This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGISTERED NO. D.L.-33001/99

The Gazette of India

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 21] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, MAY 26, 2001/JYAISTHA 5, 1923

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)

StatutoryOrdersandNotificationsIssuedbytheMinistriesoftheGovernmentofIndia

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

(2215)

1424 GI/2001—1

aW" TM #Aa"TTl dF INDIA : MAY 26, 49W/ JYAttTSA 5. 1M3 AlW IIr-*"c. 3C"01

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Pfpvtmitit erf RirvffMM)

ORDER

New Pdhi, the 14th May. 2001

S.O. 1075.—Wheren the Joint Secretary to

the Government of India, specially empowered

under sub-sectkm(l) of Section 3 of the Preven-

tion of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psycho-

tropic Substances Act, 1988 issued order F. No.

801|4|2001-prrNDPS dated 11-1-2001 under the

•aid sub-section directing that Shri Sukhdev Singh

@ Kala S|o Shri Madan Mohan Singh R|o Village

Attari, Distt. Amritsar (Punjab) be detained and

kept it cuitody in the Central Jail, Patiala

(Punjab) with a view to preventing him from engag-

ing in dealing of narcotic in future.

3. WhereM the Central Government has reason

to believe that the aforesaid person has absconded

or ii concealing himself to that the order cannot

bo executed ;

3. Now, therefore, hi exercise of powers con-

ferred by clauM (b) of sub-section (1) of Section

8 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby

directs the aforesaid person to appear before the

Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelli-

gence (Regional Unit) M-1|C, Green Avenue,

Amritsar, within 10 days of the publication of thin

order in the official Gazette,

IF. No. 80l|4|2001-PrmDPS]

RAMJEE SINGH, Under Secy.

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

New Delhi, the 27th April, 2001

(INCOME TAX)

S.O. 1076.—It is hereby notified for general in-

foiswtioB tfc"x thx organisations mentioned below

w

of the approval, to the Central Government through the Commissioner of Income tax/Director of Income tax (Exemptions) having jurisdiction. Three copies of application for renewal of approval shall also be sent directly to the Secretary, Department of Scienti- fic and Industrial Research.

have teen approved by the Central Government for the period mentioned against their names, for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (I) of Section 35 of the Income tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 6 of the Income tax Roles, 1962 under the category "Institution" subject to the following conditions:—

[Notification No. 100/2001/F.No. 203/19/2001 ITA-IIJ (i) The notified Institution shall maintain separate books of accounts for its research activities;

KAMLESH C VARSHNEY, Under Secy.

(ii) The notified Inititntion shall furnish the Annual Return of its scientific research acti- vities to the Secretary, Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, Technology Bhawan', New Mehrauli Road, New Dclhi- 110016 for every financial year on or before 31st May of each year.

(iii) The notified Institution shall submit, on behalf of the Central Government, to (a) the Director General of Income tax (Exemptions), 10 Middleton Row, 5th Floor, Calcutta- 700071 (b) the Secretary, Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, and (c) the Commissioner of Income tax/Director of Income tax (Exemptions), having jurisdiction over the organisation, on or before the 31st October each year, a copy of its audited Annual Accounts and also a copy of audited Income & Expenditure Account in respect Of Us research activities for which exemption was granted under sub-scetion (I) of Section 35 of Income tax Act, 1961 in addition to the return of income tax to the designated assessing officer.

Name of the organisation

>. approved

s. Nc

Period for which Notifi- cation is effective

1^-2000 to 31-3-2003

1. Lokmanya Medical Research Centre 3I4-B, Chinchwad, Pune-411033

2.

1-4-2000 to 31-3-2003

Muljibhai Patel Society for Research in Nephro-Urology, Dr. Vivendra Desai Road, Nadiad-387001

3.

1-4-2000 Jo to 31-3-2003

Bharatiya Vidva Bhawan, Kulpati Munshi Marg, Mumbai-400007

1-4-2000 to

4.

to 31-3-2003

Predict Institute of Plant Protection & Toxicology, 12, Harleys Road, JCillpauk, ChennaMO

Motes: The notified Institutions are advised to apply in triplicates and well in idvanec for renewal m* TUB OA36ETTO OP WDJA MAX 24 MM YAlflEHA 5, 19J9 ["UIT JX^SMS "fa>1

return of income tax to the designated assessing officer.

Name of the organisation

s.

¹ approved

No

Period for which Notifi- cation is effective

l.

I^>2000 to 31-3-2003

Astra Zeneta Research Founda- dation India No. 277, T, Chowdiah Road, MaUeswaran, Bangalore^5600p3

2

1*4-99 to 3f-3-2O02

Society for Health Allied Research'and Ecucatiori India, Share-Irtdia,"5-^-22; Sarovaf, Secretarial Road^ Hyderabad-500004

N"W Delhi, the 27th April, 200J

(INCOME TAX)

Notes: The notified Associations are' advised to apply in triplicates and wcU in advance for renewal of the approval, to tjie Central Government through the Commiisioner of Income tax/Director of Income tan (Exemptions) having jurisdiction. Three copies of application for renewal of approval shall also be s<:nt directly to the Secretary, Department Of Scientific and Industrial Research.

[Notification No. 101/2001/F.No, 203/19/2001-ITA-II] KAMLESH C. VARSHNEY, Under Secy.

fcn>

- Delhi-? 1QOI

or before 31st May of each year.

(iii) The notified Institution shall submit on be- half of the Central Government, to (a) the Director General of Income tax (Exemp- tion j), 10 ^liddleton Row, 5th floor, Cftlcutta-700071 (b) the Secretary, Depart- ment of Scientific & lnduitriaj Research, and (c) the Commissioner' of Income-tax/ Director of Income-tax (Exemptions), having jurisdiction over ttie organisation, on or before the 31st October each year, a copy of its audited Annual Accounts and also a copy of audited Income & Expenditure Account in respect of its research activities for which exemption w^s granted ynder s^b-section (I) of Section 35 of Income tax Act, 1^61 in addition to the return of income tax to the designated assessing officer.

Name of th? orgaoisa^ipn

s.

o. approved

lW

Ni

cation is effective

1.

1-4-2000 to 31-3-2003

Research Foundation for Jainology, "Sugan House", 18, Ramanuja Iyer Street, Sowcarpct, Chennai-600079

1

1-4-2000 to 31-3-2003

Indian Institute at Management Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-560076

3.

1-4-2000 to 31-3-2003

Vipasana Research Institute, Green House, Green Street, 2nd, Floor, Fort, Mutnbai-400023 New Delhi, the 27th April, 2001

(INCOME TAX)

Notes : The notified Institutions are advised to apply in triplicates and well in advance for renewal of the approval, to the Central Government through the Commissioner of Income-tax/Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) having jurisdiction. Three copies of application for renewal of approval shall also be sent directly to the Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

[Notification No. 102/2001 F.No. 203/I£/2O01-ITA-II! KAMLESH C. VARSHNEY, Under Secy.

S.O.IO78.-^-lt it hereby notified for gereral in- formation that the oiganisations mentioned below have been approved by ihe Central Government for the period mentioned against their names, for the purpose of clause (in) of sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 6 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 under the category "Insti- tution" subject to the following conditions:—

(i) The notified Institution shall maintain separate books of accounts for its research -activities;

(ii) The notified Institution shall furnish the Annual Return of its scientific reseat ch acti- vities to the Secretaiy, DtJpartment of Scientific & Industrial Research 'Technplogy Bbawim', New Mehrauli Road, Hew 3220 THE GAZITOI OF BlfolA : MAY 2§, WO!/ JYA1STHA 5, 1923 [itui* H—Sic. i(")j

of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for the purposes of section 35CCB of Income-tax Act, 1961.

f Programme

Name of the Institution; Association

People for Animals I. A-4, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi-110065 2.

Establishment of animal hospital/Shelter Vehicle based mobile animal care unit.

3.

A,

Establishment of bear Saultuories Establishment of animal welfare training institute.

2. Both the approvals accorded by the prescribed authority namely (i) to the Institution/Association under sub-section (2) of section 35CCB and (ii) to the programmes under sub-section (I) of section 35 CCB are valid for the period from 1-4-2001 to 31-3-2004 subject to the following conditions:

(i) People for animals, A-4, Maharanj Bagh, New Delhi-II0065 shall maintain a separate account of the donation received by it for the activities mentioned in para 1 above.

(ii) The People for animals shall furnish progress reports of the programmes as mentioned in para 1 above to the prescribed authority for every financial year by the 30th June every year.

(iii) The People For Animals, A-4, Mtharani Bagb, New Delhi-110065 shall submit to the prescribed authority by the 30th June every year a copy of the audited annual accounts showing the total income and expenditure and liabilities and a copy of each of these docu- ments sent to the concerned Commissioner of Income-tax.

(iv) The approval is subject to the continued satisfaction of the prescribed authority and may be withdrawn with retrospective effect :f considered necessary.

^Notification No. 104/2001/F.No. 203/23/2001/ITA.ITJ

KAMLESH C. VARSHNEY, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 30th April, 2001.

S.O.1079-—It is notified for general information that the institution/Association mentioned below and its programme given hereundcr have been approved by the Secretary, Ministry of Environment aad Forest*. Government of India, New Delhi, being the prescribed authority under Rule 6 AAC 0221

(e) fail* to furawh the ludit report at re- quired by iub-rulc (7) of rule 2E of tb" Income tax Rules, 1962.

3. The enterprise approved i§—48 MW Com- bined Cycle power plant at Sancoale, Goa of M/s Reliance Salgaonlcar Power Company Ltd. Kamat Centre, 2nd Floor, D.B. Bandodkar Marg, Panaji, Goa-403001.

[Notification No J05/2001/F,No. 2O5/15I/W-ITA-H pur] KAltfLESH C. VARSHNEY, Under Secy New Delhi, the 30th April, 2001

S.O.I 080.—It is notified for general information that enterprise, listed at para (3) below has bcea approved by the Central Government for the purpose of section 1OT23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for the assessment years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.

2. The approval is subject to the condition that:

(i) the enterprise/industrial undertaking will conform to and comply with the provisions of section 1O(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962;

(ii) the Central Government shall withdraw this approval if the enterprise/industrial under- taking;

(a) ceases to carry on infrastructure facility;

or

(b) fails to maintain books of account and get such accounts audited by an accoun- tant as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, or 2222 TUB ©AfcETTE OF INDIA : M#Y 2KE 29017 JYASTRA 5, 1923 [flwu H"-3feS. 3 Ml New Dtfltfj, the 30t& April, 2001 S.O. 1081.—It is notified^ for genqraj information that the enterprise, listed at para (3) below has been approved by the Central' Government fdf the purpose of section 10T23OVof the Income-tax Act, J961, read with rule 2E of the, Income-tax Rules. 1962..for the assessment years'2Q01-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, 2. The approval is subject to the condition that—

(i) the enterprise Will conform to and comply with the provisions of section 10(230) of the Incomerfax Act, J9(Jl, read with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962;

(ii) the Central Government shall withdraw this approval if the enterprise:—

(a) ceases to carry on infrastructure facility;

ot

(b) fails to maintain books pf. account and get such accounts audited by an accoun- tant ds required by siib-rule (7^ of rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962; or (c) f ails, tQ furnish the a,udit repofX as. re- quired by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income-tax ktflefc, 1962.

3. The enterprise... apprpved " project f of in- frastructure provider category l of M/s Reliance Infocom .Limited 2nd Fldor,* Sfcree Ram Mill Pre- mises, Ganpatrao K&dam Marg-, .WorJl, , .Murabai- 400013 vide Registration certificate No. 30/2001 dated 12-2-2OQ1 issued" by' the Department of Terecommtim- cation (Basic services group).

[Notification No.. 106/2001/203/77/2000 ITA-IT] KAMIKBSH C VARSHNEV, Under Secy, New Delhi, the 30th April, 2001

S.O. 1082.—'ft is notified for general information that enterprise, listed at para (3) below has beun approved.by the Central Government for the, purpose of section JO(23G) of the Income-.taj* Act, 1961, read with rule ?E of the Jtocarpe-tftX Rules, 1962, for the assessment yean 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.

2. The approval is subject to the condition that—

(i) the enterprise/industrial undertaking will con- norm to and comply with tile provisions of section 10(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, . 1962;

(ii) the Central Government shall withdraw this approval if the enterprise/industrial Under- taking :— (a) ceases to carry on infrastructure facility;

or

(b) fails to maintain books qf account and get such accounts audited by an accoun- tant as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962; or (c) fails to furnish the ^udjt repor^ as requi- red by sub-fule (7) of rule 2E of the Incom"-tax tfulos, 1962.

2223 3. The enterprise approved is Cellular Mobile

Telephone Services in Assam, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, N. E., Orissa, West Bengal under the licence dated 12-12-1995 and Tele- phone Service in Gujarat Service Area by M/s. Reliance Telecom Limited, 3rd Flood, Maker Cham- ber* TV, 222 Nariman Point, Mumbai^400 021 under the licence dated 18-3-97, issued b,y the Department of telecommunication.

New Delhi, the 30th April, 2001 [Notification No. 107/2001/F. No. 205/3/98- TTA-IT, Vol. 1] KAMLESH C. V. ARSHNEY, Under Secy.

S.O. 1083.—It is notified for general information that enterprises/industrial undertakings, listed At para (3) below have been approved by the Central Govern- ment for the purpose of section 10(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for the assessment years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.

2. The approval is subject to the condition that—• (i) the enterprise/industrial undertaking will con- form to and comply with the provisions of S.-ction 10(23G) of the Income-tax Act," 1961 read with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962;

(ii) the Central Government shall withdraw this_

approval if the enterprise/industrial under taking :—•

(a) ceases to carry on infrastructure facility;

or

(b) fails to maintain books of account and get such accounts audited by £tn accoun- tant as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1961; or

(c) fails to furnish the audit report as re- quired by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of th Income-tax Rules, 1962.

3. The enterprises/industrial undertakings appro-

ved are :—

(i) 470 MW Combined Cycle Captive Co- generation Power Project of M/s. Reliance Utilities and Power Limited, 3rd Flood, Maker Chambers IV, 222 Nariman Poin Mumbai—400 021. (F. No. 205/40/98-ITA- U, Part II).

(ii) 2x250 MW Jamnagar Petcoke based Ther- mal Power Station in Gujarat of M/s. Reliance Power Limited, 3rd Flood, Maker Chambers IV, 222 Nariman Point, Mumbai—21 (F No. 205/156/99-ITA-U, Vol. I).

(iii) Project of construction/laying and use of

Captive Port under agreement dated < 15th September, 1998 with Gujrat Maritine Board by M/s. Reliance Ports and Terminals Limi- ted, 3rd Floor, Maker Chambers IV, 222 Nariman Point, Mumbai—400 021. (F. No. 205/48/98-ITA-Tf, Part II).

[Notification No. 108/2001/F. No. 205/40/98- ITA-II, Part II ] KAMLESH C. VARSHNEY, Under Secy 1424 OI|2001— 2.

2224 THE1SA2ETTE OF IttDfA : MAY 26, 2001/ JYAlSTHA 5, 1923 [T\KRT II-^Stc. 3(fl)i (Dcpartme"t of Economic Affairs)

(Bankiftg Division)

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2001

S.O. 1084.—Inextrciseoftbe. powers conferred by clause (c) of Sub-section (1) ofSection6of the Export Import Bank of India Act, 1981 (28 of 1981), the Central Government hereby nominates the following persons as Directors of Expoa Import Bank of India for a period of three years commencing on 1 st May, 2001 :

Tn pursuance of Section 6(1) (e) (ii) of the Export 1.

Import Bank of India Act, 1981

2.

-do-

Shn R.V. Shastfi, Chairman and Managing Director, Canara Bank Shri S.C. Basw, Chairman and Managing Director, Bank of Maharashtra 2225 3.

IH pursuance of Sectioa 6(1) (e)(iii) of the Export-Import

BMIC of iHdia Act, 1981

Shrj Pulin B. Nayak, Professor of Economics, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi.

4.

-do-

Dr. S. Chandra, Management ConsultantChairman, Pan Asian Management Foundation, New Delhi

5.

-Aa-

Dr. Vinayshil Gautam, Prof,, Management Department Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi.

6. Dr. Budhajirao Raghunathrao Mulik, Vice-Prcsidcnt, Asian Association of Agril. Engg. (Soil and Water), Punc, Maharashtra.

[F. No. 7/1/97-B.O.-I] RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy

Nationalised Banks (Management A Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the Central Government, hereby nominates the following persons as part-time non-official directors of Bank of Baroda for a period of three years with" effect from 8th May, 2001 :—

1. Shri Piyush Goyal,

Director, Gujarat Poistra Port Infra- structure Ltd., Pipavav House, 209, Bank Street Cross

In pursuance of clause (h) of sub- section (3) read with Sub-section (3A) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Under-

takings) Act, 1970.

' Lane, Off. Shyahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort, Mumbai—400 023.

2. Shri Bapusaheb Namdisvrao _do—

Gulvepatil, Advocate, Agriculturist and Social Worker, Ashiyana Housing Society, At Post Tal., Sangamncr—422 605 (Ahmednagar), Maharashtra.

[F. No. 9/17/2000-B.O.I. (i)] RAMESH- CHAND, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2001

S.O. 1085.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Banking Com- panies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 read with sub-clause (1) of Clause 3 of the 5276 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2001/ JYAISTHA .5, 1923 [FKRT It—SR". 3(")1 New Delhi, the 8th May, 2001

S.O. 1086,—In exerd>e of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Banking Com- panies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act; 1970 read with sub-c'ause (1) of Clause 3 of tbe Nationalised Banks (Management & Miscellaneous Provisions) Schorr^ 1970! ..the Centra] Government, hereby nominates the following persons as part-time non-official directors of Bank of Irdia for a period of three years with effect from on 8th Mays 2001 :

1, Shri Pahjaj Nanjkram NibaJanj, Film Producer & Distributor, 2-Bj Two roses Housing SoC'ity, Pali Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-50.

In pursuance of cJause (h) of sub- section (3) read with subjection (3A) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Under- takings) Act, 1970.

2.

-do-

Sbri Shripad Ramacbandra Halbe, Company Secretary and Corporate Consultant 72, Nemani Building, N. a Patkar Marg, Chowpatty, Mumbai-7

[F. No, 9/17/2000-B.O--1. (h)) RAMESH CHAND> Under Secy.

New Dc'hi, the 8th May, 2001

S,6, 1087 —In exercise of the powers conferred by sdb-section (3) 'of Section 9 of the Banking Com- panies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Actv 1980 read- with Sub-clause (1) of Clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks (Management & Miscellaneous Provisions) Scbeme" 1980, the Central Government, hereby nominates the following persons as part-time non-official directors of Corporation Bank for a period of three years witb effect from on 8th May, 2001 :

1. Shri Shailendra Swamp, Advocate, Supreme Court qf India, 127, Sunder Nagar, New De]h',

In pursuance of clause (h) of sub- section (3) read with sub-section (3A) of Section 9 6f the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Under- takings) Act, 1980.

-do-

2. Shri Surinder Singh Bhasin, Businessman, 645, Faithful Ganj Market, Kanpur Cantt

[F. No. 9/17/2000-B.O.-I. (in)] RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2001

S.O. 1088.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Sectjon 9 of the Banking Com- panies (Acquisition and transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 read wfth suD-cJauifc (0 of Clause 3 of Ac Nationalised Banks (Management & MisceHancous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the Central Government, hereby nominates the following persons as part-time non-official? directors of Syndicate Bank for a period of threo years commencing on 8th May, 2001 :

1. Shn Bhupinder Singh Sun,

Businessman, 2, Mathura Road, Jangpura-B, New Delhj.

In pursuance of clause (h) of sub- section (3) read with sub-sect'on (3 A) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Under- takings) Act, 1970.

2.

-do- Dr. Sudarshan Kuhaar Khantta, Ex-Chairman, UGC/AlCTE, 242, Vivekanand Pun, Deihi:7

[ F. No. 9/17/2000-B.O.-I. (iv) ] RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

}22?

New Delhi, the 8th May^ 2001

S

1. Shri Babusetth Tyre wala (Babu Kambafaih Subramuniam), Businessman, PaVer Nivas, Savaffear Marg, Vasant Tekkady" Ahmednagar, (Maharashtra).

In pursuance of clause (k) of sub- section (3) read with sub-section <3!A> of Section 9 Of the Banking Companies (Acqijteitioir and Transfer of Under- takings) Act, 1980.

2.

-do-

Smt Sukhda Mishra, Ex-Mkrister, U.P. and EXrM.P., B-62/72, IFS Flats, Mayur Vihar, Phasc-I, Delhi

tR No, 9/17/2000-B.O.-I.(v)]

RAMESH GHA-ND, Under Secy.

22 > -8 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2001/ JYAISTHA 5, 1923 [FIART n _ sE C. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 8th May, 2001

S.O, 1090-—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of sub-section (3), sub-section (3A) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 read with sub- dause (1) of Clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks (Management & Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the Central Government, hereby nominates Shri Himroat Singh Singhvi, Farmer and Businessman, Chhabra, Distt. Baran (Rajasthan) as a part-time non-official director on the Board of Indian Overseas Bank for a period of three years with effect from 8th May, 2001.

[F. No.-9/17/2000-B.O.l. (vi)] RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 15 th May, 2001 S.O. 1091.—In exercise or" • the powers conferred by Section 53 read with Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) the Central Government on re- commendation of the Reserve Bank of India declares that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the said Act shall not apply to the Keonjhar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Orissa from the date of publica- tion of this notification in the Official Gazette to 31st March 2002.

[F. No. 1(6')|2OO1-ACJ

L. C. TOORA, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 15th May, 2001 S.O. 1092.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 read with Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) the Central Government on re- commendation of the Reserve Bank of India declares that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the said Act shall not apply to the Khagaria Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Bihar from the date of publica- tion of this notification in the Official Gazette to 31st March, 2003.

[F. No. l(7)|2001-ACl

L. C. TOORA, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 15th May, 2001 S.O. 1093.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 read with Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) the Central Government on re- commendation of the Reserve Bank of India declares thai the' provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the said Act shall not apply to the Jila Sahakaria Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Durg, Madhya Pradesh from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette to 31 March 2002.

[F. No. l(8)|2001-ACJ

L. C. TOORA, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 15th May, 2001 S.O. 1094.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53i read with Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) the Central Government on re- commendation of the Reserve Bank of India declares that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the said Act shall not apply to the District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Vizianagram, Andhra Pradesh from the date of publication of this notifica- tion in the Official Gazette to 31st March 2003.

[F. No. 1(9)2001-AC]

L. C. TOORA, Under Secv.

2229 New Delhi, the 15th May, 2001 S.O. 1095.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 read with Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) the Centra] Government on re- commendation of the Reserve Bank of India declares that the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the said Act shall not apply to the Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Betul, Madhya Pradesh from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette to 31st March 2003.

'[F. No. 1(10) |2001-AC]

L. C. TOORA, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2001 S.O. 1096.—In exercise of the powers con- ferred under Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the Central Government, on the re- commendation of the Reserve Bank of India, specifies that the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, shall not apply to the public sector banks in so far as treatment of the expenditure related to the Voluntary Retirement Scheme being treated as Deferred Revenue Expenditure, for the financial year 2000-2001.

[F. Ni. 13|4|2001-BOA] D. CHOUDHURY, Under Secy.

2230 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :'MAY 26, 2001/ JiYMSTHA 5, 1523 [E**T IJ™$*!c. Kit)] 2231 1424 GT|2001—3.

" \T THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26 2001/ JYAISTHA 5, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(i*)] 2233 2234 THE GAZETTE ©F INDIA : MAY 26, 2001/ JYAISTHA 5, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2235 2230 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2 0 0 1/ JYAISTHA 5, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l 2237

sampling plan and records ol" sampling as set out in Schedule appended to this Order as the standard specifications for Honey.

4. to prohibit the export of Honey by a unit in the course of international trade unless it con- forms to the standards applicable to it and is accompanied by a certificate stating that such unit is &pj>roved and monitoring by the Export Inspection Agency established under section 7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963).

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

ORDER

New Delhi, the 11 Hi May, 2001

5. "Nothing in this Older shall apply to the export by land or sea or air of bonafide samples of Honey to prospective buyers, the value of which shall not exceed permi- ssible limits as laid down in Exim Policy from time to time and where no such provision exist the value of free sample(s) not exceed Rs. 1,000/-.

6. In the proposal, honey or a sweet substance,-- S. O.' 1097.—Whereas in exercise of the powers conferred by ^ectiun 6 of the 1 xport (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary and expedient so to do for (he development of the export trade of India that honey should be subject to quality control and inspection prior to export ;

(i) produced by the honey bees from the nectar of blossoms or secretions of living parts of plants and which ihe bees collect, trans- form combine with specific substances of their own, deposit, dehydrate natuially and store and leave to mature or ripen in honey combs in form of fluid, viscous or ciystallizcd,

And, whereas The Central Government has formulated the prcpotak specified below containing draft rules (Armcxure) for the said purpose and has forwarded the same to the ExpoU Inspection Council as required by sub-rule (?) of the rule 11 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1964;

(ii) obtained by centrifuging deiapped brood-

less combs ;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the said sub- rule, the Central Government hereby publishes Ihe said proposals for information of the public likely to be affected thereby;

(iii) obtained by pressing broodk-ss combs with or without the application of moderate heal ;

(iv) obtained by draining decapped broodless

combs :

(v) extracted from nectars of plants ;

2, Notices is hereby given that any person desiring to forward any objection and suggestion with respect to the said proposals, may forward (he same within forty five days of the date of publica- tion of this Ojder in the Official Gazette to the Export Inspection Council, 11th Floor, Pragali Tower, 26, Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008.

PROPOSAL

(vi) txti acted mainly from excretions of plant sucking insects (Hcmiptera) on the living parts of plants or secretions of living parts of plants.

SCHEDULE 1. lo notify that honey shall be subjected to quality control and inspection prior to export,

Specifications for honey recognized as per clause (c) of section 6 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection), Act, 1963 shall be ;

(a) National Standards of the importing

countries.

(b) Contractual specifications agreed to betwtvn the foreign buyer and the Axporters provided the same is satisfying the health and other requirements of the importing eountiy.

2. to specify the type of quality control and inspection in accordance with draft Export of honey (Quality, Control, Inspection and Monitoring) Rules, 2001 sot out in the Armwure appended to this Order as the type of Quuliiy Coulrol, Inspection and Monitoring which shall be applicable to such honey pioducts prior to export,

3. to recognize the Standards, Testing and Cer-

tification, Testing procedure for sampling,

(c) In the absence of (a) or (b) above, the minimum specifications notified in this Order as appendix to this schedule.

2238 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2001/ JYAISTHA 5, 1923 [PART II—Sfec. 3(ii)]

APPENDIX

STANDARDS AND TESTING PROCEDURES OF HONEY FOR EXPORTS :

1.0 The export of honey from India shall conform to standards and testing procedures prescribed herein. This supersedes the procedures and standards for export of honey us, contained in the Ministry of Commerce Order No. 4/2/97-EP (Agri-TV) dated the 18th December 1998.

2.0 STANDARDS FOR EXPORT OF HONEY :

2.1 Definition

(i) Honey is tho natural sweet substance produced by the honey bees from the nuclor of blossoms or secretions of living parts of plants and which the bees collect, transform, combine with specific substances of their own, deposit, dehydrate naturally and store and leave to mature and ripen in honey combs. This foodstuft may be fluid, viscous or crystallized;

(ii) Extracted Honey is honey only obtained by centrifuging decapped bloodless comps ;

(iii) Pressed Honey is honey only obtained by pressing bloodless combs with or without the application of moderate heat-;

(iv) Drained Honey is honey obtained by draining decapped broodless combs ;

(v) Blossom Honey or Necta--Honey is the honey which comes from neclais of plants;

(vi) Honeydew Honey is the honey which comes mainly from cxcrolions of plant sucking insects (Hemiptera) on the living parts of the plants or secretions of living parts of plants.

*2.2 General Characteristics Honey must be extracted from broodlcss combs and should be allowed to ripen naturally in the hive in ccaled combs. The flavour and aroma wculd vary depending on the plant origin- However, it shall not :—

— have any foreign tastes or odours;

—June begun to ferment or ellervesce;

—have been heated to such an extent ihnt its natural oiuymes are

destroyed or made inactive ;

—have an artificially changed acidity;

—contain substances in such quantity as to endanger human health.

2.3 Composition & Quality Apiary/extracted Squeezed/Pressed/Drained

65 % 23 % 0.95

Reducing Sugar Content (Mir) 65 % Moisture content (Max) 20 % Fructose/Glucose (Min) 0.95 Water insoluble solids content Not more than 0.1 % Not more than 0.5 % Mineral substance (ash) Not more than 0.5 % Not more than 0.6 % Sucrose 5 % maximum 5 % maximum Acidity Not more than 20 milli equivalents Not more than 40 milli equivalents

acid per 1000) gnns (0.2 %) acid per 1000 gms. (0.4 %) (Schade Scale)

2.4 Diastase activity Not less than 8 in general, not less Not less than 8 in general, not less than 3 for Honey with low natural than 3 for honey with low natural enzyme ccilunt* and HMF (u> 15 enzyme Content* and HMF @ rag/kg.

15 mg/kg.

*Low natural enzyme content may be declared on the label- 2*39 2.5 HudroxyrrfWhyl-furfural Not more than 20 mg/kg. Not more - than 40 mg/kg.

content (HMF)

2.6 Colour Nearly colourless to dark Vown.

2.7 Food additives Not permitted.

2.8 Veterinary drug, other substances,. Veterinary drug and-contaminants should not have :

environmental and other (i) Antibacterial substances, including Sulphonomides- and quinolones contominants (ii) Carbamates and pyrethroids

(iii) Organgchlorine compounds including PcBs

(iy) Qrganqphosphorus compounds

(v) Chemical elements

2,9 Marking The product may be designated as honey only jf it conform* to the provisions of 2.3 to 2.7-and 2.10. Honey shall not cover honey analogues and invert sugar.

