Gazette of India, 2016, No. 71

0.15 MB·English

by  Directorate of Printing, Government of India

jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05 REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
l-a 5] ubZ fnYyh] tuojh 24—tuojh 30] 2016] 'kfuokj@ek?k 4—ek?k 10] 1937
No. 5] NEW DELHI, JANUARY 24—JANUARY 30, 2016, SATURDAY/MAGHA 4—MAGHA 10, 1937
bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
xxxxx``````````ggggg eeeeeaaaaa=====kkkkkyyyyy;;;;; ¼¼¼¼¼11111½½½½½ ¼¼¼¼¼22222½½½½½
¼¼¼¼¼iiiiiqqqffqqfffyyyyylllll&&&&&II iiiiizzzHHzzHHHkkkkkkkkkkxxxxx½½½½½ vf/kfu;e] 1971 ¼1971 dk 40½ ds
rgr fdlh dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ds
ubZ fnYyh] 31 fnlEcj] 2015
ifj.kkeLo:i mRiUu dsUnz ljdkj
dddddkkkkk----- vvvvvkkkkk----- 111115555588888.—vkns'k la- XXVII ds lkFk ifBr Hkkjrh; naM n~~okjk vFkok mlds fojQ) dksbZ nkok
lafgrk 1908 dh /kkjk 79 ds n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx vFkok vU; dkuwuh dk;ZokghA
djrs gq,] dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk] uhps rkfydk ds dkWye ¼1½
e as mfYyf[kr vf/kdkjh] tk s Hkkjr ljdkj d s jktif=r vf/kdkjh [Qk- la- ,@IV&,@1000@2014&ih ,Q&IV]
gSa] dks mDr rkfydk ds dkWye ¼2½ ds varxZr fofufnZ"V fdlh xszlh tsEl] voj lfpo
dkuuw h dk;oZ kgh e as fdlh nko s vFkok fyf[kr c;ku ij gLrk{kj
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
djus rFkk lR;kfir djus gsrq fu;qDr djrh gS] vFkkZr~%&
(Police-II Division)
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2015
vf/kdkjh dk inuke fdlh ekeys fo'ks"k esa nkok S.O. 158.—In exercise of powers conferred by
¼¼¼¼¼11111½½½½½ ¼¼¼¼¼22222½½½½½ Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, read with
Order No. XXVII, the Central Government hereby appoints
izHkkjh vf/kdkjh ¼laink½] vle jkbQYl ls lacaf/kr ljdkjh the officer mentioned in the column (1) of the Table below,
egkfuns'kky;] vle jkbQYl ifjlj ds laca/k esa ljdkjh ifjlj being Gazetted Officer of the Government of India, to sign
f'kykax&793011 ¼vizkf/kÑr vf/kHkkfsx;k as dh cns [kyh½ and verify any plaint or written statement in any
250 GI/2016 (581)
582 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 30, 2016/MAGHA 10, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
proceedings specified under column (2) of the said Table, New Delhi, the 31st December, 2015
namely :—
S.O. 159.—In exercise of powers conferred by
Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Designation of the officer Suits in particular cases Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government
hereby appoints the officer mentioned in the column (1) of
(1) (2)
the Table below, being Gazetted Officer of the Government
Officer-In-Charge Any suit or other proceedings of India, to be estate officer for purposes of said Act and
(Estate), Directorate by or against the Central hereby directs that the said officer shall exercise the
General, Assam Rifles, Government arising out of any powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed, on the
Shillong-793011 proceedings under the Public Estate officers by or under the said Act within the local
Premises (Eviction of limits and in respect of the categories of public premises
Unauthorised Occupants) Act,
specified in column (2) of the said Table, namely :-
1971 (40 of 1971) in respect of
Public Premises belonging to
Designation of the officer Categories of the Public
the Assam Rifles.
Premises and local limits of
jurisdiction
[F. No. A/IV-A/1000/2014-PF.IV]
(1) (2)
GRACY JAMES, Under Secy.
Officer-In-Charge All public premises held on
(Estate), Directorate charge of Assam Rifles in the
ubZ fnYyh] 31 fnlEcj] 2015 General, Assam Rifles, States of Assam, Meghalaya,
Shillong-793011 Nagaland, Manipur, Sikkim,
dddddkkkkk----- vvvvvkkkkk----- 111115555599999.—ljdkjh LFkku ¼vizkf/kÑr vf/kHkksfx;ksa Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram,
dh csn[kyh½ vf/kfu;e] 1971 ¼1971 dk 40½ dh /kkjk 3 }kjk Tripura and the Union Territory
of Delhi.
iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk]
uhps rkfydk ds dkWye&1 esa mfYyf[kr vf/kdkjh] tks Hkkjr 2. This supersedes the notification of the
Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs,
ljdkj ds jktif=r vf/kdkjh gSa] dks mDr vf/kfu;e ds
number S.O. 3260 dated 27th December, 2014
iz;kts ukFkZ lia nk vf/kdkjh fu;qDr djrh gS rFkk ,rn~}kjk] ;g
[F. No. A/IV-A/1000/2014-PF.IV]
funs'k nsrh gS fd mDr vf/kdkjh LFkkuh; lhekvksa ds Hkhrj
GRACY JAMES, Under Secy.
mDr vf/kfu;e ds varxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djsxk
vkSj mDr rkfydk ds dkWye ¼2½ esa fofufnZ"V ljdkjh LFkku oooooLLLLL===== eeeeeaaaaa=====kkkkkyyyyy;;;;;
ubZ fnYyh] 19 tuojh] 2016
dh Jsf.k;ksa ds ckjs esa laink vf/kdkfj;ksa ij ykxw drZO;ksa dk
ikyu djsxk] vFkkZr~%& dddddkkkkk----- vvvvvkkkkk----- 111116666600000.—dUsnhz; ljdkj] ¼l?a k d s'kkldh; i;z kts ukas
d s fy,½ jkTkHkk"kk fu;e] 1976 d s fu;e 10 d s mifu;e ¼4½ ds
vf/kdkjh dk inuke ljdkjh ifjlj dh Jsf.k;ka rFkk vulq j.k e]as oL= e=a ky; d s vra xrZ vku s oky s fuEufyf[kr
{ks=kfèkdkj dh LFkkuh; lhek,a dk;kyZ ; dk s ftld s 80 ifzr'kr l s vf/kd depZ kfj;k asu s fgna h dk
dk;lZ k/kd Kku ikzIr dj fy;k g]S vf/klfwpr djrh gS%&
¼¼¼¼¼11111½½½½½ ¼¼¼¼¼22222½½½½½
jk"Vªh; gFkdj?kk fodkl fuxe fyfeVsM]
izHkkjh vf/kdkjh ¼laink½] vle] es?kky;] ukxkySaM] ef.kiqj]
egkfuns'kky;] vle jkbQYl flfDde] v:.kkpy izns'k] fetksje] 13@36] izFke ry] Jhjke ekdsZV] rsfy;k ckx]
f'kykax&793011 f=iqjk rFkk fnYyh la?k jkT; {ks=ksa esa
okjk.klh&221002 ¼mÙkj izns'k½
vle jkbQYl ds izHkkj esa /kkfjr
lHkh ljdkjh ifjlj
[l-a b-Z&11016@1@2015&fgUnh]
xhrk ukjk;.k] la;qDr lfpo
2- ;g Hkkjr ljdkj] xg` e=a ky; dh fnukda 27 fnlEcj]
2014 dh dk-vk- 3260 dk vf/kdze.k djrh gSA MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
New Delhi, the 19th January, 2016
[Qk- la- ,@IV&,@1000@2014&ih ,Q&IV]
S.O. 160.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10
xszlh tsEl] voj lfpo of the Official Languages (Use for the official purpose of
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 30] 2016@ek?k 10] 1937 583
the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]
notifies the following office of the Ministry of Textiles, Jh ,u- Jhfuokl jko ds LFkku ij lqJh eqfnrk feJk] funs'kd]
more than 80% staff whereof have acquired working
foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx dks bafM;u cSad ds funs'kd eaMy esa
knowledge of Hindi:
ljdkjh ukferh funs'kd ukfer djrh gS A
National Handloom Development Corporation Limited,
13/36, First Floor, Shri Ram Market, Teliya Bag, [Qk-l-a 7@2@2012&chvk&s I]
Varanasi-221001 (Uttar Pradesh)
fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo
[No. E. 11016/1/2015-Hindi]
GEETA NARAYAN, Jt. Secy. New Delhi, the 7th January, 2016
S.O. 162.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
fffffoooooÙÙÙÙÙkkkkk eeeeeaaa==aa===kkkkkyyyyy;;;;;
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980, read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The
¼¼¼¼¼fffffoooooÙÙÙÙÙkkkkkhhhhh;;;;; lllllssoosossookkkkk,,,,,aa a aa fffffoooooHHHHHkkkkkkkkkkxxxxx½½½½½
Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous
ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2015 Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government,
hereby nominates Ms.Mudita Mishra, Director,
dddddkkkkk----- vvvvvkkkkk----- 111116666611111.—jk"VªhÑr cSad ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½ Department of Financial Services, as Government Nominee
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr] Director on the Board of Directors of Indian Bank with
cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vf/kfu;e] immediate effect and until further orders vice
Shri N. Srinivasa Rao.
