This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGISTERED No.DL—33001/2000

The Gazette of India

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No 7] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2001/MAGHA 28, 1922

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

separate compilation

PART II—Section 3—Sub-Section (ii)

Statutory orders and Notifications issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence )

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION

(Department of Personnel & Training)

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2001

S.O. 287:—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act. No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Karnataka vide Notification No. HD/229/PCR/2000. dated 24-11-2000, hereby extends 361 GI/2001—1

(617)

#18 THE

the powcis and jurisdiction of (hi: members of Delhi Spcci;il Police Establishment to the vvhrle oi the Suite of KurmUaka for investigation of offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of CorrupLlon Act, 1988 and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection wilh one or more of the offences mentioned above and any other oftence or offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the snme facts against S/Sh. Guptha, Garrison Engineer, Uklnr, N. K. Singh and B. S. Rao. both Junior fiiifiinci-Ts in office of Garrison Engineers (MES), Bidar registered with CBl/ACB/Bnagalore vide RC-27CA)/ 2000-BangaIore.

[No. 228/2/2001-AVD. 11] HARI SINGH, Under Secy.

ORDER

New Delhi,, the 1st February, 2001

STAMPS

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

S.O. 289.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Tndian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central Gov- ernment hereby permits M|s. ICICI Limited, Mumbai to pay consolidated stamp d!uty of rupees two crore eighty three lakh sixty five thousand one hundred thir- teen only chargeable on account of the stamp duty on 756403 ICTCI Unsecured Redeemable Bonds (Decem- ber, 2000 Tssuc) in the nature of Debentures aggre- gating to rupees three hundred seventy eight crore twenty lakh fifteen thousand only, to be issued by the snid company.

(Department of Revenue)

[No. 9|2001-STAMPS|F. No. 33|9|2001-ST] ORDER

R. G. CHHABRA, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 24th January, 2001

STAMP'S

S.O. 288.—In exercise of tbe powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Tndian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central Govern- ment hereby permits Industrial Development Bank of India, Mumbai to pay consolidated stamp ctuty of rupees five crore sixty one lakh sixty nine thousand two hundred fifty only chargeable on account of the stamp duty on bonds described as TDBI Flexibdnds-9 (266571 Bonds in fine damatcrulised form and 856814 Bonds in the form of Promissory notes) aggregating to rupees five hundred sixty one crore sixty nine lakh twenty five thousand 'only, to be issued by the said Bank.

[No. 7/2001-STAMPS/F. No. 33/8/2001-ST1 R. G, CHHABRA. Under Secy.

ORDER

New Delhi, the 8th. February, 2001

S.O. 291.—Whereas the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of~ ORDER

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2001

STAMPS

. Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Acti- vities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974) issued order F. No. 673/69/2000-Cus. Vill, dated 5-12-2000 under the said sub-section directing that! Shri Mukhtiar Singh, S/o Shri Sadha Singh, R/o Village Nawen Bhure, P.O. and Thana Khemkaran, Tehsil Patti, District Amritsar (Punjab), be detained and kept in custody in the Cfentral Jail, Amritsar, with a vi&w to prevent- ing him from smuggling goods and eagagiag in con- cealing and transporting smuggled goods in future.

2. Whereas the Central Government has reasons to believe that the aforesaid person has absconded or is concealing himsqlf so that the order cannot be executed ;

S.O. 290.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1$99), the Central Govern- ment hereby permits Punjab National Bank, New Delhi to pay consolidated stamp duty of rupees two crore only on Bonds in the nature of Promissory Notes described as PNB EVRS BOND-2000 aggregating to rupees two hundred crores only allotted on 25-01-2001 by the said Bank,

[No. 10/2001-STAMPS/F. No. 33/10|2001-ST]

R. G. CHHABRA, Under Secy.

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers con- ferred by Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs the aforesaid person to appear before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Taraa Taran (Punjab) within 7 days of the publication of this order in the Official Gazette,

[F. No. 673/69/2000--Cus. VtJI]

S. C. GULATI, Under Secy. '620 IRE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FjSBftUARY 17, 2001/MAGlU 28, 1922 [PART If—SEC. 3(ii)] ORDER

New Delhi, the 8th February, .2001 S.O. 292.—Whereas the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Acti- vities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974) issued order F. No. 673/71/2000-Cus. Vill, dated 5-12-2000 under file said sub-section directing that Shri Ldkhbir Singh, S/o Shri Swaran Singh, R/o Village Daudpura, P.O. Dibbipura, P.S. Valtoha, Tehsil Patti, District Amritsar (Punjab), be detained and kept in custody in the Central Jail, Amritsar, with a view to prevent- ing him from abetting the smuggling of goods and engaging in transporting smuggled goods in future.

2. Whereas the Central Gov&niment has reasons to believe that the aforesaid person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the onler cannot be executed;

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of die powers con- ferred by Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the said A*t, the Central Government hereby directs the aforesaid person to appear before the Senior Superintendent! of Polic", Taran Taran (Punjab) within 7 days of the publication of this order in the Official Gazette.

[F. No. 673/71 /2dOO-Cus. Vill]

S. C. GULATT, Under Secy.

(Department of Expenditure) New Delhi, the 30th January, 2001 a.O. 293.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Provident Funds Act, 1925 (19 of 1925).

the Central Government hereby directs that the provisions of the said Act (except section 6A) shall apply to the Provident Fund estab- lished for the benefit of the employees of the National Institute of Naturopathy.

[No. 4(1)-EV/95(TI)] MOHINDER SINGH, Director New Delhi, the 30th January, 2001 S.O. 294.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Provident Funds Act. 1925 (19 of 1925), the Central Government hereby adds to the Schedule to the said Act, the name of the following public institution, namely :—

"National Institute of Naturopathy".

[No. 4(1)-EV/95(I)] MOHINDER SINGH, Director (Department of Economic Affairs) (Banking Division)

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2001 S.O. 295.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 read with sub-section 2 of Section 6 of the Small Industries Development Bank of India Act, 1989 (39 of 1989), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri P, B. Nimbalkar, Executive Director, Small Indus- tries Development Bank of India, as Chairman and Managing Director, Small Industries Development Bank of India for the period from the date of his taking charge and upto 28th February, 2003.

[F. No. 7/13/2000-B.O.I]

D. K. TYAGI, Director New Delhi, the 31st January. 2001 S.O. 296.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 read with sub-section 2 of Section 6 of the Small Industries Development Bank of India Act, 1989 (39 of 1989), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri G. K. Saxena, Executive Director, Smajl Industries Development Bank of India, as a whole time

.11 director (designated as Deputy Managing. Director), Small Industries Development Bank of India for the period from the date of his taking charge and upto 31st March, 2002.

[F. No. 7/14/2000-B.O.I]

D. K. TYAGI, Director New Delhi, the 31st January, 2001 S.O. 297.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Ac- quisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the Central Government hereby nominates, Shri C. Krishnan, Chief General Manager, Department of Currency Management, Re- serve Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai as a Director of UCO Bank with immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri S. R. Mittal.

' [No. 9/18/20OO-B.CU]

D. K. TYAGI, Director6:2' fk£ GAZETTE OF INDIA .-FEBRUARY 112001/MAGriA 28, i9£>2 [I"ART I^&EC. UH)]

"•&r

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2001

S.O. ? 98.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands mentioned in the schedule hereto annexed;

Now, therefore, in exercise of" the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to a:, the said Act;, the Central Govern- ment hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein;

The plan bearing No. OT/(E)/TTI/HR/66R-032000 dated the 21st March, 2000 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected in the office of the Western Coalfields Limited (Revenue Department), Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440001 (Maharashtra) or in the office of the Collector, Chhindwara (Madhya Pradesh) or in the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Calcutta.

All persons interested in the lands covered by this notification shall deliver all maps, charts and other docu- ments referred to in sub-section (7) of section 13 of the said Act to the Officer-in-Charge/Head of the , Department (Revenue), Western Coalfields Limited, Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Magpur-440 001 (Maharashtra) within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification.

SCHEDULE

SHARDA BLOCK

KANHAN AREA

DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)

(Plan No. C-1(E)/1II/HR 668-032000 dated the 21st ,Mar,ch, 2000).

Tahsil

District

Name of village

Area in Remarks Serial number

Settlement number

hectares Patwari circile number

~1 Ghutti

2 Keolari Kalan 3 Umaria Fadali 4 Jamkunda

~~ 27 25 27 27

149 73- 31 187

Chhindwara Chhindwara Chhindwara Chhindwara

Tunnardeo Junnardeo Junnardeo Jimnardeo

53.00 445.00 284:00 15.00

PartJT CLL L. Part Part Part

Total area : 797.00 hectares (approximately)

or 1969.387 acres (approximately) Boundary description:—• A—B Line starts from point 'A' and passes through village Ghutti and meets at point 'B'. B—C Line passes along the common village boundary of village Umaria Fadali and Morkund and meets at point ' C\

C—D Line passes along the common village- boundary of villages Keolari Kalan and Morkund and meets at point'D'.

D—E Line passes through village Keolarr Kalan and meets at point 'E'. E—F Line passes along the common village boundary of villages Keolari Kalan and Richera and meets at point LF\

F—G Line passes along the common village boundary of villages Keolari Kalan and Palachourai and meets at point'G'.

G ~ H —I Line passes along the common village boundary of villages Keolari Kalan and Nazarpur, Urn aria Fadali and Nazarpur and ineets at point T.

I—J—K—L Line passes through village Jamkunda then proceeds through village Umaria Fadali and meets at point 'L\

L-—M—A Line passes along the common village boundary of villages Ghutti and Umaria Fadali, Ghutti and Sukri and meets at starting point 'A'.

[No.43015/2C/2000-PRIW]

SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy.

_ " *• J g g p O A Z B T TB OF I N D I A: F E B R U A RY 1 7, 2 0 0 1 / M A O HA 2 8, 1 9 22

[ P A RT I T - S E C, 3 $ )]

MINISTRY OF STATISTICS AND PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION

New Delhi, the 22nd January, 20flt

S O. 299.—In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of

the Official Language fuse for official purposos of the Union)

Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the

following offices of the Ministry of Statistics and Programme

Implementation whore the percentage of Hindi knowing staff

has gone above 80 per cent:—

1. Field Operations Division, National Sample Survey

Organisation, Regional Office, Jalandhur.

2, Data Processing Centre, Giridih.

[No. E-11011/2/96-Hiadi]

ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA, Director vffp$sr,v - ifil GI/2001—-2⁶²⁶ XHE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, ^001/MAOHA 2?, 1922 -fpART"II—SEC. 3(ii)] 627 MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2001

S.O. 300.'—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian > Standards Rules, 198?; theiWifcau of Indian Standards hereby.notified thatamendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given-in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

No.< and year of the amendment

No. and Year of the Indian Standards SI. No

3 1

. 2

Date, from which the amendment, shall have effect.

Amendment No. 3, August 2000

IS 2 : I960

2000-08-31

Amendment No. 1, September 2000

IS 44 : 1991

2000-09-30.

Amendment No. 2, August 2000

IS 101 (Part I/Sec 5) : 89 3.

IS 302-2-3(1-992)

2000-08-31

Amnedment No. 8, September 2000

2000-09-30

Amendment No. 5, September 2000

IS 374-: 1979

2000-09-30

Amendment No. lj September 2000

IS 398 {Part,5) : 1992 6.

2000-09-30

Amendment N o. 1, November.2000

IS 514 ; 1992

2000.-11-30

Amendment No. 3, Ssptember.2000

8. IS 1003 {Parti)-: 1991 2000,09-30

Amendment No. 1, November.2000

^9. IS 1114 : 1964-

2000-11-30

Amendment No. 2, October 2000

10. IS 1391 (Part, 1 ): 1992, 2000-10-31

Amendment No. 4, September 2000

IS 1460 •: 19?5

11.

Amendment .No. 2, September 2000 Amendment No. 3, August 2000

12. 13.

IS 1472 : 1977 . IS 1536.: 1989'

2000-09-30

2000-09-30 2000-08-31

Amendment No. 1, October 2000

14. IS 1652,.: 1991

2000-10-31

Amendment No. 2, October 2000

15. IS 1783XPart 1) : 1993 . 2000-10-31

Amendment No. 1, October 2000

IS1783(Part.2),: 1988 16.

2000-10-31

Amendment No. 3, October 2000

IS 1848.: 1991-

17.

2000-10-31

Amendment No. 1, October 2000

IS 2095 (Part 1) : 1996 18.

2000-10-31

Amendment No. 1, October 2000

IS 2095 (Part 3) : 1996 19.

2000-10-31

Amendment No. 1, September 2000

IS 2191.(Part..1).: 1983 20.

2000-09-30

Amendment No. 1, September 2000

IS 219L(Part.2)..: 1983 21.

2000-09-30

Amendment No. 1 , September 2000

IS 2202 (Part 2) : 1983 22.

IS 2344: 1994

2000-09-30

Amendment No. 1, October 2000

23.

2000-10-31

Amendment No. 3' October 2000

IS 2653.: 1991.

24.

2000-10-31

Amendment No. 1, November 2000

IS 2779. : 1980

25.

IS 2796,: 1995

2000-11-30

Amendment N6. 4, September 2000

26.

2000-09-30.

Amendment No. 3, September 20Q0

IS 2849 : 1983

27.

IS3025,(Part23) : 1986 2000-09-30.

Amendment No. 1, September 2000

28.

IS 3025 (Part 4 3 ): 1992 2000-09-30.

Amendment No. 1, September 2000

29.

2000-09-30

Amendment No. 1, October 2000

IS3025(Part,44): 1993 30.

2000-10-31628 THE GAZETTE Of INDIA ; FEBRUARY 17, 2 0 0 1 / M A G HA 28, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 ,2 3 4 31. IS 3025 (Part 46) : 1992

Amendment N o. 1, September 2000

2. IS 3025 (Part 47) : 1994 2000-09-30

Amendment N o. ], October 2000

33. IS 3025 (Part 48) : 1994 2000-10-31

Amendment N o. 1, October 2000

34. IS 3025 (Part 49) : 1994 2OOO-1O-3)

Amendment N o. 1, October 2000

35. IS 3087 : 1985

2000-10-3'

Amendment N o. 5, June 2000

36. IS 3195 ; 1992

2000-06-2

Amendment N o. 2, September 2000

37. IS 3550 : 1965

2000-09-:

Amendment N o. 2, October 2000

38. IS 3677 : 1985

2000-10-2 2000-09-2

Amendment N o. 1, September 2000

39. IS 3837 : 1976

Amendment N o. 1, September 2000

40. IS 3873 : 1993

2000-09--"

Amendment N o. 1, September 2000

41. IS 4021 : 1995

2000-09-3

Amendment N o. 1, August 2000

42. IS 4351 : 1976

2OO0-08-:

Amendment N o, 3, September 2000

43. IS 4605 : J981

2OOO-O9-3

Amendment N o. 2, September 2000

44. JS 4717 : 1980

2000-09-2

Amendment N o. 4, October 2000

45. IS 4962 : 1968

2000-10-3

Amendment N o. 1, September 2000

46, IS 5120 : 1977

2000-09-3

Amendment No. 5, October 2000

47. IS 5182 (Part 8) :

2000-10-3

Amendment N o. 1, October 2000

1976 2000-10-3

Amendment N o. ,2, October 2000

48. IS 5470 : 1969

49. IS 6198 : 1992

2000-10-3

Amendment No. 1, September 2000

50. IS 6303 : 1984

Amendment N o. 5, September 2000.

51. IS 6448 : 1983

2000-09-3< 2000-09-3 2000-11-3

Amendment N o. 1, November 2000

Amendment No. 2, October 2000

1993 52. IS 6595 (Part 1) :

2000-10-3 2000-08-3

Amendment N o. 2, August 2000

53. TS 6598 : 1972

2000-11-3

Amendment N o. 1, November 2000

54. IS 6681 : 1972

2000-10-3

Amendment N o. 4, October 2000

55. IS 7224 : 1985

2000-11-31

Amendment N o. 2, November 2000

56. IS 8133 : 1983

Amendment N o. 2, September 2000

57. IS 8148 : 1976

2OO0-09-3< 2000-10-3.

Amendment N o. 1, October 2000

58. IS 8472 : J998

2000-10-3

Amendment N o. 1, October 2000

59. IS 9128 : 1999

Amendment N o. 2, September 2000

60. IS 9300 (Part 2) : 1989 2000-09-31

Amendment N o. 1, September 2000

61. IS 9451 : 1994

2000-09-3( 2000-09-3(

Amendment N o. ], September 2000

62. IS 9755 : 1999

. Amendment N o. 2, November 2000

63. IS 9755 : 1999

2000-11-3( 2000-10-31

Amendment N o. 1, October 2000

64. IS 9880 : 1981

2000-08-31

Amendment No. 1, August 2000

65. IS 9886 : 1990

2OOO-O9-3C

Amendment N o. 2, September 2000

1982 66. IS J0068(Piirt2) :

2000-09-3C

Amendment N o. 4, September 2000

67. IS 10141 : 1982

2000-09-3(

Amendment N o. 2, September 2000

1983 68. IS 10617 (Part 1) :

1983 2000-09-3C

Amendment N o. 2, September 2000

69. IS 10617 (Part 2) :

2OOO-O9-3C

Amendment N o. 2, September 2000

1983 70. IS 10617 (Part 3) :

2000-09-3C

Amendment N o. 2, September 2000

71. IS 1G646 : 1991

2000-09-3C

Amendment N o. 3, September 2000

72. IS 10748 : 1995

2000-0930

Amendment N o. 2, September 2000

73. IS 10909 : 1984

2000-10-31

Amendment N o. 1, October 2000

74. IS 11001 : 1984

2000-11-30.

Amendment N o. 1, November 2000

75. IS 11003 : J984

' 2000-09-30

Amendment N o. 1, September 2000

76. IS 11809 : 1994629 3 1 4 2 77. IS 12225-: 1997

2000-10-31

Amendment No. 1, October 2000

78. IS 12232 (Part 1) : 1996

Amendment No. 1, September 2000

7-9. IS 12248 : 1988

2000-09-30

Amendment No. 1, September 2000

80. IS 12728 : 1989

2000-09-30

Amendment No. 1, September 2000

81. IS 12785 : 1994

2000-09-30

Amendment No. 3, November 2000

2000-11-30

Amendment No. 3, September 2000

82. IS 12818 : 1992

2000-09-30

Amendment No. 3, September 2000

IS 12933 (Part 2) : 1992 83.

2000-09-30

Amendment No. 1, September 2000

84. IS 13369 : 1992

IS 13383 (Part 2) : 1992.

2000-09-30

Amendment No. 1, October 2000

85.

2000-10-31

Amendment No. 2, September 2000

IS 13428 : 1998

86.

2000-09-30

Amendment No. 1, October 2000

IS 13463 : 1992

S7.

2000-10-31

Amendment No. 1, October 2000

IS 13464 : 1992

88.

2000-10-31

Amendment No. 4, October 2000

IS 13487 : 1992

39.

2000-10-31

Amendment No. 4, October 2000

IS 13488 : 1992

2000-10-31

Amendment No. 1, September 2000

IS 13514 : 1992

2000-09-30

Amendment No. 1, September 2000

IS 13798 : 1993

X). n. n.

IS 14151 (Part 2) : 1999

2000-09-30

Amendment No. 1, October 2000

)3.

2000-10-31

Amendment No. 1, October 2000

IS 14164 : 1994

94.

2000-10-31

Amendment No. 3, October 2000

95. TS 14220 : 1994 "

2000-10-31

Amendment No. 2, September 2000

IS 14543 : 1998

96.

2000-09-30

Amendment No. 2, August 2000

97. IS 14587 : 1998

2000-08-31

Amendment No. 1, September 2000

IS 14605 : 1998

98.

2000-09-30

Amendment No. 1, September 2000

IS 14606 : 1998

99.

2000-09-30

Copy of these amendments are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Calcutta, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal,' Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Faridabad, Ghaziabad, Guwahati, Hyderaad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Lucknow, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Rajkot, Thiruvananthapuram.

[No.CMD/13 :5] SATISH CHANDER, Addl. [Director Generaltw6, "THE GAZETTE OF INDIA.: FEBRUARY. 17, 2Q01/MAGHA 28, 1922 [PART.II—SEC. 3(ii)] -w"32 T^E CJAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 17, 20G1/MAGHA 28, 1922 . [PART fl—SEC. 3(ii)] 633 361 GI/2001— 3634 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 17, 2001/MAGIIA 28, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ;-w

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2001

S O. 301.—In purusancc of sub-regulation (5) of the Bureau of Indinn Standards (Certification) Regulations L988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hefeby notifies the grant of licences particulars of wheih are given in the bllowing schedule :

SCHEDULE

•Name & Address (Factory) of the Party

11. Licence io. No.

Operative Date (Year/ Month)

1 2

2000/09

1.' 6233558

M/s. Kirtilal Kalidas & Co., 601, Raja Street, Coimbatore—641 001. 2000/09

2. 6233659

M/s. Amaravathi Pipes, Trichy Main Road, Sanapretti, R.S (East);, Vellalapatti Post, Karur District, Karur, Tamil Nadu—639 004. 2000/09

d. 6233760

M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited, AP Cement Works, Phogasamudram Village, Tadpatri Mandal, Ananthapur District, A.P.—515 415.

2000/09

i. 6233861

M/s. Nagarjuna Polymers, 206/8 and 9, IDA, Phase IT, Cherlapally, R.R. District.

2000/09

5. 6233962

M/s. Vantech Industry Ltd., IDA, Kazipally, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District—502 319. , 2000/09

6. 6234055

M/s. Vantech Industry Ltd., IDA Kazipally, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District—502 319. 2000/09

7. 6234156

M/s. Vantech Industry Ltd., IDA, Kazipally, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District—502 319.

8. 6234257 2000/09 M/s. Vantech Industry Ltd., IDA, Kazipally, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District~502 319.

Title of the Standard

TS Part Sec. Year

No.

01417

Gold and gold alloys, jewellery/

99 artefacts—fineness and marking —Specification.

Precast concrete pipes (with and 00458

88 without reinforcement).

Portland slag cement.

00455

04984 •

U nplasticised PVC pipes for

95 potable water supplies.

08963

Chlorpyrifos, technical.

09355

Butachlor, technical.

09356

Butachlor emulsifiable concen-

80 trates.

04323

80 Endosulfan emulsifiable concen- trates.

636 THE GAZETTE QF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2001/MAGHA" 28, 1922, [PART I L ^ - S E C. 3(ii)] 1 ' 3 4 6 5 2 01417 6234358 2000/09 9 9.

M/s. Vummidi Bangaru Jewellers, 603, Anna Salai, Chennai—600 006.

10.

2000/09

6234459

M/s. Bhaskara Agro Chemicals Ltd., 94/1, Toophranpet Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

6234560 2000/09

11.

M/s. Hyderabad Chemical Supplies Ltd., A-24/25, AP1E, Balanagar, Hyderabad—500 037. 2000/09

12. 6234661

M/s. Chaitra Irrigations, Bellur Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District, Karnataka—571 418. 2000/09

13. 6234762

M/s. Alukkas Jewellery, Round East, Thrissur-680 001.

2000/09

14. 6234863

M/s. Arya Plast Private Ltd, F-72, S1PCOT Indl. Complex, Oummidipoondi—601 201.

15. 6234964 2000/09

M/s. Duraj PVC Pipe, No. 27, 28, SJDCO Ind). Estate, Pettai, TirunelvcJi— 627 010. 2000/09

6235057

16.

M/s. Hyderabad Che?Tiical Products Ltd., Plot No. 60 & 61, IDA, Pashamylaram, Medak District--502 307. 2000/09

£235158

17.

M/s. Hyderabad Chemical Products Ltd., Plot No. 6 0 & 6 I, IDA, Pashamylaram, Medak District—502 307. 2000/09

18. 6235259

M/s. Hyderabad Chemical Product Ltd., Plot No. 60 & 61, IDA, Pashamylaram, Medak District—502 307. 2000/09

235360

19.

M/s. Jewels De Paragon Pvt. Lijd., Rathnams Complex, No. 10/5, Kasturba Road, Opp. Mahatma Gandhi Park, Bangalprc—560 001.

Goldi and gold alloys, Jewellery/. artefacts—fineness and marking —Specification.

Accphate SP.

12916

Ethion. cmusifiable conceutrate. 10319

12786

Irrigation equipment—polye- thylene pipes for irrigation laterals.

Gold and gold alloys, jewellery/ 01417

99 artefacts—fineness and marking —Specification.

PVC pipes for potable water

04985

88 supplies.

PVC pipes for potable water 04985

88 supplies.

Carboruran granules, encapsuled. 09360

80 Quinalphos emulsifiabL wm.ui- 08028

87 tratc.

Ethion emulsifiable concentrate. 10319

82 Gold and gold alloys, jewellery/ 01417

99 artefacts—fineness and marking —Specification.

totI 2 3 4 5 6 2000/09 20. 6235461 33196 01 92 M/s. Lite Containers Pvt. Ltd., B-56, SIPCOT Indl. Complex, Gummidipoondi—601 201. 2000/09

6235562

21.

M/s. Rashmi Industries, No. 60/61, Hongasandra, Bangalore—560 068. 2000/09

6235663

22.

M/s. Sri Gowri Sankar Engineering Works, No. 40, Industrial Estate, Sultanabad, Tenali—522 202.

2000/09

6235764

23.

M/s. Sylvan Agro Industry, Plot No. 160/A, IDA, Mallapur, Ranga Reddy Distric Hyderabad^500 076.

M/s. Sujatha Agro Equipments 2000/09

6235865

24.

(P) Ltd.,

3A2, 3A3, K.K. Pudur Road, Velandipalayam Coimbatore—641025

M/s. Jagadamba Engineering (25.

2000/09

6235966

Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No. 41, SVC1 Estate, Phase IT, TDA, Jeedimetja, Hyderabad—500 855.

M/s. Lakshmi Agro Chemicals 26.

2000/09

6236059

Pvt. Ltd.,

Lingareddyguda .V), Shadnagar Tq., Farooqnagar (M), Mahaboobnagar District. 1

2000/09

27.

1 6236160

M/s. Sunlight*Boards (P) Ltd., AP IV-685 A& B, Mill Road, Azheekkodc Panchayat, Valapattanam P.O., Kannur-670 010.

2000/09

P8.

6236261

M/s. Shrimali Fixtures, SF No. 462, Narsipuram Road, Thondamuthur Village, Thondamuthur Block, Coimbatorc-641 109. 2000/09

29.

6236362

M/s. Thomson Rubbers, XIV/165 A, Kurvamoozhy, Erumely.

Welded low carbon steel cylinder 1 exceeding 5 litre water capacity for low pressure liquefiabLe gases Part 1 Cylinders for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).

12933 01 92 Solar flat plate collector : Part 1 Requirements.

Centrifugal jet pump.

12225

94 Zinc sulphate, heptahydrate,

08249

agricultural grade,

Crop protection equipment hand- 03906

95 operated knapsack sprayer piston type.

1 92

03196 0 Welded low carbon steel cylinder exceeding 5 litre water capacity for low pressure liquefiable (LPG).

Cyperniethnin, EC

12016

Plywood for general purposes 00303

01534 01 Ballasts for fluorescent lamps :

77 Part 1 for switch start circuits

Ammonia preserved concentrated 05430

81 natural rubber latex638 THETOAZETTE of tNDlA: FEBRUARY it 2001/MAGHA 28, 1952 [PART H^-SEC. 3(11)1 4 1 3 2 6 5 M/s. Sahij, Steel, Tubes (P) Ltd., Steel tul-cs for mechanical and 03601 84 30. 6936463 : 2000/09 general engineering purposes Plot No. 57,Kiadb Area Malur, Kolar District,

K.arnataka-563 103.

M/s. Romega Foam P. Ltd., I

623.6564 2000/10

31.

36, Canal Road,

Kudapakkam Village,

Villianur, [

Pondicherry-605 110. 2000/10 M/s. Arvind Plastics, 6236665

32.

Plot No. Jl (Southern Part),

Sipcot Industrial Estate,

Perundnrai,

Erode Dislrict-638 052.

M/s. Southern Flavours and 5

2000/10

6236766

33.

Colours Pvt. Limited,

5, Vinayagam Avenue,

Venkatesh Nagar,

yirugambakkam,

Cheunai-600 092.

\0/s. Classic Tubes, C

2000/10 1

6236867

34.

1/556, Killikallur Panchayat,

i Chandanthope P.O., Kollam,

] Kerala State-69L 014.

M/s. Shis India Ltd., C

2000/10

6236968

35.

i Gummadidala Village,

Naraspur Taluk,

Mcdak District

\.P.-502 313,

M/s. Nagarjuna Agri Chem Ltd., /

2000/10 1

6237061

36.

Plot No. 177, Arinama Akkivalasa

]

P.O. Allinagaram,

Near Chikkapalem J unction,

Srikakulam,

Etcherala Mandal-532 483.

M/s. Nagarjuna Agri Chem Ltd., ]

2000/10 .

6237162

37.

Plot No. 177,

i\rinama Akkivalasa

P.O. Allinagaram,

Near Chikkapalem Junction,

Srikakulam,

] Etcherla Mandal-532 483.

⁷lexiblc polyurehane foam for 07933

75 domestic mattresses

Irrigation equipment—-poiyethyle ne 12786

89 pipes for irrigation laterals

Jynthetic.food colour—preparati< sns 05346

94 and mixtures

'onduits for electrical installa- 09537 03 83 tions : Part 3 Rigid plain con-

duits of insulating materials.

hlorpyrifos, technical

08963

78 ^cephate, technical

12915

90 vlonocrotophos, technical

08025

90639 6 5 I 2 3 4 84 M/s. Universal Pcstochcm Diinethoate cmulsifiabic concen- 03903 , 6237263 2000/10 38. Industries (1) Ltd., trates S. No. 12, Gaddapotharam Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Mcdak District.

. 6237364

M/s. Universal Pestochem 2000/10

39.

Industries (I) Ltd.,

S. No. 12, Gaddapotharam Village Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District.

2000/10 M/s. Vijayalakshmi Insect, , 6237465

40.

& Pesticides,

(A Division of Nagarjuna

Finance Ltd.),

S. No. 1710 & 1711, Anthireddyguda Road, Nandigam, Kothur Mandal, Mahboobnagar District-509 223.

• 2000/10 M/s. Elca Carbons Lorraine . 6237566

41.

Private Ltd.,

5, Bommasandra Indl., Area,

Bangalore-562 158. 2000/10 M/s. Rcckitt & Colman of , 6237667

42,

India Ltd.

176, SIPCOT Tndi. Complex, Hosur-635 126.

2000/10

6237768

43.

M/s. fUiazana Jewellery (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., No. 36, Cathedral Road, Chennai-600 086. 2000/10

6237869

44.

M/s. Agastya Agro Limited, S. No. 47, Muraharipally, R. R. District. 500014

2000/10

6237970

45.

M/s. Pasura Chemicals Ltd., 611 & 612, Panthangi Village, Choutuppal Mandal-508 252. 2000/10

6238063

46.

M/s. Pasura Chemicals Ltd., 611 & 612, Panthangi Village, Choutuppal Mandal,-508 252.

Ethion emulsifiable concentrate

10319

Pesticide—phorate G, encapsulated 09359

95 Bush materials for electrical ma- 13584

93 chinery

Mosquito repellant mats

13439

92 Gold and gold alloys, jewellery/ 01417

99 artefacts—fineness and marking —Specification

Cypermetrin, EC

12016

87 Copper oxychloride, technical 01486

77 Coper oxychtoride water dis-

01507

persible powder concentrates040 THfe GAZETTE OF EsIMA : SEBfttlARY 17,.20flVMAjGHA 28, 1922 [PA*T J I - T $ B C. 3(ii)] 1 3 2 4 5 7 8 9 47. 6238164 2000/10 M/s. Hyderbad Chemical, Butachlor cmulsifiabie concentrate; 80 j 09356 Supplies Ltd., A-24/25, Apie Balanagar, Hyderabad-500 037.

