This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

ORDHR

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2001

STAMPS

SO. 3436.--In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Ad, JKyy (2 of 1899), the Central Government hereby permits Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. New Delhi to pay consolidated stamp duty of rupees lifty lakh only on account of the stamp duty on bonds describe.1 as 10 per cent Taxable 200) HUDCO Bonds Scries SDH in the nature of Promissory Notes hearing distinctive numbers from 1 to 5000 aggregating to rupees fifty crores only, to be issued by the said Corporation.

[No. 54/2001-STAMPS/F. No. 33/70'2001-ST1

R. G. CHHABRA, Under Srcv.

ORDbK

New Delhi, the 11th Decembei, 2001

S.O. 3438.—Whereas the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered under Subsection (1) of Section 3 ot the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974) issued order F. No. 673/21/2001-Cus. VIU, dated 18-10-2001 under the said Sub-r.cction directing that Shri Jogender Kumar Batra, S/o Late Mela Ram Batra, (1) R-o 1846, Punjabi Mohalla, Mamoorpur, Narcla, Delhi-4fl, (2) Proprietor of M/s. Vikas Trading Corporation, 26, Shivaji Market, Naida, Dclhi-40 be detained and kept in custody in iht C'ential Jail, Tihar, New Delhi with a view to preventing him from Smuggling goods in future.

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

ORDFR

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2001

STAMPS

3, Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) of Sub-section ([) of Section 7 of the said Act, the Centra) Government hereby directs Ine aforesaid person to appear before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi within 7 days of the publication of this order in the Official Gazette.

[F. No. 673'21 -2001-Cus. V1JI1 VITAY K, SHARMA, Dy. Secy.

S.O. 3437.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section y of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central Government hereby permits the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai to pay con- solidated stamp duly of rupees two crore twenty three lakli one thousand only chargeable on account of Ihe stamp duty on 10.65 per cent TNHB Power Bonds Series 5/200) in the nature of Promissory Notes of rupees one lakh each aggre- gating to rupees two hundred twenty three crores one lakh only, to be issued by the said Board.

[No. 55/2001-STAMPS, F. No. 33/69/2001-STI

R. G. CHHABRA, Under Secy.

75*3

ORDER

New Delhi, the 11th December, 3001 ORDER

New Delhi, the I l(h December, 2001

S.O. 3440.—Whereas the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974) issued order F. No. 673/29/20(H-Cus. Vill, dated 07-11-2001 under the said sub-section directing that Shri Anil Jindal, S/o Shri L. C. Jindal, R/o D-1/A—90, Janak Puri, New Dellu-110058 be detained and kept in custody in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi with a view to preventing him from Smuggling goods in future,

2. Whereas ihc Central Government has reasons to helieve that the aforesaid person has absconded or k concealing himself so that the order canont be executed.

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) of sub-section (I) of Section 7 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs the aforesaid person to appear before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi within 7 days of the publication of this order in the Official Gazette.

S.O. 3439.—Whereas the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered under Shb-seetion (1) of Section 3 of the Conservalion of Foreign Exchange, and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 19/1 (52 of 1974) issued order F. No. 673/23/2001-Cus. Vill, dated 3I-10-2OOI under the said sub-section directing that Shri Amrit Lal Manchanda, S/o Sh. Madan Lal Manchanda, R/o A-43, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi be detained and kept in custody in the Central Jail. Tihar, New Delhi with a view lo preventing him from Smuggling goods in future.

[F. No. 673/29/2001-Cus. VHI1

VUAY K. SHARMA, Dy. Secy.

2. Whereas the Central Government has reasons to believe that the aforesaid person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the order cansot be executed.

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) of sub-section (I) of Section 7 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs the aforesaid person to appear before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi within 7 days of the publication of this order in the Oificial Gazette.

[F. No. 673/23/2001-Cus. VIIT1 VIJAY K. SHARMA, Dy. Secy.

(Department of Expenditure )

New Delhi the 6th December 2001

S.O. 3441.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(3) of section 8 of the Provident Funds Act, 1925 (19 of 1925), the Central Government hereby7584 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA-: DJRC^M&^U 22, 2GGl/fc4U*A 1, 1923 [PART XI—fee. 3(i,0] adds to the Schedule to the said Act the name of the following public institution namely :

(Department of Economic Affairs) (Banking Division) "Telecom Regulatory Authority of India"

New Delhi, the 5i& December, 2001 [No. 4(1) EV/95U)]

MOHINDER SINGH Director

S.O. 3443.—In exercise of the powers con- ferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition.and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and sub-clause (1) of. clause 8 of the Nationalised Blanks (Management arid the Miscel^ncfQ^s Provisions) Scheme, 19-70, the Central Government, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India,, hereby appoints Shri N. Kantha Kumar, presently General Manager, Canara Bank as a whole time director (designated as the Executive Director) of Canara Bank for the period from the date of his taking charge and upto 31st March* 2006.

[F. No. 9/12/2000-B.O. I(i)]

RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 6th December 20Q1

S.O 344"!.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Provident Funds Act, 1925 (19 of 1925), the Central Government hereby directs that the provisions of the said Act (except section 6A) shall apply to the Provident Fund established for the benefit of the employees of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India.

[No. 4(1)- EV/95 (II)]

MOHJNDER SINGM, Director

New Delhi, 5th December, 2001

S.O. 3444-.—In exercise of the powers con- ferred t$ clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Mis- cellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 the Centtal Go- vernment, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri Prakash Singh, presently General Manager, Bank of Baroda as a whole time director (designated as the Executive Director) of Punjab & Sind. Bank fpr the period from the date of his taking charge and upto 28th February, 2006.

[F- No. 9/K2/2QOO:B.,0. U}\)]

RAM^Jtl- .CMA^P. Uflder Secy.

7585

read with Sub-clause (1) of Clause 3 of the Nationalised

Banks (Management nnd Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970, the Central Government, hereby nominates Dr. Seema,

Social Worker, 604, lndraprastha Apartment, West Boring

Canal Road, Putna-1 as part-time non-official Director (if

Canara Bank for a period of three >cnr's commencing on

5th December, 2001.

[*F. No. 9]17[200()-B.O.I (ii)]

RAMESH CHAND, Under Sec>. New Delhi, the 5th December, 2001

S.O. 3443.—in eXercfse of the 'powers liortferred by-"ib- secfion (3)fh) arid (3-A¹) df Section 9 of1h* Banking 'Com-

panies (Acquisition ana Transfer of "Undertakings) Act, 1970

read with sub-clause (1) of Clause 3 of the Nationalised

Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

New Delhi, (he 5th December, 2001 1970, the Central Government, hereby nominates Shri Gyan

Prakash, "Pratibha Lok", Anandpuri, W. "Boring Canal

S.O. 3447.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- Road, Patna-1 ns part-time non-official director of Batik of

section (3Xhj) and (3-A) of Section 9 of the Banking Com- Mdharashtra tor a period of three year's tommencing on

panies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 5lh December, 2001.

read with Sub-clause (1) of Clause 3 of the Nationalised

Banks '(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, [F. No. 9/17/3000-B.O. 1(01

1970, tire Central Government, hereby nomintes Shri Sudar-

shiin Sareen, Social Worker, N-fi2, Grentcr Kailnsh Pnrt-1.

RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

New Delhf-110048 as part-time non-oiftcinl Director of

Punjab National Bank for a period of three years commenc-

ing on 5th December, 2001.

[F. No. 9|17|2000-B.O.I,(iii)]

RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 5th December, 2001

S,O. 3446.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-

section (3)(h) And (3-A) of Section '9 o f i he Banking Com-

pttni** (Acquifltioa and Transfer of Undertaking^ Act, 19707SS6 THE GAZET1E OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2U01/PAUSA 1, 1923 [PARI II—SEC. 3(iill MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AT FAIRS

(CP. V. Division)

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2001

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

(Directorate Genera] of Foreign Trade) S.O.3448.— In pursuance of clause (a) of ihe Section 2 of the Diplomatic and consular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby authorises Mr. Dharam Singh, Assistant in the Consulate General of Jndia, Ham- burg to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 07-12-2001.

ORDER

[No.¹ T. 4330/1/2001]

New Delhi, the 11th December, 2001 Y.C NARANG, Dy. Secy.(Cohs)

S.0.3449—M/s. JayaswaJs Neco Ltd., Nagpur, were granted an Import Licence No. P/CG/2133636 d^ted 8-12-94 for Rupees 1,16,06,496/- for import ol' Capita] Goods under EPCG Scheme.

*5 The firm has applied for issue of duplicate

Copy of Customs Purpose copy Exchange Control

Copy of the above mentioned licence on the ground

tliat the original Customs Purpose copy/Exchange

Control Purpose of the licence has been lost or mjs-

placed. It has been stated that Customs/Exchange

Control copy of the licence were handed original

been stated that both the Customs Purpose/Ex-

change Control Purpose copy of the licence was

registered with Colleclor of Customs, Customs

House, Mumbai and been utilised for a sum of

Rs. 1,16,06,496/- leaving an unutilised balance of

Rs. Nil.

6. In support of their contention, the licensee has

filed an Affidavit on stamped paper duly sworn in

before Notary Public, Mumbai. I am accordingly

satisfied that the Customs Purpose/Exchange Con-

trol Purppse copy of Imporl Licence No. P/CG/2133-

636 dated 8-12-94 has been lost or misplaced by the

firm. In exercise of the powers conferred under

Order S.O. 1060 (E) dated 31-12-93 issued by DQFT,

New Delhi the said Original Customs , Purposqs/Fx-

change Control Purpose copy No.. P/CG/2133636

dated 8-12-94 issued to M/s. Jayaswals N.eeo Ltd.,

Nagpur is hereby cancelled.

7. The duplicate Customs Purpose/Exchange Control purpose copy of the said licenco is being issued to the party separately.

[F.No. 18/773/AM 95/EPCG/IT/628]

C.V.L.N. PRASAD, DY. Director General o* Foreign Trade 7587 3771 G1/2UU1— L.

MINISTRY OF COAL & MINES

(Department of Coal)

New Delhi, the 10th December. 2001

S.O.3450- Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from Lhe lands mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed;

Now, therefore, in exercise of tho powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal B e a r rg An i s (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Govern- ment hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein;

Tike plan bearing Number C-l(E)IFI/FU/687-0501 dated the 28th May, 2001 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected in the office of the Western Coalfields Limited (Revenue Department), Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001 (Maharashtra) or in the office of the Collector, Nagpur (Maharashtra) or in the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House, Street Kolkata,

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

SCHEDULE

New Makardhokra —III Block

Umrer Area

District Nagpur (Maharashtra)

[Plan No. C-l(E)III/FU/687-0501 dated the 28th May, 2001]

Serial Name of Patwari cirlcle

Tehsil Village

number

Number

Umrcr

22

I. Kanhwii

Umrer

22

Sirpur

2.

Umrer

22

Karatra

3.

Umrer Dhamangaon 23

4.

District

Remarks-

Area in Hectares

Nagpur

16.00

Part Nagpur

235.00

Part

85.00

Nagpui

Part Nagpur

17.00

Part Total area : 353.00 hectares (approximately) or

872.26 acres

(approximately) 7589 Boundary-description :—

A—B . Lin.- starts from point "A" and parses along the; common village boundary of villages Kanhwa and Kalamr.a, Kanwa and Dhamangaon and meets at. point ' B\

C :

B

Line passes thiough village Dhi'mai'gaon ami passes along the common village boundary of villages Khursapar and Sirpur and meets at point ' O\

- 11 - 1T

: Line passes through village Sirpur and passes along the common village boundary of villages C-

Katara and Sirpur and proceeds through village Kalara and mods at point 'E\

!•

Line passes through village K'Hra along the southern boundary of Railway line and meets at point'F¹ H-

A :

F

Line passes through village KaUua and passes along the common village boundary of villages Kataia and Sirpur then passes through villag. Siipur ard proceeds through village Kanhwa and meets at starling point 'A'.

[F. IN . 43015/18/2001-PR1W]

SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy.

ORDER

Now Dellii, llw 13th December, 2001

S.O. 3451.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 949 datad the 26th April, 2001, published in the Gazette of India, Part-11, Section 3, Sub-Section (ii), dated the 12lh Mny, 2001, issued under sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Coul Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the lands and all lights in or over such lands, described in the Schedule appended to th< said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) o1 Section 10 of the said Act;

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

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that said lands and all rights in or

over such lands so vested shall with effect from the 12th May,

2001 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Govern-

ment, vest in the Government Company, subject to the

following terms and conditions, namely :—

1 the Government Company shall reimburse the Central

Government all payments made in respect of com-

pensation, interest, damages and the like, as deter-

mined under the provisions of the suid Act,

2. a tribunal shall be constituted for the purpose of

determining the amounts payable to all Central

Government by the Government Company under

condition (1) and all expenditure incurred in con-

nection with any such tribunal and persons appointed

to assist the tribunal shall be bomc by the Govern-

ment Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred

in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals, etc.

for or in connection with the rights, in or over the

said lands, so vesting shall also be borne by the

Government Company,

1- the Government Company shall indemnify the Cenira]

Government or its officials against any other expen-

diture that may be necessary in connection

with any proceedings by or againM the Central

Government or its officials regarding the rights in

or over the said lands so vesting,

4. the Government Company shall have no power to

transfer the said lands to any other person without

the previous approval of the Central Government,

5. the Government Company shall abide by such

directions and conditions as may be given or imposed

by the Central Government for particular areas of

the said land as and when necessary.

INo. 43015/18/96-1/W/PR1W]

SANJAY BAHADUR, Dy. Secy.

7591

in respect of all' legal proceedings like appeals, etc.,

for or in connection with the right v in cvi over the

said lands, *o vesting shall ajso be borne by the

Government Company,

3. The Government Company shall indemnify the

Central Government or its officials against uny other

expenditure that may be necessatv in connection

with any proceedings by or against the Crntr.il

Government or its officials regarding the rights in

or over the said lands so vesting.

4. The Government Company shall have no power to

transfer the said lands to any other persons without PRDHIi

the previous approval of the CentrnI Government. New Delhi, the Uth December. 2001

5. The Government Company shall abide by such S.O. 3452.—Wheieas on the publication of the notification

direction and conditions as may be given or imposed of Hie Government of India in the Nfinistry of Coal number

by the Central Government for particular areas of S.O. 1284 dated the 29th May. 200], ia the Gazette of Jndia,

the said lands as and when necewuy.

Purt-JI, Section 3, Suh-Seetion (ii), dated the 9th June, 2001,

[No. 4.1015. 6 •S7-I.W/PRIW1 issued imder sub-section (1) of Section 9 of ths Coal Bearing

Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 or* 1957)

SANJAV BAHADUR. Dy. Secy.

(hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the lands and rights

in or over the land, described in the Schedule appended (n

the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land)

vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all

encumbrances under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the

fa id Act;

And whereas, (he Central Government is satisfied that the

Eastern Coalfields Limited. Sanctona, Post Office Dish<5rgarh,

District Burdwan (West Bengal) (hereinafter referred to as

the Government Company) is willing to comply vi ith suoh

terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit

to impose in this behalf;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred bv

sub-section (i) of Section II of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that said lands and all rights in

or over the said lands vested shall with effect from 9ih June,

2001 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Govern-

ment, vest in the Government Company, subject to the follow-

ing terms and conditions, namely :—•

1. The Government Company shall re-imburse to the

Central Government all payments made in respect

of compensation, interest, damages and the like, a?

determined under the provisions of the said Act

2. A tribunal shall be constituted for the purpose of

determining the amounts payable to the Centra'

Government by the Government Company under

condition (1) and all expenditure incurred in con-

nection with any such tribunal nnd person" appointed

to assist the tribunal shall be borne hy the Govern-

ment Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred

3771 GI/2001—3.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE (Department of Health)

New Delhi, the 12th December, 2001 S.O, 3453.—Whereas the Supreme Court of India in its Order dated' the 15th February, 2001 in LA. Nos. 10—14 in Civil Appeal Nos. HO98—8100/1995 has directed the Dental Council of India to recognized the degrees conferred iiprn three appellants within a period of one month from the date of the Order.

And whereas the Supreme Court of India in its Older dated the J8th September, 2001 in IA Nos. 15—17, 18—20, 21—23 and 24—26 and Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 189—191/2001 in Civil Appeals Nos. 8098—8100/1995 has extended the Order made by the Court on the 15th February, 2001 to the batches ' passing' out in the years 1989-1990, 1990-yl and 1991-92 and has directed the Dental Council of India and tho Union of India to take • further steps to implement the Order dated the 15th February, 2001 within a period of one month from the 18th September, 2001.

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the Order dated the 18th September, 2001 of th;: Supreme Court of India and in exer- cise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of- the Dentist Act 1948 (16 of 1948), the Central Govern- ment, after consultation with the Dental Council of India,.

hereby makes the following further amendments in Pnrt I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

In Part I of the Schedule, against serial No. 38 relating to Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga, in column 2, under the recognized dental qualification "Bachelor of Dental Surgery", the following shall be inserted namely :—-

"The above qualification shall be recognized dental qualification in respect of BDS students of S. M. Naqui Imam Dental College, Darbhanga, if granted in or before 1997".

[F. No. V-12018/1/2001-PMS]

S. K. RAO, Director (ME) MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND POVERTY ALLEVfATrON New Delhi, the 31st October, 2001

S.O. 3454.—In partial modification of Noiifi- auion No. 25011/7/85-W.3/EW. I, dated 22nd September 2000 the Contral Government appoints Shri An;inth Kumar, Minister for Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation as . Chairman of Rajghat • Samadhi Samitti in place of Shri Jagmohan, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 read with sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 4 of the Rajghat Samadhi, Act, 1951 (41 of 1951).

LNo. 25011/7/85-W3/EW./1] SHYAM KAPOOR, Dy. Secy, (Works) 7593 U71GI/2(X)1—47594 THE GAZETTE OF INDTA: DECEMBER22,2001/PAUSHA1,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(il)] 75957596 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER22,2001/PAUSHA1,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(tt)] 7597

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

New Delhi, the 14th December, 2001

S. O.3455.— Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of Petroleum products from the Panewadi (Manmad) terminal in the State of Maharashtra, an extension pipeline to Manglya (Indore) in the State of Madhya Pradesh should be laid by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ;

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 of land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

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 righy of user therein ;

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, Shri V.P. Pathak, Mumbai-Manmad Pipeline Extension Project, Bharat Pertoleum Corporation Limited, 26, Park Road, Indore-452003 (Madhya Pradesh).

SCHEDULE

STATE : MADHYA PRADESH

TEHSIL: KASRAVAD

DISTRICT: KHARGONE

AREA IN HECTARE

SURVEY NO.

NAME OF VILLAGE

55 1. GYANPURA

0.0B84 0.0679

54 (G.DRAIN)

53

0.1037

0.0937

50/1 ~)

50/2 r

50/3 J

52

51

48(GL)

0.1115

0.4427

0.0688

47(G.DRAIN)

46(GL)

44

43

41

40

35(GL)

36

0.0208

0.1614

0.1454

0.3259

0.3390

0.4296

0.1993

0.1333

1 (NARMADA RIVER)

0.7203

2. KOTHRA

38 (Road)

37

41/2/1

41/2/2

79

'78

53

76/1/1

73/2

72

71

0.0085

0.2700

0.2736

0.0156

0.1944

0.1775

0.0691

0.1619

0.2437

0,3497

0.2279

67 (G.DRAIN)

3. NAGAWA

48

0.0300

0.0967

41 (G.DRAIN)

52

0.0212

0.0633 7599 INAME OF VILLAGE

SURVEY NO.

AREA IN HECTARE

NAGAWA (Cont'd)

53/2

0.0135

0.1205

53/3

0.0035

53/1/1

0.2680

53/1/2

0.1630

37

0.0354

32 (RIVER)

0.0936

9

0.0070

8/1

0.1453

13

0.1949

12/1

0.2410

12/2

0.1134

15/1

0.0106

100(RIVER)

4. CHICHALI

567(PAHAD)

0.1662

0.2455

562

0.0586

563(GL)

502 (G.DRAIN)

0.0186

0.1602

5. AURANGPURA

11

0.3547

13(PAHAD)

0.0801

12

26(GL)

0.3662

0.1600

24

0.2478

25(GL)

0.0686

32

0.2594

34

0.0076

36(GL)

0.0419

35

37(GL)

0.0152

0.1297

40

0.019C

41(GCT)

0.7553

43

6. SATARATI

0.1090

50

0.1512

49(GL)

48

0.0812

0.0624

11 (OL)7600 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA;DECEMBER22,2001/PAUSHA1,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

NAME OF VILLAGE

SURVEY NO.

AREA IN HECTARE

I

SATARATI (Cont'd)

7

0.0576

3/3

0.2128

3/2

3/1

J

9

0.0052

10(GL)

0.0524

12

0.3160

13(GL)

0.3741

14(GL)

0.0774

7. JAROLI

262

0.3781

271/1

0.0763

}

271/2

270

0.4111

275/1

0.0061

276/1

0.0873

276/2

0.1248

276/3

0.0028

277/4

0.0312

277/5

0.0953

278/1

0.1010

256 (GCT)

0.0099

255

0.1864

253

0.2057

252

0.2065

8. BUGUN

47 (Borad River)

0.0972

' 48(GL)

0.0600

46/1

0.5500

46/2

"II

46/3

46/4

[ J

44(GL)

0.0387

37/2

0.1416

37/1

0.2429

38/3 & 38/4

0.1300

33

0.4279 icm INAME OF VILLAGE 1

| SURVEY NO. |

AREA IN HECTARE

BIJGUN (Cont'd)

32/1 -i

0.1650

32/2 r

32/3

3 (G.DRAIN)

0.0341

2

0.0600

9. PIPRI

36

0.1152

35 (Road)

0.0226

4 (G.DRAIN)

0.0057

1

0.0170

2(ROAD)

0.0113

3/2/1 1

0.1723

3/2/2 J

[No, R-31015/38/2001OR-H] HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy :-r>\c,i7(m— 57602 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 22,2001/PAUSHA1,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 18th December, 2001

S. 0.3456.— in pursuance of clause(a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) and in supersession of the earlier notification number S.O.1990 dated 6th September, 2000, the Central Government hereby authorises Shri Ram Karan Sharma, District Revenue Officer, Governmet of Haryana, on deputation to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited to perform the functions of the Competent Authority for the Mundra-Bhatinda Pipeline of Guru Goblnd Singh Refineries Limited, under the said Act within the territory of State of Haryana.

[No. R-31O15/5/2OO1OR-H]

HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.

7")1

New Delhi, ihc 19th December, 2001

s. o. 3457.— Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 1404 dated the 18th June, 2001 issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transport of petroleum products from Chennai to Madurai via Tiruchirapalli in the State of Tamil Nadu by Petronet CTM Limited ;

And, whereas, copies of the said gazette notifications were made available to the public from 9.7.2001.

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

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

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

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

SCHEDULE

Taluk: Tlruvaltur

District: Tfruvalfur

State: Tamil Nadu

Area

Survey no. Sub-Division no. Hectare Are

Name of the Village 1

4

2

3

Sqmtr. 0

5

NO.136 THODUKAOU

99 14

75

0

01

State: Tamil Nadu

Taluk: Madurantakam

District: Kanchlpuram

Area

Sub-Division no.

Sq.mtr. Name of the Village

Hectare Are

Survey no.

1

6

4

5

2

3

88

0

10

93

1C

NO.16.CHITHAMUR

[No. R-25011 /7/2001 - OR-I] S CHANDRA SEKHAR, Under Secy.

7(^)5

7607•KW THF nAZPTTF. OF INDIA: DECEMBER 22,2001/PAUSHA1,1923 (PART II—SEC. j(n)j 7609 3771 GI/2(X)1—67610 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:DECEMBER22,2(X)1/PAUSHA 1,1921 [PART LI—SEC 3(ii)] 76117612 Tl IE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22,2001/PAUSHA 1, 1923 [PART II—Sr/-. l(ii)| 76137614 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA; DECEMBER 22,2001/PAUSHA1,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 76157()|,, THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 22. 200I/PAUSHA 1. l'J2T JPxRHJ—hK. •. -^ 7617 3771GI/2001—77618 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DECEMBER22,2001/PAUSHA 1,1923 [PAKI II—Sr.r.^ii)! 7619 7620 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER22,2001/PAUSHA1,1923 |PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 7621 7622 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 22,2001/PAUSHA1,1923 [PAIU II—SEC. 3(ii)] 7623

New Delhi, the 21 si December. 2

s. o. 3458.— Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest, that for the transportation of crude oil from Crude OU Terminal (COT) at Mundra Port in the State of Gujarat to Bhatinda in the State of Punjab, through Mundra - Bhatinda pipeline, a pipeline should be laid by Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited (a subsidiary of Hinudstan Petroleum Corporation Limited);

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying Ihe 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 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 the notification under sub- section (1) of section (3) of the said Act, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, Shri A.R. CHAUDHARY, Mundra ~ Bhatinda Crude Oil Pipeline, Punjab Refinery Project, Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited (a subsidiary of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited), L.P.G. Bottling Plant, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited), Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur -342005.