1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ }kjk
iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] [F. No. 7/2/2012-BO-I]
lqJh fla/kq fiYybZ] mi lfpo] foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx dks Jh oh- VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
,y-oh-,l-,l- lqCck jko ds LFkku ij ;wdks cSad ds funs'kd
ubZ fnYyh] 15 tuojh] 2016
eaMy esa ljdkjh ukferh funs'kd ukfer djrh gS A
dddddkkkkk----- vvvvvkkkkk----- 111116666633333.—jk"VªhÑr cSad ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½
[Qk-l-a 7@2@2012&chvk&s I] Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr]
fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vf/kfu;e]
1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ }kjk
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]
(Department of Financial Services) uhps nh xbZ lkj.kh ds dkye ¼2½ esa fofufnZn"V O;fDr;ksa dks
New Delhi, the 30th December, 2015 mDr lkj.kh ds dkye ¼3½ esa fofufnZ"V O;fDr;ksa ds LFkku ij
dkye ¼1½ esa fofufnZ"V cSadksa esa rRdky izHkko ls vkSj vxys
S. O. 161.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking vkns'kksa rd] ljdkjh ukferh funs'kd ukfer djrh gS %
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
1 2 3
Act, 1970/1980, read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The
Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous
1- flfaMdVs cdSa Jh vkj- ,u- nqcs] Jh fgUnqiqj iznhi
Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government,
vkfFkdZ lykgdkj] jko
hereby nominates Ms.Sindhu Pillai, Deputy Secretary,
foÙkh; los k, a foHkkx
Department of Financial Services, as Government Nominee
Director on the Board of Directors of UCO Bank with
2- nsuk cSad Jh v'kksd dqekj flag] lqJh ,Wuk jk;
immediate effect and until further orders vice
funs'kd] foÙkh; lsok,a
Shri V.LV.S.S.Subba Rao.
foHkkx
[F. No. 7/2/2012-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy. [Qk-l-a 7@2@2012&chvk&s I]
ubZ fnYyh] 7 tuojh] 2016 fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo
dddddkkkkk----- vvvvvkkkkk----- 111116666622222.—jk"VªhÑr cSad ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½ New Delhi, the 15th January, 2016
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr]
S.O. 163.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vf/kfu;e] clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ }kjk Companies (Acquisition and Transffer of Undertakings)
584 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 30, 2016/MAGHA 10, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Act, 1970/1980, read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The JJJJJeeeee vvvvvkkkkkSSSjjSSjjj jjjjjkkkkksssttsstttxxxxxkkkkkjjjjj eeeeeaaa==aa===kkkkkyyyyy;;;;;
Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government, ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2016
hereby nominate the persons specified in column (2) of
the table below as Government Nominee Director of the dddddkkkkk----- vvvvvkkkkk----- 111116666655555.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947
Banks specified in column (1) thereof, in place of the ¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
persons specified in column (3) of the said Table, with ,pMh,Qlh cSad fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
immediate effect and until further orders:-
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa
(1) (2) (3) dUsnhz; ljdkj vknS ;~ kfsxd vf/kdj.k] fnYyh d s ipa kV lna HkZ
la[;k ¼154@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
Syndicate Shri R.N. Dubey, Shri Hindupur
dks 27@01@2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
Bank Economic Advisor, Pradeep Rao
Department of
[la- ,y&12011@31@2012- vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
Financial Services
fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
Dena Bank Shri Ashok Kumar Ms. Anna Roy
Singh, Director
Department of MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
Financial Services
New Delhi, the 27th January, 2016
[F. No. 7/2/2012-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy. S.O. 165.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 154/2012)
ubZ fnYyh] 8 tuojh] 2016
of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,
dddddkkkkk----- vvvvvkkkkk----- 111116666644444.—fu;qfDr laca/kh eaf=eaMyh; lfefr }kjk Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
vuqeksfnr fnukad 11&12&2008 ds fn'kkfunsZ'kksa ds lkFk ifBr between the management of HDFC Bank Ltd. and their
Hkkjrh; fjto Z cdaS vf/kfu;e] 1934 dh /kkjk 8 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ workman, received by the Central Government on
27/01/2016.
ds [kaM ¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh;
ljdkj] ,rn}~ kjk] Mk-W mftrZ vkj- iVys dk sfnukda 11&01&2016 [No. L-12011/31/2012- IR(B-I)]
dks ;k blds i'pkr~ inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ
VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer
dh vof/k d s fy, ;k vxy s vkn's kk asrd] tk s Hkh igy s gk]s Hkkjrh;
fjtoZ cSad ds fMIVh xouZj ds in ij iqufuZ;qDr djrh gS A ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND
[Qk-la- 7@1@2012&chvks&I ¼ikVZ½]
DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL
fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA
COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
ID No.154/2012
New Delhi, the 8th January, 2016
S.O. 164.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Shri Manoj Kumar,
clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Reserve S/o Shri Brahm Singh,
Bank of India Act, 1934 read with guidelines No.18(52)EO/ C/o The Secretary,
08(ACC) dated 11.12.2008, approved by the Appointments General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union,
Committee of the Cabinet, the Central Government hereby I – 441, Karampura,
re-appoints Dr. Urjit R.Patel, as Deputy Governor, Reserve New Delhi-110 015
Bank of lndia for a period of three years w.e.f taking over ...Workman
charge of the post on or after 11.01.2016, or until further Versus
orders, whichever is earlier. 1. The Assistant General Manager,
HDFC Bank Ltd.,
[F. No. 7/1/2012-BO-I (Pt.)]
