REGISTERED NO. D. L.—33001/99 The Gazette of India
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No, 31] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a
separate compilation
PARTII—Section3-Subsection(ii)
Statutory Orders and Notification Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(other than the Ministry of Defences)
2269 GI/2001
(3857)^S58 t t fE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 19th July, 2001
S. O. 1883.—In excrrise 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. V.N. Ojha, Advocate New Delhi as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution and other proceedings in the Case No. RC-3(A)/96-ACU-l, New Delhi in the court of Special Judge, Delhi and any other matter connect- ed therewith or incidental thereto.
[No. 225/11/2001-AVD.II]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE HARI SINGHy Under Secy.
(Department of Revenue)
(CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)
Now Delhi, the 18th July, 2001
S. O. 1884.—It is notified for general informa- tion that enterprise/industrial undertaking, listed at para (3) below has been approved by he Central Government for the purpose of section 10 (23G) of the Income-tax-Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for the assessment yara 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004.
2. The approval is subject to the condition that :
(i) the enterprise/industrial undertaking will con- form to and comply with the provisions of section 1O(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the Inoomc-tax Rules, 1962;
(ii) the Central Government shall withdraw this approval if the enterprise/industrial undertaking :
(a) ceases to carry on infrastructure facility; or
(b) fails to maintain books of account and get
such accounts audited by an accountau as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of th* Income-tax Rules, 1962; or
(c) fails to furnish the audit report as require by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Tncome-' Rules, 1962.
38593. The enterprise/industrial uudortaking approved
is—
Now Delhi, the 18th July, 2001 Development, maintenance and operation of providing domestic, value added closed user group 64KBPS, VSAT data network service by M/s Esscl Shyam Communication Ltd., C-138, Naraina Indl. Area, Phase-1, New Dolhi-28 under the license agree- ment No. 815-25 94-TM date 28-3-95 aud a tri- patriate agreement dated 28-9-97 between M/s Rama Associates Ltd., Government of India, acting through Director ( VAS-III) ( earlier TM-1) Department of Telecommunication and M/s Essel Shyam Communi- cation Limiied.
S,O. 1885.—It is notified for general information that enterprise/industrial undertaking, listed at para (3) below has been approved by the Central Govern- ment for the purpose of section I0(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the Income- tax Rules, 1962, for the assessment years 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004.
[Notification No. 213/F. No. 2O5/13/20O1-ITA-II] PANKAJ KUMAR, Under Secy.
2. The approval is subject to the condition that—
(i) the enterprise/industrial undertaking will conform to and comply with the provisions of section I0(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962;
(ii) the Central Government shall withdraw this approval if the enterprise/industrial undertaking;—
(a) ceases to carry on infrastructure facility; or
(b) fails to maintain books of account and get such accounts audited by an accountant as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962; or
(c) fails to furnish the audit report as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
3. The enterprise/industrial undertaking approved is—development of major bridge on Solapur Bead, Osmanabad-Aurangabad Road, across river Manjra, near Paragaon Village on BOT basis by M/s Rajdeep Road Developers (P) Ltd. "Rajdeep House" Savedi Road, Ahmednagar-414001 under agreement dated 28th May, 1999 between M/s. Ashoka Buildcon (P) Ltd., M/s Rajdeep Road Developers (P) Ltd. and Government of Maharashtra.
[Notification No. 2iVF.No.205/75/2000-ITA-II]
PANKAJ KUMAR, Under Secy.
38feO THE GAJZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2Q01/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PART I I —S E C. 3(ii)]New Delhi, the 18th July, 2001
S.O.I886.—It is notified for general information that enterprise/industrial undertaking, listed at para (3) below has been approved by the CviHral Govjrn- ment for the purpose of section I0(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read wiih rul- 2E of tlu- Income-tax Rules, 1962, for the aswissmtnt years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003.
2. The approval is subject to the condition that- - (j) the enlei prise/industrial undertaking will conform to and comply wiih the provisions cf suction 10(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962;
(ii) the Central Government shall withdraw this auoroval if the enterprise/industrial undertaking:—
(a) ceases to carry on infrdstructuie facility; or (b) fails to maintain books of account and get such accounts audited by an accountant as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of tho Income-tax Rules, 1962; or
(c) fails to furnish the audit report as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income-tax ~~ Rules, 1962.
(d) Fails to sipn the licence Epreemect wiih the Dfpaitmcrjt of Telecommunication.
3. The enterprise/industrial urdertaking appicved is —
Global Mobile Personal Communication by Satellite Swvite in Irdia by M/s Shyam Aces (Irdia) Pvt. Ltd., A-60, Nara;ra Ii dustrial Aiea Phase-I, New DcIM-J 10028, u"dcr letter of Intent No. 800- 54/2000-VAS dated 19-1-2001.
[Notification No. 215/:C01/F.No.205/12/2001-lTA-ll]
PANKAJ KUMAR, Under Secy.
(Department of Economic Affairs)
(Banking Division)
New Delhi, the H th July, 2001
S.O. 1887.—In excrcibc of the powers confer- red by clause (b) of sub-scctto/i (3) of section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970.., read with sub-clause (i) of clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks (Manage- ment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 the Central Government, hereby nominates Shri Rat Muivah, Director, Ministry of Finance, Departmei oi Economic Affairs, Banking Division, New Del as a Dnector on (he Board of United Bank of Inc with immediate effect and until further orders,
{F. No. 9]8j2000-B.C RAMESH CHAND, Under Se3861 and Hooves prior to their export at Kakinada, subject to following conditions, namely:
(i) that M/s Fumigation Services, Kakinada shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of fumigation followed by them in gran- ting the certificate of fumigation under sub rule (4) of rule 4 of the Export of De-oiled Rice Bfan (Inspection) Rules, 1966 and rule 5 of the Export of Crushed Bones, Homs and Hooves (Inspection) Rules, 1977;
(ii) that M/s Fumigation Services, Kakinado in the performance of their function as a fumigation agency under the notification shall be bound by such directives as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control) may give in writing from time to time;
(iii) that M/s Fumigation Services, Kakinada shall use only Aluminium Phosphide and Methyl Bromide as fumigants.
[File No. 5/4/2001-EI&EP1
RAJ SINGH, Dy. Secy^- MINISTRY Oi- COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
New Delhi, the 19th July, 2001
S.O. 1888.—In exercise of the powers conferred by b-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality ntrol and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), the .tral Government hereby recognises, for a period diree years from the date of publication of this fication, M/s Fumigation Services, Door No. ,-15, 1st Floor, Sandeep Building, Mantripragada i Street, Kakicada, as a fumigation agency foi the De-oiled Rice Bran and (ii) Cru'hcd Bcnes, Horns^862 tHE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PART i l - S E c. 3(ii)] MINISTRY OF COAL
ORDER
New Delhi, the 17th July, 2001 S. O. 1889-—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S. O. 2725, dated the 4th December, 2000 in the Gazette of India Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated tht 16th December, 2000, issued under sub-section (I) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), hereinafter referred to as the said Act, the rights in or over the land described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said rights) vested absolutely in the Central Government free form all encumbrances under sub-seution (1) of section 10 of the said Act ;
And whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the South Eastern Coalfields United, Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh), a Government Company, (hereinafter referred to as the Company), is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers con- ferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Ontial Governmnet hereby directs that the said rights in or over the land, so vested, shall, with effect from the 16th December, 2000 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, vest in the said Company, Subject to the following terras and conditions namely, :—
(1) the said Company shall reimburse the Central Government all payments made in respect of compensation, interest, demages and the like, as determined under the provisions of the said Act ;
(2) a tribunal shall be constituted for the purpose of determining the amounts payable to the Central Government by the said Company under condition (I), and all expenditure incurred in connection with any such tribunal and persons appointed t assist the tribunal shall be borne by t said Company and similarly, all exj diture incurred in respect of all 1 proceeding l;ke appeals etc., for o* connection with the rights ir or over the lands, so vesting shall also be borne by said Company ;
(3) the said Company shall indemnify the Cer Government or its Official against other expenditure that may be nece in connection with any proceedings or against the Central Government or official regarding the rights in or ove said lands vesting ;
(4) the said Company shall have no po transfer tho said lands to any persons without the previous apr- the Central Government ; and3863 in tine 9, for " (Revenue Section:," read "(Reverm Section)";
(5) the said Company shall abide by such y directions and condi+ions as may be
given or imposed by the Central Govern-
ment for particular areas of the said lands,
as and when necessary.
at page 1189, in boundary description, A-B-C-1D, in line I, for "Sirou ja and Chhirhar" read "Sirounja and Chhirhati".
[N). 43015/14/%-/LSWPRIW]
[No. 43015/9/99-PRIW) SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy.
SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy.
New Delhi, the 24th July, 20Q1
S.O. 1891.-—In exercise of the powers con-
ferred by sub-section (1) of section 3C of the Coal
Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provis'ons
Act, 1948 (46 of 1948), the Central Government
hereby appoints Shn Rajesh Kumar as the Coal
Mines Provident Fund Commissioner in the Coal
Mines Provident Fund Organisation with effect from
25-4-2001 (Afternoon) for a period of three years
or until further oiders, whichever is earlier.
[No. 20|29|2000-ASO|PRIW-I|
SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy.
CORRTGENDA
New Delhi, the 18th July, 2001
S. O. 1890.— In the noiification of the Govern-
ment of India in the Ministry of Coal number S. O.
598, dated the 12th March, 2001, published at pages
1188 to 1189 of the Gazette of India Part-II,
Section-3, Sub-section (ii). dated the 24th March,
2001.
at page 1188,
in line 4, for "(20 of 195)7" read "(20 of 1957)";
in 1'iie 6, for "covered b" read "covered by";
3864 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUQUST \ 2W1/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PART H—SEC. 3(ii)]New Delhi, the 24th July, 2001
S.O. 1892.—In pursuance of sub-section (2) ot
section 9 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948),
the Central Government hereby specifies Shri Rajesh
Kumar, the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commis-
sioner, Dhanbad as the authority with effect from
25-4-2001 (Afternoon) for a period of three years
for the purposes of the said sub-section.
New Delhi the 20th July, 2001 [No. 20j29|2000-ASQ!PRIW-Il]
S.O. 1894 —In pursuance of the clause (a) of SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy.
the Section ? of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers
(Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central
Government hcieby authorises M:. Johnson Eappen,
Assistant in the E/I Buenos Aires to perform the
duties of Assistant Consular Officer with effect from
20-07-2001.
[No. T.4330/1/2001]
Y. G NARANG, Dy. Secy. (Cons.) MINISTRY OF LXTIRTNAL / I F I A I RS
(CPV Division)
NJW Delhi, the 20th July, 2001
S.O I B9V—In pursuance of the Clause (a) of
tV S -ction 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers
fCUl-,-, raid Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), tho Central
New Delhi, the 20th July, 2001 < j y,'e.nment hceby authorises Mrs. Savita Garg,
". \. in the Consulate General of India, Medan to
S.O.I895.--In pursuance of the clause (a) of p lOiin the duties of Assistant Consular Officer
the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers \,itli tf^ct Prom 20-07-2001.
(Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central [No. T.4330/1/2000]
Government here by authoirsese Mr. C. M. Sharma, Y. C. NARANG, Dy. Secy. (Cons.)
Assistant in the E/I Brussels to perform the duties
of Assistant Consular Officer with effect from
20-07-2001.
[No. T.4330/1/2001]
Y.C. NARANG, Dy. Secy. (Cons) jwr 2269GI/2001—23866 THE GAZETTE OF iNDfA: AUGUST 4,2001/9RAVANA 13,1923 . [PARI II—Sir. 3(ii)|
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
New Delhi, the 20th July, 2001
S. O. 1896.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (sec the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (7) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the model of (mechanical ) counter machine with brand name " Ambah" (herein reffcred to as the Model), manufactured by M/s Ambah Industries, 4-Parsana Society, New Nchrunagar, Main Road, Dhebar Road (South), Rajkot (Gujarat) and which is assigned the approv al mark IND/09/2000/272;
The said model (sec the figure)is counter machine, (Mechanical). The maximum capacity is 10 kg Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and perfonnance'of same series with maximum capacity upto 50 kg. manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the approved Model have been manufactured.
[F.No. WM-21(68)/2000]
P. A. KR1SHNAMOORTHY, Director, Legal Metrology3867 3868 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA; AUGUST4,2001/SRAVANA 13. 1923 [PARI II—SK- 3(ii)l
New Delhi, the 20th July, 2001
S. 0.1897.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (Sec the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sectton (7) of section 16 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non automatic weighing instrument (platform machine) with analogue indication and with brand name Ambah (herein reffered to as the Model}, belonging to Medium accuracy class III, manufactured by M/s Ambah Industries, 4-Parsana Society, New Nehninagar. Main Road, Dhebar Road (South), Rojakt (Gujarat) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/O9/20O0/273.
The said model (see the figure)is non automatic mechanical weighing instrument with analogue indication (platform machine loose weight type) with maximum capacity is 300kg and minimum capacity is lkg value of verification scale interval (e) is 50g
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 5000 kg. manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the approved Model has been manufactured.
[F. N. WMr21(68)/2000]
P. A. KRISHNAMOOKTHY, Director, Legal Metrology3869 3870 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 4,2001/SRAVANA 13,1923 [PARTII—SEC. 3(U)]
New Delhi, the 20th July, 2001
S, 0.1898.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, along with model approval and test results, granted by Physikalisch-TechischBundesanstalt, Braunschweigh und Berlin is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods oi" sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (7) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the "Automatic rail-weigh bridg" for in motion weighing with brand name "Newtown" manufactured by M/s. Schenck Process, Gmbh, D- Darmstadt and sold in India by M/s. Schenck Jenson and Nicholson Limited, 2255, A. J. C. Bose Road, Calcutta-700020 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/13/2001/46
The model is automatic rail-weigh bridge with digital display and for in-motion weighing of decoupled single wagons, coupled wagons in train-front or rear engine, total trains-front or rear engine with one weighing operation per wagon (total weighing on one or multiple weighing platforms) or with maximum two partial weighings. Scale interval(d) shall be less than or equal to 50kg, 100kg, 200kg, or 500kg corresponding to accuracy class 0.2,0.5, 1 or 2. The value of maximum wagon wcight/d shall be 1000 to 5000, 500 to 2,500, 250 to 1250 or 100 to 600 corresponding to accuracy class0.2,0.5, lor2.
[F.N WM-21(39)/2OOO]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director, Legal Metrology 3"713872 THE GAZETTE (ffWPIA: AUGUST4t 2001/SlC^A^A 13,1925 [RwrIl-SEC.3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 20th July, 2001
S. 0.1899.—Whereas the Central Government, after considenng the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (7) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the non-automatic weighing instrumeni (Table Top Type) belonging to High Accuracy (Accurcy Class II) of 'SBI-TT series with brand name "Shrcelak" (herein referred to as the model) manufactured by M/s. Shree Bhagyalaxmi Industries, Jasodanagar Char rasta, Near Cadila Bridge, Opp Rameshwar Hardware Tools, Ahmedabad—382445 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2000/299, The said model (the figure given) is non automatic weighing instrument. The maximum capacity is 11 kg and minimum capacity of 50 g. The value of verification scale interval (e) is lg. It has a tare device with a 100 percent substractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 volts, 50 Hertz alternate current power supply;
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50 kg. with number of verification scale (n) in the range of 100 to 100,000 for 'e' value of lmg to 50mg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range 5000-to 100,000 for V value of lOOmg or more and with 'e' value 1><1OV, 2X1011 and 5* 10k, k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the approved Model has been manufactured
[F N. WM-21(76)/20001
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director, Legal Metrology *$ffl 2269GI/2001—33874 THE GAZETTE CM7 INDIA: AUGUST4,2001/SRAVANA13,1923 [PARTII—SEC 3(tf)l
New Delhi, the 20th July, 2001
S. O. 1900.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (7) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of Jhe model of the non-automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) belonging to Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class 1HJ of' SBI-PF' series with brand name "Shreelak" (herein referred to as the model) manufactured by M/s. Shree Bhagyalaxmi Industries, Jasodanagar Char rasta, Near - Cadila Bridge, Opp, Rameshwar Hardware Tools, Ahmedabad-382445 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2000/300;
The said model (the figure given) is non automatic weighing instrument. The maximum capacity is 50 kg. and minimum capacity of 100 g. The value of verification scale interval (e) is 5 g. It has a tare device with a 10Q per cent substractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 volts, 50 Hertz alternate current power supply;
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 5 tonne and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range 100 to 10,000 for 'e' value of 100 mg to 2g and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range 500 to 10,000 for 'e' value 5 g. or more and with ' e' value 1 * 10k, 2 * 10*1 and 5 * 10k, k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the approved Model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM-21(76)/2000j
P A, KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director, Legal Metrology3875 3876 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 4,2001/SRAVANA13,1923 [PARTH—SEC. 3fli)]
New Delhi, the 20th July, 2001
S. O. 1901.—Whereas the Central Government, after considenng the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (7) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the self indicating non-automatic (Table top type) weighing instrument with digital indication of 'ES-20' series of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class III) and with brand name "ESSAE" (hereinafter referred to as the model) manufactured by M/s. Essae-electronics Private Limited, No 377,6th cross Wilson Garden, Bangalore-560 027 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2000/249;
The said model (figure given) is a weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 6kg. and minimum capacity of 20 g. The verification scale interval (e) is 1 g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent substractive retained tare effect The vacuum flourscent display indicates the weighing result. The load receptor is of rectangular section of side 280 * 340 millimetre. The instrument operates on 230 volts, 50 Hertz alternate current power supply;
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50kg. and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range 100 to 1,000 for 'c' value of 100 mg to 2g. and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range 500 to 10,000 for 'e' value 5 or more and with 'e' value 1 x 10\ 2* 10k and 5><10k, k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the approved Model have been manufactured.
[F. N. WM-21(156)/200()l
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director, Legal Metrology3877 3878 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 4,2001/SRAVANA 13,1923 |PARTP—SM\ 3(ii)|
New Delhi, the 20th July, 2001
S. O. 1902.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (7) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the self-indicating non-automatic, electronic (Table top type) weighing instrument with digital indication of 'NTT' series of Class III Accuracy (Medium Accuracy) and with brand name "NATIONAL" (hereinafter referred to as the model) manufactured by M/s. National Electronics. 55/56, Saikripa Society, Near Aman Society, Behind Jivanjyot Cinema, Udhna. Surat-394210 and which is assigned the approval markIND/09/2001/19;
The said model (figure given) is a medium accuracy (Accuracy class III) weighing instrument with maximum capacity of 10 kg and minimum capacity of 20 g. The verification scale interval (c) is 1 g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The light Emitting Diode display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 volts, and frequency 50 Hertz alternate current power supply;
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (12) of the said Section 36 the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50 kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for 'e' value of 100 mg to 2g. and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for 'e' value of 5 g or more and with 'e' value 1* 10*, 2* 10k, 5* 10k, k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the approved Model has been manufactured.
[F. N. WM-21(181)/2000]
P. A. KR1SHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 3ii93880 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA: AUGUST4,200I/SRAVANA 13,1923 JPARTB—SEC, 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 20th July, 2001
S. 0.1903.—Whereas the Central Government, aftei considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (7) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the self indicating, non-automatic, electronic (Platform type) weighing instrument with digital indication of 'NPF' series of accuracy Class III (Medium Accuracy) and with brand name "NATIONAL" (herein after referred to as.the model) manufactured by M/s. National Electronics, 55/56, Saikripa Society, Near Aman Society, Behind Jivanjyot Cinema, Udhna, Surat-3 94210 and which is assigned the approval markINDA)9/2001/20.
The said model (figure) is a medium accuracy (accuracy class IU) weighing instrument with maximum capacity of 100kg. and minimum capacity of 200 g. The verification scale interval (e) is 10 g. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect, The light Emitting Diode display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 volts and frequancy 50 Hertz alternate current power supply;
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (12) of said Section 36 the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 5000kg. and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for 'e' value of 5 g or more and with 'e' value I * 10", 2 * 10* and 5 * 10*, k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the approved Model has been manufactured:
[F. N. WM-21(181)/2000]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology3881 2269G1/2001—43882 THE < J A Z E T TE OF INDIA: AUGUST 4,2001/SRAVANA 13,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(U)]
New Delhi, the 20th July, 2001
S. 0.1904.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the third proviso to be sub-section (3) and sub-section (7) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the Model in respect of Automatic filling machine (Cup filler) of SCP series (herein referred to as model) manufactured by M/s Sealtcch Industries, 162/5, Behind Yamuna Nagar Bus Stop, A.P. Triveninagar, Talwade, PuncJH2109 which is assigned the approval of Model mark IND/09/2000/309;
The Model is a Automatic filling machine (Cup filler). The capacity range is for 2g. to 5()00g It i s used for non-frcc flowing products such as tea, coffee, species, sugar, granules chemical and pharmaceutical powder etc. The range of filling is 10 pouches per minute. Single phase AC 23OY 50 Hz.
[F No WM-21(196)/2000j
P. A KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director, Legal Metrology3883 3884 THE GAZETTE OFpMHA: AUGUST 4,26CH/SRAVA^A 13,1923 p>AKtT^SEc..3(n)1
New Delhi, the 20th July, 2001
S. 0.1905.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, along with the model Approval and test results, granted and approved by the National Weights and Measures Laboratory, Department of Trade and Industry, Middle sex, England is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the thftd proviso to sub-section (3) and sub-section (7) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the model in respect of Automatic filling machine (Piston filler) "SVP" series (herein reffered to as model) manufactured by M/s Scaltcch Industries, 162/5, Behind Yamuna Nagar Bus Stop, A.P. Triveninagar, Talwade, Pune-412109 and which is assigned the approval of Model mark IND/07/2000/310,
The Model is a Automatic filling machine (piston filler). The capacity range is for 2g. to lOOOg or equivalent volumn It is used for non-free flowing products such as viscous liquids, vanaspathi ghee, butter, edible oil, paints etc The range of filling is 10 pouches per minute. Single phase AC 230 V 50 Hz
[FNo.WM-21(l%)/2000]
P A. KRTSHNAMOORTHY, Director, Legal Metrology3885 3886 3887 3 8 88 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 4,2001/SRAVANA13,1923 |PARTII—&r l(u)]
MINISTRY OFPETROLEIJM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2001
S.O. 1906.—In pursuance of proviso to rule 4 under explanation of the pertoleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Rules, 1963 framed under scclion 17 of the Pertoleum and Mmeial Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), Competent Authority, Gas Authority of India Limited (Rajasthan State), in consultation with the Gas Authority of India Limited, with whom the right of user in land in that area has been vested or ownership of the pipeline in that area vest, as the case may be hereby declare the date of termination of operation of laying liquified petroleum gas pipelines from Kandla/Jamnagar to Lorn as mentioned m column (8) of the Schedule annexed herewith
SCHEDULE
Tehsil
Notification U/s 3(1)
Notification U/s6(l)
District
Village
Date of
S 0 No and
Date
Date of Publi- cation
S 0 No and Date
Date of Publica- tion of Gazette
Termination of Operations
5
1
4
6
2
- Raipur Raipur 26 Mm 2000 55dated2Feb, 1999 345 dated 17 June, 1999 59(E) dated 2Feb,1999 452(E) dated 17 June, 1999 26 Ma> ,200') 55dat«12Feb, 1999 59(E) dated 2Feb,1999 452(E) dated 17 June, 1999 Chawandia Khrud 345 dated 17 June 1999 Sabalpur 26 May, 2000 345 dated 17 June, 1999 452(fc) dated 17 June, 1999 55 dated 2 Feb. 1999 59(E) dated 2 Feb. 1999 26 May 2000 55 dated 2 Feb. 1999 59(E) dated 2Feb,1999 Mohara Khurd 452(E) dated 17 June, 1999 1095(E)ll November, 1999 345 dated 17 June, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999 26 May 2000 Lawach 55 dated 2 Feb. 1999 59(E) dated 2Feb,1999 345 dated 17 June, 1999 544 dated 6 September, 1999 452(E) dated 17 June, 1999 721(E)dated2 September, 1999 26 May, 2000 Deepawas 55dated2Fcb, 1999 59(E) dated 2Feb,1999 452(E) dated 17 June, 1999 721(E)dated2 September 1999 345 dated 17 June, 1999 544 dated 6 September, 1999 26 May, 2000 Makardwali 345 dated 17 June, 1999 55 dated 2 Feb. 1999 452(E) dated 17 June 1999 5 9© dated 2Feb,t999 26 May 2000 59(E) dated 2Feb,1999 55dated2Fcb, 1999 Biratrya Khurd 345 dated 17 June, 1999 544 dated 6 September, 1999 452(E) dated 17 June, 1999 721(E)dated2 September, 1999 26 May, 2000 BiratryaKala 345 dated 17 June, 1999 452(E) dated 17 June, 1999 59(E) dated 2Fcb,1999 55dated2Feb, 1999 26 May, 2000 721(E)dated2 September, 1999 544 dated 6 September, 1999 59(E) dated 2Feb,1999 55datcd2Feb, 1999 Ramawas Khurd ↩
Pah3889 1 2 3 4 5 6 Babara
55 dated 2 Feb., 1999
26 May, 2000
59(E) dated
2 Feb., 1999
Kolapura
Sumd
55 dated 2 February, 1999 453 dated 24 July, 1999 55 dated 2 Feb., 1999
Narghar
Khiwal
1999
345 dated 17 June, 1999 544 dated 6 September, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 199S
452(E) dated 17 June, 1999 721(E) dated 2 September, ] 1O95(E) dated > 11 November,
1999
26 May, 2000
1095(E) 11 November, 1999
677 dated 15 November, 1999
26 May, 2000
59(E) dated 2 February, 1999 597(E) dated 24 July, 1999 59(E) dated 2 Feb., 1999
1999
452(E) dated 17 June, 1999 1O95(E) 11 November,
345 dated 17 June, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
26 May, 2000 677 dated
1999
1095(E) 11 November, 1999
59(E) dated 2 February, 199915 November, 597(E) dated 24 Jury, 1999
26 May, 2000 677 dated 15 November, 1999
1095(E) llNovcmber, 1999
59(E) dated
2 February, 1999
597(E) dated
24 July, 1999
55 dated 2 Feb., 1999 453 dated 24 July, 1999 55 dated 2 Feb., 1999 453 dated 24 Jury, 1999
Gopalpura
26 May, 2000
1095© 11 November, 1999
677 dated 15 November, 1999
59(E) dated
2 February, 1999
597(E) dated
24 Jury, 1999
55 dated 2 Feb., 1999' 453 dated 24 July, 1999
Bar
55 dated 2 Feb., 1999 488 dated 9 August, 1999
Qri
Mohara
Naharpura
26 May, 2000
59(E) dated 2 February, 1999 642(E) dated 9 August, 1999
345 dated 17 June, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999 793 dated 3 December, 1999
452(E) dated 17 June, 1999 1095(E) 11 November, 1999 1281(E) 23 December, 1999
26 May, 2000 419 dated 7 July, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
4552© 7 July, 1999 1095(E) 11 November, 1999
597(E) dated 24 Jury, 1999 716(E)dated2 September, 1999 59(E) dated 2 February, 1999 642(E) dated 9 August, 1999 597(E) dated 24 July, 1999
26 May, 2000 677 dated 15 November, 1999
1095(E) 11 November, 1999
26 May, 2000 677 dated 15 November,
1QQQ
453 dated 24 July, 1999 544 dated 6 September, 1999 55 dated 2 Feb., 1999 488 dated 9 August, 1999 453 dated 24 July, 1999 55 dated 2Feb.,1999 453 dated 24 July, 1999 55 dated 2Feb.,1999 488 dated 9 August, 1999 453 dated 24 July, 1999 2269GI/2001— 5
1()95(E) 11 November, 1999
59(E) dated 2 Feb., 1999 597(E) dated 24 July, 1999 59(E) dated 2 February, 1999 642(E) dated 9 August, 1999 597(E) dated 24 July, 19993890 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA: AUGUST4,2001/SRAVANA13,1923 [PART H—SEC, 3(ii)] 1 4 6 2 3 5 Ramgarh 55 dated 2 Feb., 1999 453 dated 24 July, 1999
26 May, 2000
1095(E) 11 November, 1999
677 dated 15 November, 1999
59(E) dated
2 Feb., 1999
597(E) dated
24 Jury, 1999
Mogadra 55 dated 2 Feb., 1999 544 dated 6Scptembre, 1999 453 dated 24 July, 1999
Kelwad
Pali Sojat
828 dated 22 December, 1998 488 dated 9 August, 1999
26 May, 2000 345 dated 17 June, 1999 793 dated 23 December, 1999
452(E) dated 17 June, 1999 1281(E) dated 23 December, 1999
59(E) dated 2 February, 1999 716(E)dated 2 Septate; 1999 597(E) dated 24 Jury, 1999
26 May, 2000
345(E) dated 17 May, 1999 1096(E) dated 11 November, 1999
255 dated 17 May, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
1096(E) dated
22 December,
1998
641(E)dated9
August, 1999
Bagri
828 dated 22 December, 1998
26 May, 2000
1096(E) dated
22 December,
1998
Dhunda Lamboi
828 dated 22 December, 1998
255 dated 17 May, 1999 793 dated 23 December, 1999
345(E) 17 May, 1999 1276(E) dated 23 December, 1999
26 May, 2000
1096(E) dated
22 December,
1998
Gudhabija
255 dated 17 May, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
345(E) dated 17 May, 1999 1096(E) dated 11 November, 1999
26 May, 2000
1096(E) dated
22 December,
1998
828 dated 22 December, 1998
Ladpura
345(E) dated 17May, 1999 1276(E) dated 23 December, 1999
255 dated 17 May, 1999 793 dated 23 December, 1999
26 May, 2000
1096(E) dated
22 December,
1998
828 dated 22 December, 1998
RayaraKalan &Khurd
828 dated 22 December, 1998 488 dated 9 August, 1999
Pip Lad
345(E) dated 17 May, 1999 1096(E) dated 11 November, 1999
255 dated 17 May, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
26 May, 2000
345(E) dated 17 May, 1999 1096(E) dated 11 November, 1999
1096(E) dated 22 December, 1998 641(E) dated 9 August, 1999
255 dated 17 May, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
26 May, 2000
345(E) 17 May, 1999
255 dated 17 May, 1999
1096(E) dated
22 December,
1998
828 dated 22 December, 1998
Sarangawas 828 dated 22 December, 1998 453 dated 24 Jury, 1999
26 May, 2000
345(E)17 May, 1999 1096(E) dated 11 November, 1999
255 dated 17 May, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
1096(E) dated
22 December,
1998
597(E) dated
24 Jury, 1999
[F. No. L-14014/12/'01-GP(Part-Ii)l SWAMI SINGH, Director3891
3892 THEGAZETTEOFIMJIAiAUOUST^^l/^AVAJ^^t^ [PAHTM—Sfaa3(U)j
"•3894 THfe GAZETIEOPINDIA: AUGUST A, 2">ly5RA*HNA 13,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(u)l 3895 3896 THE GAZETTE OP INDIA: AUGUST 4,2001/SRAVANA13,1923 [PART H—SEC, 3(ip] 3897 2269 GI/2001—63898 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 4,2001/SRAVANA 13,1923 [PART II—She. 3(n)]
NcwDclhi, thc23rd July, 2001
S.O. 1907.—In pursuance of proviso to rule 4 under explanation of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Rules, 1963, framed under section 17 of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), Competent Authority, Gas Authority of India Limited (Rajasthan State), in consultation with the Gas Authority of India Limited, with whom the right of user in land in that area has been vested or ownership of the pipeline in that area vest, as the case may be, hereby declare the date of termination of operation of laying liquified petroleum gas pipelines from Kandla/Jamnagar to Loni as mentioned in column (8) of the Schedule annexed herewith.
SCHEDULE
District Tehsil Village
Notification U/s 3(1)
• S 0. No. and
Date of Publica- tion of Gazette Date
5 1
3
2
4
>
Jaipur 1
tCotputli
Pachhudala
797 dated 9 Dec., 1998
Notification Us/6(1) Date of Publi- S O No cation of Gazette and Date
Date of Termination Operations
8 6
7
30th June, 2000
1053 (E) dated
9 Dec., 1998
Bhankri
140 dated 16 March, 1999 488 dated 9 Aug., 1999
173 (E) dated 16 March, 1999 646 (E) 9Aug,1999
30th June, 2000
1053 (E) dated
9 Dec., 1998
797 dated 9 Dec., 1998
Badnagar
173 (E) dated 16 March, 1999 646 (E) dated 9Aug,1999 1282 (E) dated 23 Dec., 1999
140 dated 16March, 1999 488 dated 9 Aug., 1999 793 dated 23 Dec., 1999
30lhJune, 2000
173 (E) dated 16 March, 1999
1053 (E) dated
9 Dec., 1998
797 dated 9 Dec., 1998
Thikariya
140 dated 16 March, 1999
30th June. 2000
1053 (E) dated
9 Dec, 1998
797 dated 9 Dec., 1998
Torda Brahmanan
797 dated 9 Dec., 1998
173 (E) dated 16 March, 1999 646 (E) dated 9 Aug. 1999
140 dated 16March,1999 488 dated 9 Aug., 1999
30th June, 2000
1053 (E) dated
9Dec, 1998
Pachahadi
173 (E) dated 16 March, 1999 724 (E) dated 2 Sept., 1999
140 dated 16 March, 1999 544 dated 2 Sept., 1999
30th June, 2000
173 (E) dated 16 March, 1999
140 dated 16March, 1999
1053 (E) dated
9 Dec., 1998
797 dated 9 Dec., 1998
Mandha
30th June, 2000
1053 (E) dated
9 Dec, 1998
797 dated 9 Dec, 1998
Karoli
173 (E) dated 16 March, 1999 646 (E) dated 9 Aug., 1999
140 dated 16 March, 1999 488 dated 9Aug,1999
30th June, 2000 140 dated 16 March, 1999
173 (E) dated 16 March, 1999
1053 (E) dated
9 Dec, 1998
797 dated 9 Dec., 1998
Tulsipura
30th June, 2000 677 dated 15 Nov., 1999
1103 (E) dated 11 Sept, 1999
477 (E) dated
23 June, 1999
362 dated 23 June, 1999
Jaipur
55 dated 2 Feb., 1999
56 (E) dated 2 Feb., 1999 Shaha- pura
Mamtori Khurd
30th June, 2000
643 (E) dated 9Aug,1999
488 dated 9 Aug., 1999
1104 (E) dated 11 Nov., 1999
677 dated 15Nov, 1999 WM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Jaipur Shahapurs iNithara 209 dated 20Apnl,1999
30th June, 2000 643 (E) dated 9Aug,1999
269 (E) dated
20 April, 1999
Manoharpura 209 dated 20 Apnl,1999 453 dated 24 July, 1999 488 dated 9Aug,1999
30th June, 2000 643(E) dated 9 August, 1999 1104(E) dated 11 November, 1999
488 dated 9 August, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
269(E) dated
20 April, 1999
597(E) dated
24 July, 1999
Lochu ka was
30th June, 2000
269 (E) dated
20 April, 1999
209 dated 20 ApnU999
Udawala
488 dated 9 August, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
643(E) dated 9 August, 1999 1104(E) dated 11 November, 1999
30th June, 2000
269 (E) dated
20Apnl,1999
209 dated 20 Apnl,1999
Nawalpura* 55 dated 2 February, 1999 488 dated 9 August, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
643(E) dated 9 August, 1999 1104(E) dated 11 November, 1999
•50th June, 2000
56 (E) dated 2
February, 1999
Lakhani 55 dated 2 February, 1999 643(E) dated 9 August, 1999 U04(E) dated 11 November, 1999
488 dated 9 August, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
30th June, 2000
56 (E) dated 2
February, 1999
Madho ka was*
55 dated 2 February, 1999 362 dated 23 June, 1999
56 (E) dated 2 February, 1999 477(E) dated 23 June, 1999
Kant
643(E) dated 9 August, 1999 1104(E) dated 11 November, 1999
488 dated 9 August, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
30th June, 2000
1104(E) dated 11 November, 1999
677 dated 15 November, 1999
30th June, 2000
56 (E) dated 2
February, 1999
55 dated 2 February, 1999
55 dated 2 February, 1999
643(E) dated 9 August, 1999 1104(E) dated 11 November, 1999
488 dated 9 August, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
30th June, 2000
56 (E) dated 2
February, 1999
Janjc Khurd urf Vishanpura
Let Ka Was 55 dated 2 February, 1999
643(E) dated 9 August, 1999 1104(E) dated 11 November, 1999
488 dated 9 August, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
30th June, 2000
56 (E) dated 2
February, 1999
Shahapura 55 dated 2 February, 1999
643(E) dated 9 August, 1999 1104(E) dated 11 November, 1999
488 dated 9 August, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
30th June, 2000
56 (E) dated 2
February, 1999
Dewan
56 (E) dated 2 February, 1999 477(E) dated 23 June, 1999 597(E) dated 24 Jury, 1999
55 dated 2 February, 1999 362 dated 23 June, 1999 453 dated 24 Jury, 1999
643(E) dated 9 August, 1999 1104(E) dated 11 November, 1999
488 dated 9 August, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
30lh June, 2000
643 (E) dated 9 August, 1999 1104(E) dated 11 November, 1999
488 dated 9 August, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999 JJ>MT?&^M$ *^k TmmmmmmimMxmr^mmmmK^tmr l1 4 3 1 5 7 6 8 Jaipur Jaipur Mansmgh- pura
828 dated 22 December, 1998
1097(E) dated 22 Dec, 1998 Rflmsingh- pura
828 dated 22 December, 1998
1097(E) dated 22 Dec, 1998 Fetahpura 828 dated 22 December, 1998
1097(E) dated 22 Dec, 1998 Himmatpura 828 dated 22 December, 1998
1097(E) dated 22 Dec, 1998 Jaisinghpura 828 dated 22 December, 1998
1097(E) dated 22 Dec, 1998 Kishorepura Kakaroda
828 dated 22 December, 1998
1097(E) dated 22 Dec, 1998 ChkMojya 828 dated 22 December, 1998
1097(E) dated 22 Dec, 1998 Mundiya Purohilan
828 dated 22 December, 1998
1097(E) dated 22 Dec, 1998 Nandgaonv Barsana
828 dated 22 December, 1998
1097(E) dated 22 Dec ,1998 Mundiya Ramsar
828 dated 22 December, 1998
1097(E) dated 22 Dec, 1998 Pindolai 453 dated 24 July, 1999
597(E) dated 24 Jury, 1999 Siwir
828 dated 22 December, 1998 453 dated 24 July, 1999
1097(E) dated 22 Dec, 1998 597(E) dated 24 July, 1999 Machwa 828 dated 22 December, 1998 453 dated 24 Jury, 1999 666 dated 8 November, 1999
1097(E) dated 22 Dec, 1998 597(E) dated 24 July, 1999 1078(E)dated5 November, 1999
666 dated 8 November 1999
Pithawas Urf Nan ka was
1078(E)datcd5 November, 1999 Hatod
666 dated 8 November, 1999
1078(E)dated5 November, 1999
828 dated 22 December, 1998
1097(E) dated 22 Dec, 1998 Lalchand- pura
ChkBavadi 199 dated 13 April, 1999
256{E) dated 13 April, 1999 Bavadi
199 dated 13 April, 1999
256(E) dated 13 Aprd.1999
31st May, 2000
457(E) dated 17 June, 1999
345 dated 17 June, 1999
31st May, 2000
457(E) dated 17 June, 1999
345 dated 17 June, 1999
31st May, 2000 345 dated 17 June, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
457(E) dated 17 June, 1999 1102(E) dated 11 November, 1999
31st May, 2000 345 dated 17 June, 1999
457(E) dated 17 June, 1999
31st May, 2000
274(E) dated 20 April, 1999
210dated20 ApnU999
31st May, 2000 210 dated 20 April, 1999
274(E) dated 20 April, 1999
31st May, 2000
274(E) dated 20 April, 1999
210 dated 20 Aprd.1999
31st May. 2000 345 dated 17 June, 1999
457(E) dated 17 June, 1999
31st May, 2000
274(E) dated 20Aprd,1999
210 dated 20 April, 1999
31st May, 2000 457(E) dated 17 June, 1999
345 dated 17 June, 1999
31st May, 2000
1102(E) dated 11 November, 1999
677 dated 15 November, 1999
31st May, 2000 457(E) dated 17 June, 1999 1102(E) dated 11 November, 1999
345 dated 17 June, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
31st May, 2000
1102(E) dated UNov, 1999 722(E)dated2 September, 1999 100(E)dated2 February, 2000
677 dated 15 Nov,1999 544 dated 6 September, 1999 74 dated 2 February, 2000
31st May, 2000 100(E)dated2 February, 2000
74 dated 2 February, 2000
31st May, 2000 74 dated 2 February, 2000
100(5) dated 2 February, 2000
31st May, 2000 345 dated 17 June, 1999 74 dated 2 February, 2000
457(E) dated 17 June, 1999 100(E)dated2 February, 2000
31st May, 2000 544 dated 6 September, 1999
722(E)dated2 September, 1999
31st May, 2000 1102(E) dated 11 November, 1999
677 dated 15 November, 19993901 7 1 4 5 6 3 8 2 Jaipur Jaipur
828 dated 22 December, 1998
Makudan pura
31st May, 2000
274(E) dated 20AprU, 1999
210 dated 20 April, 1999
1097 (E) dated
22 Dec., 1998
Jaipur
Bukani
Phagi
1st June, 2000
271(E) dated 20 April, 1999
2557 (E) dated
27 Nov., 1998
50 dated 27 November, 1998
Shri Govindpura
209 dated'20 April, 1999
1st June, 2000 209 dated 20 April, 1999
2557 (E) dated
27 Nov., 1998
50 dated 27 November, 1998
Nandlalpura 50 dated 27 November, 1998
271(E) dated 20 April, 1999
1st June, 2000 209 dated 20 April, 1999
2557 (E) dated
27 Nov., 1998
Chardada 50 dated 27 November, 1998
271(E) dated 20 April, 1999
1st June, 2000 209 dated 20 April, 1999
2557 (E) dated
27 Nov., 1998
Sherpura 50 dated 27 November, 1998
2557 (E) dated 27 Nov., 1998 719 (E) dated 2 September, 1999
er Dehmi
Jaipur S
lanagam
604 dated 15 September, 1998
271(E) dated 20 April, 1999
1st June, 2000 209 dated 20 April, 1999
271(E) dated 20 April 1999 1283(E) dated 23 December, 1999
31st May, 2000 102 dated 23 February, 1999
128(E) dated 23 February, 1999
814 (E) dated
15 September,
1998
Chhitorli 604 dated 15 September, 1998
31st May, 2000
128(E) dated 23 February, 1999
102 dated 23 February, 1999
814 ©dated
15 September,
1998
BanKa Khera
604 dated 15 September, 1998 749 dated 7 December, 1999
814 (E) dated 15 September, 1998 1216(E) dated 6 December, 1999
Sanjariya 604 dated 15 September, 1998
31st May. 2000
128(E) dated 23 February, 1999
102 dated 23 February, 1999
102(E)dated2 February, 2000
74 dated 2 February, 2000
31st May 20(X) 102 dated 23 February, 1999
128(E) dated 23 February, 1999
814 (E) dated
15 September,
1998
BagruRawan 604 dated 15 September, 1998
31st May. 2000
128(E) dated 23 February, 1999
102 dated 23 ^February, 1999
814 (E) dated
15 September.,
1998
Shyosingh- pura
604 dated 15 September, 1998
31 si May, 2000 102 dated 23 February, 1999
128(E) dated 23 February, 1999
814 ©dated
15 September,
1998
Gegha
604 dated 15 September, 1998
31 si May. 2000
128(E) dated 23 February, 1999
102 dated 23 February, 1999
814 (E) dated
15 September,
1998
BagruKalan 604 dated 15 September, 1998 749 dated 7 December, 1999 666 dated 8 November, 1999
814 (E) dated 15 September, 1998 1216(E) dated 6 December, 1999 1080(E) dated 8 November, 1999
31st May, 2000
128(E) dated 23 February, 1999
102 dated 23 February, 1999
102(E)datcd2 February, 2000 1275 (E) dated 23 December, 1999
74 dated 2 February, 2000 793 dated 23 December, 19993902 THE GAZETTE OPINDIA • AUGUST4,2001/SRAVANA13,1923 [PART I I ~ S EC 3(n)] 1 2 3 4 7 8 5 6 Jaipur Sanagani cr Chimanpurs
31st May, 2000 102 dated 23 February, 1999
128(E) dated 23 February, 1999
814 (E) dated
15 September,
1998
i 604 dated 15 September, 1998
Awaniya
814 (E) dated 15 September, 1998 1216(E) dated 6 December, 1999
604 dated 15 September, 1998 749 dated 7 December, 1999
Jaipur Aiuair Daulatpura
31st May, 2000
128(E) dated 23 February, 1999
102 dated 23 February, 1999
102(E)dated2 February, 2000
74 dated 2 February, 2000
31st May, 2000 488 dated 9 August, 1999
645(E)dated9 August, 1999
129 (E) dated
23 February,
1999
102 dated 23 February, 1999
Neendad 199 dated 13 April, 1999
31st May, 2000
1273(E) dated 23 December, 1999
257(E) dated
13 April, 1999
Nangal purohitan
55 dated 2 February, 1999 793 dated 23 December, 1999
31st May, 2000
58 (E) dated 2
February, 1999
Chhanwar KaBass
55 dated 2 February, 1999 345 dated 17 June, 1999
458 (E) dated 17 June, 1999
30th June, 2000
58 (E) dated 2
February, 1999
Chctawalla
345 dated 17 June, 1999
458 (E) dated 17 June, 1999
30th June, 2000
58 (E) dated 2
February, 1999
55 dated 2 February, 1999
Badanpura
458 (E) dated 17 June, 1999
345 dated 17 June, 1999
30th June, 2000
58 (E) dated 2
February, 1999
55 dated 2 February, 1999
458 (E) dated 17 June, 1999 1106(E) dated 11 November, 1999
345 dated 17 June, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
30th June, 2000
58 (E) dated 2
February, 1999
55 dated 2 February, 1999
Khora Shyamdas
Degada Bas 55 dated 2 February, 1999
458 (E) dated 17 June, 1999
345 dated 17 June, 1999
30th June, 2000
58 (E) dated 2
February, 1999
Choump
345 dated 17 June, 1999
458 (E) dated 17 June, 1999
30th June, 2000
58 (E) dated 2
February, 1999
55 dated 2 February, 1999
IsarKiNagal
458 (E) dated 17 June, 1999 U06(E) dated 11 November, 1999
345 dated 17 June, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
30th June, 2000
58 (E) dated 2
February, 1999
55 dated 2 February, 1999
Billochi
199 dated 13 April, 1999 345 dated 17 June, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
458 (E) dated 17 June, 1999 1106(E) dated 11 November, 1999
30th June, 2000
257 (E) dated
13 April, 1999
488 dated 9 August, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
645 (E) dated 9 August, 1999 1106(E) dated 11 November, 1999
30th June 2000
58 (E) dated 2
February, 1999
Shn Govindpura
55 dated 2 February, 1999
Ghatwara
458 (E) dated 17 June, 1999 1106(E) dated 11 November, 1999
345 dated 17 June, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
10th June, 2000
58 (E) dated 2
February, 1999
55 dated 2 February, 1999
458 (E) dated 17 June, 1999 1106(E) dated 11 November, 1999
345 dated 17 June, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 19993903 1 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 Jaipur Amair Manpura Machedi
544 dated 6 September/ 1999
30th June, 2000
37 (E) dated 12 January, 2000
25 dated 12 January, 2000
711(E)dated2
September,
1999
PoothKa Bass
199 dated 13 April, 1999 666 dated 8 November, 1999
BilpurBiliya 55 dated 2 February, 1999 453 dated 24 July, 1999
Sundcrpura
30th June, 2000 ! 488 dated 9
257 (E) dated 1" April, 1999 1079 (E) dated 5 November, 1999 August, 1999 677 dated 15" November, 1999 74 dated 2 February, 2000
645 (E) dated 9 August, 1999 1106(E) dated 11 November, 1999 101 (E) dated 2 February, 2000
30th June, 2000
58 (E) dated 2 February, 1999 597 (E) dated 24 July, 1999
345 dated 17 June, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
458 (E) dated 17 June, 1999 1106(E) dated 11 November, 1999
30th June, 2000 345 dated 17 June, 1999
458 (E) dated 17 June. 1999
58 dated 2
February, 1999
55 dated 2 February, 1999
30th June, 2000
58 (E) dated 2
February, 1999
Sunder Ka Bas
55 dated 2 February, 1999
DevKa Harmada
55 dated 2 February, 1999
458 (E) dated 17 June, 1999 1106(E) dated 11 November, 1999
345 dated 17 June, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
30th June, 2000
58 (E) dated 2
February, 1999
Chak Manohapur
55 dated 2 February, 1999 345 dated 17 June, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
458 (E) dated 17 June, 1999 1106(E) dated 11 November, 1999
30lh June, 2000 345 dated 17 June, 1999
458 (E) dated 17 June, 1999
58 dated 2
February, 1999
Rajawas 55 dated 2 February, 1999
31st May, 2000
458 (E) dated 17 June. 1999
58 dated 2
February, 1999
Khorabissal 102 dated 23 February, 1999 345 dated 17 June, 1999
31st May, 2000
129 (E) dated 2:
February, 1999
Dudu Gangati
Jaipur
Khurd
] 345 dated 17 June, 1999 677 dated 15 November, 1999
458 (E) dated 17 June, 1999 1106(E) dated 11 November, 1999
1st June, 2000
66 (E) dated 2 February, 1999
813 (E) dated V.