6238265

48.

2000/10 M/s. Hyderabad Chemical Supplies Ltd. A-24/25, Apie Bulanagar, Hyderabari-500 037.

49. 6238366 2000/10 M/s. Nagarjuna Agrichetn LI Plot No. 177 Arinama Akkivalasa P.O.AUinagaram Near Chikapalem Junction, . Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam-532 403.

6238467

50.

2000/10 M/s. Kalyan Jewellers, Deepanjali, Palace Road, Trichur City-680 020.

6238568 2000/10

51.

M/s. Padavi Engineers & Pressure Vessels Ltd., 70/2, 70/3, A&B Budhihal Vil Neelamangala Taluk, Bangalore District.

2000/10 M/s. VUmmidi Bangaru Chctl 5238669

52. i

& Sons.

G-3/A, Spencers Plaza, 769, AnnaSalai, Chennai-600 002.

2000/10

5238770

53. (

M/s. Sagar Cements Limited, Bayyavaram Village, Kasimkota Madal, Visakhapatnam District. 2000/10

5238871

54. <

M/s. Vishai koa Steel, Plot No. 129/141, Udyambag, Belgaum-590 008.

2000/10

5238972 :

i5. t

M/s. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. Ranipet-632 401.

2000/10

>239065 :

16. (

Oxydemeton-methyl emulsifiabic 08259

76 concentrates

td. Dichlorvos, technical

04929

Gold and gold a>lloys, jewellery/ 01417

99 artefacts—fineness and marking —Specification

03196 f )1 92 Welded low carbon steel cylinder exceeding 5 litre water capacity

1. for low pressure Hquefiable

gases; Part 1 Cylinders for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)

:y Gold and gold alloys, jewellery/ 01417

99 artefacts—fineness and marking —Specification

Portland slag cement

00455

89 Horizontally cast iron double

07181

86 flanged pipes for water, gas and sewage

Pesticide—benomyl WP

13787

93 Single-phase small ac and universal 00996

r, electric motors

M/s. Intact Engineering Co., Site No. 2, Sri Lakshmi Nagai Thanneerpandal [], BR Puram, Peelamedu, Coimbatorc-641 004.

[No. CMD/13:11] SATISH CffANDER, Addl. Director General641

361 GI/2001—4

yi itimtiAzertBc#iwrnA'-.FEBRUARY li.ifomkAdkA T", \ni p^ttiR&ic. $ (tin MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

New Delhi, the 22nd January, 2001

S. O. 302,—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (7) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of the self-indicating, non-automatic, (Plat form type) weighing instrument with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy Class HI) and with brand name "Electroscale" (hereinafter referred to as the model) manufactured by M/s.KX Instruments, 3, Shivaji Nagar, Savarkundla, Amerli District, Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2000/158;

The said model (see figure) is weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 50kg and minimum capacity of lOOg. The verification scale interval (e) is 5g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractrve retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 volts and 50-Hertz alternate current power supply;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of same series with maximum capacity up to 5 tonne with number of verification scale interval (n) less than or equal to 10,000 (n<. 10,000 and with 'e' value 1 x 1&, 2 * 10\ 5 * 1(P, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the approved model have been manufactured.

[F. No. W.M.-21(29)/98]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director, Legal Metrology643 644 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2001/MAGHA 28, 1922 I [PART TI-—Ssc. 3 (ii)]

New ueim, tne 2Znd January, 2uu l

S.O. 303.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Art, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain accuracy over periods of sustained use and to reader accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (7) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of the self-indicating, non-automatic, (Table top type) weighing instrument with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy Class II) and with brand name "Ekctroscale" (hereinafter referred to as the nnxiel) manufactured by M/s.K.K. Instruments,! ShivajiNagar, Savarkundla, Amerli District, Gujarat andwhich is assigned the approval mark.IND/09/2000/159;

The said model (see figure given) is weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 10kg and minimum capacity of 50g. The verification scale interval (e) is lg. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 volts and 50-Hertz alternate current power supply;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the model shall also cover the weighing instrument of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg. with number of verification scale internal (n) less than or equal to 10,000 (n<_ 10,000) and with V value 1 * 10", 2 * 10*, 5 * 10", k being the positive or negative whole numbeT or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the approved model have been manufactured.

fF. No. W.M.-21(29)/98]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology ::€*5-:;

646 W ftj THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 17,2001 /MAGHA 28,1922 [PART U—SEC. 3 (H)]

New Delhi, the 25th January, 2001

S. O. 304.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (7) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of the self-indicating, non-automatic, (table top type) weighing instrument with digital indication of "NEP" series of High accuracy (Accuracy Class IT) and with brand name "Phoenix" (hereinafter referred to as the model) manufactured by M/s Nitiraj Engineers Pvt. Ltd, Bhatwa) Dal Mill compound, Behind Gurdwara, Mumbai-Agra Road, Dhule-424311 and which is assigned the approval mark MD/09/2000/176;

The said model (figure given) is a weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 30kg and minimum capacity of lOOg, The verification scale interval (c) is 2g. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The load receiptor is of square section of side 320x320 millimetre. The Light Emitting Diode display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 volts and 50-Hertz alternate current power supply;

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the model shall also cover the weighing instrument similar accuracy and performance of same series with same accuracy class and of same series having maximum capacity up to 50 Kg. and with number of verfication scale interval (n) more than or equal to 5000 and less than 1,00,000 (5000 < (n<_ 100,000 and with V value 1 * 10", 2 x lO*, 5 x 10¹¹, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the approved model have been manufactured.

[F. No. W.M.-21(38)/2OOO]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director, Legal Metrology #WP THB0A2ETTCCB'Wt>lA:1'^HtUARY I T , Z O O I / M f t q H A m i g^ fFArtff*4S^?{ii)]

New Delhi, the 25th January, 2001

S, O. 305.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (7) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the self-indicating, non-automatic, (Plat form type) weighing instrument with digital indication of "NEP" series of High accuracy (Accuracy Class IT) and with brand name "Phoenix" (hereinafter referred to as the model) manufactured by M/s Nitiraj Engineers Pvt. Ltd, Bhatwal Dal Mill compound, Behind Gurdwara, Mumbai* Agra Road, Dhule-424311 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2000/177;

The said model (figure given) is a weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 120kg and minimum capacity of 500g. The verification scale interval (e) is lOg. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The load receiptor is of square section of side 620 * 620 millimetre. The Light Emitting Diode display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 volts and 50-Hcrtz alternate current power supply;

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of sectic

Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the model shall also cover the weighing instrument similar accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 5 tonne with number of verification scale interval (n) less than or equal to 100,000 (n<^ 100,000) and with 'e' value I* 10k, 2 * 10k, 5 * 10k, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the samp materials with which, the approved model have been manufactured.

[F: No. W.M.-21(38)/2000]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director, Legal Metrolog> m-- 361 GI/2001—5 ixijL, V J ^ ^ I ^I II. \Ji U-4U1A . . F U m t U A KI I/, / UU L / M A U HA 2 8, 1 V /Z [.TARTU—i>EC. J ( n ;|

New Delhi, the 25th January, 2001

S. O. 306.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (7) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of the self-indicating, non-automatic, (Weigh bridge Multi load cell type) weighing instrument with digital indication of 'PM 2736 E' series of Medium accuracy (Accuracy class III) and with brand name "Atlas" (hereinafter referred to as the model) manufactured by M/s T.T.C. Weighing Systems Private Limited, 331/1. N.S. Road (Room No. 807) Calcutta-700 001 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2000/182;

The said model (see figure) is weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 30,000 kg and minimum capacity of 100kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 5kg. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 volts and 50-Hertz alternate current power supply;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the model shall also cover the weighing instrument of same accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity more than 5 tonne with number of verification scale interval (n) less than or equal to 10,000 (n<_ 10,000) and with 'e! value 1 * 10", 2 * 10\ 5 x 10k, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the approved model have been manufactured.

[F. No. W.M.-21(43)/98]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology651 Gft THE OAZETTB OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 17,2OOl/MAt3HAM,J"22 flW H—Sue. 3 (&)]

New Delhi, the 25th January, 2001

S. O. 307.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Wei grits and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules.' 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers confeired by sub-section (7) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of the self-indicating, non-automatic, (conversion kit for plat form type) weighing instrument with digital indication of "EWH" series of Medium accuracy (Accuracy class TH) and with brand name "El-wcigh" (hereinafter referred to as the model) manufactured by M/s Sensors and Systems, 3, Panthdecp lay-out, laiprakash Nagar, Nagpwr-4⁴°025 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2000/201;

The said model (figure given) is a conversion Kit for Platform weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 3,00 kg and minimum capacity of 2kg. The verification scale interval (e) is lOOg, It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The load recepior is ot rectangular section of side 630*400 millimetre. The Light Emitting Diode display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 volts and 50-Hertz alternate current power supply;

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the model shall also cover the weighing instrument similar accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 5 tonne and with number of verfication scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10000 for 'e' value of 5g or more and with V value 1* 10k, 2 x 10¹, 5 x 10", k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the approved model have been manufactured.

[F. No. WM.-21(102)/2000]

P. A KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology "53634 fHE GAZETTE OF INBIA; FEBRUARY 17, 2001/MAGHA 28, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 25th January, 2001

S.O. 308.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exorcise of the powers conferred by sub-section (7) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the self-indicating, non-automatic (conversion kit for weigh bridge type) weighing instrument with digital indication of "El-weigh" series of Medium accuracy (Accuracy class III) and with brand name "El-weigh" (hereinafter referred to as the model) manufactured by M/s Sensors and Systems, 3, Panchdcep Lay-out, Jaiprakash Nagar, N.igpur-440025 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2000/202;

The said model (figure given) is a conversion kit type of weigh bridge with a maximum capacity of 30,000 kg and minimum capacity of 200 kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 10 kg. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The load receptor is of rectangular section of side 9 *3 metre. The Light Emitting Diode display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50-Hertz alternate current power supply;

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of section 36 of the said Act, the Centi Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the model shall also cover the weighing instrument similar make, accuracy and performance of same scries with maximum capacity more than 5 tonne and with number verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for 'e' value of 5g or more and with 'c' val 1 x 10\ 2 x 10\ 5 * 10k, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the s aw manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which the approved model have been manufactured.

[F. No. W.M.-21(102)/2000]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director, of Legal Metrology ttsy'6*6 TUB GAZETTE OF INDIA FEBRUARY 17,2001/MAGHA 28,1*22 IPART II-*SBC. 3 (tf}}

New Delhi, the 25lh January, 2001

S. O. 309.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (7) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of the self-indicating, non-automatic (cane scale) (load cell type) weighing instrument with digital indication of "CW" series of Medium accuracy (Accuracy class III) and with brand name "ET-weigh" (hereinafter referred to as the model), manufactured by M/s. Sensors and Systems, 3, Panchdeep Lay-out, Jaiprakash Nagar, Nagpur-440025 and which is assigned the approval mark rND/09/ 2000/203;

The said model (figure given) is a cane weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 10,000 kg and minimum capacity of 100 kg. The verification scale interval (c) is 5 kg. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make and performance of same scries with maximum capacity more than 5 tonne and with number of verfication scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for V value of 5g or more and with ' e' value 1 x 10*, 2 * 10*, 5 * 10\ k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which the approved model have been manufactured.

• [F. No. W.M.-21(102)/2000]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology657 361 GI/2001—6538 THH GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 17,2001/MAGHA28, 1922 [PAKT H^-Stic. 3 (ii)}

New Delhi, the 25th January, 2001

S. O. 310.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the-teport submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (7) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of the non-automatic, (table top type) weighing instrument with digital indication of "VIPER MB" series of Special accuracy (Accuracy class I) and with brand name "King Viper" (hereinafter referred to as the model), manufactured by M/s. Mettler-Toledeo India Private limited, Amar Hill, Saki Vihar Road, Powai Mumbai-400072 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2000/ 209;

The said model (figure given) is a weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 3 lOOg and minimum capacity of lg. The verification scale interval (c) is lOmg. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The load receptor is of square section side 165*165 millimetre. The liquid crystal diode display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 volts and 50-Hertz alternate current power supply;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the model shall also cover the weighing instrument of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg with number of verification scale internal (n) equal or more than 50,000 and with equal or more than 1 mg and with 'e' value 1* 10v, 2 * 10\ 5 * 10*, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the approved model have been manufactured.

[F. No. W.M.-21(138)/2000]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director, Legal Metrology659 660 , THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2001/MAGHA 28, 1922 [PART II-1SBC. 3 0i)f

New Delhi, the 25th January, 2001

S. O. 311.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (7) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of the non-automatic, (Platform type) weighing instrument with digital indication of " WLC" series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class III) and with brand name "Wild Cat" (hereinafter referred to as the model), manufactured by M/s MctUer-Toledeo India Private Limited, Amar Hilly Saki Vihar Road, Powai MumbBi-400072 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2000/2I0;

The said model (figure given) is a weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 60 kg and minimum capacity of 200g. The verification scale interval (e) is 10g. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The load receptor is of rectangular section side 300*400 millimetre. The liquid crystal diode display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 volts and 50-Hertz alternate current power supply;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of section 3t> of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the model shall also cover the weighing instrument of same scries with maximum capacity up to 5 tonne with number of verification scale internal (n) m the range of 100 to 10,000 for 'e' value lOOmg to 2 g and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range 500 to 10,000 for 'c' of 5g or more and with 'e' value 1 * 10", 2 * 10*, 5 * 10*, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the approved model have been manufactured.

[F. No. W.M.-21(138)/2OOO]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director, Legal Metrology661 662 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA FEBRUARY 17. 2001/MAGHA 28. 1922 FPART II—SEC. 3 (ii)l

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2001

S. O. 312.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (7) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non-automatic, (Table top Type) weighing instrument with digital display of "BPL-TT" series of medium accuracy class (class III Accuracy) and with brand name "BPL" (hereinafter referred to as the model), manufactured by M/s. BPt Engineers, W-257 W Shed, M.I.D.C., Bhosari, Pune-411 026 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/99/166;

The said model (sec the figure) is a medium accuracy class (Accuracy class III) dual range weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 30 kg and minimum capacity of 40g. The verification scale interval value (e) is 2g corresponding to maximum capacity 20kg and thereinafter 5g upto maximum capacity of 30 kg. The light emitting diode indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 volts and frequency 50-Hertz alternate current power supply.

Further, in ex<

Government hereby dec!

Similar make, accuracy aim pciiuriiiiiiMwC ui saiuc aeucs vi maximum wiipatiiy up LU JU ng >"ui iiinAiimun uuiiiuvi "i verification scale interval (n) in less than or equal to 10,000 (n < 10,000) and with the 'e' value to 1 * 10", 2 x 10\ and 5 x iov, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. W.M.-21(125)/99]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director, Legal Metrology663 <>64 THE GAZETTE OF (NDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 200T/MAGHA 28,1922 [PART I I — S E C, 3 (ft)]

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2001

S. O. 313.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) K in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (7) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non-automatic, digital, Platform type weighing instrument of "BPL-PS" series of medium accuracy class (Accuracy class III) and with brand name "BPL" (hereinafter referred to as the model), manufactured by M/s BPL Engineers, W-257 W Shed, M.I.D.C., Bhosari, Pune- 411 026 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/99/167;

The said model (see the figure) is a medium accuracy class (Accuracy class III) dual range weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 60 kg and minimum capacity of lOOg. The verification scale interval value (e) is 5g. corresponding to maximum capacity 50kg and there after lOg upto the maximum capacity of 60 kg. The light emitting diode indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 volts and frequency 50-Hertz alternate current power supply,

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of sectioi

Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum number of verification scale interval (n) in less than or equal to 10,000 (n < 10,000) and with the V value to 1 x 10\ 2 * 10k, 5 x 10k, k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the approved model has been manufactured.

[F, No. W,M.-21(125)/99]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director, Legal Metrology665 361 Gl/2001—7,", THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2001 MAGHA18,1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2001

s. O.Ju.— Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 1892 dated the 18th August 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 6lh September, 2000;

And whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) 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 pipeline 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 publication of this declaration, in the Petronet CTM Limited free from all encumbrances.

•m>>

SCHEDULE

Taluk : Madurai North

State : Tamil Nadu

District:Madurai

Area

Sub-Division no

Sq mtr Name of the Village

Survey no

Hectare Are

No.54 CHETTIKULAM

70 1B

[No.-3H>15/36/2000ORI|

S. CHANDRASEKHAR. Under Secy.

6(>8 T H E ^ J A Z E T TE OF INDIA J F E B R U A R Y J^ 2001 MAGHA28, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)j

N ew D e l h i, i hc 'Jlh F e b r u a ry .1<)

s. o. 315.— Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 1890 dated the 18th August 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 6th September, 2000;

And whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) 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 pipeline for the transport of petroleum products;

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 publication of this declaration in the Petronet CTM Limited, free from all encumbrances.

671) : THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2001 MAGHA 2ft, 1922 [PART H-^SBC. 3 (ii>l

SCHEDULE

Taluk : Tiruchlrapalll

District: Tiruchirapalll

State : Tamil Nadu

Area

Are Sq mtr Name of the Village

Survey no Sub-Division no Hectare

6 No.80/1 KANDALUR

72 1

72 2

72 13

72 3

'40

72 . 12

72 11

72 10

72 9

72 4

64 1

19 2

19 4

19 5

19 6

19 7

19 8

63 1

62 9

62 10

62 11

62 12

62 13

62 14

62 15

60 1

60 " 3

60 4

544 9

No.76 SURIYUR

544 6

0 •

544 5

544 4

0 -

, 544 3C

0671 [No.-31015/36/2000 OR I| 5. CHANDRASEKHAR. Under Sccv&f¥ THE QAZETflft OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17,2flQ1 MAGHA 28, 1922 [PART II—SBC. 3 *&'

New Ddlu. the (Jlh February. 2001

s. o. JK". - Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 1S94 dated the 18th August 2000 issued under sub-section (I) of section 3 o£ 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 1'iruchirapalli in the State of Tamil Nadu by Peironet CTM Limited;

And whereas, copies of the said notifications were made available- to the public on 6th September, 2000;

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

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

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers confened by vub- section (1) of section 0 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares thai the right oi user \r. the said land specified in ihe Schedule appended tj this notification, is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline:

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by subjection (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the n^ht of user m the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest from the date of publication of this declaration in the Petronet CTM Limned free from all encumbrances.

3f-1 Gl'2001—3 "r' -L T- T T -; " ' • J a j - i ^ . ' M i M i r ' j t J Vn . '. 11 i r j i n i : r i a a M g t C . 3 J > J Bi U.L "n HH c u u n f n . j _ ri H n r —J J J T I— • •• JIII i— — mi . "•=— LLC* i j i , - I T - I—J .I i i - j _ j -n . . T m i t f ii ~ ' .k w in i - _M — .' i nl , 1 ' ] . - im id I ' I I ' I A - IJ J 11' 'n m— .' ' i ' M f e=

SCHEDULE

Taluk : Lalgudi District :Tiruchirapalli

State : Tamil Nadu

Area

Name of the Village

Sq mtr

Survey no.

Sub-Division no

Are

Hectare

1 No.26 VALADI 62

133

125

121A

121B

6 4

44 0

66 0

31 0

44 0

26 0

• 0

22 0

52 0

No.83/1 THIRUMANAMEDU (W£ST) 7

7 0

07 0

21 0

lNo.-31015/36/2000 OR 11 S. CHANDRASEKHAR. Under Secy.

675 676 THE GA2ETTE OF INDIA • FEBRUARY 17^2001 MAGHA28, 1922 [PAKT II—SEC. 3 (ii)J

_^?67T

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2O01

s. 0.317.— Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 1891 dated the 18th August 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 6th September, 2000;

-And whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) 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 pipeline for the transport of petroleum products;

ri?g THE GAZETTE OF INDIA -FEBRUARY 17, 2001 MAOHA 28, 1922 (PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)}

SCHEDULE

Taluk : Kulattiur

District: Pudukkottai

State : Tamil Nadu

Area

Name of the Village

Survey no. Sub-Division no. Hectare Are Sq.mtr 1

No.42 MANDAIYUR

319 3B1A

319 4A2A

318 2A1

317 6

317 5A

317 5B

317 4

317 '3

317 2

338 5C

338 5A

338 5B

338 6

342 2

342 3

342 5

342 6

342 7A

342 7B

344 1

344 2A2

344 2A3

344 3A2

344 3B

344 4B

344 4C

344 5

345 2A1B

, 0

345 2A1D

345 2A1A

345 2B1B

46'

[No.-31015/36/2000 ORI|

S. CHANDRASEKHAR. Under Secy.

b79CSO THE GAZETTE OF INDIA FEBRUARY 17. 2001 M A G HA 2 8. 1922 [PART I I — S E C. 3 (ii)l

N ev Delhi, lhc Wh February, 2001

y o. .us.— whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 1893 dated the lSth August 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 1%2) (herein after referred to as ihe 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 1 iruchirapalli in the State of Tamil Nadu by Petronet CTM Limited

And whereas, copies of the said notifications were made available to the public on 6lh September, 2000;

And whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act has submitted his leport to the Central Government;

And whereas, th"e Central Government, after considering the said leport is satisfied that the said land are required for laying of the pipeline for the transport of petroleum products;

- 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 publication of this declaration m the Perronet CTM Limited free from all encumbrances.

681

SCHEDULE

District: Perambalur

State : Tamil

: Kunnam

Taluk

Nadu

Area

Are

Sub-Division no.

Sq mtr

Survey no

Hectare

Name of the Vi. age

6 1

202

315

No.46

SIRUMATTUR

[NO.-31015/36/2000ORI] S. CHANDRASEKHAR. Under Secy.

361 GI/2001— 9SX2 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2001 MAGHA28,1922 PART II—=SEC. 3 (ii)]

New ueini, in© f* rooiu"iy, ^w

s. o. 3i9.—whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.0.2144 dated the 12th September, 2000 issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroteum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying branch pipeline for the transport of petroleum products from Mathura to Tundla in the State of Uttar Pradesh by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, the copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the public from 10-10-2000;

And whereas, the competent authority in pursuance of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report to the CentraJ Government;

And whereas, the Central Government, after considering the said report, decided to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the Schedule appended to this notification; 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 land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipelines;

*§&s,JW3nww , wsmv, .u.&. m 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 right of user in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest from the date of publication of this declaration, in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

Schedule

Tehsil- Mathura

District- Mathura

State- Uttar Pradesh Khasara No.

Name of Village

Area

Square Metre

Are

Hectare

Bartia Bangar

184 185 186 ,187

00 00 00 00

39 76 39 07

11 01 11 14

Shahzadpur Indavali 38

. |No.-3U)l5/37/2()()OORl|

CHANDRASEKHAR. Under Secy.

⁶U. -___ , THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY n, 2001 MAGHA 28,1922 v IFART II—SEC 9 WJ

NewDelhi, the 7th February, 2001

S.O. 320.—WHEREAS modifications and guidelines dated June 3 1999 had boon issued by this Ministry revising f ie Group Housing norms for Delhi. Howevot, certain clarifications had been sought for*by the local bodies/agencies. 3ome modifications in the said guidelines particularly pertaining to parking in basements had been suggesied. The matter was discussed in detail in the Ministry when !ocal bodies,etc were present.

2, NOW, after carefu; consideration of the matter it is further clarified that the Para (i>) of the Annexure to Notification is to be read as follows:

"Basement/basements will be permitted upto th© set back lines, subject to the conditions that the rpa/irrum area, shall not exceed the building envelope area, at one (eve! the basement area shall not be more than the permissible ground coverage and the remainingiarea would be taken to the lower level of the basement. The basement will be iree from FAR anci shall be used for parking and sen/ices as per MPD norms. Ifihe building is constructed with stilt area of non-habitable height and used for parking, the stilt floor will not be included in FAR. Total required parking shall be provided in basement/stilt floor/open space within the plot."

[No. K.-13011/17/96-DDIB (Vol. Ill] DEVENtJRA KUMAR GOEL. Under Secy.

685

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2001

S.O. 321.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Naval Dock Yard and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-1-2001.

[No. L-I4025/1/2001-IRCDU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM PRESENT :

Sri K. Veerapu Naidu, B.Sc, B.L.,

Chairman and Presiding Officer.

Dated: 12th day of December, 2000

I.T.I.D. (C) 15/99

This petition is filed directly by the workman under Section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act.

BETWEEN

Balla Apparao, • , S/o Ramema, C/o P. Narashinga Rao, Surveyor, Simhachalam Devastanam, D. No. 8/90, Srinivasanagar, Gopalapatnam Post, Visakhapatnam District. Workman

AND

(1) Naval Dock Yard,

Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Admiral Superintendent, Naval Dock Yard, Visakhapatnam.

(2) The Dy. General Manager (P&A),

Naval Dock Yard, Visakhapatnam. Management This dispute coming on for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V. V. Sastry, advocate for workman, and the Government Pleader for management, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the entire material on record, the court passed the following:

AV/ARD

(1) This is an application filed under Section 2AC2") of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for reinstatement with back wages and other benefits. 361 GI/20G1—10

(2) The case of the petitioner is that he worked as Helper in the defence employees Canteen, Visakhapatnam Naval Dock Yard, Visakhapatnam since September, 1987 till 31st May, 1997 on which date he was asked to come afterwards. Initially he was paid Rs. 425 per month avid subsequently it was increased to Rs. 1000 per month. The petitioner along with other co-employees made several requests to the manage- ment for regularisation and also to pay salary on par with the regular employees. The petitioner and another P. C. Blake a co-employee* filed OA 1226/95 betore the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad for their regulurisation and it was dismissed holding that the Central Administrative Tribunal has no jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the said order, the co-employee P. C. Blake filed I.T.I.D. 22/97 before this Court and he got an award dated 19-3-99 for his reinstate- ment with backwages. The petitioner served for 10 years and he was stopped without continuing him to serve by the management and without any notice or any payment of compensation. Heace this application.

(3) The respondent filed counter stating that his services were engaged as Dry Canteen Helper in Naval Dock Yard, Visakhapatnam on a consolidated pay of Rs. 250 to Rs. 325 which was paid from the Dry canteen profits. Subsequently the pay was increased to Rs. 1000. Therefore, he was not eligible for regularisation in terms of the government rules. He was not sponsored from the employment exchange or appointed in a Government billet. The officer incharge of the canteen is not competent officer ta appoint any employee. He cannot be a workman under the I.D. Act of a workman as per the definition given under the Factories Act. The O.A. filed by the petitioner and two others was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Thereafter the helpers started disobeying their superiors in the canteen and also obstructing the other from performing their duties. Therefore, fhe management wac constrained to stop the se"V*ces of the petitioner w.e.f. 31-5-1997. This Tribunal oassed an exparte order in I.T.I.D. 22/97 filed by P. C Blake for reinstate- ment and the advocate for the management failed to file rejoinder and appear on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, that order was not on merits. Fhe removal of the petitioner was due to his poor performance of his iob as helper in the cantpen. There is no employee and employer relation-hip between the workman and the respondent and Section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act is not application to the workman since he is not an employee of the State or its undertaking. The dry canteen is not an industry with.-n the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. The oetitioner is not a workman at all. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(4) On behalf of the workman, the workman is examined as WW1 and pot marked Exs. Wl and W2. On behalf of the Management. Officer Incharse of the Drv Canfrvn of the Naval Dock Yard. Visaklrnamam is examined as MW1 and got marked Exs. Ml and M2.

(5) Heard both sides.

(6) The point that arises for consideration in this case is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service as prayed for?

(7) The following facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was appointed and served as Helper in the Dry Canteen. Naval Dock Yard, Visakhapatnam an a monthly pay of Rs. 250' to Rs. 350 later his pay was increased to Rs. 1000 per month. He was not apoointed through emnloyment exchange nor by way of recular selection and that the petitioner and others have filed O.A. 419/94, OA. 1142^95 and O.A. 1226/95 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Hyderabad for reeiilarisatfon and their applications were dismissed vide Exs. Wl and M2 and later one employee' by name P. C. Blake have filed TTTD 22/97 and an ^xuarte award was na^sd bv th;s Tribunal directing ihe mfiagptnetit to reinstate him. It is also not in dispute "that the petitioner worked fo'r r-bout 10 veirs t'll May, 1997 nnd by the time of hi' termination of services his consolidated pay wais Rs. 1000 per month.

(8) While so. it is the case of the management, that the petitioner aid other workers failrd to set refnlarisMion of their services before the Centra! Administrative Tribunal, they started disobeying the orders of the officers incharge of the Drv canteon and they were also obstructing others to ' perform their duties and became indisciplined. Hence the686 THE GAZETTE OF I^iDIA tFEBRUARY 17,2001/MAGHA 28, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(1!)] management stopped the,services qf the petitioner irom 3Ist May, 1997. Only on account of the indiscipline, he was re- moved though other helpers are continuing in service. MW1 admitted the same in his chief examination itself. Therefore, under the. circumstances, i{ is not the case where the services are not required and th& management have filed Ex. Ml to show that (here were some remarks mads against the peti- tioner alleging that the workman was not attending to duties properly and it-is dated 7-5-97. Admittedly this was •not communicated to th6 workman nor he was called for any explanation. Therefore, under the circumstances, (his document is of no help. Admittedly this is a ca'.e where the petitioner has been working more than 240 days in a calendar year and it is not even the case of the management that there is no work for this workman in the Dry canteen and MW1 also admitted that after removal of tl.-ree • penons, three more employees joined into service. He aha adm'tt-d that Simhachalam, Sirnu and Suribabu were al°o working as helpers and they were also appointed alone; with this petitioner and they ars all seniors to this workman.- He ?lso deposed that at present thres more workmen are working apart, from- Simhachalam and two others ' and they were appointed after removal cf this petitioner and two other workmen. It is also net in dispute that no notice was given prior to the termination of the petitioner nor any term;nal benefits were paid tinder Section 25F of the I D. Act. There- fore, under the circumstances, the retrenchment of the petitioner is in violation of Section 25F of the I D. Act. Therefore, the,, petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with back w^pes. Accordingly, I answer the point in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

(9) In the result, the petition is allowd and an award is pss^ed d'rectins the management to reinstate the petitioner with back wages within a month from the date of rpce'rit of corw of the pnb'ication of the ?w;ird. However, there is no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.

D'Va'ed to ?te"o trpr>scrihed by her Riven urder my hand and seal of the court this the 12th day of December, 2000.

SRI K.-VEERAPU NAIDU1 Presiding Officer APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: '

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR WORKMAN : WW1 : B. Aooarao

FOR MANAGEMENT:. MW1 : JR. G. S?a DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR WORKMAN:

Ex. Wl 30-6-94: Judgment in 'OA No. 419/94 on the file of Centra! Administrative Tribunal. Hvder?bad.

Ex. W2 19-03-99: Published award in ITID (C) 22/97.

FOR MANAGEMENT:

Ex. Ml 7-5-97 : Remarks against the workman.

Ex. W2 4-2-97 : Tudranmt in OA Mo. ] ! ". '95 and' OA 1226/95 (M the file of the Central Admiivr.trr.trve Tribunal, Hyderabad.

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2001

S.O. 322.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indus- trial Dispute 'Act, ' '1947' (14 of 1947), the Central Govetijmcnt he;eby publishes the Award .of the Central Government •Industrial Trfbimal/Labour Court, Nagpur, as "hO'"n in the Annexure -in the Industrial Dispute herween the employers in 'relaii'on to the management of The Supdt. of 'Post Gf'ice and their workman, which was received by thi Centr.'i Govc-aimtnt on 1S-1-2001.

