This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री स.ं डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05 REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05 xxxGIDHxxx सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-270 32024-253393 xxxGIDExxx CG-DL-W-27032024-253393 प्राजिकार स ेप्रकाजित PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY साप्त ाजिक WEEKLY स.ं 10] नई दिल्ल ी, मार् च 10—मार् च 16, 2024, िजनवार/फाल्ग नु 20 —फाल्ग नु 26, 1945 No. 10] NEW DELHI, MARCH 10— MARCH 16, 2024, SATURDAY/PHALGUNA 20– PHALGUNA 26, 1945 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) जवत्त मत्रं ाल (रािस्ट्व जवभाग) नई दिल्ली, 8 मार्च, 2024 का.आ. 483.—केन्र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के जन म 10 के उृ-जन म (4) के अनुसरण में रािस्ट्व जवभाग के केन्री अप्रत् क्ष कर एवं सीमािुल्क बोडच के अिीन, जनम्नजलज त का ाचल ों, जिनके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमचर्ारर ों ने जिन्िी का का च सािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को अजिसूजर्त करती ि:ज 1. केंरी माल और सेवाकर एवं केंरी उत्ृाि िल्ु क, अिमिाबाि, उत्तर 2. केंरी माल और सेवाकर एवं केंरी उत्ृाि िल्ु क, गौतम बुद्ध नगर 3. केंरी माल और सेवाकर एवं केंरी उत्ृाि िल्ु क, ि ृुर अृील 4. केंरी माल और सेवाकर एवं केंरी उत्ृाि िल्ु क, दिल्ली, अृील-II 5. जवजिका च जनिेिाल , नई दिल्ली 1485 GI/2024 (1117)1118 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2024/PHALGUNA 26, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 6. केंरी माल और सेवाकर एवं केंरी उत्ृाि िल्ु क, ृटना-I 7. केंरी माल और सेवाकर एवं केंरी उत्ृाि िल्ु क, ृटना-II 8. प्रणाली एव ंआंकड़ा प्रबंिन मिाजनिेिाल , नई दिल्ली 9. केंरी माल और सेवा कर एव ंकेंरी उत्ृाि िुल्क, भोृाल, ल े ा ृरीक्षा 10. केंरी माल और सेवाकर एवं केंरी उत्ृाि िल्ु क, मुंबई, अृील-II 11. केंरी माल और सेवाकर एवं केंरी उत्ृाि िल्ु क, िम्म,ू ले ा ृरीक्षा 12. केंरी माल और सेवाकर एवं केंरी उत्ृाि िल्ु क, जिमला 13. केंरी माल और सेवाकर एवं केंरी उत्ृाि िल्ु क, कोर्ीन, अृील 14. केंरी माल और सेवाकर एवं केंरी उत्ृाि िल्ु क, अलवर 15. केंरी माल और सेवा कर एव ंकेंरी उत्ृाि िुल्क, अिमिाबाि (िजक्षण) 16. केंरी माल और सेवा कर एव ंकेंरी उत्ृाि िुल्क, इंिौर 17. केंरी माल और सेवा कर एव ंकेंरी उत्ृाि िुल्क, इलािाबाि (अृील) 18. केंरी माल और सेवा कर एव ंकेंरी उत्ृाि िुल्क, गुरुग्राम (ले ा ृरीक्षा) 19. केंरी माल और सेवा कर एव ंकेंरी उत्ृाि िुल्क, ल नऊ 20. केंरी माल और सेवा कर एव ंकेंरी उत्ृाि िुल्क, नई दिल्ली (ले ा ृरीक्षा-I) 21. केंरी माल और सेवा कर एव ंकेंरी उत्ृाि िुल्क, नई दिल्ली (अृील-I) 22. केंरी माल और सेवा कर एव ंकेंरी उत्ृाि िुल्क, ृंर्कुला, अृील 23. केंरी माल और सेवा कर एव ंकेंरी उत्ृाि िुल्क, फरीिाबाि 24. मानव संसािन जवकास मिाजनिेिाल , नई दिल्ली 25. मु्‍ आ ुक्त का का ाचल , सीमा िुल्क, मुम्बई िोन- III 26. मु्‍ आ ुक्त का का ाचल , सीिीएसटी एवं केंरी उत्ृाि िुल्क, ि ृरु 27. केंरी माल और सेवा कर एवं केंरी उत्ृाि िुल्क, रा गड (ले ा ृरीक्षा) 28. सीमा िुल्क (जन.) ल नऊ, उत्तर प्रिेि 29. सीमा िुल्क आ क्तु (िवाई अड्डा एवं सामान् ) का का ाचल , नई दिल्ली [फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2017-जिन्िी-2-अजिसूर्ना] ल.ेकनलच एम.के. जसि, जनिेिक (रािभाषा) MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) New Delhi, the 8th March, 2024 S.O. 483.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies, the following offices under Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,Department of revenue where more than 80% staff has acquired the working knowledge of Hindi: 1. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Ahmedabad, North 2. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Gautam Buddha Nagar 3. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Jaipur Appeal 4. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Delhi, Appeal- II 5. Directorate of Legal Affairs, New Delhi 6. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Patna- I.[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 16, 2024/फाल् गनु 26, 1945 1119 7. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Patna- II 8. Directorate General of Systems and Data Management, New Delhi 9. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Bhopal, Audit 10. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Mumbai, Appeal -II 11. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Jammu, Audit 12. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Shimla 13. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Cochin, Appeal 14. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Alwar 15. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Ahmedabad (South) 16. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Indore 17. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Allahabad (Appeal) 18. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Gurugram (Audit) 19. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Lucknow 20. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, New Delhi (Audit- I ) 21. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise,New Delhi (Appeal-I) 22. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Panchkula, Appeal 23. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Faridabad 24. Directorate General of Human Resource Development, New Delhi 25. Office of the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Zone- lll 26. Office of the Chief Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Jaipur 27. Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Raigad (Audit) 28. Customs (Pre.) Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 29. Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi [F. No. E-11017/3/2017- Hindi-2-Notification] Lt. Col. M.K. SINGH, Director (OL) जिक्षा मत्रं ाल (उच्र् तर जिक्षा जवभाग) नई दिल् ली, 27 फरवरी, 2024 का.आ. 484.—केन् री सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के जन म- 10 के उृ- जन म (4) के अनुसरण म ें जिक्षा मंत्राल (उच् र्तर जिक्षा जवभाग और स्ट् कूल जिक्षा एवं साक्षरता जवभाग) के अंतगतच जनम्न जलज त संस्ट् ानों/ृररषिों/जवद्याल ों को, ऐसे का ाचल के प ृ म,ें जिसके 80% स े अजिक कमचर्ारर ों ने हििं ी का का चसािक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जल ा ि,ज अजिसूजर्त करती ि-ज क्र. सं. का ाचल का ब् ौरा उच् र्तर जिक्षा जवभाग के जन त्रं णािीन संस्ट् ान 1. भारती प्रबंि संस्ट् ान, ल नऊ प्रबंि नगर, आईआईएम रोड, ल नऊ- 226013 2. भारती प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट् ान िम्मू, िगती, एनएर् 44, िम्मू- 181221 3. भारती प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट् ान, ण् डवा रोड, जसमरोल, इंिौर- 453 5521120 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2024/PHALGUNA 26, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 4. जवश्वश्वे रय् ा राष्ट्री प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट् ान, नागृरू -440010 5. सरिार वल्लभभाई राष्ट्री प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट् ान, सूरत, गुिरात 6. इंदिरा गांिी िारीररक जिक्षा एवं ेल जवज्ञान संस्ट् ान, बी-ब्लॉक, जवकासृुरी, नई दिल्ली- 110018 7. भारती प्रबंि संस्ट् ान, अमषतसर 8. िजक्षण जबिार केंरी जवश् वजवद्याल , जिला- ग ा, जबिार स्ट् कूल जिक्षा एवं साक्षरता जवभाग के जन ंत्रणािीन क्षेत्री का ाचल /जवद्याल 9. क्षेत्री का ाचल , िेिरािनू , केन् री मा जमक जिक्षा बोड च 10. क्षेत्री का ाचल , भुवनेश् वर, केन् री मा जमक जिक्षा बोड च 11. क्षेत्री का ाचल , ृुण,े केन् री मा जमक जिक्षा बोड च 12. क्षेत्री का ाचल , भोृाल, केन् री मा जमक जिक्षा बोड च 13. क्षेत्री जिक्षा संस्ट् ान अिमेर, राष्ट्री िजजक्षक अनुसंिान और प्रजिक्षण ृररषि, कप् तान िगु ाच प्रसाि र्ौिरी माग,च अिमेर-305004 14. डॉ. रािेन्र प्रसाि, केंरी जवद्याल , प्रेजसडेंट एस्ट्टेट नई दिल्ली-110004 15. केंरी जवद्याल , घुमारवी नििीक जिव मंदिर घुमारवी जिला जबलासृरु , जिमार्ल प्रििे – 174021 16. केंरी जवद्याल , सी.आई.एस.एफ. सरू िृुर, एस.एस.िी.कैंृस, ग्रेटर नोएडा, उत्तर प्रिेि -201306 17. केन्री जवद्याल बावली, बागृत, उत्तर प्रिेि -250621 18. केंरी जवद्याल , सजक्टर 28, रोजिणी, ृॉकेट-17, ब्लॉक- सी, सजक्टर-28, दिल्ली-110042 19. केंरी जवद्याल बी आर बी एन एम ृी एल, मजसूरु नोट मुरण नगर मजसूरु-570003 20. केंरी जवद्याल गौरीजबिनूर, जसररकल्र्र का ाचल भवन, नते ािी स्ट्टेजड म के ृास, गौरीजबिनूर जर्कबल्लाृुर 561208 कनाचटक 21. केंरी जवद्याल वीरुृरु ा गगं ावती एम एन एम गल्स च ृी ू कॉलेि कजम्ृस, गगं ावती, कोप्ृल, जिला कनाचटक-583227 22. केंरी जवद्याल रेलवे कॉलोनी िवंतृुर बेंगलुरु-560022 कनाचटक राज् 23. केंरी जवद्याल सिलगा, कुवेम्ृु सेजनटरी मॉडल स्ट्कूल कैंृस, सिलगा, जर्ककोडी तालुक, बेलगावी-591239 24. केंरी जवद्याल िोजणमल,ज बल्लारी जिला कनाचटक-583118 25. केंरी जवद्याल क्र.1, अगं लु , गांिीमागच, अनगुल-759122 26. केंरी जवद्याल आस्ट्का, िोबाड़ी, ृो- कुंभीर गंिाम ओजडिा-761111 27. केंरी जवद्याल क्र.1 बालेश् वर, आई. िी. माग,च प्रूफ कॉलोनी, बालेश् वर- 756001 (ओजडिा) 28. केंरी जवद्याल क्रमांक-2, बालेश् वर, गणेश् वरृुर, िानूगंि, रेमूना, बालेश् वर, ओजडिा, जृन-756019 29. केंरी जवद्याल बरगढ, बरडोल, डांग र्ौक, एसीसी सीमेंट रोड, बरगढ, जिला- बरगढ - 768038 30. केंरी जवद्याल मुगाचबाडी, मुगाचबाडी, ृो. अ. -भंिृुर, जिला म ूरभंि, बाररृिा, ओजडिा - 757002[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 16, 2024/फाल् गनु 26, 1945 1121 31. केंरी जवद्याल भवानीृटना जनकट रािकी आईटीआई भवानीृटना, कलािाजण्ड, ओजडिा - 766001 32. केंरी जवद्याल सं्‍ ा-3, भुवनेश् वर प्रगजत जविार कॉलोनी, मंर्ेस्ट् वर भुवनेश् वर-751017 33. केंरी जवद्याल क्रमांक-4, नीलादर जविार ृो. िलज श्री जविार भुवनेश् वर, जिला- ुिाच 34. केंरी जवद्याल नं. 6, ृो रीृुट, भुवनेश् वर, जिला- ुिा,च ओजडिा-751020 35. केंरी जवद्याल बौद्ध, ृता- रािस्ट् व कॉलोनी के ृास, बौद्ध ृो/ जिला- बौद्ध, जृन- 762014, ओजडिा 36. केंरी जवद्याल क्रमांक 2 कटक, मिुृटना, कटक, ओजडिा- 753010 37. केंरी जवद्याल िरमगढ़, वोकेश् नल कॉलेि ृररसर, िरमगढ़, कालािाण् डी, ओजडिा- 766015 38. केंरी जवद्याल दिगृिडं ी, गिं ाम, ओजडिा- 761012 39. केंरी जवद्याल , गिृजत बेतागुडा, ृो- िम् मी, वा ा- ृारला ेमूण् डी, जिला- गिृजत ओजडिा जृन- 761201 40. केंरी जवद्याल गोृालृुर जमजलरी स्ट् टेिन, ृो. ओ. गोलाबंि, जिला: गंिाम (ओजडिा) 761052 41. केंरी जवद्याल , हिजं िजलकाटु, वषंिावन जवद्याृी ृररसर, गंिाम, ओजडिा- 761102 42. केंरी जवद्याल िगतहसंिृुर, तररकुंि उच् र् जवद्याल , तररकुंि, डाकघर- तररकुंि, िगतहसंिृुर, ओजडिा- 574102 43. केंरी जवद्याल िािृुर, ग्राम- अकरृड़ा, ृो- श्रीिरृुर, जिला- िािृुर, ओजडिा-755062 44. केंरी जवद्याल , कंिमाल, ग्राम- मलु ागुिारी, ृो- गुिारी, वा ा- िूरीृाड़ा, जिला- कंिमाल, ओजडिा- 762012 45. केंरी जवद्याल , एनटीृीसी, कजनिा, ृोस्ट् ट- िीृजि ा, जिला, अंगलु , जृन- 759147 46. केंरी जवद्याल , बाररमुल, केंराृड़ा स्ट् ान: बररमलु , ृो.- जतलोत् तमािईे ृरु जिला- केंराृड़ा, ओजडिा- 754250 47. केंरी जवद्याल , केन् िझु र, ृो.- रॉंकी, केन् िझु र, जिला- केन् िझु र, ओजडिा-758002 48. केंरी जवद्याल कुत्रा सेंटर प्रा जमक जवद्याल , कुत्रा, जिला सुंिरगढ- 770018 49. केंरी जवद्याल मल् कानजगरी, ृोस्ट् ट + जिला- मल् कानजगरी, ओजडिा- 764048 50. केंरी जवद्याल नबरंगृुर, र्ुरट ागुडा, ओजडिा- 764059 51. केंरी जवद्याल , न ागड़ (ओजडिा), मुक् ताृुर (जन र िाऊहसंग बोडच कॉलोनी न ागड़), ृो- भाटसािी, भा ा- न ागढ़-2, जृन- 752070 52. केंरी जवद्याल महुलजडिा, रा रंगृरु , म ूरभन् ि (ओजडिा)- 757043 53. केंरी जवद्याल रा गड़ा, उत् कलमजणनगर, ि रामगडु ा, रा गड़ा, ओजडिा- 765002 54. केंरी जवद्याल सोनृुर, डी. आई. ई. टी. प्रांगण, सोनृुर, ओजडिा- 767017 55. केन्री जवद्याल , व्यासनगर एन.सी. िाई स्ट्कूल ृररसर, ृो. िािृुर रोड, ओजडिा- 755019 56. केन्री जवद्याल गुनुृरु , बेल छात्रावास ृररसर, ओल्ड बैंक स्ट्रीट, गुनृरु , जिला रा गड़ा, जृन- 765022 57. केन्री जवद्याल आनंिृुर, 646 एम +6 एफ 8, आनंिृुर, ओजड़िा- 7580211122 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2024/PHALGUNA 26, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 58. केन्री जवद्याल छत्रृुर, ऑनस्ट्लो इंस्ट्टीट्यूिन ृररसर, छत्रृुर, जिला : गंिाम (ओजड़िा), जृन कोड: 761020 59. केन्री जवद्याल भारती प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट् ान भुवनेश्वर, भारती प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट् ान भुवनेश्वर ृररसर, अरगलु , िटनी, जिला- ुिाच, ओजड़िा- 752050 60. केन्री जवद्याल एमसीएल िगन्ना क्षेत्र, सेंरल कॉलोनी, घंटाृड़ा, तालर्र, अंगलु , ओजड़िा - 759116 61. केन्री जवद्याल एमसीएल सुभरा क्षेत्र, ृो- िजक्षण बालिं , तालर्र, जिला- अगं ुल, ओजड़िा, जृन- 759116 62. केन्री जवद्याल रर ार, रािा ए टी उच्च जवद्याल , एम. ई. सेक्िन रर ार, जिला - नआु ृाड़ा (ओजडिा)- 766107 [फा. सं. 11011/3/2022-रा.भा. ए.] सजय् ि इकराम ररज़वी, सं ुक् त सजर्व MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (Department of Higher Education) New Delhi, the 27th February, 2024 S.O. 484.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule-10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the Union) Rules-1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the Ministry of Education (Department of Higher education and Department of school Education and Literacy) as office, where 80% members of the staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi- Sl. No. Details of the Institute. Institute under control of Department of Higher Education 1. Indian Institute of Management Lucknow Prabandh Nagar, IIM Road, Lucknow- 226 013 (U P) India 2. Indian Institute of Technology Jammu, Jagti, NH44, Jammu- 181221 3. Indian Institute of Technology Khandwa Road, Simrol, Indore- 453 552 4. Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur-440010 5. Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat, Gujarat 6. Indira Gandhi Institute of Physical Education and Sports Science B- Block, Vikaspuri, New Delhi- 110018 7. Indian Institute of Technology, Amritsar 8. Central University of South Bihar, District- Gaya, Bihar Regional Offices/Schools under Department of School Education & Literacy 9. Regional Office, Dehradun, Central Board of Secondary Education 10. Regional Office, Bhuvaneshwar, Central Board of Secondary Education 11. Regional Office, Pune, Central Board of Secondary Education 12. Regional Office, Bhopal, Central Board of Secondary Education 13. Regional Education Institute Ajmer, National Council of Educational Research and Training, Captain Durga Prasad Chaudhary Marg, Ajmer-305004 14. Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Kendriya Vidyalaya President’s Estate New Delhi-110004 15. Kendriya Vidyalaya Ghumarwin, Near Shiv Mandir, Ghumarwin Distt. Bilaspur Himachal Pradesh -174021 16. Kendriya Vidyalaya, C.I.S.F. Surajpur, S.S.G. Campus, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh -201306[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 16, 2024/फाल् गनु 26, 1945 1123 17. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Baoli, Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh- 250621 18. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sector-28, Pocket-17, Block-C Sector-28, Rohini, Delhi-110042 19. Kendriya Vidyalaya BRBNMPL Mysuru Note Mudaran Nagar Mysuru 570003 20. Kendriya Vidyalaya Gouribidanur, Sericulture Office Building, Near Netaji Stadium, Gouribidanur Chikkaballapur- 561208 Karnataka 21. Kendriya Vidyalaya Virupura Gangavathi, M N M Girls PU College Campus, Gangavathi, Koppal, Dist. Karnataka-583227 22. Kendriya Vidyalaya Railway Colony Yeshwanthpur Bengaluru 560022 Karnataka State 23. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sadalaga, Kuvempu Senitary Model School Campus, Sadalaga Chikkodi Taluk, Belagavi-591239 24. Kendriya Vidyalaya Donimalai Ballary District- Karnataka-583118 25. Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1, Angul, Gandhimarg, Angul-759122 26. Kendriya Vidyalaya Aska, Dhobadi, Po-Kumbhari, Ganjam, Odisha 761111 27. Kendriya Vidyalaya No-1, Balasore, I.G. Marg, Prof colony, Balasore-756001 (Odisha) 28. Kendriya Vidyalaya No.2 Balasore Ganeshwarpur, Januganj, Remuna, Balasore, (Odisha) Pin- 756019 29. Kendriya Vidyalaya Bargarh AT/PO- Bardol Dang Chowk, ACC cement road Dist- Bargarh Pin-768083 30. Kendriya Vidyalaya Murgabadi, At-Murgabadi, Post-Bhanjpur, Baripada, Dist-Mayurbhanj, Odisha-757002 31. Kendriya Vidyalaya Bhawanipatna near GOV. ITI Bhawanipatna Kalahandi Odisha-766001 32. Kendriya Vidyalaya No.3, Bhubaneswar Pragati Vihar conoly,Mancheswar, Bhubaneswar- 751017 33. Kendriya Vidyalaya No.4, Neeladri vihiar P.O. Sailashree vihar Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khordha 34. Kendriya Vidyalaya No.6, Pokhariput, Bhubaneswar, Khordha, Odisha-751020 35. Kendriya Vidyalaya Boudh, AT- near Revenue coliny, Boudh Po/Dist-Boudh, Pin-762014, Odisha 36. Kendriya Vidyalaya No.2 Cuttack, Madhupatna, Cuttack, Odisha-753010 37. Kendriya Vidyalaya Dharamgarh, Vocational College Campus, Dharamgarh Kalahandi, Odiasha-766015 38. Kendriya Vidyalaya Digapahandi, Ganjam, Odisha-761012 39. Kendriya Vidyalaya Gajapati At Betaguda Post-Jammi Via-Paralakhemundi Dist-Gajapti Odisha-761201 40. Kendriya Vidyalaya Gopalpur Military Station At/po:- Golabandha Dist- Ganjam, Odisha, 761052 41. Kendriya Vidyalaya Hinjilicut, Inside Brundaban Vidyapitha Campus, Ganjam, Odisha- 761102 42. Kendriya Vidyalaya Jagatsinghpur, At: Tarikund High School, Post Ofiice- Tarikund, Dist: Jagat Singpur, Odisha- 754102 43. Kendriya Vidyalaya Jajpur, At- Akarpada, PO- Sridharpur, Dist- Jajpur, State- Odisha-755062 44. Kendriya Vidyalaya Kandhamal, At- Mulagudari, PO- Gudari, Via- Khajuripada, Kandhamal, Odisha-762012 45. Kendriya Vidyalaya NTPC, Kaniha Post- Deepshikha, Dist- Angul, Pin -759147 46. Kendriya Vidyalaya Barimul, Kendrapara At: Barimul, PO_ Tilottamadeipur, Dist- Kendrapara, Odisha-754250 47. Kendriya Vidyalaya Keonjhar, PO- Ranki, Keonjhar, Dist- Keonjhar, Odisha-758002 48. Kendriya Vidyalaya Kutra At Centre Primary School Kutra, Dist- Sundargarh-770018 (Odisha) 49. Kendriya Vidyalaya Malkangiri, Post+ District- Malkangiri, Odisha-764048 50. Kendriya Vidyalaya Nabarangpur, Chutiaguda Odisha-764059 51. Kendriya Vidyalaya Nayagarh (Odisha) At-Muktapur (Near Houshing Board colony),1124 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2024/PHALGUNA 26, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Po- Bhatasahi, Via-Nayagarh-2, Pin-752070 52. Kendriya Vidyalaya Mahuldiha, Rairangpur Mayurbhanj (Odisha)-757043 53. Kendriya Vidyalaya Rayagada Utkalmaninagar, Jayaramguda, Rayagada, Odisha-765002 54. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sonepur, Diet Campus, Sonepur, Odisha-767017 55. Kendriya Vidyalaya Vyasnagar N.C. High School Campus, Po. Jajpur Road, Odisha-755019 56. Kendriya Vidyalaya Gunupur, Bell Hostel Campus, Old Bank Street, Gunupur, District Rayagada, Pin-765022 57. Kendriya Vidyalaya Anandpur, 646 M+6F8, Anandpur, Odisha-758021 58. Kendriya Vidyalaya Chatrapur (Odisha) Onslow Institution Campus, Chatrapur Dist- Ganjam, Pin-761020 59. Kendriya Vidyalaya Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, IIT Campus, Argul Jatni, Dist- Khordha, Odisha Pin-752050 60. Kendriya Vidyalaya MCL Jagannath Area, Central colony, Ghantrpada, Talcher, Angul, Odisha-759116 61. Kendriya Vidyalaya MCL Subhadra Area, At/Po-South Balanda, Talcher, Dist- Angul, Odisha Pin-759116 62. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kariar, Raja A.T. High school, M.E. Section, Khariar, Dist- Nuapada (Odisha)-766107 [F. No. 11011/3/2022-OLU] SYED EKRAM RIZWI, Jt. Secy. कौिल जवकास और उद्यमिीलता मत्रं ाल (प्रजिक्षण मिाजनििे ाल ) नई दिल्ली, 7 मार्च, 2024 का.आ. 485.—केंरी सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग जन म 1976 ( ा संिोजित 1987) के जन म 10 के उृ जन म (2) एवं (4) के अनुसरण में एतिद्द्व् ारा प्रजिक्षण मिाजनिेिाल (कौिल जवकास और उद्यमिीलता मंत्राल ) के अिीनस्ट् का ाचल राष्ट्री कौिल प्रजिक्षण संस्ट् ान, मोिाली को जिसके 80% स े अजिक कमचर्ारर ों न े हििं ी का का चसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, अजिसूजर्त करती ि।ज [फा. सं. डीिीटी-ई-11012/1/2017-हििं ी] गुलाब र्ंरा, सिा. जनिेिक MINISTRY OF SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP (Directorate General of Training) New Delhi, the 7th March, 2024 S.O. 485.—In Pursuance of sub- rule (2) and (4) rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use of Official Purposes of the Union) Rule 1976 (As Amended 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies National Skill Training Institute, Mohali is subordinate office of Directorate General of Training (Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship), more than 80% staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi. [F. No.-DGT-E-11012/1/2017-HINDI] GULAB CHANDRA, Asst. Director[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 16, 2024/फाल् गनु 26, 1945 1125 सिकाररता मत्रं ाल नई दिल्ली, 11 मार्च, 2024 का.आ. 486.—बहु-राज् ी सिकारी सजमजत अजिजन म, 2002 (2002 का 39) के ंड 4 के उृ ंड (1) द्वारा प्रितत् िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए एवं भारत सरकार की अजिसूर्ना सं. एल-11012/2/2003-एल एवं एम दिनांक 16 फरवरी, 2024 के अजिक्रमण म,ें केन्र सरकार एतद्द्द्द्द्वारा, श्री आनंि कुमार झा, भारती वन सेवा (आध्रं प्रििे : 1992), सं ुक्त सजर्व (सिकाररता) को सिकाररता मंत्राल , भारत सरकार म ें तत्क ाल प्रभाव से एवं अगले आिेिों तक सिकारी सजमजत ों के केन्री ृंिी क के प ृ में जन क्तु करती ि।ज [फा. सं. एल-11012/2/2003-एल एव ंएम)] अजमत कुमार रावत, अवर सजर्व MINISTRY OF COOPERATION New Delhi, the 11th March, 2024 S.O. 486.—In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (39 of 2002) and in supersession of the Government of India Notification No. L-11012/2/2003-L&M dated 16.02.2024, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Anand Kumar Jha, IFoS (AP:1992), Joint Secretary (Cooperation) in the Ministry of Cooperation, Government of India as the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies with immediate effect and until further orders. [F.No. L-11012/2/2003-L&M] AMIT KUMAR RAWAT, Under Secy. ृरे ोजल म और प्राकषजतक गसज मत्रं ाल नई दिल्ली, 23 फरवरी, 2024 का.आ. 487.—िबदक भारत सरकार को लोकजित में ि आवश् क प्रतीत िोता ि ज दक मेघाल राज् म ें ना च- ईस्ट् ट नेर्रु ल गजस ृाइृलाइन जग्रड ृरर ोिना के गुवािाटी–जिलांग-जसलर्र-ृानीसागर ंड के मा म से प्राकषजतक गजस के ृररविन के जलए मजससच इंरिनषु गजस जग्रड जलजमटेड द्वारा एक ृाइृलाइन जबछाई िानी र्ाजिए; और भारत सरकार को उक्त ृाइृ लाइन जबछाने के प्र ोिन के जलए ि आवश् क प्रतीत िोता ि ज दक उस भूजम में, जिसम ें उक्त ृाइृलाइन जबछाए िान े का प्रस्ट्ताव ि ज और िो इस अजिसूर्ना म ें सलं ग्न अनुसूर्ी में वर्णतच ि,ज उृ ोग के अजिकार का अिचन दक ा िाए; अतः अब, भारत सरकार, ृरे ोजल म और जनि ृाइृ लाइन (भूजम म ें उृ ोग के अजिकार का अिचन) अजिजन म, 1962 (1962 का 50) दक िारा 3 दक उृिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करत े हुए, उस भूजम म ें उृ ोग के अजिकार का अिचन करने के अृने आि की घोषणा करती ि;ज कोई व्यजक्त, िो उक्त अनुसूर्ी मे वर्णचत भूजम में जितबद्व ि,ज उस तारर से जिसको उक्त अजिजन म की िारा 3 की उृिारा (1) के अिीन भारत के रािृत्र में ं ा प्रकाजित इस अजिसूर्ना की प्रजत ों सािारण िनता को उृलब्ि कर िी िाती ि,ज 21 दिन के भीतर, भूजम के नीर्े ृाइृलाइन जबछाए िाने के संबंि म,े सक्षम प्राजिकारी, मजससच इंरिनुष गजस जग्रड जलजमटेड, मेघाल राज् , को जलज त प ृ म ेंआक्षेृ भेि सकेगा |1126 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2024/PHALGUNA 26, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] अनसु र्ू ी सी एंड आर डी ब्लॉक: लीिरर ात ज ि ला: - ृूवी ि ंजत ा जिल्स राज् :- मेघाल क्षत्रे सीररल गांव का नाम सवे सं्‍ ा वगच सं्‍ ा. िक्े टे र आर मीटर 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 नाला 00 08 68 2 सी 26/001- ए 00 71 25 3 सी 26/001- बी 00 10 52 4 सी 26/001- सी 00 74 25 5 सी 26/001- डी 00 85 25 6 सी 26/001- इ 00 74 58 हडंजर्न्रम 7 सी 26/001- एफ 00 74 19 8 सी 26/001- िी 00 71 48 9 सी 26/001- एर् 00 45 85 10 सी 26/001- ऐ 00 65 20 11 सी 26/001- ि े 00 64 07 12 निी 00 04 00 13 सी 41-01- ए 00 19 60 14 सी 41-01- बी 00 11 90 15 सी 41-01- सी 00 67 95 लीिरर ात ृवू च 16 सी 41-02- ए 00 78 60 17 सी 41-02- बी 00 10 00 18 निी 00 02 00 19 सी 37-06 00 04 57 20 सी 37-07 00 11 94 21 सी 37-08 00 04 09 22 ररंबाई सी 37-09 00 11 16 23 सी 37-12 00 40 84 24 सी 37-13 00 41 43 25 सी 37-14 00 27 34 26 सी 38-15 00 71 44 27 सी 38-16 00 07 00 28 सी 38-15 00 23 28 29 सी 39-17 00 13 74 30 वािना लीि निी 00 01 27 31 सी 39-18 00 27 90[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 16, 2024/फाल् गनु 26, 1945 1127 32 निी 00 00 01 33 सी 39-19 00 15 88 34 सी 39-20 00 18 63 35 सी 39-21 00 02 80 36 सी 39-21 00 00 11 37 सी 39-22 00 36 23 38 सी 39-23 00 34 14 39 सी 40-24 00 18 12 40 सी 40-25 00 01 26 41 निी 00 00 97 42 सी 40-26 00 26 38 43 सी 40-27 00 29 35 44 सी 40-28 00 10 82 45 नाला 00 03 34 46 सी 40-28 00 05 34 47 सी 40-29 00 02 68 48 सी 40-30 00 10 24 49 सी 30-042 00 06 56 50 सी 30-043 00 05 94 51 सी 30-044 00 06 40 52 सी 30सी -044 00 00 92 53 सी 30सी -045 00 21 86 54 सी 30सी -046 00 01 19 55 सी 30सी -047(काटच रजक) 00 00 80 56 वाृगुं स्ट्कूर सी 30सी -048 00 14 18 57 सी 30सी -049 00 22 54 58 सी 30सी -050 00 22 67 59 सी 30सी -051 00 33 32 60 सी 30सी -052-ए 00 40 02 61 सी 30सी -052-बी 00 25 00 62 सी 30सी -052- सी 00 19 65 63 सी 30सी -052-डी 00 18 35 [फा. स.ं एल-14014/17/2023-िीृी-II(ई-47006)] रामिीलाल मीना, अवर सजर्व1128 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2024/PHALGUNA 26, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2024 S.O. 487.—Whereas it appears to the Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of natural gas through Guwahati – Shillong – Silchar-Panisagar Section of North - East Natural Gas Pipeline Grid Project in the State of Meghalaya, a pipeline should be laid by M/s Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited; And, whereas it appears to Government of India that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification; Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, (50 of 1962) Government of India hereby declares its intention to acquire the Right of User therein; Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty-one days from the date of which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of User therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, M/s Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited, State of Meghalaya. SCHEDULE C & R D Block: Khliehriat District: - East Jaintia Hills State: - Meghalaya Sl. Area Name of the Village Survey No. No. Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 NALA 00 08 68 2 C26/001-A 00 71 25 3 C26/001-B 00 10 52 4 C26/001-C 00 74 25 5 C26/001-D 00 85 25 6 Deinshynrum C26/001-E 00 74 58 7 C26/001-F 00 74 19 8 C26/001-G 00 71 48 9 C26/001-H 00 45 85 10 C26/001-I 00 65 20 11 C26/001-J 00 64 07 12 River 00 04 00 13 C41-01-A 00 19 60 14 C41-01-B 00 11 90 15 Khliehriat East C41-01-C 00 67 95 16 C41-02-A 00 78 60 17 C41-02-B 00 10 00 18 RIVER 00 02 00 19 C37-06 00 04 57 20 C37-07 00 11 94 21 C37-08 00 04 09 22 C37-09 00 11 16 23 C37-12 00 40 84 Rymbai 24 C37-13 00 41 43 25 C37-14 00 27 34 26 C38-15 00 71 44 27 C38-16 00 07 00 28 C38-15 00 23 28 29 C39-17 00 13 74 30 WAHNAKHLIEH RIVER 00 01 27 31 C39-18 00 27 90 32 RIVER 00 00 01 33 C39-19 00 15 88 34 C39-20 00 18 63 35 C39-21 00 02 80[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 16, 2024/फाल् गनु 26, 1945 1129 36 C39-21 00 00 11 37 C39-22 00 36 23 38 C39-23 00 34 14 39 C40-24 00 18 12 40 C40-25 00 01 26 41 RIVER 00 00 97 42 C40-26 00 26 38 43 C40-27 00 29 35 44 C40-28 00 10 82 45 NALA 00 03 34 46 C40-28 00 05 34 47 C40-29 00 02 68 48 C40-30 00 10 24 49 C30-042 00 06 56 50 C30-043 00 05 94 51 C30-044 00 06 40 52 C30C-044 00 00 92 53 C30C-045 00 21 86 54 C30C-046 00 01 19 55 C30C-047(CART TRACK) 00 00 80 56 Wapung Skur C30C-048 00 14 18 57 C30C-049 00 22 54 58 C30C-050 00 22 67 59 C30C-051 00 33 32 60 C30C-052-A 00 40 02 61 C30C-052-B 00 25 00 62 C30C-052-C 00 19 65 63 C30C-052-D 00 18 35 [F. No. L-14014/17/2023-GP-II(E-47006)] RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy. नई दिल्ली, 23 फरवरी, 2024 का.आ. 488.—िबदक भारत सरकार को लोकजित म ें ि आवश् क प्रतीत िोता ि ज दक असम राज् म ें ना -च ईस्ट्ट नेर्ुरल गजस ृाइृलाइन जग्रड ृरर ोिना के गुवािाटी–नुमालीगढ़-िीमाृुर ंड के मा म स े प्राकषजतक गजस के ृररविन के जलए मजससच इंरिनुष गजस जग्रड जलजमटेड द्वारा एक ृाइृलाइन जबछाई िानी र्ाजिए; और भारत सरकार को उक्त ृाइृलाइन जबछाने के प्र ोिन के जलए ि आवश् क प्रतीत िोता ि जदक उस भूजम म,ें जिसमे उक्त ृाइृ लाइन जबछाए िाने का प्रस्ट्ताव ि ज और िो इस अजिसूर्ना म ें संलग्न अनसु ूर्ी में वर्णचत ि,ज उृ ोग के अजिकार का अिचन दक ा िाए; अतः अब, भारत सरकार, ृरे ोजल म और जनि ृाइृलाइन (भूजम म ें उृ ोग के अजिकार का अिचन) अजिजन म, 1962 (1962 का 50) दक िारा 3 दक उृिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजक्त ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, उस भूजम म े उृ ोग के अजिकार का अिचन करन े के अृन े आि की घोषणा करती ि;ज कोई व्यजक्त, िो उक्त अनुसूर्ी म े वर्णचत भूजम म ें जितबद्व ि,ज उस तारर स े जिसको उक्त अजिजन म की िारा 3 की उृिारा (1) के अिीन भारत के रािृत्र म ें ा प्रकाजित इस अजिसूर्ना की प्रजत ां सािारण िनता को उृलब्ि कर िी िाती ि,ज 21 दिन के भीतर, भूजम के नीर् े ृाइृ लाइन जबछाए िाने के संबंि म,े सक्षम प्राजिकारी, मजससच इंरिनुष गजस जग्रड जलजमटेड, असम राज् , को जलज त प ृ म ेंआक्षेृ भेि सकेगा |1130 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2024/PHALGUNA 26, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] अनसु र्ू ी जिला : िरागं राज् : असम क्षत्रे फल सकचल मौज़ा गावाँ िाग न ं िक्े टेअर आर वग च मीटर (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 882 00 01 32 मंगलि ज िािी झरगांव [फा. सं. एल-14014/2/2024-िीृी-II(ई-48834)] रामिीलाल मीना, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 23rd February, 2024 S.O. 488.