September,
1998
604 dated 15 September, 1998
Akhepura 604 dated 15 September, 1998
Manpura
5 55 dated 2 February, 1999
1st June, 2000
66(E) dated2 February, 1999
813 (E) dated 1! September, 1998 ,
5 55 dated 2 February, 1999
1st June, 2000
66 (E) dated 2 February, 1999
813 (E) dated l:
September,
1998
604 dated 15 September, 1998
Chandar Mool
5 55 dated 2 February, 1999
1st June, 2000
66 (E) dated 2 February, 1999
813 (E) dated V.
September,
1998
604 dated 15 September, 1998
Mojmabad 604 dated 15 September, 1998
5 55 dated 2 February, 1999
1st June, 2000
66 (E) dated 2 February, 1999
5 55 dated 2 February, 1999
813 (E) dated l;
September,
1998
Baget
604 dated 15 September, 1998
1st June, 2000
66 (E) dated 2 February, 1999
813 (E) dated I!
September,
1998
5 55 dated 2 February, 19993904 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA: AUGUST4,2001/SRAVANA13,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Jaipur Dudu Khudiyala 604 dated 15 September, 1998
1st June, 2000 66 (E) dated 2 February, 1999
813 (E) dated 15
September,
1998
Dudu
604 dated 15 September, 1998
55 dated 2 February, 1999
1st June, 2000 66 (E) dated 2 February, 1999
813 (E) dated 15
September,
1998
Chapiya 604 dated 15 September, 1998
55 dated 2 February, 1999
1st June, 2000 66 (E) dated 2 February, 1999
813 (E) dated 15
September,
1998
Gagradu 604 dated 15 September, 1998
55 dated 2 February, 1999
1st June, 2000 66 (E) dated 2 February, 1999
813 (E>dated 15
September,
1998
Gaiga
604 dated 15 September, 1998
55 dated 2 February, 1999
1st June, 2000 66 (El dated 2 February, 1999
813 (E) dated 15
September,
1998
Charasda 604 dated 15 September, 1998
55 dated 2 February, 1999
1st June, 2000 66 (E) dated 2 February, 1999
813 (E) dated 15
September,
1998
Meheshpura 604 dated 15 September, 1998
55 dated 2 February, 1999 793 dated 23 December, 1999
1272(E) dated 23 December, 1999
1st June, 2000 210dated20 Apnl, 1999
273 (E) dated 20 Apnl, 1999
813 (E) dated 15
September,
1998
Gudha Ballabhji
793 dated 23 December, 1999
1272(E) dated 23 December, 1999
1st June, 2000 210 dated 20 April, 1999 74 dated 2 February, 2000
273 (E) dated 20 Apnl, 1999 99(E)dated2 February, 2000
2556 dated
27Nov,1999
1076 (E) dated
5 Novennber,
1999
50 dated 12 December, 1998 666 dated 8 November, 1999
Mahala
1st June, 2000
2556 dated
27 Nov., 1998
50 dated 12 December, 1998
Kalyanpura
210 dated 20 Apnl, 1999
273 (E) dated 20 April, 1999
1st June, 2000 210dated20 Apnl, 1999
273 (E) dated 20 Apnl, 1999
2556 dated
27 Nov. 1998
50 dated 12 December, 1998
Khatwara 50 dated 12 December, 1998
2556 dated 27 Nov., 1998.
1st June, 2000 210 dated 20 Apnl, 1999
273 (E) dated 20 April, 1999
1st June, 2000
273 (E) dated 20 April, 1999
210 dated 20 Apnl, 1999
2556 dated
-27Nov, 1998
50 dated 12 December, 1998
Gangati Kalan
Harsoli
1st June, 2000
273 (E) dated 20 April, 1999
210 dated 20 April, 1999
2556 dated
27 Nov., 1998
50 dated 12 December, 1998
Rahlana
2556 dated 27 Nov., 1998 597 (E) dated 24 July, 1999 638(E)datcd9 August, 1999
50 dated 12 December, 1998 45 3 dated 24 July. 1999 488 dated 9 August, 1999
1st June, 2000
1272 (E) dated 23 December, 1999 560(E)dated7 July, 1999
793 dated 23 December, 1999 419 dated 7 July, 1999
[F No L-14014/12/G.P-01 (PartIIl)|
SWAMI SINGH, Director3905 2269GI/2001—73906 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New 1 ^elhi, the. 24th July 2001
A B
C
D
ESirohi Pindwara Bhraja 691 0.0720 S.O.1908.— Vhereas by notification of the Government of India m the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. No. 615(1) dale tJ the 29th June, 2000, issued under sub-section 1 of Sect on 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acqi isiti>)n of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , 'hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central, Govemme nt declared its intention to acquire the right of user m ithe land, sepcified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transport of liquid petroleum gas through Kattfia—Jamnagar—Lon i Pipeline Project in the State of Rajasthan by the Gas Autl lority of India Limited;
And, whereas, copies of the sa d Gazette notifications were made available to the public on th e 25th day of July, 2000;
And, whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said1 Act 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 appended to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the ssid Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the tight 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 Cental Government directs that the right of user in the land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on this date of the publication of Lhis declaration in the Gas Authority of India Limited, freo from all encumbrances.
SCHEDULE
Land to be
Village Survey
Tehsil
Distt.
No. acquired for
R.OU in
Hectares
D
E
C
A
B
Dhanari
0.0160
1946
Sirohi Pindwara
0 0160
Total
0.0245
297
Bhimana
0.1188
283
0 0830
338
0.1070
339/4
0.3333
Total
632
0 0700
631
0 1600
601
0 0740
598
0 1250
509
0 0800
686
0 0350 Total
0 6160
452
Kodarla
0 1610 Total
0 1610 Bhanwan i 1994
0.1400
1324
0 0420
1312 - 0.4200 Total
0 6020
18
Pindwara
0 0800
19
0 1100
20
0 1300
21
0 1320
25
0 1390
153
0 0040 1019
0 0400 1020
0 0700 1021
0 04"0 1028
0 1100 U)31
0 0800 1032
0 0400 Total
0 <>830 |No L/14014/3/01-GP (Parl-II)| SWAM1 SINGH. Director1907 New Delhi, the 24th July, 2001
S.0.1909.—Whereas by notification of the
Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum ;ind Natural Gas No 2558 dated the 27th November 199K and SO 1218(E) dated the 6th December, 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 I he said Act), the Central Government declared its lnlcmion to acquire the nght 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, copies of the said Ga/cttc
notifications were made available to the public on die 15lli day of December, 1998 and 29th day of Januan 2000 respectively,3908 THFGAZETreOFINE"A:AUGUST4,5WH/SRAVANfAlX1923 [PART II-^SEC. 3(ii)l A B C
E
D800 Guwalda 0.3465 And, whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted report to the Central Government; 831 0.0712 834
0.0832
835
0.0792 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 appended to this notification;
793
0.3485
31
0.1980
Total
1 1266 Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said lands specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipelines;
[No. L-14014/3/01-G.P. (Part 11)1
SWAMI SINGH, Director 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 land 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
Tehsil
Survey Land to be
Distt.
Village
acquired for
No.
R.O.U. in
Hectares
B
D
E
C
A
705
0,1069
Bansur Fatehpur
Alwar
0,1069
Total
0.0450
Chopanki 421
Alwar Tijara
422
0.2709
425
0.0544
426
0.1563
0.3960
419
202
0.4400
204
0.0035
0.0115
205
0.1028
206
1.4804
Total
0.0020
191
Gandhola
0.0158
189
0.0634
188
0.1584
186
0.2396
Total *mJ>tu , , THE UAZfclTK OF INDIA. AUGUST 4, 20O1/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PAJW H—SH >(ii)| 3911 A New Delhi, the 24th July, 2001
Ajmcr S.O. 1910.—Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas No. 255(E) dated the 22nd March, 2000, S.O. 317(E) dated the 29th March, 2000, S.O. 173(E) dated the 23rd February, 2000, S.O. 752(E) dated the 16th August, 2000, S.O. 751(E) dated the 16th August, 2000 and S.O. 2685 dated the 10th December, 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—Lord Pipeline Project in the State of Rajasthan by the Gas Authority of India Limited;
And, whereas, copies of the said Gazette notifications were made available to the public on the 15th day of April 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 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 appended to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said lands specified in the Schedule appended to this notification 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 land 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
Distt. Tehsil Village Survey No.
B
C
D
E Rajgarh
Nasirabad
182.5 0.0475 UrfChat 1822 0.1148 Sardarpura 1820 0.0435
1819 0.0594
1813 0.0198
1812 0.0040
1725 0 0020
1732 0.0020
1811 0.0435
1810 0.0673
1809 0.0594
1807 0.0950
1747 0.0040
1748 0 0792
1749 0.0871
1751 0.0010
1750 0.0703
1753 1754
0.0010 0 1158
1695 0.0020'
1692 0 0277
1687 0.0515
1684 0.0475
1682 0.0040
1683 0 0633
1217 0 0832
1216 0 0554
1218 0.0900
1208 0.0040
1207 0 0436
1205 0.0673
1204 0 0356
Land to be
acquired for
RO.U.
(in Hectares)
D
E
A
B
C
1894 0 0515 Ajmer Nasirabad Rajgarh
1825 0.0911 UrfChat
Sardarpura 1824 0.0080
1826 0.0356
1203 0.0158
1202 0 0020
1201 0 0633
1200 0 0020
1199 0 23763 9 12 • T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA : A U G U ST 4, 2 0 0 1 / S R A V A NA 1 3, 1 9 23 [ P A RT I I —S E C, 3 ( i i )] D
A
B
C
E
A
B C
D
EAjmer Nasirabad Rajgarh 1145 Ajmcr Ajmer 0.0238 0.0832 Tabiji 3451 3450 0.0238 UrfChal
0.6178
1132
0.0158
Sardarpura 1806
0.0010
1214
0.0792
1896
1818 0.0713
1694 0.0871
0.0515
1685
Empty 0.0792
1130 0.0673
Total 3.1520 Ajmcr
0.0200
60
Gaderi
Nasirabad
0.0200
61
0.0200
62
Total 0 0600
884
Banevari
Ajmcr Nasirabad
0.0158
Total 0,0158
0.0158
Jalawada 1507
Total 0.0158
0.0792
Modi
1367
0.0237
497
Total 0.1029
0.0079
447
Kanpura
0.0079
423
0.0158
424
397 0.0040
. Total 0.0356
0.0040
Rajgarh 1993
0.0747
2285
3778 0.0633
1847 0.0079
Total 0 1499 Ajmer Ajmer
0.0020
Tabiji
3473
3458 0.0920
0.0735
3457
0.0010
3460
0.0713
3456
0.0098
3455
0 0554
3480
0.0020
3454
0.0079
3452
0.0020 3433
0,0010 3434
0.1800 3493
0 0040 3435
0.0150 3436
0 0950 3442
3406 0.0475 3405 0.0990
0.0475 3389
3394 0.0436
0.0792 3395
0.0119 3396
0.0238 3393
0 0158 3391
0 0515 3392
0.0317 3383
3387 0 1188 3344 0.0119
0 0436 3347
0 0119 3348
0.3010 3345
0.0634 3340
3339 0 0752
0 1109 3330
0 1069 3329
0 0871 3316
0.0634 3315
0 0317 3314
0.0158 3317
0.0119 3311
0.0990 3310
0 0475 3280
0 0317 3281
0 0158 3279
0 0713 3285
0 2297 3275
3276 0 1148
0 0872 3184
0.3113 26583913 A
B
C
DE Ajtner Ajmer Tabiji 2662 0 0015 2659 0 1505 3301 0 0158 3185 0 1980
3186 0 0950
2680 0 1584
3 7938
Total 1439
Ajmer Ajmer Chak
0 0079
1440
Kaklana
0 0713
0 0792
Total
Birakchiyawasl2O3
Ajmer Pisangan
0 0158
1815 0 0158
Total 0 0316
Ajmer KishangarhTihari
238 1 1088
Total 1 1088
[No L-14014/3/01-GP (Part II)]
SWAMI SINGH, Director
2269 GI/2001—83914 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 24th July, 2001
S.O. 1911.—Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, No. 599(E) dated the 27th June, 2000, SO 256(E) dated the 22nd March 2000, S.O 110(E) dated the 7th February, 2000, S O. 600(E) dated the 27th June, 2000, and S.O. 54(E) dated the 18th January, 2000, issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in 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 Rajasthanby the Gas Authority of India Limited,
And, whereas, copies of the said Gazette notifications were made available to the public on the 9th day of July, 2000, 15th day of April, 2000, 5th day of March, 2000, and 14th day of February, 2000 respectively.
And, whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted report to the Central Government;
And, whereas, the Central Government has. after considering the said report, decided to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the Schedule appended to this notification,
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said lands specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipelines;
And, further, in c'xercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of that section, the Central Government directs that the right of user in the land 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
Distt. Tchsil Village Survey No
Land to be acquired for R OU (in Hectares)
E
D
A
B
C
0.0840
156
Jaipur Sangancr Hasampura bas
0.0640
162
Bhakhrola
0 0960
161
0 0760
163 39 l"i1 3 2 4 S 1 5 2 3 4 Jaipur Bhakhrota 205 Sanganet 0 0238 Jaipur 131 Jaipur Mukandpura 204
0 3600 i 0 4560
1 1360
0 0950
132
135 0 0990
Total
Sukhdevpu ira 5 0 0020 urfNohara
0 0750 i 17
80/379 0 0030
Total 0 0800 Shn ram k l 89 0 0560 Nangal
0 0480
124
900 0 0400
890 0 0240
821 0 0240
0 1920 Mohanpun
Total a 341 0 0020
339 0 1000
0 1020
Total
Chimanpu ra 33 0 0280
147 0 0240
154 0 1760 Jaipur
154/266 0 0480
155 0 3120
163 0 1040 170/250 0 0040
170 0 1260
162 0 0100
169 0 0020
171 0 1820
195 0 3000
Total 1 3160 Saipura
0 3040
222
98 0 0960
91 0 0400
218 0 1440
0 0720
219
92 0 1310 676/886 0 0040
Total 0 7910
0 0080 166/1002
Govind- i pura Bas Bambala
0 0080
Total
0 0238
136
137 0 2416
140 0 6336
0 1782
148
149 0 1465
0 1425
150
0 1267
153
0 2376
154
0 1980
173
169 0 1012
0 0375
170
0 0673
171
0 1228
167
177 0 1188
Total 2 5939
0 0020
335
Jaipur 1
^lmeda
0 0080
Way
Total 0 0100
02218
756
Siwar
0 0060
898
Total 0 2278 [No L-14014/3/2001-G P (Part 11)1
SWAMI SINGH, Director3916 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA .AUGUST 4, 20frifcRAVANA 13, 1923 [PART IT— SKJ 300] 3917 3 9 18 T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA • A U G U ST 4, 2 0 0 1 / S R A V A NA 1 3, 1 9 23 [ P A RT I I —S EC 3 ( H )] 3919 392ff THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 4. 2001/SRAVANA 13. 1923 IPARIII—Sic 1(n)| 3921 2269 GI/2001—93922 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . AUGUST 4, 2Q01/SRAVANA J3, 1923 (PART II—SEC 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 24th July, 2001 1 5 2 3 4 iKarjan 0-25-00 (24) Mesrai i 516 Vadodara 515 0-28-02 S.O. 1912.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of natural gas from Dahcj-Vemar-Vijaipur pipeline project in Gujarat State, a pipeline should be laid by the Gas Authority of India Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of 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 Governmeiu 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, Alkapun, Vadodara, (Gujarat)
DAHEJ VEMAR BIJA1PUR PIPELINE PROJECT
SCHEDULE
Dist Tehsil Village !
survey No / Block No
Land to be acquired for R 0 U in Hectares
5
3
4
1
2
Vadodara Karjan (24) Mesra d 549 0-38-84
548
0-47-36
547
0-02-14
0-57-48
546
Car-Track 0-01-82
0-62-86
533
532
0-8-68
531
0-24-58
0-21-28
523
0-29-76
524
522
0-04-15
0-19-82
521
0-12-58
520
517
0-19-59 Car-Track 0-02-50 505
0-41-42 504
0-15-24 503
0-26-64 502
0-24-26 501
0-28-49 500
0-11-22 496
0-07-83
0-00-34 497
0-08-81 Nala
477
0-00-03 478
0-99-63 484
0-00-79 479
0-20-58 480
0-35-34 472
0-36-81
0-10-47 Car-Track
459
0-28-58 458
0-01-94 460
0-01-78 461
0-25-80
0-51-49 462
0-55-70 443
0-01-15 463
0-01-70 442
0-40-79 426
427
0-27-88
0-06-61 Road
420
0-10-65 416
0-36-56 407
0-50-52
0-32-07 411
0-07-81 386
388
0-14-02
0-23-87 383
0-18-21 384
0-17-88 863
381
0-17-88
0-01-71 380392* • -•• i — . 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 0-02-77 Vadodara 379 Karjan (24) Mesrad 0-26-01 Vadodan I Karjan (26)Valan 76 0-23-80 358 75 0-33-72 0-05-10 Road 360 0-07-70
357 0-08-13
356 0-27-92
355 0-23-78
354 0-03-24
0-39-97
353
Drain 0-05-05
336 0-02-70
0-32-84
337
334 0-24-17
1
14-84-19
'otal —
(25) Makan
Vadodara
391 Karjan
0-09-66
393 0-00-32
392 0-23-87
388 0-14-20
387 0-32-79
408
0-32-45
407 0-04-47
413 0-16-19
0-21-15
414
415 0-17-78
0-10-12
416
0-28-82
422
424 0-00-55
429 0-32-24
0-07-74
Road
0-12-16
478
477 0-71-00
471 0-03-98
0-05-96
Fi eld-Canal
0-32-83
482
0-45-49
484
486 0-26-52
485 0-26-10
487 0-14-06
0-25-O0
488
Total — 05-1545
0-09-41 Road
74
0-34-55 73
0-00-05
0-24-24 46/2
0-24-61 47
0-24-60 48
0-37-85 52
0-04-41 51
53
0-40-12 54
0-01-40
0-01-30 58
57/1 0-34-22
0-19-86 57/2
0-07-39 Road
0-63-60 1825
0-41-38 1826
0-19-58 1816
0-00-12 1817
0-22-69 1815
0-30-06 1813
0-19-0S 1812
0-00-40 1810
0-05-08 Canal
0-05-75 1911/1
0-07-97 Railway
0-19-52 1714
0-29-85 1712
0-03-44 0-02-08 Car-track 1698
0-31-74 1699
0-17-83 1684
0-08-38 1685/1
0-08-68 1685/2
0-01-09 1686/1
0-32-30 1686/2
Car-track 0-13-16
0-72-J 6 1478
0-00-80 Road3924 THE GAZETTE OF INPIA AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PART II—SEC 3(H)] 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Karjan 349 (26)Valan 0-04-80 Vadodara Canal Karjan 0-29-78 (27)Kiya Vadodara 0-17-63 Road 348 0-73-53 1470 0-00-50
Car-track 0-03-22
1471 0-55-74
0-32-98
1443
1442 0-31-76
0-0243
Car-track
1441 0-01-91
1439 0-41-42
0-1148
1436/1
1436/2 0-13-55
0-04-63
1436/3
1435 0-10-83
0-09-99
1434
0-01-50
1422
1433 0-03-96
1428 0-49-43
1427 0-11-18
10-61-33
Total —
0-06-92 i Karjan (27)Kiya Road
Vadodara
254
0-41-32
257 0-35-61
291
0-02-21
0-39-99
290
0-00-99
259
0-27-24
289
287
0-17-72
0-27-05
288
0-44-49
285
0-31-04
283
0-07-59
Road
0-33-83
311
0-16-70
510
0-11-83
313
0-24-89
314
0-02-75
Car-track
352
0-26-87
0-05-19
Road
369
0-2949
368
0-03-68
370
0-34-44
374
0-34-29
0-08-79
Road
493
0-77-20
0-04-19
Canal
0-00-03
492
0-15-17
491
478
0-23-26
402
0-78-92
403
0-00-21
0-08-90
400
0-27-33
405
404
0-00-12
0-58-08
406
0-30-65
401
407
0-68-13
425
0-61-47
0-02-60
424
10-76-49
Total —
Ida 884
0-20-85 (28)Chorai
Vadodara Karjan
0-20-97
883
0-06-87
Road
0-09-22
882
881
0-41-33
0-07-82
844
880
0-02-35
0-53-25
846
0-00-01
847
0-06-96
848
0-07-08
840
849
0-28-043925 1 4 2 5 3 1 2 3 4 5 850 655 Vadodara iKarjan (28)Choranda Karjan i 0-22-24 0-20-08 Vadodara (28)Choranda 0-11-38 831 0-04-16 654 851
636
0-21-18
0-14-63
633
0-17-24 852 0-41-39
634
0-25-55
0-04-00
Nala
0-15-76
Road 853
0-06-62
619
0-21-42 783
0-01-62
618
0-20-41 780
0-01-00
617
0-61-47
0-05-45
Ri lilway-Line
0-22-77
611 781 0-23-41
610
0-18-19 782
0-05-05
561
0-13-82 721
0-41-85
0-03-48
609 Car-track 0-07-03
0-04-52
568 111 0-20-16
557
0-45-30 11\
0-17-18
0-20-28
567 Road 0-06-20
586
0-17-30 752 0-12-46
0-16-50
572 753
0-35-53
0-21-61
585 754
0-06-74
0-04-17
574 750
0-41-98
0-21-64
584 749 0-17-54
583
0-34-83 748 0-16-32
0-13-36
582 739
0-14-07
580
0-00-03 738
0-29-69
581
0-19-56 737
0-02-02
0-03-17
!ar-track
C
Road 0-15-08
666 0-09-46
12-90-33
1 'otal :—
665
0-18-15
0-03-26
Vadodara
Karjan (29) Kasampur Car-track 526 0-24-30
207
0-55-30 527 0-26-62
0-09-01
Road 529 0-07-55
0-32-24
154 530 0-36-09
0-20-34
150 CaMrack 0-08-22
0-00-55
155/B 534 0-24-05
0-14-87
155/A 533 0-08-26
151 0-28-62 657
0-06-72
149 0-02-79 536 0-06-60
0-22-94
1483926 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PART II—SEC 3(II)] 1 2 5 3 4 5 3 4 1 2 iKaqan (28) Kasampur 147
Vadodare
0-12-74
Vadodara Karjan (30) Kolhav 356/3 0-08-55146 0-63-27 356/1-A 0-11-85 145 0-O0-04
303
0-01-64 166 0-25-64
304
0-07-18 167 & 168 0-30-31
355
0-27-53 177 0-18-57
365
0-01-02
0-46-61
175
354
0-30-63
03-87-10
Total —
353
0-21-30 (30)Kothav 397
0-05-77
0-00-23
352 227/1 0-24-35
348/1 0-05-55
0-11-16
227/2
349/1 0-12-30
0-13-56
230
349/2 0-09-85 229 0-17-76
347/1 0-14-58 228 0-35-34
347/2 0-01-99 235 0-00-04
346/3 0-09-75 268/1 0-20-36
6-05-35
Total 268/2 0-12-83
388
0-19-21 268/3 0-02-44
(31)Vcmar
0-02-93
268/4
389
0-13-45
0-06-96
268/5
0-02-44
390 268/9 0-04-10
391
0-10-67 268/8 0-57-24
392
0-07-23
0-42-34
268/7
382
0-02-04
0-06-68
Canal
381
0-17-48
0-46-89
286/1
Nala 0-09-25 271 0-00-04
0-11-79
373
0-05-33
Field Canal
0-15-77
374
0-05-01
290
375
0-05-68 287
0-10-60
354
0-11-47
0-08-57
Road
355
0-36-27
0-21-03
356/10
353
0-04-00 356/11 0-07-08
0-15-63
350 356/8 0-1240
350/] 0-15-66 356/7 0-14-78
349
0-01-65 356/6 0-11-68
Road 0-00-94
0-07-58
356/5
0-26-47
02-00-63 356/4
Total3927 3 4 3 1 5 2 1 2 4 5 487 aKarjan (32) Alali 0-07-60 (33)Oslam 0-07-85 Vadodaf; 515 Vadodara iKarjan < 517 0-37-20 0-09-76 486 0-14-96
519
537 0-06-16
0-42-99
539
0-37^16
542
541
0-25-45
540
0-33-33
0-00-35
562
578
0-28-42
0-19-94
577
576
0-12-53
0-03-48
575
579
0-35-71
595
0-17-88
0-02-77 0-66-87
585 586
0-05-29
Canal
0-08-41
589
0-O1-28
588
04-08-08
Total :-
am
0-14-92
553
(33)Osl
555
0-00-10 0-25-58
554
556
0-02-17
552 0-19-43
0-10-54
Road
0-05-06
549
0-19-64
550
551 0-47-05
527 0-00-06
0-44-07
528
0-18-26
531
538
0-16-55
0-17-37
537
533
0-02-42
485
0-08-02
535
0-12-07
0-07-79
467
0-12-29 456/Paiki
769
0-08-03
0-01-91 Road
0-14-12 457/Paiki
0-13-27 480
0-00-29 479
0-15-41 475
471
0-12-26
0-15-04 476
0-08-98 466
0-18-72 469
0-07-04 465
0-37-30 415
414
0-06-60
0-03-31 413
0-08-08 412
359
0-65-23 358
()-28-(M 328
0-06-78
0-27-20 329
354
0-16-81
0-06-98 331
0-09-72 332
333
0-18-M
0-02-85 324
0-34-98 334
0-01-55 335
0-35-89 322
0-01-19 321
0-08-79 323
Total 07-35-65 [FileNo L-14014/8/1()l-GP | SWAM1 SINGH, Director3928 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAYANA 13, 1923 [PART II—SEC 3(n)] 3929 2269GI/2001—103930 THE GAZETTE OF INpIA : AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PART II—SEC 3(h)J 3931 3932 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3933 3934__ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST i, 2001/SRAVANA 13, lj>23 [PART II—SEC, 3(ii)] 3915 3936 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3937 2269GI/2001—113938 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 4,2001/SRAVANA13,1923 [PART H—SEC. 3(ii)] Dist. New Delhi, the 24th, July, 2001
Bharuch S.O. 1913.— whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of natural gas from Dahej-Vemar- Vijaipur pipeline project in Gujarat State, a pipeline should be laid by the Gas Authority of India Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of 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, arc 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. Dutl Road, Alkapuri, Vadodara (Gujarat).
SCHEDULE Dahej-Vemar-Bijaipur Pipeline Project
Dist. . Tehsil Village Survey No./ Block No,
Land to be acquired for RO.U.in Hectares
0-55-90
(l)Lakhig; am 544
Bharuch i Vagra
0-004)2
558
0-3046
559
048-97
560
0-27-85
575
0-33-37
579
0-37-09
580
0-1342
588
0-20-97
590
0-19-89
591
008-76
592
0-28-59
603
0-10-27
602
0-11-74
601
0-04-55
597
0-69-86
598
0-37-%
599
Tehsil Village S iurvey No./ Block No.
Land to be acquired for R O U in Hectares Vagra (l)Lakhigai n Road
0-13-28
450
0-02-92
423
0-11-80
448
0-29-62
449
0-00-32
447
0-02-20
04)7-87
446
0-10-98
443
0-09-62
442
0-12-37
441
0-24-27
440
0-13-69
439
0-37-73
433
0-14-64
432
Carwrack 007-61
397
0-24-78
0-33-10
398
400
0-01-94
0-10-51
Road
0-26-00
401
402
0-06-73
0-04-73
Road
0-04-69
279
0-04-38
280
0-16-64
278
0-15-87
277
0-17-67
276
0-0046
275
0-1147
263
0-15-58
264
0-23-98
265
266
0-08-07
0-15-25
227
226
0-09-86
0-32-25
225
0-05-78
224
0-15-69
Road
0-12-26
93 ^Y Dist Tehsil
Tehsil Village
Dist
Milage S
iurvey No./ Block No.
Survey No./ Block No.
Land to be acquired for R.O.U.in Hectares
Land to be acquired for RO.U.in Hectares Bhamch Vagra (l)Lakhigaj m 95
0-02-00
Bharuch
(3) Ambhe
rta 130
O23-19
\&gra
96
0-09-34
149
0-02-33
97
009-52
126
0-27-17
98
001-78
127
0 4 5 49
99
0-39-17
0-23-91
123
100
0-00-30
0-19-90
121
161
044-93
76
0-34-76
162
0-02-93
0-24-55
75
158
0-15-03
74
0-29-94
167
0-28-30
73
0-13-83
0-01-93
139
72
0-23-64
138
0-11-67
0-07-00
Road
136 - 0-14-29
71
0-3348
168
0-16-89
0-12-58
Road
133
0-19-67
68
0-15-05
132
0-25-67
0-15-16
69
0-51-16
131
0-05-19
66 Total Area 12-70-86
63
0-38-36
158
0-11-60
Vagra
Bharuch
(2)Dahej
59
0-08-08
166
041-92
0-54-28
61
168
0-1948
0-11-06
60
0-12-31
165
0-13-74
54
0-52-57
53
164
0-23-81
0-16-94
50
170
0-36-14
0-1849
51
171 0-01-%
0-14-65
48 Cart-Track 005-85
0-11-51
684
411
0-10-80
0-04-23
686
0-17-11
410
683
0-27-86
412
0-69-77
0-10-21
682
414
000-08
0-11-11
681
02-52-26
Total Area
680
0-07-80 (3) Ambhe ta 158
0-10-15
Bhamch \fcgra
679
0-04-23
157
0-39-79
0-35-66
663
156
0-39-59
0-33-54
664
155
0-01-68
0-04-28
662
154
006-27
0-35-95
661
148
0 4 2 40
657
0-36-02 • "*
T f l B G A Z E n E O F I N D l A: A W 3 U S T 4 , 2 0 0 1 / S R A V A N A 1 3 , 1 9 23
Dist Tehsil Village
Land to be
Survey No./ Block No, acquired for
RO.U.in
Hectares
i 655
0-1940
(3) Ambhcti
L Vagra
Bharuch
654
653
0-12-25
652
0-13-78
649
0-30-77
648
(K)7-24
650
002-16
646
0-12-53
OO5-09
Cart-Track
647
0-24-57
629
0-2609
628
0-23-94
627
0-29-17
0-04-04
618
615
0-14-78
616
0-10-00
617
(M)l-25
613
01-43-08
612
042-08
605
0-10-69
601
0-22-91
598
0-29-99
596
(W)3-20
597
0-16-58
586
0-11-16
587
009-99
595
001-30
0-14-56
588
554
OO0-31
589
007-15
591
0-88-65
573
041-90
Cart-Track 0-12-17
1546^3
Total Area
Bharuch
324
CW744 Vagra (4)Jolva
325
0-30-70
326
0-55-94
328
0-29-15
[ P A RT n —S E T. 3 ( i i )] Tehsil Village Survey No./ Land to be
Dist.
acquired for
Block No
RO.U in
Hectares (4) Joiva
0-20-92 Vagra
Bharuch
W
0-12-33
33 I/A
331/B
0-17-22
330/A
0-10-50
332
0-04-59
334
0-11-36
Total
02-00-15 (5)Atali
85
Bharuch Vagra
OO7-03
82
0-24-90
81
0 4 0 40
74
(MK)-52
80
0-10-14
75
0-26-73
73
0-06-06
76
0-25-06
77
0-2146
72
0-15-%
70
0-61-13
57
0-20-98
100
0-37-90
56
0-01-11
55
0-26-08
101
0-00-13
54
O-54-62
Road
0-08-58
31
0 6 1 49
01-07-95
32
001-60
43
37
0-9044
41
0-19-73
39
(W)2-12
(M)8-5O
Cart-Track
38
0-06O7
352
04841
353
001-15
350
048-91
349
0-21-11 0-83-52
3483941 Tehsil
Dtst Tehsil
Dist
Village
Vtflage Survey No / Block No
Survey No / Block No
Land to be acquired for R . 0 U in Hectares
Land to be acquired for R.OUra Hectares
Vagra(7;
Bhaiuch
)Nandida
542
0-2540 Bharuch Vagra(5) lAtali
347 NALA
0-03-04 0-09-13
Road 04)5-78
09-01-96
Total
551
043-69
006-23
Bharuch Vagra(6;
246
)Akhod
004-37
Nala
041-00
267
0-27-64
552
00549
273
473
0-57-03
0-52-72
Total
472
0-08-32
007-56
\fcgra(7)l
Bharuch
36
Candida
474
0O1O2
0-2O41
Nala
0-20-33
471
0-29-98
35
0-21O5
470
39
0-18-20
469
0-21-11
38
047-71
0-08-08
Road
0-66-76
40
0-51-91
352
41
(MM-73
347
0-50-97
0-29-53
66
348
0-1740
343
0-01-22
040-76
49
00547
345
065-05
52
344
049-%
51
CK)5-37
005-33
351
0-59-62
54
355
000-08
000-67
8
360 01-04-32
7
06046
359
0-28-34 Cart-Track 0-10-71
007-85
Cart-Track
531
0-15-86
0-01-24
361
0-28-72
538
0-34-18
435
539
001-94
01-18-11
433
536
0-2642
0-01-02
416
535
0-25-%
417
0-23-08
0-16-80
418
0-21-34
540
0-11-51
0-38-51
421
54339tt THE GAZETTE OFINDIA: AUGUST4,2001/SRAVANA13,1923 [PART D—SEC. 3(ii)l Dist. Tehsil Village Survey No./
Milage
Dist Tehsil
Block No.
