This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

(v0 that the Trust will ensure that investments nre as per the modes specified in .sub-section 5 of section 11 .of the Income-tax Act, 1961 before 3.1-3-2001. [Notific.ation No. 2/2001/F. No. 197/Iljy200oJ:FA-I]

&AM/£R ' RHA'hw A, Under Secy.

iH

for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above other wise than in any one or more of the foims or modes specified in sub-section (5) of Section 11;

(jii) this notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts are maintained in respect of such business;

(iv) the asscssee will regularly file its return of income before the Income-tax authority In accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961;

00 that in the event of dissolution, Its surplus and the assets will be given to a charitable organisation with similar objectives.

[Notification No. 3/2001/F. No. 197/11/98-ITA-I] SAMAR BHADRA, Undcj Secy.

New Delhi, the 8th January, 2001

(INCOME TAX)

S.O. 237,-^-In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-clause (,v) of clause (23C) of section 10 of the

fiX**"*^' IP¹***^{01 1961})' the ^ntrrt Government

hereby najifiw the "Maharashtra Gandhi -Smarak Nidhi rune for the purpose of the said sub-clnuso for the

objects for which Jt is established;

01) the t r a mc will not invest or deposit Its funds

StirtafaSfl V?,luniary attributions received id maintained In the form of leweUerv fumim™ ^c)5*6 THB GAZETTE OF I N D^ : FJBBRPARV 10, 2O01/MAGHA 21, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)j New Delhi, the 10th January, 2001

(INCOME TAX)

S.O. 238.-^In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-clause (vi) of clause (23 C) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961). the Central- Uovernmeni hereby notifies the "Padmashri Dr. Vithalrao Vikhe Patil Foundation, Ahmednagar" for the purpose of the said sub- clauso for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2000-2001 subject to tlie following conditions, namely :—

(i) the assessee will apply its Income, or accumulate for application, wholly and exclusively . to the objects for which it is established;

(ii) the assesses will not invest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary, contributions received aod maintained in the form of jewellery, furniture etc.) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above other- wise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of Section 11;

(lii) this notification will not apply in relation to any income being profit* and gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the' attainment of the objectives of the assesjee and. separate books of accounts are maintained in respect of such business;

(iv) the assesses will regularly file its return of income before the Income-tan authority In accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961;

[Notification No. 4/2001/F. No. 197/121/2000-ITA-I] SAMAR BHADRA, Under Secy.

New Delhi,, the 15th January, 2001

(INCOME TAX)

S.O. 239.—In exercise of the powesr conferred by the sub-clause (iv) of clause (23C) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 .of 1961), the Central Government .hereby notifies the "National Institute of Bank Management, Mumbai" for the purpose of the said sub-clause for the assessment years 2000-2001 to 2002-2003 subject to the following conditions, namely :—

(i) the asaessee will apply its income, or accumulate for application, wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established;

(ii) the assesses will not invest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form of jewellery, furniture etc.) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above othei- wise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of Section Jl;

(iii) this notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and jjains of business, uvilew the business 1$ incidental to the attauiment of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts are maintained in respect of such business;

(iv) the assessee will regularly file its return of income before the Income-tax authority in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961;

(v) that in tbe event of dissolution, its surplus and the assets will be given to a charitable organisation with similar objectives.

[Notification fjo. I0/2001/F.-No. '197/7/2000-ITA-I]

SAMAK BHADRA, Undet Secy.

557

Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the central oovermncm hereby notifies the "Koncni Lakshamalh- Education Foundation, Museum Road, Vijawada" for the purpose of the said. lub-clatise for the assessment year* 1999-2000 to 2001-.2002 subject to the following conditions, namely:—

(i) the assessee will apply its income, or accumulate for application, wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established;

(ii) the assessee • will not invest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form of jewellery, furniture etc.) for any period during th* previous year* relevant to the assessment years mentioned above other- wise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of Section 11;

(iii) this notification will not apply !• rotation to nay income beinji profits and gains of business, unless the business ie incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assesiee and separate books of accounts we maintained m respect of such business;

(iv) the assesse? will regularly file its return of income before the Income-tax authority in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961;

(v) that in the event of dissolution of Foundation, its surplus and the assets will be given to a charitable organisation with similar objectives.

[Notification No. 13/2001/F. No. 197/128/200O-1TAU

SAMAR BHADRA, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 16th January, 2001

(INCOME t A X)

SiO, 240.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the jub-chmse (vi) of clause (23 C) of section 10 of the558 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2001/MAGHA 21, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] licenco agreement No. 842-21/93-TM dated 30-11-94 between President of India, acting through Director (TM-I), Department of Telecommunication and M/s. Mobile Telecom Services Limited (F. No. 205/56/ 2000-ITA-II).

(iil) 126 MW Larji Hydro Electric Project and 22.5 MW Ghauvi Hydro Electric Project at Himachal Pradesh of M/s. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, Vidvut Bliawan, Shimla-4 (F. No. 205/137/99- ITA-IJJ.

[Notification No. 11/2001/205/60/2000-ITA-II and others]

KAMLESH C. VARSHNEY, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 16th January, 2001

S.O. 241.—It is notified for general information that enter- prises/industrial undertakings, listed at para (3) below hava been approved by the Central Government for the purposo at Section 10(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2K of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for the assessment years 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004.

2. The approval is subject to the condition that—

(i) (he enterprise/industrial undertaking will conform to and comply with the provisions of Section 10(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962;

(ii) the Central Government shall withdraw this approval

if the enterprise/industrial undertaking:—

(a) ceases to carry on infrastructure facility; or

(b) fails to maintain books of account and¹ set such accounts audited by an accountant as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962; or

(c) fails to furnish the audit report as required by sub- rale (7) of rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, l%2.

3. The en'Lirrprises/indirstrial undertakings approved are—

(i) 3 MW Lodhana Hydro Electric Project in tho district of Barreling, West Bengal by M/s. Nippon Power Ltd., 10A, Jackson Lane, Calcutta-700001 (p. No. 205/60/2000-ITA-II).

(ii) Cellular. Mobile. Telephone Service in Chennai of M/s. RPG Cellular. Services LimiiCd, 5th Floor, Sponsor PJaza, 769, Anna Salaf, Chennai, under the $5<) New Delhi, the 16lh January, 2001

S.O. 242.—-It is notified for general information that enter- prise/industrial uiHlertukinp, listed at para (3) below has been .approved by the Cefitral Government for the purpose of JSection 1Q{2JG> of the Income-tax Act, 1961, rend with rule i2F of Ihe Income-tax Rules, 1962, for the assessment yenrs J2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004.

2. The uppioval is subject to the condiliou t h a t- U) the en'erprise/industrial undeitaking will conform tcv snd comply with Ihe provisions of Section 10(23G) of Ihe Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rub 2E of the Tncome-lax Rides, 15)62;

(ii) the Central Government slitiH vvilhdiaw this approval if the enterprise,/industriul undertaking:—

(a) cases to carry on infrastructure facility; or (b) foils to maintain books of account and fiet such accounts audited by an accountant as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Tncomc-tax Ru!e\ 1962 ; or

(c) fails to furnish Ihe audit report as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2G of the fncomctax Rules, 1962.

1, The enterprise/industrial undertaking approved is—165 MW power project at Ernapuiam, Kerala by M/s. BSES Kerala Power Ltd.. Nagin Mahal (6th Floor), R2 Veer Narirrian Road, Mumbai-400020 (F. No. 205/45/2000-TTA-TP.

|Noiiflcn1ion No. 12/2001 /F. No 205/45/2000-TTA-1I1 KAMLESH C. VARSHNEY, Under StcV.

257 GI/2001—\

New Delhi, the 17th January, 2001

(INCOME-TAX)

S.O. 243.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-clause (vi) of clau?e (23C) of Section 10 of the Income- tax Act, 196J (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby notifies the "South Point School, 16, Mandcville Gardens, t ulcutta." for the purpose of the said sub clause for the assess- ment yciirs 1999-2000 to 2001-2002 subject to the following conditions, namely :—

(i) the assessee will apply its income, or accumulate for application, wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established;

(ii) the assessee will not invest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary contpbutions received and maintained in Ihe l'orm of jewellery, furniture etc.¹) for any period duricrr Ihe previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above otherwiso than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of Section 11 ;

(iii) this notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of business, unless the business k incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts arc maintained in respect of such business.

(>v1 the a^seis^c will regularly file its return of income heforc the Tncome-tax Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

(v) that in the event of dissolution, its surplus and the assets will be given to a charitable organisation with similar objectives.

(vi) wilh condition to convert the investments in specified mode ?s laid down in Section 11 (5) of the Income- tux Act, 1961 by 31-3-2001 as per their undertaking datfd 20-1-2001.

|>rnrifiVntion No. 14/7001 / F. No. 197 /31 /2000-ITA-T1 SAMAR BHADRA, UndVr Secy,300 THE GAZETTF OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 1<>, 2001/MAGHA 21, 1922 [PARI TI—SEC. 3(JI)J New Delhi, the 17tli, January, 2001

(INCOME- TAX)

S.O. 244.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-clause (vi) of clause (23C) of Section 19 of the Income-l'ax Act, 196! (43 of 1961), the Cen- tral Government hereby notifies the "Mother India Educational Society, Mumbai" for the purpose of the said sub-clause for the assessment years 1999-2000 to 2001-2002 subject to the following conditions, namely:—

(i) the assesses will apply its income, or accu- mulate for application, wholly and exclu- sively to the objects for which it is estab- lished ;

(ii) the assessce will not invest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form of jewellery, furniture etc) for any period during die previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above other- wise than in any one o:- more of the forms Or modes specified in sub-section (5) of Section 11 ;

(Hi) this notification wilj not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of busi- ness, unless the business is incidental L

(iv) the assessee will regularly file its return of

income before the Income-tax authority; in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 19

(v) thai! in the event of dissolution, its surplus and the assets will be given to a charitable organisation with similar objective ;

(vi) That all deposits and investments which are not) in accordance with the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Tncome-tax Act, 196! will not; be continued to be so deposited or invesed after 31-3-2001.

[Notification No. 15/2001 / F. No. 197/112/2000- ITA-I] SAMAR BHADRA, Under Secy.

561

(iii) this notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of busi- ness, unless the business is incidental Co the attainment of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts are maintained in respect of such business;

(iv) the assessee will regularly file its return of income before the Income-tax authority in accordance- with tlhc provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ;

(v) tliaC La the event of dissolution, its surplus

and the assets will be given to a charitable organisation with similar objective.

[Notification No. 16/2001/F. No. 197/123/2000- ITA-I1 SAMAR BHADRA, Under Secy.

New Delhi, th© 17th January, 2001

(INCOME TAXJ

S.O. 245.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub^cltuise (vi) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income-fax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Cen- tral Government hereby notifies the "Saint Lawrence Education Society, Mumbai" for the purpose of the said sub-clause for the assessment years 1999-2000 to 20Olr20O2 subject to the following conditions, namely :—

(i) the assessee will apply its income, or accu- mulate for application, wholly and exclu- sively to the objects for which it is estab- lished;

(n) the assessee will not in zest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form of jewellery, furniture etc.) for any period during flie previous years relevant to the assiessment years mentioned above Other- wise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of Section I I;

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2001

(INCOME TAX)

S.O. 240.—In exercise of tile powers conferred by the sub-clause (vi) of clause (23C) trf Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 19ol (43 of 1961), the Cen- tral Government hereby ootiiies the "Liberty Educa- tional Society, Mumbai" for the purpose of the said sub-clause for the assessment years 1999-2000 ro 2001-2002 subject to the following conditions, namely:—

(i) the assessee will ipply its income, or accu- mulate for application, wholly anx¹ exclu- sively to> the objects for which it is estab- lished ;

(li) the Hssessee will not Invest or deposit! its funds (other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form of jewellery, furniture etc.) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above other- wise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-sectjon (5) of Section 11 ;

(iii) this notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of busi- ness, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts are maintained in respect of such business ;

(iv) the assessee will regularly file its return 61 income before Hie Income-tax authority in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ;

New Delhi, the 24lh January, 2001

(INCOME TAX) (v) thai! in the event of dissolution, its surplus and the assets will be given to a charitable organisation with similar objectives.

[Notification No. 17/2001 / F. No. 197/4/2001- ITA-I]

SAMAR BHADRA, Under Secy.

S.O. 247.—In exercise of the powers conierrec by the sub-clause (iv) of clause (23C) of section 1( ot the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Centra Government hereby notifies the "K. D. Malaviy, National Oil Museum, New Delhi" for the purpos of th& said sub-clause for the assessment years 2000 2001 to 2001-2002 subject to the following conditions namely:—

(i) the akssessee will apply its income, or accujmi late for application, wholly and exclusivel to the objects for which is established;

(ii) the assessee will not invest or deposit its fund (other than voluntary contirbutions receive and maintained in the form of jewellery, fui nilurc etc.) iat any period during the pre vious years relevant to the assessment yeai 56J mentioned aibove other wise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of Section 11;

New 0elhi, the 3(Kh January, 2001 (iii) this notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of busi- ness, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of th; ass^^e and separte boots of accounts arc maintained in respect of such business,

(INCOME TAX) (iv) the assesses will regularly file its return of in- come before the income-tax authority in ac- cordance with the provisions of the Income- tax Act, 1961.

(v) that in the event of dissolution its surplus and the assets will be given to a charitable orga- nisation with similar objectives.

S.O. 248.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-clause (iv) of clause (23C) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby notifies the "Sree Ramkrishna Saytananda Ashram, Distt. 24 F'arganas (North), West Bengal" for the purpose of the said sub-clause for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2000-2001 subject to the following conditions, namely :—

[Notification No. 21/2001/F. No. 197/42/20.00- 1TA-T] SAMAR BHADRA, Under Secy,

(i) the assessee will apply its Income, or accumu- late for application, wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established;

(ii) the assessee will not invest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary contributions received nnd maintained in the form of jewellery fur- niture etc.) for any period during the pre- vious years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above other wise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of Section 11.

(iii) this notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of busi- ness, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee and separate boojes of accounts are main- tained in respect of such business.

(iv) the assessee will regularly file its return of income before the income-tax authority in accordance with the provisions of the In- come-tax Act, 1961.

(v) thai in the event of dissolution, is surplus and the assets will be given to a charitable orga- nisation with similar objectives.

[Notification No. 23/2001/F. No. 197/99/2000- iTA-ri

SAMAR BHADRA, Under Secy.

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

NOTIFICATION NO. l|2001 Nagpur, the 29th January, 2001

S.O. 249.—Shri M. R. Chandekar, Superinten- dent, Group B' Central Excise and Customs Nagpur Cominissionc-mtc having attained the age of super- annuation, retired from Government Service in the afternoon of 31st October, 2000.

[F. No. II(7)4|97. Et. I|2012] ARUN TANDON, Addl, Commissioner (P & V)

MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (Banking Division) New Delhi, the 1st February, 2001

S.O. 250.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Sectjon (2) of Section 1 of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (Amendment) Act 2000 (55 of 2000) the Central Government hereby appoints the Ist day of February, 2001, as the date on which the provisions of the said Act come into force.

[F. No. 7(42)|2OO0-AC] SHEKHAR AGARWAL, Jt. Secy.