7 6 24 T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D I A: D E C E M B ER 2 2 , 2 0 0 1 / P A U S H A 1 , 1 9 23

[ P A RT I I — S E C. 3 ( i i )] •

SCHEDULE

Tehsll : Bhinmal District : Jalore State : Rajasthan

Survey No.

Part if Any

Sr.

Name of Village

ROU - Area

Hect | Are. | Sq.mt

No.

2

1

3

4

1 KOTRA

20 90

167 118 117

00 00

112 111

Asphalted Road G.L. P.W.D. G.M. Gauchar G.L, Govt. Land Oran CT Kotra to Malwara G.L.

0 0 0 0 0

11 05 36 03 01 00

94 80

0 0

05 02

0 0

06 00

08 97 54 10

05

83 82 84 85

0 0

0

0

88 87 86

28 64 27 50 65

0 0

72 47

0

04 03 06 02 11 06

80 54

73

00 10

01 12

45 46

0 0 0

0

06 34

89 01 10

0 0

00 17 05

98 64

33 40 36 37 13 Sukri River G.L.

0 0

10

0

21 23

12 5

31

00 80

0 0 18 00 2 DHANPURA

4 60

0

04

11 00

45 48

0 0

75 19

17 01 15

20 53

50 47 42

0 0 0 0

15 86

14 20 16

39 19

45 12

00 16

0 0 0 0

82 66

20 18 17 1

0

19 30 62 7625 Tehsil: Bhinmal District: Jalore State : Rajasthan

Part if Any

Survey No.

Name of Village

ROU-Arva

Hect | Are. |Sq.mt

Sr. No.

3

2

1

4 3 SAVIDHAR

1722

15 06 01

12

30 71 95 03

245 243 243 244 241

18 09 06

48 86 26

01 01

221 223 219 224 225 226

13 13

00

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11

229 228 232 215

0 0

06 18

0

211 208

00 23 00

0 0 0

1708; Cart track G.L

14 01

205 207 180 180 Govt land (Canal) Nahar

0 0 04

35 96 71 38 42 62 09 28 42 42 33 32 80 70

25

00 11 85 10

10 05

169 168 167 166 164

15 08 08 00

80

02 09 23 00 10 96 60

87 77

165 123 120 121 122 125 115 114

113 106

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

12 23 13 13 14 04

60 79 62 4 BHADARDA

0 03 64

663 658

04 16

96

662 659

0 0 n

27 S3 3771 GI/2(K)1—87626 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER22,2001/PAUSHA 1,192.1 [PART 11—Six 3

Tehsll : Bhlnmal District: Jalore State : Rajasthan

Name of Village

Survey No.

Part If Any

ROU-Area

H*ot | Are. Sq.mt

Sr. No.

3

2

1

655

4

0 00 50 BHADARDA

4

654

0 45 32 (Contd.)

660

653 610

0 03 00 0 02

Cart track G.L

563 555

567 554

539 541 540

538 537 536

521

45" 460 461 463

462 464

Road G.L P.W.D.

247 246 466 60 63 67

68 71 40 39 38 37

Metalled Road G.L. P.W.D.

72 10

11 12

1074

13 24 14

0 01 0 45 0 02

56 32 18 27 63

67 53 0 23 0 00 0 28 0 06 00 0 17

0 00

0 02 0 24 0 02

48 76 00 75 40

67 43 0 02 0 15 0 17 60 0 24

0 00

43 50

47 0 01 0 02 25

20 40 28 50 0 38 0 02 0 01 0 35 0 07 90

45 90 0 29 0 12 0 04 0 14

47 79 0 17

0 00

97 08 40

70 0 02 0 08 0 13 0 11

55- 43 0 10 0 01

0 09

86 39 30 7627 Tohsil : Bhinmal Dlstriot: Jalore State: Rajasthan Name of Village Survey No.

Part if Any

ROU - Area

Hoct

| Sq.mt

Sr. No.

I Are.

3

4

2

1

15

21

0

60

70 5 1

SAJIPURA

Govt, land (Gauchar)

00 12 10

4 2 194 193 192

190

191

02 30 13 07 07 05 19

15

0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 13

98 44 20 50 95 53

0 0

0 0

183 184 185 55 52 51 25 26 27

03 65 54 24 91 57

11 02 24 01 00 22 23 02 00

28 19 18

78 33 32

Cart track G.L

69 141

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

19 01 09 10 00

05

09 02

139 138 90 91 92 88

96 20 43 90 96 88 97 04 00

30 35

00 04 10 15 01 38 18

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

88

95 94 96 97 114 113 110

109

10 04

Cart track G.L

25 02

02 02 2£ 09 12 02 00 14

108 156 486 487

0 0 0 0 0 0 09 237628 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: PECEMBER22,200I/PAUSHA 1,1923 _5J^j^^l^_

TehsH : Bhinmal District : Jalore State : Rajasthan

ROU - Area

Part if Any

Survey No.

Name of Village

Hoct

] Sq.mL

| Are.

Sr. No.

3

4

2

1

64 GAJIPURA

S

15

(Contd.)

60 73

08 14 03

0 0 0 0 0

90 27 491 490 492 493 6820

BHINMAL

6

85

0 0 0 0

60 85 00

01 24 00 25 01

0

01

Govt. Land

6821 6814 681 a 6822 6824

6812

0 0

00 03 05

Govt, land

22 15

6841 6842 6843 6857

0 0 0

6858

0

6859

0

6856

0

6855 6870 Cart track G.L

0 0 0

60 93 75 18 52 98 28 79 10 17 55 40 6877 6879 6000

Govt, land Govt, land (Pacca Road) P.W.D.

09 27 00 06 01 02 02 10 06 44 5999 Govt, land

58

Govt, land

5998 5979

0 0 0 0 0

7041; Govt. Land

00 40 64 5967 5967

5968 5968 7040 ; Govt. Land

0 0 0 0

96 14 56

0

00 11 08 07 03 47 01 34

5969 5970

0 00

5973

0 09

0 18

5971 5972

Govt. Land

Govt. Land

00

5956 Cart track G.L

0 0 02 33

5952 5854

Govt land

Govt, land (Kotra) River

Govt, land

5852

Govt, land

08 11 04

5853 5587

0 0 0 0 0 31

98 62 80 93 27 52 63 28 10 32 20 7629 Tehsll : Bhinmal District: Jalore State : Rajasthan Name of Village

Part if Any

Survey No.

ROU - Area

Hoot

Sq.mt

Sr. No.

3

2 | Are.

4

6980; Govt. Land

6

5587 5588 BHINMAL (Contd.)

5586

5590 0

0

17 04

17 00 0 05

0 07

16

0 0 14

40 40 75 90

81

Govt, land River

5591 5594 5568 5599 5558 5429

5428

5400 5427

55 90 24 70

02 31 33 51

01 50

15

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

99 46

Govt, land

Govt, land

Govt, land

5426 5425 5405

5406

5408 5409

5370

5367 5364 0 0

05 00 08

55 10

39 54

01 43 0 0 0 04 65 0 40 04

Cart track G.L

5304

5305 5339

5306 5307

5308 0 0

52 01

60 03 0 0

28 14

0 02

23

07 31

0 0 0 0 07

Govt, land (SH- 31 Road) P.W.D

5311 5181 5100 5098

5099

5092

5090 5088

5087 5082 5079

G.M. Nala G.L. G.L.

5080

05

0 0

20 63 78 78 83 11 30 60 24

03 16 95 0 0 13 20 0 62 94 0

0

10 05

86 81

09 36

40 0 0 0

03 04

0 33

50 60 " ^ (i

T HE G A Z E T TT OF I N D IA • D E C H M B E R 2 2, 2 0 0 1 / P V J S HA J. 1 9 73

( P , Y KI I I- S P C. 3 ( i i )J

Tehsll : Bhinmal District: Jalore State: Rajasthan

Part if Any

Survey No.

ROU-Aroa

Name of Village

HecL

Are. |

Sr. No.

Sq.mt

3 r

2

1

5067

4

13- 09 6 BHINMAL

Khariwada River

Govt.,U"d

(Contd/I

5058 5057 5059

07 14 00

Q Q 0 0

0

11 51 12 65

Govt. Land

Cart track G.L

4994 4971

01 01

0

22

01

0

Cart track G.L

4970

4969 4967

4966

4960

18

0

60 71 65

04

0

26

0 0

51 80 0

Cart track G.L

4852 4869 4868

' 4867

4866

4866

4779 4778

7023 Nada G.L. Govt, land ( Railway) Govt, land ( Railway) Govt, land

4692 4693 4707

4683

12 01 20

0

60 28

24

0

32

20

0

48

08 00 30

15

0 0 0

18

04 03 90 0 0

40 98 0 0

06 31 34 24

0

91 30

Govt, land

4684

4681 4680

Cart track G.L.

4679 4678 4721 1439 1438 1433

1437

1436 1434 1418 0 09 01 0 08 10 0

16 44 0 0

29 37 09

0

0

04 56 80 0

01 15 04 20 0 04

0 44

68 27 0

38

00 33

0

20 0 27 40 7(>3\ Tehsil : Bhlnmal District: Jalore State: Rajasthan

Part if Any

Survey No,

Name of Village

Sr.

ROU - Area \ Sq.mt.

Are.

Nect

No.

2

3

1419

1

BHINMAL

6

(Contd.)

1411 1410 1395

1392

0 0

57 02

4 24 71 0b 22

0 0 0

52 40 90

19 02

0

Cart Track G.L

1391 1390

1375 169G

52

0

28

55 25 61 0

09

NARTA

7

KUSHLAPURA

1695 1674

1658 1646

1673

1645 1644

1637

. 1555 1558 1559

1560

1561

1570 1566 G.L Bl

1569

Cart track G.L.

1596 1468 1467 1440

1438

1437 1441

1444 1443

1442 Cart track G.L. 0 0 !6 01 00

0 0

35 03. 47 61

46

0

77

01 11 0 0 04

0

60 14

16

0

60

16 13 30 0 0 09 09

70 70 0 0 12 90

07

0

80

40 40 0 0 06 40 0 01 00 60 0 0 0 * 0

01 28 01 49

12 03 15 0 06 00

00 01 0 0 01 00 0 0

00 07

19 51 0 01 507632 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA • DECEMBER 22,2001/PAUSHA1,1923 [PART II—SF.O. 3(ii)]

Tehsll: Bhinmal District : Jaloro State : Rajasthan

Part If Any

Survey No.

DU - Area

Name of Village

Are. Sq.mt

Sr. No.

3 1

7

2 1419 1414

NARTA KUSHLAPURA (Contd.)

1415

1404 1402

River G.L. 8

R( Heot |

60 0 0

4 13 13

0 36

20 10

40 0 0

36 01 78 0 01 32

22 05 CHAK CHANDAPAN

Cart track G.L.

1401 1403 1338 315 312 242 189

193 194

237

238 239 240

241 235 227 228 226

221 219 218

215

213

212 211 246 247

248 249

269

0 0 0 0

01 20 51 14

3.8 40

04 06

10 65

08 05 0 p 0 0 06

0 00 12

30 01 80 0 0 0

06 07

50 15 0 23

0 03

61 84 0 24

0 02 20

90 22 38 0 0 20 14

0 0

35 70 90 0

18 19 90

06 35 0 0 15 12 0 20 88 11

22 06 01

0 . 0 0 0

52 93 96 0

32 30 85 7(il3 Tehsil: Bhinmal District: Jalore State : Rajasthan

Part if Any

Survey No.

Name of Village

Sr.

No.

3

2

1

265

8

ROU - Area Hect Are. Sq.mt

4

28

00

0 0

97 09 CHAK- CHANDAPAN

264 253

(Contd.)

254 105

23

0

88 0

59 48

37 10 0 0

00 15

9 KHANDADEWAL

01

0

20

River G.L

Nahar G.L

325 334

440

439

438

Cart Track G.L.

441

462

459

458

457

456

455

434

452

451

450

444

493

494

496

497

516

30

11

50

25

0 0

81

43

0

13

0

22

01

0

82 0 0

12 08

52 73 0 04

0

83 50 0

26 34 65 0 01 00 0 26 07

15 25 0 0

0

15 19

0

00 10 90

38

94

20

0 0

11

0 29

40 73 0 0

60 09

Canal G.L

521

520

548 Cart track G.L.

794

792

791

787

790

1771 G1/2001—9

0

82

15 0 0

29

03 01 24 01 06

10 0

0

15 00 86 0 00 33 0 04 637M4 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:DECEMBER22,2001/PAUSHA I, 1923 [PAR: II—-Str. 3(ii)|

Tehsil : Bhinmal District : Jalore State: Rajasthan

Part If Any

Survey No.

Name of Village

ROU - Area Hect | Are. Sq.mt Sr. No.

3

1

4 0 09

9 KHANDADEWAL

03 72 (Contd.)

0 02 0 04 80 83

0 09 0 30 98 06

0 07 1 41

10 NASOLI

2 789 788 772 773 768 767 481 River G.L.

0 03

1027

461 481

0 01

1028

457

0 00

0 09

65 71 29 43 97 48

0 16 0 00 92

0 15

0 10

80 20

Cart Track G.L

0 02 00

0 50 00

01

Bala G.L.

0 00 0 13 00

0 01

0 38

0 02

48 22 90

0 15 0 01

458 459 460 462 467 466 434 433 399 395 389 387 388 372 595 594

0 19 0 05

593

0 00 0 19 0 17

Bera

0 00 0 01

0 05

0 16

0 00

596 598 601 603 602 600 604 607 Cart Track G.L

0 01

90 80 00 70 01 90 20 01 54 68 90 01 40 7635 Tehsil: Bhinmal District: Jalore State : Rajasthan

Part if Any

Survey No.

Name of Village

Sr.

ROU - Area Are.

| Sq.mt

No.

3

2

1

611

10

Hect |

4

04 14 NASOLI

(Contd.)

609 608

0 0 39 96

Cart track G.L

Oran G.L.

729 732 749

750

748 747

24 00 01 0 0 0

02 02 00 16

0

90 0

00 05

09 17

0

10

32

0 0

60

Cart track G.L

Oran G.L. Cart Track G.L.

746 954 971

Oran G.L. Bhagar Septa Road G.L.

317 284

Oran G.L.

283 280

186 187

Cart track G.L.

185

148 149

155

151 154

153 160

161 162 163 164

167

Cart track G.L.

140

115 112 111

0

70 00

01 71 02

0 0

80

93

0 02 00 59 0

0

76 01 26 22 0

80

22 18

0 0

20 18

02 02

0 0

60

12

0

80

33

64 0 00 17

0

0 0

42 91 55

12 12

0 0

57 62

23 16

0

38

09 04

0

30 0 00

0

01 00

02

0 02 15

0 0

68 49 55

177M6 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. DECEMBER 22,2001/PAUSH A1,1923 [PAR I 11—SEr. 1(ii)]

Tehsil : Bhinmal District: Jalore State: Rajasthan

Survey No.

Part if Any

Name of Village

Sr.

Hoot

ROU - Area Are.

| Sq.mt

No.

3

2

1

10 NASOLI (Contd.)

110 109 108

107

105 106

98

97

66 74 58

4 18 00 15 08

0 0 0 0 0 00

95 01 0 29 50 0 0

14 06

88 40 0 05 12

Cart Track G.L

87 22 1019 0 0

03 04

26 53 DHANSA

11

1018

1016

1015 1014

1013 1048

1049 1050

1051

1052

1053

1007 Cart Track G.L.

604 605

606 607 608

642

643

644

645

646 650

651 0 19

0 30

45 81 0 38 96

03 07 0 0

0

11 19

86 80

26 0 0

22 24

0 30

28 83 0 22

0

80 01

00

0 04 50 0

40

19 17

0 0

25 85 40 0 0

18 17 21 20 0 25 85

15 51 0 0 15 59 0

33 0

15 00 64

20

0 0 39

94 04 7637 Tohsll: Bhinmal District: Jaloro State : Rajasthan N a me of Village Survey No.

Part If Any

Hect

I Sq.mt

Sr. No.

3

1

11 DHANSA (Contd.)

3924

Cart Track G.L

3658

Cart Track G.L.

2 655 654 656 656 667 677 678 682 683 684 688 695 696 699 698 713 714 715 718 348 347 719 346 327 720 324 323 309 308 724 725 726 747 748 750

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

R OU - Area | Are. 4 18 08 00 12 01 09 20 26 20 18 30 17 18 13 18 41 22 00 01 16 24 01 29 04 22 08 17 25 02 03 25 35 31 56 29

87 63 33 20 00 30 09 60 96 00 65 25 55 50 77 90 30 01 20 65 40 42 70 32 23 67 68 13 88 01 20 70 70 50 957638 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 22,2001/PAUSHA1,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

T"hsil : Bhinmal District: Jalora State: Rajasthan

Part if Any

Nam* of Villas*

Survey No.

Sr.

ROU • Area

Hoot

I Are.

Sq.mt

No.

3

2

0

1

DHANSA

752

11

751

(Contd.)

753 783

784 787

788 791

275

4 26 39 0 01 94 0 0

40 24

70 20 0 22 80 0 0

16 13

83 00 0 29 18,

Cart Track G.L

88

86 87

0

50

10 19

0

79

Cart Track G.L

792

Cart Track G.L.

89 98 99

101

197

195

196 192

191

183 180 174

173

266 Cart Track G.L. Cart Track G.L.

156 152

G.L Bl

267 267 4051

Asphalted Road G.L. P.W.D.

2117 2180

2181

4050

2179

0 0

00 00

20 18 0 04 02 0 0

25 01

90 00 0 14 50 0 14 60 0 33 93

00 60 0 0

40 0

00 17

0 14

99 45

40

51 00

0 0 0 26

37 73

67 00 0 0 0

00 00

01 60

76 50 0 0

0

35 26

00 50 0 0

01 00

60 01

44 40 0 0 31 13 76TJ Tehsll: Bhinmal District: Jalorw State: Rajasthan

Survey No.

Part if Any

Name of Village

Sr. No.

3 1

Cart Track G.L.

2 2210

11

ROU • Area Hect Alt. Sq.mt

4

01

0

40 80

4008; G.L Bl

2234

DHANSA (Contd.)

2234 2235

0 0

70 0 0

01 13 16 12 17

15 98 41 0

00 84

4010 ; G.L Bl

0 0

70 00

17 01

0

G.L Bl

Cart Track G.L

2238 2239 2239 2227 2258

2360 2361

2362

2358 2359

G.L. B I

2320 2331 G.L B I

2317 2261

80

03

0

42

30

0 0

30 00

32 42 00

0 0

80

52

0

30 00

24

0 0

90 0

10

Cart Track G.L

G.L. Padat

2264

00 07 25

0

90 60

23

3682 ; G.L. B I

2268 2268 2271

2273

0 0

90

00 0 0

Cart Track G,L

G.L Bl

2276

2455 2455

3808 3807; G.L G.M.

2455

0

70 50

44 01 10 28 25 66

50 00 0 0 1

0

River G.L.

3809

2455 2455 2898

3787 3789

2899 2897

G.L B II

2894 2895

2885

94 00 00 01

60 01 37 31 0 0 0 22 28

54 72

05

0 0 0 19

0 69

28 22 76 7 6 40 T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA • D E C E M B E R 2 2 , 2 0 0 1 / P A U S H A 1 , 1 9 23 [ P A RT I I — S E C. 3 ( i i )1

Tonsil: Bhlnmal District: Jalore State : Rajasthan

Survey No.

Part if Any

Namo of Village

ROU-Area

Hect | Are. | Sq.mt.

Sr. No.

3

2

1

4

11 DHANSA

3772 ; G.L Chahi III

(Contd.)

2877 2877 2876

02 40

50 00 0 0 0 22 00 88

13 01

3731;NadiG.L

2878 2878

2869

Cart Track G.L.

2868 2906

3160

2867 3159 3149

3148

3152 3146

3145

3140 1 3949

3140 3131 3134

3062 Nada G.L.

3063

3064 3057

3055

3056

3005 3006

2986 2985

2960

2965 2963

2964

3886

2966 2966 2934

2967

0 0

31

0

12 77

43 0 0

05 03 01

0

50 42 0 04 65

10 0 0

26 72

02

68 14 0 0 03 99 0 22 40 0

40 0

23 30 70 0 03

28

20 60 0 0

20 0

25 00 01

00

0 0 57

01 60 0

30 0

31 02 00 0 31 35 0

50

32 20 33

50 50 0 0 0 45

0 06

50 90 0 12 20

08 0 0

02 12 72 0 0

70 85

02 19 08

0 0 12

55 55 [No. R-31015/39/2001OR-II] HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.

MINISTRY OP LABOUR

New Delhi, the 22nd November, 2001 S.O. 3459.—In pursuance'of Section 17 of the Industral Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of-1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the nnnexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management Of Central Bank of India and their workman, which WHS received by the Central Gov- ernment on 22-11-2001.

['No. L-12O11|85|99-IR(B-I1)I C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRtBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Wednesday., the 24th October, 20(>l • .

!.. , . . . . ' • ' • • >- : • • ' '-

PRESENT:

""•""i K. Knrthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

INDUSTRIAL DJSPUTE NO. 300(2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial "Tribunal I.D. No, 324199) (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d> of Sub-Section (J) and, Sub-section, 2(,A) oft Section, 10 -of the Industrial¹ Disputes Act, 1941 (U of 1947), between the Workman Smt. Baby Kala and the Management of Central Bank of India, Chennaj.)

BETWEEN

The General Secretary, " Central Bank of Tndia Staffs Union' : \ Par'ty]CIaimant.

AND

The. Assistant Genera) Manager, Central Bank of India • ; TJ Party[Management, APPEARANCE:

For the Claimant : M|s. K. M. Ramesh, K. Viswnna- than and A.N, Kumar, Advocates.

For the Management : M|s, J, S. Gopalan and Co. Advocates,

The Govt, of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause jfd) of Sub-section (1,1 and Sub- section 2(A) of Seclion 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred,the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order Np. L-1201 ll$5|99|[R(B-H) dated 30-11-1999.

This reference has been .made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as J.D. No. 324|99, When the matter was pend/njp enquiry in that Tribunal, the Govt of India,-Ministi'y,of Labour was doused 3771 GT/20m~\X).

7641 Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records irom mar Tribunal, (he case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 3OOJ20O1 and notices were sent lo the counsel on record on cither side, informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 13-2-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on eilher side present with their respctive parties and prosecuted this case further.