(i) No honey may be designated by any of-the subsidiary designations unless it conforms to the appropriate descriptions contained therein. Honey may be designated by the name "of the geographical or topo- graphical region if it" has-been produced exclusively within thb area referred to.

(ii) Honey may be designated according to floral or plant source, if it corner wholly or mainly from that particular source and has the organolepr tic, Physicochemical and microscopic properties corrosDonding with that origin. The minimum pollen content of th<" source shall be not less than 45 % as determined by the method given in Annex-G "ofthe Indian . Standards IS : 4941 : 1994 (Annex-l) for the total count of pollens and, plant elements in honey.

(iii) Where honey has been designated according -to. flora] ot plant sourfitt.than the common name or the*botanioal. nam&of the floral source shaljrbe in close proximity to4ho word, "Honey'',

(w) Honey shall be designated according to t>i*> metHod of processing- ExtB""ted Honey, Squeezed Honey, Pressed Honey or Dreyined Honey.

(v) Information on labelling as specified -in the Oenccal Standard for the labeling or, Prepackaged Foods, shall-be-giv"n xeither on the-container or in accompanying documents, - "tcept thatHhe namer of the product, lot identification and the name and "address of -the manufacturer or packer shall appear on\he container (\'i) Any other marking required by importer.

2.10 Freeaom frflm foreign matter Honey sold as such shall not have added to it any food'ingredient or other substance. It shall be free from invert suga* orJ honey analog. Honey i'hall not have any objectionable -flavour, aroma or taint .absorbed from foreign matter during its processing arid storage. The honey shall not have begun to ferment 6r eflferveience Filtration is BcrmAtied to remove objectionable matter provided sumcient pollen grains which characterise the honey are retained,"

1424 GII20O1-

IZM THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26; 2001'/ JYAISTHA 5/ 1923 [Fkrr n - £ t c. 50)1

3.00 Testing Procedure :

3.1 The procedure for testing of honey shall be as indicated below. The samples/test samples utilised for conduct of tests shall be as pres- cribed underjthe relevant provisions of Indian Staidard* No. 13:4941:1994 and Codex AlimeBtariws Commission Standards, where applicable

3.2 Determination of Total Reducing Sugars 3J Ag per procedure given in Annei-C/C-1 of Indian Standards No. IS:4941:1994.

3.4 Determination of Moisture

3.5 As per procedure given in Annex-B/B-1 (Oven dryiig method) and B-2

3.4 FrHCtoso/Glucosc Ratio

3.7 As per procedure given in An"ex-C/C-3 of Indian Standards No. JS:4941:1994

3.8 Determination of Diastase Activity

3.9 As per method prescribed by Codex alimcn- tarius commission

3.10 Determination of Water-Insoluble Solids Con- tent

3.11 A" par procedure method prescribed by Codex Alimcntarius Commission

3.12 Determination of Ash 3.13 As per procedure given in Annex-D Of Indian Standards No. IS:494l:1994

3.14 Determination of Sucrose

3.13 A" per procedure givea in Annex-C/C-2 of Indian Standards No. IS:494I:1994

3.16 Del"nnia*tioB of Acidity as formic acid 3.1? A" p"r procedure given m Annex-E of Tndian Slundtrdi No. 1S:4941:1994

3.18 Determination of HMF Content

(i) As por AOAC 980.23 method (or) (ii) either of the following methods :

(*) Spcctrophotemetric determination of HMF: Ai per procedure given in Aniie-x- F of Indian Standards No. 1S:4941: 1994;

(b) Determination of HMF by HPLC (A" per method prescribed by Codex alimentarius commission)

3.If Determination of Heavy Elements

(i) Determination of Arsenic : As per pro- eed"M giYo" in AOAC No. 952.13 (Codex gsnertl method)

(ii) Determination of Copper : As per pro- ceduw given in AOAC No. 971,20 (Codex gen"ral method)

(iii) Determination of Lead : As per procedur* given in AOAC No. 972.23 (Codex general method)

3.20 Determination of Pesticide Residue* : Names of pesticides to be analysed

(i) DDT

(ii) Lindane/BHC/HCH

(iii) Endosulfan (iv) Aldrin

(v) Chlordimeform (vi) Carbarly

(vii) Carbendanzim

Method of Analysis :

As provided for in the Manual of Methods of Tests and Analysis for Food (Insecticide Residues) Published by Directorate Gcacral of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi.

3.21 Determination of Presence of Antibiotics Names of Antibiotics to be analysed :

(i) Sulphonomide

(it) Streptomycin (iii) Quinolone

Method of Analysis :

As provided for in the Official method of analysis of AOAC international 16th Edition, Vol. I & 11 Items at 5.1.53, 5.1.54, 5.1.55, 5.3.21, 5.3.22, 3.3.23 5.3.24 in respect of sulphonomide and streptomycin. For Quinolone as provided for in J-Chrometogr B Biomed Sci, Appl. Volume 709, Issue 1.

3.22 Determination of Presence of Mycotoxin s (i) Aflatoxin Bl

Method of analysis :

As provided for in the Manual of Method of Tests and Analysis for Food (Aflatoxin) Published by Directorate General of Health Services, Miaistry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi.

3.23 Determination of Presence of Dyes (Food Colours)

Method of analysis :

As provided for in the Manual of Methods of Tests and Analysis for Food (Food Additive*) publish- ed by Directorate General of Health Services, Minis- try of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi.

3.24 Determination of Presence of Carbamatrts and Dyrethtoieds

As per procedure given in AOAC Official Method No. 985.23 4.00 Procedure for Sampling

(i) In the case of consumer pacts : Representative samples of the honey Bhall be drawn according to the method prescribed in Annex-J of Indian Standards IS : 4941:1994.

(ii) IB the case of Bulk Packings :

INTRODUCTION

The samples will be taken from the export con- signments for every exports. The Procedure the frequency of the collection of sample and the kind of analysis which will be performed for the Honey, packed in bulk as given below : FREQUENCY OF THE SAMPLING

Whenever the consignment is ready for export sample should be taken for aaftlysis. The quantity of samples t* be taken and the number of times the inspector would come to collect tho sample would be oa the basis of exports.

Every time tho sample is taken, it must be from different lots of different origin. COLLECTION OF SAMPLES

AH tho process must be adjusted to tho general conditions of sampling. A few additional instructions are given below :

Recipients : The recipients in which tho samples are collected must be made of glass or food grade plastic. The capacity should bo around 200 gms. It is also possible to use food grade plastic bags if one is cautious to close them adequately and weigh them to verify ft minimum quantity of 200 gms. Sample collection ;

Liquid Honey : Collect approximately 200gms. of honey with an appropriate instru- ment (a stainless steel pipe 5 cm. Diameter and lm. long), dipped in the container of hoaey and emptied in the bottle. The procedure can be repeated as many times till 200 gms. of honey is collected.

Crystallized Honey : Introduce a drill or a long handle spoon of diameter less than 5 cm. Place the honey in a recipient and repeat till you get at least 200 gms.

5.00 Sampling plan No. of Samples to be drawn :

224 * (ii) One sample from each container bad m"a* for export from processor/exporter for complete analysis of all tests indicated in Annex-10.

(iii) Tests at SI Nos. 1 to 6 of Anntx-10 a" per sampling plan.

FREQUENCY OF CHECKS :

60% of total no. of sample* for pesticide nwiducs and antibiotics, 30% of total ao. of sample* for My- cotoxins contents and rest. 10% for Dyes and Glycerol content.

CONDITIONS FOR SENDING AND RECEIV- ING THE SAMPLES

The samples have to be sent in a room tempera- ture after obtaining in hygienic coaditions in clean glass or food grade plastic jars.

6.00 Records of Sampling

The application form for the records of sampling and application for analysis must to comptotod at- cording to the following details :

Date : Date (DD/MM/YY) in which th" sample is collected

Officer : Surname, Nam® and Post *f th" officer who takes the sample

Record : Number of record of sampling cornspoad- isg to the local office

Place of collection of the sample :

Name : Name of the company

Location : Road, Street, Number or cros&iag of Streets

Responsible : Surname, Name of the respoa&ibl* person in the company

Designation : Post held in (he company

Nature of the lot and the sample :

Product or variety and category : Liquid Honey of Crystallized Honey

Part, Organ, Tissue or Fluid : Product Detail Brand of the product or additional imformatioa :

Registered Brand (If so)

Origin of the sampling lot : Mark the filling cabinet : Another origia

No. of Identification : No. of identification accord- ing to one of the following possibilities In case the company is Apicultural Producer) In case the company is Trader

(i) Minimum two samples from one container are required to be drawn-One sample for the tests in laboratory and another is contra samples. In cose testing has to bo done i* more than one laboratory additional samples along with contra samples can be collected following the said procedure.

Documents presented with the lot : Deetaratioa of origin

[production data and the size of the lot :

Strapping : Identify each fraaUoft Quantity : Quantjty of contaisers wiih capacity from the same origin.

2242 THE GAZfiTTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2601/ JYAISTtfA 5, 1023 [FJMIT fl-tew^Ott] Date of the samDl* :

Quantity of units-: one (1)

Size of each unit : '200 (Two Hundred)

System of : gm.

measurement of the unit :

Application o f the analysis'

It is applied to the laboratory : Name of the Labora tory whd^does the analysis

Determination : List of analysis applied to that la" bpRitory.

DECLARATION OF ORIGIN

Th& record-application must enclose a document named Declaration of Orjgiir of the Bulk Honey, as per-

COMMUNICATION OF THE SAMPLING A* and wherf the officer takes samples, he has to communicate the quantity of samples taken for each analysis, and to which laboratory that has been sent.

HANDLING OF DOCUMENTATION

The documents should adjust to the proceeding JB the section regarding-order of the documents, which should'be sent to recognized labs.

ANNEXURE

1. Short Title and Commencement :

(i) These rules may be called the Export of Honey (Quality Control and- Inspection) Rules, 2001.

(ii) They shall come into force on the date .of their final publication- in the.Offlcial Gazette- 2. Definition :

For the purpose these rules unless the contexts otherwise requires, the following definitions shall be applicable;

(1) "Act" means the Export (Quality C r andjnspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963);

(2) "Agency" means- any- One < of the Export- [nspection Agency at Bombay, Ca'lcutfaj Cochin, Delhr-&nd-Madras estalfs1i<5d Sedton 7 of the Act;

(3) "Batch" means a quality of hortey which have tte'en prepared under the same condi- tions and in particular tr""t"d' in ' sifigl continuous operation-,'

(4) "Certificate' means oertificte issued under- stib-s'ectfon (*3) of se'etion 1 of the'Act;

(5) "Collection Centre" means an establishmen where honey may be collected.

(6) "Council" means Export Inspection Counci established under section 3 of the Expor (Quality Control and Inspection)-Act, 1963;.

(7) "Country of¹ Despatch" means India;.

(8) ''Country of Destination" means the Country to which'httiey ii dispatched from India;

(9) "Placing on the market" means the stocking or display with a view to sale, offering for sale, delivery or any other manner of disposa with the exception of retail sale, which mus be subjett to the checks^id down by national rules for retail business.

3. Inspection :

The inspection of honey shall be carried out that the srifne conforms to the standard specifications recognized by the Central Government under Section 6 of the Act-

4. Procedure of Inspection :

(1) An exporter mtetaliifg* to export *a consign- ment of honey shall give an intimation ia writing tc the Agency •fufn'iitfhtog therein 2M£

consignment at any place or ststagfc,- $n detail of thfc Contractual specifications albng-

transit or at the ports before its actual ship- wilh a copy of the export contract Or order

ment;

to enable the Agency to carry out inspection

in accordance^ with rule 3.

(5) In the event of the consignment being fottpi

not conforming to the standard specifications (2) Every intimation under sub rule (1) shall

at any of these stages, the certfrfc8ite"'b'rifis be given not less than 2 days before the ms-

pection originally issued shall be withdrawn.

pection to be carried out at the premises

situated at the same station where the office

5. PACKING AND MARKING of the Agency is located and not less than

An exporter intending to pack honey for expdrt 10 days before the inspection to be carried

after preparing the consignment t&pef the-pul:s out at the premises which are not situated

shall pack in hygienically clean wide mouth, at the premises or which are not situated at

glass containers or in acid Ye^ffitant' itfcUJtlfcred the same station where the office of the

tin containers. The screw caps for t he glass

container shall be non corrosive and non reactive Agency is located.

material' to honey and•• shall- -ba- provided -with

washers to avoid spilling.

(%f Ori receipt of intimation under¹ the sub^rule

Each container shall be legibly and indelibly marked (1), the agency shall carry out the inspection

with the following information :

of honey meant for export by drawing samples

2244 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2001/ JYAISTHA 5, 1&3 [HAM H - S E C. 5(1^1

(c) The quorum of the Panel shall be :

May—£

June—F

(i) In case the panel consist of 3 members,

minimum two members are required to My—G

complete the Quorum.

August—H

(li) 4 member panel will require 3 members

to complete the Quorum.

September—J

(d) The decision of the Panel on such appeal October—K

shall beSnal.

November—L

[F.No. 6/3/2000-EI&EP]

P. K. DAS, Director December—M

5. Gross weight And net weight

6. Product of India

7. Shipping mark

6. PLACE OP INSPECTION IN CURTAIN CASES:

Inspection for the purpose of these rules may also be carried out at the premises of the exporter where the goods are offered for inspection :

Provided that adequate facilities exist therein for

inspection.

7. INSPECTION FEE

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(C.P.V. Division)

Inspection fee shall be paid by the processor or exporter to the Agency @0.4% of the fob value subject to a minimum of Rs. 500 per consign- ment.

New Delhi, the 8th May, 2001 8. APPEAL

S.O. 1098.—In pursuance of the Clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby authorises Shri N. S. Siwach, Assistant in the Embassy of India, Berlin to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 08-05-2001.

(a) A"y exporter aggrieved by the refusal of the Agency to issue the certificate of inspection may within 10 days of the receipt of the communication such refusal prefer an appeal which Ahall be referred by the Agency to a panel of Experts consisting of not less than three, but not more than seven persons ap- pointed for the purpose by the Central Government.

[No. T, 4330| 1|2000]

Y. C. NARANG, Dy. Secy. (Consj (b) At least two-third of the total membership of th* panel shall consist of non-offlcfals.

2245

MINISTRY OF HEALTH ft FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health)

(P.M-S. Section)

New Delhi, the 11th May, 2001

SO.1099.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (2) of'Section 10 of The Dentists Act, 1948-

(16 of Of 1948), the Central Government, after consulting the Dental Council of India, hereby makes forth*

amendment "s follows in parM of the Schedule to the s*id Act namely :—

In Part-I of the said Schedule against serial number 28 of Guwahati University and the entries relating thereto

the following entries in column 2 and 3 will be added, namely :~

28. Guwahati University The following dental qualifications awarded M.D.S. Gwwahati

by the Guwahati University in respect of

P.O. students of Regional Dental College,

Guwahati, Assam, shall be recognised

dental qualifications if granted on or

after 13th January, 2001 :

M D S. (Period on tics)

M.D.S. (Conservative Dentistry)

(NO. ¥. l2QU(4pmUm$]

S.R. RAO, Di^tof (ME)

1?*$ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY:,26, .2001/ IKAISIHA 5, 1923 [F>*T- Jfc-tacr $<#)] MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

Now Delhi, ihc 14th May, 2001 S.O. 1100.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the Union) Rule, 1976, thsiCeatf at Gov- ernment hereby notify the following Subordinate Offices of the DG ; Doordarshan (Ministry df'Infor- mation and Broadcasting), the staff whereof more than 80 per cent have acquired the working know- ledge of Hindi :—

\. Hjj$ Fo^er Ttaosnyuter, Bjaoper.

2,*' DoerdaWhi^Marrrtenattce Centre,-

Aursngabad.

3. Doqudajshan Centre, Delhi.

4. Doordarshan Centre, Allahabad.

S. S. KATARIA, Director (PL) MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND CULTURE (Department of Culture)

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2001

S.Qt nPV—*[p pursuance.^fiSubrjcufeX^tof the Rule 10 of tha Official Language (use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Govern- ment hereby notifies the following office under the Minify of Tourism & Culture. Department of Culture, more than 80% staff of which has acquired working" knowledge of Hindi:-

GANDHI SMRITI AND DARSHAN sAMITI, RAJCJHAT, NEW DELHI.

[No. F. 1-2/96-Hindi]

J. P. KARDUM, Director (OL) New Dfilbi, the 9th Mav. 200 L

S.O. 1102.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of the Rule l0 of the Official Language (use*f6r Official PUrposCof the-Unidn) Rules, 1976 the Central Govern- ment hewby cnotifles the following office under the Ministry of: TQurism & Culture. Department of Culture* marjj th^n 80, % staff of which has acquired working knowledge of Hindi :-

ANTMRO PGW>GSi£AL SURVEY OF INDIA, KOW&ATA.

[ No. F. 1-2/96-Hindi ] J. P. KARDUM, Dy. Director (OL) 2247 I 124 (.1/2001—?

"°)8 IH1 ( i \ Z! ITtOl-INDIA MAYJ6. 2001 JYAISHTIIA5. 1023

[I'\RI II -Sue. 3(ii)l Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2001

s. 0.1103,— whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of natural gas from Nallur EPS to Prem Chemco Gas Pipeline Project in Tamil Nadu State, a pipeline should be laid by the Gas Authority of India Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of 1;;\ i>.<.> "he said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in t lr land ujidt.-i which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is desciibed in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule m;iy, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or ! • /\V2 <^r "10 pipeline under the land to the Competent Authority, Gas A". - •! 'Prised, Cauvery Basin, Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu.

Schedule

Survey No.

Village

5>iStt Tthsil

1 iruvarur Miiiinarffiitli

"^74, Nallur "

"3C1 " 24-11 24-I2B 24-14 2>:A

Area to be acquired for ROU in Hectare. 0.00.5 0.07.0 0.04.0 0.03.0 0.01.0

0.0i 0

0 . 0 0 .5 ( iP

0 . 0 0 .5 ( i .P

15-1A 24-1 2>1

Total

0.19.5

[No L-14014/7/01 GP] I. S.N.l'RASAD, Director 2240 2250 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26,2001 JYAISIITHA 5, 1923

[PART II—SK . 3

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2001

s. o.i 104.— whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of Liquid Petroleum Gas through Kandla - Jamnagar - Loni Pipeline Project in the State of Rajasthan, a pipeline should be laid by the Gas Authority of India Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to the Competent Authority, Gas Authority of India Limited, D-143/B, Koshalya Marg, Basant Marg, Bani Plark, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

S C H E D U L E.

[No. L-14014/3/2000 GP] I S.N.PRASAD, Director 2251 2252 _ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26,2001 JYAISHTHA 5,1923

[PART II—SK 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2001

s.o. 11 us.— whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of Liquid Petroleum Gas through Kandla - Jamnagar - Loni Pipeline Project in the State of Rajasthan, a pipeline should be laid by the Gas Authority of India Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to the Competent Authority, Gas Authority of India Limited, D-143/B, Koshalya Marg, Basant Marg, Bani Plark, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

S Of E&UUZ

[No.L-14014/3/2000GP] I. S.N.PRASAD, Director 2253 22M THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26,2001JYAISHTHA 5,1923

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 2255 1424 GI/2001—6 2256 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26,200UYAISHTHA 5,1923 [pARrll—SEC.3(ii)] 2257 _L^8 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26,2001 JYAISHTHA 5,1923

[PARTIF—Stc.3(n)] 2259 2260 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26,2001 JYAISHTHA 5,1923

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2001

s. o. no6.—whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of liquified petroleum gas through Kandla/Jamnagar - Loni pipeline in Rajasthan State, pipeline may be laid by Gas Authority of India Limited;

And whereas, the Government authorised Shri Deepak C. Gupta, Additional Collector on deputation from the State Government of Rajasthan to Gas Authority of India Limited to perform the functions of the competent authority under clause (a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 for Kandla/Jamnagar - Loni LPG Pipeline Project vide S.O. No. 241 dated the 20th January, 1998;

And whereas, the Central Government vide SO. 1095(E) dated the 22nd December, 1998; S.O. 1094 dated the 22nd December, 1998 and S.O. 597(E) dated the 24th July, 1999 published notifications under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act for acquisition of right of user in the land in the manner specified in the respective schedules annexed thereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (2) and sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipeline (Acquisition of Right of user in Land Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest, so to do, hereby directs that each of the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas specified in the column (2) of the Table mentioned below may be amended in the manner specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table.

2261

Table

S.No Notification & Date

Amendment

At Page No. 28 against Village AnwaTehsil Abu road for Survey No. "94" read "95" and for Survey No. "482" Area "0.1450" read Area "0.0320".

At Page No. 27 against Village Kui Tehsil Aburoad for Survey No " 301" read "280", for Survey No, "2" Area "0.0835" read "0.0474", for Survey No, "84" Area "0.0474" read "0.0020", for Survey No, "5" Area "0.4000" read "0.4909", for Survey No, "7" Area "0.0319" read "0.0773" and Survey No, "4" Area "0.0548" shall be deleted.

At Page No. 26 against Village Tartauli Tehsil Aburoad for Survey No, "398" Area "0.0020" read "0.1030", for Survey No,"395"Area "0.0100" read "0.0950", for Survey No,"394"Area "0.1500" read "0.1742", for Survey No,"386"Area "0.0560" read "0.1188", for Survey No,"387"Ai"a "0.2180" read "0.4276", for Survey No,"396"Area "0.1480" read "0.0475", for Survey No,"356"Area "0.0480" read "0.0158",and Survey No,"354"Area "0.2090" Survey No,"355" Area "0.0950" shall be deleted.

At Page No. 27 against Village Tartauli Tehsil Aburoad for Total Area "3.1440" read "3.3245".

At Page No. 26 against Village Ore Tehsil Abu road for Survey No. "3" Area "0.0200" read Area "0.34i0". and Survey No. "4" Area 0.3210 shall be deleted.

i

At Page No, 25 against Village Kiwarh iehsil Aburoad for Survey No, "979" Area "0.1600" read '"0.1980"', for Survey NV849"Aiea 0.1200" lead "0.1220", for Survey No."9fil" rend "9fiv for . Survey No, "906" uad "1197". and Survey, No,'-978"Area "0.0380" Survey No,"850" Area "0.0020" shall be deleted.

i

i At Page No. 14 against Village Bharja Tehsil Pindwara for Survey No, "690" Area "0.0500" read "0.1540", for Survey No,"592"Area "0.4800" read "0.5660", for Survey No,"602'" Area "0.0050" read "0.1780". for Survey No,"550"Arca "0.7000" read 1 "0.7950", for Survey No,"539"Area "0.2640" read "0.2690", for Survey No,"515"Area "0.2080" read | 2262 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :MAY 26,2001 JYAISHTHA5,1923

[PAKT II—Src.3 (ii)j S NO 1

Co V0^ ^ ") k**1^ ' " / ( l y" t or S i l r v ev NO "/HI" Area "(MMMO' '

- ^ . .g read"0.3820", for Survey No,"531"Area "0.0050" | Vw iA-^y. ^ * ^ 2 yi r e ad "0-0650", for Survey No/701"Area ^0.2240" I

read "0.0780", for Survey No,"633"Area lt0.2920" I rcad"0.0900", for Survey No,u597"Area u0.2640" j read "0.0320", for Survey No,"596"Area "0.1550"

i r^irl'¹!) iM(l(l" t or Snn'cv \(r> " - > T >" Atrn "") 4 ^ 6 0" ' read "0.3160", for Survey No,"211"Area "0.2540" read -0.0140', for Survey No,u638"Area "0.1920" read"O.157O",and Survey No,"551"Area "0.0950" Survey No,"538" Area "0.0050" Survey No,"510" Area "0.0010" Survey No,"593" Area "0.0760" Survey No."595" Area "0.1600" Survey No,"582" Area "0.0010" Survey No."634" Area "0.0050" Survey No,"504" Area "0.0800" shall be deleted.

3.0.557(E)

S.O. 1094(E) dated the 22nd December, 1998 & S.O. 597(E) dated die 24 ^C July, 1999

At Page No. 15 & 36 against Village Bhimana Tehsil Pindwara for Survey No, "144" Area "1.2775" read "0.6160", for Survey No."148"Area "1.0500" read "1.1055", for Survey No,"156"Area "0.1240" read "0.8060", for Survey No,^y8"Area "0.1520" read "O.lyOO", for Survey No,"301"Area "0.0025" read "0.1000", for Survey No,"340"Area "0.1040" read 'U0640", for Survey No,"343"Area "0.1680r read"0.0430'\ for Survey No,"354"Area "0.0655" read "0.0255", for Survey No,"355"Area "0.1720" read "0.1300", for Survey No,"342*Area "0.0850" read"0.2600",and Survey No,"299"Area "0.1000" Survey No,"300" Area "0.0400" Survey No,"311" .\rea "0.0010" Sun'ey No,"341" .Area 0.2080" Survey No,L356" Area "0.0350" Survey No,"l 44/1277" Area "0.0600", Survey No."346" Aica 0.0100" shall be deleted.

i

i At i ' a^ iNu. 14 dgduisi V l l l d^ phtm

fmdwi-1 tot 1 OtaJ Area "5.7405" -^ "5.7563"

1

1

1

1 1 1 1

¹ At P3Pe No l^ < Xo, "19?:" Aici " i "2.2000 read "2.1000 .for SurvcvNo. 13t>4' Area i . "0 6060" read " 0 . 4 2 4 0 "^ ^ ^ ^ ' ^ " 1 3 0 4 " A r ea ' 2.2650 i"aJ 1.9^50 ,for SuiveyNo, 1993"Area

"0.6000" read "0.7040", 2263

Table

i S.No

Amendment

Notification & Date

i

S.O. 1094(E) dated the 22nd. December, 1998

At Page No. 16" against Village Bhawari Tehsil Pindwara for Total Area "8.4-700" read "8.5910" 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

I

1

i

1 1 1

1 1

At Page No. 14 against Village Dhanari Tehsil Pindwara for Survey No, "2033"* Area "0.1220" read "0.1440", for Survey No,"2032" Area "0.0300" read "0.2720". for Survey No,"2039" Area "0.2160" read "0.1440", for Survey No,"2014"Area "0.0900" read "0.1630", for Survey No,"2027"Area "0.0320" read "0.0400", for Survey No,"2015" Area "0.1200" read "04560", for Survey No,"178"Area "0.0750" read"0.1200", for Survey No,"179"Area "0.0010" read "0.0100", for Survey No,"1945"Area "0.0040" read "0.1360", for Survey No,"1944"Area "0.1440" read"0.0010". for Survey No,"l952"Area "0.0500" read "0.0450", for Survey No,"171"Area "0.0500" read "0.0060",and Survey No,"2035" Area "0.0440" | Survey No,"2036" Area "0.1040" Survey No,"2038" Area "0.1160" Survey No,u2013" Area "0.0450" Survey No,"177" Area "0.0100" shall be deleted.

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 I 1

1 1 1

At Page No. 16 against Village Kodarla Tehsil Pindwara for Survey No, "609" Area "0.0100" read "0.1600", for-Survey No,"607"Area "0.0020" read "0.0420", for Survey No,"577"Area "0.0250" read "0.1000", for Survey No,"595"Area "0.1000" read "0.1050", for Survey No,"589"Area "0.0800" read "0.1000", for Survey No,"586"Area "0.0125" read "0.0375", for Survey No,"448"Area "0.0400" read"0.18l0", for Survey No,"353"Area "0.0950" read "0.1800", for Survey No, "364" Area "0.1400" read "0.1900", for Survey No,"365"Area "0.0200" read"0.0700", for Survey No,"515"Area "0.0600" read "0.0100", for Survey No,"599"Area "0.0700" read "0.0400", for Survey No,"597"Area "0.2100" read"0.1900", for Survey No,"590"Area "0.2700" read "0.2500", for Survey No,"412"Area "0.2500" read "0.1600", for Survey No,"400"Area "0.1600" rcad"0.0600", for Survey No,u366"Area "0.6600" read "0.6350", for Survey No,"587"Area "0.1850" read"0.1600"and Survey No. "610" Area "0.1400" Survey No,"516"Area "0.0250" Survey No,"594" Area "0.0050" Survey No,"411" Area "0.0010" Survey No,"370" Area "0.2400" Survey No,"368" Area "0.0010" Survey No,"367" Area "0.0300" shall be deleted.

1424 Gl/2001—7

12M

rHL;c;A7FTTE OF INDIA MAY26 2001 JYA1SHTHA5,1923

[PARI II—SEC 3 (n)]

Table

S \o Votif Ration & Dale

Amendment

i

Al Page No. 16 against Village Rampura Tehsil Pindwaia for Survey No. "84" Area "0.0280" read "0 0840". for Survey No."85"Area "0,0430" read "0.1210"". ior Survey Ko."81"Area "0.0690" read "0 0890". tor Survey Xo.'83" \rea "0 0260" read "0.0610". for Surve} Xo,"194"Area "0.0891" read "0 0991". lor Survey No. 32"Area "0.0020" read "0.0110". for Suney No,"52"Area "0.1396" rcad""().O5O6". tor Survey No,"53"Area "0.1000" read "0.0360". for Survey No."51"Area "0.0750" read "0.0300". and Sune> No."103/2"Area "'0.0100" shall be deleted

i

i

i

i

i

i

i 1

i

1

i

At Page \ro. 14 against Village Pindvvara Tehsil Pindwara for Suney No, "16" Area tl0.0050" read "0.1200". for Survey No,"22"Area "0.0080" read "0.1750". fur Survey No,"24"Area "0.0020" read "0.0700". for Surve> No,"27"Area "0.0580" read "0.1500". foi Survey No,LL152"Area L'0.0960" read "0.1960". for Survej No."898"*'Area "0.6960" read "0.7700"'. for Survey No."1038" .Area "0.0560" read "0.0920", foi Surve\ No,"28" Area "0.2320" read "'0.1420". for Survey No."15"Area "0.3360" read "0.0700", for Survey No."1040"Area "0.0500" read""0.0100". for Survey No."1039""Area "0.0600" read "0 0400" for Survey vo "1030" \rca "0.0720" lead "0.0020" foi Simev Xo."129"Ai-ea 0 620U" rcad"(t 5700". for Survey No "^269:" read "3272" fui Sui\e> No,"3270" Kjd "0.3271", fui Sune> No "32iS read ' ^625". and Suwev No."12"Area "0.0650" Suncj Xo/M3" Ai-e.i "0.6000" Suivcy \u."lO2y" Ai-ea U.0y<>0" Survev Ko."1041" Aiva "0 0010" Survey No."K)43" Area "0.0720" Survey No, "1044" Me A "0.0080" shall be deleted.

i

|

1

At Page No. 19 against Village Pindwara Tehsil Pindwara for Total Area "15.9330" read "16.1400".