"565 MINISTRY OF COAL

ORDER

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2001

5. the Government Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the Central Govern- ment for particular areas of the said lands, as and when necessary.

[No, 43015l2i97~LW]PRlW]

SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy.

S.O. 251.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry of Coal Number S.O. 2946 dated the 23rd September, 1999, published in the Gazette of India, Part-Il, Section-3, Sub-Section (ii), dated the 16th October, 1999, issued under Sub-Section (1) of Sec- tion 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), tlif lands and rights, in or over the lands, as described in the Schedule ap- pended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said lands) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under Sub- Section (1) of Section 10 of the said Act;

And whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur (here- inafter referred to as the Government Company) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferr- ed by Sub-Section (1) of Section 11 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the said lands and rights in or over the said lands, so vested shall, with effect from the 16th October, 1999 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, vest m the Government Company, subject to thty fol- lowing terms and conditions, namely :—

CORRIGENDA

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2001 J. the Government Company shall reimburse the Central Government all payment made in respect of compensation, interest, dam- ages and the like, as .determined under the provisions of the taid Act;

S.O. 252.—In the notification of the Govern- ment of India in the Ministry of Coal number S. O. 1704, dated the 13th July, 2000 published at pages 5228 to 5243 of the Gazette of India, Part-II, Sec- tion-3, Sub-Section (,ii), dated the 29th July, 2 0 0 0 ,- (1) at page 5236, in line 7, for "pakiir (part-

I ), read "palair (part-A)";

(2) at page 5240 in the Schedule relating to Mauja Sillingli, ngainsi serial number 1, in column 2, for "Barbta" read "Barabta".

(3) at pag£ 5241,—

(i) in part-A, for the heading "North of River Bansol", read "North of River Bansloi";

2. a tribunal shall be constituted for the pur- pose of determining ihe amounts payable to the Central Government by the, Government Company under condition (1) and all expenditure incurred in connection with any such tribunal and persons appointed to assist the tribunal shall be borne by the Government Com- pany and similarly, all expenditure incurr- ed m respect of all legal proceedings like appeals, etc. for or in connection with the rights, in or over the said land, so vesting shall also be borne by the Government Company;

(ii) in the Boundary Description,—

(a) in the column relating to points, for

letters "D-Y", read "D-E";

3. the Government Company shall indemnfy the Central Government or its officials against any other expenditure that may be necessaiy in connection with any proceed- ings by or against the Central Government or its officials regarding the rights in or over the said lands so vesting;

(b) against point E-F, in lines 1-2, for "Gorpara (22) Bara Basco (23), read "Corpora ( 2 2 ) + B a ra Basco (23);

(4) at page 5242,—

(i) in the Boundary Description, in the 4. the Government Company shall have no power to transfer the lands and rights in or over the said lands so vested to any other person without the previous approval of the Central Government; nnd

column relating to roints,—for "V-A" read "Y-A";

(ii) against the poinis "Y-A" as so amend-

ed,—

(a) for "From V", read "from, Y"; (h) in line 2, for the words "river Bn.s-

doi", read "river Bansloi";

(iii) in PIT¹. R in Boundary Description, against points A-B, in line 2, for " the words "Mavjja barhania (8)", read "Majuu Barhania f l );

(5) at page 5243, in the column relating to

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION points, for letters "R S T WV W", read "R S T U V W".

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2001 [No. 43015|6|99-PRIW]

SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy.

S,O. 253.-—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for hte Official Purposes of the Union) Rule, 1976 the Central Gov- ernment, hereby, notifies the following four subordi- nate offices of the Directorate General of Civil Avia- tion, an Attached Office of Ministry of Civil Avia- tiion , where of, more thar 80% staff have ac- quired the working knowledge of Hindi :—

1. Office of the Director of Airworthiness,

Safadarjung Airport, New Delhi.

2. Office of the Controller of Airworthiness,

BHEL, Haridwar.

3. Office of the Sr. Officer of Airworthiness,

Patiala Airport, PatiaJa.

4. Office of the controller of Airworthiness,

Bangalore Airport, Bangalore.

[No. E-J1011|01|2000-Hindi]

C. B. NARNAULI, Director (OJL) 567

DEPARTMENT OF SPACE

Bangalore, the 24th January, 2001

S.O- 254. -Tn exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 read with Rule 4 of Department of Space Employees, (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1976, the Presi- dent hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Department of Space Employees, (Classi- fication, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1976, namely:—

1. (1) These Rules may be called the Department of Space Employees, (Classification, Control and Appeal) 1st Amendment Rules, 2001.

(2) Trk-y shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

2. In the DcpurtmciH of Space Employees' (Classification ControJ and Appeal) Rules, 1976, under Rule 8 in the First Proviso fur the words "the charge of acceptance", the words "the charge of pos- session of asscssts dis-proportionute to known sources of income or the charge of acceptance" shall be substituted.

[No. 2/5( I )/98-Vj

VANI RAMACHANDRA, Under Secy.

Foot Note : Principle Rules were published vide S.O. No. 270 (E) dated ,1-4.1976 in the Guzctte of India (Extra-ordinary ) Part-U. Section 3 Sub-seotion (ii) datsd 1-4-1976 and have been subsequently amended by :_

S.O.No.

Date

Date

Notfication No.

SI. No.

i

2/10{32)/76-I

12-03-1977 15416-1977

^780 21 27

10-02-1977 6-05-1927

2/KX32V76-I

237 GI/20OI—556S THE GAZETTE OF TND1A : FEBRUARY 10, 2001/MAGHA 21, 1922 [PART I I — S E C. 3(ii)] Noiificat on No.

S.No.

Date S O. No. Date

2/10(27)/76-f 2/7(5)/ 77-1 2/7(5)/77-I 2/9(12)/74-III 9/4(1)/ 80-1II

9/4(1 )/80-IIl 9/4(i)/80-JlI 9/4

2709 585 1780 1178 1684 2586 3299 3300 215

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

01 -OS-1977" I5-0M978 27-05-1978 16-03-1979 26-05-1980 05-09-1980 13-10-1980 13-10-1980 20-12-1980

27-08-1977 25-02-1978 17-06-1978 07-04-1979 21-06-1980 27-09-1980 29-11-1980 29-11-1980 17-01-1981

28-08-1981 16-07-1982 29-07-1985 02-01-1986 02-01-1986 17-03-1986

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

2/8(0/81-1 2/8(l)/8l-l 2/9(1 )/83-l(V) 2/5(l)/85-V 2/9(1 )/83-(lV) 2/5(1 )/86-V

2592 3113 4280 510 511 1309

03-10-1981 04-09-1982 14-09-1985 08-02-1986 08-02-1986 29-03-1986

18. 19. 20.

20-10-1986 01-01-1991 ) 15-11-1991

3874 99 334

15-11-1986 09-02-1991 01-02-1992 21-11-1992 15-04-1995 28-10-1995 20-04-1996 10-01-1998

23-10-1992 24-03-1995 12-10-1995 27-03-1996 23-12-1997 30-06-2000 27-12-2000

2891 1029 2856 1241 83 1763 34

05-08-2000 13-1-2001

2/5(2)/86-V 2/5(1 )/90-Vf 2/5(2)86-V(Vl)(VollH 2/5(1 )/9)-Vl 2/5(1 )/95-V 2/5(1 )/9l-V 2/5(1 )/91-V 2/5/(1 )/95-V 2/5(1 )/98-V 2/5(1 )/98-V

21. 22. 23, 24. 25. 26. 27.

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND

BROADCASTING

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS New Delhi, the 23rd January, 2001

New Delhi, the 9th January, 2001 S.O. 255.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of section 50 of the Wildlife (Protec- tion) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972), the Director Wildlife Preservation hereby authorises the officers of the Delhi Special Police Establishment not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police to exercise the powers under section 50 of the said Act.

[F. No. 2-16|91 WL-I] S. C. SHARMA, Director, Wildlife Preservation £

_ _^ Addl. Director General

S.O. 256.—In exercise of the powers con- ferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Cine- matograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1933, and in continuation of this Ministry's Orders of even number dated the 25th October, 2000, the Central Government is pleased tr- extend the tenure of the members of the Advisory panels of the Central Board of Film Certification at Mumbai, Chennai, Bangalore, Thiruvananthapuram, Calcutta, Cuttack and Guwahati, which were constituted vide this Ministry's orders dated the 9th October, 1998, uptb 31st March, 2001 or until fnithei orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. S0917|2000-F(C)J 569 zyi

T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA • F E B R U A RY 1 0. 2 0 01 M A G HA 2 1. 1 9 22

[ P A KI I I — S EC 3 ( i i )] Ministry ot Petroleum and Natural <^as

New Delhi, the <>th February 2001

s. o. 257,— Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Chennai to Madurai in the State of Tamil Nadu, a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the Chennai - Trichy - Madurai pipeline project on behalf of Petronet CTM Limited;

And, whereas, it appears that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the 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), the Central Government 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 on which the copies of this notification 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 or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri. R. Vajravelu, Competent Authority, Petronet CTM Limited, Chennai-Trichy-Madurai Product Pipeline Project, 4/2, Crawford Colony, Tiruchirapalli - 620 012.

SCHEDULE

Taluk : Virudhachalam

District: Cuddalore

State : Tamil Nadu

Area

Name of the Village

Survey no. Sub-Division no. Hectare

Sq.mtr

Are

1

3

4

5

2

6

No.22 AIVADUQUDI

99 11

0

44

02

0

99 10

05

78

[No.-25011/1/2001 OR II S. CHANDRASEKHAR. Under Secy.

571572 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA^ FEBRUARY 10.2001 MAGRA21, 1022 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 573574 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10. 2001 MAGHA 21. 1922 [PART II—SLC. 3 (ii)l 575" (. _ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10. 2001 MAGHA 21, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 577

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2001

s. 0.258.- Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2085 dated the 20th September 2000 issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (herein after referred to as the said Act), the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transport of petroleum products from Chennai to Madurai via Tiruchirapalli in the State of Tamil Nadu by Petronet CTM Limited.

And whereas, copies of the said notifications were made available to the public on 1st October, 2000;

And whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section (I) of section 6 of the said Act has submitted his report to the Central Government;

And whereas, the Central Government, after considering the said report is satisfied that the said land are required for laying of the pipelines for the transport of petroleum products;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land, specified in the Schedule appended to this notification, is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest from the date of the publication of this declaration, in the Petronet CTM Limited, free from all encumbrances.

257 (il/2001-7578 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2001 MAGHA 21, 1922 |PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)J

SCHEDULE

Taluk : Ponneri

District: Tiruvallur

State : Tamil Nadu

1457

29

0

88 No.144 VALLUR

08

91

1460

1 0

05

2 0

16

1460

18

94

1175

1A 0

,1175

2 0

52

00

36

1175

3 0

01

1B 0

01

1175

30

1175

1C 0

01

20

94

1175

1D 0

00

1E 0. ' 00

83

1175

1175

8 0

00

40

01

1175

17 0

33

02

79

18 0

1175

01

19 0

1175

08

1087

0

02

70

0

1088

37

09

1089

2 0

19

08

1095

2A1 0

06

52

1095

02

22

3 0

1095

40

4 0

00

1095

6 0

82

00

1096

0

45

18

1118

1 0

54

09

2 0

1118

03

15

1119

0

78

30

64

1120

1 0

05

2 0

04

1120

29

0

46

1138

08

2 0

84

1132

15

14

0

40

1131

17

70

3 0

NO.124BUDUR

28

70

16

09

2A4 0 1 ,

3

2

82

81

10

11

81

81

12

78

48

78

47

78

46

78

45

1

78

78

43

78

44

78

36

78

35

78

34

78

33

78

26

83

1

83

3

87

8B

87

8C

87

8D

86

2

86

1

515A

579

5 6

• 4

0

02 16

00 80

0

01 27

0

0

00 73

00 40

0

0

00 70

0

00 65

00 40

0

02 70

0

0

00 80

0

01 70

0

00 40

0

01 20

01 50

0

01 55

o

0

00 56

05 40

0

0

00 40

0

01 50

0

02 10

0

04 50

0

12 60

04 80

0

NO.116SHOLAVARAM

1A

515A

1B

523

1A

512

13B

512

13A

512

11 0

Q6 12

0

01 60

0

00 40

05 04

0

16 33

0

0

0.3 16

No.109 ERUMAIVETTIPA .AYAM(NEW)

96

..1A

-

160

1

166

1

190

190

2

193

-

154

- 0

00 57

0

18 72

0

06 70

09 90

0

08 19

0

0

09 62

0

30 75

No.108 ATTUR

90

3B

90

4 ; ?7 ( il 20IH X

0

01 34

. 03 _ 06

0 ^Ki) THE G A ZE FTE OF INDIA : F F B k U A RY n>. 2001 M A G HA 2 1. !

|PAR-I II—Snr. } (ii)]

District: Ipruvallur

State : Tamil Nadu

TaluK : Ambathur

Name of the Village

Sub-Division no

Survey no

1

2

3

3

72

Area

H seta re

Sqmtr

Are

4"

5

6 0

No.3 PONDESWARAM

2

72

73

5

4

73

73

3

T

73

1

73

71

4

1

76

1

78

77

3

77

2

77

16

77

1A

3

76

2

111

1A

111

1

109

132

1A

132

1B

132

• 2

132

3

4

132

1

134

-

135 '

137

01 78 0

00 40 0

00 85 0

02 90 0

03 63 0

00 99 0

0C 40 0

00 80 0

11 86 0

05 80 0

03 60 0

03 78

0? 74 0

00 • 54 0

0

01 84 0

06 30 0

01 82 0

00 40 0

02 63 0

08 90 0

01 27 0

00 95 0

00 42 0

19 44 0

14 /6 0

06 12 581

District : Kanchipuram

State : Tamil Nadu

Taluk : Sriperumbudur

Area

Hectare

Sq mtr

Sub-Division no

Aie

Survey no

Name ot the Village

4

3

5

1

2

6

0

90

00

145 3

No.115 VADAMANGALAM

0

07

146 2A

56

157 2A1

0

09

75

0

157 2A2

08

48

165 2B

0

95

10

179 1

0

04

05

179 3A

0

05

22

179 3B

0

02

93

179 3C

0

40

01

00

179 3D

0

80

179 3E

0

40

00

178 4

05

0

98

51

178 2

0

02

175 6

0

40

00

178 5A

0

02

89

178 5B

0

02

20

04

219 1

0

94

01

219. 2

0

02

221 5A

0

66

09

00

221 5C1.

0

42

07

221 5B

0

20

0

44

01

221 2A

220 2H

0

02

10

220 21

02

0

07

220 2J

0

10

02

0

220 2G

02

56

District :Tiruchirapalli

State : Tamil Nadu

Taluk : Lalgudi

Area

Sub-Division no

Name of the Village

Survey no.

