This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGN. NO. D. L.—33001/99 The Gazette of India

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 11] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, MARCH 16, 2002/PHALGUNA 25, 1923 Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

PART II —Section 3—Sub-Section (ii)

Statu tory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (other than the Ministry of Defence)

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

(Rehabilitation Division)

New Delhi, the 20th February, 2002

S.O. 917.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Administration of Evacuée Property Act, 1950 (31 of 1950), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri B. N. La'dri, Under Secretary in the Rehabilitation Division of Ministry of Home Affairs as the Deputy Cus- todian of Evacuée Property for Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya

(2801)

710 GI/20022302 THE GAZETTE OF INCIA : MAS.CH 15, 2002/.PHALGUNA 25, 1923- PPAST Iï—SECV 3 Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Kar- nataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala for the purpose of discharging the duties imposed on the Custodian by or under the said Act. barring immovable évacuée Propqrties/landsï situâted in thèse StatèsD transferred under package dVals or Administrative and Financial arrangements.

[No. 1(1)/SPL. CELL/87-SS.II/SETTLEMENT] R. K. YADAV, Director-cum-Jt. Chief Settlement Commissioner

MINISTRY OF FERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRÏE- VANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare)

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2002

S'O. 918.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 read with clause (5) of article 148 of the Constitution and after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General in re- lation to persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, the Président hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Ruîes, 1981, nameîy:

1. (1) Thèse rules may be called the Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Amendment Rules, 2002.

(2) They shall be deemed to hâve corne into force

with effect from lst January, 1996.

2803

2. In the Central Civil Services (Commutation

of Pension) Rules, 1981,—

(1) in rule 5,—

(i) in sub-rule (1), for the words, "a fraction not exceeding one-third", the words "of an amount not exceeding forty per cent" shall be substituted;

(ii) in sub-rule (2), for the words "fraction" and "one-third" respectively, the words "Percentage" and "forty per cent" shall be substituted respectively ;

(2) in rule 9, in sub-rule (3), in clauses (i) and (ii) for the words, "one hundred" wherever thèse occur the words "two thousand" shall be substituted;

(3) in rule 10, in the proviso, for the words "one hundred", the words "two thousand" shall be subs- tituted;

(4) in rule 22, in sub-rule (1), in clause (b), for the words "one hundred", the words "two thousand" shall be substituted;

(5) in Form 1, in Part I, in the second foot note, for the words "subject to a maximum of one third thereof " the words "subject to a maximum of forty per cent thereof" shall be substituted;

(6) in Form 2, in Part I, in the second foot note, for the words "subject to a maximum of one third thereof" the words "subject to a maximum of forty per cent thereof" shall be substituted;

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

This notification is given rétrospective effect from lst January 1996 i.e. the date from which the recom- mendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission wcre given effect to.

The interest of no one is adversely affected by

rétrospective application of thèse rules.

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 4th March, 2002 Note : The Central Civil Services (Commu- tation of Pension) Rules, 1981 were published vide S.O. 1134 dated 11-4-1981 and as amended by Noti- fication No. ,34/1/81-Pension Unit dated 8th July, 1983. The ruîes were subsequently amended vide Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare Notification given below:

•

Date

,-S.O. No. 1,870

04-05-1985

• h,

2:-

S.O. No. 2097

18-05-1985

3. i ' S.OÎTHÎO. 1775

19-07-1997

S.O. 919.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Spécial Police Establish- Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Govern- ment with the consent of the State Government of Karnataka vide Notification No. HD/220/ PCR/2001, dated 27-12-2001, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Spécial Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Karnataka for investigation or offences punishable under sections 120-B read with 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Pénal Code, 18 J ' aûd section 13(2) rèad"with section 13(l)(d) of Préven- tion of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988;

Î-Na 34/8/99-P&PW(G)J GANGA MURTH\, Director:804 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2002/PHALGUNA 25, 1923 [PART U—SEC. 3(ii)J Pradesh as entrusted to them ty the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, in trial courts and appeals/ revisions or other matters arising out of thèse cases in revisional or appellate courts established by Law : S/Shri

1. Omprakash Chakradhar

2. R. D. Pancholi

3. Avinash Katyayani

4. Pradeep Gupta.

[No. 225/48/2000-AVD.-II] SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy.