[No.L-14014/7/2000GP] I S.N PRASAD, Director 2265 2266 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26,2001JYAISHTHA 5,1923

[PART U—SEC. i (n)\

[ P A R TII S E C .3 ( i i )] f- •

i m . u A ^ ^ i i ^ u i - i N L > l A : M A r 2 f i , z U U l J Y A l a H l r i A 3 , 1 9 2j 2269 2270 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:MAY26,2001XYAISHTHA5,1923

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 2271 1424 OI/200I—8 2272 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26,2001 JYAISHTHA5,1923

[PARFII—SEC.3 (ii)] 2273 I . * ~ V J A * J 1 I 1 ~ II b 1WA-, A . >i y^UUIJmA H l H A j . I y ^j

[HAjiT JJ SBC. 3 (il)]

4J.IJ

22/6 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26,2001 JYA1SHTHA5,1923

[PART Tl—Snc 3 (ii)l 2277 2 78

T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA • M AY 2 6 , 2 0 0 1 J Y A I S H T HA 5 , 1 9 23

[ P A RT I I —S EC 3 ( n )] 2279 1424 OlOaOl—9 ² m. .. _ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY26. 2001 JYAISHTHA 5, 1923 |PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2001

s. o. 1107.—whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of Liquified Petroleum Gas through Kandla/Jamnagar - Loni pipeline in Rajasthan State, pipeline may be laid by Gas Authority of India Limited;

And whereas, the Government authorised Shri Deepak C. Gupta, Additional Collector on deputation from the State Government of Rajasthan to Gas Authority of India Limited to perform the functions of the competent authority under clause (a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act, 196?. (50 of 1962) for Kandla/Jamnagar - Loni LPG Pipeline Project vide S.O. No. 241 dated the 20th January, 1998;

And whereas, the Central Government vide S.O. 597(E) dated the 24th July, 1999; S.O. 477(E) dated the 23rd June, 1999; S.O. 269(E) dated the 20th April, 1999; S O. 56(E) dated the 2nd February, 1999; S.O. 814(E) dated the 15th September, 1998; S.O. 1053(E) dated the 9th December, 1998;S.O. 60(E) dated the 2nd February, 1999; S.O. 1097(E) dated 22nd December, 1998; S.O. 256(E) dated 13th April, 1999 ; S.O. 2556(E) dated the 27th November, 1998; SO. 638(E) dated the 9th August, 1999; S.O. 1076(E) dated the 5th November, 2000; S.O. 813(E) dated the 15th November, 1998; S.O. 129(E) dated the 23rd February, 1996; S.O. 58(E) dated 2nd February, 1999 and S.O. 711(E) dated 2nd September, 1999 published notifications under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act for acquisition of right of user in the land in the manner specified in the respective schedules annexed thereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (2) and sujj-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, the Central Government being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest, so to do, hereby directs that each of the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas specified in the column (2) of the Table mentioned below may be amended in the manner specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table.

22S1

Fabb

SVo

1

¹

i

¹

¹

'

1

1

1

1

! i

i I

1

1

<

i

i

i

,

' i

1 1 1

i

i

t

i

i

i

2

i

1

I

!

1 2282 THE O A Z Em OF INDIA :MAY26,2001JYA13HTHA 5,1923

[PAKT B - S H C. 3 (ii)]

Table

! S.No ' Notification & Date ' Amendment

¹ "0.0040" Survey No,⁴>323'*Area "0.0020" shall be ¹

i

¹

¹

¹

i

i

i

¹

I

I

2313

Table

! Notification St. Date

!

.Amendment

S.No

lei** Qttdmbtt, 1^8-

i

i

i

i

i

] At Page No. 20 against Village Panchu Dala

, Tehsil Kotputli for Survey No,**6 "Area "0.3200'"

' read "0.3600", for Survey No.u12"Area "0.0720"

i read "0.0800". for Survc> Nor-TArca "0.1680" ,

{ read "0.3520". for Survw No.u35"Area -0.0160" '

, read "0.0960", for Survey No,"38"Area "0.2880" '

i read "0.3040'". for Survey No. "24" .Area "0.2000* i

J read "0.1680". for Survey Xo,"3(T Area "0.0560*"

, read '"0.0440". for Survey No."31"Area 0.1520" !

read "0.0560", for Survey No,"34"Area ^.3360"

, read "0.2320", for Survey Xo,'39'Aiea '0.3040" \

' read "0.2560". for Survev No. "40" .Area ~0 0240'" •

1 read "0.0080",

; ; S.O 60(E) dated 2nd

. February. 1999 Qjvft S-O.

i

( At Page Xo. $*> against Yillti£e Dluni Jo^ijaji '

lehsii Vu-attiagAi toi Survov No. "2M916" read

"221916", Survey No. U874'19?lw Area "0.0080" '

read -O-OIGO". and Survev Xo. "875 1950"' Area ,

"O.C^tO" shall be deleted. "

•

i ' S.O. 1097(E) dated 22nd ! December, 1998

i

i

At Page No. 38 against Village Mundiya Ramsar '

Tehsil Jaipur for Survey No,"30/480'* read ]

"30/417". for Survey No,"27/2" read "27". i

*

i

i

At Page No. 38 against Village Himmatpura Tetutl <

Jaipur for Survey No,"136173" read "126/173". ;

i

i

i

At Page No. 38 against Village Fhcathpura Tchsil '

Jaipur for Survey No,Ma6ff/388" read "265/328", !

for Survey No,"266/344" read "267/344". I

i i

S.O. 597(E) dated 24*

Jury, 1999

At Page No. 43 against Village Pindolai Tehsil <

Jaipur for Survey No. *-170'87S" Area "0.0079" ;

read '0.3089", Survey No. "170-879" Area

"0.3089" read "0.0160".

t

At Page No. 43 against Village Machwa Tehsil '

Jaipur for Total Area "3.4838" read "5.2342". ,

At Page No.39 against Village Lalchandpura Tehsil j.

Jaipur for Total Area "2.6288" read "2.7319".

S.O. 1097(E) dated 22"1

December. 1998

At Page No.2 against Village Bavadi Tehail Jaipur i

for Total Area "4.5857" read "4.5668". '

S.O. 256(E) dated 13*

April 1999

I 2284 THE GAZETTE OF INIMA. MAY 20,2001JYA1SHTHA 5, >923

[PART 11—Sac 3 (ii)J

Table

Notification & Date

]

.Amendment

| ; s.No

"*>• £5* OJ d*i*4

i

i

i •

i

At Page No. 2 against Village Bawadi Tehsil '

Jaipur for Survey No, "160" read "78", for Survey i

No,"166" read "167", for Survey No,"l61" Area !

"0.8949" read '0.8800", and Survey No,"227"Area ,

"0.0040" shall be deleted.

i i

'

S.O. 1097(E) doted 22nd

December, 1998

1

At Page No. 39 against Village Siwar Tehsil Jaipur i

for Survey No, "274 1084" Area "0.1900" read \

"0,7444", for Survey No,"252" read "250/1". for i

Survey No, "274" read "274/1091", for Survey j

No,"718" read "717", and Survey No,"274"Area I

j

"0.5544" shan be deleted.

i

i i

i

At Page No. 38 against Village Mundryan >

Purohitan Tehsil Jaipur for Survey No, "25** Area |

"0.1900" read "0.0800", for Survey No,"26"Ar"i I

"0.0792" read "0.1892", for Survey No,**28"Area |

"0.1900" read "0.0900". for Survey No,"21/235" i

' '

read "11'235",

i

t

At Page No. 38 against Village Mudiya Purohitan •

Tehsil Jaipur for Total Area "2.1379" read \

"2.0379".

S.O. 2556 dated 27*

November, 1998

At Page No. 4702 against Village Mahla Tehsil

Dudu for Survey No, U1673'1968" read!

I

'1673/1966/3".

i *

i

•

¹

At Page No. 4698 & 4699 against Village Khatwar !

Tehsil Dudu for Survey No, -754" Area "0.2530" |

read "0.2930", for Survey No,"75rArea "0.1346" i

road "0.1504", for Survey No, "766" Area "0.0950" !

read "0.1304", for Survey No,*769"Area "0.3880" I

read "0.4910". for Survey No,'707rArea "0.0316" |

read "0.0792", for Survey No^OS^Area "0.1267" '

read "0.22ir, for Survey No,14699"Area "0.0632"

read"0.1663", for Survey No,*402"Area -0.0711w

read "0.1425", for Survey No,u449"Area "0.023r

read "0.0554", for Survey No,'453/1263" Are* i

"0.1029" readr>0.1504", for Survey' No,"457"Area !

"0.1029" read "0.1742", for Survey No,"197"Area |

"0.1267" read "0.1446", for Survey No,"l 19/1220" '

read" 119/1210", for Survey No,u205/1353" read

"171/1353". for Survey No,u205'1354" read

"171/1354", for Survey No,"764"Area "0.0079"!

read"0.1267", for Survey No, "765" Area "0.1564" |

2285

Table

S.No

.Amendment

¹ Notification &. Date

i

i

t

i

i

i

.

•

•

•

i

7296 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26,2001JYA1SHTHA 3,1923 [pA*TB-SBC.3(ini

Table

| Notification & Date

! Amendment

¹ S.No

i

i

Mttftmbjn, 1998*

BO-5**004004 24.*

i

i i

i

•

•

i

.

2287

lable

S.No

Motif]cation & Date

\men'!m:nt

"0.11P8" f~>r S'i'-x ' VT.i "*>

U.0l>50". iui Sutvev I\u. ."si , u ca u . u . n o' i c ^J

"0.1267" fnr Sun-TV V n . " i *" \ rn "" !~""<" , - ^i

"0.1742". Ibi j a n v) .!\o. !_•' . i i vj u.u*. u t

rcad'"0.1663" tor Surv-y ^ ^ "^ \re-> "<>|8.'l lead "0.1125". fwj 5ur\e> v^>. "2""' i ka ': 1 ) • '" \ )

i

i

read " 0 . 0 4 7 5 '. tor Sun"e\ \ o. '*J -\"va U 11 ^o i

react "0.039G". HT Sunc> ^*o."U" \ , ." "n ^ ^v i

1

t

. iead " 0 . 0 J 9 o '. iui Sutvev ^ u. 54',\jwi "u.Z(O-J ¹ read "0.1900". for S u n v} \ 'o "?rr \r;a "<) -\-*T

lead "0.2851"". dad i>ui\±\ \o. -iuVvi^u U . 0 4 JO .

i

i

i

i

' S u r v ey N o . - ^ S" Sren "004-1 "> ^ u ^ ^v No,"28".^rca "0.0414" : o i u" :.*"•, J . V . U ^J "0.0336" shall be deleted

i

i

• At Page No.6 agaimi Village Manpma leh^-il i

Dudu for Total \rca "1 84^3" a-j-t "1 8053".

"

!

i

i

i

i

1

t

I

(

1

i

i

At Page \o ⁷ ci£jain8" ieau "0.1663". for Survey \o "26"Area "0.3228" read "0.3484", for Sur\c\ Xo."69"Aica C.0020" rwjJ "0.1188". for Survey No."75" Area "0.2621" read 1 "'0.3564". for Suncj Xo.w330",Vtva 111"80" read -"0.2772". foi SurvJv No."24 Area "0.0792' lead "0.0079". for Survey No."27'\\rea -() 1683" read"0.0475". for Survcv Xo."6S"Area "O-lGOO" read "0.1015". for Sunrv Ko."76" Vrea "0.1586" read "0.0237", and Suney Xo,"21"Aiea "0.0480" Survey No. "37'351" Area "0.0480" Survey Xo,"2S'" Area "0.0115" Sune\ No,"333" Area "0.0100" Survey No."334" Area "0.0140" Survev 1 Xo,-335" Area "0.0150". Suney .NC'IO" Area "0.4393" Survey No." 11 "Area "0.1505" Survey No."6" Area "0.0030" Survey No.*5" Area "0.3327" Survey No.iS4" .Area "0.2376" Survey No.ul'3" Area "0.1584" Survey No."3'2" Area "0.2218", Survey Xo."3-1 2" Area "0.0990'" Survey No,"3>3"Area "0.1080" Survey No."3/1/1" Area "0.3643" Survey Xo,"Way" Area "'0.0238'* shall be deleted.

At Page No. 7 and 8 against v mage Baget Telisil Dudu for Survev No, "26i" Area "0.1188" read "0.2376", for Survey No,"263"Area "0.0080" read "0.1188". for Survey No."270"Area "0.0475" read 2288 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26,2001 JYAISHTHA5,1923

[PART 11—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Table

S.No Notification & Date

Vniendment

<

i

i i

i i

i i a.. ..u

• -

• - 58 • • ' 2**-

v , , . . , . , ,. s_ , . . < j ,, \ " - ,, -M <)()"((' r o ' xi " < ' l " ( }" t or

^ U i ' at . \ u. ^ "j . u w v. •J.Ul)2u i w ^i J . v ' 4 uu . l ul

s " i " ^ e\ N '> • - ' '/ s r * *? " *t J \ f >

' < ' , ( M . * O'

t or

Suwv v ,, ;.'.""'L!V.I U.OUV" Kljj-.'j.ci6;v, "...

.-vlca U.un^vi .Miivs,v v.u. t-t > Ui-a ii.lUt^U I <

' :,\., ::.i9./.'¹ .\.^. " a o : .^ ^ . ., :.u, r5J 005", Area (Mh>Ko virvev '\o,->"i^%7 Area

Mirvev No.".^'()%o ArsJiT- U.U40U shall be dcLiJc!

• * * ( ". 5 8 ( F) d a t ed 2l ld

I'cbiuan. 1999

l

i

, [No.L-14014/7/2000GP(Part-I)]

I. S. N. PRASAD, Director

- _

_.

_ L L ' h . "' l t _^

' 'U l Jl " " ^' * " ' 'J " X"' ^V"J ' J ' ' ' ' "" • ' • • " - ' '' ^

I' ^ 1 11

O J.

J (n ;j

New Delhi, the 16th Mav, 2001

s.o. 1108—whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of liquified petroleum gas through Kandla/Jamnagar - Loni pipeline in Rajasthan State, pipeline may be laid by Gas Authority of India Limited;

And whereas, the Government authorised Shri Deepak C. Gupta, Additional Collector on deputation from the State Government of Rajasthan to Gas Authority of India Limited to perform the functions of the competent authority under clause (a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 for Kandla/Jamnagar - Loni LPG Pipeline Project vide S.O. No. 241 dated the 20th January, 1998;

And whereas, the Central Government vide S.O. 2685(E) dated the 10th December, 1998; S.O. 1054 dated the 9th December, 1998 and S.O. 1055(E) dated the 9th December, 1998 published notifications under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act for acquisition of right of user in the land in the manner specified in the respective schedules annexed thereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (2) and sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipeline (Acquisition of Right of user in Land Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest, so to do, hereby directs that each of the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas specified in the column (2) of the Table mentioned below may be amended in the manner specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table.

2293

IabU ' .Amendment

S".NTo Verification & Date

¹ ; S.O. 2W dated the 10*

December. 19yjS

1

¹

I

3 ¹

i

--"⁴

IHBGAZETTEOFINDIA:MAY26,2(K)I JYAISHTHA5, 1923

[PART II -Sa.3(ii)l i-xjS

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2001

s.o. iiov.— whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 3060 dated the 11th October 1999, 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), (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 pipeline for transport of natural gas through Chhainsa Terminal to N.T.P.C Faridabad Gas Pipeline Project in the State of Haryana by the Gas Authority of India Limited;

And, whereas, copies of the said Gazette notifications were made available to the public on 15th day of November, 1999;

And, whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted report to the Central Government; And, whereas, the Central Government has, after considering the said report, is satisfied that the said land required for laying of the pipelines for the transportation 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 pipelines;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government 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 Gas Authority of India Limited, free from all encumbrances.

Schedule

District

Tehsil

Village

2

3

Acquired area

Kanal/Marla

5

Plot No.

Khasra/Marla

4

Ballabhagarh

1 Faridabad

Maujpur

1-04 0-05 1-00 0-13 3-02

12/8/2 13/1 13/2 13/25 Total:-

No. L-14014/02/98 GP] I.S N.PRASAD, Director 142-1 CiI/2001 —11 2296 THEGAZETreOFINDIA:MAY26,2001JYAlSHTHA5,1<"23

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

m 22')H THF.GAZETTEOFFNDIA:MAY26,200I JYAISHTHA5, 1923

[PAKI II—Sn.3(ii)l 1J..,

New Delhuhe 18th May, 2001

s. o. i no.-- in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction uf Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column (2) of the Table below, being the officers equivalent to the rank of a Gazetted Officer of the Government, to be estate officers for the purpose of the said act, who shall exercise the power conferred, and perform the duties imposed, on the estate officers by or under the said Act, within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction, in respect of the public premises specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table:-

TABLE

Categories of public premises and local limits of jurisdiction Designation of the Officer of the Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL)

(3)

(2)

SI. No. (D 1. Deputy Manager( Human Resource), Gas Authority of India Limited, Agartala (Tripura)

2. Deputy Manager(Human Resource), Gas Authority of India Limited, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

3. Senior Deputy Manager(Human Resource), Gas Authority of India Limited, Baroda (Gujarat)

4. Senior Deputy Manager(Human Resource), Gas Authority of India Limited, Gandhar (Gujarat)

Leased and company owned premises for residential, office purpose, besides townships, in various work centers under the administrative control of the Gas Authority of India Limited at Agartala in Tripura Leased and company owned premises for residential, office purpose, besides townships, in various work centers under the administrative control of the Gas Authority of India Limited at Ahmedabad, Kadi, Kalol and Mehsana in Gujarat. Leased and company owned premises for residential, office purpose, besides townships, in various work centers under the administrative control of the Gas Authority of India Limited at Baroda and Vaghodia in Gujarat. Leased and company owned premises for residential, office purpose, besides townships, in various work centers under the administrative control of the Gas Authority of India Limited at Gandhar and Bharuch in Gujarat.

jjlW

lribOA/-bl ILOHNUIA:MAY26,2001JYA!SHTHAS, 1923

(2)

(1) 5. Senior Deputy Manager(Human Resource), Gas Authority of India Limited, Hazira (Gujarat)

6. Executive(Human Resource), Gas Authority of India Limited, Jhabua (Madhya Pradesh)

7. Manager(Human Resource), Gas Authority of India Limited, Khera (Madhya Pradesh)

8. Manager(Human Resource), Gas Authority of India Limited, Lakwa (Assam)

9. Manager(Human Resource), Gas Authority of India Limited, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

10. Executive(Human Resource), Gas Authority of India Limited, Jamnagar (Gujarat)

11. Deputy Manager(Human Resource), Gas Authority of India Limited, Mumbai (Maharashtra)

[PARI II—Sic.3(ii)] (3)

Leased and company owned premises for residential, office purpose, besides townships, in various work centers under the administrative control of the Gas Authority of India Limited at Hazira and Surat in Gujarat,

Leased and company owned premises for residential, office purpose, besides townships, in various work centers under the administrative control of the Gas Authority of India Limited at Jhabua in Madhya Pradesh.

Leased and company owned premises for residential, office purpose, besides townships, in various work centers under the administrative control of the Gas Authority of India Limited at Khera and Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh.

Leased and company owned premises for residential office purpose, besides townships, in various work centers under the administrative control of the Gas Authority .of India Limited at Lakwa and Sibasagar in Assam.

Leased and company owned premises for residential office purpose, besides townships, in various work centers under the administrative control of the Gas Authority of India Limited at Jaipur, Ajmer, Abu Road and other Liquefied Petroleum Gas Pipeline installations in Rajasthan.

Leased and company owned premises for residential office purpose, besides townships, in various work centers under the administrative control of the Gas Authority of India Limited at Jamnagar, Samakhiali, Palanpur and other Liquefied Petroleum Gas Pipeline installations in Gujarat.

Leased and company owned premises for residential office purpose, besides townships, in various work centers under the administrative control of the Gas Authority of India Limited at Mumbai, Alibaug and Usar in Maharashtra.

2301

(3)

(2)

(1) 12. Senior Deputy Manager(Human Resource), Gas Authority of India Limited, Nagapattinam (Tamilnadu)

Leased and company owned premises for residential, office purpose, besides townships, in various work centers under the administrative control of the Gas Authority of India Limited at Nagapattinam in Tamilnadu.

13. Deputy Manager(Human Resource), Gas Authority of India Limited, New Delhi (NCT, Delhi)

Leased and company owned premises for residential, office purpose, besides townships, in various work centers under the administrative control of the Gas Authority of India Limited at New Delhi in NCT, Delhi.

14. Manager(Human Resource), Gas Authority of India Limited, NOIDA (Uttar Pradesh)

Leased and company owned premises for residential, office purpose, besides townships, in various work centers under the administrative control of the Gas Authority of India Limited at NOIDA and other Gas, Liquefied Petroleum Gas Pipeline Installations in Uttar Pradesh.

15. Senior Deputy Manager(Human Resource), Gas Authority of India Limited, Rajahmundry (Andhra Pradesh)

Leased and company owned premises for residential, office purpose, besides townships, in various work centers under the administrative control of the Gas Authority of India Limited at Rajahmundry and other Gas Pipeline Installations in Andhra Pradesh.

16. Deputy Manager(Law), Gas Authority of India Limited, UPPC, Pata (Uttar Pradesh)

Leased and company owned premises for residential, office purpose, besides townships, in various work centers under the administrative control of the Gas Authority of India Limited at Pata, Auraiya and Lucknow in Uttar Pradesh.

17. Deputy Managcr(Law), Gas Authority of India Limited, Vijaipur (Madhya Pradesh)

Leased and company owned premises for residential, office purpose, besides townships, in various work centers under the administrative control of the Gas Authority of India Limited at Vijaipur in Uttar Pradesh.

No 1.-14011/1/01 GPJ

I S.N PRASAD, Director

2302 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 26,2001 JYAISHTHA 5,1923

[PAR I II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 2303

New Delhi, the 24th May, 2001

s.o. mi.— Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry

of Petroleum and Natural Gas Number S.O., 2726, dated 12th December, 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), (hereinafter referred

to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right

of user in lands specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the

purpose of laying a branch pipeline to Lucknow for the transportation of petroleum

products from Allahabad-Kanpur Section of existing Barauni-Kanpur Product Pipeline

in the State of Uttar Pradesh by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, copies of the said notification were made available to the public on

19-12.2000;

And whereas, the Competent Authority in pursuance of sub-section (1) of section

6 of the said Act has submitted his report to the Central Government;

And further, whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report

decided to acquire the right of user in 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 said lands specified in the Schedule appended to this notification are hereby

acquired for laying the pipeline;

1424 GI/2001 —12 2304 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:MAY26,2001JYAISHTHA5,1923

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of the said section, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said lands 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

State - Uttar Pradesh

Tehsil - Kanpur

District- Kanpur

Area

Name of Village

Khasra No.

Are Centiare

Hectare

2

4

1

5

3

00

0

96 Chhitmara

526

District - Unnao

Tehsil - Uqnao

17

59 Atta

889

0

Orhar

41 11

02 16

0 0

220 2165

District - Unnao

Tehsil - Hasaneani

04

587

0

Malwan

11

10

941

0

51 Ajgain

Tehsil- Lucknow

District - Lucknow

09

865

0

43 Lonha

[No. R-31015/48/2000 OR-I] S. CHANDRASEKHAR, Under Secy.

2305 MINISTRY OF LABOUR

New Delhi, the 30th Apjil, 201)1

S.O. 1112.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the awaid of the Central Government In- dustrial TribunallLaboui- Court, Kolkatta as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employer¹) in relation to the management of Allahabad Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-4-2001.

iNo. 12012|9|2000-IR(B-H)1 C. GANGADH/VRAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No, 28 of 20OO

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Allahabad

Bank

AND

Their workmon.

PRESENT :

Mr. Justice Bhnrat Frasad Sharma, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCE ;

On behalf of Management.—None.

On behalf of Workmen.—Mr. Ashok Singh, Piesiding

of the Union.

STATE : West Bengal. INDUSTRY: Banking.

AWARD

By Order No. L-120l2|9|20OO[IR(B-U) dated 5-6-200O the Central Government in exercise of its powers under section 10(1) (d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 rcfened the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudica- tion :—

"Whether the action of the management of Allahabad Bank in imposing the punishment of fine of Rs. 10,000 on Shri Rajendra Kumar Khanna, Dy Head Cashier, Calcutta Main Branch is leRai and justified? Tf not, what relief is he entitled?"'

23M SmtJAZETTE Ot INDIA ; MAY 26, 2Q01/ JYAISTHA 5, 1*23 {WtT if.—SEC. 3(ajj

to contradict the claim uf the workman. As such the toi- lions made on behalf ol the workman stand unrcbutted and ihcie ii no leason to JisbeJieve the same.

7. The citcumstani.es disclosed in the statement of claim of the workman supported by the evidence is that for the puip'Jse or preparing the packets for dcpotils in the Cur- icncy Cheit or the Reserve Bank, according to the prevail- ing piacticc of the Bank, he had taken We help of four persons, including one Annea Guard, Shri Modak and the loss was detected in the lot of Shri Modak only. It also becomes clear from Ext. W-2 that during the- preliminary investigation Shri Modak had also admitted this fact before the Senior Manager Operation. Therefore, there does not appear to be any rason why tho action ot recovery of the amount was not taken against Shri Modak and why it was taken against the iaid workman Shii Khanna. It is also obvi- JUS that all the tour persons who were asked to help Shri Klmnna in pasting stickers in the cash were the employees of the Bank and they were engaged according to the preva- lent practice. So, It could not be treated as a case of negli- gence on his pan in engaging them and the Enquiry Officer also accepted this fact in his icport, Ext. W-5. But, strongly enough, while dealing with the matter of loss of the money •or cash, the Enquiry Officer held that Shri Khanna was negligent because he did not exercise propw supervision over the matter. The finding of the Enquiry Officer, therefore, does not appear to he reasonable- and convincing. So far aj Shri Khanna is concerned, his bonaflde is apparent from the fact that immediately after the los" was detected, he brought the matter to the notice of the higher authority and a preliminary investigation was also made by an officer of the Bank who also admitted that Shrt Modak had owned the responsibility of the loss. It is also apparent that while the charge was under clause 19.5(j) of the First Bipartite Settlement, the worktnan was held guilty under clause 21.4 (ft) of tho Sixth Bipartite Settlement, which appears to be illegal. Tho punishment awarded against the workman, therefore, is obviously an instance Of vindictive attitude of the management and the workman concerned, Shri Khamm has been wrongly punished bv the competent authority, Tt wns also affninst the report of the Enquiry Officer, The punshmtnt awarded on Shri Khanna, therefore, is fit to be set aside.

8, Accordingly, tho punishment of Imposition of fine of Rs. 10,000 against ihe concerned workman, Shri Rajendra Kumar Khanna by the maniRemenf is held to be illepnl and unjustified and the same M set nside. If he has already de- posited the aforesaid amount, it should be refunded to him by the management.

4. in course of hearing Shii Rajcndra Kumar Khanna the concerned workman examined himself as WW-1 and he has sLated that w\ the alleged date of incident, i.e. on 13-6-ib"y5 while hc was acting as Head Cashici, he nad excels amount of cash in hid branch to be stilt to the Reserve Bank for deposits m Currency Chest, for tins purpose, he asked some of the siatt of the bank to help him in pasting btickeis in the bundle and packets. li> bundles ot notes of Ki. 100 denomi- nation were kept in packet and the packets were to be parted with suoscrs. Ultimately, when tlfc packets weio returned to him, he found a shortage of a bundle in one ot the packets whiUi amounted to shoiiage of Rs. 10,000. It w<t"ted by -this witness that at late hours on that date one L.O. Voucher was issued in his name with Khagcndra Modak In make good the loss of the wih. The witness then showed lost amount in Sus- pense Account and made the payment. Thereafter the caih wag closed. Subsequently, a letter was issued to all the five persona in Ihe department and subsequently a charge- sheet was drawn-up against Shri Krmnn.i. A copy of the chargesheet is E-tf. W-3. Shri Khanna replied to the charge- sheet, the copy of which h Ext. W-4. Subsequently, an en- quiry was held and Shri Khanna appeared before the Enquiry Officer. One witness was examined on behalf of the manage- ment. No witness \vfis examined by tbc ch&rgesheeted work- man became whatever hr had to say he had said in his reply. He further stated thnl after Hhe enquiry a letter WHS issued to him informing him that tha fine was imposed on him. A copy of the enquiry report I* Ext W-5 find the said letter is Ext. W-6. Subsequently, appeal was filed by him, but it was dismissed. Tho copy of the order of the Appellate Authority is Ext. W-7. After all these the work- man approached the union which took up his matter and a letter was sent to ihr R . L C . f O, the copv of the letter is Ext. W-8. According to the witness lie rms heen punished without any fault and his punishment fi fit to be vet aside.

B. P. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

Rated, Kolkata,

The IRth April, 2001.

