7618 GI/2023

(4319)

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. 51]

नई दिल् ली, दिसम् बर 17—दिसम् बर 23, 2023, िजनवार/अग्रिायण 26—पौष 2, 1945

No. 51]

NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 17—DECEMBER 23, 2023, SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA 26—PAUSHA 2, 1945

इस भाग में जभन् न पष्‍ सं्‍ या िी िाती िज जिससे दक यि पष क संकलन के प प में र ा िा सके

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

भागII— ण् ड 3—उप- ण् ड(ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जविेि मन्त्रालय

(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 13 दिसम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1876.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िप एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2

के ंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि।

एतद्द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार भारतीय उच्चायोग, लंिन मैं आिुतोष कुमार श्रीवास्ट्तव, वररष्ठ सजचवालय सिायक,

को दिसंबर 13, 2023 से सिायक कांसुलर अजिकारी के प प में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवविन करने के जलए अजिकषत करती

िज।

[फा. सं. टी.4330/1/2023(40)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीपीवी-1)

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-28122023-250932

CG-DL-W-28122023-250932

4320

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 23, 2023/PAUSHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 13th December, 2023

S.O. 1876.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Ashutosh Kumar

Srivastava, Senior Secretariat Assistant in the High Commission of India, London as Assistant Consular Officer to

perform Consular services with effect from December 13, 2023.

[F. No. T.4330/01/2023(40)]

S.R.H FAHMI, Director (CPV-I)

नई दिल्ली, 13 दिसम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1877.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िप एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के ंड

(क) के अनुसरण में वजिाजनक आिेि।

एति्द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार भारतीय उच्चायोग वेललंगटन मे सुरजभ, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी को दिनांक

13 दिसंबर, 2023 से सिायक कोंसुलर अजिकारी के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवविन के जलए प्राजिकषत करती िज।

[फा. सं. टी.4330/1/2023(39)]

एस.आर.एच. फिमी, जनिेिक (सीपीवी-1)

New Delhi, the 13th December, 2023

S.O. 1877.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Ms. Surbhi, Assistant

Section Officer in the High Commission of India, Wellington, as Assistant Consular Officer to perform Consular

services with effect from December 13, 2023.

[F. No. T.4330/01/2023(39)]

S.R.H FAHMI, Director (CPV-I)

वाजणज्य एवं उद्योग मंत्रालय

(वाजणज्य जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1878.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, जनयावत (गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) अजिजनयम, 1963 (1963 का 22)

की िारा 7 की उपिारा (1) के सा पर त जनयावत (गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1964 के जनयम 12, के

उपजनयम (2) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मजससव जमत्रा एस. के. प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, मोटर िाउस बंगलो, स्ट्कूल

रोड, ओ ा, गुिरात-361350, (जिसे एतद्पश्चात उि अजभकरण किा िायेगा), को इस अजिसूचना के रािपत्र में

प्रकािन की तारी से तीन वषव के जलए, वाजणज्य मंत्रालय की िासकीय रािपत्र में प्रकाजित भारत सरकार की

अजिसूचना के सा अनुसूची में जनर्िवष्ट दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अजिसूचना की सं॰ का.आ. 3975 और दिनांक 20

दिसम्बर, 1965 की अजिसूचना की सं॰ का.आ 3978 के तित प्रकाजित अजिसूचना में उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में जवजनर्िवष्ट

जनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-I, अ ावत लौि अयस्ट्क त ा बॉक्साइट सजित कजल्साइन्ड बॉक्साइट, और समूि-II, अ ावत ल ंक

कंसन्रेट सजित ल ंक अयस्ट्क के जनयावत से पूवव जनम्नजलज त ितों के अिीन ओ ा पत्तन, पोरबंिर पत्तन, कांडला पत्तन त ा

मुंद्रा पत्तन में उि जनि और अयस्ट्क के जनरीक्षण करने के जलए एक अजभकरण के प प में मान्यता िेती िज, अ ावत् :

(i) यि अजभकरण, जनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-I का जनयावत (जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1965 त ा जनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-II का

जनयावत (जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1965 के जनयम 4 के अिीन जनरीक्षण की पद्धजत की िााँच करने के जलये जनयावत जनरीक्षण

पररषि् द्वारा जनजमत्त अजिकाररयों को पयावप्त सियोग और सिायता प्रिान करेगी; और

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम् बर 23, 2023/पौष 2, 1945

4321

(ii) यि अजभकरण, इस अजिसूचना में य ा जवजनर्िवष्ट अपने कायो का जन्‍पािन करने के जलए, जनिेिक (जनरीक्षण और

गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण) जनयावत जनरीक्षण पररषि द्वारा समय-समय पर, जलज त प प में, दिए गए जनिेिों से आबद्ध िोंगी।

[फा. सं. के-16014/12/2023 - जनयावत जनरीक्षण]

जवपुल बंसल, संयुि सजचव

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 14th December, 2023

S.O. 1878.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

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

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

Bunglows, School Road, Okha, Gujarat- 361350 (hereinafter referred to as the said agency), as an agency for three

years with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, for the inspection of Minerals

& Ores, Group-I, namely – Iron Ore and Bauxite including Calcined Bauxite, and Group -II, namely- Zinc ores

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

Ministry of Commerce, published in the Official Gazette vide number S.O.3975 dated 20^th December, 1965 and

S.O.3978 dated 20^th December, 1965 respectively, before export of the said Minerals and Ores at Okha port,

Porbandar port, Kandla port and Mundra port, subject to the following conditions, namely: -

(i) the said agency shall extend adequate cooperation and assistance to the officers nominated by the Export

Inspection Council in this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores

– Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965 and Export of Minerals and Ores – Group II (Inspection) Rules, 1965; and

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

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

time to time.

[F. No. K-16014/12/2023-Export Inspection]

VIPUL BANSAL, Jt. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1879.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, जनयावत (गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) अजिजनयम, 1963 (1963 का 22)

उपजनयम (2) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मजससव इन्सपेक्टोरेट जग्रद़ि इंजडया प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, एचआईिी-

34, गौरव जबिार, मिुबन, पारािीप, ओजडिा–754142, (जिसे एतद्पश्चात उि अजभकरण किा िायेगा), को इस

अजिसूचना के रािपत्र में प्रकािन की तारी से तीन वषव की अवजि के जलए, वाजणज्य मंत्रालय की िासकीय रािपत्र में

प्रकाजित भारत सरकार की अजिसूचना के सा अनुसूची में जनर्िवष्ट दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अजिसूचना

की सं॰का.आ. 3975,त ा दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अजिसूचना सं॰ का.आ. 3978 के तित प्रकाजित अजिसूचना में

उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में जवजनर्िवष्ट जनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-I, अ ावत लौि अयस्ट्क, और समूि-II, अ ावत क्रोम अयस्ट्क, के