[No. L-40012/178/2000-IR(DU)]

KU) .DIP RAI VERM A, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

I?efc.:; *'.ie Central Government Industiial Tribunal. Nagpur Present ShiiB. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer Reference No. : CGIT-253|200O

Employers in relation to the management of . The Superintendent of Post Office

and •

Th&i Workman Shri Anil Shramrao lambhule

AWARD

The Cenlrcl Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the pcivers conferred by clause (a) of rub teciion d) and sub section 2(A) of the section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act,- 1547 hrs inferred this d'scu'e for adjudication vide order no. L 4G0l2!l78|2000|IRfDU) dated 09-08-2000 on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management Sr. S'.ipdt. of Pott Office, Chanda Division, Chandrapur in ter- minating Sh. Anil Shramr.io Jambbuie, £x EDDA, Br. Post Office, Chandankheda, Distt. Chandranur t legal, proper and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?" In this cass the workman Shri Anil Sharmreo J;.mbhule, Ex EDDA dio not turn up in the court. He did not submit any fetal emeu t of c'aim. From the side of management Shri E. S. Kumbhade appeared on 6-11-2000. Ths case was r.d-oumerl to 18-12-2000. The. case was again fixed on 22-12 2000.

Today, (he case was taken un at 1.15 p.m. Both the par- ties are" ah-ent. On 6-11-200O the application was moved by Shri K, S. J"hn, Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, rh'-nda Division, Distt. Chandrapur. l!i this application it is mentioned bv Shri K. S. John, Sr. Siredt. of Post Offices that Sh-i An:! Shramrao jTnbhrle was t o; engTJred appoin- ted as EDDA at Chaadankheda by concerned ASP roc:fif;ng authority in this divis'on. Shri An;l Shramrao Jj'robhule has never work;d as EDDA, Chandrikheda as alleged.

A' I menj'oned abev-, the workman did not turn up to contest the cas^. No sfatement of claim rns been filed' by him either hisnfelf or through his nn:en. la view of Hie above fact-, the reference should be disposed off for want of prosecution.

ORDER

As the wp'kman did not submit any statement of claim, and d;d not prefer to contct the reference, the reference is ^;Snosed olf for want of prosecution. The workman therefore is r.ot entitled to any relief.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Dated : 22-12-2000- B. G. SAXENA. Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 18th Januaiy, 2001

SO- 323.—In pursuance of Section 17 of ihc Industrial Dbputc Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In- dirstual Tiibunal, Chennai as shown m the, Annexure in the Industrial Depute between the employers in relation to the management of Supat, of Post Oillces and their workman, which was leccivcd by the Central Government on 18-1-2001.

INo. L-40012/312/99-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, De'k Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL IKIBUNAL-CUM-IAROUR COURT, CHENNAI Friday, thd "5th 'XanftEfry.^OOl

PRESENT :

K. Kii'.tliikeynn, Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute INO. 45/20AO

[In the rnatter of the dispute for adjudication under Section ir)(l)(dj and Sub seiiion 2iA) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the Workman and the, Management, of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Mayiladuthurai Division.] -.

BETWEEN

Shri R. \ ceranifthavan. Workman/I Party.

AND •

6i1 Sub-section ,2(A) of Section TO of Industrial Disputes" Act, 1947 in respect of the dispute between R. Vecraraghavan, Workman and the Supdt. of Post Offices, Mayiladuthurai Divn-., mentioned as schedule appended to the order of reference.

The Schedule reads as follows:—

"Whether the action of the management' of Supdt. of Post Ollicca, MayiladUihurai DivUion in termmatinji the services of Shri R. Veeraraghavan from the Post of Extra Department Branch iJost Master is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?"

This order ol reference dated 27-01-2000 was sent first to the Central G&v-inmenl Indu trial Tribunal, Bangalore, sub- sequently, as per the orders of transfer by Government of India dated 12-07-2000, this Indusrual Dispute was withdrawn from the filo of Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore and transferred to the .ill© of this Tribunal. On recupt of tins reference¹ on transfer, this Industrial Dispute bus been taken on.,hie, as 1:D, ,45y20QO on 17,-08-2000. Notices w-cre tent to both the parties to appear before this Tribunal and to file the respective claim statcmfWas well as the counter- statement. Accordingly, both, the parties appeared through their counsel and riled their respective claim statement and counter statement, •

m WE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 17, 200I/MAGHA 28, 1922 [PART B~$ae. 3 P0

all tho?e representations and the written request made by tlie Petitioner through petition, this Tribunal is of the opinion that in view of the request of the I Party Claimant, an order can be passed dismissing the claim raised in this Industrial Dispute

In the result, an award is passed holding that the Workman I Party need not be granted the relief prayed¹ for reinstate- ment of strvict in the U Party department with attendant benefits und a no relief award is passed without cost Dictated to the Typist, Typed by her direct and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this day, the 5th January, 2001.

K. KARTHJKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses examined on either side: NIL

Documents marked on either side: Nil.

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2001

SO. 324.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government -icreby publishes the award of the Indu trial Tribunal, Visakha- patnam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial D.spute the employers in relation to the management of Department of Post and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-1-2001.

[No, L-40025/1/200MR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- I.AB0UR COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM, PRESENT:

Sri K, Veerapu Naidu, B.Sc., B.L., Chairman and Presid- ing Office".

Dated, 7th day of December, 2000

I.T.I.D. (Q 5/99

(3) The Chief Post Master General,

A. P, Circle, Hyderabad. .. .Management.

This dispute coming on for final hearing before me in the presence of Si i V. V, Apparao, advocate for workman and the Government Pleader for management, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on pei using the entire material on record, the court passed the following:

AWARD

(1) This Is an application filed under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 lor reinstatement with back wages.

(2) The case of the workman is that he was appointed es Brunch Post Master, T. Suchikonda, Yellamanchili, Taluk Visakhapatnam District on 4-1-1979 and later he was ^on- firmed and serving without any remark. While so, due to village factions one Mr. P. Gangu Naidu made a complaint against him alleging that the workman has withdrawn a sum of Rs. 1884 from hie S.B. Account No. 587138 and also with- diawn a sum oi Rs. 850 from his R.D. Account No. 47703. On receipt of the complaint the Sub-post Master, Yelaman- chili leported the matter to the Superintendent, Post Offices, Anakapalli Division on 6-3-86. On the basis of that report, the Sub-Divisional Inspector, Postal, Yelamanchili conducted a detailed enquiry and put the workman under put-off duty en 7-3-86 and reported the same to the Superintendent, Post Offices, Anakupally and the put off order was passed by the Superintendent, Post Offices, Anakapally (Disciplinary Autho- rity) on 10-3-86, Charge sheet was issued and regular enquiry was held and the two charges were hold to be proved in the departmental enquiry and that the respondent management asked the workman to deposit Rs. 2734 on 8-3-86 to withdraw the put off duty ordor and accordingly, he depo-ited. The enquiry officci did not disclose the opinion of the hand writ- ing expert as it was against them in spite of repeated oral requests macfe by the petitioner. The enquiry was ordered and basing on the enquiry report, his seiv'ces were terminated and the petitioner filed O.A. No. 836/87 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad que'tionlng the put off duty and the O.A. was dismissed on 23-10-92 and after con- ducting an enquiry his services were terminated under pro- ceedings dated 28-6-89 issued by Superintendent of Post Offices. Visakhapatnam Division. Hence this petition.

(3: On the other hand, the case of the management Is that the workman while Rctine as Post Master, T. Suchikonda, Yelamanchili Taluk, Visakhapatnam District committed the folio wins misdeeds and 3 charges are framed against him which are as follows :

245

500 500 ! T H\ ° iaid S rl ,Kl Ven*at"rao. DPM (Under put off S? tn °? ' T? iD tht DOSt of DPM- T. Suchl- L ™ ? rM V ™h d" ' ? "J withdrew Rs 850 for his personal use and thiu failed to maintain absolute integrity devotion to duty as required under Kulo-17 oi rtit.1 KD Agents (Conduct und Service) Rules, 1964.

3. That the s^id Sri K. Venkatarao, BPM (Put off duty), while working as BPM T. Suciunkonda had taued to re-enter 3 amounts in deposit and issued to the beat ot t D DA on 10-9-85 in the BO journal and albo to take the acquittance of the EDJOA in the BO journal for the amount made over to him aa required under Note 2 below Rwe 169 and Kule 10& of Book of BO Rules. Further he failed to re-enter 26 registered letters issued for dclivexy to the EDDA during the period 24-2-86 to 2IS-2-86 In the BO journal and! also to take his acquittance tor then in tne BO journal as required under Rules 86 and Note 2 belong Rule 169 of Book of BO Rules. Thuit by his abova acts he failed to maintain devotion to duty ai required under Rule 17 of P&T ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964".

(4) Regular enquiry was ordered in which the charge* 1 land 2 are hold to be proved and the 3rd charge was not [proved and the disciplinary authority removed the woikman from service and the removal is in accordance with the . procedure.

(5) Before this court, no oral evidence is adduced on either side and no documentary tv.dcnce is adduced for the work- man. On behalf of the management Exi. Ml to M36 are marked.

(6) No oral arguments are adduced, memo of typed written arguments tre filed by both sides.

(7) The point that arises for consideration in this case is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service as prayed fort?

(8) The case of the workman is that the domestic enquiry was not properly .done, he was not given any Opportunity to prove his innocence. This Tribunal held in its docket order dated 12-4-2000 that the domestic enquiry was held properly and the matter is posted for hearing under Section HA of the I.D. Act. The only ground of the petitioner that he was not given any opportunity to prove hi* innocence but be is not specific as to what exactly happened and what opportunity was denied to him is and he it not specific n to what ex. the denial of opportunity to prove his innocence. Therefore. I see no force in the said contention.

(9) It is the further case of the workman that he made u deposit of Rs. 1884 and Rs. 850 in the respective deposits of the Gangu Naidu' basing on the advise given bv his superiors but he was not reinstated. This plea has no basin and he did not even enter Into the box to state the said facts as to who promised him for reinstatement, on making deposit of the said amount

(10) The next contention raised by the petitioner is *hat he was falsely implicated In this case due to village factions. Even this plea is also -not supported by any evidence or material on record- Therefore, there Is no force in this plea also.

(11) The next contention raised by the workman that iho punishment of removal Is harsh and disproportionate "nd the management did not follow the procedure contemplated under law.

(12) As already stated above, the charges alleged against the workman are that while he was working as Branch Post Ma'ter. T. Suchikonda he withdrew some amount as men- tioned in the first charge to a tune of Rs. 1884 from the S.B. Account of one P. Gangunaidu on the dates mentioned in the charpe. The second charge levelled against the work- man is that while acting as Branch Post Master as mentioned in the second charge he withdrew Rs. 850 fraudulently from the R,D. Account No. 47703 stood in the name of P. Gangu- naidu on 12-9-84 in contravention of Rule-144 read with Rule 143(61 and (H) of Book of BO Rule. So far as thp;e two charges are concerned we have got the statements Exs. M2 and M? of Sri P, Gangunflldu and a regular enquiry was ordered and It is alto tlw case ol (bo workman, that b*

m deposited the said amounts of Rs. 18S4 and Rs. 850 and in the enquiry report Ex. M35 that Gangunaidu is examined and he stated about the two charges and, withdrawals were not to his knowledge and ho has not withdrawn the same and the pass book was alto with the delinquent workman. The signatures of Gangu Naidu found on tne withdrawal forms do not belong to nun and it is not the case of the workman that the amount was withdrawn by the depositor. On the other hand, he tried to shift the responsibility on the SDIP, Yelamanchili under the guise of ignorance of rules. The said plea has no basis and the enquiry officer rightly denied tho same. Therefore., I see no infirmity in the order passed by the enquiry with regard to the guilt of the two charges i.o. 1 and 2.

(13) The workman also filed to point out that the order Ex. M35 is not based on any valid reasons. Therefore, here this is a cage where the gravs charges of misappiopnation of the amounts of Rs. 1884 and Rs.. 850 were established against the workman. Further, it is the case of the workman that he made the deposit but that will not absolve the work- man from his liability In the disciplinary enquiry.

(14) The next contention raised by the workman is that tho punish, ment of removal is harsh and disproportionate and the management did not follow the procedure contemplated under law before imposing the punishment of removal. No show cause notice was issued before imposing the punishment. However, the workman have stated that he has got *ife and children and dependants from his salary and therefore some leniency may be shown in imposing the punishment. This is not a case where some leniency could bo shown. be;ause the charges alleged and proved! against the workman are with rejtard to misappropriation of the money belonging to a depositor and It is grave in nature. Therefore, the removal of the workman Is justified and It is not harsh nor dispro- portionate to niter the said punishment. Therefore, I seo no merits In this application.

(15) In the result, the application is dismissed and nil award is passed. However, there is no order as to costs und each party is directed to bear its own costs.

Dictated to steno transcribed by her given under my hand and seal of the court this the. 7th day of December, 2000.

SRI K. VEERAPU NAIDU, Presiding OfBcer APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Workman: Nono.

For Management: None

Documents Marked:

For Workman: Nil.

For Mananement:

Ex. Ml : 06-03-86 : Copy of telegram.

Ex. M2 : 07-03-86 : Statement given by P. Gangunaidu.

Ex. M3 : 08-03-86 ; Statement given by P. Gangunaidu.

Ex. M4 : 14-03-86 : StetemeMt given by K. Venkatarao.

Ex. MS : 08-03-86: Letter to the management by work- man.

Ex. M6 : 10-09-84 : Application for withdrawal.

Ex. M7 : 30-05-85 : Receipt No. 30 for depositor's past book.

En. M8 : — : Application for withdrawal.

Ex. M9 : 31-03-87 : Record of inquiry.

Ex. M10: 29-04-87 : Lr. addressed to the enquiry officer by workman.

Ex. M il : 29-04-87 : Record of enquiry.

Ex. M12 : 23-06-87 : Record of enquiry.

Ex. M13 : 23-10-87 : Record ,of enquiry.

Ex. M14 : 23-12-87 : Record of enquiry,

Ex. M J 5: 24-12-87: Lr. addressed to Supdt. of Posts bv the Sub-Divisional Inspector.

Ex. M l 6: 28-01-88: Lr. to the enquiry officer by ttt* workman.

<#Q THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY'17, 2001/MA

Ex. Ml 7 : 28-01-88 : Record of inquiry.

Ex. M18: 08-02-88: Lr. to the workman by the Sub- Divisiopal Inspector,

Ex. M19 : 04 02-88 : Proceedings Of enquiry.

Ex. M2Q : 15-04-^8 : P rbccedinss of enquiry.

Ex. M21 •: 15-04-88 : Examination of prosecution witness H. Simbachnlam.

> i •

Ex. M22: 15 04-38: Examination. of prosecution witness

Ex. M23 : 15-04-88 : Examination of prosecution witness K. Rdmakrishna,

Ex. M24 : 29-04-88 : Proceedings of inquiry.

Ex. M25: 29-04-88 : Examination of official by inquiry officer.

Ex. M26 : O707:88 : Brief by the presiding officer. Ex. M27,': p8:O3-88 : Preliminary ;enquiry report. Ex. M28 : 07-04-86 : Preliminary enquiry report.

Ex. M29 . 07-03-86 : Orders of the put off duty memo- Ex. M36 ' 10-03-86 : Ratification of put off orders memo.

Ex. M31 <• 26-06-87 : Pioceedings issued by Director of - Postt.1 Services.

Ex. M32 : 31-01-87 : Charge sheet.

Ex. M33 i 24-02-87 : Appointment of inquiry officer.

Ex. M W: 24-O2I-S7 ; Appointment orders of presenting officer. . ..

Ex? M35 :•' ''— ': Enquiry report.

Ex. M36 : 28-06-89 : Disciplinary proceedings.

Direct filing- '

U/Sec, 2A(2) of I D. Act.

I.T.I.D. (C) 6/99

Dated: 10th day. of November, 2000

BETWEEN

O. P*adma Nabhaip, D. JSo. 44-38-12/11, Srinivasa, Nagar, Akkayap'alcrn, Vis^ktjajjatnam-530016.

..Workman

AND

Senior Superintendent Telegraph Traffic, O/o General Manager 'Teltcojn (Dist.); Visakhapatnara-530020. ' "* " .'. Management This dispute coming on for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D. Siva Prasad, advocate for -workman and of Sri M. Rama Kotj, Advocato for Management, heard and upon perusing the material papers on record the court passed tha following :

AWARD

This is an application filed U/Sec, ,2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for reinstatement and. continuity of seivlce under the Respondent.

The case of the petitioner is that he worked as part lime coclie on contingency basis at Telegraph Office AjtkH.y.Apalem,. Visakhapatnam during 1992 to"l996. The wages have been paid on Pro-rata basis from time to time as per the in grease in tlie cost of' Index. He was not appointed alter 1996 February without any reason. His juniors Sri M¹. N. Murthy and others "aie -still continuing in service. Hence this application.

in the year 1994 for 163 Says and in the year W95*96 for 26 days only. Even Ex.- Wl also discloses'that the working hours are 6 hours per day. He also cJmftted that he do not know if M. N. Murthy is only worfcirrg for¹- 2 hours at Marriralem office for 'sweeping t,vd for ⁴ supply water. He also admitted that he never worked - for 240 days continuously in any year.

Further the evidence of MW1 the Sub Divisional Engineer in the Office of Tele Com General Manager, Visakhapatnam is that the workman was engaged for delivery 6f telegram as and when needed. There are no fixed, hours. If may. be 2 or 3 hours' Payment will be ma,ds from the contingent expenditure. On Narsimha Murthy is. working in' the Marri- paiem Tele Com Center and his job "is sweeping "and bringing water for 2 hours of day. There will not be a'iy removal or retrenchment crd^r to the workman. He will be engaged if his services are required.

, Thus from the evidence let in through WW1 and MW1, it is quits clear that the petitioner was engaged for the' purpose of delivery of telegrams in case of more work or under staff. His services 'are '.taken as cohtrap'ent worker and his working -hours are not exceeding 6 hours p(er day. He never worked confinuously for 240 days in any year from 1992 to 199'6. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled for re'Pctatemflnt as he is only a casual, enwloves on hourly basis. Therefore the petitioner failed to established that he is a regular worker under the resnond"Pt or worked afienst continuously for 240 days 'in a year. Hence the petitioner is not pntifjsd to claim the relisf as craved for in the application und=r the provisions of I.D. Act. Therefore I answer the pomt in favour of the Management/Respondent and against the petitioner.

In *he result the application is dismissed. Nil Award is passed. However under the circumstances each party is directed to bear its own cost.

Given under my hnnd and seal of the court this the 10th day of November, 2006.

SRI K. VEERAPU NAIDU, Chairman APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For

Workman ; Management;

WW1 G. Padmanabham MW1 P. Ramachacidra Rao Documents marked for workman ; •

. Ex. Wl 1-6-6-1997: Service certificate.

Ex. W2 Xerox copy of Identity card. Ex. W3 4-4-1994: Lr. addressed to' the I M. I/c R-l- gn>nh Office by- the Dy. Supdt. Tele. ' T. Ts.. Visakhapatnam.

Documents marked for Management: Nil..

m New Delhi, the 23rd January, 2001 * SO. 326.—In pursuance of Section 17 of- the Tndu°trial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai, as shown k> the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Supdt. of Post Offices -iad their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 23-1-2001.

[No. L-40012/349/99-IRfDU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI.':

Friday the 12th January, 2001

PRESENT:

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 46/2000

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under Section 10(l)(d> and Sub-Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the Workman and the Management of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Thanjavur Division.)

BETWEEN

Sli. K,, Swarrrinathan. Claimant/I Party

AND

The Superintendent of Managemsnt/II Party Post -Offices, • • - - ' Thanjavur Division.

APPEARANCE:

For the Workman : Sh_. S. Raveendrran, Advocate. For the Managemoet: Sh. K. Sivajothi, -

Additional Central Government Standing Counsel.

REFERENCE: , ' . , . •

Order No. L-40012/349/1999-IR(DU) dt. 9-2-2000, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.

. •

This dispute on coming up before me for final hearing on 12-12-2000 upon perusing th© reference: claim statement, counter statement and other material papers on iecord, the documentary evidence let in on either side and upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for , the wQrkm<>n. Sh. S. Ravpendrran and Sh. K. Sivaiothi, Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel for the Management and this d">mite having stood over till this date for consideration this tribunal passed the following :—

AWARD

This reference bv Central Government in the expose of the TOTWTS conferred bv clause (d) of Snb-S-rtion (1) and Snh-Section 2<"A1 of Section 10 of Tnd'istWM r>;":niit-->s Act, 1947 in rennet :of di"pvte brtwwn SH. K Sw^m'iathan, . wn+irnn -ind th?, SuDerint^dftjt of, Po"t Office. Th^riiqvur D !"i°''ni mentioned as schedule appended to the order of reference.

The schedule reads as follows :—^ •

"Whether the action of the yttmnorment of l>nat-*m"nt. of Pnsts Thiniavnr S"b Division '"" d^nv^inrf of ch K. ?wam:ri<"tiifir, fr-orn the services of Pvtra D~""rtrrt"nt r)s>cV*"r/Mi''1 'carnVr ic lapr,} aT,^ ,noti- fied ? T* Mt. to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ?"

""„ rOA3!BnBO^WWArraB^ARY17,i"i^t"iHA M, 1922 p-JUtt WWWCTMnyj

Thu refewaoe for the mdoitrial dapute "u originally referred to for adjudication by the Miniitry of Labour, Govt, of India to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Bangalore, where it was taken on file at CR No. 13/2000. Subsequently as per the orders of the Ministry of Labour dt. 12-7-2000 this reference ha* been withdrawn from the file of Central -Government Industrial Tribunal Bangalore and transferred to this tribunal for adjudiction. On receipt of the original reference on transfer from Bangalore Central Government, Industrial Tribunal this Industrial dispute ha* been taken on file of this tribunal on 17-8-2000 as industrial dispute No. 46/2000. On receipt of the notice from this tribunal, both the parties appeared with their respective counsel and filed their respective claim statement and counter statement.

The charged official was given a cbargeiheet in a language with which he is not conversant. The important documents called tor by tho petitioner for making effective defence were denied stating that they are not necessary for the enquiry. The non furnishing of chargesheetcd documents to the petitioner, amounts to a gross violation of principles of natural justice. The appeal submitted by the petitioner was dismissed without proper application of mind by the appel- late authority. The revision potition submitted by the peti- tioner was" rejected after one year without a speaking order and proper application of mind. In the enquiiy tbe rules were not properly followed and a reasonable opportunity was not given to the petitioner. Hence it is prayed that this Hon. Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order of removal from service by directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all back wages end other attendant benefits.

2. The averment of the claim statement of the Workman/

I Party are briefly as follow*:—

3. The averments in the counter statement of the respondent

arc briefly as follows :—

The second party Management (herein after mentioned aj the respondent) submits that the ED Agents are governed by P &T ED Agents (C&S) Rules 1964 only. They are declared as civil servants by Supreme Court in the case SDI, Vaikam Vs. Thauyam Joseph and also declared that ED officials do not belong to the category of workman attracting the provisions of industrial disputes Act. This dispute raised by K. Swamiaathan ex. ED Packer, Thirukarugavur SD may be rejected on the ground that the ED employees do not belong to the category of workman and they are not covered by I D. Act. In tho charge framed acunst the petitioner thirteen documents in Anriexure-3 of the charges and six witnesses for the State in Annexure-4 have teen mentioned.

The first party workman (herein after mentioned as the petitioner) was working as E. D. Packer Tirukarugavur SO. While he was working as such a charge memo was given to him stating that on 3-12-94 he assisted the sub post master Thirukkarugavur as ED Packer of ihc office end opened the account bag dt. 3-12 94, received from Papanasam H.O. on the same day and found a closed d

A departmental enquiry was conducted as per the proscribed rules, by nomination an enquiry officer and presiding officer. The charged official was allowed to have the services of a defence assistant to assist him In the enquiry. In the enquiry, the charge levelled against the charged official was proved and punishment of removal from service wag imposed on the charged official. Though nobody noticed K. Swamfnathan took away the cash, but he admitted of having done away with the money. The petitioner took the police authorities and postal inspector to Navalur village, collected the amount and gave it to the postal Inspector and subsequently the charged official credited the amount of Rs. 6000 under un- classified account at Thirukkarugavur Post Office. Tf there wan an eye witness to this Incident, the pi693

*]•" —i , - — • ' officer came to the conclusion that the charge has been pfoved. The charged "official while submitting his defence brief at the end of the enquiry did not tell any, error in the conducting of the enquiry. No preliminary enquiry report lit need to be given to the charged official sines if is not prescribed in rules. The contention of the petitioner that the enquiry officer denied access of EOme of these documents since, they were found to be irrelevant to the charge against the petitioner is false. During the sitting held on 30-1-96, the defence assistance and the charged official- perused all the documents listed out in the charge sheet and took copies of the statements. The appeal given by the Petitioner was disposed of taking into consideration of all aspects, by application of mind. The revision petition preferred by the Petitioner was disposed by the Postmaster General,, Thiruchirapalli after proper application of mind,. The Petition is wholly devoid of merits and not maintainable either on fkcts or in law. Hence it is to be dismissed with cost.

4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry the counsel on either side consented for marking documents on cither i)ide as Exs. Wl to W5 and Exs. Ml to M4 and advanced their respective arguments.

5. The Point for my consideration is :—

"Whether the action of the management of Department

of Posts, Thanjavur Stib Division in dismissing o£ STi. K, Swaminathan from . the services of Extra Department Packer/Mail Carrier is lesal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ?" r

Point:

and the SPM made entries in other book and service tele- grams issued to the higher/ authorities by the SPM. The SiJIiP), Papjnasam being an invcsigating olQcer, could not find out the disposal of the cash remittance received at Tiruk,irugavur SO. So, he immediately resort to the help of the police to find out the culprit. On inv^siigruion by the police authorities, Petitioner had admitted that he is stealthdy took away the cash and removed the tag label to his possession, The Petitioner also explained the police authority that he kept the cash with the two village people ol Nagalur, oriV at betal shop and another a tailor. He accompanied with the SDKP) and police authority and went to the \illagc in a car and collected the money from the. people to whom he has left it for cu3tody. The collected amount was given to the SDKP), who credited the same into Government account on 5-12-1994, In view of these incidents the charge sheet dt. 17-05-1995 was issued to the Petitioner for his alleged misconduct stating that he cut opened the leather cash bag and took away the remittance cash of Rs, 600O stealthily on 3-12-1994 and thereby failed to maintain abso- lute integrity and devotion to duty as required of him under rule 17 of department of Post-ED agent (Conduct & Service) Rules-1964. That memo with charge sheet with Annexure of list of documents and list of witnesses is Ex. Wl. Thus, disciplinary action has been initiated against th." Petitioner, Sh. K. Swaminathan and a domestic enquiry, was conducted. In that memorandum itself, th? Petitioner was directed tT submit his written statement of defence within 10 days of the receipt of that memorandum. One Sh. V. Kannan w.\s appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the domestic enquiry into the charge levelled against the Petitioner under F.x. Wl. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry apainst the Petitioner and submitted his report dt. 30-09-1996, The xeiox of the same is Ex. M l. In that enquiry report, thu enquiry officer gave a finding that the article of charge framed agaiast Sh. K, Swaminathan. the Petitioner herein stands proved by documentary evidences and on oral depositions cf state witnesses. On the basis of the findings given by the Fnquy-y Officer in his report, the adhoc disciplinary authority passed an order dt. 12-12-1996 imposing the punishment of removal from service with immediate effect against the Petitioner, Sh. K. Swaminathan. The served copy of that order to the Petitioner is Ex. \#3. Against that" order, the Petitioner prefenvd an appeal dt, 7-3-1987 to tin- Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Thanlavur Division, The cony of the anneal petition is Ex. W4. The appellate authority by its order dt. 1?-O5-1997 rejected the appeal rind confirmed the prnkhment imposed bv the adhoc disciplinary authority under Ex. W3. Then, the Petitioner preferred a revision petition tn the Post- master General, Central Region. Tiriichrrarwili. The conv of the revision petition is Ex. W5. The Postmaster General. Central Region ha? rejected the revision n^tition uobo1d;nT the order of punishment bv the adhoc disciplinary authority which is confirmed by the appellate authority und'Sr V.x. M2 statinff he finds no i-eniofl to interfere in these orders. Acwieved bv these dcnartmcntnl d'eis-ons sor'nst him, the Petitioner has raised this Industrial Di-pute.

The learned counsel for the Respondent has put forth an initial argument stating that this Tribunal may not have jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute in view r.f the fact that the Postal Department cannot be considered to be an industry under Section 2(i) of the Industiral Dispute Act, 1947 and the provisions of Section 25(f) of that Act cannot be invoked. For this argument the learned counsel for the Respondent has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in civil appeal No. 3385-86 of 1996 arising out of SLP(C) No. 587-88 of 1992 known as Theyyam Joseph's case (1996) 8 SCC 489 and the decision of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 11099 of 1988. In both these cases, the Honourable Supreme Court as veil the Honourable High Coprt of Madras has held that the Postal Department is not an industry as per the Industrial Disputes Act. He has also reiled upon another judgement of Supreme Courr reported as 1998 Supremo Court cases (L&S1 1535 in civil appeal No. 6682 of 1997 decided on 26-09-1997, following the decision of the Supreme Court in (190*1 S SCC 489 Theyyam Joseph's case, holding that Post Office is not an industry under Section 2(1) of "industrial Dsnutcs' Act. All these decisions of the Supreme Court as well as the High Court were overuled bv the Supreme Court by its juridemerit reported as AIR 1998 Supreme Court 656. Tn that judcement dt. 18-11-1997. the Honourable Supreme Court was nlcnsed to hold that the decision in Thevvam Joseph (19961 8 SCC 489 atid Bombay Telenhonc Capteen Employees Association, AIR 1997 SC 28]7 cannot be treated as laving down the correct law. Under such circumstances, the arguments- advanced by the learned counsel of the Respondent that Postal Department cannot be considered BS an industry mdrr Section 2fjl of the Industrial Disputes Act, is an incorrect one and cannot be accepted.

7. It is the nl'rn lhe charee sheet in detail hv the Fnquirv Officer. Tt is not his stand jn the Hsu'm statement that the Enair'rv Officer on the first sitting of the enquiry has not translated the charges in EmrJisfi into Tarrv? tancuaw and explained Vm +o trtow about the charp" against him. Further It) the conrrp of thr nrpniwrtit = 'fatsd that th*¹ Claimant dors not wfah to nuf.sHnn t^r "pVi'i'ty cf th*" conduct of tl-; enauirv by the F.nonirv Offio-r Bv 1hfa i-ppresentHtion bv the- learned counsel for IV Pe'iUoivr i'i the anuimont. the alienations in the cliim stafem'-pt t^M on the name of enquiry so many errors Wi-re done blindly nnd the enquiry was the one violating the principles of natural ju"Jice y"d it k T highly enacted drama by the Respondent are given a go by. The learned counsel for the Petitioner bf><; further argued that the alleged theft of money by the Petitioner is not proved in H criminal ro*c find w nich n situation, holding a enquiry itself is illegal and the whole enqnirv Is based on the assumption that the delinquent cOn-' fesed his guilt and it followed by the recovery nf the money.

694 THE GAZETTE QF INDIA: FEBRUARY 17,'2001/MAGHA- 28, 1922 I P A KI II—SEC. 3fil)'J

DOCUMENTS MARJCED:

FOR CLAIMANT:

Ex. WI 17-05-1995: MeTOsrandujn issued' to Sh, K. Swanlinaltiair wilh¹ articlb 6f charge and> Annexure?*, list of documents and list of witness,

Ex. W2i 21r-06-19Sk3c Roply, by, .adhere disciplinary autho-

rity to Sh. K Swaminathan.