When the matter came up before me for final hearing on R-10-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, the docu- mentary evidence let in on cither side and upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and this matter having stood over till this date for conside- ration, this Tribunal has passed the following : —

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of reference by the Central Government for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :-—

"Whether the Management of Central Bank of India Is justified in not empanelling Mrs. Baby Kala, Telex Operator for the post of Computer Terminal OpcJ rator? If so to what relief the workman is entitled to?" "

2, The industrial dispute has been rinsed by the Central Bank of India Stall Union bv its General Secretary espousing the cause of the workman Smt. N. Baby Kala, mentioning' that the action of the management of Central Bank of India in not giving Computer Terminal Operator post to the con- cerned workman w.e.f. 1-3-1997 is unjustified find demand- ing the II Party|Management (o give that post to the con- cerned workman w.c.f. 1-3-1997 and to grant her monetary benefits of allowance till she was actually given that post on 21-11-1997.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement of the T Pfirtyl Claimant|Central Bank of India Staff Union are briefly as follows :—

Smt. N. Baby Kala, the concerned workman had joined the service of (he II PartylManagementlCentral Bank of India (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 17-4-1 <>7R. The concerned workman appeared for Computer Terminal Ope- rator selection process conducted bv the Respondenl|Bank tin 30-3-1996 and found successful in the said process. The selection process is based on the performance of the candi- date in the aptitude test. She was empanelled for Compuler Terminal Operator by n list dated 6-2-1997 nt SI. No. 66. The Chennai Region of the Respondent|Bank was giving Computer Terminal Operator posting as ner seniority of cmoanelmcnt as per the rules set out in the Chennai Regional Office circular dated 30-3-1996. Tn the said Circular, it is stated in the 4th paragraph that "the posting of successful candidates will be nvde on mrional basis in accordance with (heir seniority and avni'ability of vacancy". The circular was followed upto a particular point of time. The empanelled candidates were awaiting orders as per the seniority for posting as Computer Terminal Operator. While so, the Res- pondent IBank camp forward with a circular dated 5-2-19'>7, redcsiijnaling the Telex Operators who have been operating ,PC bused telex machine on permanent basis ns Computer Tormina] Operators w.e.f. ]-3-97. In view of that circular, the funions to the concerned workman Smt. N. Baby Kala were nosted as Computer Terminal Operators. Mrs. Sandhva in SI No. 67 and Mr. Raian in SI. No. 77 and Mr. Seshadri, who was not nt all in (he list empanelled were posted ns Computer Terminal Operators. The circular issued by the Central Office dated 5-2-1997 cannot be sustained as it docs not stand to anv reason or basis The action of the Respon- dent in crostinp persons worked in PC based Telex as Com- puter Termma] Operator overlooking the senioritv of i-m- pancinient is aaainst the v ry circular issued bv the Resruin- dentlRank earlier, when it conducted the s-Iection process for Computer Terminal Operator. The Respondent IBank after nnnoiinrin" n particular mode for selection 7642 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2001/PAUSA 1, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 Federation as bargaining ajpnt to represent its workman. To the knowledge of the Rspondent, the Petitioner Union does not command membership from among a substantial section of the workmen of the Respondent|Banfc. As the issue referred to adjudication can only form subject matter of an industrial dispute under Section 2(ki) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Petitioner Union i" bound to prove its representa- tive character a* well as its authority and competence to raise the dispute. The Petitioner Union is also put to strict proof that a substantial section of the Workman of the Respondent have decided to take up the cttusc of the con- cerned workman and authorised it to raise the dispute.

manual or PC based telex is nothing but arbitrary and un- reasonable. It is not for the employee to choose the maqhine and the employees have to work on the machine provided by the bank. Hence, the question of working in a particular machine for getting Computer Terminal Operator without any regard for senloiity is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary. If the bank wanted to attach weightage for PC based telex operators and to promote them to Computer Teiminal Ope- rators, it should have made known iis intention at the earliest, so as to enable the senior telex operators to opt for PC based telex operator post to set the posting as Computer Terminal Operator. It is not open to the bank to give the post of Computer Terminal Operator, an allowance carrying post to juniors and raw hands, when seniors who are working as Telex Operators for years together are waiting in the empanelled list. The Petitioner Union protested against the action of the bank in its letter dated 22-10-1997 addressed to (he Regional Manager of the Rcspondent|Bank. The con- cerned workman has also made a representation on 25-6-1997 to the Regional Munni'er of the Respondent|Bank. However, the R.espondent|Bank hud not chosen to give any reply and deliberately kept silent. The Respondent]Bank has been favour- ing the mcmbeis of A1BEA Union and is adopting step motherly attitude towards the members of the Petitioner Union. This is no! him; but gross discrimination and unfair labour practice. The Petitioner Union raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) by its letter dated 2-1-1998. During the course of concilia- tion proceedings, ihe Respondent! Bank adopted a stiff ntti- tude and was not willing for a negotiated settlement. The Conciliation Officer was therefore, left with no alternative but to clv^e the conciliation proceedings and reported failure of conciliation talks to the Govt, of India, This reterence has been made by the Govt, of India to this Hon'hle Tribunal for adjudication. The grievance of the Petitioner Union is that even af IT the cmpanclment, the said Smt. N. Baby Kala had not been given posting as Computer Terminal Operator when her turn came, due to the sudden change in the decision of the RspondentIBank in posting Computer. Terminal Operator from amnnii the employees who had worked in PC ivwd telex machines notwithstanding the fact whether such employee is junior or senior. The attitude of the Respondent in givina posting as Computer Terminal Operator to juniors to the concerned workman is arbitrary and discriminatory.

4. The General Secretary of the T Party Union has filed an affidavit with an additional plea stating that Smt. N. Baby Kala wns working in non-business office at Chennai which was fully computerised long back. Severs] vacancies were existing for Computer Terminal Operator in the said non-business office. Notwithstanding the vacancies, sbc was not itiven posiinu as Computer Terminal Operator on 1-3-1997. Instead of giving the post v>f Computer Terminal Operator on I-3-1047. Smt. N. Baby Kala was made to continue as Telex Operator and offlciatinH as Encode Opera- tor till November, 1997. Then hv un order dated 18-11-97, Smt, N. Bahv Kala WHS transferred t-o Ntineambakkam branch and was pivrn the post of Commitcr Terminal Ooerntor. Thus, the said Smt. N, Baby Kala had been deliberately denied the post of Computer Terminal Operator till Novem- ber, 1997 even thoueh there existed vacancy in non-business office. Fven otherwise, ihere existed several vacancies of Computer Terminal Operator in various branches of the TI PartvlManai'emcnt in the citv of Madras. The said Smt. N. Bahv Kaln outfit to have been given the post of Com- puter Terminal Operator in any one of the branches in the citv on and from 1-1-1997. when her juniors were given the said post nf Computer Terminal Oncralor. The T Party' Union submits that Smt. N. Rabv Kala who is a member of the T PartvlTJnion is not willine to irive un her m-oneiarv claim of allowance w.rf. 1-V1997. This Hon'ble Tribunal mav be pleased i-n hold thiu the action of the TT Paitv Management in not civin" the post of Computer Terminnl Operator to the concerned workmnn Smt N. Babv Kala w.e.f. 1-3-97 is not justified nnd to direct the IT Partvl Vfrtnaue- ment to eivc her the monetary benefits of allowance, till she was actuniiv given th'- post of Computer Terminal Oprator on 21-11-97.

5. The averments in ttr¹ Counter Statement of the II

ParfylManneement are briefly as folfows :- -

All India Central Bank Employees Federation represents the award staff Mid concludes settlements governirfg their wages, allowances and other service conditions. On 20-12-75, the Respondent and the federation concluded a settlement on promotion policy for Award staff. This settlement was modi- lied and amended pursuant to subsequent settlements made between the Respondent and the Federation, One such settlement dated 2O-1O-S7, inter-alia, dealt with the proce- dure for selection of clerical staff for the post of 'Advanced Ledger Posting Muchi""| Advanced Electronic Accounting Machine Operators, These operators were entitled to spe- cial allowance attached to the post. By an industry-wise settlement dated 29-10-93, it was cgreed to introduce com- puterisation in the banks covered by the settlement. In the Respondent's Bani an agreement was entered into between the bank and Federation which deah with the selection procedure for Comptaw Temwal Operator by which it was agreed that u" and when the need arises for selection of Computer Terminal Operator, applications should be called for from willing "Uff working in the Region aod they will be subject to aptitude test. After pre-*eii training and aj and when they are selected thpy will be given job training for 6 days before giving posting as Computer Terminal Operator on a permanent basis. ALF machines and AEAR machines were upgraded as a computer machines. Hence, the settle- ment dated 29-9-95 provided fur re-designation of existing ALP|AEAR operators at Computer Terminal OpwaWis. Telex machine* wert provided in many of their branches for the purpose, of communication and in the process of computerisation of hook OfKintiong in *oBad]main|big branch es, the above machines were upgraded as computer operated machines, instead of ordinary telex machines. Ai th* emp- loyees operating this computer based telex machine were virtually operating the computers, ihe Federation demanded that all the computer based telex machine operators should also be destfnated as Computer Terminal operators. This issue figured in the. djtewsion with Federatkm on 23-4-96 nnd the bank agreed in principle to eornider the dwntnj. Based on the nvrceement reached i* the discussion on 5-2-97, the Central OfBco of RewondittjBant lawtd a circular con. veym# the decision that all the exfctitg Telex Operator* who have been operating tbe PC bastd telex machine on perma- nent basis shall be redesijmated as Computr Terminal Ope- rators w.e.f, 1-3-97. PurtUMit to this Circular, Mrs. Sandhya, Mr. Rajan and Mr. Seshadri Srinivns, who were woking on computer based telex machine in Chennai 2 eroMovce^ who w"re working m, co"w*t"r b*"d tetex onersto^ •"" Commrter Trrminnl Qptrators. Their i i* wnn rmerMert Therefore, there is no comparison between Sail. N. Baby Kala Thf Tf PartvlM"nnpemcnt ("hereinafter refers to "n Respon- dent) hud recognised the AH India Central Bank Employees' and Mrs. Sandhya, Mr. Raj an and Mr. Seshadri Srinivas who were workinif as PC based tdex operators. In the year 1996, ccnain vacancies were identffitd and candidate? were called tor aptitude test. Tl candidate! including Smt, N. Baby Kala a p p e nd lor the test. All the 77 candidates including Smt. IN. Baby Kala passed the aptitude test and atl of them were empanelled. Atter giving posting for candidates who were ubove Smt. N. Baby Kaia in the panel list, she was apilointed tor inc vacancy which arose in November, 1997. Sjic coukl not be considered tor the po"t la March, |W and she cannot claim parny with Mrs. Sandhya, Mr. Rajan and Mr. Seshadri Srinivas. Tnere is no justification in the claim OJL the Petitioner Union. Tne Hon'ble Tribunal may be phased to make an award rejecting the claim of the Petitioner Union.

6. When the matter was taken up for enquiry before this Tribunal, documents filed on cither side have been marked with the consent of the counsel on either side as Ex. Wl to W6 and Ml to M i l. No one has been examined as a witness on either side. The learned coiflsel on either side have advanced their respective argument*.

7. The point for my consideration, a5 the actual dispute between the parties as per their respective pleas, is—

"Whether the Management of Central flank of India is justified in not giving Mrs. Baby Kala, the post ol Telex Operator w.e.t. 01-03-1997 ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled V" Point:—

This dispute has been raised by the Central Bank of India Start' Union, Chennai espousing the cause of the workman said lo be a member of that Uqion Smt. N. Baby Kala, who was employed as Telex Operator in non-business office in Chennai Region. The Respondent/Bank has raised an objection for the Petitioner Union raiting this mduUristl dispute on behalf of the concerned workman, has stated in their Counter Statement that the Petitioner Union does not command membership from among the substantial section of the work- men of the Respondent/Bank and that the Petitioner Union is bound to prove it* representative character as well as the authority and competence to raise this dispute and that the Petitioner Union lia" to prove that the substantial section of the workmen of the Respondent /Bank have decided lo take up the cause of the concerned workman and authorised Jt to raise this dispute and that they have to prove that they have got authority and competence to raise this dispute. The Peti- tioner Union has not chonen to file any reply statement as an answer to the objection rated by the Respondent /Bank questioning their representative character as well as their authority and competence to raise this, dispute. They have not let fir any evHence fo prove th"t thesubftaritial section of the workmen of the Respondent/Ba^ have decided to take up the cause of the concerned worEman and authorised the Petitioner Union to raise this dispute by filing any authenti- cative document. It is not disputed fnat All India Central Bank Employees Federation represents the Award. Staff and concludes settlements govern lug their wages, allowances and other service conditions. Under silch circumstances, the objections raised by the Respondent/Bank in their Courtier Statement in this regard is sustainable.

8. It is not disputed that the Settlement dated 20-10-87. inter-alia, dealt with the procedure for selection of clerical sttiff for the post of 'Advanced Ledger Posting Machines/ Advanced Electronic Accounting Machine Operators entered into agreement between the Respondent/Bank Management and All India Central Bank Employees Federation representing the Award Staff of the Respondent/Bank. It is also not disputed that these operators ajre entitled to special allowance attached to the post. In pursuance to the introduction of computerisation in the bank*, it it aliened by the Respondent/ Bank in their Counter Statement that an agreement was entered into between the bank and t"h© Federation, which dealt with th" selection procedure for Computer Terminal Operator and thereby it was agreed that as and when the need arises for selection of Computer Terminal Operator, applications should be'called for from witling staff working thi Region and they will be subject to aptitude test and that after pre-lest training and as and when they are selected they will be given job training for days before flivmg posting as Computer Terminal Operator on a permanent b""u and that ALP machines and AEAR machines were upgradid an a computer machines nnrl Hint (hi- ^Htl/menf dnted 294SS nrovkied for rc-

7643 designation of existing Al.F/AEAR operators as Computer 'terminal Operators, l hese allegations had nut been denied or disputed Dy the Petitioner Union. Ex. M3 is the xerox copy ox the extract ol Memorandum ot Settlement dated 29-1 U-y.! between ilie managements ol 58 bunks .is represented by the Indian Banks Association and Workmen as icprcscntcd by the All India Bank .Employees Association. It is Ilic settlement between the Bank Management and the association ot the employees of the bank m respect ot computerisation and mechanisation in banks. Ex, M4 is the >erox copy oi" the Circular dated 29-9-95, extract oL Memorandum ot Agree- ment on selection of Computer Terminal Operators. It is seen from the extract dated 29-9-95 that ilicr; is a provision for redfisignation of existing ALPM/AEAM operators ;is Computer Terminal Operators, which reads as follows : —

"It has been further decided thai all the existing ALPM/ Al.AM operators shall be rcdcsign&icj as Computer Terminal Operators and the relevant allowance as prescribed under Bipartite Settlement Irom time to lime shall be paid to such rede.sigmited operators w.e.f. 01-10-1995."

It is further stated in that Settlement that the candidates selected for the post of ALPM|AEAM Operators and are empanelled at present under clause 23.9 snail be deemed to be empanelled tor the post of Computer Terminal Operator and shall be posted in such vacancies falling due during the period of the currency of the list. It is clarified that after exhausting the list of panel of computer operators, it wny, only the posting will be mnde from the panel of ALPM/ AEAM operators. Provided, however, that there is no option to these empanelled candidates to seek posting as AEPM operators and accordingly in case any empanelled candidate is unwilling to be posted as Computer Terminal Operator then it shall be deemed of having refund for such poslini: and their names shall be deleted from the list. These processes in that Settlement dated 29-9-95 have not been disputed hy the Petitioner Union. From all these things, it is seen that the post of Computer Terminal Operator were created ojily on me demand made by the federation. Further, it is seen that the bank itself is not doing anything of its own.

9. It is admitted that in 1996 for certain vacancies for the post of Computer Terminal Operator, candidates were called for aptitude test and (raining and the concerned employee Smt. Baby Kala appeared for the test and she was selected and empanelled for the post of Computer Terminal Operator and she was appointed HS Computer Terminal Operator w.e.f, 21-11-1997 and that she has been drawing allowances appli- cable to that category. It is also admitted in Maicli, Iy97 Smt. Sandhya, Sri Rajan and Sli Seshadri Srinivas were work- ing in PC telex machines and in teims of tlie undersiandinjr with the Federation, they were redcsi^nalul as Comupter Terminal Operators. It is the contention of the Respondent/ Hank that they were not appointed against the posts ot Computer Terminal Operators. Hence, at ihat time, Smt. Baby Kala could not be considered for the posf of Computer Terminal Operator and the action of the Respondent is per- fectly justified. It is further contended in Hie Counto- Statement of the Respondent that Mrs. Baby Kala W,T, empanelled for the post of Computer Terminal Operator in 1996 but in thc- matter of filling up of vacancy of Computer Terminal Operators, her turn came only in November, 1^97 ;in7644 THE GAZETTE Ob INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2001/PAUSA 1, 1923 [PART IT—SEC, 3(ii)J

5. As regards Point: No. L it is submit tec on behalf of the 1st Party-Management that the post of part time sweeper and p?.rt time peon can not be treated as sub-star!. As per the Sastri Award Clause-129 and Clause- 169 prescribes the post, which was come under the sub-staff. "This Sastri Award has not been disputed by the 1st Party-Manage- ment. Reference has been made to answer, whether the duties of water boy and sweeper can be equated with the duties of sub-staff. The question of -part thne water boy and part time sweeper does not arise. As p r Ciause- 169 of the .iksivi Award, Annexure-I orri-iary peons, v/utermen, wafer boys, .T.a'iies.. cc'Jics come under the categOiy of subordinate staff. So, this Tribunal can safely answer that the duties of water 1; yy and sweeper can be equat- ed v/:';h the duties of s>ib-3t?.lf.

Ne^v DsJhi. the 28th November, 2001

S.O. 3461.—In poi-snance of Section 17 of th- Ind^stnal Dispnt?s A'-f, 1947 (14 of 1947\ *he Centra! Government fif-rebv fHbl;sh"s tV? I'vard of ihe Tnc';irfr;al T>-;Viiina?, Chpnr.pj .i5 shev/*! ;r +h2 onp^'i-e in the I"d"jst'ial D^sput- betvrc.i 'do cnfj'ovp.'s 5n reJaKoa to the man.i"pm?nt of N ^ i ^ - 'I Tn^'irirce Co'^'J-niv PP.'¹ th";r workman. v'V<~h was r'ce:-'3d b-' the Centre¹ Government on 28-11-2001.

fNo. L-17O12I13|79-DIV(A) %Jn::-••} r~: ! T C' W!- ^ (: hi " h? R ° . nk f c- a ?c"""?

L-17O12[19|7?-DT\YA)

L-17O12|6|8O-D1V(A)] C. GANOADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRTBUNAL, TAMIL NADU CHENNAI

Thursday, the 11th day of October, 2001 PRESENT :

Thiru S.R. Singlinravelu, B.Sc. B.L., Industrial Tribunal iIndustrial Depute N'os. 17 of 19S0, 32 of 1980 and 49 of 19E0

(In the matter of IT-e dispute for adjudication under Section 1:O(JH

In I.D. No. 17 of 1980

BETWEEN

Th'.' V/orkmsn represented by

ri~hi* Gri&tnl Secretary, G -Tcr-'J Insuriinc-' Employees' (Southern Zonei Flat TTo. 22, A^i'rchand Mansion, No, 35, Anr.n Salai, Chcnnai-600 003.

AND

The Ro

REFERENCE:

Ori-i No. L-17012fl3|79-D. IV(A\ dated 23-2-19S0, Min;s*ry oi Labour, Government of India, New- Delhi.

To I. D. No. 32 of 1980

BETWEEN

Ti™ Wor!cri?n represented by

The General Secretary, The GenOTl Insurance Employees' Unl-on, Southern Zone, Ftot No. 22, Agurchnnd Mansion, 35, Anni 5.;l'i, Mount Road, Chcnnai-600 C02.

AND

The Manager, The Oii-.-n'a! F;TO and General Insurance Co. Ltd., UnWed Indh Fi-- Bii'k'ing, F.E. M J. 1S77, Chennai 600001.

REFERENCE :

Order No. L-17012|19l79-D.rV(A), dat?d 17-5-1980, Ministry of Labour, Government of Ind'a. N>:w Dcliii.

In I.D. No 49 of 1980

TL" workman rrprcsented by

Th: Oencril Secretary, Genovrt Insurance Employees' Union FJpt No 22, A.-'-iichrnci ATension, 152, Amu Snlrv', Ch"nnai-C00002.

AND

7651 Claim and Counter stntcments and nil other material papers on record and upon henrinc the arguments of Tvl. R. Sura- yanal':-yijn-.1n and V. ShrcrVnmar, sufhcrij'd r™r*ri'*- fives frjr ihe v.orkinsn and ci Thiru S, Jayjnmirtn, Advocate pppparinc for the Management in all the disputes ar.d these depute-; having .'••food ov?r I'll this day for consideration, th:a Tribunal made the following :

AWARD

Ths G^vt. tif India has referred the foil-owing issue for adjudication by this Tribunal :

In I.D. No, 17180 :

"Wht-'her the fiction of the Nfann{:

SL No.

D'Ti£uaiion I. Shri T. A. Kriuhiiamooilhy Sr. A=stsUint

>i Shri C. Krjshnan

IT S'nri R. Ramanathan

,.

2. 3. 4_ Shri T, M. Govindarajulu

5. S.Vi A. P. SiveJhvTa Prabhu

6.

G. Sivixubrr.i-.iruiciii

Sh.-i

Arsii.fani 7. Shri P. D. r^c!ma'i;.bhrtn

IT Shri

8.

S. Jai'aid; amen

^

9.

IN'. Itj.iuainnrthy

Suii

10.

K. Pcc:liambarani

Slu-i

11 Shn A. K. Vonkafaraihnam

11.

If 12.

J. Radhckrishnaii

Shri

13.

A. V. D'S uzfi

Shri

"(Officiating) 14. S.ui P. Lokiali

In I.D. No. 49/80 :

"Whether the rciion of the Management of the Oriental Fire and GrwrM Insurance Co. Ltd., Madras in not recategorisinij the undermentioned workmen is juRti- fied? If not to what relief arc the concerned work- men entitled?"

Name

Dosi^natioa SI. Nu.

Asrislant 1. '•>

Assistant

it 3.

it 4,

f 5.

ii 6.

Shri S. }\ Mothj S;:ri C. J. G'tndbi Shri H. \'tT.b"-t(iI:"ii'hnan Roo Hh.-i P. R, Rfijarara 3h;i k¹. D. Bor-jninin fj'i'i S. SLnkpramoorihl

" Siiri M. TJir.'i£;::3Wcjni

7.

S. 3hti M. K. &iah

Shri 3. Dura.iswar.ii

9.

10. Sh.'i R. Dt'iriivasan

Shi'i J. Ambrose

G>.ri P. R. K. l\:-,;ick(;r

11. 12.

if7652 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2001/PAUSA 1, 1923 LPART II—SEC. 3(ii)] In I.D. No. 49180:

categorisation of employees should have been done by Nation- al Insurance Company Limited. Accordingly by and large the Subsdiaries have followed the following methods while piocessing categorisation :

"Whether the action of the management of National Insuiance Company Limited, Calcutta 700071 in rccategorising Shri C. R. Mane, Assistant as Record Keeper is justified? ll not to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which da'-c7"

(i) For the purpose of categorisation the comparison was made within the same units of equal position.

2. The main averments found in the Claim Statement of

l.D, Nos. 17|iJU anu 32|S0 are as follows :

(ii) Outside the units comparison of equal position within the Company i.e. National Insurance Company Limited.

(iii) Comparison of equal position outside the company

i.e. with other subsidiaries.

As the said appeals from the employees were not consider- ed favoun-.bly by the Review Committee, again tho Union laised Industrial Dispute w.th the Assis.aut Labour Commis- sioner (C) II, Madras on 20th December, 1978 on which the picsc-nt Oide.' of Reference befor tho Hon'bl Industrial Tri- bunal, For the reasons stated, it is prayed that this Tribunal may be pleased lo issue appropriate instructions or orders calling upon the management of National Insurance Com- pany to calegorke the aggrieved employees from 1-1-1973 in tiie app'opnate category and pay the dues forthwith,

3. The averments found in tho Claim Statement of I.D.

No. 49180 is as follows :

The Respondent is a Nationalised company having Divi- sional Offices ar.d Ihanch Offices all over India, The General Insuiance Busing v/as biutiglit under Social Control by the Govcrnmenl of inJiu, ilin.si.ry o± Finance for streamlining the functioning of the Industry, Subsequently the General Insurance was n;;tionuiii;cd undei the; provisions of the Gene- ral Insurance Business Nationalisation Act, 1972 (Central Act 57 ol 1972). Immediately .liter the nationali- sation of Geneial Jnsu.ancc Business, the service conditions of emloyi.es w;>s biouyht under one Scheme called the General lusjrarce (.Ra^omJisaLion and Revision of Pay Scales and OLher conditions of service of Supervisory, Clerical and SuLoidinate Stalfj Scheme, 1974 came into effect on 27ih May, 1974. As per Hie Scheme the Custodian who was in- charge of National Insurance Company Limited was directed to categorise the employees on Ihe basis of the provision of the scheme who in turn appointed a Committee called 'Cate- gorisation Committee' to go into details of the employees' bio-Ddia written by the Chief Officials of the erstwhile units, which were amalgamated wilh National Insurance Company Limited. Sine: the categorisation of employees was not pro- perky done oy the 'National Management', Union took up the matter and a dispute was raised. The Management of National Insurance Company was directed to review the cases of aggiicved employees. With the result the Labour Dep.ut- mont made a reference to the Finance Department to receive appeals. The guidelines for categorising the employees are us follows :

The Government of India has framed a schsm: called General Insurance (Rationalisation ami Revision of Pay Scale and other condition of service of Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff) Scheme, 1974. The said scheme was ex- tended to:

(i) who were confirmed whole time employee on the 31st day of December, 1972 of any of the Indian Insu- rance Companies.