जनयावत से पूवव जनम्नजलज त ितों के अिीन पारािीप पत्तन, गोपालपुर पत्तन त ा िामरा पत्तन में उि जनि और अयस्ट्क

के जनरीक्षण करने के जलए एक अजभकरण के प प में मान्यता िेती िज, अ ावत् :

(i) यि अजभकरण, जनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-I का जनयावत (जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1965 जनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-II का

पररषि् द्वारा जनजमत्त अजिकाररयों को पयावप्त सियोग और सिायता प्रिान करेगी;

[फा. सं. के-16014/13/2023 - जनयावत जनरीक्षण]

जवपुल बंसल, संयुि सजचव

4322

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 23, 2023/PAUSHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 14th December, 2023

S.O. 1879.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

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

Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government now recognizes, M/s. Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt. Ltd., HIG-34,

Gourav Bihar, Madhuban, Paradip, Odisha - 754142 (hereinafter referred to as the said agency), as an agency for

three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, for the inspection of

Minerals & Ores, Group-I, namely, Iron Ore and Group-II, namely Chrome Ore, as specified in the Schedule annexed

to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce, published in the Official

Gazette vide number S.O.3975 dated 20^th December, 1965, and S.O. 3978 dated 20^th December, 1965 respectively,

before export of the said Minerals and Ores at Paradip Port, Gopalpur Port and Dhamra Port, subject to the following

conditions, namely: -

(i) the said agency shall extend adequate cooperation and assistance to the officers nominated by the Export

Inspection Council on this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores

– Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965 and Export of Minerals and Ores – Group II (Inspection) Rules, 1965;

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

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

time to time.

[F. No. K-16014/13/2023 - Export Inspection]

VIPUL BANSAL, Jt. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1880.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, जनयावत (गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) अजिजनयम, 1963 (1963 का 22)

उपजनयम (2) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मजससव इन्सपेक्टोरेट जग्रद़ि इंजडया प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, द्वार सं्‍या

23-13-28, प्र म एवं जद्वतीय तल, फाजतमा जबलल्डंग, ॉम्पसन स्ट्रीट, जविा ापत्तनम-530001, (जिसे

एतद्पश्चात उि अजभकरण किा िायेगा), को इस अजिसूचना के रािपत्र में प्रकािन की तारी से तीन वषव के जलए,

वाजणज्य मंत्रालय की िासकीय रािपत्र में प्रकाजित भारत सरकार की अजिसूचना के सा अनुसूची में जनर्िवष्ट दिनांक 20

दिसम्बर, 1965 की अजिसूचना की सं॰का.आ. 3975, त ा दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अजिसूचना सं॰ का.आ. 3978

के तित प्रकाजित अजिसूचना में उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में जवजनर्िवष्ट जनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-I, अ ावत लौि अयस्ट्क, मैंगनीि

अयस्ट्क, फजरोमैंगनीि त ा बाक्साइट और समूि-II, अ ावत क्रोम अयस्ट्क त ा बजरसाइट, के जनयावत से पूवव जनम्नजलज त ितों

के अिीन जविा ापत्तनम पत्तन, गंगावरम पत्तन, काकीनाडा पत्तन, और कष्‍णपटट्नम पत्तन में उि जनि और अयस्ट्क के

जनरीक्षण करने के जलए एक अजभकरण के प प में मान्यता िेती िज, अ ावत् :

(i) यि अजभकरण, जनि और अयस्ट्क समूि- I का जनयावत (जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1965 त ा जनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-II

का जनयावत (जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1965 के जनयम 4 के अिीन जनरीक्षण की पद्धजत की िााँच करने के जलये जनयावत जनरीक्षण

पररषि् द्वारा जनजमत्त अजिकाररयों को पयावप्त सियोग और सिायता प्रिान करेगी;

[फा. सं. के-16014/14/2023-जनयावत जनरीक्षण]

जवपुल बंसल, संयुि सजचव

New Delhi, the 14th December, 2023

S.O. 1880.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

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

Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government now recognizes, M/s Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt. Ltd., Door No.

23-13-28, 1^st & 2^nd Floor, Fatima Building, Thompson Street, Visakhapatnam - 530 001 (hereinafter referred to as the

said agency), as an agency for three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official

Gazette, for the inspection of Minerals & Ores, Group - I, namely Iron Ore, Manganese Ore, Ferromanganese and

Bauxite, and Group – II, namely, Chrome ore and Barytes, as specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of

the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce, published in the Official Gazette vide number S.O.3975 dated

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम् बर 23, 2023/पौष 2, 1945

4323

20^th December, 1965, and S.O. 3978 dated 20^th December, 1965 respectively, before export of the said Minerals and

Ores at Visakhapatnam Port, Gangavaram Port, Kakinada Port and Krishnapatnam Port, subject to the following

conditions, namely: -

(i) the said agency shall extend adequate cooperation and assistance to the officers nominated by the Export

Inspection Council on this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores

– Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965 and Export of Minerals and Ores – Group II (Inspection) Rules, 1965;

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

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

to time.

[F. No. K-16014/14/2023-Export Inspection]

VIPUL BANSAL, Jt. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1881.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, जनयावत (गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) अजिजनयम, 1963 (1963 का 22)

उपजनयम (2) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मजससव जमनरलस लजब सर्ववसेस प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, िाऊस नं. 2/28,

कोलंचेरी िाऊस, कुलुर पोस्ट्ट, रायाकाट्टे, मंगलुप - 575013, कनावटक (जिसे एतद्पश्चात उि अजभकरण किा िायेगा),

को इस अजिसूचना के रािपत्र में प्रकािन की तारी से तीन वषव के जलए, वाजणज्य मंत्रालय की िासकीय रािपत्र में

प्रकाजित भारत सरकार की अजिसूचना के सा अनुसूची में जनर्िवष्ट दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अजिसूचना की

सं॰का.आ. 3975, के तित प्रकाजित अजिसूचना में उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में जवजनर्िवष्ट जनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-I, अ ावत लौि

अयस्ट्क, के जनयावत से पूवव जनम्नजलज त ितों के अिीन मैंगलोर पत्तन और कारवार पत्तन में उि जनि और अयस्ट्क के

जनरीक्षण करने के जलए एक अजभकरण के प प में मान्यता िेती िज, अ ावत् :

(i) यि अजभकरण, जनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-I का जनयावत (जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1965 के जनयम 4 के अिीन जनरीक्षण की

पद्धजत की िााँच करने के जलये जनयावत जनरीक्षण पररषि् द्वारा जनजमत्त अजिकाररयों को पयावप्त सियोग और सिायता प्रिान

करेगी;

[फा. सं. के-16014/15/2023 - जनयावत जनरीक्षण]

जवपुल बंसल, संयुि सजचव

New Delhi, the 14th December, 2023

S.O. 1881.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

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

Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government now recognizes, M/s. Minerals Lab Services Private Limited, House

No. 2/28, Kolenchery House, Kulur Post, Raikatte, Mangaluru- 575013, Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as the said

agency), as an agency for three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official

Gazette, for the inspection of Minerals & Ores, Group - I, namely Iron Ore, as specified in the Schedule annexed to

the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce, published in the Official

Gazette vide number S.O.3975 dated 20^th December, 1965, respectively, before export of the said Minerals and Ores

at Mangalore Port and Karwar Port, subject to the following conditions, namely: -

(i) the said agency shall extend adequate cooperation and assistance to the officers nominated by the Export

Inspection Council on this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores

– Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965;

4324

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 23, 2023/PAUSHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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

to time.