Ex. W3 12-12-1996:. Order of purrisbmem imposed by adhoc disclptfiiary authority, against Sh. K. Swarm- nathaa.

Ex. W+ 07rthi997 : Appeal petition of Sh. K. Swanii-

nathan..

Ex. W5 24-07-1997: Revision petition hy Sh. K. Swami-

narhan.

FOR, MANGEMENTr

Ex. Ml 3CWJ9-1WS: rXer0K . copy of Enquiny. Officer

report.

Ex. M2 12-05-1997: Appellate Order,

Ex. M3 12-11-1998: Order passed by Postmastei General in revision petitiM of Sh. K. Swaminnthan.

Ex. M4 12^11-1998: Enquiry Proceedings- file.

rVo. L-12Qll/150f20m-W(B-Il)[ C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

693

A*NI>

. The Dy. Gen. Manager.

., _ .V"HOT". Mamgement/II Party.

APPEARANCES :

.For the Workman: M/s. M. Muthupandian and L. H. . -Lawrence, (Advocates.

for .the Management: M/s. Kins and Patridge, Advocates.

REFERENCE:

Older No. L-12Qliyi5a/2000/lK(B-Tt) tlatea" 29-09-2000, Government of In3ia, "Ministry c?f Labour. "New Delhi. i

This dispute on coming up .before ,mc -for .final .bearing on 20-1,2-2600,.-upon -perusing the seicr&XQe, claim statement, counter statement, .rejoinder and. .other material .papers. on record, the oral and documentary evidence let in on either side .and upon Rearing ,the .arguments of -the .counsel for the claimant Shri M. MiSthupaodian .and the .coansel for 3he Management M/s.JCing-and Pajridge and.this,.dispute haying stoud over till this date ior leorisidesation. this Tribunal passed the fallowing:—

AWARD

This. reference by Central Xjoveunment in 'the ^exercise of the powers conferred .by Clause'.1(d)> of Slit-section 1 .and Sub-section 2TA) 61 Section 10 in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of dispute- .between, the Workman -Shri P. Kandesnan and-4he,Management of. Indian Bank Zonal ©Ffice, Veltoitj. me-arkmed as -SchBdule ,aRpended to the aider of reference

The Schedule reads as follows.:—

•"Whether She non-regnteisstion of "Shri P. *endeep"n Temporary⁷ Part'timc Sweeper of fedian Btrrik, Wandwirasfr B r a n* by "tbe

adjudication. The action of the Management in non-regu- larising the services of Thiru P. Kandeepan, .part-ftime -sweeper, Wandiwash 'branch is arbitrary ,and injustice. The second party has not regularised the services of the concerned work- man from the date or initial engagement, is to deprive .him the status and privileges of the permanent workman and therefore it amounts to unfair labour practice. The Manage- ment should not have denied the benefits accrued¹ to the concerned v/urkman, from i,he bipartite settlement. The aGtion of the Management contravened the clause 20.8 of the settle- ment dated 19-10-1996 by employing him for more than 3. months in the permanent vacancy. The Management and the union hay tb.3 arrears and other consequential benefits entitled to a perma- nent- employee.

3. The averments in- the counter statement of a II Party Management are briefly as follows :—

-,"&??" dAZ&flE OF INMA i f f c B ^ A RY 17,-2001/MAX3tfA 2$, 1922 " $ j #f *$US*c; 3 ( ^y •will not apply to this case since the dispute docs not relate

to fresh appointment/recruitment. But relates to regularisa- nun. lu any event, tin, concerned % oilman is woikuig even betorc the issuance or the said circular. The second party bank management made 1J2 regular appointment even alter the issuance GJ' tho circular. J'hiru. V. Jizumalaf, one of them was appointed as Feon and posted in Indian Bank Saidapel IJi'aiich. Therefore, the second party cannot call in aid tne Stiia eucular tor refusing or postponing the regulari- sation ot the wolcman concerned alone, it is not only arbi- trary and discriminatory, but also mala fide. The said circular eaunoi UiKe away the powers ot tills tribunal to order reijula- risauon in termi ot tile protons of the Industrial Disputes Act. Tncrelore, it is prayed thai this Honourable Tribunal may be pleased to pass an award as prayed lor in the claim statement.

5. When the matter was taken up for-enquiiy, one witness on cither side was examined as W.W.I and M.W.I respectively UQd LWO documents on the side of the Management aior. were marked as Ex. Ml and Ex. JV12. No document has been irutKiU on the side of the 1'ttitioner. On completion ot cv.dence on either side, the arguraonls advanced bv the learn- ed coun^ein on either sido was heard.

t>. The Point for my consideration is :—

"Whether tho non-rcgularisation of Shri P. Kavidoepan Tempoiary Fart-time Sweeper of Indian Bar.k, Wandiwash Branch by tlie management is lejjal and jwuhed V If not, what relief the workman is rnlil'ed t o ?"

POINT:

Wandiwash Bjanch and he was not appointed by the com- petent auUioniy as per the procedure tor regular appointment u^niij iuiio^cd by me Kx'Spondcnl Wanit .Niuni^fficni. Trie ^legation m the i_ounter tliat tne appointment will be made Ly die jLonal Manager for the suitaole candidates trom the L t spelful cj by tne Employment Exchange has not been uispuied or (.(emea in tne rejoinder Died by the liriit party. I ue learned counsel tor the Respondent has put tar th an argument lhat tue concerned workman P. kandcepan being engageu by tne then'brand) manager of Waudiwtuh. blanch as icrnpur.iry piut-urnc sweeper on daily rate basis and ho iiavjtig continued so cannot ask the Management to regularise las ftiviLe ah a lighu Because, he does not set that right by way ol any standing orders or, rule or by statute, iror tins argument the learned counsel relics upon tne decisions of th*- Supicme Court reported as (1997) 4 Supreme Cwuri cases &i5, s;a;e of U.i' and others Vs. Ajaylvum.ir'r. Jn that case, tlie Honourable Supreme Court wus pleased to hold that "the daily wagers are not entitled to rcguiatisation". Tne learned counsel for the Respondent has relied upon, another judgement of tlie Supreme Court reported as 1997 I LU 1215. "E. Ramakrishnan and others Vs. State of Kerala and others". In that case, the Supreme Court has hild that" the Govt, cannot regularise ine services of adhoe employees contrary to (he statutory requirement under aiticle 320 of the constitution of India. The decision taken by the Government is contrary to constitution to regularise the services of the candidates dehore tho recruitment rules and statutory positions for selection through the Public Ser- vice Commission". In this cited case, it was held that tho Petitioner wno nad been continuing for more than l'4 years cannot claim reitularisation when Public Service Commission had selected candidates for the post. The learned counsel lor the Respondent had relied upon another jugement of Supreme Conn reported as AIR 1992 Supreme Court 2070, "Director, Institute of Management "Development U.P. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava". In that case, Supreme Court has held that adhoc appointment and continuous service cannot be a ground for claiming that appointy is entitled to regula- risation in service. He cannot claim, regularisation in service on basis that he was appointed on adhoc basis for more than a year". These judgements of Supreme Court are squarly applicable to the facts of this case. Tho concerned workman was engaged by the branch manager as a tem- porary part-time nwceper of the branch on daily wanes basis without any regular order of appointment and he Is not a competant authority to fill up the vacancy of the permanent post of part-time sweeper. So on the basis of the decisions of the Supreme Court, the concerned workman is not en- titled to regularisation in service and he cannot claim it as 3 right on the basis that he worked as a casual employee for a continuous considerable time.

It is the specific allegation of the Petitioner that the whit- man K Kandeepan is employed as a part-time sweeper from October, Ii>91 IU the Wandiwash branch ot Indian Ijank against the permanent vacuflcy for Rs. 25 per day till June, iy^6 and for Rs, 40 per day from July, 1996 to till date. Ihe concerned workman as VV.W.l has deposed so. In the crosi examination W.W.I admits that he has been appointed as a part-time sweeper in 1991 by the Branch Manager ot the bank, one Mr, Shankaianaraytuian and he was appointed orally and no order of appointment was jciven to him. The witness ior the management, Manager, Head Office, Personal Department, Indian Bank has deposed that the concerned woikmun, Kandcepan h.is IIOL been appointed as a part-time sweeper for Waudiwash branch of the Bank adopting the procedure to iill up ihc post Of die (sweepers in the Bank Branch Jl is his evidence tnat sweepers will be appointed by the Zonal Manager and to fill up the post of sweepers in the branch, the branch managei usually write to the Dis- trict tmployment Exchange, calling for the Jist of candidates for the iii'crvic'iV to the post and on receipt of one nuch list from the JBrnployment Fxchangc, the branch manager used to forward it to the Regional Oflicc for further action and the Regional OlSce in turn mod to call the persons men- tioned in the list for interview and conduct an interview for thi post. Alter the result of the interview sent to trio Zonal Olliirc and tho Zonal Manager will appoint the selected person. In para 4 of the counter of the Respondent, it is clearly alleged that in the credent case the concerned workman was not appointed by the competant authority as< per the proce- dure of regular appointment and he is being engaged by the Branch Management of Wandiwash branch only on casual basis. The rejoinder is filed by the first party. It is not alleged by the 1 Party in the rejoinder that the concerned workman was appointed by the competent authority as per the procedure of regular appointment. The proccdwc to be adopted by the Management for regular appointment has been clearly spoken to by M.W.I in his evidence. That has not been disputed by the I parly and nothing has been cug- gestcd in Ihe cross examination of M.W.I stating as what he states as procedure for regular appointment followed by the bank is incorrect. M.W.I has reiterated In .the cross exami- nation by sl.iCiif that it is incorrect to state that we are not- adopting any reserved panel system and Shri Kand'eepan has rot been appointed as per the procedure of the Bank. The concerned woikman as W.W.I, as stated earlier, has admitted in his evidence that he was appointed aa a part-time sweeper by the then branch manager and it is an oral appointment and ho was not given any order of appointment. From this it is evident that the concerned workman P. Kaudeepan ii working as temporary part-time sweeper of Indian Bank

The Respondent is relyinig upon ban on fresh recruit- ments imposed by the Reserved Bank of India by the cir- cular dt. 12-08-1996 i.e. with regard to fresh recruitments. Admittedly the concerned workman has been engaged on daily wages basis in Uct.' 1991 and this is a case for regula- risation of service. As argued by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the "aid circular of the Reserve Bank of India dt 12-08-1996 is not applicable to this case, since this dispute does not reatc to the fresh appointment for recruitment. Hence the Ex. Ml & M2 which deals with fresh recruitments are not applicable to this case. The lear- ned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon Section 3 of Tamilnadu Industrial Establishment Confirmcnt of Perma- nent Status to Workmen Act, 1981, stating that it confers permanency to workman on completion of 480 days of continuous work of 24 calendar months and argued that since the concerned workman had completed 480 days of continuous service, he ought to have been regularised from the date on which he has completed 480 days. As it is correctly stated in the counter by the Respondent, the pro- visions of 1 amilnadu Industrial Establishment (conflrment of permanent status to workman) Act, 1981 will not appli- cable to the IT Partv Indian Bank- Management, which is a Nationalised Bank. Further, in view of the above mentioned Supreme Court decisions also, the I Party Claimant cannot be heard to say th^at the non-regularisation of the concerned workman, Kandeepan, part-time iweeper, Indian Bank Wandiwash Branch by the Management of Indian Bank, is illegal and unjustified and hence the first party claimant which' is espousing the cause of the workman .P. Knndeepon cannot jiefthe relief as prayed for in this Industrial Dispute Henw, the non-rcBularisation of Sh. P. Kandeepan, tern- poraiiy part-time sweeper of Indian Bank wandiwash Bank py the Management is held to be legal and justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief. Thus I answer the point accordingly.

In the result, an award Is passed holdinR that the first party claimant is not entitled to any relief prayed for in this Industrial Dispute and as such a no relief award is passed without cost.

Dictated to the Typist und typeed by her direct and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day, the 09 th January, 2001.

K. KARTHIKEYAN. PresidinK Officer WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR CLAIMANT

W.W.I — Sh. P. Kandeepan

FOR MANAGEMENT

M.W. 1 — Sh. D. Balasubramnnian

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Claimant/I Party : None.

i <

For ManaRcment/II Party

iRx. Date Description

No.

Ml 12-8-1996 Communication from Reserve Bank of India to Indian Bank (Xerox copy)

JM2 8-11-1996 Communication from Reserve Bank of India to Chairman, Indian Bank (Xerox copy) New Delhi, the 19th January. 2001

S.O. 328.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 \>f 1947), the Central Goverment hereby publishes tho award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispnte bet^^en the employers in relation to the management of Bank of India and- their workman, which WHS received by the Central Government pn .17-1-2001.

[No. TJ-I2011/l76/""9-IRfB-Il)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Tuesday the 9 th January, 2001

PRESENT :

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 39/2000

(In the mater of the dispute for adjudication under Sec-

BETWEEN :

The General Secretary Claimant|l Party Bank of India Staff Union Chennai

AND

The Zonal Manager Management|II Party Bank of India Southern Zone Chenual

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman : Authorised Office Bearer of the Union, Sh. C. P. Chandrasekaran

For Management : M|s S. Ramasubramaniam & Asso- ciates Advocates

Reference : No. L-12011|176|y9-lR(B-II) dated 29-2-2000 Government of India, Ministry of Labour. New Delhi.

This dispute on coming up before me for final hcaiina on (1-12-2000 upon perusing the reference, claim statement, counter statement and other mateiral papers on records, the documentary evidence let in on either side and upon hearing Lhe arguments of the authorised representative of the Claimant and the counsel for the Management, M]s. S- Ramasubramaniam & Associates, Advocates and this dis- pute hav.ng stood over till this date for cousidertion this tribunal passed the following :—,

AWARD

This reference by Central Govt, in the exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 in respect of the dispute between Sh. R.Bhaskaran Workman and the Zonal Manager, Southern Zone, Bank of India, Chennai, Management mentioned as Schedule ap- pended to the order of reference.

The Schedule reads as follows :

"Whether the Management of Bank of India is justi- fied in awaiding punishment of withdrawal of special allowance of Head Cashier 'C permanently to Sh. R. baskaran 7 If not, to what relief the employee is entitled ?"

1. On receipt of this reference, this Industrial Dispute has been taken on file of this Tribunal on 4-8-2000 as Industrial Dispute No. 39/2000. On receipt of the notice from this Tribunal, both the parties appeared, with I party's authorised representative and the counsel of the II Party and filed¹ their respective claim tialement and counter statement,

2. The averments in the claim statement of the Claimant/ I Party are briefly as follows :— ",

44R 1PHE GAZETTE OP INDIA:i^EBRUARY 17. ZWH/MAUWA 28, isuz LPAUT "-<-SEC; ,HUJJ

service befoie imposing the punishment. The Enquiry Officer reused to leeord crucial questions 'and documentary evidence like law receipt of .cash covers on early occasions, neany 65, 10 prove itnat the cash whicn wore received bcyand 2 p.m. are taken as late receipt and accouflted/credited on the next working day and Baskaran never acted against the interest of the bank at any time. Hence the Workman was not given sufficient opportunity to detend himself in the enquiry and lience the enquiry lias to be set aside. Regarding cnurge To. 6 relating to discurteous attitude towards custo- mer, Noormahammad by informing him on 28-04-1995, 02--l<">5, tH-07-J99:> and on U4-U1H995 that he should I Ting higher denomination notes and not to bring smaller denominations ol notes. The Petitioner states that the Baskaran was on leuve cm 02-06-J995 and 01-07-1995. On 28-04-1995, the customer brought only higher denominations. Only un 04-08-1995, the customer brought smaller denomi- nations and insisted ioi the counter foil immediately. iBasSkaran never behaved with any customer discurteously more parti- cularly with Noormohammad. Admittedly, Baakaian was the Payment Cashier and Manivannan was the Receipt Cashier. On 04-08 1995 the customer Noormohammad brought a sum of Rs, jy,000 with smaller denominations consisting .of- Re. 1 coins, cut notes, soiled notes arid remitted in the current account of one V. R. "Chidambaram and not in the loan account of Noormohammad as stated in the charge sheet; On none of the aforesaid 4 days Noormohummad remitted any cash in his loan uccount as emphatically slated in the charge flieet iu> evident from the documentary evidence M3(yj to M.-t(12;.; All the statements of Noormohammad arc fab- ricated one. And there is no loss to the Bank's business as suited in the charge sheet. When the enquiry officer errone- ously held that the incident on 04-08-1995 has proved. The evidence of Munivannan is very clear that Baskaran did not deal with the customer directly or discourteously. There was no cioss examination by presenting Officer.- Even the Noormohanmiad as M.W.I has not stated that Baskaran had behaved with him discourteously. Even the Management wit- ness does not depose that Baskaran behalved with an indifferent attitude towprds the customer. The evidence is contrary to the documentary evidence on record. The Enquiry Officer has unfortunately held that Baskaran behaved m. an ruffian manner and in fact that was not deposed by the Management witnesses themselves. The finding of the enquiry officer in ignoring the evidence of D.W-4 and holding the charge {Bat the Baskaran behaved with the customer in indifferent way on 04-08-1995 alone is pervorsed Hnd one sided. The dis- ciplinary authority and¹ appellate au;hority without giving any icasons has accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the punishment. Regarding charge No. 8 the evi- dence of D.W.8 and D.W.I0 is very clear that "Baskaran did not protest irj entertaining jcwol loan applications from grant- ing of jewel loan. They have stated that the acting Branch Manager, Rajappa has only expressed them about his diffi- culty in granting loan as there were no enough staffs available to do the work. Unfortunately, the linquiry Officer has misquoted and stated that the evidence of D.W.8 and D.W.10 are not supporting the case of the Workman. The Workman was not given subsistence allowance as per tho bipartite settle- ment. The subsistancc allowance payed for the month of October 1996 was recovered from the subsistanco allowance payable in the month of November 1996. The findinas of the Enquiry Officer arc contrary to the admitted evidencs on record and is perverse. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary .authority as confirmed by the appellate authority shows non appliction of mind. The charges are not at nil established in the enquiry and the punishment imposed on the Workman is harsh and is liable tp be set aside. The Work- man Baskcran was punished for no fault of his. Hence It is prayed that this Honourable Tribunal may be pleased to hold that the punishment imposed by the Respondent Bank is not justified and consequently direct the Bank to restore llu: special allowance of Cashier category 'C to Ba^Rarnn and p.iy him all the benefits to which he is entitled and award cost.

3. The averments, in the counter of the Respondent are

briefly as, follows-:-—

27-09-1995 for the alleged misconduct. The said charge sheet is Ex. Wl. It is also admitted that a disciplinary proceeding w;i£ .initiated by appointing one Shri V. Gopal, Dy. C. M-. Coimbatore Biauch as a Lnquiry Officer to enquire into the chaiges levelled against him in the said churye sheet and to submit his findings. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer con- ducted the enquiry and submitted his report. On 06-09-96, the xerox copy of the same is Ex. M2. Rx. Ml is the Enquiry Officer's daily order sheet dated 9-10-1995, wherein he has informed the charge sheeted¹ employee and the presenting officer vShri N, Ramamirdhan to aLtend the preliminary hear- ing on 19-10-1995 at 10.00 a.m. at Bank of India, Velavu- dhapalayam Branch- It is the contention of the Petitioner in the claim statement that the findings of the Enquiry Officer that the' charge is proved h perverse and the workman was not given sufficient opporluniy to defend himself in the enquiry and hence the enquiry has to be set aside. So, it has to be found out from the Enquiry Officer's report has to whether the enquiry conducted by him against the charge sheeted employee Baskaran was fair and proper following the prin- ciples of natural justce, whether the workman Baskaran, ns charged sheeted employee was given opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry and whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer in his report are perversed without any evidence to support his findings.

700 T"E GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2001,/MAGHA 28, 1922 WA&J .HUSep^afli)]

Witnesses examined :

Tor Claimant—None.

FOJ' Management—None,

Documents Marked :

For Claimant:

Jfx. No. Date Description

Wl 27-09-ly95—Charge sheet issued to Shri R.

Baskaran, Clerk-cum-Cashier,

W2 10-1(1-11%—Show cause notice proposing punish-

,ment given to Shri R. Baskaran.

W3 30-J1-1996—Punishment Order.

For Management:

Ex. No. Date Description

Ml 09-10-1995—Hnquiry Officer's Daily Order Sheet

(Xerox copy).

JVI2 06-09-1996—Xerox copy of Enquiry Officer find-

ings report.

M3 18-11-1996—Xerox copy of representation sub-

mitted hv Shri R. Baskaran.

New Delhi, the 19th January, 20C1

S,Q 329. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Patna as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of UCO Bank a'nd their workman, which was received by the Central! Government on 19-1-2001.

[No. L-12012/293/99-IRfB-lD] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

the '(.Lfcc.-t; representative, Mr. C. P. Chandrasekanm rmidc- a written representation dated lS-ll-iyy6. The xerox copy of the sumc is \ix. Ml, After considering the submission made by Basknran in the personal hearing ulso, the disciplinary mithoiity passed on order dated 13-11-iyyb under Kx. VV3 imposing the punishment of withdruwal of special allowance of Head Cashier permanently as per clause 21 IV c of bi- paitite settlement dated 14-02-1995. In that order of punish- ment, the disciplinary authority has mentioned that the charaes levelled against 1hc Boskarun and proved in Itie enquiry aie quite serious in nature in as much as acts of misconduct committed by him arc highly prejudicial to the interest of the bank and has also stared that the punishment impos' d is commensvrcte with the gravity of misconduct pioved in the enquiry against this order of punishment, the appeal prefcned by Mr, Baskaran before the appellate authority, was also rejected by the appellate authority, confirming the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. It is th: contention of the Petitioner that the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority had not -taken into account the past record of blemishless service before imposing the punish- ment. It is not disputed in the counter filed by the Res- pondent. It is simply stated in the counter, that the past record of Mr, R. Baskarau has no relevance with the imposi- tion of punishment. So, admittedly nothing has been putforth by the Management against this employee, flaskaran as his past records are bacf. The allegation in the claim petition that the workman R. Baskaran has blemishlcss seivlce of 14 years is not disputed. Under such circumstances, it is to be found out, whether the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority which is subsequently confirmed by the appellate authority agHinst the workman Baskaran for the charges pioved in the enquiry, is a deterrent punishment which will commensurate with the gravity of misconduct proved in the enquiry. It is seen from the. enquiry report, Ex, M2 that the Enquiry Officer has given a finding that out of the 9 charges, only 2 charges and a partial charge No. 6 had¹ been proved. Further there is no positive direct evidence is available to come to the conclusion that because of the proved misconduct of the workman Baskaran is highly pre- judicial to the interest of the Bank and it is irresponsible to the customers sensibilities. From the proved charges it is seen that (ho workman, Baskaran has refused to bring into account on the same day the cash received on 06-05-1^-1, in spite of hit, Branch Manager, who is superior to him instructed him to do so, after rendering ell help through other employees, this amounts to his insubordination^ When he was atkfd to do the work as per the instruction of the Branch Manager, he cannot bluntly refuse to accept the cash Tor the same day. Because of his refusal only, the Manager had to sign it as late cash collection for the day. So, when considering all these things it can be easily concluded that the workman concerned has committed the misconduct of insubordintnion and discurtious treatment to the customers, of the Bank. All put together it in seen, the punishment imposed bv the disciplinary authority which is confirmed by the appellate authority is a deterrent one and not commen- surate with the gravity of misconduct proved in the enquiry. So this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that though the M^nacement of Bank of India is justified in awarding punish- ment to the workman, R. Baskaran for his proved misconduct, the punishment imposed by the Management bv withdrawal of special allowance of Head Cashier (C) permanently is not jusiified. So, a lesser punishment of withdrawal of special allowance of Head Cashier (O to Shri R, Baskaran for H period of 2 vears instead of the punishment imposed will meet the ends of justice. ' In that way. Ihe, employee R. Baskaran is entitled to otehr attendant benefits. Thus the Point No. 2 is answered accordingly.

BF.FORF. THF PRPSIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL PATNA

Reference No. l(c) of 2000

Management of UCO Bank. Patna and their workman

Sri Pawan Kumar.

For the Management Sri P. K. Sinha, A.C.O. UCO

Bank, Patna.

For (he Workman : Sri B. Prasad, Stale Secretary, UCO

Bank Employees Association, Patna.

AWARD

Dated the 10th January, 2001

The Central Government by Notification No. L-12012/ 293j/99-IR(B-II) dated 25-05-2000 has referred the followm" irwty trial dispute between the Management of UCO Bank, Patna and their workman Sri Pawan Kumar to this Tribunal for adjudication:—

"Whether the action of the Management of UCO Bank in not considering the claim lor reinstatement and regularisation of the services of Sri Pawan Kumar as Peon and terminating/discontinuing him from service w.e.f. 6-5-1997 is legal and justified ? If uut what relief is the disputant entitled to?" 2. After receipt of the notification notices w^re issued to> bo|h sides and both sides have appeared and filed their respective written statements.

3. The case of thu workman as it appears from his writte-i statement of claim k that he was orally appointed by the Management of UCO Bank to discharge the duties of a Peon on and from 6-5-1994 in Barhiya Branch. Affer the appoint- ment the workman used to perform all duties of a Pecn such as takinif out ledgers/Registers from the Almirah and placing the same on the Table and Vice-versa, taVing out cash box, tokens from the Strong Room and placing the sajme in Cash Department and vice-versa, carrying token b

4. The case of the Management as it appear? from their written statement in brief is thit the- Reference of the dispute is bad in law. Th" workman was engaped by the Manager of Barhiya Branch, of UCO Bank on the casual basis for performing certain contingent nature of work. Thi Branch Manager had no authority to engage any caiual worW an6 hence, his engagement is void abinitio, Rvo.r since the nationalisation of the Bank it has becpim- a SMe within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of Tndia and is obliiffd to function with the psra meter of Articles 14 and 16 Of the C.riTIStitiltirm nf Tn^n ,"" ilia mnt t~ -* 361 GI/2001^12

ma.

appointment, in the present caw there was no advertisement calling for application from other candidates. No requisition of any other candidate was, obtained from toe Employment Exchange, Thug .the usual norms of appointment were not followed. In the present case Sri Pawan Kumar was pur- portedly engaged ignoring the entitlement of engagement of hundred of other unemployed individuals possessing identical, if not better, qualifications. Since Pawan Kumar was engaged unconstitutionally he can not maintain a legal right tor continuation in the guise of provisions of the I.D. Act. In the circumstances, according to the Management, the Autho- rity functioned mechanically and without application of mind in entertaining the request to initiate the conciliation proceeding and later referring the matter to Industrial' Tribunal.

5. The further case of the Management in that there •Wts no vacancy in the Branch. Moreover, the Reserve Bank of India had put a ban on recruitment of staff as per their; letter dated 26-6-1996. The Ban continues as per the subse- quent letter of Reserve Bank of India dated 16-12-1997 w it became imperative for healthy economy to prevent waste- ful expenditure by discharging unwanted and illegally engaged individuals. On 29-3-1997 the Zonal Manager of the Bant directed that no engagement of casual workers exoept those who stand empanelled as casual workers would be made by any Branch Manager. If any Branch Manager or Head of the office was found engaging any, casual worier he will be personally held responsible. Direction was also made to all Branches and Offices to immediately disengage daily- casual workers other than empanelled casual workers. It is denied that Sri Pawan Kumar was even appointed to dis- charge the duties of a Peon! The wages paid to the workman were adequate in consideration of doing casual and contin^ gent nature of job. There can riot bo any question of any termination of service since there was no appointment made. Since the services of the casual worker were not required and hence, no engagement was madb after 6-5-1997. According to the Management the workman is neither entitled to reinstatement nor rej-ularisation of service. In the facts snd circumstances the Management has prayed for passing an award holding that the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

6. A rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the workman to tho written statement of the Management stating therein that this Tribunal must confine its adiudication on the terms of Reference and the matters incidental thereto as per Section 10(4) of the I.D. Act. This Tribunal can not co into the cjUMticm of validity of the Reference. The Industrial Tribunal is a creation of Statute and it Rets Jurisdiction on the bMis of Refence [S.C. cases (2QO0V113721. Once a Reference is made it should bo adjudicated within the con- ceptual framework of the I.D. Act. The questions which arise for determination In this Reference art? whether Sri Pawan Kumar is a workman, whether the UCO Bnnk is an industry where he was engaged, whether he worked for 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding his termination nwd whether his termination is covered n/s 2(oo) of the I.D. Act. In the present case the answer to the above question* must be in affirmative and since the requirements of section 25F of the T.D. Act were not complied with at the time of terminntion, the workman is entitled for reinstatement with payment of back wajies. He is ako entitled, for regularisation of service in subordinate cadre in view of the fact that he worked for a long period as casual worker and since he has been denied of "equal pay for equal work'. So according to the workman instead of regularising his service the Manage- ment illegally terminated the same without compliance of provisions of section 25P of the, I.D. Act.

7 The following questions arise for determination ki this Reference:—

(i) Whether the action of the Management of UCO Bank in not considering the claim for reinstatement of the workman Sri Pawan Kumar i" justified and if not, to what reliefs the workman j" entitled to ?

(ii) Whether the action of the Management of UCO Bank in not considering the claim of regularisation $f76* 9tt& #A£fetTE OF INPJA: FEBRUARY 17, 2001/MAGHA 28, 1922 [PART IT—SEC. 3(U)] tervfw of the said workman -as Peon to juslififd and if not to what relief U fa* entitled ?

FINDINGS

Issue, No. ( 0:

laying down the rules and procedure to be adopted for re- cruitment to the post* in the subordinate cadres. Ext. M-5 is a letter from the Reserve Bank of India dated 16-12-1997. It shows that the restriction for making any recuitment im- posed in the UCO Bank in June, 1996 was to continue. It was made clear that there should not be any recmitmsnt of staff including against vacancies resulted on account of retirement or resignation except recruitment of specialised Probationary Officers with prior approval of Reserve Bask of India and Government of India. The restriction may be relaxed in future depending on the Bank's record in regard to achievement of capital- ratio of 3 per oent.

10. Some zero* copies of certificate* nrantod by the Branch Manager with regard to the period of work performed by the workman have been exhibited¹ on behalf of the workman. F,xt. W is a zerox copy of the certificate uranted by the Manager of Barhiya Branch of UCO Bank dated 26-6-1999 to the effeot that the services of Pawan Kumar were utilised as a daily wager from 7-5-1994 to middle of 1997. Ext. W /l and W/l-1 are the zerox copies of the letters of the said Branch Manager to the Divi'ional Office giving the par- ticulars of the concerned casual workman. Ext. W /l in the zerox, copy of the letter of the Branch Manajter, Bnrhiya Branch, UCO Bank dated 30-9 1999 addressed to the Regional Office, Patna giving details of the works done by the con- cerned worknian from 1994 to 1997 and also the details of wages paid to him. In this letter it is al'o mentioned that Gapesh Pd. who was a Peon was promoted in December. 1993. The vacancy created on promotion of Oonerti Prasad has not yet been filled up and "till lying vacant. This letter shows that Pawan Kumar Worked in the Branch as daily wage worker for 203 days in tht year 1994,-297 da.ys in the year 19^5, 292 days in the year 1998 end 9d days in the year 1997. It further shows that Pawan Kumar worked more than 240 day* continuously in the 12, calendar months preceding his termination.

fWflfc

•art:. ..-- - p- ;cr-^nr,•: my . i -•*.".".•-..'i T|.r.' 't'™'T."•'•t,'1 ,' ~i ti

Section 25F is applicable rven to a daily rated workman who had continuously served 240 days in a year (1997)(II) S.C.C Page 396. The fact that requirement* of Ejection 25F of the 1,0, Act were not complied before termination has not been denied. So the claim of the workman appears correct that since he was terminated from his job without complying the requirements of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, it U illegal and be is entitled foe reinstatement with payment of back wages. I also decide the' same accordingly. Accord- ingly the issue u decided and answered.