and atterapts, abetments and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with one or more of the offence mentioned abovc and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the saine transaction or arising out of the sanie facts against S/Sh. K. Ramamurthy, Chief Manager, Union Bank of India. (2) Sh. T.M.R. Natarajan, Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, (3) Sh. R.M. Chandramohan, Manager, Union Bank of India, (4) Sh. K.C. Srinivas, Deputy Manager (Accounts) Union Bank of India, (5) Sh. V.J. Rao, Deputy Manager, Advances, Union Bank of India, (6) Shri G.S. Rudrakumar, Spécial Assistant (Advances), Union Bank of India, (7) Dr. L.R. Bhojwani, Chief Managing Director, M/s. Bhojwani Group of Companies, (8) Sh. Sanjay Bhojwani, Director, M/s. Bhojwani Group of Companies, Pune, M/s. Bhojwani Hotels Private Limited, Pune/Bangalorc and others public servant or person registered with DSPE/CBI/BS&FC/Banga- lore vide RC-7(E)/2001-BS&FC/BLR.

[No. 228/4/2002-AVD.II] SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2002 New Delhi, the 5th March, 2002

S. O. 921.—In exercise of• the powers conferred by Sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Crimi- nal Procédure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints the following Advo- cates as Spécial Public Prosecutors for con- ducting the prosecution of cases instituted by Delhi Spécial Police Establishment (CBI) in the State of Karnataka as entrusted to them by the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, in trial courts and appeals/revisions or other matters arising ouï of those S. O. 920.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sufc-section (8) of Section 24 cf the Code of Crimina! Procédure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints the following Advocates as Spécial Public Prosecutors for conducting „ e prosecution of ra£cs instituted by Djjlhi Spécial .police Estatïfshrncnt (CBI) ia the Sicte of Madhya cases in revisional or appellate courts established by Law.

S/Shri 1. Y.R. Jagdeesha 2. S.N. Satyanarayana

3. M.C. Ravi Kumar

4. H.P. Leeladhar

5. R. Sharath Chandra

6. B.L. Sanjeev

7. Smt. Shylaja P.

8. Smt. K.R. Meena Kumari

9. R. Mallaiah

[No. 225/50/2000-AVD. II] SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2002

S. O. 922.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procédure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints the following Advocates as Spécial Public prosecutors fo'r con- ducting the prosecution of cases institutedby Delhi Spécial Police Establishment (CBI) in the State, of Goa as entmsted to them by the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, in trial courts and appeals/ revisions or other matters arising out of thèse cases in revisional or appellate courts established by law.

y S/Shri

1. Santosh Rama Rivankar

2. Joseph Sebatian Vaz

[ No. 225/46/2000-AVD.H J SHUBHA THAKUR. Under Sec>.

^805 New Delhi, the 7th March, 2002 S.O. 923.—In exercise of the powars conferred by Sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procédure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints the following Advocates as Spécial Public Prosecutors for con- ducting the prosecution of cases instituted by Delhi Spécial Police Establishment (CBI) in the State of Uttar Pradesh as entrusted to them by the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, in trial courts and appeals/revisions or other matters arising out of thèse cases in revisional or appellate courts esta- blished by law.

S/Shri

1. Kaushlendra Pratap Singh

2. Arun Kumar Gupta

3. Ravindra Bahadur Khare

4. Arun Kumar Mittal

[No. 225/45/2Ô00-AVD.II] SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy.

2806 THE GAZETTE OP ]NDIA : MARCH 16, 2002/ PHALGUNA 25, J923 [PART II—SLC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 8th March, 2002

S. O. 9:5.—In exercise of the pjwers conferred by sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code cf Criminal Procédure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974;, the Central Government hereby appoints Sh. Santosh Pal Tyagi, Advocate, Jajpur Retainer Ccunsel of thc Central Bureau of Investigation in the Rajasthan High Court, as Spécial Public PrOsecutor for conduct- ing the prosscutions, appeals, revisions or other matters arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Spécial police Establishment in the Rajasthan Bigh Court at Jaipur.

New D-dhi, the 7th March, 2002

[No. 225/20/2000—AVD.-IIJ SHUBHA THAKUR; Under Secy.