[F. No. K-16014/15/2023 - Export Inspection]

VIPUL BANSAL, Jt. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1882.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, जनयावत (गुणवत्ता जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) अजिजनयम, 1963 (1963 का 22)

उपजनयम (2) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मजससव एसिीएस इंजडया प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, सी/ओ-पारािीप पोटव

रस्ट्ट कमवचारी क्रेजडट सिकारी सजमजत, िूसरी मंजिल सियोग जबलल्डंग, प्लॉट नं. 474, ियिेव मागव, पारािीप -754142,

ओजडिा (जिसे एतद्पश्चात उि अजभकरण किा िायेगा), को इस अजिसूचना के रािपत्र में प्रकािन की तारी से तीन

वषव के जलए, वाजणज्य मंत्रालय की िासकीय रािपत्र में प्रकाजित भारत सरकार की अजिसूचना के सा अनुसूची में

जनर्िवष्ट दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अजिसूचना की सं॰का.आ. 3975, के तित प्रकाजित अजिसूचना में उपाबद्ध

अनुसूची में जवजनर्िवष्ट जनि और अयस्ट्क समूि-I, अ ावत लौि अयस्ट्क, के जनयावत से पूवव जनम्नजलज त ितों के अिीन

पारािीप पत्तन, िामरा पत्तन और गोपालपुर पत्तन में उि जनि और अयस्ट्क के जनरीक्षण करने के जलए एक अजभकरण के

प प में मान्यता िेती िज, अ ावत् :

करेगी;

[फा. सं. के-16014/16/2023 - जनयावत जनरीक्षण]

जवपुल बंसल, संयुि सजचव

New Delhi, the 14th December, 2023

S.O. 1882.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

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

Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government now recognizes, M/s SGS India Private Limited, C/O- Paradip port

trust employee credit cooperative society, 2^nd floor Sahayog Builiding, Plot no. 474, Jaydev Marg, Paradip -754142,

Odisha (hereinafter referred to as the said agency), as an agency for three years with effect from the date of

publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, for the inspection of Minerals & Ores, Group - I, namely Iron

Ore, as specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of

Commerce, published in the Official Gazette vide number S.O.3975 dated 20^th December, 1965, respectively, before

export of the said Minerals and Ores at Paradip Port, Dhamra Port and Gopalpur Port, subject to the following

conditions, namely: -

(i) the said agency shall extend adequate cooperation and assistance to the officers nominated by the Export

Inspection Council on this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores

– Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965;

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम् बर 23, 2023/पौष 2, 1945

4325

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

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

to time.

[F. No. K-16014/16/2023-Export Inspection]

VIPUL BANSAL, Jt. Secy.

श्रम और रोिगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 22 नवम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1883.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]dsUnzh;

ljdkj बी.सी.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

सि

नंo 2] िनबाि ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 82/2005)

dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-20012/48/2005-आईआर(सी-I)]

मजणकंिन.एन, उप जनिेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 22nd November, 2023

S.O. 1883.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.82/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court NO. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19/11/2023

[No. L-20012/48/2005-IR(CM-I)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

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 82 OF 2005.

PARTIES :

The Secretary,

Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,

Jharnapara, Hirapur,,

Dhanbad -826001.

Vs.

The Chief General Manager,

ZTW, Kustore Area of M/s BCCL

PO: Jharia, Dhanbad 826001.

Order No.L-20012/48/2005-IR(C-I) dt. 26.07.2005 & 28.07.2006

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the workman/Union

Mr.D.Mukherjee Ld.Advocate

On behalf of the Management

Mr.D.K.Verma, Ld.Advocate

4326

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 23, 2023/PAUSHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

State

Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 28^th August, 2023

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-20012/48/2005-IR(C-I) dt. 26.07.2005 & 28.07.2006 .

SCHEDULE

Whether the demand of the Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union from the Management of ZTW

,Kustore Area of M/s BCCL for promoting Sri Ram Kewal Tiwary as Excavation Fitter in Excavation Cadre is

justified? If so, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from what date”?

The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & employment has referred the present

dispute existing between Employer i.e. BCCL Management of Kustore Area of M/s BCCL,Dhanbad

and its workman /claimant under clause (d) of the Sub Sec. (1) and Sub –Section (2A) of the Sec.

10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide order No. dated referred hereinabove to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

The facts of the case, are that the Sponsoring Union in the Written Statement of Claim

stated that workman namely Sri Ram Kewal Tiwary was initially appointed as Excavation

Mazdoor on 1.6.1987 with his initial posting at Godhar Washery. After appointment the workman

was directed to work as Excavation Helper and the workman concerned started working as

Excavation Helper. Thereafter, completing one year or so he made a representation to the

Management for regularization as Excavation Helper but Management did not pay heed to his

representation. Though the workman has been working as Excavation Helper till the Management

illegally and arbitrarily regularized him as Auto Fitter Helper in Cat.-II w.e.f. 1.1.1994.The

workman protested against illegal and arbitrarily regularization as Auto Fitter Helper instead of

regularizing him as Excavation Fitter but the Management did not take note of it .Further stated by

the Representative that as per Cadre Scheme of promotion of Excavation Cadre as laid down

specifically that there is no scope to promote the Excavation workman to other discipline. But

Management neither regularized him as Excavation Fitter nor disposed of his representation by

passing any speaking order. The Workman’s demand that he should have been regularized as

Excavation Grade at a least w.e.f. 1.1988 as he is entitled for regularization as Excavation Fitter at

least w.e.f. 1.1.1994.In view of the position the Sponsoring Union took up the matter with

Conciliation Officer .Upon being exhausted all avenues for amicable settlement and negotiation

which fell through finally resulted in birth of a reference. So the Union seek to answer to the

Reference with direction to Management to promote the workman concerned to the post of

Excavation Fitter with all arrears of wages and other consequential benefits thereof .