New Delhi, the 30th April, 2001 5.The documents filed on behalf of the concerned work- man eo to justify his statement and claJm. It appears from Ext, W-l that after the incident, Shri Khanna had reported the matter to the Assisant Genera] Manager and the matter was cnquiied into by the Senior Manager Operation, who had submitted a Veport Fxt. W-2, in uhich it was stated that Shri Modak had accepted the responsibility for the loss of the cash. So far a.; the report of the Enquiry Officer, Ext. W-J is concerned, it is apparent that by discussing the evi- dence and circumstances, the Enquiry Officer held that sa far as engaging of the four persons by the concerned work- man was concerned, it was not an act for which he could be held icsponsible because it wns the general practice being followed that persons other than connected with the Cash Dept. were allowed to assist the Cashier in such cases of emergency. But, while dealing with the first charge regnrd- inR the ln"a np Rs, 10,000 it |ins been rn-Id bv the Fnqnfrv Officer that the concerned workman, ShW Khanna did not exercise proper supervision wr the work and so he was negligent in his work. Accordingly, he suggested that 1he first charge under clauv 19 *ifi) was proved Pgainst him and accordingly he recommended for arfinri to the Disci- pjinarv Authority. Thr Dl^Jplinnry Authority, therefore, imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000 Bpiinst the workman concerned, which has been challenfted hv the workman In the present case.

6. St> fpr .-i<; the assertions made on behalf of the work- man concerned *;ncr the minajfrppnt rUd ndt fi'e anv wri'ten statement denying the rame, nor

S.O. 1113.—Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal | Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation ta the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-4-2001.

[No. L-12012|94|95-IR(B-II)J, C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

2307

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR activities. The action of the second party is malar- fide, unfair and intented to victimise him with ulterior notice and also an. unfair labour practice resulting in the victimisation of the 1st party. The findings of the enquiry officer is perverse. The charge is baseless and cooked up. The shortage of Rs. 200O|- wais on account of procedural lapse and the first party reimbursed the amount. The punish- ment of reduction in basic pay is not correct. First party for these reasons has prayed to pass an award.

COURT, BANGALORE

Dated : 20th April, 2001

PRESENT :

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B.Com., LL.B., Presiding Officer.

C.R. No. 75|97

I PARTY :

The General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association, Anooradha Bldg., Near A.R. Circle, S. C. Road, Bangalore-9.

II PARTY :

The Chief Managing Director, Syndicate Bank Head Officev Manipal.

4. The second party filed countei statement con- tenting that the enquiry is proper afcd valid. The first party was given full opprtum'ty and the finding is not perverse. On 21-1-1992 the Workman left the branch much before the closer of the branch without prior permission from the superiors and without properly tallying and accounting for the cash he received on that day. It was noticed that there was shortage of Rs. 2000|- in the cash that was handed over by the fim pary to the main cashier. He gave explanation but the explanation is not correct. The workman ultimately rejmbursed the shortage on 29-1-92. It was a miscouduct on the part of the first party and therefore, charge sheet was issued. Enquiry was held by giving full opportunity. The punishment is prop-r and proportionate. All the allegations made in the Claim Statement are not correct. There is no victimisation as alleged by the first party. In fact the second party was liberal and considerate by imposing a lesser punishment, The second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by Clause fd) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-12012|94|95-IR(B-II) dated 25-8-95 for adjudication on the following scheme :

SCHEDUULE

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank, Manipal in imposing the penalty of reduction of basic pay to the next lower stage for a period of two years on Sri B. Narayana Nayak, Clerk vide their order dated 9-6-93 legal and justi- fied ? If not, what relief is the said work- man entitled ?"

2. The first party was working as a Clerk at Belepet Branch. On account of misconduct enquiry was held and on the basis of enquiry report penalty was imposed reducing basic pay In the next lower stage for ai period of two yeaers. Therefore industrial dispute is raised.

?>. Parties appeared and filed claim statement find counter respectively. The first party in the claim statement has contented that the charger,heet is not correct. The first partv did not commit the misconduct as alleged in the chanre sheef He is the zonal spcretarv of the first party association and he was victimised for his legitimate trade union 5. It is seen from the records that the first party considered the fairness of the domestic enquiry en his submission case was posted for arguments on merits. After giving adjournment, case was ad- journed but the first party not advanced the argu- ments.

6. 1 have heaid arguments of the second party persued the entire record. Considering the evidence recorded during enquiry and the documents which are marked, I am of the opinion that the managment exam'ned the witnesses and proved the misconduct as per the charge sheet. 4 witnesses were examined and 9 documents vcre marked. It is also clear from the records that the first parly made gooJ of shortage amount and all this would go to show that misconduct is proved and the first party was held guilty. There is no reason to dis- believe all this. The fin,t party has not convinced as to hoiv there is victimisation and the domestic enquiry is perverse I have already said that the fairness of domestic enquiry is completed by the first par'v. In a situation like this first party must show tb-rt the finding is perverse and the punish- ment is not proportionate According to the learned counsel for the second party after lirar- ins the first party, pay wa|s reuced and the punishment is proportionate. Taking all this Wo consider.nlion and in- view of the fact that the first party has failed to establish that tin* finding oMbe enquiry officer h perverse and thnv i- v'ctimKfUjon, 2308 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2001/ JYAISTHA 5, 1923 [flART H - S E C. ^(ii)] I ani of the opinion that there is n-o merit in this reference and accordingly I proceed to pass the following order :

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to the PA, transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on. 20th April, 2001).

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 30th Apnl, 2001

SO 1114—In puisuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act! 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-4-2001.

[No. L-12012/113/97-JR(B-II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE Dated: 25th April, 2001

PRESENT:

Hon'ble Shii V. N. Kulkarni, B. Com., LLB.

Presiding Officer.

C.R. No. 14/98

I PAKTY

The General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Employees Union, Central Office, Kalyan Bhawan, 1st Floor, 69, Armenian Street Madras-600001. (Advocate—Sampath Anand Shetty)

II PARTY The Genera] Manager (P) Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal-576119. (Advocate—B. C. Prabhakar.)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, ' 47 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-12012/ll3/97-IR(B-TI) dated 23-2 1Q9S for "djudirntinn on the- following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bant in imposing the penalty of dismissal on Shri M. M, Pai is legal and justified 7 If not. to what relief the said workman h entitled ?"

2. Notices were issued to parties. Parties appenred and filed claim statement and counter respectively.

3. First party was working in the second party Bank as Clerk. Charge Sheet was issued to him alleging that on 22-5-80 fradulently obtained a withdrawal slip and made entry in the withdrawal slip and signed it as the signature which was purported to be the signature of Shri K. P. Shama Shetty and misappropriated a sum of Rs. 30,000. There was enquiry and after the enquiry first party was dismissed from service and therefore the present dispute is raised.

4. First party appeared and filed Claim Statement. His case is that the Charge Sheet is not correct. The enquiry is not correct. The withdrawal slip was issued by SB Depart- ment. Mr. M. M. Pai was not working in tho SB Department. S.B. Account holder, Shri K. P. Shama Shetty has signed the account opening form and specimen signature card in English. The Sub Manager passed the withdrawal slip for Rs. 30,000 and he should have verified the signature on the withdrawal slip with the specimen signature. There is no misconduct. Termination is not correct. The finding is perverse. Charges were foisted on the first party. He is acquitted by the Hon'ble Principal Session Judge Court at Mysore. The first party for these reasons has prayed to pass an award in his favour.

5. The Second Party appeared and filed counter. The case of the second party is that Shri M. M. Pai joined the services of second party as a Clerk on 15-11-1975 and the first party was on the rolls of Chickmangalore Branch of the Second party since 19-8-1977.

6. The first party while working at Chickinangalorei obtained a withdrawal slip bearing No. 293054 on S.B,' Account No. 21341 of Shri K. P. Shama Shetty, a customer on 22-5-1980 by putting the forged signature of the customer in the issue register. He also applied the forged signature of the customer on the Master Sheet of the SB Account of Shri K. P. Shama Shelty. Subsequently, after 2 days i.e. on 24-5-1980, he fraudulently withdrew a sum of Rs. 30,000 from the said account of Shri K. P. Shama Shetty, by forging signature on withdrawal slip. When the fraudulent act of the first party w,is brought to the notice of th flrsl party, he admitted the acts and reimbursed the amount to the bank.

7. The said acts of the first party was not correct and it amounts to misconduct, His explanation was not proper. Charge sheet was issued and enquiry was held against the first party. The enquiry was In accordance with the rules and regulations'. Full opportunity was "iven to the first party and the enquiry is valid and proper. First party fully parti- cipated in the enquiry and defend himself during the enquiry. The findings of the enquiry officer are based on oral and documentary evidence. The finding is correct, The management considering the seriousness, has passed order of dismissal and the same is correct. It is also said that the CBI had challenged the orders of Session Judge by filing criminal appeal No. 8/1993 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The order of Trial Court was set aside and the first party was convicted of the offence.

8. It is further contented that the first party admitted the incidence. The second party for these reasons and for various other reasons stated in counter has prayed to reject the reference.

9. It is seen from the records that on behalf of the management, MW1 was examined. He was appointed as enquiry officer and conducted enquiiv against (he fi>t party. His evidence is that he considered the request of the General Secretary and adjourned the dispute and issued frch noticr of enquiry. On 13-7-93 enquiry was feed. Mr Umesh Nayak represented the first party. He has also stated that all the documents and list of witnesses wera given to the first party. He explained the nrr>cedure ndnnt in thi* enquiry. 6 witnesses were examined and all were cross examined by the first party.

0309

PRESENT":

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni B. Com. LL.B.. First party gave his evidence. He has also stated that he has given full opportunity for the workman for participating and defending his case,

Presiding Officei

C.R. No. 35/97

I PARTY The General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association, Anooradha Building, Ananda Rao Circle, S. C. Road, Bangalore-9,

H PARTY

10. The first party has not given any evidence even after giving adjournment. Orders were passed on domestic enquiry holding that the same is fair and valiU. Thereafter case was posted for arguments. The first pany remained absent. I have heard the learned counsel for the second party. I have perused all the documents and the enquiry proceedings very carefully. There is nothing on record to say that the finding of the enquiry is perverse, 1 have carefutyy perused the documents and I am of the opinion that the charges are pioved and, the finding of the enquiry officer is correct. The finding is based on the evidence and the documents. The first party has not even examined himself to r hurt all this;.

The Dy. General Manager, (Zonal Office) Syndicate Bank, Puiija Building, Lalbaugh, Mangalorc.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers con- ferred by Clause (d) of -Sub-Section (l) and sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial pisputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-12012/355/94-IR(B-lI) dated 8th May, 1995 for adjudication On the following schedule:

11. Now the question which arises foi my consideration is whether the punishment in the given circumstances is proportionate. Admittedly the case against the fiist party is that he is committed fraud. The nature of misconduct is very serious. The first party has not established that the punishment awarded is disproportionate and theie is unfair labour practice by the management. On the other hand the management has proved the charges and it is also clear that the charge is serious in nature and from the records it is also clear that the first party is convicted by the High Court of Kamataka for the misconduct in question. Taking all this into consideration I am of the opinion that there is no perversity in the finding given by the enquiry officer and the punishment is proper and this reference has no merit. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following ordei :

SCHEDULE ORDER

The Reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by her corrected and signed

by me on 25th April, 2001).

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank Mang"lore in withdrawing the special allowance in respect of Shri Prakash DT Malagi Clerk from JI992 is legal and justified 7 If not, what relief is the said workman entitled to?" V. H. KULKARNT, Presiding Officer

2. The first party was working in the second party as Telex Operator at Hubli Durgad Bail Branch since 1975. he was paid a special allowance of Rs. 25 per month for having performed special allowance duty of telex operator since his joining Durgad Bail Hubli Branch, and telex facility was withdrawn from Hubli Durgad Bail Branch on 6-12-77 by the management. The first party was given duties of telephone operator and special allowance was -not paid. Therefore indusrtial dispute was laiiedw

3. First party appeared and filed claim statement content- ing that he was receiving enhanced allowance till the expiry of III Bipartite Settlement and the withdrawal order is illegal and not correct. He was transferred from Hubli to Belgaum against the transfer .norms and also against the provisions of Bipartite Settlement. Workmen will be entitled to special allowance only so long as he is incharge pf such work or performance of such duties which attract such allowance Since last 14 years first party is working as telephone operator and special allowance payable to him cannot be withdrawn unilaterally. First party for these xeasons has prayed to pass an award in hii* fayour.

New Delhi, the 30th April, 2001

S.Q- 1115.—Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Diipute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Couit, Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and the.r workman, which was received by the Central Governmert on 30-4-2001.

[No. L-12012/355/94-IR(B-IR]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy

ANNEXURE

4. Second party appeared and filed counter statement con- tenting that the dispute is not legally and properly espoused by first party association and substantial number of workmen of second party have not supported the cause of the first party workman. Therefore, the reference is liable to bo rejected on this ground. I^ubli main branch had a t e'ex machine and the first party was entrusted with the said additional duty. In the year 1977 due to administrative reasons the second party took decision to surrender the telex connection and therefore special allowance paid to the first party was withdrawn and action of the management is correct. The first party submitted a letter stating that he has been functioning as PBX operator in addition to the reeular dutiej as tynist and requested to sanction a special aJlowance of Rs. 10 per month and he was Riven special allowance It was specifically stated that the said allowance will be given till he ceases to perform the duties entrusted. It is the further case of the management that the first party was not entrusted with the additional work on operating the PBX frqrrj January 1992 Therefore, the question of special allowance to tht Urst party does pot arise a,t all. Tho -special allcrtvnace w.e f. BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR1 COURT, BANGALORE Dated: 23rd April, 2001 2310 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2 0 0 1/ JYAISTHA 5, 1923 [FIART II—SEC. 3(li)] January, 1992 is withdrawn. Ai per clause 5.9 of the Bipartite Settlement, the workmen will be entitled to special allowance only so long he it incharge of such work or the performance of such duties which attracts such allowance. The Second party for these reasons has prayed TO reject the refeiencc The management examined MW1 and documents were marked in the evidence for management. Against this workman got examined. I have perused documents marked for management and workman. We are having the evidence of MW1 Dy. Chief Officer. He was entrusted to personal intentions of workman working in Hubli and Belgaum Branches. Fjrst party was appointed as a temporary clerk at Hubh main branch and subsequently he was confirmed. He has also sttacd that special allowance carrying duties were entrusted to him. Special allowance is in addition to the regular salray of the employee and the same is paid till the concerned employee carry out special duties entrusted to him with written orders-. Ho has given detailed evidence regarding surrender of telex connections. He has also that stated special allowance was paid to the first party till he pel formed special allowance- duty. The special allowance system was carrying work on rotation basis to the eligible candidates. Ex. M12 is the relevant order. He has also stated that the first party is not entitled to special allowance after facility was withdrawn. He has categorically stated in his cross examination that the work of PBX operator was not permanent. He had also stated that on the lequcst of the lirst party he was transferred. There is no reason to discard this evidence of MW1. Against this WW1 has given detailed evidence and he said that he is entitled for special allowance. He admits in his cross examination that the operation of telex was withdrawn by the bank. He ha§ categorically stated that he has not worked as PBX Operator from January, 1992. The first party is not entitled for special allowance. He has stated that he is aware of the settlement entered between the union and the management that the work of PBX operating shall be given, on rotation basis. Considering the entire evidence of management and the woikman and the documents, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the dispute.

5. It was vehementaly aigued by the learned counsel for the second party that no resolution of union espousing the cause produced by the union and therefore, the diipute is not maintainable. It is clear that no documents aro filed by the first party. The learned counsel for the second party support of this arguments relied in Deepak Industries Ltd. and another, Appellants Vs. State of West Bengal and other* V/s Sankar Presad Mitra C.J. and Salil K. Roy Chowdhury J1975, LAB I.C. 1153 (Calcutta High Courtf. I have read the above decision carefully. Admittedly the present dispute is by the Joint Secretary Syndicate Bank Staff Association, Bangalore. In a situation like this the union has to file some material documents to establish that the union has been duly authorised and it has the authority to represent the workman, but no documents are filed.

9. On merit I have already hold that the management his rightly stopped the special allowance and the workman is not entitled for special allowance. Taking all this into consideration I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this reference and accordingly I proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her, coirected and signed by me on 23rd April, 2001).

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 16th April, 2001 S.O. 11,16.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 194⁷), the Cen- trad Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labourl Court, New Dtlhi as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation iO the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11-4-2001.

[No. L-12O11|J3|92-1R(B~II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI K. S. SRIVASTAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 88|92

In tihe matter of dispute between :

Shri Ichhuv Sarkar & 184 others through Secretary, Punjab National Bank Canteen Worker's Union, House No. 265, Block No. 8, Khichripur, Delhi-110051.

Versus •

The Management of Punjab National Bank, 7, Bhikaji Kama Place, New Delhi.

APPEARANCES:

SHiri Inderjit Singh-—for the workman.

None—-for the Management.

AWARD

Canteen Employees of various branches of Punjab National Bank (m short hereinafter refeued to as Bank) within the territory of Delhi had made de- mand for their regularisation in Bank's service deem- ing them as Bank's employees a|nd payment of their wages equal to regular employees of their category of the Bank on the principle of equal pay for equal work and also for the grant of other service benefits to them available to the regular employees. At per statement of the claim when their demand could rot be fulfilled by the Bank they had themselves formed a Union named as Punjab National Bank Canteen Workers' Union, Delhi, registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, on 24-2-1988, and an industrial dispute to this effect was raised, for the settlement of dis- pute before Regional Labour Commissioner (Cen-, tral) and Conciliation Officer, New Delhi, but isi could not succeed. After the failure of reconciliation proceedings. Central Government in the Ministry of Labnur then made this reference under Section 10 m(d> and 2(A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act) vide its Order No, 2311 lUo. L-1201J[33!92-I.R. B-2 dcted Nil for the- adjudi- cation of the dispute on the following terms :—

"Whether Ihchuv Sarkar and other 184 names given in the enclosed list were the emplo- yees working in the various branches p% Punjab National Bank in the Union Teiri- tory of Delhi. If so whether they were eli- gible for regularisation and payment of equal pay for equal work and also other benefits as applicable to the employees of the Bank¹? If not, to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled to ?"

All the canteen employees covered and named in the order of reference aforesaid now onward be addres- sed as petitioners. After receipt of the said reference order and after registration of the ca^e in this Tri- bunal/Labour Court notices to petitioners and to pank were issued for filing their respective cases in writing.

2312 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2CJ01/ JVAISTHA 5, 1923 [F]ART II—SEC. 3(ii)] men (o get their entry in the service of the Bank and by taking them into service without following the pro- cedure of recruitment would be depriving the gene- ral public, the equal opportunity of selection and appointment and it would aho be discriminatory and violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Bank has however admitted that in order to provide facility to its employees a scheme for providing canteen at its branches and offices* was in- troduced and a circular dated 17-3-83 vas issued in this respect but the Bank has further seated tlhat under the Scheme a committee consisting if the Bank's employees of its branches and offices was formed and this committee used to enter into a contract with canteen contractors for snacks and other eatables to Bank's employees and customers) at subsidised rate. The Contractor of tlhe canteen was an independent employee and it was he who used to sell eatables to the employees and other customers and used to charge the price directly from them and earned profits. The contractors were free to engage employees of their choice to cafry on the work undertaken by them. The canteen workers were not subjected to rules and regulation of service as applicable to regular emplo- yees of the Bank. The Contractors were not subjected to disciplinary action. They were free to act accord- ing to their wishes. The canteen committee was sim- ply an advisory body only to negotiate the prices and to ensure the quality of the food stuff. Canteen Com- mittee had no power of supervision or control over the working of the canteen nor it would give sugges- tions in what manner the canteen work should be done. In order to compensate the contractors they were paid a fixed amount as subsidy and at the ini- tial stage lit was Rs. 4 per employee which used to be changed from time to time and ultimately the amount of subsidy was- enhanced to Rs. 25 to Rs. 35 per employee depending upon the area of the branches and offices concerned. According to the Bank the contractors were undoubtedly provided infrastructures like gas cylinders stove, kerosene and utensils etc.

WW1/1. On behaJf of the Bank affidavit of Smt. Rashmi Khanna Personnel Officer and of Shri V. K. TVfchrotra the then Manager of the Bank of the branch at Nizamuddin New Delhi have been nle*i^ Both of them have supported the case of the bank. Both of them have been cross-examined by the peti- tioners. The affidavits of Smt. Rashmi Khanna and Sri V. K. Mehrotra have been marked as Ex. MW1/1 and Ex. MW2/1 respectively. According to both of them the petitioners were either Independent Contrac- tors or employees of the conractors. They have denied that the petitioners were employees of the bank. They have stuted that there was no relationship of emplo- yer and employee between the bank and the petitio- ners. They have given the details in support of their assertions that the petitioners were not employees of the Bank. They have, however, not denied about tlhe introduction of the scheme for providing canteen at the branch office of the bank and the issuing of cir- culafs. Shri V. K. Mehrotra has further stated that a Committee consisting of employees of the branches of the bank was formed under the scheme to provide canteen facilities to its officers. He has stated that a committee used tcr discharge its function indepen- dently and it used to enter into contract with the contractors for providing coffee, tea and other eat- ahles to the employees. The bank being public finan- cial institution has to in which ensure safety and security of its properties and thus no unauthorised person was allowed to sleep inside premises of the Bank, I Card to some of the petitioners were issued only for the purpose of their identity in view of the Security reasons. Issuing of I Card according to him was never meant that the petitioners were employees of the Bank. He has also stated that petitioner's were never paid wages but were given subsidies as per provisions of the Bank's Scheme. He has again stated that as pcr bank's record a loan was taken by some of tlhe petitioners from the Bank on tFe basis of there being self employed persons having independent business and the loans were taken by then to improve or to expand their business. He has mentioned the name of such petitioners who were given the loan the names of such are S/Slhri Sham Lai, R. P. Sharma, Subhash Chand Suri. Photo copies of loan applications given by the petitioner's have also been annexed with the affidavit as Ex. R-l to R-9. Both of these bank's witnesses have also been cross-examined by the petitioners.

9. The Bank has again stated that Banking busi- ness was done under Banking Regulations Act, 1949 and providing the facility of Canteen was neither obligatory nor incidental on the Bank. The Bank's case also is that the workmen were independent em- ployers, the contract labour (Regulation & Aboli- tion) Act, 1970 was not applicable to them. The Bank has denied that any unfair labour practice was committed against the workman by the Bank. The Bank has prayed for the rejection of the claim of the workmen.

12. Arguments on behalf of the parties heard and necessary material available on the record of the ease examined.

10. The Petitioners have filed rejoinder. It is more or less reiteration of the allegations made in the statement of claim.

13. The point which in my view needs adjudication is whether canteen is the part of the establishment of the Bank and the petitioners being canteen employees are actually Bank's employees and are entitle for thf regularisation of their service and other service bene- fit as claimed by them.

2Ui-

labour (Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970) wer* complied with before engaging the petitioners a" Contractors. Secondly that no noticeitcnder|a(dVer- tisement was published calling for the rates or quota- tions for the said contract. Thirdly that canteen em- pfloyees were working under the control and super- vision of the branch management. Fourthly that there was no mutual agreement or deed of agreement which could have been entered into and executed in this respect between the alleged contractors of the Bank.

17. fn support of their contention of the existence of employer and cinpJuyee relation between them and the bank the petitioners have further argued that diu identity caids were itsu:d to the canteen emp- loyees and in some cases cciiificates were also issued by the management of the bonk confirming their employment and it is strong indication to show about the existence of the relationship of employer and cmijov *e between them. Secondly that besides the normal wcrk pertaining to the Canteen some of the canteen employees were also asked to do other mis- cellaneous work yf the Bark. Thirdly that the can- teen facilities were utilised only by the officers and staff of the bank and no outsider was allowed to take the canteen benefits.

was under the supervision and direct control uf the management of the Bank through a Committee known as implementation Committee constituted at each branch office of the Bank. The implementation Com- mutes consisted of the officers of the Bank viz. (i)In- cirrgc: of the branch (ii) Secondman (Officer) cc the tnav;h Uii) Senior most full time confirmed staff. This Committee according to the petitioners was having full control over the canteen tor running business of the a-nteen in the manner that it used to decide items to be prepared for supply to the officer.* and staff and to fix price to be charged for each item. The working hour9 and other details of the work were also de- cided by the committee. The canteen employees had no say in this way and they had to carry out all the instructions of the Canteen Cc uraittec. It is next submitted that in pursuance of the snid scheme of providing canteen the Bank had appointed workmen as canteen incharge to run the canteen with appro- priate number of employees and thus the petitioners being employed by the Bank were its jmploj^c.i and workmen within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and the Bank was an industry as defined in the Act. It is again submitted that according to Section 2(2) any person including an apprentice employed in an industry to do any manual, shifted unskilled, technical, work for hire or employment expressed in implied in a workman. In the same breath the peti- tioners have submitted that according to definition of the woi-lovnn given in Section 2(2) of the Act. It is not necessary that person should be employed in a substantive capacity or on temporary basis. Every person employed in an industry irrespective of his status of being temporary permanent probationer or otherwise is a workman as held in the case of Hutchiah Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (1983) 1 I XJ 30.

18. The last contention of the petitioners in this respect is that till the infrastructure facilities like accommodation, furnitures, gas calenders etc. were provided by the bank and it is according to them one or Ihe other rea.son to come to the conclusion that the canteen was being run by the bank and it" employees are the bank's employees. The peti- tioner's have also placed reliance on the case of Pdrimal Chund Raha and others Vs. L Z C, and others 1995(IT1LLJ ??<>'SC).

15. The petitioner's next contention in this res- pect is that the petitioner's were given remuneration in the shape- of subsidy which actually amounted as wage within the definition of Section 2(rr) r-f the Act. The petitioners have again contended that ths said definition of the wage onlv postulates that the re- muneration must be capable of bring cypres^-d in terms of money payable to a workman in rcsne>^ of bis employment, or for the work done in such em- ployment. In support of this contention pptitiotvrs have relied on the case- of Bhapannn<* Cnll^T" Vs. Thdrwor'an-n i i%'Mf)T> LLJ 356 RC. In the said c."i"e Sardari beinc paid as commission for normal work was held as waees within the meaning of Section 2 (IT) of the Act. O n. its basis pet\tionrrs have a^ain contended that subsidy which wa" fixed after taking into considera- tion normal remunTatiori which petitioners ;ouJd have ordinarily earned in connection with their employment nr work done in such employment would per say com¹ within amhit of definition of the wnirs. The petitioners have thw luid stress th"t ^efi^'fe'v there existed tbr relationship ™f mol^ver nnH em- ployer b".rwe;n them ?nd th~ Pant:,

19. On behalf of the bt.Dk all the contentions of (he petitioners have been strongly opposed and the ban'; has made the following submissions. Firstly bank was not under any obligation statutory or otherwise to provide facility of the canteen to its officers and stall'. The facility of providing canteen extended to the officers star! of the Bank vide cir- cubr d.-'cd 17-3-83 was only by way of welfare measure iwj 't will be no ground for the petitioners to claim themxWes as the bank's employees. The Canteen was being run and supervised by the Can- teen Committee which was only empowered to enter into contract with the Contractors for providing coffee, tea and o'her eatables and a subsidy as agreed was paid to the rontractors on the basis of the strength of the employees in the canteen depending upon the are? of the branch concerned. The canteen cojppv'teo was only advisory body to negotiate the mice and to v-nsurs quality and eatables and it was open to the contractors to carry on the work of the canteen according to their wish and choice. The nrnfits earned by the contractors were appropriated bv themselves. It is further submitted in this respect that the canteen employees were not governed by any rules and regulation of the bank as applicable to the rcpub-r employees. The bank has no control and supervision over the bank canteen or supply of eai- ablci The Bank was not carrying any trade or busi- ness in the Canteens. The Bank had no right to take any disciplinary action against the canteen •njp- 16. The petitioner's have denied the bank's con- te"t'on that thev were either independent rnntractnr<; or errf J<"*"er

"It stands established that industrial law revolves on the axis of master and servant relation- ship and by the eatenu precedents it stands established that the pnma facie test" of existence of the right in the master to supervise and control the work done by the servant, (The measure of supervision and control apart) not only in the matter of directing what work the servant is to do but also the manner in which he shall do his work. And principle hold the field." 20. Again it is submitted that the Bank had a definite lecniitment procedure for recruiting the clerk and subordinate staff. Such recruitment was being done through Banking Seivice Recruitment Board and Emp¹oyment Exchange respectively. There was also an eligibility criteria subject to the reservation policy for such a reciuitment. The procedure thus prescribed for recruitment according to the Bank could not be by-parsed a-" it would be discriminatory in °Q far as general public is concerned and it would ''Iso be volative of Article 14 and 16 of the Consti- tution of India. If the entry in the Bank service of the petitioner could be taken in this manner the general public would be deprived of equal opportu- nbv and puch Mck door entry cannot be permitted in any manner to the petitioners.

21. The next submissions of the bank is that the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1070 war not at all applicable in the case of the peti- tioners because they were themselves independent emplovers. The Bank has also denied that the con- tract between the Canteen committee -and the Peti- ticner<- was in any manner one sided. The Bank has a^ain denied tlW if the inftastructures where were provided by the Bank to the canteen it would never mnRn 'hat the Cnntecn business was- being run by the Bank itself and Canteen employees would be i*s employee?.

22. The Btnk Iras strrnpJv placed reliance on the fnllow'nsr fwo authorities of Hon*bk Supreme Court of Tndia Etnoiovers, Management of Reserve Bank of Indifl VB. Workmen, Reseive Bank of India 1996 (73)FLR 965, State Bank of India and others Versus State Bank of India Canteen Employees Union (Bengal Circle) and others Judgements today 2000(5) S.C 63

23 I proceed to examine.

24. At the veiv outset I will like to say that it is now a settled position that in law if there is an obli- gation "n the Bank to twovide a Canteen, then the Canteen Employees would be certainly the employees of the Bank, and if not the employees working in the Canteen may not become part or the establishment.

25. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has an occa- sion to deal with the similar subject matter as involv- ed in the present case in the case of the Reserve Bank of India Vs. Their workmen 1996(73)FLR 965 and after discussing and accepting the ratio of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in another case of M M.R. Khan Vs. U.O.I. 1990(61 )FLR 271 (SC) has found the classification of Canteen with three following categories.

(I) Statu'ory Canteens required to be provid- ed conipulsonly in Mew of Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948.

(ii) Non statutory Recognised Canteens I.e. Canteens established with the prior ap- proval and iecognition of the Bank Emp- loyer.

(iii) Non statutory non recognised canteens i.e. Canteens established without prior approv- al or recognition

26. In the said cose too Canteen Employees of Reserve Bank of India had raised the dispute for the grant of their regularisation in service and other ser- vice benefits equal to the regular staff of the Bank treating them also as Banks employees. Reference which was made by Government of India for adjudi- cation of dispute under section 10(1 )(d) read with Section 2A of the Act was as under :—

"Whether 166 employees engaged in various catering establishments of Reserve Bank of India at Bombay are the workmen of Re- serve Bank of India ? If so, whether (heir demand for regularisation with retrospective effect was justified ? If so, the extent of re- lief payable to these 166 persons may be indicated.

The case was decided in favour of the canteen em- ployees bv the Tribunal. On appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court the judgement and order of the Tri- bunal was set aside.

27. On behalf of the canteen employees pleas taken were (i) that Bank was under a statutory obligation to provide canteen facilities to the employees and it was being done thiough agencies i.e. implementation Committee (Canteen Committee, Cooperation Society and Contractor instead of the Bank doing its nonby employing persons directly (ii) Bank was not em- powered to shift its responsibility to others because the entire economic control was with the Bank and thus persons employed in the canteens whether by the Implementation Committee or by the Cooperative J313 Societies or by the Contractors should be directed to be absorbed with retrospective effect with point to point adjustment and the Bank be directed to pay difference of wages.

28. On behalf of the Bank all the above conten- tions were lefuted and it was pleaded that Bank had made available space for running the Canteens on lease and licence basis and various facilities were also provided to the implementation Committee, Coopera- tive Society or the Contractor whosoever was running the canteen, fhe Management of the Bank was not responsible for the employment of persons in the can- teen. The Bank was not supervising nor controlling the working of the Canteens or the supply of eatables to employees. The employees were not under obligation to purchase eatables from the canteen. There was no relationship of master and servant bet- ween the Bank and the various persons employed in the Canteen. The staff canteen was established only as a Welfare measure Bank had no statutory or other obligation to run the canteen and if had no direct con- trol or supervision over the employees engaged in the Canteen. Bank had no right to take any disciplinary action or to diiect any canteen employee to do a particular work. The disciplinary control over the persons employed in the canteen did not vest in the Bank nor the Bank had any say or control regarding the allocation of the work or the way in which work was to be carried out by the Canteen Employees. Sanctioning of leave, distribution of work Mainte- nance of the Attendance Register were all done either by the implementation Committee or by the Coopera- tive Society or by the Contractor. Hon'ble Supreme Court ha;> 1 ejected the pleas of the Canteen Em- ployees and giving classification of the categories of the Canteen? as mentioned above has made observa- tion, the relevant portion of it is given below :—

' In the absence of any statutory or other legal obligation and in the absence of any right in the Bank to superwise and control the work or the details thereof in any manner regard- ing the canteen workers employed in the three types of canteens, it cannot be said that the relationship of master and servant existed between the Bank and the various persons employed in three types of Canteens. 166 persons mentioned in the list attached to the reference are not workmen of the Re- serve Bank of India and that they are not comparable to employees employed in the Officers Lounge. Therefore the demand for regularisation is unsustainable and they are not entitle to any relief he hold that the award passed by the Tribunal is factually and legally unsustainable."

29. Again on the identical and similar dispute Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has dealt with the issue in the ca<.e of State Bank of India and others Vs. State Bank ol India Canteen Employees Union (Bengal Circle) and others J.T. 2000(5) S.C. 63 and has approved the ratio of the case of the Reserve Bank of India Vs. Their workmen (Supra) In this case the pleas of both the parties were same as that of the case ol the Reserve Bank of India Vs. Their Workmen (supra).

30. The point of dispute that Canteen Employees were the Bank's employees and were entitle for the benefits of their absorption and other service benefits equal to regular employees of the Bank Hon'bte Sup- reme Court has again elaborately dealt with Hon'ble Supreme Court took into consideration the conten- tions of the Canteen Employees that as per terms of the Sastry Award 1953 and also as per provision* of Hand Book on staff welfare Activities tht Bank was under obligation to provide canteen facilities to its staff and canteen workers were thus actually the Bank employees, and has repelled the aforesaid contentions of canteen employees. In this respect Hon'ble Sup- reme Court has held "that neither the terms of Sastry Award nor the Hand Book Cast any obligation, statu- tory and contractual that staff working in canteen would be employees of Bank as Bank is not obliged to provide canteen facilities to its staff". Specific observation made in this connection by the Hon'bk Supreme Court is as follows :—

"There is no obligation statutory or otherwise to run the canteens by the. Bank. The scheme as stated above only provides for grant of subsidy lor permitting running of canteen and if some more cost is incurred m running the canteen, the members of the staff work- ing in that particular branch are required to bear it. The bank is not employing the can- teen workers. The Bank is not supervising or Controlling the work or the details regard- ing the canteen or its employees appointed by Local Implementation Committee. Bank is not taking any disciplinary action or directing any canteen employee to do a parti- cular work or tor that purpose no scheme is laid down by the Bank. Not only this, the other most important aspect is '*the re- cruitment" by the Bank is to be made as per the statutory rules framed by it after giving propei advertisement, test or inter- view. As against this, for appointing a canteen employee there are no rules framed by the Bt"nk. The canteen run by Local Implementation Committee in a branch hav- ing less than 100 eroriloyeqs are nop fitatur tory non recognised canteens because admittedly there is neither statutory provi- sion nor any obligation ari$ing out of award or contract between the employees of the Bank in running such canteen. The status of canteens run by the JLocal Implementa- tion Committee would be non-statutory non-recognised canteen. The employees of such canteens were not under the control of the Bank and their appointments are not governed by any rules framed by State Bank of India "

31. The facts of the present as mentioned above 1 find are more or less similar to the facts of both the aforesaid authorities and thus both the said authori- ties in my vi"w are well applicable in the case and it can serve as sole basis for the decision of this case. The case of Parimtd Chandra¹ Raha Vs. L.I.C. of India 1995 (II) LLJ 339 -(SC) cited on behalf of the petitioners in support <6l their contentions that in the facts alleged by them the Batik, if, not expressly

2316 TH(E GAZETTE OF INDIA r MAY 26, 2001/ JVAISTHA 5, 1923 [FART H-r-&uc. 3(n)]

than imph'edly was under an obligation to provide canteen facility to the employees as part of the ser- vice condition, since has been considered .ind dis- cussed in both the aforesaid authorities relied upon by the Bank and mentioned above and has not been accepted I respectfully say that it has no bearing in the case and cannot be accepted. The petitioners I find has miserably failed to establish their case that Bank was under an obligation statutory or otherwise to provide Canteen facility to its staff and they were actually the Bank's Employee and were entitle to get all the service benefits of absorption in service c c. limilar to the lcgular Bank employee.

the Bank was under any obligation statutory or other- wise to provide facility of Canteen to its officers and staff. As per assertions of the petitioners if the can- teen facility was provided by the Bank under the Scheme formulated though its circular No. 23/83 dated 17-3-83 and the canteen was being supervised by the implementation Committee having been cons- tituted by the Bunk alone in my view cannot be a .sufficient ground to hold that the Canteen facility so provided was actually recognised by the Bank. On behalf of the petitioner only an affidavit of Shri Montoo Sarkar has been filed in evidence. In the aflida\ it Ex. WW 1/1 of Shri Montoo Sarkar no such fact is disclosed by which it can be ascertained that Bunk had at any point of time had recognised for providing canteen facility to its staff. Even if the fac- tor of providing infrastructural amenities by the Bank to the Canteen is taken into consideration it will alone not bo a valid proof to find out the canteen was recognised by the Bank.

32. Undisputedly there is nothing to show on behalf of the petitioners that there was statutory obli- gation on the Bank for providing canteen facility to it staff. Whether the Bank had recognised for provid- ing canteen facility to its staff the petitioners have no where alleged that there wa^ any settlement arrived at by the Bank by means of apy bipartite settlement with its staff or by any aw^ard etc. there was any binding effect on the Bank for providing canteen facility. There is no such case of the petitioners as taken by the canteen employees in the case of State Bank of India and other Vs. State Bank of India Canteen em- ployees Union (Bengal Circle) and others Supra. fhat the Bank was bound to provide canteen facility to its staff on the terms of Sastry Award 1953 or the book of on Statf Welfare Activities an obligation was cast upon the Bank to provide canteen facility.

34. The petitioners have also failed to establish that they were tr|e Bank's Employees and there existed any master and servant relationship between them. In his cross-examination Shri Montoo Sarkar has admitted that neither any appointment letter was given by the Bank nor there was any written document to show that the petitioners were appointed by the Bank. He has also admitted that no payment to the petitioners was made by the Bank for the overtime or for any leave. He has again admitted that neiher any charge sheet was served nor any disciplinary action was taken by the Bank against any of the petitioners. These re- plies of Shri Montoo Sarkar itself goes against the petitioners case.

35. further the point of payment of the wages in the shape of subsidy as contended by the petitioners for treating Ihem Bank's employee I find myself not in :igreement with the petitioner's contention. Subsidy in m i view in the circumstances of the case can never be icrmcd as wage as defined in Section 2(rr) of the Act. The dictionary meaning of subsidy is "giving pecuniary help". According to Section 2 ( r r ) ( b) of the Act any contribution paid or payable by the emp- loyer for the benefit of the workman under any law ior the time being in force is excluded from the defini- tion of the wages. On this ground alone the petitioners' c mlenUou cannot be accepted. However, in both the said authorities of Reserve Bank of India Vs. Work- men of Resene Bank of India (Supra) and Stale Bank of India and others Vs. State Bank of India Canteen Employees Union (Bengal Circle) and others (Supra) cited on behalf of the Bank these aspects of payments of subsidy and management of the Can- teen through Local Implementation Committee have been dealt with and these were not accepted as the basis to show that functioning of the canteen was cither recognised by the Bank or the Canteen emp- loyees could" be considered to be Bank's employees, As found above¹ both these authorities, are well applic- able in* the case. Hence on. its strength the petitioners contentions cannot be accepted.

33. The basis of the petitioners claim as per then- allegation only is that it was the boundent duty of the Bank to provide canteen facility to its officers and staff just to improve their efficiency and output and with this view Bank had provided Canteen facility to its siaff by means of circular letter No, 23JS3 dated 17-3-83. Secondly that in view of the term of the said circular the functioning of the canteen was under the supervision and direct control of the Management through a Committee consituted at each branch office of the Bank consisting of the officers of the Bank viz(a) Inchargc of the branch office (ii) Second Man (Officer) of the Branch and senior most full time confirmed staff. Ihirdly that in pursuance of the said scheme for providing canteen, the Bank, ha(d appointed workmen called as Canteen Inchaigc to run the .Canteen with appropriate number of emplo- yees .and thus the petitioners who were employed by the Bank were the workmen within the meaning of Section 2(S) of the Act according to which any per- ton including an apprentice employed in an industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical opera- tional work for hire oi reward, whether the terms of employment is express or implied is covered under the definition of workman. Fourthly that the subsidy passed to the canteen employees by the Bunk was in fact wage within the meaning of section 2(rr) of the Act. None of these factors after having carefully exa- mining the facts and circumstances I find is satisfacto- ry and sustainable. These factors have to be establish- ed as a fact by the petitioners by cogent and reliable evidence. Mere allegations made, in claim petition without is proof in my view cannot be accepted, pa(rti- cularly when on behalf ,of the Bank aft these facia are specifically denied. The peitioners I find has mise- rably fajlc^ to establish it by any rpgent proof thevt

36, On the other hand the Bank I find has become successful in cstablishingits case. At the first instance there is total denial of petitioners case bv the Bank The Bank has denied that petitioners were its emp- 2317 Joyces and relationship of master and servant ever existed between them. The Bank's case specifically is Uiat the petitioners were themselves either contractors or their employees and had an independent status. None ol them was appointed on the rolls of the Bank by the Bank and they had never undergone any selec- tion/recruitment procedure prevailing in the Bank. Further Bank had no authority to take any discipli- nary action against canteen employees. It can not direct the Canteen Employees for doing a particular work. I he Bank had no say or control regarding the allocation ol the work or the way in which the work should be carried out by the canteen employees.

37. The Bank's case also is that no statutory or other obligation was cast upon the Bank for providing the Canteen to its officers or staff. No hade or busi- ness was ever carried out in the canteen by the Bank. The Bank had no supervision or control over the working of the Canteen on Lie supply of eatables. The Bank's care again is that the amenities provided by the Bank to the Canteen were only by way of Welfare Measure. The Bank has asserted that some of the Canteen Employees, namely Sarvashrce Sham Lai, Ram Pal Sharma and Subhash Chandra Suri and others had taken loans from the Bank under self emp- loyment scheme for urban poor.

38. These facts I find have well been supported by the evidence of Smt. Rashmi Khanna, Personal Officer of the Bank MW1 and Shri V. K. Mehrotra, Manager of the Bank's branch of Nizamuddin, New Delhi, MW2. Both of them have filed their affidavits marked Exs. MW 1/1 and MW 2/1 respectively. Every detail of the Banks case has been dealt within their yifidavit. Shri V. K. Mehrotra has also filed the photo copies of documents relating to the grant of loans to Canteen employees as stated above. These documents have been marked as annexures R-l to R-9.

39. In the cross-examination of both these witnesses I find the petitioners have not been able to elicit any- thing in their frvour. I do not find any reason to disbelieve these* w i t n e ss of the Bank. The evidence of both these witnesses of the Bank is held trustworthy and reliable.

40. In view of the facts, I find and hold that peti- tioners have failed to establish that canteen was in any manner a part of the establishment of the Bank and they being canteen employees were actually the Bank's employees. These petitioners are held as in- dependent canteen employees. It is also held that the petitioners are not entitled for any of the service bene- fits of legularisation/absorption etc. similar to the Bank's regular employees. The point framed for con- sideration and adjudication is decided against the peti- tioners.

41. The terms of reference is auswered in the like manner and rward in the case is given accordingly. 9-4-2001.

K. S. SRIVASTAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 30th April, 2001

S.O. 1117.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputei Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Bangalore, a" shown in the Aunexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Silk Board and their workman, which wai received by the Central Government on 30-4-2001.

fNo. L-42012|188|94JR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

Dated : 24th April, 2001

PRESENT :

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B.Com. LL.B.

C. R. No. 82|97

I PARTY

A Mallesha S|o Annayappa Asstt. Technician, Central Silk Board, M.G. Road, Kadirenahalli, Banashankari II Stage, Bangalore-560070

n PARTY

The Management of Central Silk Board, (Ministry of Textiles Govt. of India) P.R. No. 5317, United Mansion*, 2nd Floor. 39, .M.G. Road, Bangalprc-560001,

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers con- ferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-42012|188|94-IR(DU) dated 30-10-95 for adjudication on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the punishment of dismissal from service w.e.f. 5-1-1993 imposed on Shri Malleihn by the Central Silt Board is justified 7 If not what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. The first party joined the service of the Second party w.e.f. 13-12-1982. He was promoted as Assistant Technician in the year 1988 Charge Sheet was issued for unauthorised absence from 22-1-1992 to till the date of issue of articles *lft Ym GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAT36, iSKfl/ iY&SSXHAs 5, 1923 (FJART I ^ E e. W*i>] of charge viz. 8-7-1992. His emanation was not proper and enquiry was held and on the barfs of inquiry report the first party was dismissed from service.

3. Parties appeared and filed Claim Statement and Coun- ter respectively.

4. The case of the first party is that the charge is not correct In para 3 of tho Claim Statemetn it is stated that iho Enquiry is conducted and the enquiry is in total contraven- tion of the rule. The absence was due to prolonged illtaess and the charges arc not proved, the enquiry is not fair. In para 4 of the Claim Statement it is stated that Ihe first party was not well. The punishment is not proper. There is unfair labour practice. First party for these reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.

5. The case of the second parly is that the first pnrty WP' a chronic absentee and he remained unauthorisedly absent for a long period as stated in para 2 of the counter. Regard- ing enquiry it is stated that the same is fair and valid. Full opportunity was given to tlie first party. It is also said that the "first party admitted his guHt. The finding of the enquiry officer Is correct arid the're Is no perversity In It. There Is considerable delay in raising the dispute as stated In para 5 of the counter, fn view of the Admission on the jtert of the first party, the charge is proved. Second party for thes" reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

6. It i" seen from the record that my learned predecessor answered the preliminary issuo in the affirmative on 30th August 1999. It is held that the domestic enquiry is proper and valid. I have perused nil the documents and the mate- rial of the enquiry proceeding and I am of the opinion that there is no perversity in Ihe finding given by the Enquiry Officer. The explanation (riven by the first narty for his Jong unauthorised absijnce is not correct. Previously punish- ment were awarded and he was warned but first party did not improve himself. It is seen thnt during the enquiry, first party had admitted the "uilt. The first party has not esta- blished that there is perversity in the finding given by the enquiry officer. He has also not established that there is victi- misation. Taking all this into consideration and the cross examination that it is true that he informed the eiau'ry officer that he remained absent hut it was due to illness, would go to show that unauthorised absence is proved. The first partv hups not established that the absence Was bevond his control. TnVinn all this info consideration on merits it is clear thHt there is no Dcrversity in fhn finding p'ven bv tho enquiry officer nnd there is no victimisation and mis- conduct is proved.

7. Tt was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the first party that the misconduct is only about the un- authorised abrence nnd the first party has Riven explanation for his unauthorised absence but the management has not cons:dered. Tt wis further armied that for this misconduct, the order of dismissal h deflnitelv not proportionate and the same is harsh. I hnve considered all the nsnrcts in detpM Jt was further argued by the learned counsel for the first party that this is a fit case to consider the submission rand • by the first partv under Section 11A and imposed propor- tionate punishment.

8. In mv humble opinion the misconduct alleged and prov- ed does not warrant dismissal of the first party and th^ ends of Justice will mer* if the fint party ii d ' W ed 'o he re-instated without P^V hick waces, and accordingly T pro- ceed to pass'the following order.

ORDER

The reference is partly allowed. The order of tiismisial is set aside and the second party is directed to reinstate the first party for the post which he wai working tyfor? the dismissal without nny bncl; wages.

(•Dictated to PA, transcribed by her, corrected and signed bv me on 24th April, 2001).

V. N. KULKARNI, Presfdirjg Officer 24-4-2001.

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2001

S.O. 1118.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes ihe award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Supdt. of Post Offices and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 1-5-2001.

i'No. L-40Oll|8|200O-IR(DU)] KULDIP RA1 VERM A, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Monday, the 9th April, 2001

PRESENT:

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. : 5912000 (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 Petitioner Sri M. Rajcndran and the Management, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Mayiladu- thurai Division, Mayiladuthurai.)

BETWEEN

Shri M. Rnjendran, Nagapattjnam. : Petitioner I Party.

AND

The Superintendent of Post Offices, Mayiladuthurai Division, Mayiladuthurai.

: Management^ Party.

APPEARANCE:

For the Petitioner : M|s. Jothivani and R. Balaguru- swamy. Advocates.

For the Management : Sri K. M, Venugopal, Addl, Central Govt. Standing Counsel.

REFERENCE:

Order No. L-40011|8|2000|IR(DU) dated 30-6-2000, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.

This dispute on coming up before me for final hearing on 28-3-2001 upon perusing the reference. Claim Statement, Counter Statement, documentary evidence let in on either side and other material papers on record and u p o n i t e my the arguments of learned counsel for the Petitioner MJs. lothivnni Advocates and learned counsel for the Manage- m e T s ri K. M. Venugopal, Additional Central Oovt Stand- ing-Counsel and this dispute having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribvnal passed the following '.-

AWARD

Tfcii reference by t ie Central Government in Mewjie. o* the powers conferred by clause (d) of jub-seeUtm (I) and 2M9 tub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes. Act, 1947 in respect of dispute botween Sri M. Rajendxan, Peti- tioner and the Superintendent Of post Offices, Mayiladuthurai Division, Mayiladuthurai, Management, mentioned afl Schedule appended to the order or reference.

The Schedule reads as follows :—

"Whether the action of the management of Superinten- dent of .Post Offices, Mayiladuthurai Division, Mayiladuthurai in removing Shri M. Rajendran, S|o. Sri Maruthan from the post of EDDA. Thiru- vidaikalai B.O. is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

This order of feforence was first made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Banga- lore, as an industrial dispute for adjudication. Subsequently, by an order dated 30-8-2000, this case was transferred from the file of.the CGIr-Cum-Labour Court, Bangalore, to the file of this Tribunal. On receipt of this reference on transfer from the COrr-Cum-Labour Court, Bangalore on 12-9-2O00, this case bfli* been taken on file of this Tribunal as Industrial Dispute No. 59J2000. Notices were sent to both the parties by Registered Post with acknowledgement card, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 23-9-2000. Both the parties appeared through their counsel and filed their respective Claim Statement and Counter Statement with documents., When the matter was taken up for enquiry on 14-12-2000J by the consent of counsel on either side. Ex. Wl to W4 were marked and on the subsequent hearing on 1M-2001, by the consent of counsel on either side some more documents were marked as Ex. W5 to W10 and Ml to M17. Then on next hearing few more documents were marked by the consent of either side, on the aid- of II Partyl Management as Ex. M18 to M32 and after the counsel on either side represented that they have no more documents and the evidences were clotted and the case was posted for arguments of counsel on either side on 7-2-2001. The counsel on either side argued their respective coses on diffe- rent dates and thev hnve concluded their arguments on 24-3-2001 and from that date it is posted for orders to this date.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement of the I Partyl

Workman are briefly as follows:—

denied an opportunity to know the charges levelled against him beyond doubt and thus deprived- him an adequate oppor- tunity to submit his defence and this is violation of principles oi natural .justice. In Annexure 111 of the Chargeisheet 24 documents have been cued to prove the charges levelled' against the Petitioner. Most of the documents have been obtained by -the investigating Officer behild the back of the Petitioner. *lho ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority has not Sent the copies of those documents along with the chargesheet to the Petitioner. The PetitionSs explanation wa" culled for within ten days of the recent of the charge sheet. The non- furnishing oi the documents along with the charge sheet deprived the opportunity to meet the charges levelled against him effectively and thereby a reasonable opportunity for defending his case has been denied which is a Violation of principles of natural justice. As per the decision taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the evidence of witness pro- posed to be used against a Government servant in ft depart- mental proceedings should b<; mcorded in his presence. But the statements recorded behind the back of the Petitioner have been used in the enquiry by the Management, though objected by the defence itself during the enquiry. Those witnesses have not been produced for cross-examination by the Petitioner during the enquiry and that denied the Peti- tioner a reasonable opportunity in defending his case. The denial of reasonable opportunity is a violation of principles of natural justice and it vitiated the whole proceedings. Though all the listed documents in Annexure III of the chargesheet were taken on record by the Enquiry Officer, the compliant dated 10-11-1995 of Sri R. Venkatcsan and state- ments given by S/Srl K. Keerthlvaian, T. Rengaiyan, T. Ganeson crOss examine the Branch Post Master by the defence. Under such circumstances, the Enquiry Officer relying upon those documents to give findings on the basis of those documents ignoring the objection of the defence caused prejudice to the Petitioner and the denial of reasonable opportunity for the Petitioner to prove his inno- cence and to unearth the truth! This amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.'Though 14 witnesses have been cited for' the Management to prove the chimes levelled against this Petitioner, only 2 of them have been examined. On" is Srt R Swamtakthan, Assr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Mayiladuthural North Sub-division, Investigating Officer r>nd the other one Sri T. R MuthiVfn, Andoor, payee of the M.O. The flther wftneswa were not oroduced bv the Presenting Officer for the cross expmination by the Petitioner nnd thereby the Petitioner was denied reasonable opportu- nity t<\ defend his case. Tt also amounts to violation of nrincmle"i bf natural iust'ier. The preliminary enquiry rrnort is connected with the charifs framed agalntf the Peti- tioner was refused to th* Petitioner to crr"w eTimife the wit- nesses on the ground that it shall previlige document*.

The I Party/Workman Mr. M. Rajondran (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) was appointed as, Extra-departmen- tal Delivery Agent/Mail Carrier "t Tiruvidaiitazhi B.O. on 18-2-1980 by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office*, M-ayiladuthurai North Division, Mayiladuthurai, The Peti- tioner was placed under put off duty with effect from 17-11-1995. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Mayiladu- thurai (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) appointed the Sub-Divisional Inspector (Postal), Mayiladuthurai South sub-divjsien, Mayiladuthurai as ad-hoc Disciplinary Autho- rity, who in turn issued a memo of charges dated 8-3-1996. He appointed the Sub-divisional Inspector, Sirkali Sub-division as Enquiry Officer and the Inspector of Post Offices, Mayila- duthurai as Presenting Officer to enquire into the charges. The ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Ins- pec-tor (Postal), Mayiladuthurai South Sub-division and the Enquiry Officer, Sub-Divisional Inspector (Postal) Sirkali Sub-Division and the Presenting Officer, the Inspector of Post Offices, MayiladHtfaurai are serving under the Respon- dent and the Respondent is the Head of the Division. Two articles of chprffrs were mentioned in tbe "charge memo issued to the Petitioner. In support of the chfcrprs, the Disciplinary Authority has Cited 14 witnesses nnd 24 docu- ments to prove the c h a ws levelled pirainst th*¹ Petitioner. The appointed Enquiry Officer, Sub-Oivisional Inspector (Postal) S'rkrjf "^]b-Divipion ha* conducted several sittings and conducted the proceedings disreRflrdivg the rules on the Eutfji™jct find fWnlly submitted his perverse report. Bused on the findings of the .investigating 'Officer thfr Respondent with- out application \-if mind imposed the pnn^hnir-nt of removal from sTvir" i'id tonnlra+rrt hii *pnointme"t Acprfeved bv the action of the Respondent, the Petitioner filing this petition for redr<-

4. The averments in the Counter Statement of the II

PartylManagement are briefly as follows :—

The Assistant Superintendent of Pott Offices, Mayiladu- thurai North Sub Division, Mayiladuthurai is the appointing authority of the Petitioner. He made the preliminary enquiry of the case, so bm became the material witnest of the case. Hence, the Sub-Divisional Inspector, Mayiladuthurai South Sub-Division Mayiladuthurai was appointed as Ad-hoc Disci- plinary Authority of this case by the Post Master General, Central Region, Tamil Nadu, Trichy. The said Ad-hoc Disci- plinary Authority issued a charge memo dated 8-3-96 under Rule 8 of Posts and Telegraphs, Extra Departmental (C AS) Rules, 1964. On the basis of the admission given by the Petl- Ironer before fhe appointing authority, the Asst. Superin- tendent (if Post Offices, Mayiladuthurai, the Ad-hOc Disci- rlinarv Authority has issued a charge memo. It is denied that the Petitioner has denied the charges levelled against him. In fact so far as the Petitioner is concerned, he mis- nnnionrijited the Money Order amount of Rs. 450 of M.O. No. 4426 dated 17-5-1995 of Hosur to be payable to Mr. T. R. Muthian, Andoor, Tiruvidaikazhl, One complainant Sri M. Venkatesan, S|o, T. R. Muthian lodged a complaint before the Respondent for non-receipt of the said Money Order money by hft father i.e. Sri T. R. Muthian. Based on that complaint, the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, who is the appointing authority made enquiries with the Peti- tioner on 17-11-1995 and 7-2-96. During the course of the enquiry, the Petitioner himself admitted the same by stating that he misappropriated the said Monev Order amount of R<:. 450 and forged the signature of Sri T. R. Muthian. That apart the petitioner himself produced the said statement in his handwriting on 17-11-95 and 17-2-96. The above state- ment was signed by the Petitioner himself. As per the second charpe the Petitioner has not entrusted Money Order No. 1137 duted 3-11-95 of Thirumangalam for Rs. 450 payable to Sri T. Rancain, Valayacbolan. Tiravldaikazhi. The Petitioner voluntarily admitted on 17-11-95 and 8-12-95 and reduced it in writing by his own hand stating that he himself nuV srm-onriated the amount of Monev Order No. 1137 dt. 3-11-95 of Thi'rumaniialam P.O. payable to Sri T. Raneaiyan. He also admitted that he forced tta signature of Sri Ffmpn'ynn B* if he receiyed the Monev Order money. He signed all the written statements himself on th* same dav. The niieentioT- that the appointed enquiry authority has conducted several

2321

proved. Ex. Ml is the xerox copy of the Money Older Licluiowlwigemeni (jMoney Order receipt) for accepting the Money Order of ki. 45U payable to Sri MuLhaiyan. Ex. M2 is the xerox copy Of the ThUlaiyadi branch office daily account for ly-3-19yi. Ex. M3 is the xerox copy of the Money Order form with, the Money Order coupon meant for the payee Sri Rangaiyan. Ex. M4 is the xeiox copy of the Branch Post Office daily account of Thillayadi of 6-11-1995. Ex. M5 n the xerox copy of the complaint dated 16-11-1995 given lo the postal department by Sri N. Venka- tesan. tix. M6 to M15 are statements recorded before the Enquiry Officer, Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Mayiladuihurai North Sub-Division, Mayiladuthurai. Ex. M16 is the claim made by one Sri Ourumurthy for the Money Order of Rs. 450 sent to his father. Ex. M17 is the xerox copy of order dated 5-2-96 appointing the Sub-Divi- sional Inspector (P) South Sub Division as Ad hoc Disci- plinary Authority by the Assistant Director for the Postmaster General for Cenlrat Region, Tamil Nadu. Ex. M18 is the questions and answers of the Enquiry Officer and the Chargeshceted employee respectively. Ex. M19 is a receipt dat;d 2Ml-iyy5 foi the payment ct Rs. 900 by the Peti- tioner to the-department. Ex. M20 is the sanction order dated 4-12-W6 for payment of Money Order amount of Rs. 450 fo the payee Sri T. R. Muthaiah. Ex. M21 is the sanction order dated 29-12-95 for the payment of Rs. 450 to the- payee Sri T. Rcngaiyan of Valaiyacholan, Tiruvidai- kazhi. Ex. M22 to M28 are the day's proceedings of the Enquiry Officer for the enquiry conducted for the charge* levelled against the Petitioner. Ex. Wl is the xerox Copy of Memo of charges issued to the Petitioner. Ex. W2 is the xerox copy of the Enquiry Officer's report. Ex. W3 is the xerox copy of representation made by the Petitioner before the Divjiplinary Authority against the investigating Officer's report. E\. W4 is the xerox copy of proceedings of .the Ad hoc Disciplinary Authority dated 31-1-1998 imposing punishment of removal from service on the Petitioner with immediate effect.

