This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री स.ं डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05 REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05 सी.जी.-डी.एxलx.x-GसIDा.-H0x9xx0 32021-225727 xxxGIDExxx CG-DL-W-09032021-225727 प्राजिकार स ेप्रकाजित PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY साप्त ाजिक WEEKLY स.ं 09] नई दिल्ल ी, फरवरी 28—मार् च 6, 2021 िजनवार/फाल् गनु 9— फाल्ग नु 15, 1942 No. 09] NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 28– MARCH 6, 2021, SATURDAY/ PHALGUNA 9 –PHALGUNA 15, 1942 इस भाग म ेंजभन्न ृ्‍ष स्‍ं ा िी िाती ि जजिसस ेदक ि ृ ष क संकलन के प ृ म ेंर ा िा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation भाग II— ण्ड 3—उृ- ण्ड (ii) PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii) भारत सरकार के मत्रं ाल ों (रक्षा मत्रं ाल को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए साजं वजिक आििे और अजिसूर्नाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence) कार्मकच , लोक जिका त और ृिें न मत्रं ाल (कार्मचक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग) नई दिल्ली, 2 मार्,च 2021 का.आ. 174.—केन् र सरकार, एतद्द्वारा दिल्ल ी जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना अजिजन म, 1946 (1946 का 25) की िारा 5 की उृ-िारा (1) सृठ त िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करत े हुए, मिाराष्ट्र राज् सरकार के गषि जवभाग, मुंबई के आिेि स.ं सीबीआई 2021/सीआर 11/ृॉल-2, दिनांक 15.01.2021 के माध् म स े िारी सिमजत स,े श्री साबल,े वसूली अजिकारी, बैंक ऑफ बड़़ौिा, िलगांव के जवप द्ध भ्रष्टार्ार जनवारण अजिजन म, 1988 (1988 का 49) के तित दिनांक 12.01.2021 को िि च जिका त; जिसके आिार ृर दिनांक 18.01.2021 को एक सीबीआई मामला, आरसी/ृूणे/2021/ए/0001 िि च दक ा ग ा ि,ज स े िुड़े अृराि(िों) का अन्वेषण त ा ऐस े 1124 GI/2021 (475)476 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] अृराि(िों) स े िुड़ े ा उससे सबं द्ध दकसी ि्‍ु प्र ास, ि्‍ु प्रेरणा और/अ वा षड्यंत्र एव/ं अ वा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए ा उन्िीं तथ् ों स े उत्ृन्न दकसी अन् अृराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् ाृना के सिस्ट् ों की िजि ों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (का ोत्तर प्रभाव स े दिनांक 18.01.2021 स)े समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज् म ें करती ि।ज [फा. स.ं 228/06/2021-एवीडी-II] एस. ृी. आर. जत्रृा ी, अवर सजर्व MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS (Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2021 S.O. 174.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No. CBI 2021/CR 11/POL-2. dated 15.01.2021 of Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 18.01.2021) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 12.01.2021 against Shri Sable, Recovery Officer, Bank of Baroda, Jalgaon under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988); based on which a CBI Case, RC/Pune/2021/A/0001 has been registered on 18.01.2021 and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts. [F. No. 228/06/2021-AVD-II] S. P. R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy. स्ट्व ास्ट्थ् एव ंृठरवार कल् ाण मत्रं ाल (स्ट्व ास्ट्थ् एव ंृठरवार कल् ाण जवभाग) नई दिल् ली, 27 िनवरी, 2021 का.आ. 175.—डेंठिस्ट्ि एक्ि, 1948 (1948 का 16) की िारा 3 म ें प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करत े हुए, केन्री सरकार द्वारा स्ट्वास्ट्थ् एव ं ृठरवार कल् ाण मंत्राल , भारत सरकार के दिनांक 24 िनवरी, 1984 के का. आ. स.ं 430 म ेंएतद्द्वारा जनम्नजलज त संिोिन दक ा ग ा ि,ज अ ाचत्: 2. “िारा 3 के ण्ड (ड) के तित र् जनत” िीषच के तित उि अजिसूर्ना में जनम्नजलज त सजममलत दक ा ग ा ि,ज अ ाचत:् सिस्ट् का नाम जवजि ूजनवर्सचिी जिसका प्रभावी जतज प्रजतजनजित्व दक ा ग ा डॉ. बी. एस. सुरेि, नाजमत रािीव गांिी ूजनवर्सचिी ऑफ 19.12.2020 प्रोफेसर, िल्े साइंसेि, बैंगल़ौर, सुब्ब ा िंत जवज्ञान संस्ट् ान, जिमोगा, कनाचिक कनाचिक [फा. स.ं वी. 12025/2/2021-डीई] कुमार प्रनव, अवर सजर्व[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गनु 15, 1942 477 MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (Department of Health and Family Welfare) New Delhi, the 27th January, 2021 S.O. 175.—In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare No. S. O. 430 dated 24th January, 1984, namely: 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. B.S. Suresh, Professor, Elected Rajiv Gandhi University of Health 19.12.2020” Subbaiah Institute of Dental Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka Sciences, Shimoga, Karnataka [F. No. V. 12025/2/2021-DE] KUMAR PRANAV, Under Secy. नई दिल् ली, 27 िनवरी, 2021 का.आ. 176.—डेंठिस्ट्ि एक्ि, 1948 (1948 का 16) की िारा 3 म ें प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए केन्री सरकार द्वारा स्ट्वास्ट्थ् एव ं ृठरवार कल् ाण मंत्राल , भारत सरकार के दिनांक 24 िनवरी, 1984 के सा. आ. स.ं 430 म ें एतद्वारा जनम्नजलज त सिं ोिन दक ा िाता ि,ज अ ाचत्: 2. “िारा 3 के ण्ड (ङ) के तित नाजमत” िीषच के तित उि अजिसूर्ना में जनम्नजलज त सजममलत दक ा ग ा ि,ज अ ाचत:् सिस्ट् का नाम जवजि राज् जिसका प्रजतजनजित्व दक ा ग ा प्रभावी जतज डॉ. सरु ेन्र अग्रवाल, नाजमत मध् प्रििे 09.07.2020 िंत जर्दकत्सक, मकान नं. 8, फेि -2, ठरवेरा िाउन माता मंदिर, एमएनएआईिी के ृास, िी. िी नगर, भोृाल 462003, मध् प्रििे [फा. सं. वी. 12025/124/2020-डीई] कुमार प्रनव, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 27th January, 2021 S.O. 176.—In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare No. S.O. 430 dated 24thJanuary, 1984, namely: 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. Surendra Agrawal, Dentist, H. No. Nominated Madhya Pradesh 09.07.2020 8, Phase-2, Reviera Town Mata Mandir, Near MNAIT, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal 462 003, Madhya Pradesh [F. No. V. 12025/124/2020-DE] KUMAR PRANAV, Under Secy.478 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल् ली, 27 िनवरी, 2021 का.आ. 177.—डेंठिस्ट्ि एक्ि, 1948 (1948 का 16) की िारा 3 म ें प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए केन्री सरकार द्वारा स्ट्वास्ट्थ् एव ं ृठरवार कल् ाण मंत्राल , भारत सरकार के दिनांक 24 िनवरी, 1984 के का. आ. स.ं 430 म ें एतद्वारा जनम्नजलज त सिं ोिन दक ा ग ा ि,ज अ ाचत:् 2. “िारा 3 के ण्ड (ड) के तित र् जनत” िीषच के तित उि अजिसूर्ना में जनम्नजलज त सजममलत दक ा ग ा ि,ज अ ाचत:् सिस्ट् का नाम जवजि ूजनवर्सचिी जिसका प्रभावी जतज प्रजतजनजित्व दक ा ग ा डॉ. जवकास िुृर, नाजमत गोआ ूजनवर्सचिी, गोआ 13.11.2018 प्रोफेसर एवं प्रमु , मु एवं मेक्सीलोफेजस ल सिरच ी जवभाग, गोआ डेंिल कॉलेि एवं अस्ट्ृताल, बेमबोजलन, गोआ [फा. सं. वी. 12025/143/2020-डीई] कुमार प्रनव, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 27th January, 2021 S.O. 177.—In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare No. S.O. 430 dated 24th January, 1984, namely: 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. Vikas Dhupar, Professor & Elected Goa University, Goa 13.11.2018” Head, Dept.. of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Goa Dental College & Hospital, Bambolim, Goa [F. No. V. 12025/143/2020-DE] KUMAR PRANAV, Under Secy. नई दिल् ली, 2 मार्,च 2021 का.आ. 178.—भारत के रािृत्र, असािारण, भाग-II, िारा 3 म ें दिनांक 17 िनू , 2016 को प्रकाजित, स्ट्वास्ट्थ् और ृठरवार कल् ाण मंत्राल भारत सरकार की अजिसूर्ना का.आ 2157 (अ) म,ें जन म 6(i)(o) के तित क्रम स.ं 3 और उससे संबंजित प्रजवष्टी को, 16 िून, 2021 तक की अवजि के जलए, जनम्नजलज त स े प्रजतस्ट् ाजृत दक ा िाता ि:ज- जन म 6(i)(ढ़) डॉ. राकेि कुमार, - सिस्ट् अध् क्ष के ओएसडी, राष्ट्री ृरीक्षा बोड,च नई दिल्ली [फा. सं. वी. 11025/48/2020-एमईृी] अजमत जबस्ट्वास, अवर सजर्व[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गनु 15, 1942 479 New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2021 S.O. 178.—In the notification of Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare number S.O. 2152(E) dated 17th June, 2016 published in Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, under Rule 6(i)(o), the serial number 3 and the entries relating thereto shall be substituted as under for a period upto 16th June, 2021:- Under Rule 6(i)(o) Dr. Rakesh Sharma, -Member OSD to President, National Board of Examinations, New Delhi. [F. No. V. 11025/48/2020-MEP] AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy. नई दिल् ली, 2 मार्,च 2021 का.आ. 179.—भारत के रािृत्र, असािारण, भाग-II, िारा 3 म ें प्रकाजित, स्ट्वास्ट्थ् और ृठरवार कल् ाण मंत्राल भारत सरकार की अजिसूर्ना का.आ. 4247 (अ) दिनांक 25 नवंबर, 2020 के अनुक्रम म,ें केंर सरकार, 27 िुलाई, 2021 तक की अवजि के जलए, जनम्नजलज त व्यजि को नाजमत करती ि:ज- जन म 6(i)( ) डॉ. मीनू बािृे ी, - उृाध् क्ष प्रोफेसर और एर्ओडी, बाल जर्दकत्सा जवभाग, एमस, नई दिल्ली। [फा. सं. वी. 11025/48/2020-एमईृी] अजमत जबस्ट्वास, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 2nd March, 2021 S.O. 179.— In continuation to the notification of Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare number S.O. 4247(E) dated 25th November, 2020 published in Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, the Central Government hereby nominates following person for a period upto 27th July, 2021:- Under Rule 6(i)(b) Dr. Minu Bajpai, Professor & HoD, -Vice-president Department of Paediatric Surgery, AIIMS, New Delhi. [F. No. V. 11025/48/2020-MEP] AMIT BISWAS, Under Secy. वाजणज् एव ं उद्योग मत्रं ाल (वाजणज् जवभाग) नई दिल् ली, 28 दिसम बर, 2020 का.आ. 180.—केन्री सरकार, जन ाचत (गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) अजिजन म, 1963 (1963 का 22) की िारा 7 की उृिारा (1) के सा ृठ त जन ाचत (गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) जन म, 1964 के जन म 12, के उृजन म (2) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, मजससच जमत्रा एस. के. प्राइवेि जलजमिेड, मोिर िाउस480 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] बंगलास, स्ट्कूल रोड, ओ ा, गुिरात -361350 (जिस े एतद्ृश्चात उि अजभकरण माना िाएगा) को इस अजिसूर्ना के िासकी रािृत्र म ें प्रकािन की तारी स े तीन वषच की अवजि के जलए, वाजणज् मंत्राल की िासकी रािृत्र म ें प्रकाजित भारत सरकार की अजिसूर्ना के सा अनुसूर्ी म ें जनर्ि्‍च ि दिनांक 20 दिसमबर, 1965 की अजिसूर्ना की सं्‍ ा का.आ. 3975 त ा दिनांक 20 दिसमबर, 1965 की अजिसूर्ना स.ं का.आ. 3978 के तित प्रकाजित अजिसूर्ना म ें उृाबद्ध अनुसूर्ी म ें जवजनर्िष्टच जनि और अ स्ट् क – समूि-1 अ ाचत, ल़ौि अ स्ट्क, त ा बॉक्साइि, कजलजसनेड बाक्साइि बॉक्साइि सजित; और जनि और समूि-2 अ ाचत, ज़ ंक कॉन्सरेि सजित ज़ ंक अ स्ट् क, के जन ाचत स े ृूवच जनरीक्षण करने के जलए जनम्नजलज त ितों के अिीन ओ ा, ृोरबंिर, कांडला एव ं मुंिरा ृत्तन म ें उक्त जनि एव ं अ स्ट् क के जनरीक्षण करने के जलए एक अजभकरण के प ृ म ें मान् ता िेती ि,ज अ ाचत ् : (i) ि अजभकरण, जनि और अ स्ट्क समूि-। के जन ाचत (जनरीक्षण) जन म, 1965 जनि और अ स्ट्क समूि-II के जन ाचत (जनरीक्षण) जन म, 1965 के जन म 4 के अिीन जनरीक्षण की ृद्धजत की िााँर् करन े के जल े जन ातच जनरीक्षण ृठरषि ्द्वारा जनजमत्त नामजनर्िष्टच अजिकाठर ों को ृ ाचप्त सुजविाएं िेगी; और (ii) ि अजभकरण, इस अजिसूर्ना के अिीन अृन े का ो के ृालन म ें जनिेिक (जनरीक्षण और गणु वत्ता जन ंत्रण) जन ाचत जनरीक्षण ृठरषि द्वारा सम -सम ृर, जलज त प ृ म,ें दिए गए जनिेिों स ेआबद्ध िोंगी । [फा. स.ं के-16014/9/2020-जन ाचत जनरीक्षण] दिवाकर ना जमसरा, सं ुि सजर्व MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (Department of Commerce) New Delhi, the 28th December, 2020 S.O. 180.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/s Mitra S.K. Private Limited, Motor House Bunglows, School Road, Okha, Gujarat-361350, as an agency for a period of three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette , for the inspection of Minerals & Ores- (Group-I), namely, Iron Ore and Bauxite including calcined bauxite, and (Group-II), namely, Zinc ores including zinc concentrates as specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce, published in the official Gazette vide number S.O. 3975, dated the 20th December, 1965, and S.O. 3978 dated the 20th December, 1965 respectively, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores at Okha Port, Porbandar, Kandla and Mundra Ports subject to the following conditions, namely: - (i) the said agency shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores - Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965 and the Export of Minerals and Ores - Group II (Inspection) Rules, 1965; (ii) the said agency, in performance of their function as specified in this notification shall be bound by such directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give in writing from time to time. [F. No. K-16014/9/2020-Export Inspection] DIWAKAR NATH MISRA, Jt. Secy.[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गनु 15, 1942 481 नई दिल् ली, 26 फरवरी, 2021 का.आ. 181.—सावचिजनक ृठरसर (अनजिकषत कब्िा िारकों की बेि ली) अजिजन म, 1971 (1971 के 40) की िारा 3 के द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए केंर सरकार एतद्द्वारा जनम्नजलज त ताजलका के कॉलम (1) म ें उजल्लज त अजिकारी को सरकार के रािृजत्रत अजिकारी स्ट्तर के समतल्ु अजिकारी िोते हुए उि अजिजन म के आि स े दि स्ट्िेि रेज़डंग कॉृोरेिन ऑफ इंजड ा जलजमिेड म ें संृिा अजिकारी जन ुि करती ि ज िो प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करेंग े और उि ताजलका के कॉलम (2) म ें संगत प्रजवजष्ट म ें उजल्लज त सावचिजनक ृठरसरों के संबंि म ें उि अजिजन म के तित संृिा अजिकारी ृर लाग ू कतचव्यों का जनवाचि करेंगे। ताजलका (1) (2) श्री अिोक कुमार स्ट्वजन, उृ मिाप्रबंिक (जवत्त), दि कोई भी ृठरसर िो एसिीसी से संबंजित िो अ वा स्ट्िेि रेज़डंग कॉृोरेिन ऑफ इंजड ा जलजमिेड, एसिीसी द्वारा ा उसकी और से ृट्टे अ वा लाइसेंस ृर िवािर व्याृार भवन, िॉलस्ट्िॉ माग,च नई दिल्ली। जल ा ग ा िो म ें इसके आवासी ृठरसरों के सा -सा का ाचल ृठरसर, भूजम, कोई अन् ृठरसर ा कोई भवन ा दकसी भवन का जिस्ट्सा, उसमे बगीर्ा, मजिान त ा ऐसे भवन अ वा भवन के जिस्ट्से आदि से संबंजित आउििाउस, दि कोई िो, िाजमल ि।ज [फा. स.ं 6/6/2006-एफिी (एसिी)] रािेंिर ज़संि, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 26th February, 2021 S.O. 181.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column (1) of the Table below, being an officer equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officer of the Government, to be Estate Officer in The State Trading Corporation of India Limited, for the purpose of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers and perform the duties of Estate Officer, as conferred under the said Act, in respect of the Public Premises specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table. TABLE (1) (2) Shri Ashok Kumar Swain, Deputy General Any Premises belonging to, or taken on Lease or Manager (Finance), The State Trading License by, or on behalf of the STC which includes its Corporation of India Limited, Jawahar Vyapar Residential premises as well as Office Premises, Land, Bhawan, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. any other Premises or any building or part of a building including garden, grounds and outhouses, if any, pertaining to such building or part of a building etc. [F. No. 6/6/2006-FT(ST)] RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.482 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] श्रम एव ंरोिगार मत्रं ाल ubZ fnYyh] 19 Qjojh] 2021 —vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ lh-lh-,y- ds izca/kr=a ds lac) fu;kstdks a vkSj muds deZdkjks a ds chp] vucq a/k eas fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- &1] /kuckn ds iapkV {¼lanHkZ f'kdk;r izdj.k la[;k 06@2013 ¼lanHkZ la[;k 58@92 ls mRiUu½}dk s izdkf'kr djrh gS] tk s dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-05-2019 dk s izkIr gqvk FkkA [la- ,y-20012@39@1992-vkbZvkj ¼lh-1½] jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo ृाि ठिप्ृणी:– मूल अजिसूर्ना भारत सरकार के साप्ताजिक रािृत्र भाग II - ंड -3 उृ- ंड (ii) में अजिसूर्ना सं्‍ ांक का.आ. 1410 दिनांक 01 िून 2017 द्वारा प्रकजित की ग ी ी। MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi, the 19th February, 2021 S.O. 182.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad {Comp. Case No.06 of 2013, (Arising out of Reference No.58/92)} as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. CCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 21.05.2019. [No. L-20012/39/1992-IR(C-I)] RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy. Foot Note:- The principal Notification , in pursuance of the Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (14 of 1947), was published in the gazette of India vide Notification No. S.O. 1410 dated 01.06.2017 ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD IN THE MATTER OF A COMPLAINT U/S 33(A) OF I.D ACT, 1947 COMPLAINT NO. 6/2013 (Arising out of Ref. No. 58/92) Ministry order no. 20012/39/92-IR(C-1) Binod Rajak, & 58 Ors ……………………………….………..…..Complainants Vrs Project Officer, Swang washery M/S. CCL ………………………….Opposite party Present :- Shri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer Appearances For complainant : Shri D. Mukherjee, Advocate For opposite party : Shri D.K.Verma, Advocate Industry :-Coal Dated. 21.04.2017 AWARD 1. This complaint is filed by the complainant collectively on behalf of all the 58 workmen. After receipt of the complainant, both parties are noticed. The complainat including Mahendra Rajak files an application U/S 33A of the I.D Act, that during the pendency of the lis of Reference No. 58 of 1992, the management/opp.Party has started diciplinary proceedings against them without permission of the Tribunal, and seek redress to restore[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गनु 15, 1942 483 their job. 2. It is also submited by the complainant the award of Ref 58 of 92 passed on 03.10.1996 in which Opp.Party/management is directed to regularise the services of the concerned workmen w.e.f. 11.12.1990. The award was confirmed by the single bench of High Court, Division Bench as well as confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court being reported in L.L.N 2001 (4) 135 and the judgement was delivered on 30.08.2001. 3. It is further submitted by the complainant that ultimately seeing no other alternative the management/opp. Party agreed to provided service to the concerned workmen with intention not to provide employment to the concerned workmen. . The judgement of the Hon’ble Suprement Court was passed in 2001 still then the Opp.Party regularised the concerned workmen in the year 2010 after determining the exact age of persons still then the so-called medical officer determined the exact age of the persons, then the concerned workmen were issued chargesheet by the management in the year 2012 on the alleged ground of giving false information regarding age by invoking clause 26.9 of the standing order. 4. During the pendency of LC Application No. 10 of 2003 which is also arising out of Ref 58/92 , the management changed the service condition of the concerned workmen by issuing chargesheet and by conducting enquiry and the management is contemplating to dismiss the concerned workmen from service that too without taking any prior approval of the Tribunal so that the complainant prays to quash the chargesheet and not to proceed the enquiry and not to dismiss the concerned workmen from services till the pendency of the case as mentioned above. 5. On the other hand management submitted that the reference case already been exhausted after it is travelling to High Court to Apex Court and the management implemented the award as per the memorandum of settlement. 6. It was the settlement that as per the identification of Union leader, the workmen will be taken to job and some of them have been taken. It is further submitted that serious, allegation received, that the workman appointed as per award were not real beneficiary. Many fake persons entered into job in the name of the persons in the award even changing their names and father names for which the management started disciplinary enquiry against many and stop giving employment to rest. 7. It is also submitted by the Opp.Party that the complainant were submitted prescribed format and claimed themselves as beneficiaries of the award. After implementation of the award the opp/Party received complaints from the various corner regarding the complainant that the complainant are not the real workmen concerned of Ref. Case no. 58/92 and are not bona-fide beneficiary, accordingly the opp/party consitituted a committee for examination of disputed identity of the applicant. 8. The committee after examination the matter submitted its report mentioning their in that the complainants submitted false information regarding their name, father’s name, address, and age etc and fraudulently obtained employment in CCL. Accordingly proceeded for misconduct under clause 26.9 and 26.22 of the certified standing order, the opp/party issued charge sheets to the applicants. The issuance of chargesheet for commission of misconduct is not the change of service condition of an employee. 