This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGISTERED NO. D. L.-33001/99

The Gazette of India

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 28] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, JULY 14, 2001/ASADHA 23, 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)

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(other than the Ministry of Defence )

(3257)

2063 Gl/2001—1

3258 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14, 2001/ASADHA 23, 1923 [PART II—SEC. ?(")]

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PUBL'C GRIEV- ANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel a"d Trjiniu^ Now Delhi, the 22nd Juno, 2001

S.O- 1585.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No- 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Jflmmu and Kashmir, Home Department vide notification No. Home-AR/75/98-II, Jammu, dated 17th Dec, 1998 and Home-AR/75/98-11 dated 14-10-1999 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to !hc whole State of Jammu and Kashmir for the investigation of the offences punishable under section 120-B read with 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A of the Ranbir Penal Code, Samvat, 1989, Section 5(l)(d)fr.ad with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Samvat, 2006 and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 (Act 54 of 1959) and any other offencc(s) of attempts, abutments and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the said offences committed by any officials of the Govern- ment/Private persons committed in the courso of the same transaction of arising out of the same facts relating to the authentication, fabrication and procure- ment of Arms Licences in the State of Jammu and Kashmir during the period 1994 to 1998 for com- mission of the aforesaid offences.

[No. 228/49/98-AVD.IKi)]

,HARI STNGH, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001

SO. 1586.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Haryana vide order No. 3/588/98-3 HG-11I dated 5th March, 2001 and hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Dolhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Haryana for investigation of offences punishable under Sections 120B read with 420, 467,648, 471, 477-A Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act Number 45 of 1860) section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988) and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 (Act 54 of 1959) and attempts, abetments and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the said offences and any other offences committed in the course of the same trancaction or arising out of the same facts during the poriod 1994 to 1998 against the officials of Government of Haryana and other persons.

[[No. 228/49/98-AVD.Il (ii) ]

HAR1 SINGH, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2001

S.O. 1587. In exerciso of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Cri- minal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Sh, Viinai Gupta, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting cases instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the exclusive Central Bureau of Investigation Special Courts at Mumbai.

[No. 225/21/2000-AVD.TI] HARI SfNCH, Under Secy.

U$fc$ Ne w Delhi, the 28th June, 2001

New Delhi, the 29ih June, 2001 S.O. 1588.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Poice Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Bihar Home (Police) vide notification No. 3/Vividh-6021/2000 H(P) dated 16-6-2000, hereby extends tho powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Sepecial Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Bihar for investigation of offences pun'shable under sections 302, 307, 34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and attempts, abetmonts and conspiracy in relation to or in connection wilh the said offences and any other offences committed in tho course of the same tran- saction or arising out of tho same facts? registered with Khajanchi Hat, District Puvnia, Bihar vide F.J.R. No. 112/2000 dated 19-4-2000 and FIR No. 117/2000 dated 20-4-2000 relating to murder of Late Madhusudan Singh (£• Buttan Singh in judicial custody-

[No. 228/38/2000-AVD.-H]

S. O. 1589.—fn exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the; State Government of Karna- • taka vide Noiification No. HD 14 PCR 2001, dated 5-3-2001, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of tho members of Djlhi Special Police Establish- ment to the whole of the State of Kamataka for in- vestigation of offences punishable under section 120B ivad with Section 420, 468, 471 of Indian Pena" Code, 1860 and Section 13 (2) read with 13(1) (d) o' Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and attempts ubettnents and conspiracy in relation to or in connec tion with one or more of the offences mentioned abo\ and any other offence and offences committed in tb. course of the same transaction arising out of tt same facts against (1) Sh. Shlvaswaray presenil Deputy General Manager, Slate Dank of Mysor HARl SINGH, Under Secy.

,3260 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 14, 2001/ASADHA 23, 1923 [PART II -Sic. 3(ii)]

Bangalore Zone, (2) Shri K. S. Srinivasa Murty, AGM State Bank, of Mysore, Bangalore Zone, (3) Shri V. J. G. Paise, Branch Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Tata Silk Farm Branch, Bangalore, (4) M/s. Geyem Impex (P) Ltd., Subbaiah Rcddy Garden, Agara, Bangalore, (5) Shji Mathew Joseph, Director, M/s. Geyem Impex (P) Ltd., Bangalore and (6) Shri George T, Jacpb, Director, M/s. Geyem Impex (P) Ltd., Bangalore registered with DSPE/CBI/ACB/ Bangalore vide RC-6 (A)/2001-BLR.

[No. 228/38/200l-AVD.-JI^

HAR1 SINGH, Under Secy.

New Delhi . the 2nd July, 2001

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2001

S.O. 1591.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (I) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh Home Police Section 4, vide Order No, Kha/Vl-4- 2001 dated 10-5-2001, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh for investigation of the offences punish- able under Sections 406, 420, 467,468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and attempts, abei- ments and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with one or more of the offences mentioned above and any other offence and offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts registered at Police Station Hazratganj, District Lacknow vide case Crime No. 256E/256F/ 256G/256H/2QOL

[No. 228/24/2001-AVD.-II (i)]

HART SINGH, Under Secy.

S.O-1590.—In. excercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Criminal Proce- dure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Govern- ment hereby appoints Smt. Lalitha V- Iyer, Prosecu- ting Officer of the Central Bureau of Investigation as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting of cases instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment in the trial courts and appeals, revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate courts established by law in any State or Union Territory to which the provision of the afore- said section apply.

[No. 225/1/2000-AVD.-1I] HARI SINGH, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2001

S.O. 1592.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (I) of Section 5 rend with Section, 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh Home Police Scction-4 vide Notification No. Kha/VT- 4-2001 dated 11-6-2001, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole or the State of Uttar Pradesh for investigation of offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and attempts, abctments and con- spriracy in relation to or in connection with the said offence(s) committed in course of the same transac- tion arising out of the same facts registered as Crime No. 369/2001 and Crime No. 369-A/2001 with Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow.

[No. 228/24/2001-AVP-II (ii)]

HART SINGH, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2001

S.O. 1593.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section' 5, read with Section 6

[No. 228/37/2001 -AVD-H (i)]

HARL SINGH, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 3rd, July, 2001

S.O. 1594.—In, exercise of the conferred by Sub- section (1) of Sectjon 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the con- sent of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh vide Home Police Department Bhopal Notification No. F-12/104/-2000/B (1) II dated May 2001, hereby exterfds the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the Slate of Madhya Pradesh, for investifwion of426j t l te GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 14, 2Q01/ASADHA 23, 1923 IJPARI I I — k c. 3(h)1 tbe offences under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) of Crime Case No. 157/ 2000 dated 21-5-2000 registered with Police Station Chhoti GwaltoJi, District Indore, Madhya Pradesh and attempts, abcinients and conspiracy in relation to or ia connection with the said offence(s) committed incourse of the same transaction arising out of ihe same facts.

[No. 228/37/2001-AVD-II (ii)]

HAR1 SINGH, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 200J

S.O. 1595-—Tn exercise of the poweis con- ferred by sub-section (I) of section 5 read with sec- tion 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establsihment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Govern- ment of Karnataka vide notification No. HD 57 PCR 2001, dated 9-4-2001, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Karnataka for investigation of offences punishable under sections 120B, 380, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477A of Indian Penal Code, I860 and seel ion 13(2) read wilh section 13(1X0 and (d) of the prevention of .Corruption Act, 1988, and attempts, abetments and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with one or more of the offence mentioned above and any other offence and offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the S9,me facts against Shri G.K. Subramanya, former Branch Manager (under suspension) Vijoya Bank, Tirumale Bmach, Bangalore, and any other public servants or person registered with DSPF./CBT/ACB/Bangalore vide RC. ll(A)/2001-BLR.

[No. 228/39/2001 -AVD-II]

HARI STNGH, Under Secy.

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Madurai, the 22nd May, 2001

No. 03/200.1-CUS1OMS ( N X) S.O- 1596.—In exercise of powers conferred on me under Section 9 of the Customs Act. 1962 (52 of 1962) read with Notification No. 33/94 Customs (N.T,) dated J -7-94 oi the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New DcJhi, I hereby declare "AZHAGAPPAPURAM VILLAGE, AGASTHEES,WARAM TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT" in the State of Tamil Nadu to be a warehousing station under the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) for the purpose of setting up of 100 % Export Oriented Undertakings.

[File C No. 1V/16/53/2001-T.2] N. SASIDHARAN, Commissioner3263 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL

EXCISE PUNE-n.COMMlSSrONERATE

Pune, the 11 lh June, 2C01

No. 2/2001 (NT>Cus.

S.O. 1598.—Jn exercise of the powers conferred

on the undersigned by the Notification No. 3 3/94-

CUS (NT) dtd. 1-7-94 ol the Government,of India,

Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New

Delhi, I hereby declare village Shinoli Dudruk, T al

Chandgad, Distt. Kohlapur State of Maharashtra to

be warehousing station under section 9 of the Customs

Acx, 1962 (52 of 1962), for setting up of 100 % E.O.Us,

namely M/s Fairefiojd Atlas Ltd. as approved by OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE PUNE-1 COMMJSSTONERATE

the Govt. of India, Ministry of Commerce Develop- Pane, the 28th May, 2001

ment Commissioner SEEPZ, Special Economic Zone, No. 1/2001 (NT) G E.

Mumbai

[F. No. VIII/Cus/EOU/8/01]

D. S, SRA, Commissioner S.O. 1597,— In exercise of the powers conferred on me by the Notification No, 33/94-CUS (NT) dated 1-7-94 of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, I B. S- GANU, Commissioner of Central Excise, Punc-1 Comrajssjoncrato, Pune hereby declare Vil- lage Mann, Taluka Mulshi, District Punc in the State of Maharashtra to be warehousing station under Section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), for setting up of 100% EOU's.

[ F. No. VGN (19) OM-36/200J]

B. S. GANU> Commissioner32M THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14, 2001/ASAOHA 23, 1923 [PART I I -S E C. 3(ii)] section (ii) dated 11th September, 1993, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such modification, the Central Government hereby appoints every and all the officers mentioned in Co- lumn (2) of the Table below, being officers equiva- lent to the rank of gazetted officers of the Central Government, to be estate officers for the purposes of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers con- ferred and perform the duties imposed on the estate officers by or under the said Act, within the local limit of their respec ive jurisdictions in respect of the public premises specified in Column (3) of the said Table.

TABLE

SI. Designation of the Officer Categories of

No.

public premises

and local limits

of jurisdiction

1. The Chief Manager, (Officer Premises acquired

Administration), Rank of or to be acquired

Baroda, Central Office, by the Bank and

Murribai or any executive situated in Mum-

who is of equivalent or bai and New

higher rank attached to Mumbai.

the concerned department

in the event of vacancy of

the portfolio(s) aforesaid.

2. The Chief Manager (P&A),

MMO or any executive wh

is of equivalent or higher

-do-

rank attached to the con-

cerned department in the

event of vacancy of the

portfolio(s) aforesaid.

The Chief Manager, (O&S),

Greater Mumbai Zone or

any executives who is of

equivalent of higher rank

(Department of Economic Affairs) (Banking Division) New Delhi, 11th June, 2001

attached to the concerned

department in the event

of vacancy of the pon-

-do-

foiio(s) aforesaid.

[F. No. 13/3/2001-BOA] S.O. 1599.—Tn exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Un- authorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), and in partial modification of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Divi- sion) No. S.O. 1890 dated 18th August, 1993, pub- lished in the Gazette of India, Part II Section 3, Sub-

D. CHOUDHURY, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2001

S.O. 1600.—In exercise of the powers con- ferred by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), the Cnctral Government on recom- mendations of the Reserve Bank of Tndia hereby declare that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 10B of the said Act, shall not, apply to the Berares State Bank Ltd. for a period of three months from 27th May, 2001 to 26th August, 2001 or till the appointment of regular Chairman and Chief Executive officer for that bank, whichever is earlier.

. [F. No. 13/5/2OOl(i) BOA]

D. CHOUDHURY, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2001 S.O. ] 60i—Ip exercise of the powers con- ferred by Section 53 of the Bankiog Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), the CehtraJ Government on recommendations of the Reserve Bank of India hereby declares that the provisions of 2063 GT/2001—2

JZOJ sub-section (9) of Section JOB of the said Act, shaU not, to the extent they preclude the bank from appointing a person to carry out the duties of the Chairman ODd Chief Executive Officer beyond a period exceeding four months, apply to the Benavos State Bank Ltd., from 27 May, 2001 to 26 August, 2001 or till the appointment of ruguJav Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for tbat bank, whiclievei is earlier.

[F. No. 13/5/200 i(u) BOA]

D. CHOUDHURY, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2001 S.O- 1602.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980wread with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of the Nationalised Bank* (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1980, the Central Government, hereby nominates Shri S- C. Kakar, Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India, Hyderabad as a Director of Andhra Bank with effect from 1st July, 2001 and until further orders vice Shri R. S. Bakkannavar.

[ F. No. 9/18/2000^B.O.I. ] RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

3266 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 14, 2001/ASADHA 23, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2001

S.O- 1603.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 read with Section 56 of the Hanking Regulation Act, 1940 (10 of 1949) the Central Govern- ment on recommendation ol' the Reserve Dank of India declares tha; the provisions of sub^'jlkin (1) of Section 11 of the said Act shall not apply to the Jila Sahakari Ke.idriya Bank Maryadit, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, from the date of publication of this notification in the OffUal Gazette to 31st March, 2002.

[ F. No. I (37)/99-AC] L. C. TOORA, Under Secy.

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, Lhe 28th June, 2001 S.O. 1604.—In exercise of the power conferred by sub -section (1) of Section 7 of the Export (Qualit Y Control and Impjction) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), the Central Government hereby recognises for a period of three years from the date of publication of this, notification Delhi Test House, located their registered, office at A-62/3, Industrial Area, GT Kama! Road, Azadpur, Delhi-110033, as an Agency for the iiup^t-lion of Organic Chemicals specified in the Schedule to the Ministjy of Commerce Noti- fication number 1197 dated 15th April, 1966, prior to export, subject to the following conditions namely - (v) that Delhi Test House, Delhi shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection council in this behalf to examine the method of irpection followed by them in granting the certificate of ins- pection under rule 4 of Export of Organic Chemicals (Inspection) Rules, 1966.

(vi) that Delhi Test House, Delhi in the perfor- mance of thier function under this noti- fication shall be bmnd by such directives as the Director- (Inspection and Quality Control) may give in writing from time to time.

[F. No. 5/7/2001-E1&EP] RAJ SINGH, Dy. Secy.

3267

New Delhi, ihe 28th June, 2001 S.O. 1605.—In exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection¹) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), the Central Government hereby recognises lor a Period of three years from the date of publication of this notification, Delhi Test House, located and having their registered office at A-62/3, Industrial Area, GT Karnal Road, Azadpur Delhi-110033, as an Agency for the inspection of Mi nerals and Oivs (Group-Il) specified in th Schedule annexed to the Ministry of Commerce Notification number 3978 dated 20th. December, 1965 except for Chrome Ore including Chrome Concentrates, prior to export, subject to the following conditions namely;—

(iii) that Delhi TVst House, Delhi shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in granting the certificate of inspection under rule 4 of Export of Minerals and Ores (Group-Il) (Inspection) Rules, 1965.

(iv) that Delhi Test House, Delhi in the perfor- mance of their function under this noti- fication shall be bound by such directives as the Director (Inspection and Quality Con- trol) may give in writing from time to time.

LFile No. 5/7/2001-EI&EP] RAJ SINGH, D. Secy.

New Delhi, the 28lh June, 2001

S.O. 1606- In expertise of the |nwcr con- ferred by sub- section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act 1963 (22 of 1963), the Central Government hereby recognises for a period of three years from the date of publication of this notification DelhiTest House, located and having !.lu-ir registered office at A-62/3, Industrial Area, GT Karnal Road, Azadpur, Delhi-T 10033, as an Agency for the Inspection of Inorganic Chemicals specified in the Schedule annexed to the Ministry of Commerce Notification number l;70 dated 25 Ji March, 1966 prior to export subject to the following conditions, namely—

(i) that Delhi Test House, Delhi shall give ade- quate facilities to the officers nominated by the E>.p3rt Inspection Council in this be- half to examine the method of inspection followed by them in granting the certificate of inspection under rule 4 of Export of Inorganic Chemicals (Inspection) Rules, 1966;

(ii) that Delhi Test House, Delhi in the per- formance of their function under this noti- fication shall be bound by such directives as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control ) may give in wirting from time to time.

[File No. 5/7/200l-EI&EP]

RAJ Singh, Dy. Secy.

3268 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14, 2 0 0 1 / A S A D HA ±3, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF HUMAM RESOURCE

DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Sec. & Higher Education)

New Delhi, the 27th June, 2001

S.O. 1607.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of

Rule 10 of tlio Official Language (Use for Official

Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Govt.

hereby notifies of the following Autonomous Or-

ganisation under tho Ministry of Human Resource

Development (Deptt. of Sec. & Higher Education)

more than 80% staff of which has acquired working

knowledge of Hindi :—

National Open School,

B-31 B, Kailash Colony,

New Delhi-110048.

[No. U011-9/2Q01-O.L.U]

D. P. BANDOONI, Director, (O-L.)3*269 CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 5th July, 200]

S.O. 1609.- Ii> tbe notification of the Govern-

ment of India in the Minisitry of Coal number S.O.

594, dated the 7th March, 2001, published at page*

1178 to 1180 of the Gazette of India, Part-II, Sectjon-3,

Sub-secljon (ii) dated tbe 24tb March, 2001,—

at page U80; in 3rd line, for "Nagpur-40001" read

"Nagpur-440 001".

MINISTRY OF COAL

CORRIGENDUM

[No. 43015/1/2001-PRIW] New Delhi, tbe 4th July, 2001

SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy, Secy.

S.O. 1608. —In tbe notification of the Govern-

ment of India in the Ministry of Coa] number S.O.

2493, dated 25tb September, 1997, published at

pages 4763 to 4766 of the GazeLte of India, Part II,

Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 4th October..

1997, at page 4765 in the Schedule, under the culumn "Name of the Forest¹', against Serial number, 5,

fot "Dobhan-Pathar", read "Doban-Pathar".

[No. 43015/9/92-LW/PRIW]

SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Sucy.

3270 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 14, 2001/ASADHA 23, 1923 [FART II—SEC. 3(ii)j

MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND CULTURE

(Deparfnen! of Culture)

New Delhi, the 12th June, 2001

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL

GA.S

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2001

S.O. 1612.—In exercise of the powers con-

ferred by Clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 3 S.O. 1611.—-In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of the rule 10 of the Official Language (use for Official purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Govt. hereby notice tho following office under the Ministry of Tourism & Culture, Deptl. of Culture more than 80% staff of which has acquired working knowledge of Hindi ;—

of the Oil Industry (Development) Act, 1974 (47 Central Institute of Buddhist Studies, Lah Ladakh.

of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints,

with immediate effect and for a period not exceeding [F. No. I-2/95-Hindi] GORAKH NATH, Director (OL)

two years or till further orders, whichever is earlier,3271 two years, Director (R & D) Indian Oil Corporation the following officers as Members ol the Oil Indus-

Ltd. (as person having special knowledge or ex- try Development Board:

perience of oil industry) as a Member of the Oil 1. Shri Subir Rului, Chairman & Mariagirp

Industry Development Board, until further orders.

Director, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

[No. G-35012/2/91-Fin.II] 2. Shri J.K Jain, Acting Chairman & Managing

N.K. SINGH. Director (Fij ;.J ic Director, Gas Authority of India Ltd.

3. Shri M.A. Pathan, Chairmnn, Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd.

4. Shri U. Sundarr.jan, Chairman & Managing

Director, Bharat Petroleum Corporation

Ltd.

5. Shri Ashok Chawla, Acting Chairman &

Managing Director, Indian Petrochemicals

Corporation Ltd. (His appointment will

terminate immediately on 1PCL becoming

a non-Government Company).

[No. G-350I2/2/9I-Fin.-U]

N.K. SINGH, Director (Finance)

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2001

S.O. 1614 .—In pursuance of Sub-Rulo (4) of

Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official

Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Cnetral

Government had notified 'Engineers Jndia Limited's

Office of LPG Recovery Project, LAKWA, Sibsagar, New Delhi, the 20th June, 2001

an Office of the Public Sector Undertaking under S.O. 1613.—Tn exercise of the powers con-

the control of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural ferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (3) of Section 3

Gas, the staff whereof had acquired 80 per cent of the Oil Industry (Development) Act, 1974 (47 of

working knowledge of Hindi vide notification No. 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints

with immediate effect and for a period not exceeding

11011/l/97/-98-Hincli, dated 22 May, 1998.

3272 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 14, 2001/ASADHA 23, 192.3 |PART I I ~ S E C. 3(11)]

2. Mow, as the aforesaid OfFico hns sinco been

New Delhi, the 2Sth June, 2001 closed on completion of the t'tsk, the Central

S.O. 1615.- Jn pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Government, thcreforo, denoting this Office.

Rule 10 of the OJlicial Language (Use for Official [No. 11011(1)/1999-2001 (Hindi)]

purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central C.P. SINGH, Dy. Director (OL)

Government hereby notifies the following Offices of

the Public Sector Undertaking under (.he adminis-

trative control of the Ministry of Petroleum and

Natural Gas, the 80 and more percent staff whereof

have acquired working knowledge of Hindi ;•-

Indian Oil Corporation Lid.

1. Assam Oil Division,

Calcutta.

2. Assam Oil Division,

Delhi.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Refinery Division)

3. Northern Region, Pipelines and Kandla-

Bhatinda Pipeline, PANIPAT.

4. Kandla-Bhatinda Pipeline, BHATlNDA.

5. Kandla-Bhatinda Pipeline, SANGRUR.

6. Kandla-Bhatinda Pipeline, REWARl.

7. Kandla-Bhatinda Pipeline, KOT.

8. Kandla-Bhatinda Pipoline, SALAVAS.

9. Kandb-Bhatinda Pipeline, SANGANER.

Gas Authority of India Ltd.

10. Hazira Compressor Station,

P.O.N.GCL., HAZIRA, SURAT

(GUJARAT).

11. UP Petrochemical Complex,

PATA, Distt. AURAIYA (UP>206241

[No. 11011(0/1999-2001 -Hindi]

CP. STNGH, Dy. Director (OL)3273

-3 Ci|/2()O|_3

3274 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14,2001ASADHA 23,1923 [PART II—SEC, 3 (ii)]

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2001

s.o. i6i6.—whereas; by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, number SO. 2334 dated the 28th October, 2000 , issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines( Acquisition of Right of Users 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 from Nallur to Thirumakkotai in the State of Tamil Nadu by the Gas Authority of India Limited;

And, whereas, the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 17th day of November, 2000;

3275

And, whereas, the competent authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted report to the Central Government, And, whereas, the Central Government has , after considering the said report, decided to acquire the Right of User in the lands specified in the Schedule;

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 is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

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

"Schedule"

DISTRICT	TALUK	VILLAGE	SURVEY NO.	AREA TO BE ACQUIRED FOR IN HECT.
TIRUVARUR	MANNARGUDI	74. NALLUR	1	0.03.0 G.P.
			27-3	0.03.5
			26-3	0.10.0
			26-4	0.00.5 G.P.
			26-5	0.08.0
			2-1	0.03.0
			4,1 4.2	0.11.0 0.03.0

			4,3	0.04.5
			5.7	0.13.5
TIRUVARUR	MANNARGUDI	67 THIRUMAKOTTAI	TOTAL 51MB	0.60.0 0.10.0

			510.3	0.02.0
			TOTAL	0.12.0

[File No. L. 140I4/2WGP] P. M. MEENA, Director3276 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14,2001 ASADHA 23,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 3277 3278 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14,2001ASADHA 23,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2001

s.o. i6i7.- whereas, by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, number S.O. 59(E) dated the 2nd February 1999,S.O.597(E) dated the 24th July 1999,S.O.1056(E) dated 9th December 1998.S.0.2559 dated the 27th November 1998 and S.O. 57(E) dated the 2nd February 1999,issued 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 liquid petroleum gas through Kandla/Jamnagar-Loni Pipeline Project in the State of Rajasthan by the Gas Authority of India Limited;

And, whereas, the copies of the said Gazette notifications were made available to the public on 15th day of January 2000,25th day of April 2000,30th day of March 2000,15th day of September 2000 and 30th Day of December 1998 respectively;

And,whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, has 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 tranportation of petroleum product;

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.

3279

Dlstt Ttthsil			Village	Survey No.	Land to b" Acqu- ired for R.O.U. (In Hectares)	NaN
A B			C	D	E/	NaN
Pali Raipur			Chwandia Khurd Khiwal Ramgarh	110 10 5 6 5 7 61 62 160 234 235 236 238 Total 2718/1 Total 795 806 816	0.2100 0.2127 0.1033 0.2138 0.2254 0.1540 0.1160 0.0380 0.1540 0.3141 0.1287 0.0633 1.9333 0.2534 0.2534 0.4715 0.0150 0.0150	NaN
				Total	0.5015	NaN
Pali		Desuri	Ghenri	42 160	0.0200 0,2030	NaN
				Total	0 2230	NaN
						NaN
Pali	Bali	Kotbaliya	909 995 1130 1134	0.2080 0.1280 0.4400 02400	NaN
			Total	1.0160	NaN
					NaN

3280 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14,2001 ASADHA23,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Distt	Tehsil	Village	Survey No.	Land to be acqu- ired for R.O.U. (In Hectares)
A	B	C	D	E
Pali 289 Marwar Junction Gadana 218 219 49 Total Ranawas 308 Total				0.1646 0.1760 0.4688 0.4030
				1.2124
				0.0500
				0 0500

[File No. L. 14014/10/01 GP]

P. M. MEENA, Director3281

New Delhi, die 4th July. 2001

s.o. 1618.— whereas, by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, number S.O. 750(E) dated the 16th August 2000,S.O.749(E) dated the 16th August 2000 and S.O.2556te) dated 27th November,1998 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 liquid petroleum gas through Kandla/Jamnagar-Loni Pipeline Project in the State of Rajasthan by the Gas Authority of India Limited;

And, whereas, the copies of the said Gazette notifications were made available to the public.on 15th day of September 2000,27th day of September, 2000 and 15th Day of December 1998 respectively;

And.whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, has 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 tranportation of petroleum product;

2063 GI/2001—43282 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14,2001 ASADH A 23,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 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

Village C	Survey No.	Land to be acqu- ired for R.O.U. (In Hectares) E

Panchu Dala Chak Ramsar 246 Total Hareoll 1644/2360 Total	D 3 3	0.0440
	Total	0.0440 o.i (too 0.1000 0.0040



		0.0040

[File No. U 14014/10/01 GP] P. M. MEENA, Director3283 1 2 g4 THE GAZETTE OF .INDIA: JULY 14,2001 ASADHA23J923 [PARTl|-SEC.3Jii)l 3285

New Delhi, the4th July, 2001

s. o. 1619.— whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of natural gas from GGS Kosamba to Gujarat Glass in the State of Gujarat , 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 the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to the Competent Authority, Gas Authority of India Limited,Darpan building,R.C.Dutt Road.Vadodara- 390005,Gujarat.

Survey Village No.'	673 Tarsadi 676 680 NALA 775 T o t a l t -	Area in Hectare 0-16-95 0-46-95 0-18-15 o-m-co 0-11-65 0-95-2Q


Mangrol	Kuwarda 748 Cart-Track 787 79 I/A 792 793	0-29-32 0-00-9*"! 0-0 7-13 0-07-55 0-11-79 _0-08r_2_5

3286 THEGAZE1TEOFINDIA:JULY14,2001ASADHA23,1923 [PARTII—Stc 3(ii)l

District

Village

Tehsil

Survey No.

Area | in Hectare 1

CANAL

0-03-00 Surat

Mangrol

Kuwarda

794

0-05-70

223

0-08-81

822

0-00-52

0-06-91

8 21

0-05-43

820

0-00-95

0-09-00'

0-18-80

Drain

0-00-60

0-06-9 2

12/Paiki

0-15-93

0-064-88

0-03-03

10/paiki 0-01-70

Canal

0-00-90

Road

0-00-90

143

0-05-9c

0-18-15

o- I4*- ~7o

\3& 137 "3£ I3S 'So M il

O- I I- ^5 o- oh- rr

IS"/ i o- I**- s-i-

o- oi/.ir

0 2- l o- ^iy

[File No. L-14014/11/01-OP] P. M. Meena, Director3287 3288 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14,2001 ASADHA 23,1923 [PART 11—SEC. 3 (ii)] 3289 2()fi3 Cil/2001—s³ ² ⁹⁰ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14,2001 ASADHA23,1923 TPARTII—SFr 1 cm 3291 3^2 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14,2001 ASADHA23,1923 , [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 3293 3294 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :JlJLY 14,2001 ASADHA23,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 3295 32% THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14,2001 ASADHA23,1923 [PART II—SF.C. 3 (ii)]

329"J

-^"3<£?/>cn>/_. g

3298 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14,2001ASADHA 23,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2001

s.o. 1620.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that

It le necessary iz the public interest that for the transportation

of crude oil fro* viramgam in the state of Gujarat to

Panlpat in the Stale of Haryana via ChaJcsu in the State of Rajasthan,

a pipeline should b" laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for

implementing the "A.igmentation of Viramgam-Chaksu, Chaksu-Panipat

and Chaksu-Mathura tections of Salaya-Mathura pipeline System"•

And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the

purpose of laying such 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 the right of uaer therein or laying of the pipeline under the

land to Shri Sunil Sharma, Competent Authority, Salaya-Mathura

Pipeline (Augmentation) Project, Indian Oil Corporation Limited,

33" MuJctanand Nagar, near Gopalpura Bye-Pass, Jaipur, Rajasthan -

50^015.

3299

SCHEDULE

District: Tonk Tehsil: Malpura

Khasara No. Name of Village

Hectare

2 1

0 Antoll

954/3 954/6

954/2 954/9 954/8

955

956

958 946/3/2

948

265/2

268

267

269

706 Min

705

704

698

688

674/1

673

671/1 669/3 669/2 669/4

669/5

667

666

664/2

647

646

641

645

644

652

653 State : Rajasthan Area

Are

Sq.mtr.

5 4

74 03

07 07

29 00

05 01

21 00

25 03

23 10

00 11

84 10

47 03

12 00

16 06

66 00

20 02

69 11

94 14

96 12

49 17

94 18

81 15

45 08

63 05

54 01

03 41

60 00

43 01

61 11

28 05

29 04

05 06

65 09

70 073300 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:JULY 14,2001 ASADHA 23,1923 [PART 11 - S E C. 3 (ii)] 1 3 4 5 1 _. 2 J 629/2 0 20 24

Ladi

1/1/2

2/2

0 24

86 02

1/1/18

0 07

1/1/17

0 12

1/1/13/2

0 11

1/1/3

0 09

1/1/24

0 14

99/1/2

0 13

99/5

0 22

99/6

0 07

99/9

0 00

99/3

0 03

99/2

0 10

99/4

0 13

100/1/4

0 09

820/1/2

Dethani

853

0 21

34 31

854/1/1

852

850

849

848

847

857

859

846

785

0 01

80 02

26 06

93 02

70 03

78 14

70 01

32 05

31 38

45 26

50 Kurar

1034/1/1

1034/1/2

0 02 18

1034/2

0 07

1033/2/1

0 01

95 06

1033/2/4

25 01

1033/4/1

1027

0 00

1036

0 02

1035

0 20

1018/1/2

0 24

1018/2

0 07

1017

0 37

1149.

0 53

1150

013301

2 _ [ . .„

L_ ¹

Syah

5 I 80 75 33 20 54 86 64 17 41 90 59 43 29 46 72 65 44 83 50 98 47 22 81 77 06 50 50 13 47 87 54 05 39 01 35 28 28 40 52 56 88 30

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 1_ . _ 17 00 16 02 14 01 04 16 03 01 04 04 01 01 06 08 09 18 00 01 08 00 04 00 01 11 00 16 00 07 09 01 16 01 01 05 05 04 02 09 11 14

1170 1169 1267/2 1266 1265/1 1317 1318/2 1318/3 1327 1329 1330/1 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337/1/2 1386 961 960 1392 1393 959 1396/2 1394 1395/1 1395/2 944 943 942/2 910/2 914 913 912 911 910 626/2 626/1 628 629 625/2 634/1/2 6353302 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:JULY14,2001ASADHA23,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)l 1 2 |

3 0 0

4 12 17

5 | 54 38

619/1/1 666

0 0

01 05

69 28

618/2 667

0 0 0 0

0 0

668 674/1 674/2 675/2 675/3 683 684

00 10 01 03 03 10 05 07

36 56 53 03 52 67 28 92

0 0

698/1 713 724/1 714

721/1 721/2 1169/1 1168/2 1212/4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 00 13 05 05 05 03 11 00

42 12 97 28 28 39 08 00 21

1210

1211

0 0

1213/1

1204/2

1102/1/22

1102/1/20

1112

1108/4 1108/1

36 04 54 08 34 32 57 97

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

08 07 01 03 10 01 20 02 07

1108/2

1102/1/10

92 23

0 0

1102/1/9

05 03

96 59

0 0

1102/2/5

1102/1/23

07 04

64 63 97

1102/1/2

1102/1/5

1115/2

1115/3

1115/1

02 03 00 12 00

32 68 06

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1102/1/4

1115/5

00 07

1117/23303 . 4 j 1 1 I 5 j 08 01 3 0 1117/1 06 0 0

0 Barol Pachewar

1102/1/1 1/1/1 2140/1 2143

0 0

2144/2 2173/4 2176

2175

2410/2 2410/3

2401/4 2401/3 2401/2 2400/2 2391/4

2391/5 2391/6

0 0

2389 2386 2385/6 2437/1 2437/2 2385/3 2385/1

2440/2 04

82 f\fS99 aa00

12 31 13 21 02

12 08

87 36 76 01

31 06

31 09

52 04

76 05

44 00 02

82 02

82 01

41 00

37 48 00

65 01

10 12

70 11 00

57 90 63

~t A

2440/1

2465

0 0

2464/1 2463

0 0

2462 2490/1 2490/2 2507/2 2506/2

2506/1 2502/1

2503 2504 8769 8770

8767/1 04

68 22

43 09 04

51 18

64 07

85 21

13 05

02 80

48 08 08

74 16

0 0

44 17

0 • V JM

T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D I A: J U LY 1 4 , 2 0 01 A S A D H A 2 3 J 9 23

[ P A RT I I —S E C. 3 ( i i )] 2 _±

L 1 1

4 11 11 15 01 11 09 08 17 01 26 01 13 14 11 06 07 00 10 25 06 05 03 02 08 09 02 03 08 00 06 01 14 23 08 01 30 00 00

3 I 17 28 40 32 65 27 65 42 17 20 40 20 31 69 82 43 69 73 91 38 06 25 27 84 97 86 96 75 10 02 10 36 38 51 15 58 07 86

Malikpur

01 40 42 55

02 07 01 00

3 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0

8753 8752 8751 8750 8747 8746 8676/1 8674 8671 8672 8673 8654 8655 8567 8568 8571 8578 8559/3 8556/2 8555/2 8551/2/1 7542 7546 7545 7543 7536/2 7536/1 7535 7534 7533 7532 7523 7496 7491 7456 8442 8439 138 136 135 134 1303305 2 T 1 J 4 J_ 119/1 119/2 126 120 114 113

15 06 05 02 09 01 03 03 00

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 46 85 46 20 40 76 30 35 47 32

0 0 0

01 01 00 01 13 00

81 79 78 77 85 86 74 67 65/1 66 65/2 64/2

65 96 38 73 79 96 99 48 94 12 22 59 08 39 12

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0

63/1 62/1 58 59 57 55/5 55/6

00 01 07 01 02 00 07 04 00 07 01 03 18 00

55/4 315 319 320

Pxr

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

321/1 322/1 329 330 328/2 331 334/1 334/2 335 336 380 379 378

01 12 01 02 08 01 10 00 01 00 09

29 85 75 52 75 98 09 32 42 44 13 64 27 20 44 00 •I()(i.l GI/2001— 7T,nfi THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14,2001 ASADHA 23,1923 [PART 11—SF.C. 3 (ii)] 1 _ 5 . _ J ,_ ⁴ .. -L

Kirawal

2 384 376/2 385 388 389 387/1 393 397 400 415 414/1 413 412 408/1/3 409/1 422/3 1108 1145/1Min 1124 1125

42 63 66 87 89 33 61 09 37 88 50 63 23 95 47 73 57 95 75 82 34 34 70 35 70 59 52 09 46 88 76 66 30 71 11 75 92 19 17 23 41 88

02 03 00 03 03 10 02 02 13 00 00 05 01 06 10 06 00 41 02 07 10 10 18 09 18 15 09 01 05 00 01 03 34 00 00 16 02 03 05 06 03 00

3 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1126/1 Min 1126/3 1102/1 Min 1102/1/2 Mln 1102/4 Min 1102/6 1100 1098 1099 1089 1090 1088 1077 1075 1023 1076 1026 1027 1025 1029 1017Mln 10133307 3 1 1 I 2 . _ L_ _l_ ' - £ | 1005 4 09 05 A t\ 1003 0 0 1002

1001

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

990 940 937 927 929 928 908 905 907

0 0 0

02 01 05 07 00 03 00 03 03 00 00 03 02 09 03 00 03

0 0 0 0 0

0 0

40 rn52 f\ A94 [A56 no02 ~⁷ft79 03 A A41 30 nrt68 96 C A51 70 18 A ⁴41 03 63 31 79 32 A C15 A f\40 07 09 68

A t\

19 32 05

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

906 893 891 890 842 843 841 837 839 838 836 662 663 664 680 679 667 678 676 689 690 728 727 741/2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

01 03 01 00 01 03 04 01 00 00 08 00 07 00 00 04 01 06 00 05 05 02 05 03

A A

07 26 A O18 A C15 O A84 A O13 ⁰⁰82 08 f A50 67 nrt20 39 96 SO Tft /D

Q J

J I)

746 747 748 744 754 531 530 528 527 526 524/2

42 71 58

498/2

05 06 07 22 34 14

3308 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14,2001 ASADHA23,1923 [PARTII—Sbc.3 (ii)] 4 2 3 5 L___J 1 Chawandiya 1/14 0 03 05 1/12 0 11 21

2/1 Min

2/2 Mln

3/1 Min

3/2 Mln

3/3 Min

3/4 Min

1/10

1/5

1/11

1/9

1/8

0 01

49 01

49 02

09 02

09 18

70 06

05 04

42 12

20 18

51 Arniyabassi

350/4

350/3

351

335

343

341

336

337

331Min

330/1

326

327 '

325

323

324

401/6

401/7

260

259

258 .

261

0 0

256 255

245

240

241

219

220

213/1

213/3

161

173

174

172

171

169

.0 09

10 04

04 10

41 06

02 09

25 04

13 06

08 10

00 09

11 14

22 02

75 05

28 12

' 5 1'

66 12

14 04

62 12

79 10

26 04

40 01

49 07

70 04 08

02 36 15

40 09

66 11

01 26

83 06

12 23

34 18

95 12

59 07

82 06

_ _ flSL__ „ .

... .._. 14

I File No. 2^011 /13/2001 -OR-I] S. CIIANDRASEKHAR. Under Secy.

33O43310 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JULY 14,2001 ASADHA23,1923 [PARTII—SLC.3(U)] 3311 1.112 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14,2001 ASADIIA 23,1923 _ [PART II Sbc.3(ii)] 3313 2063 GI/2001—fl3314 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14,2001 ASADHA23,1923 [PART H—-SEC. 3 (ii)] 3315 3316 ' THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:JULY14,2001ASADHA23,1923

[PARTII—Si-.c;3(ii)]3317

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2001

s.o. 1621.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that

it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation

of crude oil from Viramgam in the state of Gujarat to

Panipat in.the State of Haryana via Chaksu in the State of Rajaathan,

a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for

implementing the "Augmentation of Viramgam-Chaksu, Qhaksu-Panipat

and Chalcsu-Mathura sections of Salaya-Mathura pipeline System".

And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the

purpose of laying such 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

uaer therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may,

within twenty one dayB from the date on which the copies of this

notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made

available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition

of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the'

land to Shri Sunil Sharma, Competent Authority, salaya-Wathura

Pipeline (Augmentation) Project, Indian Oil Corporation Limittd,

33, WuJctanand Nagar, near Gopalpura Bye Pass, Jaipur,/BajasthanV

302018.

'3318 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA: JULY 14,200) ASADHA23,1923 [PARI II—Stc.3 (ii)]

SCHEDULE

TehsihPhagi

District:Jaipur State:Rajasthan Area

Khasara No.

