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.
2.
The exemption is subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(1) the factories and establishments shall maintain a register of the employees specifying the names
and designations of the exempted employees;
(2) the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act to which they would
have been entitled to on the basis of the contribution paid prior to the date from which exemption
granted by this notification operates;
(3) the contribution for the exempted period, if already paid, shall not be refundable;
(4) the employer of the said factory and establishment shall submit in respect of the period during
which that factory was subject to the operation of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 27, 2021/र्ैत्र 6, 1943
741
period), such returns in such forms and containing such particulars as were due from it in respect
of the said period under the Employees’ State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950;
(5)
a Social Security Officer appointed by the Corporation under sub-section (1) of section 45 of the
said Act or other official of the Corporation authorised in this behalf by it, shall, for the purpose
of —
(i)
verifying the particulars contained in any return submitted under sub-section (1) of section
44 of the said Act for the said period; or
(ii) ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees’
State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or
(iii) ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to the benefits provided by the
employer in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being
granted under this notification; or
(iv) ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Act had been complied with during the
period when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory and establishment
to be empowered to —
(a) require the principal or immediate employer to him such information as he may
consider necessary for the purpose of this Act; or
(b)
at any reasonable time enter any factory, establishment, office or other premises
occupied by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require
any person found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other official and
allow him to examine accounts, books and other documents relating to the
employment of personal and payment of wages or to furnish to him such information
as he may consider necessary; or
(c)
examine the principal or immediate employer, his agent or servant, or any person
found in such factory, establishment, office or other premises or any person whom the
said inspector or other official has reasonable cause to believe to have been an
employee ; or
(d) make copies of or take extracts from any register, account book or other document
maintained in such factory, establishment, office or other premises; or
(e) exercise such other powers as may be specified.
(6)
in case of disinvestment or corporatisation, the exemption granted shall stand cancelled and then the new
entity may apply to the appropriate Government for exemption.
[No. S-38014/03/2021-SS-I]
MADAN CHAURASIA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2021
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
mÙkj jsyos
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 ua- 2 fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 132@17½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 24-03-2021 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[,y-41011@22@2016-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th March, 2021
S.O. 316.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 132/17) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. II, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Northern Railway
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.03.2021.
[No. L-41011/22/2016-IR(B-1)]
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
742 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 27, 2021/CHAITRA 6, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 132/17
Date of Passing Award- 15th March, 2021
Between:
Shri Bal Mukund,
S/o Shri Girdhari Lal Sharma,
H. No. B-31, Pandit Mohalla, Village Badkhal,
Post and Distt Faridabad-121001 (Haryana)
… Claimant
Versus
1. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Delhi Division, Northern Railway
State Entry Road, New Delhi.
2. The General Manager
Northern Railway
Baroda House
… Managements
Appearances:-
Shri Om Prakash Gupta (A/R)
: For the claimant
None for the management (A/R)
: For the Management
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of Northern Railway and its workman/claimant herein, under
clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter
No. L-41011/22/2016 (IR(B-I) dated 27.04.2017 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of Northern Railway in not reinstating Shri Bal Mukund S/o
Shri Girdhari Lal Sharma in duty with effect from 18.01.2014 is legal and justified? if not, what relief
the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
As stated by the claimant he was appointed in the post of loco cleaner on 16.10.87 and since 18.01.14
working as loco pilot shunting and his last drawn wage was 18900(basic) per month. He was sincere, diligent,
honest, and committed to his work giving no chance of complaint to anybody. During course of his employment
he has made a complaint to a senior divisional electrical engineer of Railway of Delhi Division against the
senior section Engineer Nizamudin Delhi regarding wastage of manpower and consequential pecuniary loss to
the railway department. On account of the same the senior division electrical engineer became annoyed and
threatened him of dire consequence. A conspiracy was hatch against him and he was placed under suspension
on 06.08.2013. However, that order was revoked on 21.08.2013 and a penalty of withholding of increment for a
temporary period of 01 year without cumulative effect was imposed by order dated 30.12.2013. The irony of the
matter is that the punishment was imposed without holding any inquiry in accordance with law in violation of
the rule of Natural Justice. By notice dated 31.12.2013 the management issued promotion orders of loco pilot
shunting to loco pilot goods subject to the condition that no adverse entry is available against the promotee but
that notice/order was not communicated to the workman and as such he continued to work as the LPS. On
18.01.2014 he was informed to take the promotion to which the claimant replied that his period of punishment
since not over he cannot take the promotion and he is not willing to work as the LPG. But the management did
not allow him to work on the post of LPS. The workman having no other way out gave a representation
expressing his intention that he will not take the promotion to the post of LPG until the period of punishment is
over. No action was taken on his representation but he was not allowed to perform the duty of LPS. On the
contrary the management on 31.01.2014 served a letter on the workman alleging unauthorized absence. Though
the workman gave a reply denying the allegation the same was not accepted. On 13.02.2014 the management
managed to affix a notice on his residence with regard to his unauthorized absence and on 31.03.2014 the charge
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 27, 2021/र्ैत्र 6, 1943
743
sheet framed against him was publically notified. The workman received a charge sheet on 07.04.2014 only and
two days thereafter he submitted a letter asking the management to supply all the relevant document. The
railway department did not supply the documents. Finding no other way the claimant applied for VRS which
was again refused by the competent authority. All the effort made by the claimant to meet the higher authority
failed. on 12.03.2015 and again on 22.05.2015 the management served an order regarding his unauthorized
absence from duty which was incorrect. When the workman could not get his grievance redressed filed a dispute
of unfair labour practice before the Assistant Labour Commissioner Delhi. A conciliation proceeding was
initiated but failed and the Appropriate Government referred the matter to this tribunal for adjudicating.
Though, proper notice was served on the management and one Pramesh Kumar had appeared and
sought for time to file reply to the claim petition, subsequently by order dated 08.10.2018 was set ex-parte.