9. During the pendency of the case one Mahendra Rajak tried to intervene stating that he is the real beneficiery and not the persons who is in job as Mahendra Rajak. Though he was not impleaded as party, the Management was asked to enquire into the matter. During the final hearing the so called intervener filed the order of the management that the said Mahendra Rajak was dismissed from Job on the ground of impersonator and fraud . This being the situation there is malafides in giving appointment also. 10. But from the case it reveals that the M.O.S has not been entered into in clean hands and which is the out come of ingenuness and fraudulent act. Though this Tribunal thought that the MOS was genuine, now it is not like that. The case is of 1992, question of impersonation is primafacie seen. 11. Hence the management is directed to remove all the workman who are in employment on the basis of MOS pending enquiry. As directed by Higher Court all parties may approach this Tribunal for proper identification and to restore Industrial peace. For this delicate issue, the Tribunal also proceeded to spot for a circuit and to hear the matter and also took evidence as adduced by the parties, there. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the application filed by the complainant is rejected. The Opp.Party is to act upon the award soon after it is published in the official gazettee, since fraud has no legs to stand for a longer time. This is my award . R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer484 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल् ली, 24 फरवरी, 2021 का.आ. 183—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण म,ें केन्री सरकार प्रबंिक / जनििे क, स्ट्कूिर इंजड ा जलजमिेड, सरोिनी नगर, ल नऊ ( ूृी) के प्रबंितत्रं के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री िान्तनु व 154 अन् और श्री मनीष ृवार और 11 अन् और श्री अरुण कुमार, 529 के/444 ृंत नगर, ुरंम नगर, ल नऊ ( ूृी) कामगार के बीर् अनुबंि म ें जनर्िष्टच औद्योजगक जववाि म ें केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल , ल नऊ के ृंर्ाि (संिभच सं्‍ ा 13/2019) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक म ें दि ा ा ग ा ि,ज प्रकाजित करती ि जिो केन्री सरकार को 18.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ ा। [स.ं एल-42011/245/2018-आईआर (डी )ू ] डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 24th February, 2021 S.O. 183.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 13/2019) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum Labour Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Manager/Director, Scooter India Limited, Sarojni Nagar, Lucknow (UP) and Sh. Shantanu & 154 ors & Sh. Manish Pawar & 11 others Sh. Arun Kumar, 529 K/444 Pant Nagar, Khuramm Nagar, Lucknow, Worker which was received by the Central Government on 18.02.2021. [No. L-42011/245/2018 -IR (DU)] D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy. ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT : P. K. SRIVASTAVA, HJS (Retd.) I.D. No. 13/2019 Ref. No. L-42011/245/2018-IR(DU) dated 04.02.2019 BETWEEN : Sh. Shantanu & 154 ors & Sh. Manish Pawar & 11 others Sh. Arun Kumar, 529 K/444 Pant Nagar, Khurram Nagar Lucknow – 266022. Vs. Manager/Director Scooter India Limited, Sarojni Nagar Lucknow – 226008 AWARD 1. By order No. L-42011/245/2018-IR(DU) dated 04.02.2019, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute for adjudication. 2. The reference under adjudication is: “KYA PRABANDHAN, SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW DWARA SARV SHRI SHANTANU VA 154 ANYA AUR SARV SHRI MANISH SINGH PAWAR VA ANYA 11 SUCHIYAN SNLAGN KO UNKE PAD KE ANUSAAR SEVA MEIN NIYAMIT NA KARNA NYAYOCHIT EVAM VAIDH HAI? YADI NAHI TO KAAMGAAR KIS RAAHAT KO PAANE KA KAQDAAR HAI?” 3. The present industrial disputed between Shri Shantanu & 154 others and Shri Manish Pawar & 11 other and the management of Scooters India Limited had been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication; however, no list of workmen, as mentioned in the schedule of reference, had been enclosed with the order of reference. The Statement of Claim had been filed by Shantanu and 142 others only, mentioning their service number.[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गनु 15, 1942 485 4. The case of the workmen, in brief is that the workmen submitted their application for their engagement as advance trade/diploma trainees in pursuance to notification dated 03.08.2013 of the management; and were called for interview vie letter dated 30.01.2013. It has been stated that post interview they were selected as Advance Trade Trainees on different trades for a fixed period of two years at fixed stipend and engagement letter was issued accordingly. The workmen have stated that after satisfactory completion of term of engagement, their term for engagement was further extended by two years by a common order, which kept on extending from time to time for two years’ spell each. The workmen have contended that their selection had been made in terms of para 1.2.11 of the Standing Order and are working as on date and also getting all befits like CPF, ESI and other facilities at par with regular employees of the Company, therefore, they are entitled for regularization under Rules, particularly in terms of the fact that the work and posts are available with the Company as they have engaged as many as 300 retired employees. Accordingly, the workmen have prayed that the management be directed to consider their candidature for regularization on their respective posts with all consequential service benefits. 5. The management of the Scooters India Limited has disputed the claim of the workmen, filing its written statement; wherein it has been submitted that the Company was referred to BIFR in the year 2010 due losses and was out of BIFR in the year 2015 for the losses and in order to overcome the losses Company inducted Advance Diploma Trainees/Diploma Trainees so that the production and in turn profit of the Company could be increased. It has been stated by the management that the workmen were inducted in the company as trainees with fixed stipend @ minimum wages of semi-skilled worker notified by the Central Government per month with all-inclusive benefits such as CPF & ESI etc.; however, they are not regular employees of the Company. The management has stated that the applicants are ‘workman’ as per para 1.2.11 of the standing order of the company, which means any person employed in the company, including an apprentice; but such apprentices cannot claim regularization. It has also been submitted by the Company that it is Government of India enterprises and is governed by rules and regulations of Government of India; moreover, the Company is under heavy loss and being financial condition very critical, the company is undergoing the process of disinvestment, as such, under circumstances the regularization could not be done. Accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim of the workmen be rejected being devoid of any merit. 6. The workmen have filed their rejoinder; wherein have reiterated the facts already mentioned in the statement of claim. 7. The parties filed documentary evidence in support of their respective claim and forwarded oral as well as written submissions. 8. Heard learned counsel of both the parties at length and perused entire evidence available on record. 9. The learned counsel for workmen has submitted that the workmen, under dispute, has been inducted in the Company, initially for two years, in pursuance to notification dated 03.08.2013, issued by the Company, for engagement of Advance Diploma Trainees after going through the formalities mentioned in the said notification dated 03.08.2013, the workmen have been inducted for a fixed period of two years on a fixed stipend. It has been contended by the learned counsel that after expiry of said period of two years, the management kept on extending their engagement as trainees from time to time in spell of two years till date and has deprived them from their legitimate right of regularization. The learned counsel has submitted that keeping in view going on disinvestment process of the Company the right of the workmen, on disinvestment, be protected; moreover, they are entitled for regularization, as they are ‘workman’ ad defined in para 1.2.11 of the Standing Order and their selection had been made against substantive posts and have completed the period of probation and their period of training is being extended from time to time. The learned counsel has argued that the nature of workmen being performed by the workmen is at par with that of regular employees and the management has engaged as many as 300 retired employees which shows that posts and work, both is available with the Company; hence the workmen are entitled for regularization. He has relied upon: (i) Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1878 of 2016 Oil and Natural Gas Corporation vs Krishan Gopal & Others decided on 07.02.2020. 10. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for management has argued that workmen have been engaged as Advance Trade Trainees of a specific term and their terms of engagement had clearly been mentioned in the letter engagement, which provided that their service shall stand automatically terminated on the expire of the period of engagement and the company will have no obligation to offer them any appointment and the workmen will have no right, lien or preference for any appointment, after the expiry of the training period, in any vacancy or post which may occur in future. The learned counsel has submitted that workmen were initially engaged for 2 years and thereafter engagement of some of the workmen were extended for 03 months and some were extended for 06 months and for some this extension for a year, as per need of their training. The learned counsel has argued that workman have accepted terms and conditions of engagement; and after completion of their training, their contract was extended for a further fixed period; and having accepted the terms and conditions of engagement, the workmen cannot claim any benefit. He has relied upon:486 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (i) 2006 (4) SCC 1 State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (ii) 2014 (7) SCC 190 Hari Nandan Prasad & another vs Employer I/R To Management of FCI & another. 11. Heard intellect submissions of the learned counsel of both the parties and scanned law cited by them during the course of oral and written submissions. 12. The workmen have come up with a case that they have been engaged by the management of Scooters India Limited as Advance Diploma Trainees for a fixed period, initially for a period of two years in the year 2014, after calling for application and conducting an interview; however, the term of engagement is being extended from time to time and are still working with the opposite parties. It is the specific case of the workmen that sanctioned posts and work is available there, still the management is not considering them for regularization and is extending their term of engagement, which amounts to unfair labour practice. The workmen have also submitted that they are enjoining privileges at par the regular employee, such as CPF, ESI etc. and have completed their probation period in terms of para 4.2.3 of the Standing Order; hence eligible for consideration for regularization; moreover, it has also been asserted by the workmen that in the event of disinvestment, their rights may be protected. 13. Per contra, the management of the Scooters India Limited has come up with a case that the workman had been initially been engaged as inducted Advance Diploma Trainees/Diploma Trainees with fixed stipend @ minimum wages of semi-skilled worker notified by the Central Government per month with all-inclusive benefits such as CPF & ESI etc.; however, they are not regular employees of the Company. The management has admitted that the applicants are ‘workman’ as per para 1.2.11 of the standing order of the company, which means any person employed in the company, including an apprentice; but such apprentices cannot claim regularization. Moreover, it is also the case of the management that it is a Government of India enterprises and is governed by rules and regulations of Government of India; also the Company is under heavy loss and being financial condition very critical, the company is undergoing the process of disinvestment, as such, under circumstances the regularization could not be done. 14. Having regard to the rival pleadings of the parties, it comes of that the applicants who are admittedly included in the category of ‘workman’ were engaged as Advance Diploma Trainees/Diploma Trainees, after calling for applications and inducting interview etc., for a fixed period, with fixed stipend @ minimum wages of semi-skilled worker notified by the Central Government per month with all-inclusive benefits such as CPF & ESI etc.; however their period of training had been extended from time to time in spells of two years and most of them are still working with the Company as trainees. Now the applicant workmen are claiming for their regularizations as according to them they have successfully completed term of probation and the exercise of management in extending their term of engagement from time to time amounts to unfair labour practice, more particularly where there is availability of sanctioned post and work also. 15. In this connection, it is noteworthy to mention here that the workmen had been engaged as ‘trainees’ for a certain period of time and on completion thereof their term of engagement is being extend from time to time; however, the term ‘trainee’ has been defied in the clause dealing with the classification of employees, provided in Standing Order of the Company as follows: 1.3 Classification of Employees Workmen of the company shall be classified as under:- 1.3.1 Permanent 1.3.2 Probationer 1.2.3 Temporary 1.3.4 Trainee 1.3.5 Casual 1.3.6 Apprentice 1.3.1 “Permanent Workman”…………………. 1.3.2 “Probationer” ……………………. 1.3.3 “Temporary Workman” …………….. 1.3.4 “Trainee” is a leaner recruited under the Company’s training scheme on a fixed stipend and will be governed by terms of appointment/agreement bond, executed between the company and the trainee.[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गनु 15, 1942 487 1.3.5 “Casual workman” …………….. 1.3.6 “Apprentice” ………….. The workmen have contended that by virtue of extension of period of their engagement, they have completed their ‘probation’. The term ‘probation’, provided under Standing Orders of the Company reads asunder: “4.2 Probation 1.2.1 The probation period shall be six months for all categories of workman viz. Unskilled, Semi-skilled and Skilled which period can be extended by further period not exceeding six months at the discretion of the Manager. 4.2.2 A probationer shall be deemed to continue as such until he is expressly confirmed in writing. 4.2.3 During the probation period, the services of any workman can be terminated without notice on either side, without assigning any reason. After satisfactory completion of probation, about which he will be informed in writing, the notice period will be one month on either side or pay in lieu thereof. 4.2.4 Satisfactory completion of probation period or otherwise shall depend on the conduct and performance of the workman during the period of probation including his achieving the productivity norms set for his job by the management. It is the case of the workmen that they have successfully competed their mandatory period of ‘probation’, which is for six months only; however the management has not initiated the process of their regularization just to deprive them of their legitimate rights at par with other regular employees; and his action of the management amounts to unfair labour practice. The workmen have contended that the practice of unfair labour practice be checked. As per Section 2(ra) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, unfair labour practice means any of the practices specified in the Fifth Schedule, which is reproduced hereunder: Unfair Labour Practice I.- On the part of employers and trade unions of employers. 10. To employ workmen as “badalis”, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen. Admittedly, the workmen have been engaged as Advance Diploma Trainees, after advertising the requirement and taking their interview etc.; however, this enragement was for a period of 02 years only, which was going to be expired automatically on expiry of said period. It is evident from paper No. M-8/18 that the term of engagement/contractual service of as many as 139 workmen had been extended for a period of one year vide order dated 14.01.2016; likewise period of engagement/contractual service of 13 such workmen and 14 workmen, had been extended for one year through separate order dated 04.02.216 and 29.06.2016 respectively. Thereafter, service contract for further one year was extended in respect of 128 workmen, 13 workmen and 11 workmen through separate order dated 16.01.2016, 08.02.2017 and 16.02.2017. Also, there are other office orders, on record to show that the management of Scooters India Limited issued orders regarding extension of contractual service of the workmen for one year each in the in the year 2018, 2019 and even in year 2020 also, though their number varies in each order as few of them were relieved. The workmen in their statement of claim have pleaded that the Company has engaged as many as 300 retired employees, meaning thereby there is availability of work as well as posts, which not denied by the management in its reply; whereby it could be well inferred that management of the Company that has not only work but also the sanctioned post; but instead of regularizing the services of the workmen so engaged as Advanced Diploma Trainees, keeps on extended their term of engagement just to deprive them of their rights at par with the regular employees of the Company, which amounts to unfair labour practice, quoted herein above. 16. The management has cited Umadevi’s case, which is not applicable with regard to the industrial establishments; moreover, the case of Hari Nandan Prasad is not applicable in the present case, the facts being different. In the Hari Nandan case the appellants were casual workers; where as the workmen in the present case were duly resituated after following due process. However, Hon’ble Apex Court, in Hari Nandan case has observed as under: “29. A close scrutiny of the two cases, thus, would reveal that the law laid down in those cases is not contradictory to each other. In U.P. Power Corporation, tis Court has recognized the powers of the Labour Court and at the same time emphasized that the Labour is to keep in mind that there488 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] should not be any direction of regularization if this offends the provisions of Art. 14 of the Constitution, on which judgment in Umadevi is primarily founded. On the other hand, in Bhonde case, the Court has recognized the principle that having regard to statutory powers conferred upon the Labour Court/Industrial Court to grant certain reliefs to the workmen, which includes the relief of giving the status of permanency to the contract employees, such statutory power does not get denuded by the judgment in Umadevi’s case. It is clear from the reading of this judgment that such a power is to be exercised when the employer has indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling up the permanent post even when available and continuing to workers on temporary/daily wage basis and taking the same work from them and making them some purpose which were performed by the regular workers but paying them much less wages. It is only when a particular practice is found to be unfair labour practice as enumerated in Schedule IV of MRTP and PULP Act and it necessitates giving direction under Section 30 of the said Act, that the Court would give such a direction. 