Offices. The defence assistant to the Petitioner utilised the opportunity and cross "xwnined the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, as such there is no question of denial of reasonable opportunity and violation of principles of natural justice. The Petitioner having known well the contents ot those documents, it is not necessary to examine the Branch Post Master, Tiruviduikazhi BO, Custodian of documents The investigating officer, who seized all the records from the Branch Postmaster becjime the Custodian of these records, hence they were filed as prosecution documents through the Assiatant Superintendent of Post . Offices, Mayiladuthurai Noith Sub Division. Except the entries in BO journal on 19-05-199$, no other related documents filed as prosecution documents bear corrections, as such there is no question of manipulation of figures, numbers, amount of cash received By the Petitioner on 19-5-1995 towards M.O No 4426 dt. 17-S-95 of Hosur for Rs. 450 payable to Sri T. R. Muthian, Andoor, Tiruvidaikazhi, The amount was taken by the Peti- tioner for his personal use and the Petitioner has admitted this fact during the investigation and cioss examination of Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Mayiladnthurai. The defence assistant admitting the proceedings of the enquiry signed the proceedings with no hesitation, as such there is no question of ignoring the objection of the defence by the Enquiry Officer and denial of reasonable opportunity. Though all prosecution witnesses were not produced during the enquiry, the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Mayi- laduthurai North Sub-Division, who made the enquiries with those witnesses have given evidence ahout the statements as prosecution witness and the defence assistant had also croas examined him. The preliminary investigation report of Assist- ant Superintendent of Post Offices, MaviJaduthurai North Sub- Diviaion was not supplied to the Petitioner, as it was nowhere used in the charge sheet issued against him. It cannot be said that this is a case of no evidence, since the Petitioner himself has admitted the forging of signatures, the expert opinion couJd not have been sought foi the prosecution side. Sri T, R. Muthaiyan have got grievance already of this Department due to fraudulent action of Petitioner was in very rediculent posittion to sign deposition. He assured the Enquiry Officer but he signed the deposition only after con- suiting his lawyer. This aspect was recorded in Sri T. R Muthaiyan's deposition on that day with the consent of ell the attendants of that day's enquiry. The Enquiry Officer having testified the contents of the said complaint letter at the time of the preliminary enquiry cannot be prevented to mark the above letter dated 16-11 -1995 The allegation that evidence of Investigating Officer is an interested one k hereby denied. The charges levelled against the Petitioner are clear- ly proved beyond doubt by way of oral and documentary evidence and all the documents marked at the erauiry will prove the charges. The evidence of Assistant S iperintendent of Post Offices and investfeatlnjr officer will corroborate the contents of the complaint letter of Sri N. Venkatesan. Tn res- pect of departmental enquiries the ehnrae i> nr>t nandatoriiv proved bevond doubt and the filed documents establish^! the fact of misconduct on thr part of tb" chercr shewed official, the cnq" can b" decided on rr^po^ )prcr"*e of proba- bility. Tlie Enouirv Officer r^s HeHded Hip w* Kn

5. The point for my consideration is "whether the action of the Management of Superintendent of Post Offices, Mayi- laduthurai Division, Mayiladuthurai in removing Sri M. Rajendran, Sin Sri Maruthan from the post of EDDA, Thi- ruvidalkazhi B.O. ii legal and justified 7 If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner/Workman had put forth an argument that from the beginning in the depart- mental enquiry the petitioner employee has denied the char- ges ljvclld against him, the Enquiry Officer has conducted the proceedings disregatding the rules and finally submitted his perverse report. Based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Respondent|Management without application of mind had imposed the punishment of removal from service on the Petitioner employee. In Annexure III to the charge sheet, 24 documents were cited by which the authenticity of authors are proposed to be sustained. Most of those documents were obtained by the Investigating officer i.e. Assistant Super- intendent of Post Offices North sub-division behind the back, of the Petitioner employee. Along with the charge sheet the copies of those documents were not sent to the Petitioner. But the authority called for the explanation of the Petitioner within ten days of the receipt of the charge sheet. The non-furnishing of the copies of the documents with the charge sheet deprived the petitioner of an opportunity to refute the charges levelled against him effectively and thereby the Peti- tioner was denied the reasonable opportunity hi defending his case, which amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity and it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. The investigating officer had obtained statements from S|Shri K. Keerthivasan, T. Rengahian (on three occasions and R. Gururaurthy in the absence of the Petitioner and those state- ments were used in the enquiry. On the basis of those state- ments the Enquiry Officer had arrived at the finding. But in that departmental enquiry, the persons who gave the state- ments in the absence of the Petitioner employee were not exa- mined thereby giving an opportunity to the delinquent emp- loyee to cross examine them with regard to the statements yiven before the invest!gating officer in the absence of the petitioner employee. This amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner employee in defending his case ;*nd it al"o amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, which in turn vitiates the whole proceedings. It is seen from the records, and the proceeding of the Enquiry Officer that is the learned rounsel for the Petitioner employee mentioned in her argument there was denial of reasonable ODroMiwitv (o the Petitioner emtiloyce in the domestic en- quiry and it vitiates the Enquiry proceedings.

Point:—It is admitted that the Petitioner was appointed by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Mayiladuthu- rai Division Mayiladuthurai on 18-2-1980 and the Petitioner was placed under puj off duty with effect from 17-11-1995. The Petitioner was issued a charge memo dated 8-3-19Q6 alleging that he has misappropriated two Money Order? ench amounting to Rs. 450 payab'e to two different payees by name Sri T. R. Muthaiyan of Andoor, Tiruvidaiknzhi and Sri T.R. Ran?aivan. Vnlayachoian. Tinivkhiknzbi, lespectively. Tt is pl^o admitted that Sub-Divisional Inspector (P), Sirkali Sub- Dfvifjon hns conducted enauiry and has furnished his report finding thnt charges levelled against the Petitioner were

7. As it is pointed out bv the learned counsel for the Peti- tioner, during her argument, it is seen from the records that 1424 GH2001—15.

23# THE GAZETTE OF INDIA-; MAY 26, 200-1/ JYAISTHA 5, 1923 [ftuuf H—Sic. 3(g)]

It amounts to clear violation of principles of natural justice. One of the payee Sri f. Rengawn, who hat been examined as wuneas beroie the Enquiry Officer has not sigfled tho deposition. Later he sent a communication to the Enquiry Otilcer explaining about the circumstances under which he has refused to sign the deposition. In that communication that deponent has stated that the signature available there m tho money order coupon is not bis signature and he does not know who has subscnb-d the signature as his signature and during enquiry he refused to accept the suggestion that the said signature in the money order coupon was put by the delinquent employee and it is for the enquiry officer to found out as to who has subscribed the signature. There is nothing on evidence by way of expert evidence let in by the management before the Enquiry Officer to prove that the delinquent employee has forged the signatures of the payee to misappropriate the concerned money order amounts. So under such circumstances, it is evidently clear tnat there is no sufficient legal evidence placed before the Enquiry Officer by the Management through their witnesses and docu- ments to conclude that the charges levelled against the petitioner employee have been proved by the Management with reliable and legal evidence as it has been stated by the Enquiry Officer in his report as his findings. So under such circumstances on the basis of the materials available in this case, this Tribunal can easily come to the conclusioin, as it is put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the findings given by the Enquiry Officer in his report that the charges levelled against the petitioner employee is prov- ed is not correct, since there was no legal and acceptable evidence in this case for him to come to that conclusion. Hence it amounts to a perverse finding and not supported by acceptable evidence. So, under such circumstances, as it is held in 1999 I LLJ 679 by the Supreme Court between Sec- retary to Govt. Home Department and Ors. Vs. Shrl Vaifiun- dhan, this Tribunal has got scope of interference to the findings of the Enquiry Officer, since the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be relied upon, as fair and proper. The reliance made bv the Disciplinary Authority on that finding of tho Enquiry Officer to award the punishment of removal from service of the concerned employee Sri M. Rajendran from the post of EDDA, Tiruvidaflcazhi Branch Office is illegal and unjustified. Hence, the order passed" by the Ad hoc Disciplinary Authority dated 31-1-1998 under the original of Ex. W4 is to be set aside. Thus, I answer the point accordingly.

8. In the result, an award is passed holding that the action of the Management of Superintendent of Post Offices, Mayi- ludutharai Division, Mayiaduthurai in removing Sri M. Rajendran, Son of Sri Maruthan from the post of EDDA, Tiruvidaikazhi B.O. i" illegal and unjustified and set aside the order dated 31-1-1998 passed by the Ad hoc Disdplinaiy Anti^r't" Sub Divisional Inspector (Postal) Mayiladuthurai Sub-Division. Mayiladuthurai and direct the respondent to resinsate the Petitioner as EDDA with all service and mone- tary benefits from 1-2-1998. No cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed bv him and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day, the 9th April, 2001.

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

On either side : None.

Documents Marked :

For the Workman|I Party :

Ex, No. Date Description

Wl 8-3-96 Copy of Memo of charges.

W2 26-11-97 Copy of Enquiry Officer's report.

W3 2312-97 Copy of representation a^nlost Enquiry Officer's report from the Workmari to the Mana- gement.

W4 31-1-98 Copy of impugned order of punishment

from the Management to Workman.

W5 27-1-97 Dallv Order Sheet No. 03 regarding Rule 8 against Sri M, Rajendran by tho Management.

iha ppstman book dated 19-5-1995 and 6-11-1995 and the biancn office journal ot even dates, though marked as exhi- bit* on tiie ude of the Management and admittedly the cus- todian of the documents is the branch Postmaster, Tiruvidai- kazhi the said Branch Postmaster has not been testified as witness with regard to the entries in those document* bciore the iyiquiry Officer. The evidence given by the investigating officer Sri R. Swaminathan with regard to these documents and its contents were taken on record by the Enquiry Officer and on that basis lie arrived at his conclusion. As it ha* been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner by such a. procedure adopted by the hnquiry Officer in the domestic enquiry the Petitioner employee was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend his case. As it is mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it amounts to violation ot principles of natural justice. In the absence of evidence of branch Postmaster with regard to corrections made in those documents as a custodian of those documents, the evidence given by the investigating officer with regard to corrections of the amount in the noted Money Order in quesion and the returned money orders and cash can at the best be, hearsay evidence and it can be disregarded in the absence of direct evidence when it is possible for the Management to let in direct evidence with regard to corrections in those documents by the custodian of those documents, the branch Postmaster, Tiruvidaikazhi. So under such circumstances, the reliance made by the Enquiry Officer on the evidence given by the investigating authority as reliable and accept- able evidence is incorrect. Those documents, Branch Office daily account and Branch Office Journal, when admittedly in the custody of branch Post Master, Tiruvidaikazhi the petitioner could no have any access for making any correc- tions. The main charge against the delinquent employee, the petitioner herein, before the domestic enquiry under two articles of charges that he did not effect the payment of money order amount to the concerned pnyee but had forged their respective signatures in the money order coupon and had misappropriated those sums, In respect of article I in tho charge sheet li documents have been filed and in res- pect of article II in the charge sheet, 5 document* have been relied upon. Ex. M2 and M4 are the Branch Office daily account for the dates 19-5-95 and 6-7-95 respectively. The author of those documents, the branch Postmaster has not been examined before the Enquiry Officer. Like that one Venkatesan, who gave complaint with regard to money order of Rs. 450> he sent to his father Sri T. R. Muthaian under Ex. M5 has not been examined as witness before the Enquiry Officer. It is the case of the Management before the Enquiry Officer that as per the records Postman's book ent- ries Ex. M30 and M32 for the concerned money orders No. 4426 arid 1137 each for Rs. 450, the concerned employee has acknowledged the receipt of money orders for dellveiy and had made an endorsement on those documents that those money order amounts were duly delivered to the payees concerned on 19-5-1995 and 6-11-1995 and accordingly, corresponding entries were made in Ex. M29 and M31, the Branch Post Offices registers, and that actually, those money orders were not delivered to the payees concerned but they .havp been misappropriated by the petitioner employeee. A perusal of these four documents go to show that there are correction* in the entries. In Ex. M31 and M32 originally it has been stated as "gone out' and subsequently (hat has been scored out and the date has been put as 6-11-1995. In the figure* for the amount in Ex. M32, there is correction but no explanation is available on the side of Management before the Enquiry Officer as that of Branch Post Master of Timvidaiknzhi for those material corrections Further there is no direct evidence to show that these money orders amounts wero misapproprfnted bv the emniovee concerned except his alleged confession statement. On tho side of the Management, much reliwnce has been made, for amount paid bv ttir concerned employee to the department. But it is contended on 'he side of thn Petitioner emniovee that under threat and coercion an admission statement has been obtained from'Mm and only on compelling circumstances he was mid<" to rmv the amounts on thnse two money orders The tret finding report prepared bv the investip^tinw officer 8' " rurWminarv enaufrv report has n^t bern furnished to the petitioner employee wior to the enquiry and also during thrt ">Tir!i"r-tM bv ih¹* R n- TwifVntlMnniprment. Bv thin a ret)oon"Mn onpnrfunltv h"" fc-eii f1<"il"-rt tr\ ttip TWJtJnnor to nut ffr+h Wn drfp^rr erTW-tiv-iv before the Enquiry Officer Jo the domestic enquirv.

W6 28-2-97 Daily Order Sheet No. 4 regarding Ruin 8 against the Sri M Rajendran by the Management.

W7 9-4-97 Daily Order Sheet No. 5 regarding Rule 8 against Sri M. Rajendran by the Management.

W8 12-5-97 Daily Order Sheet No. 6 regarding Rule 8 against Sri M Rajendran by the Management W9 13-5-97 Daily Order sheet No. 7 regarding Rule 8 against Sri M. Rajendran by the Management.

W10 3-7-97 Deposition of Sri R Swaminathan, ASP in Rule 8 against Sri M. Rajendran.

For the Management|ll Party :

Ml 19-5-95 Copy of M O. acknowledgement signed a§ Muthaiyan.

M2 19-5-95 Copy of daily account to Branch P.O. Thi- Haiyadi

M3 6-11-95 Copy of M.O. with acknowledgement.

M4 6-11-95 Copy of daily account of Thillayadi Branch P.O.

M5 16-11-95 Copy of complaint from Sri Venkatesan to the Manager.

M6 16-11-95 Original deposition from Gunimoorthy S]o Rangaiyan.

M7 17-11-95 Original deposition from Sri T. Rengaiyan M8 17-11-95 Original deposition of Sri R. Muthaiyan.

M9 17-11-95 Original deposition of Sri M. Rajendran.

M10 17-11-95 Original deposition of Sri M. Rajendran dated 6-11-95.

M il 8-12-95 Original deposition of Sri T. Rengaiyan M12 8-12-95 Original deposition of Sri M. Rajendran M13 7-2-96 Original deposition of Sri M. Rajendran.

Ml4 9-2-96 Original deposition of Sri K. Keerthivasan.

M15 8-12-95 Original deposition of S" Ganesan.

M16 5-12-95 Original application for claim in respect of Money Order.

M17 5-2-96 Copy of the Memo No. STC|23-6|92|T M18 10-10-97 Original questioning to the chargesheeted ED Agent by the Enquiry Officer.

M19 2J-11-95 Original Receipt No. 63 for an amount of Rs. 900.

M20 4-12-96 Copy of letter No. Fl/3-95-96.

M21 29-12-95 Copy of letter No. FI|2|95-96 M22 24-8-96 Original Daily Order Sheet No. 1.

M23 26-12-96 Original Daily Order Sheet No. 2.

M24 24-8-96 Original Deposition of Shri M. Rajendran.

M25 27-1-97 Original letter from I party to the Mana- gement asking for additional documents to defend his ease.

M26 14-2-97 Original Letter No ADA|2|98 regarding supply of additional documents.

M27 4-7-97 Original daily order sheet No. 9.

M28 10-10-97 OrigianI daily Order Sheet No. 10.

M29 — Original M.O. Register from 22-2-95 to 15-6-95.

M30 — Original Postman's book from 9-5-95 to 14-6-95.

Mai — Original M.O, Register from 30-9-9> to 9-11-95.

M32 — Original Poitman's book from 19-10-95.

M33 13-5-97 Original deposition of Sri T R. Muthai- yan.

M34-19-5-95 Original M.O No 442f> dated J7-5-95.

2323 New Delhi, the 1st May, 2001 S.O. 1119.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunalf Labour Court, Chennai, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Disput between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 1-5-2001.

[No. L-40012|422|2000-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Friday, the 30th March, 2001

PRESENT :

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 34712001

BETWEEN :

Shri N. Dhanasekaran,

S|o. M. Nagappan . .. Workman|I Party

AND

The General Manager, Telecom. ... Management|n Party APPEARANCE :

For the Workman : None. For- the Mnnagement : R. Kanniappan, Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel. Reference : Order No. L-40012|422|20004R(DU) dated 27-12-2000, Govt. of India, Minis- try of Labour, New Delhi.

AWARD

M35 3-7-97 Original deposition of Sri R. Swamlnathan.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour irv exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-dection 2(A) of Section JO of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, have referred the following dispute under the above order for adjudication :—

tttt flgfc GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2001/ JYAISTHA 5, 1925 [VA*T H—SEC. 3(fl)] "Whether the termination and non-regularisa- tion of Shri N. DhanaFekaran is legal and justified by the Management of the Telecom Department, Chennai ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?" 2. On receipt of this reference from the Central Govt, this case was taken on file of this Tribunal as Industrial Dispute No. 3 4712001 and notices were ordered to be sent to both the parties by Registered Post with acknowledgement card for a heaiing 14-2-2001. Accordingly, the notices sent vcre received by both the par ties, as per the postal .acknowledgements received bai k. Due to the non- appearance of both the parties for the hearing¹ 7-3-2001. Further notice was sent parties en either side by Registered Post for the hearing 28-3-2001., For that hearing also, hi spite of notices were served bv Registered Post, mnc of them was present and again it was ordered to be sent final notice to both the parties by Registered Post for today's hearing.

'\ When the matter was taken up, as usual, both the parties were not present. The counsel, who entered appearance by filing his memo of ap- pearance for the II Party on the hearing 28-3-200], alone is present. The I Party remained absent, in spite of the fact notices sent by this Court through Registered Post were duly served on them thrice. Ever since the beginning of this case, there was no representation for the I Party (Claimant. From this it can be presumed that at present, there is no dispute between the parties concerned, for this, Tribunal, to adjudicate the same. Hence, this In- dustrial Dispute is dismissed for default and non- prostecution.

4. In the result, 'no dispute' award is passed.

No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 30th March, 2001.)

K. KARTH1KEYAN, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 1st May, 2001 S.Q. 1120.—In pursuance of Section'57 of the Industrial Disputes Act,-1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award oi the Central Government Industrial Tribunal| Labour Court, Bangalore, as shown in the An- nexure in the Industrial Dispute between the em- ployers in relation to the management of General Manager Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 1-5-2001

[No.. L-40012|116|96-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

Dated : 25th April, 2001

PRESENT ;

Hon'ble V. N. Kulkarni, Presiding Officer C. R. No. 24|98

I PARTY :

Smt. K. Shantha, M. M. Garden, Old Kent Road, Mangalorc-575001.

II PARTY :

The General Manager, Telcom, Old Kent Road, Mangalore-575001.

AWARD

1. Hie Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-40012|116|96-IR(DU) dated 10-3-1998 for adjudication on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Department of Telecommunication in denying employ- ment to Smt. K. Shanta w.e.f. 19-2-90 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief she is entitled ?"

2. I party is not present. No counsel is presient for I party. II pjrrty is also not present. Counsel also not present. Many adjournments have been given. No counter is filed by the II party. There after case is posted for evidence. Today also none are present.

3. The I party Was working with the II party as Sweeper from 4-3-1979 upto 2-3-1986, The IT party legally passed retrenchment orders, therefore, dispute was raised.

4. I party appeared nnd filed Claim Statement contending that as per DOT Delhi Order No. 269- 34[90|STN it is directed that Casual Labourers 2325

n PARTY

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, No. 13, Raja Rammohan Roy Road, Bangalore-560025.

AWARD

who were employed prior to 31-3-1985 are eligible for Temporary status. Further as per CGIT BG. No. R&E]2-4|24|111 dated 4-3-1991 who could not be taken on temporary status are eligible to be taken on Muster Rolls. The Management has not bothered to implement the orders referred in the Claim Statement.

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers con- ferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ha" referred this dispute vide order No. L-42012/84/89-IR(DU) dated 13th December, 1989 for adjudication on the following: schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore in termi- nating the services of Shri K. Srinivas Kamath w.ei. 13-12-1988 is justified ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled ?"

2. Notices were issued to parties and parties filed Claim

Statement and counter respectively.

5. II party who did not filed any counter. I see after the case was posted for evidence. II party has not aduced any evidence. The 1 party in a situ- ation like this to prove the case that the Manage- ment has denied employment illegally has not pro- duced any evidence. No documents and Circulars are filed. It appears both the parties are not inte- rested in going on with the matter, absolutely there is no evidence. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following Orders :

ORDER

3. First party was selected for the post of an Attender/ Messenger in the Mangalore Office and reported for duty on 2-5-1988. He was appointed on daily wage rate of Rs. 12 per working day. He was abruptly but orally was informed that his services stand terminated- Therefore dispute it raised.

6. The reference is rejected. (Dictated to the LDC in the Open Court, trans- cribed by him, corrected and signed by me on, 25th April. 2001.)

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer

4. First party appeared and filed Claim Statement. The main contention of the first party is that the terms and conditions of his appointment had not been communicated to him in writing and he was only informed that he waa appointed in regular vacancy, and services should be absorbed against permanent vacancies in the local office. But nothing was done as he was not regularly appointed and therefore terminating his services is not correct and legal. The first party for these reasons has prayed to pass an award in hi" favour.

5. Second party appeared and filed counter statement. According to second party the dispute is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The dispute does not come under the purview of Section 2K read with Section 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act,

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2001

6. It is true that the I party was interviewed for the post of Messenger along with several others and he was engaged on daily rated basis. He was asked to work as a daily rated contingent employee and that he was working for some time. His performance was found to be unsatisfactory and there- fore his services were discontinued. He has worked only for 150 days between the period 2-5-1988 to 12-12-1988. He was paid difference of Rs. 2452. Appointment was on contin- gent basis so he cannot claim any permanency whatsoever. It is not correct that he was given assurance of regular appointment. It is not correct that two persons were similarly situated and that their services were regularised. All the allegations made by the first party are not correct. The second party has prayed to reject the reference.

S.O, 1121.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore, as shown in the Annejcure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and their workman, which waa received by the Central Government on 1-5-20QL

[No. L-42012/84/89-IR(DU)l KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

7. This is a very old case. It is seen from th" records that for management MW1 is examined and various documents are marked. Against this, the first party got examined himself as WW1 and documents are marked. After giving many ad- journments none of the parties appeared. Therefore the matter was posted for award.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

8. 1 have carefully read the entire evidence, penned and Dated: 26th April, 2001

considered all the documents.

PRESENT:

Hon*ble Shri V. N. Kulkami, B. Com. LL. B.,

Presiding Officer.

C.R. No. 94/8"

I PARTY K. Srinivas Kamath, Temple Tank Colony V.T. Road, Mangaiore. (K. Ram Bhat) Advocate

9. In the instant case MW1, Mr. R. Kastun, is Section Supervisor, and his evidence is that they have prepared a penal of names and considered for appointment to the post of Messenger. They have not considered the case of this workman for regular appointment as Messenger. Out of six persons only two were selected and were appointed as regular Messengers. He further said that the first party was appointed on contingent basis on a payment of Rs. 12 per day on daily w^ ln He w o r f c ed °"ly for 150 days covering period from 2-5-1988 to 30-12-1988. Ex. Ml is the Attendance Roister He has piven details of working days of tho first party. The work of the first party wan not satisfied no work was dh- 252C TH" GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2001/ JYAISTHA 5, 1923 [PART I I - ^ E C. 3tfi)] continued. He has denied all the suggestions in the cross examination. Of course it is stated by MW1 in his cross examination that no memo or warning was given to the flsrt party, stating that the work was unsatisfactory. It is the appointing authority which is competent to say about the work of the workman. It has come in the evidence of MW1 that the work of the first party was not satisfactory.

10. First party gave evidence in detail about his appoint- ment and his working. There is no material filed on behalf of the first party to prove that his juniors were made perma- nent. First party says in his cross examination that he is having records to show that he was appointed as permanent worker. He further states that he was not filed any documents except WW1 and WWII.

U. It is seen from the records that the? first party has filed two documents Ex. Wl and Ex. W l l. Ex. Wl is a memo to appear for an interview. Ex. Wll is a letter asking first party to contact the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. Except this no other documents is filed. When first party has said in his cross examination that he is having records to show that he was appointed as a permanent worker, he should have filed those records. MW1 has denied the suggestion that all the contingent workmen who worked for a period of 6 months are absorbed except the first party. Taking all this into consideration I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this reference and the management has rightly taken action against the first party. Accordingly r proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 26th April, 2001).

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 1st May, 2001

S.O. 1122.—In pusrmiKe of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Ceolarl Government hereby publishes the. award of. the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ban- galore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the man- agement of Indian Institute of Horticultural Research and their workman, which was lecdvtd by trie Central Government on 1-5-2001.

[No. L-42G12/128/9O-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAT VEHMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

HEFORT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

Dated : 27th April, 2001

PRESENT :

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarru, Presiding Officer.

C.R. No. 9/91

I PARTY

Shri H. Anjanappa, S/o K. Hanunjantharayappa, Iverakandapura, Hessargalta Lake Post, Bangalore North-560089. (Adv. Mangalanda Rao)

II PARTY

The Director, Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, No. 25, Palace Orchards, Bansal^re-560080. (Shii S. V. Sastry-AcfvocateJ

AWARD

1. The Central tunerntnent by exercising the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section ( !) and Sub- section 2A~of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-420i2/128/90-(R(DU) dated 18-2-1991 for adju- dication on tile following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of Indian Institute of Horticultural Research is justified in discon- tinuing the services of Shri H. Anjanappd, casual labourer, w.e.f. 4-5-84 ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?" 2. The first party was working with the second party. He was doing work in the field of lesejrch in fruirs and vegetables.

3. The first party was the Vice President of the Indian Institute of Horticultural Research Station Workers Union. The first party was refused to do emp- loyment therelore, Industrial Dispute was raised.

4. Parties appealed and filed Claim Statement and Counter jespecthcly,

5. First party has filed claim statement contending that he was working as watch and ward employee for over 8-1/2 years and joined services in January 1976, in the year 1982 he was posted as Power Tiller Driver, From 4th May, 1984 to 26th May, 1984 the first party v.as sick and was on leave after giving application and on 7th July, 1984 he was fit for work but he was not taken tor work and the action of the management is illegal. The first party has said that the management ha<; not put up seniority list before terminating the services and has ignored the rule of last come first go and has not complied with the provisions of Section 25F and no enquiry was held and the action of the management is illegal and anti labour and amounts to unfair labour practice. Ths first party for a'l these reasons has prayed to pass an award in his favow.

2*37 6. Second party appeared and filed counter,

Industrial Tribunal | Labour Court, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Delhi Milk Scheme and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-5-2001.

[No. L-42012|246)98-IR(DU)J KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer.

ANNEXURE 7. The case of the second party is that the second pa^ty management is only reseaich onented organisa- tion and not an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industnal Dispute Act All the allegations made by the first party aie not correct. The first party was only a casual labour and was given work whenever there was work in the field. He was never in the regular employment of the second party The first party did not attend work from 4-5-1984. Question of granting leave or lefusing leave does not arise. The second party has also stated that the allegations made by the first parly regarding conciliation are not correct. The first party is not entitled for any reinstatement. The second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

BEFORE SHRI KESHAV SARAN SRI- VASTAV : PRESIDING OFFICER, CEN TRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI I.D. No. 137|99 8. It is seen from the records that on 5th February, 1999 common awaid was passed and reference was rejected It is seen from the records that on 5th February, 199^ the first party has filed rrrscellaneous application to recall the said award and Misc. applica- tion is disposed off, and CR No 9/91 recalled.

Sh. Vinod Kumar, Through Delhi Labour Union. Genl. Secretary, DLU, Aggarwal Bhawan, GT Road, Tis Hazari, New Delhi-110054.

Versus

The Gen. Manager, Delhi Milk Scheme. West Patcl Nagar. New Delhi-110008.

PRESENT :

9. It is seen from the records that even after many adjournments were given, fifst party not appeared Thcreafer rrKtn^ement examined one witness MW1. His evidence is that the fiist party was working only as a casual labourer. He has also stated that casual labourers are engaged tor field work and they are not regular employees First party was not a permanent employee of the management This MW1 is not cross examined by the first party. First party has also not given evidence to prove his case

Sh. Surender Kumar alongwith the work-

man Sh. Vinod Kumar.