During ex-parte hearing the claimant examined himself and deposed in the line of the facts stated in the
claim statement. He also placed several documents on record which have been marked in a series of WW1/1 to
WW1/69. These documents include the appointment letter, showcause notice, served on the claimant alleging
unauthorized absence, proceeding recorded during the inquiry and the finding of the Disciplinary Authority. On
a careful reading of the oral evidence of the claimant and the documents filed by him it appears that the claimant
was illegally placed under suspension w.e.f 18.01.2014and the principles of natural justice were not followed
while conducting the disciplinary action against him. on the basis of the unrebutted evidence adduced by the
claimant the following order is passed. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The claim be and the same is allowed without contest against the management which has been
proceeded ex-parte. It is held that the management northern railway subjected the claimant Bal Mukund to
unfair labour practice and he was illegally placed under suspension. He is entitled to reinstatement to service
w.e.f 18.01.2014 subject to the condition that he has not attained the age of superannuation. The management is
directed to pay the last drawn salary per month to the claimant from 18.01.2014 till the date of reinstatement and
consider him for promotion to the appropriate post. If the claimant is found to have attained the age of
superannuation, the salary as per his last drawn salary statement shall be paid to him w.e.f 18.01.2014 till the
date of superannuation with usual annual increment DA and other allowance changed from time to time. Send a
copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act
1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
15st March, 2021
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2021
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
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 tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 69@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 24-03-2021 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[,y-12011@05@2011-vkbZ vkj ¼ch-1½]
Mh- xqgk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th March, 2021
S.O. 317.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/2011) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of
India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24.03.2021.
[No. L-12011/05/2011-IR(B-1)
D. GUHA, Under Secy.
744 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 27, 2021/CHAITRA 6, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/69/2011
Present: P. K. Srivastava, H.J.S..( Retd)
The General Secretary,
Dainik Vwetan Bhogi Bank Karmachari Sangathan
F-1, Tripti Vihar, Opp.Engineering College,
Ujjain (M.P.)
… Workman
Versus
The Assistant General Manager (Admn.)
State Bank of India, LHO
Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal (M.P.)
…Management
A WARD
(Passed on this 24th day of February 2021)
1.
As per letter dated 20/6/2011 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-12011/05/2011-IR(B-1) The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Union for payment of difference of wages as per regular pay scale to
Shri Hari Shankar and five other listed below( as mentioned in reference) for the period mentioned
against each is Justified?To what relief the Union/Workman is entitled? .”
2.
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties and they have filed
their respective statements of claim and defense.
3.
According to the workman/applicants namely Harishankar Saxena, Shyam Kekre, Sanjay Javkhedkar,
Mukesh Vatre, Roop Narayan Shivhare and Suresh Bagora as mentioned in the reference as well as statement of
claim, total six in number were empanelled in the list of candidates prepared for engagement, having completed
70days working in any capacity in the Bank. According to the Management circulars, the candidates in the list
were to be engaged when ever required and were to be paid wages according to the hand-book on staff matters
Volume-II,Chapter-12 Rule 7. They were engaged and further dis-engaged during the course of time but were
paid wages as daily wager and not as circular and compensation was also paid to them as daily wagers whereas
the same nature of candidates(working in Bhopal region) were paid wages and compensation, in the light of
circulars mentioned above. A demand was raised which was not heard by the Management, hence a dispute was
raised and the reference was sent to this Tribunal for adjudication. The applicant/workman had sought the relief
of payment to them in the light of circulars itself. Thus the workman has prayed that the reference be answered
in their favour.
4.
The Management has flatly denied the claim and have stated that they were casual daily wagers, who
were in the list, but could not be employed as they were very below in the merit list. They did act as daily
wagers for sometime and were dis-engaged for which they were paid as per Rules. Thus the Management has
requested that the reference be answered against the workman/applicants.
5.
The applicant’s /workman have filed photocopy documents which are not admissible in law. They
have been denied by Management. No witness have been examined by the applicants/workman nor any
document has been proved. The Management has examined its witness which is un-cross-examined.
6.
At the time of arguments, none appeared from the side of the workman. Shri Vijay Tripathi, learned
counsel for Management has filed written arguments. I have gone through the written arguments and record.
7.
The reference is point for determination, in the case in hand.
8.
The burden to prove that the workman was in continuous engagement of the Management for a period
of more than 240 days in the year preceding the date of his dis-engagement lies on workman himself. It has
been so held in the cases of Range Forest Officer Vs. S.T.Hadimani,(2002) 3 SCC 25, Krishna Bhagya Jala
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 27, 2021/र्ैत्र 6, 1943
745
Nigam Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Rafi(2009)11 SCC 522, Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar(2002) 8 SCC 400, Municipal
Corporation, Faridabad Vs. Siri Niwasn (2004)8 SCC 195, RBI Vs. Mani(2005)5 SCC 100 and many other
cases referred by learned counsel . The workman has failed to lead any evidence to support his claim and prove
the photocopy documents, hence holding his claim not proved, the workman is held entitled to no relief.
9.
On the basis of the above discussion, following award is passed:-
A.
The demand of the Union for payment of difference of wages as per regular pay scale to
Shri Hari Shankar and five other listed below( as mentioned in reference) for the period
mentioned against each is held not justified.”
B.
The applicant’s/workman are 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.
DATE: 24.2.2021
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2021
-
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj eSllZ ch-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-&2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 89@2015½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-03-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@120@2015-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th March, 2021
S.O. 318.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 2, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 89 of 2015) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 18.03.2021.
[No. L-20012/120/2015-IR(CM-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT : Dr. S. K.Thakur, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947
REFERENCE NO. 89 OF 2015
PARTIES:
:
The General Secretary,
Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,
Manbad, PO: Jharia, Dhanbad (Jharkhand) ,
Vs.
The General Manager,
E.J.Area of M/s. BCCL,
PO: Bhowra, Dhanbad-828302
Order No. L-20012/120/2015-IR(CM-I) dt. 02.11.2015
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman/Union
: None
On behalf of the Management
: Mr D. K.Verma, Ltd. Advocate
State
:
Jharkhand Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 25th January, 2021
746 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 27, 2021/CHAITRA 6, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under
Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their
Order No. L-20012/120/2015-IR (CM-I) dt. 02.11.2015.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of Patherdih Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing
Shri Dhaaneshwar Manjhi, Pers. No. 02993590, Miner Loader from the services of the Company
vide order No. BCCL/PEH/PERS/05/1418 dated 21/24.09.2005 is justified and fair? If not, to
what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”
On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/120/2015-IR(CM-I) dt.02.11.2015 of the reference from the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, it was
registered as Reference case No. 89 of 2015 on 02.11.2015 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to
issue notices through the Registered Post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear before the Tribunal
on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said
order, notices by the Registered Post were sent to the parties concerned.
2.
The today (05.01.2021) Instant Industrial Dispute case is fixed for hearing. None appears either from
the Sponsoring Union or the petitioner under reference. The case is set for submission of Written Statement of
Claim and other relevant documents together with annexing witness(s) if any, thereto, to facilitate to carry
forward the case or passing appropriate order. Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate appears representing the
Management side and prayed for disposal of this case matter as the workman side has not filed written statement
of claim for the last five years. The Employer and the Employee have not taken any step for hearing. Status
representing the case is that the Written Statement of Claim, an onus on the part of the petitioner is yet to be
filed by the Petitioner even after elapse of more than five years.