30. We are conscious of the fact that the aforesaid judgment is rendered under MRTP and PULP Act and the specific provisions of that Act were considered to ascertain the powers of conferred upon the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court by the said Act. At the same time, it also hardly needs to be emphasized the powers of the industrial adjudicator under the Industrial Disputes Act are equally wide. The Act deals with industrial disputes, provides for conciliation, adjudication and settlements, and regulates the rights of the parties and the enforcement of the awards and settlements. Thus, by empowering the adjudicator authorities under the Act, to give reliefs such as a reinstatement of wrongfully dismissed or discharged workmen, which may not be permissible in common law or justified under the terms of the contract between the employer and such workmen, the legislature has attempted to frustrate the unfair labour practices and secure the policy of collective bargaining as a road to industrial peace.” In the instant case, there are posts with the Company and it recruited the workmen, after complying with relevant rules, firstly, for a specified period and kept on extended their period of engagement, taking same work from them which was performed by the regular workers but paying them less and depriving them facilities at par with other regular employees, amounts to unfair labour practice. 17. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and discussions made hereinabove, the workmen who falls in the category of ‘workman’ and presently working with the Company, being duly recruited and having successfully competed their statutory probation period are entitled for regularization from the date they successfully competed their probation. They shall also be entitled for all services benefits at par with other regular employees of the Company, including back wages etc. 18. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly in favour of the workmen with cost of Rs. 25,000/- payable by the Company to the workmen. 19. Award as above. Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication. LUCKNOW 29th January, 2021 P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer नई दिल् ली, 24 फरवरी, 2021 का.आ. 184—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण म,ें केन्री सरकार जनिेिक, केंरी औषजि अनुसंिान संस्ट् ान, र्तर मंज ल, कजसरबाग, ल नऊ (उ.प्र ) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री अिोक कुमार कामगार के बीर् अनुबंि म ें जनर्िष्टच औद्योजगक जववाि म ें केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल , ल नऊ के ृंर्ाि (संिभच सं्‍ ा 60/2007) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक म ें दि ा ा ग ा ि,ज प्रकाजित करती ि जिो केन्री सरकार को 18.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ ा। [स.ं एल-42012/57/2007-आईआर (डी )ू ] डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गनु 15, 1942 489 New Delhi, the 24th February, 2021 S.O. 184.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 60/2007) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Director, Central Drug Research Institute Chatar Manzil, Quiserbagh, Lucknow (UP) and Shri Ashok Kumar Worker which was received by the Central Government on 18.02.2021. [No. L-42012/57/2007 IR (DU)] D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy. ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT : P. K. SRIVASTAVA, HJS (Retd.) I.D. No. 60/2007 Ref. No. L-42012/57/2007-IR(DU) dated 25.10.2007 BETWEEN : Shri Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Ram Shankar C/o Shri Sanjay Saxena, 189, New Model House Lucknow. Vs The Director Central Drug Research Institute Chatar Manzil, Quiserbagh Lucknow. AWARD 1. By order No. L-42012/57/2007-IR(DU) dated 25.10.2007, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute for adjudication. 2. The reference under adjudication is: “WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF CENTRAL DRUG RESEARCH INSTITUTE, LUCKNOW, IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF THEIR WORKMAN SHRI ashok kumar W.E.F. 01.12.1988, IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?” 3. The case of the workman, Ashok Kumar, in brief is that he was employed as Helper w.e.f. 01.10.1986 after following due procedure for appointment and was paid salary @ Rs. 18 /- per day. The workman has submitted that he worked with the management upto 30.11.1988 and completed more than 240 days continuously in each calendar year of his service; but the management terminated his services w.e.f. 01.12.1988 without any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof or any retrenchment compensation in violation to the provisions contained in Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman has also alleged that the work is still available with the management and it has inducted fresh hand in violation to the provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act; and accordingly, has prayed that his termination be declared illegal and he be reinstated with consequential benefits including full back wages. 4. The management of the Central Drug Research Institute has filed its written statement; wherein it has submitted that the reference is barred by limitation and does not come within the purview of industrial dispute. It has also submitted that the CDRI is not ‘industry’ and also this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide the present matter as the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not application on CDRI and CSIR, New Delhi. On merits of the case the management has pleaded that the services of the workman had been availed for a fixed term of period w.e.f. 01.10.1986 on daily wage basis till 15.05.1987 on contractual basis and w.e.f. 16.05.1987 the security arrangement was being carried out by allowing contract to a contractor viz. M/s Ex- Servicemen Security Group, Lucknow, therefore, the services ow the workman had been discontinued w.e.f. 15.05.1987. The management has submitted that the workman did not complete 240 days in a year preceding 12 months of his alleged termination and there was not violation in discontinuing his services at any point of time. Accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of any merit.490 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 5. The workman has filed its rejoinder; wherein it has reiterated the averments already made in the statement of claim. 6. The parties filed documents in support of their respective case and adduced oral evidence. The workman has examined himself; whereas the management examined Sri Krishna Raj Singh, Section Officer, in support of its case; and the parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of each other. None turned up on behalf of the management to argue the case; however, the management was afforded opportunity to file written submission, which it did not avail. The case was reserved keeping in view long pendency of the case since 2007. 7. Heard workman and perused entire evidence on record. 8. The workman has pleaded that he was employed after following due process by the management of CDRI 01.10.1986 and he worked 30.11.1988 for more than 240 days continuously in each calendar year of his service; however, his services have been terminated w.e.f. 01.12.1988 without any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof or any retrenchment compensation in violation to the provisions contained in Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman has also pleaded that the managements has retained juniors and has engaged fresh hand in violation to the provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act. 9. Per contra, the management has taken preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction of the case before this Tribunal and the dispute being not industrial dispute and CDRI not being industry within the purview of the provisions of the Act. Moreover, it has also contended that the workman has engaged on casual basis and his services had been disengaged when the security arrangements were allotted to a contractor, therefore, there was no violation to the any of the statutory provision. 10. Having gone through rival pleadings of the parties and evidence relied upon by them, it is apparent on the face of record that the management of CDRI has taken various preliminary objection, including lack of jurisdiction of this Tribunal to adjudicate the present matter, therefor, the same is taken first before entering into the others issued raised in the present industrial dispute. In this regard the management has pleaded that the CDRI is a laboratory of Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Delhi (CSIR); and the CSIR being a Society is totally owned and controlled by the Government of India and has been brought by the Government of India through its extra-ordinary Gazette dated 31.10.1986 under the jurisdiction of Central Administration Tribunal Act, 1985 vide Notification dated 31.10.1986 under the jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The Section 14 (2) of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is reproduced as under: 14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal.— (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court 39 [***] in relation to— (a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any All-India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the defence services, being, in either case, a post filled by a civilian; (b) all service matters concerning— (i) a member of any All-India Service; or (ii) a person [not being a member of an All-India Service or a person referred to in clause (c)] appointed to any civil service of the Union or any civil post under the Union; or (iii) a civilian [not being a member of an All-India Service or a person referred to in clause (c)] appointed to any defence services or a post connected with defence, and pertaining to the service of such member, person or civilian, in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation 40 [or society] owned or controlled by the Government; (c) all service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the Union concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in sub-clause (ii) or sub- clause (iii) of clause (b), being a person whose services have been placed by a State Government or any local or other authority or any corporation 40 [or society] or other body, at the disposal of the Central Government for such appointment. 40 [Explanation.—For the[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गनु 15, 1942 491 removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that references to “Union” in this sub-section shall be construed as including references also to a Union territory.] (2) The Central Government may, by notification, apply with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification the provisions of sub-section (3) to local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India and to corporations 40 [or societies] owned or controlled by Government, not being a local or other authority or corporation 40 [or society] controlled or owned by a State Government: Provided that if the Central Government considers it expedient so to do for the purpose of facilitating transition to the scheme as envisaged by this Act, different dates may be so specified under this sub-section in respect of different classes of, or different categories under any class of, local or other authorities or corporations 40 [or societies]. (3) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date with effect from which the provisions of this sub-section apply to any local or other authority or corporation 40 [or society], all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that date by all courts (except the Supreme Court 39 [***]) in relation to— (a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any service or post in connection with the affairs of such local or other authority or corporation 40 [or society]; and (b) all service matters concerning a person [other than a person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1)] appointed to any service or post in connection with the affairs of such local or other authority or corporation 40 [or society] and pertaining to the service of such person in connection with such affairs. Moreover, the notification dated 31.10.1986 relied upon by the management of CDRI is as follows: “G.S.R…………..In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals act, 1985 (13 of 1985), the Central Government hereby specifies the 17th day of November, 1986 be the date on and from which the provisions of sub-section (3) of the Section 14 of the said Act shall apply to the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, being the society owned or controlled by Government and makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Department of Personnel & Training) No. G.S.R. 938 dated the 2nd May, 1986, namely in the said notification, in the Schedules after serial number 5 and entries relating thereto, the following shall be inserted namely:- 6. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. Society” [No. A-11019/16/86-AT] S. K. PARTHASHRTHY; Jt. Secy.” Thus, from bare perusal of the above quoted provision of the section 14 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with notification dated 31.10.1986, it is clear that the cases pertaining to CDRI, being a laboratory of Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Delhi (CSIR), comes within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal in terms of Section 14 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; and this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the present industrial dispute referred to it. 11. Therefore, in light of above findings, the other issues raised in the present industrial dispute by the parties, are not required to be discussed/adjudicated. 12. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly. 13. Award as above. Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication. LUCKNOW 02nd February, 2021 P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer492 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल् ली, 24 फरवरी, 2021 का.आ. 185—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण म,ें केन्री सरकार जनिेिक, केंरी औषजि अनुसंिान संस्ट् ान र्तर मंज ल, कजसरबाग, ल नऊ (उ.प्र) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री कवीन्र प्रसाि िोिी कामगार के बीर् अनुबंि म ें जनर्िष्टच औद्योजगक जववाि म ें केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल , ल नऊ के ृंर्ाि (संिभच सं्‍ ा 59/2007) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक म ें दि ा ा ग ा ि,ज प्रकाजित करती ि जिो केन्री सरकार को 18.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ ा। [स.ं एल-42012/56/2007-आईआर (डी )ू ] डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 24th February, 2021 S.O. 185.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 59/2007) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum Lab our Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Director, Central Drug Research Institute, Chatar Manzil, Quiserbagh, Lucknow (UP) and Shri Kavindra Prasad Joshi, Worker which was received by the Central Government on 18.02.2021. [No. L-42012/56/2007 -IR (DU)] D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy. ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL–CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT : P. K. SRIVASTAVA , HJS (Retd.) I.D. No. 59/2007 Ref. No. L-42012/56/2007-IR(DU) dated 25.10.2007 BETWEEN : Shri Kavindra Prasad Joshi S/o Shri Basudeo C/o Shri Sanjay Saxena, 189, New Model House Lucknow. Vs The Director Central Drug Research Institute Chatar Manzil, Quiserbagh Lucknow. AWARD 1. By order No. L-42012/56/2007-IR(DU) dated 25.10.2007, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute for adjudication. 2. The reference under adjudication is: “WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF CENTRAL DRUG RESEARCH INSTITUTE, LUCKNOW, IN TERMINATING THE SERVICES OF THEIR WORKMAN SHRI KAVINDRA PRASAD JOSHI W.E.F. 01.12.1988, IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, TO WHAT RELIEF THE WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO?” 3. The case of the workman, Kavindra Prasad Joshi, in brief is that he was employed as Helper w.e.f. 01.10.1986 after following due procedure for appointment and was paid salary @ Rs. 18 /- per day. The workman has submitted that he worked with the management upto 30.11.1988 and completed more than 240 days continuously in each calendar year of his service; but the management terminated his services w.e.f. 01.12.1988 without any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof or any retrenchment compensation in violation to the provisions contained in Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman has also alleged that the work is still available with the management and it has inducted fresh hand in violation to the provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act; and accordingly, has prayed that his termination be declared illegal and he be reinstated with consequential benefits including full back wages.[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गनु 15, 1942 493 4. The management of the Central Drug Research Institute has filed its written statement; wherein it has submitted that the reference is barred by limitation and does not come within the purview of industrial dispute. It has also submitted that the CDRI is not ‘industry’ and also this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide the present matter as the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not application on CDRI and CSIR, New Delhi. On merits of the case the management has pleaded that the services of the workman had been availed for a fixed term of period w.e.f. 01.10.1986 on daily wage basis till 15.05.1987 on contractual basis and w.e.f. 16.05.1987 the security arrangement was being carried out by allowing contract to a contractor viz. M/s Ex- Servicemen Security Group, Lucknow, therefore, the services ow the workman had been discontinued w.e.f. 15.05.1987. The management has submitted that the workman did not complete 240 days in a year preceding 12 months of his alleged termination and there was not violation in discontinuing his services at any point of time. Accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of any merit. 5. The workman has filed its rejoinder; wherein it has reiterated the averments already made in the statement of claim. 6. The parties filed documents in support of their respective case and adduced oral evidence. The workman has examined himself; whereas the management examined Sri Krishna Raj Singh, Section Officer, in support of its case; and the parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of each other. None turned up on behalf of the management to argue the case; however, the management was afforded opportunity to file written submission, which it did not avail. The case was reserved keeping in view long pendency of the case since 2007. 7. Heard workman and perused entire evidence on record. 8. The workman has pleaded that he was employed after following due process by the management of CDRI 01.10.1986 and he worked 30.11.1988 for more than 240 days continuously in each calendar year of his service; however, his services have been terminated w.e.f. 01.12.1988 without any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof or any retrenchment compensation in violation to the provisions contained in Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman has also pleaded that the managements has retained juniors and has engaged fresh hand in violation to the provisions of Section 25-CG and 25-H of the Act. 9. Per contra, the management has taken preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction of the case before this Tribunal and the dispute being not industrial dispute and CDRI not being industry within the purview of the provisions of the Act. Moreover, it has also contended that the workman has engaged on casual basis and his services had been disengaged when the security arrangements were allotted to a contractor, therefore, there was no violation to the any of the statutory provision. 