Hectare Are Sq mtr

4

1

2

3

5

6 No.89 NEIKULAM

450 2

0

15 81

508 2

0

10 21

176 22

0

No.90 PERIYAKURUKKAI

00 40 No,35 REDDIMANGUDI

310 ' 16

0

05 79

10 7

0

08 59 No.26 VALADI

24 2

0

04 685X2 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2001JV1AGHA 21, 1022 _ _ _ j g Ma t j - S ^ J J OJ

State : Tamil Nadu

District :Tiruchirapalli

Taluk : Tiruchirapalli

Area

Sq mtr

Are

Hectare

Sub-Division no

Survey no

Name of the Visage

6

5

4

3

2

1

00 78

0

71 2B

NO.60 KUTTAPPAR

District :Tiruchirapam

state : Tamil Nadu

Taluk : Manapparai

Area

Sq mtr

Are

Hectare

Sub-Division no

Survey no

Name of the Village

4

6

5

3

2

1

No.63 PUDUPATTI (AYAN)

44

0

10

3

27

55

0

06

4

40

88 No.73 PORUVAY (AYAN)

0

01

6

234

Taluk : Kulathur

District :Pudukkottai

No.44 ALANGUDI

1

38

63

0

09

38

3

0

40

00

Taluk :Uthiramerur

No.96 SATHANANJERI

28 1A

0

40

32

28 1B

0

00

40

34 1A2

0

10

62

53 1A

0

09

24

53 2

0

24

03 •

Taluk : Tindivanam

24

4

0

18

36

|No.-31015/39/2000 OR I] S CHANDRASEKHAR, Under Secy.

5 Si

'"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Sreenath Enterprises is not increasnig the rate of daily wages as per settlement to the workers working in their mines and in not regularising the services of tho'e workmen who have put in 240 days of service is justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled ?".

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

New Delhi, the JOth January, 2001

S.O. 259.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribunal. Kota. as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the emp- loyers in relation to the M|s. Srinath Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., and their workmen which was received by the Centra] Government on the 5-1-2001.

[No. L-29011|6|98|IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

257 GT/2001—9584 1HE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2001/MAGHA 21, 1922 [PAIU II— SEC. 3(iijJ New Delhi, the 10th January, 2001

S.O. 260.—In- pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in Ihe Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the management Mineral Exploration Pvt. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on S-1-2001.

[No. L-29011|29|98-IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I

AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT :

Sri Syed Abdullah, B.Sc, B.L., Industrial

Tribunal-I.

Dated : 12th day of December, 2000 Industrial Dispute No. 26 of 1999

BETWEEN:

The President, MEC Employees Union Regd. Office, Plot No. 65, S. B. H. Colony, Mohan Nagar, Kothapeth, Hyderabad-500 035. Petitioner

AND

The Management of Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited, G.S.I. Comple*. B;inc11;isi!!

M/s. P. Gurumurthy and G. Rajesvari, Advo-

cates for the Petitioner.

M|s. P. Nageswara Sree and C. Niranjan Rao,

Advocates for the Respondent.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by its order No. L-2901 l/29/98/IR(M), dt. 4-3-1999 referred the following Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of f?v -n--!-f..-vnon! of Mine- ral Exploration (Vrp<^n:<>:i ?.

Both parties appeared and filed tlieir respective plea- dings.

primarily for detailed mineral exploration through drilling and mining operations and also jobs entrusted by Public Sector Undertakings and Govern- ment Organisation by entering into agree- ments with the Managements who intend to engage the respondent Corporation. The Res- pondent engages workers on the sites and they are wrongly divided into regular and contingent. The con- tingent employees are exploited in so far as service conditions and wages are concerned, there is no dis- tinction between the work carried out by the contin- gent workers and regular workers. The regular work- men are provided with accommodation at sites but the contingent employee are not provided wish it. Furiier the wages arc paid o contingent workers are less, so also denied with allowances to them. The res- pondent had taken up mine construction work in BhoopalpaSH area in Warangal District under an agree- ment with the Singareni Collieries Company Limited. The respondent employed 54 workmen for mine con- struction work. They are paid wages Rs. 20 per day Rs. 10 as underground wages and variable D.A. fixed as on 1-7-1997. They were employed in August, 1997. The wage fixed including the variable deaoiess al- lowance as on the date of appointment remained bet- ween Aujri'st, 1997 and date of riling this claims state- ment. The wages of regular workmen were revised. Further their variable Dearness Allowance is adjusted once in three months depending upon ihe rise in the cost of living index but the said¹ adjustment is no! applied to contingent workmen'. Similarly, in the availment of sick leave, casual leave etc. the work- men employed from August, 1997 were granted only 2 days casual leave instead of 5 days casual leave taking into account the proportionate entitlement during the calendar year. The rules however did not make any provisions for grant of casual leave on proportionate basis and ai workman employed at any time during the year can avail casual leave admissible during the calendar year. The quantum of leave cannot differ from regular workmen and contingent workmen espe- cially in the matter of casual leave since casual leave if not availed during the calendar year lapses and rl! other kinds of kavo do not lr.pise a' fc end of tTie calendar year. The contingent workmen are therefore entitled tb 14 davs casual leave in a calendar year. But thev wpre granted onlv 2 days casual leave during the vear 1997 arid denied 12 more days which they are entitled. Hence they are, entitled fur monetary compen- sation of substituted holilays to the extent of 12 days. V The re?pondent filed counter which is as under : The reference made by the Government of India is beyond the scope add smbit of Section 10(1)(d) of I.D. Act and the Government of India -has no power or jurisdiction to refer the matter for adjudication and therefore the present re- ference is liable ,to be rejected. The temporary or contingent workman will be termi-it**d after completion of explora- tion work or in case of wound up and the regular work- men were called back to the Headquarters for re-deploy- ment. As cer the Certified Standing Orders, the workmen are classified. The certified Standing Orders has further spe-;fica!ly stipulates entitlement of leave with wa"es for each category of the workmen ard the casual leave iQ specifically stipulated m C!air?e 15(TI) of the Certified Standing Orders. The?e casual workmen were engaged in JuIy/AuEUst, 1997 due to exwrncies of wort at the project situate Bhupalpally. As per the Standing Orders they are entiled for grant cf casual leave for 5 days, in a full calendar year provided the workmen were engac-ed throughout the year. However all the casual workmen coveicd under the reference were engaged only in July/August, 1997 and tbey were accor- dingly granted casual leave proportionate to service rendered 2. Briefly stated the claim statement averments are as under :—The respondent-Corporation j" a Govern- ment of India Undertaking functionmp under the direct contro] and supervision of Ministry of A fines, D<*mrf- ment of MJnes. Government of TndJq, NP\" Delhi which was established in 1972. It is undertaking 585

any worker joining in .the middle of the year or later point of time he cannot claim 5. days casual Jevae and the total 5 days casual leaves are to be proportionately cut short de- pending upon the months the workman discharges his duties and since the wo.kmcn-herein were appointed in July/August, 1997 depending on the duration of work in the calendar year they were granted only 2 days casual leave cat of 5 days tor the entire calendar year which is also a •' adopted in ali Governmental and semi-

lisations.

11. Ex. Wl is the standing order in which relevant rule

is clause 15(li) which reads as 'follows :

by them. Further as per standing orders the mini- mum wages are paid. So the casual workmen are not entitled ior full 5 days casual leave for the ytar 1997, i's they were engaged in the middle of the year. In any case the petitioner cannot claim the casual leave as a matter of right and the claim of the petitioner is acordingly liable to be rejected. The issue of providing accommodation has no relevancy at all. The rest of the allegations are denied. The prayer made by the petitioner is not in accordance, with reference made to this Tribunal and the entitlement t-t granting 12 days casual leaves is not the issue referred to this Tribunal and this Tribunal cannot grant relief to them. The claim is devoid of merits and speculative nature. Hence piayed to dismiss the claim petition.

"The empioyecs will be entitled for grant of casual" 4. The point for adjudication is :

leave for 5 days in a calendar year. The ca ual leave will not be combined with any other kind¹ of leave.

"Whether the action of the management of Mineral Ex- ploration Corporation Bhupalapally, in not granting 5 days' causal leave for the year 1997 to the woik- men is justified If not, to what relief the work- men are entitled?"

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Agent. M/s Udaipur Mine- ral Development Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Bhilwara by not giving Gr. Rs. 750-25-1000-30-35-1475 toi S/Shri Dev Karan S/o Shri Uda Gujar and Shri Devkaran S/o Shri Kana Gujar w.e.f. 31-5-1998 is legal and justified ?. If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled ?" New Delhi, the 10th January, 2001

S.O. 261.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government¹ Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment M/s. Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-1-2001.

[No. L-29012/85/99-IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2001

S.O. 262.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara as shown in the Annexure in fhe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management M/s. Golcha Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government! on 5-1-2001.

[No. L-29012/89/99-IR(M)] B. M., DAVID, Under Secy.

6i1

New Delhi, the 10th January, 2001

S.O. 263.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Gov- ernment on 5-1-2001.

[No. L-30011/62/99-lR(M)]

B. M., DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

(IN THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM) (Wednesday, the 22nd day of November, 2000)

PRESENT:

THE SCHEDULE

Sri. D. Mohanarajan, B.Sc, LL.B., Presiding

Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 6/2000 (Central)

BETWEEN

"Whether the action of the-management of M/s Golcha Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Bhilwara in not giving the gredes Rs. 750-25-1000-30-35-1475 to Shri Kalu S/o Shri Bhaguta even after promoting the workman as Dumper Operator w.e.f. 1-11-96 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?''

The Installation Manager, M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Cochin-682014, Ernakulam Tel Tata Road, Ernakulam.

AND

The workman represented by the General Secre- tary, Petroleum, Workers Association, Smafiha Law Chambers, Power House Extension Road, Cochin.

AWARD

The Government of Indi-i as per order No.

L-30011/62/99/IR(M) dated 29-2-2000 referred the following industrial dispute to this court for ad- judication :

"Whether the action of the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. in denying the payment of ad-hoc adjustable advance for 9 months period covering 1-10-98 to 30-6-99 to the workers of Ernakulam and Cochin Terminal who fail- ed to record ttie attendance through Elec- tronic Attendance Recording System is fair and justified? If not, to what relief the employees are entitled ?"

2. Though notice was duly served, the union did not turn up and proceed with the dispute. The man- agement appeared in person and submitted that the dispute has been settled amicably out of court. In the above circumstances, this court is pleased to think that there is no subsisting industrial dispute betweeii (he parties to be resolved.

In the result, the reference is answered holding that there is no subsisting industrial¹ dispute between the parties to be adjudicated upon-

Ernakulam,

22-11-2000.

D. MOHANARAJAN, Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the Chief Manager, IBPL Co. Ltd. Regional Office, SCOPE Complex, New Delhi, in stopping from duty w.e.f. 4-6-98 Shri Nand Lal, Security Guurd engaged through contract for watch and ward of their office building situated at i5, Hansnlay Building, New Delhi, instead of regu- larising his service and not paying him the wages as por their regular employee is justified and legal 7 If not, to what relief and benefits the workman Is entitled 7".

New Delhi, the 10lh January, 2001 '

S.O. 264.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial! Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi as slhown in tiic Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of I.B.P. Co. Ltd. and their workman, which was re- ceived by the Central Government on 5-1-2001.

[No. L-3OOI2/5/99-TR(M)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2001

S.O. 265.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Alunedabad

as shown In the. Annexure in the Industrial Ditpi^tf 5S9 between the employers in relation to the management of ONGC, Mehsana wd th?ir workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-1-2001.

[No. L-30012/24/924R(Misc.)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B, I. KAZl, PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

Reference (ITC) No. 16/

ADJUDICATION

BETWEEN

1. The Regional Director, ONGC,

Western Region. Makarpura Road, Baroda-9.

2. The Group General Manager (Project's).

Oil & Natural Gas Commission. Mehsana Project, New Adm. Building, Palvasna, Mehsana-384 002, . . .First party.

Vs.

The workmen employed under it. . . .Second party.

In the matter of refusal of the claim of Shri G. K. Fandhal for the promotional post of Jr. (P) on selec- tion from the departmental candidates etc.

APPEARANCES:

Shri K. V. Gadhia, Advocate—for the first party^.

Shri A. S. Kapoor, representatives for the

second party,

AWARD

Th© Government of India, Ministry of Labour has referred this industrial dispute by th© Order No. L-30O12/24/92-IR(Misc) dated 1-9-1993 between the above-mentioned partiws for fhe adjudication under Section 10(l)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to this Tribunal. The terms of reference as per the schedule is as under:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of Management of ONGC!

joined the service of the first party on 2-5-1981 as Asstt, Technician (Production) at Mehsana. He was possessing |t|he technical qualification of diploma, in Mechanical Engg.—a higher qualification. As per the rules, 1980, the Asstt, technician (Production) h promoted to the post of Jr. Technician (Production) with six years experience in line, then after to the post of chargeman (Production) with six years ex- perience in trie line and then afiVr Asstt. Engineer (Production) with six years experience in the line and Jr. Engineers are elevated to the post of Asstt. Engi- neer (production) with 4 years service in the line. The promotion is time-bound and as such take place on 1st January every year and the rules arc in ope- ration. The concerned workman lias worked for more than 6 years. On 31-12-87 he was promoted to the post of Jr. Technician (Production) w.e.f. 1-1-1988 as per the agreement witfh the Union. The departmen- tal candidates fulfilling th* requisite qualifications will be given first consideration" in direct recruitment. The departmental candidates arc offered appointment before any outsider and they will be rated higher in the respective seniority list. He has worked from 22-8-88 t,b 12-12-88 on the post of Jr. Engineer (Production). The commission invited applications from the departmental candidates for the post of Jr. Engineer (Production) and the concerned workman applied and was subsequently selected for the post and joined at Hajira project of ONGC on 23-8-88. But he sought his transfer to Mehsana Project and joined his original post of Jr. Technician (Produc- tion) on 13-12-88. He was aligned the duties of shift in-charge of oil well installation and namely they are either Asstt. Engineer (Production) or Jr. Engineer (Production). The first party No, 1 issued a circular No. 10(l)/91-RECTT. dt. April 12, 1991 in- viting applications from the departmental candidates for tfie post of Jr. Engineer (Production). The work- man involved in the present reference applied for the same< since he was possessing fhe requisite quali- fication, for the post and having vast experience in the line vide application dated .1-5-91. The workman submitted an advance copy of first party No. 1 as well as an application to first party No. 1 through party No. 2. The first party Nv>. 2 forwarded the application of the workman with recommendations to first party No. 1 vide their letter No. MHN/Estt./ OBG/HP/90/298 dated 27-5-1991 and he was eagerly waiting for interview, but did not receive any intimation from any quarters. The workman on 29-6-91 came to know that the interview for the post ' of Jr. Engineer (Production) has already over nnd if was conducted bv the Commission at ONGC, Baroda on 19-6-91 and 20-6-91. He also came to know tliat all bis juniors were new entrants in the service of the 'Commission had joined on the post of Asstt. Tech. (Production) in the year 1989 and later 90s and they have not even completed probation period of one year duration and thev hnvc been -interviewed and are likely to be appointed to the post of Jr. Engi- neer (Production). The concerned workman on 29-6-91 made a written representation to fhe Com- mission. Thus th? fiYet party No. 1 was sent an advance cony nnd ?'so rr^de n ra'precentPtion thraiiEh the first parfV No. 2. which contains all the vital information with regard to the interview and submitted that his juniors have been called for the through Regional Director, Baroda and General Manager (Project), Mehsana refus- ing thc claim of Sh. G. K. Pancfoal for the selection to the promotional post of JE(P) from the departmental candidaes by not inti- mating the interview date is justified, legal and proper ? If not, to what relief flie work- man is entitled and from what date and what directions arc necessary in the matter." 2. Notice has been issued to the second party to file the statement of claim., The second party has sub- mitted that the statement¹ of claim as per Ex. 2. Th:: brief facts of the. statement of claim are that Shri G. K. Panchai, member of the second party Union590 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2001/MAGHA 21, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] same interview. He also submitted that he may also be afforded an opportunity to give the interview and called for the same, Iu addition the second party Union also made a written representation to rhe Commission that is the first party No. 1 in person at Baroda on 30-6-91. The workman applied for the post of Jr. Engineer (Production) and advance copy to Hiie first party No. ] was also senr. The first party No. 2 also forwarded (Ihie application of the workman with recommendations to first party No. I vide their letter dated 27-5-91. The workman did not receive any inti- mation for interview. However, on 29-6-91, he came to know that the post oi Jr. Engineer (Production) has already conducted by the Commission at Baroda on 19-6-91 and 20-6-91 and also understood that all his juniors who were though not completed pro- bation period Jiave been interviewed are likely to be appointed to the post of Jr. Engineer (Production). Then immediately on 29-6-91, he made a written representation to the Commission. The Union also re- presented the same and requested for thu review of the decision and consideration of workman for the post of Jr. Engineer (Production). Before concilia- tion, the first party No. 2 submitted thaf the concern- ed workman could not be informed witih regard to interview since the telex message dated 6-6-91 did not! contain the names of the workman. However, at Serial No. 39, the name of concerned workman was there and Serial No. 40 Shri J. V Patel's name was there and he reported for the interview and has been selected and appointed to the post of Jr. Engineer (Production). The first party No 2 though having sufficient time did not inform the concerned work- man whose name was appearing at Sr. No, 39 for the interview. Though the first part/ No. 1 & 2 have well- knit communication system like telephone, wireless, fax etc. Thus, though qualified fnere was n^ reason for his non-selection to thi pnst looking to his ex- perience and if he had beer afforded opportunity to attend the said interview, it was sure that he would be selected for that po^jt. 'Ihirs, the said acijnn of the Commission of nnt culling the workman for the interview is an illegal action and it has caused ir- repairable loss to the workman and nlso caused dis- contentment since his juniors who joined service in the year 1989 and late 1990 were holding the post of Asstt. Technician (Production) nromoted to the post of Assttt, Engineer (Production) w.e.f. 1-1-1996 and the workman will be stagnating on the post of Chargeman (Production). Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal mav k;ndly hold and declare that the action of the Commission in not intimating irp date- of interview to the workman is Tin justified, ille- gal, improper and mala Me and may pass awnrd bv ordering appointment of workman to the post of Jr. Engineer (Production) w.c.f, 17-7-1991 i.e. date when his juniors with only one year service in ftie Commission occupied that position and pass an award by paying all consequential benefits alongwi