C-5/32, Safdarjung Development Area,
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy. New Delhi-110 016
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 30] 2016@ek?k 10] 1937 585
2. Manpower Associated Services and Solutions Pvt. pass order of regularization of the workman herein in
Ltd., service.
E 1/22A, 2nd Floor, Opposite Income Tax Office,
Jhandewalan Extension, 3. Claim was demurred by HDFC Bank,
New Delhi-110 055 …Managements Management No.1 pleading that the claim petition is not
maintainable as he was never appointed by the Bank at
A complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial
any point of time. He was neither paid monthly wages nor
Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) was filed by
was he working under the control and supervision of the
Shri Manoj Kumar claiming that an Industrial Dispute was
bank. The complaint is further not maintainable on the
referred by the appropriate Government vide Order No.L-
ground that the controversy involved between the parties
12011/31/2012-IR(B-I) dated 13.08.2012, which was pending
in reference No.L-12011/30/2012-IR(B-1) dated 13.08.2012
adjudication before this Tribunal. During pendency of
is similar to that of the present complaint inasmuch when
the dispute before the Conciliation Officer, his services
the Bank has already taken plea that the workman herein
were terminated by H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. on 26.09.2011 in an
was never in their employment and since the said case is
illegal manner, in violation of provision of Section 33 of
still pending, the complaint is liable to be rejected. The
the Act. It has been projected that an industrial dispute
bank has neither resorted to unfair labour practice nor
was raised before the Conciliation Officer, questioning his
was the contractor a mere name lender or paper agreement.
illegal transfer and on that matter conciliation proceedings
There is no relationship of employer and employee
were initiated. During pendency of those proceedings,
between the bank and the workman herein and the nature
before the Conciliation Officer, his services were terminated
of work performed by the workman herein was not of
in an illegal manner. Considering all these facts, his
perennial nature. The claim is misdirected, ill conceived
complaint was registered as an industrial dispute and the
and against the replying management. No notice of demand
managements were called.
was ever served on the Bank. The workman herein was an
2. The workman herein, Shri Manoj Kumar, in his employee of the contractor who used to provide all
complaint has averred that he was appointed by the Branch statutory benefits to the workman herein.
Manager, Rohini Sector 11 branch of HDFC Bank Ltd. on
18.10.2004 on the post of Field Executive and his last drawn 4. Management No.2, Mass Manpower Associated
wages was Rs.5045.00. Management No.2, Mass Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd., in its written statement,
Manpower Associated Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd., has taken several preliminary objections, i.e. of non-
is a sham contractor engaged by HDFC Bank Ltd., who is espousal, lack of jurisdiction, reference being bad and
conducting unfair labour practice by employing a sham being made in a mechanical manner, demand notice not
and nominal contractor, who are mere name lenders being served etc. It has further been averred that the
engaged for frivolous purposes with a view to defeat workman herein was never terminated by it. In fact, it was
provisions of beneficial labour legislation. Management the workman himself who absented himself from duties
No.1 used to pay Rs. 8077.00 and Rs.1.85 per kilometre as despite issuance of several letters. It has been specifically
conveyance allowance but the contractor paid him only denied that the workman herein joined the services with
Rs.5045.00 as wages and Rs. 1.55 per kilometre as effect from 01.01.2007. In fact the claimant was appointed
conveyance allowance and was deducting Rs.2000.00 per on 03.11.2009 and was under direct supervision and control
month as kickback to be paid to Administration Staff of of the bank. It is also denied that they are sham contractors.
Management No.1. EPF amount was being deducted since They entered into service provider’s agreement with the
the date of joining of the workman herein but the same has bank. The workman herein was being granted all statutory
neither been deposited in EPF office nor has any account benefits such as ESI, EPF, bonus, leave wages etc. The
number been given to them. A complaint was made by the bank is neither the employer of the workman herein, nor is
workman herein to the Assistant Labour Commissioner he a permanent employee nor is his work of permanent
against Management No.2 for non-payment of salary, nature. Contractors have denied that Rs.2000.00 was
forcibly obtaining signatures on blank paper, non-payment deducted from the workman herein every month in the
of minimum wages, non-regularization of his service. name of kick back, or having forcefully obtained signatures
During pendency of the dispute, the workman herein was of the workman herein on blank papers or having paid less
terminated from service without assigning any reason than the minimum wages to them. Finally it has been
whatsoever and without paying service compensation, averred that the workman herein is being marked absent
notice pay and without prior permission of the Assistant in the register and he could still come and join the
Labour Commissioner. Finally, a prayer has been made to management, if he so desires.