12- Iswie No. MO "• The services of a casual worker irre-

gularly appointed can be regularised lti eithet of the following circumstances:—

(i) Where there is a specific rule of the Bank soverning

the matter, or

(ii) Where there is any bi-partite settlement between the Management of the Bank and workmen gov^nuua the matter.

New tfelai, me 23rd January, 2001

S.O. 330 .-^In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute tet, 1947 (14 of 1947)* the Central Government hotaby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribtmal| Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to th*fliaffageffltefltof Bank of n"dia and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-1-2001. •>

ENo. L-12012fl20|99-IR"BJI)] C. OANOADHARAN, Under Secy.

AKTMEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IDUSTRIAL TRIBONALvCmi-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Presiding Office* : Rudiesh Kumar

ADJUDICATION In the present case the workman has not been able to show any rule of the Bank under which his services can be regu- lars ed. His services cart not alto be regularised on the basis of the settlement Ext. M since it has no prospective effect. The aforesaid settlement is in connection with rcgularisation of service of casual workers who were working in the Bank, on the date of the settlement. It does not concern persons who were engaged as casual workers subsequently in spite of repeated prohibition by the Head Office of the Bank vide Ext. M /l and M/2. Relying on the decision reported in A.I.R. 1997 S.C. page 1628 Asbwani Kumar and others Vs. State of Bihar and others the represintative of the Manage- ment submitted that an employee whose entry in seiT.ce is illegal being in total disregard of the recruitment rules has no case for refiularisation. Further it was pointed out to me that in view of the restriction imposed by the Reserve Bank of India in making a fresh recruitment the Bank has not been able to regularise even those casual workers who were empanelled as early as in the year 1990 at per the circular Ext. M. It was submitted that some of the empanelled casual workers wbo could not be regularised had filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble. Calcutta High Court. Even in respect of those empanelled workmen the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court directed the authorities to consider their cases and U* absorb them when such restriction* were lifted, by the Reserve Bank of India. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court further directed the authorities not to be filled up any post until those casual workers were absorbed in the substantive post. Only zerox copy of the judgement of the Hon'ble Calcutta Higfi Court has been filed in support of such contention. No certified copy has been filed.

BETWEEN :

Satish Chandra Slo Shri Lalta Prasad Tamta, R|o I V.R.I. Gate No. 2, iT^atoagar,, BafeiUy (U.P,)

AND

13. In view of my above discussions I decide that the workman has no right to be regularised in service, his initial engagement having been illegal in total disregard of the usual norms of recruitment. Moreover the question of regularisa- tion of his service does not arise at present until the restric- tions imposed by R.B.I, is lifted and until the other casual worker* who have already beeh empanelled are absorbed in the permanent post*. However the Manaaemcnt of the Bank may consider the question of regulariaation of service of the present workman after the restriction is lifted by the Reserve Bank of India and after empanelled workmen are absorbed in permanent posts taking into consideration that the work- man must have worked for years by that time under the Bank.

Regional Manager, Bank of India Zowai Office, U.P. Zone Mohini MawioH, 1 NtfWat Kishoie Road, Lucknow

AWARD

14. Thus as decided above the workman Pawan Kumar is entitled to be reinstated in service with effect froia 7-5-1997 with payment of full back wages. The workman has no right to be regularised in seivice. The Management of'the Bank Is directed to implement this award within two months from the date of its publication. The reference is answered accordingly.

15. This is my award.

Dictated and corrected by me.

S. K. MISHRA, Presiding Officer

P.O., KT., Pata" KM-Z001.

By reference No. I>l20l2fl20|9$>IR70$ ItHE GAZETTE OF INDIA; FEBRUARY 17. 2001/MAGHA 28, 1922 [PART tt^-SEc. 3(ii)]

Reginoal Manager, Bank of India, Lucknow for adjudication. The reference is re-produccd as under :

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, Ghaziabad in awarding the punishment of dismissal from services to Shri Satisli Chandra is in proportionate to the alleged initsconduct committed by him or not ? If not what relief he is en- titled to and from what date ?"

2. The aforenoted reference limits the scope of adjudication, to the point of the punishment alone. As such, adjudicating fa-irness of the disciplinary inquiry, resulting into punishment to the workman, is not appropriate. Thus, this Tribunal proposes to discuss salient features cf the case together with its background to judge whether punishment of dis- missal is not disproportionate to the proved mis- conduct of the Workman ?

3. The workman, Satish Chandra, a Sub-staff, was in bank employment siisce March 14, 1981 and at time of the incident was posted ait Civil Lines branch of the said bank at Bareilly. It is alleged by the management that on 7-5-1994 (Satur- day) Mrs. Shikha Chandra was looking after the work of despatch besides her duties in Cash C abin and she kept meagure amounts in the petty cash box. The petty cash box is not generally locked ajs the amount kept in it are used very frequently. The workman was also in the aforesaid cash cabin, on 7-5-1994. On 9-5-1994 Mrs. Shikha Chandra found Rs. 500|~ missing from the said box and she reported the matter to the higher authorities. The workman absented himself from duty without any intiinaiion. On having come to know about the in- cident, the Manager cf the bank sent two staff . members Mr, Agarwal and Mr. V. S. Duggal to the house of the workman on 9-5-1994 to check up about missing amount of Rs. 500|-, The work- man admitted in writing that he took out Rs. 500|- froni the cash box on 7-5-1994 and assured to refund money on return to his duty. On 16-5-1994 he returned the money and thereby confirmed his confession about illegal removal of the money from petty cash box.

4. The management issued a charge sheet to the workman on 11-10-1994 taking the matter very seriously and charging him to have committed grave misconduct. The Branch Manager, Hapur, of the said bank was appointed inquiry officer. The work- man was given adequate opportunity in the course of inquiry. The inquiry officer submitted his fin- dings on 9-3-1995 and found the workman guilty of grave misconduct. The disciplinary authority after granting personal hearing to the workman on 23-9-1995 on the point of proposed penalty, imposed penalty of dismissal on 14-10-1995 in terms of para 21 (iv) (A) of the Bipartite Settle- ment. The appeal of the workman- against the said penalty was dismissed on 5-12-1996.

5. The workman did not deny to have Rs. 5001- with him, but stated that the ^aid amount was given to him for purchase of stamps which he could not do on account of sudden illness. The workman had denied of having removed the amount on his own.

6. The conclusion of the Inquiry Officer is not required to be discussed as the reference does not question fairness or propriety of the disciplinary inquiry The inquiry found theft of Rs. 500j- by the workman on 7-5-1994 and subsequent deposit of the said amount on 16-5-1994.

7. Removal of R.s.. 500|- from the petty cash box is, obviously, is a act of misconduct and tenta- mount to breach of trust. Banking services require utmost mutual trust amongst the employees and faith of the public in general. Removal of monej as alleged irrespective of the quantum involved, u clearly a misconduct and erased credibility of t!he Workman. However, it is to be seen whether the punishment of dismissal i,s not shockingly dispro- portionate to the misconduct proved against the workman.

3. In the present case, misconduct of this nature was committed by the workman for the first timt as is proved on the basis of materials cm record, There is no averrment in the written statement filea by the managment that workman had committed any such misconduct involving pecuniary matters, or cheating the customers in the past. Obviously, it was the first misdeed though very serious. The workman confessed to his misdeed on the very first occasion when two other bank employees con- tacted him on the instruction of the Asstt. Manager. He also gave in writing owing Rs. 500|- to the bank and on return to duty deposited the said amount. His gesture^ at initial stages demonstrate his remorse in committing the misdeed. On de- mand of the management he gave in writing also. These factors need to be taken into consideration in evaluating the quantum of sentence.

9. Mr. Pankaj Khare, the authorised represen- tative of tbe management vehementally argued that punishment in such matters should be exemplary. This has been also the view of the Apex Court in such matter, with a view to prevent erosion of public confidence in banks and he justified punish- ment of dismissal as rational and appropriate one.

10. Unfortunately, none appeared from the side of the workman to put Ins submissions. On the preceding date, the workman was present in person and had submitted that dismissal from service has rendered him a destitute and prayed for. mercy.

11. In Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of India Vs. Thomas Jose and another, 2000-11 LLJ 1599 (SC), the Hon*ble Supreme Court considered •70S

New Delhi, the 24th January, 2001 appropriateness of punishment. In the said case, the delinquent employee had misappropriated funds ironi Saving Bank account of a customtr. The court took the view that such misconduct should not be taken lightly and modified the punishment of reinstatement without backwages by additional punishment stopping increments for 10 years. The court did not agree with plea of the mangement to award dismissal from service. In an earlier case Scooter India Ltd. Vs. Labour Court, AIR 1989 SC 149, t4ie court observed: "an errant workman should be given an opportunity to leform himself and prove to be a loyal em- ployee."

SO. 331.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industral Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal No. I, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Eastern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-01-2001.

[No. L-41012/01/93-IR(DU)/

AIAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 AT DHANBAD

PRESENT:

Shri Strju Prasad, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(lXd)

Of the I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 108 of 1994

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of Eastern

Railway and their workman.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman : Shri C. N. Singh, Authorised

Representative.

On bthalf of the employers: Shri G. Prasad, Advocate.

STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Railway.

Dated, Dhaubnd, the 2nd January, 2001

SCHEDULE 12. In the present case, the workman, nodoubt, removed Rs. 500 from petty cash box soon after admitted his guilt and gave in writting, instead of denying his misdeed. He also deposited the amount as soon as joined his duties after few days. He did not plead his innocence during the domestic in- quuiry or in this adjudication. In absence of his confession, it would have been very difficult for the maiiagment to workout theft of this nature, there being no direct evidence. The repentence shown by the workman, especially, the misconduct of such nature being the first one, warrant sympathe- tical consideration to provide an opportunity to him to reform and prove a loyal employee. Punish- ment by dismissal resulted into forfeiture of his service benefits beside rendering him disqualified for future jobs. Even in criminal cases of theft involving such amount, the benefit of probation is obligatory unless denied for reasons to be recorded and benefit of probation ijs given to the convict in first offence, beside he is saved from disqualification by statutory safeguard.. In the aforesaid background, it seems appropriate to modify punishment of dis- missal by reinstating the workman without back wages and dciying him five future increments with cumulative effect.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them Under Section 1Q(1)(C15 of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-41Q12/1/ 93/IR-DU, dated, the 28/29-4-94 :—

AWARD 13. Accordingly, the workman'is entitled to be reinstated without back wages and in addition not entitled to five future increment^ with cumulative effect. The punishment of dismissal is quashed and pubstutuled as above.

"Whether the action of the District Engineer (Construc- tion), Western Railway, P.O. Gomoh, pistrict Dhan- bad, in terminating the services of Shri Sheo Shankar Pathuk is justified ? If not, to what relief he i? entitled t o ?"

Lucknow

10-1-2001

RUDRESH KUMAR, presiding Officer

2. The brief, facts, giving rise to this Industrial Dispute is that Shri Shoo Shankar Pathak was engaged as Casual Labour on 17-1-73 and had been working under IOW/ER/ Bonno uplo 25-11-81. Thereafter, according to the workman concerned he applied for casual leave for 4 days from 26-11-81 and went to his homo where he fell sick. He infortaed the management of Railway Administration regarding hi- sickness and when he attended to resume duty he vu denied to join duty. Thus according to the concerned workman he has been illegally terminated by the Railway Administration because after completion of 180 days of service he has acquir- ed temporary status automatically and as per the provision of Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968 be cannot be remov- ed without due process of law.

3. The management on the other hand hai pleaded that the concerned workman Shri Sheo Shankar Pathak was a Casual Project employee who had worked off and on from im I J HE G A t mt m t m f o i x t m t mx p + M k t m p t i* & y iM '&*&%$$&• AM 17^1-73 to 23-11-81. During the ^ r i od from 16-11-81 to 1542-81 he was present for duty only an 2 days I.e. on 24-U-Rl and 25-1)1-8.1. Thereafter he absented from duty without leuve, information or permission at his own risk and convenience. Thus he is deemed t9 have left his employ- ment. According to the Railway Administration the manage- ment has not terminated his service, rather, it was the con- cerned workman who has left service without any information to the management. Further according to the management after 25-11-81 the concerned workman did not join duty and he h£$ raised this dispute which has been referred by h letter dated 28/29-4-94 i.e. after more than 12 years and on thia grqund alone the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Further, according to the Railway management the con- cerned workman was a Project Casual Labour and since the Projett in which he was engaged has been completed there is no further n"ed of service of the toacerned workman. The railway Administration has also taken a plea that in the year 19S6 the Central Administrative Tribunal Act has been parsed and in pursuance of the provision of Central Administrative Tribunal Act the present reference w bad because a special remedy has been provided under¹ Central Administrative Tribunal Act. Thus on this ground also the nrnnagement has opposed the prayer of the concern- ed workman for reinstatement in employment with full back: wages.

FINDINGS

5. From the pleadings of the parties it is ad- mitted that the concerned workman has worked from 17-7-73 to 25-11-81. The management has produced the Service Sheet of the concerned work- man which has been marked Ext. M-2 from which it appears that the concerned workman has worked as Chowkidar from 17-1-73 to 15-2-74 for 400 days and again as Casual Project Labour from 16-2-74 to 6-5-78 regularly. Thereafter he was transferred to some other place. The, service sheet of thai place has not been filed. Thus it is apparent that the concerned workman was regularly working. The Railway Administration has also filed the Pay- ment sheet of Casual Labourers from 15-11-81 to 16'11-81 and duuring this period the concerned workman was present only for 2 days. The con- ceerned workman has pleaded that hs has taken casual loave from 26-11-81 for 4 days but over- stayed due to Ms illness. The concerned workman has not filed any document in support of his taking casual leave or information given to the Railway )\dmii>istration regarding his subsequent illness. The Railway Administration has also filed a Cir- cular of th* Railways regarding Project Casual Labour and as per the directionr of the Hon'ble Supreme Curt in case of Inderpal Yadav -Versus- Union of India and others the Railway Adminis- tration has formulated a policy according to which those Project Casual Labourers who have completed 5 years of service as on 1-1-81 are to be treated as Temporary Labourers with effect from 1-1-81 and he will attain the tem- porary status. Thereafter at the instance of the Hon'ble Suprme Court the Railway has agreed to prepare a .list of Project Casual Labourers of each dWisioB oi different cat$g<*ries and they are to be regularised as wrraanent workmen according to their seniority. Admittedly the concerned workman was on employment on 1-1-81 for more than 3 days. Therefore, under the aforesaid circular the concer- ned workman has attained the temporary status on 1-1-81. Therefore, the Railway Administration was duty bound to prepare sc list of casual labourers including the concerned workman Shri Sheo Shankar Pathak. But the Railway administration has not done the same so far. Further it appears that the concerned Railway has neither terminated the service of the concerned workman by giving any termination notice and complying with the provision of Section 25F of the I.D. Act nor the concerned workman has been removed from service. The sim- ple fault of the concerned Workman is his unautho- rised absence from duty. It is settled principle of law that when an employee who has completed more than 240 days attendance in a calendar year he is not to be terminated or removed from service without the compliance of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. But in this case I find that the management has not followed any procedure and has arbitrarily not allowed the concerned workman to resume duty when he reported for duty. However, the con- cernd workmean is also to be blamed for this be- cause he was absent without authorised leave and he has not produced on record any paper to ehow from which date he has reported for duty.

6. We find that this dispute has been raised after more than 12 years. Since there is no period of limi- tation prescribed for reference of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 of the I.D. Act. There- fort, on this ground the claim of the concerned workman cannot be rejected. According to the latest view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in such cases Award has to be given in (such a way that for the delayed period no benefit should be given to a workman. Therefore, on this score the reference of the Industrial Dispute cannot be brushed aside. Since the management has not taken any steps for termination of the services of the concerned work- man nor the management has given- any notice to the concerned workman to resume duty failing which his employment shall stand terminated. Therefore, the concerned workman Sho Shankar Pathafc cannot be refused to resume duty of course for the period he remained absent he will not be entitled to any wages.

7. The management has taken a plea that after passing of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act this Court has got no jurisdiction but this point has not been pressed at the time of argument and by now it has been well settled that the concerned workman has got alternative remedy and he has a: right to choose his remedy.

8. Thus from the discussions made above, I find that the action of the management ii> refusing to resume duty is not justified and the concerned workman is entitled for reinstatement but without back wages.

707

9. In the result, I render the following Award :-

AWARD

"The action of the management of the Distt. Engineer (Construction) Eastern Rail- way, P.O. Gomoh, Dist. Dhanbad, in ter- minating the services of Shri Sheo Shankar Pathak p not justified and the concerned workman is entitled for re- instatement without back wages." SARJU PRASAD, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 24th January, 2001

SO 332.—In pursuance of Section \1 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of tho Industrial Tribunal, Chennai as shown in tho Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ie"erve Bank of India and their workman, which was received by tho Central Government on 23-01-2001.

[No. L-l2012/79/99rIR(B-l)j

AJAY KUMAR, Desk OfPcei

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, TAMIL NADU CHENNAM04

Thursday, the 21st day of December, 2000 PRESENT:

Thiru S. R. Singharavelu, B.Sc, B.L., Industrial Tribunal.

Industrial Dispute No. 101 of 1999

llri tho matter of dispute for adjudication under Section lOU)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the workman a-nd the Management of Reserve Bonk •tf India, Chennai).

BETWEEN

The workman represented by: The Sec etary, Reserve Bank of Indifi Employees' Association C/o RM-rve Bnnk of India, Chennai-600001.

AND

The Chief General Manager Reserve Bant of India, Oiennai-fiOPOOl.

REFERENCE:

Order No. L-l20U/79/99-IR(ft-D dated 16-6-1999, Ministry of Labour* GQvenapnt of India, New Delhi.

This dispute coming, on for final hearing on Wednesday, the 6th day of December, 2000, upon perusing the reference, claim and counter and all- other material papers, on record! and upon hearing the arguments of. Thiru A. Govindaswamy, authorised representative appearing for the Workman and of Thiru E. M. Sali, Legal Officer for the Management and this dispute having stood over till this day for consideration, this Tribunal made the- following :

AWARD

Tne Government of India has referred the following issue for adjudication by this Tribunal:

"Whether the demand for the Reserve Bmnk of India Employees Association for restoration of Stagnation, Increment to Shri P. Ramakrishnan on the date of exprty of penalty i.e. 16-2-90 is justified ? If so, to what relief the said workman is entitled ?" 2. The mul"i averments fouad in th* Claim Statement of the Petitioner are as follows:

Shri P. RumakriShnart who was working as Coin Not© Examiner Grade II in the- respondent bank is a member in the petitioner Association. His pay was reduced by two, stages for

The first itaanotion increment would have normally been dile on 9th July 1989, I.e. after completion of 2 years service708 THE (JAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 17, 2001/MAUHA Z8, 1922 [FART U-^SBC. 3(,U)J to the last increment in the incremental scale, Certain' conditions were attached to earning of the stagnation incre- ments. The number of stagnation increments provided by DiKhe Award were two in number which were subsequently increased from 2 to 3, and ultimately to 4 increments and also the eligible period required to earn stagnation increments was reduced from 5 years to 2 years as per subsequent bilateral settlements.

7. The petitioner association espouses the cauae of Thiru P. Ramakrishnan who was working as Coin Note Examiner Gr. II in the respondent bank, stace he is a Member in the petitioner association. Admittedly, he had reached the maxi- mum of his pay on 9-7-85 in the applicable time scale. He has also drawn tho first and second post scale special pay respectively on 9-7-86 and 9-7-87 and there was an Order¹ dl. 16-2-89 through Ex. Wl in and by which, a punishment was awarded whereby his pay was reduced for one year by two stages. That Order further reads as follows:

"The reduction shall have tho effect of withholding his increment intervening. The reduction however, shall not have the effect of postponing his future incre- ments. On completion of the said period of ono year (i.e. on 16th February 1990) his substantive pay in the aforesaid scale will b

8. The issue before us is regarding tho dispute relating to the period from which the workman was entitled for his stagnation increment. Before going to the same we should know wHat a stagnated increment is. As mentioned in para. 2c of the Counter, the concept of granting stagnation incre- ment was first introduced in the Bilateral Settlement dt. 28-9-1979, the copy of which was marked a* Ex. M6, wherein the following was mentioned about what a stagnation increment is:

after reaching the maximum of scale of pay. However, on account of iinpoiition of penalty, his pay was reduced by 2 stages for .a period of one year with effect from 16-2-89. Hence he was not stagnating at the maximum of the pay scale during this period viz. 16-2-89 to 15-2-90. Instead of drawing the first stagnation increment on 9-2-8'J, it should have been drawn on 9-7-90 as the period during which he was not drawing pay at the maximum of the scale has to be excluded from reckoning for the purpose of counting the period of 2 yeare. We may clarify that the increment gets postponed by two days on account of Extraordinary Leave not counting for increment on account of paiticipation in. strike. Talcing a hypothetical case of an" employee at the maximum of the pay scale, who was punished by the com- petent authority for certain misconduct and a punishment of reduction of six Increments permanently imposed. In such a case if the arguments of the petitioner is accepted the) hypothetical employee would be earning increment in the incremental scale every year for completing service of one year and also will earn stagnation Increments every 2 years i.e. every alternate year the hypothetical employee earns 2 increments namely the normal increment in the incremental scale every year for completing service of one year and also will efirn stagnation increments every 2 yean i.e. every alternate year the hypothetical employee earns 2 increments namley the normal inclement in the incremental scale and a atagnation increment because as per the arguments of the petitioner, tho bench mark to rcmain/stay/stagnate at the maximum of the scale is not relevant for earning stagnation increment and there is no necessity of exhausting increment in the incremental scale first and then earn stagnation incre- ments. An employee is eligible to draw first stagnation increment only after he reaches the maximum of the Incre- mental scale for 2 years and if any intervening event dislocate? the employee concerned from the maximum of the incremental scale, the clock stops ticking as regards calculation of eligible perjod for drawal of stagnation Incre- ments is concerned. The postponement of the date of drawal of stagnation increment as a result of penalty is only an effect of the penalty and not a penalty HI itself. The unequal comparison is made between the normal time scale incre- ments of tho other 73 employees and the stagnation incre- ment of the employee concerned. While the 73 employees who were not drawing the maximum of the pay were restored to thefr original position in the time scale after the penalty period the employee concerned also got his pay in the normal time scale i.e. maximum in the time scale restored. Th;- ri-rpondent prays to uphod the contention of the respondent bank that the first stagnation increment of the employee concerned should be postponed by tho period of punishment during which the petitioner was not in the maximum of pay scale.

-1 On b ^ - lf nf netitiorrer. Ex. Wl to W5 were mRrlced bv consent. On behalf of respondent, Ex. Ml to M il were nart-Jd by consent.

5. The Point for consideration i s: Whether the demand

"All employees in Gioup-I will be- granted stagnation increments, subject to u maximum of two, each equivalent to the la^ increment in the scale of pay, for every five completed years of seivice after reaching maximum in the scale of pay and drawal of post scale special pay, if any and to the extent admissible. The period of stagnation for this purpose will be reckoned from the date of reaching the* maximum of the scale of pay in the Bipartite! Settlement dated 7th October 1970. In case of an employe* who is eligible for stagnation increments, the first such increment will be granted effective' from fhe date on which it falls Jue or from 1st September 1978 whichever Is later but the next increment will accrue to him on completion of flvo year* of service as from the date the first increment falls due. (Example: In the case ot an employee the benefit of the first increment falling due on 1st January 1975 will be given to him with effect from 1st September 1978 but the next such increment will be due to him with effect from 1st January 1980."

rf th-: Rwcrve Bank of India Employees Association for restoration of stagnation increment to Sri P, Ramakrishusn on the date of expiry of penalty i.e. 16-2-90 is justified ? If s.0. to what relief the said workman is entitled 7

Even in Ex. M9 which is the Memorandum of Settlement between the petitioner association and the Management on 29-8-89 what was mentioned about stagnation increment is as follows;

"All employees in Group A will be eligible for stagna- tion increments, suWect to a maximum of three, each equivalent to the last increment in the scale! of pay, for every two completed years of service after reaching maximum of the scale of pay and drawal of oost-scale special pay, if any and to the extent admissible."

increment. Thus his first stagnation increment, accord- ing I'O the workman is due on 9-7-89.

shall state, the period far which it i" with- held and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing tuture incre- ments."

11L What the Management would contend us that, "Senfice of Maximum ot scale of pay and drawal of post (scale Special pay',' mentioned in the Settlement of 1979 iind 1989 would mean not a 'mere service', but a 'service with salary of maximum of scale of piiy iuid drawal of post scale special pay." In other words, according to ihe management, the two comp- leted! year of service mentioned as a sine que non for getting stagnation increment shall be qualified with, such a service of drawing of maximum of scale of pay and drawal of post scale special pay. To put ,it again, tvery two completed years of service after; reaching maximum of scale of pay and drawal of ppst scale- special pay, would not by itself enure the '(workman the stagnation increment. The mana- fgement want the workman to get himself stagnated for two years in the maximum of scale of pay and , drawal of post scale special pay, in order to get {the stagnation increment. In other words, any in- tervening dislocation of the employee from the maxi- mum of the incremental scale and such period of dislocation will have to be excluded from the com- putation of two completed years of service,

12. In this case, the punishment under Ex. Wl was awarded on 16-2-89 and the date of expiry of penalty was on 16-2-90. True it is that during the above period of one ycai, this employee was not on the maximum of scale of pay, because as a measure of p(ayment the pay was reduced by two stages dur- ing that period of one year. Thus he had not stag- n a t ed himself in the maximum scale of pay during that; period of one year. The management want that: this period of c-jslocation whereby the employee was kept outside the maximum of scale of pay shall be excluded from the computation of two years, for getting the stagnation increment,

Thus there is no written. order to postpone the stagnation increment. Assumr ing mat the interpretation of management about the stagnation increment is reasonable, , we lhave to see that it is away from the Terminology used in th© provisions of Bilateral settlement' found in Ex. M6 and M9. Furtherin, it may be true that the period of punishment mentioned in Ex. Wl had t!h© effect of dislocating the employee being at the maxi- mum of scale of pay during that period. But it must have been communicated to him before even the stagnation increment is postponed on that ground. An opportunity should have been offered to him and that he must have been heard before ever making a uni- lai'eral interpretation of the provisions of the Settle- ment. That has not been done in this case. Thus the unilateral interpretation is against the procedure. Anyway we do not agree wirn the above interpretation because, under the guise of interpretation, we cannot interpolate a clause which is not in existence in the Setflement (Ex. M6 & M9). To interpret an existing terminology in the Bilateral Settlement is one thing, to interpolate a meaning extianeous to the phraseo- logy used in the provisions of tlhe Settlement is differ- ent. Under the guise of interpretation of the language of the provisions of the settlement, we cannot inject a new idea or interpelate a new meaning which tfhe terminology in the settlement dots not ordinarily indi- cate. The management may be right in expecting an employee to be in service for two years with the scale of pay of maximum and get himself stagnated thereon so- as to avail the stagnation increment. But thaf was not the meaning conveyed in the existing; terms of provisions of settlement. Unless such Bilate- ral term is redrafted to contain the above meaning of management, we cannof thrust a new idea. Tf the man- agement wants to give such a meaning it should amend the concerned provision in the settlement or incorpo- rate new provisions of settlement to that effect.

15. Thus, the demand of the petit'oner ptssncJa- tion i,<= justified. Award passed accordingly. No costs.

Dated' at Chennai, this 21st day of December,

2000.

THIRU S. R. SINGHARAVELU. industrial Tribunal

I.D. 101 of 1099

lfe. This argument of management can be accepted if tlie provision made in Hie settlement indicates so. Now the question before Ub is what does the provi- sion is the Bilateral Settlement indicate. Whether it requires an employee to gel himself stagnated for a peripd of two years in the maximum of bis scale of pay i in order to get his stagnated increment, or that, will lit hi sufficient on his part, to just spend a period of two years in service after reaching maximum of scal^ of pay. A careful perusal of the provision mad? in the Settlement of 1979 through Ex. M6 and 198£> through Ex. M9 would only go lo show that thz\ second contention made by the employee is acceptable.

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner/Workman—None.

For Respondent/Management—(M.W, .).

Shri S, Ramakrishnan (Chief oniv'i Proom

affidavit.

Documents marked

14. Further the perusal of the Ex. Wl Punishment also shows that the reduction of pay shall not have the i effect of postponing his future increment. That is to say that, it is of non-cumulative effect. Thus his ioriginal pay was tortured on 16-2-1990 the date of ixpiry of penalty period. When a penalty is noni-cuirmlativc it shall not have its effect apart and^. away from the period of punishment. Further, as provided in pae,e 27 of the Reserve Bank of India (Styff) Regulations, 1948 (Ex. W5).

For Petitioner/Workman :

Ex. Wl—Office order No. 4fi6, 8 3 / KV mtcd 'No increment may be withheld except as a ' disciplinary measure under Regulation 47 nnd each order withholding as increment

16-2-4)

361,GI/20Ol—13

TltT H& GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY IT; 20Cfl/MAOHA 28. 1922 TP/AT H-^SEC. 3flM

Ex. W2—Memorandum of Settlement between All India Reserve Bank Employees Asso- ciation and the Management of Reserve Bank of India, dated 29th August, 1989.

Ex. W3—Memorandum of Settlement between All India Reserve Bank Employees Asso- ciation and the management of Reserve Bank of India dated 23-6-1955.,

Ex. W4—The Award of National Industrial Tri- bunal Bombay (pighe Award) (Ref. NTB 1 of 79).

Ex. W5-—RBI Staff Regulation Act.

Documents for Respondent/Management.

Ex. Ml—Office order No. 466/88-89 dated 16-2-89 of the Competent Authority.

Ex M2—Pay revision sheets of Sri P. Rama- krishnan CNE Gr. II.

Ex. M3—Extracts of Regulations Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations,, 1948.

Ex. M4—Extracts of Section 3 Para 7(3)(1)— Other Benefits and Emoluments from the Award of National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay (Dhighe Award) Ref. NTB of 1 of 1979.

Ex. MS—Extracts of Part-IV from the Memo- randum of Settlement dated 7-10-1970 between the All India Reserve Bank Em- ployees Association and the Reserve Bank of India.

Ex. M6—Memorandum of

Ex. M7—Memorandum of Settlement dated 12fli October, 1984 between All India Re- serve Bank Employees' Association and the Reserve Bank of India.

Ex. MS—Central Office .Circular No. PPD. G. 4/30/RII. Cr. 218C/94-95 dated 21st July, 1994.

Ex. M9—Memorandum of Settlement dated 29th August, 1989 between All India Re- • serve Bank Employees' Association and the Reserve Bank of India,

Ex. M10—Memorandum of Settlement dated 23rd June, 1995 between AH India Re- serve Bank Employees' Association¹ and the Reserve Bank of India.

Ex. Mil—Centra! Office Circular DAPM (PMW) No. G. 56/675/17-15-09/96-97 dated 6th May, 1997.

New Delhi, the 24th January, 2001 S.O. 333.^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 Coi'rt, Bhubaneswar as showu in the Annexure in tne Industrial Dispute between the employers in rela- tion to the management of Balasore Gramya Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-1-2001.

[L-12012|91|2000-IR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer.