S. O. 924.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Crirainal Procédure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints the fcllowjrjg Advocates as Spécial Public prosecutors for con- ductjng tàs prosecution of cases instituted by Delhi Spécial Police Establishment (CBI) in the State cf Maharashtra as cntrusted to thera ,by the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, in trial courts and appeals/revisions or other matters arising out of thèse cases in revisional or appellate courts- establi- shed by law.

S/Shri

1. S. B. Deshpande 2. M. B. Deshmukh 3. M. B. Aurangabadkar 4. Dr. Santosh A. Shah 5. A. M. Peerzade 6. A. K. Suryawanshi 7. N. M. Godbole 8. V. V. Parakh • ' 9. N. D. Suryavanshi

10. R. T. Patil " 11. V. D. Atbare

[No. 225/41/2000-AVD.IJJ

SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy.

New Delhi, thc 8th Maroh. 2002 '

S.O. 9"!6.—la exercise of the powers confeired by sub-section (S) of Section 24 of the Code i>f Criminal Procédure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the ' Cstfi^ai- G.-7Vetnracnt"i>e.èby-apTroinïrth? f:llc-vving Advocafes as Spécial Public Prosecutors for c&ndu- cting the prosecution of cases institute4 by Delhi Spécial Police Establishment (CBI) in the State of Gujarat as entrusted to them by the Director, Centra! Bureau of Investigation, in trial courts and appeals/revisions or other matters arising ^ut of thesa cases in revisional or appellate courts establi- shed by law-

S/Shri

1. Bhagwan Lai M. Gupta 2. Virender C. Shah 3. Nishith P. Mehta 4. Chetan K. Shah 5. GaUra^g A. Vyas 6. A. A. Sheikkh

[ No. 225/42/200O-AVD.II ] SHUBHA THAKUR, Uader Secy.

New Delhi, the 8th March, 20Ù2 • S.O. 927.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-seçtion (8) of Section 24 of the Ccde of Criminal procédure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), îhe Central Governrnent Vrebv appoint the fUlcwi'ng Advocates as Spécial puiMie Pro&ecutors fer condu- cting the prosecution of cases instituted by Delhi Spécial Police Establishment (Qil) M the State of Jammu and. Kastunir as entrusted to them by the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, jn trial courts anp appeals/revisions or other matters arising out of thèse cases in revisional or appeîîate court" established by law.

S/Shri

1. Rohit Kapoor 2. R. K. Modi 3. M. L. Thusoo

[No. 225/43/20OO-AVD.II] SHUBHA THAKUR, Uddcr Secy.

New Delhi, the 8th March, 2002 S.O. 928.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procédure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints the following Advocates as Spécial Public Prosecutors for condu- cting the prosecution of cases instituted bv Delhi Spécial Police Establishment (CBI) in tire State of Madhya Pradesh as entrusted to them by the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, in trial courts and appeals/revisions or other matters arising out of thèse cases in revisional or appellate courts esfahli- shed by law.

S/Shri 1. A.,Usraani 2. Anil Khare

[No. 225/47/200Q-AVD.IÏ ] SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy.

IS.CS • *-THE GAZETTE OF I K D L V i î f c œ dï 16/2GO2/PHALG&NÂ 25, 1923 IPAirn^SEfe-JOi-)]

ORDER

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2002

STAMPS

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

ORDER

New Delhi, the 20th February, 2002

STAMPS

S.O. 930.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central Government hereby permits Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Karur, Tamil Nadu to pay consolidated stamp duty of Rupees Ten Lakh Twenty Six Thou- sand Two Hundred Fifty only chargeable on account of the stamp duty on bonds described as :

(i) 10.40 % Unsecured Redeemable Non-Convr-- tible Subordinated Bonds (Series-II) in ttio nature of promissory notes bearing distinc- tive numbers from 1 to 1525 aggregating to Rupees Fifteen Crore Twenty Five Lakh only, and

S.O. 929.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central Govern- ment hereby permits Industrial Development Bank of India, Mumbai to pay Consolidated stamp duty of rupees three crore twenty lakh fifty thousand six hundred only chargeable on account of the stamp duty on bonds described as IDBI Flexibonds-II (205037 Bonds in the dematerialised form and 435975 Bonds in the form of Promissory notes) aggregating to rupees three hundred twenty crore fifty lakh sixty thousand only, to be issucd by the said Bank.