4) Contrary to it ,expressing non-maintainability of the issue either in law or in facts

OP/Management defended that the demand of the Union has no locus standi raising the dispute

and demanding promotion of a individual workman as the promotion of a workman relates to

managerial function and comes under the prerogative of the Management. The workman concerned

was appointed as Cat.I Mazdoor on compassionate ground asked to report for duty to

G.M.(Transportation) Department, Ekra .In pursuant to offer of appointment the workman

concerned has reported at Transportation Deptt,Ekra on 30.05.1987 and was posted at Central

Automobile .Considering his engagement background in Auto Section his candidature was

considered in the same field by the Department Promotion Committee(DPC) and was promoted

as Auto Fitter Helper in Cat. II .That at the time of appointment the workman was unskilled and

so was engaged to Auto Section as a Mazdoor purely unskilled nature of job .The next promotion

depends upon the nature of job being undertaken by the workman since the workman was having

post experience in Auto Section and gained knowledge in that discipline his candidature was

usually considered and promoted as Auto Fitter Helper Cat.II. There are certain factors to be taken

into account such as requisite experience and exigency of the work and availability of sanctioned

strength and vacancy at the place of point etc are kept in mind before ordering for promotion in

higher category/grade..If go by the NCWA-IV introduction for upgration under S.L.U there is a

provision to extend the benefits of the same who are deprived of it due to non-availability of

vacancy in higher category/grade. So the demand of the Union for regularization for Excavation

Cadre and promotion in the same cadres is neither legal nor justified.

5) The workman/claimant and the OP/management filed their pleadings re butting each other

stand.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम् बर 23, 2023/पौष 2, 1945

4327

6) On behalf of the claimant workman Shri Ram Kewal Tiwary affidavited as WWI and was

crossed by the OP/Management and exhibited documents related to the case matter as W.1 and

W.2 and and W-3. in support of their respective submissions In his oral testimony the claimant

also supported the stand taken in the claim petition and filed Xerox copies of some papers marked

as W-I,W-2,W-2/1,W2/2 respectively

7) On behalf of the Management testified M-1,M-2,marked in a series of M-3 and M3/1 .

The real fact is that pursuant to the offer of appointment the workman reported duty at Centre

Automobile Workshop ,Godhur as Excavation Mazdoor Cat.I as evidence adduced in Ext.W.2

.Subsequently closure of that Establishment his service was transferred to Zonal Transportation

Workshop ,Kustore assigning the job of Mazdoor as evidence adduced in Ext.W.2 .In course of

service taking into account of his auto Section back ground he along with his coworkers was

considered for promotion as Auto Fitter Helper in Cat.II by the Deptt. Promotion Committee

(DPC). The workman accepted the Terms & Conditions of the Management before being

promoted and he did not protest at the relevant point of time.

8) Making submission by the O.P./Management that no appointment letter was ever issued

by the Management to the claimant for placement in Excavation Department. Though being

originally posted since his joining at Transportation Department ,Ekra he was assigned to work as

Excavation Mazdoor Cat.I .Thereafter closure of that Establishment and subsequently shifting his

service to Zonal Transportation Workshop ,Kustore he was also assigned the work of the Mazdoor

.Considering his past experience specially in Auto Section being undertaken by him an unskilled

nature of work for which he need not have specialization skill, he was promoted as Auto Fitter

Helper in Cat.II .Promotion in next hierarchy largely depends upon certain factors subject to

availability of sanctioned post and vacancy at the place of posting and criteria for meeting the

eligibility etc. .

9) During the course of pendency of the present reference workman along with other

coworkers has been promoted to the post of Auto Fitter in Cat.II by the OP/Management and

subsequently he joined the post .There is no scope for Excavation Fitter in the said Workshop,

i.e.,(TW, Kustore (Zonal Transportation Workshop).There is no need of any specialization so long

as in E & M or in Excavation workshop as the nature of job resembles purely unskilled particularly

in Mazdoor Category in Cat.I .

10) Considering his past engagement and the experience gained over his the engagement in

Auto Section he was promoted as Auto Fitter Helper in Cat.II by the Departmental Promotion

Committee. (DPC) .and in accordance with the guidelines of National Coal Wages Act as well as

National Coal Wages Act (NCWA) NCWA Guidelines The claimant also availed all the due

opportunities with regard to financial benefits offered by the OP/Management and he did not protest

at the relevant period so there is no question of foul play. It is sole prerogative of the Management

(Employer) to whom and where placement should be exercised taking into aspect all the guidelines

and merits of the individual and subject to availability of sanctioned post and vacancy at the

relevant period in respective higher Category/Grade.

11) Advancing argument OP/ Management stated that it need not necessary to move up

next step in Excavation stream alone. The job being under by the workman either in E&M or in

Excavation Workshop are purely unskilled nature and it need not attract any specialization while the

working as Mazdoor in Cat.I. He was originally joined in Central Automobile workshop but

eventually due to closure of this Establishment he was subsequently transferred to Zonal

Transportation Workshop (ZTW) in the capacity of Mazdoor only.His all future prospect was

determined and recommended based on his past experience in Auto Section. It is not out of contest

to mention here that the workman did not possess experience and qualification to work as

Excavation Fitter before joining to M/s BCCL, Dhanbad.So the claim of the workman does not

stand justified and being devoid of any substance and merit.

12- The claimant workman could not produce any document/evidence for specific rule/ guidelines

based on which he has claimed to be promoted in Excavation Cadre only. He has already accepted

promotion to the post of Auto Fitter Helper Cat.II. from Cat.I Mazdoor. As such his claim of

promotion within Excavation Cadre is not substantiated.

13) Thus, from the totality of the evidence and materials available on record it is held that the

refusal by the Management in not promoting as Excavation Fitter in Excavation Cadre is fair and

justified being devoid of any substance Thus the workman concerned is not entitled to any

relief.Thus all the issues framed under Reference are answered against the claimant.

Dr. S. K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer

4328

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 23, 2023/PAUSHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1884.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (183/2003) izdkf”kr

djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-12025/01/2023-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-95]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 12th December, 2023

S.O. 1884.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.183/2003) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and

their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2023- IR(B-I)-95]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri Irfan Qamar

Presiding Officer

Dated the 17^th day of November, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 183/2003

Between:

Sri Alluru Balaraju,

S/o A. Naguraiah,

R/o 18-1-429, Bhavani Nagar,

Tirupathi..

… Petitioner

And

The Chief General Manager,

(Personnel)

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office, Bank Street,

Hyderabad.

…..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri B. Suman Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

Sri Alluru Balaraju who worked as Messenger (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this

petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents State Bank of India seeking for

reinstatement into service as Messenger/Sweeper duly granting all the consequential benefits such as continuity of

service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deem fit.