Mark 9/2 is the copy of DO letter No. 11(2)/91- Rectt dated 6-1-92. Mark 9/3 is the copy of office order No. 23-l-1998-Estt./120 dated 3/6-12-88. Mark 9/4 is the copy of letter dated 4-3-82 from first party No. 2 to the conciliation officer, Mark 9|5 is the ocpy of office order dated 11-7-91 issued by- tjie first party No. 2 appointing AT(P)'s and AT(F) to the post of Jr. Engineer (P). As there was no objection for the production of document and exhi- bition mark 9/1 to 9/5 are exhibited as Ex, 10 and Ex, 14 accordingly,

4(a) By fix. 17, the second party has submitted farther list of documents 17/1 is the copy of office order No. WR/PROM-BOOSG/97/datt:d 20-3-97.

5. By Ex. 5, application ha--, ^sen given by the second party for the production of certain documents from the first party. The Hon'ble Tribunal has passed the orders as per Ex, 15 on 20-8-97.

6. Hie first* party lias produced a list of documents by Ex. 8. Mark 8/1 is the copy of office order dated 25-4-80. Mark 8/2 is the copy of office order dated 2B-1-1981. Mark 8/3 is the copy of office oftfef dated 6-11-1987. Mark 3/4 is the list of departmen- tal candidates for interview for the post of Jr. Er$i- neer (P) dated 19/20-6-81, mark 8/5 is the copy of telex message. 8/6 is the despatch register of 5-6-91. 8/7 is the copy of page- No. 88 of peon book* 8/8 is the copy of representation made by second party on 29-6-99. 8/9 is the copy of telex message. 8/10 is the copy of letter written by ONGC Union dated 30-6-91. Mark Ex. 11 is the copy of telegram djated 11-7-91. Mark 8/12 is the office order dated 15-7-88. This document was produced by the first 'party as per the demand of the second party. Hence ltj was allowed, to produce. By Ex. 18, the second pprty has submitted the details regarding Item No. 13 ap per the order of the Tribunal.

7. By Ex. 20, th© concerned workman lias cxamin- efi himself and by Ex. 21, Shri Rameshbhai R. Patel was examined as a witness to the second party. By fix. 22, the second party has closed their evidence. By Ex. 23, the first party has closed their evidence.

' 8. Looking to the terms of reference and looking t

(a) Whether the action of the management of ONGC through Regional Director and General Manager, Project, Mehsana refut- ing the claim of Shri G. K. Panchal for the selection to the permotionaj post of JE(P) from the departmental candidates by not intimating the interview date is justi- fied, legal and proper ?

(b) If the action of the first party No. 1 & 2 are not justified, legal and proper, what! relief are entitled by the concerned workman?

(c) What direction should be given to the first party 1 & 2 regarding the relief ?

(d) What final order ?

My answer to the above issues are Rs under, as Ppr the reasons -riven heKnw W GI/2001—10

591 (a) No (b) The workman is entitled to promotion foij the post of Jr. Engineer (Pioduction) from 17-7-91 i.e. tfae date his juniors were occu- pied that post.

(c) A direction be given to the first party No. 1 and 2 that the concerned workman Shri G. K. Panchal should be given deemed promotion from 17-7-1991 and give him all consequential benefit from that date.

(d) As per final order of the Award.

REASONS :

9. If we psrusc the documents produced by the first party as per Ex. 8, it U very clear look into the documents of the list cf departmental candidates for interview for the post of Jr. Engineer (Production) dated 19|20-6-1991, the name of the concerned workman Shri G. K. Panchal is at Sr. No. 39 and i[ was the duty of the first party to give him an inter- view call. However, the first party No. 1 and 2 has committed a mistake and he was not informed of such interview though he was qualified for that inter- view, Thus proper opportunity was not given to the concerned workman for the appearance in the interview. Thus the concerned workman had at the earliest approached the authority to consider his name on 29-6-1991. It is also clear that the con- cerned workman's application was forwarded and it was received by the first party No. 2 to" the first pnrfy No. 1 and Dy, General Manager (P & A) ONGC, Baroda has also¹ gathered the information from ONGC, Mehsana, whether (he concerned workman . was informed or not, vide docu- ment as pei Ex. 815- Not only that the Union has also written regarding this incldeni on 30-6-1991 as per Ex. 10. Earlier Shri Panchal has been given the post of Jr. Engineer (Production) as per the order of the office of the General Manager. Hajira, Surat by their order No. OPS(HHR)!20|12|88 dt. 6-1-93 and he has worked in that post from 22-8-1988 to 12-12-1988. but on account of extreme compassionate ground he sought bis transfer to Mehsans Project of ONGC and joined to his original post of Jr. Technician (Production) at Meh- sana on 13-12-1988. Thus there; is no doubt that the concerned workman is qualified and ha? also previously selected and worked as Jr. .. Engineer (Production). Hence there weie every chance of succesg in the interview if he was called for. Thus the action of the first party No. 2 by not informing the concerned workman for interview was unjust, illegal and improner and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Looking to these facts it is clear that thoueh his name appeared at- Sr. No. 39 iu the interview list he wns not called bv ONGC, Baroda for the post of Jr. Engineer (Production) because the firs' pmty No. 2 has not intimated the interview date to the concerned workman.

10. However, the concerned workman has sub- mitted That on account of malafidc action of the first purtv No. 2, he was not informed with regard to interview for the oost of Jr. Engineer (Production) held at ONGC, Baroda on 19-6-91 and 20-6-1991, but lookine to the evidence it is clear that it wan not a malaflde intention on the part of the first No.

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2001 1 but it was a greet mistake committed by the first party No. 2, which has caused the concerned work- man irreparable loss in the matter of status and sub- sequent promotion. Not only that the action of the first party No. 2 has also caused discontentment since his juniors who joined the service of the Commission in the year 1989 were holding the post of Asstt. Tech- nician (Production)—a lower post than that of Jr. Tech

S.O. 266-—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act( 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Goenunent In- dustrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Pon and their workman, -which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 15-1-2001.

[No. L-40012/48/2000-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI.VERMA. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BBFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CpM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Thursday, the 21st December. 2000

PRESENT:

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 31/2000

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under Section lO(lXd) an.d Sub-section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. (947 between the Workman nnd the Management of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Karaikudi Division.l t l. In the written statement the first party has admitted that the "General Manager (P & A), Baroda has promised thai the caso of Shri O. K. Panchal will be considered aeainst the post of JE(M) or JE(C & M) as there is no vacant post exist in the case of JE(P) at present. The concerned workman bxs no fault on his part and it was the fault of the first party and Ihe concerned workman should not suffer for the mistake on the part of the first party and equity lies in favour of the concerned workman. ThuS it is necessary to rectify the mistake committed by the first party. However, it is necessary to recti- fy the mistake as it has caused irreparable loss to the concerned workman. Thus it is necessary that the concerned workman should be deemed as promoted to th* nost of )E(P) because the intimation was not ifiven bv 'h" first narty to him. Looking to the above proposition I hereby pass the following order.

BETWEEN

ORDER

Shri C. Chokanathan. Claimant/I Party.

AND

The Superintendent of Port Office*. Karmil.'udi Division. Management/Et Party.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman: M/s. S. Jothivani, O. Jothi, R. Bala-

euriuamy, Advocates.

For the Management: Shri M. Venkateswaran, Addl.

Central Government Standing Counsel.

The reference is allowed. The first party No. 1 "nd first r>arty No. 2 are hereby directed that the concerned workman Shr G. K. Panchal should be i7,ivi*.n deemed promotion from the date when Shri J. V. Patel, his junior was promoted to the post of 1r. Ena'neer (Production) and he should be given nil conscauenHRl benefits attached to that post from thni date. The first pnrty should implement this ••wrd w'tirn 60 days from the date of publication of *he Award.

REFERENCE:

No: L-4O012/48/2000/tR(DU) dated 07-07 2000, Gov- ernment of India, Ministry of Lnbour, New Delhi.

Th- firt nartv No. 1 and 2 are also hereby direct- ed to pay Rs 1,000 to the concerned workman to- wnrds cost of this reference.

Ahrftedabad,

IStfii March, 2000.

B. I, KAZI, PwUding Officer

This dispute on coming up before me for final hearin< on 24-11-2000, upou perusing the reference, claim statement, counter rtntement and other material papers on record, ihe documentary ev'dence let in on cither side and upon hearing the argnmens of the counsel for the workman. Shri R, Bait- jninramv and Shri M. Venkateswaran, Addl. Central Govern- ment Standing Counsel Tor the Management und this dispute having *ood over till this dat" for connlderrlon thli tribunal pawed the following;

m AWARD

• This reference by Central Government in the exercise d

the powers coal erred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and

Subsection 2(AJ of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 in respect of dispute between Shri C. Chokanalban,

Workman and the Superintendent of Pott Offices, Karaikudi

Diviwon, mentioned as Schedule appended to the order of

reference.

The Schedule read* aa follow*:—

"Whether the action of the management of Adhoc Dis-

ciplinary Authority and Assistant Supdt. of Post

Offices, Madurai City, North Sub-Division, Madurai

in remoing Shri C, Chokanthan from services is

justified 7 If not, to what relief the concerned work-

man entitled 7"

On receipt of thin reference, thi" industrial dispute has been

taken on fije of this Trlunal on 27-07-2000 a" Industrial Dis-

pute No. 31/2000. On receipt of thd notice from this Tri-

bunal, both the parties appeared with their respective counsel

and filed their retpectlv; claim statement and counter

statement.

2. The averments'of the claim stitement of the Workman/I

Party are briefly a* follows :—

to yfolution of article 311(2) of the constitution of India. The

Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Respondent. The

Respondent instead of cancelling the order of punishment of

removal from service passed by the disciplinary; authority

imposed the punishment of dismissal from service by his order

dated 30-03-1988. Aggrieved by that order?, the Petitioner

preferred a review petition before the Director of Postal Ser-

vices, Madurai Region oq 29-05-1998. The said authority

quathed the order of dismissal from service issued by the

appellate authority at without jurisdiction under bis order dt.

11-07*1998 and remitted the case to. the adhoc disciplinary

authority to consider the case afresh from the stage of fina*

I bat ion of the cases by the disciplinary authority, the sub-

master, Singampunori SO after the receipt of reports from

the enquiry officer. The Postmaster General, Madurai Region

appointed the AnsL Supdt. of Post Offices, Madurai City.

North Sub-Divition as an adhoc disciplinary authority to deal

the case of the Petitioner. After considering the report of the

enquiry officer, the said adhoc disciplinary authority by hit

ordor dated 12 09-1988 Imposed the punishment of removal

from service. The adhoc disciplinary authority has not fur-

Dished tho copv of the enquiry officer to the Petitioner to

submit his explanation. . The Petitioner preferred an appeal

before the Respondent dated 09-12-1998. But the Respondent

rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of removal froa

wivice paKed by the adhoc disciplinary authfity. That order,

is dated 16th December, 1988. Aggrieved by th"t older,

the Petitioner preferred an application before the Honourable

Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O'.A. No. 946/

1980. The Honourable Tribunal by its order dated 06-03-1991

waa, pleased to allow the application by netting aside the order

of the Respondent dated 16-12-199JJ and remitted the matter

back to the adhoc disciplinary authority for fresh disposal

according tp law. Then the appellate authority Supdt. of Post

Offices, Kuraikudi Division by his order dated 05^7-1991

rejected the appeal confirming the penalty of removal from

service imposed by the ndhoc disciplinary authority. These

orders of the authority are illegal, arbitrary and in violation

of principle of natural justice. TBey art also in violation of

article 311(2) of the Constitution of Indifc" 'When the charge

against the Petitioner that be had forged the signatures Of th*

payees in tbe> MO payee vouchers and misappropriated th*

MQ'amoinm Rs. 100 and Rs. 500. The enquiry authority

ought to have send the signature* for vertLflcatlon to expert

evidence. The disciplinary authority placed his relianc* on

any unimpeachable evidence like handwriting trnd fjngerpjjnt

experts evidence. During the enquiry, material .evidence, to

prove the, charge* has' not been placed before the enquiry

officer. The prosecution witnesses deposed against the pro"t"

cution ca'e were not croys examined by the presenting officer.

The charges levelled against the Petitioner were held as proved

only on cpnjuctiire arid surmjses wd. not on any material

evidence. A free and fair enquiry was not conducted by the

enquiry officer. During the enquiry tlie petitioner called fo*

some additional documents to prove his innocence but be was

not permitted to have access to the documents stating that

the disciplinary authority, the Sub*Post Muster, Sragamponsri

SO has denied the supply Of documents stating administrative

reasons. While placing a person under economic "s well as

Civil death, the case against him has to be proved beyond

doubt and based on authenticated material. Imposing the

major puni'menl of dismissal from service on the pretext of

preponderance of probabilities is without application of mind

and in violation of the principles of natural justice. In view

of the denial for having access to the additional document*

called by the Petitioner, he has been himpored wfth to

contest the case against him effectively and to put forth bis

defence effectively. The Petitioner preferred i review petition

before the Po"t Master General, Madurai Region and th*

same wai also rejected by him, by his Order dated 19-0&1992.