—Whereas it appears to the Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of natural gas through Guwahati–Numaligarh–Dimapur Section of North-East Natural Gas Pipeline Grid Project in the State of Assam, a pipeline should be laid by M/s Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited; And, whereas it appears to Government of India that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification; Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, (50 of 1962) Government of India hereby declares its intention to acquire the Right of User therein; Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date of which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of User therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, M/s Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited, State of Assam. SCHEDULE District :Darrang State: Assam Area Circle Mauza Village Dag No. Hec. Arc Sq.Mtr. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Mangaldai Dahi Jhargaon 882 00 01 32 [F. No. L-14014/2/2024-GP-II(E-48834)] RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy. श्रम और रोिगार मत्रं ाल (जिन्िी अनभु ाग) नई दिल्ली, 1 नवंबर 2023 का.आ. 489.—केंर सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 ( ा संिोजित, 1987) के जन म 10 के उृ-जन म (4) के अनुसरण म,ें श्रम और रोिगार मंत्राल के प्रिासकी जन ंत्रणािीन जनम्नजलज त का ाचल ों को, जिनके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमचर्ारर ों ने जिन्िी का का चसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, एतद्द्वारा अजिसूजर्त करती ि:ज[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 16, 2024/फाल् गनु 26, 1945 1131 1. कमचर्ारी राज् बीमा जनगम, िा ा का ाचल , लाल िरवािा 2. कमचर्ारी राज् बीमा जनगम, िा ा का ाचल , सलाबतृुरा 3. कमचर्ारी राज् बीमा जनगम अस्ट्ृताल, बद्दी, जिमार्ल प्रििे 4. कमचर्ारी राज् बीमा जनगम अस्ट्ृताल, लुजि ाना, ृंिाब 5. कमचर्ारी राज् बीमा जनगम, उृ क्षेत्री का ाचल , वड़ोिरा, गुिरात 6. कमर्च ारी राज् बीमा जनगम, क्षेत्री का ाचल , जवि वाड़ा [सं. ई-11016/1/2022-रा.भा.नी.] नागेि कुमार हसंि, उृ मिाजनिेिक MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT (Hindi Section) New Delhi, the 1st November, 2023 S.O. 489.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended, 1987) the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the administrative control of the Ministry of Labour & Employment, more than 80% Staff whereof have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:- 1. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Branch Office, Lal Darwaza 2. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Branch Office, Salabatpura 3. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh 4. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital, Ludhiana, Punjab 5. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Sub-Regional Office, Vadodara, Gujarat 6. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, Vijayawada [No. E-11016/1/2022-RBN] NAGESH KUMAR SINGH, Dy. Director General नई दिल्ली, 1 नवंबर 2023 का.आ. 490.—केंर सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 ( ा संिोजित, 1987) के जन म 10 के उृ-जन म (4) के अनुसरण म,ें श्रम और रोिगार मंत्राल के प्रिासकी जन ंत्रणािीन जनम्नजलज त का ाचल ों को, जिनके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमचर्ारर ों ने जिन्िी का का चसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, एतद्द्वारा अजिसूजर्त करती ि:ज 1. कमचर्ारी राज् बीमा जनगम अस्ट्ृताल, ल नऊ 2. कमचर्ारी राज् बीमा जनगम आििच अस्ट्ृताल, फुलवारी िरीफ, ृटना 3. कमचर्ारी राज् बीमा जनगम आििच अस्ट्ृताल, बाृुनगर, अिमिाबाि 4. कमचर्ारी राज् बीमा जनगम अस्ट्ृताल, रुरृरु [सं. ई-11016/1/2022-रा.भा.नी.] नागेि कुमार हसंि, उृ मिाजनिेिक1132 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2024/PHALGUNA 26, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 1st November, 2023 S.O. 490.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended, 1987) the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the administrative control of the Ministry of Labour & Employment, more than 80% Staff whereof have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:- 1. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital, Lucknow 2. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Model Hospital, Phulwari Sharif, Patna 3. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Model Hospital, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad 4. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Hospital, Rudrapur [No. E-11016/1/2022-RBN] NAGESH KUMAR SINGH, Dy. Director General नई दिल्ली, 1 नवंबर 2023 का.आ. 491.—केंर सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 ( ा संिोजित, 1987) के जन म 10 के उृ-जन म (4) के अनुसरण म,ें श्रम और रोिगार मंत्राल के प्रिासकी जन ंत्रणािीन जनम्नजलज त का ाचल ों को, जिनके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमचर्ारर ों ने जिन्िी का का चसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, एतद्द्वारा अजिसूजर्त करती ि:ज 1. कमचर्ारी भजव्‍ जनजि संग न, आंर्जलक का ाचल , कानृुर (उत्तर प्रििे ) 2. कमचर्ारी भजव्‍ जनजि संग न, क्षेत्री का ाचल , दिल्ली (ृजिम) 3. कमचर्ारी भजव्‍ जनजि संग न, क्षेत्री का ाचल , दिल्ली (म ) 4. कमचर्ारी भजव्‍ जनजि संग न, आंर्जलक का ाचल , िरर ाणा 5. कमचर्ारी भजव्‍ जनजि संग न, क्षेत्री का ाचल , वटवा, गिु रात 6. कमचर्ारी भजव्‍ जनजि संग न, क्षेत्री का ाचल , वरंगल, तेलगं ाना 7. कमचर्ारी भजव्‍ जनजि संग न, क्षेत्री का ाचल , जनज़ामाबाि, तेलंगाना [सं. ई-11016/1/2022-रा.भा.नी.] नागेि कुमार हसंि, उृ मिाजनिेिक New Delhi, the 1st November, 2023 S.O. 491.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended, 1987) the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the administrative control of the Ministry of Labour & Employment, more than 80% Staff whereof have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:- 1. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Zonal Office, Kanpur (Uttar Pradesh) 2. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, Delhi (West) 3. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, Delhi (Central) 4. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Zonal Office, Haryana 5. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, Vatva, Gujarat 6. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, Warangal, Telangana 7. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, Nizamabad, Telangana [No. E-11016/1/2022-RBN] NAGESH KUMAR SINGH, Dy. Director General[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 16, 2024/फाल् गनु 26, 1945 1133 नई दिल्ली, 1 नवंबर 2023 का.आ. 492.—केंर सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 ( ा संिोजित, 1987) के जन म 10 के उृ-जन म (4) के अनुसरण म,ें श्रम और रोिगार मंत्राल के प्रिासकी जन ंत्रणािीन जनम्नजलज त का ाचल ों को, जिनके 80 प्रजतित से अजिक कमचर्ारर ों ने जिन्िी का का चसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, एतद्द्वारा अजिसूजर्त करती ि:ज 1. उृ मु्‍ श्रमा ुक्त (कें.) का ाचल , िेिरािनू 2. क्षेत्री श्रमा ुक्त (कें.) का ालच , नोएडा 3. सिा क श्रमा ुक्त (कें.) का ाचल , बरेली 4. राष्ट्री करर र सर्वचस संस्ट् ान (एनआईसीएस), नोएडा [सं. ई-11016/1/2022-रा.भा.नी.] नागेि कुमार हसंि, उृ मिाजनिेिक New Delhi, the 1st November, 2023 S.O. 492.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended, 1987) the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the administrative control of the Ministry of Labour & Employment, more than 80% Staff whereof have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:- 1. Office of Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C), Dehradun 2. Office of Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Noida 3. Office of Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Bareilly 4. National Institute for Career Service (NICS), Noida [No. E-11016/1/2022-RBN] NAGESH KUMAR SINGH, Dy. Director General ubZ fnYyh] 5 ekpZ] 2024 .—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ृजिम रेलव े ds izca/kra=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k eas fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn es a dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (1049/2004) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [la- ,y-41012/42/96- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)] सलोनी, उृ जनििे क New Delhi, the 5th March, 2023 S.O. 493.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.1049/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway and their workmen. [No. L-41012/42/96- IR(B.I)] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, AHMEDABAD Present…. Sunil Kumar Singh-I, Presiding Officer,1134 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2024/PHALGUNA 26, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad, Dated : 01.12.2023 Reference: (CGITA) No- 1049/2004 1. The Divisional Railway Manager, W. Rly., Divisional Office, Ajmer Division, Ajmer(Rajasthan). 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Ahmedabad. …...…….First Party V The General Secretary, Western Railway Kamdar Sangh, T.B.Z.-17, Gurunagar, Gandhidham(Kutch) ………….Second Party For the First Party : Shri R. K. Sharma & Shri H. R. Raval For the Second Party : None AWARD The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-41012/42/96- IR(B.I) dated 25.04.97 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule The matter was received by transfer on creation of this Tribunal at Ahmedabad in the year 2004. SCHEDULE “Whether the demand of the Western Railway Kamdar Sangh against the Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Ajmer that the punishment imposed upon Shri Ranveer Singh Asstt. Driver under LF (D) Gandhidham is wrong and illegal and he should be paid his due wages and running allowances for the period of idleness and the punishment imposed be cancelled, valid, just and legal? If so to what benefits the workman is entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter?” 1. The case was called out. FP/employer Western Railway, Ajmer and Western Railway, Ahmedabad are represented through Ld. Counsels Shri R. K. Sharma and Shri H. R. Raval respectively. None responds for SP/workman’s union. Perusal of record shows that the case is fixed for arguments. However it transpires from the perusal of record that the SP/workman has been absenting since 23.07.2020. The second party/workman was afforded last opportunity on 29.11.2022 along with additional opportunities on 02.03.2023 and 03.08.2023. It appears that the SP/workman has either settled his dispute with the FP/employer out of court or is not interested to proceed further in the matter. Thus, in the circumstances, the claim of the workman is declined and the reference is answered in positive in favour of the FP/employer and against the SP/workman. The award is passed accordingly. Let two copies of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for the needful and for publication U/s 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 7 मार्च, 2024 का.आ. 494.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म, (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण म,ें केन्री सरकार मेससच वररष्ठ मिाप्रबंिक, भारती आ ुि जनमाचणी, रा ृुर, िेिरािनू , के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और मिासजर्व, ऑर्डचनेंस फजक्री मििरू संघ, रा ृुर, िेिरािनू , के बीर् अनुबंि में जनर्िष्टच औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 16, 2024/फाल् गनु 26, 1945 1135 अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न् ा ाल -1 र्ंडीगढ़ ृंर्ाट (संिभच सं्‍ ा 81/2018) को िजसा दक अनलु ग्नक म ें दि ा ा ग ा ि,ज प्रकाजित करती ि जिो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 05/03/2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l [स.ं एल–14011/8/2018-आईआर-(डी ू)] दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 7th March, 2023 S.O. 494.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 81/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court –1,Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation The Sr. General Manager, Indian Ordinance Factory, Raipur, Dehradun, and The General Secretary, Ordinance Factory Mazdoor Sangh, Raipur, Dehradun, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 05/03/2024. [No. L-14011/8/2018- IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH. Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh. ID No.81/2018 Registered On: 20.11.2018 The General Secretary, Ordinance Factory Mazdoor Sangh, Raipur, Dehradun-248001. ...........Workman Versus The Sr. General Manager, Indian Ordinance Factory, Raipur, Dehradun-248001. ........Management AWARD Passed On: 02.02.2024 Central Government vide Notificatio n No. L-14011/8/2018-IR(DU) dated 24.10.2018, under clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) sub-section (2) 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 management of Ordinance Factory Raipur, Dehradun can be considered harassment to a registered union represented by Sh. Subash Chand Chauhan, General Secretary Ordinance Factory Mazdoor Sangh, Raipur in the barb of maintaining discipline and taking disciplinary against its office bearers? Whether it amounts to unfair labour practice? If so, what relief can be given to union/union office bearers?” 1. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for filing evidence by way of affidavit by Management. On perusal of the file it shows that AR for Union has withdrawn his authority as per order dated 11.05.2023. The case was adjourned to 25.08.2023. 2. Notice was given to the Secretary of the Union. The Secretary of the Union informed telephonically that he would not appear on 25.08.2023 as he is ill. Thereafter none appear on behalf of Union on 25.08.2023. Today also nobody appeared on behalf of Union. 3. It appears that the Union is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, no claim award is passed in the present case for the non-prosecution of Union. File after completion be consigned in the record room. 4. Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the ID Act, 1947. KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer1136 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2024/PHALGUNA 26, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 7 मार्च, 2024 का.आ. 495.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजन म (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण मे, केन्री सरकार मसे स च उृ. मिाजनिेिक, कमाडं र (ृजिम बगं ाल), एंकरेि कैंृ, िजल्ि ा, ृबू च मदे िनीृरु , के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जन ोिकों और उनके कामगार, के बीर् अनुबंि म ें जनर्िष्टच केन्री सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण-सि-श्रम न् ा ाल -कोलकाता ृंर्ाट(संिभच सं्‍ ा 12 OF 2013) को िजसा दक अनुलग्नक म ें दि ा ा ग ा ि,ज प्रकाजित करती ि ज िो केन्री सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के सा 07.03.2024 को प्राप्त हुआ ा l [स.ं एल-14011/10/2012-आईआर(डी )ू ] दिलीृ कुमार, अवर सजर्व New Delhi, the 7th March, 2023 S.O. 495.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 12 OF 2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court – Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The Dy.Director General, Commander (West Bengal), Anchorage Camp, Haldia, Purba Medinipur, and, Their Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 07.03.2024. [No. L-14011/10/2012-IR (DU)] DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy. ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA Present : Justice K. D. Bhutia, Presiding Officer. REF. NO. 12 OF 2013 Parties : Employers in relation to the management of The Dy. Director General, Commander (West Bengal), Coast Guard, Anchorage Camp, Haldia, Purba Medinipur. AND Their Workmen Appearance : On behalf of the Management: Mr. Abhijit Bhadra, Ld. Advocate. On behalf of the Union/Workmen: Mr. Banibrata Roy, Ld. Advocate. Dated: 27th February, 2024 AWARD By order No. L-14011/10/2012 –IR(DU) dated 25-02-2013, the Central Government, Ministry of Labour in exercise of power conferred u/s 10 (1) (d) and sub-section (2A) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred the following disputes to this Tribunal for adjudication:- “Whether the action of the management of Commandant Indian Coast Guard DHQ-8, Haldia Port in terminating the service of five number of workmen w.e.f. 07-04-2010, namely Sri Bidhan Chandan Mondal, Sri Sambhu Manna, Sri Bimal Modanl, Sri Raj Kumar Das and Sri Tutai Das (whose name deleted vide order dated 03-01-2024) is legal or justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?” It is the case of the workmen that they were engaged as Casual Labours by the authority of Indian Coast Guard, Anchorage Camp, Haldia on the basis of an interview called for appointment of unskilled casual labours. The workmen Sri Bidhan Chandan Mondal joined as casual labour on 11-12-2002, Sri Sambhu Manna joined in the year 2004, Sri Bimal Mondal joined on 07-10-2005 and Sri Raj Kumar Das joined on 20-10-2005, It is their case that they were made to work 26 days in a month, but payment was made only for 16 days. On this issue they have made a representation before the A.L.C. (Central) and as such they were prevented from joining[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 16, 2024/फाल् गनु 26, 1945 1137 their duty as unskilled casual labour w.e.f. 07-04-2010. That being aggrieved by their illegal such illegal termination they filed an application being No. O.A. No.1203 of 2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. on 14-06-2010 with a direction to submit representation before the authority of Coast Guard and who was directed to dispose of the representation within four months. Accordingly, the workmen submitted a representation before the Commander, Coast Guard District Head Quarter, No. 8, Anchorage Camp, Medinipore on 12-07-2010 for their re-engagement but their application was rejected by the authority of Coast Guard on 27-08-2010. On rejection of their representation by the authority of Coast Guard they moved the Regional Labour Commissioner-Central on 13-07-2011 for reinstatement. The conciliation failed before the A.L.C (Central) and on receiving the failure report by the Ministry their dispute has been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication. They in their claim statement have prayed for reinstatement with full back wages and with consequential benefits. Such case and claim of those workmen have been contested by the authorities of the Coast Guard by filing written objection, where it has alleged that Coast Guard is not an ‘industry’ as defined in section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, the present Tribunal lacks jurisdiction. However, it has admitted that Coast Guard had engaged unskilled casual labours on daily basis as per work requirement for a period not exceeding 16 days in a month during the period from 2002 to 2005. That as per policy of employment daily wage casual labours were required to register their names in local Employment Exchange. On receipt of their names from Employment Exchange informal interview was taken. At the time of engagement it was clearly explained to those casual labours that their service would be taken as per the work requirement for a maximum period of 16 days in a month. That they would be paid wages as per State Govt. rates as amended from time to time. Wages were paid to those casual labours through CG Budgetary allocation and not from salary head. Entry Gate Pass were issued to those labours for entry in all Coast Guard premises at Haldia being a defence organisation and where a high degree of discipline is always maintained. It was found that those unskilled casual labours tried to instigate and misguide other unskilled casual labours and provoked them not to work with Coast Guard. Therefore, the service of those five undisciplined casual labours were called off. Challenging the action of the authorities of Coast Guard those five workmen moved Central Administrative Tribunal and where they could not succeed. Then they moved Asst. Labour Commissioner-Central and which has no authority to decide the matter of those casual workmen. Thus, they have alleged the present reference case is not maintainable and those casual labours are not entitled to get reliefs as claimed and prayed for dismissal of the reference. Record shows on behalf of those five workmen Sri Bidhan Chandan Mondal has deposed as W.W.No.1. As per order sheet dated 29-04-2015, nine documents filed by them have been marked as Exhibit-W-1 to W-9 on formal proof being dispensed with. On the other hand the management has examined its Section Officer Sri Alok Roy as M.W. No.1. Management has also filed evidence in chief on affidavit of one Smt. Soma Karmakar, another Section Officer, but whom it has failed to produce and examine. The management has failed to produce any document in its defence. It is admitted fact that those five workmen, at present four, were engaged by Coast Guard as daily casual labours to work at its establishment at Anchorage Camp, Haldia, Medinipur. They were engaged during the period from 2002 to 2005. That Coast Guard have stopped taking their services as daily casual labours with effect from 07-04-2010. Then, those five workmen moved Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the action of the Coast Guard, denying them the job of casual daily labours w.e.f. 07-04-2010. They did not get any relief from Central Administrative Tribunal, rather they were directed to submit a comprehensive representation before the authority of Coast Guard. When their representation was rejected, then they moved the Labour Commissioner- Central for redressal of their grievances. Since the authority of Coast Guard has challenged the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute under reference, so let me first decide the issue whether Indian Coast Guard is an ‘industry’ as defined in section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? The terms “industry” is defined in section 2(j) of the I.D. Act, and it read as follows:- ‘Industry” means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen. It is true there is an amendment in the definition of the term “industry” in section 2(j) of the I.D.Act, 1947 through amending Act in 1982, in view of the decision in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage –vs- A. Rajappa &Ors. (Supra) but the said amendment has not been given effect till date by notifying the same by the Govt. Consequently, the term “industry” that has been interpreted by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply1138 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2024/PHALGUNA 26, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] &Sewerage –vs- A. Rajappa &Ors., prevails. More so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Coir Board, Ernakula –vs- Indira Debi (Supra) has been pleased to hold that the judgment of Bangalore Water Supply needs no reconsideration. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage –vs- A. Rajappa & Ors. has given liberal interpretation to the word “industry” and held- 1. Any activity will be industry if it fulfils the “triple test”, as under: (i) Systematic and organized activity (ii) With the cooperation between employer and employee (iii) For the production and distribution of goods and services whether or not capital has been invested for this activity. 2. It is immaterial whether or not there is profit motive or whether or not there is capital. 3. If the organisation is a trade or business it does not cease to be one because of philanthropy animating the triple test, cannot be exempted from scope of definition of “industry”. 4. Dominant nature test – whether there is complex activities, the test would be predominant nature of services and integrated nature of departments. All departments integrated with industry will also be industry. 5. The exceptions to industry are – (a) Casual activities (because they are not systematic). (b) Small clubs, co-operatives, research Labs, Gurukuls which have an essentially non-employee character. (c) Single door lawyer taking help from clerk (because there is no organised labour). (d) Selfless charitable activities carried on through volunteers’ e.g. free legal or medical service. (e) Sovereign functions – strictly understood i.e. maintenance of law and order, legislative functions and judicial functions. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court and different Hon’ble High Courts has interpreted the term “industry” as follow:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in All India Institute of Medical Science (Supra), held that AIIMS, an autonomous Govt. Public Medical University under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India to be an ‘industry’. Whether Agriculture Produce Market Committee established under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 is an industry or not has come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Agricultural Produce Market Committee –vs- Ashok Harikuni & Anrs (Supra) and held that the dominant function of the committee is to regulate and control trading of agriculture produce. The functions discharged or undertaken by the committee and its functionaries could be taken by private persons and therefore, the function of the committee cannot be termed as sovereign function. Hon’ble Supreme Court has further discussed what is sovereign and held “sovereign function in the new sense may have very wide ramification but essentially sovereign functions which only State could exercise. Thus, various functions of the State, may be ramifications of ‘sovereignty’ but they all cannot be construed as primary inalienable functions. Broadly it is taxation, eminent domain and police power which covers its field. It may cover its legislative functions, administration of law, eminent domain, maintenance of law and order, internal and external security, grant of pardon. So, the dicthomy between sovereign and non-sovereign function could be found by finding which of the functions of the State could be undertaken by any private person or body. The one which could be undertaken by private person or body cannot be sovereign function. In a given case even in subject on which the State has the monopoly may also be non-sovereign in nature. Mere dealing in subject of monopoly of the State would not make any such enterprise sovereign in nature. Absence of profit making or mere quid pro also not make such enterprise to be outside the ambit of “industry” as also in case of Bombay Hospital Mazdoor Sabha case (AIR 1960 SC 610)”. In Des Raj (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held Irrigation Deptt. and P.W.D. are “industry” though functions of the Irrigation Deptt. are essentially govt. functions and that those functions neither partake the nature of the trade and business nor are even remotely analogous thereto. The state govt. through Irrigation Deptt. render services in the matter of supply water by constructing canals and dams and therefore, such services does not fall between the ambits of the sovereign or regal function of the State. The service by the Irrigation Deptt. to the people at large comes within the definition of ‘industry’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chief Conservator of Forest & Industry & Anrs. (Supra) held that the Social Forestry Work scheme undertaken by the Forest Department for conservation of forests and environment cannot be[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 16, 2024/फाल् गनु 26, 1945 1139 regarded as sovereign function as such scheme could be done by private individual or entity and thereby held that Forest Department as an ‘industry’. The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in P.W.D. Employees’ Union & Ors. (Supra) held “merely because the legislative power in respect of National Highways or for that matter State Highways is left to the Union or the State Govt., it cannot