Survey No./ Block No.
Land to be acquired for RXJ.U.in Hectares
Land to be acquired for RO.U.in Hectares
Bbaruch Vagra (7)Nandida 420 0-21-95
Bharuch Vagra (:
429
8)Wahiyal
043-29 419 040-66
428 0-10-50 422 0O5-54
427 0-19-61
531 0-51-76
14-28-03
Total Area:
426 0-34-11 &gra(8
Gocher 005-88
Bharuch\
)Wahiyal
371 0-04-14 487 0-13-18
381 043-73 490 040-16
360 01-1447
0-31-50
491
361 0-00-01 492 0-29-29
Cart-Track 004-26
0-13-20
481
334 0-06-93 480 01-31-65
331 040-80
0-20-34
462
333 0-02-26 477 006-13
332 0-56-58 476 0-59-02
Cait-Track 004-16 472 0-12-79
274 0-(X)-59
0-00-61
470
275 0-S5-10 471 0-19-12
272 0-31-68 469 04548
271 0-38-76 468 041-78
265 0-0349 445 (KJ6-34
268 0-37-67 467 0-15-50
267 0-23-54
0-7409
436
0-06-19
Road
437 0-29-75
225 0-3941
(M)244
440
226 0-72-24 438 0-35-10
231 0-98-34 439 0-16-02
230 0-35-24 431 0-36-22
0-05-80
239
0-33-37
418
16-37-07
Total Area 419 0-03453943 Tehsil Village
DisUr.
Village
Distt-
Tehsil
Survey No / Block No
Survey No / Block No
Land to be acquired for R.O.U in Hectares
Land to be
acquired for
R O U in
Hectares
Bharucti
007-77
i \agra(9
Bharuch
Saran
317 0-14-25 )Juned
Vagra(lO)
Road
01-11-79
0-10-75
149
331
330 0-20-34
0-2631
150
153 046-66
329 0-39-35
327 0-2147
155 0-27-62
326 0-59-16
154 0-3244
0-1549
156
07-32-835
Total area
158 007-78
Bharuch
l)Sayakha 26/P 0-65-66
i \fogra(ll
Cart-Track 0-18-10
0-83-93
29
0^19-85
192
001-83
31
191 0-2945
0-56-70
32
180 0-61-25
0-21-35
39
0-3747
181
38 0-1940
005-75
Cart-Track
42 0-32-11
240 0-32-39
37 0-23-23
247 0-25-10
43 042-61
246 000-63
0-16-53
Nala
248 0-25-88
71 042-61
250 0-26-03
0-0841
Cart-Track
251 0-31-92
77 0-22O8
252 0-17-39
0-27-54
78
253 00-12-95
0-2345
75 Total Area 05-1948
006-26
Road
0240-17
129 Bhamch L\fegra(10; iSaran
241 0-2545
131 0-26-14
007-60
242
042-77
132
0-5101
240
134 O"4-13
239 0-56-20
0-07-67
117
238 0-56-32
0-83-60
0-65-26
116
265
139 005-21
264 001-72
005-80
115
276 04609
275 0-21-56
09-89-19
Total Area
267 009-15
0-53-38
455
Bharuch
J)Suwa
i Vagra(i:
274 047-74
OO040
454
Pond 0O3O2
466 0-51-65
0-10-17
Cart-Track
472 006-29
334 003-55
473 0-23-65
333 006-71
477 045-18
332 0-54443944 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA: A I X J U S T 4 , 2 0 0 1 7 S R A V A N A 1 3, 1923 EART II—SBC. 3(ii)] Distt.
\"lage
Tehsil
Tehsil
Distt.
\"illage
Survey No./ Block No.
Survey No./ Block No
Land to be acquired for R.O.U in Hectares
Land to be acquired for RO.U.in Hectares. 0-05-81
Bharuch \&gra (
470
12)Suwa
Bharuch \&gra (13)Rahad 170 0-52-37
007-75
478
0-0442
Road
484 00440
233 0 4 0 42 483 002-12
234 0-10-72
0-30-69
226
479
0-11-90 482
006-67
003-21
Cart-Track 481
0-26-67
0-14-45
221
493
0-22-01
0-5148
225
501
0-16-28
0-14-92
224
302
0-3O-37
007-62
222
300
004-86
043-50
Cart-Track
0-09^07
009-67
220
499
008-05
0-33-17
Cart-Track 498
02-75-04
377
12 041-32
0-27-08
0-12-29
10
237
238
13 0-21-22
0-10-82
14
236
0-30-60
0-18-33
0-10-37
0-05-87
15
235
0-08-92
0-28-68
Cart-Track 233
44
234
009-75
0-21-08
34 O-99-77
0-18-90
230
0-35-16 231
33
0-22-00
0-82-68
003-76
Cart-Track
31
171 0-27-78
08-12-05
Total —
0-32-07
167
i 722
Bharuch
(14)Rahiya<
005-92
Vagra
166 0-35-62
711 OO3-07
0-01-95
165
709 0-30-50
0-10-22
164
003-32
710
0-08-26
Road
0-29-95
708
0-39-55
162
0-0548
Cart-Track
0-32-70
147
706 045-S8
0-25-09
Cart-Track
0-0641
703
10-39-35
Total :—
0-65-91
704
683 046-78
0-63-87
166
Bharuch
13)Rahad
Vagra (
003-25
Cart-Track
004-56
Road
008-73
664
007-00
175
0-08-55
663
01-OO-23
174
0-27-94
662
172 0-24-62
Rnad 0-07^*7 169 OOO48Bharuch Vagfa (13) Rahad 3945 Distt.
Village
Tchsil Village
Distt. Tehsil
Survey No./ Block No.
Survey No./ Block No.
Land to be acquired for R.O.U. in Hectares.
Land to be acquired for RO.U.in Hectares.
Bharuch Vagra (14)Rahiyad 474 0-24-04 Bharuch
(14) Rahiy; ad 296 0-01-19
Vagra
0-28-94
473
297 0-50-99
0-30-82
432
004-75
Cart-Track
472 0-14-66 300 0-274>9
0-19-07
471
(WX)-38
301
0-36-24
434
(WM-71
Cart-Track
0-08-24
439
286 (M)0-81
0-26-90
440
287 0^-95
0-1348
438
0-33-00
302
0-36-93
442
003-72
306
0-09-29
437
0-10-38
304
12-03-37 305 0-20-39
Total ;—
0-05-76
Cart-Track
01-02-92
(15)Ankot
Bharuch
68
Vagra
276 0-19-42
0-35-12
66
0-08-19
275.
0-33-O2
65
273 0-18-93
(H)9-75
77/A
274 0-19-91
0-62-81
77/B
0-14-17
Cart-Track
0-28-96
80
0-8943
258
0-24-55
81
257 0-00-30
0-1140
SH-6
0-02-20
Road
0-0045
13
261 0-34-92
14 0-51-92 224 0-13-37
0-09-91
3anal
0-35-09
370
0-17-30
11-A
371 0-06-38
15 0-37-73
0-01-41
372
369 0-1662
0-2445
16
0-52-04
374
0-A-B 0-20-65
0-11-88
375
17 0-00-07 376 0-11-00
0-07-58
Road
420 0-13-38
213 045-07 419 (WX)-68
0-00-32
215
0-15-83
422
0-36-54
214
423 0-33-64
216 0-26-72
0-18-O4
512
217 0-30-23
0-20-59
511
0-01-84
218
(M)0-55
510
0-06-59
219
0-0&60
428
AM
(WHLIA
206 0-33-11 2269GI/2001—123946 THEGA23ETIEOTlNDIA:AUGUyr4 20Ql/SRAVANA13,l9a3 - [PARTII-~SSC 3(ii)] Tehsil
Distt
Village
Distt Tehsil Milage
Survey No / Block No
Survey No / Block No
Land to be acquired for R.OUin Hectares
Land to be acquired for R.OU in Hectares Bharuch \fegra (15)Anko t 205 0-29^)9
Bharuch Bharuch (17)Kareli i 554
0-27-34
Cart-Track 003-86 Cart-Track 0-0142
552/Paiki 0-23-73
06-89-52
Total —
008-73
552
Bharuch
(16)\fcchhn ad 108 0-62-34
Vagra
551
003-19 107 0-1148
588
0-07-35 110
0-55-89
0-21-74
549
105
0-04-06
547
0-35-83 104
0-384W
0-18-52
546
99
0-02-91
04149
544/Paiki
87
0-97-58
543
0-16-56 88
0-27-11
0-2646
542
89
0-39-05
0-10-88
541
Cart-Track 0-06-83
540
0-19-74
0-50-58
70
0-11-37
539
00947
67
537
0-32-57 69
0-1006
534
007-62 68
0-30-91
533
0-22-83
004-36
64
532
0-16-38
0-93-17
60
0-13-36
Cart-Track
006-37
Cart-Track
0-23-13
528
0-07-82
39
0-39-07
529
30
00605
06-32-07
Total —
252
0-30-58
(18)Simal
0-02-52
Bharuch
rya Nala
Bharuch
0-30-84
32
0-1543
53
0-11-07
33
64
0-17-74
0-2248
34
63
0-21-56 19/1-2 0-22-80
007-21
65
005-85
Canal
0-0246
62
06-87-70
Total
045-98
66
(M)9-34
(17)Kard
Bharuch
i 563
Bharuch
0-0OO8
67
0-36-89
562
0-39-38
93
0-25-55
561
007-35
94
0-16-37
559
0-60-71
92
009-52
558
02-2042
Total —
0-28-07
557
la 257
040-79
Bharuch Bharuch (19)Padr
0-3240
556
Car-Track 0-14-93
040-24
555
042-04
263
001-94
5533947 Distt. Tchsil Village
Distt Tehsil Village :
Survey No./ Block No.
Survey No./ Block No
Land to be acquired for R O U . in Hectares
Land to be acquired for R O U in Hectares.
0-55-66
271
Bharuch Bharuch i(19)Padna
Amod (21)Samni 340
0-75-80
Bharuch
269
0-45-24
Cart-Track OO6O9_
279
0-35-94
0-12-84
350
0-33-04
283
0-27-71
351 Cart-Track OOH56
352
0-31-91
288
048-85
354
0-31-32
285
044-61
355
0-52-31
287
0-18-73
357
0-09-S6
286
04646
0-13-02
356
002-62
Canal
Cart-Track 0-07-87
387
040-08
03-93-77
TOab—
0-04-30
388 (20)Kothi
OO0-65
76
Bharuch Amod
390
048-53
0-10-67
75
0-1544
391
72
007-75
0-18-61
392
74
0-11-04
396
0-13-23
73
00040
0-0146
Canal Road 00145
393
0-22-36
0-31-%
Total :—
395
0-24-57
002-75
Bharuch
(21)Samni Canal
Amod
394
0-33-09
0-18-05
400
157
0-32-61
160
O8O03
1O3841
Total.—
0-51-76
170
0-11-97
Bharuch
(22)Kurchan 510
Amod
173
0-20-14
509
0-01-12
009-03
Stat-High
0-13-09
Total —
way
0-11-32
(23) Wantarsa Drain
Bharuch Amod
Rly-Line 0-1343
000-12
455
0-32-86
194
453
0-24-75
191
0-39-82
452
0-24-39
0-14-58
190
0-20-03
448
195
0-24-77
444
0-19-58 Cart-Track 007-30
447
0-87-73
219
0-52-58
425
0-13-28
274
005-39
417
040-73
276
043-37
408
0-17-72
277
0-15-68
0-26-25
396
0-34-76
295
0-29-98
397
296
001-98
398
0-05-89
297
047-123948 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA: AUGUST4.2001/SRAVANA13,1923 [PAKTII—SEc,3(ii)] Dist. Tehsil
Disl Tehsil village Survey No./ Tillage Survey No./ Block No.
Block No.
Land to be acquired for R.O.U.in Hectares.
Land to be acquired for RO.U.in Hectares.
Bharuch Amod (23)Wantars a 394
041-61
Bharuch Amod (23}
1 Wantarsa 243 048-15
0-07-81
Road
242
0-14-28
0-23-29
357
247
0-26-22
0-19-56
358
248
04)0-29 356
0-004)1
249
0-334)4
009-88
362
251
0-27-73
0-2245
364
236
0-2949
0-15-28
363
237
04)5-65
0-17-04
367
238
0-0447
0-32-78
373
239
0;21-51
(M)2-81
372
232
0-1446 368
0-1540
230
04)4-53
0-14-98
369
231
0-35-59
0-19-90
370
220
0-19-19
04)9-87
Cart-Track
219
0-18-86
0-25-80
276
218
0-32-56
0-20-86
261
217
04)0-69
04745
260
Road 04)5-11
0-38-13
258
205
04)5-79
00540
Road
04)742
163
10-994)7
Total :—
04)8-99
Car-Track
[FileNo. L-14014/8/0141P ]
0-16#)
244
SWAMI SINGH, Director
04)3-37
2453949 1950 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 4,2001 SRAVANA13,1923 |PAH1 II—SI C 1 (n)] j3932 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 4,2001SRAVANA13,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)] 3953 2269GI/2001—13 *>54 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 4,2001_SRA\ANA J3.1923
[PART D—-Si^Cii)]3955 1956 IHEGAZETTECyINDIA: AUGUST4,2001SRAVANA13,1923 [PARTII—SEC. 3 (ii)] &f • W&
T HE G A Z E T T E OF I N D IA : A U d ( J ST 4 . 2 0 0 1 S R A V A N A 1 3 , 1 9 23
[ P A RT n —S E C. 3 ( H"3959 W y) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 4,2001 SRAVANA 13,1923 [PART II—SEC 3 (u)] 3961 2269 GI/2001—141%2 __ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 4,2001SRAVANA13,1923 [PART E—SEC. 3 (ii)] 3963 3%4 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA - AUGUST 4,2001SRAVANA13,1923 |PART H—SBC 3 (Si)] Wtf
'=LT—-P^^^^^s^a^m^^j^n^.^
3967New Delhi. \hcXth July
S.0.13Jj{.- 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 Rajasthan, a pipeline should be laid by ' the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "Augmentation of Viramgam - Chaksu, Chaksu- Panipat & Chaksu-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 user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public, object- in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Sunil Sharma, Competent Authority, Salaya-Mathura Pipeline (Augmentation) Project, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 33, Muktanand Nagar, near Gopalpura Bye-pass, Jaipur , Rajasthan-302018.
-)%8 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 4,2001 SRAVANA13,1923 LPAR i II—SEC 3 (n)]SCHEDULE
Tehsil: Kotputli District: Jaipur State : Rajasthan
Area
N a me of Village
Khasra No
2
1
Hectare 3
Sq mtr 5
Are 4
Lada ka bas
858 856 855 853 851 763 762 761 760 759 725 700 697 692
04 03 07 10 12 08 00 03 05 17 17 26 13 13
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
84 55 15 56 54 15 73 35 23 13 60 22 20 20 Khelna
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2323 2321 2320 2319 2317 2262 2263 2256 2257 2250 2251 2249 2243 2236 2235 2275 1404 1405 1406 1411 1410 1413
10 05 04 05 06 06 05 04 04 07 03 01 10 02 09 00 05 06 07 04 03 06
89 06 95 72 16 16 28 07 07 15 14 22 23 64 46 77 83 05 70 07 96 053969 1 I 2 .. I I 5 | 15 18 30 29 00 42 66 06 21 68 83 07 75 82 86 84 96 74 28 94 50 50 74 14 94 30 37 38 68 44 96
I 4 07 05 04 03 01 03 01 05 00 02 00 02 01 06 03 03 03 03 05 05 05 05 03 08 05 03 07 06 07 00 06
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
1201
1284
1285
1313
1311
1310
1309
1323
1322
1324
1325
1326
1327
1334
1336
1336/2693
1218
1219
1213/2524
1179
1168
1188/2623
1170
1161
1160
1142
1141
1140
1133
1134
1135
Paota
00 12 01 03 03 04 06 05 05 05 07 00 13 01
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2351
2352
2347
2346
2345
2339
2335
2331
2329
2328
2320
2319
2201
2167
73 43 21 30 25 51 16 50 61 50 89 55 20 71 • 2269 GI/2001-1ftWO THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 4,2001SRAVANA13,1923 {PART II—SEC 3 (ii)l 1 A 2 J2178 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 20 03 92 08 34 47 55 43 06 42 24 65 04
2175 2174 2160 2131 2130 2129/2386 2123 930 929 925 909 906
4 08 08 07 14 10 05 11 09 05 02 09 10 12
Pragpura
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
1897 1893 1830 1833 1866 1885 1864 1862 1646 1648 1644 1649 1650 1654 1653 1652 1683 1686 1687 1634 1629 1628 1630 1620 1619
09 08 06 07 09 01 10 00 04 00 03 08 00 00 08 00 08 10 08 13 04 06 02 07 04
52 76 27 15 54 32 68 20 80 77 53 39 20 72 71 20 40 91 57 94 63 83 33 73 21 Kirarod
656 652 651 639 640 521 522
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 24 56 19 43 46 80
00 09 13 19 00 17 14 wr1 77 88 85 98 25 68 58 84 26 17 86 24 79 79 59 04 80 72 19 62 60 94 60 60 07 61 47 02 43 31 75 20 23 24 98 36 74 25 19 88 82 43 69 53 I 2 | 519 523 528 526 525 524 558 567 557 569 568 575 576 496 497 448 389 388 387 386 385 367 368 362 303 304 305 308 309 244 243 239 240 237 236 232 231 229 181 158 150 133 132 131
4 03 00 05 04 05 06 05 10 00 12 01 08 08 08 06 06 11 07 07 02 08 09 00 05 06 OS 11 02 09 09 09 00 05 05 03 08 05 02 07 09 10 01 08 02
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 0- 0
131
0
02
06 PathrediW2 TTffi GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 4,2QO1SRAVANAI3,1923 [PARTn-^SBc.3(tt)]" L 1 _ J
4 02 06 03 03 08 03 04 03 08 00 01 07
129 128 127 124 51 57 56 63 64 54 65 66 69 70 111 110 109 108 107 208 209 210 211 212
•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
oa OS 08 08 11 04 00 00 18 00 17 00
', => 66 52 44 78 47 59 07 44 80 66 49 86 16 45 94 79 59 43 84. 78 65 75 09 51 Raghunathpura
03 10 09 03 00 07 00 02 07 00 00 17 00 02 02 03 02 00
324 443 444 445 449 457 456 452 453 429 431 433 432 420 422 423 390 391 392 383 398
03 04
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
33 03 16 70 90 64 27 07 42 20 20 40 73 82 98 38 08 51 55 02 243973 1 I 2 | 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
164 165 150 160 150 140 148 124 125 126 118 113 112 107 106
5 03 61 50 62 43 42 75 20 02 76 70 26 64 31 51
I 4 ] 02 02 04 00 00 03 04 00 00 01 02 02 02 02 00
Oordhanpura 1651
1566
1561
1570
1560
1535
1536
1537
1538
1530
1531
1530
1526
1523
1477
1476
1448
1447
1443
1442
1441
1448
1267
1266
1265
1264
1263
1240
1053
1052
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
02 68 30 00 12 03 02 02 02 01 05 06 04 00 08 11 05 11 09 02 00 05 06 • 02 03 03 01 14 04 04
04 28 48 20 28 55 04 15 68 78 03 40 84 21 34 64 57 68 79 17 26 56 02 05 26 67 12 67 do 403974 THEGAZETTEOFINDIA: AUGUST4,2001SRAVANA13,1923 IPAHTII—Sr.c 3(n)l 1 i 2_ I L _4 _l04 1051 1057 1060 1061 1065 1086 1032 1034 1031 1030 1026 1024 1025 1023 1013 1015
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
03 04 04 10 08 00 07 02 05 00 00 00 03 05 07
5 73 18 74 79 29 66 55 13 08 41 95 34 66 10 40 39
Kanwarpura
07 06 06 07 12 08 21 09 02 08 05 07 10 05 03 04 06 12 01 00 17 12 12 11 08 02 02 03 01
05 60 88 40 38 55 53 25 39 84 13 02 26 58 60 14 48 15 18 20 68 78 15 04 09 86 20 58 49
994 997 998 1002 967 961 960 668 669/1057 669 670 871 672 676 681 880 685 690 692 693 775 774 768 767 764 763 754 755 758
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 03973 1 I 4 | 02 3 0 1 2 759 5 64
Kalyanpura Khurd
713 714 715 722 723 724 725 729 730 732 505 504 507 509 510 508 488 427 425 428 424 434 422 423 436 439 437 441 438 442 398 397 369 370 371 373 388 389 385 386
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
01 00 07 06 02 02 02 02 04 08 05 03 05 01 00 10 08 01 10 05 01 02 01 02 03 03 00 02 04 07 09 03 02 05 06 05 03 03 09 00
08 40 51 52 53 55 46 57 57 05 59 11 76 90 20 08 64 08 53 04 64 81 20 37 54 01 20 88 90 14 04 09 94 81 13 98 71 60 59 20 Ratiera
351 350 347 346
0 0 0 0
03 06 03 00
23 45 05 96 3976 THEGAZETTEOTINDIA:AUGUST4,2O01SRAVANA13,1923
[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]
2 _i
1 _ -1
J 5
94 81 69 63 29 92 33 49 42 33
I 4 05 09 07 06 03 07 07 08 05 08
345 343 342 341 340 339 338 337 336 209
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Putli
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
09 04 02 00 04 04 02 15 05 02 06 05 05 05 05 17 05 06 06 15 02 00 00 10 05 05 11 04 06 00 03 03 04 05 00
10 28 59 20 70 09 84 27 45 83 53 80 38 29 31 68 82 56 47 24 50 20 20 70 40 95 95 93 71 65 10 67 81 58 48
558 558 580 559 564 565 551 543 528 520 527 526 516 515 509 462 457 456 454 436 435 437 429 438 426 427 245 244 243 230 77 76 75 61 623977 1 I
5 45 55 00 21 42 31 34 32 24 66 53
I 4 | 05 11 13 16 05 05 05 06 00 03 03
2 60 59 32 28 20 21 14 13 12 4 5
1_. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sundarpura
44 36 95 42 84 28 88 42 86 40 07 76 10 12
00 05 02 00 04 05 11 12 13 14 11 01 08 06
545 544 543 541 226 225 220 217 214 212 210 211 190 189
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Buchaheda
2259 46 45 48 44 43 42 41 40 35 36 30 29 319 277 278 318 317 322 323/1
44 07 04 00 00 08 00 07 00 00 12 06 26 06 01 00 07 05 06 07
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
73 74 68 20 90 - 64 20 11 37 45 87 08 10 22 02 20 54 12 88 10 2269GI/2001—161978 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 4,2W)1SRAVANA13,1923 [PART II— SEC. 3 (ffll L . 1 . -1 1 4 | 2 _1328 3 0 09 5 57 Shyamnagar 738 739 740 742 725 731 726 721 727
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
01 09 09 16 11 00 00 04 14
17 54 09 38 80 84 90 93 15 Basari
501
508 .
513
520
521
531
5335
536
537
f>46
545
548
660
557
nse
649 6*8 647 619 618 609 807 608
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07 05 12 05 05 10 04 00 03 04 05 00 J1 09 03 04 04 02 05 04 03 00 01
66 94 61 20 25 09 37 63 84 86 47 77 16 57 32 26 30 42 12 83 60 65 85 Badabas
323 324 351 352 350 353 349 356 357 345
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 01 06 04 07 00 07 06 03 00
40 73 65 37 88 70 94 73 72 50 Ramsinghpura
913
0
07
Khedkivirbhan
40 35 40 49 55 20 6? 79 37 09 09 36 79 62
04 07 03 01 01 00 02 02 08 04 08 00 04 07
25 23 22 18 19 15 14 ' ri 12 7 41 49 48 51
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kharkarl
83 00 34 57 94 41 54 20 48 28 23 87 35 84 37 27 52 11 29 20 75 08 20 09 19 20 47 62 27 25 22
04 04 08 06 06 05 04 00 02 05 05 07 08 03 04 06 05 05 03 00 02 06 00 I'M C % 0C< 01 10 00 02 07
557 558 556 554 553 551 550 545 548 547 546 423 422 421 405 404 403 402 401 400 394 344 342 346 347 361 348 349 350 333 331
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 0TWO THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 4,2001SRAVANA13,1923 [PART II—SEC 3 (il)] 1_ __i 2 __ [
332 318 326 320 321 323 322 310 304
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 18 00 06 10 03 05 05 00
20 71 52 59 65 26 60 07 68 Molaheda
192 191 177 176 174 173 172/968 172
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 02 04 02 07 07 11 00
20 99 40 55 81 99 69 20 Shekhpur
924 923
0 0
04 04
62 41 Sangteda
903 905 904 911 912 915 948 952 953 960 962 963 971 970 974 969 968 978 665 664 501 508 507 511 638
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
03 03 04 05 09 00 12 00 05 09 03 01 04 05 00 03 00 03 03 05 04 04 00 08 03
55 88 57 82 46 20 09 70 15 97 80 35 22 37 20 30 72 00 14 12 48 82 34 32 883981 4 1
1 J 2 640 641 642 643 631 630 589 588 537 550 549 545 544 543 191 189 190 183 181 180 179 177 154 153 152 149 1142 1143 1147 1148 1149 1150 1158 . 1163 1170 1171 1172 1175/1590
5 20 18 * 64 93 05 72 14 81 75 38 20 07 53 76 45 15 48 42 93 45 17 30 21 12 62 31 71 81 98 02 89 29 08 99 77 30 61 09
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
00 01 02 02 05 04 01 01 05 08 00 10 08 08 00 13 07 04 05 06 06 18 06 23 00 02 04 08 07 06 03 05 03 00 06 04 08 07
Khedki Mukkar
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
05 03 02 04 06 06 06
919 922 923 925 926 927 928
39 09 86 18 65 49 27v"2 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 4,2001 SRAVANA13,1923 [PART II—SEC 3 (liil _ 1 i
- 4 _l
2 929 930 931 932 944 978 945 948 949 951 880 869 885 851 852 853 847 846 803 807 809 808 813 814 815 816
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
5 62 65 39 65 47 27 33 05 79 02 39 75 90 58 91 20 32 58 61 20 98 04 81 84 56 26
04 01 05 04 05 02 08 06 00 09 08 06 06 03 03 00 01 05 07 00 04 02 04 15 05 13
Paniyala
1131
1137
1136
1143
1144
1145
1198
1197
1233
1232
1231
1251
1252
1253
1254
1220
1255
1219
1357
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
37 47 66 69 72 43 93 43 88 37 66 68 57 80 98 74 33 19 82
03 04 07 07 07 08 05 07 05 06 07 07 05 08 05 00 00 05 073983 2 |
1 1
I _ *. I09
1373
1374
1375
1381
1716
1738
1739
1896
1833
1834
1835
1848
1847
1846
1845
1856
1857
1858
1862
1822
1823
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
04 09 08 06 08 06 07 00 03 04 04 05 04 05 06 06 03 00 07 06
5 68 97 96 97 54 08 35 42 20 66 99 74 32 96 19 44 02 96 20 46 03 Morda
363 366 367 394 393 39a 392 391 390 389 388 385 386 468 471 475 516 517 518 519 521 522 192 179
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
05 05 00 06 04 03 09 09 05 06 05 02 01 03 11 06 06 02 03 00 10 15 13 06
91 26 21 83 63 95 87 01 12 55 31 53 35 74 11 77 53 14 46 20 80 12 55 7439fU THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 4,2001SRAVANA13,1923 [PART H—Sec. 3 (ii) _ 1_ J
4 07 06 03 09 05 03 06 02 14 03 02 08 08 08 01 06 05 08
I 5 36 92 42 66 32 91 11 46 94 19 55 02 73 62 11 34 43 01
2 184 183 182 172 US 146 142 147 141 140 577 132 131 605 606 607 608 609
I 3 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Malpura
02 06 02 04 02 05 04 04 07 09 00 07 07 04 04 04 09 07
102 101 97 98 95 93 94 81 89 83 64 63 62 81 60 59 58 55 54
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
09 00 48 42 92 47 29 40 59 13 73 92 54 84 40 68 74 98 98
V07
[FileNo 25<)11/21/2
New Delhi, the 5th July, 2001 S.O. 1915.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore (Karnataka) as shown in the Annexuie, in the industrial dispute between th'j employers in relation to the Bharat Gold Mine3 Ltd., and their workmen which was received by the Central Govern- ment on the 5-7-2001.
fNo. L-43O12|2|99|IR(M)1 B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUST- RIAL TRTBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN"
O.G. PALYA, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTPUR, BANGALORF-560022 Dated : 29th June 2001
PRESENT :
Hon'ble V. N. Knlkami, Presiding Officer.
,C. R. No. 79199
I Party
The Vice President, BGML Labour Association, Oorgaum Post, Kolar Gold Fields-563119.
II Party
The Managing Director,
Bharat Gold Mines Limited, Oorgaum Post,
Kolar Gold Fields-563120.
APPEARANCES:
I Party : —
TI Party ; A.S. Bopanna, Advocate.
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers con- ferred bv Clause (d) of Subsection (1) and Sub-section 2\ of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has Tefrrrec! this disrmte vide Order No. L-43012/2/99-IRfM) dntcd 16-fc 1999 for adjudication on the following schedule. 2269 GT/2001—17
• ms
SCHEDULE
"Whether the termination of service of Shri William by the management of Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2, I party was working with the II party. His services are tei irunetcd tird therefore, Industrial dispute is referred. 3, When the reference was referred to this tribunal notices were Mint, Both parties remained absent. No repi esentation by both sides. Claim statement is not filed by the I party even nflei giving many adjournments. Tn my opinion no purpose will be served in adjourning the matter. It appears that the I party is not interested in going on with this dispute. 4, Accoidingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER)
Reference is rejected.
(Dictated to the L.D.C., transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 20th June 2001)
V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 5th July, 2001
S.O. 1916—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore (Kamataka) as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Hutti Oold Mines Co. Ltd. and their workmen which was received by the Central Gov- ernment on the 5-7-2001.
[No. L-43012/18/200O-IR(M)] B. M. DAVTD. Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
RRFOR1? THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRTBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN".
G G PALYA, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTPUR.
BANGALORE-560022
Dated : 21st June 2001
PRESENT :
Hon'ble V. N. Kulkarni, Presiding Officdr.
C. R. No. 63/00
T Party Sh. L. Alexander, Ex. T. No. 476, No. D39-A, Labour Colony, Tarnbranagar Post. P.B. No. 4, PA
II Party
The General Manager, Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd. Chitradurga Gold Unit, P.B. No. 4, Chitradurga,3986 THE GAZETTE OF INBIA : AUffillJST 4. 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [FART H—SEC. 3(iij] APPEARANCES :
I' Party : N. Madhusuckn, Advocate.
11 Pitrly : N.S. Rajjram, Advocate.
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 Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No, L-43Q12/18/2000- IK(M) dated J l-S-2000 foi adjudication as the following schedule.
SCHEDULE
'sWt*1htv (he action of the management of Hutti Gold Mines Go. Ltd., in dismissing the services of Sh. L. Alexander is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entftled ?"
2. On the first day of fiaaring, when the advocate appeared for the parties and it was submitted that the matter is settled. Memo is filed by the I patty Stfiting that the T party is given •work.
3. In view of the memo filed by the I party, the followina order in* passed.
ORDER
Case is closed as the matter is settled with the Management. (Dictated to the L.D.C., transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 20th Tune, 20O1)
V. N. KULKARNI, Pjesiding Officer New Delhi, the 5th July, 2001
S*O. 1017.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Duputes Act; 1*47 (14 of 1947), tlie Central Government hweby publishes the award of the Central Government In- W"rtBttng&lore a" shown jn the Amwwire in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation11 tcr the management of Mysore Minerals Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Governmnt on 5-7-2001. fNo. L-29Q12|3|94-IR(M)] B. M. DAVTD, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE BRFORR THE CENTRAL GOVERNMFNT INDUSTRIAL TRTKTBAL.CUM-LABOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN", tn uxm- m CROSS, n PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, tESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Datfcd : 18th June, 2001
PRESENT :
Hon'blo Shrl V. N. Kulkarni, B Com., LLB., Presiding Officer.
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore C. R. No. 88|94
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the poweis con- fared by claune (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-29012|3|94-lR(Misc.) dated 5-10-1904 for adjudication on the following schedule :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of M|s. Mysoren Minerals Ltd. in promoting Shri Gangadhariah, SuperceedinR his senior, Shri K. H. Javarappa is justified ? If not, to what relief Shrl K. H. Javarappa is entitled?"
2. The first party union workman was working with the second party. His grievance is that the management has promoted Shri Qangadtiariah who virtaally junior to the first party union workman. So industrial dispute is raised.
3. First party Union woikman filed Claim Statement. 4. According to the Clabn Statement th* case of the first party is that the first party was joined the second party mana- gement as Supervisor on 18-12-96 and! Gangadhariah joined the second party manaeement as Supervisor on 25-7-1997, first party is a union.
5. The case of the first party is that Shri Gangadhariah is junior to him and the management illegally promoted him as an Assistant Manager. Therefore, first party union work- man has prayed to pass award in its favour.
6. Second party filed objections. 7. Tho case of the second party as per the objections is as under :
8. Auoording to the management Gangadhariah was ap- pointed as" Supervisor on 25-7-77 and1 worked at Tiptur Stock Yard. Earlier to 1982, the supervisors who were working at Mines and passed mining competency examination, w"re pro- moted to the cadres or Mines Mates. Mine foreman keeping in view the length of service rendered in the respective cadres.
9. Tt is the further case of the management that the super- visors who were working in the- Ports and Stock yards were having an opportunity of getting promoted as Field Inspector by virtue of 'service seniority* performance and merits of each case.
10. So far as Frist"pauty Union is concerned he was ap- pointed as Supervisor on 18-12-1976 and he worked at mine* and has not paused' any mining competency examination and therefore, his casr for promotion was not considered to anv higher cadre. The second party has prayed (o reject the reference.
11. Tt is seen from the records that on behalf of the management MW] is examined. Against this first party has not examined himself and the union-has not adduced any :vi- dence. I have read the evidence of MW1 carefully. I have heard the counsel for Second Tarty. The first party union and the counsel remained absent. The evidence of MW1 is that on 18-12-76 the first party union workman-was appointed as a Supervisor and he was regularised in the same cadre on 1-6-81 and according to his corrrpetency as a Mine Mate he was promoted and designated as Mine Mkte from 1-4-1995. Again he was promoted as Mine Foreman. There arc recruit- ment rulee and all the promotions are done according to the recruitment rules. The category of Field Inspector and Mine Mate are all together two different categories Gangadhariah was working in the stock yard.
New Delhi, the 6th July, 2001*
S.O, J 918.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the lnd.us,lilal Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Inr dustrial Tribunal |Labour Court, Bangalore as <>howui in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Corporation Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on. 5J7-2OO1.
jTSTo. L-12O12[21t|90-IR(B-IT)l
C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIRUNAL-CUM-^ABOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN", III MAIN, HI CROSS, n PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE
Dated : 28th June, 2001
PRESENT :
HonTjle Shii V,N. Kulk"rnl, B.Com,, LLB., Presiding Officer.
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore
C, R. No. 58|90
Shri B. Umesh Rao, C|o Shri Shambu Namboodiii, Advocate, Sullia-574239 D.K. District.
II Party
The- Chairman, Corporation Bank, Head Office, Mangalore-575001.
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the poweii con- fen ed 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/?H/9CMR-B(H) dated 16-10 1990 for adjudication on the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Corporation Bank in teiminating the services of Shri B. Umesh Rao, Janata Deposit Collector w.e.f. 28-4-88 is justified? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled to?"
2 The First party was working as Janata Deposit Collec- tor with the Second Party from 27-11-1972 He was termi- nated w.e.f 28-4-88 and therefor* industrial dispute is raised.
3. First party appeared and filed Claim Statement.
4. It is the case of the first par,ty that he was appointed as Janata Deposit Collcptor by an order dated 27-11-1972 and he worked continuously and pj omotcd the business of the
398?
bank and on appieciation, he was, also pTomot"jd to collect FD to the Bunk. He was Betting un average commission of Rs. 3,300 as, monthly income. The Incharge Manager adopt- ed unfair labour practice and show cause memo was issued asking him to give explanation for laie coming arid nen submission of leave letter.
5. It is the fuither case of the first party that the alle* gations are not correct and the order of termination ii illegal. First party for these reasons ha" prayed to allow the jeforcnce,- 6. The case of the second party is biief is as follows :
7. The main contention of the Second Party is that the flr"t party was not a workman as defined in Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act and there is no master and servant relationship between the fiist party and the Second Party.
8. It is the further case of the management that the ap- pointment oidej wa4 .made as per the terms and conditions set out in the order datffd 27-11-197.2 read with the sgw*- ment executed by the first party on the said date.*- He W M. getting only commission and therefore, be is sot the work- man, Some of-the conditions of the agieoment arc given In the Counter Statement.
•
9. The first party was not subject to the normal working hours of the bank. He was ^at .paid any salary or wages. Only commission was paid. The wprk of the first party is not comparable with, the work of regular employees. The ave- rage monthly income is not correctly shown by the first party. The question of issuing charge sheet and condantioe an enquiiy does not arise. Second party for there rejworw. has prayed to reject the reference,
10. It is seen fiora the records that this is a very old case. It is the case of 1990 and we are in the middle of 2001. Parties have not taken any interest for adducing evidciwe. Many adjournments were given but no evidence was addu- ced. Tn view of the judgement of the Apex Court "Indian Bank Association Vs. Workmen of Syndicate Bftnk and others" I am of the opinion that no purpose will be served in adjourning this matter and therefore T closed the evidence and heard the counsels.
11. I have read the above decision of the Apex Court carefully and as per the above decision of the > H/SB'ble Apex Court the first party is workman and thccontenMpn of the management that the first party is not a worknj"" will not hold good.
12. It is seen from the counter lhat mainly the manaxev ment has contested this case on the Rround that the first party is not a workman. Now in view of the iudgnracRt of the fron'hle Apex Court that stand of the managementiswwt* 13. I felt it is not necessary to pive adjournment as per the wish of the parties , so T closed this case. Further in view of the decision of the Hon'bie Apex Caiirt. now It to clear (hat the first innv is a workman.
14. Once it i<: held that the first paity is a workman, the termination of first party by the management without any notice, enquiry, and paying any compensation as > re- quired under the Industrial dispute act is illegal. Therefore, T am of the opinion that this reference has to be allowed and accordingly T iproceed, to pa?8 llw following order:
OBJDERi
The leference is allowed. The order of termination i" set aside and the manaaAment is directed to take the tint party as agent accordance with the principles held in tbe above decision of the Apex Court* Accotdingly reference ,is dwpoir, ed off. (Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed Hy me on 28th June, 2001.)
V. N, KULKARNI, Presides Officer$m THE GAZETTE OF JNDIA : AUGUST 4, 2001/SkAVANA 13, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J New Delhi, the 6th July, 2001
S.O. 1919.—In pursuance of Section 17 or the Industrial Disputes Act, 194.7 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Anpexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Bank and their work- man, which was received by the Cential Government on 5-7-2001.
fNo. L-12012|190|90-1R(B-II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNBXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT SHRAM SADAN', 111 MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTPUR, BANGALORE
Dated : 26th June, 2001
PRESENT :
Hon'ble Shii V. N. Kulkarni, B. Com., LLB., Presiding Officer.
CGlT-curn-Laboui Court, Bangalore
C. R. No. 67|91
I Party
The General Secretary, Indian Bank Staff Union, 908 C, 19th Main, Sliri Rajeshwari Nagar, Bansalore-560039.
II Party
The Zonal Manager, Indian Bank P.B. No. 3573, 38|1672 B&C, Chitoor Road, Ernakulam-682035.
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers con- ferred by clause (d) of Sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputei Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vido order No. L-12012/190/90-1 R(B-II) dated 1-10-1991 for adjudication on the following schedule :
SCHEDULE
"Whether'the action of the management of Indian Bank- In Imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments on Shri V. R. Srinivasan, Clerk is justi- fied? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?" 2. First party is working with the Second party Manage- ment. Charge sheet was issued and enquiry was conducted against him. On the basis of enquiry leport the management has imposed the punishment of stoppage of two increments and therefore, industrial dispute is raised,
3. Parties appeared and filed Claim Statement and Counter respectively.
4. The case of the first party in brief is as under :
3. The first pmty entered the services of the second party on 15-6-1977 at flasavanagudi Brunch. Charge sheet was issued and enquiry was held and punishment was imposed. It is the case of the first party that the charge was false and all the documents were fabricated and the enquiry is not coirect. H Is also the case of the first party that the Enquiiy Officer and Disciplinary Authority have not applied their mind to the evidence and have stopped increment, Fiisl party liiH said that tho punishment is incorrect und the entire eii- . quiry Is prejudicial. Fitst party for these reasons has pray- ed to pass award in his favour.