Aggrived by that orders, the Petitioner raised an Industrial

Dispute before the Regional Labpm; Commissioner, Chennai

for conciliation. Due to the failure of conciliation, the Minis-

try of Labour had made a reference of the Dispute of the

Petitioner to this Honourable Tribunal for adjudication. Henct

this Honourable Tribunal may be pleased pass an award,

setting aside the order of the removal from service and thereby

ordering for reinstatement with sJl attendant service and

monetary benefits to the Petitioner.

The first parry /workman (hereinafter mentioned as the

Petitioner) was appointed as extra departmental delivery agent/

mail carrier ot Kandamangalamapalti BO from 1973 to 1976.

Subsequently he was appointed as extra departmental, delivery

agent at Singampuneri SO, Karaikudi South Subdivision by

the Asstt. Supdt. of Post Offices, Karaikudi Sub-Division. The

Petitioner had rendered his services to the entire satisfaction

of the superiors without any blemish. Disciplinary proceed-

ing) were initiated afiainst the Petitioner and he was placed

under put off duty by "n order dated 11-09-1986 by the

Sub-Postmaster, Singampuneri SO. The Petitioner was issued

With a memo of charges dated 29-12-1986 by the Sub-Port-

master, Sinfianipunerl SO. The charges alleged against the

Petitioner are thnt. while he was working as EDDA1, Singam-

puntri was entrusted the payment of MO No. 1335 dated

18-08-1986 of Thambaram Sanitarium for R". 100 and MO

No. 1615 dated 25-08-1986 of R. S. Puram east for Ri. 500.

Though the Petitioner returned these MP payee vouchers a*

paid on 19-08-1986 and 26-08-1986 respectively, he did not

effected payments to the payees on the said dates. Further

when the Petitioner was working as EDDA1, Singampunori

returned the MO No. 1335 dt. 18-08-198* of Thambanun

Sanitorium for Rs, 100 and MO No. 1615 dt. 25-08-1986 of

R, S. Puram east for Rs. 500 as paid on 19-08-1986 and

26-08-1986 respectively but he did not ebtaln the payees signa-

ture namely S. Ayyavoo and Smt. Ranjitham to whom the

MO should be paid and he himself fixed payees signatures

in those (aid money orders, and that, while tho Petitioner

was working a EDDA1, Singampuneri, did not effect payment

of money orders No. 1335 dated 18-08-1986 for Rs, 100 and

MO No. 1615 dated 25-08-1986 for Rs. 500 of R. S. Puram

east In the presence of witnesses which are to be paid at

Mallikaraipatti, Singampnneri. The Petitioner denied the

entrees and the Sub-Postmaster, Singampuneri SO, the ap-

pointing and disciplinary authority appointed an enquiry offi-

cer and presenting officer by his order dated 04-02-1987. Dur-

ing the prillminary enquiry the petitioner denied the charges

on 05-06-1987. The Petitioner nominated a defence asstt.

to assist him during the enquiry. During the enquiry on

21-08-1987, the Petitioner called for some additional docu-

ments to prove hit case. During the enquiry conducted fan

24-09-1987, the two prosecution witnesses deposed against the

prosecution. The enquiry officer refused accets to the addi-

tional documents called by the Petitioner stating that the

disciplinary authority, the Sub-Postmaster, Singampuneri re-

lused to give these additional documents called for on the

ground of administrative reasons. During the further hearing

on 05-10-87, the enquiry officer questioned the Petitioner or*

the circumstances appearing against him. The Presenting

Officer submitted hb brief on 22-11-1987. The enquiry offi-

cer submitted his report on 31-12-87. The Sub-Postmaster.

Singtmpuneri SO imposed the pimisfantent of removal from

service by his order dated 25-01-1988. Before imposing that

punishment the disciplinary authority has not furnished" a copy

of enquiry report to the Petition* and called for Ms expla-

nation. The usld act of the dhofplmsry authority wflj amount

?. The second party has filed th" counter statement. Tfre

averments in th* counter statement are briefly at follows:—.

Tfe"Jl Ksrty itonagement (herdnatfer mentioned u tin

Ktspondent) admit* that the Petition* Shri C. Codkinathtn

bo* worked M tb" extra deptitmem*] cWivwy spe* "t

Offices, Madurai City, North Sub Division, Madurai in removing Shri C. Choranathan from service* is notified? If not, iy what relief the concerned workman cntitlod?"

POINT:

Tiie Sauted counsel for tho Respowient naw pot forth an inii.al rrpnment stating that ihi" Tribunal may not have jurisdiction ic adjudicate this dispute ir> view of the fact that me f oscai Depti. cunnot be considered to be an industry unilor Section 20) oi the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and the pro- visions of Section 25 (i) of thit Act cannot bo invoked. For •his nrgument the learned coum-l loi the Respondent ha" re^ lied upon iho aeci.ion oi tne Supreme court in Civil Appeal No. 3385-b6 of 1996 arising out of SLP(C) No. 5H7-88 of 1W2 known as iijeyyam joscpsh's ca.se (1990) 8 SCC 489 and the decision of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 110W of 1988. In both these cases, the Honourable S ip LnK Court as well the Honourable High Court of Madias has held that the Postal Deptt, is not an industry as per the Industrial Disputes Act. He has also relied upon another rn., oment of Supreme Court reported as 1998 Sup- reme Court cases (LAS) 1535 in C'vil appeal No. 6682 of 1997 decided on 26-9-1997 fo'jow.Vg the decision Of the Supreme Coirt in (1996) 8 SCC 489 Theyyam Joseph's case, holding that Post Office is not an hdustry under Section 2(j) o( L r. iixiii Disputes Act. A:) ilxre decisions of the Sup- reme Court BE well as the M;*;J Court were overruled by the Supreme Court by its judgment reported as AIR 1988 Supreme Court 656. In that jMilfitnifn'! dated 18-11-1997, the Honorable Supreme Court wis pknped to hold that the decision in Theyyam Joseph (1996) 8 SCC 489 and Bom- bay Ti'Iephtw Canteen Erap'oyuci Association, AIR 1997 SC 13317 cannot be treated as 'aying down the correct Jaw. Under tnch circumstances, tho an^uments advanced by the learned counsel of the Respondent that Postal Deptt, canno' be considered as an industry under Section 2(j) of the In- dustrial Dispute? Act, is an incorrect one, any can not be accepted.

Smgarnpuneri Post Office during 19S6- He was not a regular employee of the department ot posts, but was an extia de- paruutntal agent governed by rust and Telegraphs dixtra Depth tmenUl Agents (conduct and service) rules, iy64. The Pontioner was placed under oif duty by the Sub Kwt Master, Singampunen wiih effect from li-9-1986 under the provi- •ions of rule' 9 ot V&T ED Agcgats (conduct and service) ruits, ia"4 wntii; ne wan wording as H U J J A, iwnijainpunen. Ho was aiso issued with memo of charges as s^aicd in the claim statement. The departmental enquiry was ordered and corducted in accordance with the: rules. An enquiry officer to enquire him to the charges and the presenting officer were uppointed on 4-2-iyK7. During the enquiry tne Petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself. He was also f-rmuied to appoint a defence assistant to defend the charges levelled against him on his behalf. Accordingly, he had defended the case with the assistance of the defence assistance of his choice. The enquiry oflicer in his report daied 31-12-87 had declared that all the charges mentioned in the memo of charges dated 29-12-1986 stood proved on preponderance and probabilities. The Sub Post Master, Singampuneri had order- ed the removal of the Petitioner from service. On appeal by the Petitioner, the said order was set aside by the Supdt. of Post Offices, Karaikudi Division with the direction to for- ward the entrie case to the appropriate authority. The Supdt. 'of Host Offices, Karaikudi Division issued a memo dated 30-3-1988, but on , consideration of appeal from the Pcli- tfcmcr, the said order was set aside by the Director of Postal Services, Tamilnadu Circle by his order aated 11-7-19S8 wita ,th" direction tp remit the case to the disciplinary authoirty to conduct donovo proceedings from the stage of finalisation of the case by the appointing authority after receipt of report from the enquiry officer and to submit tho proposal ot np- po.ntracnt oi udhoc disciplinary authority. Jin view of the action taken by the appellate authority and the Addl. PMU, Tamilnadu Circle on the disputed ordors, the allegation of in position of two punishments stated in Para 7 of tho claim .ya:emeni is baseless and deserves no merit. The Asst. Supdt. of Posi Offices, Madurai City, North Division was appointed as adhoc disciplinary authority. The said adhoc disciplinary authority in his memo dated 12-9-1988 ordered removal of the Petitioner front service. The said memo along with tho "copy of the enquiry report was delivered to the Petitioner. The Petitioner preferred an appeal and tha same was rejected confirming the order of removal from service passed by the adhoc disciplinary authority, lhe application filed by the Petitioner before the honourable Central Administrative Tri- bunal in OA No. 946 ot 89. the honourablo Tribunal was Teased to remit the matter back to ihe Supdt. of Post Offices the Respondent herein for fresh disposal of the appeal of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Respondent considered the appeal of the Petitioner afresh and rejected tho same stating that the Petitioner was proved to have committed an act of lack of integrity. Then the Petitioner submitted a petition to the Post Master General, Southern Region, Tamilnadu Circle, Madurai on 19-2-1992. Thtf smnc was rejected by the said authority on 9-6-1092. A disciplinary case of the Govt, ser- vant is not ft criminal case and the standard of proof re- ODired in with cases is that a preponderance of probability. "The Deptt, of Post is not nn industry and its employees arc not workmen under the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act in 1947. This view has been taken by the Supreme Court in civil appeal No. 3385-86 of 1996 arising out of SLP(C) ,Ni W - 88 of 1992. The Petitioner was given ample oppor- tunities during the departmental enquiries. The Petitioner was remevad from service only after meticulously following the procedures prescribed In the P&T Extra Departments (con duct and service) rules, 1964 as his service conditions wem g^ver 1 by such rules only. The Petitioner ha* availed all iLe opppAunitieslchannels for submission of appeals and peti- tions i> eluding Centrnl Administrative Tribunal which were •carefully considered and rejected *iv the competent authority. In view of these facts, it is vrnve.j that this honourable Tri- bunal may be pleased to dismiss this dispute with cost.

4. vviien th* matter was taken tp for enquiry the counsel on either ^d6 represent that they have no oral evidence to let in. Cnc document on the side of the Petitioner and ten 4ocurr*et)tn ^n the side of tha Respondent were marked by consent as Exhibits Wl and Ml to M10 respectively. On closure

-$. The Point few my consMutWon k:-^-

"ty brther' th" action of the management of Adhoc Dis-

6. It is admitted that the Petitioner Sh. C. ChokanathaW was appointed as an Extra Departmental Delivery Agent/ M.iil Carrier at Kandamangalampatti BO and subsequently he was appointed as EDDA at Singampuneri Post Office during 1986. It is not disputed that the Petitioner was governed by Post & Telegraphs lixtra Departmental Agents (Conduct & Servico) Rules J964. It is nlso admitted that on the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Peti- tioner he was placed under put off duty by an order dt. 11-09-86, Tho xerox copy of tho same is Ex. Wl. For the misconduct of the Petitioner, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Sub-Po'tmaster, Singampuneri and the copv of the memo dt. 29-12-86 with the articles of charges and the list of documents was issued to the Petitioner is Ex. Ml, Ex. M2 is the xerox copy of the Enquiry Report dt, 31 12-87 submitted by the Enquiry Officer. In that report, he has given the finding that '.the charges said in the articles I, If and III stand proved on preponderance of probnbilities. Jt is thi: contention of the Petitioner, that the disciplinary authority, appointed an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer and during the preliminary enquiry, he denied th© charges. Ho had the assistance of nominated defence assis- tance during the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer on the circumstances appearing against him as stated in the charges questioned him and he denied those charges. It is his grievance that a free and fair enquiry was rjot conducted and th* Petitioner was not permitted to have access to the additional documents he called for during the enquiry to prove his innocence and he was denied the supply of the said docu- ments stating the administrative reasons. It h his further contention that on the basis of the Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority Imposed a major punishment of removal from service without furnishing the .copy of the Enquiry Report and affording an opportunity to put forth his representation and that the disciplinary nuthprity has not placed his reliance on any unimprachabl'- evidence. Further tho disciplinary authority had inipoieO the mnipr punishment on the pretext of nrepondwance of probability without application of mind and It fa a violation of the principles of natural Justice, Hwcc the acfiiin of tho dlsctDlinajy authority is Mega] and arbitrary. The. ar/m^l and revision Were also dismissed by tho unthoritv without *pplying their mind. Ex. M2 is the copy of the Enquiry Report The perusal of the game along with the xerox copv of the document pertaining to this enquiry as petitioner's ciplinary Authority and Assistant Supdt. of Poof 595

Under such circumstances it can not be held that the punish- ment impoied by the adhoc deciplinary authority and Asst Supdt. of Port Offices, Madurai City, North Sub Division, Madurai in removing Sh. C. Chockanathan from service is not proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and ex- cessive and they have done so vindictively. So it can be held that it is a justified action and hence the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief. Thus I answer the point accordingly.

9. In die result an award¹ Is passed holding that this I Party/ Workman Sh. C. Chokanathan is not entitled to any relief, since the action of the Management/II Party taken against him in removing from service is justifiable. No coat.

Dictated to the Typist, typed by her direct, corrected and pronounced by me In open court on this day the 2lit December, 2000.

K. KARTHtkEYAN, Presiding Officer

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

On either aide : None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED :

FOR CLAIMANT:

Ex. Wl 11-09-86 : Xerox copy of the put-off duty order.

New Ddjii, the 15th January, 2CK>i S.O. 267.—In pursuance of Section 17 of tho In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), th* Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 4, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the management of MJs. BCC Ltd., and their workman, which was re- ceived by the Central Government on 29-12-2000.

[No. L-20O12|56|93-IR(C-I)] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, DHANBAD No. Ref. 141|94|Datcd, the 21st December, 2000.

Subject : Award passed in Reference No. 141 of 1994 dated the 7th November, 2000— Employers in relation to the management of Kuya Colliery of M!". BCCL and their workman—Ministry's Order No. L-20012- (56)|93-IR(Coal-I) Dt. 30-5-94.

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2001

S.O. 268.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publish^ the award of tho Central Government in- dustrial Tirbunal No. l, Dhanbad aa shown in the Annexure in th* Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd. and their workman, which was received¹ by the Central Government on 9-1-2001.

[No. L-20Q12/(271)/69-IR(C-I)]

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, DHANBAD

In the mater of a reference under Section 10(l)(dX2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Reference No. 50 of 1991

PARTIES: i

Employe™ in relation to the management of Rajhara Colliery of M/i. C. C- Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT :

Shri Sarju Praiad, Prodding Officer.

3

4 APPEARANCES :

2

For tho Employers: Shri B, Joshi, Advocate. For the Sponsoring Union No. 1 : Shri D. Mukherjee, Advocate.