(ii) Who v/"~~ confirmed whole time employees on the 31st d.iy of December, 1972 and v/ho had become employees of an Indian Insurance Company in terms of Sub Section 1 cf Section 7.

(iiiO Who were temporary whole time employees -of any of the Indian Insuiance Companies or any existing insurer other than an Tndian Insurance Company are confirmed before the commencement of this scheme.

The employees shall be categorised into the appropriate categories on the bas's of their substantive positions and nature of work as on the 1st day of January, 1973. The grades in a company are to be classified into the following groups :

(i) Supervisory grades and

(ii) Non-3upcrvisory Clerical grades.

For the purpose of cntegoination of employees ns Senior Assistants, they further sub divided tha companies with Grades into :

(i) Companies having one non-supervisory Clerical grade,

(ii) Companies having two non-supervisory Clerical

Grades;

(iii) Compares having more than one or two non-super-

visory Clerical grades.

In the case of companies having only one Clerical grade,

The Petitioner is the General Insurance Employees' Union, Southern Zone as affiliated of General Insurance Employees' All India Association (Bombay), are representing the General Insurance iimployces working in four subsidiaries v.z. (1) National Insurance Company Limited, (2) New India Assu- rance Company Limited (3) Oriental Fire and General Insu- rance Company Limihed and (4) United India Insurance Com- pany Limited with an apex body, viz. General Insurance Cor- poration of lnd'a at Bombay, the petitioner represents the employees of the Pour Southern States viz. Andhra Pradc;.h, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Pondicherry. The dispute on fixation of the employee Shri C.R. Mane woiking in National Insurance Company Limited, Branch office at Belgaum was raised and pursued by the petitioner union with the Management. Hence this reference is befou tho Industrial Tribunal, Madras, The respondent is a Nationalised Company having Divisional Offices and Branch Offices all over India. Subsequently, the General In- surance was nationalised under the provisions of the General Insurance Rusiness Nationalisation Act, 1972 (Central Act 57 of 1972). Immediately afgter the Nationalisation of General Insurance Business, the service conditions of emp- loyees was brought under one scheme called the General Insurance (Rationalisation and Revision of Pay scales and ether conditions of service of Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff) Scheme, 1974 came into effect on and from 27th May, 1974, As per the scheme tho custodian who was in-charge of National Insurance Company Limited was directed to categorise the employees and Shri C.R. Mane was categorised as assistant based on the functions performed by him. It is submitted that it can be evidently proved that Shri C. R. Mnne was performing tho duty of an 'Assistant', as he wt.s sent by erstwhile unit; Ruby General Insurance Company Limited to their Hubli office to take charge from Sri M.V. Muchandi who was then in-charge of the branch. Since (he fixation of employee Sri C. R. Mane in the grade of Assistant was not done by the National Management, in- spite of he being epiegorised as Assistant, the Union cook up the matter and when the efforts became futile the dispute was raised with the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) Bellary, The Asafs'ant Labour Cmmissioner was satisfied with tho arguments advanced by the Union substantiating wjfh tho documentary evidences. Assistant Labour Commissioner ako felt that Sri C. R. Mane, having performed ihe duties of en Assistant prior to implementation of tho Scheme and confirmed by the Custodian as Assistant of the Company placed at the branch office at Belgaum, he was not fitted in the grade of Assistant which was not justifiable. As tho management of National Insurance Company could not dis- pute the arguments of the Union took positions on the neca- tive that Sri C. R. Mnne was only working as- Record clwk. It enn be substantiated that Sri C. R, Mane was categorised as Assistant only. For th? reasons stated, Jt is prayed that this Tribunal may be pleased to pass an award calling upon th" Management of National Insurance Company Limited the employees would be considered H^ eligible to be categorised as 'Senior Assistant' on the basis of length or service as Clerk nr Assistant O" tha basis of the abova sad guidelines, tho 7653 to fix Sri C. R. Mane in the grade of 'Assistant' from 1st January, 1973, and pay the Salary till date with interest.

4. The averments found in the Counter of I.D. Nos. 17|8Q

and 32 of lytSO are us follows :

Even assuming that the decision of tne appellate noay ui the categorisation committee is erroneous in any particular. Ihis Tribunal cannot be invited to sit on appeal over the decisions rendered by tho statutory bodies and come to its own conclusion on the basis of materials placed before it. Finality attaches to the decision of the Cuslod an subject only to its being corrected on appeal by the statutory appellate body. If that remedy has been availed of by the persons concerned, there is no further right of appeal to any other body; nor can that decision bo got reversed by an indirect process of getting a reference under Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. If once the statutory requirements have been complied with by the bodies concerned, no further dispute can survive so as to enable this Tribunal to go into the matter. This counter statement may bo received on file, and the claim made by the petitioner may be rejected on the basis of the contentions raised in the Counter Statement,

5, Apart from the above averments, certain other averments were made in the Counter of I.D. No. 49/80 which arc as follows :

Tnis reference itself is incompetent and is barred by the provisions of ihe General Insurance Business Nationalisation Act, Vill and also the Schemes framed ttieieuuder. in pursu- ance IO me powers vested in it under Sec. 16 of Nationalisa- tion Aci, the Government of India framed a Scheme in the year iy/4 called the General Insurance (Nationalisation and Revision of Pay Scales and otner conditions of Service of jjLiperviMM-, Clerical and Subordinate Staff) Scheme 1974, wiiith lor the sake of convenience may be called the 1974 scntme. As per that t.cncine guidelises liavo been g.ven tor tnc purpose of categorisation of employees under various heada. in accordance with the guidelines to be found in the scheme and also bearing in mind the duties discharged by tlia conLerned employees, the committee constituted lor the purposj of categorisation, categorised the various emp- loyees uiiGcr various heads. By amendment of the year 197i, wnicn may be called the First amendment of the Scheme Cl. 5 of the scheme was amended. Subsequently there was a stconii amendment in the year 1976 as per S.C. No. ^466. In accordance with the provisions of the scheme, the Com- mittee went into the whole matter, taking into account the designation of the employee, the work wnich they were dis- charging at tlie relevant time and other relevant matters categorising all the employees, including those comprised in this order of reference, was done. Ail the employees com- prised in this reference, excepting Mr. T.A. Krishnamoorlhy end Mr. Pcethambararn, preferred appeals. The Appellate Authority had confirmed the decision of the Custodian. Not- withstanding (lie legal decision being so clear, the Government of India hi.s chosen to make this reference, as though this Tribunal can go behind the decision of the Committee or the Appellate Authority, to review the decision rendered by them. This Tribunal has no such jurisdiction. It Is by now we]] established principle that where the right is created under an enactment or any scheme framed in accordance with the provisions of a statute and if that enactment|scheme also pro- vides for method of redressal of grievance, that method is exclusive to any other method, and more so, if the employees concerned had availed themselves of that mcJiod. On the merits also, the claim of the claimants is without substance. Here again, it has to be emphasised that the right to be categorised in any position is not an absolute one but it is conditional upon the particular employee satisfying the norms laid down under th"? scheme as well as the other gu.delines. With particular reference to Superintendents the relevant provision of the scheme is as follows :

'2(a)—Superintendents :

Subject to paragraph 4. the following shall be eligible to be considered as Superintendents viz. (i) AH those designated as Superintendents Staff Assistants, Head Clerks or supervisors and working in supervisory capacity."

The committee duly constituted for trie purpose of categorisation has categorised Sri C. R. Mane as Record Clerk only and not as an Assistant. On repre- sentation made by the employee based on Govern- ment of India Gazette Notification, the Review Com- mittee has also considered the ease and gave a finding that he wa? properly categorised as Record Clerk. Merely because the petitioner was sent by the erstwhile unit Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. to their Hubli Office to take charge from M. B. Muchandi, it does not mean that he can be categorised as Assistant. The respondent at no point of time has reversed the decision of the custodian. Categorisation was done by the review committee and that decision was given as early as in October 1974 categorising the employee C. R. Mane as Record Clerk. The allegation that the Review Committee re-categorised him to a lower grade is not correct. The allegation that the Assistant Labour Commissioner was satisfied with the work- men's defence by the Union, substantiating documen- tary evidence is not correct. It is also not correct to say that the Asstt. Labour Commissioner felt that Sri C. R. Mane performed the duties as Assistant prior to the implementation of the scheme and also con- firmed by the Custodian as Assistant of the company. The Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an awffrd upholding the contention of the respondent here- in both on the preliminary objection as well as on merits,

6. In I.D. 17/80, on behalf of petitioner, Ex.Wl to W13 were marked by consent. On behalf of res- pondent, Exs. Ml to M48 were masked by consent, In I.D. 32/80. on behalf of petitioner, Ex. Wl was marked by consent. On behalf of respondent, Exs. Ml to MJ2 were marked by consent, fn I.D. 449/80, on behalf of petitioner, Exs. Wl and W2 were marked by consent. On behalf of respondent, Txs. Wl to M8 were marked by consent. No witnesses were examined for both sides in the above Industrial Disputes.

The reference made in I.D. 17/80 is as follows :

The cla!m based on the unamended scheme is not proper and correct. So also with reference to the case of Senior Assistants. The scheme is quite clear that the proper basis for categorisatios (part from nomenclature) is the nature of the work that is discharged by the person concerned. It is not the case of the claimant petitioner that the categorisation committee as well as ho Appellate authority hRs not taken into account the nature of the duties discharged by them but the categorisation had been effected on some other basis; The allegation in the claim statement that where the emp- loyes have not beon given any designation but were function- ing in supervisory cadre are eligible to be categorised as Superintendents is. wholly misleading. The cadre strength for the post of Superintendent and Stenographers has to be determined by the Custodian on the basis of the requirements at different levels. It Jg not the case of the petitioners that the aspects referred to in the various annexures are deter, dimuivo itf tbo ima which U th" subject matter of Teferwce,

7. The Point for consideration is whether the action of the management of National Insurance Company Limited, Madras in not recategorising the unctermen-7654 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2001/PAUSA 1, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(H)] tioned workmen to higher cadre is justified 7 If not, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled ?

Assistant as Record Keeper is justified ? If not, to what relief is the concerned work- man entitled and from which date V Name;

Designation

s. No.

Sr. Asiht2.iv

Shri T. A. K/if.bu'ir-ioo.'ihy

1.

it

Shri C. Krishns.n

2.

8. As the facts and subject matter involved in the three Industrial Disputes are common ami since there is a Common OrJer by the Supreme Court, in the connected three Civil Appeals, if is perceived that a Common Order could bo made. .^n^oive.iiciH was also made by the Counsel.¹

t

Shri R. Ramnuathm

3.

Jt

Shri T. N. Govintua-ajuHi

4.

•n

Shri A. P. Sr-jcdluxi Prabliu

5.

Assistant

Shri G. Sivasiibrr.rna.;iiaii

6,

*t

Shri P. D. Pa.dmara.b'ian

7.

I*

Shri 3. JanakV^mr.".

S.

it

Sitn N. Raincunurlhy

9.

Shri K. Pvcthtinfo.mim

10.

l"

Shri A. K. Vv-".-lkiitr.rf.thnam

11.

•ft

Shri J. Rndhakri:hnan

12.

Shri A. V. D'Souzn

13.

" (Officiating)

it ?"

Shri P. Lokiaii

14.

The reference made in I.D. 32/80 is as follows :

Whether the action of the management of tho Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Limited, Madras in not recategorlsing the undermentioned workmen is justified ? If not, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled ?

Nam i

Dc^igna-ion

SI. No.

1.

Aosis.'cint

Slu-i S. P. Molhi

tf

Shri C. J. Gandhi

t-i

3. Shri N. Wnkataknshnan Rao

ii

4. Shri P. R. R'ij::i\;m

IT

5. Shri P. D. RajcrnaJ

; j

6. Shri S. Sankavarnoort'.i

7. Shri'M. Than.£as-.w.mi

8. Shri M. K. Shah

it

9. Slid S. Du\'aisvv.imi

10. Shri R. Etir.ivii'i^n

11. Shri J. Ambi'-s;

12. Shri P. R. TC, RiiiLkor

Conior Asit.

13. Shri 3. -Noraya:i£sv/t.mi

11

14. Sh"i D. ?j.T;'.v.ixdw."Ti

15. Siiri T. K. Bj.lr.Eub.-n-.iir,;;:.-.! Assistant

The reference ni^v^ l:i l I"' . , j. 40/SO k zi J j J o \" ;

9. The Point : The brief facts leading to the dispute are as follows : The Respondent-Management is the Regional Manager, Oriental Fire and General Insur- ance Company Limited, Madras-2 an uFiliole of Gene- ral Insurance Employees' All India Association (Bombay), rep~esent'ng the Gcreral Insurance F.rr.D- loyess working in four subs'c'i.'v'ei; viz. (!) N;;tinm] Insurance Company Limifcd, (2) Now India Assur- ance Company Limited, (3) Orcntal T"--c and General Inr.urance Company Limitel md (41 Uirted India Xiiurance Company Limited with an aycx body, viz, General Insurance Corporation of India at Bombay. The petirioncr-union represents the employees of the four Southern States, viz. Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Ponci- chcry. The reference made by the Government of India relates to categorisation of the employees work- ing in the Oriental Fire and General In.•,ur;incc Com- pany Limited which h of 1972). Immediately after the nationalisation of G:n"r:i' InTuvanc^ Busincps. the service conditions of employees were brought under one sclicmc called the General Insurance (Rai.ii?n'i!isatlcn and lie-vision of '••ay scales and oilier coniiifjoiifi of s-inicc of Super- visory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff) Scberre, 1974 which came into force with effee' linm 27-5-1974. Tix. M - ll is the co^y of the Gsncr.'i luc:u;ar?? f^a- tionaiisation and Revision of pay o"a!er. r,:;:. other c.~n-J"ticns of service of Gu^rvIiTry, clerical and Subordinate Slafi) Sclrr,^, ?974. -VJ pci iho roheme, the Custodian who w::s in-clurgs of Oriental Fiie and General Insurance Company Lim:Lc:.! was flirected to categorise the, employees on the basis of the provi- sions of the Scheme who in turn ap>r>in'n:d a Com- mittee cabled 'Ciitegoricat'cn Committee' to fjo into details of the employees' Eio-:ta';3 wri^en by ths Chief GEcials oc the erstwhile units, which were nnvilpa- rcalcd with Oriental Fire and Gcne;:?.l InK^farjcc Co. Ltd. Jn accordance with the guMeiines m the scheme Ex. M i l, the Committee consti'.uted for i ts purpose oi categorisation, hi fact categori'-.cd tbf. various emp- loyees under (lie various heads. By an amendment of the year 1975, which can be cons;dcr':\I to be the 1st amonJment of the scheme, Clause 5 of the Scheme was ar/tended. Ex. Mil h ihi cony nf 1974 Scheme including the •'amendments of 1975 and 197*6. In ac- cordance wHh the provisions ol fhr- sch:mc, tKe ca*e- gorisation Conraittee went into tho whoso (jiiestinn of tatejorisa^on, .taking into account the dasfgfiRtisn "Whether the actiGn ox the management of Na- tional Insurance Cojrp.iny LbiiLcd,- CaiciUUi- 700071 in Tccategnriping Shri C, E. M"HV 7655

(I.D. 17/80) cases of 14 workmen have beenjefer- red and on the question as to whether the acion of he management of Oriental Fire and General Insur- ance Company Limiied, Madras, in not recategorising the workmen mentioned in th? course of reference is justified. In Civil Appeal No. 2751/82 (ID. 49/80) the question referred was slightly different that is whe- ther the action of Ihe management in recategorising Mr. C. R. Mane, Assistant, as Record Keeper is jus- tified ? And if not, to what relief the concerned work- man is entitled and from which date ?

12. The Supreme Court in its Order dated 19th

March, 2001 held as follows :

"That dispute has to -bs resolved with reference to the principles stated in the scheme and apply the sehsme with reference to each one of the workmen and find out whether the categorisation of that workman is correct or not."

It was further menitoned as follows :

of the employee, the work which they were discharg- ing at the relevant time and other relevant matters categorising all the employees, including the employees who are covered by the present reference. It may also be remembered that the simple issue referred to this Tribunal is whther the action oi the Management of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., Madras in not recategorising the undermentioned workmen to higher cadre is justified. As per the 2nd amendment Scheme of 1976 vide Ex. M12 any person feeling aggrieved at the decision of the Custodian relating to ca:egorisation, was entitled to prefer appeal to the UcarJ of tiie Company to which the employee be- \ongzd, within 60 days of the receipt by him of the decision of the Custodian. All the employees covered by the present reference excluding a few preferred appeals tad the Appellate Authority had confirmed the decision of the Custodian. There is no dispute about these facts. However, the Management has also producea tfce relevant documents showing the objec- tion of tliese employees to their categoristaioji and the orders passed r.y the Appellate Authority. Exs. Mi to M9 are inc cider:: passed in appeal. On these facts, the managerr?wiK mainiains that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction s;v_ •.ru-rrfore there is no industrial dis- puie'as such ur.-er Section 10 of the Industrial Dis-" puter. Aaf an:; ^c^:^qi:sat!y the reference has to be rejected. The refeiencc nas been made by the Govern- iment of 'India to find out whether the caiegorisaiioD of these ' workmen by the management is justified.

"That exercise has not been done by the Tri- bunal, but it has simply gone on to proceed that placing of one or other workman in one category or another is itself a part of the-scheme ?rsd, therefore, the Tribunal can- not examine the same. This approach of Tribunal,is not justified at all." "

Therefore, the awards were set aside by the Ilon'ble Supreme Court of India, the matter was; remitted beck to this Tribunal for fresh considera- tion in the light of that order. As per the direction of the Supreme Court, we have to resolve ihe dispute- with reference to the.principles slated in IIK schema and apply the same with reference to each one of the workmen; and find out whether the categorica- tion of each workman is correct or not.

10. Oa 1+8*1930 there was an award passed by this Tribunal dismissing the three Industrial Disputes. The awards staled tliat IL.J Schcjie has oeen framed for rationalising the pay •:::.:-i .iv.i other terms and con- ditions of sirvicc oi ;*;_ jtiitCii and other employees in the Genera! IrF.ir-p*¹¹.:-; C.Ti^any, which has been published by a Notification ixiued under Section 16(6) of the Central Act 5? oi ±972 and therefore the emp.cyees oi ;n; niaoagsrasnt leSi. fhat the existing provisions in ths sc/ieme relating to categorisation or arbitrary, it is tor the union to take up this issue and pursuaa^ the Genual Government to rcodily the same and it was further held that the Tribunal constituted under the industrial Dispute Act can declare: the ac- tion of the management unjustified and reject this! scheir.e. In the case of Thiru C. R. Mane, an employee it was awarded that if the workman had any grievance he ought to have made an appeal to the Board of the Company and such representation had been made to the Review Committee and the Review Committee gave its findings thai the concerned workman was proserly categorised as Record Clerk and that the Tri- bunal has also found that the above finding appears to be justified and thai if had no jurisdiction to go into the merits of th? case.

13. In this connection, the learned counsel for the Management Mr. S. Jayaraman has once oe.^n narrated the facts by contending that subsequent to the nationalisation of the Insuramcs Companies ihe service conditions of all the erstwhile private Insu- rance companies were bro"f?bt *o one scheme cgPrd Nationalisation Scheme J974 and the same w.-s put in'o effect w.e.f. 27-5-1974. He ?!so con'ended fhat it is a self-contained code, marked as Ex. M48. The custodian mcharce of the Insurance comtv-rrcs "•'ere directed bv tne Govt, of Tnrlin. to nfe which were restvc'ively marked as Ex. M4o and M47.

14 The learned counsel for the nnm^mpm has ffi'ren Ihh TrihTinal to th." contents of T"ars<; 4. to 5 in the Cls-im ste'emen* of I.D. No. do of JO go and poVed out that grievance of th° netit'oner ^mvn 11.As against these awards, the workman directly preferred the Civil Appeals before the Sucreme Court of India, New Delhi, the Civil Appeal Nos. 2749/82 and 2750 of 198"2 relate to I.D. Nos. 32 of 1980 and 17 of 1980 and Civil Appeal No. 2751/82 relates to I.D. No. 49 of, 1980, These three appeals have been presented by Special Leave by the General Secretary of the General Insurance Employees Union. Miclras. In Civil Appeal No. 2749/82 (I.D, N~. ?2/80) cases. of 12 workmen and.in Civil Appeal No, 2750/82"

.rti-mJri wi vfirv n n c 'i v^trne, jind it \vps prn<"*"iiw jnnt in as :f fji" cat^o-on's^on'*ras not twooerlv d^ne. * The learned Cotmsel- for tBe' ffiftagemsnt questioned7656 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2001/PAUSA 1, 1923 [PART I I- S E C. 3(il)] as to how was it not proper and on what ground the improper method was established etc. In fact in paras 5 to 7 of his counter, these w;rc vividly explained by him in crder to show the vagueness of the allegations made by the workman. His further argument was that the Industrial Tribunal cannot interfere upon the decision of the Committee because the scheme itself is a self-contained code which provide remedies of appeal against the findings of the Committee, fnfact, such appeals taken before the department failed and went against the viork- man. There is also no mala fides cast upon the mem- bers of the Committee in vhich case an interference can be maide by the Tribunal. A perusal of the scheme and its implementation of the categorisation policy also do not expose any mistake. Intact no particular mistake was pointed out by the workmen, No workmen was also examined in this connection. It wp|3 contended Dy the learned counsel for the Management that all the 22 workmen were retired and that that "s why no one was examined, as they became dis-interested. Whatever may be ihc reason unless the employees were examined to prove the particular incorrectness in the process of re-cateuo- risation, we cannot come to a proper conclusion b.°sed only upon the vague allegations made by the work- men. The so called mis'ake in the re-categorisa- tion can be either visibly found in the perusal of the records of re-categorisat'on or that if they were perused by the workman.the later has to point out the nrsfoke therein, Both these things do not reveal any mistake on the process of re-ca'cporisation.

15. The learned Counsel for the Manageemnt further contended that small deviation between the srime endrs have sometime to be accepted. In this connection, he has rthed upon 1989 TI LLJ p, 177 wherem the following was mentioned :

pay scale slightly lower than that of Sec- tion officers. Rs. 150-350 was recommended for Bench Secretaries as against Rs. 200-400 for Section officers. The Sta'.e Government accepted the recommendations."

16. From this it is clear that even small difference among the same cadre could be sustainable when it is upon r e a s o n a b ly and will have to be sustained. Thus the grievance of Mr. C, R. Mane is answered.

17. To mention again even though it became the duty of this tribunal to find out whether the ca'ego- risatirm of each workman was correct or not, the fact that no workman was examined before us even af'er remand, in order to show the exact mistake in the process of re-categorisation we could not answer the issue in favour of the workmen. The fact that on perusal of process of recate^orisation, no visible mis- take W3|S found will also strengthen the above view ngainst the workmen. Farther the observa^on made in the above cited cases, 1989 I LLJ p. 309 and 19S9 II LLJ p. 177 will go to sustain the small differences of categorisation of the same cadre. There is some rationale behind it. Tt is only herause of all these above reasons, the appenl under the scheme preferred by the emoloyees have also failed. So even assuming that the Tribunal has cot jurisdiction, nr" rn:s

"After remand we have no evidence either dral or documentary in all three connected matters."

There is lack of evidence to r>rove incorrectness in the process of reepjtecorisation. Therefore ih" issues are answered against the workmen. Award passed. No costs.

Dated at Chennai, this 11th day of Oct' 2001.

S. R. SINGHARAVELU, Industrial Tribunal I. D. No. 17/80

Witnesses Examined

For Both side : None

Documents marked

For Petitioner /Workmen Ex. W122-7-80 Letter dt. 10-3-65 of Ruby General Insrrance Co. Lid. Coimbatore authorifir.g Thiru C. Krishnan to open post, sign letter etc.

Ex. W 2 22-7-80

1T.,7I'T"T nt;"nn] netus v/ith the objects th"r-of."

Hx. \V4 , 2-7-XO Letter dt. 8-12-71 IVom t h: Rub\

General Insurance Co. Ltd... Cochin informing Thiru A. P. Sreedhara Prabhu to meet the Custodian on 10-12-71.

Ex. W5

Office order authorising Thiru A. P. Sreedruira Prahhu to sign Fire. Motor, Mann; and .Accident policies dt. 5-12-6-1.