6. The case of the second party is that the dispute raised is not an Industrial Dispute. It ia the further case of the management that on 3-8-1995 the Branch Management of the Bank asked the first party to sign office older and per- form the duty allotted to him. But the first party in utter disobedience of the order refused to oign and refused lo work allotted to him.
7. Again on 8-11-1985 the first party was asked to woik in the Cash Receipt Counter but he refused to work and disobeyed the orders, On 1-8-1985 the first party with- out permission left the office causing disruption of the work. It is also the case of the management that the first party remained absent and his absence was unauthorised. The parawlsc reply has given and said that the enquiry is correct and all the allegations made by the first party are not correct.
8. It is seen from the records that this court dated 4-1-1992 held that the DE is not fair and proper. It is seen from the records that the management again examined witnesses and the workman got examined himself. Various documents are marked in the evidence and after the closure of the evidence both sides have filed written arguments. I have heard both sides, I have carefully read the written arguments filed by the flist party and Second paity and I have considered the entire evidence,
9. Tn the instant case the charge against the first party is that the first party was charge sheeted on 24-8-1985 for in- subordination of unauthorised absence.
10. Second party management in order to piove the charge has examined MW2 Shri V. S. Madhavan. The management has also examined MW3 and MW4 and MW5, MWl has given evidence about the enquiry and the first party also gave evidence on 9-9-1992 so far as enquiry is concerned.
11. It is seen from the records that after the domestic) enquiry was held as not fair and proper. The management examined MW2, 3, 4 and 5. Thereafter tho workman Rot examined himself.
12. According to the evidence of MW2 on 3-8-1985 he was present in the bank and Shri A.L. Nagappan was the Chief Manager and the Chief Manager Issued an office order to the first party allocating certain work. The office order was served on the first party but first party refused to obey the office older and acknowledge the same. MW2 has put his signature on the endorsement that the first party has refu- sed to accept the office order. According to the evidence of MW2 the first party did not work on 3-8-85 and did not attend any work. This MW2 is cross examined by the first party, the fact remains that the first party did not sign the officf order and has not worked as per the superiors. The first party has asked so many questions to MW2 in his cross examination but they are not useful to the first paity. A question was asked to MW2 by the first party namely not signing the office order is misconduct. And next question was nsked whether it is a gross misconduct or minor misconduct?
13. On going through the entire cross examination it is clear that the first party got himself engaeed in doing thK- Nothing is made out from the cross examination of MW2 to damage his statement that the flist party refused to sign the, office order and did nnt work on that day.
14. We are also having the evidence of MW3, Shri A.L. Nagappan. He savi that on 3-8-85 he asked the first party to do cash work on that day and he isiued office order to that effect .is per Hx. M7(a) and currency cfr-st it different from branch cash. He further says that the first partv refused to accept the office order and his Tcfnsal was record- ed as per Ex, M.7(b) and his explanation was called for as 39§9 per Ex. M-9 and reported the matter as per Ex. M10. He has also given evidence about leave. We have to sec whe- ther the charge of refusing to work and signing the office order is correct as deposed by MW3, Shri Nagappan. This MW3 is cross examined at length and the first party tried to es>tabli^h that Chief Manager was, dead against him and in- tentionally the Chief Manager tried to issue charge sEeet but nothing is made out from the cross examination of MW3 that in order to harass the first party charge sheet was lnued" From the evidence of MW3 also It is clear that the flwt party has refused to sign the office order aod has also failed ta( wnik on that day as per the directions of the higher officer, 15, Then we have the evidence of MW4. He has also corroborated the evidence of other witnesses and has stated that the first parly has refused to sign the office order. The first party has asked many questions to MW4 regarding standing ciders etc. but on going through the evidence of MW4 it is clear that the Presiding Officer has not signed the deposition therefore his evidence cannot be used at all thuogh he has corroborated other evidence. We have the evidence of MW-5 to say that he was present on 3-8-85. The Chief Manager of the Bank called the first party who was working in currency chest of the bank. The Chief Manager directed the first party to work in the branch but first party refused to work and the insti uctions wcic given by office order and he has signed on the office order. This witness is cross examined but nothing is illicited from his cross exa- mination so as to say that the fust party has made out any case as alleged by him.
16. From the evidence of MW2, 3 and 5 it is absolutely clear that the first party refused to sign the office older and also not worked on that day and has disobeyed the instruc- tions of his superiors. The first paity inslead of establishing that he has not lefused to sign and he has not refused to do work on that day he has been busy in saying that the Chief Manager has no authority to iissue such office order and the office order is against the provisions of standing order etc. he went on challenging the authority of the superiors. Any how we are not concerned with all that I said so because nothing is made out by the first party that the Chief Manager was against the flist party and intention- ally the Manager has harassed the first party.
17. in the absence of all this, J am of the opinion that the management has proved the disobedience, I have not considered the evidence of MW4 because it was not signed by the Presiding Officer. The evidence record is sufficient to prove the charge of disobedience and penalty is proper. So far as evidence of MW4, Shri P. Dandhi is concerned the Examination In Chief on 8-2-1999 is signed by the Presdi- ing Officer and the cross examination on 13-4-1999 is not signed by the Presiding Officer, Any how we have other evidence and documents to say that the first party has dis- obeyed the order of the superior and misconduct is proved. 18, In my opinion the punishment is also proportionate and there is no merit in this dispute. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following Order.
ORDER
The reference is rejected,
(Dictated to PA transciibed by her coi reeled and signed by me on 26th June 2001).
V, N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 6th July, 2001
SO. 1920.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workman, which was rceived by the Central Government on 05-07-2001.
[No. L-12012/182/98-IR(B-II)| C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVKRNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR
PRESENT:
Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.
Reference No. CGIT: 31/2000
Employers in relation to the management of Bank of India
AND
Their Workman Shri Liladhar Pandurang Kanholikar
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub Section (1) and Sub Section 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 lias referred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-12012/182/98-IR(B-II) dated 22-02-1999/08-03-1999 on following schedule.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the mana£ement. Bank of Tndia in dismissal from service of Shri Liladhar Pandu- rang Kanholikar, workman w.e.f. 01-10-96 is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the said workman is entitled and from what date?"
This claim has been filed by Liladhar Pandurang Kanholi- kar in the court of C.G.T.T. No. 2, Mumbai on 26-04-99. This case was received by transfored in this court at Nagpur in March, 2000.
The brief facts are that Liladhar P. Kanholikar was posted as Sub Stalf (Sepoy) at Bank of India, Seloo Branch, Dist. Wardha from 05-10-R4 to 01-10-94. One customer Shri Ashok Wamanrao Burande had opened Saving Bank Accoun No, 2833 at Hank of India, Seloo Branch on 18-07-77. He was the single account holder The workman Liladhar P. Kanholikar was known to him from before. The workman yvas aware that Ashok W. Burande, Account holder had died in the year 1991 leaving behind a widow and a small child as the only legal heir. Liladhar Kanholikar was known to the family of Ashok W, Burande from his childhood, On 14-06-94 Liladhar P. Kanholikar unnuthorisedly made available the Savings Bank Account Specimen Signature Card pertaining to Account No. 2833 of Mr. Ashok W. Burande (who had died) to the brother of Ashok Burande namely Ramesh W. Buiande. He obtained the signature of Ramesh W. Burande as a joint depositor in the account of Ashok W. Burunde (Deceased) with the purpose to show that Ramesh Burande was joint account holder with the deceased namely Ashok W. Burande. He kept the Saving Bank Specimen Signature Card of Account No. 2833 in the cabinet at it's proper place without informing the concerned official and thereby helped Ramesh W. Burande in falsefying the Bank's receords.
$990, tHfe GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PART M—SEC. 3(ii)JFor withdrawing Rs. 26,500 which was available in the Saving Bant Account ot Asbok W. Burande, the workman Liladtiar P. Kauliolikar filled in, in his own handwriting, the withdrawal slip ot Rs. 26,500 on 14-06-94 and asked Ramesh W. Burande to present the withdrawal slip on the counter for further pioicssing and passing aloni;with the passbook.
'lhus, Liladhar P. Kanholikar in collusion WIUI the Counter Clcik, managed 10 get we amount ot Rs. 2b,tiUU wilhdiawn Horn the Account JNo, 283J ot Ashok W. iJuiande. flit; woikman Liladhar F. Kanhohkar ihus acted prejudicialy to the Bank's interest and committed misconduct under clause 19.5 (j) ot the Bipaitite Settlement. He caused financial lost to the bank.
For the above fraud, chargesheet was issued against Lilacihar P. Kanhobkar on 07-08-95.
Departmental enquiry was conducted by Sliri K. Koy Chenan Zachanan, Deputy Chiet Officer (C&IC/SSi), Regional Olrjce, Wanlba. The workman participated in en- quiry. He was dismissed from the service w.e.i. 01-10-y6 vide order dated 26-09-96.
The workman Liladhar P. ttanhohkar has submitted his Statement ot Claim and stated that during enquny, no specillc lime was given to him to submit the leply of charse- shect, he therefore could not submit his reply. On 20-12-95 through his Defence Representative, he demanded some documents. He was allowed inspection of documents. The enquiry was not conducted fairly. Some witnesses were also not examined such as Shri W. S. Masram. He claimed his reinstatement with back wages.
The management of Bunk of India in their Wiitten State- ment mentioned that all the relevant documents were given to the Defence Representative of the woikman during the enquiry proceedings on 22-12-95. The Defence Representative has received photocopies of documents No. 2, 4, 5 and 8 of the list. The other document were shown to him.
The management did not prefer^ to examin W. S, Masram. It was for the management to decided how many witnesses sho,u)d be examined. The workman got full opportunity to submit his defence. His appeal was dismissed on 25-06-97.
The workman had admitted in his Statement (ME 8) that he had taken out the Saving Bank Specimen Signature Card (ME 1) from the Card Cabinet and after adding the name of Ramesh W. Burande and obtaining his signature, restored the card in the cabinet on 14-6-94.
Liladhar P. Kanholikar thus misappiopimtcd banks amount Rs. 26,500 in collusion with Ramesh W. Burandc an outsider.
The management has also submitted documents M. 1 to M. 17 to prove the charges against the workman. On 30-03-2001 Liladhar P. Kanholikar was allowed to produ;r his witness Ramesh W. Burande. The application of the workman was allowed.
The statement of workman Liladhar P. Kanholikar was recorded in this court. He was cross examined on 22-CS-2000 by the Bank's Officer P. M. Pandit. He admitted that he did not gave any reply of the chargeshect upto three months. He also admitted that he had brought two witnesses vvilli him. But these witnesses did not prefer to suppprt his case during enquiry and went away. He further slated that hr had called Marram in his defence, but Masram did not support him and did not prefer to appear as witness. The statement of Liladhar P. Kanholikai therefore shows that Ra,mesh W, Burandc and Masram did not prefer to suppon to him and they did not ajjpeur as witness. Thus, no witness prefer red to support the workman.
Ficnn thy side of management of affidavit of K. R05 Cherjan Zacharjah was submitted on 12-09-2000. In his affidavit he had mentioned that during Enquiry Proceedings for about two and half month Shri Kanhohkar did not submit his reply to the charge sheet. Ho was given full opportunity to 4efeHd himself through the defence represen- tative of his choice. All the relevant documents asked for by Liltjdbar P. Kanholikar were provided him, His finding was based on documents and statement of the workman. Liladhar P. Kaijholikar, workman was provided several opportunities to cross examine I'1~ v '11 s". but neither the workman himself prefer to cross examine the witness nor his Defence Representative turned up to cross, examine K. Ruy Chilian Zachanah the Enquiry Officer,
Purusholtnm K. Dhokne, Staff Officer of Bank of India, Nagpur bad also submitted his affidavit on 02-12-99. The representative oi management P. M. Pandit represented on 01-03-2001 that the witness be discharged. Hence on the reqiiCSf^of management this witness was discharged.
CongMci'Wff the entire oral and documentary evidence; on lecord^Jt-w therefore established that the domestic enquiry was- conducted- against the workman according to principles ol iiyr.(n-fj .justice. The findings of Enquiry Officer are not perverse
The Enquiry Officer had mentioned in his Enquiiy Report that when the account was opened by deceased Ashok W. Burande on 18-07-77, his brother Ramesh W. Burande was minor and he therefore did not participate m opening the account with Ashok W. Burandc.
The Saving Bank Account No. 2833 was single accoiint in neme of Ashok W. Burande and the workman fraudantly gqt the name gf Ramesh W. Burande added in the account of Ashok W. Buiande. The amount of Rs. 26,500 was thus iiaudnatly withdrawn by the workman Liladhar P. Kanholi- kar by filling in the withdrawal slip and getting the passbook submitted.
In view ol the above facts the charge against the workman was proved during enquiry and punishment of dismissal from service awarded to him is legal and justified.
ORDER
The action of the management of Bank of India in dismissal from service of Shri Liladhar P. Kanholikar, workman w.e.f. 01-10-96 is legal and justified.
The workman is not entitled to any other relief. The ieferencc is answered accordingly.
Date : 10-5-2001.
B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 6th July, 2001
S.O. 1921.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 bf 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal[Laliour Court, Nagpur as shown In the tinncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of India and theii workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-2001.
I'No. L-12012[125|2000-IR(B-1I)1 C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUST- RIAL TRIBUNAL, NAOPUR
PRESENT :
Shri B.G. Saxenn, Picsiding Officer.
REFERENCE NO. 311|2000
The Zonal Manager, Bank of Tndla
AND
Shri V.R. Chupke mi AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Laboui, New Delhi
annexiire -in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in I elation to the management of Corporation Bank and their woiknrictn, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 5-7-2001.
l"No. L-12O12|113]91-1R(B-II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
by exercising the poweis confined by clause (d) o£ Sub- Section (1) and sub section (A) of section 10 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for ad- judication to this Tiibunal vide older No. L-12012|125|200U| 1R(B II) d.tcd 8-11-2000 on the following schedule.
ANNEXURE SCHEDULE
HLFORE THE CENTRAL GOVI-RNMFNT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT 'SHRAM SADAN', III MAIN, Til CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD,
YtSIIWANTHPUR, BANGALORE
Dated : 28th June, 2001 "Whether the action of the management of Bank ot India through Its Zonal Managei, Zonal Officei, Nagpur in dismissing Shri V. R, Chapke Clerk w.e.f, 23-3-95 is legal, pioper and justified? If not, what relief the said workman is entitled to?"
FRESENF :
Hon'blc Shn V N, Kulkaini, B.Com., I.LB., Presiding
Officer.
CG1T-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE This rcfeience was reteived on 28-11-2000 and 1-1-2001 was fixed for filling statement
C. R. No. 66|91
I Party
The Joint Secretary, Corporation Bank Employees Union, No. 93 •'4. IV Mam, Malleswaran( Bangaloic-560003.
II Party
On 1-1-2001 again the counsel foi the workman Amrish Joshi moved application that he could not prepare for state- ment of claim and time be allowed. Again on 31-1-2001 the counsel moved the application for adjournment, fhe case was adjourned for 7-3-2001. The workman did not submit any statement of claim and the case was adjourned to 11-5-2001. On this date also the counsel for workman stated in his application that due to some unavoidable cir- cumstances, he is unable to submit the statement of claim and another date be given.
The case was adjourned to 31-5-2001 but no statement of claim was filed. Again the case was adjourned to 10-6-2001.
The Chairman Corporation Bank, Head Office, P.B. No. 38, Manjjnlore-57500.
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-sction 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-12012|113|91|IR-B(II) dated 30-9-1991 for adjudication on the following schedule :
Today i e. 19-6-2001 the case was taken up at 12.05 P.M. Neither the workman B. R. Chapke turned up nor his counsel appeared to file the statement of claim. The workman and his counsel were given five adjournments but they did not prefer to submit any statement of claim. The counsel for Bank of India is present. The workman does not appear Interested to proceeding with his case and has been regularly avoiding to submit the statement of claim In this above circumstances the reference is disposed of for want of pro- secution.
SCHEDULE ORDFR
"Whethei the action of the management of Coiporation Bank in terminating the services of Shri D. Murthy, Janata Deposit Collector is justified? Jf not, to what relief is the workman entitled?" The workman V. R. Chapke, Clerk, Bank of Tndia run not -ubmitted any statement of claim His counsel also did not submit any statement of claim thouph several times this case was adfourned. The reference is theiefoie disposed of for want of prosecution.
B. O. SAXENA, Presiding OPcer
2. The First Party was working as Janatha Deposit Col- lector with the Second Party from 28-2-1980. He was termi- nctcd w.e.f. 14-11-1988 and therefore industrial dispute is raised.
3. Fiist party appealed and filed Claim Statement,
4. It is the case of the first party that he was appointed as Janatha Deposit Collector by an order dated 28-2-1980. The management has not issued any show cause notice or initiated any disciplinary proceedings and he was terminated en 14-1 M988.
5. It is the further case of the first party that the allefia- tions are not correct and the order of termination ia illegal. First pa'ty for these reasons has prayed to allow the refe- rence. The case of the second party in brief is as follows:
6 The main contention of the Second Party is that the first party is not a workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and there is no master and servant I clntionship between the first party and the Second Party.
New Delhi, the 6th July, 2001
7. It is the fuither case of the management that the ap- pointment order was made as per the terms and conditions set out in the order dated 28-2-1980 read with the agreement executed by the first party on the said date. He wan getting nnlv commission and thrrfore, he is not the workman. Some of the conditions of the agreement are given in Hie Counter Statement.
S.O. 1922.—In pursuuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal |Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the
8 TV fiist party was not wbject to the normal working hours of the bank. He was not paid anv salary or wages.
3992 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]Only commission was paid. The work of the first party is not compnrablc with the work of regular employees. The ave- rage monthly income is not correctly shown by the first party. The question of issuing charge sheet and conducting an enquiry docs not arise. Second party for these reasons has prayed to reject the rcfeicnce.
9. It is soen Irom the records that this is a very old case. Tt is the case of 1991 and we arc in the middle of 2001. Parties have not taken any interest for adducing evidence. Many adjournments were given but no evidence was adduced. In view of the judgement of the Apex Court "Indian Bank Association Vs. Workmen of Syndicate Bank Hnd others" 1 am of the opinion that no purpose will be served,in adjourning this matter and therefore I closed the evidence and heard the counsels.
10. 1 have read the above decision of the Apex Couit carefully and as per the above decision of the Hon'hle Apex Couit the first party is workman and the contention of the management that the first party is not a workman will not J hold good.
11. It is seen from the counter that mainly the manage- ment has contested this case on the ground that the first party is not a workman. Now in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court the stand by the management goes.
12. II fell it is not necossary to give adjournment as per the wish of the parties so T have closed this case. Further in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, now it is clear that the first party is a workman.
13. Once it is held that the first party is a workman, the termination of first party by the management -without any notice, enquiry and paying -any compensation as required under the Industrial dispute act is illegal. Therefore I am of the opinion that this reference has to be allowed and accordingly T proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER)
The reference is allowed. The order of termination is set aside and the management is directed to take the first party ns agent in accordance with the principles held in the above decision of the Apex Court, Accoidingly reference is depo- 1 jed off.
(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 28th June 2001).
V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 6th July, 2001
SO, 1923.—In pursuance of Section 17 oi the Industiial Dispute Act 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes tbe award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employeis in relation to the management of Vijaya Bank and their work- man which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-2001.
fNo. L-12012|87|9MR(B-TI)l C, OANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BJFORli THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL 1R1J3UNAL-CUM-I.ABOUR COURT 'SHRAM SADAN'. Ill MAIN, 111 CROSS, 11 PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YES11WANTHPUR, BANGALORE Dated : 28th June, 2001
PRESENT :
Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B.Com., LLB., Presiding Officer.
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE
C. R No, 64/91
I Party
Shri Hanumantsa T. Mal]i, C|o. M. Ram Rao, General Secretary, D.D.B.E.A., 9, Corporation Building, Broadway, Hubli-580020.
II Party
The Divisional Manager, Vijaya Bank, Divisional Office, Lamington Road, Hubli-580020.
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers con- ferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industiial Disputes Act, 1947 has refeircd this dispute vide order No. L-12O12|87|91[TR-B(n) dated 30-9-1991 for adjudication on the following schedule
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Vijaya, Bank in terminating the services of Shri Hanumantsa T. Malji, Janata Deposit Collector is justified ? If not to what relief the said workman is entitled?" 2. The first party was working as Janatha Deposit Collector with the Second Party fiom 19th September 1984. He was - terminated w.e.f. 1st April 1990 and therefore Industrial dispute is raised.
3. First party appeared and filed Claim Statement.
4. Tt is the case of the first party that the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Principles of natural justice are not followed by the second party in terminating the services of the first party and therefore the termination is illegal.
5. It is the further case of the first party that the allega- tions against the first party are not correct and the order of termination is illegal. First party for these reasons has prayed to allow the reference.
6. The case of the second party in brief is as follows:
7. The main contention of the Second Party is that the first party was not a workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and there is no master and servant relationship between the first party and the Second Party.
8. It is the further case of the management that the first party was not an award staff of the Baak. The provisions of Desai Award and subsequent Bipartite settlement entered at industrial level between banks and workmen unions are not applicable. The first party is not a workman and he can- not raise industrial dispute. His income is not as alleged by the first narty. The management for these reasons has prayed to reject the reference.
9. It is seen from the records that on behalf of the first party WW1 sot examined himself on 19-11-1990 and he was cross examined. He has given detailed evidence saying that he joined as Janatha Deposit Collector on 19-9-1984. There was no enquiry and allegation against him and ho wns not given work. He represented the management many m%
OSm N*. KD\ Sin*
The General SecretatVj FCI Class-IV Employees Union, Post Box 30, Sa*srur (Pb.). Workman
Versus
times but nothing Is done. His service econdittons are In accordance with the award of Industrial Tribunal, Hydera- bad. Ho has given detailed evidence. He has been crois examined, bul nothing Is illicitcd from his cross examination. This it an. old, case'and In view of the decision of the Apex Court "Indian: Rank Association Vi. Workmen of Syndicate Bank and others" I am of the opinion that no purpose will be served in adjourning this matter and therefore I closed the evidence and heard the Counsels.
The Senior Regional Manager, FCI, Punjab Region, Chandigarh.
. . .. Management
APPEARANCES:
10. I have read the above decision of the Apex Court carefully and as per the above decisioit of the Hon'bte Apex Court the first party Is workman and the contention of the management that the first party is not a workman will not hold good.
For the workman: None.
For the management: ShchN.- K- Zftihmi
AWARD
11. It is seen from the counter that mainly the manage- m nt has contested this case on the ground that the first party i" nnt n workman. Now in view of the judgement of the Hon'blo A£>e3i Court the stand of th# management goes.
(Passed on 15th of May, 2001) 12. In the instant case first partv and counsel did not represent the case at all- On b"half of the management I have heard Junior Counsel along with Other connected matters on 27-6-2Q01,
The Central Government vide Gazette Notification No. L-42011/3/88-D-H-B7D-IV(B) dated 2"th Jttiy 198& to this Tiibunal for adjudication:—
13. I'Wit, It'is not necessary to give adjournment a"-per the wish of the parties so I closed this case. Further-in, view of the decision of'thb Hon'bte Ap"x Court, new it is clear that the first party is a workman.
'.'^Vhether the action of the management of Sr. Regional Manager, FCI Punjab Region, Chandigarh In deny- ing, the change of cadre from typist to AG-IIT(D) to Sarv/S. Nand Kfshore, Vidya Bhushan, Nazir Singh,. Roshan. LBI, Subhash Chander and Mehondr* Pal Singh, typists, is Justified 1' If not, to- what relief the workman concerned are entitled and with, what effect?"
14. Oftce it is held that the ftr"t'party is a workman, the termination oi ftrtt party by the management without any notice; etrtralry and paying any compensation as required under the Industrial disptttft act is illegal. Therefore. I am of the opinion that this reference has to be atlowed and adOordmgly I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
2, Today the _case, was fixed for evidence, of the manage- ment. Nona haa..put< up .appeaFanoo on Jbchah* of the workmen dwpito several notice*. It appears that, workmen are not interested to pursue with the present, reference. In view of the above, since the workman is not interested to pursue with thepMScnt ref"em"i the--sm"eMS-returned K> th" Ministry for wsmt'to prosecution. A)"propriat"-^iov"rimient be'infxirmcd.
ThS'i'ettrtinM Is1 AlKWfred. The order of tefnlh)Bthwt.i"*"et aside arid the rttatiftewnBnt iq directed to take the first party as agemy in aeeowtaitte with the principle* held in the' above dedtjktti ttf the Afei'Court. Accordingly reference-i" dtspoted off;
Chmd^arh: 15^5-"2"Sl
(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected. ond stgqed
by me on 28th June, 2001.)
V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer
New Delhi, the 9th. July, ,2001
N"w Delhi, thfr 9th July, 2001 S.O, 1?24.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publisher the award of the Central Government Industrial TrAmnal/Labour Court, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annoxurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-20O1.
[No. ma0U/3/88-D4T-B/EMfy(B)l C GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
A N N E X U RB
S.O. 1925. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Aot, 1947
JNo, JUM012/298/99-IR(C-U)l BEFORE SHRI B L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL OOVERrMENT INDUSTRIAL TKnEftTNAL-
C. OANOADHARAN, Vnd*r Secy.
CUM-^LAfiOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH
225? GI/2(K>N-i"'3994 THE GAZETTE OY INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13,1923 [PARf fl—SEC. 3flf)] ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIAL TRTBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH Cose No. I.D. 128 of 2000
Sh. Satish Kumar, S/o Sh. Labh Singh, V. & P.O. Nahru Kherit Karnal. • Petitioner
Versus
The Distt. Manager, Food Corporation of India, Kamal (Haryana). Respondent REPRESENTATIVES:
For th" Workman: None.
For the Management: Shn Pramod Jain.
AWARD
(Pawed on 22nd May, 2001)
The Central Government. Ministry of Labour vide Notifi- cation No. L-22012/298/9SMR(C-II) dated 23-2-200O has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action of the management of FCI in not regularising the services of the workmen Sh. Satish Kumar and 17 others engaged under Contract Labour (R & A) Act, 1970 in FCT after the Notification No. 779(E) dated 8-12-76 came into operation is legal and Justified 7 If not, to what relief are the workmen are entitled 7"
2. Today the case was fixed for filling of claim statement on behalf of 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 the present reference. In view of the above, the present reference is returned to the appropriate Government for want of prose- cution. Ministry be informed,
Chandigarh: 22-5-2001,
B. L JATAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 9th July, 2001
S.O. 1926.—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, New Delhi, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers \T\ relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-2001.
[No. L-22012/270/F/92-IR(OIT>J
C, GANOADHAKAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORH SHRI KESHAV SARAN SR1VASTAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
I.D, No, 10/93
The General Secretary, F.C.I Employees Union, E-12/D, Mayapurl, New Delhi-110064.
Versus
The Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, 6-20 Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-II0001.
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has sent this inference under Section 10(l)(d) and sub-section 2(A) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 vide Order No. L-22012/270/ F/92-IR(C-II) dated 14-1-93 for the adjudication of the Industrial Dispute raised on behalf of the workman on the following terms :—
"Whether the demand of the Food Corporation of India Employees Union that the management of Food Corporation of India should not declare the Staff surplus in arbitrary manner resulting in transfer and it should be done only through a joint study takinn norms and other factors into account is justified 7 If so to what relief the workmen are entitled to?" 2. The Statement of Claim, WS & Rcioinder were ex- changed between the parties. It appears during the course of the proceedings a settlement between both the parties has arrived at out of the court. A Joint application has been mo\ed which is dated 4-6-2001 praying for closing down the further proceedings In the case on the ground that after the settlement and as per memorandum dated 29-4-2000 thero exist no dispute.
3, In view of the fact a No Dispute Award is given In the case.
18th June. 2001
K S SRIVASTAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 10th July, 2001
S.O, 1927.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In- dustrial TribunMILabour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the annexure In the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman, which wns received by the Central Government on J 0-7-2001.
[No. L-22012|84|99-IR(C-II)]
C. GANOADHARAN, Under Secy.
ms ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUST- RIAL TRIBLTNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
to the management of SCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-7-2001
CASE NO. CGIT|LC|R|290|99
[No. L-22O12/25/2OOMR(C-H) ] Shri K. M. Ral, Presiding Officer.
C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL : CUM : LABOUR COURT :
Shri Dayaram Mi"hra and 3 otherg, through General Secretary, Rashtnya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh, Near Bus stand, PO Nowrozabad, Distt. Umana Appellant.
GODAVARIKHANI Veriu*
PRESENT :
Sri P. Gurunadha Rao, B.Sc, &L, Chairman-cum-Fresidmg Officer.
The General Manager, JohiUa Area of SECL, PO Nowrazabad, DUtt Uinaria Non-applicant.
Tuesday, the 26th day of June, 2001 AWARD
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 57 OF 1999 Passed on this 27th day of June, 2001
Between :
1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-22012/84/99/IR(C-II) dated 31-8-1999 ha" refer- red the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal—
Anthu Posham, S/o Rarnuiah, Ex-Coal Filler, Age 50 yrs., E.No. 1199098, Qr. No.T2-1787, Sector-3, 8 Incline colony, Godavarikhani, Petitioner.
AND
"Whether the action of the General Manager, Johilla Area of SECL, PO Nowrozabad, Distt. Umaria u not granting notional seniority]promotlons w.e.t. 1-1-1991 to Shri Daya Ram Mishra Amar Singh Gautam, Shri M. Krishna Rao and Shri Abdul Kayyuum clerk is legal and justified? If not, to what lclief the workmen are entitled?"
The General Manager Singareni Collieries Co, Ltd , Godavarikhani. Respondent 2. The representative of the Union filed an application to withdraw the claim as the dispute has been settled with the management. Tins application is considered. Management has agreed to give notional promotion|seniority to the work- men as claimed by them. In view of this circumstances, no dispute exists between the parties. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
This petition coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Vishweshwar Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri C.S.N. Reddy, Advocate for the respondent and having stood over for considera- tion till this date, the court passed the following :
3. In view of the aforesaid fact, it is held that the manage- ment has, agreed to pive notional promotion to the workmen. No Dispute exists between the parties in the present case. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
AWARD
4. Copy of award be lent to the Ministry as per rules.
K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer
1. This is a petition filed U/s. 2-A(2) of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended by A.P., Amendment Act, 1987.
Facts of the case briefly are as follows :
The petitioner was appointed as Coal-filler in the year, 1973. The petitioner had put-in only 19 musters in the year, 1997. Hence charge-sheet was issued against him. The petitioner remained ex- parte in the enquiry. Chafge-shect was published in a Telugu daily. Show-cause notice was also published in a Telugu daily. The petitioner was dismissed from the service w t f, 7-1-99.
New Delhi, the 10th July, 2001
2. Respondent filed counter stating that the petitioner was habitually absent and had put-in a very poor attendance in the year, 1997. Charge- sh et was issued against him. It was returned un served. Then the charge-sheet was published in 'Vaartha' Newspaper. Enquiry was conducted,
I.D. No 57/99.
S. 0,1928—In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrie Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the CeritFal Government hereby publi shes the award of the Cen- tral ovemment Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, Godavarikhani as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers i D relation
The petitioner remained exparte in the enquiry. The petitioner had put-in 34 musters in 1994, 21 musters in 1993, 731 musters in 1996 and 19 rnustei"3W&' JHfflr'0A2ETTE GF fiflMA : AtJ6tfST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923- fft*r U^"W5. 3 in 1997. The petitioner had put in only 1 muster in 1998. It clearly shows that the petitioner was habitually absent from duties.
3. EXrW-1 and Ex, M-l to Ex. M-l 3 are marked.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner can be re-instatdd in to service.
6. POINT :—Ex. W-l is order dt. 5-1-99 dis- missing the petitioner w.e.f. 7-1-99.
7. The petitioner remained exparte in the en- quiry. Paper publication was made. It shows that the petitioner was not attending to duties even in the year, 1998. The petitioner did not apply for medical leave or any leave for his absence. The petitioner had put-in only 19 musters in the year, 1997. It shows that the petitioner was not willing to work in the respondent company.
I consider that the charge against the petitioner is proved and the punishment of dismissal from the service is in proportion to the charge. The peti- tioner cannot be re-instated into service. Hence, I answer the point accordingly.
In the result, this petition is dismissed. The ordtr of dismissal of the petitioner from tho service is confirmed. Each party do bear their own costs.
Typad to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me- in the open court on this, 26th day of June, 2001.
P. GURUNADHA RA'O,,Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer Appendix of Evidence Witnesses-examined
For workman : For Management :
Nil Nil
Exhibits
For workman : Ex.W-1 dt Fitness certificate issued by civil Asst. Surgeon, Govt. DisL Headquarters HospitaJ, JCarimnagar.
For Management :
Ex.M-1 dt. Attendance particulars of the petitioner during the year, 1997.
$x.M"2 dt Pay-sheets of the petitioner from January, 97 to December, 1997.
Ex.M-3 dt. 27-4-98 Charge-sheet.
Ex.M-4 dt2£-4-98 Postal returned cover with ack., Ex.M-5 df.20^9-98 Appointment of enquiry
officer.
Ex.M-6 dt. ll)-9-S>8 Enquiry notice published in
Vaartha tdngu daily paper, Ex.M-7 df.23-9-98 Enquiry proceedings.
Ex.M-8 dt. Enqrary report.
Ex.M-9 dt. 16-11-98 Show-cause notice.
Ex.M-10 dt.23-11-98 Returned undelivered cover with ack., Second
Ex.M-11 dt, 16-12-98 Show-cause notice published in
Vaartha Telugu daily-peper.
Ex.M-12 dt 5-1-99 Office-order.
Ex.M-13 dt. 31-12-98 Dismissfil-order.
New Delhi, the 10th July, ;001
S.O. 1929.—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/Labour Court, Godavarikhani as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10th July, 2001.
[No. L-22012/25/2001-IR(C-II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy, ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL : CUM LABOUR COURT, GODAVARIKHANI
Present : Shri P. Gurunadha Rao, B.Sc.B.L., Chairman-Cum-Presiding Officer
Wednesday, the 27th day of June, 2001.
Industrial Dispute No. 64 of 1999. ' 39*7 Between:—
after, he remained exparte in the enquiry. Paper publication was made for his appearance in the enquiry. Even show-cause notice was issued by paper publication in 'Vaartha' Telugu daily.
Md. Yaqub, S/o Peer Ahmed, Age 27 yrs.., C/o Puli Raja Reddy, Qr. No. C-42, SCC Township, Adilabad. —Petitibner
And
7. Ex.M-15 is a letter addressed by the petitioner on 16-9-98. The petitioner admitted that he was dismissed from the service on 21-7-98.
The General Manager, Sreerampur (Project Area), Singareni Collieries Co, Ltd., Adilabad.
—Respondent
8. The petitioner was Absent from duties for many days in every month in the year, 1996. It appears that the petitioner was absent from duties in the year, 1997 also. That is why, paper publication was made for his appearance in the enquiry and for explanation for show-cause notice of dismissal.
This petition coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Ravi Mohan, Advocate for the petitioBer and,of Sri C.S.N. Reddy, Advocate for the respondent and having stood over for consideration till.this date, the court parsed the following :—
AWARD
I consider that the charge against the petitioner is proved and the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from the service is in proportion to the charge. Hence, I answer the point accordingly.
1. This is a petition filed U/s. 2-A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, as amended by A.P., Amendment Act, 1987.
In the result, this petition is dismissed. The order of dismissal of the petitionr from the service is confirmed. Each party do bear their own costs.
Facts of the case briefly are as follows:—
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by roe in the open court on this, 27th day of June, 2Q01.
P, GURUNADHA RAO, Chairman-cum-Presiding Ofi^cer
Appendix of Evidence Wknesses^exaimned
For Workman :— For Management:— —Nil —Nil- The petitioner was appointed as badli-filler in 1993. He fell sick in January, 1996. He took treat- ment in the Government Hospital, Karimnagar. He was absenting from duties now and then. Charge- sheet was issued on 17-5-97 for his habitual absence from duty. The petitioner submitted explanation alongwkh medical certificate. The petitioner re- mained cxparte in the enquiry. The petitioner was dismissed from the service on 21-7-98.
Exhibits
For Workman :— —Nil—
For Management;—
Ex.M-1 dt. — Service particulars of the
petitioner.
Ex.M-2 dt. 17-5-97 Charge-sheet. Ex.M-3 dt. — Acknowledgement. Ex.M-4 dt. 18-7-97 Reply to the charge-sheet 2. Respondent filed counter stating that the petitioner submitted a false medical certificate. The petitioner never informed of his sickness and takmg treatment in the Government Hospital at Karim- nagar. Charge-sheet was served on the petitioner, but the petitioner remained expartc in the enquiry. Paper publication was made in Andhra Jyothi daily for his appearance in the enquiry. Show-cause notice was published in 'Vaartha' Telugu daily on 23-6-98.
alongwith medical certifi- cates. - 3. Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-18 are marked, 4. Heard both sides.
Ex,M-5 dt. 26/28-8-96 Office-order. Ex.M-6 dt. 29-8-97 Enquiry notice.
Ex.M-7 dt, 4-9-97 Postal returned cover with Ack.,
5. The point for consideration is whether the charge against the petitioner is proved, if so, whether the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from thft service is in proportion to the charge.
6. Point :— Ex.M-2 is charge-sheet. The petitioner was absent for many days without
EJCM-8 dt. 19-11-97 Enquiry notice published in Andhra Jyothi Telugu newspaper.
leave in every month in the year, 1996.
The petitioner received charge-sheet.
Ex.M-9dt. 20-11-97 Cprngendttm published in Andhrfl Jyothi Telugu daily newspaper.
Ex.M-10d.tj 25-11-97 Enquiry prowiadings. Ex.M-11 dt. -do- Enquiry report.
Ex.M-4 is his explanation to the charge-sheet. The petitioner stated that he was not doiag well and therefore, he could not attend, to <*ttfy *qgn4Krty in the year, 1996. He enclosed Medical certificate. There-30M THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4. 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 PART I I ~ S E C. 3(ii)l Ex.M-12 dt. 23-2-98 Second show-cause notice.
Ex.M-13 dt. 24-2-98 Postal returned cover with Ack.,
Ex.M-14 dt. 26-3-98 Second show-cause notice published in Vaartha Telugu newspaper.
Ex.M-15 dt. 16-9-98 Application of the petitioner Ex.M-16 dt. 21-9-98 -do-
Ex.M-17 dt. 21-7-98 Dismissal order.
Ex.M-18 dt. — Acknowledgement.
New Delhi, the lOth July, 2001 SO. 1930.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of tho Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Godavari Khani as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Go- vernment on 10-7-2001.
[No. L-22012/25/2001-IR (C-1I)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL : CUM : LABOUR COURT GODAVARIKHAN1
PRESENT :
Sri P. Gurunadha Rao, B.Sc, B.L. Chairman-cum-Presiding Officor,
Monday, the 25th day of Juiw, 2001.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 95H OF 1999.
Between:
Durgam Raja Mouli, S/o Lingaiah, Age 43 yrs., Post : R/o Palakurthi Mandal Ramagundam, Dist. Karimnagar
—Petitioner AND
1. The Colliery Manager, GDK. No. 5 Incline, Godavarikhani.
2. The General Manager,
Ramagundam Aroa-I, Godavarikhani.
3. The Managing Director,
Singaroni Collieries Co., Ltd., Kothagudam, Dist. Khammam —Respondents. This petition Coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri C.S.N. Reddy, Advocate for tho respondents, but counsel for the petitioner reported 'No instructions', and having stood over for consi- deration till this date, the court passed the following:
AWARD
1. This is a petition filed U/s. 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended by A.P. Amendment Act, 1987.
Facts of the case briefly are at, follows: The petitioner was appointed as badli-filler in tho year, 1993. He could not attend to duties from 15-5-97 to 20-10-97. Expartc enquiry was conduc- ted and the petitioner was removed from the servic o on 27-11-98.
2. Respondents filod counter stating that the petitioner is a habitual and chronic absentee. He had put-in 60 musters in 1995, 66 mustors in 1996, 33 musters in 1997 and 7 musters in 1998. The petitioned remained cxparte in tho enquiry.
3. Counsel for the pstitioner reported 'No instruc- tions'.
Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-II arc marked. Heard respondents.
4. The pcint fur consideiation is waller the peti- tioner can bs reinstated into service.
5. POINT : Ex.M-1 is charge-sheet dt. 11-8-98' The charge is that the petitioner had put-in only 33 musters during the ysar, 1997. It amounts to mis- conduct under company standing order No. 25(25) which reads as follows:
Habitual late attendance and habitual absence without leave or without sufficient cause.
Ex.M-2 is explanation of the petitioner. The petitioner stated that his absence during the year, 1997 was caused due to illness. He was under reaf- ment from 15-5-97 to 20-10-97. He did not recover from the illness.
The petitioner did not submit any Medical Certi- ficate for his absence.
The petitioner remained exparte in the enquiry.