10. Taking all this into consideration I am of the opinion that there is no merit m this reterence. Accord- ingly I proceed to pnss the following order.

Sh. Deep Chand Accountant of the

Management.

ORDER

AWARD The reference is rejected.

(Dicated to PA transcribed by her corrected and

signed by me on 27th April, 2001.)

HON'BLE SHRI V N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer

The Central Government in the Min^fry of Labour has sent this reference under sec- tion 10(1 )(d) and Sub-sscction 2(A) of trn Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 vide its order No. L-42012|246|98|IR(DU) dated 26-4-1999 for the adjudication of the Indus trial Dispute on the following terms :—

"Whether the management of DMS is justi- fied in withholding the comprn¹- sionate appointment under the ru'e" to Sh. Vinod Kumar S|o Late SY Bhuilah Singh ex-mate in DMS o.t the ground of non-avaibbi'ity of vacancv in the establishment ? If not. to what relief the dep;rr1ent of workman is entitled to and from what date ?"

New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2001

S.O. 1123.—Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government

2. Th? Statement of Clai ^ and Written Statement were exchanged between the parlies. The worVapn failed to fi> rejoinder against the Written Statement filed by the manage- ment.

2328 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2001/ iYAISTHA 5, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3. The workman has moved application dated 27-4-2001 stating that since he has been given appointment as 'Chowkidar' under the management so he does not want to prosecute the case any further and he wants to with- draw it. Vide endorsement made on the ap plication the Management has no objection.

4. In view of the fact a 'No Dispute Award¹ is given in the case.

27-4-2001.

K. S. SRIVASTAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2001 S.O. 1124.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal [Labour Court, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Delhi Milk Scheme and Iheir workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-5-2001.

[No. L-42011|4|97-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI KESHAV SARAN SRIVAS- TAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBU- NAL, NEW DELHI

I.D. No 181 97

Sh. Rattan Singh, Through The Gen. Secy.. DMS Emp.. Union, C,..\ DMS. West Patel, Nagar, New Delhi-8,

Versus

The Gen. Manager, D.M.S. Shadipur Depot. New Delhi-8.

PRESENT :

Sh. Rattan Singh in person.

Sh. Shyam Lai for the Management.

AWARD

The Central Government in the Minis- try of Labour has sent this reference under section 10(1)(d) and Sub-section 2(A) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide order No. L-42011[4j97-IR(DU) dated 27-10-97 for the adjudication of Industrial Dispute between the parties on the following terms :-

"Whether the action of the management of Delhi Milk Scheme, Delhi in re- tiring Sh. Rattan Singh work A?stt. at the age of 58 years w.e.f. 1-4-96 is just and fair if not to what relief the concerned workman is en- ttled ?"

2. At the stage of Management Evidence tho workman has moved this application dated 9-4-2001 stating that in view of the circumstances arisen he is not interested to prosecute with the case any further. He has also stated that the costs Rs. 150]- and Rs. 500|- awarded against the nvmaffcment in the case vide order dated 17-1-98 and 9-2-99 respectively have not been paid by the management.

3. On consideration of.the fact of the withdrawal of the case by the workman I find that his clnim for the payment of the costs awarded against the management in the case cannot be accepted for his payment to the workman.

4. In view of the fact the workman has withdrawn his case against th^ management, a No Dispute Awnrd is given.

274-2001.

K. S. SRTVASTAV, Presiding Officer 2329

3. The first party has filed claim petition.

New Delhi, the 4th May, 2001

4. The case of the- first party is that! the order of termination is illegal and unlawful against the princi- ples of natural justice and equity. He was called upon for tlhe explanation for his absence End he submitted his explanation. He remained absent on the ground of ill health, as stated in para 4 & 5 of the claim Statement. False charge sheet was issued. Enquiry is not correct. No opportunity was given. The first, party for these reasons has prayed to pass an award in his favour.

5. Second Party appeared and filed Written State- ment. The case of the second party in brief is as follows:—

S.O. 1125.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 or 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tnbunal[Labour Court, Bangalore, a$ shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employer;, in relation to the management of Central Plantation Crops Re- search Institute and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-5-2001.

[No. L-42012]44!95-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT. BANGALORL

Dated: 1st May. 2001

6, It is true that the first paity was appointed as supporting staff Gr. 1 w.e.f. 20-12-1986, but he was not working as Mazdoor for four years prior to his appointment on 20-12-1986. He was engaged as Casual Labourer intermittently prior to his regular appointment. He remained absent as stated in para 3 sub clause 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 of the Claim Statement. His absence wai not on account of ill-health. His ex- planation was not correct. He never improve him- self Therefore domestic enquiry was held by giv- ing full opportunity to the first party workman. The enquiry is fair and proper. The second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

PRESENT:

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni B. Com LL.B.

C. R. No. 135/97

I PARTY

II PARTY

7. It is seen from the records that on 7th June, 1999 my learned predecessor passed orders holding that the domestic enquiry is in accordance with law. Thereafter cuse was posted for argument" on merit. The first oarty has not appeared and advanced argu- ments. I have seen the records. I havt carefully perused all the enquiry papers and I am of the opi- nion that there is no perversity in th; finding given by the enquiry officer.

Sri Mukankila , Director Adkabala House, N. R C for Cashew Aranthodu Post, Puttur, Suffia Taluk D.K. D.K.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute¹ vide Order No. L-42012|44]95-IR(DU> dated 24th. April 1996 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

8. In view of this now we will have to see whether the punishment is proportionate tr requires inter- ference. In the instant case first party has not given evidence rnd not produced any documents to subs- tantiate his absence, MW1 is cross examined b> the first party and nothing is made out from his cross examination, in order to say that the punish- ment is disproportionate. The first party workman should have and siven evidence saying that the find- ing is perverse and the punishment is disproportionate. But all that is not done. Taking all this into consi- deration I am constrained to hold tbat there is no merit in the reference and accordingly I proceed to pass the following order.

"Whether the action of the management of Central Plantation Crops Research Insti- tute in dismissing the services of Shri Mukankila is proper, legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled t o ?"

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and 2. The first party was Working as Mazdoor for 4 years and tie served continuously and rendered un- blemished continuous service. He is an illcterate person.

signed by me on 1st May, 2001).

The second party management without) any law-

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer ful reasons has terminated his service. 1424 GII2001—16.

2330 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2001/ JYAISTHA 5, 1923 [FAKT II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 30th April, 2001 S.O. 1126.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the iCentral Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of South Central Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-4-2001.

rNo. L-41012/12/90-IR(DU)(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

Dated: 20th April, 2001

PRESENT:

Hon'ble Shri V, N. Kulkarni B. Com. LL.B.

Presiding Officer.

CR. No. 62/90

I PARTY

II PARTY Shri S. Shankar, Khalasi The Chief Workshop Manager, C|o IV Mygeri, Advocate Railway Workshop, R. S. Patil's Office South Central Railway, Koppikar Road, Hubli-580 020. Hubli-580 020.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-41012[12[90-IR (DU> dated 6-11-1990 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE.

"Whether the action of management of South Central Railway Hubli in terminating the services of S. Shanker, Khalasi w.e.f. 20-9-88 is justified ? If not, what relief he is entitled to and from what date ?" 2. The first party was employed as Khalasi in the year 1969 and since he has been working till he removed from service on 20-9-1988. His removal is illegal therefore, he raised industrial dispute. Par- ties appeared and filed claim statement and counter.

3. The case of the first party is that removal from service as Khalasi is illegal and bad in law. The enquiry is bad in law and same is not hold pro- perly. The penalty of removal from service without (sanctioned leave or a proper railway medical certi- ficate is not correct. The absence of the petitioner from duty was due to mental insanity, The absence was not intentional. He was admitted in hospital. The first party has prayed to pass an award in his favour.

4. Second Party filed counter contenting that the application is bad in law. The absence is given in para 2 of the counter. It is said that first party re- mained absent without any sanction of leave. It is said the removal is correct and enquiry is concerned it is said the same is valid and proper. The second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the case.

5. It is seen from the records that on 18th April 1994 finding is given holding that the DE is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fair play. In other words the misconduct is not pro- ved by the management. The management, after domestic enquiry was hdd as not proper, iailed to adduce evidence to establish the misconduct. The charge against the first party is that he remained ab- sent. Tn my humble opinion, action of the management in terminating the services for remaining absent on unauthorised leave is not justified and proportionate. The management has failed to establish that the misconduct is serious and punishment of termination is proper. Taking all this into consideration I am of the opinion that the action of the management is not proper and the' reference has to be allowed and accordingly I pro- ceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference is answered in favour of the first party directing the second party to reinstate the first party. In the given circumstances, the first party is not entitled for backwages. Accordingly award is passed.

(Dictated to PA. transcribed bv her corrected and signed by me on 20th April, 2001). Dated: 20-4-2001.

V. N. KULKAJRNL Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 1st May, 2001

S.O. 1127.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in l elation to the management of Sonali Bank, Calcutta and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-4-2001.

|No. L-l2012/226/2000-IR(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 43 of 2000

PARTIES .

Employers in relation to the management of Sonali Bank, Calcutta.

AND

Their Woikmcn.

PRESENT :

Mr. Justice Bharat Prasad Sharnia, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of Management : Mr. S. K. N. Chau- dhuri an Officer of the Bank.

On behalf of Workmen : Mr. M. Ganguly, Sec- retary of the Union.

STA1E : West Bengal. INDUSTRY : Banking.

AWARD

By Order No. L-120l2/226/2000/IR(B-I) dated 10-10-2000 the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Sections 10(1 ) ( d) and (2A) of the Judustrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Sonali Bank in refusing the casual leave on 20-9-99 to Abdul Basar, Sub-staff-cum-Driver when applied for and not communicating him the refusal by 20-9-99 and subsequently deduct- ing his salary for the day on 20-9-99 is jus- tified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?"

2. When the matter is called out today, represen- tatives of both the parties appear and file a joint peti- tion praying for closure of the case as the parties have settled the matter between themselves.

3. In this view of the matter, the reference is dis- posed of as a case ol "No Dispute".

Dated, Kolkata, The 18th April, 2001.

B. P. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

2531 New Delhi, the 1st May, 2001

S.O. 1128.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 ot 1947), the L-emral Government hereby publishes the award or tne Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, ijan- gaioic as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to me man- agement of State Bank ot India and their workman, wruch was received by the Central Government on 30-4-2001.

[No. L-12012/77/91-IR(B-I)] A J AY K U M A K, Desic Uinwr

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LAiJUUR COURT, BANGALORE Dated . 27th April, 200 i

PRESENT :

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni B.Com., LLB., Presid- ing Officer.

C.R. No. 27/91

I PARTY

Shri N. Nanjundappa, C/o Shu B. D. kuuappa. Advocate, 128, Cubbonpet Main Road, Bangalore-560002.

II FARrY

The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Office, St. Mark's Road, Bangaiore-560001.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers confened by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub- section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred this dispute vide order INO. L-12Q12/77/9MR.B-III dated 7-5-1991 for adjudi- cation on the following schedule :

2332 THE. GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2001/ JVAISTHA 5, 1923 [PART I I - ^ E C. 300] SCHEDULE

documents. Admittedly in the instant case domestic enquiry is set aside. Now the management has to prove specifically, the misconduct. In the instant case for the reasons best known to management Shri R. R, Bckal who is a material witness is not examined. Of course from the evidence of MW2 it is established that the claim made by the fust party is not genuine, "Whether the action on the part of the Manage- ment of State Bank of India, Bangalore in discharging the services of Shri N. Nanjun- dappa, Sweeper, w.c.f. 27-11-85 was justi- fied? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to 7"

2. The first party was working as Sweeper in the management from 4-9-1972. For the misconduct charge sheet was issued and he was discharged from service. Therefore, industrial dispute is raised.

3. After issue of notices parties appeared and filed

claim statement arid counter respectively.

4. The first party filed his claim statement.

8. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the first party that the first party attained the age of super- annuation in the year February, 1999. First party wa¹. present in the court hall and the counsel for the first party wanted to examine, but due to paralytic attack the first party is unable to speak and stand proper!). The learned counsel for the first party sub- mitted that he is unable to examine him and thereafter arguments were heaid.

9. Now we have to see in the given .circumstances, whether the punishment of discharge is proportionate for the alleged misconducL. \t the very outset, I am of the opinion that the punishment of discharge from service is not proportionate. Further since 1999 the situation is quite different, because the first party has attained the ago of superannuation and he is badly sick due to paralytic altack. Taking all this into consi- deration I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to take lenient view. Accordingly ends of justice will meet if I order reinstatement without any back wages.

5. According to the claim statement, the first party had availed LTC along with five members of [amily and committed fraud. He had not travelled with tourist agency and they had no vehicle with TMN registra- tion and there was no one by name Sri Krishna Singh who had signed cash receipt and that the bills submit- ted by the first party was a fraudulent one. The case of the first party is that the charge is not correct. Enquiry was not properly held and nothing was proved against the first party. The first party is not guilty of any charges. The punishment is too harsh and not proportionate. The first party for these reasons and some other reasons us stated in the claim petition has prayed to pass an award in his favour.

10. In my opinion, in a situation like this I feel the first party is entitled for all pension benefits. Accord- ingly I proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

The reference is partly allowed. The management is directed to reinstate him from the date on which he was discharged till his superannuation date. No back wages are allowed. The management is directed to give all pension benefits legally to which the first party is entitled. Accordingly the reference is disposed off.

6. Second party appeared and filed counter. The case of the second parl\ is that the enquiry was correct and there is no perversity in the report of the enquiry officer. The procedure adopted is correct. The punish- ment was based on the evidence. There is no discre- pancy between the finding and reasons recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The punishment is proper. The second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and

signed by me on 27th April, 2001.)

V. N, KULKARNI, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2001

SO. 1120.—In pursuance of Section M of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947"), the Central Government hercy pub- lishes the award of the Central Government 7. It is seen from the records, that the management examined MW1 tor domestic enquiry and the work- man also gave evidence. It is seen from the records that this court by order dated 26-7-1993, the domestic enquiry was set aside and the second party is given chance to justify action. Thereafter the second party examined MW2, Mr. R. R. Bckal, Regional Manager. His evidence is that he investigated the genuineness of LGC claiimed by the first party. Ex. M3 is the bill submitted by him. He further states that he contracted one Shri Radhakmhna, of Travel Tips and enquired about Exs, M7 and MS and according to Radha Krishna the receipt was issued but it was not genuine. It is also informed that the first party has not under- taken any journey. In the cross examination MW2 says that he is not aware of any minor punishment imposed by the management in similar circumstances against David Kaj, A. Arkia Swamy and B, Narayan Swamy. This cross examination shows that in a situa- tion like this, the management for similar misconduct has imposed minor punishment, MW2 has simply said that he is not aware of minor punishment. It was argu- ed by the learned counsel for the first party by filing some documents that in similar' cases minor punish- ment was awarded. There is merit in this argument I have carefully perused M3, M4 and M5 and other Industrial TribunaljLabou^ Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Pandyan Gramin Bank, Virudhunagar and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 1st May, 2001.

[No. L-12O12|1O3|96-IR (B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

2333

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHEIWAI

Friday, the 30th March, 2001 PRESENT :

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 44212001 (Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 76|97)

BETWEEN

Shri R. Shankara Narayana Moorthy Workman |I Party.

2. This case was originally referred to Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal by the Cen- tral Govt. was taken on file there as I.D. No. 76|97. On receipt of notices from that Tri- bunal, both the parties entered appearance through their counsel and filed their respec- tive Claim Statement and Counter Statement. When the matter was pending before that Tri- bunal for enquiry, as per the Orders of Cen- tral Govt., it was transferred from the file of Tamil Nadu Indusrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal and was taken on file as In- dustrial Dispute No. 442|2001.

AND

The Chairman, Pandyan Grama Bank. Virudhunagar. Managcment|II Party. Appearance :

For the Workman . Mjs. P.V.S. Giridhar, Advocates.

For the Management . • M|s. N.G.R. Prasad, Advocates.

Reference :

Order No. L-12O12|1Q3]96-IR(B-I) dt. 6-8-97, Govt. of India. Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.

3. After the matter has been taken on file on 9-2-2001 by this Tribunal notices were sent to counsel on record on either side by Registered Post, informing them about the transfer of this case to the file of this Court, with a direction to appear before this Tribu- nal with their respective parties to proceed with the enquiry in this case, on 27-2-2001. The Petition filed by the I Party |Petitioner for production of documents by the II Party | Management which was pending in the file as M.A. No. 10812000 before the Tamil Nadu industrials Tribunal, on receipt of records by this Tribunal, on transfer, re-number- ed as LA. 18|2001. As the counsel for the II Party alone was present the enquiry in this case was adjourned to 01-03-2001. Then after four hearings, at the request of the Counsel on either side, the case was posted on 26-03-2001 for enquiry at Camp Court at Virudhunagar. When this case was taken up for enquiry at Camp Court at Virudhu- nagar on 26-03-2001, the counsel for the I Party|Workman appeared before the Court and represents that he feports no instruc- tions for the I Party|Petitioner. The Petitioner was also not present. Then the case was ad- iourned to 30-3-2001 for enquiry to be held at the Tribunal premises at Cbennai.

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, have referred the following dispute under the above order for adjudication :—

"Whether the action of the Management of Pandyan Grama Bank in termi- nating the employment of Shri R. Sankara Narayana Moorthy is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?" 4. When the matter was taken up today for enquiry, the counsel on either side are present. Both the parties are not present. The counsel for the I PartylPetitioner had already reported no instructions for the I Party before the Camp Court in the previous hearing and had made an endorsement to that effect in the Vakalat. For today's hearing also, there was no reason adduced for the non-appearance of the I PartylPeti- tioner. So, under such circumstances this Tribunal had left with no other option but to dismiss this industrial dispute for default and non-prosecution by the I Party|Clairrmnt.

2334 THE ©A2ETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2001/ JVAISTHA 5, 1923 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)]

ORDER

Accordingly, this reference is closed passing 'no relief award. No Cost.

The Government of India (Ministry of Labour) has mad^ a reference u|s. 10 of I.D. Act, to answer the follow ing question :

"Whether M|s. RRCC and RRCC(P) Ltd., are one or same ? If jes, what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed & typed by him and corrected & pronounced by me in the open court on this day, the 30th March, 2001).

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

While making reference both the parties were in- formed by the Ministry to flic their claim statement. This Tribunal also issued notice to the parties and in pursuance of that notice the Management appear- ed but no step was taken on behalf of the workman. So the workman has been set ex partc.

New Delhi, the 3rd May, 2001

On behalf of the Management one witness has been examined. He has corroborated the written statement filed by him. The evidence he has de- posed is that RRCC Construction Co. is a partner- ship firm. It has been created by Partnership deed, which has been registered by the Registrar of Firms of Haryana in the year 1986-87. In support of this evidence he has filed a copy of registered certificate and partnership deed. He has stated that the part- nership firm and Pvt, Ltd. company are two separate legal entity having no concern with each other. These two firms arc not one and the same. His evidence has not been challenged in .the cross examination." So there is no ground to dis-believe the evidence of P.W.I examined on behalf of the Management.

In view of the above facts it is answered that, M|s. RRCC and RRCC(P) Ltd. are not one or same and the workmen are not entitled for any relief. Reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated and corrected by me.

S.O. 1130,—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal]Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in re- lation to the management of M|s. Rail Road Cons- truction fP) Ltd. and their workman, which was re- ceived by the Central Government on 2-3-2001.

S. X. DHAL, Presiding Officer [No. L-41011/16/2000-IR(B-I)]

A.TAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

-ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, C.G.I.T.-CUMLABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

I.D. Case No. BBSR-7|200O

Dated, 23rd April, 2001.

PRESENT : Shri S. K. Dhal, OSJS, Presiding Officer C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

New Delhi, the 4th May, 2001 BETWEEN

M|s. Rail Road Construction (P) Ltd., P. B. No. 12 Angul-752122 (Orissa).

AND

S.O. 1131.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of South Eastern Railway, Bilas- pur (M.P.) and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-5-2001.

The General Secretary, NALCO Thika Mazdoor Sangh, Room No, 23, Market Complex, NALCO Nagar, Angul-752122 (Orissa).

[No. L-4tO12[72lQl-D-2(B)IR(B-I)l AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 2335 ANNEXLTRE

of Central Railway, Bhopal and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 4-5-2001.

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR CAMP AT RAIPUR

[No. L-4lO12/36/91-IR(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer K. M. Rai.—Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE Case No. CG1T|LC(R)(29)|92

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL. TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR Shiv Bahadur Substitute Poiter.

..Workman

Case No. CGIT/LC/R/206/91 Vs.

Presiding Officer : Shri K. M. Rai.

The Divisional Rly. Manager, SE Rly,, Bilaspur.

. .Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 28th day of March, 2001)

Shri Anwar Hussain, S/o Shri John Mohammad, 12 Block. Central Railway Colony, Harda, District Hoshangabad. . .Applicant.

Versus

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, has referred the following dispute vide order No. L- 41012|72|91-D-2(B), dated 20-2-1992 for adjudica- tion:

The Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Bhopal.

. .Non-applicant.

AWARD

Passed on this 12th day of April, 2001 "Whether the action of the Divisional Rail- way Manager, South Eastern Railway, Bilaspur (M.P.) in teTtninating the services of Shri Shiv Bahadui, Substitute Porter w.e.f. 9-8-1986 is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled'to ?"

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-42012/3 6/91-IRB-II dated 12-11-91 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal—•

2. The Workman did not appear in the court when the case was called on for hearing. It appears that he is not interested in pursuing his claim. Hence; the case proceeded ex-patty.

"Whether the action of the Central Railways, Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Anwar Hussain, S/o John Mohammad was justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

3. In the absence of the Workman, it is held that no dispute exists between the parties to the case. The Workman is, therefore, not entitled to any reief as claimed by him.

4. In view of the above said facts, the reference is answered in favour of the Management and against the Workman.

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer

2. The case for the workman is that he was working on monthly rate of pay under F*W1, Bina, Central Railway from 4-5-77 on service card No. 276093 issu- ed by the PWI. Thereafter he was taken up in service from 19-12-84 to 19-8-85 by the PWI(R), Harda, He was medically examined and was found fit in B-l and A-3 and was posted under PWI (N), Harda from 19-8-85 to 23-4-86. The medical certificate was issued to him on 16-10-85. While working under PWI (N), Harda he was ordered to work under PWI(R)(Bir) where he was given a show cause notice dated 14-7-87 for giving a wrong service card¹ number. Lalter on his services were terminated by PWI (R-B) from 8-2-88 without any reason. His service card was deposited in the PWI Office.

New Delhi, the 4th May, 2001

3. The workman further alleges that he filed a peti- tion before the CAT, Jabalpur challenging the validity of his removal from service. The CAT returned his petition on 14-3-90 with a direction that he should approach the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bhopal for needful action. As per direction of the said Court, he approached the ALC(C), Bhopal who recommend- ed the present dispute for adjudication by this tribunal and accordingly the Government of India has referred this case for decision. Prior to removal from service neither any enquiry was conducted against him nor any notice was served on him as per provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. He had continuously worked for more than S.O. 1132.—In pursuance of Section \1 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cntral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabal- pur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management 2336 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MAY 26, J2QG1/JYAISTHA 5, 1923 [PART JMSEp_3(ii)] 11 years and therefore bis removal from sendee is absolutely illegal which descFvcs to bo quashed. He is entitled to reinstatement with back wages and other monetary benefits attached to the post,

4. The case for the management is that the service card submitted by the workman was found to be forg- ed one and therefore his t services were rightly termi- nated by the Railway. On the basis of such forged ser- vice card, his appointment was found to be absolutely illegal. On verification, CPWI(N) (Bina) informed PVVI(R)(Bir) that no service card No. 276093 was issued by his office to anyone. Jn this way, this card was found to be a forged document on the basis of which the workman had managed to secure the emp- loyment. The basis of employment was found to be illegal and there I ore a show cause notice was issued to the workman. Atler receiving the notice the workman did not submit his explanation and left the job and never attended his duty. In view of all these circums- tances the workman is not entitled to reinstatement with back wages as claimed by him.

5. The following issues arise for decision in the present case :—

1. Whether the workman is entitled to reinstate- ment with back wages ?

2. Relief and costs ?

6. Issue No. 1: The workman has claimed that he was employed as casual labour vide service card No. 276093 Ex. M-I by PWI, Central Railway, Bina. It has been specifically stated by the Railway that the said card, on the basis of which the employment was secured by the workman, is in genuine. To prove this fact, Railway has examined PWI Shri P. K. 'Sharma and Shri M. L. Golan who had been posted as PWI at Bina at the relevant time. They have categorically stated in their statement that no service card bearing No. 276093 was ever issued by the office of PWI, Bina to the workman to perform his duty as casual worker. According to them his service card is a forged document on the basis of which the workman succeed- ed in getting the employment as casual worker. From thf docun>ents produced by the Railway it becomes amply clear that no such service card was ever issued to the workman. Had this card been issued to the work- man the entries tor same in the relevant records must have been done. Issue of such card does not find place in any connected record of the railways. Both these witnesses have specifically testified that the said service card of the workman was properly verified by the administration and it was found that no such service card was ever issued to the workman. This evidence ol" both these management's witnesses has not been challenged by any cogent evidence of the workman. There .is no reason on the record to discard the evidence of these two witnesses of the Railway.

7. In view of the evidence of the management and other materials on record it is amply established that the service card Exhibit M-I, on the basis of which the workman secured employment as casual worker in the Railways, is ingenuine. On the basis of such ingenuine d>""cuments, the workman cannot claim as matter of right to the post as the basis of securing employment is ingenuine document. It will make no difference even_ the workman continujjsly worked for a period of 11 years in the Railway. The illegality can- not be rectified by u continuous service for 11 years. The workman was rightly terminated by the manage- ment the moment it came to its light that the basis of employment is a forged document. No illegality in terminating the services of the workman has been committed by the management. His termination is per- fectly justified. Issue No. 1 is accordingly answered.

8. Issue No. 2 : In view of my findings given on Issue No. 1, the workman is not entitled to be rein- stated with back wages as claimed by him. His termi- nation from service is perfectly legal and does not require any interference by this tribunal. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the management and against the workman.

9. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of .Labour, Government of India as per rules.

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 4th May, 2001

S.O. 1133.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Pa'lakkad as shown in the An- nexure in the Industrial Dispute between the enplo- yers in relation to the management of South Indian Bank Ltd., and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 3-5-2001.

[No. L-12012/77/99-IRfB-D] AIAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE IN THE COURT OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBU- NAL, PALAKKAD

(Monday, the 23rd April, 2001)

PRESENT:

Sri B. Ranjit Kumar, Industrial Tribunal.

Industrial Dispute No. 148/99(C) nEFWEEN

The Chairman, South Indian Bank, Head Office, T. B. Road, Thnssur-68OG01. (By Adv. M. Venugopalan)

AND

The General Secretary, South Indian Employees Association, Post Office Road, P.B. No. 131, Thrissur-1. (By Adv. M. S. Jafferkhan) zm

AWARD

The facts and circumstances of this case nave been narrated in the pieliminoiy order dated 26-2-2001. For the sa|ke of brevity and to avoid repetition the same is extracted hereunder.

PRELIMINARY ORDER

2-1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per order No. L-J20l2/7"799-lR(B-I) dated 16-8-1999, referred the following issues for adjudi- cation :

"Whether the tcHon of the management of tli- South Indian Bank Ltd. in dismissing Shri M. Rathinam sub-staff, Kcelapaguthy branch from the services of the bank with effect from 13-12-97 is justice J ? If not, v/hrt relief the workman is entitled to ?" 2-2. The workman Sri Rathinam was dismissed from service on tihe basis of the findings of an En- quiry Officer rendered in a domestic enquiry. The workman has filed claim statement dated 17-5-2000 and rejoinder dated 16-10-2000 iiiailcngins; the vali- dity of tlhe domestic enquiry.

2-3. The management hat filed written statement dated 18-9-2000 justifying the dismissal of the work- man. According to management, the c'nmesfic en- quiry conducted against the workman was quite fair and proper as the workman was given sufficient oppor- tunity to defend his case.

2-4. In view of the above rival contentions, the preliminary issue to be considered is whether tha domestic enquiry held into the charges against the workman is legal and valid.

2-5. A perusal of Ext. Ml enquiry rile shows that the enquiry was conducted hv the Chief Manager of the Management Bank bv giving the workman ample opportunities to defend his case. It is observed from Ext. Ml file that the workman was represented in the enquiry bv Sri K. S. Anlhonte who is said to be a union leader.

2-6. The objection raised by the workman in \m claim statement and rejoinr[6r is that he was denied the assistance of an expert in the enquiry for the purpose of cross examination of witnesses. As already observed hereinabovc, the workman was permitted to have the assistance of Sri K. S. Anthonis in the enquiry and it is also seen that the management- witnesses were elaborately and effectively cross-exa- mined on behalf of the workman. The workman (WW1) himself has admitted before this Tribunal that he was represented in the enquiry by the union leader and the said leader had cross-examined the witnesses on his behalf. The cross-examination of some of the witnesses runs several pages and cross- examination had been done on several days. There- fore, it cannot be held that the workman was denied the assistance of an expert in the domestic enquiry. 2-7. At the time of hearinq; on the preliminary issue regarding propriety of the enaivirv, this Tribunal asked whether the workman had filed any authorisation m the enauiry authorising Sri K. S. Anthonis to repre- sent him in the enquiry The counstl for the man- flepment was not in a position to reply t h; above 1424 OII20O1—17

qucrry nor he was able to trace out the authorisation from Ext. Ml file. He submitted that it was not necessary to file any authorisation in a domestic en- quiry. He has also pointed out that even in the pre- sent adjudication proceedings, the workman or the union has not filed vikialath before this Tribunal. A perusal of couit recoiJs shows that neither the work- man nor the union has tiled flu, vakalath though it was submitted on the first hearing date that vakalath had been filed.