3. Moreover proceeding did not come into light because the party concerned remains to shy away in
coming forward with legitimate claim in the form Written Statement of Claim to apprise the Tribunal of the
claim they have. The case was registered on 10.11.2015 came into existence as Reference No. 89/2015.And in
accordance with the said order of notice for appearance on 25.02.2016, subsequently on 19.09.2019 and afresh
on 05.01.2021 were served for filing Written Statement of Claim with relevant documents, list of reliance and
witnesses with exchanged a copy of such statement to each other of the opposite parties involved in this dispute
under rule 10(B) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 but they did not do anything in terms of the
notices. Remarkably the Party who raised the dispute should have been well conversant of the rules as per
terms of reference by the Government of India before this Tribunal, which reads as follows:
“The Parties raising the dispute shall file a statement of claim complete with relevant documents,
list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of this order of
reference and also forward a copy of such statement to each one of the opposite parties involved
in this dispute under rule 10(b) of the Industrial Disputes (Central),Rules,1957.’’
4. The Industrial Dispute exists with regard to dismissal from service of the workman- Dhaneshwar Manjhi,
Pers. No. 02993590 by the Management of Patherdih Colliery of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad ,seeking relief by the
workman through adjudication by challenging the alleged action as unjustified.
5. Notices were issued upon both the parties at the addresses referred in order of the Reference on 11.01.2016,
02.09.2019 and afresh on 09.10.2020.The Notices are deemed to have been served as none turned undelivered.
The case went through the hearings and adjournments on 25.02.2016, 19.09.2019 and on 05.01.2021 besides
ample opportunities were provided to the Petitioner/Union in the form of stepping Above all, the Sponsoring
Union/petitioner is well acquainted with the outcome of the case in the event of successive failures on their part
since inception.
6.
Such being the conduct on the part of the Applicant coupled with facts, it has been apparently beyond
doubt that the party raising the dispute without offering sufficient cause have failed to appear. The Sponsoring
Union who raised the claim proved failure in filing the Written Statement of Claim. The proceeding of the case
came to a halt and persistent follow up by way of adjournments and Notices appears of no use as till date no step
has been taken by either of the parties.
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 27, 2021/र्ैत्र 6, 1943
747
7. In view of the materials on record and that adjudication is pending from 2015, Tribunal is of the view
that the petitioner is no more interested to proceed with the hearing of this case and further adjournment will be
nothing but abuse of the process and time. The Tribunal has no other alternative but to hold the conclusion that
the Industrial Dispute between the parties appears to have lost its merits or the footing on which issue has been
raised. The instant proceedings stands disposed of as the Industrial Dispute by and between the parties being
treated as non-existent.
Dr. S.K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2021
-
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj eSllZ ch-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- &2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 66@2015½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-03-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@80@2015-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th March, 2021
S.O. 319.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No.2, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 66 of 2015) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 18.03.2021.
[No. L-20012/80/2015-IR(CM-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT : Dr. S. K.Thakur, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947
REFERENCE NO. 66 OF 2015
PARTIES:
:
The Treasurer,
Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh,
Michael John Smriti Bhawan, Rajendra Path,
Post Box No. 22
Dhanbad-826001.
(Jharkhand)
Vs.
The General Manager,
Katras Area of M/s BCCL.
PO: Sijua, Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 828121
Order No. L-20012/80/2015-IR(CM-I) dt.26.08.2015
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman/Union
: None
On behalf of the Management
: None
State
: Jharkhand Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 14 January, 2021
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under
Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their
Order No. L-20012/80/2015-IR (CM-I) dt.26.08.2015.
748 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 27, 2021/CHAITRA 6, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
‘‘Whether the action of the Management of Katras Area of M/s BCCL in not handing over the
possession of NHS Qr. No. 25 situated at Lakurka Colony to Sri Dhirendra Kumar Singh after
passing the order of allotment and also allotting the said quarter to another workman is fair and
justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”
On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/80/2015-IR(CM-I) dt.26.08.2015 of the reference from the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, it was
registered as Reference case No. 66 of 2015 on 07.09.2015 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to
issue notices through the Registered Post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear before the Tribunal
on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said
order, notices by the Registered Post were sent to the parties concerned.
2. The instant Industrial Dispute case is fixed today, i.e., (05.01.2021) for hearing or passing appropriate
order in default. The case is set for submission of Written Statement of Claim and other relevant documents
together with annexing witness(s) if any, thereto, to facilitate to carry forward the case. But neither the
Representative from the Union nor the workmen concerned was found present on call even today the same
position from the Management side too.
3. Moreover proceeding did not come into light because the party concerned remains to shy away coming
forward with legitimate claim in the form Written Statement of Claim to apprise the Tribunal of the claim they
have. The case was registered on 07.09.2015 came into existence as Reference No. 66/2015 with issuance of
notice for appearance on 03.12.2015 and subsequently appearance on 18. 09.2019 and lastly and fresh on
07.10.2020 for filing documents but they did not do anything in terms of the notices. As part of the order
dt.18.09.2019 the last and final Notices requiring their appearance were sent to the both litigant parties on
07.10.2020. Remarkably the Party who raised the dispute should have been well conversant of the rules as per
terms of reference by the Government of India before this Tribunal, which reads as follows:
“The Parties raising the dispute shall file a statement of claim complete with relevant documents,
list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of this order of
reference and also forward a copy of such statement to each one of the opposite parties involved
in this dispute under rule 10(b) of the Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules, 1957. ’’
4. Notices were issued upon both the parties under Reference at the addresses referred in the Order of the
Reference on 09.11.2015, 30.08.2019 and finally afresh on 07.10.2020.The Notices are deemed to have been
served as none returned undelivered. The case went through the several hearing and adjournments granted in
course of trial from 03.12.2015, 11.02.2016, 31.03.2016, 26.05.2016, 15.07.2016, 03.12.2015, 11.02.2016,
31.03.2016, 26.05.2016, 15.07.2016, 07.09.2016, 09.11.2016, 03.01.2017, 14.02.2017, 11.04.2017, 29.05.2017,
25.07.2017, 11.09.2017, 30.10.2017, 28.11.2017, 08.01.2018, 18.09.2019 and finally on 05.01.2021. Though
vide order dated 18.09.2019, it has already made clear to the Sponsoring Union to file W.S. as last opportunity,
failing which appropriate order will be passed in consonance with established law. So, they have already
exhausted all legal remedial avenues. Above all, the Sponsoring Union/petitioner is well acquainted with the
outcome of the case in the event of successive failures on of theirs part since inception.