ANNFXURE

SRI S. K. DUAL. Q.SJ.S, (SR. BRANCH), PRE- SIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BBSR

Industrial Dispute Case 1|2000

Dated, Bhubaneswar, the 18th January, 2001

BETWEEN

Bslasore Gramvst Bank, .. First Party : —

Balasore. Management.

Versus

Baksorc Gramya Bank — Second Party : — Workmen's Association. . . Workmen. APPEARANCES : Chief Audit & Insp-ctiun, -For the First Party— Balasore Grainya Bank, Management. Sri Bibekanandu Mnhapntra —For the Work- General Secretary, Balasore men. Gramya Bank Workmen's Association.

ORDER

The Government oi India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred upon them by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-i2012|91|2000-IR(B-I), dated 30-6-2000 :—

"Whether tht action of the Management of Balasore Gramya Bank in transfering Shri D. Acharva to Cbandenswar Branch with- out consideration of the place of Posting of his spouse is justified ? If not, _ to what relief the workman is entitled 7M 2. One Das?irathi Ac'iarya, an employee of Bala- sore Gramya Bank was tiansferred to Chandenswar Branch by the 1st Party—Management. Mr. Acharya challenged tlie said order and requested to cancel the saihe and to post him at the Main Branch where his wife was serving. But his request has not accepted. Shfi Achnrya "moved the Civil Court, who turned dotvn the prayer of Shri Acharya. Thereafter, when thti conciliation failed the matter was referred to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, as Indus- trial Dispute exists and subsequently reference has been made to this Tribunal as stated above.

3. On receipt of the . reference, both the Parties were noticed to appear before this Tribunal and to fili their statement of claims.

4. During the course of hearing of the case, it was brought to the notice of this Tribunal by the Mana- gement that in the changed circumstances the trans- fer order of Shri Acharya to Chandenswar Branch was ic-considered and was cancelled considering his grievances. In support of the said submission, the Management also has filed the copy of the transfer order of Shri Acharya. From the side of the Bala- sore Graraya Bank wurkmen's Association, no objec- tion was taken against the submission made on behalf of, the Management.

5. In view of the above facts, there is no neces- sity for this Tribunal to record any findings on the reference. The case of Shri Acharya has been con- sidered and the Management has taken a decision in hjs favour. In my opinion, there is no dispute exists at this stage and so it is not necessary to ans- wer the reference made by the Government of India.

6. Hence, the reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated and Corrected by me.

SRI S. K. DHAL, Presiding Officer, New Delhi, the 24th January, 2001 S.O. 334.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Lucknow as rihown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the management it>f Bareilly Corporation Bank Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-01-2001

LNo. L-12012i222|99iIR(B-I)] AJAY* KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUMAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESIDING OFFICER : RUDRESH KUMAR ADJUDICATION

BETWEEN

Deepak Kaushal Distt. Secretary, National Confederation of Bank Employees .(U.P.) Bareilly Unit A-90, LIG, BDA Colouy BarciUy-243001 (espousing cause of Jadish Prasad Gupta;

AND

The Chairman Bareilly Corporation Bank Ltd. Cental Office, 129 D, Civil Lines Bareilly (U.P.)-243001.

On amalgamation in Bank or Baroda, lcpresented through :

The Chief Manager Bank of Baroda (EBCBL) Amalgamation Cell C|o 129D, Civil Lines Bareilly-243001.

AWARD

By reference No. L-12O12|222|99[1R(B-I) dattd 24-8-1999, the-Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of secion 10 I.D. Act,-1947 made over this industrial dispute between Deepak Kaushal, Distt. Secretary, National Confederation of Bank Employees (U.P.) Bareilly Unit, BareUly es- pousing cause of Jadish. Prasad Gupta and the Chair- man, Bareilly Corporation Bank Ltd., Central Office, Bareilly on amalgamation in Bank of Baroda, repre- sented through the Chief Manager, Bank cf Baroda (EBCBL), Amalgamation Cell, Bareilly, for adjudi- cation. The reference is re-produced as under :

"Whether the action of the management of Baireilly Corporation Bank Ltd. on reported pre-mature retirement of Shri J. P. Gupta, Ex-special Assistant w.e.f. 31-12-1998 is just, fair and tenable on records if not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from when?"

2, The Bareilly Corporation Bank Ltd. amalga- mated in tlhe Bank of Baroda vide notification No. 12/ 97 BOA(D) dated 1-6-1999 published in Gazette notification No. 17-9-97-BOA Govt, of India, Minis- try of Finance dated 8-3-1999. Thus, the managbment of Bank of Baroda was permitted to represent the Bareilly Corporation Bank Ltd. Both parties algreed that the amalgamation being in accordance with law, the management of Bareilly Corporation Batik Ltd, stands substituted bv the management of the Bank of Baroda. Accordingly, necessary order was passed in the file of present adjudication,?W THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; FEBRUARY 17, 2001/MAGHA 28, 1922 [PAUT J I ~ -S "C 3(ii)J 3. Comming to the facts, Jagdish Prasad Uupta (hereinafter to be referred as workman), a Special Asstt., was compelled to retire on 15-12-1998 on superannuation, taking his date of birth wrongly IO be 15-12-1938, whereai, his actual date ot birth is 1-1,-1941 and on superannuation he should have re- tired on 31-1-2001.

7. From perusal of the reference, it is evident, that the action oi ine management ot ijareiiiy Corpora- tion Hank l^d, requnes to be justified on the basis ot eoireci entnes in records. However, in view of the tact mat ihe original recoias ot the bank (^orm 6,3) mentions die daie ot birth 15-12-1938 and subsequent recoias relating to employees Provident Fund etc. differ showing it l-l-iy4i,,hence an aaaiuonal issue was framed on 25-2-2000 as follows :

"What is the correct da^e of birth of claimant

i n, J. P. Gup.a?"

8. The management lias p.eaded that this Tribunal is not cum^cuCuL io nsceriam iiie conect utue or oaih? bm icyaucs LO ICIAHU KS awaiu on me uoiii oi avail- able iccoras, as implicit in the reference. Any $.&• panure woiuu oe ucyuiia me s^ope oi iciciencc.

9. The workman nied a number of document to substantiate ins veision man, nis actual date oi on\h is l-i-iyt-i ana not u - i z - i y j 8. iveievani ana mate- rial aocumeuuuy evidence would be discussed at appiopna.e s.itge. iausc documents in nature of re~ pioSi-ikauons aj,i.er retirau nonce are no*, very relevant in reieience to uetemnnauon ot age. In aadmon, the woxkrnan examined WW-1 Ram Kumar Oup.a, Head¹ Cierk, Vigyanand Ram Naraun Vedic Higher Secondary schooi, jtsadaun, WW-2 Zulnquar Hussain, Head Clerk, Nagar Pahka^ Badaun; and examined himself as WW-3.

4. As alleged the workman was appointed in Bareiixy He was a minor at that time. There was pre- vailing practice in the said bank to employ nunois also. AlongwLh his application seeking ap- pointment, he filed a copy of school leaving certifi- cate, detailing his educational qualifications, date or birth as well other relevant details. However, the management of the said Bank obiaincd his signatures on blank Form 63 and wrongly recorded his date of, birth to be 15-12-1938, though the school leaving certificate mentioned 1-1-1941 as his date of birth. Subsequently, he parsed High School examina:ion in 1960 which also mentioned his date of birth 1-1-1941. On account of his educational qualifications, he was promoted in Class III and the Bank mentioned in ifs record 1-11-1941 as his date of birth. He was sur- prised to receive a notice of retirement on 15-12-1998 on superannuation attaining age of 60 years. His representations to the authorities proved of no avail and he was prematurity retired illegally. He raised this industrial dispute to set aside his illegal retire- ment and to restore him in service beside compen- sating losses of back wages etc.

10. The management filed Form 63 signed by the workman and also some other documents relating io other employees whose names find reference in work- mans claim statement. The management examined solitry witness Arun Kumar, Manager, Bank of Baroda who proved official documents,

11. Documents filed by the parties to substantiate and counter ihat even minors were used to be em- ployed in .bareitfy Corporation Bank Ltd. at the rele- vant time. It does not need appreciation as ihe lega- lity of appointment is not under scrutiny. The consi- deration requires to be confined only on those docu- ments which show date of birth.

5. The case of the management is that Form 63 signed by the workman at the time of entering into service, mention his daite of.bir.h to be 15-12-1938. Form 63 is basic document which guide entry in ser- vice of the workman, post held by him, his date of birth and all other relevant particulars. This date can- not be changed by the workman at this belated stage for more than 40 years afterwords. The management denied pleas of the workman that his date of birth was wrongly written by some one else or he signed a blank Form 63. It is said that Form 63 was got filed and then signed by the workman himself. The management admits thai! in some of the documents, viz. Employees Provident Fund etc. prepared subse- quently, the date of birlh is shown 1-1-1941. These wrong entries surfaced because the requisite forms were filed by the workman and none else. Bank had no occasion to go into the merit as which of the dates 15-12-1938 or 1-1-1941 is actual date of birth. The workman deliberately showed wrong date of birth, l-lr1941, causing such entries in subsequent records. The workman did not make representation throughout the span of 42 years of service to correct his date of birth and represented onlv when notice of retirement was piven to him, though he was fully aware of the said fact.

12. The management has taken a clear stand that the original document recording da:e of birth and all other particulars of the workman is given in Form 63. Only completed Forms are taken on record at the time of the entry in service. This Form, admLtedly is signed by the workman. It contains all other infor- , mations Names of closest relations standing sureties have also signed this Form. There was no reason to record wrong date of birth. Informations showing composition of family, their respective age together with other particulars are admitted to be true except the date of birth. The workman has admitted his sig- nature on this Form. He had not alleged that some one got his signature on it keeping him in dark. If he signed blank Form 63, who else had given parti- culars of his family, their respective age, names of his relations etc., which are admitted'v true. Plea of signing blank Form 63 was raised only after retire- ment notice and not before. This obviosiily, seems tome after thought.

13. The manaeemen', also, has olaced reliance on ordinal atmlicatioii of the workman seekine rmnloy- ment which is not denied. This application does pot ;fl3

His nearest relations Amir Chand ana inveni aanai wnose name ngures on ihe toim 63 have also signed it. iheir signatures are not disputed. On the basis of maienaiis on record, it cannot be said ihat the entnes were manipulated by the management with some ulterior purpose. Genuineness of toim 63 can noL be disputed at this SLage.

give da.* of birth. It does not indicate that schoo, leaving cemucaie ocaiing aaLe ol uirui was annexed Wna me s

14. Let woiKnidn s oral evidence be scrutinised. Ruin iviunar uup.a ^WW-lj prouu-^d or,ginud school Svuoiii iv^uijti lur *ne year lyts'-DJ. .nmry at si. zutf snows date or binh ot Jadish Prasad Vaish

i>|u j^ojiim jLMaitiiii as w - i ^ t i, /t.vu..iuiib L\J UIV U U-

Award accordingly.

^iuai icgi"";i' jjiouutca uy uie witness, me woikmun rwu pastel ciabs v ui m me year I ^ J J. A pno.o copy or me icievajit enaies is on record (t.x.. W-i), joelure joining uus scnooi, the workman was a stuaent of anouier scnooi ac uauuun, iNormiiUiy original leaving certmcate ol the past institution are taken on record, but mere is no evidence, as what date of birih, was noted in the nrst scnooi wnere ihe workman got acf- nui.ed or wnat was me oasis ot recording date or birth 1-1-1941. In cross examination, the wit ness aqposed that at serial 209, name of Kailash Chand Vaish find reference. His father's name is also given Lamm' Narain. hntries at both, sis. 208 and 209 show that two sons of Laxmi Narain were studying in the school. Both the sons were bom in 1941, elder on 1-1-1941 and later on 31-12-1941. In , this context the statement of Zulflquar Hussain (WW-2) is relevant. He produced birth regis.er of Nagar Paiika, Badaun. In his cross examination he has admitted' that there is no entry showing any birth in the family of Laxmi Narain on 31-12-1941. If the correctness of Nagar Palikai register is believed, the entry at serial 209 of school leaving certificate be- come doubtful. No evidence is given lhat the son born to Laxmi Narain on 1-1-1941 is the workman and none else. Admitted en'ries on Form 63 shows that the younger brother of the workman was 11 years old. On taking date of birth of the workman on 1-1-1941 his younger brother was about 5 years younger. This renders entries at si. 209 doubtful.

LUCKNOW 15-1-2001

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer 15. The substantive evidence has come in the shape of statement of J. P. Gup'a, examined as WW-3 He stated to have attached his educational certificate showing class Vill passed with his application for appointment which could not be corrobora'ed. He further stated to have submitted another application He changed Version of having filed two applications, cannot be believed.

16. The workman's version of filing blank Form 63 is also not trustworthy. Entries in school leaving register cannot be believed in reference to his date of birth vis-s-vis his yonntrer brother. These enfries are no* in consonance with Nagar Pa^ka Birth Regis- ter. There is no evidence that the child bom on J-1-1941 to T,Ptani Narain is the workman and not any other child.

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2001

S.O. 335.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the 17. As seated earlier, all the entries of Form 63 arc admired bv the workman trcer* (Me of hirth. N"m^s of two nearest reiption Amir Oinnd and Trfveru Sarmi arpi TrtPTitfoned in this Form. L'tow^e. n""e of mother, brothers, sisters ahd wiic are given thereip,

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of714 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2001/MAGHA 28, 1922 [PA"T II—SEC. 3(ii)J the Central Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Gov- ernment on 30-1-2001.

[L-12012/193/97~ffi.(B--I)l

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV. PRESIDING OFFI- CER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 77 of 1998-

Sh. Balraj Singh S|o Sh. Nonar Singh Vill. & P.O Bhah, Anandpur, Distt. Rohtak-124001.

. .Petitioner.

Vs.

The Asstt. General Managei, State Bank of India, Region-V, Zonal Office, 11-Parliamenr Street, New Delhi-110001.

. Respondent.

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the workman : Sh, J. N. Kapoor. For the management ; Sh. S. A, Garg.

AWARD

(Passed on 150i December, 2000) The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide Notification No. L-12012|193!97-LR.(B-I) dated 3rd April, 1998 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal foi adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in treating Shri Balraj Singh Messenger es voluntarily retired from Bank's services is just and legal ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to?" 2. Today the case was fixed for settlement. Both the workmen and the rep. of the management has made the statement that, the case "has been settle— ed amicably between the parties as per settlement placed on record. In view of the statements of the- parties, there exists no dispute. The reference is returned as. no dispute nward. Appropriate Govern- ment be informed.

Chandiparh, 12-12-2000.

B. L, JATAV, Presiding Officer.

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2001 S.O. 336.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribunal Guunhati, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between th? emp- loyers in relation to rhe management of N. F. Rail- way, Tinsukia and their workman, which was receiv- ed by the Central Government on 30-1-2001.

[No. L-41012|14|98-IR(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI

ASSAM

Reference No. 7(Cj of 1999

PRESENT :

Shri K Sarma, LL.B., Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :

The Management of N. F. Railway,. Tinsukia.

Vs.

Shri Bonornali Uoswiimi, tfx-Office Peon, Railway qr. No. D|3, Near Foot Over Bridge, Tinsukia.

Date of Award : 26-9-2000.

AWARD

The Government ot India, Ministry of Labour, vide order No. L-41012|14|Q8|IR(B-10 dt. 30-10-98 has made this reference to this tribunal to adjudicate the dispute arising between the management of N. F. Railways, Tinisukla, and its workman Shri Bonomali Goswami, Feon out of termination of his service on the following issue :

"Whether the action of the management of (DPM N. F. Railway, Tinsunkia in termi- nating the service of Shri Bonomali Goswami, Ex-Office peon in legal & justi- fied? If not, to what relief the workman in entitled?"

On receipt of reference, this tribunal has register- ed this case and issued notices to both the parties calling upon them to file their wriLtcn statement! Addl, written statement and to exchange their docu- ments in supnort of their respective claim, in res* ^onse to which both the parties have appeared and 7I5> filed their written statements and documents in sup- port of their respective claims. The workman has adduced his own evidence to sustainciate his case as W.W. 1 and no evidence has been adduced from the side of management.

course of arguments, learned advocate IOT tne mana- gement has submitted that delinquent workman has admitted the charge levelled against him before the enquiry officer and hencft he was rightly dismissed from the service. But learned advocate fpr the workman has submitted that enquiry officer has not followed the procedural law prescribed in that behalf hi conducting the domestic enquiry, He has sub- mitted that the management has not provided the list of witness along with the chareesheet to the work- man as per procedure ptescribed in Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (D & A) Rules. 1968. Secondly, by not appointing presenting officer, to present the case, the enquiry officer is Dut to play the rule of both prosecutor and adjudicator. Thirdly, before this tribunal the management has not proved the enquiry proceeding by adducing evidence of enquiry officer or any other witness. For all these reasons the domestic enquiry, conducted by enquiry officer is violative to the principle of natural justice and proce- dural law.

The fact of the case, as reveals from materials on record is that the workman Bonojnali Goswami was engaged on casual basis as Paniala id the year 1971 by the management of N.F. Railwaiy at Tinsukia and thereafter he was posted as cover peon in 1982 in the same station aM thereafter posted¹ as peon in the year 1987. While ..e was working as peon in the office of DRM(P), N. F. Railway at' Tinsukia, he was placed under suspension by the management and charged with charges under Rule 9 of the Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1968 vide office memorandum No. IM|B-14(Loose) dated 27-10-92. The first charge was that the workman had erected unauthorised structure around his Rail- way Quarter No. B|3 tvpe-1 situated Near Foot Over Bridge of Tinsukia Railway Station and sublet the same to an outsider named K. S. Madhowanwho was running a hotel in the said rented structures and engaging public safely as the busy shunting line was passing just near the hotel. The second charge alleged was that the workman erected a Ratcha house at*adicd to his quarters in which a sign board entitled "Shri Shri Mahakal Mandir" wh;ch created maintenance problems of the Railway Quarters."

To probe the charges, the disciplinary authority has constituted a domestic enquiry by appointing Shri I. N. HazariJca, CPl'TSK as Inquiry Officer. But no presenting officer was appointed by the dis- ciplinary authority to present the case before the en- quirv officer. The workman was alleged to take the assistance of Shri N. C. Mazumdar, Sr. C.C.TSK to assist him.

In conducting domestic enquiry, the enquiry offi- cer has not examined any witness from the s'de of manacsment, but has recorded the statement of the workman where workman has been stated to have admitted the charges. The enquiry officer thereafter submitted rerwrt hoid-nr; that the charge levelled against the delinquent workman was proved and on the basis of said report the workman wns d'sm's^d from the service w.e.f. 25-5-93 vide order IM-B|14 (Loose).

In dealing with industrial dispute in case of dis- missed employee who has been dismissed after hold- Ing domestic enquiry, the tribunal has to see whether domestic enquiry wns properly conducted or not. In conducting domestic enquiry, the enquiry officer has to follow the procedural law prescribed in that be- half and also to follow the principle of natural jus'lee by giving the workman a proper and reasonable op- portunity of being heard. In the .instant case what I find from the materials on record in that constitu- tiiin of the domestic enquiry is not in accordancial with law &r, no presenting officer was appointed to present the case. In view of this the enquiry officer has to play th© rol& of prosecutor and adjudicator which is violative to procedural law prescribed in that behalf, Furnishmcnt of list of witness to the work- man aloiiRwith the charge is a mendatory require- ment of Railway Servant (S&A) Rule, 1968 which has not been complied with by the enquiry officer and hence enquiry is bad in law. Although, learn- ed advocate for the management has submitted that the workman has admitted the charge level against him before the enquiry efficer. but curiously enough, the enquiry proceeding has not been proved before the tribunal by adducing any witness from the side of tbe management. Not only that the evidence of the enquiry officer himself was not adduced before this tribunal without giving any reason. This being the position, the workman has admitted the charred before the enquiry officer has not been established.

For the above reason. I am of opinion that demrstic ennu'ry conducted against the workman-is bad in law for nnn-compliance of procedural Jaw and hei-.ce order of dismissal recorded'against the delin- nuent workman can not b? allowed to stand in the eye. of law.

After receiving th"; order of dismissal, the work- man has preferred an arnesl before the Divisional Railway Manager at-* Tinsukia on 4-6-93 which was d^nrs^d bv said authority vide ord-r dpted 4-6-93. After dismissal of aDn^al the workman has raised the Industrial Dispute before the concerned labour authority wr>o hr>s tri°d to settled the matter on con- HWon pnd h.-wine: foiled to settle th; matter on con- c'l'qt'on hus referred it to the appropriate Govt, who ultimately made this rtfeicnce.

Before this trib'T+H workman has adduced his own evidence as WW1. but management has not edduccd any evidence from his side.

In the remit the cider cf dismissal recorded against the ddincment workman is set as*de and workman is ordered to be reinstated with 50 per cent of his back wages with immediate, effect. "

With rh's order this reference is answered in favour

of the workman. Prepare an award accordingly.

T have heard the anrumfnts pdvanced by the learned ndvomte for ihf hoth the r>flrt'-s. Thr learn- ed ndvocate for the workman has also submitted written arguments alongwith same documents. In

SHRI K SARMA, Presiding officer.

16 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: J?EBRUA&t 17, 2001/MAGHA 28, 1922 [PART II-^SBC, 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Sijua Colliery of M|s. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. in dismissing Shri Vishwamitra Sharma vr.e.f. 1-4-1989 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. This industrial dispute,, arises out of dismissal of Shri Vishwaimitfa a workman of Sijua Colliery of M|s. Tisco. Ltd. with effect from . 1-4-89.

New Delhi, the 24th January, 2001

>.O. 337.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- itrial Disputes Act,. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- Government hereby publishes the Award of the atral. Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, anbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial pute between the employers in relation to the nagement of Mis. TISCO Ltd¹, and their workman, £h was received by he Central Government on •1-2001-

[No. L-20012|222!9l-IR(C-I)] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

FORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 ATDHANBAD

ESENT :

Shri Sarju Prasad, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Sec- tion 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 89 of 1901

RTEES :

workman d'H not attpnd the enem'™ ra*lier lie sent a . letter dt 11-1-SQ reaues'ing to ex'end h's leave for or"" month. Th's was a^ain regretted bv letter dt. 71_1?-RO hv Pf!>4 Poet We iJroq olen ^ri^ricM f> r>CfpTi^ fjflf. s n n n i rv itifr* tT"" fhorrrp 1pvJ1°^ Tjnoinot Viirn by cht\roP"^>Pf,t dt 4-11-SR h nt hp dM tint v*tfnA 1I" ftnfl'n'rv rf*r*r"r<* f"o1Hin" 717

from the residence of the concerned workman whereas the nvjiliiu! ccrlifh'aiJ subniired by him is of a Homeo- path.c dcctcu- f'!' Kuikciid which is at a distance of 10 K.M. from Ms house. Therefore, there ss no reason why the concerned workman did not report to Company's dispensary where il could not be as cer- tained whether he was actually suffering from any disease. But he has knowingly avoided to attend the Company's dispensary because he was not at all suffe- ring from any disease. Thus the concerned workman wa

5. The conce'rned workman on the other hand has 'pleaded that the management did not give him proper opportunity to defend him afad has proceeded with exparte enquiry in not haste "and the entire proceeding of the domestic enquiry is. vitiated due to non-app!ica- tion of the principles of natural justice and on this score the dismissal of the concerned workman is abso- lutely void. Further according to him the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse because Ihe concerned workman has admittedly applied for leave on the ground of illness with medical certificate and¹ therefore the finding of the enquiry Officer is not just and pro- per and therefore p'n that ground also the dismissal of the concerned workman is unjustified and arbitrary.

6. The' management has brought on record the en- tire proceeding of the domestic enquiry. Thereafter the representative of the concerned workman conceded that the domestic enquiry conducted against the concerned workman is fair and proper. Accordingly by Order dt. 16-3-94 the domestic enquify has been held to be fair and proper.

, 7. Since it has been held by this Tribunal that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management is fair and proper, therefore, the only question to be decided is: „ .

3M u! /nm> —">J 718 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2001/JMAUJHA 28, fe I PART: II—SEC. 3001 Company in order to asceriafri Whether he was suffe- ring from any illness. But he did not do so. Therefore, absence of the concerned workman for about 6 months on the alleged ground of illness is not at all justified or satisfactory. If at all he was suffering from any ill- ness he should not have felt shy in reporting to com- pany's doctor. Therefore, in my opinion the finding of the Enquiry Officer is pcrfect'ly justified.

9. However, in my opinion, the misconduct of un- authorised absence has been proved against the con- cerned workman but' the punishment of dismissal appears to be bit harsh. Therefore, he is entitled to reinstatement into service. The concerned workman was actually offered to be reinstated without back wages during the time of conciliation as it has been asserted by the management in the W.S. which has not been denied by the concerned workman. Inspite of this ofler of reinstatement the concerned workman did not join duty. This shows that he wants wages without doing any duty. Therefore, in, my opinion he is not at all entitled to any back wages. However, he is simply entitled for reinstatement without continuity of service or any other benefit.

In the resulf, I render the following

AWARD

"•The action of the management of Sijua Colliery of M|s. Tisco, in dismissing Shri Visharnitra Shahima w.e.f. 1-4-1989 is not justified. The concerned workman is entitled for reinstate- ment without back wages of continuity of service or any other benefit."

SARJU PRASAD, Presiding Officer New Delhi the 240i January, 2001 S.O. 338.—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, Dhanbi'd ns shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute bHween the emnlnvers in relation to the management of Mis. C.C Ltd., and their work- man, \vlvch was rec.-ived by the Central Government on 23-1-2001.

[No. L-20012/258/9 3-I.R.(C-D]

S, S, GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAI NO. I, DHANBAD In the matter of a refcientc rjnder Section 1 0 ( l ) ( d) (2A,) of the Industrial Drsputes Act, 1947.

Reference No. 25 of 1995.

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Sayal 'D' Colliery of M|s. Central Coal- fields Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT :

Shri Sarju Prasad, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Shri B. Joshi, Advocate. For the Workman : Shri Sarju Dusadh, Con- cerned Workman.

STATE : Jharkhand- INDUSTRY : Coal.

Dated, the 16th January, 2001

AWARD

By Order No. L-2OO12/258/93-I.R.(C-I) dated 2-1-95 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in eAejcise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section C2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Sayal—'D' .ColHery.|Area of M|s. CCL, P.O Sayal, District Hazatjbagh is justifi- ed in not correcting the age of Shri Sarju Dusadh as recommended by Enquiry Com- mittee as on 1-1-1944 instead of 15-2-36 Jf not, to what relief the workman is entitl- ed ?"

2. In the case both the parties have filed their respective written statements, rejoinders and docu- ments. Thereafter the case was fixed for adducing evidence on behalf or the management. But to-day i.e. 16-1-2001 Ihc concerned workman, Sarju Dusadh; appears and files u petition stating therein that he doss not want to con.test the case and prays for passing ii 'No Dispute' Award.

3. In view of the prayei of the concerned work- man, I render a 'No Dispute' award in the present case.

SARJU PRASAD, Presiding Officer.

,"

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Angaj pathra Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. in terminating the services of Shri Asha Ram Passi, Mincr|Loader w.e.f 16/17-8-1990 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?" New Delhi, the 25th January, 2001

S.O. 339.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), fhc Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCC Ltd. and their workman, (which was received by the Central Government on 19-1-2001.

INo. L-2OO12|116|9MR(C-I)]

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 AT DHANBAD

PRESENT:

Shri Sarjoo Prasad, Presiding Officer,

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Sec- tion 10(l)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 94 of 1991

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the managemenf of Angarpathra Colliery of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd.

AND

Their workman.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workmen- -Shri S. Bose, Trea-

surer, RCMS Union.

On behalf of the employers—Shri B. Joshi,

Advocate.

STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY; Coal Dated, Dhanbad, the 5th January, 2001

AWARD

2. This Industrial Dispute arises out of termination of service of Shri Asha Ram Passi, Miner/Loader with effect from 16(17-8-90. The concerned work- man Asha Ram Passi was appointed as Miner /Loader by letter of appointment dated 6-4-89 issued by the Dy. Chief Mining Engineer, Angarpathra Colliery on compassionate ground. One Putnu Passi was Coal dresser ,who died during a. Mining Accident on 25-2-89. The concerned workman Asha Ram Passi applied for employment in place of Putnu Fassi claim- ing that he is the sun of deceased workman Putnu Passi., On fhat basis he- was appointed by letter of appointment 6-4-89. For getting employment Piyari Devi, the mother of the concerned workman Asha Ram Passi and his two brothers have Jited affidavits stating that there are no other claimants of the ser- vices as dependent of deceased workman Putnu Passi. Subsequently a complaint was received by the man- agement sometimes in the month of November, 1989 in which it was alleged' tha? actually Asfha Ram PasSi is the son of Ramsumer Passi, a brother of Putnu Passi and Putnu Passi, had a daughter named Lalti Devi who is entitled for employment and other benefits arising out of the death of Putnu Passi, On receipt of this complaint the matter was examined and the concerned workman was also asked to explain. There- after it was found that actually the concerned work- man Asha Ram Passi is the son of Ram Sumer Passi, brother of deceased workman Putnu Passi. Therefore, he was issued with a chargesheet dated 9/13-12-89 alleging that he- has obtained employment falsely alleging that he was the son of Putnu Passi and has he had committed fraud which is a misconduct under clause 17(i)(a) and has given false information regarding father's name etc; at the time of employ- ment¹ which is a, misconduct of the clause 17(l)(c) of the Model Standing Orders applicable to Angarpathra Colliery, where the concerned workman was employ- ed. The concerned workman replied to the charge- sheet by Ext. M-2 denying the allegation. However, his explanation was not found satisfactory and he has virtually admitted that he is the son of Ram Sumcr Passi and after the death of Ram Sumer Passi his mother Peyari Devi had been married with Puftm Passi. Thereafter his mother, he along with his other brothers are residing as son of Putnu Passi. There- fore, the management constituted an enquiry by letter dated 6/8-1-90 and Mr. M. C. Yadav, Dy. P.M. was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Shri K. N. Jha, Sr-. P'.O. Angarpathra. Colliery was appointed as man- agement's representative. Notices of enquiry were given to th© concerned workman who appeared and participated in the enquiry along with' his cr>workwv In his presence witnesses were examined, documents were produced and fas was allowed to adduce his own evidence and that of his defence wifhess in his defence. Thereafter the Enquiry Officer submitted720 im GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2001/MACHA 28, 1922 |FART U—SEC. 3{\i)\ report of enquiry holding him guiliy of the miscon- ouct ana gave a ciear cm urionig rnat since me con- cerned wor*-inan niniseiu. ana ins inomer Was aamntej tnat ne is me son ol Kam Sumer jfassi wneieas Lalli Devi is tne omy aaugnter oi deceased workman Pui'nu'rassi. J hererorc, tnc concerned workman has given lalse statement regarding Ibis tamer's name and Dy practicing iraua ne Inas ootamed employment. '1 nureiwre, ne. is gumy ol tne inisconuuct Upon uiese findings of trie enquiry Ulticer rhe management de- cideu to dismiss tne concerned workman and by letter dated 10|l7-8-yu the concerned workman has been dismissed I'rom service with immediate effect.

3. The concerned workman in it's W.S. has denied the fairness and propriety of the domestic enquiry and lias submitted that the Chiei Mining Engineer/ Agenv! was. not competent to issue a charge sheet and no proper and fair enquny was conducted. However, after th© management examined the Enquiry Officer and produced all the documents ol' enquiry then the representative of ilits concerned workman fairly con- ceded that the enquiry was fair and proper. Accord- ingly it has been held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper.

4. Since LJIC domestic enquiry H:as been found to be fair and proper only point to be decided is :—

"Whether on reappraisal of the evidence adduc- ed during the domestic enquiry the charges of misconduct levelled against the concern- ed workman is pruved ? If so, whether fhc order of dismissal is the punishment pro- portionate to the charges of misconduct ?"