be said that it would become such a function that it can be treated as sovereign function as strictly understood. It cannot be claimed to be a function akin to the legislative or judicial function or one akin to the defence of the state or nation. The construction of dams and allied activities is welfare activity or economic adventure undertaken by the Govt. as contra-distinguished from sovereign function strict sensu”. In R. Srinivas Rao (Supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that “objects and functions of National Remote Sensing Agency, that it has systematic activity or organisation with co-operation, between it and its employees, for the production and distribution of material services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes. Of its functions, the more important ones to be noted are those relating to consultancy services or survey facilities, carrying out of surveys by using remote sensing technology for locating various natural resources, agriculture, hydrology, meteorology, fisheries, minerals, oils, soils, environmental monitoring, forestry, ocean resources, topography, land resources and crop disease surveillance and the distribution of the material to institutions and persons. I have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the National Remote Sensing Agency satisfies the test laid down by the Supreme Court and that it is an ‘industry’ u/s 2(j) of the I.D. Act.” Further, held “sovereign functions are to be restricted to administration of justice and maintenance of order and prevention of crime or otherwise legislative powers, administration of laws and exercise of judicial power and inasmuch as activities of National Remote Sensing Agency do not come under these categories, it must be held that N.R.S.A. is an industry falling u/s 2(j).” In Ram Prasad (Supra) the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan held that State Insurance and Provident Fund Deptt. of Rajasthan is an industry. In State of U. P. (Supra) the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad held that Irrigation Department of the State of U.P. to be an ‘industry’. In Raju Kumar Saha (Supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Mark to be an industry and its function could not be treated as inalienably sovereign, or akin to functions of taxation, eminent domain, legislative functions, administration and maintenance of law and order, internal and external security and police pardon. It could not be regarded as core sovereign functions which, were constitutionally incapable of delegation. In Union of India & Anrs. (Supra) the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta held that apparently Farakka Barrage Project by virtue of an agreement distribute Ganges water between India and Bangladesh can be said to be sovereign function, but other functions of the Barrage cannot by any stretch of imagination be described as sovereign functions and thereby held the Barrage to be an ‘industry’. Thus, from the above decisions it appears all kinds of organised activities giving rise to employee and employer relationship and all kinds of systematic organised activities undertaken by the State are covered by wide definition of ‘industry’ except those activities of State or Govt. Departments which are regal and sovereign in nature or inalienable functions of the State like law and order, defence, legislative and judiciary which are sovereign functions. What is approved to be "Sovereign" is defence of the country, raising armed forces, making peace or war, foreign affairs, power to acquire and retain territory. These are not amenable to the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts. The other functions of the State including welfare activity of State could not be construed as "sovereign" exercise of power. Hence, every governmental function need not be "sovereign". State activities are multifarious. From the primal sovereign power, which exclusively inalienably could be exercised by the Sovereign alone, which is not subject to challenge in any civil court to all the welfare activities, which would be undertaken by any private person. One of the tests to determine if the legislative or executive function is sovereign in nature is whether the State is answerable for such actions in courts of law. For instance, acts such as defence of the country, raising armed forces and maintaining it, making peace or war, foreign affairs, power to acquire and retain territory, are functions which are indicative of external sovereignty and are political in nature. Therefore, they are not amenable to jurisdiction of ordinary civil court. It is a matter of common knowledge that Indian Coast Guard (ICG) is a maritime law enforcement and search and rescue agency of India with jurisdiction over its territorial waters including its contiguous zone and exclusive economic zone. The Coast Guard works in close cooperation with the Indian Navy, the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Revenue (Customs), and the Central Armed Police Forces, and the State Police Services. The Coast Guard looks after the territorial water and regularly patrol and does surveillance to protect the nation. It works jointly with Indian Navy, Customs Department and State Police. It is responsible for search and rescue, enforcement of maritime law, safety of vessels, maintain of sea mariners and border control. During war time it plays a role of Naval Reserve Force with responsibility in harbours, defence port securities, naval1140 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2024/PHALGUNA 26, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] intelligence and coast petrol. It is a wing of Indian Defence. Therefore, the functions which is discharged by Coast Guard, an Armed Force Unit is in sovereign in nature. Such sovereign function cannot be discharged by a private individual. Therefore, the functions discharge by Coast Guard cannot fall within the definition of ‘industry’. Since the establishment of Coast Guard is not an industry then question of existence of Industrial Disputes between it and its casual labours does not arises. Therefore, this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the casual labours of Indian Coast Guard. However, it has been alleged those five workmen were engaged for 26 days in a month by the Coast Guard authority, but payment was made only for 16 days. Nothing has come on record to show to prove and corroborate the fact that those casual labours were engaged for more than 16 days in a month. Thus, it appears those five casual workmen were engaged only for 16 days in a month. In that case those five workmen were engaged for a period of 192 days in a calendar year. For the sake of argument even if we assume that those five workmen were workmen as defined in Industrial Disputes Act and the establishment of Coast Guard is an industry, still those workmen have failed to fulfil the criteria as laid down in section 25-B and 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi case has been pleased to hold, there is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporary or contractual basis, to be a holder of a post. Therefore, they cannot claim reinstatement. When they have joined the services as casual labours they were well aware of the nature of their service. The term ‘casual’ itself indicates that the nature of job is very temporary and casual and which is not of a permanent in nature. That apart, the very fact moving Central Administrative Tribunal immediate after termination by those five workmen ipso facto prove that they were well aware the establishment where they were engaged as casual unskilled labours was not an ‘industry’. In view of above the present reference is not maintainable as Indian Coast Guard is held not to be an ‘industry’ as defined in section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly, Reference Case No. 12 of 2013 is disposed of being not maintainable and an award to that effect is passed. Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2024 .—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k es a dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kra=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vucq a/k eas fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn eas vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] कोल्िाृुर ua- 2 ds iapkV (1/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [la- ,y-39025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-12] सलोनी, उृ जनििे क New Delhi, the 7th March, 2024 S.O. 496.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.1/2018) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolhapur No. 2, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India and their workmen. [No. L-39025/01/2024- IR(B.II)-12] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL COURT NO.02, KOLHAPUR REFERENCE (I.T.) NO.01/2018. EXH.O-5 Bank of India, 1519, ‘C’ Ward, Jaydhawal Building, .. First Party Laxmipuri, Kolhapur. Through Zonal Manager. V/s. Shri. Rohit Sambhaji Varekar, .. Second Party[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 16, 2024/फाल् गनु 26, 1945 1141 2596, ‘D’ Juna Budhwarpeth, Kolhapur. CORAM :- Shri. S. D. Suryawanshi, Presiding Officer. J. O. Code :- MH02959. APPEARANCE :- For First Party :- Ld. Adv. Shri. R. L. Chavan For Second Party :- Ld. Adv. Shri. V. S. Chavan AWARD (Decided on this 04th day of January, 2024) 1) Present industrial dispute is referred by appropriate Government under Section-10, Sub-Section-1 (d) and Sub-Section-(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication following issues as per schedule, “Whether the action of Management of Bank of India, Kolhapur Branch in not giving compassionate appointment to Shri. Rohit Sambhaji Verekar is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the complainant is entitled to”. Accordingly, notices were served upon the second party and first party to submit their statement-of-claim and written statement. Notice was duly served upon both the parties, thereafter, second party appeared through his Advocate and filed statement-of-claim at Exh.U-03 and submitted his case as follows : 2) The second party has raised present dispute in the capacity of legal heir of late Mr. Sambhaji Varekar who was working on the post of Peon in the first party Bank. Unfortunately, his father was expired on 02/07/2011 leaving behind his wife and three children. After the sad demise of father, her mother was applied with the first party to absorb on compassionate ground as per application dated 02/09/2011. However, during the pendency of said application and decision from the first party Bank, she also expired on 20/05/2016. After the sad demise of his mother, second party has applied with the first party to absorb him on compassionate ground vide application dated 14/06/2016. The first party inspite of receiving his application has not taken any positive steps for absorbing him in the employment. After realising that, the first party is not taking seriously his demand, the second party has sent demand notice to the first party and has made specific demand that, to absorb him in the employment on compassionate ground and to pay compensation whichever is applicable due to death of his father late Shri. Sambhaji Varekar. Even-though the first party has not considered his demand, therefore, he raised dispute with the appropriate Government vide application dated 16/03/2017. The Regional Labour Commissioner has hold conciliation proceedings on various dates. The first party on dated 11/04/2017 submitted its reply before the Regional Labour Commissioner. The reply submitted by first party is false and devoid of any truth. The first party has taken assistance of Circular No.98/2012 dated 15/01/2005 as well as Circular No.101/150 dated 06/11/2007. Prior to death of his father, the scheme dated 06/11/2007 was applicable to the legal heirs. The provision regarding appointment on compassionate basis at Clause No.03 (II) (b) is applicable to the second party but with malafide intention and bad motive taking wrong meaning of this Clause, the first party has decline to give appointment to the second party on compassionate ground. Due to Bank’s adamant, vague and evasive defence the conciliation proceedings before Regional Labour Commissioner became futile. 3) The father of second party had joined the employment of erstwhile Bank viz. The Bank of Karad Limited on 01/01/1979. The said Bank was amalgamated with Bank of India later on. The first party had given letter of appointment to his father on dated 02/05/1994. Therefore, considering this aspect circular regarding appointment on compassionate ground for the legal heirs is applicable to the second party. But, to deprive the second party from getting benefit of this Clause, the second party is forbidded from enjoying the benefits of compassionate appointment. The second party is having requisite qualification to appoint as a Sub-Staff as he has passed 12th Standard. His mother and second party himself have made several correspondence with the first party regarding appointment on compassionate ground also she has met on several occasion to the Officers of first party. But, no any correspondence was made by first party. The second party is only bread earner in his family. Therefore, considering his family background as well as eligibility criteria set out by first party, second party is entitled to get recruited on compassionate ground. 4) During the course of employment his father was working on the post of Peon, therefore, he was not having any managerial as well as supervisory powers. Since, the second party is seeking appointment on compassionate ground hence this Tribunal is having jurisdiction to try and entertain present dispute. Being Banking industry, the first1142 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2024/PHALGUNA 26, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] party is having network of Branches all over India. To discharge day to day Banking activities, the first party has appointed numerous persons in the capacity of Officers and Sub-Staff. Therefore, Bank is covered under the definition of ‘Industry’ under Section-2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Section Officer as well as appropriate Authority deemed fit to refer the dispute for adjudication and found substance in the dispute between the parties. Therefore, he is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground as per Circular No.101/150 dated 06/11/2007 and also entitled to consequential and other benefits. 