5. The case under reference deals with keeping in abeyance the impugned office order allotting Qr. No.
NHS 25 to the workman concerned by the Company and, later on, made allotment to someone else. Amidst the
alleged discriminatory action of the Management, what relief is the workman concerned entitled to?
6.
It has been apparently beyond doubt that both the parties without sufficient cause have failed to appear.
The Sponsoring Union who raised the claim proved failure in filing the Written Statement of Claim. The
proceeding of the case came to a halt and persistent follow up by way of short adjournments and Notices
appears of no use as till date no step has been taken by the petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that the Petitioner
(workman) has no interest in furthering proceeding of this case and there is also no reasonable ground to keep
this case pending any more
7. Considering the materials on record and that adjudication is pending from 2015,the Tribunal is persuaded
to safely presume that the petitioner is no more interested to proceed with this adjudication and further
adjournment will be nothing but abuse of the process and time. The Industrial Dispute between the parties to
this case appears to have lost its merits or the footing on which issue has been raised, stands diluted itself. The
dispute is thus disposed of accordingly as the Industrial Dispute by and between the parties being treated as non-
existent .The workman no longer need the grievance to be redressed from the Management and no relief,
whatsoever.
Dr. S. K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 27, 2021/र्ैत्र 6, 1943
749
ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2021
-
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj eSllZ Hkkjrh; gokbZ vM~Mk izkf/kdj.k] ubZ fnYyh 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- & 2] ubZ fnYyh
ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 200@2018½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-03-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-11012@16@2017-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th March, 2021
S.O. 320.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No.2, New Delhi (Ref. No. 200 of 2018) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of M/s. Airport Authority of India, New Delhi and their workmen,
which was received by the Central Government on 18.03.2021.
[No. L-11012/16/2017-IR(CM-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 200/2018
Date of Passing Award- 22nd February, 2021
Between:
Shri Dhanpal,
Through- Hindustan Engineering
General Mazdoor Union,
D-02/24, Sultanpuri, Delhi- 110086.
… Claimant
Versus
1. The Manager,
Airport Authority of India,
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport,
New Delhi- 110003.
2. The Manager,
Domestic Interstate Airport- Terminal-ID, Palam Airport,
New Delhi-110037.
3. The Manager,
Sunshine Enterprises,
A-49, Kailash Colony Metro Station Sant Nagar,
New Delhi- 110049.
…Managements
Appearances:-
Kailash Kumar (A/R)
: For the claimant
None for the management (A/R)
: For the Management
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of M/s. Airport Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, and
its workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L-11012/16/2017 (IR(CM-I) dated 08/11/2018 to this tribunal for
adjudication to the following effect.
750 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 27, 2021/CHAITRA 6, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. sunshine Enterprises in not reinstating the service of
Shri Dhanpal in duty w.e.f 01.04.2014 along with all consequential benefits is illegal and/or
unjustified? If so, what relief the workman concerned in entitled to and what directions are necessary in
this regard?
(ii) whether the demand of the workman concerned for 03 months (January, 2014 to March, 2014)
earned wages is legal, proper and justified? If so, what relief he is entitled to?”
It has been stated by the claimant that he was appointed as a loader on 01.07.2011 by the management
No. 3 to work in the premises of management No. 1. Management No.3 had entered into a contract with
management no.2 i.e M/s Spice jet limited who in turn had contract with the management no.1 for loading and
unloading of goods at the Airport. The claimant has further stated that he was discharging a permanent nature of
work for the day to day activity in the Airport further more neither the management no.2 had the registration for
engagement of contract labour nor the management no.3 had the license for engaging the contract labours in
terms of section 7, 10 of the Contract Labour and Abolition Act 1970. While engaging the claimant the
management no.3 or 2 had not issued any appointment letter to the claimant. He was not even paid the duty
leaves and leaves salary etc. the management had also denied the wage slip attendance card, and identity card to
the claimant in order deprive him of his legal rights. He was very often demanding casual leaves, earned leaves,
bonus etc. and enrolment under EPF and ESI schemes. Being aggrieved the management No. 3 terminated the
service of the claimant w.e.f 01.07.2014 he was not even paid the salary for the preceding 3 months. Finding no
other efficacious remedy the claimant served a demand notice through register post with AD to management
no.1,2,3. Thereafter he raised a dispute before the Labour Commissioner where management no.1,2 appeared
and denied their liability for claim of the claimant/workman on the ground that there exists no employer
employee relationship between them. The conciliation since failed the appropriate government referred the
matter for adjudication on the points indicated above.
Notice though served on all the respondents, they did not appear and where set ex-parte.
During Ex-parte hearing the claimant examined himself as WW1 by tendering his evidence through
affidavit. In his sole testimony he has stated that management no.1 had permitted the management no.2 to carry
out the work of loading and unloading in the airport and the management no.2 having no registration for
engagement of contract labour, illegally entered into a contract with management no.3 who too has no license
for engaging contract labours to execute the work of loading and unloading. The management no.3 recruited the
workman as a loader and appointed him w.e.f 01.07.2011 on a monthly wage of Rs. 14,500/-. Though no
appointment letter and wage slip etc where issued with the claimant he work as such till 01.07.2014. His service
was terminated as an Act of vindication by management no.3 since, he was always demanding the legal rights
and benefits. Being aggrieved the management no.2 without serving retrenchment notice and without paying the
retrenchment compensation illegally terminated the service of the claimant which amounts to unfair Labour
practice. Though proper legal notice was served before raising a dispute with the Labour Commissioner he
received no response. When the dispute was raised before the Labour Commissioner and notices were issued,
management no.1 and 2 appeared and denied there liability for want of employer employee relationship. The
management no.3 did not appear.
To support his contention the claimant has filed the copy of the demand notice the copy of the dispute
raised before the Labour Commissioner the reply filed before the Labour Commissioner by the management
no.2 and the Id cards issued to him. The documents filed by the claimant nowhere suggest any kind of employee
and employer relationship between him and the management no.1 and2. The Airport entry permit filed by him
shows that the same was issued by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security of Airport Authority of India to the
person i.e. the claimant working in the organization having name sunshine enterprises. Thus, it leads to a
conclusion that the claimant was an employee of sunshine enterprises only having no employee relationship
with airport authority or spice jet limited.