(ii) 10.40 % Unsecured Redeemable Non-ConVer- tible Subordinated Bonds (Series-II) in the nature of Debentures bearing distinctive numbers from 1 to 555 aggregating to Rupees Five Crore Fifty Five Lakh only,

to be issued by the said Bank.

[Nc.7'2002-STAMPS/F.No. 33/10/2002-ST] R. G. CHHABRA, Under Secy.

[ No. 8/2002-STAMPS/F. No. 33/12/2002-ST ]

R. G. CHHABRA, Under Secy.

280?

ORDER

New Delhi, the 5th March, 2002

S.O. 931.—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 Prévention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974) issued order F.No. 673/49/2001-Cus. VIII, dated 25-01-2002 under the said Sub-section directing that •Shri Rajnish Kumar, S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar, R/o Opp. Devi Mandir, Ladwa, Kurukshetra, Haryana. Also at: (1) Shop No. 9, Near New Grain Market, Ladwa. Kurukshetra, Haryana (2) H.No. 84, Sector-IX, Kamadhenu Apartment, Rohini, Delhi be detained and kept in custody in the Central Jail, Ambala, Haryana with a view to preventing him from Smug- gling 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.

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs the aforesaid person to appear before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, Haryana within 7 days of the publication of this order in the Officiai Gazette.

[F.No. 673/49/2001-Cus. VIII] VIJAY K. SHARMA, Dy. Secy.

² s ï⁰ THE GAZEÎTE OF INDÈ4: : ïè4R€" M, 2992"/PHÂfcèï3NA 25, i923 . [PA*Ï "fe^éïd î(ë)J CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TÀ3ÊES

sent directly to the Secretary, Déparffnent of Scien- tific and Industrial Research.

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2002

(INCOME TAX)

[Notification No. 51/2002/F. No. 203/42/2001 ITA-II ]

SANGEETA GUPTÀ, Director (TÎAlH) S.O. 932.—It is hereby notified for gênerai infor- mation that the organisations rnentioned belôw hâve been approved by the Central Government for the period mentioned against their names, for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 6 of the Income Tax Ruîes, 1962 under the càtëgory "Insti- tution" subject to the foîlowing conditions :

(i) The notified institution shall maintain sepa- fate books of accounts for its research activities;

(ii) The notified Institution shall farnish the Annual Return of its scientific research acti- vities to the Secretary, Department of Scien- tific & Industrial Research, 'Technology Bhawan', New Mehrauli Roâd, Kew Delhi- 110 016 for every fînàncial yéaf on or before 31st May of each yèar;

(iîi) The notified Institution shali submit, on béhalf of the Central Govèrnrriént, to (a) the Director Général of Income Tâx (Exemp- tions), 10 Middléton Row, 5th Floor, Kolkatta 700 071, (b) the Secretary, Depart- ment of Scientific & Industrial Research, and (c) the Commissipner of Income Tax/ Director of Income Tax (Exemptions), having jurisdictiôn over the organisation, on or before the 31st October each yèàf, a copy of its audited Annual Accounts and also a copy of audited Income & Expenditure Account in respect of its research activities for which exemption was granted under sub-section (1) of Section 35 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in addition to the return of Income-tax to the designated assessing orBcer.

Name of the organisation approved

S. No

Period for which Notification is effective

1-4-2000 to

31-3-2003.

Àuroville Foundation, Bharat Nivas, Pondicherry 605 101.

New Delhi, the 26ih Fub,-u?.ry, 2002 Notes : The notified institution is âdvised to apply in triplicates and wëll in advancë for renewal of the approval, to the Central Government through the Commissioner df Income Tax/Directôr bf Income Tax (Exemptions) having jurisdiction. Three copies of application for renewal of approval shall also be

S.O. 933 .—It is notifiôd for gons.-al information liât enterprise, listed at para (3) bolow havo b^en ajKprovcd by the Central Govornftiel'.t for the pur- pose of Section 10(23G) of the ïrxonîo tax Act. \96l2811 road with rule 2E of ths Income lax Rulo, 1962 for the asscssmcnt years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.