5) The first party Bank has filed its Written Statement at Exh.C-02 and denied all the allegations and prayed to dismiss the reference stating that, the reference is not maintainable in the eyes of law and further second party has no locus-standi to file present reference. The alleged cause of action arose for this reference on 02/07/2011 and application was submitted by second party to the Labour Commissioner on 16/03/2017 and as such present reference is not within limitation and it is hopelessly time barred. Therefore, on the count of delay and latches, the present reference deserves to be dismissed in limini. The appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the second party. It is pure discretion of the Management that would be considered on the basis of Rules applicable to the first party Bank. 6) Further it is submitted that, the first party Bank is nationalised Bank which has issued Branch Circular No.101/150 dated 06/11/2007 and framed scheme that “Scheme for payment of Ex-gratia Lumpsum amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds and appointment of dependents of deceased employee on compassionate grounds in exceptional cases”. The said scheme is applicable to all the employees working with the first party Bank. The salient features of the scheme are as under : (I) The scheme for grant of Ex-gratia will be applicable in the following cases of employees : (a) Employee dying in harness (other than due to injury while performing official duty as result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity); (b) Employee dying due to injury sustained while performing official duty within or outside office premises (other than due violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity and excluding travel from residence to place of work or back); (c) Employee seeking premature retirement due to incapacitation before reaching the age of 55 years. (II) The scheme of compassionate appointment will be applicable in the following cases of employees : (a) Employee dying while performing official duty as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity; (b) Employee dying within five years of his first appointment of before reaching the age of 30 years, whichever is later, leaving a dependent spouse and / or minor children. (III) In the eligible cases, Ex-gratia compensation will be payable on compassionate grounds at the rate of 60% of the last drawn gross salary (net of taxes) for each month of remaining service of the deceased / incapacitated employee, subject to cadre-wise ceilings. 7) As far as deceased employee late Shri. Sambhaji Varekar is concerned; he was taken up in the services as a Peon by the erstwhile Bank of Karad Limited w.e.f. 01/01/1979. Thereafter, said Bank of Karad is amalgamated in the first party Bank w.e.f. 01/05/1994 as per the order passed by the Reserve Bank of India. After the amalgamation of the said Karad Bank, the first party issued appointment order on the post of Peon on 27/05/1994. After the amalgamation of said Karad Bank, all the rules and service conditions fixed by first party Bank in respect of its employees are made applicable to the staff of the Karad Bank. Late Mr. Sambhaji Varekar died on 02/07/2011. As per Rule No.3 (II) (b) neither late Mr. Sambhaji Varekar died within five years of his first appointment nor before reaching the age of 30 years, whichever is later, leaving a dependent spouse and / or minor children. Therefore, as per this rule, the second party cannot claim any benefit of compassionate appointment. After the demise of late Mr. Sambhaji Varekar, the following benefits are paid to the nominee and total family income is Rs.14,153.49/- and said income exceeds 60% of the gross salary (net taxes) of the month preceding the month of death. The calculation of family income is as under : Details Amount (in Rs.) A. Family Pension per month 8,679 B. Gratuity (Lumpsum) 4,09,889 C. PF (Lumpsum) 4,06,136 D. Leave encashment 1,66,146 E. Total Loans 2,52,238.50[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 16, 2024/फाल् गनु 26, 1945 1143 F. Net Corpus 7,29,932.50 (B+C+D+E) G. Monthly Interest (Maximum 5474.49 (F*9%) TDR interest rate @9.00%) H. Total Family Income 14,153.49 Therefore, considering above calculations and amount of benefit flow from the services of late Mr. Sambhaji Varekar, the second party cannot claim any benefit of compassionate appointment. 8) As regards to the Paras 01, 02 and 03 it is submitted that, neither the second party nor his mother was eligible for the appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, question of considering their applications for the appointment on compassionate ground does not arise at all. The second party as well as his mother were also aware of this fact. Therefore, contentions in the said paras that, “the second party repeatedly made follow-up regarding his application and demand was not taken seriously”, is totally incorrect, self-motivated and baseless. The first party Bank filed detailed reply to the demand notice of second party before Conciliation Officer pointing out all the legal as well as factual positions. Therefore, contentions or allegations in the said paras that, “reply submitted by the first party on dated 11/04/2017 is false and devoid of any truth illegal” is totally false, baseless, misleading and distorted. As far as contentions of Paras 05, 06, 07 and 08 of statement-of-claim is concerned; these contentions are false, baseless, misleading, distorted, outrageous and self-motivated. Entire conduct on the part of second party defies logical and prudent behaviour and it lies ill in his mouth to contend and canvass that, he is eligible for the appointment on compassionate ground. No cause of action arose for the reference, therefore, present reference is deserves to be dismissed and relief claimed by second party may be rejected. 9) On the basis of pleadings of the parties, issues are framed at Exh.O-04. To justify the case of both the parties, the second party filed his affidavit on oath at Exh.U-06 and first party filed affidavit at Exh.C-07. Further both the parties relied on documents produced along-with Exh.C-03, Exh.C-06, Exh.C-09 and Exh.U-08. Finally both the learned Advocates were given sufficient opportunity to argue the matter. The second party and first party relied on authorities of which copies are filed along-with Exh.U-13 and Exh.C-15. On the basis of material placed before this Tribunal and argument advanced by parties, following issues are discussed and necessary findings to that effect recorded as under : ISSUES FINDINGS 1) Whether the reference is maintainable ? .. In the affirmative. 2) Does the second party prove that, the action of Management of first party Bank in not giving compassionate appointment to second party is legal and justified ? .. Partly in negative. 3) Does the second party prove that, he is entitled to the reliefs .. Partly in the affirmative. claimed ? 4) What award ? .. As per final order. REASONS AS TO ISSUE NO. 01 :- 10) After going through the entire proceeding and submission made by respective parties it is observed that, admittedly Bank is covered by definition of ‘Industry’ defined under Section-2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also admittedly deceased employee late Mr. Sambhaji Varekar was employed by first party Bank in the capacity of Peon on and from 02/05/1994. Prior to that, he was employed by Bank of Karad Limited. Later on Bank of Karad merged in the first party Bank since 01/05/1994. Admittedly, the first party Bank has given appointment letter dated 02/05/1994, therefore, there was employer - employee relationship between late Mr. Sambhaji Varekar and first party Bank. If perused written statement, first party Bank has admitted that, Bank has issued Circular No.101/150 dated 06/11/2007 framing scheme for payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground and also appointment to the dependents of deceased employee on compassionate grounds in exceptional cases. No doubt circular dated 06/11/2007 was applicable to the deceased employee on some terms and conditions. Therefore, widow of deceased employee had been made application on dated 02/09/2011 to the first party Bank1144 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2024/PHALGUNA 26, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] requesting compassionate appointment of which copy is filed on record at Exh.U-08 at running Page No.09. But allegedly the Bank has not taken any positive decision for a longer time upto 2016. Thereafter, widow of deceased employee also expired on 20/05/2016. Therefore, second party has made application dated 14/06/2016 requesting to the Bank to appoint him on compassionate ground and pay ex-gratia lumpsum amount in pursuance of Circular No.98/12 dated 15/01/2005 and Circular No.101/150 dated 06/11/2007 of which copy is available at Exh.U-08 at running page No.11. Allegedly again the first party Bank has not taken positive steps with regards to the demand made by second party and also not communicated to the second party that, he is not entitled for compassionate appointment or ex-gratia lumpsum amount as per circular dated 06/11/2007 or 15/01/2005. In the result, he sent demand notice to the Bank and approached to the Conciliation Officer to conciliate the parties with regards to demand made by second party. It appears that, the Conciliation Officer called the first party wherein first party was appeared and strongly opposed to the demand made by second party submitting its reply dated 11/04/2017. However, dispute could not be resolved and resulted into failure report and sent it to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication as per schedule of reference order. 11) Further if perused the written statement, the first party Bank has objected reference on the ground that, the second party has no locus-standi and no cause of action arose on dated 02/07/2011. Further objected that, application submitted by second party to the Labour Commissioner dated 16/03/2017 is not within limitation and it is hopelessly time barred. Therefore, it urged that, on the ground of delay and latches present reference be dismissed in limini. Hence, my learned Predecessor has framed issue as to whether reference is maintainable ? Firstly, it is necessary to decide the locus-standi of second party and delay caused for raising the dispute. 12) As far as locus-standi is concerned; it is admitted fact that, the father of second party was employed by first party Bank in the capacity of Peon on and from 27/05/1994. Before completion of retirement age he expired on 02/07/2011. Admittedly, the first party Bank has issued circular dated 06/11/2007. If perused said circular produced along-with Exh.C-03 it reveals that, the Bank has framed the scheme for grant of ex-gratia lumpsum amount and compassionate appointment to the legal heirs or dependents of the employee. On the basis of said circular, firstly the widow of deceased was applied for appointment on compassionate ground and when she expired second party has applied for the appointment on compassionate ground or ex-gratia lumpsum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment. However, first party Bank has not communicated anything about the demand made by second party, therefore, he raised industrial dispute. Hence, it cannot be said that, he has no locus-standi to prefer dispute because his father was employed by first party Bank and circular dated 06/11/2007 clearly suggest that, the legal heirs or dependents are entitled to claim compassionate appointment or ex-gratia lumpsum amount. In pursuance of circular dated 06/11/2007 he made an attempt to claim compassionate appointment or ex-gratia lumpsum amount. But said dispute could not be resolved before the Conciliation Officer, therefore, said reference is referred for adjudication. Hence, first party Bank has no right to say that, the second party has no locus-standi. 