From the evidence adduced which has remained unchallenged it appears that the claimant was
subjected to unfair labour practice by the management no.3 who while terminating his job had not served the
retrenchment notice nor any retrenchment compensation was paid. Not only that without assigning any reason
his service was terminated which also amounts to unfair labour practice. Thus it is held that the claimant having
being employed by the management no. 3 for a continuous period exceeding one year was entitled to one month
notice in writing indicating the reasons of retrenchment and the same having not been done the workman is
entitled to compensation equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of service in lieu of such
notice. In this case the workman since had completed 3 years of service and was getting 14,500/- per month he
is entitled to 21,750/- as compensation. In addition to this the claimant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.
50000/- in lumpsum towards the mental agony suffered by him and for unemployment he has under gone for the
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 27, 2021/र्ैत्र 6, 1943
751
illegal termination. There being no evidence adduced about the duty pay of 3 months which has not been paid,
no order to that effect is passed. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is accordingly answered. The management no.3 i.e. sunshine enterprises
is directed to pay Rs. 21750/- to the workman as retrenchment compensation in lieu of notice and another
50000/- in lump sum towards the mental agony suffered by him and for unemployment he has under gone for
the illegal termination. This amount shall be paid to the claimant by the management no.3 within 3 months from
the date of publication of the award without interest. If the management no.3 would fail to comply the direction
given above, the compensation amount as well as the retrenchment compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of publication of the award till the final payment is made. Send a copy of this award to the
Appropriate Government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
22nd February, 2021
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2021
-
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj eSllZ Hkkjrh; gokbZ vM~Mk izkf/kdj.k] ubZ fnYyh 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- & 2] ubZ fnYyh
ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 201@2018½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-03-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-11012@17@2017-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th March, 2021
S.O. 321.—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.2, New Delhi (Ref. No. 201 of 2018) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of M/s. Airport Authority of India, New Delhi and their workmen,
which was received by the Central Government on 18.03.2021.
[No. L-11012/17/2017-IR(CM-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 201/2018
Date of Passing Award- 22nd February, 2021
Between:
Shri Kiranpal,
Through- Hindustan Engineering
General Mazdoor Union,
D-02/24, Sultanpuri, Delhi- 110086
… Claimant
Versus
1. The Manager,
Airport Authority of India,
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport,
New Delhi- 110003
752 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 27, 2021/CHAITRA 6, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4. The Manager, Spice jet Limited,
Domestic Interstate Airport- Terminal-ID, Palam Airport,
New Delhi-110037.
5. The Manager,
Sunshine Enterprises,
A-49, Kailash Colony Metro Station Sant Nagar,
New Delhi- 110049.
… Managements
Appearances:-
Kailash Kumar (A/R)
: For the claimant
None for the management (A/R)
: For the Management
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of M/s. Airport Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, and
its workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L-11012/17/2017 (IR(CM-I) dated 08/11/2018 to this tribunal for
adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. sunshine Enterprises in not reinstating the service of
Shri Kiranpal in duty w.e.f 01.07.2014 along with all consequential benefits is illegal and/or
unjustified? If so, what relief the workman concerned in entitled to and what directions are necessary in
this regard?
(ii) whether the demand of the workman concerned for 03 months (April, 2014 to June, 2014) earned
wages is legal, proper and justified? If so, what relief he is entitled to?”
It has been stated by the claimant that he was appointed as a loader on 01.07.2011 by the management
No. 3 to work in the premises of management No. 1. Management No.3 had entered into a contract with
management No. 2 i.e M/s. Spice jet limited who in turn had contract with the management no.1 for loading and
unloading of goods at the Airport. The claimant has further stated that he was discharging a permanent nature of
work for the day to day activity in the Airport further more neither the management no.2 had the registration for
engagement of contract labour nor the management No. 3 had the license for engaging the contract labours in
terms of section 7, 10 of the Contract Labour and Abolition Act 1970. While engaging the claimant the
management No. 3 or 2 had not issued any appointment letter to the claimant. He was not even paid the duty
leaves and leaves salary etc. the management had also denied the wage slip attendance card, and identity card to
the claimant in order deprive him of his legal rights. He was very often demanding casual leaves, earned leaves,
bonus etc. and enrolment under EPF and ESI schemes. Being aggrieved the management No. 3 terminated the
service of the claimant w.e.f 01.07.2014 he was not even paid the salary for the preceding 3 months. Finding no
other efficacious remedy the claimant served a demand notice through register post with AD to management
No.1, 2, 3. Thereafter he raised a dispute before the Labour Commissioner where management No. 1,2 appeared
and denied their liability for claim of the claimant/workman on the ground that there exists no employer
employee relationship between them. The conciliation since failed the appropriate government referred the
matter for adjudication on the points indicated above.
Notice though served on all the respondents, they did not appear and where set ex-parte.
During Ex-parte hearing the claimant examined himself as WW1 by tendering his evidence through
affidavit. In his sole testimony he has stated that management No.1 had permitted the management no.2 to carry
out the work of loading and unloading in the airport and the management No.2 having no registration for
engagement of contract labour, illegally entered into a contract with management No.3 who too has no license
for engaging contract labours to execute the work of loading and unloading. The management No.3 recruited the
workman as a loader and appointed him w.e.f 01.07.2011 on a monthly wage of Rs. 14,500/-. Though no
appointment letter and wage slip etc where issued with the claimant he work as such till 01.07.2014. His service
was terminated as an Act of vindication by management No.3 since, he was always demanding the legal rights
and benefits. Being aggrieved the management No.2 without serving retrenchment notice and without paying
the retrenchment compensation illegally terminated the service of the claimant which amounts to unfair Labour
practice. Though proper legal notice was served before raising a dispute with the Labour Commissioner he
received no response. When the dispute was raised before the Labour Commissioner and notices were issued,
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 27, 2021/र्ैत्र 6, 1943
753
management No.1 and 2 appeared and denied there liability for want of employer employee relationship. The
management No. 3 did not appear.
To support his contention the claimant has filed the copy of the demand notice the copy of the dispute
raised before the Labour Commissioner the reply filed before the Labour Commissioner by the management
No.2 and the Id cards issued to him. The documents filed by the claimant nowhere suggest any kind of
employee and employer relationship between him and the management no.1 and2. The Airport entry permit
filed by him shows that the same was issued by the Bureau of civil Aviation Security of Airport Authority of
India to the person i.e. the claimant working in the organization having name sunshine enterprises. Thus, it leads
to a conclusion that the claimant was an employee of sunshine enterprises only having no employee relationship
with airport authority or spice jet limited.
From the evidence adduced which has remained unchallenged it appears that the claimant was
subjected to unfair labour practice by the management No.3 who while terminating his job had not served the
retrenchment notice nor any retrenchment compensation was paid. Not only that without assigning any reason
his service was terminated which also amounts to unfair labour practice. Thus it is held that the claimant having
being employed by the management No.3 for a continuous period exceeding one year was entitled to one month
notice in writing indicating the reasons of retrenchment and the same having not been done the workman is
entitled to compensation equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of service in lieu of such
notice. In this case the workman since had completed 3 years of service and was getting 14,500/- per month he
is entitled to 21,750/- as compensation. In addition to this the claimant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.