L-\. W-'>

Office order authorising Thiui- valargal E. M. Krislmainuithy, S. Ramanalhan and K. Narayanan to sign cover notes, certificates and bills, dt. 15-10-71.

Ex. W7

Ceilifieate showing the pay parti- culars and deductions of Thiiu T. M. Govindarajulu of the mana- gement for the period of 1-4-73 to ^,i_.V74(dt. S-S-74)

-ijo.,l-4-72 to 31-1-73 (dt. 19 6-73).

E\. W8

Ex. W9

Letter dt. I8-1-6K from the Union Insurance Society of Canton Ltd. Madras authorising Thiru P. D. Padmanahhan to sign and issue cover notes and policies in ihe Fire. Marine and Acciden¹ Depart- men Is.

FK. W10

Letter dt. IK-1-6R from the Cen- tury Insurance Co. Ltd., Calcutta authorising Thiui P. D, Padmana- bhan to sign and is^ue cover nott.s and policies in the Fire. Marine and Accident Departments.

Ex. Wll

letter dt, 18-1-68 from Ihe Cale- donian Insurance Co., Calcutta authorising Thiru P. D, Padma- nabhan to sign and issue cover notes and policies in the Fire, Marine and Accident Depart- ments.

Ex. W12

Letter dt. 9-12-75 from the mana- gement to Thiru G. Sivasubra- msiiiiu.il intimating that he will be officiating as Senior As-.t, from 22-11-75.

Ex. W13

Letter dt. 5-P-77 from the Mana- gement to the Union regarding categorisation of emplo\ees.

For Respondent/Management :

Ex. M1 22-7-XO List of duties of Thiru T. A. Krishnamurthy and the employee form showing his qualificaiions, Service and pav particulars.

3771 GI/2001—12.

7657 F.N. M2 22-7-80 Forms for fixation of ThiruR Raniani showing pay and Service particulars.

Ex. M3

Forms for fixation of Thiru V. Scshadri showing pay and Service particulars.

Ex. M4 series

J-orms relating to Thiru C, KrisJinan showing his qualifica- tions, pay and service particulars Fx. M5 series

Forms relating to Thiru S, Ramanathan showing his quali- fications, pay and service parti- culars.

Fx. M6 series

Forms relating to Thiru T. M. Govindarajan showing his quali- fications, pay and service parti- culars.

Kx. M7 scries

Forms relating to Thiru A. P Sreedhara Prabhu showing his qualifications, pay and service particulars.

Fx, M8 series

Forms relating to Thiiu G. Siva- siibnmaniam showing his quali- fications, pay and service parti- culars.

\l\. M9 series

Fx. Mill series

Forms relating to Thiru P. D. Padmanabhan showing his quali- fications, pay and service parti- culars. Forms relating to Thiru S. Jana- jiraman showing his qualifications pay and service parliculars.

Fx. M11 series

Fixation form showing pay and service particulars of Thiru N. Ramamurthy.

Fx. M12

Fixation form showing pay and service particulars of Thiru T. Saraiif'ripani,

Ex. Ml3

Employee forms showing the pay and service particulars of Thiru S. Sastha.

Forms showing the qualification, Ex, M!4 series

pay and service particuiais of

Thiru A. K. Vcnkatrathnam.

Ex. M15 series

Forms showing the qualifications, pay and service particulars of Thiru J, Radhakrishnan.

Ex M16

Forms of Thiru A. V. D'Sou/a showing his qualification, pay and service particulars.

Ex, M17 series

Forms of Thiru P. Lokiah show- ing his qualification, pay and service particulars.

Ex. MI8 :?-" series

r-S0 Forms of Thiru H. R. I.awtence showing his qualification, pay and service particulars.

Ex. MI9

Letter ill. l-l 1-77 from the Mana- gement to Thiru P. D. Padma- nabhan informing that his appeal was rejected hy the Appeals Com- mittee.

Ex. M20

Letter from the management to Thiru G. Sivasubramanian infor- ming that his appeal was rejected bv the Appeals Committee dt. 1-11-77.

Ex. M2I

Representation of Thiru Q V. D'Scwa to the Board of Directors of the Management for catego- rization as Senior Asst. dt. 17-1 -77.

Fx. M22

Letter from the management to Thiru A. V, D'Souza intimating the rejection of his appeal dt. 1-11-77.

Ex. M23

Appeal of Thiru S. Janakiraman to the Board of Directors of the management dt. 22-1-77.

Ex. M24

Letter dt. 1-11-77 from the mana- gement to Thiru S. Janakiraman intimating the rejection of his appeal.

Ex. M25

Representation of Thiru S. Jana- kiraman regarding categorization and fitment, dt. 28-8-74.

Ex. M26

Representation of Thiru C. Kii- shnan to the Chairman of the management for reconsidering his category as Superintendent, dt, SI 0-74,

Ex. M27

Further representation of Thiru C. Krishnan. dt. 19-1-77.

Ex. M28

Letter dt, 1-11-7⁷ from the nvinr- gement to Thiru C. Krishnan intimating the rejection of his appeal.

Fx. M29

Representation of Thiru A, P. Srecdhara Prabhu to the Chairman for upgrading him to Senior Asst. dt. 20-1-77.

Ex, M30

Letter dt. 1-11-77 from the mana- gement to Thiru A. P. Sreedhara Prabhu intimating the rejection of his appeal.

Fx. M31 ?2-: 7-R0 Representation of Thiru A. K Venkatarathianam to the Board of Directors of the Company for categorising him as Senior Asst., dt. 19-1-77.

Ex. M32

Ex, M33

Letter dt, 1-11-77 from the mana- gement to Thiru A. K, Venkata- rathinam intimating the rejection of his appeal. Representation of Thiru N. Rama- moorthy requesting to promote as Senior Asst. dt. 22-1-77.

Ex.M34

Letter dt. 1-11-77 from the management fo Thiru N. Rama- moorthy intimating the rejec- tion of his appeal.

Ex.M35

Representation of Thiru S. Ramanathan :o the Chairman of the management, dt 4-10-74.

Ex.M36

Letfr dt. 7-6-75 from the Mana- gement to Thiru S. Rama- nathan intimaiing the rejec- tion of his representation (copy).

Ex.M37

Appeal of Thiru S. Rama- nathan regarding categorisa- tion (copy) dt. 22-3-76.

Ex.M38

Representation of Thiru S. Ramanathan lor recategori- sing him as Superintendent dt. 22-1-77.

EX.M39

Letter dt. 1-11-77 from the Ma .aijjTwn; to Tkir. C. Ru".\.- nathan intimating the rejection of his appeal.

Ex.M40

Representation of Thiru J. Radhakrishan to the Chainnan . regarding categorisation dt. 30-9-74.

Ex.M41

Appeal of Thiru J. Radha- krishnan to the Board of Direc- tor, of the Management regar- ding categorisation dt. 22-1-77.

Ex.M42

Letter dt. 1-11-77 from ihe Management to Thiru J. Radha- krishnan intimaiing the rejec- tion of his appeal.

Ex.M43

Appeal of Thiru G.M. Gcvind- arajulu to the Board of Direc- tors of tin: Management for reeategorising him as Superin- tendent dt. 25-1-77.

7659

Ex.M44 22-7-80 LettcJ dt. 1 -J1-77 from the management to Thiru T,M. Govindarajulu intimaing the rejection of his appeal.

Ex.M45

Statement showing the em- ployees who have been re- categorised us Senior Assis- tants on appeal, dt. 23-1-79.

Ex.M46 22-7-N0 Circular of the management enclosing a copy of notifications from the Government regarding Lhc General Insurance (Nationali- I sation and Revision of Pay scales and other conditions of service), copv dt. 5-1-77.

Ex.M47

General Insurance (Ration- littation and Revision, of pay scales and other conditions ,if service of Supervisory :lerical and Subordinate Stall") < First amendment Scheme, 1975

(copy) dt. 5-9-75

Ex.M48

General Insurance (Rationa- lisation and Revision of Pay scales and other conditions of Service of Supervisory, cleri- cal and subordinate staff) Scheme 1974.

J.D. No. 32 of 1980

Wi tnesses examined

For Both side : None.

Documents marked

For Petitinnpr/Workmcn

Ex.Wl 9-12-7S : Memorandum of Settlement between the New India Assu- rance Co. Ltd. and the Work- men represented by the All India Federation of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Employees Union Bombay (copy) dt. 9.12-78.

For Management/Respondent

Ex.Ml 1-11-77 : t

Letter from the Mangement o Thiru S.R. Mothi intima- ting the rejection of his appeal dated 1-11-77,

Ex.M2

LeLter from the Manage- ment to Thiru C.J. Gandhi, intimating the rejection of his appeal dined Nil-77.

Ex.M3 1-11-77 L'jtKT fiom tie Managcmen to Thiru P.R. Rajangam inti- muiing the rejection of his appeal dated 1-11-77.

Ex.M4

Letter from the management to Thiru Benjamin intimating the rejection of his appeal dt. 1-11-77.

Ex.M5 1 -11-77 Letter from the Management to Thiru M. Thangaswamy inLimatiug the rejection of his appeal dt. 1-11-77.

Ex.M 6

Letter from Lne managemen •. to Thiru Mohindra K. Shah intimating the rejection of his appeal dt. l-IJ-77.

Ex. M 7

Letter from the management to Thiru T.K.. Bala&ubramaniam intimating the rejection of his appeal dt. 1-11-77.

Ex. M 8 1 -11-77 Letter from the Management to Thiru S. Doraisamy inti- mating the rejection of his appeal dt. 1-11-77

Ex. M 9 1 -11-77 L-itlci from the management to Thiru R. K. Panickar intimating iho rejection of his app-'al dt. 1-11-77 Ex. M 10 1 -11-77 Award in reference CGIT 1 of 1977 of ' the Central Gov\ Industrial Tiibunal, Rotnh;iv fcnnvl di ~)£, ^ 7W •11-77

Ex. M 11 1-

General Insurance (Raiionali- sation and Revision of Pay ->ailji and other conditions (if service of ;'upjrvisory, Clerical and Suhordinartc Stalf Scheme. 1974.

•11-77

-do- (Consolidated) Ex, M 12 1-

I.D No. 49/80

Witness Examined

For Both side

: None

Documents marked

Foi Petitionsr/Workmen

Ex.Wl 5-1-81 Letter IVom th-j Management io categorising Thiru C.R.Manc as Assistant dt. 27-9-74.

Ex.W2 5-1-81 Letter dt, 4-8-73 from Ruby General Insurance Co. Lid. re- quiring Thiru C.R. Mane k> proceed n> Hut'li.

nagumcnl

;pondent/Ma

hor Re>

5-i-ai

Ex.lv!!

AppoiiVm c""U ortUr dl. 27-5-69 issued, (u Thiru C.R. Mane by Ruby General Insuauce Co.Ltd. Ex.M2

Lcucr dt, 17-9-74 from Thiru C.R. Mane to ihc Chairman of ihe Management for payment of dilforeneu in emoluments.

.-,

Ex.M3

Fonr. of Thiru C.R. Mane giv- ing suviev particulars.

Ex.M4

Form i'oi fixation of Thiru C.R. Mai.c

Ex.M5

StiUerueii; l a k u l a i i ug t he dill- ence in emoluments of Thiru C.R, Mane.

Concikuion failuie report. 10-5-80

Ex.M6

21-10-74

Ex.M7

Letter from the Regional office, Bumby lo Madias olfice send- ing employee Forms A & B of

Thiiu C.R. Mane.

5-9-75

B.MK

General lnsuraiii.ee (Raiio- nalii-alion and Revision ot Pay Si'aKs ari'i other conditions of service oi Supervisory Clerical arid Subordi iaLe Siali) First Amendment Schemr. 1975.

New Delhi, the 23rd November, 2001 S.O. 3464,—in pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( ]4 of 1947), the Cent- ral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government industrial Tribunal, 2, Dhan- bad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dis- pute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of CCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-11-2001.

(No. r.-20012/23/91-IR(C-[)] S. S. GUPTA, IJ,nlei- Secy.

ANNEXURE

13EFORF. THE CEN 1 RAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT iDHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Ollicer.

in the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 1 0 ( l ) ( d) o[ the I.D. Act, 1947 REFERENCE NO. 149 OF 1991 PARTIES :,

Employers in relation to the management of lupin South Colliery ot M|S. CCL and their workmen.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf ol' the workmen ; None.

On behalf of the employers : Shri B. Joshi, Ad- vocate.

STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 5th November, 2001

AWARD)

Ihc Govt, ol India, Ministry of Labour, in exer- cise ol the powers conferred on them under section 10(1 )UO of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal lor adjudication vide their Order No, L-200l2(23)|91-i.R. (Coal-1), dated, the 23rd October, 1991.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management ol fapin South Colliery of M|S. CCL in not giving promotion of S/Shri Md. Ralique, iulsi Mahato, Sarju Mali and Mohd. Kasim in proper category!grade is justified? if not, to what relief the workmen concerned are en- titled?"

2. The case of the concerned workmen as per W.S. in brief is as follows :—

it has been submitted by the concerned workmen that ihey were appointed as piece rated worker under the management in between the period from 1973 Lo 1976. 1 hereafter they were regularised as Cat. I. They submitted that they were allowed to work as Genl. Mazdoor in the Excavation Section and they were working continuously as Drill Operators on the heavy drill machine of the Excavation. Since 1980 they are working as Drill Operator under the order of the management but inspite ol' rc4ndenng such service the management did not consider necessary to regularise their services as E.P. Helper as per the cadre scheme of the f-xeavation. They submitted that in the year 1984 D.P.C. was held for the Drill Ope- rators for Grade-IIJ and they appeared in the said D.P.C. bui they were not selected arbitrarily without any reason. As a result, the concerned workmen raised an industrial dispirit' which resulted reference to this Tribunal.

3. The management on the conlrary utter filing W.S.-cum-rejoindcr have denied all the ciaims and allegations vvliich the concerned workmen asseited in their W.S. It has been submitted by tii>." manage- ment that the concerned workmen are pei funning their duties according to their dcsignati'i -; J;K! th . have already been placed in Category ,^.r;u.e ain. knowing fully weii of this iaet the conetineJ v, oik nien have falsely raised this induslriul dispute. Ae- cordingly, the management prayed tor dismissal OJ. this reference.

4. The points for decision in (his reference arc: —

"Whether the action of the management of Tapin South Colliery of M|.s. Ceiiinil Coal- fields Ltd. in not giving promotion uf S, Shri Md. Rafique, Tulsi Mahato, Sarju Mali and Md. Kassim in proper category!guide is justified? If not to what relief the work- men concerned arc entitled?"

DECISION WITH REASONS

5. The concerned workmen in order to substantial their claim did not consider necessary to examine any witness. On the conlrary the management examined one witness though he was not cross-oxainined by liic concerned workmen. MW-I during his evidence dis- closed that the concerned workmen were Helpers to E.P. Fitters and engaged in Excavation Graue-L. He stated that Fitter is in Grade-D while the Helper is in Grade E. He deposed further I hat ilie Filler ami Hel- pers are different cadre. Drilling Operators arc within Gradc-D and for which the claim o£ the- concerned workmen to get their promotion in Grade-D was not at all justified. It is seen that in spite of getting several opportunities the concerned workmen neither cross- examined this witness nor examined any witness on their behalf. Accordingly the claim of Ihe manage- ment cannot be at all refuted. Onus absolmely lies on the concerned workmen to establish that they were deprived of getting any promotion due to the whim- sical decision of the management, ft is not expected that if any person is not succeeded in D.P.C, he will be promoted to higher post. Naturally there is reason to believe that the management did not commit any illegality in refusing promotion to the concerned workmen to higher grade for the reason d;-,cusscd above. Accordigly after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances I hold that the concern- ed workmen have failed to substantiate their claim as per this reference and for which they are not en- titled to get any relief. In the result, ihe following Award is rendered : —

"The action of the management ol kipn South Colliery of M!s. CCL in not giving piomo- lion of S/Shri Md. Rafique, t u l sf Mahalo, Sarju Mali and Md. Kassim in proper cate- gory/Grade is justified. Consequently, the concerned workmen are not entil'ed to get any relief."

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer

7d61 New Delhi, the 23rd November, 2001 S.O. 3465.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of T-47), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the avsard ol the Central Government Industrial Tiihunal, 2 Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of BCCL and 'heir woiknian,' which was re- ceived the Central Government on 22-11-2001.

LNo. L-20012/102/Q7-IR( C-l) I

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT

I WAN BAD

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas Presiding Olliccr, In the matter of ::n Industrial Dispute nuclei Section 1 0 ( i ; i d) of the- I.D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 23 of 1998

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of M / s. BCCL and their workman

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman : Shri Svvapan Kr, Samanta, the concrened wotkmar,, On behalf of ihe employers : Shri B. Joshi, Advocate.

STATE : Jliiarkhand INDUSTRY : COJI.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 5th November, 2001

AWARD

"Hie Govt, of India', Ministry of Labour, in exer- cise of ihe powers conferred on them under Sec- lion 1 0 ( l ) ( d) of the LD. Ac', 1947 has lefcrred the following dispute f0 this Tribunal tor adjudica- tion vide their Order No. L-20012/l()2/97-IR(C-F) dated, the 23rd March, \99$.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the maiiagcmeni ol Bhowra OCP of M|s. BCCL in denial to regularise Sr; Swapan Kumar Samanta as Statistical Clerk is justified ? Tf not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled 7" 2. In this reference both the patties appeared but only the workman side filed \b W.S Subsequently v.hen Ihe case was fixed for filing W.S, bv the em- ployers, n Memorandum of .Setllenienl under signa- ture nf both nartics wr,s filed before iLis Tribunal. 17^ THF GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22, 2001/PAUSA 1, 1923 _ |PA*T H - S B C. 3(n)J heard both the parties on the siwd. Memorandum 01 settlement and J do find lhut the terms confined therein arc fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. AccordinpK, 1 accept the said Memorandum of settlement and pass an Award in terms thereof which forms part of the Award as Annexure.

li. BISWAS, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE

MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT ARRIVED AT BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT OF BHOWRA (SOUTH) COLLIERY OF M|S. J3CCL, P.O. BHOWRA (DHAMBAD) AND THEIR WORKMAN SRI SWA FAN KUMAR SAMANTA WORKING AS SAND MUNSHI AT BHOWRA (SOUTH) COLLIERY ON 20-X-I999 NAME OF THE PARTIES REPRESENTING: —

EMPLOYER:

1. Sri Rujeshwai ^n^li. Dy. CPM(EJ).

2. Sri D. N. Rai. P.M.(EJ).

WORKMAN:

J. Sri Swapan Kumar Samanta. Pers. No. 0()%1884.

SHORT RECTfAL OF THE CASE Shri Swapan Kumar Samanta was selected through D.P.C. for the post of Minim.' Survey Apprentice but subsequently his trade was changed in Excavation Cadre and he was regularised as Excvn. Helper (T) in Cat. I with effect frnm 15-10-1987.

Shri Samanta was authorised to work as Clerk by the then Project Officer or Bhowm O.C P. His mime was also forwarded for regularisation in clerical job fo JBCCI. Headquarter, but in the meanwhile Sri Samanta raised an .1 D. before the ALC(C), Dhanbad which was ended in F.O.C. and subsequen- tly the dispute was referred to the Ministry for adju- dication to CG1T No. 1. Dhanbad. Tn the meanwhile Sri Samantu approached to the management and re- quested for engagement as Sand Murishi in Clerical Cadre and accordingly keeping in view of shortage of Sand Munshi he was deployed as Sand Munshi at Bhowra (South) Colliery.

Shri Samanta has nonr approached the management to revert him back in his original job i.e. E.F. Helper (T) in Excvn. Cadre. His request was considered keeping in view of (he representation of the union namely R.C.M.S. and it was decided to revert him back in his original joh i.e E.P. helper (T) on the following terms and conditions on 20-8-99 TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

1. It is agreed tint Sri Swapan Kumar Samanta will be allowed to work as P.P. Helper in Excvn. Cat, £ at Chandan OCP, Sudamdih.

2. T( is also acivvd ibnt Sr: s-imnnta will no! raise any fmthcr dispnie reiiitrdiiifr his re mi- larisation in clej IUJJ job at any forum.

3 It is, agreed that Sn Samanta will submit a,n application before the Presiding Officer, C.G.l.T. No. 2, Dhanbad lor declaring No Dispute award.

4 Jt is agreed that this is an overall Settlement relating to and in respect of all issueslaspects concerning the case in question.

SIGNATURES OF THE PARTIES

For & on behalf of the

Employer Sdj-

For & on behalf ot the

Workman

(Swapan Kumar Samaiuu Per:.. No. 009638S4 (Rajcshwar Singh)

Dy. C.P.M. ( E J ).

(D. N. RAI)

Personnel Manag;.-: ( E . J j,

. Witness

1. R. N. Sorcn—01257716

2. G. H. Mishra, Cletk Adm. OfHce

c.c. to .'

1. The A.L.C.fCi, Dhanbau.

2. The R.L.C.(C), Dhanbad.

3. The Chief Labour Commissioner (O Rail Marg, New Delhi.

H. BISWAS Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 2?id November, 2001 S.O. 3466.-—Tn pursuance of Section ] 7 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal, 2, Dhanbad as, shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the management of J3CCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-11-2001.

[No. L-20012/126/9 l-IR(C-i;]

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANB\U

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas, P'rcsiding Officer. Jn the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(l)(cl) of the l.D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 17 of 1992

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 ihe employers : Shri R. Ranjan, Sr. Legal Inspector, Siju.ti Area.

STATE : Jharkhand INDUSTRY : CoaJ.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 5th November, 2001

AWARD

The instant reference case was initiated in view of an Order passed by the Govt, of India Ministry of Labour vide their Order No. L-20012( 126)/9MR- (Coal. I ), dacd the 3rd April, 1992. The terms of the reference arc as follows :~—

"'Whether the action of the management of Mudi- dih Colliery cf Mis. BCCL, Dhanbad in dis- missing Shri R. K. Prasad from service is justified ? If not, to what relief is the workmam entitled ?"

2. Perused the order. On the basis of that reference the concerned workman submitted his W.S. with a prayer for passing an Award holding that the action of the management of Mudidih Colliery of M|s. BCCL in dismissing Shri R, Iv Prasad i.e. the concerned workman was not justified Also perused the order passed by Hon'ble Pnlna High Court, Ranchi Bench dt. 11-3-1997. In the said order Hon'ble High Court observed clearly, "The workman, it would further appear had been trying to have the dispute settled bv approaching the Management again and when it failed, he again filed writ application in this Court for a direction to the Central Government to refer the dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. The manage- ment was not a pa,rty in that CWJC No. 448 of 1992(R). That writ application was filed on 5-2-1992 and disposed of on 13-2-1992 without any notice to the management. The Bench heard the counsel for the petitioner as well m the Central Govt, which was a respondent and directed that the dispute be referred to the Tribunal for proper adjudication. The Cen'ral Government passed Hie impugned order dt. 3-4-92. When the inamagement came to know of such an order, it approached the Supreme Court neainst that order dt. 1?-2.1902 passed in CWJC No. 448 of 1992 ( R ). The Supreme Court directed

7^63 the management to seek remedy in the High Court, Thereafter, the present writ application was filed. The workman, no doubt, in the writ application being CWJC. No. 448 of 1992(R) had disclosed the facts of his filing writ application and approached to the Supreme Couit bu* unfortunately, he did not make the management a party in that writ applica- tion which had been dismissed earlier on the same pont. Since the management was not a party in CWJC No. 448 of 19921. R) on that basis, the Ccn- Iral Government passed the impugned order,, which, in our opinion, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order dt, 3-4-1992 passed by the Central Government is set aside and this writ application is alowccl." The order of th; Hon'ble High Couri shows clearly that the impugned order dt. 3-4-1992 passed by the Central Govt, has been set al".ide. The Central Govt, by order df. -1 4-1992 has made the re- ference in the instant case. When the said order has been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court, it should be considered that no such industrial dispdte is in existence. Accordingly Ihe claim of the workman finds no locus standi here. Tn the result, the reference is not maintainable in the eye of law. An Award is passed accordingly

B. BISWAS. Fresidinr; Officer New Delhi, the 23rd November, 2001 S.O. 3467.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of J947). the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal-T, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute be- tween the employers in relation to the m;;n;:gement of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-11-2001.

[No. L-20012/195/93-IRiC-I)] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, DHANBAD In the matter of a reference under Section ' O ( l ) f d) (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 Reference No. 17 of 1995

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Patherdih Coal Washery of M/s.^BCCL.