13) As far as delay caused for raising the dispute is concerned; no doubt admittedly second party was not employed by first party Bank but his father was employed by first party. On the part of first party it was expected to communicate the second party in pursuance of letter dated 02/09/2011 or letter dated 14/06/2016. Not providing employment on compassionate ground and not giving ex-gratia lumpsum amount in pursuance of circular dated 06/11/2007 appears continuous cause. However, to raising the dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 there is no limitation, therefore, objection raised by first party would not survive. Hence, this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that, the reference is maintainable in the eyes of law. AS TO ISSUES NO.02 TO 04 :- 14) As stated above the deceased employee late Mr. Sambhaji Varekar initially was employed by Bank of Karad on and from 01/01/1979. Thereafter, said Bank was merged in Bank of India and once again first party Bank has issued him appointment letter dated 02/05/1994. It is also admitted fact that, the Bank has framed scheme on 15/01/2005 thereafter said scheme was replaced by Circular No.101/150 dated 06/11/2007 with intent to provide employment on compassionate ground to the legal heirs or dependents of deceased employee in exceptional cases or to pay ex-gratia lumpsum amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground subject to fulfillment the terms and conditions of said scheme. It is also admitted fact that, the deceased employee expired on dated 02/07/2011 before the date of superannuation, therefore, widow of deceased employee in pursuance of circular dated 06/11/2007 has approached to the first party Bank vide letter dated 02/09/2011 with request to provide employment on compassionate ground. Said letter is received by Bank, however, no positive steps taken by said Bank. Thereafter, widow of deceased employee also expired on dated 20/05/2016 and second party has approached to the first party Bank vide letter dated 14/06/2016 along-with proforma and requested for appointment on compassionate ground. Again first party has not communicated to the second party whether he is entitled or not to be appointed on compassionate ground. Therefore, he has sent demand notice of which copy is produced along-with Exh.U-08 at Serial No.02. If perused said letter he has contended that, his father was working with the first party Bank as a Peon since last 33 years. He has expired on 02/07/2011 while on duty. After his sad demise his mother was made correspondence to the Bank for appointment on compassionate ground but no heed was given to her request. Also his mother was expired on dated 20/05/2016 and after the sad demise of his mother, he also applied to appoint on compassionate ground but no Officer of the Bank or higher Manager considered his demand after repeated request. All the time the concerned Officer namely,[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 16, 2024/फाल् गनु 26, 1945 1145 Shri. Naniwadekar and Manager Sau. Inamdar given sweet assurance that, he will get the job definitely and also family will get compensation. On third occasion the Bank has not taken cognizance of demand notice, therefore, he was compelled to approach the appropriate Government under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 15) If perused oral evidence adduced by second party on oath he has deposed that, he is having one brother and one sister and both are married. On dated 02/07/2011 his father was expired. His father was working with the Bank in the capacity of Peon. His mother was applied for compassionate appointment vide letter dated 02/09/2011. His father was expired before 30 years of service, therefore, he is entitled to appoint on compassionate ground. Hence, he has made application dated 14/06/2016 but Bank has not communicated anything, therefore, he was approached to the Labour Commissioner. The Bank has relied on circular dated 06/11/2007 but said reliance is not admitted to the second party. In pursuance of circular he is entitled to appoint on compassionate ground but first party Bank intentionally and deliberately not provided him employment, therefore, he prayed for granting of employment on compassionate ground and ex-gratia lumpsum amount. If perused his cross-examination he has admitted that, on dated 02/07/2011 his father has expired but denied that, after the death of father he has not made any demand to the first party Bank until he was approached to the Government Labour Officer. He also admits that, his father was employed by erstwhile Bank i.e. Bank of Karad on the post of Peon on and from 01/01/1979 and Bank of Karad is merged in the first party Bank on and from 01/05/1994. Also admits that, the first party Bank has issued appointment order to his father on dated 27/05/1994 on the post of Peon. Further admits that, when his father was expired that time his father was above 30 years of age. Also since 1994 his father was served with the Bank more than five years. However, it is denied that, the amount of Rs.14,153.49/- was received towards legal dues. The pension of Rs.8,679/- and amount of gratuity of Rs.4,09,889/- was received. Except family pension, gratuity and provident fund no any other amount received. 16) If perused evidence adduced by first party Bank at Exh.C-07 it appears that, affidavit filed on oath is nothing but reproduction of written statement. However, if perused cross-examination the witness of first party has deposed that, it is not correct to say that, in respect of compassionate appointment he is not conversant with the rules. Also not correct to say that, the correspondence made between the first party and second party is not known to him. Also not correct to say that, in respect of compassionate appointment whatever notes put up by previous Zonal Officer is not known to him. Means everything is well known to the witness. Further admits that, first party Bank is a member of Indian Bank’s Association. Other nationalised Banks are also the members of said Association. Also the policy decision is decided by Indian Bank’s Association and present first party Bank. Late Mr. Sambhaji Varekar is expired in the year 2011 and at that time the scheme of compassionate appointment which was in existence in the year 2007 was also exists in the year 2011. Immediately after sad demise of Mr. Sambhaji Varekar his widow and present second party have been made application for granting compassionate appointment and to pay all his legal dues. But, do not recollect that, whether the first party Bank has replied or not to the second party about granting or non granting of compassionate appointment. In the entire proceeding no any document produced to show that, the Bank has communicated to the second party about his demand or entitlement. Witness has categorically stated that, document at running Page No.23 filed along-with Exh.U-08 is of first party. But, Bank has not issued such type of letter to the second party. If perused said letter it is unsigned copy, therefore, it cannot be relied upon as said paper is part and parcel of Bank circular. Also admits that, for getting appointment on compassionate ground the second party has fulfill all the procedure applicable to the Bank. However, again witness has denied the fulfillment of criteria or procedure. Rest of the cross-examination is in general. 17) Whatever deposed by both parties it relates to Circular No.101/150 dated 06/11/2007. If perused circular dated 06/11/2007 admittedly Bank has framed the scheme of payment of ex-gratia lumpsum amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground or the scheme of compassionate appointment. For compassionate appointment the terms are as under : (a) Employee dying while performing official duty as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity; (b) Employee dying within five years of his first appointment of before reaching the age of 30 years, whichever is later, leaving a dependent spouse and / or minor children. It is necessary to state that, the deceased employee late Mr. Sambhaji Varekar was expired on 02/07/2011 due to Cancer which is stated by second party. In fact, he was not expired while performing his official duty. Therefore, Clause (a) would not be applicable to get appointment on compassionate ground. As far as Clause (b) is concerned; the first party Bank has issued appointment on dated 27/05/1994 and thereafter he was expired on dated 02/07/2011. In any case it cannot be said that, he was expired within five years of first appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years. Therefore, same clause also would not be applicable for the compassionate appointment. Hence, by not giving compassionate appointment to Mr. Rohit Sambhaji Varekar is legal and justified. 18) However, in circular dated 06/11/2007 it is provided for lumpsum ex-gratia amount in lieu of compassionate appointment. Ex-gratia clause is given at Serial No.03 which is as under : (I) The scheme for grant of Ex-gratia will be applicable in the following cases of employees :1146 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2024/PHALGUNA 26, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (a) Employee dying in harness (other than due to injury while performing official duty as result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity); (b) Employee dying due to injury sustained while performing official duty within or outside office premises (other than due violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity and excluding travel from residence to place of work or back); (c) Employee seeking premature retirement due to incapacitation before reaching the age of 55 years. The second party has claimed that, he is also entitled for ex-gratia lumpsum amount. If perused Clause-5 of the Scheme which speaks about the ex-gratia amount. In Clause-5 (A) it is provided that, “Ex-gratia amount will be paid to the family of the deceased employee or to the employee seeking premature retirement due to incapacitation. If eligible, provided a request to this effect, is made within six months from the date of death of the employee or seeking premature retirement. The family shall be indigent or penurious circumstances. The family of the deceased employee or the employee seeking premature retirement due to incapacitation will be eligible for Ex-gratia, subject to the ceilings specified in Para 5 (C) below, is less than 60% of the last drawn gross salary (net of taxes) of the employee. The ex-gratia relief under the above Scheme is not an entitlement but may be granted at the sole discretion of the Bank looking into the financial conditions of the family and in deserving and eligible cases only”. If perused Clause-5 (B) and (C) it appears that, in Clause-5 (B) given terminal benefits. The Bank has considered his terminal benefits and drawn total family income of Rs.14,153.49/-. This Tribunal could not understand that, on what basis first party Bank has considered the family income of Rs.14,153.49/-. Further, first party has not proved or not produced any document on record showing that, his family income is less than 60% of the last drawn gross salary of the employees. In present case, the second party may be entitled for ex-gratia amount as per circular dated 06/11/2007 in the cadre of sub- ordinate staff. 19) The second party relied on judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Mahesh Singh Bisht V/s. Canara Bank, Mumbai, reported in 2017, II, C.L.R., Page 992 and V. Mallikarjuna V/s. The Chairman, decided on 16/04/2021. As far as first authority is concerned; in this case the petitioner’s son who died of massive cardiac arrest on 14/07/2001, while in service of the respondent Bank as an Armed Guard. Therefore, he sought compassionate appointment in respondent Bank, as per scheme in vogue in the Bank. The Hon’ble Court held that, (i) the petitioner, being the son of the deceased employee of the Bank, is entitled to get the compassionate appointment in the Bank, but on the pretext of availability of lumpsum ex-gratia payment, the Bank prolonged the matter for four and half years, and ultimately rejected the application for compassionate appointment or ex-gratia lumpsum amount, that too without assigning any reasons. In fact during the said period about 101 cases of compassionate appointment were considered by the respondent Bank. (ii) The approach of the Officers of the respondent Bank is absolutely insensitive to the peculiar requirement of dealing with cases of compassionate appointment and there is no application of mind of any degree. A conduct not expected from Officers of the public body. (iii) Hence, the Hon’ble High Court considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Canara Bank and Another V/s. M. Mahesh Kumar, 2015, II, C.L.R., Page 563, directed for compassionate appointment. Herein present case admittedly the first party Bank has introduced scheme for compassionate appointment or ex-gratia lumpsum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment. Admittedly, second party and his mother who was widow of deceased employee applied but no correspondence was made by Bank. At least it was expected on the part of Bank to communicate the eligibility or non eligibility but failed to do so. As far as second authority is concerned; in this case the father of petitioner, who worked as Head Messenger in the respondent Bank. He died in harness leaving behind his wife, petitioner, two other sons and two unmarried daughters. There was no other earning member in the family and he has to maintain one can understand the financial position of that family. Due to sudden demise of the bread winner of the family, the family of the deceased employee has to face serious financial problems. The respondent Bank formulated the SBI Scheme for compassionate appointment on compassionate ground in exceptional cases with a laudable object of granting compassionate appointment to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of a bread winner. As and when the respondent Bank introduced such scheme for the benefit of family members of the deceased employees, rejecting the claim of the petitioner by the respondent authorities on the ground that, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment is unjustified and the Hon’ble Court held and directed to the Bank to consider claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment in any suitable post. As far as this reference is concerned; admittedly there is circular dated 06/11/2007 but second party shall not include or entitled for compassionate appointment. Because, he was not on duty when he was expired and further he was not expired within five years of his first appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years. 