For the Spomoring Union No. 2: Shri R. N. Ganguly, Advocate.

For tho Workmen : Shri S- Bose.

STATli : Jharkhand.

INDUSTRY : Coal.

Dated, tho 22nd December, 2000

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012(271)/89-IR(Coal-l) dated the 29th ™pril, 1991 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to thi* Tribunal;

"Whether the demand that Shri Jirwa Nonlain and 287 other Casual Wagon Loaders indicated in the Anne- xure be regularised in the service of the management "f Rajhara Area of Central Coalfields Limited U justified ? If so, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled and from what date ?"

2. The brief facts; giving rise to this industrial dispute ii that the concerned persons ai per list annexed! to the reference order are the casual wagon loaders at Rajhara Colliery. The loading of coal in wagons/trucks has been prohibited to be done by contract labourers. Prior to 1983 all the concerned persona were working under the Contractor, Surat Pandey in the job of wagon/truck loading right from the time when colliory wai under the private management. Thto colHery wai nationalised with effect from 1-5-1973 under Non-Coktag Coal Mine* (Nationali"ation) Act, 1973 but the concened persons were not TCguItrited trader the employment of $91

FINDINGS M/s. C.C. Ltd. after nationalisation of the said coal mine al- though they were working wider the contractor prior to nation- alisation. Subsequently, loading of coal has been declared a prohibited job prohibiting employment of contract labour in the year 1975 under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Yet they were working as wagon load- ers under a private contractor. There was agitation and an industrial dispute was rnised by the trade unions before the A.L.C.(C), Hazaribagh and there was a settlement cm 13-8-1983 in which it was agreed that all the 311 wagon loaders for whose reauluJisation the dispute was raised will be taken on th" roll of the company with effect from 1-9-1983 as casual wagon loaders. A* Der that agreement the concernfcd persons have been enrolled as carnal wagon loaders. According to the sponsoring union although the work is of permanent nature and each and every concerned perfons have put in' more than 240 days attendance in a calendar year, but they are being treated¹ as casual wagon loaders and thereby they are not being piovided as all the benefits of permanent work- men of the company, They are denied! many benefits which a permunent workman is entitled to. According to the sponsoring union, the concerned persons are working since 1-9-1983 as casual wagon loaders in the roll of the company, but they have not been regulsrised as permanent workmen in spite of the fact that the work of wagon loading is a per- manent nature of Job.

3. The dispute was again raised for regularisation of the concerned workmen as permanent workmen which ended in failure, but the appropriate Government was pleased to not refer the dispute for adjudication. Thereafter, writ'petition. was filed by the sponsoring union and as per order of the Hon'blc High Court the present dispute has been referred to this Tribunal.

AWARD

That all the concerned persons except those who have since died or have superannuated due to attaining the age of 60 years be regularised as permanent workmen with effect from 29-4-1991 wflborrt back wage? within 30 days from the date of publication of the award failing which the concerned work- men shall be entitled for claiming wages Of piece-rated work- men of appropriate category from the date of award. They shall also he entitled for continuity of service for the purpose of calculation ol gratuity and other benefits.

SARJU PRASAD. Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 15th January, 2001 S.O. 269.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad as ihown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/". B.C.C. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 9-1-2001.

[No. L-20O12/(377)/91-TR(C-I)] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference under section 10(l)(d)f2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Reference No. 28 of 1992

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of Loyabad Coke Plant of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen.

PRUSF.NT:

Shri Sarju Prasad, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers: Shri B. Jodii, Advocate. For the Workmen : Shri D. Mukherjee, Secretary, Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union.

STATE : Jharkhand

INDUSTRY : Coal Dated, the 26th December, 2000

AWARD

By Ord-v No. L-20O12(377)/91-I.R. (Coal-T) datrd the 26th March. 1992 the Central Government in Ihe Ministrv of Lnlxiur has. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause fd) of ™b-*ectioH (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dhoutca Act. 1947. referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

"Whether the demand of the Bihar Colliery K"mmr Union for regularisation of Shri Sunder Dujadh and 26 others on the roll of Loyatad Coko Plant of M/". B,C.C. Ltd is justified ? If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled ?"

2. The brief facts; giving rise to this industrial dispute Is that the sponsoring union i.e. Bihar Colliery Kumgar Union had made a demand for regularisation of Sender Dusadh and 26 others on the roll of Loyabad Coko Plant of M/s. B.C.C. Lid, on the ground that they have been working in the permanent nature of job since long under the direct control and supervision of the management of M/s. Loyabad Coke Plant, but they we being paid less wages than the wages prescribed under NCWA and wages are being disbursed in the name of an intermediary who does not control the super- vision of work of the concerned persons. As a matter of fact they are the workmen of the managemen, but in order to camouflage the matter paper arrangement has been made by the management to treat them labourers of an Inter- mediary, On the basis of demand made by th© sponsoring union conciliaticii proceeding took place before the A.L.C. (C), Dhanbad, who submitted failure report, then the present dispute has been referred to this Tribunal to adjudicate upon the matter,

3. The management has admitted that the concerned persons are working in the job of breeze cleaning under a contractor, Muslim Mian but since the. contractor was not paying them proper wages there Was agitation and It was agreed vjpon by the management ai well members of the sponsoring union that the concerned persons will form a Co-operntlve Society and the contract shall be awarded to the *aid Co-operativo Society. In pursuance to that the concerned persona formed a Co-operative Society, namely, Kftmijar Shraraik Sahayog Samitee Ltd. and Hiralal Paswan, one of 'he concerned persons is the Secretary of the said Co-operative Society. The management of Loyabad Coke Plant manufactures hard coke and bye products by feeding raw coal after crashing into the coke ovens. After completion of manufacturing process, the coke Is pushed from the coke ovens on to the surface for the purpose of quenching the name with the help of pumped water. In quenching the same, coke breeze; produced IJI the process of manufacture of cote and quenching of the same; Is allowed to flow along with the water Rrtd settle on the small tanks constructed for that purpose. When the tanks get filled ur> then the coke breeze is cleaned once or twice in a week from the settling tank throunh contrnct workers. Thus the work is of Intermittent nature and casual one, and the contractor Is betns oald at ttw rule of Rv 30 Dttr eft. for removal of the coke rwzft from the settling tanks, Accordine to the manticf-mc/it. th* work does not need so manv labourers, rather the contractor used to enttape only 4 to 5 workers for cleanine a breeze from the lettline tanks and that also not in oil trie davs In a week, rather, twice or thrice a week. Thus, all the concerned person* are not r"ui!red to be engaeed at a time, rather onlv 4 or 5 persons arc reanlred to be eneaeftd that also twlco or thrice In a week and therefore the demand of the spon- soring union for rcRularlsatlon of all the 27 persons Is not In<"rarivo! Society the Gt-onerat'vp Socletv u"ed tr> ennnf^ 4 Or 5 n T o ni hv m^'lcti whenever necessary for cleaning breeze from settling tanks was there. Thus, this work is not of a permanent nature and all the concerned persons are not required to be engaged at a time. According to the management they have worked a very short period of time in a calendar year and therefore the management does not require engagement of all the concerned nersons. Accordingly, the demand of the union is not iurtified. However, the sponsoring union has submitted that all the concerned persons have wroked for mnre than 240 days in a calendar year and in order to prove this fact thev have filed a petition calling for the Attendance Re.ghter from the management which the management did not file.

4. Thne, from the pleadings of the parties It f" admitted that all the concerned persons are working utid'r a Co- operative SociVty in the job of breezi cleaning which nrcord- inu to the manaffcm<"nt is of casual nature but according to the Kponsorinc union the lob is of permanent nature. Although the sponsoring union have asserted that the con- cerned persona are directly being controlled find supervised 599 by the management of Loyabad Coke Plant, but the manage- ment ha¹; asserted thm they arc the contractor's workers. Keeping in view the pleadings of the parties the poinl for decision is:—

(i) Whether tho concerned persona are really a Contractor's workers or the management, has tried to camouflage the issue by branding them as contractor's workers ?

(ii) Whether the job which the concerned persona are performing, is of u permanent nature and their attendance was more than 240 da>;s in a calendar year?

FINDINGS

ness has uirtheer stated that he along with other persons have worker more than 240 days in a calendar year, but the management's witness MW-1—S. N. Ghosh, Manager of Loyabad Coke Plant has come to say that breeze cleaning job is very much casual in nature. He lias given size of the settling tanks and has stated that there are three breze settling tanks in the Plant. First two tanks are required to be cleaned twice in a month, Una the third tank is required to be cleaned twice in a year. But hi$ statement is contrary to the written statement of the management In the written statement the management has taken plea that settling tank is required to . be cleaned thrice or fourth times in. a week. Furthermore, the management has filed a work order, Exf. M-2/1 from which it appeared that the work order is for a period from 24-7-1989 to 31-3-1990 ie for a period ot 8 months & 7 days in which it has heen mentioned that volume of work will be 1,37,909.07 eft and the rate of cleaning will be Rs. 30 per eft. That means the volume of work foe 8 months and 7 days is for more than Rs. 40,00,000. The management has filed wage-sheet to show that the concerned persons were getting wages at the rate, of R;;. 20.50 paise per day. That means if all the 27 persons work in average 20 dajs in a month then for a period of 8 months and 7 days their wages will be nearly Rs. 9,000 only. Thus, it is cleaT that the management is showing expenditure of Rs. 40,00,000 for doing the job of" breeze clean- ing whereas if all these 27 persons work for 20 days in a irionth approximately then their wages will be below one lakh. Therefore from the own document of the management their claim appears to be false. The breeze cleaning work is required, to be done only three times or four tidies in a week and ijs casual nature is falsified. Furthermore, the sponsoring union has filed an application for directing the management to produce the Atten- dance Register of the concerned persons which they did not file nor they have given any explana- tion for not filing the same., Therefore non-filins? of the Attendance Register also goes to show that the management has withheld the same because if the same would have been produced then the claim of the concerned persons for havine: worked for mere than 240 days would have been clearlv esta- blished. Thus, I find that flhe claim of the mann'iemervt that the breeze cleaning iob is of temporary nature iob is falsified. On the other hnnd, there is material to presume t*iDt the said nork is of permarticnt nature which support the claim of the concern- ed TJCT^ons triat thev have worked for more than 240 dava in a calendar vear. Thus, this point is decided in favour of the sponsoring union.

6. Pobt No. (ii).—W,,W.l—Hiraial Paswan who is one of the concerned workman has come to say that the work which they perform is of perma- nent nature, they do their duty daily for 8 hours and besides the cleaning of breeze settling ranks they ar© also entrusted with other work like to work with the helper of the electrician or the cleaning work whenever it is required. In order to show that they are also en-paged by the management in clifiVrent Work thev have filed a register of work allotment, Ext. W-l from which it appears that besides the breeze, cleaning iob the concerned per- sons have pn^apcrj for other work al?<">. This wit-

257 OT/7(101—11

7. From the discussions made above. I find that the demand of the snonsoring union for renula- r'sat'nn nf the concerned rwrsop'i ifi the Derma ncnt roll of Loyabad Coke Plant is fully justified.

S. Accordingly I render—

AWARD

That Hie demand of the sponsoring union for rcgularisation of Shri Sunder Dusadh and 26 others as per list annexed to the reference order on the roll of Loyaibad Coke Plant of Mk B.C.C. Ltd. is justified and the concerned persons are entitled to wages prescribed under NCWA. But considering the financial condition of M|s. B.C.C. Ltd..there.will be no order as to back wages. The management is directed to regularise the concern- ed- persons within 30 days from the date of pub- lication of the award failing which the}' shall be entitled to claim wages as per NCWA.

SARJU PRASAD, Presiding Officer.

New Delhi,.the 17th January, 2001

S.O., 270-—In pursuance- of Section 17 of .the, Intlirstrial Disputes< Act, 1947 (14 of 1

[No. L-nO12/5O/97-IR(C-I)l S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

New DeUii, .the 17th January, 2001 601 the management of M|s. Jet Air Ltd. and thtir workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-1-2001,

[No. L-11012/53/97-I.R.-(C-D] S. S. OUPTA, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 17th January, 2001

S.O. 272.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), -the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal, Now Delhi as -shown fh the Annoxurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Mis. Jet Air Ltd. and 'their workman, which was received by the Central Government on lfrl-2001.

[No. L-l 1012/54/97-JR(C-l I]

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 17th January, 2001

S.O. 273.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In- dustri.il Tribunal, New Delhi as &howrt in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to tho management of Mis. Jet Air Ltd. and teir workman, which-Wfl* received by the Central Government on 16-1-2001.

[No. H1012/55/v7-IR(C-I^

S. S. GUPTA, Iftder Swy.

603

"Whether the action of the Dy. Chief Project Manager(E), Railway Electrification, Baroda, the Genera) Manager, Central, Org. Rly. Electrification, Allahabad and the D.R.M., Western Railway, Kota in tiot regularising and absorbing the workmen Annexed in list A in permanent vacancies in open line Is just and fair 7 If not, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from what date?

(1) Sh. Kunj Behnri R Working under DSK(RE) Kota

(2) Sh. Rajcndra Kumar R -do-

(3) Sh. Laddolal N

-do-

(4) Sh. Tck Bahadar S

-do- New Delhi, the 18th Junuary, 2001

(5) Sh. Sudhtr Kumar L

-do-

(6) Sh. Kan Singh K

-do-

(7) Sh. Prayag Naroyan R -do-

(8) Sh. Sayed Sajid All

-do-

(9) Ramjilal G Under S &T Kota S.O. 274.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby puhlhlica the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Kota as shown In th? Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bt-tween the employers in relation to the manacement of Western Railway, Kota and their workman, which was received by th" Central Government on 17-01-2001.

(10) Sh. Bhanwar Singh G

-do- [No. L-41011/ll/y4-IR(B-Ij]

(11) Sh. Dinses Sharma D

-do- AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

(12) Sh. Sakhbahader K under ORE/Kota

(13) Sh, Prcrachand P

-do-

(14) Sh. Ramyad G Elect.

(15) Sh. Mahaveer Prasad C -do-

(16) Sh. Mukesh Kr. V

-do-

(17) Sh. Laddoolal II

in manning at Agrn

(18) Sh. Girish Kumar J

(19) Sh. Shiv Bali Singh R under IOW(RE) Kota at Agra."604 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 20O1/MAGHA 21, 1922 tPART II—SEC. 3(il)] New Delhi, the 18th January, 20O1

S.O. 275.™In pursuance of Section 17 o'f the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Labour Court, Kozhikode, Kerala Slate us shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of Lord Krishna Bank Ltd., Kaloor, Kochi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government en 17-1-2001.

[No. J,-120l2/77/2000-lR(B-l)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN rHE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE, KERALA STATE

Dated this the 29th dtvy of November, 2000 PRESENT:

Srri E. D. Thankachan B.A., B.L., Presiding Officer.

I.D. (C) 1/2000

BETWEEN

1 he Deputy General Manager, Lord Krishna Bank Ltd., Regd. & Administration Office, Ti.diun Express Buildings, Kaloor, Kochi, 682017.

.. Management.

AND

Sri M. Subrnya Kamnth, Opp.: Sharnda Press, Car Street, Mangalore (Karnataka>57500l. ..Workman, Representations:

Sri K. Bhaskaran Nair, Advocate, ,

Kozhikode

,. Fd"r Management.