Name of Village

Hectare

3 Are 4

Sq.mtr.

5 MAINDWAS

1795

0 30

1795/2371

0 00

1798

0 06

1801

0 04

1800

0 11

1837

0 01

1836

0 02

1850/2379

0 08

1850

0 08

1851

0 07

1852

0 09

1853

0 02

1999

0 06

1997

0 03

1900

0 09

1994

0 06

1993

0 08

1992

0 17

1782/2369

2020

0 08

1983

0 00

1984

0 00

1985

0 00

1986

0 05

1982

0 03

1981

0 03

2025

0 01

98 NIMERA

1114

0 00

1102

0 20

1103

0 00

1062

0 00

1205/5

0 , 17

413319 1 1 I 2 |

1226/1

3 0

1228

1227

1249

1246

1255

1336

1335

1331

1332

1346

1347

1348

1358 1357

1362

1363

1545

1546

1547

1638/1

1639

1640

0 ' 0 0 0 0 0

1622

1620

1619

1605

1606

1613

1612

1659

1729

1728

1727

1826

1824

1820

1819

5 I 76

I 4 | 05

04 04 09

06 12 00

16 62 88

00 15 00

01 00

05 10 12

33 54

08 11

983320 THE G AZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14,2001ASADHA 23,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 1 1 II 2 . | 3 I 0 5 I 87 I 4 | 00 1818 04 0 19 1807 76 01 1812 0 0 1808 1809

0 1804

0 1802 1840

0 2049 2050

0 2053 2052

0 2060

0 2054

0 2059

0 2058

0 2800

0 2100

0 2798

0 2797 2804

0 2835 2834

0 2833

0 2830

0 2831 2832

0 2829

0 2826 2825

0 2824

0 2823

0 2870

0 2873

0 2871

0 2872 2885

0 2884

42 00

96 07

88 00

42 06

99 21 90 00

74 06

08 00

78 00

43 01

41 03

85 06

39 08

12 33 02

66 00

41 04

70 00

16 00

92 06

01 01

74 00

68 02

20 00

03 03

30 06

39 05

76'3321 1 1 I

I 2 | 2883

3 0

2880

2682

2699

2881

3071

3069

3070

0 0 0

3066

3067

3007

3008

3009

3004

3002

3001/1

3001/2

2993

2992

2988 2991

2987

2986

2985

2962

2963

0 0

2964 2984

2965

2966

2951

0 I 4 | 01

5 I 60

48 10

34 36

76 77 66

28 17 03

03 00

96 69

2949

2950

2948

2945/2

0 0

2945/4 2945/3

0 01

78 55 15 88

06 17 02

KER1A

456

455

0 17

^ohZclfaj/— 5

3322 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA .JULY 14,2001 ASADHA23,1923 , [PARTII—SEC.3 (ii)]

1 1

I 2 | 460

461

462

471

470

478

477

497/2

497/3

502

0 0

290/2

291

288

289

0 0

285

286

282

265 266

267

199

5 | 30

3 I 0 4 | 01

00 85

52 04

47 95

03 02

'84

KANWARPURA

200

198

202/1

202/2

202/3

0 0

203

201

196

194

193

192

20/3

0 0

12 01

04 07

02 00

88 17

083323 1 1 1

3 0

I 1 35

. 0

38 52 71 .

=> I 14

I 4 | 00 11 08

96/1

96/8/3

96/5

96/8/2

96/11

157

RATANPURA

155

98/1

22/1

27/1

27/2

0 0

35 40 71 34

12 17 16

643324 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:JULY14,2001ASADHA23,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 1 1 I

I 4 | 09

3 0

2 I

51

59 400/1

400/3

401 M A N DI

848

954

955

953

956

949 966

967

969

970/1 970/2

977

976

975/1

983

984

981 994

998

999

1009

1010

896/2

896/1

1015

1014

1013

5 I 01 11 83

01 13

0 0 0

97 70 37 42

0 0

06 06 03

08 07

[No.R-25011/15/2001 OR-I] S. CHANDRASEKHAR, Under Secy.

3325

New Delhi, the 9ih July, 20013326 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:JULY14,2001ASADHA23,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 3227 3328 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JULY 14,2001 ASADHA23,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 3329 2 ( 1 63 ( i l / 2 0 01 — 1 ()3330 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14,2001 ASADHA23,1923 [pARrll—SEC.3(JJ)] 3331 3332 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JULY 14,2001 ASADHA23,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 3333 s. o. 1622— Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Crude Oil through Viramgam in the State of Gujarat, Panipat in the State of Haryana to Chaksu in the State of Rajasthan, pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation 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, Salaya-Mathura Pipeline (Augr mentation) Project, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Kothi No. 1439, Sector-15, Urban Estate, Sonepat (Haryana)-131001.

3334 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14,2001 ASADHA23,1923 [PART II—Si£C. 3 (ii)l

Schedule

Tehsll: Panlpat

Dist:Panipat State: Haryana

Name of Village

Mustatil No 3

Area Are 6

Hadbast

No.

2 Khasra/

Killa No

4

Hectare. 6

Kalkha

15 16/2 17/1 24/2 4 7/1

7/2 14

23 3 22/2 2/1/1 2/1/2 2/2/1 2/2/2 2/2/3 9/1

9/2

11 12/2 19/2 20

21 •v

11 6

15 16

25 5

14 15

16 17

108

4 7 13/3 14

17 18

116

23 3

Sq.Mtr 7 78 0

02 06

63 0

54 0 0

03 06

0 0

06 02

29 83 83 78 0 0

04 06

83 0

03 03

04 83 0

54 0 0

04 00

05 51 0 0

00 01

00 26 0

26 0 0

76 0

01 00 00 06

51 07 0

25 0 0

06 01

32 77 81 0 0 0

58 32

06 06 06

32 28 0 0

00 04

05 83 0 0

06 05

58 31 0 0

06 01

0 0

77 81

04 00

0 0

32 58 0

06 06

0 0

32 25 0

05 01

01 81 0 0

06 06

83 83 0 0

06 06

32 3.335 1 1

I 2 I 3 |

I 6

129

135

142 143

4 I 18 19 22 23/1 2 9 12 19 21 22/1 22/2 1 10 21 1 5

5 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

04 03 06 00 06 06 06 06 03 01 00 06 02 00 01 04

I 7 | 05 04 83 00 83 83 83 32 54 26 25 83 53 26 01 80

169 180 181 241 242 258 261 262 282 283 284 285 683

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

03 01 01 00 01 00 00 00 00 02 00 00 00

04 26 52 76 77 51 51 25 25 28 51 51 51 Lohari

9 10

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

24 4 7 13 14 17 18 23 3 8 12 13 18 19 22 2 9 11/2' 12/1 12/2 19 20 21 15

77 83 83 00 32 00 55 32 83 32 00 31 25 53 32 83 83 00 79 04 02 55 58 00

01 06 06 00 06 00 04 06 06 06 00 05 00 02 06 06 06 00 03 03 02 04 06 003336 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14,2001ASADHA 23,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)l 1 1 I 2 |I 3

101

I 4 | 16 25/2 1 10 11 20 5/1/1/1 5/1/1/2 5/1/2 5/2 6/1 6/2 14 15 16 17 24 4 7 14 17 18/1/1 18/1/2 23/2 23/3 24 3 8/1 8/2 13 18 19/1/1 19/1/2 22 26 2 9 12 19/2 20 21 1 10/1 10/2 11

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

I 6 04 06 06 06 06 02 00 04 00 01 03 03 00 06 02 03 06 06 05 06 03 03 00 03 03 00 06 06 00 04 03 03 00 06 02 06 06 06 02 04 06 05 03 03 05

| 7 | 05 58 83 83 58 28 00 30 76 26 29 29 00 83 78 54 58 83 82 07 04 54 00 04 54 00 07 58 00 05 54 04 51 83 78 32 58 58 78 05 58 82 04 79 82

145 186 192 199 202 203 744 752

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

02 03 00 00 00 00 03 00

02 54 51 51 51 51 29 513337 1 2 1 3 1 37 23 Sutana 63

I 5 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0;' :0 b

Untala

— m~ - .

—~

I 4 9 11 12 19 20 21 1 10 11 20 15/2 16 25 5 14 226 803 814 815 14 17 23 24 3 4 8 13 10 20 21 1 10 5 6 15 16 25 13 14/1 18 23 8 13 18 23/1 23/2 3 8 13 18 19 22 23

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 03 00 06 01 04 06 06 00 03 00 00 04 06 02 00 02 00 02 00 02 06 00 06 06 00 06 03 00 06 06 03 00 01 06" 06 06 02 04 00 06 01 07 06 06 03 04 06 06 06 06 00 02 05

I 7 | 54 51 07 26 81 83 58 83 54 00 25 05 58 78 00 28 51 53 51 53 83 76 07 32 51 58 54 25 83 83 29 00 77 83 83 32 53 55 25 58 77 . 84 58 58 04 79 32 83 58 58 51 02 06 2063 OI/2001 — II3338 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA:JUtY14,2001ASADHA23,1923 [PART 11—SFC. 3 (ii)] 1 1

I 2

I 3 | 66

4 I 2 3 8

6 I 03 03 02 04 06 01 06 06 06 03

I 7 | 54 54 53 55 07 52 58 58 83 04

12 13 19 22 2 9

5 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

93 46 52 52 02 51 51 51 51

15 18 01 01 02 00 00 00 00

81 82 92 98 258 111 306 307 312

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Asan Khurxi

00 06 08 06 01 01 04 01 03 00 06 06 06 00 06 06 01 07 04 06 06 02 04 00 02 02 00 05 00 08 00 03 05

25 32 83 32 77 01 05 26 79 00 83 32 83 51 58 07 26 59 81 83 83 28 05 25 78 28 25 82 76 09 51 04 82

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 6 15 16 24/2 25/1 25/2 4/1 4/2 5/1 7 14 17 23/2 24/1 3 4 8 13 18 23 2 3 8 9 19/2 2 9 10 11 12 20 163339 2 1 1 I I 3 I 4 I 38

6 | 02 01 05 02 00 00

7 I 02 01 06 28 50 25

5 I 0 0 0 0 0 0

24/1 24/2 25 4 7 14

02 04 01 00 00 00 00 00

78 55 52 51 51 25 51 51

71 77 84 114 115 117 283 291

0 0 0 t) 0 0 0 0

Asan Kalan

0 0

b c

55 83 78 05 00 83 83 83 83 25 78 52 28 55 83 83 83 83 82 01 07 76 00 04 54 76 27 32 02 05

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

04 06 02 04 00 06 06 06 06 00 02 01 02 04 06 06 06 06 05 01 06 00 00 03 03 00 02 06 02 04

107

4 7 13 14 17 18/1 23 3 8 12 13/1 13/2 18 19 22 2 9 12 19/3 20 21 22 16/1 25 1 10/2 11/2 20 21 5

01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

187 202 203 204 205 220 308 310 883

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

77 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 763340 THEGAZETTEOFmDIA:JULYJ4,2001ASADHA23,1923 _[PART I I - S E C. 3 (ii)] 1 ¹

I ²

Khandra

| 3 I

38

37

I 6 | 03 06 05 00 01 06 06 04 03 06 05 01 06 00 06 06 04

7 I 79 83 06 00 77 58 83 05 04 83 56 01 07 76 83 83 05

4 I 21 1 10 11 6 15 16 25/1 25/2 5 6 7 14 15 17 24 4

5 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Baljatan

141

18 23/1 23/2 7 14 17 23 - 24

149

160

163

04 13 01 06 06 06 00 06 05 01 08 06 06 06 01 04 00 05 08 06 06 00 06 02 04 06 06 02

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3/2 4 8 13 18 23 2 3 8 0 12 19 22 1 2 9 10 11 20 21

55 41 52 83 83 83 51 58 56 26 83 83 83 83 01 81 25 82 83 83 83 25 32 02 55 83 83 53

01 01 01 00

52 77 01 51

191 287 294 296

0 0 0 0

[No.R-25011/16/2001OR-I]

S. CHANDRASEKHAR, Under Secy.

3341

New Delhi, the 1 Oth July, 2001

Motification

S.o. 1623.—In pursuance of clause (a) of section 2 of the petroleim and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), shri prahal"3 V. Kachare was authorised vide notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleun and Natural Gas S.O 918 dated the 27th April, 2 000 to perform the functions of the competent authority for Munbai-Manmad Pipeline Project under the said Act within the t e r r i t o ry of Maharashtra The Central Government hereby authorises shri prahalad V.Kacheo also to perform the functions of competent authority for the extended portion of Mumbai-Manmad Pipeline i . e. Manmad-Manglya Section in the State of Maharashtra under the a aid Act.

[1MO.R-31015/18/98OR-II]

HAR1SH KUMAR, Under Secy.

3342 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14,2001 ASADHA23,1923 [PART II—SEC, 3 (ii)] 3343

New Delhi, the 1 Oth July, 2001

S. O. i " 4 .~ Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.0.816 dated the 19th April 2001 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 said Act), the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the lands, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipelines for the transport of motor spirit, superior kerosene oil and high speed diesel from the Irimpanam installation of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Irimpanam, Kochi in the State of Kerala to Karur in the State of Tamil Nadu by M/s Petronet CCK Limited;

And, whereas, the copy of said Gazette notification was made available to the public on 11th May 2001,

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

And further whereas, the Central Government has, after considering the said report, decided to acquire the Right of User in the lands specified in the Schedule appended to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sectiop (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 is hereby acquired for laying the pipelines;

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

3344 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14,2001 ASADHA23,1923 [PARTII-SEC. 3 (ii)]

Schedule

State: Kerala District : Entakulam

Taluk: Kanayannur

Village

Hectares

Sun/ey

Numbers

Sq_.Mtrs. (5)

Area Ares (4)

(3)

(2)

75 35

04 01

0 0

1) Thiruvamkulam (Block No.10)

27/1 31

Taluk : Paravur

2) Kadungallur

35 35

5/2 a/1

01 08

0 n

[No. R-31015/4/98 OR-n]

HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.

3345

2063 OI/200I—123346 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14,2001 ASADHA23,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 3347 ^48 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14,2001 ASADHA23,1923 [PARI II— SEC. 3 (ii)]

Mew Delhi, the 1 lth July, 2001

s. o. 1625.— Whereas by a notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas No. S. O. 851 dated the 6th April, 2000, S. O. 1471 dated the 26th May, 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 lands specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipelines for the transport of natural gas.

And whereas, the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 26th May, 1999 and the 12th May, 2000 respectively.

And whereas, the competent authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act has made his report to the Central Government

And whereas, the Central Government, after considering the said report, is satisfied that the right of user in the lands specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Art, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified it <-• Schedule appended to this notification arc hereby acquired.

And further in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act the Central Government hereby directs that the' right of user in the said lands shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government vest free from the encumbrances in the Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited., Block No. 15, 3rd Floor, Udyog Bbavan, Sector No. 11, Gandhroagar-382 011.

3349

District: SURAT

State: Gujarat

Name of

Area

Name of

Block No. /

Survey No.

Centare

District

Taluka

Hectare

Are

Village

Reference to

publication of

Notification

u/s. 3(1)

S.O.No

(2) CHORASI

(1) SURAT

(7)

19) 20 00

174/A

(3) 851

(5) MORA

. Data of Gazette W 15-04-2000

169

167/P

Esaar Railway

167/P

166

(8) 41

40 00 23

00 00 06

00 00 80 00

DAMKA

Khadl

435/P

432/P 480

435/P

452

453/3

454/P

455/2

448/P

Canal

456

457

460/1/2 460/2

461/3/P

465/1/P

465/2

466/2P

729 00 20

20 00 97

30 00 01

00 75 00 00 29 00

00 00 59

03 80 00

00 08 00 00 10 00 00 05 30

40 00 09

00 00 25 00

20 00 09

00 1& 60 00 18 00 00 00 65 00 03 40 00 21 00 00

ICHHAPOR

743

742/1

742/2

745/2

745/3

745/4

740

00 01 20 00 01 80

20 00 01

00 00 80 00

00 02 00 00

80 00

749/3

013350 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14,200) ASADHA 23,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)l

(3) W (5)

(2)

ICHHAPOR

(Coni...)

751 832/2

864/2

834/3/1

864/3/2

865/1

(") 40 20, 80 20 00 50 00 (⁷). 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

00 03 05 06 06 04 02

Nalla village Malgama

MALGAMA

134

SEGWACHHA^A

OLPAD

80 00 02

00 00 02

KUNKNI

02 02 02 11 06

10 30 10 80 00 00 00 00 00 00

Nalla Village

Segwachhama

32

528

518

277 Pilot Channel Sub

02 70 00

Minor

220

30 00 05

1 R Minor

144

Nalla village Ambhota

AMBHETA

326

617

581

582

559

560

Ambheta Sultanpur Road 118 112 117 127

131- 132 135 Nalla village Balkas

313

BALKAS MASMA

231

140 126 6 RSub Minor Approach Road

ISANPOR

46 1 L Sub Minor

OLPAD

437 Nalla village Olpad 461

04 50 00

02 00 00

03 00 00

01 60 00

01 50 00

00 00 00

oo 02 01

20 90 50 40 10 20 20

01 05 01

00 00 00 00 00

00 04 04

06 02

00 00

00 20 90 00 00

01 04

00 00

05 02 17

40 10 00 003351 (2) (3) (4)

{{^{{FOOTNOTE (1)}}}}

(5) OLPAD (Cont...)

(9) 20 60

(8) 06 03 05 06

(7) 00 00 00 00

(6) 477 478 482 481

10 00 90

ATODARA

GOLA

40 00 60 • 90 30 60 161 19 T. W. C Sub Minor 223 224 225 Nalla village Gola

00 01 04 02 02 02 03 02 11

190 184

'80 20 50

MORTHAN

ERTHAN

30 30 60 00 00

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

KADRAMA

BHADOL

VADOLI I

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

03 20 04 01 02 03 04 15 01 07 01 03 04 04 01 03 01 02

00 40 40 70 50 50 30 80 40 70 40 80 170 345 356 43 47 48 53 58 162 183 Kadrama Road Cart Track 392 233 316 465 454 448/P

Nameo

f Name of

Name of

Area

Block No. /

Survey No1.

Hectar

Centare

e Are

Taluka

Village

District

Reference to

publication of

Notification

u/s. 3(1)

S.O.No.

Date of

Gazette

(1) SURAT

(7) 00

(5)

SEGWACHHAMA

(2) OLPAD

(3) 1471

(4) 29-05-1999 (6) 153/B

(8) 00

(9) 80

[File No. L. 14014/4/99GP (Part-Ill)]. SWAMI SINGH, Director3352 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14, 200J/ASADHA 23, 1923 [PAATH—SEC. 3(il)] New Delhi, the 20th Juno, 2001

S.O. 1627.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948J the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st August, 2001 as the date qn which the provisions of. Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and¹45 which' have already been brought into force) and Chapter V and VI [except sub* section (i) of Section 76 and Sections 77,78,79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Tamil Nadu, namely:—

MIMSTRYOFLABOUR

"Areas comprising the revenue villages of Senkuruchi, Kambiliampatti, Vbngamanuthi*, Madur, Periakottai, Kovilur, Tharnaraipadi, Ammakulathupati, Mullipadi of Dindigul Taluk and \kdamadurai, Thennampatti, Paganatham, Combcripatti, Pilathu, Kollapatti, Morepatti, Puthur, Velayuthampalayam, Singarakottai, Kanappadi, Velvarkottai and Padiyur of Vedasanthur Taluk in Dindigul District."

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2001

[No.S-38013/10/2001-S.SI] M.C.MriTAL.Dy.Secy. S.O. 1626.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of 1983). The Central Government after satisfying that it is necessary so to do, hereby authorises the following Officers to perform the functions of the Protector of Emigrants for deciding that a person intending to depart from India, is not an emigrant, for the purpose of the Act, namely :•—

1 Passport Officer, Ghaziabad

2. Passport Officer, Jammu

3. Passport Officer, Pune

4 Passport Officer, Thane

5. Passport Officer, Visakhapatnam.

INo. Z-\ 1025/105/2000-Emig] J.P. PATI, Jl Secy. & Protector General of Emigrants

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2001

S.O. 1628.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of theEmployees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st August, 2001 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter V and VI [except sub- section (i) of Section 76 and Sections 77,78,79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Tamil Nadu, namely:—

3353

New Delhi, the 22nd June. 2001 "Anas comprising the Revenue Villages of Thadikombu Centre Thadikombu, Aharem, AlakkuvarparH. Aftaiparti Thiimraikulam, Kuttathupatti, SrlVftfpotti, Alagupatfi, Gurunaikwuckannur, Sulfenimbu of Dindijtu? Tduk and Marampadi of Vednsani>vuTTiluk in PindiguJ District."

[No.S-380l3/ll/2(XU-S.S.iJ

M.C MTlTAL.Dy.Sccy.

S.0.1(S3U,—I"i pursuance of occtK; i I7oflht Industrial Dispute Ac", 1947 (14 of 1947), Ihe Central Gowrtdueiit kercby publisher the award of the Central Cjovemmrjnt li Aisuiel Tribuiial-cum-Labour Coun Mumbai, ^ o. Z as shown m thu TVnrtexurc in the Industiial dispute herwea. the employers in ictiilinn to the iWRagcmcnt of Indian Novel Cu:;een ".- vice and tlicir workmen, ^^ic'j v^s icceived by the ' 'iral Ciovcrnnient on 22-6-200 J

[No 1,-14011/1 l/99Ak(OU)\

KULDIP RAIVERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXUiyS

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO I],MUMBAl

FKESENT

S.N. SAUMDANKAR

Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT-2/200 of 1999

EMPLOYERS IN REI.ATION 10 THE MANAGEMENT OF INDIAN NAVAL CANTEEN SERVICE New Delhi, the 28th June, 2001

The General Manager, Indian Naval Canteen Service, Nofra.NavyNagar, Colaba, Mumbai.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

A.K. &irgh.

S.O. 1629—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Section 0) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) Ihe Central Government hereby appoints the 1st August, 2001 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter V and VI [except sub- section (i) of Section 76 and Sections 77,78 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Rajastlian namely -—

General Secretary, I.NC.S.Tarang, Navj' Nagar, Colaba, Mumbai-400 005.

"The areas comprising within the extended municipal

APPEARANCES.

limits of Bikaner."

For the Employer: No Appearance.

For the Workmen. Ms. K.N. Samant, [No. S-38013/12/2001-S.SL] M C. M1TTAL, Dy. Secy.

Advocate. '

Mumbai, the 29th May, 2001

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-14011/1 l/99/IR(DU), dated 27-10-99, have referred the following dispute for adjudication lo this Tribunal in exercise of powers conferred on it by clause (d) of Snl section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of •>-. I*v .;strial Dispute sAct of 1947.

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Naval Canteen Services, Mumbai in not paying Bonus/cx-gratia 2063 GI/2001- 133354 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. JULY 14, 2001/ASADHA 23, 1923 [PARTU—SET. 3(ii)] at the rate of 20% of the gross earnings of the employ- ees for the years 1994-95, ] 995-% and 1996-97 is legal andjustified ? It not, what relief the workman concerned are entitled ?"

employees for the years 1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 which they claim, however denied by the management, though management make huge profit. The said sworn testimony of tlie union has gone unchallenged Therefore going through the evidence, I find the action of the management of Indian Naval Canteen Service, Mumbai in not paying bonus/ex-gralia al the rate of 20% of the gross earnings of the employees for the years J 994-95,1995-96,1996-97 is not just and proper and that the workmen are entitled to get same benefit and hence the order:

ORDER

The action of the management of Indian Naval Canteen Services, Mumbai in not paying Bonus/ex-gratia at the rate of ?0% of the gross earnings of the employees for the years 1994-95,1995-96 and 1996-97 is not legal and justified.

Management is directed to extend the facility of Bonus/ cx-gratia at the rate of 20% of the gross earnings of the employees fbr the years 1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 to the employees.

S.N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001 2. The General Secretary of the Indian Naval Canteen Services, Employee's Union, Mr. A. K. Singh by the Statement of claim (Ex-6) contended that canteen facilities to the Personnels of Armed Forces, Members of their families who arc holding identity cards and the retired armed forces personnels and members of their families arc rendered the said facility which provide food stuffs, refreshments of all kinds, cigars, cigarettes, news papers, periodicals, stationary etc., to propiote the comfort and well-being ol the members of the Naval forces and in genera) to arrange for the distribution of the same 10 members of such forces. The total strength of the employees of the Naval Canteen is about \'l() in Mumbai, which thcie are three branches. It is contended, members vis- a-vis employees of the Indian Naval Canteen were paid on ad- hoc basis from October' 84,10% of wages of ceiling of Rs, 900 and thereafter from 30-10-85 10% of wages subject to ceiling ofRs. 1,600 and thereafter from 17-12-85 l%andfrom 19-12-87 subject to a ceiling of Rs. 2,500. However, being not satisfied with the mode of payment towards Bonus, itraised a demand for 20% bonus for the years 1994-95,1995-96 and for the year 1 996-97 However, the Indian Naval did not f akfc cognisance of the same though the letter was issued by the union di. 22- 10-96"pointing out all the Central and State Government employees where even productivity or prolit is not taken into account arc paid more than Rs. 2,500 It is contended that the Indian Naval Canteen making huge profit every year, still the employees are paid at the rate prevalent at 1989 and the demand for Bonus (5120% was not considered though protest was made by the uruon. It is contended on giving reminders the Indian Naval Canteen did not pay heed. Therefore they had proceeded on strike and later on raised a dispute with Hie Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on 5-11 -97 which failed It is contended the activity of Indian Naval Canteen clearly fall in the definition of industry. It makes huge prolit per year but the prosperity 'is not shared by the canteen with their employees and on this ground their demand of 20% of the gross earning of the employees for the years 1994795, 1995-96, 1990-9 7 as bonus/ex-gratia is legal.

S.0.1631.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Indus- trial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Mumbai, No. 2 as shown in the Anncxurc in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M.T.N.L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-6-2001.

[No. L^tOOl l/10/98-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAIVERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II MUMBAI

PRESENT

S.N. SAUNDANKAR

Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT-2/170 of 1998 3 Record shows that management served with notice vide Exhibit-3. However, inspitc of giving sufficient time none appeared on behalf of the management till today. Consequently matter proceeded ex-parte. The union was directed to file affidavit in support of their claim and accordingly Shri S.K. Suvarna filed affidavit at Exhibit-11 reiterating the recitals in the claim. It is affirmed thai the Naval Canteen is an industry within Section 2(1) of the Act and therefore the present demand of bonus consequently falls within the meaning of Section 2(K) of the Industrial Disputes Act It is affirmed that the provisions of Bonus Act are applicable to the management and therefore the union is justified in making demand of 20% of gross earnings of the

EMPLOYERS INRELATIONTOTHE MANAGEMENTOF The General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigairi lid., Advani Chambers Canteen, Advani Chambers, Mumbai 400 036

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The General Secretary, Bombay Telephone Canteen Emp. Assn., C/o Prabhadcvi Telephone Exchange, Canteen, 1st Floor, Dadar (W), Mumbai 400 028.

APPEARANCES.

For the Employer: Ms. Y J. Mistry,

Adv. holding for Mr.V.S.Masurkar

For the Workmen : Mr.M.B. Anchan,

Advocate:

Mumbai, the 28th May, 2001

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-4001 l/10/98/lR(DU), dated 30-11 -98, have referred' the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication.

"Whether the demand of rcgularisation in service of S/Sh. Ratnakar M. Mogavecra and Krishna K. Mogera ns Asstt. Halwai and Bearer w.e.f July, 1985 and April 1988 respectively is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled ?"

2. Pursuant to reference notice. General Secretary of the union filed Statement of claim (Ex-7). The same was challenged by the management vide Written Statement (Exhibit-S).On the rival pleadings of the parties by Learned Predecessor framed issues (Exlubit-9) and when the matter was fixed for evidence the management on 20-12-1999, filed an application (Exhibit-10) mentioning therein that the union in para-4,' 5 & 6 have averred that the workmen concerned were terminated from the service. Therefore the question of regularising their service as framed in the schedule, does not survive. TIIQ workman vide purshis (Ex-13) contended that this tribunal received Order No. L-40012/479/2000/iR(DU), dated 22-01-2000 In Reference No. 22 of 2001, where in point as regard tcrmj nation pf services of the workman has been rajsed and therefore the instant reference be disposed of.

3. Since the point as regards regularisation of service of the workman concerned does not survive since manage- ment have terminated them of which reference has been re- ceived to this Tribunal vide Order dt. 22-01 -2001, consequently this reference deserves to be disposed of and hence the order :—

,1355

ORDER

Reference stands disposed of vide purshis (Exhibit-13) S.N SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer BEFORE THE CENTRAL, COVF OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO 2, MUMBAI

Ref.No CGIT 2/170 of 1999

Mahanagai" Telephone Nigam Ltd.

and

Their workmen.

May it please your Honour:

In view of this new Reference No CGJT-2/22 of 2001. The Union does not want to prosecute the above reference provided their continuity in service is maintained, if they suc- ceed in Ref No. CGJT-2/22 of 2001. Accordingly the above reference may be disposed of copy enclosed of the order in Ref. No. CGIT-2/22 of 2001, Mumbai.

Dated: 28-5-2001.

M.B. ANCHAN, Advocate for the Union

ORDER

No. L-40012/479/2(K)()/lR(DU): Whereas the Central Government is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the management of The General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and their workmen in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule hereto annexed:

And whereas the Central Government considers it de- sirable to refer the said dispute for adjudication;

Now therefore, xn exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby refers the said dispute for adiudication to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Mumbai No 2. The said Tribunal shaJl give its nward within a period of three months.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager, MTNL, Mumbai in terminating the services of S/Sh. Ratnakar M. Mognvcera and Krishna K. Mogera is just, legal and proper ? If not, to what relief the work- men arc entitled'?"

KULDIPRA) VERMA, Desk Officer3356 " THE GAZETTE pF INDIA: JULY 14, 2001/A8ADHA 23, 1923 [PARTU^fiEc. 3(ii)J terminating Shri M. ]3UccrtMfig is legal and justified 7 If not, to what relief is the woikman entitled T New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001

SJO. 1632.—Irt pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Art, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government heieby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chenuai as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Superintendent of Post Offices and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-C-20OI.

[No. L-40012/52/96-iR (DIT)J

KULDIP RAI VERM A, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

2. This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as ID, No. 51/98. On receipt of notice from thai Tribunal, both the parties entered appearance through their respective counstl und filed their icspectivc Claim Statement and Counter Statement. When the matter was pending enquiry, before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, as per the orders of transfer by the Central Govt., this case has been transferred from the fik of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records of this esse f; om the Tamil N;KVJ -State Industrial Tribunal, this case Mv teen taitsn on file here as 1. D. No, 4JJ7/2QQI and nnticcs were sent to the counsel on either side informing them about ,'j*c transfer of this case from ths file of Tamil Nadu Suite Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal with a direction w appear before thi* Court with (Ir.ir ivs;joclive psrtio to prosecuff this case iVrtliCr ou 5 ,j -lit .•'''• I.

BEFORE THE (XNTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRiaUNAL-CUf.W-ABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

">. When the matter was taken up for enquiry 5-3-200), Tuesday, the 29th May, 2001

Present: K, KA.RTHIKEYAN,

Fresiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 487/2001

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D.No. 51/98)

(In ihe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, between the Workman Shri M. Bheemaraj and the Management, The Superintendent of Post Offices, Patwkottai Division. Pattukottaj.)

BETWEEN

the counsel for I Party wai present and the counsel for the II Party Management was not present So the case was adjunied to 26-3 -2001. On that da)' as the Presiding Officer was holding Camp Court, this case was adjourned to 18-O4-2001. On that da}, on request of the counsel for the II Party/ivlam&aneut the case was adjourned to 27-04-2001 for filing of memo ol appearance. On 27-4-2001, the counsel for the U Party/ Management alone present and the case was adjourned to 8-5-2001 for enquiry On thtH day, both tho parties and the counsel on either side on record were not present. As there was no representation on either sidu the case is pending for adjudication from 1998 onwards as per the above cited reference, the case was adjourned to this date finally for enquiry

Shri M. Bheemaraj . I Party/Workman

AND

The Superintendent of . II Party/Management

Post Offices, Pattukottai Division

Appearance.

For the workman : M/s. Jothivani &

V Kastun, Advocates

4 When the matter was taken up for enquiry to-day, both the parties remained absent. The counsel for the II Party alone is present and the counsel for the I Party is not present. There is no representation on the side of the 1 Party/Workman. The inaction ol the I Party /Workman by his non-appearance and naiwrcprcsentation enables this Tribunal to conclude that there is no industrial dispute as such now existing between the parties. Hence, this industrial dispute is dismissed for default and for non-representation.

For the Management . SriK. Sambasivam,

ACGSC

AWARD

5. In the result, an award is passed holding that 'No dispute' exists between the I Party/Workman and the II Party/ Management and the reference is closed as dismissed. No Cost.

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 Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the following dispute for adjudica- tion vide Order No. L-40012/52/96-IR (DU) dt. 02-03-98 :—

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by liim, collected and pronounced by me in the open court on thisdavthe 29th May, 2001.)

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer "Whether the action of the Management of Superintendent of Post Offices, Pattukottai division, in 335'"

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers confened by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, l'J47 (14 of i 947), have referred the following dispute for ad judicji- uon vjdeOrder No. L^0012/115/97-JR(DU)dl. 16-06-98 .—

"Whether the action of the. Management of Telecom Department, Salerr. and Chennai in icrnunating the services of Shri M. Subranianiam, Ex-casual iaboui w.el. 22-06-1988 is justified oi not ? if not, to what :dvi is the workman c i nitii. i.l /'

>h;\ fJdhi Ihe22nd June. 2005

Tliis reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu S O,i,:)3 —hi pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial i j.^uic Av! 1'U''!4 of! 9*7), the f\Htr J ".lOn-rnment hereby nuMv:hes ihc .

w c i k m a n, w i i iJ i W J S. i •' • e i v ed by U ic Z a \h 4! G o v ei i i m e r il on

KJULD1P ilAI VbRMA, L. Jc Officer

ANNEXURG

I'.LI WXJ- IlJE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS ITU AL T K ! B U N A L - C U M - L A B O UR COURT, CHENNAI

Presiding Ojjiar

3358 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14, 2001/ASADHA 23, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman despite several notices. The case is pending since 1991. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference. In view of the above, since the workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference, the same is returned to the Ministry for want of prosecution. Appropriate Govt. be informed

B.L. JATAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001

S.O. 1634—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Telecom Department and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-6-2001.

[No. L-4OO12/119/9UR(DU)] KULDIPRAi VERMA, Lcti Officer

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRt B L. JATAY PRESIDING OFFICER, CtiMl"RAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CIM- LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 173 of 1991

S.O. 1635.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial 1 ribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom. Department and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-6-2001.

... Petitioner

|No L-40012/139/2000IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERM A, Desk Officer Sh. Paramjit Singh, C/o Sh. Tek Chand Sharma, 25, Sant Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001.

ANNEXURE

Vs.

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

Divisional Engineer (Phones) Cables .. Respondent Indian Telecommunication Deptt,, Ludhiana-141001.

Case No CGIT 37 of 2000

Appearance:

Reference No. L-40012/139/2000/IR (DU) dt. 30-6-2000 For the Workman . None.

Sh. NavalKishorc Harijan ... Petitioner For the Management. Shri I.S. Sidhu

AWARD

S/o Sh. Surajmal R/o Behind Commerce College, E-4, University Campus, Jaipur.

(Passed on 16th May, 2001)

Vs.

Sub-Divisional Enginjcr (Phones) ... Respondent Telecom Department, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur.

The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour vide Notification No. L-40012/119/91-IR. (D.U.)dated 14thNovember, 1991 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication

Appearance:

For the Applicant : None.

For the Non -applicant: None

Date of Award : 22-5-2001

"Whether the action of the Management of Indian Telecommunication Department, through Divisional Engineer Phones (Cables) in terminating the services of Paramjit Singh, Driver, from 30-9-89 is legally valid and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ?"3359 ANNEXURE

AWARD

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

Presiding Officer: Rudrush Kumar The Central Government has referred the following industrial Dispute under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 1947) for adjudication.

ADJUDICATION

ID. No. 3/2000

Rt£No.L-40012/288/99/IR(DU)dt 16-12-99

BETWEEN

"Whether the action of the management of Telecom Department, Jaipur in terminating the services of Shri Naval Kishore Harijan, Sweeper w.e.f. 1-5-97 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?¹¹

Jamsher S/o Sri Munna Hazratganj, Lucknow C/oSh.P.K.Tcwari 967196, Roshan Bajaj Lane Old Ganeshganj, Lucknow. AND

The applicant filed the statement of claim stating that he worked in the establishment of non-applicant from 12-6-90 to 30 4-97 on the post of Sweeper continuously. However, his services were terminated w.e.f. 1-5-97 in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, 1947. The applicant is unemployed since ter- mination of his services. It was prayed that he be reinstated in service with oack wages and continuity in service after mak- ing him permanent.

The General Manager, Telecom Deptt, O/o General Manager, Gandhi Bhawan, Lucknow (UP.) 226001.

AWARD

The applicant was directed to send the copy of the claim to the non-applicant by regd-AD within 7 days and the case was fixed for 2-5-2001 for reply. On 2-5-2001 the case was adjourned to 22-5-2001 Today none of the party is present. The applicant has not also supplied copy of the statement of claim to the non-applicant. It seems that the applicant is not i nterestcd in persumg the claim. No dispute award is therefore passed.

By reference No. L-40012/288/99/IR(DU)dt. 16-12-99, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and sub section 2(A) of Section 10 ID. Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) made over this Industrial dispute between Jamsher S/o Sri Munna and the General Manager, Telecom Deptt., Lucknow for adjudication. The Reference is produced as under:

Copies of the award may sent to the Central Govern-

ment under Section 17 (I) of the Act, 1947 for publication.

Sd/- Illegible,

Presiding Officer

"Whether the Action of the Management of Telecom Department in Terminating the services of Sh. Jamsher from September, 1995 is Legal & Justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ? "

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001

S.0.1636 —In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes ihe award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Anncxurc in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-6-2001

[No. L-40012/288/99-IR (DU)]

3. The workman, Jamsher claim reinstatement with back wages against his employer, the General Manager, Telecom Deptt., Gandhi Bhawan, Lucknow and others. The facts stated in the claim statement are: that he was engaged on 9-6-87 in P.K. Bhawan, Lucknow as daily wage Safaiwala. He continuously worked from 9-6-87 to Oct. 1990 and a certificate was issued to him by the Public Relation Officer, Lucknow Telephones on 9-1-1990. His period of working from Jan. 1991 to Jan. 1994 was certified by Asstt Engineer, Phones (HRD), General Manager Office, Telecom Deptt., Lucknow on 14-2-96 through letter No. 12-6/KW/90-92/65, The workman was shown having worked for 727 days. Again, by letter No. 12-6/KW/90- 95/99 dt. 1-11-95, Asstt. Engineer, Phones (HRD) certified his working days to be 455 days in between Feb. 1994 to Sept. 1995. The workman continued to work thereafter, also, but his working period was not certified. He was issued Identity Card No. 2029,4 dt. 30-5-96 valid till 31-1-2001. The safai work is perennial in nature and the workman was engaged against such work, discharged his duties regularly. His services were terminated on claiming temporary status and regularisation. No notice was given to him nor any retrenchment compensation paid at the time of termination, rendering action of the management illegal.

KULDIP RA1 VERM A, Desk Officer3360 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JULY 14, 200 I/AS ADHA 23, 1923 [PARTII—SEC. 3(ii)l 4. The management has not denied engagement of the workman. However, it has denied his continuous working for 2 JO days in any calendar year Tt is also sWv •; *'v,; :'n":vork- r.-,• •", tvaf. nt"t selected ai pci putcrdures and, so, ran not de- riv.-. >ny legal static oi right to r ~.st of S:ifaiv,ala.