2. The app*'ov..l is subj .et to the condition that—

(i) the entQrprise/industrial underinkings will Conform to and coraply with the pro- visions of section 10(23 G) of the Licorne tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the In- com-3 tax Rules, 1962.

(ii) The Central Govorntncnt shall witluL-aw this approval if the en^crprise/industrial undertaking:—

(a) ceases to carry on infrastrutciure facility, or

(b) fails to maintain books of account and gct such accoynts audited by an accountant as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income tax Rubs, 1962, or

3. The e,nterprise approved is—M/s Gujarat powers General Energy Corporation I4d., th Floor, "Chankaya" Off Ashram Rrad, Ahmedabad-380009 for their pr.oject 655 MV dual Fuel Combined Cycle Power Plant at Paguthan Village in the Distt, of Gujarat (F. No. 205/43/98/ITA.II-Vol. I)

[Notification.No. 50J(20Q2J!F NO. 205/43/98/ITA.H-Vol. 1 ITA-H] SANGEETA GUPTA, Oirector New Delhi, the 6th March, 2002 S.Q. 934.—It is notified for gercerai information that enterprise, listed at para (3) bsllw has bsen approved ' by the Central Government for the pur- pose of section 10(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of "the Incom>lax Rules, 1962, for the assessment years 2002*2003, 2003r2004 and 2004-2005.

2. The approval is subject to the condition that- (i) the enterprise/industrial undertaking will confoxm to and coniply with the provisions of section 10 (23-G) of the Income-tax Act, 196Î, raed ,with rule 2E of the Incoma-tax Rules, 1962, ;

(ii) the Central Govarnnnat shall withdra^ this app:oval if tho entterprise/industriai undertâking :—

(a) ceases to carry on infrastructure facility ; or (b) fails to maintain bx>ks of account and gct such acçounts audited by an accoun- tant as required by sub-rulc (7) of rule 2E of the Incom>tax R u *, 1962; or (p) fails to fur.nish the audit report as requirod by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income tax Rules, 1962.

3. The euterpn:c approved is—M/s North Eas;ern Electric power Corporation Ltd. Brookiand Com- ppund, Lowor-New Cplony, Laitumkhrah, P.B. NM. 79, Shillong-793003 for their Projects Rangandi Hydro Hectrjc Pow^* Pr-oj cv* 3x135 MW locf.ted1812 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2002/PHALGUNA 25, 1923 [PART II—Sec. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 6ih Mirch. 2002 et Anmacral Prado¹! r.-d Doyatid Hyd'o Ehtfric Power Project 3x25MW loccxd et Nagda^d (F. No. 205/133/99/ITA.II-Vol. 1)

[No-.iikat'on Ne. 54/:()02/F. No 205/133/99-ITA-II Vol. I] SANGEETA GUPTA, Dircctor(ITA-lI)

S.O. 935.—It is notified for gênerai information that entra-prise, listed at para (3) below has b:;en approved by the Central Govcmmcnt for the purpoj.e of section 10(23 G) of tho Inoomo-tax Act 1961 read with rule 2E of the Income tax Rides, 1962, for the assessment ycars 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.

2. The approvdl is subjoct to ths condition that:—

(i) the cnterprise/industrial undortaking will con- form to and comply with the provisions of section 10(23G) of the Incoiro-lax Act, 1961, read with rule 2E of the Incomc-tax Rnles, 1962,

(ii) the Central Government shall withdraw this approval if. the cnterprise/industrial under taking :—

(a) ceases to carry on infrasructure facility, or

(b) fails to maintain books of account and and get such accounts audited by an accountant as required by sub-rule (7) of rule 2E of the Income-tax Rule?, 1962, or

3. The enterprise approvod is-Power Génération Project at Ba^in B.ïdgft, Chcnnai, Tamil Nadu for génération of 4x50 MW (200 MW) Diesel Engine power Station of M/s GMR Power Corporation Pvt. Ltd.. Bangalore-560025 (F. No. 205/8/98 ITA.II-Vol.1)

[Notification No. 55/2002 F. No. 205/8/98 ITAII Vol.I] SANGEETA GUPTA Director (ITA. II)

OFFICE OF THE ÇOMMISSIONER CUSTOMS

& CENTRAL EXCISE

Bhopal, the 14th February, 2002

No. 01/2002

S.O. 936.—Shri S.K. Upadhyay, Superintendant. Group 'B' Central Excise &• Customs Bhopal Commissionerate having atîained the âge of superan- nuation, retired from Govt. service in the afternoon of 31st December, 2001.