Earlier this industrial dispute was answered by this Tribunal by a common award dated 17.5.2005, along

with other batch cases, and the claim of the workman was dismissed. Workman challenged said award before the

Hon’ble High Court vide WP No. 6470/2006 & batch wherein Hon’ble High Court of A.P., vide decision dated

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम् बर 23, 2023/पौष 2, 1945

4329

23.6.2014 set aside the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Hyderabad and directed the Respondent bank to reengage the workmen in the positions which they had

been occupying prior to termination. Being aggrieved by the said order in WP No. 6470/2006 & batch, Respondent

bank preferred appeal WA Nos.1268/2014 and batch cases wherein Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court held:-

“(1)

affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the “extent it sets aside the common

award dated 17.5.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;

(2)

The further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated;

(3)

all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer

limit of five(5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,

(4)

the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WA No.1268/2014 and other batch, held that, “ Hearing the learned

senior counsel for the SBI and the Learned Senior Counsel for the contesting unofficial respondents, we see that while

the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award of the Tribunal. This we say for reasons more than

one. Firstly, in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have different claims

as to the length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings, accounting of the

post for each one of them, who have worked etc. All these issues will not be the same in all the cases. Therefore, each

case ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The second and the most

important aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the workmen. This is not a

relief that could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue relating to each case could

not have been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures and scope. The adjudicating

body, which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the view that while we would

sustain the order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the award of the Tribunal, the

further findings and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the individual cases HCJ&ARR,J

WA No. 1268 of 2014 & Batch 6 have to be sent back for consideration of the Tribunal. Such further procedure

before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the materials already on record and also by affording an

opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the management to place their rival contentions and further

material before the Tribunal//The learned counsel appearing for the workmen are justified in pointing out that

enormous delay has already happened and further action by the Tribunal in this line may be expedited.”

Therefore, in compliance with order dated 20.3.2019 of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad passed in WA

No.1268/2014, this Industrial Tribunal conducted hearing proceedings in this reference on an individual basis and

both parties have been provided ample hearing opportunity during the proceeding.

The factual matrix of the present industrial dispute is as follows:

The workman filed his claim statement with the averments in brief as follows:

The petitioner, Sri Alluru Balaraju, a worker of scheduled caste, was appointed as a Messenger in the State Bank of

India in the year 1989, at Bhavani Nagar Branch, Tirupathi. He worked until March 1997 when he was stopped from

working based on the orders of the respondent panels. The petitioner was called for an interview in 1992 and included

in the panel in 1994. Totally he worked for 191 days. Petitioner approached Hon’ble High Court of A.P. where he

was asked to approach the authority under ID Act, 1947. He approached the Office of the ALC(C), Vijayawada, who

conducted conciliation proceedings, which ended in failure and failure report was forward to the Ministry of Labour

and Employment, New Delhi, which was referred to this tribunal, hence this ID. Meanwhile Petitioner was called for

an interview for absorption and he was selected and his name was included in the panel. There were no complaints

against the Petitioner. The work performed by the Petitioner is of a permanent and continuous in nature. Though

sufficient and plenty of work was available in the Respondent bank the officers have created artificial breaks in the

services of the Petitioner. The Respondent has not published seniority list of the category of the Petitioner and

retained juniors to the Petitioner without giving priority to the Petitioner. There are no valid reasons for terminating

the services of the Petitioner. The workman submitted that ever since the date of his removal from service, he

remained un-employee, as he could not secure any alternative employment inspite of his best efforts. Thus, the

action of the respondent Management in terminating the services of the workman by oral order with effect from

31.3.1997 is unjust, illegal, opposed to principles of natural justice besides being violative of various provisions of

I.D. Act and the same is liable to be set aside.

4. The Respondents filed counter refuting the averments made by the Petitioner in the claim petition, and the

contention of the Respondent in brief runs as follows:

The respondent submits that the claim petition is not valid and goes against the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They

deny the allegations made in the claim statement and demand proof of those allegations. The respondent bank used to

hire temporary subordinate staff to cope with staff shortages and government-imposed restrictions. The All India State

Bank of India Staff Federation advocated for temporary employees with less than 240 days of service to be considered

4330

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 23, 2023/PAUSHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

for permanent appointments. Discussions were held between the federation and the bank, leading to a settlement that

aimed to provide fair treatment to temporary employees. The settlement includes various factors, some of which are

relevant to the current application.

On 17.11.1987, an agreement was signed between the Federation and the management Bank under Section

2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the ID Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1967.

As per settlement the temporary employees were categorized into three categories, detailed as under:

i) Category 'A' :

Those, who have completed 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months or less after 01.07.1975.

ii) Category 'B':

Those, who have completed 270 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months

after 01. 07.1975.

iii) Category 'c':

Those, who have completed a minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 01.07.1975

or minimum of 70 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 01.

07.1975.

In the initial settlement, it was agreed that temporary employees would be given an opportunity for permanent

appointments in the bank for vacancies expected to arise from 1987 to 1991. However, on July 16, 1988, a subsequent

agreement was reached between the Federation and the bank, extending the consideration period for vacancies from

1987 to 1992. This agreement was signed under relevant sections of the Industrial Disputes Act and its associated

rules, and it will be referred to as the second settlement.

Later, on October 27, 1988, another agreement, referred to as the third settlement, was reached between the

Federation and the bank. It introduced a new clause, 1-A, after clause 1 in the initial settlement. This clause stated that

individuals engaged on a casual basis to fill in for leave or casual vacancies in positions like messengers, farrashes,

cash coolies, water boys, sweepers, etc., would also be considered for permanent appointments in the bank for

vacancies expected to arise from 1988 to 1992. Therefore, not only temporary employees receiving scale wages but

also casual or daily wagers would be eligible for permanent absorption into the bank.

Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.1990 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with

regard to the absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement

along the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The

Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in

the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than

240 days of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25F of the

Industrial Disputes Act might be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. With respect to

temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement

could be avoided, however, if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the

representative union. In para 6(h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary

service of 90 days or more days after 1.1.82 would be eligible for consideration under the scheme. Although the

Government guidelines envisaged a settlement in respect of temporary employees who had put in temporary service

of 90 days or more days, the Bank by way of further concession entered into settlements even in respect of those who

had put in less than 90 days.

According to the settlement dated November 17, 1987, temporary employees who had worked with the bank

from July 1, 1975, to December 31, 1987, were given an opportunity to be considered for permanent appointment

against future vacancies. The eligible candidates were categorized into three groups based on their completed days of

service: Category A (240 days), Category B (270 days), and Category C (70 days). The waitlisted candidates' panel

would remain valid until December 31, 1991. Through a modification in the second settlement on July 16, 1988, the

qualifying service date was extended to July 31, 1988, instead of December 31, 1987. An advertisement was issued

on August 1, 1988, calling for applications from temporary employees who received scale wages, region-wise, to fill

the vacancies in different regions.

The third settlement on October 27, 1988, was a result of the union's advocacy for casual or daily wage

workers. It was decided to consider all candidates for vacancies likely to arise between 1988 and 1992. While the

number of vacancies in some regions exceeded the waitlisted temporary employees, the Chennai circle was an

exception as there were more waitlisted temporary candidates than available vacancies.

10.

On January 9, 1991, the fourth settlement was reached, extending the validity of the panel from 1991 to

1994. After December 31, 1994, the remaining candidates on the panel would have no claim. Following the third

settlement, the bank issued an advertisement on May 1, 1991, inviting applications from casual/daily wage workers

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम् बर 23, 2023/पौष 2, 1945

4331

for consideration for permanent appointment. This created concerns among temporary employees who felt threatened

if a common list was created. However, if the casual daily wagers were placed at the end of the list, there would have

been no cause for concern.