50000/- in lumpsum towards the mental agony suffered by him and for unemployment he has under gone for the
illegal termination. There being no evidence adduced about the duty pay of 3 months which has not been paid,
no order to that effect is passed. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is accordingly answered. The management No. 3 i.e. sunshine
enterprises is directed to pay Rs. 21750/- to the workman as retrenchment compensation in lieu of notice and
another 50000/- in lump sum towards the mental agony suffered by him and for unemployment he has under
gone for the illegal termination. This amount shall be paid to the claimant by the management No. 3 within 3
months from the date of publication of the award without interest. If the management no.3 would fail to comply
the direction given above, the compensation amount as well as the retrenchment compensation shall carry
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of publication of the award till the final payment is made. Send a copy
of this award to the Appropriate Government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
22nd February, 2021
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2021
-
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj eSllZ Hkkjrh; gokbZ vM~Mk izkf/kdj.k] ubZ fnYyh 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-&2] ubZ fnYyh ds
iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 203@2018½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-03-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-11012@18@2017-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th March, 2021
S.O. 322.—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.2, New Delhi (Ref. No. 203 of 2018) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of M/s. Airport Authority of India, New Delhi and their workmen,
which was received by the Central Government on 18.03.2021.
[No. L-11012/18/2017-IR(CM-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
754 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 27, 2021/CHAITRA 6, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 203/2018
Date of Passing Award- 22nd February, 2021
Between:
Shri Chanderpal,
Through- Hindustan Engineering
General Mazdoor Union,
D-02/24, Sultanpuri, Delhi- 110086
… Claimant
Versus
1. The Manager,
Airport Authority of India,
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport,
New Delhi- 110003.
2. The Manager, Spice Jet Limited,
Domestic Interstate Airport- Terminal-ID, Palam Airport,
New Delhi-110037.
3. The Manager,
Sunshine Enterprises,
A-49, Kailash Colony Metro Station Sant Nagar,
New Delhi- 110049.
… Managements
Appearances:-
Kailash Kumar (A/R)
: For the claimant.
None for the management (A/R)
: For the Management
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of M/s. Airport Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, and
its workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L-11012/18/2017 (IR(CM-I) dated 08/11/2018 to this tribunal for
adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. sunshine Enterprises in not reinstating the service of
Shri Chander Pal in duty w.e.f 01.04.2014 along with all consequential benefits is illegal and/or
unjustified? If so, what relief the workman concerned in entitled to and what directions are necessary in
this regard?’’
It has been stated by the claimant that he was appointed as a loader on 01.07.2011 by the management
No. 3 to work in the premises of management No. 1. Management No.3 had entered into a contract with
management No.2 i.e M/s Spice jet limited who in turn had contract with the management no.1 for loading and
unloading of goods at the Airport. The claimant has further stated that he was discharging a permanent nature of
work for the day to day activity in the Airport further more neither the management No.2 had the registration for
engagement of contract labour nor the management No.3 had the license for engaging the contract labours in
terms of section 7, 10 of the Contract Labour and Abolition Act 1970. While engaging the claimant the
management No.3 or 2 had not issued any appointment letter to the claimant. He was not even paid the duty
leaves and leaves salary etc. the management had also denied the wage slip attendance card, and identity card to
the claimant in order deprive him of his legal rights. He was very often demanding casual leaves, earned leaves,
bonus etc. and enrolment under EPF and ESI schemes. Being aggrieved the management No. 3 terminated the
service of the claimant w.e.f 01.07.2014 he was not even paid the salary for the preceding 3 months. Finding no
other efficacious remedy the claimant served a demand notice through register post with AD to management
No.1,2,3. Thereafter he raised a dispute before the Labour Commissioner where management No.1,2 appeared
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 27, 2021/र्ैत्र 6, 1943
755
and denied their liability for claim of the claimant/workman on the ground that there exists no employer
employee relationship between them. The conciliation since failed the appropriate government referred the
matter for adjudication on the points indicated above.
Notice though served on all the respondents, they did not appear and where set ex-parte.
During Ex-parte hearing the claimant examined himself as WW1 by tendering his evidence through
affidavit. In his sole testimony he has stated that management No.1 had permitted the management No.2 to carry
out the work of loading and unloading in the airport and the management No. 2 having no registration for
engagement of contract labour, illegally entered into a contract with management No.3 who too has no license
for engaging contract labours to execute the work of loading and unloading. The management No.3 recruited the
workman as a loader and appointed him w.e.f 01.07.2011 on a monthly wage of Rs. 14,500/-. Though no
appointment letter and wage slip etc. where issued with the claimant he work as such till 01.07.2014. His service
was terminated as an Act of vindication by management No.3 since, he was always demanding the legal rights
and benefits. Being aggrieved the management No.2 without serving retrenchment notice and without paying
the retrenchment compensation illegally terminated the service of the claimant which amounts to unfair Labour
practice. Though proper legal notice was served before raising a dispute with the Labour Commissioner he
received no response. When the dispute was raised before the Labour Commissioner and notices were issued,
management No.1 and 2 appeared and denied there liability for want of employer employee relationship. The
management No.3 did not appear.
To support his contention the claimant has filed the copy of the demand notice the copy of the dispute
raised before the Labour Commissioner the reply filed before the Labour Commissioner by the management
No.2 and the Id cards issued to him. The documents filed by the claimant nowhere suggest any kind of
employee and employer relationship between him and the management No.1 and 2. The Airport entry permit
filed by him shows that the same was issued by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security of Airport Authority of
India to the person i.e. the claimant working in the organization having name sunshine enterprises. Thus, it leads
to a conclusion that the claimant was an employee of sunshine enterprises only having no employee relationship
with airport authority or spice jet limited.