5. Parties relied on documentary as well or oral evidence. The workman filed his affidavit and the management also relied on affidavits ofNinnalKnmar&R.S. Saroj.Dy. Div. Officer (Pnoncs). The workman has filed certificates to prove his working period in the department vide letter tit. 9-1-90, 24-2-94 and 1-11-95. In the year from 9-6-K7 to 24-J1-88 he worked for only 90 days. However, from 27-2-89 to 29-3-90 he worked 228 days, upto Oct. 1990 his total working is certified to be 283 days. Letter dl. 24-2-94 certified his working period with yearwise details In 1991 he worked from Jan. to Dec 212 days in 1992 and 1993 he worked for 250 days and 245 days respectively. In the year 1994, he worked for 233 days and in the year 1995 also for 233 days. This figure is not denied by the management. The workman also filed photo copies of the attendance sheets showing his presence 6 As said earlier, the management has not denied engagement of the workman. Correctness of the certificate have also not been disputed. The management witness MW2 R S Saroj admitted issuance of the certificates and their genuineness. Even by admitted facts it is fully proved that Jamsher had worKcd for 250 & 245 days respectively in the year 1992 and 1993 He continued to work even subsequently. There is, no denii'l that notice ?nd compensation as envisaged uiidtr section 25 F was not givt;n to the workman The aci ion of ll? management, thus, is iirsi-'sta.inabjfe in law. 7', The workman is entitled to reinstatement with back wages. Award a c c o r d i ng L\icknow l^V-2001

RUDRESH KUMAR Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001

S.O. 1637. --In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tnbunal-cum-Labour Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Inrluslrial dispute between the employers in relation to the ni; inagenie;it of Telecom. Department and their workman, which was received by the Centrnl Government on 22-6-2001.

ivLOJ >it" kAl VHRMA, !>•$>. otficei

ANNEXURE

BEFOi IE THE CENTRAL GOVmlNMtiNl IiviDUS'I KTAL TRIBI'NAL-CUV; LABO¹.,,11COURT, I U O a , ^ VV PrcsidingOfficer. RudresliKumar

ADJUDICATION

I.D. No. 2/2000

Ref. No. L-40012/292/99/IR (DU) dt 16-12-99

BETWEEN

Srnt Paro, W/oHasim,

C/cSh.P.KTcwari. 96/196, Roshan Bajaj Lain, OldGaneshganj. Lucknow.

• AND

The General Manager, Telecom. Dcpft, O/o Geucral Manager, Gandhi Bhawan, Lucknow (UP) 226001.

AWARD

Byrefr.renceNt) L-40012^^.V99/JR(r>U)dt. 10-12-99, :hc Cc;irra! Government in the Mimsiry of Labour, in efcrcise of powers conferred by clause (tl) of sub-section (J) and sub section 2(A) of section 10 ID Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) made over this industrial dispute between Smt Paro W/o Hasim and the General Manager, Telecom Deptt.,1Luckn(m for adju- dication.

The Reference is produced as under:

"Whether the Action of the General Manager of Telecom Lucknow in Terminating the services of Smt. Paro daily rated SafaiwHi from June, 1995isLcgru & Justified ? If not, to what relief she is entitled ? " 2. The lady workman, Smt Paro has filed her claim seeking rei nstatement with back wages. Ho case, is, that she was appointed as daily wager Safaiwali, under Asstt. Engineer, Phones (L&P), PK. Bhawan, Lucknow on 18-1-93. She worked upto 17-6-93 in the said office. She was again appointed in Jan. 1994 as casual sweeper in compliance of the letter of Dy. General Manager, Telecom (Planning), Lucknow dt. 30-12-93. She worked from 1-1-94 to 18-10-95, i c for 468 days and a certificate was issued to her by the Sub Divisional Officer (HRD) lo that effect,. Though, she used to work even after '•995 bui tnr work days were not certified. Her claim for rcgularisation resulted into terminating her services. She continues to work there and an identity card has been issued3361 upto 2001, but payments art made through the contractor. Earlier, payments were madfcfaythe department on Form ACJ- XVII. It is also stated that safai work is of perennial nature. The lady workman, having worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year was terminated illegally.

3. The management has not defiled engagement of the lady workman, but pleads that the daily wagers are engaged as per requirement and they derive no right to claim appointment. The workman did not dttivd fltty legal status in the department. It is also pleaded by the management that the Central Government imposed ban on engagement of casual labours w.e.f. 1-4-83. If some officer engaged any such labour and issued certificates to her, the department is not bound by such illegal act of the individual officer,

4. The main issue, to be determined is, whether the lady workman worked for 240 days in any calendar year ? Oft behalf of the lady workman, certificate dt. 20-10-93 issued under the signature of Asstt. Engineer, PhOnes (L & P), P.K. Bhawan, Lucknow, letter of Asstt, Engineer dt. 30-12-93 Memo No. Bhartiya/M-53-CH/VII/KW/93 dt. 30-12-93 issued by the Asstt. Engineer (HRD) have been filed. The work certificate issued by Asstt. Engineer (HRD) vide letter No. GEN/12-6/KW/9O-95/97 dt. 18-10-95 is also relied besides photo copy of the identity card, photo copies of the attendance sheets. The management has not filed any documentary evidence but examined Satish Chandra Tewari, Sub. Divisional Engineer, General Manager Office and R.S. Sarqj, Dy. Div. Officer (Phones)

5. As stated earlier, the management has not denied engagement of the workman. Likewise, the management has not challenged bonafides and correctness of the documents relied by the lady workman. Its case is that she was engaged as daily wager and worked continuously. She was admittedly paid on ACG-XVH but according to her, presently, the payments are made through a contractor She is still working as Safaiwali in P.K. Bhawan, General Manager Office, Telecom Department.

6. The management witnesses responsible gazatted officers admitted genuineness of the working certificates, MW1 Satish Chandra Tewari testified that safai work is of perennial nature. A daily wager is not given any appointment letter. A temporary register is maintained to verify his working days for purposes of payments. Payments are made to such daily wager on ACG-XVII. This witness admitted his signatures on the sheets of the attendance register marked Ex. 2, 3, 4. However, this witness would not say as how many days the lady workman had worked. The other witness R.S. Sarqj, Asstt. Engineer (HRD) has also testified that daily wagers arc engaged by the local officers. He was posted as Asstt. Engineer, Phones (HRD), Gandhi Bhawan, Lucknow. The lady workman was working there. This witness admitted to have issued certificate Ex. Wl which shows 252 days working in year 1994 and 216 days in the year 1995 Total period of working comes to 468 days. From this admitted certificate it is proved 2063 GI/2001 —14

that in the year 1994, the lady workman had worked for 252 days In a calendar year. This admission is sufficient to attract section 25-B of the ID. Act, and the lady workman is entitled to benefit of section 25-F, It is not denied by the management that lady workman was issued any notice before termination of her services or she was paid any retrenchment compensation etc. Evidently, the termination is bad in law and not sustainable.

7. Smt. Paro worked continuously for 240 days in one calendar year and so, is entitled to protection of section 25-F. Management did not comply with the said provisions and thus the lady workman is entitled to reinstatement with back wages, less drawn in gainful employment. She has admitted payment through the contractor.

8. Thus, the action of the management in terminating services of Smt. Paro was not legal or justified and she is entitled to reinstatement with back wages less paid to her in some gainful employment.

9. Award ai above.

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer Lucknow 15-6-2001

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001

S.0,1638.~-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Rajasthan Atomic Power Station and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-6-2001.

[No. L-42011/12/2000-IR (DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

CASE NO. CGIT 26/2000

REFERENCE NO. L-42011/12/2000/IR(DU)

Dated: 31-5-20003362 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14, 2001/ASADHA 23, 1923 [PARTII—SEC. 3(ii)l Shn K L Sharma, Through General Secretary, Rajasthau Anushakti Pariyojana K a r a m c h an Sangh (INTUC), Rawatbhaia.

APPLICANT

' V/s.

The Project Director, Rajaslhan Atomic Power Station, Unit- 1 & 2. Anushakti via: Kola (^ajasthan).

NON-APPLICANT A1TENDENCE

For the applicant: Shri SurcshKashyap, Advocate For the non-applicant: Shri Atuipam Agrawal, Advocate Date of Award: 11-5-2001

AWARD

The Central Government has referred the following industtial dispute under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub- section 2(A) of the Souion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Ad, 1V47 (hereinafter referrrcd as Act, 1947) for adjudication.

" Whet her the action orNPCIL management to deny the scale ol'Rs 1640-29(10 (Prc-reviscd) to Sh, K L Sh-itma, Stcno wc.f !¹>'M is legal & justified f If not, to what relief Sh. K.L Sharma is entillcd and from which date'?" Stalcmcnt of claim was filed by the General Secretary, Rajaslhan Anushakli Parivojana Kaiamchari Saiigh (hercinaflerrefcrrcdastheSangh)statingthatShnKL Sharma (hereinafter referred as the applicant) was appointed in Rajasthan Anushakti Pariyojna Station w.e.l 7-7-89 in the pay scale ofRs 1200-2040 (prc-revisedj and revised pay scale of Rs. 4(J00-60()() The applicant continuously worked as Junior Stenographer upto 17-12-96 and selected as Stenographer Grade II w c.f IK-12-96 in the pay scale of Rs 1400-2600 (pre- iLviscd) revised Rs. 5000-8000 Shri K L. Sharma and Shri UK. Sharma were appointed initially as Jr Stenographers in Ihc pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040, Shn U K Sharma is Junior to the applicant. The applicant has not been given the pay scale ofRs. 1640-2900 (prc-revised) while other employees from the same panel of Rs. 1400-2600 have been given the benefit of revision of pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 in the scale of Sr. Stenographers. The applicant,Shri U.K. Sharma Shri P.S. Tomar and Shri Suml Samnani were promoted wc.f. 18-12-96 sis Stenographer Grade-ll in the revised scale of pay Rs 50MI-S000 while in Department of Atomic Energy/Nuclear Power Corporation of I'idia Limited (heicmaftcr rcfened as NPCII -) management appointed Stenographer Gradc-II in the pay scale of Rs 5500-9000 reviscdalkr 18-12-96 w e f 15-9-94 The applicant along with others has been denied the benefit nf scale ofRs. 1640-2900 (pre-rcviscd) we f I-1 -Xd and thus Ihc management has violated principles of equal work and equal wage, ft was prayed that the applicant may be granted pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 fpre-rcvised) now revised Rs 5500-9000 w.c.C. 18-12-96.

The non-applicant in reply to the claim has stated that NPCIL had (he following three tier structure of Stenographer Cadre as detailed below:—

. Rs 1200-2040 1. Jr. Stenographer

2, Stenographer

; Rs. 1400-2600

: Rs. 1640-2900 3. Stenographer Grade III

Subsequently upgradation scheme was introduced in NPCIL w.e.f. 13-10-96 according to which Jr. Stenographer became eligible for upgradation standardized and their further ptomotion/upgTadatiOn is governed as per the norms given below —•

Level

Standardised

designation

Present Designation

Scale of Pay

No.

Rs.4000-

Recruitment 1.

Stenographer

100-61XX)

Junior Stenographer

Grade I - Level

Upgradation

Rs.5000- Stenographer

150-8000

Level

Grade II

Stenographer Grade 11 (Promoted under upgradation scheme)

Rs 5500- Stenographer

Vacancy

175-9000 Grade III

b a s ed

promotion

level Sr. Steno- grapher Stenographer Grade III

It was stated that the applicant has compared Ins case ol promotion with Shn UK Sharma who after having qualified in the written examination and stenography test for promotion to the post of Sr. Stenographer in A u g u st 1994. During the relevant time the said post of Sr. Stenographer was promotional post based on the availability of the vacancy In the examination held in the year 1994 for p r o m o t i on to the post of Sr. Stenographer Shri Hoshiar Singh and Shri O.K. Shanna were declared successful. Shri Hoshiar Singh being a SC candidate was given appointment Shri U.K. Sharma w ho belonged to General Category could not be promoted because the only vacancy available during the relevant time was of ST category.

Aclion was initiated by the non-applicant to dc-rcservc the s.iid post in order to promote Shri U K. S h a n na but due to administrative delay he could not be promoted and in the mean time upgradation scheme was also introduced in NPCIL w c f 1.1-10-96 S hn LI K. Sharma who by that time was not promoted also appeared in the upgradation e x a m i n a t i on alongvvith others and was declared successful and promoted as Stenographer Grade II w ef 18-12-96 in the scale of Rs 1400-2600 under the upgradafion scheme. Inspitc of promotion as Stenographer Grade II under the upgradation scheme S hn U.K Sharma regularly pcrsued his case and kept on agitating on his promotion, from September, 1994. T he Station Authority look the decision to promote.him in Ihc pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 It was also staled that the applicant i n spite ofcligibility did not appear in the examination held in3363 1994 and so can not claim parity with Shri U.K. Sharma. It was further stated that Coiporation office order dt. 28-7-97 had clarifed that the Sr. Stenographer in scale of Rs. 1400-2600 who were on position on 12-10-96 shall be brought over to the revised pay scale of 1640-2900 w.c.f. 1-1-86. ShnU.K Sharma being Sr. Stenographer w e.f 15-9-94 in the scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2600 vvas brought over to the revised pay scale of 1640-2900 w.e.f. 15-9-94 whereas the applicant and others were in the grade of Jr. Stenographer in the pay scale of Rs. 1^100- 2040 on the dale 12-10-96. Henoe the applicant cannot claim the benefit of Sr Stenographer of Rs. 1640-2900.

The applicant filed rejoinder to the reply stating that the departmental test held in August 1994 for promotion to the post of Sr Stenographer has no relevancy as Shri Hoshiar Singh being SC candidate was given promotion to the post of Sr. Stenographer against only one vacancy. It was also stated that departmental examination was held behind curtain and the information was not circulated. It was further stated that in the examination held in 1994 the applicant was placed at Sr.No 1, Shri Suml Sharma at Sr.No.2 and Shri U.K. Sharma at Sr.No. 3 as successful candidates and all were given promotion on the post of Stenographer Grade II w.e.f. 18-12-96. H was also alleged that after examination held in 1994 J5C candidate having been appointed no panel existed and, therefore, Shri U. K. Sharma had no right for promotion.

In support of the claim the applicant filed his own affidavit. The learned counsel for the non/applicant was given opportunity to cross-examine him on his affidavit. The applicant also filed copies of the documents marked Annexure- A to I On behalf of the non-applicant affidavit of Shri Cosmos Dang was filed- The learned representative of the applicant was given opportunity to cross-examine him on his affidavit. In the form of documentary evidence copy of the notes of the selection committee held on 23-8-94 and copy of the qrder dt. 9-12-93 anddt 14/28-7-97 were filed.

Heard the arguments of the learned representatives of the applicant and learned counsel for the non-applicant and perused the record.

The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that no departmental competitive examination for Sr. Stenographer was held by the non-applicant in the year 19<;4 as stated by the applicant in his statement. His further contention is (hat even if it is proved that such an examination was held. Shri U.K. Sharma was not cmpanncled by the DPC. The examination is alleged lo have beer: held in the year 1994 while Shri U.K. Sharma was given scale of Sr Stenographer w.e.f. 15r9-94 vide Order dt. 2-6-98. The panel does not survive after one year. His contention is that Shri U.K. Sharma being Junior to the applicant is getting higher pay scale of 1640-2900 while the applicant is getting the pay scale of 1400-2600 (pre- revised) which is discriminatory, and, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to the pay scale which Shn U.K. Sharma is getting. In support of his contention he has cited 1999(2) SCC 178 A.K. Sharma.and Another v/s Union of India and Another, 2000(3) SCC 699 State of UP v/s Ram Swamp Saroj, 1999 (6) SCC 49 Purushottam v/s Chairman MSEB and Another and 1996 (4) SCC 319 Prem Singh and others v/s Haryana Electricity Board & Others. On ihe other hand the learned counsel for the uon- applicant has contended that applicant cannot compare himself with Shri U.K. Sharma who had appeared 3364 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14, 2001/ASADHA 23. 1923 [PARTII—SEC. 3(ii)]

the pretext that panel' s term has expired and post was filled up with some one else.

cannot give right to claim parity or equality. As mentioned above on the back of Shri UK Sharma the leagalily of his promotion cannot be decided. Even for sake of arguments it is assumed that promotion of Shri UK, Sharma pn the post of Sr. Stenographer was in any way irregular the same docs not confer any right on the applicant for grant of the scale of the Sr. Stenographer we f 1994 when he did not appear in the departmental competitive examination for promotion to the above post. It may alio be stated that in the letter dt. 31-12-99 submitted by the General Secretary of the Sangh to the ALC it has been stated that "There is no question of comparison between Shri K.L. Sharma and Shri UK, Sharma" which also supports the above conclusion.

On the ba$is of the above discussion the action of the non-applicant in denying the scale of 1640-2900 to the applicant w.e.f 1994 cannot be held to be illegal or unjustified and the applicant is not entitled to any relief.

The copies of the award may be sent to the Central Government under Section 17(1) of the Act, 1947 for publication.

Sd. Illegible Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001

S.O. 1639.—In pursuance of Section 17 pf the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Tungabhadra Board, T.B. Dam and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-6^2001.

[No. W2011/24/91—IR (DU)]

KULD1P RAIVERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT 'SHRAM SAD AN¹,

;,I1ICROSS,IIPHASE,TL' . ! -OAD, The contention of the applicant that departmental competitive examination for Sr. Stenographer was not held in the 1994 cannot be accepted. Shri Cosmos Dang the Manager (Personnel) lias stated that circular for holding the above examination was pasted on the notice board and was sent to the sectional heads. The proceedings of the selection committee also state that the above examination was held in which Shri Hoshiar Singh and Shri U.K. Sharma Jr. Stenographers were declared passed, In the circular dt. 9-12-93 it has not been mentioned that how many vacancies were existing and were anticipated. No rules or regulations have been filed on behalf of the parties as for how long the panel remain alive Shri Cosmos Dang has stated that Shri U.K. Sharma could not be promoted as there was no vacancy and on promotion of Shri DR. Singh one post of Sr. Stenographer fell vacant which was reserved for ST category. The matter was taken up with the corporate office to deserve the post in order to promote Shri UK Sharma and ultimately he was given promotion w.c.f 15-9-94 on the post of Sr. Stenographer. Although representation made by Shri U.K. Sharma for promotion to the post of Sr. Stenographer had not been filed nor the correspondence regarding dercscrvation of the post of ST. has been filed, but on that account the statement of Shri Cosmos Dang that Shri U.K. Sharma made representation and the matter was taken for dcreserving the post cannot be doubted It may be stated that on the back of Shri UK Sharma no finding can be given about the legality of promotion to Shri UK Sharma on the post of Sr Stenographer as he has not been made a party in the claim. Shri U.K. Sharma was piven promotion to the post of Sr. Stenographer for having passed departmental competitive examination held in the year 1994. The applicant, therefore, cannot compare him with Shri U.K. Sharma regarding grant of scale of Sr Stenographer we f. 1994 for not having appeared in the above examination. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the applicant ;irc nol applicable in the present case. In the case 1999 (2) SCC 178 ihc appellants challenged their promotion on ad-hoc basis which docs noi have any relevancy in the present case. In the case reported in 1996(4) SCC 319 ihc advertisement mentioned the number of vacancies to be filled up. The appointments were made nol only on the existing and anticipated but future vacancies also and appointments on the posts which fell vacant in future were held to be invalid. In the present case ihc circular for the departmental competitive examination for the post or Sr Stenographer did not mention the number of posts which were existing and which were anticipated and the case, therefore, is distinguishable. In the case reported in (2000) 3 SCC 699 Ihcrc were circulars regarding the period of validity of select list for appointment. As stated above no rules or regulations have been filed by either parties regarding ihc validilv of'he p:mcl. The facts reported in 1999(6) SCC 49 alsodidu ;•(.!(; .he present case. The A;.. . Court in the case reported in kLR 1997 (Vol. 28) 809 has he; • that a wrong order

YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE3365 Dated: 14th June, 2001

6. Second party appeared and filed Counter.

PRESENT

7. The case of the second party in brief is as under:

HQN'BLE SHRIVN. KULKARM, B.Com, LLB,

PRESIDINGOFFICER

CGIT-CUM-LABOURCOURT,

BANGALORE

CR.No. 86/91

8. The dispute is not maintainable. The main contention of the Second party is that Tungabhadra Board was established in the year 1955 and its employees are not covered under the Industrial Dispute Act. It cannot be considered as an Industry. A lengthy statement in respect of the board is given in the Counter. The allegations made by the first party is not correct. There is no termination at all. The second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

1 Party II Party

Smt. Anjinamma and 6 The Secretary, T.B. Board. Others, T.B. DamBellaryDistt-583225 ....(1)

C/oShriN.V Vivckanandaswamy, The Supdt. Engineer, T.B. Board, President, T.B.Dam,Bellary-583225 (2) KSGDWEF,

Unit Ananthapur Road, Tlie Executive Engineer, Bcllary-583101 LIC Division; T.B. Board, (Advocate-Shri N. V Cantonment, Bcllary-583104 Vivekananda Swamy) (Advocatc-ShriR. Satyamurthy)...(3)

AWARD

9. It is seen from the records that on behalf of the first party workmen Smt Anjinamma is examined as WW1.1 have read the evidence carefully. According to the evidence of MW1 all these seven workmen were engaged by the board for cleaning the canal and garden and removing the grass grown on the canal whenever required. From the evidence it is clear that the workmen were only casual workers and for specific period and specific work. The work is not of permanent nature. He has also stated in his cross examination that as per rules they are not maintaining attendance register for daily wager and they maintained only muster roll for daily wager. WW 1 has stated in the cross examination that no document is produced to show that she was working from 1983 continuously till 1988 and no dakala to show that she was getting a salary of Rs. 360 per month.

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clausc(d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-42011/24/91-1R (DU) dated 18-12-91 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Tungabhadra Board, TB Dam, Bellary Distt. in terminating the services of Smt. Anjinamma, Smt. Eramma, Smt, Somakka, Smt. Durgamma, Smt. Sugamma, Smt, Basamma and Smt. Hanumakka is justified ? If not, what relief they are entitled to ?"

10. I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this reference because first party workmen are not the permanent workers of the Second party management. I have carefully read the written argument given by the Second party. Again it 15 stated that the Tungabhadra Board, which is a statutory body under the Administrative Control of the Ministry was established under Andhra State Act to undertake operation of Tungabhadra Dam and deal with all matters relating to operation of Dam which are common to both states of Kamataka and Andhra Pradesh. In view of these, Tungabhadra Board cannot be considered as Industry and its employees are not covered under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. Against this nothing was convinced by the first party 2. The first party workmen were working with the Second Party. Services of the workmen were terminated so this dispute is raised, In this case the services of Smt. Anjinamma, Srnt. Eramma, Smt. Somakka, Smt Durgamma, Smt Sugamma, Smt. Basamma and Smt Hanumakka are terminated.

11. It is clear from the documents that the workmen have not worked continuously for 240 days. There is no Appointment Order and there is no termination order, 3. The first party workmen appeared and filed Claim

Statement.

4. The case of the first party workmen is as follows :

12. Considering all this 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 corrected and signed by me on 14* June 2001) 5 The first party workmen were appointed as workers on N.MR, basis in the year 1983 in LIC Division, Bellaryunder the control of first Respondent and they are paying a salary of Rs.360 per month. The workmen discharged duties sincerely and without any bad remarks. But the management illegally terminate;- :.'-... services w.e.f. 27-7-1988. The action of the managenu • 11 i ••_, aot correct and therefore first party workmen were prayed to pass award in their favour.

VN. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer3366 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14, 2001/ASADHA 23, 1923 [PART U—SEC. 3(ii)J New Delhi, 22nd June, 2001

S.0.1640.—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 -cum-Labour Court Bangalore as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Tungabhadra Board, T.B. Dam and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-6-2001.

[No.L420U/37/88-D.n (B)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT 'SHRAM SAD AN', IIIMAIN, IIICROSS, IIPHASE. TUMKURROAD.

YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE

Dated. 14th June, 2001

PRESENT

HON'BLE SHRI V.N. KULKARN1, B. Com, LLB, PRESIDING OFFICER

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

CR. No. 50/89

II Party

I Party The President, The Secretary Tungabhadra Board Factory Tungabhadra Board, Workers and Civil Employees T. B. Dam, Hospet Taluk, Union, T.B. Dam, BellaryDistrict-583101 Hospet Taluk, (Advocate—Shri A.K, Bhat) BellaryDistt-583101 (Advocate-Shri A.S. Malebennur)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause(d) of sub-section 2 A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No.L-42011/37/88-D.II(B) dated 1-8-1999 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Tungabhadra Board, T.B. Dam, Hospet Taluk, Bellaiy District in introducing the qualification of SSLC for the post of senior work inspector is justified ? If not, to what relief the aforesaid workmen are entitled to 7" 1. The first party Union workman was working with the Second party management. The action of the management in introducing the qualification of SSLC for the post of Senior Work Inspector is not correct. Therefore the dispute is raised.

2. First party Union appeared and filed Claim Statement. It is the case of the first party that the second party appointed 28 persons from the existing workcharged personnel and recently converted them to workcharged. Nine vacancies of the Post of Senior Work Inspectors in the time scale of Rs. 1040-1900 and 2 vacancies of Care Taker in the time scale of Rs.%0-1760 werefilledfromN.M.R. Personnel ignoring the senior workcharged establishment who were competent to fill the posts in the normal promotional avenues were employed.

3. Second party management has no cadre and recruitment rules as such taking advantage of the same started imposing new norms and absorbing at randum contra to the seniority of the existing workmen to higher posts with frustrated the channels of promotion and the seniority and experience of several workcharged employees who would have been normally entitled to these posts. The action of the management is not correct. List of seniority was prepared from the pay scale of Rs. 960-20-1100-30-1760 which is below the post of Senior Work Inspectors are overlooked deliberately. The action of the management is not correct as stated in para 4. The second party replied that a minimum qualification of SSLC is required for the post of Senior Work Inspector but the same is not correct. There are only four persons out of 49 work inspectors in the existing workcharged employees who possess SSLC qualification. The first party has prayed to pass award in its favour.

4. Second Party appeared afid filed objections. The case of the second party is that the Industrial Dispute Act is not applicable to T.B. Board. The history of the board is given. It is heard that regarding SSLC as minimum qualification for promotion against the posts of Senior Work Inspector is therefore considered to be justified.

5. It is seen from the records that on behalf of the first party Workman WW1 is examined. He is the General Secretary of the Union and he has given detailed evidence. His cross examination goes to show that he is not aware of any facts. He admits in his cross examination that the above workmen are not possessing SSLC qualifications. The said workmen arc not entitled for any promotion or rcgularisation based on their qualification. The learned counsel for the second party3367 Salal Hydro Electric Project Jyotipuram Via Rcasi (J&K)

submitted a copy of memo and according to this a minimum qualification of SSLC is required for the post of Senior Work Inspector.

...Management

APPEARANCES

For the workman : Shri Kapoor Singh 6 Considering the documents before me I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this reference. "Accordingly I proceed to pass the following order :

For the Management : Shri VK. Gupta ORDER

AWARD

The reference is rejected

(Passed on 2nd May 2001) (Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 14* June 2001)

The Central Govt. vide gazette notification No. L-42011/ 39/92-IR(DU) dated 25th July 1994 has referred the following dispute to tills Tribunal for adjudication :

V N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the management of SHEP in selecting persons to the post of dresser on the basis of interview after annulling selections made earlier is fair and justified ? If not, what relief the affected workmen arc entitled to ?"

"Whether the demand of the Union for re- designation of Shri Chct Ram as crane operator, the work which he is doing since 1986-87, from the post of fitter grade II is legal and justified ? If so, what relief he is entitled to ?"

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001

2. This reference order relates to the industrial disputes relating to the post of dresser and redesignation of workman Shri Chet Ram as crane operator. Therefore, in the claim statement the facts of both the cases have been alleged in separate paragraphs.

S.0.1641.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial DispuLes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Ceniral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chandigarh as shown in the Anncxurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation lo the management of Salal Hydro Electric Project and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-6-2001

|No. L-42011/39/92-IR (DU)1

KULDIP RAI VERM A, Desk Officer

3. The claim of the workman Shri Oi:: Parkash is in brief is that he was working as attendant in the Salal Project. He appeared in interview for the post of dresser during the year 1991. He had the requisite qualification for the post of dresser. He was selected for that post and he worked in the capacity of dresscrw.c f. 6-2-1991 to 16-2-1991. Thereafter, the orders of the selection were kept in abeyance by the management and he was reverted to the post of attendant. The orders passed by the management is illegal and unjustified. He should be awarded the post of dresser w.c.f. 6-2-1991 with all allied benefits and cost of litigation.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 59 of 1994

General Secretary, Salal Project Workcharge Employees Union,

658-H, Talwara Colony, Reasi (J&K)

. Workman/Union.

. Vs.

4. The claim of Shri Chet Ram is in brief is that he was appointed as a rigger in workcharged cadre on 2-9-1979. He was attached with rigging and loft sub division since then he has been working as crane operator. He applied lo the management several times of change of his designation as crane operator but no action was taken by the management He also appeared in interview conducted by the management for the post of crane operator but he was not selected and other employees junior to him were selected. The workman had worked in Beas Sullcj Link Project as a rigger and remained attached with crane operation of different models and capacities But he has not been designated as crane operator. Therefore, he should be made a crane operator since the date General Manager,3368 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14, 2001/ASADHA 23, 1923 [PARTH—SEC. 3(U)] of his appointment or with effect from 1-1-1986 with all full back allied benefits and cost of the litigation.

5. The management has alleged in written statement, that the workman Shri Om Parkash was appointed as dresser without complying with the requirement of law and principle of natural justice as the vacancy were not circulated for the information of all eligible workers. The Union of the workmen raised an objection that selection for the post of dresser had not been made complying the principle of natural justice, the vacancies for the post of dresser must have been made known to all other wofkmen by circulation. Consequently the orders of the selection of the workman Shri Om Parkash was kept in abeyance by the management The post of the dresser was hotified among all eligible workmen. The claimant and other workmen applied for the post of dresser. Interview was held and the five workers were selected by selection committee. Shri Om Parkash and Badri Nath were recommended to be kept on waiting list. Therefore, the workman Shri Om Parkash has no right to be appointed as dresser. The pay scale and the grade of dresser and attendant are similar. Therefore, the claim of Shri Om Parkash be dismissed with no relief.

6. The management has alleged in respect of Shri Chet Ram that he was appointed as a rigger in work charged cadre on 2-9-1979. He was not promoted to the post of crane operator. He might have worked on the cranes with some other persons to learn the trade. No rigger junior to Shri Chet Ram have been re-designated as crane operator. He is not entitled to be promoted or re-designated as crane operator. His claim deserves to be dismissed.

7. The replication has been filed by the claimant workmen reaffirming the allegations made in the claim statement.

8 In this case it is an admitted fact that Shri Om Parkash was selected for the post of dresser and he worked in the capacity of dresser from 6-2-91 to 16-2-91. After that he was reverted to the post of attendant.

9. In this case, the claimant has submitted the affidavit of Shri Om Parkash ex.Wl alongwith the documents which have been exhibited Ex W2 and W3 The affidavit of Shri Chet Ram is Ex. W4. Shri Om Parkash has deposed in his affidavit that he was selected for the post of dresser. He was reverted from the post of dresser to the post of attendant. He has submitted the experience certificate Ex. W3 and office order . Ex.W2 vide which his selection for the post of dresser was kept in abeyance. The witness of the management is R.S. Mahapatra has deposed that the workman Shri Om Parkash was appointed as dresser but some of the Union led by Shri Banarsi Dass had objected to his posting and appointment on the ground that the notice of interview was not circulated in all the sections of the project. Therefore, the selection of the workman was kept in abeyance. Notice of the interview was circulated and eligible persons were selected for the post of drosser. Shri Om Parkash has admitted in the cross-examination that after two months vacancies of dressers were notified by the management and he applied for the said post and appeared in interview. Five persons were selected by the selection committee. His admission proves that the selection of five persons was made following the due procedure. The irregularity committed during the course of selection of Shri Om Parkash was required to be rectified keeping in view the objections raised by the rival unions. The action taken by the management can not be said unfair and unjustified. The management was justified in cancelling the selection of Shri Om Parkash made without following due process. Therefore, the first term of reference is to be answered in favour of the management.

10. Workman Shri Chet Ram has deposed in his affidavit that he was appointed as fitter in Salal Project. He was attached with crane operations. He was applied for the post of crane operator. Interview was held by the management. He appeared in that interview but he was not selected. Even though he had requisite qualification and experience for the post of crane operator. Other junior persons were promoted to that post. But in the claim statement it has been pleaded that he was appointed as rigger. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the duties of the rigger is to open the machine and repair it. He had worked as rigger in BSL Project and not in Salal Project. No order was issued by the management to discharge the duties of crane operator, He has also admitted that the selection committee, has selected some persons for the post of crane operator but he has not been selected by the selection committee, though he was eligible and qualified. The witness of the management, has also deposed that on the basis of the merit some workers were selected for the post of crane operator after holding interview. When the selection committee has not found him eligible he can not claim any right to the post of crane operator. He may have experience of crane operation. He might have worked with crane operator casually for some time. But these facts do not make him entitled to the post of crane operator whereas the selection committee did not find him eligible for that post. Under these circumstances, Shri Chet Ram working as fitter can not be re-designated as crane operator. The action of the management can not be said to be illegal and unjustified. Therefore, the reference deserves to be answered in favour of the management.

11. On appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties, this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the action of the management in both cases is fair and justified. Therefore, the reference is answered that the action of the management in selecting persons to the post of dresser on the basis of interview after annulling selections made earlier is fair and justified. Consequently Shri Om Prakash is not entitled to get any relief from the management. Similarly the demand of the Union for re-designation of Shn Chet Ram as crane operator from the post of fitter is not legal and not justified. He is not entitled to get any relief from the management. Both parties shall bear their own costs. Appropriate Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh 2-5-2001 B.L. JATAV, Presiding Officer3369 "Whether the action of the management of Atomic Power Station Rawatbhata (Kota) in imposing a penalty of compulsory retirement of their workman Shri Ashraf Ali is legal and justified 7 If not, what relief the workman is entitled to 7"

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001

S.0.1642.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kota as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Atomic Power Station and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-6-2001.

[No. L4201 l/39/95-IR(pU)]

KULDIP RAIVERMA, Desk Officer

2 0 63 C J I / 2 0 01 - 153370 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14,. 2001/ASADHA 23, 1923 [PARTH—SEC. 3(ii)] 3371 3372 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14, 2001/ASADHA 23, 1923 [PARTH—SEC. 3(ii)] 3373 3374 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14, 2001/ASADHA 23, 1923 [PARTH—SHC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001

S.p. 1643.—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-cum-Labour Court Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Tungabhadra Board, T.B. Dam and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 22-6-2001.

[No, L-42011/54/88-D. U(B)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA. Desk Officer3375

ANMEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT

main grievance of the first party is that the Government has

failed to give pensionary benefits and the action of the

management is not correct. A lengthy Claim Statement is filed

narrating the history of the Board,

'SHRAM SADAN', III MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE,

TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR,

BANGALORE

Dated: 13th June, 2001

6. Denial of pensionary benefits to such of the work

charged workmen who had either died or had retired prior to

the date of extension of the Scheme, would tantamount denial

of the very purpose of the extension of the pensionary

benefits. Therefore first party union has prayed to pass award

in its favour.

PRESENT

HON'BLE SHRI V.N. KULKARNI, B. Com, LLB,

PRESIDING OFFICER

7. The Second party appeared and filed a lengthy ob-

jection,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

C.R. No. 33/89

IPARTY D PARTY

The Secretary, The General Secretary,

Tungabhadra Dam, Thungabhadra Board Factory

Hospet Taluk, Works and Civil Employees

Bellary District. Union, TB. Dam, Hospet Taluk,

(Advocate— Bellary

Shri B. G. Sridharan) (Advocate Shri A. K. Bhat)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2 A of the Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute

vide order No. L42011/54/88-D. II (B) dated 19-4-1989 for ad-

judieation on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

8. The main contention of the Second party is that the

Industrial Dispute Act is not applicable to the Second Party

Management. The maintenance of Dam and Canal work is

mainly done through contractors. I have carefully seen the

lengthy objections and it is clear that the objections are in

respect of non maintainability of the dispute. In respect of

work charged establishment of State Government who were

absorbed in provincial service did not arise. However the Board

took a magnanimous view and extended the benefit from

1 -4-87 evehthough the worker remained under workcharged

establishment and were not provincialised. Therefore it is not

correct in the part of the first patty to quote the Government

Order dated 7-1*80 and demand pensionary benefits to

workcharged establishment without any absorption.

Government also did not extend the benefit to those who

retired or died before 14*78 but before the issue of absorption

orders subsequent to the issue of orders on 7-1-80, Therefore

the demand of extending the benefit to those who retired or

died before 14-87 has no legal basis as the pensionary benefit

were made applicable only with effect from 1-4-87, The

Second party has prayed to reject the reference.

-Whether the action of the Tungabhadra Board,

TB. Dam, Hospet Taluk, Bellary District in not

extending the pensionary benefit to the

'workcharged establishment who retired/died

between 1-7-1978 to 31-3-1987 after putting in 10

years of service is justified 7 If not, to what relief

the workmen concerned are entitled to 7"

2. The first party workman was working with the Second

Party has not extended the pensionary benefit to the work

charged establishment who retired/died between 1-7-1978 to

31-3 -1987 after putting in 10 years of service therefore dispute

is raised.

9. It is seen from the records that Shri A.M. PushparaJ,

W Wl, is examined for the first party. He is the Joint Secretary.

He has given evidence saying that the union had made demand

for regularisation of the workmen, His uncompleted evidence

is not sufficient to prove anything. It was argued by the learned

counsel for the management that Gratuity is paid to the first

party workmen and the pensionary benefits were given as per

the circular w.c.f. 14*1987 and pensionary benefits is not given

to the workcharged workmen who retired or died prior to

14-87.

3. First party union filed Claim Statement.

4. The case of the First Party Union is as follows:

10. I have carefully perused the circular and I am of the

opinion that the first party workman is not entitled for

pensionary benefits and there is no merit in this reference.

Accordingly I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference is rejected

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed

by me on 13th June 2001)

VN. KULKARN^Presiding Officer

3. Tungabhadra Board is established by virtue of the

provisions contained in the Andhra State Act of 19S3 and a

few thousands of workmen are employed. It is the further case

of the first party that as a matter of fact even before the State

Governments of the then Mysore State and Andhra Pradesh

had come out with the idea of extending the pensionary

benefits referred to the Second Party Board had decided to

extend the Mysore Rules and conditions of Service to the

workcharged establishment Working under the Board. The

3376 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14, 2001/ASADHA 23, 1923 [PARTII—SEC. 3(ii)]

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 1947) for adjudication.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Director, Regional Station Forage Production and Demonstration, Distt: Sriganganagar of crediting the 47 days leave for the suspension period which was suo-moto revoked and is not issuing the charge sheet to the employee Sh. Rambilas was justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled 7" New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001

S.0.1644—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Regional Station Forage Production and Demonstration and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 22-6-2001.

The applicant filed the statement of claim stating that he was suspended by the non-applicant vide order dt. 16/1/97 on the ground that departmental enquiry against him is under contemplation under Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Vide order dt. 5/3/97 the suspension order was revoked, However, it was decided that suspension period from 17/1/97 to 4/3/97 be treated as regular leave with admissible pay and allowances. It was alleged that the non-applicant has no right to reduce 47 days leave from his leave account It was prayed that it may be ordered that 47 days leave may be credited in his leave account.

[No. L-42011/71/99-I.R (D.U.)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

CascNo. CGlT—10/2000

Reference No: L^42011/71/99/IR(DU)dt. 27/1/2000

General Secretary,

Bikaner Division Trade Union Council,

The non-applicant filed reply to the claim stating that the applicant is the regular employee of the Government of India and, therefore, the CAT has jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the dispute. It was stated that it was agreed in between the applicant, the President of Union and the non-applicant that instead of proceeding further against the applicant, 47 days leave may be deducted from the account of the applicant, It was also agreed that the applicant will not challenge the agreement in the court. It was also stated that the order dt. 5/3/97 vide which the period of suspension from 7/1/97 to 4/3/97 was ordered to be treated as regular leave has been withdrawn vide order dt 10/5/2000.

1, Khajanchi Building, '

Bikaner. Applicant

V/s

The Director,

Regional Station Forage Production and Demonstration,

Both the parties have not produced any evidence, As the order dt. 5/3/97 vide which the suspension period was treated as regular leave has been withdrawn, no dispute exists between the parties and that is why none of the parties has appeared today and no evidence has been produced. No dispute award, therefore, is passed.

Suratgarh,

Sri Ganganagar, Non-applicant

The copies of the award may be sent to the Central Government under Section 17(1) of the Act, 1947 for publication.

ATTENDANCE:—

Sd/- For the applicant : None

Illegible, For the non-applicant : None

Presiding Officer Date of Award : 30/5/2001

AWARD

Tht following dispute vide order mentioned above has bew reftrrdd by the Central Government under ciauM (d) of3377 New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001

S.0.1645—Inpursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial DisputeAcl, 1947(14of 1047), th" Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Bangalore as shown in the Amtaxurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Archaeological Survey of India and their workman which was received by the Centfal Government on 22-6-2001.