11.

In response, the SBI Employees Union filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No.7872 of 1991) seeking relief to

operate the waitlist based on the August 1, 1988, advertisement and not to operate any list based on the May 1, 1991,

advertisement. An interim stay was granted regarding the latter aspect, which lasted for more than eight years until

July 23, 1999. Consequently, no list of casual posts/daily wage workers could have been drawn up during this period,

and the list of temporary employees should have been in operation. The writ petition was finally disposed of on July

23, 1999, by which time the relief sought in the petition would have been implemented.

12.

The 5^th settlement was arrived at on 30^th July 1996 requiring the panel to be kept alive up to 31^st March, 1997

and this was in respect of the vacancies which became available up to 31^st December 1994.

13.

The respondent submits that the petitioner has not worked for more days than those who have been absorbed

into the vacancies as agreed upon. They deny the petitioner's claim of continuous years of work and state that the

petitioner, who has worked for less than 240 days in a 12-month period from 1975 to 1988, has no right to seek

absorption in the bank except under the settlements. The case of the petitioner has already been considered under

several settlements, and therefore, all the provisions and terms of those settlements are binding on them. The

respondent submits that the applicant and other ex-temporary employees do not have an independent right, and their

claims are based solely on the settlements. The preparation and maintenance of panels are in compliance with the

agreed terms of the settlements. The panels, including the applicant, have ceased to exist after the designated period,

and the remaining candidates have no right or claim against the bank. The settlements explicitly stated that the panels

would not be kept alive until all candidates were absorbed. The applicant is barred from questioning the validity of the

settlements after accepting the benefits and empanelment. According to the settlement dated January 9, 1991,

vacancies until December 1994 were to be filled based on seniority from the 1989 panel. After that, the panel lapsed,

and the remaining candidates have no claim for permanent absorption. The same applies to the 1992 panel. The

respondent submits that only the temporary service rendered from January 1, 1975, to July 31, 1988, is considered for

permanent absorption, and days worked after that period are not counted since the panels had already lapsed. The

bank never promised to absorb all candidates in the panel, as the advertisement clearly stated that candidates would be

considered for absorption in vacancies until 1992. According to the respondent, the vacancies were identified and the

ex-temporary employees in the panels were absorbed based on seniority, as per the settlements between the

Federation and the management Bank. The respondent submits that mere empanelment does not guarantee absorption

for the petitioners, and keeping the panels alive after March 31, 1997, goes against the settlements. The respondent

submits that the settlements between the State Bank of India and the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

have the force of law and are binding on the parties. The petitioners themselves have acted upon the settlements by

being on the panel, and therefore, they are bound by the terms of the settlements. The maintenance of panels is in line

with the agreed terms of the settlements, and the Bank has strictly adhered to these terms. The present application is

based solely on the settlements and not on any independent right or provision of the Industrial Disputes Act. The

panels under the settlements had a specific time limit, and this term cannot be modified in any legal proceedings.

Therefore, those temporary employees who could not be accommodated due to lack of vacancies have no further

rights for regularization under the settlements or otherwise. The bank has fully complied with the settlements, and the

mentioned circulars and letters were merely directives to discontinue the practice of engaging temporary employees,

which was also a term of the settlements. It is submitted that some writs were filed by certain temporary employees

who were also called for interview and empanelled. In writ petition No.12964/94, the Hon’ble High Court went into

similar contentions in detail and the Learned Judge also referred to the settlements and subsequently held that the

Petitioners therein were not entitled to any relief and the only relief they can claim is enforcement of settlements, if

there is any right flowing from it or it has been violated. The relevant operative portion of the said judgement is as

follows:

"It is needless to state that the settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which

is the majority union and the bank management is binding on the petitioners also. It is not, at all the case of the

petitioner that any of the terms of the settlement has been violated by the bank’s management. If the Petitioner had

worked in the bank on part-time basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his

services should be regularized on permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the

Petitioner in the present petition is therefore misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Petitioner to

claim any right which flows from the settlement between the union and the bank management. As already pointed

out that it is not the grievance of the Petitioner that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the

Petitioner has been denied by the bank management. Therefore, I domestic enquiry not find any ground, let alone

substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for by the Petitioner. Writ petition fails and is accordingly

dismissed. No costs.”

The respondent submits that the settlements clearly state that the panels would cease to exist at the end of the

designated period, and there would be no further temporary or casual recruitment. The relief sought by the applicant,

4332

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 23, 2023/PAUSHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

if granted, would essentially make temporary employment permanent through a backdoor entry, which goes against

the settlements, as well as Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It would also deprive rightful claimants of their

chances through proper recruitment procedures. The settlements were intended as a one-time measure to end the

practice of temporary engagement, and the rights of the applicant were determined by these settlements. Therefore,

there is no legitimate expectation or estoppel, as contractual rights arising from an industrial settlement take

precedence. The bank did not make any statement or representation guaranteeing permanent appointment, as clearly

stated in the advertisement issued pursuant to the first settlement, which outlined the process of being considered for

permanent appointment and being wait-listed based on suitability and subject to vacancies, with the waitlist valid until

1991.

14.

The ex-temporary employees in the panels filed a writ petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

which was initially allowed by the Single Judge. However, the bank appealed this decision, and the Division Bench of

the High Court set aside the Single Judge's order. The ex-temporary employees then filed a Special Leave Petition

before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed. Therefore, the reference to the Single Judge's judgment in the

writ petition is irrelevant, as it has been overturned. The petitioner has not worked for the required 240 days in any

preceding 12-month period, so the reference to Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is not relevant. The

petitioners’ claim regarding their service and educational qualifications require strict proof. The allegation of

termination is incorrect, as the vacancies were filled based on seniority, and the non-engagement of the petitioner does

not constitute termination. Temporary employees are subject to the availability of work, and there is no obligation to

continue their employment when there is no work. The bank has not engaged in unfair labour practices, and the

settlements are binding on the petitioner, having been fully implemented without violating any provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act. The issue has been addressed in various judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts,

and the petitioner's industrial dispute lacks merit and should be dismissed.

15.

The Petitioner in support of his claim examined himself as WW1 and also filed photocopies of 5 documents

which were marked as Ex.W1 to W5. Ex.W1 is the call letter dated 21.7.92. Ex.W2 is the service certificate,

Ex.W3 is the service certificate, W4 is the panel list and Ex.W5 is another service certificate. On the other hand,

Respondent filed photocopies of 12 documents which were marked as Ex.M1 to M12. Ex.M1 to M4 are settlements

between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation. Ex.M5 is conciliation proceedings. Ex.M6

is another settlement. Ex.M7 is Memorandum of understanding. Ex.M8 is statement giving the particulars of 1989

messenger panel. Ex.M9 is statement of 1989 non-messenger panel. Ex.M10 is statement of 1992 panel. Ex.M11 is

order of Hon’ble High Court in WA No.86/98 and Ex.M12 is order in SLP No.11886-11888.