From the evidence adduced which has remained unchallenged it appears that the claimant was
subjected to unfair labour practice by the management No.3 who while terminating his job had not served the
retrenchment notice nor any retrenchment compensation was paid. Not only that without assigning any reason
his service was terminated which also amounts to unfair labour practice. Thus it is held that the claimant having
being employed by the management No.3 for a continuous period exceeding one year was entitled to one month
notice in writing indicating the reasons of retrenchment and the same having not been done the workman is
entitled to compensation equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of service in lieu of such
notice. In this case the workman since had completed 3 years of service and was getting 14,500/- per month he
is entitled to 21,750/- as compensation. In addition to this the claimant is held entitled to compensation of
Rs. 50000/- in lumpsum towards the mental agony suffered by him and for unemployment he has under gone for
the illegal termination. There being no evidence adduced about the duty pay of 3 months which has not been
paid, no order to that effect is passed. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is accordingly answered. The management No.3 i.e. sunshine
enterprises is directed to pay Rs. 21750/- to the workman as retrenchment compensation in lieu of notice and
another 50000/- in lump sum towards the mental agony suffered by him and for unemployment he has under
gone for the illegal termination. This amount shall be paid to the claimant by the management No.3 within 3
months from the date of publication of the award without interest. If the management No.3 would fail to comply
the direction given above, the compensation amount as well as the retrenchment compensation shall carry
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of publication of the award till the final payment is made. Send a copy
of this award to the Appropriate Government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
22nd February, 2021
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
756 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 27, 2021/CHAITRA 6, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2021
-
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj eSllZ Hkkjrh; gokbZ vM~Mk izkf/kdj.k] ubZ fnYyh 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-&2] ubZ fnYyh ds
iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 202@2018½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-03-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-11012@19@2017-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th March, 2021
S.O. 323.—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.2, New Delhi (Ref. No. 202 of 2018) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of M/s. Airport Authority of India, New Delhi and their workmen,
which was received by the Central Government on 18.03.2021.
[No. L-11012/19/2017-IR(CM-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI
Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour
Court-II, New Delhi.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 202/2018
Date of Passing Award- 22nd February, 2021
Between:
Shri Raj Kumar,
Through- Hindustan Engineering
General Mazdoor Union,
D-02/24, Sultanpuri, Delhi- 110086
… Claimant
Versus
1. The Manager,
Airport Authority of India,
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport,
New Delhi- 110003.
2. The Manager,
Domestic Interstate Airport- Terminal-ID, Palam Airport,
New Delhi-110037.
3. The Manager,
Sunshine Enterprises,
A-49, Kailash Colony Metro Station Sant Nagar,
New Delhi- 110049.
…Managements
Appearances:-
Kailash Kumar (A/R)
: For the claimant
None for the management (A/R)
: For the Management
AWARD
The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute
existing between employer i.e. the management of M/s. Airport Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, and
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 27, 2021/र्ैत्र 6, 1943
757
its workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the
Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L-11012/19/2017 (IR(CM-I) dated 08/11/2018 to this tribunal for
adjudication to the following effect.
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. sunshine Enterprises in not reinstating the service of
Shri Raj Kumar in duty w.e.f 01.07.2014 along with all consequential benefits is illegal and/or
unjustified? If so, what relief the workman concerned in entitled to and what directions are necessary in
this regard?
(ii) whether the demand of the workman concerned for 03 months (January, 2014 to March, 2014)
earned wages is legal, proper and justified? If so, what relief he is entitled to?”
It has been stated by the claimant that he was appointed as a loader on 01.07.2011 by the management
No. 3 to work in the premises of management No. 1. Management No.3 had entered into a contract with
management No.2 i.e M/s Spice jet limited who in turn had contract with the management No.1 for loading and
unloading of goods at the Airport. The claimant has further stated that he was discharging a permanent nature of
work for the day to day activity in the Airport further more neither the management No.2 had the registration for
engagement of contract labour nor the management No.3 had the license for engaging the contract labours in
terms of section 7, 10 of the Contract Labour and Abolition Act 1970. While engaging the claimant the
management No.3 or 2 had not issued any appointment letter to the claimant. He was not even paid the duty
leaves and leaves salary etc. the management had also denied the wage slip attendance card, and identity card to
the claimant in order deprive him of his legal rights. He was very often demanding casual leaves, earned leaves,
bonus etc. and enrolment under EPF and ESI schemes. Being aggrieved the management No. 3 terminated the
service of the claimant w.e.f 01.07.2014 he was not even paid the salary for the preceding 3 months. Finding no
other efficacious remedy the claimant served a demand notice through register post with AD to management
No.1,2,3. Thereafter he raised a dispute before the Labour Commissioner where management No.1,2 appeared
and denied their liability for claim of the claimant/workman on the ground that there exists no employer
employee relationship between them. The conciliation since failed the appropriate government referred the
matter for adjudication on the points indicated above.
Notice though served on all the respondents, they did not appear and where set ex-parte.
During Ex-parte hearing the claimant examined himself as WW1 by tendering his evidence through
affidavit. In his sole testimony he has stated that management No.1 had permitted the management No.2 to carry
out the work of loading and unloading in the airport and the management No.2 having no registration for
engagement of contract labour, illegally entered into a contract with management No.3 who too has no license
for engaging contract labours to execute the work of loading and unloading. The management No.3 recruited the
workman as a loader and appointed him w.e.f 01.07.2011 on a monthly wage of Rs. 14,500/-. Though no
appointment letter and wage slip etc where issued with the claimant he work as such till 01.07.2014. His service
was terminated as an Act. of vindication by management No.3 since, he was always demanding the legal rights
and benefits. Being aggrieved the management No.2 without serving retrenchment notice and without paying
the retrenchment compensation illegally terminated the service of the claimant which amounts to unfair Labour
practice. Though proper legal notice was served before raising a dispute with the Labour Commissioner he
received no response. When the dispute was raised before the Labour Commissioner and notices were issued,
management No.1 and 2 appeared and denied there liability for want of employer employee relationship. The
management No.3 did not appear.
To support his contention the claimant has filed the copy of the demand notice the copy of the dispute
raised before the Labour Commissioner the reply filed before the Labour Commissioner by the management
No.2 and the Id cards issued to him. The documents filed by the claimant nowhere suggest any kind of
employee and employer relationship between him and the management No.1 and 2. The Airport entry permit
filed by him shows that the same was issued by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security of Airport Authority of
India to the person i.e. the claimant working in the organization having name sunshine enterprises. Thus, it leads
to a conclusion that the claimant was an employee of sunshine enterprises only having no employee relationship
with airport authority or spice jet limited.
From the evidence adduced which has remained unchallenged it appears that the claimant was
subjected to unfair labour practice by the management No.3 who while terminating his job had not served the
retrenchment notice nor any retrenchment compensation was paid. Not only that without assigning any reason
his service was terminated which also amounts to unfair labour practice. Thus it is held that the claimant having
being employed by the management No.3 for a continuous period exceeding one year was entitled to one month
notice in writing indicating the reasons of retrenchment and the same having not been done the workman is
entitled to compensation equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of service in lieu of such
758 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 27, 2021/CHAITRA 6, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
notice. In this case the workman since had completed 3 years of service and was getting 14,500/- per month he
is entitled to 21,750/- as compensation. In addition to this the claimant is held entitled to compensation of
Rs. 50000/- in lumpsum towards the mental agony suffered by him and for unemployment he has under gone for
the illegal termination. There being no evidence adduced about the duty pay of 3 months which has not been
paid, no order to that effect is passed. Hence, ordered.