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT :

Shri S. H. K;i/nn. Presiding Ollieer.

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers : Shri B. Joshi, Advocate. For I he Workmen ; Shri D. Mukherjee, Advocate and Shri K.. Chakraborty. Advocate. STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Coal.

Dated., the 12th November. 2001

MVARD

By Order No. L-2OO12( 195 )/93-I.R. (Coal-I) dated, the 12th January, 1995 the Central Govern- ment in the Ministry ol Labour has, iii exercise of the powers conferred by clause (dt of sub-section (\) and sub-section (2A) of Section 1,0 of the Industrial Dis- putes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management i.e. Dy, Chef Engineer (W), Patherdili rc.\\ Wnsh- ery of BC.CL, P.O. Patherdib, Dt Diianbad for denial of employment in favour of Shri Rum Kumar, Munshi. who has worked with the contractor's in Hie departmental job of BCCL is justifk-d ? If not, whm " relief should be granted ?"

2. Precisely, the ease of the concerned workman is that he had been working as permanent Munshi since J9R0 at dirty slurry pond of Palherdih Coal Washcry and he was engaged by !he management for pcrlorm- ing the said job. I Ivrcafter since 1985, as it is said, the concerned workman started working in the fine slurry pond situated within the precinct and premises of the Washery as a Munshi continuously, as per direc- tion of the management. Further it is said that Ihe concerned workman had been performing permanent nature of job under the direct control and supervision of the management and all the implements for execu- tion of the job we.e being supplied by the manage- ment. The said job, it is said, was declared prohibited category of job in the year 1990 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and as roon as the same Was done the management regularised all the concern- ed workmen working in the slurry pond of Patherdih Coal Washery excepting the concerned workman who later was slopped from service w.e.f. 1-10-1991 in violation of principle of natural justice and mala, fide; intention. Subsequent to lhat the concerned workman repiesented before the management for his leimtatc- ment with full had. wages as Munshi w.e.f. 2-10-1991 but without any cU'eet. Jt lias also been said that the concerned workman submitted sufficient documents before the management to prove his genuineness and accordingly an Enquiry Comnv'ttee was aho constitu- ted by the management, but 1he report of the Enquiry Committee was neither supplied to the concerned Workman nor on the basis of that report he was ever reinstated in service. L.E.O.(C) is said 1o have also conducted enquiry am! ••ai.>'ii|i!c.il rcporl afier find in" ilie concerned workman lo be a genuine workman working as Munshi in tine slurry pond. Further tho case is that when the management did not take any action seemg no alternative left the union raised an industrial dispute o,i behalf of the concerned wcrk- man but no any positive development could take place before the concerned authoiity due to adament attitude of the management. It is said that the Government of Ind'a without appreciating the legal proposition rejected the dispute for reference whereafter the union represented before the Government of Tndia all the facts alongwith the documents and only thereafter the dispute was referred. Lastly it is said that the action of the management in denial of employment to the, concerned workman who had worked in the slurry pond as Munshi was not juslilied,

3. The management, on the other hand, apart from several denials made to the statements made in the written statement filed on behalf of the workman, has come out with a plea that no employer-employee rela- tionship ever existed between the management and tho concerned workman. It has been said that at the Wash- ery at Patherdih contractors used to be engaged for r-"ioval of slurry which settles down at the slurry pond. Prior Lo the year 1990 two types of contractors usid to be engaged, one on regular basis for removal i,i' slurry which settles down in the slurry pond. The slurry settling in the slurry pond are very fine in nature containing high quality of coal and the same used to be collected on regular basis from the slurry ponds are stored at the dumping yard. Thus the workmen engaged through contractors on the job of removal regular basis. Further it is said that the rejection/dirty of slurry from slurry ponds used lo be engaged on slurry/middling slurry was/is removed intermittantly at intervals of 3 to 6 months and there was no scope for engagement of contract labour on such job en regular bns's. Later in the year 1990 the management deployed machines for removal of dirty /middling/re- jection slurry and the previous practice of engaging contract labour on such jobs was stopped.

Further the case is that in the month of December, 1990 the Central Government issued notification pro- hibiting engagement of contract labour on the jobs of removal of slurry at the Coal Washeries in pursuance of which the management of Patherdih Coal Washery I'iscnntinued the practice of engaging contract labour mi 1h? job of removal of slurry and took 184 wovk-- nien as per requirement and on the basis of verifica- tion of the contractors' pay sheets and there was no dispute with regard to any workman who was emp- loyed through contractor on the iobs of removal of slurrv at the time of abolition of the contract system. The concerned workman, it is said, was not a work- man under any contractor on the job of removal of slurry from the slurry pond and as such his case was not put up before the management in the year 1990 or 1991 and he was not taken on the roll of the management. The management regularised or absorb- ed all the workers who were working on the roll of the contractors on the jobs of removal of slurry from the slurrv ponds and as the concerned workman was not on the roll he was not bcinc absorbed. Further it has been said that the concerned workman has raised his claim mainly on the basis of false and fabricated 76 (i ^

even by adducing oral evidence it failed to substan- tiate its stand. In support of the aforesaid contention lew decisions have also been referred, such as, one reported in 2001(1) LIJ 923(SC), another one re- ported in 1963(11) LL.J. 4-17 and also another one reported in I964OI) LIJ. 633,

documents manufactured IV, i- tlv purpose of Ihc pic- sent case and has Tailed to produce any aulhenticale document to show that he ever worked JN Vhmshi under any contractor engaged in the removal of < lurry from the slurry ponds. Ji is said that his name did not appear in Ihc pay-sheet of,the contraclor which form- ed llv basis of .selection of IK4 workmen for their absoipfion binder the management at the time of nho- lition 01' contract system TJie claim of the •:ouccrned wor'-.iniu as such is said to be false and b iseless. It has a:so been said that the concerned workman was never a "'•lunsiii appoinlcd by the management or by any contractor and so [he question of submitting any repoit by any authoiied for or fo my oiher relief at all.

4. In support of their respective stand it appears that the workman and the management both adduced oral evidence. One witness has been examined mi behalf of the workman who is none other than iho concerned work-man himself, Likewise one witness has been examined on behalf of the management who is an officer engaged in Patherdih Coa! Washers. Aoait from ffie oral evidence few documents haw also been filed and exhibited on behalf of the concerned work- man. Out of those documents F.xt. W-l is Weigh Bridge Register bearing the signature of die concerned workman as MCII as the signatures of other Weieh Bridge Clerk. Those signatures are marked Fxl. W - l / 1, Fxl. W-2 is an agreement which hears the signature of the officials of The management. F\t. W-^ is 2R attendance registers bearing the signatures of trie concerned workman and Fxts. W-4 and W-4/1 are the daily report and the signatures contained therein. No any document has been filed nr exhibileJ on behalf of ih>? management.

With equal vehemence, on [he oilier hand, it has been contended on behalf of tl c management that there was absolutely no relationship of employer and emp- loyee between the concerned workman and the manage- ment and at the t'me of abolition of contract system he was not being absorbed as he was not found to be working in any capacity whatsoever in the slurry ponds of the Washery. According to the subnrssion all those who were found to be working and whose names were very much there on the roll were imme- diately absorbed out of whom four munshies working in the slurry were also there and since the concerned workman was not found to be working under any con- tractor his name was not there on the roll and none came forward to support the claim of the concerned workman. It is only much belatedly after manufactur- ing and fabricating certain documents in his favour, according to the submission, the concerned workman raised the dispute but even then he failed to iroduee or show the pay-sheets of the contractor in order to clarify if he actually received the wa*cs from the contractor or not. Tt has also been contended lhat as marry of those documents produced are in own hand- writing of the concerned workman the same could have been easily manufactured for the purpose of the present case. Tl has also been urged that the management has already departmentalised four mun- shies, one in each shift and one person to work as standby during leave and sick, vacancy of 'hrec regu- lar munshies. As such, according to Ihe submission there is no scope for engagement of another iminshi even if it is taken that the concerned workman work- ed as a Munshi under contractor. Tt is further contend- ed that no one can claim regularisation as a matter of right and particularly in view of a recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2001 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 1121 a contract labour or daily wager has no light to automatic absorption in public sector companies, they worked for. Tn the instant case, as per the submission, as Ihc concerned workman was not even found to b: a Vvor'crrian wnrlJr:': iin;!'-r n contractor in the concerned slurry pond, ;here is no any scope of either his regularisation or automatic absorption. Further the contention is that rightly ihe Central Government initially had refused to refer the dispute for adjudica'ion as <|iii!e obviously the con- cerned workman had no claim lo stnnd and even fail- ed to produce anv documentary evidence Rather ac- cording to the submission it also supports the stand taken by the mamtiement thai the documents which have been produced m course of the proceeding are false and fabricated documents manufactured i'or tht) puroose of the present case, much later, after duo deliberation.

5. In course of ihe hearing it has been strenuously urged on behalf of the concerned workman Dial in view of the several unimpeachable documents filed on behalf of the workman, it cannot be reasonably denied that the concerned workman was very much working at Patherdih Coal Washery since long before die com- ing into existence of the said nolification in the yeai 1990 and even at the time of absorption or regulari- saition of ihe other workmen in the year 1901. Des- pite that it has further been submitted that the man- agement in an illegal and arbitrary manner did not consider ;he case of the concerned workman fnr ab- sorption and did not pav any heed lo the several representations filed on his behalf. It ha.: also been contended that despite being in possession o!" several relevant documents supporting the claim of the con- cerned workman, the management did not produce the same when at the instance of Ihe workman the same was called fnr and as a result some of those documents were later produced and w ee exhibited al the insi;>j2£r of !hi"¹ workman. According to (he submit.in This attitude of the management itself speaks a lot and

6 In view of the statements made in the written statements and also considering the aforesaid conten- tions ra;scd on behalf of th? respective ".ides the coro issue which appears to be involved is as to whether the concerned workman was also working in Ihe con- cerned Washery as a Munshi alongwith others under 3771 GI/2001—13.

said that an enquiry was held by the management but he was not regularised.

a contractor at the lime ol' notification prohibiting the contract system or at the time of absorption ot other workmen in I he years 1940 and 1991 and also whether he- has rightful claim to (he employment under the management,

7. Apart from Iheaforesaid documents r.o far as the other documents filed on behalf of the workman are concerned they are either Weigh Bridge Register bearing the signatures of the concerned workman and others or the few registers marking attendance of the workmen under the concerned workman's signature or the daily report which again bears 1hc signature of the concerned workman. On some of those documents it is said, there are signatures of Weigh Biidgc Clerk or some other officials of the management also, But in view of the stand taken by the management and also in view of absence of any other supporting mate- rials, it is dillicult togather that Ihosr signatures are, in fact, the signatures of officials of the management Those documents have been produced by the work- man the most of which arc in his own handwriting and signatures and so the objection raised on behalf ot the management cannot be brushed aside lightly that those could have been easily manufactured for the purpose of the present case. 'f his objection further lincls support from the fact that initially the Central Government refused to refer the dispute for adjudica- tion in the year 1994 by observing that the union failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove that Ram Kumar (concerned workman) was ever engaged as Munshi in Patherdih Coal Washery on slurry contract work between 1976 to 1990, Out ol this further it is significant to be noticed that at that time the concerned workman claimed to have worked in slurry point between 1976 to 1990. But later on he seems to have chanced his stand and claimed to have worked from 1980 to 19S5 at Dirty Siuny and from 1985 to 1990 at fine slurry. Apparently in the year 1994 or even prior to that the concerned work- man had no document in his favour otherwise he would have produced the same and the reference would not have been refused by the Central Govern- ment on that score, ft is only when the earlier refer- ence was refused be popped up certain Jixu ne:i..i and obviously on that basis for the second time suc- ceeded in getting the dispute referred by the Govern- ment for adjudication. Moreover, from those docu- ments it does not appear that the concerned workman worked for 240 days in one calendar year cither in dirty slurry or fine slurry as munshi. I IInd sufficient force in the submissions made on behalf of the man- agement that pay-sheets of the contractor would have been a material document to support the claim of ihe workman which the workman has failed to produce. Non-production of the said document rather suppnrN the case oi' the management, that the name of the workman was not on the roll of the contractor us he was not working in the slurry.

ft stands undisputed that after coming into force of the notification of 1990 issued under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and AbnhLion) Act, 1970. Several workmen engaged on the job of slurry removal through contractors were departmenta- lised or absorbed by the management. In this eonltxt the workman (WW-1 ) himself in his evidenc has said that all the workers working in slurry ponds were regularised and four Munshies were also regularised but he was left oui. Now as par the management, the concerned workman was not on the roll of the contractor nor any contractor advanced any claim on his behalf nor the concerned workman raised any pro- test or dispute in that regard in the year 1901 when the contractor's workers were regularised. It is only much belatedly dispute was raised after manufacturing certain documents in his favour by the workman. To this effect there is no denial from the side of the workman either in the written statement or in evidence and it stands novvhere mentioned that the name of the concerned workman was very much there on the roll of the contractor. Rather, Ext. W-2 which is a note of discussions and which contains lew letters also confirm the fact that the name of the concerned work- man was not there on the roll of the contractor. 11 is now the case of the workman that having hem left out he represented before the management several time for rcguiarisation but without any result. He 1'ur- ther says that an Enquiry Committee was also cons- tituted to lind out the truth but the report nf the Committee was never supplied to him nor he v;is reinstated. He does not say that the report was in his favour either in the written statement or in his evi- dence. No material has been produced to show that in that report recommendation was made for his ab- sorption. In this respect ihc stand of the managemeni is that no such report is in existence. The workman also did not make any prayer for calling for such report by giving the details. In this regard in para 14, of the written statement it has been said that L.F..O. (C) had conducted enquiry and had submitie ' rcpo-i to the appropriate authority in favour of the workman. This fact has been denied by the management and the workman also did not produce either the said report or any meterial to establish the said fact nor even prayer was made for calling for such report irom the management. Fiom b'xt. VV-2 simply ;l apL^irs 11..i. a discussion was held hetween the represent:!¹ ives of the union and few officials of the management during which union demanded that a Committee should be constituted to enquire into the case of few slurry labourers engaged in the shiny contract work, but their names are not appearing in the roll of the con- tractor. From the letters which are part m Ext. W-2 also it does not appear that enquiry reporf, if at all. was submitted, recommended the absorption of the workmen. It is reiterated that the management has seriously challenged the genuineness of those docu- ments filed on behalf of ihe management. The con- cerned workman also in his evidence has not said about any enquiry report in his favour and has simply

8. So far as the management's witness is concerned it is urged that he was not a competent witness as he did not work" in the slurry and was just a Welfare Inspector. Merely on that account, T am afraid, the said witness cannot be held to be incompeicnt. At least be is a responsible officer of the management and despite being not working in the same slurry, can very well say about ihe facts involved as he was working in the same Patherdih Coal Washerv to which Hir concerned slurry ponds belong, since 1983. He has 7667

dispute which is invited is whether the concerned workman ever wuikal in the said slurry as a munshi engaged by a con>raci'ir during the period, as dis- closed, and frum the side of the management it has been emphatically put loiward that the concerned workman never vvo'l.eU in the aforesaid capacity at any point of time and for lhat reason his name never figured in the toll of Ihe conductor and consequently Ihere was no question of his absorption at the time of repulaiisation of the workman found to be work- ing in the said slurry. So obviously hcie it is not il'e bone of conttnt'on lli-ut the concerned workman w;ii hired by the contractor ot was engaged directly by the management.

I I. Hence, in view ot all Ihe discussions made above on the blip's ot *'v materials on record, I come to an irresist'ble cniulusion Unit the concerned work- man has failed to substantiate his claim for regulari- s:\tion and r|n_re IS noihing on the basis of which it cun be held that he ought to have also been regula- iisi\1 alongwith others after coming into force of Ihe r.foiesaid noiiiicalion in Hie yeai U990 under Sec. 10 of thr Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) !Aet, 1970.

said that all the slurry mazdoors, munshies working in the slurry cleaning prior lo prohibition have been regularised by the company and that the concerned workman was not working as a mum hi. As regards any enquiry being made, he has replied thai he cannot say that any enquiry was set up which submitted its report to the etiect that the concerned workman was working at that time, interestingly, though in cross- examination such suggestion was made but it vvas not evfen the case ot the workman that such was the re- port of the .(inquiry Committee. 1 lie concerned work- man also in his evidence has not said about that. Jn short, the said witness put forward on behalt of the management cannot be dubbed as incompetent or un- trustworthy. It has also been argued on Dehalt ol the workman tnat WW-1 was not cross-examined on male- rial aspects and so it can only be presumed tliat those tacts as regards which he stated earlier stand admit- ted. This argument also appears Lo be devoid of any substance as it clearly appears from the evidence ot the said witness that suggestions were made to him in course of his cross-examination to the etieci. that those documents produced from the side ol the work- men are manufactured one for the purpose of this ease and also to the ellcet that the concerned work- man was not working as a 'munshi' in slurr> section.

i_. 'Ihe aw.trd a> Mich is rendered as herein-

under :—

That the aeLicn of the management of Patherdih Conl Washer,, of MJs. B.C.C. Ltd. for denial of employment in favour of Ram Kumar, Munshi, who hii¹- worked with ihe contractor in the departmental job ol BCCL is justified and the concerned workman "is not entitled to any relief.

In the circumstances of thi case there would be,

hov/evci, no older as to costs.

S. H. KAZM1, Presiding Officer

New Delhi. Mie 23rd November. 2001

S.O. 3 4 h 8 . - Jn purMiaive of Section 17 of the y. Besides the above, the contention advanced on behalf of the management is that the management has already departmentaliscd four munshies, one in each shjtt and one person to work as stand-bye during leave and sick vacancy of three regular munshies. As such, according to the submission there is no scope for engagement of another munshi and even if the concerned workman had worked as munshi under the tonlraefor he cannot demand for his regu- larisalion when there i.-, tu- scope for employment. In icgard to this suggestion, significanlly, neither in the written statement nor in course of the argument i't has been put forward on behalf of the workman lhat still there lies a post of munshi vacant in the Concerned i-l.ury. rather the concerned workman him- scli in his -cross-examination appears to have ad- mitted tint ihe slurry removal work runs into three shifts in a day and that four munshies were regula- rised. Such 'iLLtemeni made by Ihe workman ob- viously supports the al'oresak! contention made on behalt of Ihe management that the management had depdrtmentalised four rniinsliks, one in each shift and one person to work as stand-bye during leave and sick vacancy of the thiee regular munshies. The workman in li's evidence is also silent about the existence of any vacancy of munshi in the said slurry. In this v'ew ol the matter even if it is found that the concerned workman has a good case for regularisa- li.'ii ho cannot be ordered tu be regularised due to non-availability of the post UF desired, as by now it stands well settled lhat ixgularisation can only be demanded for filling up vauint post and not against imaginary posl. Therefore, on this score also the clnini of Ihe concerned workman cannot stand.

Industrial Dispute Act 19A7 (U of 1*^7), (he O r- tral Government hereby oubhsius the award of 'lie Central Government Industrial Tribunal, 2. Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relalion to the management of BCCL and their workman, vhie'i was receiver by the Central Government nn 22-11-2001.

rNo.L-200]2i?.H(93-m(C-I)] S, S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (.Nu, _') AI D H A N B AD

PRESENT:

SI:ri B. Biswas, Presiding Ollicei Jn the mailer of an Industrial Dispute, under Section 10(l)(d) of the I.IX Act, 194 7.

Reference No. 114 of 1993

PARTIES ; Employers inivlatiuii to the management ol' Bhagaband Cullicry of Ms. FK'CL ami iheir workman.

brother-in-law Ramesh Bii ir praei'emg fraud ob- tained her LTls on some papers with sonic ulterior niouve and the management ivlying on all 'lv:sc illegal papers refused fo provide her any k'mployment. She further disclosed Iliul aci-Muiug to the provision of para 9.4.2 the claim for employment by the youn- ger brother is to be cons! L'i'-'d ".hoi no duvet dependent is available tor employment and such dependent should be residing with the deceased and he also should be dependent on Hie earning of l!ie. deceased. She disclosed tlvn Ramesh Bhar, the youngner brother of her c!ccease.! husband is pot only a married person bnt also resides dscwhcie in seperalc mess along with his h'piilv and mumfniivxl hk livelihood by cultivation. Accordingly the con- cerned workman has prayed f,ir iJ^is-Mng; nn Award directing Ihe management to provide employment to her with retrospective eh\ci,

APPEARANCES :

On behalf ol th- workman ; Sim S. C. Gaiir, Advocate.

On bchulf of the employers : Shri R. Joshi, Advocate.

State: Jharkhand

Industry: G>'>1.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 1st November, 2001

AWARD

The Govt, of India, Ministry of Labour in e\ei~ cise of the powers conferred on thiein under Seciiu'i 10(l)(d) of the I.!). Act. il>47 has referred the following dispute fo this Tribunal for adjudica;i'ui vide (heir OULT NO. L-2C(Jl2|2l I 93-I.R. (Coal-1), dated 23126-7-93.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of management of Bhaga- band O'lhcry of BCCL in denying employ- ment to Smt. Sotiia Devi Bhar \vjo late Suresh Bhar in terms of para- 9.4.2 of NCWA-IV is jusu.'ied ? If not, to vvhat relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. The case of the concerned workman accord-

ing to the W.S. in brief is as follows:--

}, The management on the contrary after filing W.S.-cunwejuiniJCf have d^n.ed all the claims and allegations which the concerned v-orkman asscned in her W.S. The management submnted that burcsh Chandra Bhar was an e:cctric:il helper ul. Bhagaband Colliery with n I'utki Buhiuin Area of the company. He died on 18-10-88 leaviti" behind the concerned lady Smt. Sonia Devi. The iTKiniagemen! submitted that the concerned lady made a repiesentalion befoic the management vv.lti the intimation that she married Ramesh Chandra Bhar, younger brother of late Surcsli Bhai" on 3-11-88 and in support of th it claim the concerned lady sworn an aifidavi: before the Notary Public on 7-11-88 and declared herself to be the wife of Ramesh Chandra Bhar. She fur'her dseloscd in the said affidavit that on the death of her husband us she got herself married U> hi-j younger brothei on 3-11-88 she expressed her desire to provide employ- ment to Ramesh Chandra Bhar in her place. The management further iubmitt;d that ihc concerned lady submitted certificate dt. 21-12-X.S granted by Mukhiya of Village Ramap^chavat where the concerned lady lived and the said eei tii,i:(ilt \i as duly at ested by the B.D.O. of the locality. In the jiicj certificate and affidavit she declared herself to be th- wife of Ramesh Chandra Bhar, younger b.'o!hcr of Suresh Chandra Bhar. The management submitted that during enquiry they came to know :hat Ramesh Chandra Bhar was a married person hiving his wife and daughter in the village where he "• as carrying on his ailtiva'ion. Accordingly he was not the depended on the earning of the deceased workman Suresh Bhar for which he is nof entitled to get any employment under ihe management as per the provision of NCWA-IV. The maf.iat'.emenl altered v, hen Hii -. fact came to ihe knowledge of the concerned lady she chanced her mind and denied all 'he facts vhieh '•ho asserted by way of affidavit aind in the certifici'te ^:4:ieh Mukhiva •ssiicd. The management further alleged that by nracticini', fraud the enncrrned ladv^ intended to pet her emplovnvitu under the mana::cment. Accordingly ihe munrvfecmnt lmve nrayed UK setting aside th') rlairn of the concerned lady.

4. The noints fur eon-.idei-a1;nn in this reference

arc: —

The concerned workman in th,: W.S. Mibiniitrd that her husband Suresh Bhar was an employee un- der the management ,incc 22-12-80. Thereafter In- died on 18-KI-8N. Referring to para X4,2 of NCWA-IV the concerned workman submitted thai she was legally entitled to get her employment due to premature death of her huf-hand. Accordingly sh: applied for her employment but the management have refused to provide employment to her claiming about her remarriage with Ramesh Bhai", younger brol'ner of her dece.fsed husband. She disclosed that her brother-in-law Ramesh Chandra Bhar practising fraud took her LTT on some papers informing her that the same would be required in connection wit?] seeking employment for her, Sh: disclosed thai h,-r said brother in law was already married and his wife wa's very much alive and for which any such second marriage is not permissible in th-: eye of law and for which there was no reason to riKirry him after the death of her husband. She also disclosed that it was . ummpginablc on her oart only that after 15 days after dea'h of her husband sh.' WMIM cmn..¹ rorwir:! and ninny anothn peiM.n Sh: ('Vrli :.'d that her

'•Whether Ihe -e'.-n ol nnniK'niien! of Bha>>ab;)n;< Colliery of HCCl. in denying employment 7669 to Smt. Sonia Devi Bhai' w|o la.ie Suicsli Bhar in Lerms ot para 9.4.2 ol NCWA-1V is justified ? Ji' not, to \'hat relief the work- man is entitled '.'"