[No. L42012/52/90-I.R. (D. U)

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT 'SHRAM SAD AN¹, IIIMAIN, IIICROSS, IIPHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR,

BANGALORE

Dated :30th May, 2001

PRESENT

HONBLESHR1VN.KULKARNI,B Com,LLB, PRESIDING OFFICER

C.R. No. 71/90

I PARTY nPARTY

Shrj U. Nagendrappa, The Superintending Archaeologist, C/o A. Vcnkatcsha, A.S.I Bangalore Circle, Behind Church, 7th Ward, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Kainalapura-583221 Bang;ilore-56(>O41 Advocate— . 2. The Deputy Superintending Shn Basavraj V Sabarad Archaeologist, Hampi National

Project, Kamalapura-583221 Advocate-Shri J.M. Riazudin

AWARD

1 The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2 A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-42012/52/90-lR(DU) dated 30-11-1990 Tor adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

the services of Sri U, Nagendrappa, Ex-Site Supervisor is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to 7"

2. First party wag appointed at Site Supervisor w.e.f. 10-1-1986. He was terminated illegally by the second party so dispute was raised. •' • •

3. First party appeared and filed Claim Statement. The case of the first parly in brief is as under:

4. First party was appointed as Site Supervisor w.e.f. 10-1-E6. His name was found in Muster Roll, He was illegally terminated on 31-3-1989. The action of the management is illegal. There was no valid reason for his termination nor did the 2nd party observe the mandatory procedure prescribed by law pertaining to retrenclunent. The first party has prayed to pass award in his favour.

5. Second party appeared and filed Counter The cisc.

of the Second party in brief is as follows:

6. The case of the second party is that the reference i s not maintainable. Parawiso replies are given. The work was not permanent. There is no post like Siie Supervisor and the action of the management is correct. The continuation of workmen depends only on the necessity of work The second parly for these reasons and for some other reasons hat; prayed to reject the reference.

7. It is seen from the records that this workman Nagondrappa and another workman Siddappa have raised two separate disputes and that dispute is CR No. 75/90. 1 have referred this because Siddappa, the workman of CR No. 75/90 has given evidence in this dispute

8 The evidence of Siddappa is that he is a Graduate i n Economics and Nagendrappa also a.Graduate in History. He was given work at Hampi on 14-11-K4 and Nagendrappa was given work in January 1986. He was Site Supervisor, Muster Roll was maintained and attendance was taken, He worked continuously 14-11-84 lo 31-3-89 and Nagendrappa also worked till 1989. He get wages at Rs. 20/- per day and it was raised to Rs. 40/-. He was removed from service with effect from 31 -3-1989. The Tribunal in CR No. 74/90 has passed as Award for reinstatement and backwages to one HP. Chcnnaiah. He is cross examined at length but in my opinion nothing is made out from his cross examination to damage the evidence. Against this MW 1, 2,3 are examined on behalf of the Second Party. MW1 has given evidence and said that he was working at Hampi as Deputy Superintendent. He has given detailed evidence of the work. The excavation Yvork is not a commercial enterprise and it is also not a manufacturing process. He has stated tn his cross examination that he docs not know what work the workman was doing He is i.ot aware of the work done by the workman.

Whether the action of the Archeological Survey oflndia. Bangalore Circle, Bangalore in terminating ↩

9. We are having the evidence of MW2 and according to his evidence the workmen on daily wages to assist in the excavation work is seasonal and not a permanent work. He Z-Cl&t/jiW —/<£3378 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14, 2001/ASADHA 23, 1923 (PARTH~-SBC. 3(ii)] says that Muster Roll was maintained to record the attendance and payment of casual employees including Siddappa and Nagcndrappa. He says in his cross examination that Muster Rolls ;ire available in the office from 1984 to 1989. ft is true that Siddappa has worked as Site Supervisor continuously from 1984 to November 1989. It is also true that Nagendrappa has worked from January 1986 (o March 1989 continuously. They have not issued notices to these persons to discontinue the work. It is true from 1985 to 1989 the work was continuous, 10 On going through the above cross examination it is abundantly clear that the first party workman lias worked .continuously for more than 240 days. There is no teason to discard his evidence.

11. 1 n the instant case Written Arguments are filed on behalf of ihc.Sccond party. 1 have carefully read the written arguments in view of the cross examination of MW2 I am of the firm opinion that ihe workman has worked continuously for more than 240 days and no compensation is paid to the workman. In view of this there is no merit in the Written Argument of the Second Party. 1 have read the decision cited b> the second party and I am ol the opinion that facts of the case on hand arc quite different from the facts of the above decision.

12. Taking all this into consideration I am of the Opinion thai the termination is not correct. So I proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

The reference is answered in favour of the workman holding that the termination is not correct in the eye of law and the same is set aside. In the given circumstances back wages are not given. Other benefit i.e. continuity of service is given Accordingly award is passed.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 3(Hh May, 2001)

VN. KULKARNt, Presiding Officer New DcJni, the 22nd June, 2001

S,0.1646 —h\ pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrie Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Centnl Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Armexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Archeological Survey of India and their workman which was received by the Central Government On 22-6-2001.

[No. L^2012/54/90-I.R. (D. U.)]

KULDIPRAIVERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRffiUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

'SHRAM SAD AN¹, UIMAIN, IUCROSS, IIPHASE, TTJMKUR ROAD. YESHWANTHPUR,

BANGALORE

Dated :30th May, 2001

PRESENT

HONT3LE SHRI VN. KULKARNL B. Com, LLB, PRESIDINGOFFICER

C.R. No. 75/90

IPARTY nPARTY

Shri K. Siddappa, 1. The Superintending Archaeologist, C/o A Venkatesha, A S.I Bangalore Circle, Behind Church, 7th Ward, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Kamalapura-583221 Bangalore-56()(M 1 Advocate- - 2. The Deputy Superintending Shri B. V. Sabarad Archaeologist, Hampi National

Project, Kamalapura-583221 Advocate-Shri JM Riazuddin

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-42012/54/90-IR (DU) dated 30th November, 1990 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE,

"Whether the action of the Archeological Surfvey of India, Bangalore in terminating the services of Sri K. Siddappa, Ex-Site Supervisor is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to 7"

2. The fi rst party was found in the Muster-Roll of the project at Kamalapur and he was working as Site Supervisor from 14-11-1984 at Hampi and he was terminated on28-3-1989 so Industrial Dispute was raised.

3. Parties appeared and filed Claim Statement and Counter respectively.

3379

4. The case of the first party in brief is as under: __ 5. First party was appointed as Site Supervisor and he was terminated as stated in para¹1 of the Claim statement. It was said the second party tliat the reason of termination was that the work of the project was stopped. The survey work was again started and first party met the second jjarty on 13-8-1989 and requested to take back on duty. He went to work for seven days and thereafter the work was refused. The action of the second party is illegal and arbitrary. He was terminated without following any mandatory requirement of Section 25 C of the Industrial Dispute Act and Principle of last come" first go was not followed. The first party for these reasons has prayed to allow the reference.

6. Second party filed Counter. It is contented that the Second party is not an Industry, This explained in para 2 of the Counter. It is further states that first party was engaged on daily wages for a casual nature of work. The allegations made by the first party are not correct and that is replied parawise The continuation of workmen depends only on the necessity of work. The second party for these reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to.reject the reference,

7. It is seen from therecordsthat this workman Siddappa and another workman Nagehdrappa have raised two separate disputes and that dispute is CR. No. 71/90.1 have referred this bcGausc Siddappa, the workman of this dispute has given evidence in CR No. 71/90

8 The evidence of Siddappa has to be read as evidence in this case in CR No. 71/90. His evidence is that he is a Graduate in Economics and Nagendrappa also a Graduate in History. He was given work at Hampi on 14-11-84 and Nagendrappa was given work in January 1986. He was Site Supervisor. Muster Roll was maintained and attendance was taken He worked continuously 14-11-84 to 31-3-89 and Nagendrappa also worked till 1989. He get wages at Rs, 20/- pcr day and it was raised to Rs. 40, He was removed from service with effect from 31-3-1989, The tribunal in CR No, 74/90 has passed as Award for reinstatement and backwages lo one HP. Chennaiah. He is cross examined at length but in my opinion nothing is made out from his cross examination to damage the evidence. Against thisMWl,2and3 are examined on behalf of the Second party. MW1 has given evidence and said that he was working at Hampi as Deputy Superintendent. He has given detailed evidence of the work. The excavation work is not a commercial enterprise and it is also not a manufacturing process. He has stated in his cross examination that he docs npt know what work the workman was doing. He is not aware of the work done by the workman.

9. We are having the evidence of MW2 and according lo his evidence the workmen on daily wages to assist in the excavation work is seasonal and not a permanent work. He says that Muster Roll was maintained to record the attendance and payment of casual employees including Siddappa and Nagtndiappa. He says in his cross examination that Muster Rolls are available in the office from 1984 to 1989. It is true that Siddappa has worked as Site Supervisor continuously from 1984 to November 1989. It is also true that Nagendrappa has worked from January 1986toMaich 1989 continuously. They have not issued notices to these persons to discontinue the work, It is true from 1985 lo 1989 the work was continuous, 10. On going through the above cross examination it is abundantly clear that the first party workman worked continuously for more than 240 days. There is no reason to discard his evidence.

11. We arc also having the evidence of MW3, Veerabhadra Rao, Superintendent He speaks about the work, He admit that the workman was a Site Supervisor. To a question he says that there is no question of terminating the employing;,! due to casual appointment. This evidence is not signed by un- learned predecessor. So this has no evidenced value. With the cross examination of MW2 which I have.discussed, it is sufficient that the workmen has worked continuously for more than 241) days. His termination is without complying the mandatory provisions of Section 25 C of the industrial WispuU: Act, It is clear from the records that tcrminaf ion benefits were not given to this workman.

12. Taking all this into consideration I am of the opin- ion that the termination is not correct. So I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference is answered in favour of the workman holding that the termination is not given in the eye of law and the same is set aside. In the given circumstances back wages arc not given. Other benefit i.e. continuity of service is given. Accordingly award is passed.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 30th May, 2001)

VN. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001

S.0.1647.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial3180 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14, 2001/ASADHA 23, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ji)] Tribunal-cum-Lahojir Court Bangalore as shown in the Anrurnire in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Tungabhadra Board, T B. Dam and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 22-6-200 J.

[NoL-42012/57/S8-D.II(B)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRA!, GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL rRIB UN AL-CUM-L ABOUR COURT 'SHRAM SAD AN', III MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUft ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR,

BANGALORE

Dated: 14th June, 2001

PRESENT

HON'BLE SHRI VN KULKARNI, B.Com, LLB, PRESIDING OFFICER

CGIT-CUM-LABOURCOURT,

BANGALORE

C.R No. 57/89

1 PARTY n PARTY

President, The Secretary, Tungabhadra Board, Tungabhadra Board, Factoiy workers and 1' B. Dam, Civil Employees Union, Hospct Taluk, TB. Dam, Hospct Taluk, Bellary District Bellary District. (Advocate Shri A. K. Bhat) (Advocate— Shri A. S Mallcbennur)

AWARD

I. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2 A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-42012/57/88-D. II (B) dated 3rd August, 1989 for adjudication on the following schedule .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Tungabhadra Board TB Dam, Hospet Taluk, Bellary District in not concerting the nine Women workers viz,, Smt. Sushilamma, Anandamma, Kamalamma, Govindamma, Jayalakshmi, Ambamma, Dhanalakshmi, Sunkamma. and Sanjeevamtnainto workcharged establishment with effect from 1-4-87 is justified ? If not, to what relief the nine woman workers are entitled to ?"

2. The first party was working with the, second party and the action of tho management in not converting the nine women workers into workcharged establishment with effect from 1-4-87 is illegal and therefore industrial dispute is raised.

3 First party union filed Claim Statement

4. The case of the first party union is that the second part} absorbed 284 daily wage workers into workcharged establishment with effect from 1-4-1987 on monthly pay of Rs. 780 plus D.A in the time scale of Rs. 780-15-900-20-1040 and paid them arrears of salary from 1-4-1987.

5. It is the further case of the first party union that while absorbing such a good number of workers from daily wage into monthly with effect from 1-4-87, the following 9 women workers were absorbed only with effect from dates noted againt each in bracket as stated in para 2 of Claim Statement. The action of the management is not correct.

6. It is die fluthcr case of the first party union that the first party union that while all workers on daily wages who have completed 5 years of .service on 1-4-87 were absorbed as workcharged establishment with effect from 1-4-87 while the unfortunate similarly placed 9 workmen were absorbed at a late date depriving them of the arrears of pay from 1-4-87 to 31-1-1988 and the action of the second party is nol correct and it is a gross violation of Article 16(1) of the constitution and amounts to gross discrimination between similarly placed workers.

7. The Second party filed objections and prayed to re- ject the claim.

8. The main contention of the second party is that the dispute is not maintainable. The dispute raised by the workmen under Industrial Dispute Act is not valid as tho Industrial Dispute Act is not applicable to Tungabhadra Board. It is not an Industry Second party has prayed to reject the reference.

9. I have carefully perused the available records. There is notlung on record to show that the workmen of the first party union arc entitled for converting into work charged establishment w.ef 1-4-87. There is not an iota of evidence on behalf of the first party to show that there is merit in this reference. Absolutely there is no evidence.

10. Considering all this I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 14th June, 2001)

VN. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001

S.O. 1648.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of tiie Central 'Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Tungabliadra Board, 1 B. Dam and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-6-2001.

[No L-CO12/63/88-D 11(3)]-

KULDIP RAi VEKMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-cum-LABOUR COURT 'SHRAM SADAN', IHMATN,fflCROSS,11PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWAN THPUR,

BANGALORE

Dated: 13th June, 2001

PRESENT

HON"BLE SHRIVN, KULKARNL B. Com, LLB, PRESIDING OFFICER

CGIT-CUM-LABOURCOURT,

BANGALORE

C.R. No. 46/89

I PARTY .

II PARTY

Sliri Doda Basappa, TIieExecuuveEngineer, By the General Secretary, Head Works and High Level T.B. Board Workers and Canal Division, Civil Employees Union, Tungabhadra Board, T. B. Dam, Hospct Taluk, T. B. Dam, Hospet Taluk, BelJaryDist-583101 BcllaryDist-583101 (Advocate— (Advocate—Shri A. K. Bhat) Shri A. B. Malebennur)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause fd) of sub-section 2 A of the Section 10 of

338!

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispulvj vide order No. L-42012/63/88-D-II (B) dated 27-7-1989 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Executive Engineer, Head Works and High Level Canal Division, Tungabhadra Board, T.B. Dam, Hospei Taluk, Bcllary District in retrenching Shri Dodda Basappa from service w.e.f. 1-7-87 is justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to T

2. The first party workman was working with the second party as Daily Wage workman from 16-11-84 to 30-6-87 for the maintenance work of Canal and he was stopped from the wo tfc by the second party. Therefore, industrial dispute is raised.

i. First party appeared and tiled Claim Statement.

4. The case of the first party is that he was employed by the second party from 16-11-84 to 30-6-87 for *hi maintenance of caif.il wort. The S^roiid party stopped the work without anv notice. The action of the management is illegal. Therefore, the first party has prayed lo pass award in his favour,

5 Second party appeared and filed objections.

6 Trie Second party appeared and filed objection 7. The case of the Second party in brief is as follows :

8 It is the case of the Second party that at the time of reconciliation the Conciliation Officer has no jurisdiction to consider and to give findings. The dispute raised by tht workman under Industrial Dispute Act is not valid as the Industrial Dispute Act is not applicable to Tungabhadra Board. Tungabhadra Board was established by the President of India in the year 1955. The Tungabhadra Board is not an independent autonomous body. Therefore, this tribunal,has no jurisdiction.

9 It is the further case of the Second party that the workmen were only engaged as local labourer depending upon the repair works.

10. It is the further case of the second party that while disposing of the Writ Petition filed by one Shri Mahaboob against the board, the High Court of Karnataka has passed order on 9-10-90 to consider the case, if he is eligible in the light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wages Employees Association and others Vs. State of Kamataka Etc. (AIR 1990 Sc 883). The workman was engaged as casual labour on daily wages and not a permanent workman The Second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

11. It is seen from the records that on behalf of the workman, one witness Shri Dodabasppa was examined. He says that he was working as laskar from 1984. He has given detailed evidence and lias said that the work was stopped.

3382 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. JULY 14, 2001/ASADHA 23. 1923 [PARI'II—SEC. 3(ii)l

In his cross examination he says that be was not givcrt any appointment order by the second party to work as a Jaskar. Ex. M1 is the relevant entry fof his presence of work. There is no material to say that the workman was appointed regularly by the Second Party. It is clear from the evidence and material that the first party workman was worked only as casual labourer. WW2 is also examined by the Secretary of the Union. His evidence is helped the first party workman to prove that the workman was working as Permanent workman to tfe Second Part)

12. Considering all shis i am of the jpinion thai there is no mem in this reference and accordingly I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed bymeonl3thjunc,2001)

VN KULKARNJ, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001

S.O. 1649 —In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal^cum-Labour Court Bangalore as shown in the Anucxurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Tungabhadra Board, T.B. Dam and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 22-6-2001.

[No. L-42012/64/88-D. II(B)J

KULDIP RAJ VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAl -CUM-LABOUR COURT SHRAM SADAN', 111 MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR,

BANGALORE

Dated: 13th June, 2001

PRESENT

HON'BLE SHRIYN. KULKARNI, B. Com, LLB, • PRESIDING OFFICER

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

C.R. No. 45/89

IPARTY

JJPARTY .

ShriOmalingam, The Executive Engineer, C/o. General Secretary, Head Works and High Level T B. Board Workers and Canal Division, Civil Employees Union, Tungabhadra Road, T.B. Dam, Hospet Taluk, T. B. Dam, Hospet Taluk BcllaryDist-583101 BellaryDist-583101 (Advocate—- (Advocate—Shri A. K. Bhat) ShnA K Makebebbur)

AWARD

1 The Ccntrr! Government bv exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No L-420I2/64/88-D-II (B) dated 24-7-1989 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Executive Engineer, Head Works and High Level Canal Division, Tungabhadra Board, T.B Dam, Hospst Taluk, Bellary District in retrenching Shri Omalingam from service w.e.f. 1-7-87 is justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to ?"

2. The first party was working with the Second party on Daily Wages w.e.f. 1-5-85 to 30-6-87. He was stopped from work w.e.f. 1-7-87 by the management so dispute is raised.

3. First party workman appeared and filed Claim Statement.

4 The case of the first party workman in brief is as under;

5. The case of the first party workman is that he was employed by the first party on daily wage workman from 1-5-85 to 30-6-87 and the work was stopped on 1-7-87 without any notice and therefore the action of management is not correct. The conciliation proceedings have failed. The first party workman is unemployed. The first party for these reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.

6. The Second party appeared and filed objections.

7. The case of the Second party in brief is as follows :

8. It is the case of the second party that at the time pf reconciliation the Conciliation Officer has no jurisdiction to3383 consider and to give findings. The dispute raised by the workman under Industrial Dispute Act is not valid as the Industrial Dispute Act is not applicable to Tungabhadra Board. TungaWiadra Board was established by the President of India in the year 1955. The Thungabhadra Board is not an independen! autonomous body. Therefore, this tribunal has no jurisdiction.

9 It is the further case of the Second party that the workmen were only engaged as local labourer depending upon the repair works

10. It is the further case of the second party that while disposing of the Writ Petition filed by one Shri Mahaboob against the board, the High Court of Karnataka has passed order on 9-10-90 to consider the case, if he is eligible in the light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wages Employees Association and others Vs. State of Kamataka Etc. (AIR 1990 SC 883) The workman was engaged as casual labour on daily wages-and not a permanent workman. The second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

11. It is seen from the records that on behalf of the workman in his case and some other cases Shri A, M. Pushparaj is examined as WW1. In the cross examination he has stated that he has no record to show that the workmen are the members of the union. He does not know that these workmen were working as casual labourers or permanent workers. Absolutely there is no material placed before the court to say that the workman has worked continuously and has any right to continue the work.

12. It is clear from the records that the workman is only a casual labourer, therefore, 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 corrected and signed by me on 13th June, 2001)

VN. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001

S O. H650 — In pursuance of Sc-iion 17 cvf the Industrial Dilute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial T7,Umal"'/i*m-l ibour Courl Bangalcc a* shewn in the Aiuiexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Tungabhadra Board, T D Oam and their workman which was received by the Central Government oa D -6 2001.

[No. L-42012/65/88-DR. II (B)]

KULDIP RAIVERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

'SHRAM SADAN'.m MAIN, niCROSS.IIPHASE, TUMKURROAD, YESHWANTHPUR,

BANGALORE

Dated: 13thJune,2001

PRESENT

HON'BLE SHRI VN. KULKARNI, B, Com, LLB, PRESIDING OFFICER

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

C.R. No. 47/89

I PARTY nPARTY

Shri U. Eranna, The Executive Engineer, Office of General Secretary, Head Works and High Level T.B, Board Workers and Canal Division, Civil Employees Union, Tungabhadra Board, T. B. Dam, Hospet Taluk, T. B Dam, Hospet Taluk BellaryDistt-583101 BellaryDistt-583101 (Advocate— (Advocate—Shri A. K. Bhat) Shri A. S. Malebennur)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section 2 A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-42012/65/88-DR. n (B) dated 21-7-1989 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Executive Engineer, Head Works and High Level Canal Division, Tungabhadra Board, T.B. Dam, Hospet Taluk, Bellary District in retrenching Shri U. Eranna from service w.e.f, 1-7-87 is justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to ?"

2. The first party was working as Daily Wage Workman from 1 -5-1982 to 30-6-1987 and work was stopped without any notice and therefore Industrial dispute is raised.

3384 THE GAZETTE Of INDIA: JULY 14, 2001/ASAPHA 23, 1923 [PARTII—SEC. 3(ii)]

3. First'party workman appeared and filed Claim Statement

4 The case of the firsi party vvorkwan in brief is .as"" under.

5. The case of the tirst party workman is that he was employed by the first party on daily wage workman from 1-5-82 to 30-&-87 and the work was stopped on 1-7-87 without any notice and therefore the action of management is not correct. The conciliation pioccedings have failed. The first party workman is unemployed. The first party for these reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.

6. The Second party appeared and filed objections.

7. The case of the Second party in brief is as follows 8. It is the case of the Second party that at the time of reconciliation the Conciliation Officer has no jurisdiction to consider and to give findings. The dispute raised by the workman under Industrial Dispute Act is not valid as the Industrial Dispute Act is not applicable to • Tungabhadra Board. Tungabhadra Board was established by the President oflndia in the year 1955. The Tungabhadra Board is not an independent autonomous body. Therefore, this tribunal has no jurisdiction.

9. It is the further case of the Second party that the workmen were only engaged as local labourer depending upon the rcp"air works.

10. It is the further case of the Second party that while disposing of the Writ Petition filed by one Shri Mahabocb against the board, tne High Court of Karnataka has passed order on 9-10-90 to consider the case, if he is eligible in the light of the decision tendaed by the Supreme Court in ibe Dharwad District PWD literate.Daily Wages Employees Association and others Vs. State of Karnataka Etc. (AIR 1990 SC 883). The workman was engaged as casual labourer on daily wages and not a permanent workman. The second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

11. It is seen from ihe records that Shri Eranna is examined as WW1. Shri A. M. Pushparaj is examined as WW2. 1 have read the evidence carefully. Admitedly ihe first party workman was not a permanent worker cf the second party. The workman was. working as a casual labourer According to the evidence he was working under the control of HLC Canal. Considering the material before me I am of the opinion that the fust party workman is not a permanent worker of the Second Pai ty nnd there is no merit in the reference. The learned counsel appearing for the Second Party relied ILR 2000 Kar 2156.1 read the above decision carefully, fn the instant case there is no material to show that the workman was a permanent worker of the Second Party. In ihc result I pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference "s rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on n th Jur^, 2001)

V. H. KULKARN1, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001

S.O. 1651.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes rhe award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Bangalore as.shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between Ihe employers in relation to the management of Archcological Survey oflndia ind their workman which was received by the Central Oovenimcn!. on 22-6-2001.

[No. L-42012/79/90-IR (DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERM A, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUN AL-CunvLABOUR COURT

'SHRAM SADAN', III MAIN.m CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKURROAD, YESHWANTHPUR,

BANGALORE

Dated: 13th June, 2001

PRESENT

HON'BLE SHRI V.N KULKARNI, B. Com, LLB, PRESlDDSfGOFFTCER

CGJT-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

CR No. 70/90

T PARTY

II PARTY

The President, Superintendent, Archcological Survey oflndia. Archaeological Survey oflndia Daily Wages Employees Union, Bangalore, Hampi National Project, (Advocate: Kamalapura-583221 ShriJ.M.Riazuddin) (Advocate. Shri B \feudcv)3385

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2 A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-42012/79/90-IR (DU) dated 9-11 -90 for adjudica- tion on the following Schedule:

wages were paid as per the instructions in Archaeological Works Code, The workmen are not eligible for any benefits.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Archaeological Survey of India, Bangalore Circle, Bangalore in terminating the services of the workmen without any reasons and without complying ihe provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen arc entitled to ?"'

2. Thefirstparry union workmen have been working in Hampi National Project on daily wages continuously for a period ranging from 2 years to 8 years. The Second party terminated the services of the workmen so the dispute is raised, 3 First party workmen union has filed Claim Statement 4. The case of the first party union is as under ;

5. The workmen ofthe first party union are working as casual labourers. The cadre in which these employees were working arc:

(1) Site Supervisor (2) Literate Assistant Graduate/Assistant Site Supervisor (3) Literate Assi stant Under Graduate (4) Photographer Assistant (5) Draftsman Assistant (6) Heavy Stone Lifters/Jawali (1) Watchman (8) Male Coolie (9) Female Coolie (10) Mason.

6. The daily wages of these workmen ranges between Rs. 32 to Rs. 70. The project is one of prestigious projects of the Archaeological Survey of India and it is being aided by UNESCO. The action ofthe Second Party restricting the work we f. 25lh September 1990 all of a sudden is not correct. The first party union has prayed to pass award in its favour.

7 Second Party filed Counter.

8 The claim ofthe Second Party in brief is as under:

9 It is the case of the Second Party that there is no case made out for a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. As such the first party has no locus standi to represent the alleged workers. There is no record to show that the union has a membership of 180 workmen have been working in Hampi National Project. The first party union workmen were working on casual basis as labourers and they were paid as per local PWD schedule of rates as well as the rates applicable to the Irrigation Department, Government of Kamataka. The 10. The contention ofthe first party workmen that they are terminated is not correct The workers were engaged on daily wages on N.M.R. for certain work of casual nature for intermittent periods and since the work is of seasonal nature, it had to be suspended. And therefore they are not entitled for continuous service. At no stage the working class is exploited instead those who do not even know how to hold a spade was also offered work on daily wage inspite of the fact that archaeological excavation is a highly scientific work. The department has been performing its duties relating to their employees in accordance with the rules and regulations. The workers were not engaged against any regular vacancies warranting their continued engagement in the Archaeological Survey of India. The Second party has prayed to reject the reference.-

11. It is seen from the records that on behalf of the second party MW1 is examined. On behalf of the workmen WW1 is examined. Both sides have filed written arguments. I have heard both sides in detail and I have perused the written arguments carefully, The evidence of MW1 is that there was no permanent post of Casual workers. All were casual labourers employed in excavation work. He has also stated that during off season the labourers do their agricultural work and the regular staff consists of, technical assistants, draftsmen, surveyor, photographer, modeler and marksmemen.

12. In the cross examination MW1 has stated that in respect of casual labourers they do not maintain any registers. He also stated that the Muster Rolls shows name ofthe casual labourers in detail, He also says in bis cross examination that casual labourers are employed to permanent technical persons. Watchmen are also in the Muster Roll. He also says in his cross examination that there is a seniority of casual labourers but same was not prepared during his period. He has said in his cross examination that by oversight the casual labourers working in Hampi National Project were included in the circle seniority list of casual labourers. He says in his cross examination that he cannot say that the workmen involved in this case have worked for more than 240 days continuously. He had no courage to deny this suggestion.

13. On behalf of the Union WW1 is examined The main argument on behalf of the second party was that the second party is not an Industry,

14. In my opinion this argument has no merit. There is no material to say that the Archaeological Survey of India is not an Industry. The learned counsel appearing for the second party relied on decisions of Manshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others Vs, StateofBihar JP1997 (4) SC 560,1997 (3) scale 463. It is true that according to said decision every department of the Government cannot be treated as Industry, The fact ofthe case on hand arc quite different from the above decision. The learned counsel for the second party has also produced an order ofthe Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad.

JOC3G2/1°O/-/7

3386 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA; JULY 14, 2001/ASADHA 23. 1923 [PARTII—-SEC. 3(ii)l

Again the facts arc quite different. The second party has also placed reliance on the judgement of the Presiding Officer, CcntTal Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur. Again the facts of the case on hand are quite different from the above judgement. I already said that the Second party has not produced any cogent material so as tt> say that the second party is not an Industry.

15 The evidence of MW1 which have referred clearly shows that the first party union workmen worked continuously for more than 240 days. The evidence of MW1 is unsalisfactory and it is not established that there was break in ihc period of service of first party workmen. When the first party workmen have continuously worked for more than 240 days in a year it was obligatory on the part of the second party to follow the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act and the termination of the services of the first parry workmen amounts lo retrenchment because they have worked for more than 240 days.

16. Taking al I this into consideration I proceed to pass

ihc following order.

ORDER

The order of termination is not correct and the same is set aside. The second party is directed to reinstate the first party workmen with continuity of service and in the given circumstances back wages are not allowed.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her, corrected and signed

by me on 13 Ih June, 2001)

VN KULKARNI, Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the Census Department through Director of Census Operation (Rajasthan) Jaipur in discontinuing the services of Shri Bhawani Shanker Gautam S/o Shri Ram Narayan is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief Hie workman is entitled 7"

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001

S.O. 1652 —In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kola as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Census Operation and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 22-6-2001.

[No.L~42012/80/9fcIR(DU)|

KULDIP RAI VERM A, Desk Officer3387 3388 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14, 2001/ASADHA 23, 1923 [PARTII—SEC, 3(li)]

im~~

New Delhi, the 18th Jime, 2001

"Whether the action of the Managing Bircctor, • NAFED Biofertilizers in terminating the services of Shri Roop Narayan Sharma is legal & justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?" S.O. 1653 In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1941), th^ Celt ml Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cuni-Lubjur Court Jaipur as shown in the Annc-xurc in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employes in relation to the management of NAFED Biofortilizers and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 18*6-2001.

[No. L-42012/136/99-IR (DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERM A, Desk Officer

2063 GI/20Q1—l.(f.

3.190 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 14, 20&1/ASADHA 23, 1923 [PAST JI—SFC. 3(ii)]

Points of Dispute :

(1) Whether the applicant worked in the establi- shment of the non-applicant from 15-9-94 to 6-4-98 continuously 7

(2) Whether the Central Government is not the 'appropriate Government' for referring the dispute ?

(3) Whether the applicant left the job himself?

(4) Whether the applicant was engaged as a casual workman and was given casual nature of work according to the requirements 7 (5) Whether the applicants services were termi- nated by the non applicant in violation of S. 25.F SL G. of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 7

(6) To what relief the applicant is entitled 7 2. (a) "appropriate Government " means, (i) in relation to any Industrial Disputes concer- ning any industry carried on by or under the authori- ty of the Central Government or by a railway com- pany (or concerning any such controlled industry|as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Govern- ment or in relation to an Industrial Dispute concer- ning) a Dock Labour Board cstalished under Section 5-A of the Dock workers ( Regulation of Employ- ment) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948) or (the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited formed and regis- tered under the Companies Act, 1956), or the Em- poyees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees, State Inusrance Act. 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of Trustees consti- tuted under Section 3-A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948), or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Beards of Trustees constituted under Section 5-A &nd Section 5-B, respectively, of the Employees, Provident Fund and [ Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956) or the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited registered under the companies Act, 1956 ( 1 of 1956) or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing Corporations established under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 ( 53 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, . 1963 ( 52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of India . established under Section 3 or a Board of Manage- ment established for two or more contiguous States under Section 16 of the Food Corporations Act, 1964( 37 of 1964) or ( the Airports Authority of India constituted under Section 3, of the Airports Autho- rity of India Act, 1994 ( 55 of 1994), or a Regional Rural Bank established under Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976) or the Export Credit and Guarantee Coiporatiou Limited or the Industrial Reconstruction Corporation of India Limited), or ( The Banking S:rvicc Commi- ssion established, under Section 3 of the Banking Service Commission Act, I975,or) (an air trans- port service , or ) ( a banking or an insurance com- pany, a mine, an oilfield) ( a Cantonment Board), "or a major port, the Central Government, and (ii) in relation to any other Industrial Dispute, the State Government;

Objects

3. The objects of the NAFED shall be to or- ganise, promote and develop marketing, processing and storage of agricultural, horticultural and forest produce, distribution of agricultural machinery, im- plements and other inputs, undertake inter- State, import and export trade, wholesale or retail as the case may be and to act and assist for technical advice in agricultural production for the promotion and the working of its members and coo- perative marketing processing and supply societies in India. Jn furtherance of theae objectives, the NAFEO may undertake one or more of the follo- wing activities :

(1) to facilitate, coordinate and promote the marketing and trading activities of the coo- perative institutions in agricultural and other commodities, articles and goods;

33S1

(ii) to undertake or promote on its own or on behalf of its member institutions or the Government or Government organisations, inter-State, and international trade and commerce and under-take, wherever necessary, sale purchase, import, export and distribution of agricultural commodi- tios, horticultural and forest produce, other articles and goods from various sources for pursuing its business activities and to act as the agency for canalisation of ox- port and import and inter-state trade of agricultural and othor commodities or arti- cles under any scheme formulated by the Government of India or other Govern- ment agencies and to facilitate these acti- vities, whenever, necessary to open brn,i\- chca/Bub-offices and appoint agents at any place within the country or abroad;

(iii) to undertake purchase, sale and supply of agricultural products, marketing and proces- sing requisites, such as manure, seeds, ferti- liser, agricultural implements and machinery, packing machinery, construction requisites, processing machinery for agricultural commo- dities, forest produce, dairy* wool and other animal products;

(iv) to act as warehouseman undor the ware- housing Act and own and construct its own godowns and cold storages;

(v) to act as agent of any Government agency Or cooperative institution for the purchase, salt storage and distribution of agricul- tural, horticultural, forest and animal hus- bandry produce, wool , agricultural requisi- tes and other consumer goods:

(vi) to act as an insurance agent and to undertake all tiich work which is incidental to the same;

(vii) to organise consultancy work in various fields for the benefit of the cooperative institutions : in general and for its membors in particular :

(viii) to undertake manufacture of agricultural machinery and implements, processing, packing etc. and other production requisites and consumer articles by setting up manufacturing units either directly or in other collaboration with or as a joint vunture with any other agency, including import and distribution of spare-parts and components for ur>-kce^ of the machinery/implements ;

(ix) io set up storage units for. storing various commoditis and goods,, by itself or in collaboration with any other agency in India or abroad ;

(x) to maintain transport units Of its own or in collaboration with any other organisation in India or abroad for movement of goods on land, sea, airttc. ;

(xi) to collaborate with any intemationa agency or a foreign body for development of cooperative marketing, processing and other activities for mutual advantage i* India or abroad ;

(xii) to undertake marketing research and dis- semination of market intelligence ;

(xiii) to subscribe to the share capital of other cooperative institutions as well as other public, joint and private sector enter- prises if and when considered necessary for fulfilling the objectives of NAFED ;

(xiv) to arrange for the training of employees of marketing/proccssing/supply cooperative societies ;

(xv) to maintain common cadres/pools of mana- gerial/technical personnel required by the marketing/processing/supply cooperative societies ;

(xvi) to establish processing units for processing of agriculrtural, horticultural and forest produce and wool ;

(xvii) to undertake grading, packing and standardisation of agricultural produce and other articles ;

(xviii) to acquire, take on lease or hire, lands, building, fixtures and vcchicles and to sell, give on lease or hire them for the business of NAFED ;

(xix) to advance loans to its members and other cooperative institutions on the security of goods or otherwise ;

(xx) to guarantee loans or advanced or give undertakings to any society or company in which the Federation has a shareholding or financial involvement as a promoter to be able to assist its development or expansion or for starting any industrial undertaking by such societies/companies;

(xxi) to guarantee loans or advances or give undertakings on behalf of any such society or company as mentioned above to any financing institutions;

(xxii) to do all snch things or undertake such other business or activities as may bo inciden- tal or conducive to the attainment of any or all of the above objects.

339>2 T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA : J U LY 14, 2 0 0 1 / A S A D HA 2 3, 1923 [PART I I —S E C. 3 ( y )J

Membership :

4 (a) The membership of N A F ED shall co"sist of the following categories :

(i) State-level general purpose c o o p e r a t i ve marketing federations excluding Union Territories ;

(ii) Apax-level cooperative marketing organisa- tions for Union Territories ;

(iii) State and Regional (inter-State) leviil cooperative institutions like special commodity federations, tribal coopertaive federations and tribal cooperative deve- lopment corporations, engaged or designed to engage primarily in the marketing, processing or distribution of agricultural, minor forest and allied produce, agricul- tural requisites and consumer goods ;

(iv) Cooperative marketing/processing societies other than those covered under item (i), (ii) and (iii) above, engaged in the marketing and /or processing of agricultural minor forest and allied produce and /or agricultural inputs and having a minimum sales turnover of Rs. 20 lakhs or above in these activities during tho cooperative year preceding the date of application for membership. Provided however, ihat the minimum sales turnover in respect of such cooperatives in cooperatively backward States, as defined by the Govt, of India shall bo Rs. 10 lakhs only ;

(v) Government of India ;

(vi) National Cooperative Development Corpo- ration ;

(vii) Other Govt. Organisations/undertakings ;

and

(viii) National Cooperative Consumer's Feder- ation and any other at'onal-levol cooperative organisation.

(b) Tbe NAFED may retire the shares held by the Government of India, Government organisation and the National Cooperative Development Corporation at such time and in such manner as may be agreed upon between it and the Government of India/ Government organisations/National Coop- erative Development Corporation as the case may be.

such other persons/societies/institutions not covered by bye-law 4 (a) above, with whom the, NAFED is likely to do business or store goods, or arrange sale thereof provided the applications for admission such membership ia received alongwith the admission fee of Rs. 100/- and is duly accepted by tho Board of Director, may bo admitted as nominal members. Such admission fee shall not be refundable in any case. Such members will , however* not carry right to vote or participate in th" management of the Federation or in the sharing of its profits or liabilities :

Capital ;

12 (a) NAFED may rai&e funds from one or more of the following sources :

(i) Admission fees,

(ii) Share Capital,

(iii) Loan* and Deposits,

(iv) Grahts-in-aid and donations, and

(v) Profits.

Provided tkat the acceptance of loans and deposits from non, members shall bo subject to such restrictions as tho Registrar may impose.

(b) The authorised share-capital of the the Federation shall be Rs. 5 crows consisting of :

(i) 1000 shares of Rs. 25,000/- each to be subscribed by the members categorised under Bye-law 4 (a) (i), (iii), (iv), (v), (vj), (vii) and (viii) ;

(ii) 10,000 shares of Rs. 2,500/- each to be subs^ribod by tip m-mbors categorised under Bye-law 4 (a) (ii) and (iv).

Provided 4721 shares of Rs. 1,000/- each and 234 shares of Rs. 5,000/- each already issued, shall not bu disturbed and shall not offect the total of the authorised share capital.

General Body :

14 The General Body of NAFED shaj] consist of one representative each of the members admitted under Bye-Jaw 4'(a) and the Directors of other organi- sation/institutions on the Board of Directors of NAFED under Bye-Jaw 20 including the two co- opted Directors.

15, Every member society, the Central Govern- ment and other organisations eligible to send repre- sentatives as per Bye-law 14 shall nominate their representatives on the General Body of NAFED and certified copies of the instrument of nomination shaJJ be sent to the Managing Director, Such resolutions/ instruments should specify the period for which such nominees wii! continue to represent them.