Ex.M-10 is paper publication issuing show-cause notice to the petitioner,
Ex.M-11 is dismissal order dt. 22-11-98 6. The petitioner had put-in only 33 days of attendance in 1997. It shows that the petitioner was not serious of working in the respondent company.
I, therefore consider that the charge against the petitioner is proved and the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from the service is in proportion to the charge. He cannot be reinstated into service. Hence I answer the point accordingly.
In the result, this pet tion is dismissed. The order of dismissal of the pe'itioner from the service is confirmed. Fach party do boar their own costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this, 25th day of June 2001.
P. GURUNADHA RAO, Chairman-cum-Preaiding Officer Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses-examined
For workman : For Management ;
Nil
-Nil-
Exhibits
For workman-;
Nil
For Management-:
Ex.M-l dt. 11-8-98 Charfe-shcet.
Ex.M-2 dt. 12-8-98 Reply to the charge-sheet.
Ex.M-3 dt. 29-8-98 Appointment of enquiry
Officer.
Ex.M-4 dt. 16/17-8-98 Enquiry notice
Ex.M-5 dt. 27-8-98 Enquiry notice with nek., clue.
Ex.M-6 dt. 30-8-98 Enquiry proceedings.
Ex.M-7 dt. Enquiry report,
Ex.M-8 dt. 13/15-10-98 Show-cause notice Ex.M-9 dt. 24-10-98 Postal returned cover with
ecV.,
Ex.M-10 dt. 18-11-98 Show-cause notice published
in Andhra Jyothi telugu nriws -paper,
Ex.M-11 dt. 22-11-98 Dismissal order,
39W. Now Delhi, the 10th July, 2001 S. O. 1931.—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/Labour Court, Godavarikhani as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to tl'e management of SCCL and thc-ir workman, which was received by the Ce itral Government on 10-7-2001.
[No. L-22012/25/200MR (C-II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL . CUM : LABOUR COURT, GODVARlfCHANI.
PRESENT: Sri P. Gumnadha Rao, B. Sc, B. L., Chaiman-cum-Prcsiding Officer.
Tuesday, The 26th Day of June, 2001.
Industrial Dispute No. 113 of 1999.
Between :—
Makttla Kumar, S/o. Lingiah, 33 yeirs.
Employee No. 2635160, Ex.-Coal Filler,
C/o. Narsaiah, Driver, Near Court Compl -x, P.O. Ellanda, District. Khammam.
-•PcLiiijncr.
And
The General Manager,
Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.,
Ramakrishtiapur Area,
District Adilabad. —Respondent, This petition coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Amarendar Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri C. S. N. Rcddy, Advocate 4 6 6 0- T HE G A Z E T TE OF X S Q t e ::A U £ H AX for the respondent find having stood over for consi- deration till this date, the court passed the following :—
AWARD
1. This is a petition filed U/s. 2-A(2) of the Indus- trial Dispute Act, 1947j as amended by A. P., Amend- ment Act, 1937\
Facts of the case brifly arc as follows :—
•; 2 0 G t y $ f c A y A NA 1 . 1, 1 9 23 [ P A ** H - S E C. 3 0 > >]
not be re-instated into service. Hence, I answer the point accordingly.
In the result, this petition is dismissed. The order of dismissal of the petitioner from the service is con- firmtdi Each paity do buar their own costs.
Typed to my dictation corree'ed and pronounced by me in tho open court on ihis, 26lh day of Juno, 2001.
P. GURUNADHA, RAO, Chairman, Cum-Presiding Officer, Appendix of Evidence Witnesses-examined
For Workman :— For Management :—
-NU— - N i l-
Exhibits
For workman ;—
—Nil—
The petitioner was appointed as Badli Coal-filler in 1991. He was appointed as Coal filler w. ei f., 1-9-95 with monetary benefits from 1-1-96. He was confirmed as coal-fiUer w. e. f., 1-7-96. He fell sick during the year, 1997. He took treatment in the Government Hospital. Khammam and in a private hospital in MancheriflJ. Charge-sheet was issued on 30-4-98 alleging that he was habitually absenting from duties without leave or prior permission as he was absent for 289 days in th* year, 1997. He remained expartc in the enquiry. He was dismissed from the service on 13-2-99.
2. Respondent filed counter stating that the res- pondent company is maintaining a very big hospital with 200 teds at Ramakrishnapur to porvide free treat- ment to its employees. If the petitioner was realy sick, he would have taken treatment in the company hospital. AH the employees arc? expected to take trratmtnt in the company hospital, Tho petitioner had put in only 21 musters in the years 1997.
3. Ex. M-l to Ex. M-10 arc marked,
4. Hoard both sides.
5. The point for consideration is whether the peti- tioner can be reinstated into service.
6. POINT : Ex. M-l is chargo-sheet dt. 30-4-98.
Ex. M-2 is explanation to chaige-sheet. The peti- tioner admitted th^ charge that he attended to duty for 23 days only in the year, 1997. He further stated That he was suffering from liver problem. He took treatment in the Government hospital, Khammam. He submitted medical certificate.
The Petitioner submitted medical certificate along- with his Lixpkntion. The petitioner did not submit ariy medical certiflrate during the year 1997. He did not take teeatment in the company hospital. He did not apply for any leave. He remained exparte in the enquiry. Ho was dismissed from the service on 13-2-99.
7. The petitioner was confirmed as Coal filler w.e.f. 1-7-96 only. The petitioner was absent for 289 days in \he years, 1997 without applying for any leave.
I, therefore, consider that tho charge against the petitioner is proved and the punsaimont of dismissal from service is in proportion to the charge. He can- For Management :—
Ex. M-l dt. 30-4-98 Charge-sheet.
Ex. M-2 dt. 20-5-98 Reply to the charge-sheet with
mtdieal certificates xtr. copy.
Ex. M-3 dt. 10-1-96 Office order xer. copy.
Ex. M-4 dt. 27-7-98
01-8-98 Enquiry notice.
Ex. M-5 dt. 12-8-98 Enquiry notice published in
Andhra Jyothi Telugu News- paper.
Ex. M-6dt. 21-8-98 Enquiry proceedings.
Ex. M-7 dt. 26-8-98 Enquiry report.
Ex. M-8 dt. 26-9^98 Show-cause notice with returned
undelivered postal cover.
Ex. M-9 dt. 9:12-9& Show-cause notice published in
Andhra Jyothi Telgue Paper.
Ex. M-10 dt. 13-2-99 Dismissal letter.
4001New Delft, the 10th July, 2001 S.O. 1932.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Godjvarikhani as shown in the annexure in the In- duitrutl Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10th July, , rf 2001.
rNo. L-22012/25/2001-IR(C-II)]
C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CH MBMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GODAVARIKHANI
PRESENT :
Sri P. Gurunadha Rao, B.Sc, B,L., Chairman- cum-Presiding Officer.
Monday, the 2Mh day of June, 2001 Industrial Dispute No. 168 of 1999
BETWEEN
Ponaganti Lingaiah, S/o Sailu, Age 46 years, Oca: Ex-cniployee, K/o Godavarikhani in Ramagundam Mandal of Karimnagar District.
...Petitioner.
AND
1. The Colliery Manager,
Singareni CoUieries Co. Ltd., Godavarikhani.
2. The General Manager,
Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Area-I at Godavarikhani.
3. The Managing Director,
Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Kothagudem, Post : Kothagudem, District Khmnmam. . . .Respondents.
This petition coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. Bhagavantha Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri C. S. N. Rcddy, Advocate for the respondents and having stood over for consi- deration till this date, the court passed the follow- ing:—
AWARD
1. This Is a petition filed U/s. 2-A(2) of the Indus- trial Disputes Act. 1947, as amended by A.P.,, Amendment Act, 1987.
Facts of the case briefly are as follows :—
The petitioner was appointed as Casual Mazdoor on 27-3-1983. On 24-4-9,1 in the third shift, it was found that the petitioner was carrying company's cable wire measuring 9 metres. He was caught red-handed by the Security Guard. The petitioner thereafter did not attend to his duties. Charge-sheet was sent to his permanent address by registered post, but it was re- turned unserved. Then charge-sheet was published in Eenadu and Udayam Telugu daily papers on 17-7-91 2269 GI/2001—19
asking for the explanation of the ^petitioner and to attend the enquiry. The pe+itioner remained ex-partc in the enquiry. He was dismissed from the service on 28-8-91.
The petitioner filed I.D. No. 10/89 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-I at Hyderabad for payment of wages lor the period 14-7-87 to 16-7-87. It was pending as on the date of dismissal. Approval of the Tribunal was obtained for the dismissal order dated 28-8-91.
2. Respondents filed counter.
3. Ex. Wl and Ex. \V2 and Ex. Ml to Ex. M-10 are marked.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The point for couside* ation is whether the peti- tioner can be reinstated into service.
6. Ex. M-1 is charge-sheet dated 26-4-91.
Ex M-2 is returned cover.
Ex. M-3 is paper publication of the charge-sheet, Ex. M-9 is dismissal order dated 28-8-91.
7. The petitioner was involved in a theft case. He abstained from duties from the date of theft. The charge-sheet against the petitioner is that he was caught red-handed by the Security Guard while com- mitting theft of cable wire. He remained ex-parte in the enquiry. He was removed from the service on 2S-8-91. The petitioner filed I.D. No. 10/89 on the file of the Industrial Tiibuiial-I, Hyderabad and it was pending by the date of dismissal of the petitioner.
The dismissal of the petitioner was brought to the notice of the said Tribunal by filing M.P. No. 1/92. It shows that the petitioner was well aware of his dismissal from the service en 28-8-91. The petitioner filed the present petition on 16-11-99 i.e., more than eight years after his dismissal from the service. The claim of the petitioner for reinstatement is a stale claim because be WHS well aware of his dismissal in the year, 1991 itself and kept quiet for more than eight years
I, therefore, consider that the petitioner cannot bo reinstated into service. Hence, I answer the point accordingly.
In the result, this petition is dismissed. The order of dismissal of th" petitioner from the service is con- firmed. Each party do bear their own costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this, 25th day of June, 2001.
P. GURUNADHA RAO, Chairman-cum-Presiding
Officer APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined : For workman :—
Nil.
For Management :—
Nil,40&! THE GAZETTE OF INDIA .AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, i9lZ [J"A%T- S-r$*£- 3(u)l EXHIBITS
For Workman :—
Ex. W-l dt. 6-7-89—Office order xer. cgpy.
Ex. W-2 dt. 29-7-91— Charge-sheet xer. copy.
For Management :—
Ex. M-l dt. 26-4-91-Charge-sheet.
Ex. M-2 dt. 5-5-91—Rt turned undelivered regis- tered cover with ixk., (xer. copy).
Ex. M-3 dt. 27-6-91—Paper notification of charge-sheet (xer. copj).
Ex. M-4 dt. 29-7-91—Enquiry report xerox copy.
Ex. Mr 5 dt, 29-7-91—Enquiry proceedings xer. copy.
Ex. M-6 dt. 28-S-41 —Money order receipt xer. copy.
Ex. M-7 dt. 27-8-91—Pay-sheet and summary of pay-sheets of one month, wages xer. eppies, Ex. M-8 dt. 28-8-91—Form-K filed U/s. 33-(2) (f) before the Industrial Tribunal (Central), Hyderabad xer. copy.
Ex. M-9 dt. 28-8-91—Dismissal letter xer. copy.
Ex. M-10 dt. 8-2-95—Certified copy of order in M.P3 1/92 in ID Np. lp/89 and ID No. 12/89 on the file' of Hon'ble Industrial Tri- bunal-I. Hyderabad (xerr copy).
N,cw Dejhi,
S.O. 1933.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute-, Act, 194*? (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpuras 'shown in the I'rmexure in the Industrial Dispute between the envployer.s in relatiqn to the management of Bank of Jhciia and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-7-2001.
[No. L-12011/10/93-IR(B-II)l C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
Case No. CGIT/LC/R/53^94
Piesiding Officer : Sliri K. M. Rai. Shri Onkar Godia and Shri Shashi Piakash Dnbej, through Dy. General Secretary, Bank of India Employees (Union. C/o Bank of India, A. G. Office Road, Gwalior.
...Applicant.
Versus
The Regional Manager, Bank of India, Gurukripa, Nirnia Bhavan, A. G. Office Road, Gwalior
. . . Non-applicant.
AWARD Passed on this 29th day of June, 2001 1. The Government oE India, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-120U/10/93-IRB-2 dated 5-5-94 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal—
"Whether the claim of Bank of India Employees Union that Shri Onkar Godia, Shri Shashi Prakash Dubey, Shri Ram Sevak Reikwar, Shri Deviram Batham and Shri Pramod Chaturvedi are entitled to be appointed on regular basis in the services of the Bank of India is justified ? If so, what relief are these workmen entitled to ?"
2. Workman Shri Onkar Godia and Shri Shashi Prakash Dubey had filed the application not to press their claim as the munagement has agreed to give employment as per agreements. The present dispute therefore docs not exist between the parties. Hence No Dispute Award is passed.
3. In view of the settlement between the parties it is held that the management shall give employment to Onkar Godht and to the brother of Shri Shashi Prakash Dubey i.e. Shri Vivek Kumar Sharma as per agreement.
4. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour as per rules.
KL M, RAI, Presiding Officer4003 New Delhi, the 11th July, 2001 S.O. 1934.—In pursuance Of Section 17 of tile Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industriali Tribunal|Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the anncXure in the Industrial Dis- pute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-7-2001.
(No. L-410012|38|2000-lR(B-I)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
The reference is produced as under :—
"Whether the action of Northern Rail- way in not promoting to Lallan Shukla, Crane driver as master craft- man was legal and justified ? If nOjt, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
Presiding Officer : Rudresh Kumar ADJUDICATION
I.D. No. : 81|2000
Ref. No. 41012|38|2000|IR(B-I) dt. 7|ll-8-2000
BETWEEN :
The Divisional Organisation Secretary, Uttar Railway Karmchari Union, 233(63 Kha Garni Kanaora (Premwati Nagar) P.O. Manak Nagar, Lucknow.
(espousing cause of Lallan Shukla) AND
The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern R?ilway, Hazratganj, Lucknow,
2. The facts of the case atfe that the work- man, Lallan Shukla, T. No. 879, 140 Ton BD Crane Driver, was promoted in Grade 1 w.e.f. 6-5-91. He was hot sent to Diesel Shed, instead was retained in Loco Shed. There was one post of 'Master Craft Man' in Loco Shed occupied by Samar Nath P&thak. Saiiiar Nath Pathak retired on 1-11-1994 and the workman continuously performed hi* duties since his superannuation. However, he Was not given any prombtion on the said pdst nor was paid salary of Master Craft Mlin (MCM). The workman further pleads that his junior Ayub Khan was pYomoted as Master Craft Man (MCM) in Diesel Shed itt the year 1998. His representations to promote him in Diesel Shed in preference to Ayub Khah or in Loco Shed against the vacancy of Master Craft Man arising on retirement of Samar Nath Pathak, were not considered by the management. As such, he has claimed liis promotion w.e.f. 1-11-94, from the date of retirement of Samar Nath Pathak with all consequential benefits.
AWARD
By reference No: 41012|38|2000[IR(B-l) dt. 7111-8-2000, 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 I.D. Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), made over this industrial dis- pute between Divisional Organisation Secre- tary, Uttar Railway, Lucknow espousing cause of Lallan ShukJa and Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Lucknow for ad- judication.
3. The management has not denied status of the workman in Loco Shed but has taken a stand that the workman Lallan Shukla had no lien in Diesel Shed. It is further contend- ed that tue dieselisation in railway reduced much of the work in the Loco Shed and the post of Master Craft Man was surrendered on superannuation of Samar Nath Pathak. The workman had no lien in the Diesel Shed hence can not claim preference over Ayub Khan who was senior most in Diesel shed. In absence of available post of Master Craft Man m Loco Shed, the workman is not entitl- ed to claim the said post or pay.
4. Before adverting to discuss merit of the evidence adduced by the parties, a glance over the reference is necessary. The re- ference docs not indicate in which of the shed i.e. Loco Shed or Diesel Shed, the work- man Lallan Shukla seeks promotion. The case of the management is that Loco Shed and Diesel Shed were two distinct units and the employees working there, formed sepa- rate cadres. Those working in Diesel Shed4004 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4. 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PART #— Sue. 3(ii)J. promotion against sanctioned posts in Diesel Shed and likewise, employees of the Loco Shed are entitled to seek promotion against the sanctioned posts in Loco Shed. It is not de- puted by the parties that on dieselisation, the work in loco shed be came scanty and majority of the workmen were transferred to diesel shed, subject to passing of tests etc. 5. It is, thus, necessary to analyse the evi- dence whether the workman Lallan Shukla had any lien in the Diesel shed to justify his claim vis-a-vis Ayub Khan. The workman relied on the letter dt. 17-6-91 issued by the Foreman to the General Foreman, intimating retaining of his services in Loco Shed in inte- rest of work. The workman had represented for the post of Master Craft Man either in the Loco shed or Diesel Shed as per his seniority. Reliance is also placed on letter dt. 20-9-91 issued by Asstt. Personnel Officer in which name of the workman Lallan Shukla is found added in ink at si. no. 33. On the basis of this letter, the workman claims his lien in Diesel shed and pleads that his reten- tion in interest of work in Loco Shed should not deprive him of his rightful claim in Diesel shed.
6. The management has disputed correct- ness of letter dt. 20-0-91 which is the basis of claim of the workman. Mr. N. K. Verma, Asstt. Divn. Mechanical Engineer deposed in his cross examination that Lallan Shukla was never a member of the cadre in the iiiesel shed. He relied on letter dt. 13-9-91 (Ex-) by which 35 workman of different categories were transferred to Diesel shed. This list did not include name of the workman. On the basis of this list the Asstt. Persomiel Officer, Northern Railway issued order No. El l-7jRC Deployment dt. 20-9-91, in shape of notice. This notice does not include name of the workman Lallan Shukla. However, against the name of Ayub Khan at si. no. 35 there is a remark Lallan Shukla back to Loco shed, Lucknow. The workman also admits genuineness of notice and has filed a copy which bears^ his name at si. no. 33 written by someone in ink. The management has filed affidavit that name of the workman has been added fraudulently by someone. The original register was also produced to show that notice issued originally did not has the name of Lallan Shukla.
7. The workman failed to explain addition of Lallan Shukla at si. no, 33 of the list dt. 20-9-91. The affidavit of the A^stt, Personnel Officer can be relied and it can be safely held that inclusion of name at si. no. 33 of This letter is fraudulent. It goes to prove that the workman Lallan Shukla had never worked and was never taken on transfer to Diesel shed. Since separate seniority lists are main- tained in Diesel and Loco sheds, as such, a person on the strength of Loco shed can not be considered for promotion. The claim of the workman that his junior Ayub Khan was promoted can not be accepted because Ayub Khan was on the strength of the Diesel Shed whereas the workman Lallan Shukla was on the strength of the Loco shed.
8. It has been stated earlier that the re- ference is not very clear as in which shed, claim of promotion to the post of Master Craft Man, is to be judged. Howevert assis- tance can be taken from the relief, desired in the claim statement. According to the pra- yer, the workman Lallan Shukla should have been promoted w.e.f. 1-11-94 on the post of Master Craft Man. The post of Master Craft Man became vacant on the retirement of Samar Nath Pathak. There wis no such vacancy in the Diesel Shed in the year 1994.
9. It has been discussed earlier that the services of the workman Lallan Shukla was not transferred to Diesel Shed but were re- tained in Loco shed the workman did not challenge non-inclusion of his name in the list dt. 20-9-91. Rather, he got entered his name at si. no. 33 which is proved to be fraudulent from the affidavit of Asstt. Personnel Officer, Northern Railway and is also substantiated by the photo copy annexed with the affidavit. Accordingly, Lallan Shukla is not entitled to the post of Master Craft Man in Diesel shed.
] 0. Lallan Shukla is senior most and eligi- ble to be considered for the post of Master Craft Man in Loco shed. The post became vacant on retirement of Samar Nath Pathak. The management has taken the case that on dieselisation work in Loco did not justify re- tention of the post of Master Craft Man. Hence the post of the Master Craft Man was surrendered. In view of the said fact, the workman is not entitled to claim promotion on a non-existent post. It is pleaded by the woikman that the post still exist and he being the senior most is entitled to the said post. There it. no evidence on record to indicate as what were the function of the Master Craft Man and by which way the workman was dis- clnrpin^ functions of Master Craft Mnn. He could hfwc been entitled to the post of Master Craft Man, hid the post not been surren-4005 APPEARANCES : On behalf Of the workman : Shri D.K. Verma, Ad-
wcate.
On behalf of the employers : Shri S.N, Dutta, Ad- vocate. STATE : Jharkhand INDUSTRY : Railway Dated, Dhanbad, the 29th June, 2001 AWARD
dered ? The affidavit filed by the Asstt. Per- isonnel Officer, Northern Railway indicate surrender of the post, but copy of order surrendering the post has not been filed. In the said situation, the management may be directed to consider promotion to the post of Master Craft Man in Loco Shed, provided the post still exists and not surrendered yet.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the
case the award is as follow :—
The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exer- cise ol the powers conferred on them under Section lOQXd) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-41012|72|93-I.R.(D.U.) dated, the 24th September, 1993.
(1) that the workman Lallan Shukla is not entitled to promotion in Diesel shed;
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of North Eastern Railway, Sonepur in termi- nating the services of Shri Ramcshwar Sharma is justified ? If not, what relief he is entitled to ?"
(2) the management to consider pro- motion of Lallan Shukla against the post of Master Craft Man in Loco Shed provided notification to sur- render the post not issued.
2. The case of the workman as per his W.S. in
brief is as follows :—
LUCKNOW 4-7-2001.
RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
Now Delhi, the 11th July, 2001
S.O. 1935.—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. 2. Dhanbad as shown in the annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of North Eastern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-7-2001.
[No. L-41012|72|93-IR(D.U.)l(B-I>] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
The concerned workman submitted that he wis a permanent employee of North Eastern Railway and worked at Sonepur Loco Shed as B. M. Khalasi to the satisfaction of the management. It has been sub- mitted by the concerned worman that initially he was appointed in the year 1980 by the management in an Exhibition of Railway held at Sonepur Fair for the period from 22-11-80 to 7-12-80. Thereafter his service was extended as a casual worker in the year 1981 as he was found fit and worked upto 29-11-81 at Muzaffarpur, On 29-11-81 he was declared per- manent employee under the management vide letter dt. 20-1-82 with effect from 29-11-81. It has been alleged that though there was no allegation against him in the matter of performance of his duties but with utter surprise the management on 20-6-84 terminated him from his service without any reason though his service was continuous and compbted 240 days job in a year during the period of his em- ployment. It has been alleged by the concerned wor- man that the management terminated his service with utter violation of the provision of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947. The management also neither issued any chargesheet nor conducted any domestic enquiry before terminatpg his services. Even the management did not issue any notice to this effect. Accordingly the concerned workman by raising this industrial has made this reference and submitted hie prayer to pass an Award to the effect that the action of the management of North Eastern Railway in terminating his service was not justified and also to direct the management to reinstate him with full back wages and other benefits.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD 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. 164 of 1993
PARTIES :
Employers in relation to the management of Eastern Railway, Sonepur and their workman.
3. The management on the contrary after filing W.S.-cum-rejoinder has denied all the claims and allegation which the concerned wforkman asserted in his W.S. It has been submitted by the management that the concerned workman never was a permanent worker under their Establishment. He was only ap- nointed as a casual worker and for which claim made by the concerned workman had no basis at all. The management submitted that the concerned workman first was" appointed as Casual worker for a wfind of 60 days from 28-4-81 and thereafter again for another4606 THE -GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(Ii)] management for a suitable period and his, service was also regularised. The document marked as Ext. W-5 will definitely support the claim ot the concerned workman, about regulansation of his service under the management. However it is not correct that the concerned workman was considered as a permanent worker under the management which he claimed during his evidence because of the fact that in course of his evidence he has failed to produce a; single scrap of paper.
60 days vide office order No. 300 dt. 30-7-81 and finally for another 60 days vide office order No. 366 dt. 21-9-81. Accordingly the statement made by the ^concerned worfkman was a, misleading statement. The management further submitted that the concerned workman was sent for medical examination in A-l for Group-D service but he wis declared medically unfit. Thereaflei lie was again sent for medical exa- mination in B-l medical category. There he was also declared medically unfit on 24-11-84. As such when the concerned workman -vas lound medically unfit there was no scope at all to terminate him from service. Agairi he Was allowed opportunity of lowtr medical examination B-I, but he could not come out success- fully and for which there wai> no scops to stnd the concerned workman for 3rd Medical examination for his appointment in Gioup-D service. The relevant ap- peal of the applicant after due consideration was deci- ded and duly communicated to him vide office order dt. 12-8-92. It has been submitted further by the management that service of the concerned workman was never terminated but automatically ceased to be an employee for his failure in medical examination conducted by the employer and for wnich there was no scope to issue any chargesheet against him and also there was no scope to take up any domestic enquiry in that regard. The management accordingly submitted that the application submitted by the con- cerned workman is an after thought and" he did so for the purpose of getting undue benefit from the Railway Administration and also for employment in the guise of Illegal termination. Accordingly the management has prayed for passing an Award to dis- miss the application of the applicant wftth cost.
4. The points for decision in this reference is :—
"Whether the action of the management of North Eastern Railway, Sonepur in termi- nating the services of Shri RameshWar Sharma is justified ? If not, what relief he is entitled to ?"
5. DECISIONS WITH REASONS
6. Considering the evidence of the concerned work- man as well as on the part of the management it is clear that the service ot the concerned workman was terminated by management: It is the specific allega- tion of the concerned workman that without any reason his service was terminated by the manage- ment. On the contrary it is the specific contention of the management that after getting his appointment the concerned workman was sent for medical examina- tion in A-I for Group->D service but the applicant was declared unfit. Thereafter the concerned work- man was sent again for medical examination in B-I medical category but at that time too he was declared unfit on 24-11-84 by the medical officer. Accordingly relying on this fact the management submitted that! his service was automatically ceased and &* which there w)as no scope of terminating him from his service and in natural course there, as no scope to chargesheet the concerned workman or to take up any domestic enquiry against him. The management in course, of hearing relied on a petition submitted by the concerned workman before the management for consideration. The petition during evidence of the management was marked as Ext, M-3. From the facts disclosed in the petition I find support about the contention of the management to the effect that on 2 occasions the concerned workman was directed to face medical board in connection with his medical examination and on both occasions he was declared medically unfit. The concerned workman after filing the instant petition Ext Ml 3 submitted a prayer before the management for giving him another chance to appear before the medical board in order to jus- tify his fitness. But that petition was considered and rejected by the management taking the ground that there was no reason to allow third time medical examination of the concerned workman when on pievious two occasions the concerned Workman was declared medically unfit. Considering the evidence of the management it is clear that the service of the concerned workman was ceased as he was declared medically unfit. The management in support tStif the claim relied on the medical report marked as Ext. M-l (after objection). From the medical report it transpires that on 24-11-84 the concerned workman appeared before the medical board and hi was dec- lared unfit. Learned Advocate toi the concerned Work- man submitted that the instant document cannot be relied on in absence of original medical papers. The argument extended by the Learned Advocate for the concerned workman definitely is based on cogent footing but the concerned workman by his petition marked as Ext. M-3 admitted the fact declaring him medically unfit by the medical officer under the management on consecutive two occasions when he attended the medical board for his medical test Thereafter, though the management has failed to produce the original medical papers to prove his It is the specific contention of the concerned workman that he was appointed as casual worker in the year 1981 at Muzaffarpur by the management and since he worked till his service was terminated by the management in the yen 1984. He disclosed that without assigning any reason the management terminated him from his service. Even the manage- ment before terminating him from service neither chargesheeted him nor entered into any domestic enquiry against him. In course of his evidence the concerned workman relied on certain document issued on the part of the management marked as Ext. W-l to W-4. From the order passed by the management which in course of evidence was marked as Ext. W-S shows that service of the con- cerned workman under ihe management as casual Wprfcer was regularised in the year 1981. The mana- gement also ifi couse of hearing admitted that the concerned workman under order of the management dt. 25-7-81 was engaged as casual worker for a period of 60 days from 28-4-81 and thereafter for another 60 dftys vide office order No. 300 dt 30-7-81 and finally by another officer Ord?r No, 366 dt. 21-9-81 for 60 days. Thereforr from the statement of the concerned manag&rient shows clearly that the concerned workman was m employment under the 4001 • authenticity the facts relating to the medical unfitness of the concerned workman declared by the Medical Officer in the photo copy cannot be denied at all particularly when the concerned" workman in his petition admitted the said fact,
petition marked Ext.M-3 admitted the fact of declaring him medically unfit by the management but that ad- mission on the part of the concerned workman does not justify whether he was unsuitable for providing any job at lower category. From the docu- ments Ext. M-l it also not clear what was the reason Tor declaring the concerned workman medically unfit. The management inspite of getting scope did not consider necessary lo provide the original medical papers for consideration of the Court and accordingly there was no scope to ascertain if the concerned workman was absolutely unfit for any alternative job under the management as per the provision laid down in the Indian Railway Establish- ment Manual Vol. II which I have already discussed !tbove. It is a faqt that the service of the concerned workman was regularised. It is also a fact that his service was also terminated on the ground of medical unfitness but before doing so the management did not consider necessary to provide him in employ- ment for alternative category requiring a lower cate- gory of medical classification subject to suitability for the alternative category being adjudged by the screening committee to the- extant it is found possible to arrange absorption against alternative post requir- ing lower medical classification. Therefore, there is " reason to believe that the service of the concerned workman was terminated arbitrarily by the manage- ment and for which the concerned workmen has suffered to a great extent. T further consider thflt such arbitrary decision of the maru-Pemcnt has clearly exposed violation of natural justice. There was scope on the part of the management to provide him with ultermtive job in the lower ci'egory as per Railway Manual but thev did not consider to do so. I there- fore hold that the action of the mainnemcnt in ter- minating the services of the corccrwd wnrkr"f n was not justified.
8. In fhe result, the industrial disnutc raised by the concerned workman succeeds The rmnagnnent is therefore directed to reinstate the rmcemed workman in service as ner provision inM down in Railway Establishment Manual Volume IT subicrt to his medica,! fitness with'n three months from 'he date of miWicvl'on of the1 Awp'd in the Gazette of India.
An Award is passed accordingly.
B. BISWAS, Pr^Wrx* O^ccr
Now Delhi, the 11th July, 2001 7. It is further seen that the concerned workman in his VV.S. suppressed the gtound of his termination from service by the management. In fhe W,S. the concerned workman disclosed categorically that with- out assigning any reason he was terminated from service by the management. The fact which the con- cerned workman disclosed in the W.S. finds no basis at uli. On the contrary he Wk dubious role in this regard particularly when it has been established the ground for termination of his service was due to his medical unfitness and not for any other ground •Learned Advocate for thi' management submitted that though the concerned workman was regularised in the job he was directed to attend his medical examination for his fitness as medical examination was considered part of service. The conccrneJ work- man appealed before the Modical Board on two con- seqntivc occasions one in upper category medical examination and other m lower catcgoiy medical examination but in boih the occasions he was declared medically unfit. Naturally his service was automatically ceased and for which there was no scope on the part of the management cither to chargcshcct the con- cerned workman or to take up any domestic enquiry. Learned Advocate for the concerned workman in course of hearing relying on Indian Railway Manual Vol. II Rule 2007 : "EMPLOYMENT OF CASUAL LABOUR". Submitted that there was no scope on' the part of the management to take up medical test of the concerned workman in a very stringent way. In para-4(a) page 17 of the said Manual it has been. laid down that Casual Labour should be subjected to medical examination as early as possible and pre- ferably before grant of temporary status. Continued retention in employment is subject to qualifying in the prescribed medical examination When casual labour who have put in six years service, whether continuous rr in broken periods, are included in a panel for appointment to Group D posts and are sent for medical examination for first appointment to regular service, the standard of medical examination should not be the one that is required for first ap- pointment but should be the appropriate standard as prescribed for re-examination during service. Ac- cordingly Learned Advocate for the concerned work- man submitted that the management had the scope to take lenient view in the matter of medical exami- nation of the concerned workihan but instffid of doing so he was declared medically unfit holding the medical tost of frch recruUees. No arrangement wit also made by the management for providing the concerned workman to a suitable post for alteration category requiring a lower medical classification sub- ject'to their suitability for the alternative category being adjude-d b-/ the screening committee to the extent it is found possible to arrange abcorption apainst alternative post requiring lower medical classification, Learned Advocate for tb<* management in course of hearing h?s failed to satisfy the Court if any apportunitv wa= j"iven to the concerned wbrk- rmn to provide him with suitable iob in 'he lower r-ttegorv as per rnnvisions laid down in Rule 4fb) rage 17 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol. II. It is true that the concerned workman in his
S. O. 1936. — !n Pursuance of S-ction 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the4008 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 LPART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Disputo between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, whiqh was received by the Central Government on 10-7-2001.
[No. L—12012/180/93-IR (B-I) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy. ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRl B. L. JATAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDTGARH NO. TD 147|93
Gurdecp Singh.
C/o
Shri J. B. Garg, Regional Secretary, State Bank of Tndia Staff Association, 197-198/34, Rakesh Nagar. Janta Colony, Rohtak. . .Workman/Union
Vs. Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Punjab-Region-V Sector-17, Chandigarh
Appearances
For the Wo/kman : Shri Dinesh Madra. Tor the Managjmont : Shri P. K. Gupta Law Officer AWARD k (Passed on 11th of June 2001) The Central Govt. \ide gazette notification No. L-12012/180/93-IR (B-l) dated 7th of December 1993 haj lofjiTod the follouing dispute to this Tribunal for atljudicf tion :
''Wnesher ho ai tion of the management of S'ate Bank of India in not permitting Shri Gurdecp Singh to appear for the promotion test during tlu poriod of suspension is justified ? if no lo what relief the workman is entitled to ?" 2, The claim of the workman in brief is that ho is an ijx-berviceman of armed forces>. He had served m defence department for 11 years. He was appointed as guard in State Bank of India Ferozepur L\ij Branch on 14-2-1975 and he was confirmed on 1 ;-6-76. He had passed his higher secondary examination in tho yety 1979, He was eligible for his promotion from watch and ward staff cadre to clarical cadre during tho year 1979. But the management did not consider his case for promotion till August 1988 ond promoted juniors to the work- nun ignoring his seniority in clarical cadre. He was dismissed on 15-5-1986 because he was convicted by ths lower criminal court in the criminal case of alleged fraud of Rs. 20,000/- . His appeal was allowed by the Suasions Judge who acquitted the workman. Tho second appeal filed by the manage- ment was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh which was disn.issed on 16-2-1985. Consequently the management, reinstated the workman in bank's sorvioo and placed him under suspension vide order dated 26-9-1987, Thai suspension order wai revoked by the manage- ment vide letter dated 20-12-1988. Consequently the management had paid to the workman his back wages alongwith continuity of service w.o.f. 8-8-1980.
\ The suspension prrjod w.c.f. 8-8-1980 to 15-5-1986 was treated as on duty. So, he was entitled to get the benefit of seniority and leave etc. He was promoted in clarical cadre during the month of August 1988 instead of June 1979. The action off the management was arbitrary, illegal, unconsti- tutional and against the principle of natural justice*. He was entitled to tho promotion during the month of June 1979 but his case was ignored and junior to him were promoted superseeding the workman. Therefore, ' tho management be directed to promote the workman from 'the date of his eligibility instead of August 1988.
4. The management has filed its written statement alleging that the workman was prosecuted in criminal court for the charge of commiting fraud of Rs. 20,000/-, and on conclusion of trial he was convicted by the trial court. On appeal the Sessions Judge Ferozepur gave benefit of doubt to tho workman and acquitted him from the charges levelled against him. Therefore, he was reinstated after revoking the order of suspension but he was not eligible for his promotion from the post of guard to clarical cadre during the month of June 1979. He had not put in five years of minimum service. He had passed higher secondary examination during the period from 1980 to 1986. The length of service rendered by him in Armed forces could not be considered for promotion during the month of June 1979. Tho guide- lines for giving wcitage to his past services were issued during the year 1986 by Union Ministry pf Finance. The management had given effect to those guidelines during the month of Feb. 1987. Consequently he was given an opportunity to appear in promotion test af^r his reinstatement in service and he was promoted by the management during the month of August 1988. During the month of June 1979, he was not eligible for his promotion to clarical cadre. Therefore, the claim of the workman has no merit. It should be dismissed without any relief.
5. The workman has filed rejoinder reasserting the pleadings made by him in his claim statement. 6. In this case the facts of defence services of 11 years, and three days, appointment of the work- man as guard on 14-2-1975, his confirmation on 14-6-1976, his prosecution and conviction in crimi- nal trial court and his acquittal from sessions court are admitted facts. His suspension and reinstate- ment and his promotion during the month of August 1988 are also admitted facts.
7. The workman has submitted his affidavit. Ex. WL No. document has been filed by him in support of his case. He has deposed that he was promoted to the post of clarical cadre during the month of August, 1988 but he was eligible for his promotion during the month of Juno 1979. The term of reference4009 relates to the permission to appear for the promo- tion test during the period of suspension. The manage- ment had filed the allidavit of Bank Officer Shn S. R. Singhal, who was given up by the bank on 25-5-99, The management examined on that day its Deputy Manager Shri G. B. Rustogy. The witness of" the management has deposed in his cross-examination that the workman was not eligible for his promotion during the year 1979 because he was appointed on 14-12-1975 as it has been deposed in the affidavit of the workman. As per promotion policy Ex. Ml, the workman had not completed five years service during the month of June, 1979. The policy of giving weightage to ex-serviceman for his past defence services was given effect w. o. f. 17-2-1987. Therefore, it is evident that he was not eligible for promotion during the month of June 1979. The workman has claimed in his claim statement, that he should have been promoted during the month of June 1979 instead of August 1988. Therefore, this relief can not be granted to the workman. Besides this the term of the reference does not relate to his promotion during the month of June 1979.
8. Tt is an admitted fact that the workman remain- ed under suspension w. c. f. 8-8-1980 to 15-5-1986. During this period the criminal case was pending against him. As per service rules he was not entitled to get promotion during the suspension period. There fore, the question of giving permission to appear for promotion test does not arise. Under these circumstances, the action taken by the management in not permitting the workman to appear for promo- tion test during suspension period was justified. After his reinstatement, he was permitted to appear in promotion test. He qualified in it and he was promoted to clerical cadre during the year 1988. Considering all facts of the case, the claim of the workman has no merit for any relief.
9. On the appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties, the reference is answered that the action of the management, of the State Bank of India in not permitting Shri Gurdeep Singh to appear for promotion test during, the period of suspension is justified. Consequently the workman is not entitled to get any relief. The parties shall bear their own costs. Appropriate Govt. be informed.
Chandigarh. 11-6-2001
B.L. JATAV, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 11th July, 2001 S.O. 1937.—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. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the annexuro in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-7-2001.
[No. L-12012/131/96-IR(B-I)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
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(l)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
REFERENCE NO. 82 OF 1997 PARTIES : Employers in relation to the manage- ment of State Bank of India, Muzafvar- pui and their workman.
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the : Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate workman
On behalf of the : Shri B, Joshi, Advocate employers
State : Jharkhand - Industry : Coal Dated, Dhanbad, tho 29th June, 2001
AWARD
Tho Govt, of India, Ministry of Labour, in excrcis e of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(l)(d of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-12012/131/96-1.R. (B-I), dated, the 28th August, 1997.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in imposing the penalty of "dis- charge" from service on Shri Deoki Mahto is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"4010 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2. The case of the concei ned woi kman a1* pei
W.S. in brief 's as follows:
40U,, of natural justice or not? My predecasfpr-ifl-office after hearing both sides held that th" domestic enquiry against the concerned workman >was lair and proper and for which it was decided in favour of the management.
5. Now the point for consideration is:
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in imposing the penalty of "dis- charge" from service on Shri Deoki Mahto is legal and justified? It not, to what relief the workman is entitled?'