DECISION WITH REASONS

ii I.J scon lhat iuspite of giving seva.il o].,t.\<, liiin-

w:\b no reason to marry Ramesh Bhai which was in the eye oi law an illegality. It is laci that Lhc con- cerned lady was the wire oi' Suresh Chandra Bhar. It ia also admitted lact rhul Suresh Chandra Uhar died ui harness. According to the provision of para 9.4.2. or NVWA-IV the dependent of the deceased is en- titled to get employment. Therclou, relying on the said provision there was scopj on the parL of the con- cerned lady i e. the wife of Suiesh Chandra Bha;r to submil her prayer lor employment under the nianage- mcnl. It is seen thai in thf midsl some dispute cropped up relating IO the marriage of Ihe concerned lady i.e. widow of Suresb Chandra Bha,r. There was ample scope on the part of the >/viioerned Ltiy to disprove all the allegadons whicn the management has brought against her. But with utter surprise it is noticed that inspite of geiting ample opporiunitiLS the concerned Jady did nor take any s'ep to rebut all the allegations which the management has brought. Ac- cording io the provision of NCWA-1V there was scope iu ecaisider the prayer of tlv; concerned lady. As she has failed to uirn up in course of hearing at this stage I find it dilficult to consider her prayer. In the result, the following Award is rcndeicd : —

'The action cf management of Bhagaband Col- liery of BCC1. in denying employment to Snil. Sonia' Devi Bhar v\ |o Late Suresh Bhai- in terms of para n 4.2. pf NCWA-IV is justified. Conseiiiicnllv th.v concerned workman is not cnti'Ied to get any relief."

11. BISWAS. Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 2JK1 N-wcnibcr, 2001

S O. 34(1^.—^In pursuance of Seclion 17 of !hc Industrial Dispu'es Act, !')-l-7 M4 of I4J7>, the Central Government, hereby publishes the award of the Central G'-ivcrn:rK'!U 'ndusiiial "1 ribonal No, 2, [Dhanhad as shown in the APHCMU'C in the Industrial Dispu'e between the employer, in relation to the management of BCCL and their workmen, which Was received h\ ilic Cential Ciovernmenl on 22nd November. 200T

I No 1- 22O12|222[47-TR(C-I)"| S. S. GUi'TA, LJ;KICI- Secy.

ANNEXURE

lil'FORl-: THH CENIRAI. GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2j AT DHANUAD

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswus, FrcsiLling Officer

Jn the matter of an Inlustnal Dispute under Section 10(1 )(d) of the L.l), Act, 1947 Reference No, 124 of 199.S

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to ilv: management uf Bhowra (N) U.G. Mines of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of (he workman -Shi i S. N. Goswaui', Advocate.

On behalf of the employe—Shri N. N\ilh Advocate.

SFATF. : Jhaikhand. INDUSTRY: Co; 1.

Dhanhad, th; Wh November, 2001

AWARD

The Government ot India, Mini,try of Labour, in •exercise of tiie powers conferred on them under Sec- tion 10(1 )(d) of live I U. Y;t, I 947 lias referred \W following dispute to this Fnbunal lor adjudication vide their order No. L-7OO12/J22/'."7-l,R.(C-l), dated, the M)\h April. I99tf.

SCHEDULH

"Whether Ilv acliun of the management of Blv.nvra (Ni CollWy of M.'s. BCCL ;n denial 10 regularise the workman Sri It,lain Mia as "limber VLi7dmu- without protection of wages is justified ? If not. to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ?'' 2. In this reference both '-hi parfic- appeared but •.>nly tlie workman side filed its W.S. The rd'ernve Ilien proceeded abng its conr;e. Subsequently wN ]-. t.'io case was fixed for filing W.S. by the management, a Memorandum u\' setllem:r,t under the signature cf both the parlies was filed beivre this Tribunal. 1 heard both the parlits on th.- said settlement petition and 1 find that the terms eonMined therein are fair. p"''P'-'r and in accordance wiLh the principles of natu- ral justice. Accordingly. 1 accept the said . eUlemewi petition and pass an Award in Icrms thereof which forms pLirl of the Award .A Ainvxiirj.

MI-MORANDUM 01- SIITTLUMENT ARRIVED AT BEL WEEN

The Management ni !-:..[. Area, Mjs. BCCL at ik P.O. Bhowra (Dhanbad)

AND

Their woikmeu

Namely Sri Mam Mia, Prop. Mazdoor ol Bhowra (N).U.G. Mines

R e p r e s e n t i ng L HC M a n a g J i n c nl •

1. Sri D. N. Rai, PM (FJ).

2. Sii K. K. Singh. PM, JJh. (N) Colly, Representing the workman :

1. Sri Islam Mia, Prop Ma/ioor, Bhowra (N) UG Mints (self).

2. Sri Dilip ChakraborL^ '\rea Secy., BCKU, Bhowra Group.

SHORT RECITAL Ol- THF. CASE Shri Islam Mia was desigaaicj as DCL and posted at Bhowra (N) Colliery, He was deployed as Timber Mazdour against permanent vacancy ami after com- ph'tion of requisite period he was regularised as Timber Mazdoor in Cat, 111 vv cf. 18-1-96. The basic pay of Sri Mia was fixed initially in Cat. Hi. Being aggrieved by the decision of tlie niaiiajjemetu Shri Mia raised an 1,D. before the ALC(C), Dhan- baJ which was registered in Rs?f. No. i/i4/<)d E-5 dated 19-1-96. The concili-uion ended m POC and subsequently was referred U> th_- L Gl F Mo, 2, Dhan- bad on the following terms of reference :

"Whether the action of the management of Bhowra (N) Colly, ot \1A\ BCCL in denial to regularise the workman Si' Islam Mia as Timber Mazdoor withoiu protection of wages is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled '?"' BCKU took up the mailer with th^ appropriate authority and after deliberation the C inipeteni. Autho- rity accorded approval for proiecii^u of wages in the iegciar'r.ed c.Viegncy as per guidelines issued by Hcad- quaiiers and as a reniit the Settlement was reached on 24-12-99 on the following terms it conditions :—

1. It is agreed that HIL SPRA OI Sri Islam Mia will be proteci'.J and his basic pay will be fixed in Cat. 1IT as Rs. X2.bb per day.

.3. Financial benefit will accrue with imme- diate effect only i.e. with effect t

Sd/-

CD. N. Rai), Personnel Manager (EJ)

Sd,-

(K. K. Singh) Personnel Manager, Bhowra (N) UG Mines.

Sd/-

(Islam Mia) Pron Mazdoor Bhowra- (N) Colly. fSelf)

Sd/-

(Dilip Chakmbortv) Area Secretary. B.C.K.U., Bhowra Group.

Mew Delbi. the 23rd November, 2001 S.O. 3470.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19^" (1.4 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Centra! 'Government Irdustrial Tribunal, No. 2. Dhanb^d as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CCL and their workman, which was received by (he Cenfal Government on 22-11-2001.

(No. L-200U2i243l92-TR(C-T)]

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy

ANNEXURE

BEFORH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS 1 R I M. TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding- Officer.

In th." niptfer of an Industrial Dispute under Section KM )!LH of the l.D. Act, 1947.

Refeience No. 163 of 1993

PARTIES

Hinployers in ifiation to the manaeement of K-xlla Open Can Project of MjsT CCL and their Turkman,

7571 VTEARANCES :

On behalf vi .lie W< ilhian.-^Shrl B. B. Pandey, Advc c;

On. behalf of ihe L-'mployers.—Shri B. Joshi, Advocate.

"STATE : J!u

Dated, Dhanbad, thj 2nd November. 2001

AWARD

1 he Government of India. Ministry oi' Labour, in exercise of the po'-wrs en;cried en them under Sec- t;on 1 0 ( l ) ( d) o[ the I. D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute <<> this Tribunal for adjudica- tion vide their Order Nn. L-20012( 243 ) .92-1.R.

(Coal-1), dated 2 1-9-93.

"Whether the conversion and subsequently re- <.',ui:ir;vation irom piece rated workers to time rated workers and fixation of their pay without the protection of wages of Shr B:>nshi Bhuhan and others of Kcdla Open Cast Project bv the management of k.O.C.P." cf M'-.'C. C. Ltd. is justified? If not, te what relief these wo.'kman are entitled 7"

2 In this icfercnce both the parses appr 'Jed and fi!e-i their V/.S. d"/:umen1s -.;tc The case then pro- ceeded along its course. Subsequently when the cas? was fixed learned Advocate for the workman sub- milted that as ihe cv.cemed workman is not interest- ed to proc-.'d v/Hii :lie c:'se nnd neces-ary Award may be rns'-id. to which no obketion was raised on the side el' ihe niaiuigeni'-nt. Under such circumstances, a 'No d'.. puts;' Awrrd is rendered and the reference is disposed of on the basis of "No dispute' Award Drcsunr.n" non-existence of any industrial dispute lv{.\>xn the partie;

B. BISWAS, Presidmsj Officer.

New Delhi, the 23rd November, 2001 S.O. 3471.—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 GoveuiiTient Industrial Tribunal 2, Dhanbad as shown sn i!u Annexure in il.c Industrial Dispute be- tween the employers in relation to the management of 7''⁷: Till: GAZETTE OF IKDI.-\ : DEPHM1? LR ^ I 2 0 0 M W U 3A I 1923 [PASM II—Sec. 3fii'i] B C CL and I heir w o r k m a n, w h i ch was received by the Central Government on 2 2 - 1 1 - 2 0 0 1.

|No, LO00J2/473/94-lR(C-I)|

S. S. GUFF A. Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THH CENTRAL GOVERN MEN T INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Ollicer.

}n the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1 ) ( d) of the LD. Act. I'M7 Reference N o. 151 of 1095

P A R T I ES :

Employers in relation to the managerren' of M-'s. BCCL, Koyahi Nagar. Dhanbad.

APPEARANCES:

On -behalf ol' ihc workman : Shri S. C. Gaur.

Advocate,

On behalf of the employers : Shri fl, N.ith, Advocate.

STATE : J hark hand. INDUSTRY : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 1st November. ?.00l

AWARD

The Governmenl of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec- tion 10(1 )(d) of the LD. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute lo this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/473 94-LR. (Conl-I) dated, the 15th November. IW5.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Koyala Bhawan in referring Shri Alam Bhuiya, Auto Helper to the Medical Board on 23-K-93 is justified ? [f not, to what relief Shri Alam Bhuiya is entitled lo and from which date '.'" 2. The case of the concerned workman according 10 the W.S. in brief is as follows ; —

The concerned workman m his W.S. submitted thai he came in employment as Shale Picker at East Bhug- gatdih Colliery on 1 -8-65 and at the lime of hi", employment his dale of birth was recorded as 1-7-51. Accordingly his said dale of birth was entered in all the records such as Form B Register. LD. Card Regis ter and C.M.P.F. register. The concerned workman submitted that at pres.-nt he is working at Ceniral Auto Workshop at KoyJa Nagar, Dhanbad to the entire satisfaction of the management with unblemished re- cord of service. He suhmitted that after nationalisation of the said collierv the management served service excerpt to all its employee-. He al^ received a copy of the service excerpt wherein his date ol birth was recorded as 1-7-51 i.e. the same age which was record- ed iu the Form B Register, LD. Card register and C.M.P.F. regisler. As his date of birth was recorded con-ectly in Ihe service cxeerpl he did not consider necessary I" raise any objection and accordingly re- lumed back the service excerpt with his signature. I hereafter the management issued his now LD. Card in the year 1995 bearing No. 006557, P. No. 00160374 wherein his dale of birth was recorded as 1-7-51. It has been alleged by the concerned workman that in spite of correct recording of his date of birth in alt official papers his age was assessed as 50 years as on 24-8-93 i.e. his date of birth was assessed as 24-8-43. The moment he came to know about assessment of his age wrongly he raised his protest. He submitted further there was no i.ecasion on the part of the man- agement to send him before the Apex Medical "Board for determination of his age because cf the fact that there was ^o discrepancy in recording his date of birth in different oflicials records of the management name- ly Form B Register, LD. Card register and C.M.P.F. records. He further alleged that the medical board iilr.0 did not assess his ago properly mainatining medi- cal jurisprudence and for which they have assessed his age on the basis of surmise, as no ossification test was done. Accordingly the concerned workman sub- iT>;'ted his prayer to pass an Award holding that the action of the management of Koyala Bhawan in re- ferring the concerned workman to the medical boajd \'ii 23-K-93 was not justified and his dale of birth recorded as 1-7-51 in the Form B Register should be treated as final.

3. The management on the contrary alter filing W.S.-cum-rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the concerned workman asserted in his W.S. The management submitted that the con- cerned workman was originally an employee of East Bhuggatdih Colliery under M/s. BCCL and transfer- red to M / s. BCCL's headquarters on 17-11-95 and at present he is working at Central Auto Workshop, Koyala Nagar, Dhanbad. On 31-1-86 complete bio- data of the concerned workman was received through Himineer Inchargc, Central Automobile Workshop M \ BCCL Headquarters and his date of birth was mentioned as J-7-51 while in Form B Register or East Bhuggat- dih Collierv his age w,n found written as 20 years as on 7-8-65. As per decision jointly taken by the union and the management in general, employees are to be sent to the proper Apex Medical Board for his correct age assessment if the employees concerned have no satisfactory certificate. Since the concerned workman had neither the certificate to this effect he wos referred to the Apex Medical Board on 23-8-93. Accordingly, the management submitted that the claim of the concerned workman finds no basis at all and ior which his prayer is liable to be rejected, 4. The points for decision in this reference are : —

"Whether the action of the management of Koyah Bhawan in referring Shri Alam Bhuiya Auto Helper, to the Medical Board on 23rd August, 1993 is justified ? If not, lo what relief Shri Alam Bhuiya is entitled to and from which dale ?"

DECISION WITH REASONS

5. It is seen that the concerned workman in order to establish his claim examined himself as witness 7673 while the management to counter the claim of (lie concerned workman examined three witnesses, From the evidence of the concerned workman as well as from its W,S. it transpires that he got his employment initially at East Bhuggatdih Colliery with eftcct from 1-8-65, He disclosed that at that relevani lime his date of birth was 1-7-51 and that dale of birth was duly recorded in the Form B Register, J.D. Card re- gister and CM.P.P. Register. He disclosed dial there- after in the year 1995 he was transferred to Koyala Bhawan i.e. BCCL's headquarters and working at Central Auto Workshop. It has been disclosed by the cone-Tned workman that inspite of his date of birth recorded in the Form B Register, I.D. Card Register as well as C.M.P.F. Register as 1-7-51 the manage- ment without any reason sent him to the Aoe,\ Medic-')] Board for assessment of his age and the Medical Board arbitrarily and without maintaining all proce- dures examined him and assessed his age as 50 years as on 24-8-93 i.e. his date of birth \v;;s considered as 24-8-43. He submitted that hd'ore sending him to the Medical Board the management issued service excerpt to him wherein also his date of birth was recorded as 1-7-51. He submitted further that as he did not find any anomaly relating to the partieulars given in the service excerpt including his date of birth he returned back the same putting his signature thereon. His main allegation that inspite of accepting 1-7-51 at his date of birth the management arranged for his medical examination without any basis. He suhmited that ihc said assessment of his age by the Medical Board was illegal because of the fact that the management have ignored all the official records maintained by them. On the contrary the contention of the management appears to be quite different. Admitting the fact that the concerned workman was initially appointed at East Bhuggatdih Colliery submitted that he was trans- ferred to M/s. BCCL's headquarters in the vear 1995 and at present he is working at Central Auto Work- shop, Koyala Nagar, Dhanbad. The management sub- mitted that on 31-8-96 thev received complete bio- data of the concerned workman through Engineer, Incharge, Central Automobile Workshop of BCCL Headquarters wherein his dale of birth was exposed as 1-7-51. On the contrary from the Form B Register of East Bhuggaidih Colliery is transpired that his age was recorded as 20 years as on 7-8-65. Accordingly as serious discrepancy cropped up relating to the age of the concerned workman according to the JBCC1 Implementation Instruction No. 76 they forwarded the concerned workman to the Apex Medical Board for assessment of his age. The order during evidence was marked as Ext. W-J. Accordingly, the concerned work- man attended the Apex Medical Board on 23-8-93 and his age was assessed by the Medical Board as 50 years as on 23-8-1993. Disclosing this fact the management submitted that they did not commit any mistake in asses- sing the age of the concerned workman particularly when serious discrepancy to that effect cropped up, In doing so the management relied on JBCCT Imple- mentation Instruction No. 76. According to clause, (c) of the said Implementation Instruction No. 76 relaHnjr to the promlcre for determination! procedure of verification of ape of employees it is clear that "age determination committee/Medical Board for the above will be constituted bv the Management. In the case

of employees whose date of birth cannot be determin- ed in accordance with the procedure mentioned in ( B ) ( i ) ( a) or ( O ) ( i ) ( b) above, the date of birth re- corded in the records of the company, namely, Form B Register, CMPF records and Identity Cards (un- tampered) will be treated as final. Provided that where is a veriation in the age recorded in the records mentioned above, the matter will be referred to the Age determination committee/Medical constituted by the Management for determination of age". 1 have considered the Form B Register maintained by Hast Bhuggatdih Colliery which during evidence was marked as Ext. M-l. From this Form B Register the name of the concerned workman is appearing in SI. No. 842. From this register it transpires that the age of the concerned workman was recorded as 20 years on 7-8-65 and the concerned workman personally signed column No. 9. This register is maintained by East Bhuggatdih Colliery since before 1965. Therefore at this stage as the records itself is more than 30 years old there is no reason to disbelieve the particulars recorded in this register until and unless any contrary is proved, Tt is the contention of the concerned work- man that he joined at Fast Bhuggatdih Colliery on 7-8-65. His date of birth in the Form B Register was recorded as 1-7-51. He further disclosed that not only in the Form B Register but also in the I.D. Card Register and C.M.P.F. Register the same dale of birth was recorded. Considerinr, I he Form B register mark- ed as Ext. M-l I find no hesitation to say that the submission made by the concerned workman find no basis particularly when he has failed to produce a single scrap of paper to that effect. The concerned workman relied on the Form B Register, I.D. Card Register and service excerpt marked as Exts. W-2, M-2, M-3 in support ef his claim. These documents show that the date of birth of the concerned work- man was recorded as 1-7-51. These records generally maintained by the management i.e. BCCL. According to the averment of the concerned workman a? well as submission of the management it is clear that the concerned workman was transferred to Koyala Bhawan under the management in the ycat 1975. Accordingly there is sufficient scope to say that while the date of birth of the concerned workman was recorded in the Form B Register and I.D. Card register wherein the age of the concerned workman which was recorded bv the East Bhuggaidih Colliery in the year 1025 was not at all considered. Had that been so in view of the case there was scope to say that such discrepancy in recording age of the concerned workman could be averted. This should be, I consider a serious lacunae on the part of the management. However, for that reason the concerned workman is not entitled to get any benefit. It is seen that the concerned workman in"course of heading has failed to produce a single scrap of paper in support of his claim that his date of birth was 1-7-51. He relying on the official record maintained by the management submitted that his date of birth was 1-7-51. The concerned workman sub- uvtted that he joined at East Bhuggatdih Colliery on I-R-65. Therefore, if this date of joining is taken into consideration and also if his date of birth is consider- ed as 1-7-51 in that case I mus* 7674 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; DECEMBER 22, 2001/PAUSA 1, 1923 [PART I I — S E C. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 23rd November, 2001

S.O. 3472.—In pursuance of Section 17 o( the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-11-2001.

LNo. L-20012|482|93-IR(C-I)] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT -.

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding OJlicer.

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

Reference No. 9 of 1995

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management ol Mooni- dih Project of Mjs. BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman : None.

On behalf of the employers : Shri B. Joshi, Advo- cate.

State : Jharkhand

Industiy : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 7th November, 2001

AWARD

contrary to the provision of Mines Act. 1452. Ac- cording to Section 40 clause (i) minimum age for getting into the service under the Mints Act is 18 years. Therefore, on the part of the concerned work- man there was no scope at all to join his scjviee as Shale Picker at the age of only 1 % years. Therefore. I should say that the age of the concerned workman in the Form B Register maintained by Hast Bhuggat- dih Colliery was recorded properly. U w.'is the man- agement who committed mistake in recording the age of the concerned workman in the Form U Register and l.D. Card register when the concerned workman was transferred under them and that mi slake was done due to the callousness of the management because oi the fact that they did not consider necessary to con- sult the Form B Regjstcr of East Bhuggatdih Colliery. I, therefore, consider that the management did noi commit any illegality in referring the concerned work- man before the Apex Medical Board for assessment of his age particularly when that gross discrepancy cropped up relating to his age in view '.if olliciul re- cords consulting the age recorded by the management of East Bhuggatdih Colliery. T also hold that the Apex Medical Board did not commit any mistake in assess- ing the age of the concerned workman as 50 years as on 24-8-93 without making any arrangement for ossi- fication test. The concerned vvorkimn after assessing the age by the medical board without ossification test did not raise any objection at its very initial si ape. In this connection a decision re-pur!cd in S.C.L.J. Vol. 1 (1994—98) page 1464 may be taken into consideration. In the said decision Their Lordships of the Apex Court held that as the workman did no' challenge the opinion of the Medical Board at that stage and as he raised the dispute only after, retire- ment without any justification the same could not be entertained. I. therefore, hold thai in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the concerned work- man is not entitled to get any relief which he has prayed for. In the result the following Award is rendered :—

The Govt, of India, Ministry of Labour, in exer- cise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1) (d) of the l.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012 (482)'93-I.R.(Coal-I), dated the 21st February, 1995.

SCHEDULE

"The action of the management o[ Koyla Bhawan in referring Shri Alam Bhuiya, Aulo Helper, to the Medical Board o" 23-8-93 is justi- fied. Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief."

B. BTSWAS, Presiding Officer

L'Whcther the action of the management of Moonidih Project of M|s. BCCL in reduc- ing the rank of Shri Arbind Roy, Electrical Supervisor is justified. Tf not, to what re- lief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. In this reference the workman side abstained from appearing before this Tribunal after filing their W.S. Thereafter several notices under Rcgd. Post were sent to the workman. But inspite of the issu- ance of notices the workman side did not consider necessary to take further steps in this reference. It reveals from the record that the reference is pending since 1995, and it is of no use to drag the same any more. 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 par- ties presently.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 26th November, 2001 S.O. 3473.—In pursuance oi Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Ait, 1947 (14 of 1947J, the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Western Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-11-2001.

LNo. L-4l012|42|98-IR(.B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

JiEtORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI PRESENT :

S. N. Saundanitar, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CG1T-2|2l of 1999

Employers in relation to the management of Western Railway,

The Divisional Railway Manager (Estt.), Divisional Office, Western Railway, Bombay Central, Mumbai-400 008.

AND

l"heir Workman

Shri Lakhama Dhakalia, C|o. L. B. Upadhaya, 30|31. FVaigati Shopping Centre, Malad (East), Mumbai-400 097.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer .—Ms. S. D. Gulhane, and Ms. Delilah Feniandes, Advocates, holding for Mr. Suresli Kumar, Advocate. For the Workman :—Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant, Advocate.

Mumbai, dated 21st September. 2001

7675

AWARD-PART I

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-41O12|42|98|TR(}3-1) dated 22-1-99, haive referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub- section 2(A) of Seciioin 10 of the Industrial Dis- putes Act, 1947.