17. Without prejudice to the general provisions )f the preceding Bye-Jaws, the duties and powers of ;lie General Body shall be :

(i) to elect, suspend or remove the members of the Board of Directors, except those nomi- nated by the Government of NCDC (National Cooperative Development Corporation);

(ii) to consider and adopt the Annual Report of NAFED, its Audit Report and audited Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account and its programme of activities prepared by the Board of Directors for the ensuing yeai;

(iii) to dispose of profit? in accordance with the Act; notified rules and these Bye-laws] (iv) to fix the maximum borrowing limit which shall be subject to the approval of the Regis- trar;

(v) to amend the Bye-laws;,

(vi) to expel members;

(vii) to consider any other business with the per- mission of the Chairman of the General Body Board of Directors :

20, The Board of Directors elected by the General Body once in 3 years, shall consist of :

(a) one representative each of State-Jeve] general purpose co-operative marketing federations admitted under Bye-law 4(a)(i);

(b) one representative to be elected by the mem- bers admitted under Bye-law 4(a)(ii) from amongst themselves;

(c) one representative to be elected by the mem- bers admitted under Bye-law 4(a)(iii) and 4(a)(vii) from amongst themselves;

(d) 7 representatives to bo elected by members admitted under Bye-Jaw 4(a)(iv) from amongst themseJve;?;

(e) three nominees of the Government of India;

(f) one nominee of the National Co-operative Development Corporation;

(g) one nominee of the National Co-operative Uuion of India;

(h) ono nominee of the State Bank of ludia;

(i) one nominee each of the National Co-opera- tive Consumers Federation, the Bharat Kri- shak Samaj and any other national level co-operative organisation that may be-admit- ted to membership of NAFED, provided that uioh representation on the Board of NAFED bhall be on a reciprocal basis;

m (j) not more than tVro eminent¹ co-opurators, economists or management exports in the country as may be co-opted by the Board ol Director. They shaH have right to parti- cipate and vote. Such,persons shaJJ be eli- gible for re-cooption after the end of their term;

(k) Managing. Director.

28. The Board of Directors shall exercise all the powers of NAFED except those reserved for the General Body subject to any resolutions or restric- tions laid down by NAFED in a GeneraJ Body Meeting or in the Bye-Jaws. In particular the Board has the following powers ;

(i) to observe in all their transactions the Act, the notified rules and these Bye-laws;

(ii) to place before the General Body, the Annual Report and the Audit Report;

(iii) to consider and approve the Annual Budget (including supplementary budget) of NAFED;

(iv) to consider the inspection notes of the Regis- trar and of any other person authorised to inspect by him and take necessary action;

(v) to admit and suspend members and issue new shares and transfer of old shares;

(vi) to decide- matters rejatins to withdrawals, transfer, refund and forfeiture of shares;

(vii) to summon General Body meeting in accor- dance with these Bye-laws;

(viii) to appoint, suspend or remove the Managing Director who shall be ex-officio members of the Board of Directors;

(ix) to decide an investment in the share capital of other co-operative and other institutions/ bodies;

(x) to purchase, sell or otherwise acquire and dispose of immovable property of NAPED:

(xi) to accept or reject the resignation from the members of the Board of Directors and in the case of acceptance of resignation orvacancy failing for other reason*, to coopt Directors from among the representatives to the General Body in accordance with Bye-law 24;

(xii) to frame rules regarding recruitmunt, appoint- ment, conditions of service, suspension imd punishment in respect of the Managing Director;

(xiii) to appoint an Executive Committee aud Business Committee;

394 TftE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 14, 20O1/ASADHA 23,> 1923 [1*ART II--SEC. :(v)j

(xiv) to grant business incentive with the object of promoting agricultural co-operative marketing in the country in general and that of the member-federations in particular;

(xv) to lccommend to the General Body distribu- tion of profits;

(xvi) to settle the terms and conditions regarding retirement of shaie-capital contributed 'by NCDC, Government of India/State Govern- ment and other Government Organisation;

(xvii) the Board of Directors shall be, competent to make ad-hoc grants from out of its gcncraJ funds or common goods funds or any othor fund created for the purpose (or any cause of national emergency.

Executivo Committee :

31. The Board of Directors shall constitute an Executive Committee comprising the following mem- bers :

(i) Chairman;

(ii) Two Vice-Chairmen;

(iii) Six Directors including one representative of the National Co-operative Development Cor- poration ;

(iv) Managing Director.

32. The Executive Committee shall have the fol- lowing powers and functions :

(i) to arrange for internal checking of the accounts at least once in a quarter;

(ii) to hire ot take on lease laud, yards, godowns, building, processing plants, machinery, cold storage, etc.

(iii) to purchase, sell or otherwise acquire or dis- pose ol movable property of the NAFED;

(iv) to fix the limits of cash balance to be kept by various officers and branches and authorise officers to sign or execute receipts and other documents on behalf of NAFED;

^v) to arrange for raising funds for carrying on the business of NAFED and to determine the terms and conditions therefore;

(vi) to decide ibe terms, period for and the rate of interest at which deposits are to be received and to arrange for repayment of such deposits;

Oii) to frame rules regarding recruitment, appoint- ment, suspension, punishment and other conditions of service in respect of the emp- loyees of NAFED, other than the Managing Director and to prescribe the scale and nature of securuic;, to be obtained from the emp- loyees where necessary;

(viii) to sipprove and sanction the staff required from lime to time, for carrying on the busi- ness of NAFED and to prescribe the scales of pay and other allowances and perquisites etc., in respoct of the employees of NAFED other than the Managing Director;

(ix) to sanction expenditure on purchase of dead- stock, furniture and fixtures, stationery, vehi- cles and other items required by NAFED and atao sanction other contingent expenditure. Executive Committee may delegate these powers to the Managing Director and other Officers of NAFED subject to such rcsstric- tions as it may deem fit;

(x) through any member or officer or employee of NAFED or any other person, specially authorised, to institute, conduct, defend, com- promise, refer to arbitration or abandon legal proceedings by or against NAFED or its officers/employees concerning the affairs of NAFED;

(xi) to appoint such sub-committees as may be necessary from amongst its members and delegates to them such powors as may be appropriate; '

(xii) to appoint trustee or, trustees, attorney or attorneys, agent or agents for the business of NAFED;

(xiii) to refer any claims or demands for arbitration and to observe and perform the awards;

(xiv) Lo sanction contracts which are in excess of Rs. 5 lakhs;

(xv) any other powers delegated by the Board of Directors, from time to time;

(xvi) to delegate its powers to such officers of the Federation as it may deem fit.

33. The Executive Committee may Meet as often as necessary but normally once in every quarter. Five members shall form a quorum in the meeting of the Committee. The meeting ol' the Executive Committee; shall be presided over by the Chairman, in his absence by one of the Vice-Chairman, senior in age and in their absence, the members present may elect their own Chairman from amongst them- selves to preside over the meeting.

Chairman :

34. (i) The Chairman and the Vice-Chairmen elected by the Board of Directors shall act r.s the Chairman and Vice-Chairmen of the General Body of NAFED also;

3395

(ii) The Chairman shall preside over fhc mcejings of the Board of Directors, General Body, Executive Committee and Business Commkict:. In his absence one of the Vice-Chairmen shall preside and in the absence of the three, the members present shall elect one from amongst themselves a.S the Chairman of the meeting. When the Chairman is absent but both the Vice-Chairmen are present, the Vice-Chairman senior in age shall preside.

(iii) The Chairman shall have general control and overall supervision over the affairs of the Federation and its officers with the object of ensuring implemen- tation of all the policies laid down by the Board of Directors/Executive Committee/Business Committee.

(iv) The Chairman shall be competent to take decisions as are of an urgent nature affecting the policy of the Federation on behalf of the Board of Directors, Executive Committee, Business Committee and any other committee, which may be deemed urgent on the advice, of the Managing Director. The matter will be placed before the next meeting con- cerned for ratification. He (Chairman or his nomi- nee) shall represent the Federation in different orga- nisations/institutions.

(34) (a) The Bor.rd of Directors shall appoint the Managing Director on such terms and conditions and for such period as it may decide.

(35) (i) The Managing Director shall act as I he Chief Executive Officer of NAFED and shall conduct the business of the Federation and shall exercise control over the administration of NAFED subject to the overall control of the Chairman.

(ii) He shall advice the Board of Directors, Exe- cutive Committee, Business Committee and other Committees in framing the pclicies and pregjamines of the Federation and implement these after appoval, 36. (a) The following shall be the duties of the Managing Director :

(i) to summon the meeting of the General Body, Board of Directors, Executive Committee, Business Committee and other Sub-Coinoitlec5, etc. and parti- cipate in them but shall have no right to vote in mat- ters pertaining to elections ;

(ii) to attend the meetings of the different com- mittcfts and take necessary steps to implement the decisions taken in various mretings including matters relating to purchase, sal^s storage, processing of agricultural and other commodities machinary, etc. and matters incidental thereto;

(iii) to be responsible for Ihe general conduct, supervision and management of the day-to day busi- ness and affairs of NAFED ;

(iv) to ensure proper maintenance of accounts of the Federation in the pn.-scr.bed manner;

(v) to receive all moneys and securities on bchflf of NAFED and to arrange for the safe custody of ca"h records, properties and ether securities cf NAFED;

(vi) to assist in the inspection of books and records by various authorities empowered to do so under the Act, Rules and Bye-laws;

(vii) to institute conduct, defend comp< und or abandon any legal proceeding by or against NAFED or its employee^ cr otherwise comcrniaj; the affair; of NAFED and also io compound and allow time for payment or satisfaction rf any clnirr.s or demand by or against NAFED;

(viii) to ce/tify copies of entries in the books under the Act;

(ix) to incntr exp.-ndilure within ibe :ppovc-d budget estimates ;

(x) to keep in sfifi; custody all tbc registers> a, I other papers in use of NAFF. D and otlvr prcper. \ of NAFED ;

(xi) to arrange for the s:fe custody e.f all mo: ily.s received by NAFED and t-U oiher pnpe.uVs if NAFED and for proper nuiinn.TLai.te of ; U U U MS (hereof and for investment of funds cf NAFED sut>i,f' to the provisions of the Acl, Rules und diicvtioi s of the Board of Directors/Executive Committee:

(xii) to sign all ilep'?sii rccc.'p')- arv' rpt-r; r > ". The accourtis of NAFED wiih the Ba> k:. ML PI: y delegate ;UJ or any of th" powers, .iu*hori'^.s ;:n discretions vested in him to ary cniploy^v/crnplr-yivs ui" NAFED, subject to ihe i-ibimrte cor-tr, I in'd aulho.rtiy being retained by him:

(xiii) to si an receipts for trolleys roceivi-d by NAFED, and to oporate on" the r.ccor.ms of NAFTD in tho banks;

(xiv) to be the officer of NAFfJD, to sue or to be sued on behalf of the NAFED and sigr. arul c.-w cutf bonds, acrwomonts and other documents; AT and on behatf of NAFFD ;

(xv) to de^enj'.irc the powers, duties and res- ponsibilities of '.he employees of NAFED for en- suring poroper condi;ct of the days-tc-day busings c f NAFED ;

3396 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 14, 2001/ASADHA 23, 1923 [PART II -SEC. 3 ( H )] rr*n .r — p -- T - T r.-r*¹ l r TT I.. ' ' . '— ~ . *_Z_. ' .. _ -. i '

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001

S.O. 1654.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in rotation to the management of Central Silk Board and their workman, which Was received by the Central Gov- ernment on 22-6-2001.

[No. L-42012/82/97-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUiM-LABOUR COURT 'SHRAM SAD ANT, IJI-MAIN, III-CROSS, II-PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR. BANGALORE

Dated: 30th May, 2001

PRESENT :

HOn'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B.Com., LLB,

Presiding Officer.

C.R^ No, 52/98

I PARTY:

Shri N. Ningaraju S/o Ningalah, Mamballi, Via KiUegal Yelandur Taluk, Mysore District-570 001 Advocate—Sliri Ganapathi Hegde.

II PARTY i

Deputy Secretary (Administration), The Central Silk Board, No. 39, III Floor, United Mansion M. G. Road, Bangalore-560 001 Advocate—R. Gururajan.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause fd) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-420T2/ 82/97-IR(DU) dated 28th May, 1998 for adjudica- tion on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of Ccritral Silk Board is justified in dismissing Shri N. Ningaraju from services w.e.f. 26-3-1986 ? If not, to what relief the workman is en- titled ?"

2. The first party was working as the Field-cuny- laboratory Assistant at the Silkworm Seed Produc- tion Centre, Ramanagaram at the relevant point of time. He committed misconduct therefore charge sheet, was issued. Enquiry was held and on the basis of enquiry report the workman was dismissed. There- fore industrial dispute is raised,3397 3. First party appeared and filed Claim Statement.

4. The case of the first party in brief is as under.

5. First party workman was employed by the Second party w.e.f. 11-5-1931. He was working as FieM-cum-Laboratory Assistant at Ramanagararo. Tlie first parly workman was working threat so the Second party management filed a criminal complaint against the first party workman and later on dismissed liij-i from the service. No domestic enquiry was con- ducted inaccordance with law. The charges aj;e not Ko\_d. Regarding enquiry many allegations are made by tl c Trst party in the Claim Statement. It is lastly i:aid 'hat the punishment is very severe, harsh cruel and disproportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled against him and it is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section HA of the I.D. Act. He be- longs to schedule caste. The first party for these reasons has prayed t'o pass an award in his favour.

6. Second Patty filed Counter.

7. The case of the Second party is that the ex- planation given by the workman was not correct so enquiry was ordered. The enquiry is proper and fair. Full opportunity was given to the workman during the enquiry and the a'legations pie not true and cor- rect.

8. It is the further case of the Second party that during the period from 6-5-1981 to 5-2-1985 the first party workman was committed misappropriation as stated in para 3 of the Counter. All the charges were proved and some of the charges were admitted by the first party. The action of the management is correct. The second party for all these reasons has brayed to reject the reference.

9. It is seen from the records, for the purpose of domestic enquiry management examined one witness and workman got examined himself. Thereafter my learned predecessor by order dated 3-8-1999 answer- ed the additional issue in the affirmative: holding that the domestic enquiry is fair and proper. Thereafter the matter was posted for arguments.

10. In other words in view of the finding given by [this tribunal holding domestic enquiry fair and pro- Iper now the only question arises for my consideration ^vould be whether the punishment is proportionate or p't is a fit case to take any lenient view.

11. It was vehemently argued by the learned coun- isU for the second party that the first party workman has admitted charges and has committed misappro- jpriation. I have perused all the enquiry papers very carefully and it is clear that some of the charges are (admitted by the first party workman himself. Tt is ittue that some of the charges are nnt proved but facts remains that misappropriation is proved.

12. It was argued by the learned counsel for the first partvi that criminal case was filed apainst the first [party and the first r>nrtv is acquitted There is only misappropriation of Rs. 11,770 and therefore this is 'a fit case to take lenient view. At the verv outset 1 am of the opinion that there is no mrrit in this snb- Imission. Tn view of the principles held in ATR 2000 2063 Gl/2001—]9

Supreme Court 3129 Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd.) etc. Appellants Vs. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangh etc. Respondents that misappropriation is for small or large amounts, or that past record of employee is unblemished is relevant.

13. Taking all this into consideration 1 am of the opinion that the first party workman is not entitled for any lenient view. It was also argued by the learn- ed counsel for the first party is that the work en- trusted was of different type then it was supposed to be done by the workman and the allegations are not correct and on this ground also lenient view may be*' taken and the first party workman be reinstated. I have already said that the misappropriation is proved and there are no grounds to take lenient view. Ac- cordingly I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this reference and I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed~by me on 30th May, 2001),

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001 S.O. 1655.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure in the , Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Tungabhadm Board, T.B. Dam and their workman, which was received by the Cen- tral Government on 22-6-2003.

[No. L-42012/102/89-IRCDU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer3398 THE GAZETTE OF I N D I A: JULY 14. 2001/ASADHA 23, 1923 * IV ART U —S EC 3 ( i i ) |' ANNRXURTE

BEFORE THE CP.NTRAL GOVLRNMr-'.NT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-U',\;-LA130UR COURT 'SHRAM SADAN\ HI MATN, Hi CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE

Dated: 13th June, 7001

PRESENT:

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B.Com., LLB, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court.

Bangalore.

C.R, No. 79/fU

I PARTY:

1. Shri A. Chandra Shekar,

Hospct, BeHary

2. G. Narayana,

Hospet, Bellary

3. Sri Gollara Hem anna,

Bellary ("Advocate—Slhri B. Viisudcv)

II PARTY :

(1) The Superintending Engineer, . . ( 1) Irrigation Branch, T.B. Board, T.B. Dam, Bellary Dist.-583 104.

(2) The Executive Engineer, . . ( 2) LIC Division, Cantonment, Be!lary-583 104. (Advocate—Shri B. G, Sridrmrrji)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. LI 420J 21102| 89-IRODU) dated 15th November, 1QR9 for adjudica- tion on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of Ihe Tunpabhadm Board, T.B. Darn, Bdlary District in termination the services of Shri A. Chandra Shekar is justified ? If nol, to what if lief the work- man is entitled to ?"

2. The first party workman was working with second party from 1977. He wa" removed from vnrk. There- fore dispute is raised.

3. First party appeared and filed Claim Statement.

4. The, case of the first party in brief is as under:

5. The first parly was working with the second party from 1977 nnfcvfcnds ns liberate mnzdoor. He worked in Kuru.eod and some other rhc?d. First party was paid Rs. 7.50 per rlav as dailv waqe nnd it was raised to Rs. 13.50 per day during his termination in 1984. The action of the management is not correct. He worked oonti loonslv for cirmt vears ?nd therefore the removal is illegal, The second partv without fol- lowing the procedure laid down in the Industrial Dis- pute Act terminated the first party from service. The first party for ihe.-c reasons has prpyed to pass award in his favour.

6. Second party appeared and file d Counter.

7. The case of Ihe Second party in ibrief is us under:

8. The claim is not maintainable as \ tated in para 1 of the Counter. It is the case o£ the Second Party that first party in CR No. 7|89 A. Q^andrasekhar was engaged by the Board in 2/80 and worked inter- mittently till 9|84 and absented hjmseH fVom 10(84 onwards. Similarly workman in CR No. 8 0 / 89 was engaged in 4/83 and w.'orked intermittently ,rill 9/86 and absented himself from 10/86. The allegation that the services of the first party was terminated />y the board is not correct. In fact the workman has stayed away from the work. The claim is nol maintainable. 9. It is seen from the records that on hehalf ^f the Second Parly MWl is examined. On behalf t\f the first party WW1 is examined. I faave read the evi-" dence carefully. I have penned aj| the records. Ac- cording to the evidence of WW1 the first party was, working as daily wages worker with the second party. He has given details date wise in his evidence. The work which was done by the first party Workman v^as not required through out ihe year continuously p.nd,. the nature of the work was temporary casual. He has also stated that the workman is not entitled tor an order of regularisation of service. From the evi- dence on record it is clear that the workman was working only'as labourer¹ and he was not a permanent employ of the second party. The first narty was en- gaged for particular work.

10. Considering the material before me I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this reference. Accordingly I proceed to p-.iss the following oicbr.

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 13lh June, 2001).

V. N. KULKARNT, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001

S.O. 1656.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-curn-Labour Court Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure in the In- dustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to Id Management of fl\HJyibhadra Board, T.B. Dam lint f\-their workman, which was received by the Len- ni ^Government on 22-6-2001.

LNo, L-4°012|103|89-lRiPU)] KULiOlP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer v ANNEXURE ••-"*"•..

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT . • INDUSTRIAL TRLeUNAL-CUM-LABOUR f

PRESENT : ] ' \

Hon'blc V. N.. Kulkari ii, B,Cora, LLB, Picsiding Officer.

CGIT-euin-Labour Court, Bangalore

C.R. No. 80)89

I PARTY

II PARTY ?

The Superintending Engineer., ,:. ( ]) Irrigation Branch, T.B. Board, T.B. Dam Bellary Dist-583104. tThe Executive Engineer,- • ••-. v^ i LIC Division, Cantonment, Bellary-583 104. :(Advocate-Shri B. O. Sridharan)

AWARD

1. The Central Government by cxeitlsing tfn powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-, section 2A of the Section 10 of. the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide older No. L-42012IIO3189-TR (DU) dated 15th November 1989 for adju- dication or the following, scb'bdulc :' SCHEDULE /

"Whether tlu action of the T"f igabhactra Board, T.B. Dam, Bellary Disfr ict in termination the services of Shri G. Nr rra;yana is justified? If not, to what relief t⁷ ae workman is en- titled to?"

2. The first party workman i was working wiih second part} from 19' 32. He was removed from work. Therefr ,re dispute is raised.

3. First party appeared a nd filed Claim State- ment,

4. The case of the fir st party in brief is as under;

5. The first party wa c working with the second party from 198 2 onwards us literate n w- dekir. lie wor ^d in Kurugotl anJ some other places. ' pir st parly wns paid Rs. 7.50 per day as da [\v w age and it wos raised to

JJ7J Rs. 13.50 per day during his termination on JU-lU-iyrio. Ihe action of the manage- ment is not correct. He worked continously for lour years and therefore the reiiioval is illegal. The second paity withput follow- ing the procedure laid clown in the. Indust- rial Dispute Act terminated the first party from service. The first party for these reasons has prayed to pass, award in hi& favour.

6. Second p-uty appeared and filed Counter.

7. The case of the second parly in brief is as under;

8. The claim it. not maintainable as stated in para 1 of the Counter. It is the case oi. the Second Party that first patrty in CR No. 7yJS9 a Chandrasekhar was engaged by the Board in 2|80 and worked intermitten- tly Jill 9|84 and absented himself from 1018i onwards. Similarly workman in this dis- pute (CR No. 8O|89) was engaged in 4183 and worked intermittently till 9|86 and ab- sented himself from 10 [86. The allega- tion that the, services of the first party was terminated rjy tht board is not correct. Tn- fact the workman has stayed away from the work. The claim is not maintainable.

9. It is seen from the records that on behalf of the Second Party one witness Shri A. Shaikshavali is examined. According to his evidence first party was working as daily wagJs worker with the second vpaiiy. He has ;;iven details of date wise working of the rkst parly workman. Against this WW1 is examined for the first party. He admits in his cross examination that he joined as daily wiifjeis workman to dig canal work. He also admits that Lusca; were appointed only for canal wor¹.:.

10. Fmm the evidence and records it is clear that the first party workman is not a permanent worker of the second party and he was working, as daily wages worker and there is no merit in this iefcrenee,

. 1 1. Accordingly 1 proceed to pass llic following !*' order:

ORDER.

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 1 Hh June 2001).

V. N. KULKARNL Presiding Officer3 4 00 - •' T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D I A: J U LY 1 4, 2 0 0 1 / A S A D t fA 2 3, 1 9 23 [ l ^ f cl I I —S E C. 3 \ . J )j Nevr Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001 S.O. 1657.—ID pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relutibn to the management of Tungabhadra Board, T.B. Dam and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-6-2001.

[No. L-42012| 1O4|89-1 R(DU)] KULDIP RAT VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT 'SHRAM SADAN', ITI MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Dated : 30th May 2001

PRESENT: i:

Hon'blc Shri V. N. Kulkarni B.Com. LLB, Presiding Officer.

C.R. No. 81|89

I PARTY

Shri Gollar Hemmanna, Kurugodu Post, Bellary Distt.-583 101 Advocate-Shri B. Vasudev II PARTY

1, The Superintending Engineer,

Irrigation Branch, T.B. Board, T.B. Dam, Bdlary Distt. ⁷?'-'~T'

2. The Executive Engineer,

LIC Division, Cantonnn;nf, Bellary-583104 Advocate-Shri A. K. Bhat.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-4201,2|l04|89- IR (DU) dated¹ i5th November 1989 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the aption of the Tungabhandra Board, T.B. Dim Bellary District in terminating the services of Sliri Gollar Hemmanna is justi- fied ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?"

2. It is seen from ths records that the management examined one witness A Shaikshovali as MW1. He says that he was working as clerk. First party was appointed as a daily wager to do the work of cleaning of catnal, to maintain the garden etc. The vorking dates of the first party arc given. He is cross exa- mined but nothing is madi out from his cross exami- nation to help the Prst party. The learned counsel for the first party submitted that the first party is not interested in attending the court and adducing the evidence. Second party also not attending the pro- ceedings. This is the matter of 1989. Ihere is no purpose to keep pending this dispute so I have closed the case and perused the evidence of MW1. First party has not given the evidence to rebut the statement oil MW1. The iirst party has no,: established that the termination is bad.

3. According to the Counsel appearing for the first party, the first party is not interested in attending the court so evidence of MW1 is sufficient to say that the action of the management is legal.

4. Taking all this into consideration I proceed to pass the Mowing order:

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by ms on 30th May 2001) V. N. KULKARNT, Presiding Officer •r New Delhi, the 22nd June. 2001 S.O. 1658.—Tn pursuance of Section 17 of (he In- dustrial Disputes Act, J947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dis- pute between ihe employers in relation to the maEige- ment of All fndia Radio and their workmali. which was received by the Central Government on 22-6-2001

[No. L-42012/127/92-IR(DU)| .;• ' KULDTP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer3401 "Whether the action of the management of All India Radio Civil Construction Wing in terminating the services of Shri Ram Khik.- wan is legal & justihsd ? Tf not, to what relief the workman is entiled to ?"• & K T. T HE G A Z E T TE Of I N D IA : J U LY 1 4, 2 0 0 1 / A S A D HA 2 3. 1 9 23 P A RT - I I -- S E C. 3 ( i i )l 3403 Now Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001

S.O. 1659.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute? Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Tndustrial-curn-Labour. Court, Bhu- baneswar a? shown, in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Marine Products Export Development Authority and their workman, which was received by the Centra! Government, on 22-6-2001.

[No. L-42012/146/97-IR(DU)l

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer3404 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 14, 200I/ASADHA 23, 1923 [PART I I —S EC 3(ii)] ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TKIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHU13ANESWAR

PRESENT : •

Sri S. K. Dhal, OSJS (Si\ Branch), Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum- Labuur Court, Bhubancswar.

Industrial Dispute Case No. Tr. T.D. 173/2001 Dated, Bhubaneswar, the 11th June, 2001

BETWEEN

Shri Pratap Kr. Sishu Goswarny, At. Bentnpur Jagiri P.S. Balianta, P.O. Bhatapatna, Distt. Khurda.

. . . Complainant-Workman.

AND

The Management of the Marine Products Export Development Authority, lihubnneswar. ...Management. APPEARANCES :

Shri Pratap Kr. Sishu Goswamy—For Himself—

Workman.

Shri B. C. Behera, Dy Director—For the Manage- ment.

AWARD

The Government of Jndia in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section .10 of the Industrial Dilutes Act, 1947 (T4 of 1947) have referred the following dispute tor adjudication vide their Order No. L|42012| 146[97| 1R(DU), dated 17-6-1998 : —

"Whether the management of Marine Products Export Development Authority is an Jndiistiy? If yes, whether the action of the Management by retrenching Sh. Pratap Kumar Sishu Gosvvami is legal and justi- fied ? If not, whut relief the workman is entitled for" ?

2. The case of the workman may be stated m brief : —

3. The workman was ppr-.-jintcd as a Jr. Clerk by the 2nd Party-Management (hereinafter called the Management) on 2-6-1995. The function of the Management is to a^ist the Prawn cultivating In- dustries. Irs duty is of acqa culture if to give technological advice to the Prawn Cultivating Indus- tries besides exporting the prawn. The grievance of the workman is (hat he was allowed to draw a con- solidated salary of Rs. 1000 per month. He was further pleaded that ihe Muna.sremcnt adopted tin-fare labour practice in order to deprive him to become legiilar by issuina nppoinimcnt order one after an- other after 89 days. Lastly ni 30-4-1996 his ser- vices was terminated without ccmoiyirifj the provi- sions uu'er section 25 F of I D. Act. The workman Kiis.ii the dispute be hi re ihe A.L.C.(C) Bhubanes- war. As the reconciliation failed, the mailer was Menxd to ihc Government of India (Ministry of Labour) who referred the niaiie'- to this Tribunal for answeiing the questions as stated above.

4. The Management in their written statement has laken the stand that the Management does come under the definition of Industry so there is no industrial dispute between the parties. It is furrier pleaded that the workman being a casual labourer working on daily wage basis he is not entitled for regularisation. They have pleaded that the woikman was engaged for a specific period and lor specific jobs so that would not confirm en him thu status of permanent workman. So they have prayed to answer the refe- rence iii thvir favour on the ground that the Manage- ment does not come under 'he deflation of Indus- try and the workman is not entitled to be regularised - and he is not entitled for any relief.

5. On the above pleadings of the parties the following issues have been settled :—

I. Whether the Management is an Industry ?

II, Whether the retrenchment of the workman by the Management is legal and justified 7 III. To what relief the vcT-man is entitled to 7 6. On behnlf of the workman one witness has been examined and he is the workman himself. No evi- dence has been adduced on behalf of the Manage- ment. Both the parties have filed some documents i'i support of their ease,

FINDINGS¹

ISSUE NO. I

7. The main contention of the Management is that it does not come uDder the definition of Indus- try. According to the Management the Marine pro- ducts Export Development Authority is, by legisla- tion, a specially designed authority discharging the sovereign functions on behalf of Union of India, on the order words Union of India is discharging the Sovereign functions through the Marine Products Export Development Authority dealying with the domestic service especially to various domestic indus- tries engaged in marine products of India and is excluded from the list and definition of Industry. In this connection, n copy of the letter of the Govt. of India (Ministry of Labour) has been placed into service by the Management wherein the, Govt. of India (Ministry of Labour) have intimated that the establishment of th^ Management being an autono- mous bodv created under the Act of Parliament and governed by its own constitution and rules made thereunder is an Independent legal entity and not fall in the jurisdiction of Central Government as defined t?K 2 ( a ) ( j K M ( 6) & (7) of the I.D. Act. No rebuttail material have been placed by the workman to satisfy this Tribunal that the Management is coming under the definition of an Industry. So in my opinion the submission made on behalf of the MHnnffement that it is not comming under the defi- nition of Industry has not sufficient force. So this i.-su? h answered in favour of the Management.

4*5"

JiSUE No. II

8. The workman in his claim statement has stated hat he was paid a consolidated salary of Rs. 1000 and us appointment order was for 89 days. The case of he management is that the workman was working is a casual labouter on daily wage basis. Placing eliance in the case of Himansu Kumar Bidyarthi and Others, Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 997(2) SLR 570 which has been submitted on behalf >f tho Management that temporary employees work- ng on daily wages have no right to hold the post and heir dis-engagement from the services cannot be construed to be retrenchment under the I.D. Act. The workman in his examination-in-chief has stated that le was not being paid his wages. In his pleadings ilso he has stated that his appointment as Jr. Clerk vas temporary. He had not worked for 240 days rithout any break. So when he is a temporary emp- oyce working on daily wages he has no right to hold he post. His dis-engagement frpm services can not )e construed to be retrenchment as put forth by the vorkman. So in face of the above materials 1 am of he opinion thai the workman being a casual labourer Yorking on daily wages basis is not entiiled for regu- arisation and his dis-engagement can not be cons- rued as retrenchment. Hence, this Issue is also ans- vered in favour of. the Management.

[SSUE NO. Ill

In view of the findings in respect of Issue Nos. I md II the workman is not entitled for any relief.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated and corrected by me.

S. K. DHAL, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001 S.O. 1660.—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-cum-Labour Court, Banga- lore as shown in the Annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in rela- tion to the management of Central Silk Board and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-6-2001.

|[No. L-42012|203|94-IR(DU)1 KULDIP RAI, VERMA. Desk Officer 2063 01/2001—20

ANNEXURE :.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNA^-CUM-LABOUR COURT, 'SHRAM SADAN', III MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Dated : 1st June, 2001

PRESENT :

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, Bcom. LLB Presiding Officer C.R. No. 90|97

I PARTY :

G. Honoji Rao, Chikka Marenahalli, No. 3811A, Mathikere, Devasandra, Bangalore-560054, Advocate-Shri S. Narahari.

II PARTY :

The Member Secretary, Central Silk Board, United Mansion, II Floor, 39, M. G. Road, Bangalore-1.

Advocate-Shri N. S. N. Swamy.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercis- ing the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-42012|203|94-IR(DU) dated 27-12-95 for adjudication on the follow- ing schedule :—

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Central Silk Board is justified in terminating the services of Shri Honoji Rao ? If not, to what relief he is entitled to ?"

2. First party was working with the second party. There was misconduct and charge sheet was issued. Enquiry was held and his services were terminated. Therefore this dis- pute is raised.

3. First party appeared and filed Claim Statement.

4. The case of the first party in brief is as under;

3406 1HE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JtfLV 14, 2001/ASADHA 23, 1923 [PART II--S£C. 3(U)1

5. His case is that he was working as an Attender and during January 1992 he was available treatment at St. John's Medical College Hospital. He was transferred to K. R. Pet, Mandya District. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against him are not correct. The enquiry held by the Second party is not proper and no. opportunity was given to him to defend himself. The enquiry was conducted the enquiry behind the back of the first party. The action of the manage- ment is not correct. The first party faced great hardship and he left his family which is also suffering. The first party for these rea- sons has prayed to pass award in his favour.

6. Second party appeared and filed Counter.

7. The case of the Second party in brief is as under: * ,.;

8. The case of the second party is that first party was negligent and careless in discharg- ing his duties. He was in the habit of coming to work by consuming liquor during office hours. In spite of warnings he did not improve himself. He was transferred to avoid com- plications. Instead of attending to his work he stated disturbing the neighbours in the resi- dential complex of the Second party. Charge .sheet was issued and enquiry was held. He assaulted the lady workers. The action of the management is correct and the punishment is proper. The second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

9. It is seen from the records that MW1 was exa- mined on behalf of the management. My learned predecessor by order dated 15-7-99 has held the addi- tional issue in affirmative holding that the domestic enquiry is fair and proper. Thereafter the matter was posted for arguments on merits. I have heard both the sides in detail. It was vehemently argued by the Jcarned counsel for the management that on previous occasions also some minor punishments were imposed but the first party did not improve himself.

] 0. I have read all the enquiry papers carefully and evidence recorded during the enquiry. There is no preversity in the finding given by the Enquiry Autho- rity. Charges are proved. The main charge against the " firs party is that he enme to office during office hours having consumed liquor and assaulted two lady work- ers and therefore, the punishment imposed is proper. During the relevant period first party was not keeping well. He was talcing treatment for some mental dis- order. It was-further .argued that he was in a distress condition. Looking to the status of the first party and other lady workers, the punishment imposed by ,, the management for the incident of assaulting lady workers by consuming liquor is very harsh. The first party is without any work and his family is suffering, one more chance may be given to reform himself and lenient view may be taken and this is a fit case to • invoke the provisions of Section 11 of the ID Act. | 1 have given my best consideration to the material ' before me. The learned counsel for the first party also relied AIR 1989 Supreme Court 149. I have read the above decision carefully.

11. Keeping in mind the principles held in the above decision I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to invoke provisions of Section 11 of, the ID Act. It is held by the Hon'ble Court in the above decision that justice must be tempered with mercy and that the erring workman should be given an opportunity to reform himself and prove to be a loyal and dis- ciplined employee of the petitioner company. It can- not therefore be said that merely because the Labour Court had found the enquiry to be fair and lawful and the findings not to be vitiated in any manner, it ought not to have interfered with the order of ter- mination of service passed against the respondent in exercise of its powers under Section 6(2A) of the Act.

12. Taking all this into consideration I feel ends of justice will meet if order of reinstatement from the date of termination is passed in favour of first party without any back wages. Accodringly I proceed to pass the following order :

ORDER

The reference is partly allowed and the order of termination if set aside. The second party is directed to reinstate the first party to his original post from the date on which he was terminated. In the given circumstances back wages arc not allowed. Before parting this matter I would like to observe that the first party will conduct himself in future in such a manner as to prove himself to be a dedicated emp- loyee in the public sector concerned. Accordingly the reference is disposed off.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected a.ncl signed by me on 1st June, 2001.)

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer 'J^." ^ew Dfifhi, flic 18th June, 2001 S.O. 166L-*-In pursuance, p.f Section 17 of ths Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 p,fr^ 9471.the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cen- tra! Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chcnnai as showff'in the Annexura in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Southern Railway, Madras and their workmen, which was received by the Central Govorn- meut on 16-06-2001.

[No. L-41012/110/9 MR(D)/(B-I)] A,TAY KUMAR, Desk Officor

U01 '

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT. CHENNA1 by the Central Govt., to the file of this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records of this case from the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, this case has been taken on file here as I.D. No. 376/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on either side informing them about the transfer of this case from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal with a direction to appear before this Court with their respective parties to prosecute this case further on 19-02-2001.

Thursday, the 31st May, 2001

Present : K. KARTHIKEYAN,

PRESIDING OFFICER

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 376/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 28/92)

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under section 10(l)(d) and sub-section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, betwoeen the Work- man Shri S.P. Mani and the Management, Southern Railway, Madras.)

BETWEEN

Shri S.P. Mani I Party/Workman

AND

The General Manager, II Party/Management SQuthern Railway, Madras. Appearance :

For the Workman M/s. T. Fenn Walter and W. Fredrick Castro Walter Advocates For the Management Sri R. Venugopalan,

Advocate

3. When the matter was taken up for enquiry on 19-02-2001, the I Party Smt. M. Valarmathi, impload- ed as the legal representative of the I Party/Work- man since deceased alone was present. The II Party and 0ie counsel on either side wcro not present. So the case was adjourned to 07-03-2001 for enquiry. On that day the counsol on either side and both the paitios ware absent. On a Petition, on behalf of the I Party counsel's representative, the case was adjourn- ed to 23-3-2001. As the Presiding Officer was away on Camp Court, the case was re-posted to 16-04-2001 for enquiry. Though the case was adjourned to 16-4-2001, 30-4-2001, 14-05-2001, the I Paity, the legal representative of the deceased Workman and the counsel for the I Party was not present. For all those hearings, the counsel for the II Party alo"e was present. As the case is pending for adjudication ever since the year 1992 from the date of reference made by the Central Govt. and happens to be an old case for file, tho case was adjourned to finally for enquiry on 31-05-2001.

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-suction (I) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-41012/110/91-IR (D) Dt. p 24-03-1992 :

"Whether the action of the Management of Southern Railway in terminating the services of Shri S.P. Mani, Pointsman 'B' Thiruchirappali Division is justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"

2. This roferonce has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 28/92. On receipt of notice from that Tribunal, both the partios entered appea- rance through their respective coiipsel and filed their respective Claim Statement and Counter State- ment. When the matter was pending enquiry, after settind aside the Award earlier passed ex-partc, the ca^e was transferred from-the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal as pjr the orders oi transfer 4 When the matter was taken up for enquiry to-day 31-O5-2COI, the counsel for the Legal Re- presentativo for the I Party/Workman, and the wife of the deceased workman, legal representative are not present. There is no representation for the widow. Though this case has been posted for to- day for enquiry as a last chance after posted twice cailier finally for enquiry neither tho 1 Party counsel nor the L/R of the deceased workman, who prefers to prosecute this case by coming on record has 'not chosen to appear before this Court to prosecute this case further. From this it is seen, that the Legal Representative cum widow of the deceased workman is not at all interested in this case to avail the benefits accrued to her as a legal heir of the I Party/Workman by proving her claim. This attitude of the said widow enables this Tribunal to conclude that no dispute worth mentioning is now in existence between the parties for this Tribunal to adjudicate, 5, In the result, it is held that 'No dispute' exists between the parties. Accordingly, as award is passed as 'No Dispute Award', No Cost

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by mo in the open court on this day the 31st/May, 2001), K. KARTHIKEYAN.rPrbsidiDg Officer3408 THE QAtZrm OF INDIA : JULY 14, 2Q01/ASftDH\ 23, 1923 [P"f it—SEC. 3(101 New Delhi, the ]8th June, 2001

S. O. 1662.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Ceotral Government hereby publishes the ward oi the Indust- rial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jodhpur as shown the the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway, Jodhpur and their workman, which was received by the Central Government, on 16-6-2001.

[No. L-41012/69/98-IR (B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

"Whether the action of the management of Northern Railway, Jodhpur in terminating the service of Shri Nenuram S/o Shn Mulchan, Ex. Khalasi w.e.f. 7-11-82 is legal and justified? If.not what relief the con- cerned workman is entitled?" $m5410 . THE GAZETTE OF m D lA : JULY 14, 2001/A&ADHA 23, 1923 [PAR? II—SEC. 3(ii)J New Delhi, the 18th June, 2001

S.O. 1663 :~Iii Pursuance of soction 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Indus- trial Tribunal/Labour Cotirt, Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the mana gement of LIC of India and thojr workman which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 15-6-; 001.