586 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 30, 2016/MAGHA 10, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5. Against this factual background, my learned workman, received by the Central Government on 27/01/
predecessor framed the following issues: 2016.
i. Whether the claimant is workman concerned [No. L-12011/31/2012- IR(B-I)]
in Industrial Dispute, which was pending
VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer
before the Conciliation Officer on 05.09.2011?
ii. Whether Mass Manpower Associated Service ANNEXURES
and Solution Pvt. Ltd., violated provisions of
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND
section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL
1947? GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA
iii. Whether claimant is entitled for relief of
COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
reinstatement in service.
ID No. 96/2012
6. Thereafter, matter was listed for evidence of the
claimant but neither the claimant nor any authorized
Shri Manoj Kumar,
representative on his behalf appeared before this Tribunal
S/o Shri Brahm Singh,
despite granting of several opportunities. Thus, it is C/o The Secretary,
apparent that the claimant is no more interested in progress General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union,
of the case on merits. I – 441, Karampura,
New Delhi 110 015
7. Since the workman has neither put in his
...Workman
appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his
Versus
cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal is
1. The Assistant General Manager,
left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute’ award.
HDFC Bank Ltd.,
Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as C-5/32, Safdarjung Development Area,
required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, New Delhi 110 016
1947, for publication.
2. Manpower Associated Services and Solutions Pvt.
Dated : January 11, 2016
Ltd.,
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer E 1/22A, 2nd Floor, Opposite Income Tax Office,
Jhandewalan Extension,
ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2016
New Delhi 110 055 …Managements
dddddkkkkk----- vvvvvkkkkk----- 111116666666666.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947
Brief facts giving rise to the above dispute are
¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
that appropriate Government referred a dispute to this
,pMh,Qlh cSda fyfeVMs d s izc/a krra z d s lca ) fu;kts dk as vkSj
Tribunal for adjudication vide order No.L-12011/31/2012-
muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn
IR(B-I) dated 13.08.2012 with following terms:
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] fnYyh ds iapkV
‘Whether Shri Manoj Kumar (2nd ), S/o Shri Braham
¼lanHkZ la[;k 96@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
Singh working as Field Boy with the management
ljdkj dks 27@01@2016 izkIr gqvk Fkk A of HDFC is a permanent workman of this management
and the management of Mass Manpower Associated
[la- ,y&12011@31@2012&vkbZ vkj ch&¼1½]
Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is sham and
camouflage to deprive the workman his legal rights?
fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
To what relief the workman is entitled?
2. Statement of claim was filed by the workman
New Delhi, the 27th January, 2016
herein, Shri Manoj Kumar, pleading that he was appointed
by the Branch Manager, Safdarjung Enclave branch of
S.O. 166.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
HDFC Bank Ltd. on 01.01.2007 on the post of Field
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Executive and his last drawn wages was Rs.5045.00.
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 96/2012) of
Management No.2, Manpower Associated Services and
the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No.1
Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is a sham contractor engaged by HDFC
Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute Bank Ltd., who is conducting unfair labour practice by
between the management of HDFC Bank Ltd and their employing a sham and nominal contractor, who are mere
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 30] 2016@ek?k 10] 1937 587
name lenders engaged for frivolous purposes with a view workman herein, nor is he a permanent employee nor is his
to defeat provisions of beneficial labour legislation. work of permanent nature. Contractors have denied that
Management No.1 used to pay Rs.8077.00 and Rs.1.85 per Rs.2000.00 was deducted from the workman herein every
kilometre as conveyance allowance but the contractor month in the name of kick back, or having forcefully
paid him only Rs.5045.00 as wages and Rs. 1.55 per kilometre obtained signatures of the workman herein on blank papers
as conveyance allowance and was deducting Rs.2000.00 or having paid less than the minimum wages to them.
per month as kickback to be paid to Administration Staff Finally it has been averred that the workman herein is
of Management No.1. EPF amount was being deducted being marked absent in the register and he could still come
since the date of joining of the workman herein but the and join the management, if he so desires.
same has neither been deposited in EPF office nor has any
5. Against this factual background, my learned
account number been given to them. A complaint was
predecessor, on 30.01.2013, framed the following issues:
made by the workman herein to the Assistant Labour
Commissioner against Management No.2 for non-payment i. Whether the dispute has not acquired
of salary, forcibly obtaining signatures on blank paper, status of industrial dispute for want of
non-payment of minimum wages, non-regularization of his espousal by a union or considerable
service. During pendency of the dispute, the workman number workmen in the establishment
herein was terminated from service without assigning any of the management?
reason whatsoever and without paying service
compensation, notice pay and without prior permission of ii. Whether the claimant is absenting
the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Finally, a prayer has himself from duties with the contractor
been made to pass order of regularization of the workman with effecting from 26.09. 2011? If yes,
herein in service. its effects.