10. Having gone through rival pleadings of the parties and evidence relied upon by them, it is apparent on the face of record that the management of CDRI has taken various preliminary objection, including lack of jurisdiction of this Tribunal to adjudicate the present matter, therefor, the same is taken first before entering into the others issued raised in the present industrial dispute. In this regard the management has pleaded that the CDRI is a laboratory of Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Delhi (CSIR); and the CSIR being a Society is totally owned and controlled by the Government of India and has been brought by the Government of India through its extra-ordinary Gazette dated 31.10.1986 under the jurisdiction of Central Administration Tribunal Act, 1985 vide Notification dated 31.10.1986 under the jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The Section 14 (2) of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is reproduced as under: 14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal.— (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court 39 [***] in relation to— (a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any All-India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the defence services, being, in either case, a post filled by a civilian; (b) all service matters concerning— (i) a member of any All-India Service; or (ii) a person [not being a member of an All-India Service or a person referred to in clause (c)] appointed to any civil service of the Union or any civil post under the Union; or494 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (iii) a civilian [not being a member of an All-India Service or a person referred to in clause (c)] appointed to any defence services or a post connected with defence, and pertaining to the service of such member, person or civilian, in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation 40 [or society] owned or controlled by the Government; (c) all service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the Union concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in sub-clause (ii) or sub- clause (iii) of clause (b), being a person whose services have been placed by a State Government or any local or other authority or any corporation 40 [or society] or other body, at the disposal of the Central Government for such appointment. 40 [Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that references to “Union” in this sub-section shall be construed as including references also to a Union territory.] (2) The Central Government may, by notification, apply with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification the provisions of sub-section (3) to local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India and to corporations 40 [or societies] owned or controlled by Government, not being a local or other authority or corporation 40 [or society] controlled or owned by a State Government: Provided that if the Central Government considers it expedient so to do for the purpose of facilitating transition to the scheme as envisaged by this Act, different dates may be so specified under this sub-section in respect of different classes of, or different categories under any class of, local or other authorities or corporations 40 [or societies]. (3) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date with effect from which the provisions of this sub-section apply to any local or other authority or corporation 40 [or society], all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that date by all courts (except the Supreme Court 39 [***]) in relation to— (a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any service or post in connection with the affairs of such local or other authority or corporation 40 [or society]; and (b) all service matters concerning a person [other than a person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1)] appointed to any service or post in connection with the affairs of such local or other authority or corporation 40 [or society] and pertaining to the service of such person in connection with such affairs. Moreover, the notification dated 31.10.1986 relied upon by the management of CDRI is as follows: “G.S.R…………..In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals act, 1985 (13 of 1985), the Central Government hereby specifies the 17th day of November, 1986 be the date on and from which the provisions of sub-section (3) of the Section 14 of the said Act shall apply to the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, being the society owned or controlled by Government and makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Department of Personnel & Training) No. G.S.R. 938 dated the 2nd May, 1986, namely in the said notification, in the Schedules after serial number 5 and entries relating thereto, the following shall be inserted namely:- 6. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. Society” [No. A-11019/16/86-AT] S. K. PARTHASHRTHY; Jt. Secy.” Thus, from bare perusal of the above quoted provision of the section 14 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with notification dated 31.10.1986, it is clear that the cases pertaining to CDRI, being a laboratory of Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Delhi (CSIR), comes within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal in terms of Section 14 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; and this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the present industrial dispute referred to it.[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गनु 15, 1942 495 11. Therefore, in light of above findings, the other issues raised in the present industrial dispute by the parties, are not required to be discussed/adjudicated. 12. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly. 13. Award as above. Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication. LUCKNOW 02nd February, 2021 P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer नई दिल् ली, 24 फरवरी, 2021 का.आ. 186—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण म,ें केन्री सरकार डा रेक्िर, िरू ििचन केंर,ऱ्ौड़ा मजिान, जिमला (जिमार्ल प्रिेि) और स्ट्िेिन डा रेक्िर, िरू ििचन केंर, ऱ्ौड़ा मजिान, जिमला (जिमार्ल प्रििे ) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और मिा सजर्व, िरू ििनच कजिुअल और कॉन्रजक्ि कमचर्ारी एसोजसएिन जिमला, जिमला (जिमार्ल प्रििे ) श्री ि र्ंि और अन् के माध् म स े कामगार के बीर् अनुबंि म ें जनर्िष्टच औद्योजगक जववाि म ें केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल , र्ंडीगढ़ के ृंर्ाि (संिभच सं्‍ ा 24/2015) को िजसा दक अनलु ग्नक में दि ा ा ग ा ि,ज प्रकाजित करती ि ज िो केन्री सरकार को 15/02/2021 को प्राप्त हुआ ा। [स.ं एल-42011/59/2015-आईआर (डी )ू ] डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 24th February, 2021 S.O. 186.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 24/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Director, Doordarshan Kendra,Chaura Maidan, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) and Station Director, Doordarshan Kendra,Chaura Maidan, Shimla(Himachal Pradesh) and The General Secretary, Doordarshan Casual & Contract Karamchari Association Shimla, Shimla(Himachal Pradesh) through Shri Jai Chand and Others, Worker which was received by the Central Government on 15/02/2021. [No. L-42011/59/2015 IR (DU)] D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy. ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH Present: Sh. A. K. Singh, Presiding Officer ID No. 24/2015 Registered on:-30.06.2015 The General Secretary, Doordarshan Casual & Contract Karamchari Association Shimla, Dhansu Market, Dhanda, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)-171011, through Jai Chand & Others. …Workmen Versus 1. The Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Chaura Maidan, Ambedkar Chowk, Shimla (H.P.).496 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2. Dr. O.G.D. Sharma, Station Director of Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla (H.P.). …Respondents/Managements AWARD Passed on:-02.02.2021 1. Central Government vide Notification No. L-42011/59/2015-IR(DU) Dated 17.06.2015, under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:- “Whether the action of the management of Doordarshan Kendra Shimla for not complying the basic labour laws and not framing any policy for casual workers who are giving services since 1995 to Doordarshan is legal and justified? If not what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?” 2. Both the parties were put to notice and claimants/workmen filed their statement of claim with the averments that vide demand notice dated 18.07.2014 casual and contract workers association of Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla submitted some demands to the Deputy Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla in which it is submitted that casual workers are providing services in different department of Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla since 1995. Due to failure of conciliation proceedings on 07.05.2015 Vivek Naik, Labour Enforcement Officer(C), Shimla submitted a letter to Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment regarding dispute between Doordarshan Casual and Contract Karamchari Association, Shimla and Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla and mentioned that dispute was discussed on various date in the presence of both the parties and finally on 09.03.2015 the dispute was seized in the conciliation proceeding after prolonged and protracted discussion. A copy of letter dated 07.05.2015 is annexed herewith as Annexure C-3. Vide letter dated 11.10.1993(Annexure C-4) Govt. of India Directorate General Doordarshan, Mandi House, Copernicus Marg vide its Office Memorandum formulated a scheme to grant temporary status and regularization of casual workers. The controversy of the casual workers of Doordarshan’s casual workers has been finally decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in D.G. Doordarshan Mandi House, New Delhi & Ors. Vs. Manas Dey & Ors.(2005) Insc 648 (17 November 2005)(Annexure C-4A). Where it is held that of course it is up to union Government to formulate any scheme and when it is found necessary that casual workers are given temporary status and later they are to be absorbed in Group D posts. The workmen/claimants have rendered service from 10 to 20 years in the Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla and most of casual workers are in the aged group of 35 to 43 years. They have devoted their youth for the welfare of Doordarshan Kendra. They worked 25 days in a month and were getting salary of 7 days. It is not understood why Information and Broadcasting Ministry forget this vital fact that India is a socialist republic. The casual workers are working for a long period but it is unfortunate that for their attendance no register has been maintained. The workers are not granted TA/DA over time, medical insurance, maternity leave and GPF/EPF scheme has not been implemented by the respondents. These casual workers are working for entire month and are continuing providing their services to the Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla for the last 10 to 20 years without any break. The respondents have to prepare a scheme on a rational basis for absorbing as for as possible the casual workers who have been continuously working for more than 10 to 20 years in the Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla. The casual worker of Doordarshan Kendra, Srinagar has been regularized after the direction of standing committee on worker, ministry of information and broadcasting. It is respectfully submitted that the claimants/workmen be treated as eligible for regularization, the wages to be paid to them should be in accordance with the scale of pay of the post held by a regular employee in an identical post, in the interest of justice. 3. Management filed written statement, alleging therein that there exists no relationship of workman and employer between the claimants and the replying respondent/management. The respondent/management is not an industry as the work which is industrial in nature is not being carried out by the respondent/management as the respondent/management is not involved in any activity of production of anything which is being done by in industry. Since there is no relationship of employer and employee between the replying respondent/management and the claimants/workmen as such, no conciliation could be arrived at between the parties. The claimants/workmen are claiming that they are workman and the respondent/management is an industry but in view of the nature of the work being carried out by the respondent/management, the respondent/management does not come under the definition of an industrial establishment. The claimants/workmen does not come under the scheme as the claimants/workmen are neither workman nor they are involved in any activity which is being carried out by an industry, as such, the benefit of the letter as has been mentioned in the claim statement, is not applicable in the case of the claimants/workmen. There is a scheme known as Casual Labour(Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1993 of Govt. of India. Under this scheme Casual Labour (Group-D employees) who were in engagement on and before 10.09.1992 and have worked for 120 days in a year upto 10.09.1993 were eligible for consideration for grant of temporary status. The claimants/workmen are[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गनु 15, 1942 497 being offered the specific work on a piecemeal basis and they are not considered either the workman or the employee of the respondent/management. The claimants/workmen are not entitled to the claims as has they claimed because nature of the work which is being assigned to the claimants is a particular work and is only for a specific time. The relief of regularization is not available under the Industrial Disputes Act as such, the present claim petition along with the reference is liable to be dismissed. It is therefore, prayed that this claim petition may kindly be dismissed and the reference may kindly be answered in negative. 4. Claimant/workmen have filed its replication, alleging therein that Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla is telecasting its programme from 1995 regularly and the programmes on the television are telecasted everyday. Contention of the respondents that the claimants/workmen are given work on piece meal basis is not on the facts of the present case. The claimants work for completion of the programmes from morning till 8.00 pm in evening and sometimes they came on Sunday to do their duties. The claimants are given their remunerations by station director/director of Doordarshan Kendra on behalf of the President of India. The respondents have flouted the Article 14 of Constitution of India and Prashar Bharati Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, indulged in unfair trade practice having employed claimants/workmen for such a long time without any regularization in spite of the report of standing committee dated 12.03.2015 about the casual workers who were booked and paid wages only for six days but made to work for 30/31 days in a month. Nothing concrete is done by the Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla while in similar situation, the casual workers in Doordarshan Kendra, Srinagar are given benefits of regularization. The remaining facts are same as alleged in the claim statement hence, need not to be repeated again. 5. In support of their case, Jai Chand one of the claimants/workmen has appeared in the witness box and tendered his affidavit in evidence which is marked as Ex.A1 along with documents Ex.C-1 to C-9 and has been cross-examined by the learned counsel of the management. He has stated that he get 7 assignments in a month and one assignment takes three days maximum and has got payment of Rs.3,300/- per assignment through vouchers presently. He has further stated that other experts appearing for doordarshan get remuneration for time taken by them. 6. Workmen/claimants has also examined workwoman Smt. Sneha Thakur, who has filed her affidavit in evidence as Ex.WW1/A along with 24 documents(colly). She has stated and admitted that she have been booked on assignment basis in pursuance of the Doordarshan Manual which is Ex.R-1 and maximum 7 assignments in a month from 09.12.2014 can be given to the assignees by Doordarshan. She further admitted that they are not entitled for any TA, DA, Medical Insurance, PF and PPF. She further admitted that they are appointed under Doordarshan manual rendering their services uninterruptedly. 7. Management has examined Sh. Puneet Sehgal, ADP Doordarshan, Jalandhar, who has filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A along with documents Ex.MW1/1(colly), memo Vol.1 and 2 as well as letters annexed with the memorandum and cross-examined by the learned counsel of claimants/workmen. During the course of cross-examination, this witness has stated that normally a penal of casual assignees prepared and on the basis of the penal, such assignees are engaged. This witness has also admitted that these assignees are appointed as per the guidelines contained in the manual Ex. MMW1/1. According to this witness, there are 35 casual assignees which are changing from time to time. He further admitted that Doordarshan Kendra Shimla are telecasting its programme 30 days in a month and some of the assignees are working since 1995 when Doordarshan Kendra Shimla started its programmes. As per the statement of this witness, the record of earnings and expenditures are maintained by him as programme head. Witness Puneet Sehgal has further admitted that the casual assignees are telephonically informed and there is no specific policy regarding the assignment of the work to the assignees. 8. Management has also examined Ms. Dhara Saraswati, Program Executive, who has submitted her affidavit Ex.MW2/A and has been cross-examined by the learned counsel of the workman. She has admitted that she is serving as program executive in All India Radio from 2003 and posted at Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla since 2008 as programme executive. This witness has expressed her inability to verify the date of joining and period of the assignees without verifying the record of the office mentioned in the list attached with the affidavit of the workwoman Sneha Thakur submitted with her affidavit. This witness has also admitted that though there are five days in a week for the administrative officers and workers/claimants rendering their services as per their assignment including Saturday, Sunday. This witness has denied the suggestion of the workman/claimants counsel that the claimants are used to render their services for 240 days in each calendar year since their joining. 9. I have heard Sh. Abhimanyu Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the claimants/workmen and Sh. Balram Sharma, Ld. Counsel for management and have gone through the records carefully.498 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 10. Learned counsel of the petitioners/workmen argued that the petitioners/workmen are working continuously from the last 10 to 20 years as casual workers which is specifically denied by the management in their written statement as well as affidavits of witnesses produced by the respondent/management. It is further argued that the petitioners/workmen are continuously doing the perennial nature of work which is similar to their counterpart’s temporary status in the light of the circular from time to time by the department assigning similar duties to the temporary/casual workers. Learned counsel argued that there is no uniform-policy about the working condition of the workmen in Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla and even attendance/any seniority lists are neither prepared nor maintained by the establishment, just to avoid the status of the claimants/workmen using unfair labour practice. It is further contended that in spite of the several circulars respondent/management has not considered the regularization of the claimants/workmen for the reasons best known to them. Learned counsel further argued that it is crystal clear that the respondent/management is using unfair trade practice and has violated Section 2ra, 25-T, 25-U and point 10 of the 5th Schedule of the ID Act as well as their own instructions. Learned counsel of the workmen/claimants has placed reliance in the case of Secretary, State Bank of Karnataka & Oths. Vs. Umadevi, Civil Appeal No.3595 of 1999, decided on 10.04.2006, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Vs. Krishan Gopal & Ors., Civil Appeal No.1878 of 2016, Durgapur Casual Workers Union and Oths. Vs. Food Corporation of India, Civil Appeal No.10856 of 2014, dated 09.12.2014, Narindra Kumar Tiwari & Others Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, Civil Appeal Nos.7423-7429 of 2018(arising out of S.L.P.