' ' [No. I. 17012/52/92-1R (B-Il)] } AJA.Y KUMAR, Desk Ofticer 3411,

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT 'SHRAM :SADAN\ III MAIN, HI CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESH- WANTHPUR, BANGALORE

DATED : 30th MAY, 2001

PRESENT : Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B com. LLB Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 15/93

I PARTY

Shri M. Marayana Development Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India3 Udupi Division, Kandavara Village, Kandapura Taluk, D. K. District, Karnataka. Advooato : Shri A.J. Srinivasan

II PARTY

Senior Divisionnl Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Udupi. Advocate : Shri V.C. Brabimrjai'aj'ijppa

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section 2A of the Seotion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has roferred this dispute vide order No. L 17012/52/92 IR (B) dated 16-2-93 for adjudication on the following sche- dule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of HC of India Divisional Office, Udipi is justified in terminating the services of Shri M. Nava- yana Ex-Probationary Development Officer w.e.f. 1-10-91 7 If not what relief the work- man is entitled ?

* -, 'i

' - 2. It is seen from the records that since 11th April 2001 throe dates were given and parties and counsels remained absent It appears that first party is not interested in this case.

, 3, . I hfjye perused the records, The first party filed p a i ia Statement contenting that he was appoint- ed as Probationary Development Officer w.e.f. 3-10-89- Hc was working with the second party. He was terminated. The action of the second party is illegal therefore, ho has prayed to pass awird in his favour.

4. Second Party appeared and filed objections.

The contentions of the second party is that order of discharge was made undor the provisions of Staff Regulation 14 of the Staff Regulations, I960- It was made during the period of probation. After the amendment to Section 48 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, the Staff Regulations framed undor Seotion 49 of the LIC Act governs the service conditions of the employees of the Corporation notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial Disputes Act The Jaw laid down by tho Supreme Court in M. Vcnugopal Vs the Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Mucholipattnam (AIR 1994 SC 1343) sod also in LIC of India and another Vs, R.S, Kulkarni (AIR 1986 SC 327) is binding on a!) authorities. 5- So far as performance for the period between 3-10-89 to 2-10-90, a review was made on 6-11-90 and the probationary period was> extended. The periorrnanoe was recorded and found unstatisfactory and h-j wa? discharged. The second party therefore prayed to reject the claim,

6- It i? seen from the ri}coids> thai a preliminary objection was raised contending thot the dismissal was under Regulation 14 of the Stafl Reg-jlutiona. It was said that the provisions of Industrial Dispute- Act are excluded in VJ'JW of the management ayd this court has no jurisdjetion and IA No. 1 was rejected.

7. It is seen rrom the records that the second party referred Writ petition No. 1025/1995 ar-J thu Hrsh Cowl o/ Kat'nataka disposed of writ petition stati:i;i that if the petitioner j\; cj5 that the deci^on on the preliminary issuu is ii.oorivct and that tho applicant it not a worker, it ji open to them to challenge ihu order of tho Labour Court ailer final adjudication i ? advene to him.

8. With thii background ! will new r-rvr-ci. cJ in consider the evidence produced by tho pgrijo¹.

3412 THE GAZETTE OF OWIA: !WJC 14, MtoVM&m&2?. 1923 [PART JI^S";. Uiij]

that the performance were not good and ho has been discharged w.e.f. 1-1-91. The discharge was under section 14 of LIC Staff Regulations I960. He is cross examined at length. But nothing is made out from his oross examination which can hejp the first party.

10. Against this first party given evidence. His ovidence is that he joined the second party under Apprenticeship as a Development Officer in the year 1988. He has given detailed evidence about, the service. He admit that he received Ex. M.-12 indicating thereon cer- tain deficiencies in his work and conduct. He says that it is true that period of exten- sion for one year was to perform his duties to roach the lerget and he was removed from service before completing his second year of extended period.

11. 1 have carefully read the evidence. Even after giving four adjournment both sides remained absent and advocates have not argued the matter. Therefore I closod the case and posted for award.

12. In view of the fact that both parties have not adduced arguments I have care- fully read all the documents and evidence before me. It is clear from the evidence of MWl that the apprenticeship of first party was not satisfactory and first party being ap- prentice be wes rightly discharged from duty. Thciv U no merit in this reference. First party faik-d to appear and argue the matter on the points as stated in the objections. Objections remained as it is. On merit I am of the opinion Lhat the Probationary period was not satisfactory thefe- Icre first party was discharged.

] 3. 1 am of the opinion that there is no merit in this reference and accordingly I proceed to pass the following n d e i.

ORDER

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 30th May 2001)

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 18th Jiuie, 2001 S.O. 1664.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cent- tral Government hert>y publishes the award of the Central Govcniemcnt Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bhubaneiwar as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to tlw management of Andhra Bank Home Finance Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 15-6^2001.

[No. L-I2012/406/95-IR(B-II)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT : BHUBANESWAR

Present :

Shri S.K. Dhal, OSJS (Sr. Branch), Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhtbaneswar.

Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 118/2001 Dated, Bhubaneswar, the 7th June 2001

Between :

Andhra Bank Home Finance Lid., Plot No. 269, First Floor, Madhusudhan Nagar, Bhubantfswar.

.. Management

And

Shri Pramod Kumar Bank, At. Guamunda, P.O. Bhitar Andhri,

Distt. Jagatsinghpur.

. .Claimant.

Appearance :

Mr. Abhaya Charan Mishra Asst. Vice President .. For Management Shri Pramod Kumar Barik .. For Himself

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of Powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of tho Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the following disputes for adjudication3413 FINDINGS

Vide their Order No. L-l20I2/406/95/TR(B-ll), dated 4-3-1997:—

ISSUE No. I

"Whether ihe action of the Management of Andhra Bank Home Finance Ltd. in termi- nating the services of Shri Pramod Kumar Barik h legal and justified? Tf not, to what relief the said workman is entitled?"

2. The claimant in his statement of claim has pleaded that ho was engaged as an Office Assistant in Bkbaneswar Branch of the Management with effect frjm 23-3-J992. He worked continuously but his services were shown some breaks in the re- cords of the Management. After his engagement as Office Assistant he did all clerical works. After V/orking as ^uch continuously for about 430 days On 12-6-1993 the Management illegally refused fur- ther employment to the claimant without any reason. No prior notice was given to him nor any com- pensation was paid to him. According to the ctoi- ihunt it amounts to retrenchment with the meaning of sec. 2(00) of T.D. Act and there has been violation of Sec. 25{f) of the Rules. So he brought the dis- pute before the Regional Labour Commissioner (CenJral) and after failure of reconciliation the matter was referred to the Government of India (Ministry Cff Labour) who subsequently made reference.

3. After appearance of the Management he filed the written statement. The Management have taken the stand that the claimant was never appointed as 6ffice Assistant. He was working on daily wage basis from March 1992 to June 1993 with breaks. As there is no appointment the question of termination does not arise. The climant being a casual labourer working on daily wage basis there is no scope for any termination of his services. It has been further pleaded that non-engagement of the claimant who was a casual labourer docs not amount to retrenchment. The further stand was taken that the Management is not an Industry within the scope and ambity of I.D. Act.

4. On the above pleadings of the parties the

following issues haT⁷c boen settled.

ISSUES

1. Whether the action of the Management of Andhra Bank Home Finance Limited in terminating the services of Shri Pramod Kumar Barik is legal and justified?

2. If not, to what relief the said workman is

entitled?

5. On behalf of the workman/claimant one wit- ness lias been examined and he is the workman him- self- The Management has examined two witnesses in support of their pleadings. The workinp/clairnent has filed some documents i.e. the copy of vouchers

It has been submitted on behalf of the claimant that, the oral evidnece of the claiment who has been examined as Witness No. 1 is considered and accep- ted. The only conclusion that woidd be r.nivvd is that he was a casual labourer working on daily wage basis.But on the other hand on behalf of the workman/claimant it has been urged that the docu- ments produced by him supported his oral evidence has clearly established lhat he was appointed as a regular employee of the Management. The evi- dence of the claimant in the Examination" is that, he got information from Sr. Vice President of Andhra Bank Home Finance Limited that a post of Office Assistant is available to be filled up in his Office. So he submitted his Bio Data and thereafter he joined the establishment and worked there and¹ he was given to understand by the Management that formal order of appointment will bo issued to him after consul- tation with the. Head Office. His further evidence goes to shov that, he was being paid monthly salary of Rs. 1,200, He appoints with intermittent breaks in his employment. He has produced some vouchers in support of his claims. After going through the evidence of the wotkman given in Examination in Chief I am of the opinion that he has failed to prove that he was appointed as a regular employoe- In the Examination in Chief he has stated that no letter of appointment was issued to him. He has admitted in the Exa- mination in Chief is that there were breaks in his employment. In the cross examination in Para-4 he has categorically admitted that he was being paid a sum of Rs. 1,200 per month on monthly basis as wages. So in the face of the above admission of the claimant himself I am of the opinion that he was a casual labourer appointed on daily wage basis. In Para-5 of the cross examination he also further state that there was an advertisment in the bank in respect of a regular vacancy. He applied but was not called for the interview. The qualification fixed for the post was Commerce graduate having 1st Class degree where he was only simply a Commerce Graduate. On the other hand the evidence of the D.W. No. 1 supports the case of the Management that the claimant was not a regular employee but was a casual labourer working on daily wage basis. The DLW. 1 of the Management also stated in Exa- mination in Chief is that there was a written test and an interview was conducted but the claimant was not a candidate for the post. He has further stated that the claimant had no requisite quali- fication required for the Post. Vouchers submitted on behalf of the claimant which has exhibited in this and certificates gi anted by the Management. 2063 G1/2001-—213414 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA,: JULY 14, 2001/ASADHA 23, 1923 fPuiT II—SEC. 3(ii)l case as 1,1/1, 1/2, and 1/3 reveals that so me consoli- dated amount was paid to the claimant. So in that case, it can not said that he was drawing salary as a regular employee. Admittedly I IICIM-lias been breaks in his employment. So I Had much force in the sub- mission made oil bMalt of he Management that the claimant being u daiiy wag,- emp!"y£> -cm nil claim for regularisation and his disengagement can not be treated as retrenchment. The case of Shri Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and other-. Vrs. State of Bihar and others reported in AIR 1997 SC 3657 has been relied upon by the Management. In that case it has been observed by their Lo.'dsiiip "that in case of temporary employees working on daily wages, t.ho;r dis-eneago- mcht from service can not bi consiru.'d to be re- trenchment under tli.' industrial Dispute Act, It was fui'ihcv held thai, tiie concept of retrenchment can not be stretched to such an extent as to cover these employees" F am of the opinion this case clearly supports the case of the Management. So in my opinion the claimant has failed to establish that his dis-cigagement amounts to retrenchment on the other words the action of the Management in refusing employment to the claimant Shri P.K. Barik is not illegal or unjustified . Hence this issue is answered in favour of the Management Issue No. II

In view of the above findings tho workman- is no*. entitled for any relief

Hence, the roXerencc is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

S.K. DUAL, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the ISth June ,"001

S O, 1665.—In Pursuance of Sceljon 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947(14 of J947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the In- dustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Go- vernment on 15-6-01.

[No. L-12012/292/96-IR(B-IJ) ] / .TAY KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

BANGALORE

Dated : 31st May, 2001

Present : HOP' ble shri V. N. Kulkami B. Com LLB Presiding Officer

C.R.No.261/97.

1 PARTY 11 PARTY

The General Secretary, The Zonal Manager, Syndicate Bank Staff Syndicate Bank Zonal Association, Ananda Office, Gandhinagar, Plaza, [I Floor, Near Bangalore-9 Ananda Rao Circle, Advocate-Shri N. Bungalorc-9 Venkatesu Advoeatc-Shri N. G. Phadke

AWARD

1 The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause(d) of sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No.L-12012/- 292/96/IR(B-II) dated 14th August 1997 for aduj- dication on tho following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of Syndicate Bank is justified in terminating the services of Shri K. R, Ramesh from service? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled'.'"

2. The first party filed Claim Statement. The case of the first party is as under:

3. The first party workman joined the second party bank as temporary a) tender on 5-4-1984 and he has continuously worked for 240 days. The management has absorbed other attenders and terminated the services of this workman. Therefore the action oi the management is illegal and has prayed that award may be passed in his favour.

4f The management filed Written Statement. The case of the management in brief is as under.

5. The main contention of the management is that the workman continues to be in the panel of tem- porary attenders and the Bank has not removed his name from the pcncl. The question of regu- larising the services as a permanent attender arises only when there is a vacancy and ho is found eli- gible and suitable by the Bank. As and when a U\i vacancy arises, the first party s case will bo consi- dered in accordance with rules foi the purpose of regulai'sation. For these reasons the miinage- •ment prayed to reject the rolerunee.

6. Dining the p:ndeney of the proceeding the iv.atbei was posted for evidence. The learned COIIJCI for the second paity management submitted that atKi the termination again the first party is taken on work and he is attending duties-as an AUander. He-also submitted ihat the workman vvi'l be regu- larised on seniority babis. The learned counsel for the first party and the President of the Union submited that the direction be given to regularise the workman as per seniority and the matter be disposed off.

7. I have considered the statements,made by both parties and I allow the reference and pass the following order.

ORDER

The retcrcnev is allowed and the management is directed to regularise the workman according to Se- niority. Accordingly the matter is disposed off

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and

signed by me on 31st May, 2001.)

V.N- KULKARNI, Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of management though Re- gional Manager Bank of Baroda, Jodhpur is not paying the O.T. to the employees of Chhappnr and Rajaklesar. Branch of Bank of Baroda for the day (i.e. 27-12-94) de- clared as holiday as per Negotiable Instru- ment Act, is legal and justified ? If not, ta wtfiat relief is the concerned workers en- titled ?"

New Delhi, the 18th June, 2001

S.O. ] 666 .—In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Ce- ntral Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jodhpur as shown in the annexure in the Indusirial Dispme bcl- ween the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15*6-2001.

[No. L-l2011/30/95-IR(B-II)]

AJAY KUMAR, D:sk Office3416 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY i4, 2001/ASA^A 23, 1923 [PART Tl—SEC. 3(ii)t 341"/

New Delhi, the 18th June, 2001

S.O. 1667 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947(14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial' Trihnual/Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the unnexure in tho Industrial Dispute between the empolyers in relation to the management of Syndicate Hank and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 15-6-^001

[No.L-120I2/291/96-rR(B-Il)]

AJAY TIMATC. Djsk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT 'SHARAM SADAN\ III MATN,

Til CROSS, 11 PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE

Dated : 31st May, 2001

Present : Hon'blc Shri V. N. Kulkarni B. Com. LLB,

Presiding Officer

C. R. No. 262/97.

II Party

I Party

The Zonal Manager, Syndicate Bank Zonal Office, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-9 Advocate-Shri N. Venkatesh

The General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Asso- ciation, Ananda Plaza, JI Floor, Near Ananda Rao Circle, Bangalore-9 Advocale-Shri N. G. Phadke

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-12012/29,1/ 96/1R (B-II) dated 17th August, 1997 for adjudi- cation on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Wheher the management of Syndicate Bank is justified in terminating the services of Shri R. Shivanada from service ? ]f not, to what relief the said woikman is entitled ?"

The first parly filed Claim Statement, The case

of the first party is as under :

3. The first party workman joined the second party bank as temporary attender on 5-4-1984 and he has continuously worked for 240 days. The3418 t HE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 14, 2001,/ASADHA 2?, 1923 [Vt&v T I ^ S E C. i ^ l )j management has absorbed other at tenders and terrninaied the services of this workman. There- fore the action of the management is illegal and I'm prayed that award may be passed in his favour.

4. The management filed Written Stutemcnt.

The case of the management in brief is as under :

5. The main contention of the management is that the workman continues to be in the panel of temporary attenders and the Rank has not removed his name from the panel. The question of regula- rising the services as a permanent attender arises only when there is.a Vacancy and he i.> found eligible and suitable by the Bank. As and when a vacancy arises, the first party's case will be considered m accor- dance with rules for the purpose of regularisation. For these reasons the management prayed to reject the reference.

6. During the pendency of the proceeding the matter was posted for evidence. The learned counsel for the second party management submitted that after the termination again the first party is taken on work and he is attending duties as an Attender. He also submitted that the workman will be regula- rised on seniority basis. The learned counsel for the first party and the President of the Union submitted that the direction be given to regularise the workman as per seniority and the matter be disposed off.

7. f have considered the statements made by both parties and T allow the reference and pass the following order ;

ORDER

The reference is allowed and the management is directed to regularise the workman according to Seniority. Accordingly the matter is disposed off.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 31st May, 2001.)

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Ollicer New Delhi, the, 18th June. 2001 S. O. 1608.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1917 (14 of 19 47), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of th"e* Central Govcrninp.nl 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 tiovcrnmcnt on 15-6-2001'.

[No. L-12012/234/96-IR fB-Tl)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERN MENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT 'SHARM SADAN¹, Til MAJN, III CROSS TT PHASE, TUMKAJR ROAD, YESHWANTH PURBANGALORE

Dated : 31st May, 2001

Present : Hon ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B, Com. LLB Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 201/97.

1 Party

JI Party

The General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff

The Zonal Manager, Syndicate Bank Zonal

Office,

Gaudhinagar, Baugalore-9 Advocate-Sari N. Venkatesh

Association, Ananda Plaza, II Floor, Near Ananda Rao Circle, Bangalore-9 Advocate-Sim N. G. Phadke

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-l 2012/234/ 96/IR(B-lI) dated 4th March, 1997 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of Syndicate Bank is justified in terminating the services of Shri R. K. Srinivusa from service ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled ?"

The first party filed Claim Statement. The case of the first party is as under :

3419

3. The (W party workman joined the s-.rond party bank as temporary atteuder on 5-4-1984 iir.cl he has continuously worked for 240 days. The management has absorbed (ther atlmders and termi- nated the services cf this workman. Therefore t ie action of the management is illegal and has prayed- that award may be passed in his favour.

4. The management filed Written Statement.

The cr.se of the management in brief is as under :

5. The main contention of the management is that the workman continues to be in i the pincl of temporary rtt( nder" and tl e B^nk has net removed his name from the panel The question of regula- rising the services as a permanent atiender arises only when there is a vacancy and he is found eligible and suitable by the Bark. As and when a vacancy arises, the first party's case will be considered in accordance with rules for the purpose of regularisatiim For these reasons the management prayed to reject the reference-

6. During the pendency of the proceeding the matter was posted for evidence- The learned counsel for the second party management Mibmitted that after the termination against the first party is tcken on work and he is attending duties as an Attention!. He also submitted thx't the workman will be regularised on seniority basis. The learned counsel for the first party and the President of the Union submitted that the direction be given to regularise the workman as per seniority ard the matter be disposed oil 7. i have considered the statements made by both parties and I allow the reference and pass the following order :

ORDER

The reference is allowed and the management is directed to regularise (he workman according to Seniority. Accordingly the maticr is disposed oir.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 31st May, 2001.

•V. M. KULK.ARNT. Presiding Officer New Delhi, IIK I8ih June, 2001 S. O. '6,69.- In Pursuance of Scelion 17 of \lv- Induslrial Dispuie Act, 1947 (14 of 1947); the Central G< venimvnt jieix-by publishes Ihe award of the Cent: a 1 Government Indus; i it¹! Tribunal/ I..".bour Coiiri, Bangalore as shown in the annexure in ihe Industrial Dispute between ihe employers in selalion 1o Ihe management of Syndicate Bark and their workman., which was received by ihe Central Government on 15-6-2001.

[No. L-12012/213'91-IR (B-Il)l AJAY KUMAR, Desk Olucer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT 'SHARM SADAN\ ITI MATN, 111 CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE

Dated : 29th May, 2001 Present : Hon'ble Shri V. N, Ktiikarni. B, Com. LLB PreM'ding Officer

C. R. No. 85/91

T Party

IF Party SM Iqbal S/o Rajesab Jahagirdar, R/OJamakana Galli, Meenaxi Chowk, Pijapur

The Divisional Manager. Syndicate Bank, Divisional Office, Sutar Buildings, Bijrpur 586101

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-120I2/213/9MR (B-TT) dated 11th December J991 for adjudication on ihe following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the claim of Sh. Iqbal that he was an employee of Syndicate Bank from 12-1-87 to 8-5-% is correct ? If so whether termination of bis services w.e.f. 9-5-90 was justified. If any, is the workman entitled to ?"

2. First party a p p l i ed and filed Claim Statement. The case of the first party is that he was initially appointed a:; a driver on a salary of Rs. 500/- per month. He vvvrk-d continuously till he is retrenched fr.;m service. So an Industrial Dispute is raised.

3. The case of the first parly in brief is as under. He was initially appointed as a driver on salary of34:0 T HE G A Z E T TE OF TNDIA : J U LY 14, 2 0 0 1 / A S A D HA 23, 1923 [PART I I- S E C. 3(ii)1 Rs. 500 per month till lie V,J.S retrenched. It is the Purl her ease of 'he first p::fiy that one Mr. Mujawrr has b'-'Cn taken :>s a Poem at Horti Brunch whereas another Ahmed KaUuli'^i has taken as a Peon at Gi'lat.ali Branch i-.f the ITnd Parties Rank. Al the time of termination of services, the first party had put into more than 240 days services during Lhe tenure of 1^ Calender months on several occasions as contemplated U/S 25 (b) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The action of the management is not concct. The oral termination is not proper as stated in para 3 of the Claim Statement. The first party for all these reasons has prayed lo pass tin award in his favour.

4. Second party appeared and filed Counter.

The case of the second party in brief is as follows :

5. The contention of the second party is that the first party workman before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bcllary, was that he was orally appo- inted by the then Divisional Manager Shri N. G. Pausakar and he was terminated . In Tact the first parly workmen was not appointed by the management. There is no nlerit in this reference.

6. It is the further case of the second party that the Bank has provided Motor cars to its executives as prerequisites in accordance with the guidelines of the Govt. of India. Apart from use for official purposes, personal use of the vehicles is allowod, subject to recovery of certain sums of money monthly from the executive as per the Ruled frames by the Bank. The Executives may or may not prefer to engage Drivers. They were to decide whom to engage and under what terms. Bank would reimburse the salary ol the driver upto certain amount and if the executive was to pay anything m ve he has to bear the difference or excess. The Bank his no r! :ht or power to terminate the services or t; take ;ny disciplinary action against such personal <' ':ver. ot the executive.

7. It is the furthc" ca^ of the second party that Shri N. D. Pavaskar, who was the District Mauagor was provided with a Jeep with provision to use it for office work. He had engaged the first party as a Driver to his jeep and the Management of the Syndicate Bank is not in any way connected with this personal^farrangement. During February 1990 a decision was taken by the Bank to withdraw the jeep allotted to the District Manager and as surh Pavaskar discontinued the services of the fhst party and such an action by him cannot be termed as an illegal terminatio.i of the services by the Bank. The second party for these reasons has prayed to njec: the rofevcr.ee.

.8 h is sc-.n from the records that the first party is not interested in the progress of the dispute and he IKIS not given evidence. After giving many adjourn- ments the matter was posted for evidence of second party. The second pmrty counsel filed memo. The evidence recorded in CR No. 42/90 be read ;ir, evidence in this ease as evidence of MWI for the management. Accordingly copy of the evidence is kept in this case as evidence. I have heard the learned counsel for the second party. I have perused the entire records.

9. At the very outset I am of the opinion that there is not an Iota of evidence on behalf of the first party to say that he is the employee of the bank and the bank has appointed him as a driver.

10. Against this, we are having the evidence of MW 1. The evidence of MW 1 recorded in CR No. 42/90, as per the request of the counsel is kept as evidence in this case accordingly copy of the evidence is kept in this case. The evidence of MW 1 Mr. Kamat is that the service conditions of the officers are gov- erned by Syndicate Bank Officers Service Regulation No. 26 provides permission for the use of Bank car for personal use of the officers. He further says that cars are provided by the hank. His further evidence is that the executive cau drive the enr personally or he has to engage his personal driver and thp officer has to pay salary personally and not the b'tnk. His further evidence is that the bank reimburses the execu- tive the salary paid by him to his personal driver to a certain limit. The Executive select the driver. He is not the bank employee. The officer fixes the timings and conditions u[ service of driverj. Persona) quivers do not do any bank work. Bank has no control over the driver. His name is not in the Muster Roll, The officer can remove him at any time. First party workman was a personal driver. There is no relationship of employee only employer between drivers and bank The union has no locus standi to take this view. The drivers of this dispute cannot be member of the union as he is not an employee of the bank. Only bank staff can be member. Regular dri- vers are appointed by calling advertisement and they are recruited as per rules. If we read the above evid- ence carefully it is clear that there is no relationship of employer and employoo between the second party and the first party workman. This witness is not cross examined by the workman.

11. Taking all this into consideration I am of the opinion that first party workmen is not an employee of the bank.

12. In the instant case the first party union has not filed any document to believe that the workmen are the employees of the bank. The learned counsel for the second party relied AIR 1978 Supreme Court 481. I have read the above decision care- fully. According to the said decision Personal Driver of an Area Manager of a Nationalised Bank is not a person employed by the bank. Keeping in mind the principles said in the above decision I am of the opinion that the union has absolutely failed to establish the relationship of employee and cimployer between the workmen and the management.

13 F have considered the entire material before nie ve;'y carefully and I am of the opinion that there is| ;io merit in this refercoce and accordingly I proceed to pass the following order ;

ORDER

fi Lo reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected aind signed by me on 29th May, 2001)

V N KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 18th June, 2001

S.O. 1670.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the annex lire in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of India and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 15-6-2001.

[ No. L--12012/78/99-1R (B-TI) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

AMNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI R. P. PANDEY, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 265/99

IN THE MATTER OF DISPUTE BETWEEN U.P. Bank Employees Union, Sh. Ashok Shukla, Secretary, U.P. Bank Ernployees Union, 50/45, Birhana Road, Kanpur.

12063 GI/2001—22

3421 :

And

Bank of India, The Regional Manager, BOI, Behind of M. G. College, Civil Lines, Virendra Smrith Complex, Kanpur, U.P

AWARD

1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, vide its notification No. L^ 12012/78/99-1 R (B-II) has referred the following dispute for adjudi- iF.tion to this tribunal :

"Whether the management of Bank of India is justified in imposing the punishment of reduc- tion by six stages in the scale of pay upon Sh. S. K. Mishra ? Jf not, to what relief is the work- man concerned entitled to 7

2. Tn the instant case 6-6-2001 was the date fixed for filing of rejoinder by the Union, but instead of filing rejoinder, the union moved an application before the court with the request to close the present dispute as withdrawn on the ground that the concerned workman has decided to invoke the appellate autho- rity against the penalty order imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority and in this background, the present dispute has become infructuous.

3. In view of above considerations it is held that the concerned workman is entitled to no relief in pursuance of the present reference.

4. Reference is answered accordingly.

7-6-2001 R. P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 20th June, 2001

S.O. 1671.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-6-2001.

[No. L-12Ol2/235/85-IR(D.lI) (A)/IR (B-II)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer3422 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 14, 200l/ASADHA 23, 1923 fPART II—SEC VnV, ANNHXURP:

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUUNM NO. TI, MUMI3AI

PRESENT

S. N. SAUNDA.NKAR

Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT—2/43 of 1986 EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

BANK OF BARODA The Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, West High Court Ropd. Dharampeth, NAGPUR..400 010

And

THEIR WORKMEN Shri P B. Bokde, R/o. Gupte Chowfc, Sakkardara Road. Chitnavispura, NAGPUR—440 002.

APPEARANCES :

n the Employer :

Shri L. L. D'Scwa, Representative.

For the Workmen :

Shri S, M. Kali, Advocate.

Mumbni, dated 8th May, 2001

AWARD-PART—IT

In this matter it is now to be considered whether the action of the management. Bank of Burodn, Nagpur,, in dismissing Shri P. B. Rokde. Clerk, Dharampeth Branch, Nagpur from service w.e.f. 26-2-1985 is justified and if not whether-he is entitled to reinstatement in live service of the bank ?

2. By an interim Award dated 18-3-91 (Exhibit 12) my Learned Predecessor gave finding that the domes- tic inquiry htld by the management against the work- man vitiates and the same has been confirmed Ly the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay, in Writ Petition No. 2404 of 1991, dtd. 9-4-1992 (Exhibit 12A). Conse- quently, the management was given an opportunity to prove the alleged misconduct on the part of the workman.

3. The case of the management in nut-shell is that on 13-4-1983 one Mr. M. L. Mishra, Proprietor of Dhruva Kirana Stores, Nagpur had visited Dharam- peth Branch, Nagpur in connection with his bank account. The workman Mr. Bokde was then working as clerk in that branch. Mr. Bokde approached and i, s:'l< r' i < n I c 'Ci a it' A i 1"':' to ir'rfdvcc eve Mr, Pethc to open his saving account with the bank, though he was not willing. A cheque for Rs. 34.750/- drawn on Gorakhpur Branch was deposited in the account of Mr. Pethe on 13-6-1983. The cheque was sent to OBC department for preparation of schedule. After preparing the schedule it was sent to des- patch department for mailing the same to Gorakhpur Branch for collection. On the same day it was informed that the cheque and the schedule have been missed. On 15-6-1983 the workman informed the Senior Assistant Mr. A. R. De, that he returned the cheque to Mr- pctho a" it was post-dated and that he destroyed the counter-slip. It is contended no permission was o p i n ed by the workman for this from the incharge of the despatch department and that the party was fictious/non-existent as the letter sent returned back with a remark 'not known'. On this background charge-sheet was filed against +he workman and that on inquiry he was found guilty by tho inquiry officer and that the disciplinary authority dismissed the workman by their letter dtd. 26-2-1985 and appeal against the same wt's also dismissed.

4. Tho workman challenged the same contending that the inquiry was not held properly. Ho does not know Mr. Mishra. He had no reason to insist him to introduce Mr. Pethe to whom also he does not know. He had no occassion to go to the despatch table and to return cheque and destroy any counter- slip. He is innocent. He served tho bank for more ¹ than nine years without any stigma. He has been falsely foisted at the instance of Mr. Pande, then work'ng as accountant.

5. My Learned Predecessor recorded evidence of management witnesses'Shri A. R. Ds, S^nur Accoun- tant; Manager, Shri Kaluram Iain vido (Exhibit 32 & 36) and the evidence of workman Mr. Bokde vide (Exhibit 43). Attendance of bank's witness Mr. Mishra could not be procured, though bailable warrant was issued. Therefore on hearing the counsel and perusing the record he passed final Award holding action of the management dismissing the workman was not just and proper and Conse- quently he directed the management to reinstate tho workman and to pay cost:) Rs. 500/-, by finil Award dtd. 7-2-1995 (Exhibit 60). Tho management chal- lenged the said Award by Writ Petition No. 3080 of 1995 before tho Hon'ble High Court, Bombay Bench at Nagpur. His Lordships by the order dtd. 10-11-2000 (Exhibit 62) set aside the final Award directing the Tribunal to procure the attendance of Mr. Mishra as his evidence is relevant, by taking necessary steps including issuance of non-bailable warrant and after giving opportunity tojthe workman to cross-examine and to adduce any evidence in rebuttal, to decide th-; matter afresh during the stipulated period.

3423

6. On rccoipt of the Writ (Exhibit 62) this Tri bunai issued notices to the parties concerned. The manage- ment succeeded in procuring the attendance of Mr- iVlishra. His evidence is recorded at Exhibit 63. Management by purshis (Exhibit 65) and the work- man orally closed evidence.

: 7. Hoard the Learned Representative Mr. D' Souza fjor the management bank and Shri S. M. Kali, Advocate for the workman. T have gone through Ilhe written Submissions and the rulings cit^d by the jjnanagement (Exhibit 66 & 69) and the workman (Exhibit 6S). On hearing and perusing the record as a whole, 1 record my findings on the issues framed by fny Learned Predecessor (Exhibit 4) for the reasons Mentioned below :

Issues

Findings 1 - 1

Yes.

Whether the findings of the Inquiry Officer are improper and perverse and are based upon the assumption that the workman had committed a misconduct ?

Yes.

2. Whether the said workman is entitled to reinstatement in service of tho Bank 7

3. To what relief the workman is entitled ?

He is entitled to reinstatement with Full Back wages and continuity in service.

What order ?

As per order below .

REASONS

8. At the threshold, it is to be noted that the ;domestic inquiry conducted against the workman by ithe management is held against the principle;, of natural justice. Therefore, the management has to [justify its action on dismissal of the workman Shri Bokde, from service. The charge against the wofk- jman is that he cheated the bank and, that h." is dis- honest and that keeping; such a man in employment Jwith the institut'en dealing in funds is very risky , Jt is;alleged that the workman insisted/compelled Mr. MX- Mishra to introduce^ opening the saving bank account in the name of Mr. Petho on 13-4-83 though he was not knowing him.

9. Mr. Kaluram Jain affirmed that on 13-4-83, 'Account No. 23666 in the name of Shri Manohar Sadashiv Pethc was opened on the in: induction of Mr. Mishra, Proprietor of Blu'uva Kirana Stores who was then maintaining a Current account. There was no operation in the said account since its incep- j tion except the opening cash deposit of Rs. 130/- and added that cheque for Rs. 34,750/-dravvn on Gorakh- pur Branch was deposited jn the bank on 13 -6--19& and that OBC schedule was prepared by the concer- ned officer and the cheque was sent for despatch. However on 14-6-83 the despatch clcr^ informed the officer-in-charge of that department that the cheque was not traceable. Tt was also searched on 15-6-83 but could not be traced, and on inquiry, it is reveale that Mr. Mishra on the say of the workman Mi". BoMc, introduced Mr. Pethc though he was not knowing him and further affirmed that the letter addressed to account hofdor Mr, Pethe was returned back by the postal authorities with remark 'not Known' On 18th instant, thereby account holder was fictitious person, not in existence.

10. Mr. De affirmed that whib working as Special Accountant in Dharampeth Branch the workman came to him on 15-6-S3Lat 9.00 a.m. and told that he delivered the cheque to the cust0mcr because it was post-dated, after destroying the counter-slip. He did so without the permission of the concerned incharge officer.

11. The workman Mr. Bokde on oath denied that he knows Mr. Mishra and that he insisted him to introduce tho account holder Shri pethe. He added that he had no occasion to return the post-dated cheque for Rs. 34,750/-and destroy the counter-slip and denied that he disclosed to that effect to Shri De at any time. According to the workman he is com- pletely innocent in the matter and added that one Mr. Pantfe Accountant with whom he was on cross terms, falsely involved him in the matter.

12. Mir. Mishra averted from witness box that hs had a current account with the K;iik since 1975. He had intioducd Me. Pothe tor opening his account wi*h the bank, though he was not knowing him, however, at the instance of Mr. De, who was then officer ia the bunk. H: categorically denied that ho introduced the account of Mr. Pet ho on the day of the workman. At ihi-, juncture the Learned Repre- sentative Mr. D'Souz a submits that though Mr. M. L. Mishra turned hostile his entire evidence cannot be thrown out and thct his evidence which support the case of the in:inagimi.'nt, can s.ilely be relied upon. TL is settled legal position that onlis'e evidence of the hostile witness cannnot be brushed aside, and evidence which is cogent and convincing can-be bclieaved. On this backcu'ound, M.\ D'SoLua submits that Mr Mishra in his E\amination-in-Chief disclosed that ho had introduced the account of Mr. Pethe though he w;is not knowing him. He admits his signature at p:ige 7 and that paj.e 8 (Inquiry No. 2 papers Exhibit Z\), is ia his own i^nii-J.writuif, and bears his signature which he had given to Manager, Mr. Jain, which according to him, directly involved the workman in llr: cpis ode. It is also well scttlod position of law that in the inquiry strict ruks of evidence are notUti THE GAfcfiTTfi OF INDIA¹: JULY 14, 2001/ASADHA 23, 1023 |1*ABT I1~SEC. 3 J I )1 must have been go.mg on )n the DanK. un ims aacK- ground, I am noL inclined to accept the evidence of management which is unnatural and not convincing.

3 4^ '

"As exceptions to the general rule of reinstate- ment, there have been cases where reinstatement has not been considered as cither desirable or expedient. These were the cases where there had been strained relations between the employer and the employee, where the post held by the aggrieved employee had been one of trust and confidence or where, though dismissal or discharge was un- sustainable owing to some infirmity in the impug- ned order, the employee was found to have been guilty of an activity subversive of or prejudicial to the interests of the industry." 17. Mr. D'Souza for the management submits that the workman in his cross-examination admitted that Mr. Mishra was examined as witness in the domestic inquiry and he cross-examined him and despite this he now states that he does not know Mishra. He urged thai the workman possess property and inspite of this he states that his wife does labour work and he sells clothes on road though lie gets income by way of house/shop rent, and therefore he is not honest and a man to be believed. On this back- ground, he submits a legitimate inference could be drawn that he is author of the incident and therefore unfit to work in the bank, being a dishonest. In fact, as stated above, there is no reliable, cogent and convincing evidence to show that the workman is dishonest. The incident as alleged his not been proved. For livelihood one has to earn as when eight members are dependent on workman, therefore he must be doing work for his earning. Only because workman disclosed that he cross-examined Mr. Mishra does not mean that he knciws him. Mishra also disclosed that he knows workman as he was working as a clerk in the bank. In view of this I myself find difficult to accept the submission of Mr. D'Souza as above.

20. In view of the discussion supra, it is evident that the evidence adduced by the management is not trustworthy, natural and convincing. Management witness Mr. Mishra in fact clearly pointed out that workman is not at all concerned. Management thus, fails to prove that workman deceived the bank rind that he is dishonest. The action therefore taken by the management against the workman is in totality unjust and unfair. On this background the submis- sion of Mr. D'Souza as above does not stand to reason and the decision relied by him as above, is not helpful to the management, as in that case, the concerned employee was found guilty of an activity subversive of/or prejudicial to the interests of the industry.

21. So far the issues framed by my Learned Pre- decessor and which crop for my consideration, it is seen from the record, my Learned Predecessor held that domestic inquiry against the workman vitiates as the rules of natural justice were not followed and (he same finding has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, there was no further need to record any finding regarding perversity as held by His Lordships of Bombay High Courtin CST Mumbai Vs. Rajan Kumar Mohali 2000 III CLR page 117. Since the inquiry itself shows the findings of the inquiry officer are improper so to say perverse, based upon the assumption that the workman has committed misconduct, therefore issues will have to be answered to that effect in the affirmative. In the result the workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with lull back wages and continuity in service and hence the order :

ORDIR 18. Mr. D'Souza argued that Mishra was won over by the workman and therefore he did not attend the court though he was fined Rs. 500/- and if looked his evidence from this point of view, inquiry papers are self-explanatory and further urged that a man may speak lie but not the document. He relied on Rambhau Vs. MSRTC 1992 2 CLR page 581. Infact as stated above, form page 7 and report do not inspire evidence and that explanation given by Mishra about page 8 has not been rebutted. Inquiry is held against Principles of Natural Justice, therefore said ruling is not helpful to him. Evidence on record does not show that workman compelled Mr. Mishra to introduce Mr. Pcthe in opening his account and further, any cheque was received for credit in the saving account and that was dealt and destroyed by the workman and thill account holder Pether was fictious/non-existent. Consequently allegation of management that workman deceived the bank and he is dishonest in view of the position, cannot be accepted. Submission of Mr. D'Souza in view of the discussion supra, does not appeal to me.

The action of the management of Bank of Raroda, hi a spur in dismissing Shri P. H. Bokdc, clerk, Dhanun- peth Branch, Nagpur, from banks service w.e.f. 26-2-1985 is not fair and just.

The management to reinstate Mr. BoUle, w.e.f. 26-2-1985 with full fc^ck w:!ges and continuity,,, in service,

hlo order as to costs in view of the perculiar

circumstances en record.

19. While parting the matter Mr. D'Souza submits that believing the evidence of Mishra who was dubbed hostile, workman is held not guilty and directed his reinstatement, the very foundation of banking that is trust and confidence would get crack and therefore according to him, in such cases, tribunal can grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Tn support of this contention he relied on M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd., Rourkela Vs. Mr. A. K. Roy 1970 20 FLR page 234. In this casek the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled :

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer34:6 t t fe OAZfifTE OF INDIA: JULY 14, 2 0 O 1 / A S A O £A 23, 3923 [^PT JIUSEC. 3(i!l1 New Delhi, the 2J.st June, 2001 S.O. 1672:—In pursuance of Section 17 ot the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (J4 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tiibuiial/Labouc Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to Lho management oi Tungabhndra Gramin Brink and their workman, which was received by the Cen- tral Government on 20-6-2001.