2-8. The counsel for the management further sub- mitted that this is a dispute raised by the union, but the said union has not filed anv claim statement. It is true that the union has not fited any claim statement or rejoinder. The workman himself has Wed the claim statement ?nd rejoinder The union lias filed a statement dated 16-10-2000 praying that the claim statement filed by the workman may be treated as the claim statement of the union. The isme referred for adjudication in ths present case is a dispute com- ing under Section 2-A of the I D. Act. Therefore, the workman himself was entitled to raiss the dispute without the help of the union. Therefore, I do not think that) there is any irregularity and illegality in permitting the workman to file the claim s*atement rejoinder etc. and prosecuting the matter by himself. 2-9. Though no vakalath has been filed on behalf of the workman or the union Sri M. S, Taffierkhan, advocate was permitted k> repLesent them in these adjudication proceedings. I feet that the filing of vakalath or an authorisation is only a formality which can be waived in the discretion of the Tribunal. 2-10. The further objection raisca by the work- man/union regarding domestic enquiry is that the enquiry proceedings were recorded in English which is a language not known to the workman But it is seen that he has signed the enq\iiry proceedings on every day along with his union representative Sri K. S. Anthonis. It may be true that the workman is n

2-11. The next point to be considered is whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer are correct. The charges levelled against the workman as per memo dated 20-12-1994 are as follows:—

l\) that on 4-3-89 he ^I^npwith Sri S Animu- gharrt and Sri S. Marirnnthu pursuaded Sri M. Rajer*dran, who fc doinp sweeping Works 2^38 ^HE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2001/ JYAISTHA 5, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(fl)J

Jose as MW1. Sri N. V. Jose has e'dborately stated in the enquiry the allegations against the workman based on supporting documentary evidence. He sub- mitted Ext. Ml report after conducting a detailed investigation.

at the branch, to withdraw an amount of Rs. 8500 from his Savings Bank Account No. 1238 being the proceeds of DRI loans (3/89 dated 4-3-89 and 5/89 dated 4-3-89) credited to this account vide payment orders (6/89 and 7/89) and also Sri R. Soma- sundaram to withdraw an amount of Rs. 6900 from his Savings Bank Account No. 19 being the proceeds of two DRI loans (1/89 dated 4-3-89 and 4/89 dated 4-3-89). Out of this amount, an amount of Rs. 3500 was credited to his Savings Bank Account with the branch. Thereby he misappropriated an amount of Rs. 3500.

(2) that the proceeds of the following loans ex- tended bv branch Kanivalampatty in the name of fictitious pevsonb were credited to his account with branch Xedapagiithv by way of Maiit Transfer together with an amount of Rs. 9000 remitted bv him. Thus he misappropriated the proceeds of these loans.

Name of

Date of loan

Amount of loan Account

SI. No

Loan . No*

2.13. Apart from Sri N. V. Jose, Sri M. Rajendran, Sweeper and Sri M. Peethambharan, Manager, Re- gional Office were also examined in the enquiry in support of the charges against the workman. The man- agement has produced all the relevant documents to show that the workman was involved in the trans- actions mentioned under various charges levelled against him. There is a ample evidence in the domes- tic enquiry to show that the workman is one of the beneficiaries of these transactions. Therefore, he can- not pretend innocence by contending that he was only a Sub-staff, who had no rob in sanctioning loan, disbursement of iloan amounts etc. The Enquiry Offi- cer has considered each piece of evidence in the enquiry adduced by both the management and the delinquent workman and has come to the correct conclusion that the workman is guilty of the charges. Though the Enquiry Officer was only a managerial staff, he has analysed the evidence in the enquiry judi- ciously and come to correct conclusions. In the cir- cumstance, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer

M. Rajalingam M, Markka m

(A*r .) 24-08-91 24-08-91

I. 2.

DPN 4/91 DPN 5/91

Rs.) 10,000/- 10,000/-

2-14. In the result the preliminary point as to the validity of the domestic enquiry is found against the delinquent workman. Post the ID to 12-3-2001 for hearing on the question of punishment.

Propriety of Punishment

(3) that on 9-5-92, by misusing; his official posi- tion, he pursuaded Sri M. Raiendran, who is doing sweeping work at thf branch to withdraw an amount of Rs. 700 from his S.B. Account (No. 1238) with the bnnch, whtefh include a portion of the insurance subsidy aimount of 35 IRDP loans cre- dited to this account and received the amount. Thus he misused his official posi- tion and misappropriated the said amount.

(4) that on 16-8-91 Bnnch Kceiap-iguthv w^re he is worVinfi as Daftarv, extended DPN loan (5/01-92) in the name of his wife Smt. K. M S'rumbav*e under a farce address and proceeds credited tn his account Thus he misrenre"ented material facts and mis- ar>i>Topriated the amount.

(5) that on 24-8-91 branch Kanivalarnnntfv ex- tended the following loans in fictitious names.

3. The charges proved against the 'vorkman are not only grave misconducts but also amount to cri- minal offences. Of course, being a Sub-Staff, the work- man may not have, any direct role in financial trans- actions of the management-bank. However, it will nd. be in the interest of the management to retain such a person in the service of the management-bank which it a financial institution defiling with public money. The workman had committed the misconduct not on a single occasion, but on several occasions. In view of the gravity of misconducts committed by the workman, it cannot b" held that the punishment of dismissal meted out to him is disproportionate or ex- cessive-. I. therefore, feel that this is not a fit case for interference bv invoking the provisions of Sec- tion 11-A of the I.D. Act.

Loan No.

Amount

In the name of

Conclusion

DPN 4/0! (Agr.) DPN 5/91

Rs. 10 000/- Rs. 10,000/-

M. Raiaiirpflm M. Manickam

4. In the h>ht of the aforesaid discussion, an award is passed holding that the action of the management of the South Indian Bank Limited in dismissing Sri M. Rathinam, Sub-Staff, Kcelapaguthy Branch from the services of tlhe bank with effect from 13-12-97 is justified and he is not entitled to any relief. The re- ference order is answered accordingly.

Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2001.

B. RANJIT KUMAR, Industrial Tribunal

APPENDIX

Witnesses examined on the side of Management:

The proceeds of these loan? tneether with an amount nf Rs 1t try branch Krelannnnihv vide MT No 78

MI.

Witnesses examined on the side of Workman :

WW1—Sri. Rathinam.

Documents marked on the side of Management:

Ext. Ml—Enquiry file.

Documents marked on the side of workman:

NU.

New Delhi, the 4th May, 2001 S.O. 1134.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14) of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal (Labour Court, labalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Chambal Kshetriya Gramin Bank, and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 03-05-2001.

[No. L-12012|90|92-IR(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR Case No. CGIT|LC|R|172|95 Presiding Officer : Shri K. M. Rai Shri Narayan Singh Yadav, I.T.B.P. Village Gosipura Karera, Distt. Shivpuri (MP). .. Applicant.

Versus

The Chairman. Chambal Kshetriya Gramin Bank. Head Office : Morena (MP). • • Non- applicant.

AWARD

Passed on this 12th day of April, 2001

2339 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide oruer No. L-izuiz|^u|^z-iR- Bl dated 17-2-95 has reterred the touowing dispute lor adjudication by tins tribunal :—

"Whether the action of the management ot Chambal Kshetriya Gramin UanK Morena in terminating the services of Shri Naralan Slngn Vaday w.e.l. 10-6-88 is legal and justified ? If not, what renel the workman is entitled to ?"

2. The case for the workman is that he was appointed as class IV employee Dy the Chamoai Ke^hrnya Gramin JidiiK Morena vide order dated 1-3-87. He contmued on tne said post till 10-6-88 without any break. His services were terminated illegally by the branch Manager without complying the mandatary provisions under Sec-23-F of the l.D. Act, 1947. He had worked tor more than 240 days in the preceeding 12 months pnor to the date of his termination w.e.f. 11-4-88. He was not given one month's notice prior to the termination of service nor any retrenchment compensation was given to him by the Bank. He is therefore entitled to reinstatement with back wages.

3. The case for the management is that the workman was temporarily employed for part-time work to clean the bank office on 1-3-87. His employment was absolutely tem- porary and for a fixed period of work. He was paid wages according to his work. He did not work continuously from 1-3-87 to 10-6-88 as claimed by him. He remained absent for 41 days from 1-3-87 to 10-6-88. On 11-6-88 he voluntarily absented himself from duty. On 8-10-88, he informed the management that he did not want to continue with the employment given by the Bank. In this way, the workman has voluntarily resign- ed from the duty. No undue influence was exercised on him to give his resignation in writing to the management. The then Branch Manager Shri V. K. Swami had never preven- ted the workman from attending his duty. The workman had voluntarily left the job on his own accord. In view of all these facts, the workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.

4. The following issues arise for decision in this case :—

1. Whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement with back wa?es.

2340 ffHjB^AZETTE OF INti-lA : MAY 26, 2001/ JYAISTHA 5, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2. Relief and costs ?

New Delhi, the 4th May, 2001

SO 1H5.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 ol" 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Indus- ii Till Tribunal, Paiaknad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in libation to the management of Catholic Syrian Bank Limited and their woikman, which was received by the Centra] Government on 3-5-2001.

[No. L-12012/211/y9-IR(3-l)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF THE INDUSTRIAL IR1BUNAL, PALAKKAD

(Monday, the 16th April, 20O1)

PiiESENT :

Sri B. Ranjit Kumar, Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 152/99 (C)

BETWEEN

The Chairman, Catholic Syrian Bank Limited,

Head Office, Trichur.

(By Adv. M. Venugopalan)

AND

5. Issue No. 1.—The workman has stated that he was appointed as class IV employee in the Chambal Ksheiriya Gramin Bank on 1-8-87. He continued on the said post till 10-6-86. He was posted in Karera branch of the Bank. He has admitted in the state- ment that no written order of appointment was issued to him by the Bank. The work- man had admitted in his statement that the letter Exhibit M-l addressed to Branch Manager bears his signature. Tliib letter dated 8-] 1-88 clearly shows that the work- man had voluntarily discontinued to work in the Bank and he gave his willingness in writ- ing to the management for making the pay- ment whichever was due to him. From this very letter, it appears that the workman had voluntarily left the job and he did not wish to continue any more in the Bank. On this basis it cannot be held that his services were terminated by the management. His con- tention is therefore relied by his own writing. For the appointment of class IV employee, the recruitment rules have been framed by the Bank. Those rules must be followed for appointing anyone as peon in the Bank. In this case no such regulation has been follow- ed. At the same time the Branch Maiutger was not competent to appoint even a casual worker to perform part time duty in the Bank- If the workman was employed aa a casual worker by the Branch Manager of the Bank, then appointment itself is void. On the basis of this illegal appointment the workman cannot claim any right to this post. In view of this fact also the workman is not entitl- ed to be reinstated. Issue no. 1 is answered accordingly.

Sri V. M. Abdul Salam, Vadakkaedan, A. K. Road, Opp. Central School, Malapuram- 676505.

(By -\d',. Sreekumar Puthczhath)

AWARD

The Government oJ India, Ministry of Labour as per Order No. L-12012/211/99-IR (B-I) dated 29th September, 1999, referred the following issues for adjudication :

6. Issue No. 2.—On the reasons stated above, the workman is not entitled to anv relief as claimed bv him in this case. He is not entitled to reinstatement with back wages. The reference is answered in favour of the management and against workman.

"Whether the action of the management of the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. in dismissing Shri V. M. Abdul Salam, Peon, The Catholic Syiian Bank Ltd., Malappuram Branch with effect from 31-7-1998 is justified? If not, what relief the, workman is entitled to ?" 7. Copy of the award b; sent to the Minis- fry of Labour, Government of India as per rules.

2. The workman was dismissed from service on the basis of the findings of an Enquiry Officer rendered in a domestic enquiry held into the charges against him. In the claim statement dated 12-5-2000 and K. M RAT. Presidjtip Officer m\ rejoinder dated 19-10-2000, the workman has disputed the propriety of the domestic enquiry. On the other hand, the management has submitted m its written statement dated 28-8-2UU0 that tue enquiry has been held complying with ail the rules of law ana principles • of natural justice.

mood and asked the Branch Manager to sanction you Clean Pronote Loan under the Staff Scheme. Since all the loans availed by you were on default due to your leave on loss of pay, the Branch Manager told sou that he had to refer the matter to Zonal Office/Head Office. Then you started abus- ing the Branch Manager in foul language, threatened and attempted to strike the Branch Manager.

3. In view oi the above rival submissions, the first point to be considered is whether the domestic enquiry neid into the charges against the workman is. legal and valid.

Again at 4 O'Clock on the same day you came to the banking hall and started abusing the Branch Manager asking him why you were not sent lor cash remittance on that day.

4. The enquiry file has been marked as Ext. Ml by examining the Enquiry Officer as MW1. A perusal of his deposition and bxt. Ml enquiry file shows that the cuquuy has been held strictly in accordance with the puncipics of natural justice. The workman had been given, ample opportunities to defend this case in tne enquiry and he nad availed oi the opportunities with the assistance of two advocates,

(d) On 16-1-1997 you came to the office in an intoxicated mood and created ugly scenes inside the Branch Premises in spite of the fact that you were prohibited from entering the Malappuram Branch premises during the period of suspension except for the purpose of operating your own amount, that too within the Branch Manager's cabin.

Therefore, it is alleged that you have committed the misconducts of disorderly and indecent behaviour on the premises of the Bank and wilful subordination and disobedience of lawful and reasosable orders of the superiors.

5. The workman has a case that the charge sheet was not served on him betore the domestic enquiry. How- ever, he has (WVVi) admitted betore this inbunal that at the commencement of the enquiry, he was served with a copy of the charge sneei and the charge sheet was also lead over to him. Ihe Enquiry Omccr has recorded this tact in the enquiry proceedings. The workman has staled in the enquiry that he had under- stand the charges and ae denied the same, ihereloro, no prejudice has been caused to the workman tor the reason of non-supply of the charge sheet earlier. As already observed, lie was given ample opportunities to detend the charges in the enquiry and he had avail- ed of the said opportunities. In the circumstance, I iind that there is no procedural defects In conducting the domestic enquiry.

3. Drunkenness on the premises of the Bank.— You came to the Malappuram Branch in an intoxicating mood and created ugly scenes under the influence of alcohol on several occasions.

Therefore it is alleged that you have committed the misconduct of "drunkenness on the pre- mises of die Bank".

6. The next point to be considered is whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer are correct. The alle- gations levelled against the workman as per charge- sheet dated 22-1-97 are as follows:—

"(1) Disorderly and indecent behaviour on the

premises of Bank.

(2) Wilful insubordination and disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders of the superiors.

(4) Doing acts prejudicial to the interest of Bank.—When you were entrusted with the duties of cash remittances at Ernakulam and at other centres you had gone out of the car for consuming alcohol on several occasions showing scant regard to the duties entrusted to you.

Therefore it is alleged that you have committed the misconduct of doing acts prejudicial to the interest ol the Bank.

(5) Unpunctual and Irregular attendance.—You were highly irregular in attending the office. From 1-1-1995 to 29-10-1996 you had avail- ed sick leave and extraordinary leave for more than 3Q0 days."

(a) On 30-10-1996 at 4.30 p.m. you came to the Malnppuram Branch of the Bank in an intoxicated stage and threatened the Assis- tant Manager, V. Venugopalan and the Branch Manager, B. A. Paul for returning a cheque drawn by you for want of funds in your account. You had persisted with your misconducts in spite of the advises from the Assistant Manager and the Branch Manager.

(b) On 18-]0-1996 after cash remittance at the Gudalur Branch you came to the Branch at 5.30 p.m. in an intbxicatcd stage and started abusing the Asstt. Manager Mr. V. Venugopalan. After abusing the shouting hi very bad language you caught hold of the shirt collar of Mr. Venugopalan.

7. The management has examined six witnesses ana marked 23 documents hi the enquiry in support of the above charges against the workman. On the basis of these evidence, the Enquiry Officer found that the vvorkman is guilty of all the charges. I have gone through the entire evidence available in Ext. Ml enquiry file and I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Since the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on legal evi- dence in the enquiry, the same has to be upheld.

(c) On 14-11-1996 you came to the Malap- puram Branch at 12 O'Clock in a drunken 2342 THE QAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 26, 2001/ JYAISTHA 5, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 8. The next point to be considered is whether the punishment of dismissal meted out to the workman is proportionate to the gravity of the misconducts com- mitted by him. The misconduct of unpunctual and irregular atendance alleged against the workman may not be so grave as to warrant the punishment of dis- missal. The allegation levelled against the workman under this charge is that he had availed of sick leave and extraordinary leave for more than 300 days during the period 1-1-95 to 29-10-96. I do not think that this can be considered as a grave misconduct warrant- ing the extreme punishment of dismissal from service.

9. However, there can be no doubt that the other charges \u. drunkenness, the disorderly and indecent behaviour cte. on tne premises oi the bank are serious misconducts. Ihe workman had committed the said misconducts on several days. His misbehaviour towards the superior officers cannot also be tolerated. In the circumstance, it cannot be held that the punishment ol dismissal meted out to the workman is excessive. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation V/s. Subhash Chandra Sharma—2000 (1) LLJ 1117, the Supreme Court has reiused to interetere with the pun- ishment of dismissal as one of the charges was serious and that charge stood proved. In that case, the con- cerned workman in a drunken state along with a Co- worker went to tho Assistant Cashier in cash room and demanded money from him and when he refused, the workman abused him and threatened to assault him. The Supreme Court observed that this is a serious charge of iniscondct warranting the extreme punishment of dismissal. In the piesent case also, similar miscon- duct has been proved against the workman. Therefore, in any view of the matter there is no scope for any interference of this Tribunal hi the matter of punish- ment meted out to the workman.

10. In the result, an award is passed holding that the action of the management of Catholic Syrian Bank Limited in dismissing Sri V. M. Atxku\Salam, Peon with effect from 31-7-98 is justified and he is not entitl- ed to any relief.

Dated this the 16lh day of April, 2001.

B. RANJ1T KUMAR, Industrial Tribunal

APPENDIX

Witnesses examined on the side of the management.

MW1—Sri Anto.

Witnesses examined on the side of the Workman.

WWI—Sri Abdul Salam.

Documents marked on the side of the management.

Ext. Ml—Enquiry File.

Ext. M2—Letter from V. M. Abdul Salam dated 22-9-1997 with covering letter of the Branch Manager dated 23-9-1997.

Documents marked on the side of the workman.

Nil

New Deilhi, the 1st May, 2001 S.O. 1136.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabal- pur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M.P. State Mining Corporation Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 30-4-20HJ.

[No. L-29O12|11|84-D-IIIBJ B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

Case No. CGIT/LC/R/96/84

Presiding Ohiccr : Shri K. M. Rai. The General Secretary, Satna Stone and Lime Workers Union, 79/10, Krishna Nagar, Satna.

. .Applicant.

Versus

The Mines Manager, M.P. State Mining Corporation Limited, Rajendra Nagar, Satna (MP).

. .Non-applicant.

AWARD

(Passed on thh 8th day of February, 2001) 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-29012/1 l/84-D.III(B) dated 3rd November, 19S4 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal—

"Whether the action of the management of Madhya Pradesh State Mining Corportion Ltd., in rela- tion to their Naro Hill Bauxite Mine, Satna in terminating the services of Shri Jagdish S/o Shri Ramkhilawan and Shri Rajni S/o Shri Motilal piece-rated workers, with effect from 24-1-83 is justified ? If not, what relief are the workmen concerned entitled?" I. Tin.*, workmen did not appear in the court on the date of hearing and therefore the case proceeded ex parte against them. The workmen have not pr&duc- ed any witnesses in support of their claim. In this way they have not been able to substantiate their claim as alleged in this case. In th*s way no dispute between the parties remains to be decided.

3. In view of the above said facts, it is held that no dispute exists between the parties and therefore the workmen are not entitled to any relief as claimed by them. In this way Ihe reference is answered in favour of the management and against the workmen.

4. Copy of awaid be sent to the Ministry of Labour as per rules.

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 1st May, 2001

S.O. 1137.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the management of N.M.D.C. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-4-2001.

[No. L-29012|5|97-IR(M)l B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT :

SIR SYED ABDULLAH., B.Sc, B.L., INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I, HYDERABAD.

Dated, 22nd day of March, 2001 Industrial Dispute No. 18 of 1997 BETWEEN

The President N.M.D.C., Staff Workers Union 31|C, S. R. Nagar, Hyderabad, .. Petitioner.

AND

The Managing Director, National Mineral Development Corporation, Khanij Bhavan, Vlasab Tank, Hyderabad-500 028. . . Respondent.

^PPEARANCES :

Sri G. Vidyasapar, Sri K. Udaya Sree, Sri P. Sudheer Rao Advocates for the petitioner.

Sri K. Raghavacharvlu Advocate for the respon- dent.

2343

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour made a reference to this Tribunal vide its order No. L-29012l5l97-IR(Misc.) Dated: NIL and received in this Office on 30th April, 1997 for adjudication of the following dispute between employer in relation to the Management of M|s. National Mineral Develop- ment Corporation and their workman.

"Whether the action of the Management of Na- tional Mineral Development Corporation, Hyderabad in dismissing Sri N.A. Sayced, LDC|Typist over alleged misconduct is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. This Tribunal passed orders on 17-8-98 holding that the domestic enquiry conducted by the manage- ment is vitiated, however the management was per- mitted to lead evidence in proof of the charges. Both the parties lead their respective oral and documen- tary evidence and the matter stood posted for hearing the arguments.

3. While so, on 22-3-2001 both the workman and the management represented by the counsels have filed a joint memo reporting settlement of the dispute under which Rs. 5 lakhs is paid by the management through a cheque bearing No. 064654, Dated : 17-3-2001 drawn on S.B.H., Branch, Hyderabad towards lull and final settlement in lieu of reinstate- ment and back wages. The settlement was recorded in terms of agreement.

4. Thereby, an award is passed in terms of the settlement covered by the agreement which is appen- ded to this award.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on this the 22nd day of March, 2001.

SYED ABDULLAH, Industrial Tribunal APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(After validity of domestic enquiry) Witness examined for the petitioner WWI : N. A. Sayeed after remand

Witness examined for the respondent MW1 : G. V. Joshi MW2 : B. Sen

MW3 : J, Narsinga Rao, WM4 : V. Gopi Nathan Documents marked for the petitioner Ex. Wl : Certificate of the registration of the petitioner union.

Ex. W2 : Letter intimating the formation of the union.

Ex. W3 : Charter of demands.

Ex. W4 : Covering letter for Ex. W3 charter of demands.

Ex. W5 : Representation given by WW1 for transfer of S. L. Arora, Jr. Officer.

Ex. W6 : Another representation dated : 20-6-87 2344 THB GAZETTE OP INDIA t MAY 26, 2001/ JYAISTHA 5, 1923 [PART It—SE$. 3(n)] given by WWI for transfer of S. L. Arora Jr. Officer.

Ex. W7 : Representation dated : 26-6-87 sent by WWI regarding harrassraent made to him.

Ex W8 : Complaint dated: 26-6-87 made against B. Sen regarding assult on work.

Ex. W9 : Fxulanation dated : 8-10-87 given by WW1 to the memo dated : 11-9-87 charge- I.

Ex. W10 : Explanation dated 8-10-87 given by WW1 to charge sheet - II.

Ex. Wll : Explanation dated: 8-10-87 given by WWI to charge-Ill.

Ex. W12 : Explanation dated 8-10-87 given by WW1 to charge-TV.

Ex. W13 : Representation dated : 2-11-87 made by WW1 to charge of E.O. & P.O. Ex. W14 : Representation dated : 13-11-87 made by WW1 to furnish documents regard- ing charge memo dated : 11-9-87.

Ex. W15 : Representation made by WW1, regarding fairness of enquiry.

Ex. W16 : Representation made by WW1 re- garding participate of WW1 in the 13-11-87 enquiry.

Ex. W17 : Representation dated 19-11-87 with regard to illegal irregularities of Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer.

Ex. W18 : Representation- to the Enquiry Offi- cer dated : 20-11-87.

Ex. W19 : Booklet by the victimisation made by the management.

Ex. W20 : Representation given by WW1 to the management.

Ex. W21 : Reply dated : 30-4-88 submitted by WWI to show cause notice.

Ex. W22 : Representation dated : 23-12-87 given to Enquiry Officer for supply of docu- ments.

Ex. W23 : Representation to the management to charge of enquiry officer.

Ex. W24 : Representation to RLC (c) for con- ciliation of the matter. Documents marked for the respondent Ex. Ml : Report submitted by MW2 to the Management.

Ex. M2 : Complaint given by the MW3.

Ex. M3 : Deposition of MW4 in the enquiry.

Ex. M4 : Memorandum dated : 11-9-87 issued to WWI.

Ex. M5 : Memorandum dated 14-9-87 issued to WWI.

Ex. M6 : Memorandum dated 14-9-87 issued to WWI.

Ex. M7 : Show cause notice dated 7-4-88 issued to WWI.

Ex. M8 : Removal qrder dated 31-5-88 issued to WWI.

Ex. M9 : Order dated : 4-8-88 of the Appellate Authority.

BEFORE THE HON'BLE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I, HYDERABAD

ID. No. IS of 1997

BETWEEN

N. A. Sayerd. • . Petitioner]Workman

AND

Chairman-cum-Managing Director, National Mineral Development Corpo- ration Ltd., Klunij Bhavan, Masab Tank Hyderabad-500 028.

..Respondent JOINT MEMO FILED BY THE PARTIES It is submitted that the parties have entered into settlement under Section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act. The terms a^id conditions of the settlement are as follows :

1. The petitioner-workman joined the respondent Corporation on 7-5-1977. He was placed under ru^pension on 27-8-1987 and his services were ter- minated on 30-5-1988- Aggrieved by the same an Industrial Dispute was raised. After protracted negotiations, the Management has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 and the workman has agreed to receive the same for full ahd final settlement of his claim on the following terms :

2. The Respondent Management has agreed to pay a negotiated lump sum amount of Rs. 5.00 lakh (Rupees five lakh only) vide cheque bearing No. 064654 dated 17-3-2001 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, NMDC Branch, Hyderabad.

3. The Petitioner workman has agreed to receive the negotiated lump sum amount of Rs. 5.00 lakh (Rupees five lakh only) as full and final settlement of his case under adjudication.

4. On receipt of the amount of Rs. 5.00 lakh only, the Petitioner workman has agreed not to raise any claim for the service rendered with the respondent towards reinstatement, back wages or any other claim whatsoever.

5. The respondent Management has agreed to issue certificate under Section 89 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for tax relief for spreading the compensation.

6. The respondent Management has also agreed to issue "Service Certificate" for the service rendered by the Petitioner workman with the Respondent.

7. The petitioner hereby declares that he has no claim whatsoever against the respondent Manage- ment towards past or future claims.

m

AN©

It is there fare, ptifcd that the Hon*We 'GWirt may

be pleased to record the icttlcment Hud pass appro-

priate eward.

Sd(-

Sd|-

The Chairman. Tuticorin Port Trust. Tttticorin. .. Managemcntjll Party.

Counsel for Petltitrtifcr Petitioner

(fd fi Vidya Sagar)

APPEARAl-JCE :

Sd|-

Sd|-

CoL"iid for Reipondftht fte8jK"id*nt

(foi K Raghiivacharyah)

For the Claimant. .. None For the MShafcement. .. Shri L, Subr* marinant artd M'. Srif am. AdVocatei S. GURtfSVCWMl, Executive Director

AWARD

(Personnel) KM.tVC Ltd

Masab Tank, Hyderabad-500 028

The Government of Iifttia, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of subjection (1) and subjection 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 11)47 have referred the following dis- pute for adjuxtitetttton Aide order No. L-44011 l|99|IR"eM) dated 24-8-1999 :—

New Delhi, the 1st May, 2001

**Whether the action of the nianagement of Tuticdrltt flbft Thi&t in aenying promotion in the cadre ctf Fitter Highly' Skilled Gtatdt II to S|Shri A, Balsingam,' T. Perumalldian and M. Peerkasim Mohideen is justified and legal ? If not, to tyhat relipf the concerned Workmen are entitled f¹ S.O. 1138.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 or 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the * Central Government Industrial TribuaaljLabour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Tuticorin Port Trust and their work-man; 'which was received by the Central Government on 30-4-2001.

Thi§ order of reference was first made- to Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal by the Cen- tral Government. Ministry of Labour as an industrial dispute for adjudication' and the same was taken on file by that Tribunal as I.D. No. 183|99. Subsequently, by the order* of the Government, this case has been trans- ferred from the" file of that Tribunal to this Tribunal and was taken on file as I.D. No. 17412001.

[No. L-440tl!l|99-IR(M)1 B. M. DAVTD. Under Secv.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRTBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CHfiNNAl

Friday, the 30th March, 2001

PRESENT :

2. This case was fixed on 30-3-2001, thin date, as a final hearing after it has been .ad- journed to various dates from 22-01-2001. the date on which it was taken on flic, on transfer. Tnouglrthe counsel for II Party alotKf was. present on various hearings of this case, neither the Claimant|I Party nor hi* coumel on record appeared and filed the Statement. Thre was no representation for the Claimantll Party on all the dates of hear- ing i.e. on 05-02-2001, 20^02-2001. O8J03-2OO1, 20-03-2001 and this date of final hearing 30-03-2001.

K. KARTHTKEYAN Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 17412001 (Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal I.D No. 183|l-999>

3. From the perusal of records of this case, it is seen that the Claitti Statement of the I PartyfClaimant has not been filed, thpugh the counsel on record for I Party | Claimant appeared by filing Vakal&t on the first hearing BETWEEN The General Secretary, Port Workers Union. Toticorm .. Claittumtil Party.

1424 01(2001—18,

2 m -ran GAZETTE OF JND*A ; MAY 2

(Dictated to the Stenographer and transcri- bed and typed by him and corrected and pro- nounced by me in the open court in this day, the 30th March, 2001).