ORDER
The reference be and the same is accordingly answered. The management No.3 i.e. sunshine
enterprises is directed to pay Rs. 21750/- to the workman as retrenchment compensation in lieu of notice and
another 50000/- in lump sum towards the mental agony suffered by him and for unemployment he has under
gone for the illegal termination. This amount shall be paid to the claimant by the management No.3 within
3 months from the date of publication of the award without interest. If the management No.3 would fail to
comply the direction given above, the compensation amount as well as the retrenchment compensation shall
carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of publication of the award till the final payment is made. Send a
copy of this award to the Appropriate Government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act
1947.
The reference is accordingly answered.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
22nd February, 2021
PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2021
-
—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj eSllZ ch-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-&2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 12@2016½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-03-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y-20012@156@2015-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-1½]
jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th March, 2021
S.O. 324.—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. 2, Dhanbad (Ref. No. 12 of 2016) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the
employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central
Government on 18.03.2021.
[No. L-20012/156/2015-IR(CM-I)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD
PRESENT : Dr. S. K.Thakur, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947
REFERENCE NO. 12 OF 2016
PARTIES:
:
The Secretary,
Dhanbad Colliery Karamchari Sangh ,
Washery Division Branch.
PO; Saraidhela, Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 826003
Vs.
The Chief General Manager, (Personnel)
Washery Division of M/s. BCCL.
PO: Saraidhela, Dhanbad- 826003
Order No. L-20012/156/2015-IR(CM-I) dt.09.02.2016
[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 27, 2021/र्ैत्र 6, 1943
759
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman/Union
: None
On behalf of the Management
: Mr. D. K.Verma, Ltd. Advocate
State
: Jharkhand Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 27th January, 2021
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under
Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their
Order No. L-20012/156/2015-IR (CM-I) dt. 09.02.2016.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of Washery Division of M/s. BCCL in providing
Sunday/OT/HD to Shri Tapas Kumar Rai, Sr. DEO and Shri A. K. Jha, DEO is fair and
justified? To what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?”
On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/156/2015-IR (CM-I) dt.09.02.2016 of the reference from the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, it was
registered as Reference case No. 12 of 2016 on 22.02.2016 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to
issue notices through the Registered Post to the parties concerned, directing them to appear before the Tribunal
on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents. In pursuance of the said
order, notices by the Registered Post were sent to the parties concerned.
2.
Neither any Representative from the Sponsoring Union nor petitioner himself was present on call.
Today date is fixed for steps, i.e., filing of long awaited Written Statement of Claim by the Sponsoring Union
or petitioner, as final opportunity in default for proceeding under Rule Sec.10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act 1947 and
further order. Whereas Mr. D. K.Verma Ltd. Advocate is present for representing the case on behalf of the
Management /O.P.
3. Moreover proceeding did not come into light because the party concerned remains to shy away coming
forward with legitimate claim in the form Written Statement of Claim to apprise the Tribunal of the claim they
have. The case was registered on 22.02.2016 came into existence as Reference No. 12/2016 and the proceedings
was initiated by issuing summons for appearance on 25.04.2016 and subsequently on 24.09.2019 and fresh on
05.01.2020 for filing much awaited Written Statement of Claim with relevant documents, list of reliance and
witnesses with exchanged a copy of such statement to each other of the opposite parties involved in this dispute
under rule 10(B) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 but they did not do anything in terms of the
notices. As part of the order dt.24.09.2019, the case was adjourned on the same matter with call for after
reviewing of other cases pending before this Tribunal.
But the Sponsoring Union failed in appearing in the proceedings since very beginning 25.04.2016 over
the matter of filing Written Statement of claim. Notices dtt. 22.03.2016, 03.09.2019, and finally afresh
09.10.2020 were served upon both the parties but all these yielded no effect. Notices are deemed to have been
served as none returned undelivered..Attempts were made through adjournments for stepping but that too
became infractuous. Remarkably the Party who raised the dispute should have been well conversant of the rules
as per terms of reference by the Government of India before this Tribunal, which reads as follows:
“The Parties raising the dispute shall file a statement of claim complete with relevant documents,
list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt of this order of
reference and also forward a copy of such statement to each one of the opposite parties involved in
this dispute under rule 10(b) of the Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules, 1957.’’
4. The case went through the several hearings and suo motu adjournments granted in course of trial on
29.09.2016,24.09.2019 and finally on 05.01.2021.Numerous dates were also set for stepping also on
19.01.2017, 08.03.2017, 01.05.2017, 21.06.2017, 22.08.2017, 02.09.2019 and 05.10.2020. To sum up the fact
760 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 27, 2021/CHAITRA 6, 1943
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
that they have already exhausted legal remedial avenues. Above all, the Sponsoring Union/petitioner is well
acquainted with the outcome of the case in the event of successive failures on their part since inception.
5. The case under reference relates to denials of providing OT/HD to Shri Tapas Kumar Rai, Sr. DEO and
Shri A.K. Jha, DEO by Management of Washery Division of M/s BCCL, Dhanbad and seeking relief by the
Union for the workmen under adjudication before this Tribunal `against the alleged action.
6.
It has been apparently beyond doubt that the party raising the dispute without sufficient cause have
failed to appear. The Sponsoring Union who raised the claim proved failure in filing the Written Statement of
Claim. The proceeding of the case came to a halt and persistent follow up by way of adjournments and Notices
appears of no use as till date no step has been taken by the petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that the Petitioner
(workman) has no interest in furthering proceeding of this case and there is also no reasonable ground to keep
this case pending any more
7. Considering the materials on record and that adjudication is pending from 2016,the Tribunal is persuaded
to safely presume that the petitioner is no more interested to proceed with this adjudication and further
adjournment will be nothing but abuse of the process and time. The Industrial Dispute between the parties to
this case appears to have lost its merits or the footing on which issue has been raised, stands diluted itself. The
dispute is thus disposed of accordingly as the Industrial Dispute by and between the parties being treated as non-
existent .The workman no longer need the grievance to be redressed from the Management and no relief,
whatsoever.
Dr. S. K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. SURENDER
MAHADASAM
Digitally signed by SURENDER
MAHADASAM
Date: 2021.04.08 14:46:35 +05'30'