3. Claim was demurred by HDFC Bank, iii. As in terms of reference.
Management No.1 pleading that the claim petition is not
maintainable as he was never appointed by the Bank at
any point of time. He was neither paid monthly wages nor 6. Thereafter, matter was listed for evidence of the
was he working under the control and supervision of the claimant but neither the claimant nor any authorized
bank. The bank has neither resorted to unfair labour representative on his behalf appeared before this Tribunal
practice nor was the contractor a mere name lender or despite granting of several opportunities. Thus, it is
paper agreement. There is no relationship of employer apparent that the claimant is no more interested in progress
and employee between the bank and the workman herein of the case on merits.
and the nature of work performed by the workman herein
7. Since the workman has neither put in his
was not of perennial nature. The claim is misdirected, ill
appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his
conceived and against the replying management. No
cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal is
notice of demand was ever served on the Bank. The
left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute’ award.
workman herein was an employee of the contractor who
Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as
used to provide all statutory benefits to the workman
required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
herein.
1947, for publication.
4. Management No.2, Manpower Associated
Dated : January 11, 2016
Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd., in its written statement,
has taken several preliminary objections, i.e. of non- A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
espousal, lack of jurisdiction, reference being bad and
ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2016
being made in a mechanical manner, demand notice not
being served etc. It has further been averred that the
dddddkkkkk----- vvvvvkkkkk----- 111116666677777-&vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947
workman herein was never terminated by it. In fact, it was
¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
the workman himself who absented himself from duties
despite issuance of several letters. It has been specifically ,pMh,Qlh cSad fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
denied that the workman herein joined the services with muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa
effect from 01.01.2007. In fact the claimant was appointed dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] fnYyh ds iapkV
on 03.11.2009 and was under direct supervision and control
¼lanHkZ la[;k 87@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
of the bank. It is also denied that they are sham
ljdkj dks 27@01@2016 izkIr gqvk Fkk A
contractors. They entered into service provider’s
agreement with the bank. The workman herein was being
[la- ,y-&12011@19@2012- vkbZ vkj ¼ch&1½]
granted all statutory benefits such as ESI, EPF, bonus,
leave wages etc. The bank is neither the employer of the fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
588 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 30, 2016/MAGHA 10, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 27th January, 2016 wages was Rs.5045.00. Management No.2, Mass
Manpower Associated Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,
S.O. 167.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the is a sham contractor engaged by HDFC Bank Ltd., who is
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central conducting unfair labour practice by employing a sham
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 87/2012) of and nominal contractor, who are mere name lenders
engaged for frivolous purposes with a view to defeat
the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,
provisions of beneficial labour legislation. Management
Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
No.1 used to pay Rs.8077.00 and Rs.1.85 per kilometre as
between the management of HDFC Bank Ltd. and their
conveyance allowance but the contractor paid him only
workman, received by the Central Government on Rs.5045.00 as wages and Rs. 1.55 per kilometre as
27/01/2016. conveyance allowance and was deducting Rs.2000.00 per
month as kickback to be paid to Administration Staff of
[No. L-12011/19/2012- IR(B-I)]
Management No.1. DPF amount was being deducted since
VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer the date of joining of the workman herein but the same has
neither been deposited in EPF office nor has any account
ANNEXURE number been given to them. A complaint was made by the
workman herein to the Assistant Labour Commissioner
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND
against Management No.2 for non-payment of salary,
DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL
forcibly obtaining signatures on blank paper, non-payment
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
of minimum wages, non-regularization of his service.
LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA
During pendency of the dispute, the workman herein was
COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
terminated from service without assigning any reason
ID No. 87/2012 whatsoever and without paying service compensation,
notice pay and without prior permission of the Assistant
The President Labour Commissioner. Finally, a prayer has been made to
General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union, pass order of regularization of the workman herein in
I – 441, Karampura, service.
New Delhi-110 015
3. Claim was demurred by HDFC Bank,
...Workman
Management No.1 pleading that the claim petition is not
Versus
maintainable as he was never appointed by the Bank at
1. Mass Manpower Associated Services and
any point of time. He was neither paid monthly wages nor
Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,
was he working under the control and supervision of the
E 1/22A, 2nd Floor, Opposite Income Tax Office,
bank. The workman herein was never in their employment.