(Civil Nos.19832-19838 of 2017). 11. Learned counsel of the management argued that workmen/claimants have no locus standi to invoke the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act as they had never been appointed on the basis of any interview against any regular post. All these workmen are casual assignees on the basis of need and availability of work. It is further argued that as per the government rules and regulations and procedure, serving for sometime or attaining relevant qualification or experience does not entitle to regularization as a matter of right. Learned counsel further contended that claimants are neither workmen nor respondent-establishment is an industry as such, there does not exists relationship of employer and employee hence, Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable in the present case and the reference is wrongly made to this Hon’ble Tribunal for adjudication. Learned counsel for management has placed reliance to the case of Secretary, State Bank of Karnataka & Oths. Vs. Umadevi, Civil Appeal No.3595 of 1999, decided on 10.04.2006, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Vs. Krishan Gopal & Ors., Civil Appeal No.1878 of 2016 and in the case of Bharat Bhawan Trust Vs. Bharat Bhawan Artists Association and another, Civil Appeal No.5614 of 2001, arising out of SLP No.15756 of 1988, decided on 22.08.2001. 12. Before entering into actual controversy between the parties, it will be pertinent to mention those facts which are either admitted between the parties or not controverted by the management in its pleadings or evidence. The employment of the workmen in the establishment of the respondent from the dates mentioned against their name in the list attached with the affidavit of workwomen witness Smt. Sneha Thakur WW2/A is neither specifically denied nor any cogent evidence is produced before this Tribunal in spite of the opportunity given to the establishment who has later examined Smt. Dhara Saraswat. It is also not disputed that the claimants/workmen are rendering their services from 10 to 20 years till today without any break in service as per allotted assignments. There is no dispute that the respondent/management due to lack of policy did not initiate proceeding for their regularization in the light of judgment of Uma Devi case and subsequent cases of the Hon’ble Supreme Court mentioned in the circular dated 16.12.2020. 13. There is no dispute about the proposition of law that onus to prove that workmen/claimants are in the employment of management is always on the workmen/claimants and it is for the workman to adduce evidence to prove factum of his employment with the management. There is hardly any dispute with the preposition of law as propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases. However, the factual scenario in the present case is bit different, inasmuch as the management in its written statement has clearly admitted the factum of employment of the claimants/workmen inasmuch as it has been stated that the claimants/workmen are appointed as casual assignees by Doordarshan Kendra Shimla. As such, it clearly establishes relationship of employer- employee between the management and claimants. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of “workman” has observed as follows:- “The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on regular basis or a person employed for doing[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गनु 15, 1942 499 whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman.” 14. It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a person would be covered by the definition of “workman” as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act. In the case of Bharat Bhawan Trust case(supra), relied by management counsel, the facts were altogether different and in the light of the facts, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “An artist engaged in the production of drama or in theatre management or to participate in a play can but no stretch of imagination be termed as “workman” because they do not indulge in any manual, unskilled or technical, operational or clerical work, though they may be skilled, it is not such a work which can be read ejusdem generis along with other kinds of work mentioned in the definition. The fact of the case in hand is altogether different because these workmen/claimants are doing systematic work in smooth functioning, programming and telecasting the programmes as light assistant, video assistant, set assistant, C.G. Operation Broadcast Executive for which Doordarshan Kendra Shimla is earning and taking benefits. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel of the respondent/management regarding the case Law Bharat Bhawan Trust case(supra), is devoid of merit by virtue of the different facts. 15. The question which arises for consideration is whether the establishment Doordarshan Kendra Shimla is an industry. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa 1978(36) FLR 266 dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression “industry” as defined in Section 2(J) of the Act, and has laid down triple test for determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not. The triple test is where (a) systematic activity (b) organised by cooperation between employer and employee(the direct and substantial element is commercial (c) for the production or distribution of goods and services to calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes prima facie is an “Industry” in that enterprise. Coming into the case in hand, the work assigned to the workmen relates to casual assignees do their works in preparation of programme i.e TV serials, debate, documentary,, coverage of Vidhan Sabha sessions or many performances telecasted by Doordarshan which goes on air for viewers in organized manner which cooperation of the respondent doordarshan Kendra Shimla for the production of different programmes with the cooperation of workmen and management is well established by the evidence produced by either parties. Hence, this Tribunal of the considered opinion that Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla is a “Industry” as is specifically held in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Maan Singh, 2012(1), SCT page 641. Similarly, in All India Radio versus Santosh Kumar and other etc. Civil Appeal No.2423 of 1989 decided on February 5, 1998, the Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically held that All India Radio is an ‘industry’ and it was observed in Para 4 of the judgment as follow:- “Consequently, it must be held that the appellant-All India Radio as well as Doordarshan are industries within the meaning of Section 2(J) of the Act and the said definition is operative being applicable at present and as exiting on the Statute Book as on date.” Thus, the contention raised by the learned counsel of the respondent-management that Doordarshan Kendra Shimla is not an ‘industry’ and the claimants/casual assignees employed by it are not workers under the Act is of no force. 16. So far as question pertaining to the regularization of claimants/workmen are concerned, learned counsel of claimants/petitioners argued that Tribunal has got power under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to pass an order of regularization if the circumstances and facts of the case so requires. In this connection, learned counsel of the management argued in the light of the judgment of Secretary, State Bank of Karnataka & Others Vs. Umadevi, (supra), that regularization of the workmen in question is out of purview of jurisdiction of Tribunal because they are casual assignees employed in the management on need basis and subject to the availability of the fund. Learned counsel of the workman has drawn my attention towards the judgment of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporaiton Ltd. Vs. Casterbe Rajya Parivahan Karamchari Sanghalana, (2009) 8 SCC 556(in short “Casterbe”), saying that the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Courts culls out the ratio of the judgment of Umadevi and holds it as a verdict not applicable to industrial workers or workmen by definition to whom the protective rights flowing from Entry 10 of the Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, employing by way of unfair labour practice(workmen as badlis, casual or temporaries and continue for them as such years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen). Undoubtedly, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi case has directed regularization of those workers who have extended 10 years or more than 10 years of service on the date of judgment against duly sanctioned post provided not covered under the order of Courts or of Tribunals for one time regularization.500 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 17. The question which arises for consideration is whether judgment of Umadevi stands distinguished and explained in the landmark judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Casterbe. The judgment of the Supreme Court dealt with the State Law of Maharashtra cited as The Maharasthra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971, (MRTU & PULP Act). The Court dealt with Section 21(1) and its proviso; Schedule IV Items 2, 5, 6 and 9 and especially with Item 6 which is in pari material with the provisions of Entry 10 of the 5th Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the commonality being a facet of unfair labour practice to keep workmen as badlis, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such “for years” with the object of depriving them of the status and previleges of permanent workmen. The Constitution Bench in Umadevi was explained in Para 35 in Casterbe as follows:- 35. Umadevi (3) 1 is an authoritative pronouncement for the proposition that the Supreme Court (Article 32) and the High Courts (Article 226) should not issue directions of absorption, regularization or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoc employees unless the recruitment itself was made regularly in terms of the constitutional scheme. 36. Umadevi (3)1 does not denude the Industrial and Labour Courts of their statutory power under Section 30 read with Section 32 of the MRTU and PULP Act to order permanency of the workers who have been victims of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV where the posts on which they have been working exist. Umadevi (3) cannot be held to have overridden the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts in passing appropriate order under Section 30 of the MRTU and PULP Act, once unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV is established.” The Hon’ble Court in the case of Casteribe has rejected the argument raised by the corporation by observing that Industrial/Labour Court under the Act has got specific power to take affirmative action against the erring employers and orders can well be made to accord permanency to the employees affected by such unfair labour practice. However, the victims of unfair labour practice of the employer deserve freedom of permanency where facts and circumstanced demand in the canvas of Casteribe. 18. It is pertinent to mention that the judgment of Casteribe dealt with MRTU & PULP Act enacted by the State of Maharashtra but the provisions of unfair labour practice are identical to Entry 10 of the 5th Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Entry 10 is a statutory protection against individual discrimination and exploitation provided the discrimination continues ‘for years’. It would follow that short duration of employment is per se not violative of Entry 10 of the Act and length of employment becomes relevant consideration to examine unfair labour practice issues. In Umadevi the Constitution Bench protected regularization done but those appointments which were not sub judice could not be reopened. In terms of Umadevi, a distinction will have to be kept in mind between irregular appointments and illegal ones in view of the directions in para 44 to para 46, and thus a distinction would also have to be kept in mind between regularization and giving permanency. 19. Though Casteribe is a case arising out of industrial adjudication on a complaint made by the Union of workers that the affected employees were engaged by the Corporation as casual labourers for cleaning the buses between 198-1985 but the contested issue before the labour tribunal was whether the workers could be granted the status of permanency on par with other permanent cleaners. The Industrial Court, Bombay held that the complaint regarding unfair labour practice against the Corporation under Item 6 of Schedule IV was not maintainable. However, the complaints were maintainable in respect of the unfair labour practice under items 5, 9 and 10. A finding was returned that unfair labour practice has been committed under items 5 and 9 of schedule IV, Section 30 of the Maharashtra State Act empowers the Industrial and the Labour Courts to decide on any person named in the complaint if he has engaged in or is engaging in any unfair labour practice. It may in its order give declarations and directions accordingly. Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV to the MRTU & PULP Acts need to be seen. They read:- “5. To show favouritism or partiality to one set of workers, regardless of merits. 1. To employ employees as “badlis”, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees. 9. Failure to implement award, settlement or agreement.” 20. Item 6 of Schedule IV is identical to Entry 10 of the 5th Schedule to the Central Act and, therefore, would suffer common interpretation. The expression “unfair labour practice” in Section 2(ra) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is defined to mean any of the practices specified in the 5th Schedule. It may be noted that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not contain a provision like Section 30 of the MRTU & PULP Act in Maharashtra. Unfair labour practice in the Central Act are placed in Chapter VC. Section 25T and 25U deal with prohibition and penalty for committing unfair labour practice. Thus, there is a complete statutory prohibition against an employer, workmen or trade union against committing an unfair labour practice. Though[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गनु 15, 1942 501 the consequences of violating the provisions of Section 25T of the Industrial Disputes Act is punishment with imprisonment but that does not mean that the Labour Court is barred to exercise its powers of making declarations and issuing directions where a prima facie case is made out of violation of the law. In fact, Entry 10 of the 5th schedule is a rule against exploitation. It is a rule against modern day slavery and against unfair domination. Unfair labour practice is akin to unfair discrimination. They both belong to the same family. Entry 10 of the Central Act and Entry 6 of the Maharashtra Act pre-supposes that a body of workers under the same employer and doing the same thing are permanent while others not. Unfair labour practice would thus fall in the same cluster of grounds of challenge of administrative action as those when the Writ Court deals with in cases of malafides, malice in law, malice in fact, bias, colourable exercise or power or abuse of authority and so on and so forth. Merely because the Central Act does not contain specific provisions such as those in MRTU & PULP Act and of Section 30 thereof, it would not denude this Tribunal to remove unfair discrimination whenever found in the light of discussion of Casteribe case. 21. Looking the nature of dispute between the parties, the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192, becomes relevant in which it has held in Para 30 and 31 of the judgment as follows:- “30. Of late, there has been a visible shift in the courts approach in dealing with the cases involving the interpretation of social welfare legislations. The attractive mantras of globalization and liberalization are fast becoming the raison d’etre of the judicial process and an impression has been created that the constitutional courts are no longer sympathetic towards the plight of industrial and unorganized workers. In large number of cases like the present one, relief has been denied to the employees falling in the category of workmen, who are illegally retrenched from service by creating by-lanes and side-lanes in the jurisprudence developed by this Court in three decades. The stock plea raised by the public employer in such cases is that the initial employment/engagement of the workman-employee was contrary to some or the other statute or that reinstatement of the workman will put unbearable burden on the financial health of the establishment. The courts have readily accepted such plea unmindful of the accountability of the wrong doer and indirectly punished the tiny beneficiary of the wrong ignoring the fact that he may have continued in the employment for years together and that micro wages earned by him may be the only source of his livelihood. 31. It need no emphasis that if a man is deprived of his livelihood, he is deprived of all his fundamental and constitutional rights and for him the goal of social and economic justice, equality of status and of opportunity, the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution remain illusory. Therefore, the approach of the courts must be compatible with the constitutional philosophy of which the Directive Principles of State Policy constitute an integral part and justice due to the workman should not be denied by entertaining the specious and untenable grounds put forward by the employer-public or private.” 22. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Tiwari & others versus State of Jharkhand & others, civil appeal nos.7423-7429 of 2018 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.19832-19838 of 2017) observed that the purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi was two-fold: To prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The Apex Court observed that the fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi (3) is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. The Apex Court held that this is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularization and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi (3) and Kesari sought to avoid. 