DECISION WITH REASONS
6. It is admitted fact that the concerned workman was an employee of State Bank of India and posted at Barachakia branch as Clerk-cum-Cashier wheu the cause of action in the instant case arose. It is seen that over the misconduct of the concerned workman a chargesheet was issued against him on 21-3-94 and the concerned workman submitted his reply to the aforesaid chargesheet on 11-5-94. As the disciplinary authority was dissatisfied with the reply given by the concerned workman a departmental proceeding was started against him vide order dt. 9-8-94 and Shri Anjan Sarkar was appointed as Enquiry Officer while Shri R,,K. Sinha was appointed as Presiding Officer. Shri R,K. Sinha i.e, MW-1 during his evidence cor- roborated the facts relating to the departmental enquiry held against the concerned workman by the Enquiry Officer. The charges in brief are:—
"(I) On 28-9-93 he eutered into the branch in a drunken state and misbehaved with Sbri Ram Swarath Mishra, a customer. Ho continued his mi&behaviowr with the members of Ataff also and lastly shouted filthy language at Shri S.K. Singh, Accountant. On 15-2-93 also he was found in a drunken state and'eft office at 3.45 P.M. reporting that he was unable to work,
(H) On 15-8-93 when he was working in Despatch Section, he refund to close the postage book, and shouted in abusive languages, [
(iii) Besides remaining absent uflauthomed'y on specific days as alleged in the charge-sheet he left offices after lunch recess without obtaining permission on 15-2-93, 19-2-93, 5-5-93 and 5-10-93 at 3,45 P.M , 4,00 P.M. 3.00 P.M. and 4.15 P.M. respectively."
conduct and for which the^conccmed workman as discharge from his service, that order passed by the disciplinary authority the concerned wojkma,a preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority, on careful consideration of the entire matter and aftei having applied his, mind agreed'with the finding and the decision of the dijr cipliuary authority and came to the conclusion that there was no reason to. modify the order of discharge} Accordingly the Appeal preferred by the conc^ned workman was dismissed. The disciplinary authority before finding the concerentj workman guilty of misconduct after careful consideration of all the papers of thevenqwry came to the conclusion that, thq finding of the Enquiry Officer in respect of charg^ No. 1 and 3 was not established beyond aU reasonable doubt However, the disciplinary authority agjfp^ with the finding of Lhe Enquiry Officer in respect ,of Charge No. 2 The disciplinary authority has assigned reason why he disagreed with the landing of the Enquiry Officer in respect of charge No. 1 andt3 as. per enquiry report. As such it is clear that on th" basis of charge No. 2 the concerned woikrrian "was found guilty of misconduct and not jn respect °f charge No. 1 and 3. The Charge No. 2 which WJJS brought against the concerned workman, was "On 15-8-93 when he was working in the despatph sectjem he refused to close despatch book anc| shouted, 'in abusive language". I have con&idejed reliant papers relating to enquiry made by the Enquiry Qffiw in respect of this particular charge. I also cqusidwad the statement of the witnesses in this regards Ac- cording to the enquiry report it is seen that on ] 5-8-93 the concerned workman refused to close .the postage book and shquted in abusive 1'" guage. No evidence is forth-coming before this 1 Ibuwil about the actual ground for refusing to closv.., the postage book. It is also not clear actually if aiming any person the concerned workman shouted,. in abusive language. However, from the enquiry report I find support of the allegation in question. Now the point for consideration is whether for the said reason the punishment awarded to the concerned workman was befitting or not. It is seen that the disciplinary authority was not agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer against the. encerned wort- man in respect of charge No. 1 and 2. Therefore, at this stage I do not find any sufficient ground, to discuss in details about the finding of the Enquiry officer in respect of Charge No. 1 and 3, It ia seen that the disciplinary authority took action, i.& dis- charged the concerned workman from s>ervioe flying on the allegation which was brought against him #* per charge No. 2. Learned Advocate for the^ con- cerned workman referring to a decision reported in . AIR 1967 SC 428 and submitted that though the concerned workman was found guilty for .comrnittjpg misconduct in view of charge No. 2 the punish.mant In course of enquiry the Enquiry Officer examined different witnesses in presence of the concerned workman and thereafter completing the enquiry, submitted his report finding the concerned workman guilty of misconduct. On the basis of that enquiry report, the disciplinary authority after perusing all the papers of enquiry found him guilty for mis-4012 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] workman by the management was not cnJy illegal and improper but also against the principles of natural justice. In the result, the following Award is ren- dered :
"The action of the management of State Bank of India in imposing the penalty of "discharge" from service on Shri Dcoki Mahto is not legal justified, and also in accordance to the principle of natural justice. Consequently, the concerned workman is entitled to reinstatement to his original job without any back wages, However, he is entitled to continuity of service."
The management is directed to leinstate the concerned workman to his original job as stated above within three months from the date of publication of the Award in the Gazette of India.
B BISWAS, Presiding Officer
New Delhi, the 12th July, 2001
S.O. 1938.—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, Chennai as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Southern Railway and their work- man, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 11-7-2001,
[No. L-41012/212/95-IR(B-I)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Monday, the 11th June, 2001
Present : K. KARTHIKEYAN,
PRESIDING OFFICER
Industrial Dispu'.e NO. 418/2001 awarded was too harsh and very much disproportion- ate to the offience committed by the concerned •workman and also it contravene!, the principles of natural justice. In the decision i c. Llyods Bank Ltd.-vrs-Panna Lai Gupta Their Lordships held that the punishment awarded to the appellant is shock- ingly disproportionate to the charge framed against him. No reasonable employer would ever impose in like circumstances the punishment of dismissal of the employee. Victimisation or unfair labour practice could well bo inferred from the conduct of the management in awarding the extreme punishment of dismissal for a flamsy charge of abuse of some worker or officer of the management by the appellant within the premises of the factory. The instant case is almost on similar nature of the case where the Hon'ble Apex Court made such observation which has been referred to above. It is seen that three specific charges were brought against the concerned workman. Out of which charge No, 1 and 3 arc far more serious in comparison to charge No. 2, Finding of the enquiry officer that the concerned workman was guilty of misconduct in respect of Charge No. 1 and 3 was totally disbelieved by the disciplinary authority but as Charge No, 2 was stab- lished against the concerned workman he was dis- charged from service. I have considered the Charge No.2 very carefully. It is fact that the concerned workman did not close the postage book on 15-8-93 in discharging his official duty. This is definitely a dereliction of duty on his part. It is also establishd that the concerned workman on that day shouted inside the branch of the said Bank and also used abusive language. Being a staff of the Bank it was not befitting on his part to show such ugly gesture to his colleagues and customers while he was on duty. Definitely for such ugly behaviour and also dereliction of duty the concerned workman cannot avoid res- ponsibility to suffer punishment. But the punish- ment which was awarded by the disciplinary authority to the concerned workman appears to be not only disproportionately excessive in relation to the olTence committed by him but also it has gone against the snquity and principles of natural justice, It is seen that for such misconduct and dereliction of1 duty the management taking vindictive attitude victimised the concerned workman. Discharge from service, I think is the optimum punishment which can be awarded by the management. It is expected that such punishment can be awarded only in case of extreme cases. Here after a careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances it is seen that the misconduct for dereliction of duty which the con- cerned workman committed was not of such serious in nature which could deserve maximum punishment i.e. discharge from service. I therefore, hold keeping in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court hat the punishment awarded against the concerned
(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 03/97) (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 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Shri J. Dhanapal arW the Management of Southern Railway, Madras.) 4oii BETWEEN
J. DHANAPAL : I Party/Workman
AND
The General Manager : II Party/Management Southern Railway, Mad ids. Appearance :
For the Workman : Sri S. Wt
A u t h o r ed Rcpusc ta -.
For the Management : Mr. P. Arulmudj,,
Advocate
The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (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-41012/2J2/95-IR(B-I) dated 'nil' :—
"Whether the action of the Management oF General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras in dismissing Shri J. Dhanapal from service w.e.f. 22-06-90 is legal and justified? Jf not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"
This matter came up before me for final hearing on 30-4-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement and other material papers on record, the oral evidence of the Petitioner and the documentary evidence of the Respondent and upon perusing the written arguments submitted on either side and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal has passed the follow- ing :—
AWARD
This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as T.D. No. 3/97. On receipt of notice from that Tribunal, the Petitioner through his authorized representative and the Respondent through his coun- sel entered appearance and filed their respective 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 file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal of adjudication. On re- ceipt of records of this case from the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, this case has been taken on file here as l.D.No.418/2001 and notices were sent to the representative of the I Party and the counsel for the II Party, informing them about the transfer of this case from the file of Tamil Nadu State In- dustrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Court with their res- pective parties to prosecute this case further on 23-02-2001. Accordingly, both the parties appeared before this Tribunal along with the authorized re- presentative and the counsel on record respectively and prosecuted this case further.
2. The facts of this industrial dispute in brief as stated in the Claim Statement of I Party/Work- man are as follows :—
The I Party/Workman Sri J. Dhanapal (herein- after referred to as Petitioner) was appointed as a casual labour at Royapuram Depot in the mechani- cal branch on 9-9-1970. He was granted temporary status w.e.f. 9-3-1971. Subsequently, he was ab- sorbed as Khalasi on regular basis with effect from 7-12-1978. While so, the Petitioner was suspended by an order dated 20-5-1988 with retrospective effect from 4-5-1988. The said order of suspension was revoked on 9-8-1988 and he was taken back to duty from 9-8-1988. During the period of suspension, the petitioner was issued a charge sheet dated 15-6-88 for violating Rule 2(3)(l)(ii)(iii) of Railway Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The charge against the Petitioner was—
(a) that he entered the office of CWS/Yard TNPM at about 12.45 hrs. on 3-5-88 and used filthy language on Sri T.R. Venugopal and approached him with the motive of hilling;
(b) And again on 4-5-88 while the CWS came for duty at 13.00 hrs. he used vulgar language against him (CWS) in the presence of Mr. Panduranga Vittal, CTR and Sri S. Kuppu- swamy and threatened him that he will murder his family members at residence.
The petitioner acknowledged the charge memo on 25-6-88. An Enquiry Officer was appointed on 9-8-88 and on that day, the suspension order against the petiticner was rcvok< d. The Petitioner did not attend the enquiry on 23-9-1988, 17-12-1988 and 10-03-1989. Finally, on 2-8-1989 the Petitioner attended the enquiry and accepted ihc charges. Since he accepted the charges, the enquiry was closed by the Enquiry Officer and he held the charges were proved. In pursuance of the Enquiry Officer's finding, the Disciplinary Authority by his order dated 11-6-90 removed the Petitioner from service with effect from 22-6-1990-
3. The Petitioner in his Claim Statement had challenged the penalty imposed by the II Parly/ Southern Railway Department, the Respondent herein as illegal and unjustified. He would further contend that his date of birth is 4-7-52 and he is entitled to serve up to the age of 60 years but he was prematurely removed from service from 22-6-90 on flimsy grounds, The action taken by the authority lower than the appointing authority (General Mana- ger) is invalid, wholly arbitrary and unjustified. The enquiry conducted by the department is vitiated since reasonable opportunity, for perusal of records, and to have defence assistance were not granted to the Petitioner. Hence, it is against the principles of natural justice, The Disciplinry Authority without46l4 THE GAZETTE OF TNDTA : AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [i*ART I I ^ S E C. 3(ii)] furnishing the copy of the entire proceedings of the enquiry issued a second show cause notkc and im- posed a penalty without giving any valid reasons with regard to the adequacy of penalty- imposed. Further the competent authority has to get prior approval of the Ministry of Railways lor removing the Petitioner from service.
pointment st;id to have been made by ths Respondent as a i ccruitment of the Petitioner against 15% vacan- cies reserved for SC category workers, no material has been produced by the Petitioner to substantiate his case. While giving evidence c"s WW1, in the proof of affidavit as well as in the cross examination before, this Court, the Petitioner l.as not stated that he has got material to substantiate that contention.
4. It is the contention of the II Party/Southern Railway Management (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) that the departmental enquiiy was conducted against the Petiiioner as per the procedure and compliance of principles of natural justice. The Petitioner only did not co-operate wilh the en- quiry. He was terminated from be; vice for the violation of the Railway Servants (conduct) Rules. The Petitioner did not prefer any appeal against this removal. The action of the Management in removing the Petitioner from service is legal and justified.
5. When the matter has been taken up for en- quiry, the Petitioner who already filed into the Court his proof of affidavit, was cross examined by the learned counsel for the Respondent and his evidence has been treated as evidence of Workman witness No.I. On the side of the Respondent/Management, documents were marked by consent of either parly as Ex. Ml to M12. The learned coufel for the Res- pondent has informed the Court that the I[ Party/ Management has no oral evidence. The written arguments of the authorized representative of the I Party/Petitioner and the counsel for the II Party/ Management were filed separately.
6. The point for my consideration is—
"Whether the action of the Management of General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras in dismissing Shri J. Dhanapal from service w.c.i". 22-06-90 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"
Point :
7. The Petitioner has admitted that he was re- moved from service on 22-6-90. Ex MI is the xerox copy of the service register of the Petitioner. In that there is an entry to the effect that he remained absent for duty from 26-2-1975 to 02-10-1975 in more than nine spells as unauthorized absence for which penalty of issue of one set of privilege free pass has ordered to be with held. Like that there is another entry for the penalty awarded to him for remaining absent from duty from 7-8-76 to 7-10-76 without obtaining leave. Subsequently for his unauthorized between 22-8-78 and 31-3-79 in five spells punishment was given by with holding his annual increment for a period of six months. Again, another penalty was imposed on him for such unauthorized absence for a later period 1977 and 1978 by withholding his annual increment for a period of six months. Again in 1986 and 1987 he remained unauthorisedly absent and penalties were awarded for those occasions by withholding his annual increment for a period of twelve months. This shows the Petitioner as chro- nic unathorized absentee for duty and he was given punishments for such unauthorized absence. But in the cross examination he has stated that he was not given any punishment by the Management dur- ing his service of 20 years which in quite contrary to the entries available in his service book. Leter when he was put in notice of entries of Ex. MI his service register in the cross examination he has ad- mitted that as and when he absented from duty unauthorisedly the period of such absence used to be noted in his service book and the penalty awarded therefor used to be mentioned therein. The Petitioner was issued a suspension order dl. 20-5-88 under the original of Ex. M2. Ex M3 is a xerox copy of order dated 9-8-88 revoking the suspension and Ex M4 is the Xerox copy of the letter dated 9-8-88 for taking the petitioner back for duty. The Petitioner has admitted in his evidence that he was issued a charge sheet dated 15-6-88, the xerox copy of the same is Ex. M5. For having received the charge memo, the petitioner has acknowledged it by latter dated 25- 6-88. The xerox copy of the same is Ex. M6. Though he has stated that he filed his expanlation for the charge sheet he h is not chosen to file Hie copy of the same. He has also not stated in his Claim State- ment that he has submitted his explanation to the charge sheel. It is his submission that he had received the notice for the enquiry and he acknowledged The 1 Party/Workman/Petitioner Sri J. Dhanapal has raised this industrial dispute against the Tl Party/ Southern Railway/Management, the Respondent herein for the order parsed by the Respondent for removing the Petitioner from service en 22-6-90 for misconduct, Tt is admitted that the Petitioner was engaged as a u>siial labourer at Royapuram Depot in the Mechanical Branch from 9-9-1970 and he was granted temporary status from 9-3-1971 and subsequently he was absorbed £U. Khalasi on regular basis with effect from 7-12-1978. Though it is the contention of the Petitioner that he was recruited against 1 5% of vacancies reserved for SC category workers it is denied by the Respondent stating that the Petitioner was not appointed against the vacancies' ivjjjrved AK Sc.KduI.-d C is e. For one such ap- 4U13
appeal petition in the Court. He has also not mentioned in his Claim Statement that he preferred an appeal against the penalty of and the same hai been admit- ted by him in evidence. He admits i hat ho preferred a petition before the Labour Court in 1993 and it was dismissed. It is also his admission that Ex Ml2 i s the order patsed by 1hc Labour Court denying his claim. The learned counsel for the Respondent/ Management had mentioned in his written argument that the Petitioner had not attended the enquiry on 23-9-88, 17-12-88 and 10-03-89 and therefore, the same was delayed and finally on 2-8-89. When the petitioner Sri J. Dhanapal attended the enquiry and accepted the charges unconditionally, the enquiry was closed by the Enquiry Officer. Nothing is available as material to dispute these facts spoken to by the learned counsel for Respondent in his argument, On the other hand, Ex M7 the enquiry proceedings & Ex. M8, the Enquiry Officer's findings clearly shows that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management on this aspect is correct. So under such circumstances, the conten- tion of the Petitioner's representative that there was a long delay in conduct of the departmental enquiry and the charges franwd was not explained to the Petitioner in Tamil and he was deprived with reason- able opportunity to defend himself are not correct. From what it is mentioned in Ex. M7, the enquiry proceedings, it is seen that there was no necessity for the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry in detail by furnishing the documents to the Petitioner, the delinquent cmpployce and to held afull fleged enquiry since the Petitioner himself has admitted the charge after clearly understood the detail of the charge of misconduct levelled againt him. Under such circum- stances, it cannot be said that the enquiry is vitiated and no reasonable opportunity was given to the Petitioner/Workman to put forth his defence effecti- vely and it is" a violation of principles ofnaiural jus-rice. The particulars of charges has been clearly stated by the Enquriy Officer to the delinquent emplo- yee as alleged misconduct spoken against him, as it is seen from Ex M7, Having understood the charge of misconduct alleged against him, the Petitioner has voluntarily admitted the charge as he was accep- ting the charges unconditionally. Under uich circum- stances, the aigument advanced by the learned representative of the Petitioner/Workman with regard to conduct of the enquiry cannot be accepted as correct. As it is seen from the records, the miscon- duct alleged against the Petitioner is a serious mis- conduct and the Petitioner had repeated the same for 5-8-88 also. So, as it is put forth by the learned counsel for the Respondent, it was dealt with by the Disciplinary Authority in accordance with the rules and penahy ji as been imposed. It cannot be said that the past record of this petitiontr/Workmah. is bk- mishless. The entries in the service book of the the same by his letter dated 30-8-88. The xerox copy of the same is Ex. M1I. Though nothing has been stated about the conduct of the enquiry, exctpt as a belated one, it is stated in the Claim Statement of the Petitioner that he v,as not given reasonable opportunity to peruse the records, to have an a^is- tance of defence assistant and the charge has rot been explained in local understandable Tamil language and hence the enquiry is vitiated and it is against the principles of natural justice. While giving evidence, the Petitioner has admitted that the signatures availa- ble in Tamil as J. Dhanapal is his signature. The document contained his signature has been marked as EX. M7. Ex. M7, the xeiox copy of PAR enquiry against the Petitioner on 2-8-89. Tn that document the Enquiry Officer as well as the charge sheeted employee have subscribed their signature. There is an endorsement to that effect in that document that the proceedings recorded there under was read over and translated in Tamil and accepted by the Peti- tioner as correct in both the pages of that Exhibit. Underneath that endorsement the Petitioner has subscribed his signature in Tamil. While giving evidence as WWI, the Petitioner has stated in the cross examination that those three signatures avai- lable in Tamil are that of his signature. But he denies the contents in Ex. M7 stating that he put those signatures in white blank paper and he was not stated before the Enquiry Officer as it is mentioned in that exhibit as his answer to the questions put by the Enquiry Officer. He has also stated in his evidence that he has informed the Enquiry Officer that he may be applogized and his case may be considered sympathetically to save his family. A perusal of Ex. M7 shows that the Petitioner has stated before the Enquiry Officer that he has understood the charges and accepted the charges unconditionally and he was feeling sorry for the atitude and requested the Enquiry Officer to consider his case sympathetically to save his family. For the last question put by the Enquiry Officer that whether he was satisfied with the enquiry proceedings , the Petitioner has replied that he was satisfied. Hence , the evidence given by WWI that he had not stated to the Enquiry Officer as what it is mentioned there in Exhibit itself and his signa- tures were obtained in white blank paper cannot be acceptable as correct. Futher in his Claim State- ment he had not pleaded so in respect of the conduct of the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer. From this it is seen that it is only an afterthought of the Peti- tioner to come and deny the conte. Is in Ex, M7. Ex M 9 is the xerox copy of Penalty Advise sent to the Petitioner and Ex M10 is the acknowlcdgcmcn: of the Petitioner for receipt of the Penalty Advise. The Petitioner has not prefe/red any appeal against the order of punishment imposed by the compete! t authority. But in evidence, he syas that he has pre- ferred an appeal and has notified !he copy cf the4016 THE .GAZETTE OF INDIA ; AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Petitioner Ex Ml go to show that he was penalised very many tirr.es for his unauthoiized absence from duty. No document is available in this case to show that the Petitioner has objected to the conduct of the enquiry proceedings before ever he files his Claim Statement for raising this industrial dipsute. So, under such circumstances, I can come to a conclusion that there is no material to substantiate the claim of the Petitioner/workman and there is no merits in this case. So it is corcluded that the action of the Management of General Manager, Southern Railway- Madras, in dismissing Sri J. Dhanapal from service from 22-6-90 is legal and justified. Hence, the concer- ned workman is not entitled to any relief. Thus, 1 answer the point accordingly.
8. In the result, an award is passed holding that the action -of the management of General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras in dismissing Sri J. Dhanapal from service with effect from 22-6-90 is legal and justified. Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the I lth June, 2001).
K. KARTHT1CEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined:
For the T Party/Workman;
WW.l Shri J. Dhanapal
For the 11 Party/Management:
NONE
DOCUMENTS MARKED:
For 1 Party / Workman: NIL
For the II Party/Management: Ex.No. Date Description
M i_ Extract copy from the Service
Register of Sri J. Dhanapal, the Petitioner
M2 20-05-88 X^rox copy of suspension letter.
M3 09-08-88 Xeiox copy of suspension re-
vocation letter.
M4 09-08-88 Xerox copy of the letter of joining duty of the Petitioner.
M5 15-06-88 Xerox copy of standard form of charge sheet.
M6 25-06-88 Xerox copy of acknowledgement of charge Shee' by the Petitioner M7 02-08-89 Xerox copy of DAR enquiry proceedings.
M8 NIL Xerox ocopy of Enquiry Officer's
findings.
M9 11-5/6-90 Xciox copy of Penally Advi.se. MI0 30-7-90 Copy of acknowledgement of Penalty Advise by the Petitioner M il 30-08-88 Xerox copy of acknowledgement
letter of the Petitioner.
M12 15-07-93 Xerox copy of order of the Case No. 73/1991.
New Delhi, the 7th July, 2001 S.O. 1939.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the Common award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dis- pute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Petroleum Cor- poration Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-7-2001.
S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
(Nos. (1) L-30012l75|96-TR(C-I)
(2) L-30012|76l96-IR(CT)
(3) L-30012177I96-IRCC-I1
(4) L-30012|83I96-TR(OD]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday the 20th June. 20014017 PRESENT :
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute Nos. 451, 452, 453 and 454 [2001
(Tamil N?du State Industrial Tribunal I.D. Nos. 98, 99, 100, 101197)
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudica- tion under clause (d) of sub-section ( I) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), bet- ween the Workmen S|Shri M. Pcnchilliah, Mohammed Iqbal, M. Subramani and K. Padmanabhan ajid the Management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Chennai).
BETWEEN
I Party|Workmen.
1. M. Penchilliah (ID No. 45J|2001) :
2. Mohamed Iqbal (ID No. 452|2001) 3. M. Subramani (ID No. 45312001) (Deceased) Smt. Pushpa and
Five Others as L|Rs.
4. K. Padmanabhan (TD No. 45412001).
AND
II Party[Management.
The General Manager :
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Chennai.
Appearance :
For the Workmen : Sri. D. Vijayakumar Advocate.
For the Management : M|s. T. S. Gopaian & Companv, Advocates.
This dispute on coming up before me for final hearing on 31-05-2001, upon perusing the reference, Claim Statement, Counter Statement and other material papers on re- cord, the documentary evidence let in on either side and nnon hearing the arguments ot learned counsel on either side and this 22fi9 G[/2001—21
dispute having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal passed the follow- ing :—
COMMON 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), have referred these concerned industrial disputes for adjudication vide Order No. L-30012[75, 76, 77 and 83|96- IR(C-I) dt. 16-09-97.
2. These references were made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where they were taken on file as I.D. Nos. 98, 99, 100 & 101197. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of these cases from the file of that Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal these cases have been taken on file on 12-02-2001 as I.D. Nos. 451, 452, 453 and 45412001 respectively and notices wefe sent to the counsel on record on either side inform- ing them about the transfer of these cases to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear be- fore this Tribunal on 28-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, counsel on cither side present when the matter was taken up for enquiry on 28-02-2001, the counsel on either side with their respective parties were present and on request of both the narties, these cases were adjourned to 15-03-2001 and then to 29-3-2001.
3. When the matter was taken up on 29-3-2001 for further enquiry, exhibits MS to M79 were marked bv consent and on subse- quent hearing on 10-4-2001 Ex. M80 to Ml 12 were marked by consent. Then on representation bv the counsel on either side, evidence on either side was closed and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on cither side was heard on 14-5-2001 and on subsequent two hearings.
4, The Industrial Dispute referred to in common in the above orders of reference by the Central Govt. for adjudication of this Tribunal is as folows :—
"Whether the action of the Management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., in discharging SlShri N. Pcn- ehilliah, Mohamed Iqbnl, M. Sub- bramani nnd K. Padmanabhan w.e.f. 31-10-1995 is just, proper and4018 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2001/SltAVANA 13, 1923 [PART II— SEC.-3(ii)] legal ? If not to what relief the workmen are entitled ?"
When the matter was pending enquiry be- fore the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal, the I Party|Workman|Petitioner Sri M. Subra- mani expired. So, on petition M.A. No. 85199 by the legal representatives of that Petitioner|Workman, the Tamil Nadu Indus- trial Tribunal was pleased to allow that Peti- tion and the wife and the issues of the deceased Petitioner M. Subramani, Smt. S. Pushpa (wife) Jeyalakshmi, Ilakiya Selvi, Tamil Selvi, Ilaya Selvi (daughters) and Meganathan (son) were impleaded as L|Rs of that Peti- tioner M. Subramani to prosecute his case I.D. No. 100|97 (CGIT I.D. No. 453|2001).
5. The industrial dispute referred to bet-
ween the parties is briefly as follows :—
documents were marked as Management Ex- hibits. 40 documents were marked as exhi- bits on behalf of the Workmen. On the basis of the enquiry report of the Enquiry .Officer, the Respondent [Management had terminated the Petitioners from service with effect from 31-10-94. The domestic en- quiry was not conducted in a proper and pres- cribed manner. The case is based on the theft of the corporation property. The Peti- tioners have challenged the action of the Management by terminating them from ser- vice stating that on the basis of confession statement allegedly given by one Gaja in CX. No. 10185195 on the file of Chief Metro- politan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, the Petitioners were charge sheeted for the alleg- ed misconduct. In that criminal case all the accused including these Petitioners have been acquitted on 9-10-97. Thus, no case has been proved against the Petitioner warrant- ing or necessitating the Respondent [Manage- ment to impose the capital punishment of discharge fiom service of the Petitioners. The steps taken bv the Petitioners including con- ciliation proceedings were failed. Hence, this Tribunal mav be pleased to adjudicate the matter and to hold that the action of the Management against the petitioners is un- justified and to direct the Resportdent|Manage- ment to reinstate the Petitioners in service with full back wages, continuity of service and attendant benefits.
The I Paily[Workmen (hereinafter referred to as Petitioners) were appointed as watch- men'general workmen by the IT Party! Management (hereinafter referred to as Res- pondent) and they were working in tanks, pipelines operations at Tondiarpet under the control and management of the Respondent. While so, the Respondent had issued an order of suspension on 12-1-1990 against the Peti- tioner Sri Mohammed Iqbal and on 19-1-90 against the Petitioners S[Sri M. Penchilliah, M. Subramani and K. Padmanabhan separate- ly. The above said suspension was made against them on the ground that on 21-10-1989 morning at 8.00 a.m. a quantity ot 12134 litres fo benzene costing Rs. 1,30,000 was lost from tank No. T-21. The Respondent has issued charge sheet dated 18-5-90 separa- tely for these Petitioners. The nature of charge is such as theft, fraud, dishonesty in connection with Corporation|business or pro- perty as per Clause 29.1.14 of the Standing Order of Corporation. The petitioners denied the charges and submitted their explanations. A common domestic enquiry was conducted by the Respondent [Management as depart- mental proceedings pursuant to the charges levelled against the Petitioners. That domes- tic enquiry was conducted by the Respondent| Management against these four Petitioners and four other employees S|Sri A. George Louis, Gauger, C. Jagannathan, Watchman C. R. Javasekaran Watchman and A. Viswa- nathan Watchman. On the conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer cave his com- mon enquiry report dated 19-4-94. In that domestic enquiry, the Respondent'Manage- ment have examined eight witnesses and 96
6. The Respondent [Management had dis- puted the contents of the Petitioners in the Claim Statements and had averred in their Counter Statement that on 21-10-89, there were 5 loirv fillings of Benzene and the clos- ing leading of the flow meter attached to the benzene gantry was 16396842. The General Shift operation came to an end at 13.00 hrs. One K. Anbumani, Pump Operator and Thanikachalam were put on over time work and after finishing over time work, they left a+ 15.00 hrs. The filling operations were over by 15.00 hrs. The Operations Officer Sri A. R. Balasubramaniam left at 16.00 hrs. After 16.00 hrs. apart from 5 watchmen A. Viswanathan, C. Jaganathan, C. R. Jevase- karan, M. Penchilliah and M. Padmanabhan, General Workmen, C. Loganathan, M. Doss and Oiler Mohamed Iqbal were attending to the special products operation. Sri B. Vijaya Kumar, Operations Officer was in charee of the operations. R. Karunanithee, Sr. Opera- tions Officer was also in the installation affer AQ\9
this incident, the Respondent issued a charge imemo dated 18-5-90 to Louis, Mohammed Iqbal, Subramani, Jeyasekaran, Vishwanathan, Penchilliah and Padmanabhan. Subsequent to the explanation given by these workmen denying the charges, a common domestic enquiry was conducted against them. All the charge sheeted workmen 'tully took part in the enquiry proceedings. When the enquiry was pending Watchman, Sri Jagannathan died. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer gave his report dated 19-5-94 holding that all the seven workmen were guilty of the charges. On 18-9-95 a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report was forwarded to the Peti- tioners informing them to submit their com- ments in order to decide the punishment to be awarded to them. The Petitioners gave replies denying the charges. After consider- ing the representation of the Petitioners, brders were passed on 31-10-95 discharging them from service. The discharge of the Petitioner was for an act of misconduct established in a fairly and properly conducted enquiry, in which the Petitioners were fully participated and the punishment of discharge is fully justified. The said enquiry is not vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice. The judgement of Criminal Court has no bearing on the report of the Enquiry Officer or on the order of discharge. The criminal Court gave its verdict long after the report of enquiry and the discharge order. Having regard • to the conduct of the Petitioner as disclosed in the enquiry, the Respondent cannot repose confidence in them. The Petitioners should not be considered for any relief, much less the relief of reinstatement.
7. When these cases wen pending for en- quiry before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, a representation was made before that Tribunal by the counsel on either side to have a joint enquiry of all these four cases, since the issue relating to the industrial dis- putes referred to in these cases is common and the domestic enquiry conducted by the Rccpondent|Managemcnt in pursuance of the charge sheet issued against the Petitioners was a common one and the common report * has been submitted by the Enquiry Officer" and that the evidence let in on either side in the first case may be treated as common evi- dence for the other three cases also. In pur- suance of such representation made by the counsel on either side, the Tamil Nadu In- dustrial Tribunal as pleased to mark some 16.00 hrs. as his residence was located inside the installation. On 23-10-89 at about 8.00 hrs. A. R. Balasubramaniam, Operations Officer found the reading of meter benzene £S 16408976 litres as against closing reading of 16396842 on 21-10-89. There was a difference of 12,134 litres between the closing stock on 21-10-89 and opening stock taken on 23-10-89. When the concerned officer took dips from the two tanks (T-21 and T-28) there was a difference of 3 Cms. in the tank No. T-21 which is approximately equal to 12 kilo litres. The officer checked the valves and pipelines and found that there was no leakage. Thus, it became evident that 12134 litres of benzene had been un- authorised ly removed between 3.00 pm on 21st October, 1989. On 23-10-89 at about 1.30 pm Mr. T. Sathoaseelan, Installation Manager received a anonymous phone call inlorming that caller would Mike to talk to him regarding the theft of one lorry load in the installation which had taken place on 21-10-89 and that he would call him at the residence in the evening. When the Installa- tion Manager was at his residence at about 7.30 pm on 23-10-89, the person who made the anonymous call earlier telephoned him to say that lorry bearing registration No. TCX 1121 was involved in the theft of ben- zene on 21-10-89 and four persons Govindan, Gaja, Kannadasan, Vellaichamy were involv- ed in the theft. On 25-10-89, the said T. Sathoaseelan made a report about the theft of benzene to the Chief Area Distribution Manager. On 26-10-89, the FIR was lodged with the Commissioner of Police about the theft of 12,134 litres of benzene. While in- vestigating the case, registered on complaint given by the Respondent]Management, the police apprehended one Gaja, who gave a confession statement to the police that he hir-d the lorry TCX 1121 from one- parly that with the help of George Louis, Mohammed Iqbal, Senthil alias Subramani, the benzene was stolen out of the installation and George Louis had arranged to watchmra not "o ore- vent the removal of the product by a lorry. During the relevant period, the watchman who were on duty were K. Padmanabhan, N. Penchilliah, C. Jagannathan, C. R. Jeyase- karan and Vishwanathan. On the basis of the confession statement made by Gaja, the police arrested Louis and Mohammed Tqbal on 1 Jl -1-90 and Jeyasekaran, Jagannalhan and Viswanathan on 12-1-90. Subramani and two watchmen Padmanabhan and Penchilliah attained anticipatory bail. Arising out of4020 THE GAZETTE OF JNDIA : AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PAAT H—SEC. 3(ii)] documents by consent as Ex. Ml to M7. Sub- sequently on transfer of these cases to the hi^ ot uus AriDunai, ochcr documents wei'c marked by consent as common documents tor all these tour cases as Ex. M8 to Mi 12. The counsel for the Petitioner had informed the Tribunal that the Petitioners have no separate documents to mark them as their exhi- bits here before this Tribunal. The counsel on either side have represented that they have no oral evidence let in on the respective side.
The Point lor njy consideration is—
"Whether the action of the Mulnagenienl of Bliarat .Petroleum Corporauon Ltd. in dis- charging the Workmen J>|Sn M. .FencbiUiah, Monammad iqbal, ivi. aubramaiu and K, Padnianabhan irom service on 31-10-94 is just, proper and legal? If not to what relief these workmen are entitled ?"'
Point :
were jointly or severally involved in the commission ol iheit and as pa tiie cHargu sneet menuuned mis- conduct ot the charge sheeted employees i.e. theft, rob, dishonestly in connection vuth corporation!busi- ness or property have been proved by cogent evi- dence, l l ie inquiry Officer's report xerox copy is hied as Jbx. M3. Here before tins Tribunal, on the side ot the l'etitioneis Ex. Wl> to W15 have been marked and on iheside of the Management Ex. Ml to M 111 have been marked. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would contend that the first witness! lor the Management before the Enquiry Officer have given evidence oil the b^sis of statements and infor- mation believing that those statements arc true and correct and he was not personally aware of the same and the Mauagment has not chosen to examine the persons, who gave the statements and therefore, the non-examination ot the said persons vitiates the pro- ceedings as invalid and illegal. He would further contend that in Ex. W6 itself the date 21-10-89 has been inserted between 20-10-89 and 23-10-89 as a manipulation and it has been purposely done for the purpose ot this case and in Ex. W8 regarding the daily stock and lost record, the numbers already written were strike down and there arc over writing re- garding tank stock and loss record. The Enquiry Officer had erroneously accepted the evidence of the Management witnesses, though there are so many discrepancies and the contradictoiy statements given by the Management witnesses have also not properly considered by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Offi- cer ha(s relied upon the evidence of the Management Witnesses which are all uncertain and grievous. On this count, the findings of the Enquiry Officer is not valid in law and hence his conclusion that the charges levelled against the workmen, who have charges levelled against the workmen have been proved is incorrect. Without giving an opportunity for the wbrkmen, who have placed under suspension and have submitted the statements, charge sheet have been given to them and it amounts to violaiion of principles of natural justice. The findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer is not sound and not in accordance to the circumstances of the evidences adduced by the management. So, the findings of the Enquiry Office/ given in his report is against the law, weight of evidence and against the principles of natural justice. The comment passed by the Enquiry Officer for the non-examination of any witness on the side of the charge sheeted em- ployees is not sound. Since the charge sheeted em- ployees want to safe guard their position and to keep their job in tact they have not examined any witness on their side. In the absence of any eye witness, and the reliance made by the confession statement given by an accused in the criminal case one Mr. Gaja, who is not the worker in the Mange- ment|Corporatio?i is incoirect. After elaborate en- quiry in the criminal case filed in the Chief Metro- politan Magistrate Court Egmore, Chennai, these petitioners who were accused in the criminal case along with others were acquitted and there was no appeal filed by the Manaccment against the acquittal. In a case reported as III L IJ Bom 199fi tig. 554 it is held that "failure on trie part of the Management to consider the acquittal bv Criminal Court vitiates the enquirv report and consequence order of dismissal" That decision is absolutely applicable in this case. The learned counsel would further argue that as per I he lJetitioncis in the above industrial disputes were employed under the Respondent|Management at 'iondiarpet installation, wuerein lank JNo. 21 is erected ror kxepujg tiie petroJeuni products Benzene m a bulk quantity by the Respondent jBharat Petroleum Corporatiori Ltd. (Jut of the, lour FetitionerslWork- men, the Petitioner Sri M. Subramanj, since deceased. So his LJRs have been brought on record to pursue the industrial dispute raised by him. On coming to know about the meft of 12,134 litres of benzene costing to Rs. 1,30,000 Irom the Tamk No. T-21, the Management has prvlerred a complaint with the police and during the investigation of the case, the police was able to procure an accused by name Gaja and had obtained a confession statement from him, thereby the Management came to know that these four Peti- tioners ailong with four others got involved in that theft of benzene along, with others. So, a charge sheet was given to eight employees inclusive of these four petitioners dated 18-5-90 separately under Ex. M l. These Petitioners have submitted their explanation under Ex. M2 As their explanation were found not satisfactory, a departmental enquiry way ordered by the Management and the same was con- ducted by one Sri K. Kannan as Enquiry Officer. A common enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Offi- cer against all those charge sheeted employees. During the enquiry, one of the charge sheeted employees by name Sri Jagannathau expired1. Before the Enquiry Officer, the Management had examined eight witnesses and on the side of the charge sheeted employees, 40 documents were marked. HOM ever, the chatrge sheeted employees have taken pan in the enquiry fully and were given fair and proper opportunity to effectively dpffend themselves in the domestic enquiry against the charges levelled against them. The peiusal of the enquiry proceedings shows thait all the charge ~sheetecl employees have availed the opportunity given to them in the domestic enquiry and have cross examined the Management witnesses in detail. After conducting the enquiry the Enquiry Officer has sub- mitted his report stating that on an analysis of both the oral and documentary evidence placed before him, both by the Management as well as the emp- loyees, he can come to the conclusion that Ahc charge Sheeted employees are guilty of charges and they4021 the decision of the Bombay High Court in a case reported as III LLJ 1996 PG. 558 "Discjppinary Proceedings for ihe charges based on facts for which criminal case wa,s also filed has to be dropped for the acquittal of the employees in the criminal case." The said decision js applicable to this case, since the facts are similapr and identical in both these cases. So, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to hold that the findings of the Enquiry Officer is not proper and unacceptable and to direct the aMnagement to re- instate the workmen in service with back wages amd to pay the legal heirs of deceased workman M. Subrarnani, their due benefits.
of benezene by the police also not disputed. After the detailed domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has given a finding holding that tne charges levelled againsi the charge snected employees wen? proved and on the basis of findings oi the Enquiry Officer, the Discipli- nary Authority has passed an order, dismissal from service of these Petitioners from 31-10-95. Long sub- sequent to the dismissal from service-, the accused in the criminal case inclusive of these workmen got ac- quitted on 9-7-97. The subsequent acquittal ot these workmen by the Court has no bearing on the report of the Enquiry Officer. If the acquittal is given on bene- fit of doubt, even after that disciplinary action can be taken by the Management. In a case reported 1974 I LLJ page 422 The General Manager, Party Confec- tioners Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribnual, the High Court has held that "the confession statement of co- accused in Ihe criminal case can be relied upon by am Enquiry Officer in the domestic enquiry against the charge sheeted employee." So, it cannot be said that the reliance made by the Enquiry Officer on the confession statement given by co-accused Mr. Gaja in the criminal case about the commission of this offence for theft of benzene from ihe Respondent! Management installation along with the other persons of charge '.hested employees cannot be held as in- correct. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management that even retracted confession statement can be relied upon by the En- quiry Officer in the domestic enquiry. In support of his argument he cited a case reported as 1977 L1C 1465 decided by the High Court of Madras bet- ween ACC Ltd. V'-. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbaitore and Another. There was suffi- cient materials available to come t0 the conclusion that these petitioners along with others have involved in the theft of Benzene from the Respondent|Manage- ment installation and the same has been proved by the Management before the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer had analyzed1 the evidence given by the parties before him, in respect of the charges levelled against the chairge sheeted employees and has given a finding after dealt with the evidence in detail. Those findings cannot be disturbed by this Tribunal and the punishment given by the Discipli- nary Authority if pursuance of those findings also may not be disturbed atnd no lenience can be given to these Petitioners, who have committed this grave misconduct.