AWARD

As per Government Order No. L-12012|77|2OOO|IR(B-I) dated 21-6-Z000 the Government of India referred an indust- rial dispute between the above parties to this court for ad- judication and award. The issuo referred for adjudication was "Whether the action of the management of the Lord Krishna Bank in dismissing the service of the workman Sri M. Subraya Kamath with effect from 5-6-1998 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to".

2. Pursuant to the reference, notice intimating the date of posting of the case iu the Labour Court was issued to both parties. ALCoidingly the management appeared through counsel. The workman has not appeared. When the case came up for corv'-leration on 29-11-2000, the workman has' not appeared. The name of (he workman is called. Absent. Since the woikcr has not appeared for prosecuting his case, I 9m inclined to hold that the workman is not interested to pursue the dispute any further and that there is no existing indust- rial dispute between the parties to be resolved.

3. fn the result, an award is passed holding that there is no subsisiirr industrial dispute between the parties to be ad- judicated upon.

Dictated tc the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him, revised, corrected and passed by me on the 29th day of Nov- ember, 2000.

E. D. THANKACHAN, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 18th January, 2001 S.O. 276.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the O n- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in file Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation, to the management of Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17-1-2001.

[No. L-12012/221/2000-IR(B-I>]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT:

Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.

605 Employers in relation to the management of

Reserve Bank of India,

AND

Their Workman Smt. S. A. Saodekar.

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of sec- tion 10.of the Industrial Dispute Aot, 1947 has re- ferred this dispute for adjudication vide order L-12012/221/2000/IR(B-I) dated 17-10-2000 on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

New Delhi, Die 18th January, 2001 "Whether the action of the management¹ of Re- gional Director for Maharashtra, Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur is not to entertain the genuine claim of Smt. Saodekar to the post of Hindi Translator is legaj, proper and justified.? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled to and from, what date,"

S.O. 277.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central 'Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between th.; empoyers in relation to the management of State Bank of India, Nagpur and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17-1-2001.

[No. L-12012|255j97-IR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer The dispute in. tin's case was that Smt. Saodekar was not appointed as Hindi Translator though she was qualified for it. The date was fixed today for filing Statement of Claim by Smt. Saodekar.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

PRESENT :

Shn B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CGJT-63|2000 I have heard th© Secretary of fhe Reserve Bank Employees Association Shri S. M. Chepurwar and Shri A. L. Nilnavare, Asstt. General Manager- Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur. The Secretary of the union has moved an application that after receipt of fliis reference in the CG1T Court, at Nagpur the Reserve Bank of India, management has appointed 5mt..S. A. Saodekar to the post of Hindi Translator.

Employers in relation to the management of

Slate Bank of India, Nagpur.

AND

Their Workman Shri Vinayak Undraji Borikar.

AWARD As the workman has (jot her special pay post in the cadre of Clerk Grade II, now, the dispute has settled between the management and the worfcMln. Shri A. L. Nitnavare, represented that after failure of conciliation: report examination was conducted for the post of Hindi Translator. She qualified that! test and has therefore been appointed as Hindi Trans- lator.

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (I) and Sub-section 2(A.) of section'10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order L-120l2[255[97-IR(B.I) Dated 5-6-98 on the fol- lowing schedule,

In the above circumstances the workman does not press her claim for any other relief and has moved an application today that the dispute be treated as closed. The management has no objection to the prayer made In the application by the workman through'the Secretary of the union,

SCHEDULE ORDER

Smt?. S. A. Saodekar has been appointed as Hindi Translator. The matter has settled between the man- agement, and the workman. She is therefore not en- titled tft any other relief.

The reference is disposed off accordingly.

n?*cd 14-?001

B. G. SAXENA. Presiding Officer

Vinayak S|o Undraji Borikar was appointed as mj'wnga on 12-8-73 in the State Bank of India. He was posted as messenger a* Morshi Branch in district Amravati in the ye;.'r 1994. On 22-3-94 the chargeshett was submitted against him and six charges under paragraph 521(4) (c) (d) (e) (f) (i) of Shastry Award were framed against him. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report and final order was parsed on 17-5-95. He was dismissed from service w.e.f. 22-5-95.

The charges against him were as under :

(1) On 20-2-93 at 12.10 P.M. he assaulted Shri Narayan Jane, Bank Guard, who was on duty and caused fracture to his right hand last finger. He was charge under para 521(4) (c) (d) and (j) of Shastry Award that is behaving riotous disorderly and indecently in the premises of the bank.

(2) On 23-4-93 he entered into verbal alterca- tion with Smt. Shobha Deshmukh, Water- woman and threw a Savings Bank Ledger on her.

(3) He was in the habit of abusing the collea- gues after drinking wine in the bank pre- mises and misbehaved with the people. He came to the bank drunk on 11-2-93, 12-2-93, 13-2-93, 20-2-93 and 23-4-93 and disturbed the working of the bank.

(4) Habitully indulging in unauthorised ab- sence from duty.

(5) He was granted an advance of Rs. 300 on 16-7-93 to attend :i written test at Nagpur on 18-7-93 in connection with promotion to the post of Record Keeper|Bill Collec- . tor, but did not attend the written test.

(6) Habitually showing disregard of ordinary requirements of decency and cleanliness in person and dress wearing the bank's uni- form even when not on "duty.

The workman claimed that his termination was unjustified and he be reinstated. The management filed written statement on 4-8-98.

Shri S. B. Panse, Presiding Officer, CGIT Court No. 1, Mumbai passed Award Part-1 on 22-12-98 and recorded finding that enquiry conducted against the workman was against the principles of natural justice. He directed the management to lead evi- dence. After that the management produced evi- dence in this case. The workman also examined himself. The cross examination of the workman was recorded on 22-9-2000.

Both the parties closed their evidence and the management submitted the written argument. The workman was also provided opportunity to submit his written argument, if any he wanted...

On 11-12-2000 the workman represented that his counsel has not come and another date be given to him for argument. The case was adjourned to 15-12-2000. On I5-12O000 the workman Shri Vinayak Borikar. came with his counsel Shri Vacha- sundcr. The counsel did not file Vakalatnama and did not submit any written argument. The case w:is adjourned to 26-12-2000 for arguments.

The Law Officer of the bank argued the case for m&n'.iganent. The workman Vinayak Borikar him- self argued the case. His counsel did not turn up to argue the case.

I have heard the arguments of the management and the workman Shri Vinbyak Borikar and have considered the entire oral and documentry evidence on record.

Shri Narayan Sjo • Vishvnath Jane, Armed Guard of State Bak of India, Morshi Branch, Distt. Amra- vaii had filed hfe affidavit on 1-8-1-99. He was cross examined by Shri S. V. Lapalaikar, representative of the union of the workman.' His statement shows that th;: workman Vinayak Borikar often used to quarell with the members of the staff and the customers. On 20-2-93 at 12 O'clock Shri Vinayak Borikar was us- ing filthy language and was shouting in the bank. He was drunk. He stopped Borikar from creating nuisance, bui he did riot listen to him. The work- man Vinayak Borikar violently pushed him on the grill of the gate and caused injury to him. He was medically examined. Dr. Dhole found a fracture in the finger of his right hand. In cross examination by the defence representative of the workman again this witness represented that the workman Vinayak Borikar was drunk. He was abusing. Shri Pandev, the Branch Manager had asked him to remove him out from the bank. The workman had pushed him on the gril of the main gate and caused fracture to the right hand finger. It is suggested to this wit- ness that he got fracture in his finger due to his acci- dent with Motor Cycle. The witness denied the suggesiion.

The witness of the management Sh. Devdutta also .supported the statement of witness Shri Narayan Jane. He stated that on 20-3-93 at 12 O'clock the workman Vinayak Borikar was under the influence of liquor and had caused injury to Shri Narayan Jane by dashing him to the gate of the bank. He further stated that Rs. 1000 was sanctioned to Shri Narayan Jane for his treatment on 25-2-93. He also stated that one lady Smt. Shobha Deshmukh was assaulted by the workman on 23-4-93. The workman had thrown the ledger book on her. Smt. Shobha Desh- mukh had given a written complaint to the management about this incident on 23-4-93. The workman Vinayak Borikar was arrested by the police nnd on medical examination he was found drunk. The police had registered the case against him under section 85(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The case was registered at crime no. 88|93. Workman Vinayak tiorikar was arrested on 23-4-93 at 12.10 P.M. The witness further says that he had himself seen the occurrence. Sh. Devidutta was cross examined by the representative of the union of the workman Shri Lapalikar.

Shri Viisunt 5|o Shri Laxmanrao is Farrash-cum- Messcnger. He stated thut on 20-2-93 at 12 O'clock the wort man Vinayak Borikar had pushed Shri Jane at the gate and had caused injurv in his hand. On 23-4-93 Borikar tried to assault Smt. Shobha Desh- mukh with heavy ledger in the bank. Borikar was drunk. On this incident the other members of the 607 staff bad decided to go on strike if no action is talc- ing against the Borikar by the management. He says that he was a! the distance of ten feet from the workman, and has seen him misbehaving with Smt. Shobha Deshmukh. He further stated that the work- man used to come to the Bank after consuming alcohol.

hand ringer. The copy of the police record has also been submitted to show that the case under 'section 110(117, Bombay Police Act was registered against the workman Vinayak Borikar. He was taken en custody on 23-4-93. Vinayak Borikar was convicted on 11-7-91 for offence under section 10jll7, Bombay Police Act and was convicted to pay fine Rs. 50 and default thereol he was sentenced to go three days simple imprisonment. These docu- ments are Exhibit-3 and 4.

The statement of Smt. Shobha Deshmukh is also on. file. She had filed her affidavit on 15-1-99. She was cross examined on 9-3-99. She denied the sug- gestion that she has given false affidavit. She denied the suggestion that she had not seen the Borikar rais- ing the ledger upon her. in her affidavit she had stated that.the workman Vinayak Borikar wanted to throw the ledger upon her. She had. cried and shouted on Borikar as to why he was attempting to assault her. She had submitted written complaint to Branch Manager same day. She had requested to the Branch Manager to take action against Vinayak Borikar. The other members of the staff had gathered and due to this incident the work of bank could not start at usual business hours.

Th? iir-iTT'mr'-ii has submitted ruling Bank of M. .".':• i.I-IKI. .iii.l Others Vs. Om Prakash Malviya, 1997. HI LLJ, Supplementry, Page 904. In this ruling it is held by the High Court of Delhi that sec- t;on !OC1)B, Banking Regulation Act, Bi-Partite Settlement 1996 clause 1-9.2. 19.3(a), 19.3(b), an employee of the bank, coming to the bank in drun- ken condition and abusing Manager of the Bank. The employee pleaded guilty before the Criminal Court for offence under Bombay Police Act. The employee was found guilty of Moral Turpitude Bank was justified in holding departmental enquiry and dismissing employee from service in exercise of the power-, under the Bank Regulation Act read with Bi-Pariite Settlement.

Shri Vinayak Borikar, workman had filed his affidavit on 20-7-2000. He was cross examined on 22-9-2000. The workman stated that he is educat- ed up to class 8th. He denied the suggestion that he is in the habit of consuming wine. He says that he does not know Narayan Jane. He had not push- oral evidence in his defence.

In the circumstances discussed above the work- man could not produce any evidence to show that the charges framed against him are false. The work- man had no enemity with the Branch Manager or any official of the bank. The statement of the wit- nesses produced by the management have supported the charge framed against the workman. In these circumstances the action of the management of State Bank of India in dismissing the workman Sh. Vina- yak Undraji Borikar w.e.f. 22-5-95 is valid, justified and legal

ORDER

From the statements of the above witnesses exa- mined by the management, it is proved that the workman Vinayak Borikar had caused injury to Shri Narayan Jane on 20-2-9^ at 12.10 P.M. He also tried to assault Smt. Shobha Deshmukh, another employee- of the bank on 23-4-93. He was also found drunk during the working hours of the bank on the above dates. Thus charge Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are proved against the workman. The documentry evidence in support of the above charges has also been produced as paper, Exhibit Nos. 29, 30, 37, 38 and 72.

The dismissal of Sh. Vinayak Undraji Borikar of the State Bank of India, Morsi Branch w.e.f. 22-5-95 by the management of State Bank of India through Deputy General ManagerjAsstt. 'General Manager, Region V, Zonal Office. Nagpur is valid, justified antt legaL The charges against the work- man have been proved and he has been rightly dis- missed from the service. The workman is therefore not entitled to any relief claimed by him.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Dried : 3-1-200,'

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer The workman had pleaded guilty.to the charges Nos. 4 and 5 during the enquiry. For charge No. 6 Shri Devidutta has mentioned in his affidavit, para 8. that, he had written several letters to the control- ler regarding the conduct of the workman. He had written letter HI 5)13 dated 21-12-91 regarding the unauthorised absence of the workman. The work- man used to wear the uniform 24 hours. The work- man also tried to mark his attertdence on 11-2-93, 12-2-93 and 13-2-93. He was under the influence of wine on these dates and was not permitted to work in the branch. In para 13 of his affidavit he has stated that Borikar did not attend the written test after receiving Rs. 300 on 16-7-93. In cross sxaminarion the statement of this witness has not seen challenged on these pcints.

Tte wadcBaart argued that he has been falsely im- jHcated and he does not drink wine. The argument )f the workman has no force. The management has lubmitted documents in support of the statements of he, witnesses. The medical certificate dated 20-2-93 )f"Div.Deepak Dhole .has been fikd to show that !hri Nora van Jane had received fracture in the right :57 GJ/2001—12608 THE; GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2001/MAGHA 21, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l New Delhi, ihe 18th January, 2001 S.O. 278.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cen- t'al Government Industrial Tribunal Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India, Nagpur and their workman, which was re- ceived by the Central Government on 17-1-2001.

[No. L-120l2!322!97-IR(B-I)J A.IAY KUMAR. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT :

Shri B. G. Saxena, PVesiding Officer.

Reference No. : CGIT-175|2000 Employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India, Nagpur.

AND

Their Workman Smt. S. D. Hatekar

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order L-I2O12J322| 97-R(B.I) dated 28-8-98 on the following schedule

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Nagpur through Asstt. Gene- ral Manager, Region III, Zonal office, Kingsway, Nagpur not appointing to Mrs. S. D. Hatekar as Assistant Cash Officer in the State BaMc of India, Khamgaon Branch- h justified, proper and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?" 12-2-94 pertaining to in cadre higher appointments. She had also not submitted a&ry option for working in sub zone and undertaking to work in cash depart- ment upto 6-7-94.

As she was debarred for one year that is upto 6-12-94 on her refusal for promotion to the post of Teller, the next senior person Shri V. S. Nimbolkar was promoted as Asstt. Cash Officer w.f.e. 10-5-94.

She was again offered promotion to the post of Head Clerk at Shengaon Branch of State Bank of India, but she refused to join on the post of Head Cierk. Again she was debarred for one year.

The third offer of promotion to the post of Teller was given to the her vide letter dated 21-3-97 at Jalgaon Jamod Branch. Mrs. S. D. Hatekar refused co join this po;t on 2.V3-97.

Upto 23-1-1996, she did not raise objection against the promotion of Shri V. S. Nimbolkar. She made re- presentation for her promotion on 23-1-96 and¹ Ihe department had informed her the reason of not pro- moting her from J 0-5-94 as she was debarred from promotion.