16.

On the basis of the pleadings and the submissions made by the parties, following points emerge for

determination:-

I. Whether the action of the Respondent Management in terminating the services of the workman, Sri Alluru

Balaraju, Ex-Messenger w.e.f, 31.03.1997 is legal and justified?

II. Whether the workman in terms of settlements arrived at between the Respondent Bank Management and the

Federation of Employees is entitled for regularization absorption in the service of Bank?

III. To what relief, the workman is entitled for?

Findings:

17. Points No. I & II:- The workman claims that he had been working with the Respondent Bank on 6.11.1989 as

Messenger. In the year 1992, Respondent issued advertisement for calling applications from the then temporary

subordinate employees for the post of messenger. The workman moved application and he received interview call

letter from bank to attend the interview, workman attended interview and Respondent Bank prepared a panel list of

all the successful candidates in the year 1992 and the Petitioner’s name appeared also in the panel list. The

Respondent Bank utilized the services of the empanelled employees and workman on temporary basis till March

1997 and some of the empanelled employees were given permanent appointment basing on the number of days of

service put up by them. Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 issued a Letter dated 25.03.1997 directing all Branch

Managers not to utilize the services of the empanelled Messenger and to declare that the panel list of 1991 will lapse

by 31.03.1997. Therefore, all the remaining empanelled employees as per the panel list of 1999, were denied

employment after 31.03.1997. It is further submitted by the workman that Respondent No.2 issued another

advertisement in the year 1991 calling application for interview from the then temporary working messengers and

selected some of the candidates among the applicants and prepared another panel list of 80 employees. The said

panels lapsed in March, 1997. However, surprisingly all the temporary employees as per Second panel List of 1993

were given permanent appointment and that order was issued just 15 days before the lapse of the panel List. It is

further submitted that the empanelled employees of Second panel List of 1993 were juniors to the temporary

employees’ of first panel list of 1991 in terms of number of days of service put up by them. Therefore, the act of

Respondent Bank appointing the junior employees of second panel list ignoring the senior employees of the first

panel list of 1991 is discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal which goes to indicate that the Respondent Bank chose to

favour the employees of second panel List of 1993 for the reason best known to the Respondent Bank.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम् बर 23, 2023/पौष 2, 1945

4333

18.

On the other hand, the Respondent countered the allegations made by the workman and submitted that the

persons who do not have the requisite number of days of service as per the settlement, could not be considered for

permanent absorption. It is contended that the bank had never promised that all the candidates in the panel will be

absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that the candidate will be considered for the absorption in the

vacancies that may arise up to 1992. Since the panel list had already lapsed on 31.03.1997, and the vacancies were

already filled up by absorbing the temporary attendants and daily wagers/casual employees respectively in order of

their seniority in the empanelment, therefore, the consideration of engaging their services including workman could

not have arise. Therefore, panel list of daily wagers prepared in the year 1992 was used for filling vacancies which

arose up to end of 1994 and the said panel list automatically lapsed after the filling of the aforesaid vacancies.

19.

In support of his claim, the workman has examined himself as WW1 and in chief examination, he reiterated

his claim as made in his petition. Further he stated Ex. W2, W3 and W5 are the service certificates. In cross

examination, WW1 states that, on the oral instruction of Branch Manager, he worked in the Branch. He further

admitted in the cross examination, “ During the period from 6.11.89 to 31.3.1997, I worked for 91 days before the

interview.” Further he states, “ I was not sponsored by any employment exchange. I did not undergo the regular

selection process before my appointment as a temporary messenger in the branch. I never worked continuously for

200 days in any year and I have worked continuously in three consecutive years. I used to work depending upon

availability of work in the branch.” The witness adds that he is not aware of the settlements. Further, the Petitioner

states that, “ It is true that I did not work for 240 days in any year in my entire service in any branch.” On the other

hand, the Respondent has examined MW1 and in his chief examination the witness had stated that the petitioner was

included in the panel list however, as the existing vacancies at that time were exhausted, his turn didn’t come, and he

could not be given permanent employment in the bank. All the appointments were made strictly in accordance with

the settlement between the SBI management and the SBI Staff Federation. The witness has also stated that as per the

seniority was determined on the basis of number of days as temporary service put in by the employee in the given

period and all the appointments were made as per seniority. Witness states that the petitioner had not worked for 240

days in any year in his entire temporary service in the bank. The petitioner and other temporary employees were not

terminated from service by the Bank. The vacancies were filled up on regular basis with the temporary employees

from the panel list and which were expired in terms of settlement on 31.03.1997 and there were no vacancies to

absorb rest of the empanelled employees.

20.

In view of the above statement of witness, it manifests that, the workman did not work for 240 days

continuously in any year in the service. Therefore, the protection of the provisions under Section 25 (f) of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 against the retrenchment is not available to the workman. The initial burden of proof was on the

workman to show that he had completed 240 days of continuous service in the employment of bank from the date just

preceding date of termination, but he failed to discharge his burden of proof.

In the case of Mohan Lal v. Management BEL 1981 SCC 225, the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that:

"Before a workman can claim retrenchment, not being in consonance of Section 25 of the ID act. he has to show that

he has been in continuous service of not less than 1 year with the employer who had retrenched him from service.”

"Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction to treat a workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact

that he has not rendered uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during

the period of 12 calendar service for months counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date

of retrenchment. In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine

first the relevant date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is

ascertained, move backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain

whether within the period of 12 months, the workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three

facts are affirmatively answered in favor of the workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it

will have to be assumed that the workman is in continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the

eligibility qualification enacted in Section 25-F"

Therefore, in view of the above law, the claim of the workman that Respondent has not exhausted procedure before

his retrenchment from service is not tenable.

21.

Further, the workman claimed that his name was included in the empanelment for regularization on

temporary posts after holding interview in 1989, but he was not regularized in the service and the temporary

employees junior to him in service were appointed on permanent posts from the empanelment. However, WW1 in

cross-examinations has admitted that he was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. He could not indicate any

instance of regularizing the temporary employee junior to him from the panel. Since, as per settlements arrived at

between the Federation of Bank Employees and Respondent Bank Management, the vacancies for the empanelled

employees of 1989 were available which would arise upto December, 1994 and those vacancies were absorbed from

the panel list 1991 in order of seniority. Therefore, due to non-availability of the vacancies, and the workman not

having the requisite number of days in service as compared to the other employees who were ranked senior to him in

the list, could not be regularized. Therefore, workman being junior to other workmen in the panel, could not be

4334

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 23, 2023/PAUSHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

granted regularization/absorption as a permanent employee in the Bank. It is admitted by the workman that the panel

list was prepared in terms of settlement arrived at between the State Bank Management and Federation of State Bank

Management Employees Association and therefore, same is binding on both parties under the provision of Section 18

(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, in view of the above, settlements and awards is also binding on the

workman.