Jhandewalan Extension,
The bank has neither resorted to unfair labour practice
New Delhi-110 055
nor was the contractor a mere name lender or paper
agreement. There is no relationship of employer and
2. HDFC Bank Ltd.,
employee between the bank and the workman herein and
C-5/32, Safdarjung Development Area,
the nature of work performed by the workman herein was
New Delhi 110 016
not of perennial nature. The claim is misdirected, ill
... Managements
conceived and against the replying management. No
notice of demand was ever served on the Bank. The
Brief facts giving rise to the above dispute are that
workman herein was an employee of the contractor who
appropriate Government referred a dispute to this Tribunal
used to provide all statutory benefits to the workman
for adjudication vide order No.L-12011/19/2012-IR(B-I)
herein.
dated 19.07.2012 with following terms:
4. Management No.2, Mass Manpower Associated
‘Whether Shri Sonu, S/o Shri Ratte Ram working as
Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd., in its written statement,
Field Boy with the management of HDFC is a permanent
has taken several preliminary objections, i.e. of non-
workman of this management and the management of Mass
espousal, lack of jurisdiction, reference being bad and
Manpower Associated Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,
being made in a mechanical manner, demand notice not
is sham and camouflage to deprive the workman his legal
being served etc. It has further been averred that the
rights? To what relief the workman is entitled?
workman herein was never terminated by it. In fact, it was
2. Statement of claim was filed by the workman the workman himself who absented himself from duties
herein, Shri Sonu, pleading that he was appointed by the despite issuance of several letters. It has been specifically
Branch Manager, Vasant Vihar branch of HDFC Bank Ltd. denied that the workman herein joined the services with
in July 2005 on the post of Field Boy and his last drawn effect from July 2005. In fact, the contractors came into
¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 30] 2016@ek?k 10] 1937 589
existence in October 2008 and the claimant was appointed ,pMh,Qlh cSda fyfeVMs d s izc/a kr=a z d s lca ) fu;kts dk as vkSj
on 01.05.2009 and was under direct supervision and control muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn
of the bank. It is also denied that they are sham contractors.
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] fnYyh ds iapkV
They entered into service provider’s agreement with the
lanHkZ la[;k ¼93@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
bank. The workman herein was being granted all statutory
benefits such as ESI, EPF, bonus, leave wages etc. The ljdkj dks 27@01@2016 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A
bank is neither the employer of the workman herein, nor is
[l-a ,y&12011@28@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼ch-I½]
he a permanent employee nor is his work of permanent
nature. Contractors have denied that Rs.2000.00 was fou; dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
deducted from the workman herein every month in the
name of kick back, or having forcefully obtained signatures
New Delhi, the 27th January, 2016
of the workman herein on blank papers or having paid less
than the minimum wages to them. Finally it has been
S.O. 168.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
averred that the workman herein is being marked absent
in the register and he could still come and join the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
management, if he so desires. Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 93/2012)
of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1,
5. Against this factual background, my Learned
Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
Predecessor, on 18.01.2013, framed the following issues:
between the management of HDFC Bank Ltd., and their
(i) Whether Shri Sonu absented himself from duties
workman, received by the Central Government on
with effect from 05.09.2011, as claimed by
Management No.2? 27/01/2016.
(ii) Whether any dispute arose for want of demand [No. L-12011/28/2012- IR(B-I)]
notice?
VINAY KUMAR, Section Officer
(iii) As in terms of reference.
(iv) Relief ANNEXURE
6. An application for casting of additional issue was IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND
moved by Shri Raj Rishi, A/R for the managements. DOGRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL
Arguments was heard over the matter and the undernoted GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
additional issue was cast by my Learned Predecessor on LABOUR COURT NO.1, KARKARDOOMA
13.02.2013. COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
‘Whether reference is bad for want of espousal by ID No. 93/2012
the union or a considerable number of workmen in the
establishment of the management?’ Shri Mukesh Sharma
S/o Shri Jai Kishan Sharma,
7. Thereafter, matter was listed for evidence of the
C/o The Secretary,
claimant but neither the claimant nor any authorized
I – 441, Karampura,
representative on his behalf appeared before this Tribunal
New Delhi-110 015
despite granting of several opportunities. Thus, it is
...Workman
apparent that the claimant is no more interested in progress
Versus
of the case on merits.
1. The Assistant General Manager,
8. Since the workman has neither put in his
HDFC Bank Ltd.,
appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his
C-5/32, Safdarjung Development Area,
cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal is
New Delhi-110 016
left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute’ award.
2. Manpower Associated Services and Solutions Pvt.
Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as
Ltd.,
required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
E 1/22A, 2nd Floor, Opposite Income Tax Office,
1947, for publication.