23. The fundamental question which remains for consideration in the light of the above discussed case laws is that whether claimants/workmen who have expanded more than 10 years in the service of the respondent/management are entitled for regularization. Learned counsel of the respondent/management contended that workmen are rendering their services as casual assignees as such, they have no fundamental right to regularize because there is no substantive/permanent post available with Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla. There is neither any pleading nor any evidence on record to prove that there exists any substantive or permanent post at Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla like nature of the work performed by the workmen in different categories as alleged in the claim petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Vs. Krishan Gopal & Ors., Civil Appeal No.1878 of 2016, and scrutinizing the different judgments rendered by the Hon’ble High Court has held that powers of the Labour Court and Industrial Court cannot be expanded to direction or regularization where such direction would be in the context of the public employment against the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has502 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] also cleared that though the power of granting status of permanency continues to exist with the Tribunal where employer has indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling up permanent posts even though such posts are available and by continuing to employee workmen as daily wage employees despite they are performing the same work as regular workmen on low wages. The evidence which are produced by both the parties are not specific to the extent that there exists any permanent posts for such assignees. Hence, order of regularization or permanency could not be passed with respect to the claimants as is claimed in the claim petition. 24. Learned counsel of the workmen/claimants during the course of arguments has drawn my attention towards the circular of Prasar Bharti dated 16.12.2020 in which a circular dated 03.04.2019 LC dated 05.09.2019 is mentioned with respect to the regularization of irregular appointment in Prasar Bharti in pursuance of the Department of Personnel & Training OM No.49019/1/2006-Estt(C) dated 11.12.2006, as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State Bank of Karnataka & Oths. Vs. Umadevi(supra) and few other cases mentioned therein. Going through the circular, it appears that Prasar Bharti has awaken from its sleep and issued a circular for regularization after a long gap of 14 years in the light of judgment of Uma Devi(supra) as discussed and interpreted in subsequent judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court. In C.A.486/2011 State of Karnataka and others Vs. M.L. Kesari and others, SLP(C)1927/2005, State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Daya Lal & Others, C.A.3770/2017, School Education Department Chennai Vs. Thiru R. Govind Swami etc. It is pertinent to mention that Para 6 of the circular is relevant where it is mentioned that the procedure of regularization may be stopped at any time with the approval of the Competent Authority and mere submission of application would not make anyone eligible for regularization. Thus, nothing concrete is made out by this circular and workers performing their duties in respective trades and the fate of the workers will still hang in the mercy of the establishment. 25. Learned counsel of the workmen has further drawn my attention towards the apathy meted out by the Doordarshan Kendra Shimala in the light of the 4th report of the Standing Committee, Labour(2014-2015) Ministry of Labour and Broadcasting. The committee has observed as under:- “……..The Committee note with profound concern that even after more than 20 years of continuous, dedicated and commendable services, these casual assignees have not been regularized though they were repeatedly assured at the time of their engagement that they would be absorbed in regular services in due course. These casual assignees have already given the prime period of their lives to these organizations without taking up any other assignment and in the hope that one day they would be regularized. Considering length of their service, age proficiency in their respective fields, dedication and devotion to duty in severely hostile and adverse conditions all these years, the Committee are of the considered view that these assignees deserve special, sympathetic and favourable consideration. The Committee, therefore, urge that those casual assignees who have rendered decades of service should either be adjusted against the existing vacancies or some posts be created for them, as an exception and on special consideration, so that all of them are regularized before attaining the age of superannuation.” Furthermore:- “…………On the other hand, by virtue of the years of service rendered and experience gathered, the contractual/casual assignees can commendably accomplish the job assigned vis-à-vis as regular workers who may take time to gain the requisite experience. Hence, taking into consideration the vast experience and dedicated service rendered by them in hostile conditions, the committee urge that they may be considered for regularization for the rest of their service period and such relaxation, may be made as a onetime appreciable gesture so that they get all the financial benefits available to regular employees and are able to lead a peaceful retired life.” The observations and recommendations made by the Standing Committee Labour 2014-15 Ministry of Labour and Broadcasting is ample proof of the prevailing circumstances of different Doordarshan Kendras specifically Jammu & Kashmir prevailing at relevant time towards the employees/workers engaged on daily wages, casual assignees and others. 26. The next question for consideration is with respect to the unfair labour practice and its consequences. It is a settled law that in order to constitute an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) read with Item 10 of the Vth Schedule of the ID Act, the employer should be engaging workmen as temporary or casual and continuing them for years with the object of depriving them of the benefits payable to regular workmen. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Durgapur Casual Workers Union and Oths. Vs. Food Corporation of India, Civil Appeal No.10856 of 2014, dated 09.12.2014, has held that continued casualisation of service of workman amounts to unfair labour practice. In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that management was rightly directed by the Tribunal to absorb the workman. In the case of The workmen of Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. The Management of Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd., arising out of Civil Appeal No.1600 of 2005 dated 27.01.2006, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with the casual labour and work charged employees has held that if a casual labours work continuously of 2-3 years[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गनु 15, 1942 503 regular need of the service is presumed. Rule of Law is to the extent and action must be with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. So far as the case in hand is concerned, it is a proven fact that workmen are rendering their services to the establishment even on the basis of the casual assignees for more than 10 to 20 years. Thus, it can be clearly infer that there is sufficient work with the establishment regarding activities of the Doordarshan Kendra Shimla for which they are providing these casual assignees for 5 to 7 assignments in a month for smooth functioning of the Doordarshan Kendra Shimla for a long time. 27. Undoubtedly, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act is made for the settlement of Industrial Disputes and for certain other provisions mentioned therein. The Act prohibits unfair labour practice on the part of employer in engaging employees as casual or temporary employees for long period without giving them the status and privileges of permanent employees as is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umrala Gram Paychayat Vs. The Secretary, Municipal Employees Union, arising out of Civil Appeal No.3209- 3210/2015, dated 27.03.2015, in which the order of Tribunal for regularization of Safai workers has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari & others versus State of Jharkhand & others, civil appeal nos.7423-7429 of 2018 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.19832-19838 of 2017), has held that the Regularization Rules must be given pragmative interpretation and order for regularization for those employees who has rendered service of 10 years or more from the date of the promulgation of the Regularization Rules unless there is same valid objection to their regularization like misconduct etc. Claimants/workmen are rendering their services for more than 15 years as casual assignees uninterruptedly without regularization which amounts unfair labour practice of the Act. 28. The following propositions would emerge upon analyzing the above legal decisions and factual evidence on record:- (1) The action of the management Doordarshan Kendra Shimla for not complying the basic labour laws and not framing any policy for regularization of these casual assignees who are giving services since 1995 and afterwards to Doordarshan, Shimla is illegal and unjustified. (2) The management of Doordarshan Kendra, Shimla is under legal obligation to regularize the services of the claimants/workmen against substantive vacancies as and when such vacancies became available giving relaxation in qualification and age on the basis of their experience and dedicated service. (3) Till their services are not regularized the Shimla Doordarshan shall continue to give casual assignments on regular basis to the workmen/claimants without adopting any pick and choose policy upto their superannuation unless serious misconducts or lapses are proved against workmen. (4) The claimants/workmen are entitled corresponding lowest grade of the permanent employee rendering their services in Shimla Doordarshan Kendra along with other financial benefits legally payable under the Act. 29. It is pertinent to mention that workman Neelam Kumar has not contested the case and nothing is brought on record about his joining of service, tenure, nature of job as such, this award shall have no effect to his status as an employee. The reference is answered accordingly. 30. Let copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication of the same as required under Section 17(2) of the Act. A. K. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल् ली, 24 फरवरी, 2021 का.आ. 187—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण म,ें केन्री सरकार प्रबंिक जनिेिक, स्ट्कूिर इंजड ा जलजमिेड, सरोिनी नगर,ल नऊ ( ृू ी) के प्रबंितत्रं के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और श्री ृरमानंि, कामगार के बीर् अनुबिं म ें जनर्िष्टच औद्योजगक जववाि म ें केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल , ल नऊ के ृंर्ाि (संिभच सं्‍ ा 10/2015) को िजसा दक अनलु ग्नक म ें दि ा ा ग ा ि,ज प्रकाजित करती ि जिो केन्री सरकार को 18.02.2021 को प्राप्त हुआ ा। [स.ं एल-42012/24/2015-आईआर (डी )ू ] डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजर्व504 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 24th February, 2021 S.O. 187.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 10/2015) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum Lab our Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Manager Director, Scooters India Limited, Sarojni Nagar, Lucknow (UP) and Shri Parmanand, Worker which was received by the Central Government on 18.02.2021. [No. L-42012/24/2015 -IR (DU)] D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy. ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT : P. K. SRIVASTAVA, HJS (Retd.) I.D. No. 10/2015 Ref. No. L-42012/24/2015-IR(DU) dated 10.03.2015 BETWEEN : Sh. Parmanand S/o Late Sh. Musafir R/o First Gate of Scooters India Ltd. Gauri Bazar, Sarojani Nagar Lucknow – 226008. AND The Managing Director Scooters India Limited Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow – 226008. AWARD 1. By order No. L-42012/24/2015-IR(DU) dated 10.03.2015 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute for adjudication. 2. The reference under adjudication is: “KAYA PRABANDHAN SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW DWARA SHIR PARMANAND PUTRA SHRI MUSAFIR, DRIVER KO DINANK 06.06.2013 SE NAUKARI SE NIKAL DIYA JANA NYAYOCHIT EVAM VAIDH HAI? YADI NAHI TO SHRAMIK KIS RAHAT KO PAANE KA ADHIKARI HAI?” 3. The case of the workman, in brief, is that he undergone apprenticeship training with the management from 03.02.1998 to 14.04.1999 and on successful completion of this training he was engaged in the services of the Company w.e.f. 02.05.1999 on the post of Driver. The workman has submitted that management used to be paid wages Rs. 9000/- and deductions towards CPF, VPF etc. had been made from his salary. The workman has alleged that his services had been terminated by the Company w.e.f. 06.06.2013 in an illegal and arbitrary manner without any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof, in violation of the provisions of the Section 25 F of the Act. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that his termination be held illegal and he be reinstated with all consequential benefits. 4. The management of the Scooters India Limited has disputed the claim of the workman by filing its written statement; wherein it has submitted that the workman had never been engaged/appointed by the Company; however, his services were availed by the Company through a Contractor viz. M/s Abhay Kumar Awasthi; and the Company entered into an agreement with the said contractor. The management has submitted that consequent to the contract the contractor, sent the workman to drive vehicles of the Company and the contractor was paid accordingly, who in turn paid to the workman, after making statutory deductions; hence there was no direct connection with the workman and the Company nor did his services had been terminated by the Company at any point of time. Accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of any merit. 5. The workman did not file any rejoinder in spite of ample opportunities had been afforded to him; nor did he adduced any oral evidence in support to his claim; resultantly the management also did not file any oral evidence in rebuttal. The workman refrained himself from the proceedings since 03.11.2017; accordingly, the case was reserved after hearing representative of the management.[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गनु 15, 1942 505 6. Heard the authorized representative of the management and perused entire material available on record. 7. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an action/order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the action/order and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking jurisdiction of the court must fail. In the present case, burden was on the workman to set out the grounds to challenge the validity of the termination order and to prove that the termination order was illegal. It was the case of the workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year. This claim has been denied by the management; therefore, it was for the workman to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his alleged termination; however, on the contrary the workman retrained from proceedings and did not even turn to substantiate its claim through oral evidence. 8. In M/s. Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad & others 2008 (118) FLR 1164, Hon’ble High Court relied upon the law settled by the Apex Court in Sanker Chakravarti vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. 1979 (39) FLR 70 (SC), V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and others 1979 (39) FLR 70 (SC), Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and others 1984 (49) FLR 38 and (Alld.) Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others 1996 (74) FLR 2004; wherein it was observed by the Apex Court: “that in absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the Court against the workman. In such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led.” 9. In the present case the workman failed to prove his case as he did not file any oral evidence in support of his pleadings; nor did he turn up for his cross-examination. Mere pleadings are no substitute for proof. It was obligatory on the part of workman to come forward with the case that his services have illegally been terminated by the opposite parties in utter violation of the statutory provisions. There is no reliable material for recording finding that the alleged injustice was done to the workman or the action of the management of opposite parties in terminating his services was either illegal or unjustified. 10. Accordingly, the reference under adjudication is adjudicated against the workman; and as such, I come to the conclusion that the workman is not entitled to any of the relief(s) claimed. 11. Award as above. Let two copies of the award be sent to the Ministry for publication. LUCKNOW 04th February, 2021 P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 25 फरवरी, 2021 का.आ. 188.—राष्ट्रृ‎जत, श्री वी. जवि ा कुमार, ृी ासीन अ‎जिकारी, केन्री सरकार औद्यो‎जगक अ‎जिकरण सि श्रम न् ा ाल , एनाचकुलम को ‎दिनांक 27.01.2021 स े छ: माि तक की अवजि अ वा जन जमत ृिाजिकारी की जन ुजि तक अ वा अगल े आििे ों तक इनम ेंिो भी ृिल े िो, केन्री सरकार औद्यो‎जगक अ‎जिकरण सि श्रम न् ा ाल , ििज राबाि के ृी ासीन अ‎जिकारी के ृि का अजतठरि प्रभार स़ौृते ि ज। [स.ं अ-11016/08/2020-सीएलएस.II] सतीि र्न्िर, अवर स‎जर्व506 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 25th February, 2021 S.O. 188.—The President is pleased to entrust the additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad to Shri V. Vijaya Kumar, Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam for a period of six months with effect from 27.01.2021 or till the appointment of a regular incumbent or until further orders, whichever is the earliest. [No. A-11016/08/2020-CLS-II] SATISH CHANDER, Under Secy. नई दिल्ली, 25 फरवरी, 2021 का.आ. 189.—राष्ट्रृ‎जत, श्रीमती िीप्ती मोिृात्रा, ृी ासीन अ‎जिकारी, केन्री सरकार औद्यो‎जगक अ‎जिकरण सि श्रम न् ा ाल , र्ेन्नई को ‎दिनांक 27.01.2021 से छ : माि तक की अवजि अ वा जन जमत ृिाजिकारी की जन ुजि तक अ वा अगले आिेिों तक इनम ेंिो भी ृिले िो, केन्री सरकार औद्यो‎जगक अ‎जिकरण सि श्रम न् ा ाल , बैंगलोर के ृी ासीन अ‎जिकारी के ृि का अजतठरि प्रभार स़ौृते ि ज। [सं. अ-11016/08/2020-सीएलएस.II] सतीि र्न्िर, अवर स‎जर्व New Delhi, the 25th February, 2021 S.O. 189.—The President is pleased to entrust the additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore to Smt. Dipti Mohapatra, Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai for a period of six months with effect from 27.01.2021 or till the appointment of a regular incumbent or until further orders, whichever is the earliest. [No. A-11016/08/2020-CLS-II] SATISH CHANDER, Under Secy. ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2021 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼14 dk 1947½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas] dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ MCY;w-lh-,y- ds izca/kr=a ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjks a ds chp] vuqc/a k eas fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn es a dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 12/2019½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-02-2021 dk s izkIr gqvk FkkA [la- ,y-22012@36@2019-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-2½] jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo New Delhi, the 1st March, 2021 S.O. 190.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2019)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 24.02.2021. [No. L-22012/36/2019 - IR (CM-II)] RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy.[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गनु 15, 1942 507 ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI S.S GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No. CGIT/NGP/12/2019-20 Date: 10.08.2020 Party No.1 : The Sub Area Manager, Western Coalfields Ltd., Sasti Open Cast Mines, Post. Sasti, Tah. Rajura, Distt. CHANDRAPUR (M.S.) – 442905. V/s. Party No.2(a) : Shri Bhaskar Govindrao Kayarkar, Forernan, Sast OCM, Ballarpur Area, Western Coalfield Ltd., Distt CHANDRAPUR (M.S.) – 442401. Party No.2(b) : The Secretary, BKKMS Area, Qrtr No, M/115, Gouri Colony, Post Sasti,Tah. Rajura, Dist. CHANDRAPUR (M.S.) – 442905. ORDER 10.08.2020 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 for adjudication between the management of Western Coalfields Limited and the General Secretary, BKKMS vide letter No.. L-22012/36/2019 (IR (CM-II) dated 09.05.2019 on the following schedule:- “Whether the demand by the Secretary of the Bhartiya Koyla Khandan Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) Vardha Valley, Post. Babupeth, Dist. Chandrapur over the issue of anomaly in discrimination on promotion i.r.o. Shri Bhaskar Govindrao Kayarkar, Foreman, Sasti Open Cast Mines, Ballarpur Area, WCLtd, Dist. Chandrapur is just fair & legal? If yes, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?” 