FINDINGS

copy >oi Electoral Roll of the village of the year 1988 and lJnoto copy of School certificate of Asharani Passi arm pnoio copiy oi Jsiiatianr oi tenancy land to prove tinat act'ualJy Asharam Passi is the son oi Ram burner Passi and ne has lalsvly claimed to be the son oi Jfutnu Passi. The concerned workman has examin- ed himself during tlie domestic enquiry and has ad- mitted this fact, fie has also examined Peyari Devi who too has admitted Chat all her three sons were bom irom Kam Sumer Passi and after the death of her husband Ram iumar Passi she had married with Putnu Passi. They have also admitted that actually Lalti Devi is the daughter of Indo Devi who was bom from Putnu Passi. Thus irom the own admission of the concerned workman and his mother it is crystal clear that the concerned workman is the son of Ram Sumer Passi and he is not the own son of Pufriu Passi. No document has been filed to show that at any point of time Putnu Passi Iliad adopted him as son. The concerned workman has nowhere claimed Lo be as an adopted son of Putnu Passi. From tiie- veiy admission of fh- concerned workman and his mother it is clear that he is the son of Ram, Sumer Passi, the brother of deceased workman Putnu Passi and he has obtained employment claiming to be the son of Putnu Passi is false. Thus 1 find that the findings of the enquiry officer that he has com- mitted fraud and has given false statement regarding his father's name for getting employment has been clearly proved. Therefore, the finding of the Enquiry Officer is just reasonable ?nd every prudence will come to the same findings as thaf of the Enquiry Officer.

6. Since the alleged misconduct is serious one, therefore, an imposter cannot be allowed to b© taken the benefit of employment on compassionate ground and such employment must go to the real heir of the deceased workman. Therefore, the action of the management in dismissing the concerned workman is fully justified.

7. In the result, I render the following :•—

AWARD

"The action of the management of Angarpathra Colliery of M/s. Btiarat Coking Coal Ltd. in terminating the services of Shri Asha Ram Passi. Miner/Loader w.e.f. 16/17-8-1990 is fully justified. Consequently, the concern- ed workman is not entitled to any relief." SARTU FRASAD, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 25th January, 200]

5.O. 340.— 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, Dhanbi'd as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Mjs. BCC Ltd., and their workman, Which was received by the Central Government on 19-1-2001.

[No. L-2OO12|188|93-IR(C-I)]

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD In the matter of an application under Sec. 10(1 )(d) (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Reference No. 69 of 1994.

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Phulafitand Colliery of M|s.BCCL,

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT :

Shri Sarju Prasad.—Presiding Officer,

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Shri B. Joshi. Advocate. Jroi the Workmen : Shri S. Bose, Treasurer, Rsshtriya CoJliery Mazdoor Sangh.

STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Coal:

Dated, the 8th January, 2001,

AWARD

By Older No. L-20012[188|93-I.R.(Coal-I) dated the 24th March, -1994 the Central Government in ihe 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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Phularifand Colliery of M|s. BCCL, P. O. Nawagarh, Distt. Dhanbad in dismissing Sh. Lachman Nonia, Mincr|Loader w.e.f. .27-7-1992 is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ?" 2. This reference arises out of dismissal of one J-.achman Nonia. Miner|Loader of Phularitand Col- liery .of M|s. B.C.C. Ltd., by its management.

3. The concerned workman, Lachman Nonia Miner|Loader was a permanent employee of M|s. B.C.C. Ltd. at Phularitand Colliery. He was scrv- ;ed with a charge-sheet dated \ 8-| 19-2-1992 alleging that he was on casual leave for two days i.e." from 31-1-92 to 1-2-92 and thereafter on sick leave from

m 3-2-92 to 7-2-92, but alter 8-2-92 he was aosent without leave or information to the management. It was further alleged that prior to this occasion also he was on unauthorised leave for several times and lor that eight charge-sheets were issued to him on different dates and he- was warned for 75 times on different dates for remaining unauthorised absence, yet he did not mend' himself and he is a habitual un- authorised absentee. The concerned workman has replied to the charge-sheet practically admitting his absence from duty. The management did not find his reply satisfactory, therefore an enquiry was con- stituted in which Sri R. K. Choudhiiry, Deputy Per- sonnel Manager was appointed Enquiry Officer and Shri K. K. Singh, Asstt. Colliery Manager was ap- pointed representing officer. The enquiry was held in presence of the concerned workman, Lachman Nonia in which he participated. In his presence the witnesses of the management were examined and documents were produced. He was also allowed to give his own statement Jnd defence if any. ' There- after an enquiry report was submitted holding the concerned workman guiJty of habitual absence ' for which eight previous charge-sheets were given to him and he was given warning on 75 occasions. The En- quiry Officer found him guilty of the misconduct. Therefore on the basis of such enquiry the concern- ed workman has been dismissed from service by dis- missal letter dated 27-7-92. The sponsoring union, Rasbtriya Colliory Mazdoor Sangh has raised the industrit.l dispute against the order of dismissal.

4. According to the concerned workman, he was suffering from occupational disease and was under treatment of doctor, therefore he was not present to his duty. But when Ke went to report for -duty on 31-7-92 he came to know that he has been dismiss- ed from service. According to him, the manage- ment has not held the domestic enquiry properly and lairly and since he was suffering from occupational disease, Pheumoconiosis, he was absent from duty and when he was certified fit then he reported for duty on 31-7-92. The concerned workman has not disputed that on earlier occasions ajso he was given charge-sheets on eight occasions for unauthorised absence and was given warning on 75 occasions. Although in the written statement filed by the spon- soring union the domestic enquiry was challenged to be unfair and improper, but during the course of hearing when the management filed all the docu- ments of enquiry then Shri Bose appearing for the sponsoring union conceded fairly that the domestic enquiry has been conducted fairly and properly. Thus, by order dated 11-2-97 the domestic enquiry has been held to be fair and proper.

5. Thus, now the only question to be decided is whether on reappraisal of the evidence collected during the domestic enquiry the charges against the concerned workman, Lachman Nonia for having committed a misconduct¹ is proved? If so, whether the punishment is appropriate to the charges of mis- conduct ?

fi. FINDINGS :

The management has produced proceedings of the domestic enquiry which has been marked Exts. M-l to M-5. Ext. M-l k the charge-sheet which mentions that besides remaining absent from722 THE OAZETIJti OF INDIA : hHfciKUAKY 17, 2U0I/MAUHA 28, WZl WART 11—SEC. 5{U)) 8-2-92 the concerned workman was also absent on earlier occasions for which eight charge-sheets were given to him, the number of charge-sheets with dates has been mentioned therein. The charges also allege thai on 75 occasions of different dates by different letter numbers the concerned workman has been warned for remaining unauthorised absence right from the year 1981 to 1992. But the concern- ed workman did not mend himself. Exi\ M-2 is the notice of enquiry. Ext. M-3 is enquiry proceeding. Ext. M-4 is enquiry report and Ext. M-5 is the order of dismissal.

7. From Ext, M-3 it appears that the management representative during the course of enquiry has pro- duced all the eight charge-sheets and waring letters, but the concerned workman has not denied to have received those charge-sheets or warning letters. Be- sides this the management has examined the Attend- anct- Clerk, Bill Clerk and Leave Clerk and from their evidence it appears that the concerned work- man was absent from duty without any information from 8-2-92. In the written statement of the con- cerned workman also it has been admitted that he remained absent uplo 30-7-92 but he has taken a plea that he was suffering from occupational disease, but he has not produced pny medical certificate dur- ing the course of enquiry nor any medical certificate has been brought before this Tribunal. In his evi- dence the concerned workman has stated that he was absent because he was ailiug, his son had died, four months ago and his first wife had also died, then he had married with another lady. In his evidence he has admitted that he was absent without informa- tion to the management. Thus, 1 find that the con- cerned workman was absent without information to the management light from 8-2-92 to 30-7-92 and for this period he has not filed any medical certifi- cate to show that he was suffering from any disease and was under treatment of any doctor. The mana- gement has also been able to prove that prior to this the concerned workman was issued chargeshects on eight occasions on different dates and he was warned to be careful for remaining absent unautho- risedly on 75 occasions. Yet he did not mend him- self. Therefore, the charges against the concerned workman has been fully established during the domestic enquiry.

8. The Jearned representative of the sponsoring union has placed reliance in a case of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Syed .Zaheer Hussain Vs. Union of India reported in F-L.R. 1999(81) page 704 in which Zaheer Hussain was absent from duty un- authorisedly from 9-1-85 to 15-1-85 i.e. only for a week and on that ground he was dismissed. The Hon'ble Supremo Court held that the order of dis- missal is too harsh and set aside the dismissal order- ed for reinstating him with 50 per emit back wages, The management, on,the othcr hand, has placed re- liance in a ruling of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Janardan Singh Vs. State of Bihar report- ed in 2000 Lab. I.C. at page 967 in which Janardan Singh was absent from duty for a period of 215 days on the pretext of sickness of himself, his wife or his son and in that case Hon'ble Patna High Court has been pleaded to hold that the misconduct committed by the concerned workman is grave nnd dismissal is just punishment. So for the case of Syed Zahecr Hussain is concerned lie was absent for only one week and there was no previous history of his remaining absence without permission or leave. But in the present case the concerned work- man, Lachman Nonia was habitual unauthorised ab- sentee and for that he was . issued chargesheet on eight different occasions and was awarded various punishments. He was also warned against unautho- rised absence on 75 occasions, yet he did not care to be deligent to his duty and remained absent for about five months without any information to the management, therefore in such circumstances and applying the prinriple of Janardan Singh's case refer- red above I think that the action of the management in dismissing him is perfectly justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

9. It is worth to mention that since the concerned workman has died sometime in the year 1996 and in his place his second wife has been brought on record. But since I have already held that the action of the management is justified and the con- cerned workman was not entitled to any relief, there- fore in my opinion, the second wife of the concerned workman is also not entitled to any relief, 10. In the result, I render—

AWARD—

That the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

SARJU PRASAD, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 25th January, 2001 S.O. 341.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 1, Dhan, bad as shown in tlie Annexure in the Industrial Dispufe between the employers in relation to the management of M|s. BCC Ltd. and their workman, which was re- ceived by the Central Government on 19-1-2001.—

[No. L-24O12/34/83-DU(B)/IR(Coal-I)];

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

m ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 AT . .DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Sarjoo Piasad, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under

Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 158 of 1994

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management, of Ena Colliery of M|s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Kastore Area No. Vill.

AND

Their Workman

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the employer : Shri T>> K. Verma,

Advocate.

On behalf of the workmen : Shri S. N. GoSwami,!

Advocate.

near the Bunglow of Shri Sahay and Shri Sahay had directed him to shift the said liumti trom that place, however, that place does not belong to the Company and for this reason he got a false charge-sheet issued against him which was dated 2-3-82 alleging that tht concerned workman has mis-behaved with him on 17-2-82, On the strength of that chargesheet the concerned workman was suspended¹ for 10 days and due tha't grudge Shri Sahay has levelled false allega- tion against the concerned workman Mahadeo Prasad. The reply of the concerned workman was not found satisfactory by the management. Therefore, the Manager by letter dt.'7-9-82 constituted an enquiry to be con- ducted by Shri A. N, Pathak Personnel Officer, ROCP| South Jharia and Shri A. K. Srivastava, Deputy Per- sonnel Manager, Ena Colliery was appointed as Presen- ting Olficer in the above case. Notices of enquiry were given to the concerned workman who appeared before the enquiry and participated in the enquiry along with his eo-workcr Ram Gopal. The Enquiry Officer after due enquiry submitted his enquiry report holding the concerned workman guilty of the charges levelled against him and on the basis of such findings the concerned workman ha" been dismissed by letter dt. 28-9-82. Against that dismissal the present dispute has been raised and has been referred to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government by letter dt. 22|25-7-94 after a lapse of 12 years.

STATE : Bihar. INDUSTRY : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 3rd January, 2001,

AWARD

The Govt, ol India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1)- (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred! the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-24012(34)|83-D.4(B)|I.R. iCoal-I) dated the 22nd|25th July, 1994.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management ol Ena Colliery of M|s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. in dismissing the workman, Shri Mahaded Prasad, Drillman from service is justified 7 If not, what relief is the concer ned workman entitled to ?"

2. The brief fact giving rise of this dispute is that Mahadeo Prasad who was working as Drillman at Ena Colliery of M|s. BCCL was served with a charge- sheet dt. 4-9-82 by the Manager of the colliery alleging that on the night of. 9-3-82 at 8.30 P.M. he threw brick-bats into the house of Shri B. N. Sahuy, Asstt. Manager and when he came out of his house the con- cerned person was found there along with his son whom Shri Sahay enquired as to why he threw brick bats. On this it is alleged that the concerned work- man' abused him and said that "SALE TUM BAHUT CHARGE-SHEET DETA HAI, AB MAJA DEKHO" Thereafter he assaulted Shri Sahay with lathi with the helt> of his son and" family members as a result < of which Shri Sahav pot injury on his knee and both the legs and wrist of his left hand. Thus the concerned workman has committed misconduct in terms of Clause. 29(5) of the Certified Standine Order. The concerned workman submitted his reply totally denying the alle- gations levelled aeainst him. He has asserted tha* smce the concerned workman's son has constructed al Cmmli
724 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2001/MAGHA 28, 1922 [PART. II—SEC. 3(ii)]
guilty of the misconduct and oil that basis the con- cerned workman has been dismissed from service because the misconduct is serious one. According to the management the domestic enquiry was held fol- lowing the principles of natural justice and was fair and proper. However, the concerned workman has taken a plea in the W.S. that the domestic enquiry Mas not held fairly and properly and in' the domesti. enquiry charges were not proved yet he has been punished for having committed no misconduct. At the instance of the management the fairness and propriety of the domestic enquiry was taken up as a preliminary issue. The management has brought on record the entire proceeding file of the domestic enquiry and has examined witnesses to show that the domestic en- quiry was fair and proper. The lawyer of the con- cerned workman after going through the proceeding of the domestic enquiry which have been marked as Ext. M-l to M-9, fairly conceded that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was fair and proper and accordingly by Order dt. 9-7-82 the domestic enquiry has been held to be fair and pro- per. Thereafter the case was placed for hearing on merit.

4. Since the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was found to be fair and proper and! therefore, the points to be decided are :—

(i) Whether on reappraisal of the evidence col- lected during the domestic enquiry the charges of the misconduct is proved against the concerned workman and

(ii) whether the punishment of dismissal is: proportionate to the alleged misconduct com- mitted by the concerned workman ?

FINDINGS

Point No., 1

when Mr. Sahay along with a Peon of one Jha Sahib asked from the son of ,the concerned workman who has Uhrown brick bats on his houst. His son replied that he does not know. Then the Feon of Jha .Sahib told that lie had been to that side twice or thrice but had seen the boy sleeping. Thereafter Shri Sahay went to hisbanglow. Again on 3-9-82 when the con- cerned workman was changing his dress at 8 P.M. Mr. Sahay came to his house along with his servant and asked who has thrown brick bats on his house. The concerned workman replied that he does not know and brick bats are falling on the house of other persons also but Mr. Sahay was not satisfied and he started abusing him and also assaulted him. He also abused his wife but the persons who had assembled there pacified the quarrel. Then the wife of the concerned workman went to report the matter to the Police. The Police came and after enquiry found that the concerned workman had received bleeding injury from both of his elbows and his banian was torn. The concerned workman also examined Hari Dilsadh who too has supported the statement of the concerned workman. But during the domestic en- quiry Shri K. N. Jha, Agent,of Ena Colliery was examined who had gone thereafter the incident and someone told him that Shri Sahay was assaulted by ' Mahadeo Prasad and his wife has proceeded to the Police Station. He pacified the mob. He has come to know that Police from Jharia Police Station leached there and they took personal bond from Shri Sahay. Thereafter on 4-9-82 Mr. Sahay madfe a complaint on the basis of which this chargesheet was issued to the concerned workman. During the domestic en- quiry one Mani Saw was also examined from whose statement the evidence of the concerned workman gets support. Thus I find tha^ during the domestic enquiry two types of evidences have been adduced. In one type of evidence Mr. B. N. Sahay, Asstt. Manager has said that it was the concerned¹ workman who abused him and assaulfed him but to support his statement there is no independent witness. On the other hand the • concerned workman has stated that it was Mr. Sahav who went to his house and abused him and assaulted him and for this atleast three other per- sons have come to support this defence of the con- cerned workman. Accorcfirw to Mr. B. N. Sahav he has received iniurv but no ininrv reoort has been filed to show that actually he has received anv iniurv. Frpm the evidence of one of the indepen- dent witness it a trocars that there was Quarrel from both sides and bofh s;des were ahxisirip each other and h^irl assaulted each other hut the concerned wrvrV man has not meri'ioned this ferts in his rpnlv. The explanation for this has: bee,r> oivffn bv him 'aw'nV that since this was. a private dismite he did not think desirable to mention this fact in his reply to the charge- sheet. However, that explanation is riot, very much convincing. From the materials it is clear that 'ha, concerned workman has certainly mis-behaved with., his superior Mr. B. N. Sahav arid from the materials on record it is also established th alt- since the con- cerned workman has constructed a Gumfi and was rnnninc a shore there whifh is adiace,nt to the "Ranplow of Mj. B. N S^lhav and Mr. Sahav was wanting that the roncemerf workman should shift that Onmti to sr>me othi'r niace and. Hue to this facf there, was b'rlrerv be'ween th^rn Tt is c]ear that insni*p of the, ' ANNEXURE

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

. Case No. CGIT/LC/R/92/88.

iliit't his Gumli and in that way he appears to have lisobeyed the order of his superior but for that a rjargeshect was also issued to him and on that basis le was already suspended for 10 days, yet he did icjit shift that Gumti, This shows that the concerned workman is not a disciplined workman. Anyhow IJOIU he evidence of Mr. Sahay it appears that he was SSaulted by the concerned workman. Therefore, I find that the concerned workman is certainly guilty of the misconduct. Therefore, this point is decided accordingly.

Presiding Officer : Shri K, M. Rai. Shri Praveen Kumar Tiwajri, Ex. Security Guard, FCI, Itarsi.

Shri Rajendra Kumar Mehra, Ex. Security Guard, FCI, Itarsi.

Shri Nand Kishore Sahu, Ex. Security Guard, Post Junarpur, Hosfaangabad.

Shri Kishore Kumar Madliav, S/o Babulal Madhav, Ex. Security Guard, FCI, Itarsi.

From tfrc materials available on record I find that the defence witness have said that it was Mr. Sahay who had{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1}}}} actually assaulted the concerned Workman. Therefore, it cannot be said that Mr. Sahay has not committed any sort of action by which such, situation was created. Mr. Sahay also appears to be totally indisciplined. He should not have gone td the house of the concerned workman to create such{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1}}}}, an ugly situation. Therefore, in my opinion the dis- missal of the concerned workman appears to be a bit harsh punishment and in my opinion, if the concerned Workman is ordered to be reinstated without back wages, this will be a sufficient punishment to him. In the result, I render the following Award :— Shri Harishanker Shukla, Ex. Security Guard, FCI, Itarsi. APPLICANTS "The action of the management in dismissing the concerned Workman Mahadeo Prasad is not justified and he is entitled for reinstate- ment without any back wages or continuity of service." Versus The Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, 16—20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi. SARJU PRASAD, Presiding Officer The Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Chetak Blhavan, Maharana Pratap Nagar> Bhopal. The Assistant Manager, Buffer Storage Complex, Food Corporation of India, Juzarpur Road, Itarsi. NON-APPLICANTS AWARD Passed on this 8th day of January, 2001 New Delhi, the 1st February, 2001 1. The Government of Tndia, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-42012/101/87-D-2(B) dated 19-8-88 has referred the following dispute for ad- judication by this tribunal: "Whether rhe action of the management of Food Corporation of India in terminating the services of Shri Praveen Kumar Tiwari. Shri Rajendra Kumar Mehra, Shri Nand Kishore Sahu, Shri Kishore Kumar Madhav and Shri Harishanker Shukla as chowidar/ security guard is legal and justified ? If not, what relief ih& workmen are entitled for ?" S.O 34?.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tal Government hereby publishes the award of Ihc Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Hourt, Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure in the industrial Dispufe between the employers in rela- :ion to the management of F.C.I, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 31-1-2001. 2. The case for the workmen is that they were ap- fNo. L-42012/101 /87-D2(B)] N. P. KESHVANY Desk Officer pointed as Security Guard/Watchman in Aoril-84 July-84, September-84, Jun?-82, April-83 and 36! GT/2001—15 • ↩

726 THE GAZETTE~OF~INDIA: FEBRUARY 17, 2001/MAOHA 28, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
June-83 respectively by the Assistant Manager, Butler Storage Complex, FCf, TUirsi, MP. Their services were governed by the standard standing orders. They Iliad continuously worked for more than 240 days and therefore they had attained the status of a perma- nent employee as per the provisions of law. Their services were illegally terminated in the month of August-86 without comolyinii with tbj provisions of Section 25-F of tihe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They were neither paid any retrenchment compensa- tion nor any notice was served on them one monlh prior to the termination ot their services, No D.F, was also conducted against them for any misconduct by the management as required under law. They had served the establishment with all their sincerity and to the entire satisfaction of the superior authorities of the management*. Th-'ir services were terminated by the management without assigning any reason. In view of all the^e facts, the termination ore'er deserves to be set aside and riiey are entitHl to be reinstated with all back wages and other consequenti;¹! benefit's attaching to their post.

3. The case for the management is thai? the work- men were employed as casual labour during the con- struction work of buffer stock complex at Itarsi. They were not employee of the FCF in terms of the FCI (Staff) Regulation 1971. Tile management! fur- ther alleges that the construction work of buffer stor- age complex at Itarsi was starred in the year 1983, The construction work was given to a contractor foi a period of 15 mombs. The contractor could not complete the work within the stipulated period of time and therefore the construction was got complet- ed through another contractor. The construction work was completed on 5-9-88. For the construction, work, the casual labour including the workmen were en- gaged on daily wage basis irr the said particular pur- pose till the completion of work. After the comple- tion of construction work, the services of the casual workers automatically came to an end. The services of workmen were never terminated by the FCT, Their employment came to an end Che moment the con- struction work at Ft;ir>i w;>s completed. FCT does not carry on the business of construction work. The Assistant Manager ("Civil) Itarsi had no authority to appoint any person in Class IV category includjnc; the present workman. Such appointment can be made onlv under the provisions cf Regulation 6, 7, 8 & 9 of FCI (Staff Regulation) Act, 1972.

4. The management further alleges that the work- men were never given any appointment letter by the FCI nor their names were sponsored bv the Employ- ment Exchange as required bT-⁷ the recruitment rules. The workmen were given casual employment only bv the contractor for a, particular period for the com- pletion of construction work of buffer storage com- plex at Ttiirsi. After the completion of work, their employment* automatically "came to an end. Thc work- men were never given regular employment by the FCI and therefore they are not eniitled to any relief as claimed by them in the instant case. The appli- c a nt have never worked continuously for more than 240'-daw in a-calendar y ^ r. The management had never violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947. In view of all these facts, the refer- ence deserves to be answered in negative.

5. The following points are arising for determina- tion in the present case :—

1. Whether the workmen are entitled to re- instatement wii'h all consequential benefits ?

2. Relief and costs?

6. Point No. 1.—Admittedly FCI had started con- struction of buffer storage complex at* Itarsi in the month of March/ApriI-1983. The tenders were in- vited and the construction work of the bufler storage complex was awarded to M/s. Fortune Foundations, Lucknow to complote the construction work within 15 months. Some other petty work was also awarded to oi'her contractors. The construction was complet- ed on 5-9-88. To carry out the construction work, the contractor had employed some ilabours who were engaged in completing the said work. During the construction period, the FCI was not to store food- grains or any other material of its own in that com- plex. The building material had been stored by the concerned contractor who was directly responsible to safeguard his own property. The FCI was not in any way responsible to safeguard the building mate-' rial of the contractors lying in the buffer storage com- plex till the construction was complefed. If the FCI had not to store any article of its own, then it would not be reasonable fo hejld that he did employ his own worker to safeguard the building materials of the contractors who were carrying out the construction work of the buffer storage complex. The contention of ihe workman that they were employed by the FCI does not stand to reason.

• ,7. The FCI has contended that tfhe relationship of employer and employee does not exist between the parties to the dispute and therefore fhe reference is not in accordance with law. Now we have to see as to whether the management has been able to subs- tantiate its contention on thc material available on re- cord. All the workmen have admitted in their state- ment that noiflher written appointment order was issued to them nor the employment exchange had sponsored fheir name for the appointment as watch- man/chowkidar at buffer storage complex at Ttarsi. The recruitment of class IV employees is don- by the FCI in accordance with the procedure ilaid down by the Staff Recruitment! Regulations, The Assistant Manager of FCT is not empowered to make appoint- ment of class IV employees or nnv en nal labour. Onlv the Divisional Manager/District Manager is competent fo make such appointment bv following the regulations prescribed in resnect thereof. Even if H is assumed for the salre of argument that the Assistant Mana'jyer of FCT had employed the work- men, then si'ch appointment is vnM-nb-init'o which win have TO fnr^ in law and on this basis the. wnrk- m-n cannot be held to ha an emnirwe- of F T. At the snm" time the nroner procedure Ihove not been foilovi-H in recruiting them bv the competent autho- rity. Trn's fact nlso prtes raiiusf the' worVrwen.

8. The management rms categorically exnrrswd th-it there is no post of security eiiard in FCT and therefore the morion of nprviintniprit for this rvmf does not anse at all. The regular watchmen are en- gaged in safeguarding the property of FC1 lying in their respective godowns. In such a circumstance also, the worrmen could not? be appointed as security guard by any authority of the FCI as there was no such sanctioned post in respect thereof. On this basis also, the workmen cannot be said to be an employee of fhc FCI.

9. The workmen have nnt been able to establish that they have actually worked for 240 days in a calendar year as an employee-of FCI at Itarsi. They rjave specifically asserted in their statement that their attendance was recorded in the attendance register of FCI. To support this contention neither they have got the attendance register produced by the FCI nor any document regarding their attendance has been files by them to show that they had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. The FCI regularly maintains the attendance register of its employees. Ijlad the workmen been employed by the FCI then their attendance must have been entered into the tjaid register. In tins case, the attendance register dtn:s not disclose the names of the workmen at all. There is no reason to discard the evidence of the manage- ment in ijliis respect that the workmen were never employed as security guard at buffer storage com-, plex, Itarsi during the construction period. Tlhe bur- den was on the workmen to prove that they were employed by the FCI and they had actually worked for 240 days in a calendar year to attain the status Of a permanent employe;. They,have utterly failed to discharge their burden in this respect.

10. The workers have admitted that no termina- tion order was served on them by the FCI.- This fact jilso goes to show that the workmen were nof em- ployed by the FCI otherwise they would have been definitely served with a termination order.

11. In view of the foregoing discussions, ic is estab- lished that the relationship of employer-employee never existed between the workmen and the FCT. The- workmen were never employed by the FCI to safe- guard their property at Bulfer Storage Complex, Itarsi. The workmen AIH therefore not entitled to reinstatement with back wages or other consequential benefits attached to the post. Point No, 1 is answered accordingly.

12. Point No. 2.—In view of my findings given on Point No. 1, the workmen are not entitled to any relief as claimed by them in this case. No relation- ship of employer-employee exists between the parties. Hence the TefeTence is answered tn favour of th? management and against the workmen.

13. Copy of the award be sent to the Government of Tndia, Ministry of Labour as per rules.

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer

hrr:

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2001 S.O. 343.—-In rumiancf 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/Labour Court, Nagpur, as shown in the: Annexure in the In- dustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of S.E C L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3O-1-2001.

LNo. 1.-22012|66|2000-IR(C-II)J

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NAGPUR PRESENT :

Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Ollicer.

Reference No. : CGIT-274/2000 ' Employers in relation to the management of General Manager, S.E.C.L.

AND

The:; WoiLman Shri ljirendra Sjrigh.

AWARD

'I he 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 Act, 1947 has re- ferred this dispute for .uljudication vide order No. L-22012/66/20OO/IR(CM. m dated 15-9,-2000 on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the General Manager, Sohagpur Area of SJECL, PO : Dhanpuri, District Shahdol (MP) in supercceding Sh. Birendra Singh, Cost/Accounts Clerk Grade 1 by his juniuis is legal and justi- fied ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled V"

In this reference, the notice wns issued to the workman on 26-9-2000. Neither the workman turn- ed up nor the President of MPPKS Lipik Saneh appeared to represent die workman. Shri M. D. D:\i'?n the a.lio.i ripi'js^.Miiiv^ say;, ttitU a* 'v> not contesting this case for th: .workman.

No statement of claim ha:, been filed by the work- man. For mnnnoemrnt of Soulli Eastern Coalfield Lid-, Shri A. K. Jain, Legal Inspector is present.
728 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11, 200J/MAGHA 28, 1922 LPART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE As the workman has not submitted any statement of claim and nobody turned up to represent¹ him, the reference is disposed off lor ihc want of prosecution.

ORDER

"Whether the action of the manageemnt of the Area Manager, Rajur Sub Area of W.C. Ltd., PO : Rajur, Tal : Wani, Distt. Yeotmal (MS), in dismissing the service of Shri Purushottam Gopal Padole is justified or not'! If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

The reference is disposed off for want of prose- cution as the workman or his union did not turn up to file any statement! of claim. The workman is there- fore not entitled to any relief.

The reference is answered, accordingly.

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer

Date: 22-12-2000.

This rclerence was sent to CGIT Court no. 1 by Ministry ui i_nouur i^ew JUciiii on 25,-i-yj. me state- ment or claim was hied by the woikman in that court on /-y-yjs. ine workman dhri Purushottam Gopal* iJadolc had mentioned in the statement ot claim that tue allegations against him are regarding the theft of one truck coal on 19-9-91. He was driver at Rajur Colliery on 19-9-91. Chargesheet was submitted against him on 24-9-91 The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 24-2-y2 holding that Shri Furushbttam Gopal ^aa'olc is guilty ot committing theft of one truck coal from the colliery and the charge against him has been proven. The workman was dismissed vide order no. vvCL|RsAiaAM|jfJtiK|Jiifc6 dated 3J4-3-92.

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2001

12$ Coalfields Ltd. and Others. He argued that the single isolated instance of neglect is not misconduct and the order of dismissal is not justified.

During the above period of seven years the case could not be dispose oil; at CGIT Court No. 1, Mumbai.

I have heard the arguments of the counsel for work- man and the counsel for management of WCL on the point of perversity of the findings of Enquiry Officer's report, because on 31st October 96, Justice R. S. Verma, Presiding Officer, CGIT No. 1 had recorded finding on the enquiry report partialy.

In the case referred, in the ruling the workman was & despatch Clerk and excels quantity of coal was allowed to be lifted. The workman had failed to verity the quantities being despatched and also to keep the records updated for proper reconciliation. The circumstances of this case are totally different as the ttllegation against the workman are of committing the theft of one truck of coal. Hence, the above ruling is not applicable in this case.

In his order dated 31-10-96 Shri R. S. Verma held that the enquiry was fair, legal and proper. There was nothing to show that Enquiry Officer acted! with bias or prejudice. However, he left the findings incom- plete regarding the issue of perversity in the above order.

I have heard the counsel of both the parties on

the point of perversity on the enquiry report.