Jhandewalan Extension,
Dated : January 12, 2016 New Delhi-110 055
... Managements
A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2016 Brief facts giving rise to the above dispute are that
appropriate Government referred a dispute to this Tribunal
dddddkkkkk----- vvvvvkkkkk----- 111116666688888.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947
for adjudication vide order No.L-12011/28/2012-IR(B-I)
¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
dated 13.08.2012 with following terms:
590 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 30, 2016/MAGHA 10, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
‘Whether Shri Mukesh Sharma, S/o Shri Jai Kishan 4. Management No.2, Mass Manpower Associated
Sharma working as Field Boy with the management Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd., in its written statement,
of HDFC is a permanent workman of this management has taken several preliminary objections, i.e. of non-
and the management of Mass Manpower Associated espousal, lack of jurisdiction, reference being bad and
Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd., is sham and being made in a mechanical manner, demand notice not
camouflage to deprive the workman his legal rights? being served etc. It has further been averred that the
,
To what relief the workman is entitled? workman herein was never terminated by it. In fact, it was
the workman himself who absented himself from duties
2. Statement of claim was filed by the workman
despite issuance of several letters. It has been specifically
herein, Shri Mukesh Sharma, pleading that he was
denied that the workman herein joined the services with
appointed by the Branch Manager, Vasant Kunj branch of
effect from 21.11.2002. In fact the claimant was appointed
HDFC Bank Ltd. on 21.11.2012 on the post of Field Boy
on 01.06.2009 and was under direct supervision and control
and his last drawn wages was Rs.5045.00. Management
of the bank. It is also denied that they are sham
No.2, Mass Manpower Associated Services and Solutions
contractors. They entered into service provider’s
Pvt. Ltd., is a sham contractor engaged by HDFC Bank
agreement with the bank. The workman herein was being
Ltd., who is conducting unfair labour practice by
granted all statutory benefits such as ESI, EPF, bonus,
employing a sham and nominal contractor, who are mere
leave wages etc. The bank is neither the employer of the
name lenders engaged for frivolous purposes with a view
workman herein, nor is he a permanent employee nor is his
to defeat provisions of beneficial labour legislation.
work of permanent nature. Contractors have denied that
Management No.1 used to pay Rs.8077.00 and Rs.1.85 per
Rs.2000.00 was deducted from the workman herein every
kilometre as conveyance allowance but the contractor
month in the name of kick back, or having forcefully
paid him only Rs.5045.00 as wages and Rs. 1.55 per kilometre
obtained signatures of the workman herein on blank papers
as conveyance allowance and was deducting Rs.2000.00
or having paid less than the minimum wages to them.
per month as kickback to be paid to Administration Staff
Finally it has been averred that the workman herein is
of Management No.1. EPF amount was being deducted
being marked absent in the register and he could still come
since the date of joining of the workman herein but the
and join the management, if he so desires.
same has neither been deposited in EPF office nor has any
account number been given to them. A complaint was 5. Against this factual background, my Learned
made by the workman herein to the Assistant Labour Predecessor, on 30.01.2013, framed the following issues:
Commissioner against Management No.2 for non-payment
i. Whether the dispute has not acquired status of
of salary, forcibly obtaining signatures on blank paper,
industrial dispute for want of espousal by a
non-payment of minimum wages, non-regularization of his
union or considerable number workmen in the
service. During pendency of the dispute, the workman
establishment of the management?
herein was terminated from service without assigning any
reason whatsoever and without paying service ii. Whether the claimant is absenting himself from
compensation, notice pay and without prior permission of duties with the contractor with effecting from
the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Finally, a prayer has 26.09. 2011? If yes, its effects.
been made to pass order of regularization of the workman
iii. As in terms of reference.
herein in service.
6. Thereafter, matter was listed for evidence of the
3. Claim was demurred by HDFC Bank, claimant but neither the claimant nor any authorized
Management No.1 pleading that the claim petition is not representative on his behalf appeared before this Tribunal
maintainable as he was never appointed by the Bank at despite granting of several opportunities. Thus, it is
any point of time. He was neither paid monthly wages nor apparent that the claimant is no more interested in progress
was he working under the control and supervision of the of the case on merits.
bank. The bank has neither resorted to unfair labour
7. Since the workman has neither put in his
practice nor was the contractor a mere name lender or
appearance nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his
paper agreement. There is no relationship of employer
cause against the management, as such, this Tribunal is
and employee between the bank and the workman herein
left with no choice, except to pass a ‘No Dispute’ award.
and the nature of work performed by the workman herein
Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as
was not of perennial nature. The claim is misdirected, ill
required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
conceived and against the replying management. No
1947, for publication.
notice of demand was ever served on the Bank. The
workman herein was an employee of the contractor who Dated : January 11, 2016
used to provide all statutory benefits to the workman
herein. A. C. DOGRA, Presiding Officer