In the case of National Engineers Industries v. St. of Rajasthan Civil Appeal No. 16832/1996 dated 01.12.1999,

three judges bench of Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-

“In Ram Pukar Singh and Ors. Vs. Heavy Engineering Corporation and Qrs. [1994] 6 SCC 145 this Court said that

a settlement arrived at between the management and the sole recognised union of workmen under section 12(3) read

with section 18 of the Act would be binding on all the workmen whether members of the union or not.”

Therefore, mere enlisting the name of workman, a in the list of employees for regularization, it does not entitle

workman for absorption in the Bank’s service as a permanent employee unless the vacancy is available at the stage

of his seniority. As per the settlement, the panel lists expired on 31.03.1997, and thereafter, the life of the panel list

could not be extended. In the Writ Petition No. 12964/1994, the Hon’ble High Court observed:-

"It is needless to state that the settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which

is the majority union and the bank management is binding on the petitioners also. It is not at all the case of the

petitioner that any of the terms of the settlement has been violated by the Bank's Management. If the petitioner had

worked in the Bank on Part-time basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in his a right to claim that his services

should be regularised on permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the petitioner in the

present petition is therefore misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the petitioner to claim any right

which flows from the settlement between the union and the Bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the

grievance of the petitioner that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the petitioner has been

denied by the Bank Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind

of relief sought for by the petitioner. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.”

Therefore, the claim of workman in the present matter can not be considered beyond the terms and conditions of

aforesaid settlement between Bank Management and Federation of employees.

Further, in the case of State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra AIR 1996 SC 2173, the Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-

"Notwithstanding the aforesaid Statutory Rule and without applying the mind to the aforesaid Rule, the High Court

relying upon some earlier decisions of the Court came to hold that the list does not expire after a period of one year

which on the face of it is erroneous. Further question that arises in this context is whether the High Court was

justified in issuing the mandamus to the appellant to make recruitment of the Writ Petitioners. Under the Constitution

a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of

legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right was subsisting on the date of the petition.

The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or

orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing

the provisions of law or to do something which in contrary to law. This being the position and in view of the Statutory

rule contained in Rule 26 of the Recruitment Rules we really fail to understand how the High Court could issue the

impugned direction to recruit the respondents who were included in the select list prepared on 4.4.87 and the list no

longer survived after one year and the rights, if any, of persons included in the list did not subsist."

Similarly in the case of Syndicate Bank and other Vs. Shankar Paul AIR 1997 SC 3091, it was held :

"Temporary were made from the empanel of eligible candidates prepared by calling names from employment

exchange, the empanel was valid for only year. When the said employee claimed permanent absorption in service, the

Apex Court has held that, whatever conditions regarding these empanelled candidates had they come an end on the

expiry of one year."

In the present matter also, since the panel list 1989, which was prepared for the vacancies arising up to December

1994, its life expired on 31.03.1997, and it could not be extended after the said expiry date. Further, the panel list

exhausted due to from the vacancies available upto 1994 with the absorption of empanelled senior employees. Thus,

the workman being junior in that panel list seniority could not get regularization / absorption in the service.

Although numerous pleas have been taken by the Petitioner in his claim statement, but as per settled law, here, we are

confined to the reference through which the dispute of dismissal of workman has been referred to the Tribunal for

adjudication. In view of fore gone discussion, workman failed to prove his claim as alleged in his petition against the

dismissal from service as well as claim for regularization and as such, the action of the Respondent bank in

dismissing the services of Sri Alluru Balaraju, Ex.Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified.

Points No. I & II is answered accordingly.

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम् बर 23, 2023/पौष 2, 1945

4335

22.

Point No. III:-

In view of the findings given in Points No. I & II, the claim of the workman against the dismissal order and for

regularization of his service in Respondent Bank is unfounded and devoid of merits. Therefore, the workman is not

entitled for any relief of reinstatement or regularization in the employment of Respondent Bank. Hence, his claim

petition is liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

In view of the fore gone discussion, it is held that the action of the Respondent bank in dismissing the

services of Sri Alluru Balaraju, Ex. Messenger by way of oral orders w.e.f. 31.3.1997 is justified. Hence, the

Petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and consequently petition stands dismissed. Reference is

answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 17^th day

of November, 2023.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri Alluru Balaraju

MW1: Sri I.S. Appa Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1:

Photocopy of interview call letter

Ex.W2:

Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W3:

Photocopy of service certificate

Ex.W4:

Photocopy of panel list

Ex.W5:

Photocopy of service certificate

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.17.11.87

Ex.M2:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.16.7.88

Ex.M3:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.27.10.1988

Ex.M4:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.9.1.1991

Ex.M5:

Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt.9.6.1995

Ex.M6:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt.30.7.1996

Ex.M7:

Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997

Ex.M8:

Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.

Ex.M9:

Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non0messenger panel

Ex.M10:

Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel

Ex.M11:

Photocopy of order of Hon’ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98

Ex.M12:

Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98

4336

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 23, 2023/PAUSHA 2, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम् बर, 2023

का.आ. 1885.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (209/2002) izdkf”kr

djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-12012/378/2001-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 12th December, 2023

S.O. 1885.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.209/2002) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and

their workmen.

[No. L-12012/378/2001- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

In The Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court At Hyderabad

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 17^th day of November, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 209/2002

Between:

Sri Bethala Prasad,

S/o Sundara Rao,

Jagarlamudi, Yeedanapudi(M),

Prakasam Distt.

… Petitioner

And

The Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office, Region-III,

Tirupathi-517501.

…..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri B. Suman Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/378/2001-IR(B.I) dated 25.1.2002

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to decide the question:

THE SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Tirupathi Zone in dismissing services of

Shri B. Prasad, Ex.Messenger, is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?”

After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No.209/2002 and notices were issued to both the workman and

the management.

Earlier this reference was answered by this Tribunal by a common award dated 17.5.2005, along with other

batch cases, and the claim of the workman was dismissed. Workman challenged said award before the Hon’ble High

[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : दिसम् बर 23, 2023/पौष 2, 1945

4337

Court vide WP No. 6470/2006 & batch wherein Hon’ble High Court of A.P., vide decision dated 23.6.2014 set aside

the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad

and directed the Respondent bank to reengage the workmen in the positions which they had been occupying prior to

termination. Being aggrieved by the said order in WP No. 6470/2006 & batch, Respondent bank preferred appeal

WA Nos.1268/2014 and batch cases wherein Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court held:-

“(1)

affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the “extent it sets aside the common

award dated 17.5.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;

(2)

The further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated;

(3)

all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an outer

limit of five(5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,

(4)

the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WA No.1268/2014 and other batch, held that, “ Hearing the learned