The statement of claim was submitted for Smt. S. D. Hatekar through General Secretary, State Bank Workers Organisation on 20-11-98 in CG1T, Court no. 1 at Mumbai. The written statement was sub- mitted by Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of India on 10-2-99 at CGIT Court no. t, Mumbai.

This case was received by transfer from CGIT Corut no. 1. Mumbai and the information was sent to the parties fixing 21-8-2000. The case was adjourned tr, ! 1-9-2000 20-10-2000. 11-12-2000, 20-12-2000 and 26-12-2000.

Neither the workman turned upto contest her case nor any representative. of the State Bank Workers Organisation i.e. Union of the workman turned upto contest the claim.

The order sheets of the CGIT Court no. 1 at Mumbai also shows that the workman did not appear in that court also after 18-6-99. Thus, the workman or the representative of her union did not turn up in the Court after filing of the written statement by the bank on 10-2-99.

The management of the bank has submitted the documents in support of the facts submitted in written statement.

609 Baiik of India, Agriculture Division, Branch Kham- gaon that she docs not accept the promotion as a Teller, because her family life shall be disturbed and the education of her son will be disturbed. On 10-12-93 the Branch Manager debarred her from promotion for. XWQ years. Later on the period at two years was induced to one vest vide letter dated 10-12-93.

On 6-7-94 Smt. S. D. Hatekar submitted her op ion for in cadre higher appointments and she gave the choice of the undemoted three stations for her porting:

New Delhi, the 18th January,'2001 (1) Akola (2) Khamgaon (3) Nagpur Zonal'

Office.

xiie letter of the Branch Merger bearing no 00494 daked 17-1-96 is on the file, ifiis letter shows that Smt. S. D. Hatckar was offered higher appointment to the pdst of Head Oerk at Sheongaon.

S.O. 279.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 erf 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of Industrial Tribunal Kota as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Western Railways, Kuta and their workman, which was received by the Ccniral Government on 17-1-2001.

[No. L-41011|25|94-IR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer, The letter H15|96|296 dated 27-1-96 shows that Smt. S. D. Hatekar refused to accept her appointment to' the post of Head Clerk at Sheongaon. She was de- barred for one year w.e.f. 25-1-96. This is document no. 8. On 21-3-97 vide letter no. AGM : III : AJ3 : 0052611 dated 21-2-97, the Branch Manager ofj the State Bank of India), Khamgaon informed her thkt she has been appointed as Teller on six months probation at Jalgaon Jamod Branch. The letter dated 2(5-3-97 of Smt. S. D. Hatekar to Branch Manager, Sjate Bank of India, Khnmgaon shows that she re- fused¹ to join as Teller at Jalgaon Jamod Branch due to! her family problems. This letter of Smt. S. \]. Hatekar at 26-3-97 document no. 10 is on the fife, Lbtter no. H15|4O6 dated 26-3-97 shows that she was again debarred from promotion|highcr appoint- ment for a period of one year from 26-3-97.

From the above documents on record, it is clear thalt whenever the opportunity to the higher post came, tlie offer for appointment was sent by management to the working woman, but she refused her appoint- ment to the higher post three times due to her family problem. In the aforesaid circumstances the adion of the management of the State Bank of India) was justi- fied in not appointing her as Asstt. Cash Officer on 10-5-94 as claimed by her. Her claim is baseless and no relief can be granted to her.

ORDER

The action of the the management of State Bank of India, Nagpur through Asstt, General Manager, Region III, Zonal Office, Kingsway, Nagpur not appointing to Mrs. S. D., Hatekalr us Asstt, Cash Officer iri State Bank of India,- Khamsaon Branch as claimed by her is jus^fietd, proper and legal, Mrs. S. D. ]flatekar is not entitled to any relief.

The reference is answered accordingly.

h^e : m-ni-2001

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer

257 GI/2001—136\n THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; FEBRUARY 10, 2001/MAGHA 21, 1922 [PART II—SEC, 3(10] "Whctfier the action of the Railway Administration through the Dy. Chief Project Manager (R.E.) Baroda, Central Manager(E) Central Organisation of Railway Electrification, Allahabad and the DRM, Western Railway, Kola m not regularising and absorbing the workmen (Annex.) is legal and justified ? If not, what relief (he concerned workmen are entitled to and frorh what date ?"—

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2001 tOWiKE), Kota

Sh. Shlv Bali Singh i Sh. SukhWnder Smgh

dO-

0) (2)

(3)

-do-

(4)

Sh. Lallu Lal ¹ Sh. Rambeer

PV.T(Rb) iCota

(5) Sh. blamuddin

•do-

Sh. Wohd. Hanif

-do-

Sh. Charan Singh

DEE(RE), Kota

S.O. 280.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), th& Central Government hereby publishes the Award of Industrial Tribunal Kota as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tp the management of "Western Railways, Kota and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17-1-2QO1.

I Sh. Naraln Singh

-do-

(6) 0) <8J (9) i Sh. Mukut Singh

•do-"

[No. L-4l012|155-96-IR(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer.

"Whether the action of the Rlaiway Adminretartiori through D.R.M, Western Railway, Kota in removing the workman Shri D^vkinaodun, O. ex-cawal Jaipur working under P.W.I, (North) Oangapurcity w.c.f. I-6F74 and not taking, him in employment i^ pre~ ference to now faces is fair and tot '.' If net, what rtlief the concerned worlun?" is euthled to and from what date," M

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT = INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

PRESENT :

Shri B, G. Saxena, presiding Officer.

Reference No. CGIT-13|2OOO

Employers in relation to the management of

South Eastern Railway, Nagpur

AND

Their Workman Shri Ashwajit Badge.

AWARD

The Central-Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of the Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order L-41012|241|99JIR(B-I) Dated'23|24-12-1999 on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of the Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway, Kingsway Nagpur in denial of employment to Shri Ashwajit Badge, Ex-Casual Labour in Group 'D' Category is legal and justified 7 If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled ?"

In this reference the statement of claim was filled by the-workman Shri Ashwajit Badge on 28-3-2000. The management has submitted written statement on 29-5-2000. The case was adjourned to 22-6-2000. The workman absented himself on this date. After that 12-7-2000, 24-7-2000, 28-7-2000, 16-8-2000, 21-9-2000, 27-9-2000 were fixed. The workman did not turn up. Nobody from the side of his union appeared in this case. The advocate also did not appear to conduct the case for workman. Thus, Bather the workman is appdtarittg in the case nor any representative of the workman is appearing to contest the case.

On 22-6-2000 the date 12-7-2000 was fixed for the evidence of the workman, but after 22^-6-2000 neither the workman appeared nor any evidence was produced by him.

New Delhi, the ISih January, 2001

On 14-11-2000'the date was again fixed for filing affidavit, but the workman did not submit any affi- davit or documents in support of his claim. The case was adjourned ^o 12-12-2000 and 4-1-2001, but the workman did not file any affidavit in support of his claim. It is therefore clear that the workman is regularly absenting from 22-6-2000 and no evidence has been produced by him in support of hi* claim.

The counsel for D.R.M., South- Eastern Railway, Shri Nitin Lambat is present. His argument were heard.

S.O. 281.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the -Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of South Eastern Railways, Nagpur and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17-1-2001.

{No. t-4M>i2|24lj9fttIR(B-I)] " AS AY KUMAR, Desk Officer612 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2001/MAGHA 21, 1922 [PART II—SEC 3(h)] appear in the list of casual labour dated 20-6-1981. He is therefore not entitled to any retrenchment compansation.

No other counter affidavit or document has been filed by the workman in rebuttal.

In view of the above facts the workman is himself avoiding to contest the case after filing Written State- ment by the management. The workman has not submitted any evidence in support of his statement of claim. The action of the management in denying employment to Ashawajit Bagade, Ex-Casual Labour in group 'D' is therefore legal and justified.

ORDER

The action of the management af Divisional Rail- way Manager, South Eastern Railway, Kicgsway, Nagpur in denial of employment to Shri Ashawajit Ragde, Ex-Casual Labour in Group 'D' category is legal and justified.

The workman is not entitled to any relief.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Dated : 4-1-2001

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer.

New Delhi, the l&th January, 2001 SO. 282.—In pursuance of Seption 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Lucknow,' as shown in! the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of F.C.I, and their workman, which,was received by the Central Government on 17-1-2001.

-,[N6, L-22012/514/99-C-n]

W- 1". JvnonAvAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESIDING OFFICER : RUDRESH KUMAR.

ADJUDICATION

BETWEEN

The Secretary, Bhartiya Khadya Nigtmi Karmchari Sangh, 5-6, Habibullah Estate, Hazratganj, Lucknow (U,P.),

AND

The Sr. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, 5-6, Habibullah Estate. Hazratganj, Lucknow (U.P.).

By reference No. L-22012/514/99/IR(CM-II), dated 6-7-2000, the Central Government! in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d> of the sub-section (1) of section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 made over this industrial dispute bet- ween The Secretary, Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Kararn- chari Sangh and Sr. Regional Manager, Food Corpo- ration of India, Lucknow for adjudication. The re- ference is re-produced as under:

"Whether the action of the Management of FCI in not giving promotion panel of 1983 to Ajay Kishore and not placing him in bet- ween the seniority No. 230 and 231 at zonal seniority of 1997 is legal and justified If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?" 1. Present industrial dispute was raised by the State Secretary, Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh, espousing the cause of Mr. Ajay Kishore. During tlhe proceeding before this Tribunal, it was brought to notice that th© union is no longer inflerest- ed in espousing the cause of Mr. Ajay Kishore. Ac- cordingly, a notice was issued to Mr. Ajay Kishore to make the position clear. He appeared before this Tribunal on 16-11-2000 and desired to contest his case. • An application was also filed seeking his sub- stitution at the place of union.

2", Mr. Ajay Kishore is not legally entitled to be substituted, as workman in this adjudication, as he has no locus standi. This industrial dispiute is raised by the union. He, is. an aggrieved person and may raise the dispute himself. Since fhe union for rea- sons best known to it, decided not to espouse his . cause, so belatedly in^the middle of the proceeding, Mr. Ajay Kishore. should not be deprived of oppor- tunity to seek redressal of his cause, on technical m

AND pleas. Accordingly, the reference is not adjudicated on merit and is returned.

Their Workman Shri Sewakram.

Award accordingly.

AWARD Lucknow, 6-12-2000

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2

SCHEDULE New Delhi, the 23rd January, 2001

S.O. 283.—la pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen-

tral Government hereby publishes the award of th©

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

This reference was sent to CGIT, Court No. 1, Mumbai. The first date fixed by the court was 15-9-98. The workman in this case was represented by Shri Ramkishan Pal, Joint Secretary, BKKDMS Union. The case was transferred to COIT Court, Nagpur in June, 2000.

Court, Nagpur, as shown in (lie Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of W.C.L. and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

22-1-2001.

[No. L-22012/206/97-C-II]

N, P. KESIIAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

PRESENT:

Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. : CGIT-172/2000

Employers in relation to th" management of

W.C. Ltd.

The Deputy Personnel Manager Shri Rajiv Kumar Sharma represented that the workman was provided with the copy of the proceedings of the enquiry on day to day basis and the representative of the work- man had crosfl examined the witnesses.

The Enquiry Officer found the workman guilty for being habitually absent without any reasonable cause from 1-7-91 to 30*6-92. He was dismissed from ser- vice vide Pttkr N o- SAM/PG/Dismissal/93/386 dated 25-6-93. The management in his Written'State- ment has also mentioned that the workman only for 81 days from July, 1991 to June, 1992. In Septem- ber, 1991 he did not work for any'day. in'March, 1992 he worked for one day only. In April, 1992 he worked only for one day. In October, 1991 he work- ed only for one day. The details of the attendance of the workman arid the list of absentees are shown in the¹ Written' Statement tiled by the management dated 9-11-98,

The Deputy Personnel Manager' argued that the workman was provided full opportunity during the enquiry proceedings to produce evidence in his de- fence, but failed to submit any evidence in support of bis unauthorised absence.

In "view of the above facts tho workman! has not submitted any document to show that the action of the management was unjustified.

Considering the evidence on record, tne action of tfi© management for dismissing the workman from 24-6-96 is justified.

ORDER

The'acfiorj Of the management of the Sub Area Manager, Pijfla Mine in dismissing the workman Shri Sowakram, Ex Tub loader from 24-6-96 is justified. Xfie workman is not entitled to any relief.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Dated: 8-1-2001.

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 23rd January, 2001 S.O. 284.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial, Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal |Labour Court, Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of W.C.L. and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 22-1 -2001.

[No. L-22012|515|99-C-II] N. P. KESHAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT :

Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer

Reference No. : CGIT-223|2000 Employers in relation to the management of Sub Area Manager, WCL

and

Their Workman Shri Chhatislal Kanhyalal

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2 (A) of section 10 of the Industrial ' Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order L-22012|515|99|IR(CM-II) dt. 13-07.2000 on the'following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management i.e. Sub Area Manager, Ballarpur Colliery of WCL, PO : Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur in dismissing Sh. Chhatislal Kanhyalal, Loader, Ballarpur Colliery is legal, proper and justified ? If not. to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ? What other directions are necessary in the matter ?" This reference was received in August 1000. Notice was isued to the workman through the President Rashtriya Koyla IChadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC) on fi-9-2000 fixing date 20-10-2000. Neither the workman nor the President of the union tur- ned up to file the Statement of claim for the workman on this date i.e. 20-10-2000.

The case was again adjourned to 8-12-2000. On this date also neither the workman turned up nor any representative of his union appea- led to file the statement of claim. Shri B. N. Prasad, counsel for WCL submitted Vakalat- nama on this date,

The case was again adjourned to 3-1-2001. 0n 8-12-2000 the court again passed the order to issuing notice to the union as the workman iind the representative of the union had not ijiled any statement of claim.

Again the notice was issued on 19-12-2000 informing the workman and the President of the union.

Today, also i.e. on 3-1-2001 neither the workman turned up nor any representative of his union turned up to file the statement 6f claim and to contest the case.

As the workman and the President of the Union have not submitted any statement of claim in the inspite of sending information to hem repeatedly by post, the reference is dis- used off for want of prosecution.

615

ORDER

The reference is disposed off. for want of prosecution as that workman Sh. Chhatislal Kanhylal or the representative of his union have not submitted - any statement of claim. The workman is therefore not entitled to any relief.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Dated : 03-01-2001

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2001 S.O. 285.—Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the public interest requires that the Uranium Industry wh'ch is covered by item 19 of the First Schedule to th; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (14 of 1947), should be declared to be a pub- lic utility service for the purposes of the said Act; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers con- ferred by sub-clause (vi) of clause (n) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby declares with immediate effect the said industry to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act for a period of six months,

[No. S-11017|9|97-IR(PL)] H. C. GUPTA, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 2nd February, 2001

S.O. 286.—In exercise of the powers Conferred by Section 3, Sub-Section (1) of the Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of 1983), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri R. Vijay, Desk Officer of CSS Cadre of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Secondary Education and Higher Education, as Protector of Emigrants-II, Thiruvan- Bnthapuram, with effect from 15th January, 2001 (F.N.).

[No. S-11011|l|2000-Emig.]

HART SINGH, Dy. S"cy.

Printed by the Manager, Govt, of India Press, Rinz Road, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhl-110054, 2001