2. On receipt of this reference, notices were issued to the parties to file statement of claim and written statement. 3. On 06.03.2020, both the parties filed Settlement Deed i.e. Compromise jointly with their identity, in open Court. They do not want to proceed further in this case. So, Settlement Deed is allowed with the terms and condition, mentioned in the Settlement Deed and permission is granted to withdraw the case. Hence, it is ordered:- ORDER The application for withdrawal of the case is allowed. The case is treated as withdrawn. The reference is answered in the negative and against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief. S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer508 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2021 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼14 dk 1947½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas] dsUnzh; ljdkj esllZ MCY;w-lh-,y- ds izca/kr=a ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjks a ds chp] vuqc/a k eas fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k lg&Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 05/2009½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-02-2021 dk s izkIr gqvk FkkA [la- ,y-22012@132@2008-vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-2½] jktsUnz flag] voj lfpo New Delhi, the 1st March, 2021 S.O. 191.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 05/2009 )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 24.02.2021. [No. L-22012/132/2008 -IR (CM-II)] RAJENDER SINGH, Under Secy. ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GARG, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR Case No. CGIT/NGP/05/2009 Date: 20.03.2020. Party No.1: The Sub Area Manager, NMOC Mines, New Majri Open Cast Mines of Majri Area of WCL, At/PO: Shivaji Nagar (Kuchna), Tehsil : Bhadrawati, Chandrapur (M.S.). V/s Party No.2: Shri Prashant Dadarao Fulzale, C/o Dadarao Fulzale, At. Qtr. No.E-243/5, CTPS Colony, PO: Urjanagar, Chandrapur (M.S.). AWARD (Dated: 20th March, 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 Limited and their workman, Shri Prashant Dadarao Fulzale, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/132/2008–IR(CM-II) dated 16.02.2009, with the following schedule:- “Whether the action of the management of Majri Area of WCL in terminating the services of Shri P. D. Fulzale, Ex-Operator w.e.f 23.06.2002 without affording him any opportunity to defend his case is legal and justified? To what relief is the workman entitled?’’ 2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement, in response to which, the workman Shri P.D. Fulzele, (“the workman” in short) filed the statement of claim and the management of WCL, (“party no.1” in short) filed the written statement. The case of the workman as mentioned in the statement of claim is that he was working as a heavy earth mover machinery operator at Ghugus Open cast mine and in March/April, 1988, he was transferred to Majri OCM and he could not work for five months from January 2002 to May 2002, because he was mentally disturbed, due to destruction of his family and he personally informed about his pitiable condition to the Authority and requested to allow him permission for remaining absent from duties for the period mentioned[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गनु 15, 1942 509 above and he attended the office of party no1 in first week of June, 2002 to resume duties and thereafter also, he attended the office regularly with a request to allow him to join his duties, but he was not allowed to join duties, so he raised the industrial dispute before the conciliation officer, Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandrapur. It is also pleaded by the workman that neither one month’s notice nor one month’s wages in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to him, before not allowing him to resume duties which amounts to his retrenchment and there was violation of the provisions of section 25-F of the Act and his retrenchment is void, illegal and against the principles of natural justice and the party no.1 did not issue any charge sheet and also did not conduct any domestic enquiry on the charge of absenteeism and no document in that regard was placed before the conciliation officer by party no.1 and he also did not receive any dismissal order and no such proof was also placed before the conciliation officer and he was not given any opportunity to defend his case and he sent the approach notice to the party no.1 by registered post with AD on 01.04.2008, but no action was taken by the party no.1 on the same and he was retrenched from services with malafide intention, under colourable exercise of employer’s right and the same was preplanned, arbitrary and by way of victimization and due to caste feeling, as he belongs to Mahar community (Schedule Caste) and no seniority list was displayed seven days prior to the actual date of his retrenchment and he is entitled for reinstatement in service. The workman has prayed for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages. 3. The party no.1 in the written statement has pleaded inter-alia that the workman was appointed in its services w.e.f. 16.01.1988, as HEMM operator as apprentice and his services were regularized as Trainee operator category-II w.e.f. 16.01.1989 and his services thereafter came to be transferred as Trainee operator category D to Chargaon OC Mines and lastly, he was working as Dumper operator at New Majri OC-2 Mines and vide order dated 23.06.2002, his services were terminated and the order of termination of the services of the workman was as a consequence of the disciplinary action instituted against him, by it and the workman was charge sheeted vide charge sheet dated 14/16.01.2002 under clause 26.30 and 26.24 of the Standing Order and the charge sheet was sent to the workman in his home address as per records, but the same was returned back by the Postal Department with repot of the non-availability of the workman in that address and in such situation, the matter was referred to enquiry and shri J.S. Sayare was appointed as the enquiry officer by the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 6/8.04.2002 and the said enquiry officer conducted the departmental enquiry firstly on 26.04.2002 and since the workman remained absent, the enquiry came to be adjourned and fixed on 12.05.2002 and as on that date also, the workman did not participate in the enquiry, the enquiry was adjourned to 19.05.2002 and as on 19.05.2002 also, the workman did not attend the enquiry, the enquiry officer took the decision to continue the departmental enquiry exparte and communication of the constitution of the enquiry and information about the dates of enquiry were sent to the workman by registered post on the address available on record of management, but they were returned back by postal department withut service, with the remarks that “he was not available on the address and had left” and on 19.05.2002, ten documents in support of the charges were produced on behalf of the management and the documents were taken on the record of the enquiry and after recording of the evidence, the enquiry was concluded and it had taken all reasonable and adequate efforts in communicating the workman about the disciplinary action, as per the certified standing order and inspite of all the efforts, the workman himself preferred not to participate in the departmental enquiry and the enquiry officer submitted his report on 23.05.2002, declaring the charges to have been proved against the workman. Party no.1 has further pleaded that the workman was charged for remaining unauthorized absent without any information to the management or sanctioned leave or sufficient cause from 28.12.2001 for a period of nearly six months and even thereafter and the report of the enquiry officer was accepted by the disciplinary authority and a show cause notice dated 13.06.2002 alongwith the copy of the enquiry report and copies of the proceedings of the departmental enquiry were sent to the workman under registered post with Acknowledgement due on the registered address given by the workman as per record and the disciplinary authority after obtaining due approval from the competent authority inflicted the punishment of termination of the workman from services by order dated 23.06.2002 and the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman was just and proper and the punishment awarded to the workman commensurate with the seriousness of the misconduct and unsatisfactory past record of the workman and the dispute was raised after a long period of more than 6 years and no proper reasoning for such inordinate delay has been offered and on this ground also, the reference is liable to be rejected. The further case of the party no.1 is that the contention raised by the workman that he could not work from January, 2002 to May, 2002,because of mental disturbance is factually incorrect and there was no information with the management in this regard and since the termination of the workman was the consequence510 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] of a fair disciplinary action, no notice or pay in lieu of notice was required to be given and the case of the workman does not fall within the definition of retrenchment and the workman is not entitled to any relief. 4. My predecessor passed an order regarding validity of departmental enquiry on 16.01.2014, in which, he hold that, “Departmental enquiry conducted against the workman, was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and therefore is not legal and proper” and he gave a chance to the Party No. 1 to prove the charges against the workman. 5. Point of determination: i. “Whether Party No. 1 proved the misconduct of the workman? ii. “Whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse?” iii. “Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?” Reasons for decision: 6. The workman has examined himself as PW-1 in support of his case, but he admitted the following facts: i. In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted that he was terminated from service in the month of June, 2002 and he did not file any application for leave in between December, 2001 to June, 2002. ii. He also admitted that, in “Form-B” register; his address has been mentioned as, C/o. Dadarao Fulzele, F-7/4, Power House colony, Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur. iii. The workman has further stated that he cannot say if the enquiry officer had sent notice of the enquiry to him in the address mentioned in the “Form B” register and the same was returned back without service. 7. The MW-1, Shri Jaywant S. Sayare, who had conducted the departmental enquiry against the workman has been examined by the Party No. 1 is support of their defence, which was taken in W.S., but he admitted some facts in his cross-examination. i. No document has been filed to show that the charge sheet was served on the workman. ii. All the letters sent to the workman in the address of the workman were returned back without service. iii. He did not send any notice to the workman in the address mentioned in column 13 of the Form-B register. iv. He admitted that in the charge sheet, the previous periods of absence of the workman in support of the charge of habitual absenteeism have not been mentioned. 8. Now I want to see the documents filed by the Party No. 1. Exhibit M-II to M-XIV, which shows that, two charges were framed under Standing Order No. 26.30 and 26.24. I firstly want to discuss second charge, which shows the habitual absenteeism of the workman. I want to reproduce the para 22 of cross-examination of MW-1, Jaywant S. Sayare. “It is a fact that, in the charge sheet, the previous periods of absence of the workman in support of the charge of habitual absenteeism have not been mentioned. Even though the periods of absence of the workman ws not mentioned in the charge sheet as per his previous record, I made enquiry about the same.” 9. MW-1 also admitted that, original documents have not been filed by the Party No. 1 in the departmental enquiry. Even after that, he proved this charge against the workman, which shows that, he is biased with the workman and workman also took this defence to this witness in para 23 of the cross- examination. Now I want to see the Xerox copy of the documents filed by the Party No. 1. Previous charge sheets dated 08.09.1993, 20.07.1997, 08.02.1999, 13.04.2001 and 19.08.200, but no enquiry report filed regarding these charge sheets, so it does not show, what findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the above charge sheets. Moreover charge sheet dated 08.09.1993 related to the work and behaviour of the workman, rest is related to the absenteeism. The Party No. 1 also filed warning letter dated 24.09.1995, 17.03.1996, 02.07.1999, 05.09.1990, 13.03.1993, 31.05.1995 and 31.07.1996, but these documents were not proved by the Party No. 1 during the course of evidence. Moreover, these documents do not show that, these were served on the workman, but it shows that, Enquiry Officer created this evidence during the enquiry[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गनु 15, 1942 511 proceedings to prove the charges of misconduct against the workman, who was absent during the enquiry proceedings. 10. After the order of validity of domestic enquiry, Party No. 1 examined MW-2, Shri Omprakash G. Karole to prove the misconduct, but he admitted that, he has no personal knowledge of this case. His knowledge is based on documents. He was working at Majri Area form 1998. He also admitted that, charge 1 (26.30 of Standing Order) relating to absenting for more than 10 days. It shows that, workman was absent from 28.12.2001 to 14.01.2002, near about 18 days. The workman also admitted that, he did not file any application for leave for that duration, but his defence is that, he was mentally disorder i.e. (workman was mentally disturbed form 28.12.2001 to May, 2002 due to his family trouble and he intimated such fact to the Party No. 1). The workman did not file any rebuttal evidence to disprove to Party No. 1’s evidence. 11. Party No. 1 also filed Exhibit M-IIA to M-VIIA (these exhibits were proved through MW-2 without make any difference, which were exhibited in MW-I, so this Court to indentify these documents by changing M- IIA to M-VIIA in place of M-II to M-VII. In my opinion, no party will suffer by this change in exhibit). These documents show that, the workman was terminated from the service on the basis of these documents without affording proper opportunity or proper treatment. It shows that, Party No. 1 did not behave with the workman as an ideal employer. It also shows that, there were not sympathetic to the workman. It also appears that, departmental enquiry completed only for 26 days and he was terminated as exparte. 12. On going the above discussion, my humble opinion is that, Party No. 1 failed to prove the misconduct against the workman and findings are perverse. So, order of termination dated 23.06.2002 is not legal and proper. So, the termination order of the workman is not sustainable. As per the workman’s argument, he is not in position to join the service, because his health is not permitting. On perusal of the record, it appears that, his date of birth 30.03.1964, he joined the service on 16.01.1988 and he was terminated on 23.06.2002, so in my opinion, he is entitled to Lumpsum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) in lieu of reinstatement. He is also entitled for P.F., Gratuity and retiremental benefits. He is not entitled to any other relief. ORDER The action of the management of Majri Area of WCL in terminating the services of Shri P. D. Fulzale, Ex-Operator w.e.f 23.06.2002 without affording him any opportunity to defend his case is not legal and justified. He is entitled to Lumpsum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) in lieu of reinstatement. He is also entitled for P.F., Gratuity and retiremental benefits. He is not entitled to any other relief. Management/Party No.1 should comply the order within one month from the date of publication of this award in official gazette, failing which, workman is entitled for interest of 6% per annum from the date of dues amount. The workman is not entitled for any other relief. S.S. GARG, Presiding Officer ubZ fnYyh] 1 ekpZ] 2021 —vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ,DliksVZ dzsfMV xkjUVh dksjiksjs'ku vkQ bafM;k fyfeVsM ds izca/kra=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqc/a k eas fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 70@2015½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-03-2021 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA [la- ,y-17012@20@2015-vkbZvkj ¼,e½] uohu oS|] mi funs'kd New Delhi, the 1st March, 2021 S.O. 192.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the (Award Ref. No. 70/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01.03.2021. [No.- L-17012/20/2015-IR(M)] NAVIN VAIDYA, Dy. Director512 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 70/ 2015 -L- 17012/20/2015–IR(M) 28/04/2016 jkts'k ;kno iq= Jh f'koyky] fuoklh& cksjkoyh] xkao o iksLV & gjlksjk] rglhy& ckulwj] ftyk vyoj & ¼jktLFkku½ ---izkFkhZ 1- czkUp eSustj] bZ-lh-th-lh- fyfeVsM f)rh; ry] vkuUn Hkou] lalkj pUnz jksM+] t;iqj ¼jktLFkku½ 2- p;s jeSu ,.M eSusftax Mk;jDs Vj] bZ-lh-th-lh- fyfeVsM ,Dlizsl VkWoj] 10 oh efaty] ujheu ikWbV] eqEcbZ& 400021 ---vizkFkhZ@foi{khx.k izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jh lat; jkgM+ + & ,MoksdsV vizkFkhZ dh rjQ ls % Jh ,l- ds- lDlsuk & ,MoksdsV 1- Je e=a ky; Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyh }kjk fnukad 21-7-2015 dk s fuEukafdr fookn vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼ftls vkxs ek= vf/kfu;e dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10 mi/kkjk ¼1½ ¼Mh½ ,oa 2 , ds izko/kkuks a ds vUrXkZr iznRr 'kfDr;ks a ds iz;ksx eas bl vf/kdj.k dks U;k;fu.kZ;u gsrq lanfHkZr fd;k x;k %& “Whether the action of the management of Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India, in termination the services of Sh. Rajesh Yadav S/o Shri Shiv Lal vide oral order dated 28.07.2006 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to ?” 