20) The learned Advocate for first party has also relied on three authorities those are (i) State Bank of India and Another V/s. Raj Kumar, reported in 2010 (11) S.C.C., Page 661; (ii) State of Madhya Pradesh and Others V/s. Amit Shrivas, reported in 2020 A.I.R., (S.C.) Page 4541 and (iii) Indian Bank and Others V/s. Promila and Another, reported in 2020, I, C.L.R., Page 454. In the said authorities it is held that, appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that, recruitment to public services should be on the basis of[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 16, 2024/फाल् गनु 26, 1945 1147 merit. By an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. An appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished / withdrawn. If follows therefore that, when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appointment under the scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. The mere fact that, an application was made when the scheme was in force, will not by itself create a right in favour of the applicant. If a scheme provides for automatic appointment to a specified family member, on the death of any employee, without any of the aforesaid requirements, it can be said that, the scheme creates a right in favour of the family member for appointment on the date of death of the employee. There is no inherent right to compassionate appointment. It is right based on certain criteria, especially to provide succor to needy family. The case laws referred by first party is applicable to the present case because scheme is very much clear. In cases employee was to expired while performing his official duty or within five years of his first appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years. Therefore, second party cannot claim compassionate appointment as per circular dated 06/11/2007. 21) While discussing above issue No.02, the Tribunal has opined that, the second party is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Because the deceased employee was not fulfilling the criteria given in circular dated 06/11/2007. Hence, second party would not entitled for relief of compassionate appointment. However, he would be entitled to ex-gratia lumpsum amount as per Clause-3 (I) (A) of the Scheme dated 06/11/2007. The first party Bank has objected the entitlement of ex-gratia lumpsum amount because the family income of second party shown Rs.14,153.49/-. However, first party failed to produce any calculation of the family income or wages lastly drawn by deceased employee. Further failed to justify that, on what ground he is not entitled for ex-gratia lumpsum amount. Therefore, second party would entitled only for ex-gratia lumpsum amount @ 60% on last drawn gross salary for each month of remaining service from the death of deceased employee. Hence, the findings of above issues are answered ‘Partly negative and partly affirmative’ and proceed to pass following Award. AWARD 1) Reference (I.T.) No.01/2018 answered in partly affirmative. 2) It is held and declared that, the second party is entitled for ex-gratia lumpsum amount as per Circular No.101/150 dated 06/11/2007 @ 60% of last drawn gross salary for each month of remaining service of the deceased employee not exceeding Rs.6,00,000/- (Six Lakhs Rupees Only). 3) The first party Bank is hereby directed to pay the ex-gratia lumpsum amount to the second party as directed above within two (02) months from the date of publication of Award. 4) The Award be send to the appropriate Government for its publication. S.D. SURYAWANSHI, Presiding Officer ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2024 .—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj बैंक ds izca/kra=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vucq a/k eas fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uaa- 1 /kuckn ds iapkV (66/2002) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [la- ,y-12012/54/2002- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)] सलोनी, उृ जनििे क New Delhi, the 11th March, 2024 S.O. 497.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 66/2002) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1 Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen. [No. L-12012/54/2002- IR(B.I)] SALONI, Dy. Director1148 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2024/PHALGUNA 26, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT (No. 1), DHANBAD. PRESENT: Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, Presiding Officer / Link Officer, C.G.I.T-cum-L.C. (No. 1), Dhanbad. EFERENCE CASE NO. 66 OF 2002 PARTIES: S.C.P. Sinha Vs. Management of State Bank of India, Patna. REPRESENTATIVES: For the Union/Workman: None. For the Management of SBI: Mr. Devendra Kumar Verma, Adv. INDUSTRY: Banking. STATE: Bihar. Dated: 19.01.2024 AWARD In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its OrderNo. L-12012/54/2002-IR(B-I) dated 12.06.2002has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer, that is the Management of State Bank of India, Patnaand their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal. SCHEDULE “Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Bhagalpur in dismissing the services of Sri S.C.P. Sinha, Clerk-cum-Cashier vide their letter No. 97-98/96 dated 27-1-1998 is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled?” 1. On receiving Order No. L-12012/54/2002-IR(B-I) dated 12.06.2002from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 66 of 2002was registered on 21.06.2002.As none appeared, Notice was issued on 16.08.2021 through registered post, directing parties to appear and take proper steps in support of their claims. 2. The Reference case is fixed up today for appearance of the parties. Mr. D. K. Verma, learned advocate for the management of State Bank of India is present.It is1.30 pm now. None appeared for the S.C.P. Sinha, the aggrieved employee after issuance of Notice. The regular Presiding Officer has retired from service. I am incharge as Presiding Officer / Link Officer of Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court (No. 1), Dhanbad. 3. On a perusal of the record it appears to me that the workman is not inclined to proceed with the case. Accordingly, the Industrial Dispute is dismissed for default. A No Dispute Award be drawn up. Hence, ORDERED the Industrial Dispute is dismissed for default. A No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference case. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification. ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer/Link Officer, ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2024 .—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj भारती स्ट्टेट बैंक ds izca/kra=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqc/a k eas fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; र्ंडीगढ़-I ds iapkV (a27/2012) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [la- ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-113] सलोनी, उृ जनििे क[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 16, 2024/फाल् गनु 26, 1945 1149 New Delhi, the 11th March, 2024 S.O. 498.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.27/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1 Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen. [No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B.I)-113] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH. Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh. ID No.27/2012 Registered On:-21.11.2012 T.P. Singh S/o Sh. Raunak Singh, Senior Assistant, SBI Bhagha Purana Branch, R/o Karnail Gate, Gali No.6 C/o Sh. Gurmeet Singh, Jgraon, Punjab. ...........Workman Versus 1. State Bank of India, through its Dy. General Manager, SBI, Zonal Office, Civil Lines, Ludhiana. 2. Asstt. General Manager, (Admn)/ DA, SBI, Zonal Office, Civil Lines, Ludhiana. Now; Regional Manager, SBI, RBO, Ferozepur, Pb./DA. 3. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bhagha Purana Branch, Moga. ........Respondents AWARD Passed On:-24.01.2024 1. The workman Sh. T.P. Singh has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages. 2. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for arguments. Ld. AR for Workman has made a statement on 29.08.2018 that workman has been died since long. 3. Since the workman has already been died and no LRs has been impleaded till today, as such this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution by the LRs of the deceased Workman. File after completion be consigned in the record room. 4. Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the ID Act, 1947. KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer ubZ fnYyh] 12 ekpZ] 2024 .—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds प्रिासन. कमाडं र, स्ट्टेिन िडे क्व ाटचर, सन्ज क्षत्रे , ृरट ाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बिाि ेकेिार जनवासी एल.आई.िी. 175, अबनच एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृरट ाला, lac) fu;kstdks vkSj िसहवंिर कौर, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k eas fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1 p.Mhx< ds iapkV (138/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [la- ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-114] सलोनी, उृ जनििे क New Delhi, the 11th March, 2024 S.O. 499.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 138/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –I Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn. Commander,1150 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2024/PHALGUNA 26, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala, and Jaswinder Kaur.Worker. [No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-114] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH. Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh. ID No.138/2016 Registered On:-11.11.2016 Jaswinder Kaur W/o Bhupinder Singh R/o Vill. Bhateri Kalan Tehsil & Distt. Patiala. ...........Workman Versus 1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter Military Area, Patiala. 2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj, Contractor, R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala. ........Respondents AWARD Passed On:-23.01.2024 1. The workman Smt. Jaswinder Kaur has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages. 2. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits. 3. Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in the record room. 4. Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the ID Act, 1947. KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer ubZ fnYyh] 12 ekpZ] 2024 .—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj ds प्रिासन. कमाडं र, स्ट्टेिन िडे क्व ाटचर, सन्ज क्षत्रे , ृरट ाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बिाि ेकेिार जनवासी एल.आई.िी. 175, अबनच एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृरट ाला, lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj करमिीत कौर, कामगार, ds chp vucq a/k es a fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn es a dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (132/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [la- ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-115] सलोनी, उृ जनििे क New Delhi, the 12th March, 2024 S.O. 500.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.132/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –I Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala, and Karamjit Kaur.Worker. [No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-115] SALONI, Dy. Director[भाग II— ण् ड 3(ii)] भारत का रािृत्र : मार्च 16, 2024/फाल् गनु 26, 1945 1151 ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH. Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh. ID No.132/2016 Registered On:-11.11.2016 Karamjit Kaur W/o Modi Singh R/o Vill. Icchewal, Dist. Patiala. ...........Workman Versus 1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter Military Area, Patiala. 2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj, Contractor, R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala. ........Respondents AWARD Passed On:-23.01.2024 1. The workman Smt. Karamjit Kaur has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages. 2. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits. 3. Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in the record room. 4. Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the ID Act, 1947. KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer ubZ fnYyh] 12 ekpZ] 2024 .—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ds प्रिासन. कमाडं र, स्ट्टेिन िेड क्व ाटचर, सन्ज क्षत्रे , ृरट ाला; श्री ृवन कुमार बिाि ेकेिार जनवासी एल.आई.िी. 175, अबनच एस्ट्टेट, फेज़-I, ृरट ाला, lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj हबंि ु िवे ी, कामगार, ds chp vuqca/k eas fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn eas dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1 p.MhxM ds iapkV (133/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA [la- ,y-12025/01/2024- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-116] सलोनी, उृ जनििे क New Delhi, the 12th March, 2024 S.O. 501.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 133/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court –I Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter, Military Area, Patiala; Shri Pawan Kumar Bajaj Contractor R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala, and Bindu devi .Worker. [No. L-12025/01/2024- IR(B-I)-116] SALONI, Dy. Director ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH. Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer-cum-Link Officer, Chandigarh. ID No.133/2016 Registered On:-11.11.2016 Bindu Devi W/o Sh. Manguru Parsad R/o H.No.251, Guru Nanak Nagar Badungar Patiala. ...........Workman1152 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2024/PHALGUNA 26, 1945 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Versus 1. The Admn. Commander, Station Head Quarter Military Area, Patiala. 2. Sh. Pawan Kumar Bajaj, Contractor, R/o L.I.G. 175, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Patiala. ........Respondents AWARD Passed On:-23.01.2024 1. The workman Smt. Bindu Devi has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages. 2. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for evidence of workman but none is responding on its behalf. Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for evidence but of no use which denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits. 3. Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long nor he has led any evidence to prove his cause against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in the record room. 4. Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the ID Act, 1947. KAMAL KANT, PO-cum-Link Officer Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.