- tioner in l.D. 45J|2001 expired pending enquiry and his legal representatives were brought on record. The Senior Installation Manager in his note dated 24-10-89 to the CADN, Madras has mentioned about the pilfe- rage of Benzene from T-21 happened between 21-10-89* Saturday afternoon and 23-10-89 Monday morning and about the anonymous call he received both in his office asnd his residence and thereby he came to know about the lorry used for this theft by four persons including one by name Sri Gaja. In pur- suance of that Note Ex. M37, the police complaint was preferred under Ex. M40 and the case was regis- tered by the police under Ex. M80, copy of the FIR, and the police took up investigation amd arrested Gaja, George Louis and Mohamed J^qbal and remanded them to custody under Ex. M81. During investigation, a confession statement was given by another accused Sri Gajat and from that it was known to the Manage- ment about involvement of other employees hi this itheft. That confession statement is Ex. M89. The police during the investigation had also seized the lorry used for the commission of this offence No. TCX 1121 and the communication sent by the Police department to the Senior Installation Manager is Ex. M44. Then a Petition has been filed by the Management before the Court for return of seized Benzene of 2600 litres by the Police contained in 13 barrels. The petition and the affidavit are Ex. M45. The order for return of the said seized property to the Management was passed by the Court under Ex. ^ 8 2. So all these things go to show that one such theft of benezens belong to the Respondent I Management had happened and it was subsequently detected by the police. This recovery of about 2600 litres of benzene by the police from the accused was not disputed. All these petitioners have not disputed that they were inside the installation on the crudal date 21-10-1989 and there is no dispute in flow meter reading and there is nc dispute with regard to confes- sion statement given by one of the accused in the criminal case Sii Oaja and the recovery of 2600 litres 10. A perusal of the materials available in this case as documenta-'y evidence let in dn cither side inclusive of the enquiry proceedings and the Enquiry Officer's report clearly prove that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Respondent|Management are correct and acceptable. As he has ndvanced his argument the Petilioneasldelinquent employees, have not made any complaint with regard to conduct of enquiry and all of them are satisfied with the conduct of the enquiry. There are ample evidence available in this case as legal evidence to come to the conclu- sion that these petitioners along with others have in^ volved in the commission of theft of benezene from the RespondentiManagement installation at Tondiarpet on 21-10-89. In pursuance of confession state- ment given by one of the accused in criminal case during the investigation before police it was brought to light about the involvement of these petitioners in the commission of theft of the property belonged to ↩
inclusive of the legal icpicsentaiives of deceased work- men Sii M. Subramani vsc not entitled to any relief. No cost.
(Dictated to the Sknographci, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open cou;t on this day the 20th June, 2001.)
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Lxamined :
On eicher side : None.
Documents MaAed :
For I PaityiCJuraant :
fix. No. Date Descuption
Wl — —Xerox copy of Bye Laws.
\V2 21 -10-89— Xerox copy of Lorry No. &
quantity of benzene.
W3 24-10-89—Xelox cop> of statement of A. R. Balasubtamanian to Senior Installa- tion Manager.
W4 24-10-89—Xerox cupy of letter from
Thanikachalam to Installation Manager.
\V5 24-10-89—Xerox copy of statement of N.
Ranunathan to Sr. In filiation Manager.
W6 -10-89—Xerox copy of Tank Dip Book.
W7 25-10-S9— Xeiox copy of statement of Sr.
Installation Manager to CADM Madras.
WS -10-89 -Xerox copy of Daily Stock and
Loss Record,
W9 18-10-89—Xerox cop> of the Recording.
W10 19-1-90—Xerox copy of letter by Respon-
dent to the Petitioner.
the Respondent I Management and only on that basis the Respondent! Management was obliged to give the charge memo fo.- these Petitioners|Workmen and a regular domestic enquiry was conducted. Two years subsequently to thaft conclusion of the enquiry and order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Autho- rity in pursuance of the findings of the Enquiry Offi- cer in his report, tho cocnerned workmen got an acquittal on 9-10-97 by the Criminal Court in the criminal case hied agamst them. The learned counsel tor the Petitioner has cited a case decided by Bombay High Court wherein it was held that "When theie was a criminal trial and si departmental enquiry wis initiated simultaneously and the employee was ac- quitted by criminal court on the giound of no evi- dence, the Enquiry Officer failure to consider the acquittal by criminal court vitiates the Enquiry report and consequence of order of dismissal". Thai, deci- sion of High Court of Bombay in W.F. No. 28111 1991 is not applicable to the fact1, of this case because that is ai case cl no evidence, v>hercas in this- case there are ample evidence to cdnntct the Petitioners!Workman to the theft of propelty of the Respondent/Management benzene from the Ins- tallation at Tondiaipet. Though there is no eye wit- ness to that theft, theie is sufficient evidence available in this case which wcie produced and pioved before the Enquiry Officer lor him to hold that the charges levelled against these petitioners/workmen were proved. It is a settled piovision of law that for the Enquiry Officer in a domestic enquiry to come to a conclusion that the charges levelled against the delin- quent employees, prcpondei una of probability is suffi- cient. Two years subsequent to the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority in pursuance of findings given by. the Enquiry Officer in his report against these Petitioners/Workmen their acquittal in criminal case by the Court is of no bearing on the action taken by the Management/Respondent against these Petitioners/Workmen.
W ll 18-5-90—Xerox cop> of charge sheet to
the Petitioner by Management.
W12 12-2-93—Xerox copy cf letter from Vijay
Kumiu to Enquiry Offxci.
W13 31-10-95—Xerox copy of discharge order issued to K. Padman.ibb.nn by the Respon- dent,
W14 5-8-96—Xctox copy of conciliation pro-
ceedings.
W15 9-10-97—Xcro\ copy of judgement in
C.C No. 10IS5I95.
For II Paity(Management :
Ml 1 8-5-90—Xerox: copy of charge sheet,
M2 31-5-90—Xerox copy of explanation of
petitioner to the Management.
M3 19-5-94—Xeiox copy ot report of the En-
quiry Officer.
11. From the materials available in this case, it is cleaily shown that theie was a theft of benzene from the Tondiaipet Installation of the Respondent/Man- agement to the tune of 12,134 lures and the charge sheeted employees along with others have involved in the commission of such theft for the property be- longed to the Respondent/Management. So it is a giave misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority impos- ing a punishment of dismissal from service for the proved misconduct of the Petitioners/Workmen can- not be held to be disproportionate to grave misconduct of the Petitioners/Workmen. So under such circums- tances, theie is no scope for th^ Tribunal to interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer given in his report or wilh the order of punishment given by the Disciplinaiy Authority dated 31-10-95. Under such circumstances, 1 answer the point holding that the action of the Respondent /Management against these Petitioners/Workmen in discharging them from service from 31-10-1995 is jutl, proper and lcg-il.
M4 18-9-95—Xerox copy of letter from Res- pondent to Petitioner enclosing Enquiry Officer's repoit,
M5 28-9-95—Xerox copy ot comments of the petitioner on Enquiry Officer's Report.
M6 31-10-95—Xerox copy of final order issu-
ed to the Petitioner.
4023JVJ3I ~- — X e r ox copy of list of mana- M7 — —Xerox copy of Standing Ciders.
gement v/itncsscb.
M 32 — —Xerox ccp> of list of docu-
ments filed by the Management.
M8 — —Xeiox copy of enquiry pro- ceedings common to ID 98 to 101 [97 con- taining 757 pages.
M J3 — Xerox copy of appointment
order issued to CSL-s and Jagannathan, M8A 16-6-92—Xerox copy of letter of appoint- ment of Sri C. David as Presiding Officer ( M l ).
Jtayasekaran and Viswunalhan by Respon-
dent,
i
M.14 11-1-89—Xerox oopy cf certified Standing M9 17-6-92—Xciox copy o< lcttci of appoint- ment of S'li S. Karman a^ Enquiry Officei (M2).
Orders of Respondent.
M10 16-7-92—Xerox copy of notice of enquiry
M 35 — — X e r ox copy of staff muster to Md. Iqbal.
loll for ihe month October, 1989.
M il 23-7-92—Copy of letter of Md. Iqbal to
M 36 — — X e r ox copy of benzene Respondent.
flow meter N o. 4 5 3 1 46 and Certificate N o. M12 16-7-92—Xerox copj of Notice of enquiry
795782 dt. 31-3-89 of D> Chief Inspector to K. Padmanabhan.
of Factories
Ml 3 22-7-92—Xerox copy of letter of Sri Pad-
M 37 25-10-89—Xerox copy of letter from Sr. manabhan to Management.
Installation Manager to C A D M. M14 16-7-92—Xerox copy of notice of enquiry
M 38 10-89—Xerox copy of benezene Tank to M. Pcnchilliah.
Stock and Loss Record.
M l5 22-7-92—-Xerox copy of letter of Pcnchilli-
ah to Respondent.
M 39 10-89—Xerox, copy of benezene daily
stock and Loss record.
M16 16-7-92—Xerox copy of notice of enquiry
to Sri M. Subramani.
M 40 26-10-89—Xerox copy of complaint of Sr.
Installation Manager to Police.
Ml"7 18-5-90—Xerox copy of charge sheet issu-
ed to Mohamed Iqbal.
M 41 7-10-89—Xerox cop> 'of T NP installation
staff strength for October, 1 9 8 9.
M18 18-5-90—Xerox copy of charge sheet to
Sri Padmanabhan.
M!9 18-5-90—Xerox copy of charge sheet to
M 42 12-4-90—Copy cf letter from S.I. of Police, Central Crime Branch to Sr, Installation M ainager.
Sri M. Pcnchilliah.
M 20 18-5-90—Xerox copy of charge sheet to
Sri M. Subramani.
M 43 19-1-90—Xerox copy of letter from S.I. of Police, Central Crime Branch to Sr. Ins- tallation Manager.
M 21 12-8-92—Xerox copy^ of letter from B. Manoharan to Respondent Declining to act as defence counsel.
M 44 22-8-90—Xerox copy of S.I. of Police, Central Crime Branch to Sr. Installation Manager.
M 45 2-2-90—Copy of affidavit of K. Ilanche-
zian filed before X VI M M C. M 22 12-8-92 - X e r ox copy of letter from V. Parthasarathy to Respondent Declining to act as defence counsel.
M 46 10-89—Copy of muster roll of Gaugers,
HVDs and Peons.
M 47 10-89—Xerox copy of Tank D ip Book M 23 13-8-92—Xerox copy of letter from P. Thirumoorthy to Respondent Declining to act as defence counsel.
of T 28 for October, 1 9 8 9.
M 48 — — X e r ox copy of benzene|
A TF Despatch Log Book.
M 24 13-8-92—Xerox copy of letter from B. Manoharan to Respondent Declining to act as defence counsel in enquiry.
M 49 — — X e r ox copy of benzene r e-
ceipt, book.
M 25 18-8-92—Xerox copy of letter from M. E k a m b a r am to Respondent Declining to act as defence counsel.
M 50 12-1-90—Xerox copy of suspension order M 26 24-8-92—Xerox copv of letter from E . O.
issued to Mohamed Iqbal,
M 51 19-1-90—Xerox copy of suspension order enclosing letter of Subromani CrS.E. to P .O (Ex. M 2 5 ).
issued to K. Padmanabhan.
M 27 — — X e i ox copy of Benzene
M 52 19-1-90—Xerox copv of suspension order meter reading record.
issued to M. Penchilliah.
M 2 8, — — X e r ox copy of Dip Book of
M 53 19-1-90—Xerox copy of suspension order benzene T . 2 1.
issued to M. Subramani.
M 3°n •• ~T ,. . —C oP^ 4024 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
M56 — —Xerox copy of T28 Cali- bration Chart.
M57 — —Xerox copy of page 1 & 2 of Tank 21 Calibration Chart.
M58 — —Xerox copy of T21 DIP book Pg. 26867.
M59 — —Xerox copy of T28 Tank Stock & Loss iccoril.
M60 21-10-89—Copy of benzene documents delivery challan.
M61 1-90—Xerox copy of benzene T21 (Total Stock & Loss Record and Daily Stock & Loss Record).
M62 12-89—Xerox copy of benzene T21 (Total Stock & Loss Record and Daily Stock & Loss Record).
M63 11-89—Xerox copy of Benzene T21 (Total Stock & Loss Record and Daily Stock & Loss Record).
M64 9-89- -Xerox copy of Benzene T21 (Total Stock & Loss Record) and Daily Stock & Loss Record).
M65 8-90—Xerox copv of Benzene T21 (Total Stock & Loss Record and Daily Stock & Loss Record).
M66 21-10-R9—Xerox copy of Date Checker Register.
M67 12-2-93—Xerox copy of letter from (D.W.) Vijay Kumar expressing Unwilling- ness to appear as defence witness.
M68 10-2-93—Xerox copy of letter from (D.W.) K. Shanmugam expressing Unwill- ingness to appear as defence witness to K. Padmanabhan.
M69 16-2-93—Xerox copy of letter from (D.W.) P. V. Thirumoorthy expressing Un- willingness to appear as defence witness to any CSE.
M70 16-2-93—Xerox copy of letter from (D.W.) Jhon Britto expressing Unwilling- ness to appear as defence witness to any CSE.
M71 18-2-93—Xerox copy of letter from Sri E. Mahimaidhas expressing Unwillingness to appear as defence witness.
M72 18-2-93—Xerox cop} of letter from P. Umashankar expressing Unwillingness to appear as defence witness.
M73 18-2-93—Xerox copy of letter from C. Loganathan expressing Unwillingness to appear as defence wilness.
M74 26-7-93—Note from DGM (aviation) to Mr. Bacholakuri—SAO, Hyderabad Re- leasing him to appear in enquiry.
M75 18-2-93—Xerox copy of letter from Sr. Installation Manager to E.O. Enclosing ori- ginal letters of five employees expressing Unwillingness to be defence witness.
M76 29-7-93—Xerox copy of letter from defence witness declining frem giving evidence.
M77 8-89—Copy cf muster roll August, 89. M78 -— —Xeiox copy of medical cer- tificate of K, Padmanabhan.
M79 10-89—Xerox copy of Shift Duty, Re- gister.
M80 31-J 0-89—Xerox copy of FIR in X Crime No. 1228[89.
M81 11-1-90—Xerox copy of remand report of Madras City Centra] Crime Branch along with confessional statement of Gajcndran before XVI Metro Poii. Magistrate in Crime No. 1228[89.
M82 5-2-90—Xerox copy of court order in res- pect of return of Property in Cr. No. 1228 [ 89.
MS3 24-10-S9—Copy of statement of N. Rama- nathan to Senior Installation Manager. M84 24-10-89—Xerox copy of statement of A. R. Balasubramaniam.
M85 26-11-89—Xerox copy of statement given by R. Karunanaethee to Senior Installation Manager.
M86 24-10-89—Copy of statement of K. Anbu- raarri to Sr. Installation Manager.
M87 1-11-89—Copy of statement of C. Loka- nathan to Si*. Installation Manager.
M88 24-1O89—Copy of statement uf M. Thani- kachalam to Sr. Installation Manager.
M89 6-11-92—Certified copy of confessional statement of Gajendren alias Gaja record- ed in CC 5002|92.
M90 17-11-93—Copy of statement of George Louis given to police.
M91 26-10-89—Copy uf statement of R. Go- vindarajan.
M92 30-5-90—Copy of letter from Mr. Iqbal to Senior Installation Manager.
M93 2-6-90—Copy of note from Sr. Installa- tion Manager to CPM, Madras.
M94 31-5-90—Xerox copy of explanation of K. Padmanabhan to the charge sheet.
M95 31-5-90—Xerox copy of explanation of M. Penchiiliah to charge sheet.
M96 1-6-90—Xerox copy of note from Sr. Installation Manager to CPM.
M97 28-5-90—Xerox copy of explanation of M. Subramani to charge sheet.
M98 29-5-90—Copy of note from Sr. Installa- tion Manager to CPM, Madras Forwarding copy of explanation of M. Subramani.
M99 12-8-92—Copy of joint letter by Petitioner to enquiry officer intimating D, Manoha- ran to represent them.
Ml00 26-7-92—Xerox copy of letter from M. Subramani to S. Kannan, Manager, Erna- kulam Installation camp at Madras.
M10J 27-8-92—Copy of letter from Mohamed Iqbal to Kannan, Enquiry Officer.
4025Ml02 27-8-92—Copy ef letter from M. Padma- nabhaD. to Enquiry Officer.
Ml03 27-8-92—Copy of letter from M. Pencbt- lliah to Enqury Officer,
Ml04 27-8-92-Copy of letter from Subra- mrmi to Enquiry Officer.
ML05 27-8-92—Copy of letter from C. R. Jayasekaran to Enquiry Officer.
Ml06 28-7-92—Xerox copy of note from CPM, Madras to Sri S. Kannan Enclosing photo copy of cover from N. Subramani to E.O, Ml07 3-2-84—Xeiox copy of letter from Respondent to Mchomcd Iqbal Advising change in his working hours from 24-2-86.
Ml OS 11-12-92—Xerox copy of certificate from Dr. Mohan Rao issued to Mohamed Iqbal Ml09 14-12-92—Copy .of minutes of enquiry.
MHO — -^Xerox copy of discharge Summary Chart from Guest House Hospital in respect of Padraanabhan.
M i ll — —Copy of letter from Penchi- lliah to Sr. Installation Manager.
M112 25-1-93—Xerox copy of joint letter froto Sri Padmanabhan and Others informing that the enquirv conducted was very Fair and appreciable.
New Delhi, the 11th July, 2001
, S.O. 1940.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the CentraV 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 IISCO and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11-7-2001.
[No. L-20012/175/96-IR(C-l)]
S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
2269 Gl/2001—2i
ANNEXURE
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(1) (d) of thel.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 112 of 1997
PARTIES :
Employers in relation to the management o£ Chas- nalla Colliery of M/s. IISCO. Ltd. and their workman.
ATPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman : Shri D. Mukherjee, Secretary, B.C.K.U.
On behalf of the employers : Shri B. Joshi, Advocate.
STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Coal, Dated, Dhanbad, the 29th June, 2001
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of L'abour, In exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec- tion 10(1 )(d) of, the I.D. Act,-1947 has referred the following dispute' to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/175/96-IR(C-l}, dateB, the 44th August, 1997 :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the denial by the1 tttanagernent of IISCO., .Chasnalla Colliery to refer the case of Shri G. Chinappa, Drill'Operator under para 9.4.3 of NCWA-IV is justified ? If so, to what lelicf is this workman entitled ?" 2. In this reference both the parties appeared before this Tribunal and filed' their respective W.S. Subse- quently when the case was fixed learned representative for the workman, submitted to pass a 'No Dispute' Award in this reference as he is ,not interested to proceed further in this lefcrerice. Under such circums- tances a 'No Dispute' Award is rendered and the re- ference 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, Presiding Officer4026 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2OO1/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PART It—SEC. 3(ii)j New Delhi, the 11th July, 20O1 S.O. 1941.—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 Industrial Tribunal, No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their wjprkman, which was received by the Central Government on 11-7-2001.
[No. L-20012|192|94-TR(C-I)]
S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT :
Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer. 1 In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Sec- tion 10(l)(d) of the I. D. Act, 1947.
Reference No. 6G of 1995
PARTIES :
Employers in relation to the management of Bhowra OCP of M|i. BCCL and their workmen.
APPEARANCES : ,
On behalf of the workmen: Sbri Debi Singh concerned workman.
On behalf of the employers : Shri H. Nath, Advocate. STATE : Jhexkhand INDUSTRY : Coal Dated, Dhanbad, the 28th June, 2001
AWARD
TTie 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 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012|192|94-I.R.(C-I), dated, the 4th May, 1995.
: SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bhowra OCP of M|s. BCCL in not regula- rising Shri Debi Sinj?h, Shovel Operator in Excavation Tech. 'A' Grade and not paying difference of wages of Tech. 'A' Grade is justified ? If not, to what relief the con- cerned workman is entitled and from which date ?"
2, In this reference when the case was fixed a peti- tion on the side of the workman was filed praying to pass a 'No Dispute' Award because of the fact that the dispute in question has already been resolved. I heard both the parties on the said petition and I find that the dispute in question has been settled and pre- sently 'No Dispute' is existing between the parties. Accordingly, a 'No Dispute' Award is rendered and the reference is disposed of on the basis of no dis- pute award presuming non-existence of and Industrial dispute between the parties.
B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 11th July, 2001
S.O. 1942.—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 Industrial Tribunal No. 2. Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-7-2001.
[No. L-20012/260/92-IR(C-I)I S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
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(l)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 146 of 1993
PARTIES:
Employers in relation to the management of Bali- hari Colliery of M/s. BCCL and their work- men.
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workmen : Shri S. Bose, Trea- surer, RC.M.S. Union.
On behalf of the management: Shri H. Nath, Advocate.
STATE : Jharkhand INDUSTRY : Coal.
4027Dated, Dhanbad, the 28th June. 2001 AWARD
the ALC(C) took up the matter for conciliation but the management did npt concede to the said concilia- tion. As a result ot which conciliation failed and for which the present reference was made. The concern- ed workmen accordingly prayed for passing an Award in thek favour directing the BCCL of Balihari Col- liery to provide suituble employment and back wages.
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec- tion 10(l)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/260/92-I.R. (Coal-I) dated, the 3/9-9-93 :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bali- hari Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not giving employment as Tyndals to Siiri Bindi Paswan and 27 others is justified ? If not, to what relief the workers are entitled for?"
2. The facts of the case of the concerned workmen
as per W.S. in brief is as follows :—
3. The management on the contruray after filing W.S.-cura-rejoinder has denied ah" the claims and alle- gation which the concerned workmen asserted in the W.S. It has been submitted by the management that this reference cannot be considered as an out come of industrial dispute as because there was no employer and employee relationship in between the manage- ment and the concerned workmen. They submitted that the concerned workmen were never under the management. They further submitted that they were not at all aware of the facts that the concerned work- men ever worked under the contractor Mahabir Mistry and Dayal Singh. It has been further submitted that the management had already offered employment to all the genuine persons in pursuance of the Award of COIf No. 1, Dhunbad and that is pending before the Company for implementation of the Award of the Uon'ble Tribunal No, 1, Dhanbad. It has been alleged that the union has adopted its strategy to infiltrate into M/s. BCCL the outsiders and unemployed youth through back door method without any justification ignoring ah1 the rules and norms of the company. The management further submitted that their company is a public sector compnny and for which they are to ob- serve the rules and regulation made by the manage- ment regarding filling up the post of the company. The appointment of the concerned workmen in the com- pany really will mean rheir entry into service by back door method in contravention of the provision of ser- vice rules, breach of provision of employment of SC/ ST candidates and also in violation of the provision of Employment Exchange Act. The management fur- ther submitted that the union has claimed that these workmen were employed as early in 1971 and for which they should be given employment. Such a dis- pute has been raised only on 23-1-91 i.e. after a lapse of 20 years making the claim and the demand a stale ' claun which is not maintainable in view of the deci- sions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, Accordingly the management submitted that the reference in question is not maintainable both hi the eye of law and facts, They submitted further that the demand for job by the concerned workmen is base- less false mischievous and their claim for employment as Tyndals at Balihari Colliery at any appointment ia bogus false and with only motive to get into the ser- vices of the management by unfair inethods. Accord- ingly the management have prayed for passing an Award in their favour by holding that the action of the management in not giving employment to the concerned workmen as Tyndal is justified and for which they are not entitled to get any relief which they have claimed.
4. The points for decision in this reference are :—
* The concerned workmen in the W.S. submitted that they were employees of Balihari Colliery prior to its nationalisation with effect from 1-5-72. They dis- closed that after nationalisation of the said colliery the same came under the control of M/a. BCCL. Prior to nationalisation of this colliery it remained under control of private owners and they used to provide jobs to the workers through petty contractors. The concerned workmen submitted that sometimes in the year 1975-76 the BCCL declared all the perma- nent and perennial nature of jobs as restricted cate- gory and started legulai ising the workers so engaged through petty contractors including the contractors themselves. The concerned workmen further submit- ted that Tyndal's job is permanent and perennial na- ture of job as well as it is on the essential category service and Tyndal's job has found place on all Award and agreement made prior or after nationalisation of the Coal Mining Industry. Accordingly, BCCL i.e. the management started regularising Tyndals employed through petty contractors in various collieries as Tyn- dal or any alternative employment through mutual agreement. The concerned workmen submitted that reasons ore unknown to them why their narnes were left out by the management and for which they were deprived of getting their re-employment. Accordingly on their behalf RCMS Union raised the issue with the Area Manager of BCCL and after prolonged negotia- tion it was decided that the left out workers will be provided with the jobs of Tyndal or in other alter- native jobs. The concerned workmen submitted that 98 workmen/Tyndals were grouped together and out of them the services of 22 workers^yndals were re- gularised. Thereafter on further negotiation in between the management and dis union other workers though absorbed they have been left out by the management for reasons best know to them. It was alleged that the management though frpm tune to time engaged Tyndals, Miner/Loaders/Genl. Mazdoors etc. did not consider their Case. They submitted that they worked as Tyndal and then- wages were paid on the basis of their time rate as Cat. IV and they were recognised as skilled workmen and were engaged on the job both on the surface as well as in the underground duties and for which they are capable to undertake all kind of jobs in the Mining Industry. The concerned work- men submitted that as the management neglected and refused to provide any job to them their Union raised an industrial dispute by submitting representation dt. 23-1-91 before the ALCfC), Dhanbad. Accordingly
'•Whether the action of the management of Bali- hari Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not giving employment as Tyndals to Shri Bindi Paswan and 27 others a9 per annexure to the sche- dule of reference Is justified ? If not, to what relief the workers are entitled tQ ?"4&28 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA J3, 1923 [PART H ^ - S E C. 3flj)] DECISIONS WITH REASONS
RCMS regarding abolition of contractual job in Tyn- dal at baiihari Colliery and biacksmithy at Kenwd- wadih colliery or 24-2-76. According to that dis- cussion it was agreed upon that 22 Senior most per- sons shall be taken as Tyndal from the list of the contractors workers of Mahadco, Dayal Singh and Ragho Singh after abolition ot their contract subject to their suitability and medical fitness. It was further agreed that 10 Senior Most workers shall be taken from the list of Mahadeo contractor and 12 from the list of Dayal Singh and Ragho Singh. Regarding the case of 5 senior most persons over and above 22 persons as stated above Shri S. P. Singh will take up the matter with the C.P.M. It has been further agreed upon that the cases of the rest of the persons who will not be regularised shall be considered if •there is any fresh recruitment of Tyndals. The management submitted that as per terms of discus- sion they have already regularise the services of thej senior most tyndals. They flatly denied the fact that the concerned workmen ever worked as Tyndal at Baiihari Colliery and for which there was no scope to consider theiir case. MW-1 during his evidence relying on the Award passed by CGJT No. 1, Dhanbad in Ref. No. 27/82 submitted that as per /yv^ard they have arranged for employment of all the workman. A copy of the Award during evidence of this witness was marked as Ext. M-6. The subject matter of Ref. No. 27|82 was "Having, in view of the minutes of discussion dt. 24-2-76 whether the de- mand of the workmen of Biilihari Colliery of M/s. BCCL for regularisation of Tyndal as listed in an- nexure belotw as departmental workmen is justified 1 If so, to what relief the concerned workman are entitled ?" It is seen from the Award that the dispute was settled out of Court and a Memorandum of settle- ment was filed in the Court and on the basis of the said settlement Learned Tribunal Judge passed the Award. It is seen that the said reference as made in connection with the claim of 67 workmen of Baiihari Colliery and it was in relation to the minutes of dis- cussion dt. 24-2-76 which in course of evidence oj WW-1 was marked as Ext. W-7. It is the specific case of the management that all the workmen as pel reference have already been absorbed in the service and the name of person concerned as were not in- cluded there ^\as no scope for regularisation oi their services. It is true that in course of correspon- dence made by the concerned union with the mana- gement they have disclosed the names of the con- cerned workmen and created pressure upon the management for their regularisation in the service disclosing the fact that they worked under the con- tractors Dayal Singh and Mahadfib Mistry. WW-2 i.e. Dayal Singh during his .evidence did not utter a single,word if the concerned workmen have worked under him or under Maluideo.or Mahabir Mistry. .Therefore, the concerned workmen _cannot avoid responsibility- to .establish their claim . that before abolition of contract system they worked as Tyndal under the contractors at Bpiihari Colliery. In course of hearing, learned Advocate for trie management submitted that all the workers who work in the colliery f*re provided with ID Card. P.F. No, They also issue pay slip? in respect of acceptance of their wages. Disclosing tbese facts Learned Advocate for the management submitted that the concerned work- men in course of hearing have failed to produce a 5.-It is seen from the records that the concerned Workmen in order to substantiate tneir claim has exa- mined one witness. On the contrary the management ia support of their claim have examined three wit- nesses. It is the specific contention oi the concerned workmen that prior tu nationaHsalion of Balihaii Col- .liery in"the year 17-10-7 L. they Were the employees under the private owners. Alter nationalisation and take over ot the said colhery under control oi BCCL sqmetinies in the year li>75-76 the management start- ed regularising the workers who were engaged hi the said colliery mines through petty contractors. It has been disciosod by the concerned workmen that they were Tyndals and tne management decided to regu- larise the Tyndals gradually and in doing so out of p6 tya^sds they legulansed the services ot 70 Tyndals and then* cases were leit out by the management best known to them. The concerned workmen further sub- mitted that in spite ot making several negotiation the management-did not pay any importance for regula- risation of their services. Cm the contrary the manage- ment categoiically submitted that never there existed -any employer' and employee relationship between the Management and the concerned workmen. It has been further submitted by trie management that they were not at all aware if the concerned workmen ever work- ed under the contractors Mahabir Mistry and Dayal Singh. The claims ot the concerned workmen accord- ing t"o the management is baseless for which they are not entitled to get any relief. It has been further sub- mitte/i that by raising nn industrial dispute over the self .same issue a reierenca was made by the Ministry for disposal before the CG1T >to. 1, Dhanbad. The • management submitted tbat as per settlement and Award of the CGIT No. 1, Dhanbad they have al- ready employed all the genuine persons in the Said colliaiy. Further the management submitted that the concerned workmen have agitated this issue after a lapsev of 20 years and for which they are not entitled to.get any relief. During evidence of WW-1 certain documents were maried ai; Exts. W-l to W-14. This witness further during his cross-examination admitted that no appointment letter was issued in favour of the concerned workmen by the management but in sph> of the fact they worked as Tyndal in the said CpUiery since 1971 and to that effect relevant papers have already been filed. WW-2 during his evidence disclosed that before he was appointed as an employee under the management on 28-10-76 he used to work as contractor thcie and employed some labours. In •th" year 1976 the-BCCL management took a decision to regularise the services of the contractors in case whether the work dischaiged by the contractor was permanent In nature. This witness further disclosed that some persons who worked with him were also regularised and absorbed. He disclosed that all the concerned workmen used to perform as Tyndal Maz- door. From his evidence it is not clear if the concern- ed workmen worked under him as Tyndal, I have considered'all the documents marked Exts. W-l to W-14. The documents marked as Exts. W-l, W~2, W-3, W-5, W-11, W-12, W-13, W-14 and W-15 are the correspondence made between the union and the management over the repularjsation of services of some Workmen. Ext. W-7-is true copv of the minutes of distiission -held- with Shri S. P, SlUgfe, Secretary, 4Q29
course the claim has turned into a stale claim. It the decisions referred to above .are taken into consi- deration in such cases the concerned workmen are not at all entitled to get any relief1, even it is con- sidered for the argument sake that they wtorked under the contractor. As such after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances. I hold that the con- cerned workmen hav© failed t|o substantiate t"Viir claim with a view to get their relief. In the result, the following Award is rendered :—
"The action of the management of Balihari Colliery of M|s. BCCL, in not giving em- ployment as Tyndals to Shri Bindi Pa&wan and 27 others (as. per annexure to the schedule of reference) is justified. Conse- quently, the concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief."
B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer
New Delhi, the 11th July, 20O1
S.O. 1943.—In puisuance 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, No. 2. Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government rftyi 11-7-2001.
[No. L-20O25|22|93-IR(C-I)]
S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
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(1 Xd) of the I.D. Act,, 1947.
Reference No. 140 of 1993
PARTIES :
' AOid THE GAZETTE OF IN&IA ; AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PART I I- S I C. 3(ii)jAPPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workmen : None
On behalf of the employers : None
STATE : Jbarkhand INDUSTRY : Coal Dated, Dhanbad, the 28th June, 2001-
AWARD
The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exer- cise of the powers conferred on them under Section lOUXd) of the I.D. Act> 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20025|22|93-I.R. (C-I), dated, the 17th August, 1993.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Alkusa Colliery of M|s BCCL in denying employment to Shri Ahmed Mistry, working for that colliery, is legal and justi- fied. ? If not. to what relief Shri Mistry is entitled to ?"
2. In this reference both the parties appeared before this Tribunal and filed respective written statement documents etc. Subscquentlv at the stage of evidence both the parties abstained from appearing before this Tribunal taking any further steps. The reference is pending since 1993 and it is of no use to drag the same year after year for taking step by the parties. Under such circumstances a no dispute award is rendered and the reference is disposed of on the basis of 'No Dispute' Award, presuming non- existence of any Industrial Dispute between the parties.
B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer ?rf faMft, 11 ^TT$, 2001
v r . t n. 1944:— ifhrtfTir fomirfafopr, 1947 (1947 "FT 14) "tft srm 17 % s r ^m ?f, 3raffa " T^ ^ Jwrftra v*ft % aft % *T *rarrr ift 11-7-2001 ^ TTT^CT 5m "rr 1
[w rjRT-i0030/9/95 ("fr-I) 1 W. ^ i^rr, *nrc srfaT New Delhi, the 11th July, 2001 S.O.I944—In pursuance of Section 17 of rhe Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. Chcnnai as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial (Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Air India Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11 -7-200 J
fNo. L-20030/9/95 (C-I)]
S. S GUPTA, Under Secy
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Wednesday, the 13th June, 2001 PRESENT :
K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.
Industrial Dispute No. 403|2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 69|96)
(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 Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Shri D. Michael and the Management of Ait India InternationL Madras.)
BETWEEN :
D. Michael
. , I PartylWorkman
AND
The Manager, Air India International, Madras.
. . II Party [Management APPEARANCE :
For the Workman :
M|s V. Prakaah & T. Ramkumar, Advocates.
For the Management ;
M|s Ramasubraraaniam & Associates, Advocates The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) dnd sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudi- cation vide Order No. L-20O30|9|95-IR (Col-I) dated 23-8-96.
This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal, where it vte taken on file as I.D. No. 69[96. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file has I.D. No, 403] 2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side, informing them about the transfer of thix case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 22-2-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, counsel on either side present with their respective parties and prosecuted this case further.
This matter came up before me for final hearing on 31-5-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement and other material papers on record, the oral documentary evidence let in on either side and upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel on either side and this matter having 40*1 stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal has passed the following :—
AWARD
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of reference by the Central Govt. for adjudi- cation by this Tribunal is as follows :—
Whether Shn D Michael was an employee of Air India Ltd. 7 If so, whether he had put in sufficient period of employment to claim the benefits of section 25F of the I.D. Act before his alleged suspension on 1-12-1981 7 If so, to what relief is the workman entitled 7
2. The Industrial Dispu'e between the parties is
briefly as followt :—
3. The II Party [Management, M|s. Air India International, Chennai (hereinafter referrad to as the Respondent) in the counter has denied the averments of the Petitioner. The Respondent further contend that this is a highly belated petition. The Respondent operates Airlines and has a department for catering. The Petitioner seems to have worked in the Catering department during 1975 to 1991 intermittently as a casaal employee only for six to seven days in a month. Depending upon the need for particular number of casual workmen, the Respondent used to engage casual workmen for the day in question for the available work. Some days, tcvi casual workmen may be required. On some other days, more number of casual workmen would be required for work. The casual employees under no obligation to report for work every day nor is there any obligation or com- pulsion for the management to take these casuals every day for work. In this manner, the Management used casual services of the Petitioner, whenever he made himself available for the casual work and he was paid Rs. 20 per day. In a letter da*ed 16-12-81 sent by the Petitioner, he has admitted that he had worked as a casual only for six to seven days in a month and requested die Respondent to re-engage him as a casual employee. Qn 24-7-82, the Petitioner sent a legal notice to the Respondent to re-engage his ser- vices. The Respondent sent a reply on 7-10-82 reject- ing the Petitioner's claim. After a lapse of 14 years, the Petitioner has raised his dispute now. The said delay is not properly explained by the Petitioner. Being a casual employee, the Petitioner has no legal right for employment. His casual services came to an end at the close of work on each day. Therefore, this is not the case of termination or non-employment of services by the management. The averment of the Petitioner that the Respondent suspended the Peti- tioner for 10 days and also taken back the Identity Card forcibly is denied. In the reply dated 7-10-82 for the lagal notice sent by the Petitioner, the Res- pondent has clearly stated that the casual employment of the Petitioner came to an end by efflux of time. The Petitioner was taken only on casual basis and therefore there was no question of engaging him con- tinuously. The Petitioner was never directed by any- body at any point of time to get the permission from the Personnel Manager for the alleged return of Identity Card or for granting of leave. The Respondent had never iecei\ed any copy of the appeal alleged to have been submitted by the Petitioner for reconsidera- tion from the Bombay Air India Authoritv. Before the Regional Labour Commissioner, the Petitioner through his letter dated 26-6-95 requested compen- sation payment only and never claimed re-employ- ment. Hence the Petitioner is not entitlea for the relief of reinstatement as he was working purely on casual basis.
The I Party/Workman D Michael (hereinafter to as the Petitioner) had worked in. the Catering (Department at Meenamb^kkam during the period 1976 to 1981. When the Petitioner was at his work at Catering Department on 1-12-81 at about 9.00 p.m., the Security Officer Mr. Malik Basha came and took the Identity Card from the Petitioner for verification sbout his renewal. On his return from work, when he went to the Security Officp to receive his Identity Card, the Security Officer in- formed him that the Petitioner was placed under suspension for 10 days. In tJie mean time, on 2-12-81, when the Petitioner went to Meenambakkam for reporting for duty and to explain the facts to the supervisor Mr. Kouttecn. The said supervisor was on leave. Again the Petitioner reported for duty before Mr. Duraimuthu on his return from leave. But the Petitioner wrs not allowed to report for duty. He was directed to get the permission from the Personnel Manager, Mr. Subramaniam for return of the Identity Card as veil as for sanctioning of leave to the Petitioner. The steps taken by the Peti- tioner to meet the Personnel Manager has failed. He was f' r'""ted to report before Mr. Duraimuthu for further enquiry. Accordingly, he reported before the concerned officer along with the Union President Mr. Balasubramaniam. The Security Officer refused to have an enquiry in the presence of the Union President. At last, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before Bombay Air Authority, He went to Bombay during January 1988 and preferred an appeal before the Air India Authority. The Mr India Authority, Bombay was pleased to refcr the matter to the Personnel Manager, Meenambakkam for reconsidera- tion. But again, the Personnel Manager, Meenam- bakkam evinced no interest in sett in? the matter for the Petitioner. The Petitioner's grievances kept idle without any process. The Petitioner raised an Indus- trial Dismite before the Regional Labour Commis- sioner (O, Madras for conciliation. On failure of conciliation, the mattrr was referred to this Tribunal for adjudication by the Govt The Petitioner has not committed any dereliction of duty or even lost his Identity Cird. The Petitioner requests this Tribunal to direct thr Reir"onrVnt|Man3prmentlAir India International to reinstate him in service. The Peti- tioner " a physicallv handicapped person His father •^h. Dskshina-roorthy was llso an enmtovee of that department,
4. When the matter wai taken up for enquiry, fhe Petitioner examined himself as W.W.I and marked the documents as Ex. Wl and W2. From the side of the Respondent, the Deputy Manager, HRD Depart- ment who was examined as MW1 and Exs. MI to M4 were marked. The counsel on either side have advanced their respective arguments.
4032' THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :-AUGUST 4, 30W/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PART II—Sue, 3(&)I5, The point for my tfdnsidertaion is—
"Whether the Petitioner/Workman Sh. D. Michael was an employee of Air India Ltd. ? If so, to what relief 'is he entitled ?"
POINT :—-
the Petitioner was cross examined about this he ' denied about sending one such petition to Labour Commissioner after perusing the same. From this it is seen that he has not come forward with true facts and he is not prepared to speak truth. Further there is nothing on record to show that the Petitioner was employed as a permanent employee or a part-time casual labourer in the Respondent/Management. No substantial evidence has been given on the side of the Petitioner /Workman to prove that he is entitled to claim the benefits under Section 25F of the Indus- trial Disputes Act. Except the averment in the Claim Statement and the oral evidence of the Petitioner as WW1, there is no substantial documentary evidence to prove that he was placed under suspension by the Respondent/Management on 1-12-1981. So from the available materials it is seen that the petitioner has failed to establish that he was an employee of Air India Ltd. and he was putting sufficient period of employment to claim the benefits of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and he was suspended from the job by the Respondent/Management qn 1-12-1981 illegally. So it can be concluded that the Petitioner/Workman was not a permanent or regular employee of the Air India Ltd. and he had not put in 240 days of service as his period of employment to claim the benefits of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and hence he is not entitled to any relief. Thus, I answer the point accordingly.
6. In the result, an award is passed holding that the Petitioner/Workman Shri D. Michael is not entitl- ed to any relief, as prayed for. No cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typc- ed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 13th June, 2001.)
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Pre5idinB Officer
Witnesses Examined :
For the I Party/Workman :
WW.l Shri D. Michael.
For the II Party/Management:
M.W.I Shri S. lyyaswami.
Documents Marked '
For I Paity/Workman : Nil.
Ex. No. Date Description Wl 08-01-87 Xerox copy of the Entry Pass No.