2- mi;qZDr fookn izkIr gksus ij vf/kdj.k }kjk fnukad 20-8-2015 dk s mHk;i{k dks vkgwr fd;k x;k rFkk izkFkhZ dks funsZ'k fn;s x;s fd og viu s nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr djsAa fnukad 5-11-2015 dk s izkFkhZ u s vius nkos dk vfHkdFku izLrqr fd;kA izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd mls foi{kh }kjk dkj pkyd ds in ij fnukad 1-6-1999 dk s fu;qDr fd;k x;k FkkA fnukad 15-12-2005 dk s foi{kh daiuh ds 'kk[kk izca/kd }kjk daiuh ds p;s jeSu ,oa eSusftax Mk;jDs Vj dks i= fy[kk x;k ftlesa izkFkhZ dks pkyd ds in ij LFkk;h fd;s tku s dh vuq'kalk dh xbZ FkhA 'kk[kk izca/kd }kjk fnukad 15-12-2005 dk s izkFkhZ dk vly fu;qfDr i= fnukad 1-6-1999 dks ys fy;k x;k FkkA fnukad 28-7-2006 dks foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsok;s a fcuk fdlh vkSfpR; ,oa iwoZ lwpuk ds lekIr dj nh xbZA iwNu s ij foi{kh }kjk crk;k x;k fd pfwad izkFkhZ us pkyd ds in ij LFkk;h djus ckcr ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k fjV ;kfpdk izLrqr dh gS] blfy;s mldh lsok lekIr dj nh xbZA fnuakd 28-1-14 dks ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fjV ;kfpdk fuLrkfjr dj nh xbZ gS vkSj izkFkhZ dks vU; fof/kd mipkj izkIr djus dh Loar=rk nh xbZ gSA foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dh lsok lekIr djuk vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuks a ds foijhr gS ,oa vuqfpr Je vH;kl dh ifjHkk"kk es a vkrk gSA vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ds izko/kku dh vuqikyuk foi{kh }kjk ugha dh xbZA izkFkhZ dk s uksfVl ;k uksfVl osru ugha fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ dk s lsokeqDr dju s ds mijkUr izkFkhZ ¼pkyd½ ds in ij Hkh u;s Jfedks a dks HkrhZ fd;k x;k gS tks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ¼th½ ,oa ¼,p½ dk mYya?ku gSA izkFkhZ u s fnukad 1-6-1999 ls fnukad 28-7-2006 rd foi{kh ds v/khu fujUrj dk;Z fd;k gS vkSj lsokefqDr ds iwoZ ,d dSy.s Mj o"kZ dh vof/k es a og 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gSA izkFkhZ dks lsok ls gVku s ls iwoZ dksbZ ojh;rk lwph Hkh ugha cukbZ xbZA vr% okn Lohdkj dj izkFkhZ dh fnuakd 28-7-2006 dks dh xbZ ekSf[kd lsokefqDr dk s voS/k ?kksf"kr fd;k tkos a rFkk lsok eas fujUrjrk ,oa foxr ifjykHk lfgr iqu% lsok es a fy;s tku s ds vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkosAa 3- fnuakd 30-10-2019 dks izkFkhZ u s ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 5-8-2019 tk s ,l-ch-flfoy fjV ihfV'ku la[;k 20013@2018 jkts'k ;kno cuke eSllZ ,DliksVZ ØsfMV xkjVa h dkiksZjs'ku vkWQ bf.M;k fy- o vU; eas ikfjr fd;k x;k Fkk dh izekf.kr izfr izLrqr dhA mDr fu.kZ; ds vulq j.k eas bl fookn dk[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गनु 15, 1942 513 U;k;fu.kZ;u fd;k tk jgk gSA fnuakd 25-11-2019 dks foi{kh u s oknksRrj izLrqr djr s gq;s ;g dgk gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk ,d vU; fjV ;kfpdk 5095@06 jkts'k ;kno cuke Hkkjr la?k o vU; ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k leku rF;ksa vkSj vfHkopuks a ds vk/kkj ij izLrqr fd; s Fks ftleas izkFkhZ u s mldh lsokvks a dk s fu;fer dju s o vU; ifjykHkks a dk vuqrks"k pkgk FkkA bl fjV ;kfpdk dk fu.kZ; fnukad 28-1-14 dk s ikfjr fd;k x;kA ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;kfpdk fujLr djr s gq;s izkFkhZ dk s vU; fof/kd mipkj izkIr dju s dh vuqefr nh xbZA bl fu.kZ; eas izkFkhZ dk s dkiksZjs'ku ds 'kk[kk izca/kd ds futh okgu ij pkyd ds in ij dk;Z dju s ls izkFkhZ dks dkiksZjs'ku dk deZpkjh ugha ekur s gq;s fjV ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh xbZA ;g fu.kZ; bl vf/kdj.k ij ck/;dkjh gS] vr% okn fujLr fd;k tkosAa foi{kh u s 'kk[kk Lrj ij pkyd dk in l`ftr ugha fd;k vkSj u gh orZeku eas gSA izkFkhZ vkSj foi{kh ds chp fu;ksDrk ,ao dkfeZd ds lEcU/k ugha jgsA 'kk[kk izca/kd }kjk futh vko';drk dh iwfrZ gsrq pkyd ds in ij ;fn fdlh O;fDr dks fu;ksftr fd;k tkrk gSa rks og 'kk[kk izca/kd dk futh pkyd gksrk gS vkSj mldk foi{kh ls dksbZ lEcU/k ugh a ekuk tk ldrkA 'kk[kk izca/kd O;fDrxr :i ls fu;qDr fd; s x;s pkyd ds osru Hkqxrku gsrq mRrjnk;h gksrk gSA foi{kh }kjk pkyd ds in ds fy;s dHkh dksbZ foKkiu izdkf'kr ugha djok;k x;k vkSj u gha vkosnu vkaef=r fd; s x;sA foi{kh }kjk pkyd ds in ds fy;s dksbZ fu;qfDr dh izfdz;k laikfnr ugha dh xbZA izkFkhZ ds dk;Z dh ljkguk dh xbZ gks rks mldk foi{kh laLFkku ls dkbs Z lEcU/k ugh a gSA izkFkhZ dk vly fu;qfDr i= fnukad 1-6-1999 dks foi{kh }kjk dHkh ugha fy;k x;k vkSj ;g Hkh mYy[s kuh; gS fd foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ ds i{k es a dHkh dksbZ fu;qfDr i= tkjh gh ugha fd;k x;kA pfwad izkFkhZ dk s foi{kh u s dHkh fu;qDr ugha fd;k rks mldh lsok lekIr dju s dk dksbZ iz'u gh ugha mBrk gSA izkFkhZ ds fo:) ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; fnuakd 28-1-14 vafrerk izkIr dj pqdk gS] D;ksfad mls dgh dksbZ pqukSrh ugh a nh xbZA izkFkhZ ds lUnHkZ es a vf/kfu;e ds dksbZ izko/kku vkd`"V ugha gksrsA foi{kh }kjk u;s Jfed@pkyd HkrhZ ugh a fd;s x;sA izkFkhZ dk dFku fd mlu s ,d dSy.s Mj o"kZ dh vof/k es a 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k xyr gS D;ksfad izkFkhZ foi{kh dk dkfeZd gh ugh a gSA vr% okn vLohdkj fd;k tkosAa 4- rnqijkar izkFkhZ u s viu s lk{; esa ,-MCY;w&1 jkts'k ;kno ¼izkFkhZ Loa;½ dks ifjf{kr fd;k rFkk izyfs[k; lk{; eas izn'kZ MCY;w&1 ls MCY;w&21 ftleas izn'kZ MCY;w&11¼,½ Hkh lfEefyr gS] iznf'kZr fd;sA 5- foi{kh us vius lk{; eas ,u-,-MCY;w&1 vk'kh"k oekZ lhfu;j eSustj dk s ijhf{kr fd;k rFkk izysf[k; lk{; es a izn'kZ&,e 1 o izn'kZ&,e 2 izy[s kks a dks iznf'kZr fd;kA fnukad 18-3-2020] 26-3-2020 o 29-6-2020 dk s Hkh ;g izdj.k mHk;i{k ds rdZ lqu s tku s gsrq fu;r FkkA fdUrq dkfsoM&19 egkekjh ds ifj.kkeLo:i mRiUu ifjfLFkfr;ksoa 'k nksuksa a i{k vuiq fLFkr jgs vUrr% fnuakd 18-1-2021 dk s mHk;i{k ds ijLij fojks/kh rdZ lqu s x;s ,oa miyC/k lk{; dk ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA 6- izkFkhZ dk ;g rdZ gS fd foi{kh u s mls dkj pkyd ds in ij 1-6-99 dks fu;qDr fd;k FkkA izn'kZ MCY;w&7 rRdkyhu 'kk[kk izca/kd }kjk fy[kk x;k i= gS ftles a izkFkhZ ds tkWbfuax ySVj dks layXu fd;k x;k gSA blls ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks fu;qfDr i= fn;k x;k Fkk vkSj mlh ds vuqikyu eas izkFkhZ u s dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;k FkkA eyw fu;qfDr i= izkFkhZ ls izca/kdks a u s okil y s fy;k Fkk] blfy;s lk{; eas iznf'kZr ugha gks ldkA foi{kh ds uke ls iathd`r dkj dk s gh izkFkhZ pykrk FkkA ftldk izek.k izn'kZ MCY;w&8 iath;u izek.ki= o izn'kZ MCY;w&9 ykWx cqd gSA izn'kZ MCY;w&12 ls 16 rd ds okmplZ o izn'kZ MCY;w&17] 18 o 21 chek izek.k i= Hkh gS ftuls izkFkhZ dk foi{kh ds v/khu pkyd ds :i es a dk;Zjr gksuk izekf.kr gksrk gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k izn'kZ&,e 2 izkFkhZ dh vuiq fLFkfr eas ikfjr gqvk gSA ftlesa foi{kh ds okgu dk s 'kk[kk izca/kd dk futh okgu ekur s gq, foi{kh dk deZpkjh ugha ekuk x;k gSA blfy;s bl vkns'k ls izkFkhZ ds fgr izfrdwy :i ls izHkkfor ugha gksrs gS D;ksfad izkFkhZ us vius lk{; ls Loa; dk s foi{kh dk deZpkjh gksuk izekf.kr fd;k gSA lk{; ls ;g izekf.kr gqvk gS fd izkFkhZ us lsok lekfIr ds iwoZ foi{kh ds v/khu ,d dsys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k es a 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gSA blfy;s izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr voS/k NaVuh gSa D;ksfad foi{kh u s /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuks a dh ikyuk ugh a dh gSA vr% okn Lohdkj djrs gq;s izkFkhZ dh lsok es a cgkyh foxr osru o ifjykHkks a lfgr dh tkosAa mUgksus a viu s rdZ ds leFkZu es a fuEukafdr U;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr fd;%s& 1- iqtkjh ckbZ cuke enu xksiky ¼1989½3 ,l-lh-lh i`"B 433 7- foi{kh dh vksj ls ;g dgk x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks 'kk[kk izca/kd ds futh pkyd ds :i eas rRdkyhu 'kk[kk izca/kdkas }kjk gh j[kk x;k gSA og foi{kh }kjk u rks fu;qDr fd;k x;k u gh mls lsokeqDr fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dks fdlh Lohd`r in ij fofgr p;u izfdz;k }kjk ugha j[kk x;k u gh fu;qfDr i= tkjh fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ us ;g Hkh izekf.kr ugha fd;k gS fd fu;qfDr i= mlls okil y s fy;k x;k gksA izn'kZ&,e 2 ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k }kjk izkFkhZ dks foi{kh dk deZpkjh ugha ekuk x;k gS vkSj ;g vkns'k izkFkhZ }kjk fdlh izdkj vikLr u djok;s tku s ds dkj.k vafre gks pqdk gSA okmplZ ds ek/;e ls izkFkhZ dks fd;k x;k Hkqxrku mlds fu;kstu dk izek.k ugha gSA izkFkhZ Loa; ij ;g nkf;Ro vkjksfir gS fd og lsokeqfDr ds iwoZorhZ ,d dsys.Mj o"kZ dh vof/k eas 240 fnu ls vf/kd dh lsok foi{kh ds v/khu djuk izekf.kr djs&a tks izkFkhZ }kjk fuoZgu ugh a fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ us lk{; eas Loa; ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlds }kjk izLrqr fjV ;kfpdk izn'kZ&,e 1 eas fu;qfDr i= tkjh dju s o okil ls fy;s tkus dk mYys[k ugh a gSA vr% okn fujLr fd;k tkosAa mUgksus a vius rdZ ds leFkZu es a fuEukafdr U;kf;d n`"Vkar o ifji= izLrqr fd; s %&514 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1- ¼2009½ 13 ,l-lh-lh 374 bUVjus'kuy ,;jiksVZ vkWFkksfjVh vkQ bf.M;k cuke bUVju's kuy ,;j dkxkZs oDlZ ;wfu;u o vU; 2- ¼2019½ 13 ,l-lh-lh 84 Hkkjr gSoh bySfDVdYl fy- cuke egsUnz izlkn t[kekSyk o vU; 3- ¼2009½ 11 ,l-lh-lh 522d`".kk HkkX; ty fuxe fy- cuke ekSgEen jQh 4- flfoy vihy la- 7275@2002 ¼lqizhe dkVs Z½ lR;ukjk;.k cuke gfj;k.kk cSofjt fy- fu.kZ; frfFk 5-11-2008 5- ¼2007½ 14 ,l-lh-lh 98 th-,e-Vk.Mk FkeZy ikWoj izkstsDV cuke t;izdk'k JhokLro o vU; 6- ¼2015½ 15 ,l-lh-lh 1 izHkkdj cuke tkWbZUV Mk;jDs Vj lsjh dYpj fMikVZeasV 7- ¼2014½ 7 ,l-lh-lh 177 ch,l,u,y cuke Hkq:ey 8- ldqyZj ua- 8 Hkkjrh; fu;kZr _.k xkjVa h fuxe fy- fnukad 11-12-2000 8- mHk;i{k ds rdkZsa o lk{; ij euu ds mijkar bl fookn es a fuEukafdr fopkj.kh; fcanq mRiUu gq, gS%& fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k 1 %& D;k izkFkhZ dk s foi{kh us fnuakd 1-6-1999 dks dkj pkyd ds in ij fu;qDr fd;k rFkk fnukad 28-7-2006 dks foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dks ekSf[kd :i ls lsokeqDr dj fn;k x;k\ & izkFkhZ fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k 2 %& D;k izkFkhZ foi{kh }kjk lsokeqDr fd; s tku s dh frfFk ij foxr ,d dsy.s Mj o"kZ dh vof/k eas 240 fnu dh lsok foi{kh ds v/khu iw.kZ dj pqdk Fkk rFkk /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuks a ds vikyu ds dkj.k lsoklekfIr voS/k gS\ & izkFkhZ fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k 3 %& D;k izkFkhZ dks lsokeqDr djr s le; izkFkhZ ls dfu"Brj pkydka s dks foi{kh us lsok eas j[kk o okn es a uofu;qfDr djrs le; izkFkhZ dks izkFkfedrk ugha nh xbZ\ & izkFkhZ fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k 4 %& vuqrks"k \ 9- mHk;i{k ds rdksa]Z lk{; ,oa U;kf;d n`"Vkarks eas ikfjr fof/k ij euu ds i'pkr fopkj.kh; fcanqvks a ij dzfed fofu'p; bl izdkj gS %& fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k 1 %& izkFkhZ jkts'k ;kno us viu s l'kiFk dFku eas ;g dgk gS fd mls foi{kh }kjk dkjpkyd ds in ij fnukad 1-6-1999 dks fu;qDr fd;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ u s izn'kZ MCY;w&7 rRdkyhu 'kk[kk izca/kd }kjk 15-12- 05 dk s fy[ks x;s i= dk mYy[s k djr s gq, dgk gS fd ;g i= izsf"kr djrs le; mldk vly fu;qfDr&i= fnuakd 1-6-99 mlls y s fy;k FkkA bl i= dk s ;fn ;Fkkor Lohdkj Hkh dj fy;k tkos rks izkFkhZ dk dFku Lor% gh [kafMr gks tkrk gS D;ksfad bl i= eas rRdkyhu 'kk[kk izca/kd u s fy[kk gS fd % & “Mr yadav joined on May 24, 1999 in ECGC of India Ltd jaipur branch and from June1,1999 he worked on a probationary post of driver for six months.’’ 10- bl mYys[k ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ u s foi{kh ds v/khu pkyd in ij dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fnuakd 24-5- 1999 dk s gh dj fy;k Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr fuf'pr :i ls fnuakd 24-5-1999 dk s ;k mlds iwoZ gh gqbZ gksxhA ;fn ,slk gh gS rks izkFkhZ }kjk Loa; dk s fnuakd 1-6-1999 dks fu;qDr fd; s tkus dk dFku Loa;eos [kafMr gksrk gSA izkFkhZ ds fu;qfDr&i= dks izca/kd }kjk y s fy;s tku s dk Hkh mYy[s k izn'kZ MCY;w&7 i= es a ugh a gSA fu;qfDr&i= ds LFkku ij tkWbfuax ySVj layXu fd; s tku s dk gh mYy[s k gSA bl fLFkfr eas izkFkhZ }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; es a izLrqr fjV ;kfpdk izn'kZ&,e 1 eas fu;qfDr frfFk fnukad 1-6-1999 rFkk foi{kh }kjk fu;qfDr i= tkjh fd; s tkus dk mYy[s k u fd;k tkuk & bl rF; dks laHkkO; cukrk gS fd izkFkhZ ds i{k eas foi{kh }kjk dkbs Z fu;qfDr&i= tkjh ugh a fd;k x;kA 11- izkFkhZ dgrk gS fd mlu s fu;qfDr&i= okil izkIr dju s gsrq i=&O;ogkj fd;k Fkk& fada arq og i= O;ogkj mlds ikl miyC/k ugha gSa] ;g dFku fo'oluh; ugha gS vkSj ;g mi/kkj.k dju s dk s ck/; djrk gS fd izkFkhZ u s fu;qfDr&i= okil ysus gsrq dksbZ iz;kl ugha fd;k] D;ksfad dfFkr fu;qfDr&i= dk dksbZ vfLrRo gh ugha FkkA 12- izkFkhZ us viuh fu;qfDr ds izek.k Lo:i okgu la- DL 6CB 8128 dh ykWxcqd] iath;u izek.ki= o okmplZ dks Lkk{; eas iznf'kZr fd;k gSA foi{kh lk{kh vk'kh"k oekZ & 'kk[kk izca/kd u s viu s izfrijh{k.k eas mDr okgu dk iathdj.k foi{kh fuxe ds uke ls gksuk o ykWx&cqd blh okgu dh gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gS& rFkk izn'kZ MCY;w&12 ls MCY;w 16 rd Loa; ds okmplZ gksuk Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gSA bl LohdkjksfDr ls ek= ;gh izekf.kr ekuk tk ldrk gS fd okgu la- DL 6CB 8128 foi{kh fuxe dk gS& ftldks pyku s dk dk;Z izkFkhZ us 6@99 ls 4@2006 ds e/; fd;k gSA fofHkUu 'kk[kk izca/kdks a }kjk tkjh izek.ki=ks a o i=ks a izn'kZ MCY;w&7] 10] 11] 11&, ds iBu ls Hkh mi;qZDr rF; dh iqf"V gksrh gSA 13- foi{kh dk ;g rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ ,oa foi{kh ds chp fu;ksDrk o dkfedZ ds laca/k ugh a jgs& oju 'kk[kk izca/kdkas }kjk fuft vko';drk dh iwfrZ gsrq okgu pkyd dk s j[kk x;k gSA blfy;s izkFkhZ fuft okgu pkyd ds :i[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 6, 2021/फाल् गनु 15, 1942 515 eas 'kk[kk izca/kd }kjk fu;qDr fd;k x;k gS&foi{kh ls mldk dkbs Z laca/k LFkkfir ugha gksrk& u gh dksbZ mRrjnkf;RoA 'kk[kk izca/kdkas us ;fn viu s Lrj ij izek.ki= tkjh Hkh fd; s gS rks foi{kh fuxe ij os vkc)dj ugh a gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr fjV ;kfpdk izn'kZ&,e 1 dk s izn'kZ&,e 2 vkn's k }kjk fujLr djr s gq; ;g vf/ker O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd ek= ykWx cqd dh izfof"V;ks a o izca/kdkas }kjk tkjh izek.ki=ks a ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dk s foi{kh fuxe ;k Hkkjr la?k dk deZdkj ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA ,slh Hkh dksbZ lk{; ugha gS fd foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dks dHkh fu;qDr fd;k x;k gksA 14- bl rdZ dk fojks/k djr s gq, izkFkhZ dh vksj ls ;g dgk x;k gS fd bl vkns'k dks ikfjr djrs le; izkFkhZ ds vf/koDrk mifLFkr ugh a Fks vkSj bl vkn's k dk vk/kkj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k feF;k rF;ksa dk izLrqrhdj.k jgk gS fd izkFkhZ u s 'kk[kk izca/kdkas ds fuft okgu ij pkyd dk dk;Z fd;kA tcfd lk{; ls okgu foi{kh fuxe dk gksuk izekf.kr gqvk gSA blfy;s bl vkn's k dks mHk;i{k ds e/; **iwoZ fu.kZ;** ds :i eas xzg.k ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA mUgksus a viu s rdZ ds leFkZu eas iqtkjh ckbZ cuke enuxksiky ds izdj.k eas ekuuh; lokZsPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; dk voyEc fy;k gSA bl fu.kZ; eas ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; u s ;g vf/ker O;Dr fd;k gS fd ;fn fjV ;kfpdk dk fuLrkj.k i{kdkjks a ds e/; la?k"kZ ds mijkar lqfooksfpr vkn's k }kjk xq.kkoxq.k ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k gks] u fd izkjafHkd lquokbZ ij ;k foyca @mis{kk ;k vU; oSfdYid mipkj miyC/k gksus ds vk/kkj ij ;kfpdk fujLr dh xbZ gks] rks ,slk vkn's k i{kdkjks a ij iwoZfu.kZ; dk izHkko j[ksxkA 15- eSa llEeku bl fof/k dks ekxZn'kZd le>rk gwAa izn'kZ&,e 2 vkn's k eas ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us ;|fi ;kph dh vksj ls fdlh ds mifLFkr u gksus ij izR;FkhZ ds rdZ xzg.k dj gh vkn's k ikfjr fd;k gS& fdarq ;g ;kfpdk miyC/k lkexzh ds ifj'khyu fcuk izkjafHkd lquokbZ ij vFkok foyca ,oa ;kph dh ykijokgh] vFkok vU; oSdfYid mipkj miyC/k gksus ds vk/kkj ij fujLr ugha dh xbZ gSA oju miyC/k vfHky[s k o lkezxh ij fopkj dj vfHkopuks a dk s xq.kkxq.k ij ij[kr s gq, fujLr dh xbZ gSA rnqijkar gh ;kfpdk xq.kkxq.k jfgr ikrs gq, vLohdkj dh xbZ gSA lkFk gh] ;fn dkbs Z mipkj leku rF;ksa a ij miyC/k gks rks izkFkhZ dks izkIr djus dh mUeqfDr nh xbZ gSA bl rF;kRed ifjn`'; es a ;g fu.kZ; izkFkhZ ds i{k eas dkbs Z lgk;rk ugha igqapk ik;k gSA izkFkhZ u s Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlu s ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkn's k ds fo:) dksbZ mipkj izkIr ugha fd;k u gh izkIr dju s dk iz;Ru fd;k gSA blfy;s ;g vkns'k mHk;i{k ds e/; **iwoZ fu.kZ;** ds :i es a xzkg; izekf.kr gksrk gSA 16- foi{kh u s rdZ ds nkSjku ,d ifji= la- 8 fnuakd 11-12-2000 izLrqqr fd;k gSA bl ifji= dk izkFkhZ u s dkbs Z [kaMu ugh a fd;k gSA ;g ifji= foi{kh fuxe }kjk fuft pkydks a dks Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf'k ds iquHkZj.k ls lacaf/kr gS tks l{ke@;ksX; vf/kdkfj;ks a }kjk viu s futh pkydks a dk s Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gksAa bl ifji= eas ;g Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd ;g Hkqxrku lacaf/kr deZpkjh@vf/kdkjh dk s ftlls fd pkyd layXu gSa] }kjk pkyd dks fd; s x;s Hkqxrku ds iquHkZj.k ds :i es a gksxk rFkk bZlhthlh }kjk fd;k x;k lh/kk Hkqxrku ugh a le>k tkosxkA bl ifji= dk s lqfo/kk dh n`f"V ls izn'kZ lh 1 vafdr fd;k tk jgk gSA 17- lk{; ds bl rF;kRed foospu ls ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ dks foi{kh fuxe }kjk fofgr p;u izfdz;k] viukdj Lohd`r in dh fjfDr ds fo:) fu;qfDr ugh a nh xbZA oju le; le; ij 'kk[kk izca/kdkas }kjk] mUgs a ns; fuft pkyd ds ikfjJfed dk] fuxe }kjk iquHkZj.k fd; s tku s dh lqfo/kk ds vUrxZr rRdkyhu 'kk[kk izca/kdkas }kjk gh izkFkhZ dks fuxe dh dkj ¼tks 'kk[kk izca/kdkas dk s miyC/k djokbZ xbZ Fkh]½ pyku s dks j[kk x;k FkkA bl fLFkfr es a foi{kh fuxe }kjk izkFkhZ dks fu;qDr ugh a fd; s tku s ls izkFkhZ o foi{kh fuxe ds e/; fu;kstd o deZdkj ds laca/kks a dh mRifRr ugha gqbZ gSA 18- foi{kh fuxe }kjk bl ifjizs{; eas baVjus'kuy ,;jiksVZ vFkkfjVh vkWQ bafM;k cuke baVjus'kuy ,;j dkxksZ odZlZ ;wfu;u o vU; rFkk Hkkjr gSoh bysfDVªdYl fy- cuke egsUnz izlkn tk[keksyk o vU; ds fu.kZ;ks a eas ikfjr fof/k dk voyEc fy;k gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk bu fu.kZ;ks a eas ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k x;k gS fd **Bds k Jfedks a dh xfrfof/k;ks a o dk;kZs a ij iz/kku fu;ksDrk }kjk fadafpr fu;a=.k dk iz;ksx vo';aHkoh gS fdarq ;g iz;ksx] ;g izekf.kr dju s dk s i;kZIr ugha gS fd Bds k Jfed iz/kku fu;kstd ds lh/ks deZpkjh gh gksAa ejs s fouze vfHker eas bu fu.kZ;ks a eas fo|eku rF; bl fookn ds rF;ksa ls fHkUu gSa] D;ksfad foi{kh fuxe o mlds 'kk[kk izca/kdkas rFkk izkFkhZ ds e/; Bds k Jfed o iz/kku fu;kstd ds laca/k fo|eku ugh a gSA rF;kRed fHkUurk ds dkj.k ;s fu.kZ; foi{kh ds izfr lgk;d ugha gSA 19- blh lanaHkZ es a ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; u s viu s fu.kZ; iatkc u's kuy cSad cuke xqyke nLrxhj ,-vkbZ- vkj- 1978 lqizhe dksVZ 481 ¼Loa; vf/kdj.k }kjk½ eas leku rF;ksa oky s izdj.k eas ;g dgk gS fd tc cSad u s vius izca/kdkas ds fy, ,d fuf'pr HkRrk mUgs a lqfo/kk igqapkus ds fy, miyC/k djok;k gks] tk s fd izca/kdkas }kjk fuft rkSj ij ,d pkyd dk s j[ku s gsrq gks] pkgs og thi ftls pkyd }kjk pyk;k tkuk gks] mlds bZ/ku o j[kj[kko dk O;; cSad }kjk oguh; gks ,oa tgkW rd pkyd ds osru dk iz'u gS og lacaf/kr izca/kd }kjk fu;kstd ds :i eas Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gksA rRi'pkr ;g jkf'k cSad }kjk HkRrs ds iquHkZqxrku ds :i eas izca/kd dk s nh xbZ gksA bl fLFkfr eas cSad o pkyd ds e/; ,slk dksbZ rF; ugha gS tks cSad o pkyd ds chp fu;kstd o deZpkjh dk laca/k LFkkfir djsaA cSad dk pkyd ij fdlh izdkj dk fu;a=.k o funsZ'ku gksuk ugh a ekuk tk ldrk gSA bl fu.kZ; eas ikfjr fof/k bl fookn ij rF;ks a dh lekurk ds dkj.k iw.kZr% izHkkoh o ekxZn'kZd gSA ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks pfwad foi{kh fuxe }kjk fu;qDr ugha fd;k x;k gS] foi{kh o izkFkhZ ds e/; fu;kstd o deZdkj dk laca/k gh izekf.kr ugh a gksrk516 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 6, 2021/PHALGUNA 15, 1942 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] gSA blfy;s izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr Hkh foi{kh }kjk fd;k tkuk ugh a ekuk tk ldrk gSA vr% ;g fcanq izkFkhZ ds fo:) fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA 20- fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k 2 o 3 %& fcUnq la- 1 ij izkIr foosfpr fu"d"kZ ds vk/kkj ij foi{kh }kjk izkFkhZ dk s pkyd ds in ij fu;qDr o lsokeqDr fd;k tkuk gh izekf.kr ugha gqvk gSA blfy;s ;g ijhf{kr fd;k tkuk fd D;k izkFkhZ u s foi{kh ds v/khu 240 fnu dh lsok lsoklekfIr ds iwoZorhZ ,d dsy.s Mj o"kZ dh vof/k eas iw.kZ dh gS] fujFkZd o vuko';d izekf.kr gks tkrk gSaA rn~uqlkj ;g foosfpr fd;k tkuk Hkh vuko';d gS fd izkFkhZ dh lsoklekfIr /kkjk 25 ¼,Q½ ¼th½ o ¼,p½ vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuks a ds vikyu ds dkj.k voS/k gSA vr% ;s nksuks a gh fcanq mi;qZDr dkj.kks a ls izkFkhZ ds fo:) fuf.kZr fd;s tkr s gSA 21- fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k 4% vuqrks"k \ fopkj.kh; fcUnq la[;k 1] 2 o 3 izkFkhZ ds fo:) fuf.kZr fd; s x;s gSA izkFkhZ Loa; o foi{kh ds e/; fu;ksDrk o deZdkj ds laca/k gksuk gh izekf.kr ugh a dj ik;k gSA blfy, izkFkhZ dk s vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds varxZr fdlh Hkh izko/kku dk laj{k.k izkIr ugha gSA ifj.kker% og foi{kh ds fo:) dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr dju s dk vf/kdkjh izekf.kr ugha gqvk gSA 22- bl lanfHkZr fookn dk blh izdkj vf/kfu.kZ;u fd;k tkrk gSA vf/kfu.kZ; dk s izdk'ku gsrq vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds vUrXkZr fu;ekuqlkj izsf"kr fd;k tkosA 23- vf/kfu.kZ; vkt 29-01-2021 dk s fy[kk;k o gLrk{kfjr dj lquk;k x;kA jk/kk eksgu prqoZsnh] ihBklhu vf/kdkjh 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.