The workman in this case had loaded six trips of coal in his vehicle. He was driver of the said vehicle. The third trip of coal was loaded by him in his truck. The timing of the loading of the coal under the bunker and the departure of the truck from the pit top was recorded at 3.25 A.M. This third trip: of the coal was not unloaded in the siding by the workman Shri Puru- snottam Gopal Padole and thus, the coal of third trip was stolen by the workman. It is therefore clear that one truck coal was not brought by the workman to the plate where it was being unloading at the siding.

The counsel for the workman argued that during enquiry proceedings the statement of witness Shankar Khadikar shows that six trips of loaded coal were brought in the night of 19th September, 91 by the workman, Purushottam Gopal Padole, driver of the vehicle to the pit siding and they were unloaded. He was Security Officer during that night at that place.

The counsel argued that he does not say that any truck was missing, so the Enquiry Officer's finding is perverse. In the charge sheet also it is not mentioned, in which trip the theft of coal was committed.

As I have discussed above, the enquiry report was found! fair and justified by Shri R. S. Verma, Presi- ding Officer, C.G.I.T. Court No. 1, Mumbai on 31-10-96. The enquiry report was also not found perverse by this court on 1-12-2000, hence the quan- tam of punishment regarding the dismissal of the workman from the service cannot be considered un- proportionate.

The counsel for the workmaln has argued that no report of theft was lodged by the management with the police, hence the punishment be reduced. The arguments for the counsel for the workman has no force. For this reason: that the report was not lodged at the police station, the gravity of misconduct will not be affected.

The action of the management of Sub Area! Manager in dismissing the services of Sb. Purushottam Gopal Padole is therefore justified.

ORDER

The counsel for WCL argued that besides this wit- ness four other witnessess were also examined before Ihe Enquiry Officer, These witnesses are S. N. Goho- kar Surajbhan, Ganpat Wiku and S. G. Kamble. E. N. Gohokar has stated that, dumpher no. MTG 6735 was used for transporting the coal from Rajur colliery pit to to the colliery siding. The tirninas of loading un- der the bunker and departure of struck from pit top were recorded. The third trip was loaded at bunker at 3.20 a.m. and left for siding at 3.25 a.m. After \tr_ departure it could have reached the weighbridge|side within 15 minutes This trip did not go to the weigh- bridge and was not unloaded in the siding by the work- man Purushottam Gopal Fadole and thus, the coal of the third trip was stolen by the workman.

The second witness, Surajbhan also supported hL statement. He says that, Purushottam G. Padole was on duty for transporting the coal on that night.

The action of the management of Sub Area Manager, Rajur Sub Area of WCL, PO : Rajur, Tal : Wani, Distt: Yeotmal in dismissing the services of Sh. Furushottam Gopal Padole is justified. The work- man is not entiled to any relief.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Dated : 26-12-2000.

The copy of order dated 1-12-2000 is attached. j

Witness Ganpat Wiku says that second trip of coal wals brought by Purushottam G. Padole at 2.30 a.m. and after that he brought the fourth trip at 5.30 a.m. He also brought fifth and sixth trip). His statement shows that the third trip of coal was not unloaded b} the workman at the siding.

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ORDER REGARDING PERVERSITY OF

ENQUIRY OFFICERS REPORT

Dated : 01-12-2000.

S. G. Kamble, the clerk at the side of the loading stated that second trip was sent at pit siding by ljiir and the coal was loaded at 1.50 a.m. Third trip wa loaded at 3.50 a.m. Tn this trip 7.00 tori coal wa: loaded. Purushottam, driver returned at 6 a.m. tc load the fourth trip. Six trucks were loaded from th loading, side by him. He had weight the coal of eacr trip.

This reference bearing No. 149|200O was sent to CGIT Court No. 1, at Mumbai on 25-8-93. This file has been received in this court on transfer in June 2000 i.e. after nearly seven years.

The statement of workman during enquiry was als' recorded. He says that the coal of the third trip wn?30 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 17, 2001/MAGHA 28, 1922 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l not unloaded by the clerk and the chowkidar at the siding because they were sleeping. He himself un- loaded the coal of the truck, It is suggested to him that v\hen the weigjurieii was there and clerk was also there why he did nut get Ihc record¹ prepared for un- loading the third trip. The workman did not give satisfactory explanation about it in, the enquiry. He s,'ays thai the remaining five trips were unloaded by the officials concerned.

The counsel for WCL argued that Ihe woikman also did not reply why he did not awaken the employees on duty when he unloaded the third trip of coal.

In view of the above- facts the findings of the En- quiry Officer is bused on the evidence, recorded by him. His enquiry report therefore caunot bs considered per- verse or against the principles of natural justice. T iherefore hold that the rrqui-y report of th; Encmiry Officer is not perverse, "lie has given cogent reasons in recording his findings alnd has based his finding on the documentary and oral evidence on record.

B. G. SAXt<"NA, Presiding Officer,

C.G,I,I.-Cum-Labour Court,

Nappur.

New Delhi, the lsL February, 2001 S.O 345.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 194? (14 of 1947J. the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Ouirt. Nagpur, as shown in ihc Annexure in ill- Industrial Dispute between tlie employers in rela- tion to the management of W.C.L. and their work- man, which was received by the Ontrtil Governmcnf on 30-1-2001.

|No T.-2.7012' 160J95-IRCC-II1 N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRA]. GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT:

Shri B, G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. : CGIT-71/2000 Employers in relation to the management of W.C.L,

AND

Their workman Shri Anandrao K. Gedam.

AWARD

The Central, Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Sec- tion 10 of The Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has re- ferred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-22012/i6O/95/IR(C-lIj dated 27-1-1997 on the fallowing schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of New Majri Opencast Sub Area of WCL, District Chandrapur, in, dismissing Shri A. K. Gedam, Badli Worker, from service is legal and justified''? if not, to what relief is the workman entitled and from which date 7"

The Statement of CJaini lhas been submitted by S. Mazhar, President of Koyla Khadan Karamchari Sangh on behalf of the workman Anandrao K. Gedam. it is mentioned that the workman was appointed as Badli worker at Majrec Colliery No. 3 in 1986. On 12-8-89 he was seriously injured and his four fingers of left hand were damaged. He was admitted in the hospital. The workman submitted his petition before A.L.C.(C), Chandrapur on 25-1-94. He was not paid ;i.ny compensation. The management issued charge- cheec to ttie workman on 7-9-89 for remaining absent hum uinv and he was diunisied from service on 1.1-11-90.

The management disputed the claim and men- tioned in written statement that the workman remain- ed absent from, 23-5-88 to 20-6-88 and he was warned by the management vide order dated 20/30-6-88. He again absented from 17-7-88 to 24-9-88 and he was again warned for his absence.

From 29-6-89 to 5-9-89 he remained absent from iHiiy uii.'uthorrsedly ;;nd chargesheet was issued to him •>,i 5-Q-iJy. Enquiry was conducted against him but he
Roth the parlies have also filed documents.

This fiilo was received from C.G.I.T. Court! No. 2, Mumbai in June, 2000. The workman A. K. Gedam had filed affidavit but he did not turn up to stand cross-examination on 6-7-2000. The case was adjourn- ed to 28-7-2000, 28-8-2000. 14-9-20O0. On 14-9-2000 A. K. Gedam did not turn up. His advo- cate also did not appear to conduct his cas_\ The representative of his union also did not turned up to contest the case. The case was again adjourned to 18-9-2000, 25-9-2000, 26-9-2000, 13-10-2000 and 1-12-2000.

The counsel for WCL Shri B. N. Prasad repre- sented ?hat neither the workman is turning up to content the case nor any representative of his union 73 i has appeared in the court to represent the workman. He also submitted Written Argument on 18-9-2000.

The counsel for management argued that the work- man had not received any treatment for any injury or any sickness in the hospital of the company. He had not! received any injury while working on duty and he is not entitled to any compensation. The workman was in the habit of remaining absent and he was also warned twice before the issue of charge- sheet-. The workman did not improve his conduct and aft'er holding enquiry his service was terminated.

The order sheets of C.G.I.T. Court No. 2, Mumbai also shows that the workman remained absent on several dates during the year 1998-99.

The' application dated 26-9-88 of the workman Anandrao K. Gedam addressed to Khan Prabandhak is on the file. He has mentioned in this application that he was not admitted in any hospital of the col- liery for treatment and he committed ffliis mistake. During enquiry also several times information was sent to him to appear personally or to get himself represented through union in the enquiry, but he avoided to appear.

• The letter of Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Chandrapur dated 10-12-94 shows that the workman was paid Rs. 4869 as gratuity after his dismissal.

The enquiry report dated 7-9-89 also shows that the workman Anandrao K. Gedam remained absent from duty unauthorisedly from 29-6-89 to 5-9-89. The charge was proved against him and he was there- fore dismised. The order No. WCL/NMC/OCM/ MGR/PER/2887 dated 5/7-10-1990 shows tfeat the Enquiry Officer had submitted report for the dis- missal of the service of the workman.

From the side of the workman no evidence has been produced to show that he received any injury while working in tih©- colliery. With the statement of claim also the Medical Certificate dated 16-8-89 shows that the workman had fallen from cycle.

Shri B. N. Prasad argued that if fte workman re- ceived any injuyy while cycling and he was not on official duty he is not entitled for any compensation.

The workman has not submitted any reliable evi- dence in this court for his unauthorised abspnee due to any illness or any injury.

In these circumstances he has been rightly dismiss- ed from; the -service for his unauthorised absence.

ORDER

The action of the management of New Majri Opencast Sub Area of WCL, District¹ Cihandrapur in dismissing Shri A. K. Gedam, Badli Worker from service is legal and justified.

He is not entitled to any relief.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Dated : 8-12-2000.

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 1st February, 2001 S.O. 346.:—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/Labour Court), Nagpur, as shown in the Annexure in, fhe Industrial Dispute between the employers in rela- tion to the management of W.C.L. and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government* on 30-1-2001.

[No. L-22012/266/97-IR(C-II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT :

Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer. Reference No. : CGIT-9 6/2000 Employers in relation to the management of M/s. Western Coalfields Lfd.,

AND

Their Workman Shri Deorao Janarthan Milmile.

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by olase (d) of Sub-Section (I) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred tihis dispute for adjudication vide order L-22012/266/97/TR(CM-TI) dated 12-6-98 on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Nimely Sub Area Manager, Mis. WCL, Hindustan Lalpeth Sub Area in rot regu- larising Shri Deorao .lnnarthan Milmi'e (Fitter Helper), as Clerk, since 20-8-95 is prooer. legal and justified ? If not. to what relief -flhe workmon is entitled and from, which date ? What other directions are necessary in the matter ?"

. .tn.tbis reference Shri .Deorao Janarthan Milmile (Fitter Hefoer) has, raised the dispute for regulari- sation as Clerk since 20-8-95. In his statement of732 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 17, 2001/MAGHA 28, 1922 {PART H—SfiC. 3(il)l claim he has mentioned that: Smt. Sahii and Shri Jitesh Joshi had been, appointed as Clerk Grade III whereas he is working as Tripman Grade III. The workman has mentioned that in the year 1989 and 1990, he worked as General Clerk, but, he has not been promoted as General Clerk.

The management has disputed (he claim on the' ground that Shri D. J. Miltnile is not working on the post of Clerk Grade [II (General) since 20-8-95, hence the question of regularising him does not arise. In 1989 and 1990 he did not work for 240 days on the post of General Clerk, hence he cannot be regularised. The departmental promotion commit- tee did not consider him lit for and did not recom- mend his name for Clerk Gr. Ill] (General). The com- mittee had recommended his name against fhe post of Tripman and he was ordered to join, the duty vide order dated 5/6-12-95 on this post within 15 days. He did not join on this post, hence his promotion was cancelled.

Shri Jitesh Joshi was directly appointed as Trainee Clerk and has been regularised. Smt. Saini had the required qualification of the clerk and she was regu- larised on that post It was for the management to decide" the nature of the work for th© lady clerk, and Shri D. J. Milmile cannot claim parity with her.

I have considered the argument of the representa- tive of the workman and the representative of the WCL. Both the parties havp submitted their written argument. Shri B. A. Kale represented the workman and submitted the written argument for the work- man. Shri Kale argued lhat in letter dated 1-4-89, Milmile was considered for the post of Clerk Gr. Ill (General). The report of the committee is dated 14-10-88. In this list the namtj of Shri Milmile has been scored out by the typewriter.

Neither the management nor the workman pro- duced any witness to prove this document Exhibit No. 1. It is also not explained by any witness whe- ther the name of Shri D. J. Milmile was typed in rlie order or not. li his name was typed, for what rea- sons his-name was scored out. No other evidence has been produced to show that on 16-4-89, Milmile was also considered for promotion fo the post of Clerk¹ Gr. Ill (General).

The letter No. 2155 dated 7-12-95, Exhibit 4, shows that Shri Deorao Tanarthan Milmile was work- ing as E.P. Fitter. He was promoted as Tripman Gr. Ill (Clerical) and was directed to join fliis post within 15 days.

The letter No. 2199 dated 23-12-95, Exhibit No. 5 shows that Shri Deorao Janarthan Milmile (Work- man) did not join the post of Tripman Gr. ITT (Cleri- cal) within 15 days as directed by the management and therefore his selection for this post was cancelled. He was pressing for his promotion to Clerk Gr. ITT (General), which was not accepted by the manage- ment.

In the aforesaid circumstances there is no evi- dence nn record Chat the departmental promotion committee had recommended the name of Shri D. J. Milmile for Grade III Clerk (General). The represen- tative of the management has argued that Tripman post is also the post of Clerk Gr. III. The workman was not considered for Clerk Grade III (General) any fime.

The workman has therefore not worked as Clerk Grade III (General) for more than 240 days in any year, hence he cannot be considered for regularisa- tion in tfliat cadre. Thei statement of Shri Mahto, Per- sonnel Manager, Ballarpur Sub Area, WCL, also shows that ilie workman Shri D. J. Mihnile is work- ing as Fitter. In 1995 the workman had applied for the post of Tripman, which is clerical Gr. Ill post. In his affidavit he has mentioned that because the workman has nod worked as Clerk Gr. Ill (General)i and he is working as E.P. Helper only in the Exca- vation Section, so he has not been promoted as Clerk Gr. Ill (General) any time.

In the circumstances discussed above, and the evi- dence on record the workman had nof been promot- ed as Clerk Gr. Ill (General) by the management of WCL any time, hence hj is not entitled for regulari- sation in that cadre.

ORDER

The action of the management of namely Sub Area Manager, M/s. WCL, Hindustan Lalpeth Sub Area in not regularising Sh. Deorao Janarthan Mihnile (Fitter Helper) as Clerk since 20-8-95 is proper, 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 1st February, 2001 S.O. 347.—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 I Labour Court, Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to ihe management of F.C.I, and their workman, ,753 which was received by the Central Government on 31-1-2001

[No. L-22012]310(F)|90-C-II] N. P. KESVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR (MP) Case No. CGIT|LClR|6|90

Presiding Officer : Shri K. M. Rai, Shri S. L. Bakoria (Ex. AG-I(D), L-401, Naya Subbash Nagar, Raisen Road, Habib Ganj, Bhopal. —Applicant

Versus

The Sr. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Chetak Building,

Maharana Pratap Nagar,

Habibganj, Bhopal. —Non-applicant

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day of January, 2001

1. The Government of India Ministry of Labour, vide order No. -L-22012(310)IF-90-I dated 19-2-90 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :•—

"Whether 'the action of the management of

Officer held the charges not proved against the workman. The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the finding of Enquiry Officer and passed the dismissal order on 12-4-84 without giving prior notice to him to put up his defence in respect to the proposed severe punishment of dismissal. In this way the management has bipassed the principle of natural justice by awarding the punishment of dis- missal from service. No irregularity regarding the maintenance of stock register was committed by the workman during the tenure of his service. After verification he was completely enumerated and even- then he was maJtiously charged for the shortage of sugar in the depot on account of his Union activities only. The management's action is absolutely mala- fide and without any substance. The Disciplinary Authority has acted on suspicion only and not on the evidence available on record- In this way the order of disciplinary authority is not based on cogent reason and therefore deserves to be set aside. The workman has further alleged that the DW Gunny bags were used by the contractor without any autho- rity #nd this fact was brought to the notice of the management and even then no action was taken by the officers concerned in respect thereof. This inac- tion shows the collusion of the officers pf the FCI in this respect. The workman had informed this fact to the management which shows his bonafides. For this fact he cannot be held guilty as has been dons in the instant case by the Disciplinary Autho- rity. The appellate authority had also not consi- dered the relevant documents and evidence adduced during the enquiry proceeding in maintaining the dis- missal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The workman has been rightly held not guilty by the enquiry officer and his finding deserves to be main- tained. In view of all ihese facts the order of dis- missal passed by the management on. 12-4-94 deserv- ed to be set aside. He is entitled to reinstatement with back wages plong with other consequential monetary benefits.

Senior Regional Manager Food Corpora^ tion of India Bhopal in removing from ser- vice of Shri S. L. Bakoria AG I(D) vide order No. V&S|4(6)|83 dated 12th April, 1984 is justified '> If not what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?"

2. The case for the workman is that he was ap- pointed as Assistant by the Assistant Director (Food), Government of India, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Bhopal and since then he discharged his services to the satisfaction of the management and his superior officers. His services were transferred to the FCI after it come into existence by an insti- tute. He continuously worked for about 21 years in the employment of FCI and he had an unblemis her record throughout. Due to his satisfactory per- formance, he got two promotions and went up to the post of Assistant Grade T(D). He was posted as Depot Incharge at Ilarsi.

4. The case for th714;;; I M . G A W I TE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 17, 2001/MAGHA 28, 1922 [PART n—SEC. 3(ii)] shortage of >Food was detected during his working hours. In $uch a circumstance he is not entitled to reinstatement with back wages as claimed by him. Following issues have been framed in this case and my, findings thereon are given hereinafter :

1. Whether the enquiry is just proper and 2. Whether the management is entitled to lead evidence before this tribunal?

3. Wfeteher the charges of misconduct are pi^ycd on the. facts of the case ?

4. Whether the punishment awarded is pro- pfr m&< legal?

5.' Re&ef and .costs ?

5. Issues No. 1 Bndi2.—It is an admitted fact that the, Enquiry Officer had exonerated the work- man. ,of thcieharges of misconduct levelled against himn Thft .disciplinary authority disagreed with the finding of ithe Enquiry Officer and; awarded the pUftisbjtnewt of dismissal from service on 15--4-84. Before pajspjng this order no notice of pwposgd:.punishment was given to the workman to submit hi* .explanation in this respect. In this way the, workman was prevented from submitting his d^fenWWgafdilK i;the proposed punishment of dis- missal- by*.thtf:. DSsciplipary Authority, Such order of, pwhbPiWt >is flgamst the principle of natural jus- tice and iba$,jn the eye of Jaw whiqh cannot be sus- tained,! Siwfo. order of dismissal deserves to be quashed as.lajd down in 1998-AIRISC 2713, Punjab National jBaflkkano¹ others versus Kunj Bihari Mishra with Chief Personnel Manager, Punjab National Bank versus Shanti Prasad. In view of this finding of the Supreme Court the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority against the.workman is absolutely illegal and cannot be maintained in the eye -of law;. In: view of this finding, management cannot be allowed to lead evidence to prove the alleged mis
6. Issue Nos. 3 and 4t—In the light Of the afore- said discussion the punishment of -dismissal awarded against the workman is held unjust and illegal. Issue Nos. 3 and 4 are decided accordingly.

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2001 S.O. 348.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the ^Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the awards of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between tSie employers in relation to the management of SECI. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-1-2001.

[No. L-22012/416/91-IR(C-II)] N. P. KfcSHVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRiEUJNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

Case No. CGIT/LC/R/100/92 .

Presiding Ofrker : Shri K. M;< Rai. Shri Kailasbpati Singh, S/o :Sh^i Late -Ganga Sinfih, Ex Grad&. D. Fitter, Bishiampuir, Opencast Mines, Distt. Surguja (MP). .. .Applicant.

Ver&w

The Dy. General Manager, SECL, Bishrampur Opencast Mines, Post Bishrampur Colliery, Distt Surjjuja (MP)- • • .Non-applicant.

AWAR£>

ThecGovemrQeni! of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-22012/416/9 l-IR{CoaIrII) has re- ferred the following? dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :— 7. Issue No. 5.—.On the reasons stated above, the order of- dismissal passed by the management against thr workman js hereby set aside. The- workman <;h?ll be re'ri^ated, with all back wages .and monetary benefits a t t e nd to his post. He shall be deemed to be. in continuous setvice from the date of dis- missal till the date of reinstatement. H$ shaH be m?d all the back waeos and other consequential b^n"fl{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1}}}}s bv the minancniem as if he were not dis- - trussed iro.m the service. . "Whether th© action of the Dy. General Mana- ger, Bishrampur opencast mines of SFCL, PO BisrampurOolliery, Distt. Surguja (MP) in dismissing Shri KailashpaCi Singh, Fitter (Excavation) > from company's services w^f. 14-9-90 is legal and justified ? If not, watt relief is the workman entitled ?" R. Parft^s shall heap their own co^t. Cdov of awwrd .bft-sent -to th^ Government of India, Ministry of Laboupr.as^wp T»l«a.", K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer 2. The case for the workman is that he was cm- ployed on a permanent post of fitter Group-D (Ex- cavation) NCM No. 7, Bishrampur Colliery, Distt. ↩

Passed on this 15th day of January, 2001 Sarguja by the management. He had served the mana- gement with all sincerity and to the satisfaction of jhis superior officers for a period of 27 years on the basis of a satisfactory service. He' was given several promotions by the management.

I

dismissal order against the workman. An appeal was also preferred against the dismissal order by the workman and the Appellate Authority did not find any reason to defer with the Disciplinary Authority. He accordingly rejocted the appeal and upheld tbtf order of dismissal passed against the workman. The enquiry was conducted in a legal, fair and just manner. In the circumstances of the case, the order of dis- missal is just and proper and does not require any inikrference by Jhe tribunal.

6. The following issues have been framed in thU

case and my findings therein are noted below:

1. Whether the departmental cllqufry ia plc"-

pcr and legal?

2. Whether the management is entitled m ^d

evidence before* th&arirWHai ?

3. Whether the punishment awarded- is pro-

per and legal?

4. Relief and costs 7

3. It is further contended, by the workman that on 24/25-6^0, he was issued th© chargeshcet regaid- ing the alleged misconduct of misbehaving with Shri R. K. Sinha, Engineer during duty hours and leaving the duty without any permission, H& submitted his explanation to the charges. The management did not accept the explanation and decided to proceed With the DE against him. Th& Departmental Enquiry was conducted against him and the Enquiry Officer,¹ wrongly held these charges proved against him. The Di-cipunary Authority mechanically accepted the report of Enquiry Officer and passed the order of dismissed from service on 12-9-90. Hti preferred the appeal against this order. The Appellate Authority also without applying its mind rejected his appeal. The Enquiry Officer adopted ihe prejudicial view and without considering the evidence on feoord improper- ly held him guilty of the charges. The entire enquiry was conducted in a raalafide fllaiHier. He was not giv";n the sufficint time to prepare his defence. The entire Departmentjal Enquiry proceedings was tm- fair and contrary to the principle of natural justice. In view of •all these facts, the order of dismissal de- wrves to be quashed. He is entitled to reinstatement with baiek wages and other consequential benefits.

7. Issue No, 1 & 2 : On- 27-8-9S, my learned pre- decessor has held the DE as just and-proper. In view of this finding, these issues need further no consi- deration at all.

4. The case for-the management is that on 23-6-90 af 5.15 P.M., the workman left his duty in the field on sfewel No. 101 without permission of the shift inchargc and came to th© workshop of quarry No. 7 in an angry and agitated n\oodtfnd questioned Shri R. K. Sinha Engineer as to-why he had not. given him duty on Sunday i.e. 24-6-90. Shri Sinha* replied that his services were not required at all on 24-6-90. Thereafter the workman started abusing Shri Sinha filthy and also assaulted him Shri S. N. Ghosh and Shri SUmeeti Singh, employees of the SECL, intern vened and saved Shri Sinha from further assault of the workman. The matter was reported by Shri R. K. Sinha and the charges were framed against him. The opportunity was given to him to submit his explana- tion to charges of misconduct, the Workman submitted his reply which was not found satisfactory.

5. The management also furiie* alleges that the) Departmental Enquiry was conducted against the workman and sufficient opportunity was given* to defend his case. Several adjournments were given on his request in order to enable him to put up his de- fence properly before the Enquiry Officer. The work- man cross-examined the prosecution witness during Che enquiry proceedings. He W0S also given oppor- tunity to produce the witnesses in his defence. After tho"clQse., of evidence, both the parties submitted their written arguments to the Enquiry Officer. After con- sidering the matter on record, the Enquiry Officef held the charges proved against the workman. The ttfsciplinary Authority rightly accepted the report of

8. Issue No. 3 c The workman was issued a charge- sheet for assaulting Shri-R. K, Sinha Engineer and misbehaving with him on duty as well as leaving work without the permission of competent authority. Dur- ing the Departmental Enquiry, both the parties were have clearly stated during the enquiry proceeding workman refused to produce any defence witness to prove his defence version. The prosecution witnesses hav© clearly stated during flie enquiry proceeding that the workman hadabased and assaulted Shri R. K. Sinha, Engineer during the working hours as well as, h© had left his duty without the permission of the Competent Authority. The Enquiry Officer has properly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses laiid camfc to the conclusion that the charges 'were ptoVtd against the workman without! any doubt. His appro-*- ciaticn appears to bo just and proper and therefore the Disciplinary Authority agreed with his- finding.The workman was afforded sufficient opportunity to prove his defence and he failed to discharge his duty by rebutting the evidence of the prosecution adduced before the Enquiry Officer. This trlburial cannot sit as a court of appeal over the decision of Disciplinary Authority. From the material on redord, it is not dis- closed that th© Enquiry Officer had given his finding without any sufficient rcswon and evidence in respect thereof. His finding cannot be. held to- be perverse This tribunal'is in no way legally authorised tQ $ # • - !. I W t i A Z t f nB OF I N D I A : F E B R U A RY i% 2 0 0 1 / M A G HA 2 8 3 9 22 I P A RT M ~ $ k c, > $ ( % )] re-appreciate the evidence adduced during the enquiry proceedings and cometoa different conclusion. In view of this fact, I find that the conclusions of En- quiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority are perfectly just and propei which do not require any interference by this tribunal. The punishment of dismissal is just and proper.

9. The conduct of the workman has been highly objectionable and unbecoming of an employee of the management. He is not supposed to assault his superior officer in order to get his grievance redress- ed by exercising force on him- Such action is highly deplorable and cannot' be allowed to continue. In view of (he foregoing reasons, I find the punishment of dismissal awardedfc>the workman is just and proper and docs not require any interference. Issue No. 3 is answered accordingly. >

10. Issue No. 4 : On the rcasoas stated above, it is held that the punishment of dismissal awarded by the management to the workman is just and proper and does not require any interference by this tribu- nal. The workman is not entitled fo any relief as claimed by him. The reference is accordingly answer- ed in the favour of the management and agninst the workman.

11. The copy of the award be sent to the Govern- menC of India, Ministry of Labour as per. rules.

K. M. RA1, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 6th February, 2001 S.O. 349.—Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied tihat th* public interest so re- quired had, in pursuance of the provisions of sub- clau,sc (vi) of the clause (n) of Section 2 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), declared by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour S.O. No. 1873 dated the 10th August, 2000 Industrial establishments manufactur- ing or producing Nuclear Fuel and Components, Heavy Water and Allied Chemicals and Atomic Energy to be a public utility service for the purpose of flic said Act, for a period of six months from the 26th August, 2000.

And whereas, the Central Government is of opin- ion that public interest requires the extension of the •said period by a further period of six months.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub-claute (vi) of clause (n) of Sec- tion 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Cen- tral Government hereby declares the said industry to be a public utility service for fhe purposes of th* said Act for a period of six months from the 26th February, 2001.

fNo. &H017|3[97-IR(PL)]

H. C. GUPTA, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 6th February, 2001 S.O. 350.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-sectioo (3) cf Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Cental Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2001 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already bsen brought into force) and Chapter V and VI [except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77,78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in tht following areas in the State of Kerala, namely :—

""Hie areas within the Revenue village of Kutti- yeri In Thaliparamba Taluk of Kannur Dis- trict."

[No. S-38013|7|2001-SS-I] L. H. RUOLNGUL, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 6th February, 2001 S.O. 351.—In exeicisc of the powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of J948) the Cenfral Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2001 is the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV [except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter V and VI [except Sub-section (i) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 md 81 which have already been brought into force] it the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Gujarat namely:—

"The areas comprised within the Nofifled and Revenue Limits of Gandhinagar City, Dis- trict Gandhinagar."

[No. S-38013|4|200l-SS-I] L. H. RUOLNGUL, Under Secy.

W:

New Delhi, the 7th February, 2001 S.O. 352.—In exeicise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2001 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (ex- cept Sections 44 and 45 which have already been btought into force) and Chapter V and VI [except Sub-section (i) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Kerala, namely :—

"The areas within the Revenue villages of Nada- thara and Kurichikkara in Taluk and Dis- trict Trichur."

[No. S-38O13|5|2OO1-SS-I]

L. H. RUOLNGUL, Under Secy.

vW tffl GAZETTE OF 1NWA ^fSBIltiARV 47,-JoOVMA<5HA 26, 1922 (PAII 8 ^ < ^ l ( t f )1 New DdUii. the- 6th PSbrtiary, 2001 S.O. 353.—In exercise -of "the powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2001 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which tiavc already been brought into force) and Chapter V and VI [except Sub-section (i) of Section 76 and'Sectidns 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already bden brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas' in flit State of Orissa namely:—

"Th© areas comprising the Revenue Villages d Bankabija, Jeypore LR, Jagadhatripur, Jjaxmanpur, Bikram Nagar, Bidyadharpur, Nilakanth© Swarpur and Balajipur in Tehsil Jeypore of District Kofaput."

fNo. S^38013|6|2OOl-SS-I] L. H. RUOLNGUL, Under Secy.

New,- Delhi, •' *h" "b" Fefortiary, 2D01 SX>f 354.—r-In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Jasurorice Act, 1948 (34 *at 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st Mar.ch, 2001 asCtheSittateTdii'which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44' and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter. V and VI [except Sub-section (1) -of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Rajasthan namely :-—

"Sitapur Industrial Arc^ comprising Rcvenu6 villages of Ssopur, Sukhpuria, Siftipura, Dahlawas, Maharajpura alias Chatrawala, Khusar, Ramchandrapura, Badi ka Bas and areas comprising Revenue villages of Shikar- pura, Kalyanpura, Sri Ram Ki Nangal and Muhana in Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur."

LtKo;' S138013i3]2001-SS-I] L. H. RUOLNGUL, Under Secy.

New Delhi*'the 7th February, 2001 S.O. 355.—In exercise of the powers conferred by- Section 4 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour No, S.O. 138(E), dated the 15th February, 2000 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary Part'll, Section 3(ii) dfcted the 18th February, 2000:

In-" th*'said*'notification under the heading "Ap- pointed by the Central Government under739 clause (t>) of Suction 8"' against Serial No. 4, the following entries shall be inserted, namely :—

"Joint Secretary,

(Sh. Shiv Raj Singh)

Department of Petroleum,

Government of India,

New Delhi, the 9th February, 2001 New Delhi."

[No. U-16O12|l|2O00-SS-I]

L. H. RUOLNGUL, Under Secy.

S.O. 356.—In exercise o fthc powers conferred by Section 3, Sub-Section (1) of the Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of 1983), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri S. K. Tripathi, Under Secretary, Ministry of Science and Technology, Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi as Protector of Emigrants-I, Mumbai with effect from 3rd February, 2001 (F.N.).

[No. S-11011|l|2000-Emig.] HARI SINGH, Dy. Secy.