[No. L-12012/227/93-iR—(B-1;J

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNfiXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSRTJAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT 'SflRAM SADAN' IlfMAIN IIICROSS, IIPHASE,

TUMlCURROAO, YESHWANTHPUR.;

BANGALORE

Dated : 1st June 2001 PRESENT : Hon'ble Sri V.iv K'likanii B.com. LLB Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 9/94

[party

II Parly

Tungahhadra Gramin Chairman. Tungabhadru Bank Employees Union, Gramin Uank,No. 32, 144, Kappagal Road, • Sanyiuiakal Road, BelIary-583 103 Gandhinagar, Advocate-Shri P.S. Raja- ilellary-5S3 103 gopul Advocate-Sin i B.C. Pra-

bliukar

AWARD

I. 1'h.e Cenlial Government by exceising the powers conferred by clause(d) of Sub-seaion 2A ol the Section 10 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred thi, dispute vide order No. L-12012/227/ 93 IR (B.I) dated 3-1-91 fur adjudication on the following sdk/ducl :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action ol the management of Tjiiyabh-'):!M Gramin Bank in imposing the pjn:il:y o!" Stoppage of 7 increments with uurnlu- lalive efte-'t in inspect of Shi'i T. BasavJireddy, Cork vide proceedings dated 27-3-92 is legal and justified? h, nol, to vvlui. .'elief the workman is eititlej V

2. Th'o first pai'ty workman was vvoiking as ;\ daily wagei i'i 191"* and in the ye;ir 1980 be was ap- pointed as]regu1ar Part timo Mo'i.sengei'. Tbci'e was a mi-jcj l ln;t, E.n'ii.'y wis hold an'i tbe m i.ngc- ment imposed the peqtly of stoppage of seven in- ci'c'munls with eumiilativc eSect by an ordui dated 20th February 1992.

3. First pavty appeared and filed Claim State- mf.iTt.

4. The case of the first party in brief is as under.

5. The first party was working as pan time Messenger regularly from the year 19S0. He worked satislactovifv d'lj'ins th" probation period. Charge sheet was issued and enquiry waj held and the m.in'jge- mint imposed pMinly. This nat e irreet. The pjnalty imposed is against the standing orders and the charge sheet was very vague. Regarding enquiry it is said the same is not correct. The enquiry was r.oi in accordance with the Regulations. Tlicrofore the action o" the management is not comet. So the fir-it party has prnyed to r.joct the reference.

6. Second party appeared and filed counter. .

7. The case of the Second Party in brief is .> s under :

8. The second party is a Banking institution registered under the provisions of the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976. The management expects high de- gree of honesty, integrity, devotion to duty, prompt- ness in d i s a b l i ng th? duties ani high sense of discipline- First party workman was working in the Ginigcva Branch in tho years 1988 and 1989. He was eisM^'l i¹¹ pi'lvate business of selling cutton scjd'j to the Tanners souie of whom aro crop loan borrowers, Inspec'.iou vv'is done and charge sheet was issued. The first party beinp, tin employers of the Bank should not have involved in any other ti'-ida or business during the employment. Details of charc;ji .ii'j i"ive:i in p-ira 1 & 5 of the Cou'iter. Thj cnT.ii"y is correct aod the action of Lhj mna^i'Tint is proper. The first party fully )rirlici,rit-:d 1. The enqirry officer b^s exonerated tho first party W'V'knnn but tin diciplioary -Mlhorry after l.iiking into each and every point did not accept the findings of Enquiry O-'liccr and dilfcred with ihc findings of Enquiry Officer, The Disciplinary Authority after considn'i'ifi nil the aspects issued a second show casue notice dated 20-2-1992 pro- posing the punishment of stoppage ut seven incre- ments with cumulative elleet. TIVJ niajiagtment for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

9. tt is seen from the records that on January 1999 the first pany conceded fairness and validity of the enquiry. Thereafter the ease was posted for arguments. Since a long time the first party and counsel are nnt present. Ii appeiwrs the the first party is not interested in going on this matter, I have perused the evidence before me and also carefu'ly perused all the enquiry papers and the evidence recorded during the enquiry. MVVT has given clear evidence. In my opinion there is no per- versity in the finding given by the disciplinary authori- ty. The first party being the employee of the Nationa- lised Baok is not expected to indulge himself in such activities, I have given careful consideration to the entire material and I am of tha opinion that in the given circumstances the punishment imposed is correct and there is no merit in this reference. Accor- dingly 1 proceed to pass the following ovdc

ORDPR

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to P.A. transcribed by her con^ctcd and signed by me on 1st June 2001)

V."N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officof New Delhi, the 21st June, 2001 S.O.I673.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award oCthe Centra 1 Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annc-ure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of South Eastern Railways and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-6-2001.

[No. L-4l012/287/994R-(S-I)]

A JAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

34^7 ANNEXURE,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRinuNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT :

BIIUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri S.K. Dhal, OSJS (Sr. Branch),. Presiding Officer, C.G.T.T,-rum-Lahour Court, Bhubancswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. Tr.l.D. 772001 Dated, Bhubancswar, the 11th June. 2001. Between:

The Sr. Project Manager, South Eastern Railway, Chakradhavpur, Bihar . . .. 1st Pnrty-Management

And

Their workman Shri Soma Minz, Vill. Gurgurjor, PO. Santospur, Via. Bisia. Dist. Sundargarh. ,. 2nd Party-Workman Appearances:

Shri N.S. Uikey, Dy. Chief Engineer (Con ) S.E. Railway, Chakradharpur, Jharkhand .. For the 1st Party-Management Shri N.C. Mohanty,

Advocate .. For the 2nd Party-Workman

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(a) of Section 10 of tho T.D. Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication \idc their Order No. L-41012/287/99-LR-(B-I). dated 24-3-2000:—

"Whether the action of the Management of S.E. Railway, Chakradharpur terminating the services of Sri Soma Minz, S/o. Sri Bizla Minz, Ex- Chowkidar, IOW, Construction S.E. Railway, Bondamunda from 5-11-96 on the ground of un-authorised absence is justified? If not, whr.t relief the workman is entitled to"?

2. The circumstances under which the reference has bee;i made may be stated in brief:—

3. One Shri Soma Minz, (hereinafter called :v; the workman) had joined in the services und^r the Sr. Project Manager, S.E. Railway, (hereinafter called as the Management) as a temporary gangman and subsequently was regularised as a Chowkidar, While working under JOW (Construction) Bonda- mund.i of S,E. Railway he was imposed with major penalty for un-authorised absence on duty from 16-11-1995 till d.i'c. 'n the domestic enquiry the workman did not attend. On 511-96 the Enquiry O flft.ci gave its findings stating that the workman34:8 THE GAZETTE OF I N D I A: JULY 14, 2 0 0 l / A S \ D H .\ 23, 1923 [PART T I - S t c. 3(iO] was guilty of mis-conduct anO passed ureter of rc- mnv.il of service. The said removal order WHS subsequently confirmed by the Sr. Project Manager, Chakradharpur, on 18-11-19%. Under this back- ground the case of the workman is that he never remained absent from 16-H-199S. On 24-11-95 he had a quarrel with his wif; and due to sudden provocation he gave a kirhi blow to her two died on the way to hospital. A police case was registered against him for committing an oflence u/s 302 of IPC for causing death of his wife and on 25-11-95 he was arrested by the police and thereafter he was remanded to the jail custody till 18-12-1996. He was released on bail on 18-12-1996 a

4. According to the workman he was never absent from 16-11-1995. But he remained absent from 25-11-95 as he was arrested and was in jail custody. The absence was beyond his control and immediately when he was released on bail he came to attend the duty but he was refused. According to him proper procedure have not been followed while conducting domestic enquiry against him and findings have been recorded in his absence without giving any opportunity to him to defend his case.

5. The Management has filed the written statement. They have pleaded that the workman remained absent from 16-11-1995 without any per- mission of the authorities so charge was framed against him for un-authorised absence. Notice were issued to him to attend the enquiry. As he did not attend he was set exparlc and enquiry was comp- leted in his absence after observing all the formali- ties. The workman was found guilty for commit- ting misconduct. So order of removal was passed which was subsequently confirmed by the authorities. According to the Management the airest of the work- man by the police in Cr, case was not intimated by the workman himself or by the police. The Manage- ment have taken the stand that the action taken by them is legal and proper. On the i'bove pleadings of the parties the following issues have been framed:

ISSUES

1. Whether the domestic enquiry is fair and pioper?

FT. Whether the action of the Management in terminating the services of the workman from 5-11-1996 on the ground of un-authorised absence- K justified?

Til. If not, what relief the workman is entitled?

6. The workman has examined himself as a witness in support of his pleadings. The Manage- ment has examined two witnesses. Documents have been filed on behalf of the Parties. The work- man has exhibited his arrest report (Ext.-A.) Order of the Court releasing bail (Ext.-B), Copy of the order sheet from 14-11-96 to 20-11-1997 (Ext.-C), Copy of the Judgement (Ext.-D), Copy of his representation (Ext.-E), Postal receipt (Ext.-fi/i), Postal Acknow- ledgement (Ext.-E/2), (Ext.-E/3) Copy of the re- minder (Ext.-F), copy of letter for joining (Ext.-G) and copy of the letter of the Management (Ext.-H). On behalf of the Management copy of the charge sheet (Ext.-I), copy of the P e t al Acknowledgement (Ext.-2), Xerox copy of the charge sheet (Ext.-3) copy of the postal receipts (Ext.-4), xerox copy of the report oPE.O., dtd. 24-9-96 (Ext.-5), xerox copy of, the letter, dtd" 9-10-96 to the workman, (Ext.-6) xerox copy of the findings of the E.O. (Ext.-7), xerox copy of the postal acknowledgement (Ext,-8), xerox copy of the Office Order No. 134, dtd. 18-11-96 (Ext.-9), and xerox copy of the postal receipt Ext.-5/A have been exhibited.

FINDINGS

ISSUE MO. 1

7. Before going to the m;rit of the case t h; ad- mitted facts of the case may be stated here for bettor appreciation of both the parties (a) That, the workman was arrested and was produced before the S.D.J.M. Panposh on 27-11-1995 and was remanded to jail custody, (b) That, he was released on bail on 18-12-1996. (c) That, the judgement was pronounced on 20-11 1997 wherein the workman was acquitted from the charges, (d) That the copy of th? judgement was made available to the workman on 25-11-199 7. (e) That, no permission was obtained by the police from the Management before tho arrest of the work- man, (f) Th'it the workman was not placed und;r suspension, (g) That, the workmia did not send any intimation to the Management regarding his absence from the jail custody, (li) That, the workman did not attend the domestic enquiry as he wai in jail custody.

8. The main grievance of the workman is that the domestic enquiry was conducted without observing the rates and procedures prescribed and no car¹" wi s 341")

not defend his case. It has also not been established therelationship between the person who have received the notice for the workman. Admittedly no paper publication was made by the Management intimating the workman to attend the domestic enquiry. So in the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the domestic enquiry initiated againt the workman has not been conducted properly. In the order words the domestic enquiry was not fare and proper. This isfue is answered in favour of the workman.

10. ISSUE NO. 11 :

taken by the Management to ensure the attendance of the workman during the domestic enquiry. It bas been further submitted that the Officer who framed the charges acted as Enquiry Officer and n.corded the findings. On the other hand it has been pleaded on bcl.alf of the Management that the notices for attending the domestic enquiry wcre sejiJ to the work- man in his home address and when acknowledgement wa^ received back the service was held to tc sufficient. So the domestic enquiry was conducted in absence of the workman. The fact of his arrest in criminal case vjv.i nof intimated by the workman. So accord- ing tu the Management the action taken against the workman is justified and proper.

In view of my findings in Issue Nu. I tb Action of the Management in terminating the services of the workman from 5-11-1996 on the ground of un- authorised absence is not justified.

11. ISSUE NO. TTI :

In view of my findings in respect of Issue No. and Issue No. II the workman bo re-instated imm ol diately and after his joining the domestic enquiry may be taken afresh after giving all the opportunity to the workman to defend himself. The result of the domestic enquiry will decide the punishment that would be imposed on I'IO workman for his absence from 16-11-1995 to till his date of arrest if it is prove

Reference is answered accordingly.

S. K. DHAL, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 21st June, 2001

S-O. 1674.—Tn pursuanco of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cent- ral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Southern Railway, Madras and +heir workm:n, which was received by the Centra] Government on 20-6-2001.

9. After hearing both the parties and perusing the documents and oral evidence 1 find substantial force in the contention made on behalf of the workma n that the domestic enquiry made against him has not been made properly. The postal acknowlod goment received by the Management docs not bear the sig- nature of the workman because admittedly by that time he was insidethe jail custody and sotnobody received the notice issued to the workman from the Management in domestic enquiry. Tho Management has failed to establish the relationship between the workman and the persons who had rccoived th * notice. The Management withou! taking care to find out the whereabouts of the workman set him ex-parteand concluded the domestic enquiry. During domestic enquiry it is said that the enquiry officer perused the attendance register and olher documents to satisfy himself that, the workman was absent from 16-11-1995. But those documents were- not made available to this Tribunal to satisfy that actually the workman was absent from 16-11-1995 and report wasreade by his immediate superior. When the workman was absent and did not know about the domestic enquiry started against him ho was not ab to explain the circumstances for which he remained absent. 1 am not inclined to givo any findings on the submission made on behalf of the workman that illegality has been committed by the Managemen because the officor who framed (he chargos acted as the Enquiry Officer. FrOm the admitted facts it would be seen that the workman could not attend the domestic enquiry as he was inside the jaile ustody It is quite un-natural that, when he lost his wifo and has been implicated in criminal case which provides capital punishment he would not bo in a position to intimate the authorities about his detention ia the custody. No doubt, he had the duty to inform. The police aleo did not take care (o inform the Mange, ment before arresfing the workman, The Supdt. of Jail also failed to intimate the detention of the work- man to his authorities. So in my opinion the domes- tie enquiry has been conducted in absence, withou*¹

[ No- L-410l2/253/95-IR-(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Office serving notice properly to the workman who could 2063 GI/2001— 233400 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 14, 20QJ/ASADHA 23, 1923 [PART T I - S E C. 3i'ii)J ANNnx'up.n

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CIIIJNNAI Wednesday, UHJ Mh Juno, 20^1

PRFSENT :

K. KARTHIKEYAN, P r i d i ng Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 485/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. NO. 37/9s (In the matter , oT 'ho dispute Tor adjudica';on under clause (d) of sub-section (I) and sub-seciion 2 (A) of Section 10 of -he Indus rial Dispute:; Ad, 1947 (14 of 1947), bo

BETWEEN S. Singaravelu I Parly/Workman AND

The General Manager, TI Par!y/Ma.nagtmcnt Southern Railway, Madras.

APPFARANCU :

For tho Workman :

M/s, Balan Haridas & R. Kamatcni Sundaresaji Advocates.

For the Management :

G. Kalyanasundaram, Advocate.

JT* Tho Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exer- cise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of t h: Indust- rial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the following disputa for adjudication vide Order Nf. L-4lOI2/253/95-lR(B-IJ dt. 10-3-97 ;

"Whether tht action of the Management of Southern Railway Madras in ordering retirement of Snri S. Singaravelu and Enquiry-cum-Rcscr- vation Cleric compulsorily from services is just proper and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?"

This dispute on coming up before me for final hearing on 17-5-2001, upon perusing the reference. Claim Statement, Counter Statement and other material papers on record, the documentary evidence let in on either side and upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel on either side arid this dispute having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal passed the following :

AWARD

2. This reference has been made earlier first to the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court; Bangalore. Then on petition by the I Party/ Workman to the Govt. this case has been transferred rom the file of CGTT, Bangalore to the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, where it was token on file as I,P. No. 37/98. On receipt of notice from that Tribunal, both the parties entered appearance through their respective counsel and filed their respective Claim Statement and Counter Statement. When the matter was taken up Tor enquiry there in that Tribunal documents were marked by the consent of the counsel on cither side as E\. Wl to W15 and it was pending for the counsel on either side to advance iheir respective arguments. At this stage, as per the orders of transfer passed by the Central Govt., this case hns been.Jransfejred from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records of this case from the Tamil Nadu St;,te Industrial Tribunal, this case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 495/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on either side informing them about the transfer of this case from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal with a direction to appear before this Court with their respective parties to prosecute this case further on 5-3-2001.

3. When the matter was taken up for enquiy after so many hearings finally on 17-5-2001, the counsel on either side appeared before this Tribunal and advaDced their respective arguments. A xerox copy of Scientific Expert's report was produced by the 11 Party counsel.

4. The Industrial Dispute between the parties is briefly as follows :

The I Party/Workman Sri S. Singaravelu (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) was employed as Enquiry-cum-Rescrvation Clerk in reservation office of Chcnmii Central Station at Chennai. The Petitioner joined the Respondent Railway as a Clerk on 14-3-1977 and had put in Nine years of service. For an alleged misconduct, the Petitioner was served with charge-sheet dated 23-7-1986 stating that he had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 10,070 on or about 15-12-1984 by 18.15 hrs. belonging to the Railway olfice by making false entries in Railway records, as if he has refunded the said amount on demand for cancel- lation by the bonafide passenger on the passenger foil of BPT No. 085444 purported to have been issued on 29-10-1984 for 95 adults for journey on 13-12-1984 in Train No. 145 Navjeevan Express from Ahmedabad to Madras Central, in violation of office procedures and that thereby violated rules 3(1 )(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(l)(iii) of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966. To this charge, the Petitioner had given an explanation on 27-6-87 denying the charges and he further stated in order to give full explanation he has to see necessary3431 documents mentioned in the Annexurc 'A' of the charge memorandum. The Petitioner was working in the INDRAIL counter of tb_' Railway upto 4-11-84. After 4-11-84, one Sri T. Govindarajlu was working in the said Counter. The blank Paper Ticket No. 085441 in H series was found missing on 21-11-84. The Petitioner is not aware ol" the missing BPT as he was not working in that Counter at ;hat point ol'iime. On 15-12-94 when the petitioner was working on the lluquiry-cum. Refund Counter, BPT No. 085444 alonwith refund application and with an endorsement duly can- celling the' ticket made by the cancellation clerk was perused. As a clerk in that Counter, the Petitioner refunded the amount to the person v/ho presented it, since the ticket was duly cancelled and endorsement made to that effect in the can- cellation form by the cancellation clerk. On 16-12-84, the Petitioner had to leave Tor home early, as his wife was not well due to abortion she had. Therefore, he requested the Superin- tendent to retain him in the ABR Counter instead of usual counter as in that counter he would be retained upto 2,30 p.m. The Superintendent readily obliged and the Petitioner was asked to work in the ABR counter and Mohamed Ellais in the Current Counter to which the Petitioner was allotted. On 27-4-85 the Travelling Inspector Mr. K. Viswanathan had detected the fraud as he found out that ticket presented was not an authenticated one. The Respondent Railway without any enquiry passed an order for'recovery of the amount from the salary of the Petitioner and the same was also recovered. After recovering the amount, the Respondent chose to conduct enquiry. The matter was initially handed over to CBJ Inspector Mr. P, S. S. P. Babu. He was not able to find out the person who b;id already allegedly removed the BPT No. 085441 and altered the last digit in the BPT No. 085441 to 085444, the person who wrote the booking parti- culars in the ticket and the person \vi>o cancelled the BPT No. 085444. Based on such a report of the CBI Inspector, charges were framed against the Petitioner. The Respondent conducted an enquiry in which 10 witnesses for the Manage- ment were examined. The Petitioner was not allowed to be represented by Govt. servant of his choice, inspite of his representation dated 27-6-86 and 22-7-87. even though, the railways was repre- sented by CBI Inspector, who is a legally trained person. The endorsement on the cancellation form was made by the cancellation Clerk Mr. ' J. Gaueshwara Rao. That cancellation form was not produced in the enquiry. The Petitioner has refunded the amount based on the endorse- ment in the cancellation form made by the cancel-

lation Cl'nrk. As the Petitioner was only a refund clerk, it wat, not his duty to vcrii'y the ticket wherj it has been duly cancelled by the cancellation clqrk. -i'iie Petitioner could have been charged only for negligence in not verifying the ticket. But thut by itself, will not p;ovo. that the Peti- tioner misappropriated the amount. A serious charge ol miiappiopriauoi? cannot be proved merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The charges against tho Petitioner was not at all proved in the enquiry. There was no eye wit- ness to ihe alleged charges foisted against the Petitioner. In thuse circumstances the evidence of !?andwritii.'g expert become crucial as the very charge is that the Petitioner has mydc false entries in the register and he bas himself misappropriated. The opinion of handwriting expert was not pro- duced in the enquiry and no copy was also given to the Petitioner. The handwriting expevt was also not examined. In the enquiry, the Enquiry Office;¹ acted as F.'ose.iting-CLim-Pi'osecuting Officer by asking the witmsses leading questions and also cross-examining thorn. Thus, the enquiry is vitiated and is in violation of principles ot natural justice. No evidence worth the mentioned was produced at the enquiry, to establish the charge of misappropriation of Rs. 10,070/-. The Enquiry Officer without appreciating the evidence in tho proper perspective hsW the Petitioner as guilty of charges leveled against him. He also suggested deterrent punishment. The Enquiry Officer was biased and acted in an one sided manner and his findings are perverse. Based on such findings of the Enquiiy OlUcer, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed punishment of removal from service on 8-6-1988. It was confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 3-7-1989. The Petitioner challenged that order oj dismissal by way of O.A. No. 156/ 1990 on the ground that the Petitioner was not 'given copy of leadings of the Enquiry Officer, before imposing thu punishment of removal from service. In that order itself, the C.A.T. permitted the Respondent/Railway to continue the disci- plinary proceedings after giving a copy ol the enquiry lepori to the Petitioner. Pursuant to th.3t order, the Petitioner- was given a copy of the enquiry report. He gave his explanation on 21-11-91, that the report was perverse and one sided. The Disciplinary Authority without appre- ciating the material on record and without apply ing its mind, passed an order on 7-12-92 removing the Petitioner from service. The Disciplinary Authority had stated that the number of persons on the BPT was altered from 90 to 95 and it was not in the charge sheet at all and it is also not the ca'.e of the Railways, In the appeal preferred by the Petitioner, the Appellate Authority had modi- fied the punishment of removal from service to3432 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: jlJLV 14, 2001/ASADHA'23, 1923 [PART it—SEC. 3(ii)l one of compulsory retirement. The Railway before compulsorily retiring the Petitioner from service have failed to take into account his ble- mishless record of service, he had put in for rjine years. The Petitioner is suffering without emp- loyment for the past 10 years and he had the family "to support. The order of punishment is disproportionate to the alleged charges framed against the Petitioner. Hence, this Hon'blc Court may pleased to interfere under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The order of imposiag punishment may be set aside as illegal and the Respondent may be directed to reinstate the Peti- tioner with continuity of service, full back wages and all other attendant benefits.

The Petitioner says that he returned the amount to the passenger which cannot be sustained. He had not consulted his shift supervisor before making a refund of such a hugo sum. The Petitioner had taken pains to take loans from Sri Dhakshinamoorthy of Counter No. J 6. Thus, the Petitioner had cheated the railway and defrauded t'le union ex-chequer to the tune of Rs. 10,070/- Investigations wore conducted by the C.B.I., Madias and found that the Petitioner had tailed to maintain obsoiute integrity and devotion to duty as intur-alia of which were unbecoming of a Railway/Public servant and had recommended for initiating departmental action against the Petitioner. The amount misappropriated by the Petitioner was recovered from his salary. The Central Adminis- trative Tribunal in O.A. No. 156/90 had observed that "the recovery of that amount does not amount to punishment, it is only restoration of things in order. In this case tha recovery which has been effected is not a penalty for loss within the meaning of Clause 5 of Rule 6, therefore, the effect of imposing penalty of removal will not constitute a second punishment." In view of the order passed by the Central Adminis- trative Tribunal in O.A. No. 156/90 this petition is barred by principles of resjudicata. Hence, the action of the Management is justified in eompulsorily retiring the Petitioner from service. So, the petition has to be dismissed.

6. Tho point for my consideration is —

'whether the action of tho Management of Southern Railway, Madras, in ordering retire- ment of Sri S. Singaravelu, an Enquiry com- Reservation Clerk compulsorily from services is just, proper and legal? If not, to what relief is the workman Entitled?"

Point :—

5. In the Counter Statement filed by the Res- pondent, it is stated that as a fact there was no appli- cation for refund of the above said BPT by any passenger. There was also no endorsement on the cancellation of the said ticket by the Reservation and Cancellation Clerk i.e. J. Ganeshwara Rao, who was on duty at the concerned Rescrvation-cum- Cancellation counter on 15-12-84. Without pas- sengers application and without endorsement on cancellation of ticket by Sri Ganeshwara Rao, the Petitioner ought not to have refunded the amount. Further it is seen that the BPT number was really 085441 which was altered to as 085444. No verifi- cation was done by the Petitioner with lecord form and reservation records. Discrepancies were found in the passenger foil of 085444. The Petitioner Singaravelu did not follow the procedure for .refund. Since ho was working in INRA1L counter he knew that the ticket number 085441 was missing. The ticket No. 085441 which is/d passenger form not accounted at Madras Central. BPT book is kept in Inrail Counter and last issued was in 1983 of BPT No. 085437 folio. BPT No. 085444 contained all the three folios namely the record folio, account folio and passenger folio. The ticket should have come to Ganeshwara Rao before the refund was arranged by the Petitioner. The message no. was an imaginary number, since the tacket was tor the journey from Madras to Ahmedabad. The message charges could not have been collected. The Petiiioncc had conveniently taken the duty of verifying the physical availability of tickets on the next day i.e. 16-12-84 after performing duty upto 21.00 hrs. on 15-12-84. The clerk of Counter No. 16 had handed over sum of Rs. 10,200/- in a lump sum to the Peti- tioner at the fag end of duty limits. As per ABR statement, the refund was made at 06.15 pm but as per cash book- It is quite evident that the Petitioner had misappropriated the amount . Sri Ganeshwara Rao, Enquiry cum-Reservation C'erk of Cancellation counter denied that he made any cancellation done.

It is the contention of the Petitioner that the principle of natural justice has been violated when the domestic enquiry lias teen conducted by the Respondent for the charges of alleged misconduct levelled against'him and hence the enquiry is vitiated. It is his first contention that he was not allowed to be represented by a Govt. servant of his choice to defend himself in the domestic anquh'y and that he was not furnished with tho opinion of handwriting expert and the handwriting expert though cited as a witness on the Manasemant side Jus not be^n examin- ed. The learned counsel for the Petitioner put forth an argument fhat the Management Railway was represented by the C13I Inspector as a Presenting Officer in the enquiry, he is a legally trained person. When the petitioner sought for assistance of a retired Govt. servant, an outsider, he was not permitted. But the Management had engaged a person, who is not allowed in rule. Further, the Enquiry Officer objected the Petitioner taking assistance of any Govt.

343^

as correct and the arguments oF the learned counsel for die Respondent can be accepted.

servant of his choice, when a CBI Inspects of Police has been appointed as a Presenting Officer.. This amounts to denial of sufficient opportunity tor the Petitioner to defend his case effectively and hence the enquiry conducted is noi. fair and proper.

7. The learned counsel for the Respondent replied for this argument stating that the CBI Inspector appointed as the Presenting Officer in the domestic enquiry is not a legal practitioner or a legally trained person and that as per the Railway Servants (Disci- pline and Appeal) Rules, 1961 Rule No. 13(a), tlie Rail- way servant may present his case with the assistance of any other railway servant (including the railway servant on leave preparatory to retirement) employed in the office of the Railway Board, attached office as subordinate office, as the case may bo, in which he is working. In note I to that Rule 13A it is stated that the Railway Servant shall not engage a Legal Practitioner. So from this specific rule, it is seen that the Petitioner is prohibited from engaging a person of his choico from outside as a Govt. servant to assist him in the enquiry. The High Court of Kerala had held in a case reported as 1986 II LLJ 257 Saran Vs. Cochin Refineries Ltd. that "in a domestic enquiry CBI Inspector appointed as Presenting Officer by the Management cannot be deemed as a legally trained person because of his experience and assis- tance prosecution." So from this it cannot be said that the Enquiry Officer, in not permitting the Peti- tioner to have the assistance of any Govt. servant of his choice is unjust or illegal. That is why the Enquiry Officer had rightly deiied permission to the Petitioner to take assistance of any Govt. servant of his choice. Further, in support of this stand the learned counsel for the Respondent has relied upon the decisions arrived at by the Supreme Court reported as (1999) 1 SCC 626 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra General Kangar Union and Others, wherein it is held that "right of a workman in a domestic enquiry to have the representation by another person is available to the delinquent only to the extent specifically provided in the service rules. An employee has no right to representation in the departmental proceedings by any other person or a lawyer unless the service rules specifically provide for the same. For example Riile 1712 of the Railway Establishment CV.de gives chance to the delinquent to be represented by another railway employee but the choice is restricted to the Railway on which he him- self is working." Here, in this case also the Petitioner is a railway employee wanted to have an assistance of any Govt. servant of his choice, which is not permis- sible under the Railway Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. The decision of the Supreme Court in the above cited case is quite applicable to this case also. So, the argument nrlvaikcd by the learned counsel for the Petitioner dn this aspect cannot be accepted

8. The next contention put forwarded by the learned eounsel for the Petitioner is that the principles of natural justice has been violated by the Enquiry .Offiecr by non-examination of the handwriting expert though cited as witness for the management in the enquiry and the non-production of his report also aflectcd the Petitioner. The learned counsel .for , the Respondent had replied for this, stating that the Petitioner cannot say that he has been affected by non.exanvnation of handwriting expert and the non- production of handwriting expert tepnrt, because the Management though cited him as a witness had not chosen to examine him in the enquiry and hence the report of the handwriting expert was not furnished to the delinquent employee, the petitioner herein, as it was not relied upon by the Management for proving the alleged misconduct mentioned in the charge. He also relied upon the judgement reported as (1996) 3 SCC 364 STATE BANK OF PATIALA Vs. S.K. SHARMA. In that case it is held that "of the two witnesses 'B' was examined. The Res- pondent did not raise any objection during the enquiry that the non-furnishing of the copies of the statements was disabling him or had disabled him as the ease may be, f.-om effectively cross-examining the witnesses or to defend himself. No prejudice has resulted to the Respondent on account of non-furnishing him the copies of the statement of witnesses." In this case the CBI inspector was examined in the presence of the Petitioner, delinquent employee and the Petitioner has cross examined him as stated by the learned counsel for the Respondent it is not the case of the Petitioner/Workman that he raised any objection during the enquiry alleging that the non-examination of handwriting expert and the non-production of his report had caused prejudice to him and because of that he wa* no! able to have an tflcctive cross- examination of the Management witnesses. Further regarding the proposal made by the Presenting Officer during the enquiry in the presence of the Petitioner/ Workman to dispenec with the examination of the cited handwriting expert as witness for the Manage- ment, the Petitioner has not objected to the same. Therefore, it i:, not open to the Petitioner now to .say ihat due to the non-examination of the said hand- writing expert and the non-furnishing of the said handwriting expert's report to him vitiates the en- quiry itself. Though many witnesses have been cited in the witness list, it is (or the Presenting Officer to decide as to whom to be examined and whom to be dispensed with. The learned counsel for the Res- pondent had put forth one such argument referred to a case reported as (2000) 1 ALL INDIA SERVICE LAW JOURNAL pg. 11 PRATAP T. TALRAJA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS. In that case3434 THE GAZETTE OF INDTA : JULY 14, 2001/ASADRA 23, 1923 [PART I I ^ S L C. 3(ji;1 nesses for clarification, wheirever necessary and if he allows the witnesses to cross examine thereafter, the enquiry proceedings cannot be impeached unfair. Quoting this decision uf the Supreme Court as applicable to the facts U" the present case, the learned counsel has argued lhat the Enquiry Officer in the domest'C enquiry has not violated the princi- ples of natural justice and hence the enquiry cannot said to be vitiated. A perusal of the entire Ex. W3 enquiry proceedings, clearly show that the argu- ments advanced by the learned counsel for the Res- pondent/Management can be accepted as correct and the way in which the Enquiry Officer act:)A in the domeetic enquiry cai-not be considered os a violation of principles of natural justice to cuiicludc the said enquiry itself is vitiated.

the Central Administrative Tribunal, Murubai Bench held that "if is tor the prosecution to decide which witnesses are to be examined out ot the witnesses cited. It is not necessary to examine all the witnesses cited. There is no Jaw or rule that all witnesses mentioned in the. charge sheet should be examined. It is for the prosecution to decide and examine those witnesses WIUJ are necessary and relevant to prove the charges. It some witnesses arc examined, the question is whether their evidence is sufficient to prove ths charges or not. Prool oi charges does not depend upon the quantum of evidence hut it depends upon the quality of evidence. Therefore, the fact that only 13 witnesses were examined as against 2R witnesses cited in the charge sheet does not viliatc the enquiry as such. Therefore, in view of this decision of the Administrative Tribunal above cited, it cannot be said that the non-examination of the handwriting expet though cited as witness by the Management in the domestic enquiry, it is a violation of principles of natural justice and the domestic enquiry itself is vitiated. The Supreme Court while deciding the case reported as 1997 II LLJ 394 had gone to the extent of holding that "rejecting the re- quest of the delinquent employee to supply those documents and that the delinquent cmploycee had nut suffered in any manner in defending himself as a result thereof," will not amount to a violation of natural justice. So under such circumstances, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner/ Workman that the non-examination of the handwriting expert and the non-furnishing of his report to the delinquent employee, the Petitioner herein, vitiates the domestic enquiry itself, cannot be accepted as correct.

10. The learned counsel for the Fetitioner/Work- man would further contend that the duty of the Enquiry Officer is to find, out whether the charge against the delinquent employee is proved or not. He canuot suggest any deterrent punishment in his report for his conclusion ihat the charges levelled against the delinquent employee are prove,,. By this act of the Enquiry Officer, it can be said that he has travelled beyond his sphere of functioning as an thiquiry Officer. This also amounis to a biased attitude taken by the Enquiry Officer against the delinquem employee. E\. W6 is the report sub- mitted by the Enquiry Officer. In that report at the concluding portion, para H.5, the Enquiry Officer- has stated that proved misconduct of the delinquent employee justified deterrent punishment. The learned counsel for the Petitioner/Workman has took an exception to this suggestion made by ihe Enquiry Officer in his report as a biased ore for this, Ihe learned counsel for the Respondent/Management would argr.e as a r^pry that in the present cas*, the Enquiry Officer never recommend any specific punishment to be given, li is held in a case reported as AIR 1962 SC 1130 that "proper authority to propose punishrrent, is Punishing Ai'thoriry am! not Enquiry Officer. The proposal of Enquj y Officer is not binding on the Punishing A'Uhcriiy". So in I hat decision of the Supreme Court it is not held that the proposjl of punishment by the En- quiry Officer in his enquiry report pmounts to viola- tion of principles, of natural justice. Tt is for ihe Puni- shing Authority to accept such recommendation made by Ihe Enquiry Officer or to ignore it. As held in the above said decision of the Supreme Court the proposal of the Enquiry Officer made in his en- quiry report as a punishment for the proved mis- conduct .of the delinquent employee is not binding upon the Punishing Authority. So under such circumstances, when Ihc Enquiry Officer, in the pre- MMt case has not suggested any specific punishmciyt^ 9. The next contention put forth by the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Wcrkman is that the En- quiry Officer acted as Presenting cum Preseeution Officer by asking leading questions and cross exami- ning the witnesses, but this has been denied by "the Management. It is scon from Ex. W3 proceedings that the delinquent employees, the Petitioner herein was given sufficient opportunity to cross examine the witnesses far the Management in detail and that opportunity was availed by him. It is also seen from Ex. W3 enquiry proceedings that the Enquiry Officer had put some questions to the witnesses for clari- fication of some points. This has been referred to by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Enquiry Officer had acted as Presentinp cv.m Pro- secution Officer and it amounts to violation of natural justice and the enquiry is vitiated. For this the learned counsel for the Management would reply that as per the' Supreme Court judgement reported us AIR (1975) SC 2125 MULCHANDANI ELF.CTR1- CALS Vs. WORKMAN thnt the Bnquiry .Officer in a domestic enquiry can put questions¹ to the wit-3435 us T deterrent punishment to be given by the Punish ing Authority , it cannoi be s;iid that lit has vk bled the principles of natural juslice ami that In; had tra- velled beyond the furcliops of an Inquiry Officer. The learned counsel for the Petilioner/Workman would further argue that the Petitioner on 15-12-1984 when • he was .working as at the Enquiry-cum- Refnnd counter where BPT No. 085444 along with refund implication with nn endorsement duly can- celling the ticket made by the cancellation clerk was produced, the Petitioner refunded that amount of Rs, 10,070/• to the person, who presented it, since the ticket was duly cancelled by;in endorse- ment by the cancellation ckrk. it is alleged in the charge that the Petitioner fa^ed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and that the he mis- appropriated the said amount belonging to the Railway Office by making false entries in the railway records, as if he has refunded the said amount on demand for cancellation by a bona fide passenger on the passcngor foil of BPT No. 085444 and thereby violated Rule 3(1) (i) and 3(1) (ii) and 3(1) (in) of Railway (Conduct) Rules, 1966. Though the Petitioner had given his explanation on 27-6-87 denying the charged, a domestic enquiry was con- ducted wherein the Enquiry Officer gave a finding that the charges levelled against the Petitioner was proved. The alleged misconduct for misappropria- tion said to have been detected after six months. The Respondent/Railway had passi-d an order for recovery for the amotint from the Petitioner's salary, even without any onqniry and the same was also recovered. After the recovery only, the Respondent have chosen to conduct enquiry and the Discipli- nary Authority by his order dated 7-12-92 imposed the penalty of removal from service. But only on appeal on 9-9-93 the Appellate Authority had modi- fied the punishment as compulsory retirement. The Enquiry Officer hud given finding in his reporr without any legal evidence. So the finding piven by the Enquiry Officer in his report is a perverse one.

for removing him J'mm service from S-6-1983 and order of the Appellate Authority dated 4-7-19Rl) altering into a penalty of compulsory retirement. In that O.A. the Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench w as pleased¹ to hold that "it is seen ft cm the above charge that it is not thi: one relating tn loss caused by the breach of orders or negligence. But, instead the said loss was caused by cmhe^te- ment of corresponding money bv the ppplicnnt. Tii such a case, the Railways money is in the first instant taken by the applicant. The recovery of that money does not amount to punishment. It is only n restora- tion of things in order. Thar is why the rule makes it clear that the penalty will be in respect of Jnss caused by negligence or breach of orders excluding from its scope loss caused or otherwise. Tn this cave the recovery which has been effected is not :j nenaltv for loss within the meaning of cbuse (5) of Rule 6. Therefore the effect of imposing the penalty ofremoval will not constitute a second punishment", in that order itself, the Central Administrative Tribunal had directed the Management to frunjsb a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent and to continue the disciplinary proceedings. So from the materials available in this case, it is seen that the Petitioner cannot contend that he was not given fair and proper opportunity to put forth his defence in the domestic enquiry and the Enquiry Officer has arrived at the finding withoul arv legal evidence. The perusal of the Enquiry Officer's report clearly shows that he has analysed the evidence placed before him in the domestic enquiry in the presence of delinquent employ, the petitioner herein, both oral and docu- mentary and had come to a conclusion that the char- ges levelled against the Petitioner/the change sheeted employee has been proved, So it cannot be said that without any legal evidence, the Enquirv Officer has given a finding and it is a perversed one. It is held in a case reported as 1998 I LU 629 SECRETARY TO GOVT. HOME DEPARTMENT & ORS. Vs. SRT VAIGUNDA that "the Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Enquirv Officer, unless the findings are perverse and not supported by any evidence." This decision of ihe Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. So, this Tribunal'cannot interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, he made in his enquiry report EN. W6.

12. The learned counsel for the Petitioner/ Workman would argue that since the recovery has been made from the Petitioner there is no loss to the railways and that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority in the order he passed on 7-12-99 by removing the Petitioner from service is without appreciation of material on records and applying his find and the Appellate Authority, while passing an order in the appeal preferred by this Peti- tioner had modified thr* punishment of removal from service to one of compulsory retirement is also without any application of mind and the ultimate punishment imposed by the Appellate Authority against the Petitioner is disproportionate to the 11. It is seen from records that ten witnesses wee- examined on the side of the Management and 30 documents were exhibited as Management witnesses. The charge sheeted employee-, the petitioner herein, had not chosen to examine any defence witness and he had not filed any documents as a defence exhibit. A perusal of the entire domes^'c enquiry proceedings dearly show that the Petitioner, the delinquent em- ployee, had given .sufficient opportunity in the domes- tic enquiry for defending himself. So, it cannot be slid that "the Fnquiry Officer had given -J finding in his enquiry report without iny acceptable evidence. Along with the Counter filed by the Respondent'' Management, the copy of the order oassed hv the Centra] Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A. No. 156/90 preferred by this Petitioner is filed. That petition was filed bv this Petitioner before the Central Administrative TrihimpI, to squash the order dated 1-6-1988 passed by the Disciplinary Authority3436 THE GAZETTE OF I N D I A: JULY 14, 2p01/ASADHA 23, 1923 [PART I I — S E C. 3(ii)l- (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed any type by him, corrected and pronounced by mo in the open court on this day the 6th June, 2001).

K. KARTIUKEYAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

alleged misconduct of (he Petitioner/Workman and hence, this Court may be pleased to interfere under section 1IA of the Industiral DihpLnV: Act, holding that it is only due to the negligence of the Petitioner/ Workman and a lesser punishment may be imposed by directing the Management to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity of service and other monetary benefit¹, on the ground of mercy.

On either side : NONE Documents Marked: For I Party/Workman:

Ex. I sfo. Date Description

W I 23-07-86 Xerox copy of memorandum issued by the Respondent to the Petitioner.

W2 27-06-87 Xerox copy of the Defence state- ment by the Petitioner to the Management.

W 3 07-08-87 Xerox copy of the Enquiry Proceedings of the Enquiry Officer

W 4 03-12-87 Copy of written submissions of the Presenting Officer in the Disciplinary Proceedings agains the Petitioner.

—

W 5

Copy of written brief of the Petitioner to the charge sli^et.

W 6 14-04-98 Xerox copy of L'ie findings of the> Enquiry Officer.

W 7 03-07-89 Xerox copy of order of removal from service by the Management to the Petitioner.

W 8 04-0.1-91 Xerox copy of order in O-A. No. 156/90 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Madra s Be0ch.

20/23-9-91

W 9

Copy of the letter from Management enclosing tho Enquiry Officer's report to the Petitioner.

14-11-91

W 10

Copy of letter from tho Respon- dent to the Petitioner.

21-11-91

W 11

13. The learned counsel for the Respondent /Manage- ment had argued that the Petitioner/Workman has not challenged the recovery (if the amount by the Management and the change of misappropriation of money of Railways/Management have been proved in 1 he enquiry by the Management with acceptable and documentary evidence and (hereby the Enquiry Officer was pleased to give a finding as it a proved misconduct of the Petitioner/Workman . Though the Disciplinary Authority thought ii fil to impose the penalty against the Petitioner/workman by his order as removal from service the Appellate Autho- rity had modified it to that of one compulsory retire- ment. So, it cannot be said that both the Disciplinary authority as well as the Appellate Authority have not applied their mind before imposing the penalty for the proved misconduct of the Petitioner /Workman. Furhter, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case reported as 1996 (1) LLL 170 that "Com- pulsory retirement from service does not amount to dismissal or removal from service within the meaning of Article 3(11), it is neither punishment nor visits with loss of retiral benefits which does not casle stigma. The officer concerned would be entitled to pension and there is no diminision of accrued benefits." So in view of this decision and the available materials in this case, it is seen that the penalty imposed by the Respondent/Management against the Petitioner/ Workman for the proved misconduct of misappro- priation of Railways money is quite proportionate to the gravity r." ⁴\c c'vrges. So, under :uch circums- tances, theic is no :-cr pe of this Tribunal to injerfere with the puniisi.mtrii imposed by the Respondent/ Management aga'ist '.he Petitioner/Workman under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Copy of submission of the Peti- tioner on the findings of tho Enqui- ry Officer to Management.

06-12-91

W 12

Copy of letter from the Petitioner to the Management.

08-12-92

W 13

Copy of letter enclosing tho ord^r from the Management to the Petitioner

3437

New Delhi, the 21 st June, 2001

S. O. 1675.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Tndurtrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexurc in tho Industrial 1 Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and their workman, which was received by the Cent- ral Government on 20-6-2001.

[No. L-120l2/64/99/lR-(B-I)J AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR Case No. J*27/99

Reference No. L-10012/64/99/IR (B-I) Dated : 13-5-1999 The President, A. B. Safai Karmachari Sangh (Rajasthan), C/o Central Bank of India, M. I. Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan)-3O2OOl

..APPLICANT UNION V / 8,

The Regional Manager, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Sarojini Marg, C-Scheme. Jaipur (Rajasthan)-3O2OO1

..NON-APPLICANT ATTENDENCE :

For the applicant : Shri Kan Singh Rathore, Adv. For the non-applicant : Shri N. C. Goyal, Adv. Date of Award : 17-5-2001

AWARD

The Central Government has referred the following industrial dispute under clause (d) of sub-seotion (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of the Section 10 of the 2063 GI/2001—24

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as Act, 1947) For adjudication.

"Whether the action of the management of Slate Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur in not paying the arrears of wages (a) half of the scale wages as per Settlement dated 5-3-92 for the period from 1-7-74 to 21-7-97 to Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sweeper is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled and from which date ?"

The statement of claim was filed by the President, All Bank Safai Karpmchari Sangh (hereinafter as the Sangh) and Sanjay Kumar (hereinafter referred as the applicant).' It was stated in the claim that Sangh is registered and the applicant is the active member of the Sangh. The applicant was appointed in Sanganer Branch of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, (hereinafter referred as the Bank) w.e.f. 1-7-94 on monthly wage ofRs. 175 per month as per the circular of the Bank dt. 24-4-92. Since then he has been working in the bank honestly. Ho was performing the- duttyfrom 8 AM. to 2 PM and, therefore, falls within the category of full-timo workman. He had been cleaning the premises of the Bank which is 5000 square feet and inspite of it he has been paid Rs. 175 pm. He was given half scale of the wage since 21-7-97 while he should have been allowed full scale of wage from the beginning. It was prayed that the applicant be declared as full time workman w.c.f. 1-7-94 and bo granted full scale wage from the same date.

In reply on behalf of the non-applicant it was stated that the Sanganor BranCh of the Bank does not fall within the control of Regional Manager(I) and therefore, the claim is liable to be dismissed on the ground of misjoindcr of the parties. It was also stated that the Regional Manager does not have independent legal status and on the other hand the Bank has its legal status under section 4 of State Bank of subsidiary Banks Act. The claim can be filed against the Bank and not against the Officer of the Bank. It was also prayed that the applicant had accepted the conditions of service and, therefore, is stopped from raising the dispute. It was denied that the applicant had worked in the Bank from 8 AM to 2 PM. It was stated that the applicant used to work for less than 6 hours in a week and, therefore, does not fall in the category of full time workman. The applicant has been paid wages as per the circular of the Bank dt. 29-4-92. The wage of the applicant has been increased w.e.f. 14-7-97 on account of increase in the working hours. It was denied that the sweeping area of the Bank is 5000 square feet.

3438 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 14, 20O1/ASADHA 23, 1923 [PART TI—SEC 3(ittl

Heard arguments on behalf of both the parties The applicant filed rejoinder to reply, reiterating

and perused the record. The points are decided the facts alleged in the claim petition. On the

as follows :

basis of the pleading s of the parties the following

points of disputes were framed :

POTNT No. 1 & 4 ; The applicant has stated'

that he was taken on duty w.e.F. 1-7-94 on wage (a)

Rs. 175 pm. He had been cleaning the premises

of the Bank which is 5000 square feet and used to

work from 8 AM to 2 PM. In cross examination he

has stated that the outer area of the Bank is 2500 to

3000 square feet. Deendayal Denwal has supported

the statement of the applicant. On the other hand

Satish Kumar Ajmera has stated that the applicant

has not worked from 8 AM to 2 PM and used to work

for less than 6 hours in a week. With effect from

14-7-97 he is working for about 18 hours in a week.

In cross- examination he has stated that no contract

was entered into with the applicant about the area

to be cleaned and working hours. He has stated

that he cannot say as to whether the sweeping area

of the branch of the Bank is the same which was on

] -7-94. The statement of the applicant that he used t o On behalf of the applicant the affidavits of Sanjay

work for 6 hours daily is not believable as in the appli- Kumar & Deendayal Dewal were filed. The learned

cation dt. 19-6-96 marked W-3 it has been stated that counsel for the non-applicant was given opportu-

he was working 4 hours per day. It may be state d nity to cross examine him on their affidavits. In

that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is limited to the the form of documentary evidence, copy of the cir-

point of disputes referred in the reference cular dt. 29-4-92, matked W-l, copy of the memo-

order. The point of entitlement of the applicant randum of settlement marked Ex-2, copy of the

for full time workman has not been refrred for applications marked Ex-W-3 & Ex-W4, copy of the

adjudication and, therefore, no decision is required note sheet Ex-W-5 and copy of the circular dt. 10-2-93

to be given about the same. Satish Kumar Ajmera marked Ex-W8-6 were filed. On behalf of the non-

has stated that wages are paid not on the basis of applicant the affidavit of Satish Kumar Ajrnera,

area but on the basis of working hours. The cir- , Deputy Manager of the Bank was filed. The learned

cular of the Bank Ex-W-1 dt. 29-4-92 is being reprod - respresntative of the applicant was given opportunity

uced here as under :

to cross examine him on his affidavit.

3439

The tnemorundum of settlement marked Ex-w-2 on the basis of which the circular of the Bank dated 29-4-92 has been issued provides as follows :— '', A memorandum of settlement arrived at on 5th March 1992 between, the management of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur represented by its Manager, Industrial Relations and State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Emploees Co-ordination Committee on behalf of Award Staff members of Bank represented through its. General Secretary Shri Dilip Bhatia. The matter restated to the demand raited by the employees of the Bank for fixation of ^working hours for sweep^rs/faiTashos of the Bank according to the area available at tbo branch/office for daily sweeping.

2. It was agreed to that wOriking hours of such employees should be fixed as per following table with effect from 1st March, 1992 on the condition that upto 29-02-1992 instructions contained in Bank Circular No. [PER/ 82/89-90 will continue to be adhered to :—

AREA TO BE CLEANED

HOURS OF WORK, per week

PAY SCALE Upto 600 Sq. Ft.

Upto 3 hours

(c)

More than 3 hrs.bufc less than 6 hoUrs 6 hours to 13 hours

More than 13 hrs to 19 hrs.

(d)

More than 19 hrs to 29 hrs.

601 Sq. Ft. to 60 less than 1200 Sq. Ft. 1200 Sq. Ft. to 2000Sq. Ft. 2001 Sq. Ft. to 3500 Sq. Ft. 3501 Sq. Ft. to 5000 Sq. Ft. 5001 Sq. Ft. and above

Above 29 hrs.

At Bank's discretion with a minimum of RS. 100/-p.m. At Bank's discretion but with a minimum of Rs. 175/-p.m. One third of the scale wages with propor- tionate annial mCrerrient. 1/2 of the scale wages with propor- tionate annual increment. 3/4th of the scale Wages with propor- tionate annual increment. Full scale wages.

In consideration of the above both the parties hereby record the: settlement reached On the above Subjdct and put their signature herein.

(R.D. DUGGAL) Manager Industrial Relations (DILIP BHATIA) General Secretary All India Sbbj Employees) Co-ordlhation Committee S063 GI/2001—25V: 3440 THE GAZETTE OF I N D I A: JULY 14, 2001/ASADHA 23, 1923 [PART I I- S E C. 3tii)] As per para (2) of the memorendum of settlement and para (2) of the circular dt. 29-4-92 referred above the working hours of the Safai Karamcharis are required to be fixed accordingly to the area to be sweeped. The sateroent of Satish Kumar Ajmcra, therefore, that wages are fixed as per the working hours and not on the basis of area, has no substance. It ma} be stated that there is no evidence oo bclir.lt' of the non-applicant as to how much area the appli- cant had been sweeping. There is evidence on be- half of the applicant that lie has been sweeping premises of the Bank which is 5000 sq. ft. There is no evidence thai the area of the Bank has been increased w.e.f. 14-7-97 the date on which the applicant has been allowed half of the scale of the wages. The working homs arc to be fited as per

POINT NO. 2 : The claim lias been amended by the applicant In place of Regional Manager (1) as the non-1'.r.nlicant the Regional Manager has been substituted Section 4 of the State Bank of Subsidary Banks Act has no relevancy in respect of filing the statement ol claim under the Act, 1947. It is not the contention of the non-applicant that the Regional Manager is not the employer a.s de- fined in the Act, 1947. The contention, therefore, that there is niisjoinder of the parties in the claim has no substance.

POINT NO. 3 : The applicant has filed the copy of the certificate of the registration of the Sangh f rom which it is evident that the Sangh is registered. The learned representative for the non-applicant has contended that there is no proof that the appli- cant is the membei of t htf; i i]i It may be stated that in answer to the claim it has not been speci- fically denied, that the applicant is noi the member of the Sangh. Apart from that the applicant has stated that he is the membei' of the Sangh. His State- ment is also corborated from the statement of Deen- dayal denwal. Although no receipt of the membership had been filed in view of the above circumstances the statement of the applicant cannot be disbelieved. The point is, therefore, decided against the non- applicant.

' POINT NO. 4 : On the basis of the above dis- cussion the action of the management of the Bank in not paying half of scale of woges w.e.f. 1-7-94 to 13-7-97 is not justified and the applicant is entitled to half of the scale of wages from the Bank for the^abovo period. The^non-appHcant is directed to pay the arrear to the applicant with in a period of there months failing which the applicant will be entitled to get interest (a> 10 °0 per annum on the amount of the arrear till tho- date of payment.

The copies of the award may be sent to the Central Government under Section 17 (1) of the Act. 1947 for publication.

New Delhi the 22nd June, 2001 S. O. 1676—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 1-1 of 1947) the Cen- tral Government hereby publish^ the ward of the Cential Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in relation to the nnmasement ol State Bank of India and their workman which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 22-6-2001

[No. L- 12012/64/9MR-( B-III)/(B-1)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Before Shri B. L. Jatavv Presiding Officer, Central Govt., Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court.

Chandigarh.

Case Mo. I. D. 77 el 1992

The General Secretary

State Bnak of India Stall Congress

Legal Head Office, Sector 17,

Chandigarh.

..Petitioner

Vs.

The General Manager (Operations)

State Bank of India

Local Head Office, Sector 17.

Chandigarh.

.. Respondent JHtl REPRESENTATIVE :

For tho workman - Shri J. G. Verma For the management Shri Ashok Khullar

AWARD

(Passed on 15th of May, 2001 ) Tbe Central Govt. Ministry of Labour vide Notification No. L-12012/64/9M. R. B. ITI dated 9th July, 1992 has referred the fellowing^dispute to this Tiiburjal for adjudicalion :

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in offering Permanent appointment on 3/4th wages to the workman Shi. Sripa], already working on Temporary basis on full scale wages, is justified? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled to 7"

2. The claim of the workman in brief is that he was employed by tho bank as sweeper Hgainst the permanent regular-vacancy and the wages were paid to him at starling of the service dv. R;i. 10/ peT day which was increased to Rs. 12/ per day and finally the scale wages were allowed by the management, during the year 1985. He is working continuously from the year 1^86 against permanent -vacancy which is still in existence. Rut the management appointed him in permanent cadre on 3/4 wages though he had completed mo;v than three years continuous service on full pay. Oihcr employees juniors to him had been absorbed as permanent full time sweeper but the work- man was ignored and kept temporary only because he agitated the issue of denial of equal pay for equal work. Shri Rajbir, Jagroop and Abhey Chand had been taken in full time permanent employment but the management had offered him appointment on 3/4. wages which amounts to unfair labour practice He is entitled to get the usual wages for equal work. Therefore, the difference of wages be paid to him along- with other incidental reliefs.

3. The management has alleged in its written statement that the workman was appointed as a temporary part time sweeper Rs. @ 10 and Rs. 12 per day. Subsequently he was engaged as temporary seeeper on 1/2 scale wages since 2-5-1988. He was considered for permanent appointment taking into consideration his total temporary part time service and* he was found eligible only for appointment on 3/4 scale wages according to the provisions made in the Bipartite Settlement of 17-11-1987 made bet- ween the bank and the All India SBI Staff Fedration. Workman did not accept the permanent appointment on 3/4 scale wages- Therefore, other employees were offered appointment on full scale for 3/4 or half scale taking into consideration the period of their temporary service . They have been made perma- nent sweeper but the workman choose to continue as temporary employee. Had he accepted permanent appointment on 3/4 scale wages he would have been upgraded to full scale wages in due course. The management has not practicised unfair labour prac- ticised unfair labour practice. The workman is habitual of indulging into unnecessary litigation. His claim has no merit. Therefore, it should be dismissed, with no relief.

4. The workman has filed rejoinder reaffirming the allegations made in the claim statement.

5. The workman has filed LCA No. 171/89 prior to this reference order for realising the difference of wages. This relief has been included in the terms of the reference as consequential one. In that LCA No. 171/89 the order was passed on 4-10-J999 for the disposal alongwith the present reference.

6. Tho workman has submitted his affidavit Ex. W I and other documents Px. W 2 and W 3 in which the place of posting of the workman and duration of his service have been shown. The management has filed the affidavit of the Manager Desh Bandhy which has been marked as Ex. M I. The woTlnnan Shri Siri Pal has disposed in his affi- davit that he was employed as sweeper on 25^6-1984 against tho full time vacancy but he was paid only Rs. 10 per day in the start which was subsequently raised to Rs. 12 per day. Later on he was given scale wages at the rate of half wages for the period of about one year. After that he was given full wages in tho relevant scale wage/wages. During the year 1987 he was offered appointment on 3/4 of scale wages whereas junior sweeper were appointed on full wages at local head office Chandigarh. There- fore, he is entitled to-get the difference of salary paid less to him.

7. The witness of the management has deposed in, his affidavit that tbe workman was not appointed against any permanent vacancy but he was engaged as causal labourer on different occasion. Since 2-5-1988 he was engaged as temporary part time sweeper on half of the sca'e wages. If terms of tho provisions of Bipartite Settlement dated 17-11*1987 he was considered for permanent appointment taking into Consideration his total temporary part time service and he was found eligible for appointment in permanent capacity on 3/4 of the scale wages. Now the workman has been absorbed in full scale wages since 3-1-1994. On persual of the documents Ex. W 2 and W 3 it is evident that the workman was engaged as casual labourer. He was not employed against permanent vacancy. As per Ex. W 3 the workman has worked for 911 days up to the month of July i987. These documents have been submitted3442 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 14, 20O1/ASADHA 23, 1923 [PART H—SEC. 3(ii)J by the workman which indicates that the workman is telling lie concealing the actual facts of his claim. As per terms of the Bipartite Settlement dated 17-11-1987 he was found eligible for the post of permanent sweeper on 3/4 of the scale wages. This settlement was entered into between management of State Bank of India and All India SB1 Staff Federation. Keeping in view the terms of the Bipartite Settlement . the action of the management can not be held unjustified. Consequently the workman is not entitled to get any relief, on the strength of his claim.

8. The rep. of the workman has referred the case of Buagwati Parshad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Develop- ment Corpn. (AIR 1970 S. C. 371) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the legal proposition that the equal wages should be paid tp the workman for equal work. But the facts of this case law are not identical lo those of the case under consideration. Therefore, this case law is not applicable in this case.

9. Taking into consideration the evidence adduced in this case and keeping in view the terms of the Bipartite Settlement dated 17-11-1988 this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the action of the management in offering permanent appointment on 3/4 scale wages to the workman is justified. Therefore, the reference is answered holding that the action of the management of State Bank of India in offering permanent appointment on 3/4 wages to the workman Shri Siripal, already working on tempora- ry basis on full scale wages is justified. Consequun - tly the workman is not entitled to any relief. Both parties shall hear their own cost.

Appropriate Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh

15-5-2001

B. L. JATAV, Presiding Oracar New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001

S. O. 1677.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the CentttU Government hereby publishes the awad of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chandigarh as shoen in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in the relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-6-2001.

[No. I.-12012/1 06/94-f R-(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Before Shri B. L- Jatav, Presiding officer. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cunvLaboui: Court, Chandigarh. Case No. ID 65 of 1995 Sh. N. K. Jain C/o Sh. Tek Chand Sharmu. 25-Sant Nagar, Civil Lines Ludhiana-141001.

. .. .Petitioner Vs.

The Rogional Manager, State Bank oF India Zonal Office-1 B. Sector-17 B, Chandigarh.

Respondent.

APPEARAJNCJE i

For the Workman : None For the management : None

AWARD

(Passed on 17th May, 2001)

The Central Government Ministry of Labour vide Notification No. L-I2012/106/94-I.R. (B. I) dated 19th Feb. 1995 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in dismissing Shri N. K. Jain from service w.e.f. 30-8-1993 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled '?"

2. Today the case was fixed for filing of claim statement. Mone has put up appearance despite notice, nor any claim statement has been filed though the case is pending for the last 1995- It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference. In view of the above situation since no claim statement has been filed and no one is putting apperance on behalf of the parties the present reference is returned to the Ministry, for want of prosecution. Appropriate Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh B. L. JATAV, Presiding Ofilcor 17-5-20013443 New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2001 S. 0, 1678.—Tn pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central , Government hereby publishes tha award of the Centra Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Patiala and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-6-2001.

[No. L-12012/294/97-IR (B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRTBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 186 of 1998

The General Secretary, All India State Bank of Patiala Staff Federation, House No. 13, Ward No. 6, Solan (H.P. )-l 73 212. —Petitioner Vs.

The General Manager (OP) State Bank of Patiala, Head Office, Patiala-147 001. —Respondent APPEARANCE :

For the workmen : None.

For the Management : Shri N. K.Zakhmi

AWARD

(Passed on 28th May, 2001)

The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour vide Noti- ificatioD No. L-12012/294/97-IR (BJ) dated 28-8-1998 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Patiala i.e. Regional Manager (I), ^063 GT/?00)-26

State Bank of Patiala, Ambedkar Chowk, Jalan- dhar, and General Manager (OP), State Bank of Patiala, Head Office, Patiala in transferring Shri P. V. Sood, Clerk-cum-Cashier from Amritsar to Sultanpur Lodhi amounts to unfair labour practice as defined under Section 25-U of I.D. Act ? If not, to what other relief the workman is entitled *.o and from what date 7" 2. Today the case is fixed for filing of affidavit by the workman. None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman, despite several notices, it appears that workman is not interested to pursue with his case. In view of the above, the present reference is returned to the Ministry for want of prosecution. Appropriate Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh. B. L. JATAV, Presiding Officer 28-5-2001

New Delhi, the 19th June, 2001

S.O. 16.79.--In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial pispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Madras Refineries Ltd., Manali and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-6-2001.

[ No. L-30Q12/79/96-IR (C-I) ]

N. P. KESHWAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Thursday, the 31st May, 2001 PRESENT :

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 460/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 109/97) (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, between the Workman Shri T. Baskar and the Manage- ment, Madras Refineries Ltd., Madras.)3444 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 14, 2001/ASADIIA 23, 1923 fPART II—Srr. 3U01 BETWLT.N

Shri T. Baskar

I Party/Workman

AND

The General Manager, H Parly/ManagemenL Madras Refineries Ltd.,

Manali, Madras

\PPEARANCF. :

For the Workman :

M/s. T. Fenn waiter, Ms. D. Geetha &

Ms. Soundhari Chandrasekaran. Advocates.

For the Management :

M/s. S. Jcynraman and H. Balaji, Advocates.

AWARD

The Govt. of Tndia, 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 Dis- putes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), lnivc referred the fol- lowing dispute for adjudication vide Order "No. L-30012/79/96-1R (Coal-1) dt. 09/10-11-1997 :

"Whether the claim of Shri T. Baskar that he was engaged by the Management of Madras Refineries Lid., Manali and that his services were illegally terminated by ihe Management in lega lly justified ? If so, to what relief is the Workman entitled ?"

2. This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as I.D, No. 109/97. On receipt of notice from that Tribunal, both the parties entered appearance through their respective counsel and filed their respective Claim Statement and Counter State- ment. When the matter was pending enquiry, before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, as per the orders of transfer by the Central Govt., this case has been transferred from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records of this case from the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, this case has been taken on file here as I.D. No. 460/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on either side informing them about the transfer of this case from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal on the file of this Tribunal with a direction to appear before this Court with their respective parties to prosecute this case further on 01-03-2001.

3. When the matter was taken up for enquiry on 01-03-2001, the counsel for the II Party alone was present. Both the parties and the counsel for the T Party were not present. As neither party to this dispute have filed the documents on their side, the case was adjourned to. 15-03-7001, extending time for them to file the respective documents, they rely upon for this dispute. As the Presiding Officer was on leave this case was also posted to 29-03-2001 along- with other cases. On 29-03-2001 the counsel for the 1 Party alone was present. Both the parties were not presenL The counsel for the T Party also not present. Neither party have filed their documents. Hence, the case has been adjourned to 24-04-2001 for enquiry. Though the matter was taken up for en- quiry on 24-04-2001, then on 17-05-2001, both the parties remained absent. The counsel for the IT Party alone was present. The counsel for the I Party was not present. Since the case was referred by the Ministry to this Tribunal for adjudication as early as 9/10-11-1997, and is pending for all these days with- out any progress except filing of pleedings on either side, the case was adiourned to finally for enquiry on 31-5-20£J.

4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry today, i.o. 31-05-2001, the counsel on either side are not present. As usual both the parties remained absent. There is no representation on either side. Though this case happens to be a case pending from 1997 for adjudication from fhe date of reference by the Govt., neither party evince any interest oxeept filing their respective pleadings. In spite of this case has beon adjourned for enquiry car'ier by the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal and subsequently on transfer by this Tribunal, neither party to this indus- trial dispute has come forward to prosecute this case. Due to the non-appearance- and inaction of the I Party enables this Tribunal to conclude that no industrial dispute as such now existing between the parlies. Hence, this industrial dispute is dismissed for default and for non-prosacution.

5. In the result, an award is passed holding that 'No dispute' exists between the I Party/Workman and the II Party/Management and the reference is closed as dismissed. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed tuid typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 31st May, 2001.) K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 21st June, 2001

S.O. 1680.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hcreoy publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribur.al, Chcnnai as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-6-2001.

[No. L-30012/69/97-IR (C-l)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

Uti

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNA1 Friday, the 18th May, 2001

PRESENT ;

K. Karihikcyan, Presiding Ollicer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 505/2001 (Tamil Nadu Industrial Dispute No. 96'98) (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under Section 10(1 )(d) and sub-section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, between the Workman, Sri K. Vanjinathan and the Management, The Group General Manager, ONGC Ltd., Krraikkal.)

there as l.D. No. 96/98. On receipt of notice from the Tribunal, bolh the parties entered appearance, the first party through Union representative and the IT Party through their counsel and filed their respec- tive Claim Statement and Counter Statement. When the matter was taken up foi enquiry there the Peti- tioner had filed his proof of affidavit on 10-8-2000 and that was treated as the evidence in Chief of the Workman as WWI and the documents fil-d by him were marked as Ex. Wl to W5 and the case was pending for cross examination of WWI. Though the case was adjourned by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal from time to time for the cross examination of WVV1 by the counsel for the Management, the Workman has not chosen to appear till this case has been transferred from ihere to the file of this Tribunal for adjudication on the orders of 'he Central Govt. 3. On receipt of records, this case was taken on

BETWEEN

Shri K. Vanjinathan 1 Party/Workman AND

The Group General Manager, II Party/Management ONGC Ltd., Karaikkal.

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman :

Sri Santhanam, Union Rep.

For Ihe Management :

Sri P. Arulmudi, Advocate.

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 Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), hove referred the following dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-30012/69/97-IR (CoaJ-T) dated 30-6-98 :•- "Whether the termination of the services of Shri K. Vanjinathan with effect from 2-11-1989 by the Management of ONGC Ltd,, Karaikkal . is justified ? If not, to what relief is the work- man entitled ?"

2. This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal, was taken on fi I* 2O5J CrL/V)). -'/>

file in this Tribunal as l.D. No. 505/2001 on 16-2-2001 and notices were sent by Registered Post with ack- nowledgement due to the I Party/ Workman and the counsel on record for t! o II Party Management, informirg them about the transfer of this case from Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal with a direction to both the parties to appear before this Tribur.al on 22-3-2001 to prosecute this case. Though the notices were duly served, neitgher parly nor their respective representative was prisent before this Tribunal on 22-3-2001. Subse- quently, the counsel for the II Party alone was pre-cnt on a 'atcr hearing. Though the case was adjourned from time to lime for the cross examination of the workman (who was examined in Chief as WWI before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal on 23-11-2000 itself) by tho counsel for the Management, the I Parly/Workman has never turned up before this Tribunal so far. Since the case is posted today finally for the cross examination of WWI and he is not present to subject himself for cross examination by the counsel for the Management present in Court and in the absence of Liny representation on behalf of the Petitioner/Workman this Tribunal has no other option but to conclr.de the enquiry. The inaction of the workman and his non-appearance for all the adjourned hearings from 23-11-2000 first before the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal, then subsequent to transfer of this case before this Tribunal enable this Tribunal to conclude that the I Party/Workman/ Claimant has no inclination or interest to prosecute this case further. Hence, this Industrial Dispute raised by the 1 Party/Workman is dismissed for default for non-representation and non-prosecution.

4. In the result, an award is passed holding that 'No dispute' now exists between the parties. No Cost.

m6 THE GAZETTE OF iNBffA : JULY- 14, 2061/ASADHA 23 1923 [PARC 1 1 - ^ E C. 3(ii)J

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 18th May, 2001).

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer New Delhi the 21st, June, 2001

S.O, 1681:—In puisuanee of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government, heroby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 2, Dhanhad as shewn in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of B.C.C.L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-6-2001.

[No. L-20012/278/90-1R (C-l)]

N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURF;

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD PRESENT:

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(])(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 45 OF 1990 PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Kooridih Colliery

of M/s. BCCL and their workmen.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workmen None. On behalf of the employers Shri B. Joshi,

Advocate.

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 6th June, 2001

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 100Xd)of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the fol- lowing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order No. L-20012/278/90 I R. (Coal-I), dated,- the 18th December, 1990.

SCHEDULE

"Whether thu action ot the Management of Kooridih Colliery in Goviudpur Area No. ill of M/s. BCCL in dismissing the workman Shri Parhalad Bisai w.e.1. 26.10/1-11-89 is justified? If not, to what relict is the snid workman entitled?" 2, lit this reference both the parties appeared and filed their respective W. S. Subsequently at the stage of oral evidence the workman side abstained Jrom taking any further steps. The rel'erenee is pending since 1990 and it is of no use to drag the same any more. Under such circumstances, u LNo dispute' Award is rendered and the reference is disposed of on the basis of 'No dispute' Award on the presumption of non-existence of any industrial dispute between the parties presently.

B. BISWAS, Prusiding Officer.

New Delhi the 21st June, 2001

S.O. 1682.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 2 Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of B.C.C.L. and their workman, which was received by the Centra] Government on 15-6-2001.

[No. L-20012/83/94-IR(C-I)]

N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT Di IANBAD PRESENT

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer.

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

REFERENCE NO. 69 of 19953447 Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Bhowra (S) Col- liery of M/s. BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman Shri S. Bose;

Treasurer, R.C.M.S. Union

On behalf of the employers Shri B. Joshi,

Advocate.

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 6th June, 2001

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947 has Deferred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012 (83)/94-I.R. (Coal-I), dated, the 19th April, 1995.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Bhowra(S) Colliery under Bhowra Area of M/s. BCCL in not referring Sri Kartar Singh, Tyndal Jamadar to Medical Board to declare him medi- cally unfit is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman entitled?" 2. The case of the workmen in brief is as follows :

workman was forwarded to the Jealgora Central Hospital by order of the Medical Superintendent Bhowra Hospital on 5-10-91. Thereafter the Dy. Chief Officer Bhowra (South) Colliery prepared a list of 12 workmen of Bhowra (South) Colliery directing them to appear before the Screening Committee for Disability Medical Board on 18-1-92 at Jealgora Central Hospital and in that, list the name of the concerned workman mentioned at SI. No. 4 but his name was scratched out and the name of one Tulsi Singh was inserted in his place and for which he could not appear before the Screening Committee for Disability Medical Board on 18-1-92 or on any dale, thereafter at Jealgora Central Hospital or any other hospital of the management. It has been alleged by the concerned workman that the beucfit which he supposed to get as per Clause 10.4.3. of NCWA-1I could not be availed oi and was deprived of his.legi- timate claim for employment under the management. Accordingly he submitted a petition to the ALC(C) Dhanbad raising industrial dispute but due to non- cooperation on the part of the management the said dispute was ended in failure and for which the ALC(C), Dharibad-III submitted a report dt. 8/9-1-94 of F.O.C. before the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour. Hence the reference with a prayer for passing an Award in his favour directing the manage- ment to provide employment to his son as if he has been declared medically unfit on the basis of the medical report done and the X-ray during October, 1991 and that further relief as the Tribunal may deem fit and proper.

The concerned workman in his W.S. submitted that he was a permanent employee of Bhowra Colliery with effect from July, 1951 as Tyndal and subsequently promoted to the post of Tyndal Jamadar. In the year 1989 the concerned workman became in dispose with pain the knee and on the back and for which it created impact to carry on his job as Tyndal Jamadar. Accordingly he received initial medical treatment at Bhowra (South) Colliery hospital. Thereafter as he received no relief of his pain he requested the management to send him to the Area Medical Board for his medical examination as he was unable to per- form his duties. On the basis of his prayer tht. management forwarded to his application to the Medical Superintendent Bhowra (S) Hospital for. his opinion and the said Superintendent after cxam- ing him submitted him comment to that effect. There- after the concerned workman on 16-5-91 submitted a petition to the Agent, Bhowra (South) Colliery for sending him to the medical board and providing employment of his son under clause 10.4.3. of NCWA- II. Thereafter the Agent, Bhowra (S) Collkiry by letter dt. 14/18-6-91 addressed to the Dy. Chief Personnel Manager Bhowra Area referred the case of the workman for his medical examination by the Area Screening Board. Thereafter the concerned

3. The management on the contrary after filing W.S.-cum-rejoinder has denied all the claims and allegation which the concerned workman asserted in his W.S. It has been submitted by the manage- ment that the concerned workman was appointed on 1-7-51 and declared his date of birth as 20-10-31 which was recorded in the Form B Register main- tained under Section 48 or the Mines Act, 1952 read with Rule 77 Mines Rules, 1955. The management submitted that the concerned workman was super- annuated with effect from 20-10-1991 after comple- tion of 60 years of age in usual course. His service was never terminated on account of medical unfit- ness before he attained the age of superannuation. Accordingly, the management submitted that the, instant dispute which the concerned workman raised does not come within the purview of Industrial dis- pute. Tt has been disclosed by the management that due to inadvertant mistake the name of the concerned workman was included in the list of work- man to be sent for medical examination required to be held on 18-1-92 at Jealgora Central Hospitral. In that connection the letter dt. 15-1-92 under the signature of Dy. C.M.E. Bhowra (South) Colliery was issued to several workman included in the list. At that time, Tt was discovered that the concerned3445$ TFtE GAZETTE OF INDTA : JULY 14, 2001/ASADHA 23V 1923 [PARI Il^-Siic. 3(ii)] workman had already crossed the age of superannua- tion on 20-10-91 and was not on the roll of the comp- any and his name was wrongly included in. the lint. Accordingly his name was struck oil' from the said list. The management submitted that, taking the opportunity of that inadvertant mistake the con- cerned workman alleged that striking out his name from the list appearing in the letter dt. 15-1-92 and not sending him to the screening committee for send- ing him to Disability Medical Board was illegal and unjustified. Jt has been submitted further that the demand of the concerned workman was absurd as because he had by that time already superannuated from his service with effect from 20-10-91 in the usual course and the question of sending him to the screen- ing committe for recommendation to get his ap- peaarncc before the Disability Medical Board did not arise. The management further submitted that the woikman cannot be declared medically unfit to perform his duties merely because he has got some joint pain on account of old age or deterioration of his health unless the disease which the workman is suffering from forced him incappable of performing his normal duties. In the instant case the concerned workman continued his normal duties till comple- tion of 60 years of age. As it was not evident that the concerned workman became totally incapable to carry-on his work there was no scope on the part of he management \

4. The points for consideration in this reference

are :—

"Whether the action of the management of Bliowra (S) Colliery under Bliowra Area of M/s. BCCL in not referring Sri Kartar Singh, Tyndal Jamadar to Medical Board to declare him medically unfit is justified If not, to what relief the concerned workman entitled?" FINDINGS AMD REASONS.

becamc.in disposed of due to' pain jn the knees and on the back and for which he became incapable to ciirry on his job as Tyndal Jamadar. Tie submitted that he underwent treatment on his pain in the knees and on the back for a considerable period, thereafter he submitted a petition before the management to declare him unfit with a prayer to provide a job to his son as per provision referred to in Clause 10.4.3 of NCWA-H. Tt has been further alleged by the con- cerned workman that in view of his prayer a list of 12 workmen was prepared by the management with a view to place them before the Screening Committee for Disability Medical Board on 18-1-92, The concerned workman submitted that with utter surprise he noticed that his name which was in SI. No. 4 was struck down and in that place the name of one Tulsi Singh was inserted. On the contrary learned Advocate for the management in course of hearing submitted that the concerned workman was superannuated on 20-10-91 as such after superannuation there was no scope on the part of the management to send the concerned workman before the Screening Committee of Dis- ability Medical Board. It has been further submitted that the name of the concerned workman appearing in the screening list was an inadvertant mistake and it was duly rectified while detected when the concerned workman by that time was superannuated. Consi- dering the record T do not find any dispute to hold that the concerned workman was superannuated on 20-10-91. Therefore, after superannuation I do not find any scope that he could be directed to appear before the Screening Committee for Disability Medical Board. It is the specific contention of the concerned workman that due to pain in knee and joint he became unable to carry out his normal work and for which he wanted to be declared medically unfit by the Dis- ability Medical Board of the management and accor- dingly he submitted a petition. His intention was to provide his son in job as per the provision laid down in Clause 10.4.3 or the NCWA-I1. On the contrary it is the claim of the management that mere pain in knee and joint or on back does not entitle a workman to be declared invalid unless and until it is esta- blished that suffering of the pain by the workman was beyond his tolerating limit and actually he became incapable to carry out his normal duty. Learned Advocate for the management submitted that as thei'i was no such evidence that thu¹ concerned work- man was actually incapable to work due to h;s pain- in knee and back there was no scope on their part to send the concerned woikman before the screening Committee for Disability Medical Board to declare him medically unfit before the period of his Superan- nuation. The specific contention of the concerned workman is that at the relevant time he was su'iei'ing from pain on his knee and bae!;. On the contrary I find a different picture from his evidence. The concerned workrtnn during his- evidence dis- 5. It is seen that to substantiate the claim the concerned workman examined himself as witness in the instant case. The management on the contrary did not consider to adduce any evidence on their behalf to rebut the claim of the concerned workman. Here the main point for consideration is whether the management commiued any illegally ignoring the claim of the concerned workman by not referring him to the Medical Board to declare him medically unfit. It is admitted fact that the concerned work- man was appointed as Tyndal by the management on 1-7-51. There is no dispute at all about the date of birth of the concerned workman. It has been alleged by the concerned workman that in the year 19S9 he3449 ning committee for disability medical board stands on cogent footing.

6. I have.¹ carefully .considered all aspects as well as evidence of the concerned workman and I find sufficient reason to hold that the concerned workman has failed to substantiate his claim beyond all resaso- nablc satisfaction. I consider that the management did not commit any iliegality or violated the principles of natural justice by not sending the concerned work- man before the screening committee for disability medical board after he was superannuated. In the result, the following Award is rendered :
3450 THE GAZETTE OF; INDIA: JULY 14, 2001/ASADHA 23, 1923 [PART I I -- S E C. 3(ii)]
of Labour 5.0. No. 24, dated 29-12-2000 the services in Iron Ore Mining Industry to be a public utility service lor the purpose of the said Act, for a period of. six months from the 10-1-2001.

And, whereas, the Central Government is of opin- ion that public interest requires the extension of the said period by a further period of six months ;

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2001 Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub-clause (vi) of clause (n) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, thej Central Government hereby declares the said industry to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act for a period of si.\ months from the 10th July, 200!.

[No. S-11017/13/97-IR(PL)J H. C. GUPTA, Under Secy.

S.O. 1684.—Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the public interest requires that the ser- vices in the Rank Note Press, Dewas which is covered by item 22 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), should be declared to be a public utility services for the purposes of the said Act :

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (vi) ,of clause (n) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Govern- ment hereby declares with immediate effect the said industry to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act for a period of six months.

[No. S-11017/4/97-IR(PL)]

H. C. GUPTA, Under Secy.

Printed by the Manager, Govl. of India Press, Ring Road, New Delhi-110064 und Published