"Whether the ..iction of the management of Western Railway, Mumbai is justified in terminating) "cmovi ng the services of Shri Laikhama Dhakalia '! (f not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. The workman Lakhama Dhakalia, was appointed as Senior Gang-man in Western Railway on 21-8-72. Aeeoidmg to him He JS illiterate, he does not know Hindi, English, and understands only adivasi language. He attended, hii duties properly and with great responsibility. He pleaded that till the year 19&9 he ii^nl quarrel wnh his immediate senior officers as they used M give him duties for more than the prescribed period. He protested the same and thereupon it is contended that he was threatened that he would be removed Irom service, replacing their man. It is contended that he took 8-10 days leave in the year 1990, 10 days in 1991 informing his senior officers. However, inspile of this, senior officers with malafide intention to appoint some other person in his place taking advantage of his illiterate- ness, taking his thumb impressions under the guise that those under the service rules, he was shown habi- tual absent and that he was ehargesheeted for than on 21-10-92. It is contended he was admitted in the hospital and that during his absence, without giving him copies of chargesheet documents amd opportu- nity imposed penalty oi his termination cxparte on 15-4-95. He pleaded that he filed appeal against the said order on 15-6-95, but the same was decided without giving him hearing. He approached the A.L.C.(C), however Conciliation failed. It is con- tended penalty imposed upon him, is harsh and dis- proportionate. Therefore-, the same deserves to be set aside by reinstatment with full back wages There- fore he prays to reinstate him.

3, Management, Western Railway opposed (he claim of the workman by filling Written Statement (Exhibit-6) contending that railway is not an industry and consequently Dhakulia is not a workman. It is contended that railway service is not for any profit motive and that such service fall in union list of Sche- dule-VII(i) (22) and functions performed by the railway are statutory in nature, is not an industry. It is contended that Dhakdlia is a Government Servant] Civil Servant. He is not a workman as defined under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is further contended that inquiry was conducted as per the pro- visions of railway servunis (Discipline and Appeal Rules-1968) which aie framed under article 309 of the Constitution of India, wl icli are not available to industrial workers. The railway discipline rule is ai code in itself which cannot 1't' challenged before the industrial court. For all these reasons, the tribunal hn<; no jurisdiction and therefore the reference is7676 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. DECEMBER 22, 2001/PAUSA 1, 1923 | P A RI I I — S E C. 3(ii)J not maintainable. Lt is contended lhat Dhakalia vas appointed as substitute gangman. He was absent trom duty unauthorfsedly lor 20 days in 1989, 94 days in 1990, 72 days in the year 1991. During this period he had neither inti- mated the reasons t'ur his absence nor got his leave sanctioned nor outlined leave on medical ground, therefore he was charged lor habitual absen- tism from duty without authority, vide chargesiheet dtd. 21-10-92. He win, habitual absentee, remained absent unauthorisedly lor about 2540 days m broken spells and therefore his increments were not drawn regularly. Tt is contended Dhakalia did not attend the inquiry iixed time to time though given opportu- nity, therefore the inquiry was conducted ex- parte, and that punishment of removal was imposed and consequently he was removed from service from 26-4-95. It is contended that Dhakalia made false allegations on seeking bis tump marks with malandc intention, and that he wai falsely involved. It is contended that giving proper opportunity, the inquiry officer concluded the inquiry en 29-11-94 and thm appeal filed by him v. as dismissed. CoiKequemly management prr.ycd for dismissal of claim o\' Mr. Dhakalia.

4. By¹ filing Rejoinder (E?;

5. On the basis of the pleadings my Learned Pre- decessor framed preliminary issues at Exhibit-10 Dhakalia filed affidavit by way of Examinatjon-in- Chief at Exhibit-] 3. H- was cross-examined by the management and closed evidence vide purshis (Exhi- bit-14). Management Western Railway did not led any oral evidence.

6. Heard the Learned Counsels for the parties. Perused written arguments iiled by the workman at Exhthit-15 alongwith the rulings and also gone through the rulings filed by the management with list (Exhi- bit-19).

7. On going through the record as a whole and perusing the written submissions and hearing the counsels, F record my findings on the following issues for the reasons mentioned below :

Tssues Findings 1. Whether the domestic inquiry which conducted aga;nst the workman was against the Principles of Natural Justice 7 Yes.

2. Whether the findings of the inquiry officer arc perverse ? Does not survive 3. Whether the reference is maintainable in view, of the pleading-, in the Written Statement ? Yes, maintainable

REASONS

8. At the threshold, the Learned Counsel for the railway management submits that the workman is governed under section 309 of the Constitution of India, the railway servants D \ MR 1968 arc framed under the rules. The Central Administi alive Tiibunal is established to adjudicate the matters relating to the Central Governments servams. Kelying on the Bangalore Water Works case he submits that so far as the employees ol jailway are concerned this tribunal nas no juris- diction inviting attention of this tribunal to the recitals in the WritLen Statement. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel Mr. Sawaut for the vorkman sub- mits, by catena of Judgements, it is clear that the railway is an industry and that jurisdiction as conferred upon the tribunal created by statute to deal with specific issues which would not be excluded by virtue of Section J4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. He has relied on L. Robert D'Souzai Vs. Executive Engineer Southern Railway and Anr. 1992 I LLJ pg. 330 (SO AND C.S.T. Mumbai Vs. Rajan Kumar Mohalik, 2000 ITI CLR 117(HC). Lakhama Dhakalia. was working as Senior Gangman in the Western Railway. On perusal of para, 25 of the Judgment of the HorTble Supreme Court referred to above, Dhakalia is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Lordship of Bombay Hkh Court in the case referred to above, in para. 4 clearly observed that the In- dustrial Tribunal has Jurisdiction since Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunal Act ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and confers the same on the tribunal created under the Act. Tn view of the decisions, T find no force in the submission of Mr. Suresh Kumar. It is therefore clear that this tribunal lias jurisdiction to entertain and decide the reference in connection with workman Mr. Dhakalia.

9. So far the domestic inquiry held against the work- man Mr. Dhakalia is concerned, according to him he is illiterate. He belongs to Adivasi community. He was not informed on the inquiiy, the procedure on the inquiry or the consequences of the inquiry. According to him his thumb impressions were ob- tained on some papers by the officers and those h^ve been used against him. His contention is that inquiry was against the Principle? of Natural Justice. Manage- ment did not lead any oral evidence to rebut the above said contention.

10. By way of Written Statement it is contended that since workman habitually remained absent un- authorisedly for about 2546 days in broken spells, he was given chairgesheet and tha' inquiry was fixed on 20-10-93; 1-10-94 and 25-10-94, however, he did not attend the same, and therefore it was pro- ceeded Ex-parte and during the inquiry it was found he habitually remained absent on duty and therefore he was dismissed irorn service on 26-4-95, 11. On perusing the rc.ord it is seen workman put his thumb-mairk which shows he is illiterate. Tn his affidavit by way of Examination-in-Chicf (Exhibit-13) he stated that he cannot read and write, and that his thumb impressions were obtained on some papers by the officers and those were used against him, He stated that he attended the office for the inquiry, how- ever nobody came for the inquiry, nor gave him the dates of the inquiry. He deposed in cross, examination that he had to pive his explanation to the chargeshect, but, it was not accepted, and that he was not given report of the inquiry officer. As stated above, accor- ding to the management inquiry was held exparte. Tiie inquiry papers lilcd with list(Bxhibit-9Jall are in English language win eh was not known to workman The workman who was working as a labourer (gung- inan), an illiterate adivuii, not knowing fcngiish jiid the inquiry was conducted by the management m English ean certainly be said tnat he suffered piejud.ee on this ground. Fur ihis reliance can be had u> Auujam Amuba Singh Vs. Stale of Manipur 20UO LAB 1C 498.

12. The Learned Counsel for the management in- viting attention of this court to the points of argu- ment and the rulings hied v ith list (Exhibit-iy) sub- mits that, woiknian in cioss-examination admitted that he was given chaigesheet in respect of absentism and he was called for the inquiry, which itself shows that, he was aware on the inquiry but deliberately avoided to aittend the same, inviting attention of this tribunal to the case of the management that he was so charge- sheeted for the habitual unauthorised absentism. Therefore, he submits workman who deliberately avoided to attend the inquiry cainnot be favoured only because he was illiterate, thereby holding the inquiry vitiates¹,

13. On perusal of the record nowhere finds that, the charges were explained to the workman in the language known to him and that he undei stands the same, not anything to show that he was made to understand the dates of the hearing and inspite of this he failed to attend. The rules of Natural Justice will have to be observed in the conduct of domestic inquiry againsi the woikman. 11 the alle- gations arc denied by the workman the burden of proving the truth of those allegations will be on the management. At this juncture, Ihe Learned Counsel for the management submits that the inquiry cannot be said to be against the Principles of Natural Justice as the workman him- self chosen to remain absent and there- fore, there was no alternative except to proceed with the inquiry against him. As stated above record shows inquiry was held without say to the charges and without the presence of the workman and the inquiry papers shows it was conducted in English though the woikman is illiterate and knows only adivasi langu- age, there by inquiry vitiates.

14. So far the findings of the inquiry officer are donccrned, according to workman they are perverse. As seen from the icvorcl inquiry itself vitiates, there- fore, there is no need for th; tribunal to record any findings regarding perversity, for which reliance can be had to the decision in CST Mumbai Vs. Rajan Kumar Mohalik (para. 6) referred to above and con- sequently issue No. 2 does not survive, Tssues arc therefore, answered accordingly and hence the order :

ORDER

The domestic inquiry conducted against the workman was against the P'rinciples of Natural Justice. Management is allowed to lead evidence to justify its action.

S. N. SAUNDA.NKAR, PYrsiding Ollicer

7677 NeW Delhi, the 26th November, 2001 S.O. 3474.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (.14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II. Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation t'.i the management of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-11-2001.

[No. L-41O12/I3O/9;MR(B-1)1 AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II. MUMBAI

PRESENT:

.' S. N. Saundankar, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CG1T-2/56 of 1999 Employers ill relation to the Management of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. The Chief Engineer (South), Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd., Railway Complex, M.I.D.C, Mirjolc, Ratnagiri-415 639.

AND

Their Workmen. Shri U. M. Dongre, Anthony Misquitta Chawi, Padmavati Building, Azad Road, Vile Parle (East). Mumbai-400 057.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer—-Mr. R. S. Samant, Advo- cate.

For the Workmen—Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant, Advocate.

Mumbai, dated, 8th October, 2001

AWARD

The Central Government by its Order No 1.-41012/ 13O/y8-IR(B-l), dated 25-2-19W, ha. referred the7678 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 22,. 2001/PAUSA 1, 1923 [PART IT—SEC. 3(ii)J following dispute between the Employers in relation to the management of Chief Engineer (South), Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd,, kamagiri and their work- man for adjudication to this tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the Chief Engineer (South), Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd., Ratnagiri in terminating the service of Shri U. M. Dongre, ex-driver w.e.f. 15-6-93 is legal and justified ? If nor, to what rtlief the workman is entitled for ?"

2. The averment in the Statement of Claim of workman Shri Dongre are as follows :

The workman was employed by the: Chief Engineer (South) Konkan Railway Corporation LLJ., Rainagin in the post of •Driver' w.e.f. 17-5-1991. Then he was placed in the regular grade of Rs. l.)?0- -1500. He was granted annual increment in the said grade and his basic was increased from Rs. 950—970. It is con- tended all ot a sudden, on a charge of 'unsatisfactory' service workman's services \v;ere terminated on 15-6-93. The workman therefore, approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), however, the conciliation failed. Therefore, the instant reference, for reinstatement witih all consequential benefits.

3. The employer opposed the claim ot Dongne by filing their Written Statement (E\hibit-8), contending that workman was appointed as driver on 17-5-91 r.n wages ol Rs. 40 per day. It was for a specific period expiring on 17-11-91. The workman accepted the said uprwinimenl as per the terms and conditions of the letter of appointment. He was offered an appoint- ment to the same post in the grade of Rs. 950—1500 on l-X-92 purely on contract basis initially for ;i period of one year which could be extended for fur- Iher period of 3-4 years, if the services ol the work- man found satisfactory, ft is contended as employ- ment was on contract basis which he had accepted at the time of appointment, his appointment was ter- minable during the contract period by giving one months notice on either side, for which he was not entitled to any lien. It is contended workman's worV. was not satisfactory, he was given oral warnings seve- ral times, but, he did not improve. Therefore, his ser- vices were terminated w.c.f. 15-6-93 under Rule-8, Sub-Rule (vi) Clause (d) of the Konkan Railway Cor- r oration LUl's Disciplinary and Appeals Rules, There- fore he is not entitled to any relief and his claim is liable to be dismissed.

4. My Learned Predecessor framed issues (Exhibit- ! 1 ) on the basis of the pleadings. Workman, Dongre filed his affidavit by way of Examination-in-Chicf (Exhibit-12) and after his cross-examination by the management, closed evidence vide- purshis (Exhib't- 13). Employer's Assistant Personnel Officer, Shri B.B. Nikam filed affidavit by way of F.xamination-in-Chief (Exhibit-14) and after his cross-examination by work- trnn management closed evidence vide purshis(Exhi- bit-15).

5. Heard the Learned Cocnscl for both the parties Perused the written suhm^ion:; of both sides(F.x-16 and 17). On going through the record as a whole and hearing the counsels 1 record my findings on the fol- lowing issues for the reasons mentioned below :

Issues

Findings 1.

Yes.

Whether the workman is \n continuous employment of the management ?

2.

Yes Whether the management did not Comply with the provisions of retrenchment while terminating his services ?

3.

No. ^ Whether the action of the management is in confirmity with the Konkan Railway Corporation Limited Disciplinary and Appeal Rules ?

4.

No. Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of Shri U. M Dongrc, Ex-driver w.c.f. 15-0-93 is legal and justified ?

5. If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ? ordc

As per :r below.

KliASUNS

6, Admittedly Shri Dongre was appointed as a driver w.e.f. 17-5-91 up to 17-11-91 and subsequently he was appointed in the grade of Rs. 950--1500 for a period of one year by letter dated J-8-92, which could be extended for a further period of 3-4 years. AH these letters of appointment mention his appoint- ment was purely for a specific period and his services were liable to be terminated with one months notice during the contract period or extended period. Work- man Dongre stated that on his application he was appointed #nd while seeking employment he had accepted the terms and conditions of the appointment letter. He admits that his appointment was for a speci- fic period and it was extended and Chat he had accept- ed the terms and conditions of service in the letters referred to above. He admits that his appointment was on contract basis. This evidence clearly goer to show that the workman accepted the terms and condi- tions under which he was appointed on contract basis by the employer.

7, Now point crops on "Whether he was in conti- nuous employment?". Management's Assistant Per- sonnel Officer, Mr. Nikam admits in cross-examina- tion, para lft that the workman since beginning work- ed as a driver, duties performed by him were like that of the duties of a permanent driver, he was granted annual increment every year, he was member of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd, Prwidcni Fund account. Nowhere suggested the workman, that he was not in continuous se.rvic:. It is, therefore, clear that workman has been in continuous service for more than 240 days in each calendar year, as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act, Issue No. 1 is therefore, answered accordingly.

8, As stated above, workman entered the service of the Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd, on 17-5-91 011 contract basis initially for a particular period and it was extended thereafter periodically, t>U his services 7679 were terminated on 15-6-J3, which is not in dispute.

submitted that 'unsatisfactory¹ performance during probation period, service of workman could Lv termi- nated. In title case relied as abov.;, the impugned 01J11 did not show anything which would amount to stigma, whereas in the case on hand, the servio. s of workman arc terminated as 'not satisfactory' and that the work- man was not on probation. Therefore the above said decision, is n;> avail for the management. VIr, Samant submits that regularisation cannot be made as a rule of thumb, merely on the basis of completion of cer- tain years of service by an employe-'. The relief sought for by the employee is not regularisation. Workman's contention is that the order terminating his service after putting neaily Ihive years of conti- nuous service is without comply ing I he provisions of Industrial Disputes Ac.t. On continuous service of 240 days in a calendar year, the workman has earned the right to be marde permanent. However, inspite of that, his services were termine'ed,

y. So far the contractual service's is concerned, if the contract or a clause in a conlract is a result of the weaker bargaining power of the employee who, being jobless has no option but to acc.pt the I em is on which the job is offered, such a contract or clause in the contract, can only be regarded as unreasonable. unconscionable, unfair and lacking in mutuality and therefore opposed to public policy within the mean- ing of Section 23 of the Contract Act. For [his a re- liance can be had to Modern Food Industries Vs M. D. Juvekar 1988 II LLJ pg, 534. In view of the said ruling, since the employer Konkan Railway Coi- poration has entered into unreasonable and unfair contract with the workman is opposed to public policy, wants to take advantage of the same for terminating the services of the workman cannot be approved,

10. It is in the evidence of management's witness Mr. Nikam that some recruitment of drivers by Konkan Railway might have taken place after 1L)93, This shows that the appointment given to the workman is not one, which come to a'i end 'jn account of the completion of the work for whkh he wa-: appointed i.e. no work oriented appointment. It is therefore clear that termination of the workman comes conse- quently under the definition of the Word 'retrench- ment'. Tt was done without cnmnlvina with the pro- visions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Principles of Natural Justice are violated. The action of management is not in confirmitv with the rules and therefore considering the evidence as a whole, the action of the management in terminating the service of Shri Dongre w.e.f. 15-6-93 is neither legal nor justified. Therefore he is ent'lir-d to the order of reinstatement, with back wanes. Issue Nos. 2 to 4 are therefore answered accordingly and hence the order :

ORDER

The action of the Chief Engineer (South'), Konkan Railway Corporat'on Ltd., Ratna'Jriri in tcrminntina the services of Shri U. M. Don

Management is directed In reinstate the workman

nnd pav him back wages, with continuity in service.

New Delhi, the 26ih November, 2001

S.O. 3475—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Whether the action or the management of State Bank of India, Jaipur is justified in terminating the services of the workman Shri Rajkumar Ka^hyap w.c.f. 6-4-96 7 IE not, to what relief the workman is entitled t o ?"

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute beiweer the employers in rela- tion to the management of State Bank of Tndia and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-11-2001.

,No. L-120I2(105|98-IRfB-I)l AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer .7681 3771 GI/2001—15.

mz THE GAZETTE OF INDIA.; ta$GBM"BR 2& 2QQl/PAt3SA U mi Itmx &^&& 3JCBS3

ANNEXURE 'A'

ENCLOSURE OF CASE NO. JP/O7/39/96 OF ALC

New Maodi A.D.B. Bramsar Total

HANUMANGARH HANtTMANOARr*t Days

WAGES OF WATFP FTT.T.T-wn Axrr" ("I'XTTBuwkrw

Days/Months

06 Pays

T J

Month Year Days/Months Augilst'1982 September 19"2

11 Days

05 Days 29 B>ayi

03 Month3

February 1983 July to September 1983

03 Months 28 Days 7683

04 Months

08 Months

July to October 1984 January 1985 June to December 1985 January to April 19*86 June to November 1986

January to March 1996

04 Months 01 Months 07 Months 04 Months 06 Months 03 Months

10 Months 03 Months

ANNEXURE 'B' ENCLOSURE OF CASE NO. JP/07/99/96QF ALC

Jpramsar

i otai

Days

A.UB Haaiunangarh

Canteen Boy

05 Days

25 Days 24 Days

05 Days 25 Days 24 Day* 01 Days 01 Days 05 Days 06 Days 03 Days tM Day

01 Days 01 Days 05 Days 06 Days 03 Days 01 Day 01 Day

21 Days

06 Days

Mew Aiamn Honumangarh Wages of Water Filling & 01-08-1985 to 31-07-1988 March 1986 April 1986 May W"6 December 1986 January 1987 August 1987 September 1987 October 1987 November 1987 December 1D87 January 1988 February 1988 March 1988

01 Day

01 Day 21 Days 06 Days 01 Day

100 Day*

23 Days

50 Days

27 Days

Total7684 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; DECEMBER 22, 2001/PAUSA ^ 1923 [PART I M i c. "3(ii)I '7685

Region IV, Zonal Office, Nagpur in awarding of punishment ot discharge | dismissed from service to Shri R. U. Borikar, Fairrash-pum- Messenger w.c.f. 12-1-95 is legal, proper and justified ? If not what relief the work- man is entitled to '?"

The workman Ramdhan S|o Undruji Borikar ha|s submitted Statement of Claim that he was in xhe service of State Bank of India w.e.f. 1-7-79. He has been discharged from servicb by the management of State Bank of India from 6-9-96.

Then charges were levelled against him when he was working as Farrash-cum-Messenger in State Bank of India, Chandur Railway Branch, Distt. Amravati. Chargesheet was issued against him on 12-1-95. Shri S. S. Kale was appointed Enquiry Officer vide order dated 25-2-95. The enquiry was completed on 5-10-95.

Nevr Delhi, the 28th November, 2001

S.O. 3476.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dubUial Dispctcs Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal Nagpur as shown in the Annexure io 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 Govemmen: on 27-11-2001.

iNo. I.-12012|316|99-IR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

The workman says that Charge No. 3 was not proved against him. There was no evidence to prove the remaining nine charges. He has denied all the charges. No witness was examined against him during the enquiry proceedings. The charges are vague. No witness turned up to say anything during enquiry regarding his alleged misbehaviour with any bank employee or customer of the bank. He did not abuse or threatened M. M. Ghode on 21-11-94. He had not abused anybody any time in the bank pre- mises. The Enquiry Officer has mentioned that all the charges have been proved (except charge No. 3) without considering his defence. Though there was no evidence against him to prove any charge yet the Enquiry Officer has mentioned that all charges have been proved. The findings of the Enquiry Officer arc not bsised on any evidence. The workman therefore claimed reinstatement in service with continuity in service and full back wages from 6-9-96 ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

PRESENT :

Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer

Reference No;: CGIT 14|2000

State Bank of India-

AND

The manageemnt of tlie bank contested the case and stated that the workman Ramdham U. Borikar was in the habit of consuming liquor in the office hours of bank He misbehaved with the customers and one bottle of liquor was also recovered from the locker which was given to him for keeping the dress. He remained absent from duty for four hundred five (405) days from 1988 to Aue. 94 and his leave was granted on loss of pay which is a minor misconduct. The workman was defended during enquiry by R. G. Thakur, Defence Representative. He has been punished "as the charges were proved against him.

Shri R. U. Borikar

AWARD

The Central Government, MinJshy of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the, pajiwrs conferred by Clause (d) of Sub Section (U and Sub Section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this djspute i'dr adjudication vide order No. L-12012|ll'6199UR(B-I) dated.- 17-12-99 on the following rff6hedule.'

The management has submitted the documents and has also examined witnesses in this Court. The workman also submitted application dated 18-7-96 that 18 persons mentioned in this application had informed the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional, Office, Region No. V, Nagpur thai they have no domplaint against the Workman R. U. Bonkar. *• The ^workman did not misbehave with anybody* anytime- during the working hours of the bank at any place in the premises of the bank.

SCHEDULE

"yvjittbtr the action 6'f the Maangement of State

Bank of India trough its General Min'ager,

The statement of Ramdhan U. Bafikar workman •vras recorded in this Cwirt, H? was cross examined on ^8-5-2001.

From. Ac #ife of the auoagtSieat of the bank the witftMBM SJwuMwider K. Damawni, Vishram F. Pande "i SiqwMwinder SJo Hemraj Muodadt were exa- nuncd. Ttoie witnesses had not *ppewed before the Enquiry Officer. They did not say anything against the workman Ralmdhan Boritar about Mis coming to the bank heavily drunk. They also did not say any- thing about the "fcbefeawHW of the workman with any member of the staff of the bank or *ny tustwntt.

Tie management had also submitted the ^affidavits of witnesses Shri Pundaiik Sj© Rajartunji Kshirsngar, Gajanan S|o Haribhau Masle and Mainmohan S|o Rambhau MfthaUe on 25*&200l. These three wit- nesses tlrd not appear fa the Tribmml for cross exami- nation. They were discharged by the managwfteflt on. 11-10-2001.

S. S. Kale the Enquiry Officer twas also not exa- mined in this Tribunal by tht, manwnwent of the bank. Thus the enquiry report dt. 5-10-95 was not pnwtf. tft wtt$ Ml important witaera who Ma con- ducted tttt enquiry and on the basis of his taport the workttwn was discharged from a"vke.

Both the parties al*o ,suhnutte1 Officer argufld the case from the side of State Bank of India.

I have considered Uie mire Oral and ttajumenfary evidence on record. 1 have also considered the Written Atgctnefrts filed try the patties and 1*be Oral Argu- ments of Deputy taw Officer, SB.l.

•As I mciidoned above ten chflqjjeis were framed against the wwrkm"o,

CSiarge No. 3 was that the workman "Rkmtlhan U. Borikar vas in tihe habit of leaving the branch premises after evecy fifteen minotes and wondering otrtside the bank. The enquiry officer ias mtntiblted in hi$ report dated, 5-10-95 that this charge tails not been ertab- listed. His finding

"On examination of the witaesses, the charge of leaving the prefltises after every mteen minutes is not established,"