43677 issued to the Petitioner.
W2 05-01-94 Xerox copy of the representation of the Petitioner to the Labour Officer, Madras.
For the II Party /Management :
Ml 16-12-81 Original representation of the Peti-
tioner to the Managemeit.
M2 24-07-82 Original representation from Sri C. R. Krishnamurthy, Advocate to Management.
M3 07-10-82 Xerox copy of the reply from the Management to Sri- C. R, Krishna* murthy, Advocate.
It is the admission of the Petitioner in his evidence that he worked as a casual labourer in the Catering department Of the Respondent/Management. He denied the suggestion that he used to get work for 7 or 8 days in a month. Ex. Ml is the original peti- tion dated 29-12-81 sent by the Petitioner to the Management. The Petitioner has admitted in his evi- dence that ,it contains his signature with dated 29th December, 1981. Though it is stated in that paper that he was working in the Catering Department of Air India International, Madras for the past 6 years as casual labourer and he was given a job only for 7 or 8 days in n month he has denied it in his evi- dence as incorrect. He would further say that it had been written mistakenly by his neighbour, who has written it. Ex. M2 is a notice sent by the counsel for the Petitioner to the Respondent/Management. Though the Petitioner has admitted in his evidence that he has sent a notice through his advocate as Ex. M2, he says that he does not know any reply was given by the Management to his advocate. Ex. M3 has been marked as office copy of the reply sent by the Respondent/Management dated 7-10-82 to the counsel for the Petitioner Shri Krishnamurthy. It was marked through M.W.I as the office copy of the reply. Ex. M4 is the postal acknowledgement for the receipt of reply sent by the Management by the Petitioner's advocate Sri R. Krishnamurthy on 11-12-1982. It is the evidence of MW1 that the Petitioner was not a permanent employee under the Respondent/Manage- ment and he used to work occasionally as casual labourer. He would further say that the Petitioner has not completed the 240 days of service as his period of employment under the Respondent /Management to claim the benefits under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examina- tion of MW1 to discredit his evidence in the chief which he gives based on records maintained by the Respondent/Management. The Petitioner himself in his cross examination has admitted that upto 1981 he was only a casual labourer. In his petition, Ex. Ml has clearly stated that he had worked for 7 or 8 days irt a month. From the records it is seen that when the case was pending enquiry before the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal the matter was taken up for en- quiry on 18-12-1997, for the non-filing of the counter statement by the Respondent/Management, the Res- pondent/Management was set ex-parte and subse- quently the Petitioner was examined as WW1 as ex- partc evidence and two documents were marked as Wl and W2. Ex. Wl marked before the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal when ex-parte evidence was taken, as the xerox copy of the representation dated 26th June, 1995 given by the Petitioner to the Labour Commissioner, wherein he has stated that he is in a financial crisis and he requested the Labour Commis- sioner to obtain payments from the Management Air Tndia which is due to him. The conciliation effort taken by the conciliating authority ended in a failure, so a failure of Conciliation report wafe sent. When
M4 11-10-82 Original acknowledgement card.
New Delhi, the 11th July,- 2001 S.O. 1945.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes) the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 2 Dhanbad as ahown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the manage- ment of B C CL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11-7-2001.
|[No. L-2OO12!H8]9O-IR(C-I)]
S. S. G U P T A, Under Secy.
A N N E X U RE
B E F O RE T HE C E N T R AL G O V E R N M E NT I N D U S T R I AL T R I B U N AL ( N O. 2) AT D H A N B AD
P R E S E NT :
Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer In the mattet of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Reference No. 28 of 1990 PARTIES :
Employers in relation to the management of Murulidih Colliery of Mahuda Area No. II of M|s. B.C.C. Ltd.
AND
Their Workmen
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workmen.—None.
On behalf of the employers.—None.
STATE : JharVhand INDUSTRY : Coal.
Dated, Dhanbad, the 28th June, 2001 2269 GI|2001—23
4O$3
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 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their O d er No. L-200l2(118)|90-I.R. (C-I), dated, the 19th October, 1990.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the Management of Murulidih Colliery of Mahuda Area No. II of M|s. B.C.C. Ltd. is justified in denying promotion in Clerical grade II to the following three workmen ? a. Shri Tayyab Ali Ansori b. Shri Kamaluddin Ansari c. Shri Sobha Gope. If not to what relief they are entitled to ?"
2. In this reference both the parties ap- peared before this Tribunal and filed their respective written statement documents etc. Subsequently at the stage of evidence both the parties abstained from appearing be- fore this Tribunal and taking any further steps. The reference is pending sinGe 1990 and it is of no use to drstg the same ye°ar after year for taking steps by the parties. Under1 such circumstances, a 'No Dispute' award is rendered and the reference is cjis- po<.ed of on the basis of 'No Dispute' Award, presuming non-existence of anv Industrial Dis- pute between the parties.
B, BISWAS, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 11th July, 2001 S.O. 1946.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1047), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award.of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, 2, Dhanbad as shown In4034 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 |PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the manage- ment of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11-7-2001.
[No. L-2OO12|11O|92-IR(C-I)] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
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(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.
Reference No. 52 of 1996
PARTIES :
Employers in relation to the management of Mudidih Colliery of M|s. BCCL
AND
Their Workman
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman.—None. On behalf of the employers.—None.
STATE : Jharkhand INDUSTRY : Coil.
Dated, Dhanbad, the 29th 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 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012|110|92-I.R. (Coal-I), doted, the 30th April, 1993.
SCHEDULE
'"Whether the demand of R.C.M.S. for promotion of Shri A. N. Mondal to the post of Spl. Grade Clerk w.e.f. 22-1-83 and for reRularising him as Office Supdt. in Technical Grade 'A' w.e.f. 28-5-84 is iustified ? If so, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
2. In this reference none of the parties ap- peared before this Tribunal nor took any steps inspite of issuance of Regd. Notices to them. The reference is pending 3ince 1997 and it is of no use to keep the same alive.
Under such circumstances, a 'No dispute' Award is icndered and the reference is dis- posed of on the basis of 'No dispute' Award in this reference presuming non-existence of any industrial dispute between the parties presently.
B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 11th July, 2001 S.O. 1947.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- been the employers in relation to the manage- ment of E.C.L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11-7-2001.
{No. L-20012|85|92-[RCC-l)]
S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
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(l)Cd) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Reference No. 66 of 1993 PARTIES :
Employers in relation to the management of Mis. E.C.L's Nirsha Area Chapa- pur I Colliery of M|s. ECL.
AND
Their Workman APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman.—Shri D. Mukherjee, Secretary, B.C.K.U. On behalt of the employers.—.Shri B. Joshi, Advocate.
STATE : Jharkhand INDUSTRY : Coal.
Dated, Dhanbad, the 29th June, 2001
AWARD
The Govt, of India, Ministry of Labour, in ^xercise of the powers conferred on them finder Section 10(1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to thus Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012|85|92-I.R. (Coal-I) dated, the 21st May, 1993.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of M|s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Nirsha Area in awarding punish- ment of four days suspension and accordingly withholding wages to Shri Iswari Prasad Singh, Pump Khalasi, ChapapurJ Colliery w.e.f. 18-8-87 to 31-12-87 is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?"
2. In tills t eference both the parties appear- ed through their respective Advocates ana filed W.S. Subsequently at the stage of filing documents when the reference was fixed. learned representative! Advocate submitted be- fore this Tribunal to pass a 'No dispute' Award in this reference as the learned repre- sentative] Advocate received no instruction to proceed further from the concerned workman. fThe reference is pending since 1993 and it is pf no use of drug the same year after year. Under such cricumstances, a 'No dispute' lAward is rendered and the reference is dis- posed of on the ba^is of 'No dispute' Award presuming non-existence of any industrial dis- pute between the parties presently.
B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer
403$ New Delhi, the 11th July, 2001 S.O. 1948.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11-7-2001.
[No. L-20012/63/93-IR(C-I)J
S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
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(1 )(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 13 of 1994
PARTIES :
Employers in relation to the management of Basantimatn Colliery of M/s. B.C.C.L. and their workman,
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman : Shri K. Chakravorty, Advocate.
On behalf of the employers : Shri B. Josh!, Advocate.
STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Coal.
Dated, Dhanbad, the 29th June, 2001
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, In exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec- tion 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/63/93-I.R. (Coal-1),. dated, the 20th December, 1993 :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. BCCL in relation to Basantimata Colliery in dismissing workman Shri Bipin Kumar Mukherjee w.e.f. 12-6-89 is justified ? If not, to %hat relief the workman is entitled to ?" 2. In this reference both the parties appeared through their respective Advocates and filed W.S. document* subsequently when the case was fixed for036 > THE OAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PA*T DH&EC. 3(li)] flearing learned Advocate for the workman submits to pass a 'No Dispute' Award in this reference as he has no instruction from the concerned workman. Learned Advocate for the management raised no ob- jection if the reference is disposed on the basis of 'No Dispute1 Award. Under such circumstances, a 'No Dis- pute' Award is rendered and the reference i3 disposed of on the basis of the 'No Dispute' Award presuming non-existence of any industrial dispute between the parties presently.
B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 11th July, 2001
S.O. 1949.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Deputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes Ibe award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal No 2, Dhanbad as $h&wn jo -the Annexure in the, Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the jnancgemeut of BCCL jnd iheii workman, which was -tceived by the Central Government on 10-7-2001
[No. L-20012/41/92-lR(C-I)] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
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(l)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 Refernce No. 19 of 1993
PARTIES :
Employers in ielation to the management of Bhagaband Colliery of M/s. BCCL and their workman,
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman : Shri R. K. Prasad, President, Bihar Shramik Sangh, Dhanbad.
On behalf of the employers : Shri S. N. Sinha, Advocate.
,u STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Coal.
Dated, Dhanbad, the 28th June, 2001
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sc- tion 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/41/92-I.R. (Coal-I), dated, the 17th March, 1993 :
SCHEDULE
"Wbethci the action of the management of Bhaga- band Colliery of M/s. BCCL in denying the employment to Smt. Mundri Devi, Widow of late Rameshwar Hazam is justified in ac- cordance with the clause 9.4.3 of NCWA- IV? If not, to what relief is Smt. Mundri Devi is entitled to 7"
2. The case of the concerned workman as per W.S. in brief is as follows :—
The concerned workman in his W.S. submitted that late Rameshwar Hazam was the husband of Smt. Mundri Devi who died on 25-1-91 leaving behind his wife i.e, Mundri Devi and four children and his mother. After the death of her husband Mundri Devi submitted her application before the management as per para 9-4-2 of NCWA-IV for her employment. But the management denied to provide any employ- ment to her, Finding no other way the union raised an industrial dispute and as the said dispute could not be settled in the conciliation proceeding the pre- sent reference was made. Accordingly the union has prayed for passing necessary award to the effect that the action of the management of Bhagaband Colliery under M/s. BCCL in denying employment to Smt. Mundri Devi wife of late Rameshwar Hazam is not justified and accordingly be pleased to direct the man- agement to provide her employment.
3. The management on the contrary after filing W.S.-cum-rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegation which the union asserted in the W.S. It has been disclosed by the management that after the death of Rameshwar Hazam his son Bideshi Hazam filed a petition for his employment claiming himself to be the dependent of Rameshwar Hazam and to that effect he sworn an affidavit. The said Bideshi Hazam son of Rameshwar Hazarn disclosed in the affidavit that prior to the death of his father his mother died and he was the only son who was dependent of late Rameshwar Hazam. The management submitted that after riling the insiant petition by the said Bideshi Hazam one lady i.e. Mundri Devi also by filing an application claimed herself to be the wife of Ramesh- war Hazam who, .died on 25-1-9,1 and prayed for her employment on compassionate ground. In support of her claim the said Mundri Devi also sworn an affi- davit. As a result a dispute arose between Bideshi Hazam and Mundri Devi relating to the relationship between late Rameshwar Hazam and the concerned lady. The management further submitted that there is no dispute about the' claim of Bideshi Hazam as son of Rameshwar Hazam in view of the facts that Mundri DGYI JO her affidavit admitted'that said Bideshi Hazaxa 4037- Was the son of late Ramcshwar Hazam. On the con- trary Bjdesbi Hazam in the affidavit categorically de- hied the fact that Alundri Devi was the wife of his father i.e. Ramcshwar Hazam. Disclosing this fact the management submitted that due to such dispute they £ould not settle the matter in issue and for which pend- ing decision about relationsip of Muudri Devi with Rameshwar Hazam and Bideshi Hazam they could not'consider her claim. The management further sub- mitted that as per provision of NCWA the dependent to be employed must be suitable for working as Miner/Loader. They submitted that the concerned lady is not suitable for underground employment as ^lijaerjLoader. Therefore, they could1 not consider her employment. Accordingly the management pra"yed for passing an Award holding that the concerned lady is not entitled to get any relief.
POINTS FOR DECISION
4. The points for deciiion in this reference is :—
"Whether the action of the management of Bhaga- band Colliery of M/s. BCCL in denying the employment to Smt. Mundri Devi widow Of late Kameshwar Hazam is justified in ac- cordance with the clause 9.4.3 of JMCWA- I V? If not, to what relief is Smt. Mundri Devi is entitled to ?"
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
4038 THE GAZETTE OF INt>lA : AUGUST 4, 2G01/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PART II—Sue. 3(ii)]New Delhi, the 9th July, 2001 S.O. 1950.—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 Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Gold Mines Ltd, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-2001.
[No. L-43012|5|94-IR(M)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN", G G. PALYA, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTPUR, BANGALORE-560022 DATED : 15th may, 2001
PRESENT :
Hon'bfc V. N. KULKARNT, Presiding Officer " C. R. No. 14|97
I PARTY :
The President, Bharat Gold Mmers Association, Oorgaum Post, Kolar Gold Fields-563120.
II PARTY :
The Managing Director, Bharat Gold Mines Limited, Oorgaum Post, Kolar Gold Fields-563120
APPEARANCES :
T Party : K. V. Sathyanarayana, Advocate
II Party : A. S Bopanna, Advocate
AWARD
1: The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by Cause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-scctlon 2A of the Section 10 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-43012|5|94-IR(Misc.) dated 12-1-1995 for adjudication on the following schedule.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the management of Bharat Gold Mines Limited is justified in fixing the pay of Shri Anandraj, P.E. No. 062367 w.e.f. the date of the promotion instead of tha date of the award (29-6-90) ? If not, to what rejjef Shri Anand|raj is entitled to and from which date ?"
2. I party is working with the II party. The con- tention of the I party is that fixing of pay w.e.f. th'i date of promotion instead of date of award 29-6-1990 is not correct and, therefore, Industrial Dispute is raised.
3. The case of the I parly in brief is as uiid;r.
4. The main contention of the I party union workman is that if the award is considered the pro- motion of I party must be given retrospectively from 17-2-1988 and he may be placed above Sh. Pushparaj and Palani in the seniority and pay be refixed w.e.f. 29-6-1990. The II party while implementing the award took a different stand much against the spirit of the Award and tfhercby reduced Rs. 9.00 from the basic Pay of Rs. 1308.00 of the I party, con- cerned workman which he was enjoying on the date of Award and pulled down to Rs. 1299.00 in the name of promotion which is unheard. Details of salary is stated in para 6 of the Claim Statement, Lot of correspondence mias made but nothing is done, the I party union workman for these reasons has prayed to pass an award jn his favour.
5. The case of the II party is that in its award 20]89. This tribunal directed to II party manage- ment, to promote the I party workman to D Grade vW.e.f. the date which Sh. Pushparaj and Palani w\;re promoted to D Grade. It is said that accordingly the I party workman was promoted from C Grade to D Grade w.e.f. 1-12-87 without backwages. Details arc given in para 5 of the Counter Statement. It is the further case of the management that as per the award the I party workmen was promoted w.e.f. 1-12-87, the date on which Sh. Pushparaj and Palani was promoted and his pay was fixed as per para 5 of the Counter Statement. The management has not taken different view while implementing the aw'ard. Infact the I party workman was much benefited by the award and got promotion and seniority right from 1-12-87. The management for these reasons and for some other reasons has stated in para 8, 9 and 10 has prayed to reject the reference.
6. It is seen from the records that both sides have not adduced any evidence.
7. I have heard the arguments of both sides 8. At the very outset, I may say that in the instant case, the I party has not rUed any documents to estab- lish that the management while implementing award has taken different view. Moreover, the I party has not given evidence, for the reasons best known to him to say that there is merit in this dispute. Absolutely, there is no material before us to say that there to merit in this reference.
9. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order
ORDER
Reference is rejected
(Dictated to the L.D.C., transcribed by him, cor- rected and signed by me on 20th June, 2001) V. N. KULKARNi, Presiding Officer 4Q39 New Delhi, the 9th July, 2001 S.O. 1951.—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, Ernakulam, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers hi relation to the management of Central Warehousing Corporation and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-2001.
[No. L-42012K|97-IR(M)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
(IN THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM) (Wednesday, the 28th day of March, 2001) PRESENT :
Sri D. Mohanarajan, B.Sc., LL.fi.
Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 1|199S (Central)
BETWEEN
The management of Centrnl Warehousing Corporation, Bangalore
AND
The workman represented by the General Secre- tary, Central Warehousing Corporation, Employees Union, Madurai.
REPRESENTATIONS :
following industrial dispute to this Court for adjudi- cation.
"Whether the action of the management of Central Warehousing Corporation in re- fusing to pay H.R.A., C.C.A. and fixed D.A. w.c.f. April, 1994 in respect of the personal pay paid for adopting small family norms and special pay paid to the employee is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned employees are entitled to ?"
2. When the case stood posted for evidence today the 28th March, 2001, there was no representation from the union. The union was cailled and found absent. This court is therefore pleased, to think that the union is not at all interested to pursue the dispute any further and that there is no subsisting industrial dispute between the parties requiring adjudication.
In the reSult, the reference is answered holding that there is no subsisting industrial dispute between the parties to be adjudicated upon. Frnakulam, 28-3-2001.
D. MOHANARAJAN, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 9th July, 2001 S.O. 1952.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Ccn- troj Government hereby publishes the award of Ihe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute betwten the employers in relation to the management of MJs. Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd. apd their workman, which wns received by the Central Government on 5-7-2001.
(No. L-290U|16i9C-IR(M)l
. . For Management
Sri V, Sukumaran Nair, Advocate, Kunnathukal, Ernakulam. K. Ramkumar, Advocate, Ernakulam.
KULDIP RAI VERMA. Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
. . For Workman
AWARD
The Government of India as per Order No. L-42012/4/97-IR(Mific.) dated 31-12-97 referred the BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, TAMfL NADU CHFNNAI-104
Friday, the 22nd do(y of June, 20014040 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; AUGUST 4. ,2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [FART H—SEC. 3(ii)l PRESENT :
Thiru S. R. Singharavelu, B.Sc. B L., Industrial
Tribunal.
Industrial Dispute No. 66 of 1990
(In the matter of dispute for adjudication Under SecUon 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Dispute Act, J947, between the Workmen and the Management of Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd. Chennai-6000 05.).
BETWEEN
The Workmen represented by :
1. The General Secretary.
Mettur General Workers' Union, C[o Indian Trade Unions, 13 Mesque Street, Madrds-600 005.
2. The President, Dhaimapbri Mavatta Kanirua Desiya ThozilaJar Sangam, 70 Bajaji St., Pennagarntn, Dharmapuri, 636 810,
AND
The Chairman cum-Managing Director, M,'s. Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd., 31 Kamarajar Salaii, 'TWAD House', Chepauk, Madrns-600 005.
Reference ; Order No. L-2901 l|l6[90-IR(MISC) dated 3-8-1990. Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
This dispute coming en for final hearing -on Tues- day, the 13th diy of March, 2001, and for clarifica- tion on Thursday, the 21st day of June, 2001, upon psru^ng the reference. Claim and Counter state- ments and all oiher material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Thiru D. Hariparanthaman advocate for Union N. I and of Thiru P. K. G. Mennn, authorised repicsentative for Union No 2 and of Tbim R. Vjdulhalai, advo- ea'e appearing for the Management and th's dispute having stood over till this dav tor consideration, this Tribunal made the following
AWARD
TTio Govt. of India has referred tne following issue
for pdjudicat;on by this Tribunal :
"Whether the actim of the management or M|s.
Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd. Madras in dis- engaging the Ohislemcn is justified. If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled?"
2. The main averments found in the Claim State-
IS o TnPnc"rf Of " i r f i t n i f l t i ni nr"T oiin ntif-air liTiciir
Ttrfht'tc" T^i" P"tir)oni'r TTiu'^" 1 r^rw tn bntr* flint
tTi" prtinn miTTm-TTMit / f 'K/f^c T i n i ii 'Kfir'"4041 justified and consequertly direct the respodnent to reinstate them with backwages, continuity of service with other attendent benefits and also to direct the respondent to make them permanent.
5. On behalf of petitioner, \VW 1 Thiru K. Vijayan (Proof affidavit and Cross) has been examined and hx. Wl to W55 were marked. On behalf of respon- dent, no witness was examined and Ex. Ml to M5 were marked by consent.
6. The Point for consideration is : Whether tho action of the Management of Mjs. Tomil Nadu Mine- rals Ltd., Madras in disengaging the Chislemen is justified ? If not to what relief are the workmen entitled."
3. The main averment found in the Claim state- ment of the Petitioner Union No. 2 are as follows: The workmen and the respondent signed a Memoran- dum of Settlement under Sec. 12(3) of I.D. Act 1947 on 7-11-39. But the respondent did not imple- ment the said settlement. The workers therefore re- sorted to striks. During the conciliation proceedings the workers agreed to resume duty on the advice of the Conciliation officer. Bui the respondent did not allow the workman to resume duty on 16-12-89 after tho strike under the pretext that the Chislemen and their Assistants arc not employed by them. These workmen were provided with Ihe following benefits and facilities by fh3 respondent. (1) Shoes, (2) Helmet (3) Goggles (4) Respiratois (5) Their names arc entered in Form B register, (6) Identity cards, (7) Attendance record maintained by respondent (8) Medical facilities, (9) Statutory compenstion and1 (10) Incentive payment. The workmen concerned have put up more than 10 yean, ot continuous ser- vice. It is therefore prayed that this Tribunal may be plea|sed to consider, all these relevant facts and pass an award ordering (1) reinstatement of the workmen concc-'ied with backwages and continuily of service (2) Rcgulvrising their services and (3) im- plementing and extending the benefits, under the Settlement dated 7-11-89.
4 0 42 T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA • A U G U ST 4, 2 0 0 1 / S R A V A NA 1 3. 1 5 23 [ P A RT I I —S E C. 3 ( i i )]work done by the Chislemen and also the control ot the management upon the Chislemen.
9. As per the definition of the workmen found in the Industrial disputes Act, 'workmen' means any person employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied etc. In as much as, the respondent management has not come forward with the names of the contractors under whom the Chislemen were allegedly employed and since there were Indentity coids and attendance cards issued to those Chislemen by ihc respondent management itself and considering the (actors mentioned above showing the control and supervision made upon the workmen by the respondent management, we can easily come to the conclusion that there is the relationship of employer and employee between TAMIN and Chislemen in thj; dispute.
10. The Learned Counsel for the workmen conten- ded that there was a settlement arrived at on 7-12-89 in which Bonus and Exgratia were given to the NMR category as well as tine Chislemen in the dispute. It was further said that the exgratia amount was not given to Chislemen in accordance with the settlement and, that therefore there was a strike from 18-11-89. It was said that even though the Chislemen turned duty on 16-12-89, no work was given to them by the manage- ment, thus making disengagement. The Counsel also, relied upon 1996 II IXJ p. 26, (The Management of, Silversands Beach Resort & Ors), And the Workmen, Silversand3 Employees Union & Anr., wherein it Was held that illegal participation in strike does not by itself justify the termination. When it docs not justify the termination itself, it may not also justify disengage- ment. The reply given by the management was that, they never disengaged, or refused to give work to the, Chtslemen and it is incorrect to say that the workers, turned to duty on 16-12-89. Thus it was said by the management that Chislemen by themselves abandoned, the duty. In this connection, reliance was placed upon Ex. W9 by the management. It is the letter of the, management dt. 6-12-89, mentioning that the Chisle-! men were not coming to duty with effect from L8-1l-894 and that within 24 hours after the receipt of that notice if they do not turn to duty it will be considered as their own abandonment. Although Ex. W9 and W101 were addressed only to A. Kaliappan and K. Kuppu- samy who were individual Chislemen there is also no acknowledgement of letter to show whether at all they have received such notices. Therefore, there is no acceptable evidence to hold that management called forth the striking workers to resume duty. Even if it was not complied with, and the workmen continuedi their strike demanding exgratia on par with NMR workers that may not be a good ground for termina- tion or disengagement. This is so because it was held Mi 1996 II IXJ 26 in favour of the workmen. Thus we find that striking employees need not be refused work if they choose to turn duty. Now it is made clear from the counsel for workmen that they arc prepared*" to resume duty. As and when they resume duty, the management shall not lefused engagement.
11. The learned counsel for the Management again| argued that there was no demand or jio dispute and that therefore the reference was bad. They also relied upon 1981 II LLJ 102 to 115 in which reference was made to 1968 I LLJ p. 834; but it was contended in 1978 I LLJ p. 484 holding that for all these reasons the reference could not be held as bad. Leaving all these citations, the latest position of law was held in 2000 (1) SCC 371 wherein the Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that in order to pronounce the reference was bad the Writ jurisdiction alone can do it and it docs not lie in the mouth of the. Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Management that the reference is bad does not hold water in this forum.
12. We have already held that for whatever reason disengagement of workmen is not justified and the workmen ought to be allowed as and when they resume duty. At this juncture, the counsel for the Workmen contended that the other reliefs of exgratia, backwages, continuity of service, shall also be given. So far as the Bonus and Exgratia arc concerned, even though the contention ol the workmen is that there was a Settle- ment dt. 17-11-89 in which Chislemen were also' the beneficiaries of such reliefs, no such settlement was produced before us. Therefore, we are not in a position to conclude that bonus and exgratia are due to the Chislemen. If only such settlement was produced, that would show the justification for the strike; because the strike could be justified if only there was negation of justifiable claims and that exgratia was negatived. But to say that it was a due claim, Settlement dt. 17-11-89 ought to have b?en filed. In default of which we could not assess justifiability of the claim. Therefore the answer is that we cannot order backwages. Especially when the strike could noi be justified. But as mentioned earlier, mere participation in strike will not by itself justify termination or disengagement and so they are entitled for reinstatement only. The other reliefs could not be given.
Award passed accordingly. No costs.
Dated at Chennai, this 22nd day of June, 2001.
S. R. STNGHARAVELU, Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 66 of 1990
Witnesses examined
For Petitioner/Workman : WWl : K. Vijayan (Proof Affidavit).
For Respondent/Management : None.
Documents marked
For Petitioner/Workman
Ex. Wl series 19-9-83 : Identity Card issued to Manickkam by TAMIN. 19-9-83 : Identity Card issued to Kaliappan bv TAMIN. 6-6-84 : Identity Card issued to Velayyan by TAMIN
6-6-84 : Identity Card issued to Arjunan. 6-6-80 : Identity Card issued to Pachayappan. 6-6-80 : Identity Card issued to Chinnarai.
Ex. W2 18-8-86 : Show Cause notice issued by TAMIN to Shanmufiavel.
4043Ex. W3 3-11-88 : Letter of Petitioner union re- garding bonus of Chislemen for 1987-88. Ex. W4 16-11-88 : Memorandum of Agreement. Ex. W5 17-11-88 : Dispute raised by petitioner union regarding Chislemen's wages.
Ex. W6 21-12-88 : Letter by petitioner union to TAMIN to levokc contract given to Thiru Ramasamy.
Ex. W7 20-12-89 : Minutes of Conciliation be- fore Asst. Labour Commissioner.
Ex. W8 4-12-89 : Memo issued by TAMIN directing Chislemen to report duty.
Ex. W9 6-12-89 : Memo issued by TAMIN directing Chislemen to report duty.
Ex. W10 7-12-89 : Memo issued by TAMTN directing Chislemen to report duty.
Ex, WU 9-12-89 : Letter by Chislemen to TAMIN to pay exgratia as per the settlement. Ex. W12 12-12-89: Letter by petitioner union to Regional Labour Commissioner regarding non-implementation of Settlement.
Ex. W13 22-12-89 : Letter by Chislemen to pf3- vide employment.
Ex. W14 : Letter by the General Secretary of petitioner to TAMIN demand- ing employment.
Ex. W15 2-3-90 : Letter by petitioner union to Chief Minister demanding employment to Chisleijien.
Ex. W16 2-5-90 : Failure report Under Section 12(4) of I.D. Act.
muthn.
Ex. W17 : Identily card of S. Palani- I Ex. W18 : Identity card of K. P. Macfhu. Ex. W19 : Identily card of R. Rajendran. Ex. W20 : Identity card of S. Govinda- samy.
Ex. W21 : Identity card of C. Rathinam. Ex. W22 : Identity card of C. Mani. Ex. W23 : Identity Card of R. Kanda- samy.
Ex. W24 • Identity Card of K. Mani. Ex. W25 : Identity Card of S. Ammani. Ex. W2(i : Identity Card of R. Muthu- saruy.
Ex. W27 : Identity Card of Mulhu. Ex. W28 : Identity Card of Sivaraj. Ex. W29 : Identity Card of S. Angamuthu. Ex. W30 : Identity Card of S. Chinnaknnnu. Ex. W31 : Identity Card of I. Gopal. Ex. W32 : Identity Card of A. Gavandap- pan.
Ex. W33 : Identity Card of G Manickam. Ex. W34 : Identity Card of A. Poomalai. Ex. W35 : Identity Card of A. Manathan.
Ex. W36 : Identity Card of S. Karupu- chelty.
Ex. W37 : Identity Card of C. Raju.
Ex. W38 : Identity Card of K. Palaniappan. Ex. W39 : Identity Card of P. Mahalingarj Ex. W40 : Identity Caid of M. Chinnadurai. Ex. W41 : Identity Card of M. Ayyannan.
Ex, W42 : Identity Card of S. Arumugam.
Ex. W43 : Identity Card of S. Tbangavelu.
Ex. W44 : Identity Card of I. Madhu.
Ex. W45 : Identity Card of P. Chembu. Ex. W46 : Identity Card of V. Sidhan.
Ex. W47/series : Identity Caid of Chappili, K. Palam, K. Laxman, A. Manickam, K. Kuppusamy, K. Chinross.
Ex. W48 : Payment Voucher slips for the year 1986.
Ex. W49 : Payment Voucher slips for the year 1987.
Ex. W50 : \ oucher slips for the Payment of Blfick Granite Production issued to Maistries for the year 1988.
Ex. W51 : Payment voucher slips for the year 1989.
Ex. W52 7-11-83 : Receipts for recovery of Amount.
Ex. W53 14-12-89 : Xerox copy of the Postal cover sent under RPAD to Mr. K. P. Sinraj.
Ex. W54 15-12-89 : Letter from the R.D.O. Mettur to the Piece-rate workmen at Mettur dam.
Ex. W55 : Voucher slip for payment to Black Granite Production issued to Rama- samy.
For Respondent/Management :
Ex. Ml : Cash Voucher for the Payment made.
Ex. M2 : Copy of the Measurement Book.
Ex. M3 : Copy of the Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act V of 1982.
Ex, M4 : Production Report.
Ex. M5 : Production Report and Payment made.
iO44 "THE GAZETTE OF INTJlA : AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVA^A li, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]New Delhi, the 9th July, 2001 S.O. 1953.—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, Jabal- pur as shown in the Annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employee in rela- tion to the management of ESIC and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-7-2001.
l[No. L-150l2|6!9l-IRilVn] KULDIP RAI VERMA, De,k Officer
A N N E X U RE
B E F O RE THE C E N T R AL G O V E R N M E NT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
Case No. CGIT LC|R|714|92 Presiding Officer : Shri K. M. RAI Shri Jagmohan Singh, S!o Shri Ram Sakha Singh, ESI Corporation, Kanchghar, Purvi Ghamapur, Jabalpur,
.. Applicant.
Versus
The Regional Director. ESI Corporation, Panch Deep Bhavan. Indore.
.. Non-applicant.
adhoc promotion as UDC and transferred from Satna to Jabalpur on 28-8-86. He join- ed at Jabalpur on 1-9-86 and thereafter work- ed continuously to the satisfaction of the management. On 3-3-89, the management reverted him to the post of LDC and he was placed at seniority No. 34 in the seniority list. The Junior LDCs Smt. Alka Jawalkar, Jakat Aii and Jagilkh Prasad who were at seniority No. 4 1, 42 & 43 respectively were allowed to continue to hold the post of UDC (adhoc). In this way, the management illegally and in arbitrary manner reverted the workman to the post of LDC. Even after thi^ reversion the workman was performing the duty of UDC (cashier. Later on again the workman was given adhoc promotion of UDC cashier. The order of reversion passed by the manage- ment against the workrnan on 31-3-89 deser- ves to be quashed. The workman is en- titled to all benefits as per adhoc promotion order dated 18-8-86 as if no reversion order dated 31-3-89 was passed by the management.
3. The case for the management is that the workman Jagmohan Singh was given adhoc promotion on purely temporary basis vide order of Regional Office dated 18-8-86 on the foliowinc terms and conditions :-—
(i) The adhoc promotion will not bestow upon him any claim for regular pro- motion in the grade or for eligibility for promotion to next higher grade.
AWARD
Passed on this 14th day of June, 2001 1. The Government of India Ministry of Labour ^ide order No. L-15012|6|91-tR (Misc) dated 5-8-92 has referred the follow- ing dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :
2. The case for the workman is that he was working as L DC in the employment of the management. On 18-8-86, he was given (ii) He will also be liable to be reverted to his lower post i.e. Lower Divi- sion Clerk at any time without assigning any reason therefore.
(iii) The period of services rendered on adhoc basis in the promoted grade will also not count towards seniority in that grade.
The management further alleges that the workman's reversion was as a result of im- plementation of the revised norms in May, 1989 framed by the Corporation after consul- tation with ESIC Employees federation. It was not possible to avoid reversion in cases where promotions were made on or after 1-9-86 in leave vacancies or in the higher positions filled on adhoc basis as the order dated 1-9-86 was passes in consultation with the Federation ESIC Employees Union to which MPES1C Employees Union is also Affiliated.
5. As a policy matter the employees Smt. Alka Jawalkar Shri Liyaquat AH were also to continue to work as adhoc UDC, UDC Cashier till date, as they were continuing in the post w.c.f. 8-2-86 and 3-7-85 respectively i.e. prioi to the cut off date 1-9-86, Sliri Jagdish Prasad Singh was only promoted to the post of UDC [UDC Cashier in September 199]. Along with Shri Jagmohan Singh some other employees who were promoted on or after 1-9-86 were reverted to the post of LDC w.e.f. 3-4-89 on receipt of revised norms. Thus, contention of Shri Jagmohan Singh is not correct.
6. In view of all these facts, the reversion of workman w.e.f. 3-4-89 is perfectly legal jnd proper and docs not require any inteiefcrenee at all.
7. The following issues arise for decision in this case :—
1. Whether the order of reversion passed by the management against the workman on 31-3-89 is just and proper ?
2. Relief and costs ?
8. Issue No. 1.—Admittedly the workman Sim Jagmohan Singh was working as LDC in the local office of ESI Corporation Satna w.e.f. 21-10:88. He was given adhoc promo- tion as UDC on 18-8-86 and was transferred to Jabalpur. He joined at Jabalpur on 1-9-86 as per the terms and conditions con- tained in order of promotion Annexurc-MT. In march 1989, the management in consulta- tion with ESIC Employees Federation, fram- ed norms for promotion to the post of UDC from LDC and it was agreed between the parlies that in the case of adhoc pro- motion made from any date prior to 1-9-86 no reversion will be made in the cadre of UDCs and record sorters. The workman was reverted w.c.f. 31-3-89. Tn persuancc of this reversion order the workman joined ;is LDC on 6-4-89 (FN). This reversion was passed in peisuance of the Headquarters oflice letter dated 16-3-89 as contained in reversion otdcr Aunexure-M-5. Tl means till 16-3-89, there was no settlement between All India ESIC Federation and the management that the LDCs given adhoc promotion prior to 1-9-86 shall not be reverted. The settlement was arrived at between the Union and th.c management on 31-3-89 trnd the order for reversion was received from the Headquarter on 16-3-89. It
4o45 means the decision f.or the reversion oC work- man was taken by the management prior to 31-3-89 and therefore the terms and conditions of settlement shall not be applicable in the case of workman.
9. Now we will have to see as to whether the workman could be reverted to the post of LDC as per terms and conditions of adhoc promotion dated 18-8-86 Annexure M I, The workman was given adhoc promotion and he had no right to the post as per terms and conditions of the promotion order. He could be reverted as LDC without assigning any reason in respect thereof. At the same time, he could not claim regular promotion as a matter of right on the basis of adhoc promo- tion. The workman accepted all the condi- tions of adhoc promotion and joined at Jabal- pur on 1-9-86 (FN). Some junior LDCs namely AJka. Jawalkar, Liyaquat Ali and Jagdish Prasad were also given adhoc pro- motion. As per reversion order dated 31-3-89, Annexure M-V Smt. Alka Jawalkar too has been reverted to the post of LDC and other two LDCc were allowed to continue as UDC. there is no reason to arrive at con- clusion as to why the said two junior em- ployees Liyaquat Ali and Jagdish Prasad were not reverted and allowed to continue as UDC. This act of the management amounts to discrimination and in against the princi- ples of natural justice which cannot be sus- tained in the eye of law. The management has no right to retain the junior employees on adhoc promotion post and revert a senior workman as LDC. This order of reversion is against the principles of natural justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. Issue no. 1 is answered accordingly.
10. Issue No. 2.—On the reasons stated above, it is held that the workman was illegally reverted to the post of LDC by the management vide order dated 31-3-S9 which is hereby quashed. This order has been pars- ed without complying with the provisions of natural justice. At the same time, this order is discriminatory which cannot be sustained in the eye of law as some junior employees havp been letairjed as UDC and the workman has been illegally reverted. It is therefore directed that the workman be considered for promotion r
The monetary benefits should also be given to him. The reference is accordingly answered4046 THE GAZETTfe OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] STATE : Jhaikhand. INDUSTRY : Copper Mine.
in favour of the workman and against the management.
Dated, Dhanbad, the 31st May, 2001
AWARD
11. Copy of the award be sent to th^ Minis- try of Labour, Government of India as per rules.
K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conlerred on them under Section 10(1) (d) of the ID. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-(10)/86-Con.II/D.IJB/ D.IV.B/IR(M) dated, the 7th July, 1987 :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the management of Mosabani Mines of M|s. Hindustan Copper Ltd. was justi- fied in dismissing Shri A. K. Nayak B. No. 2147 Tea man from service w.e.f. 12-3-81? If not, to what relief the workman is en- titled 7"
New Delhi, the 9th July, 2001
S.O, 1954.—In pursuance1- of Section 17 of Ihe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Dhanbad an shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in re- lation to the management of Hindustan Copper Ltd., and their workman which was received by the Central 'Government on 25-6-2001.
4047New Delhi, the iOth July, 2001
4NJ THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 4, 2001/SRAVANA 13, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3fli)]looking after the work in absence of some emp- loyees for a brief period, in addition to their own duties, but it is the case when the deployment was against existing vacancies and such deployment last- ed for years. Thus, on the principle of "Equal pay for Equal work" they are entitled to same pay and allowances, had they been working as Technical Assistants. Accordingly, all the three workmen are entitled to initial pay of the scale of the post of Technical Assistant with admissible allowances on the initial pay less drawn already. The changes in initial pay and allowances made from time to time, should be taken care of in computing the arrears.
7. The Management has pleaded that the Films Division is not an "Industry"'. 'Industry' is defined under section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. The Films Division 'Government of India, admittedly, sells prints etc. of films made by it on the prescribed pay- ment. Schedule of rates for sale or hire of Films are prescribed by the Films Divisions from time to time. Documents filed by the workmen are admitted by the Management. From these documents, it is fully proved that the Films Division has been engag- ed in sale of prints etc., may be. with or without pro- fits motive. As such, the Films Division is an "Industry".
8. The Management relied on some clarification of the Government that Films Division is neither work- charge department nor an Industrial Establishment.
In Labour Law, 'Industrial Establishment' and "In- dustry" carries different legal meaning and so de- fined separately under section 2(j) and 2(kai) les- pcctively. The submission advanced by the manage- ment, that the three claimants are not workmen and should seek redress before Central Administrative Tribunal is misconceived. These workmen were not discharging supervisory or managerial functions and are covered by the definition of workman given under section 2(s) of the I. D. Act.
9. Thus, iti totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the award is as follow :—
(i) that the workmen Gulshan Kumar Bhatia, Deep Chand and Zahirul Hassan were en- titled to enhanced pay and allowances at par with the initial pay for post of Tech- nical Assistant on the period they actually were deployed to look after the duties of the Technical Assistant; and
(ii) that they are also entitled to increased amount in view of the provisions in the initial pay and allowances, from time to time, during the said period.
10. Award accordingly.
Dated : 6th July, 2001.
RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
Printed by th© Manager Govt, of India Press, Rin" Road, New D"lhi-110064 "*d Publish**! by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054, 2001