[C.No. ll(25)01/2000/Estt.I] BHIKHOO RAM, Additional Commissioner (P&V) (Department of Economie Affairs) (Insurance Division) New Delhi, the 28th Febraary, 2002 S.O. 937.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Insurance Regulatory and Deve- lopment Authority Act, 1999 (41 of 1999) the Central Government hereby appoints Shri P.A. Balasubra- manian, Executive Director as Whole-tirae Member of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority till he attains the âge of 62 years i.e. upto 31-5-2005. • [F .No. 8(14)/99-Ins. VI] G. BHUJABAL, Director

(Banking Division-)

New Dçlhi, Jftie 18th February, 2002 S.O. 933.—In exercise ot powers ccœfcired cy clat-sc (o) of siîb-sôct;on fi) and snb-ssetun (2) of Sec'icr. 6 of the Industrial Development Bank of India Act, 1964 (18

:8U of 1964), the Central Government, on the recommenda- tion of the Board of Directors of Industrial Development Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri T. M. Nagarajan, presently Executive Director, Industrial Development Bank of India as a Wholetime Director (desîgnated as Deputy Managing Director), Industrial Development Bank of India from the date of his iaking charge of the post upto 30-9-2002 or until further orders, whichever event occurs earlier.

CF. No. 24(3)12001-IF.l] M. K. MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the lst March, 2002 S.O. 939.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (3)(h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 read with sub-clause (1) of Clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks (Management & Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the Central Government, hereby nominates Shri Nakul Sein Anand. Ex-Chairman, J&K State Industrial Corporation and résident of Anandvilla, 10 Canel Road, Jammu as part-time non-official director of Allahabad Bank for a period of three years commen- cing on lst March, 2002.

[F.No. 9/17/2000-B.O-L] RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

:§i4 THE GAZETTE OF IND1A : MA^CH 16, 2QQ2/ PflALGUNA 25, 1923 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)]

Mi&HSïRY OF HEAW INDUSTRY AND

MïNIspiy OF E'XTEfcNAL AFFA1RS PUBLIC ENTERPRISES

(C.P.V. Division)

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2002 (Départirent of Heavy Industçy) New Delhi, the llthiFebruary, 2002

SX). 940.—la pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of ruls 10 of the Officiai Language (Use For Officiai Pur- poses of The Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following Office whereof more than 80% of staff hâve acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:—

S.O. 94?.—In puxsuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatie and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fées) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby authorise Shxi Rajneesh Sehgal and Shri Abhilash Kumar, Asstt. in the Embassy of India, Kuwait to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officers with effect from 26-02-2002.

[No. T.-4330/1/2002] Y. C. NARANG, Py. Se.cy. (Cons.) Hindustan Cables Ltd., 9, Elgki Road, Kolkata*700020.

[No. E.-11012/1/2001-Hindi] J. P. SHUK-LA, Dy. Secy.

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2002

S.O. 941.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Officiai Language (Use For Officiai Purpose of The Union) Rules,' 1976 the Central Gavernment hsreby notifies the following Office whereof more than 80% of staff hâve acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :—

HMT Ltd., 59 -Bellary Road, BANGALpRE-560032.

[No. E.-11012/1/2001-Hindi] J. P. SHUKLA, Dv. Secy.

2êl5

MINÏSTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

New Delhi, the 27th Febraary, 2002

S.O- 943.—ia pursu-apce of sub Rule (4) cf Rule 10 of the Officiai Language (use fer cfficial purpose of the Union) Rule 1976, the Central Govern- ment hereby notify the foîlowing subordmâte offices ôf Directorate General, Doordarshan (Miéiîstry ôf Information & Broafôcastmg), the sfSff where of more than 80 % hâve acepfired the working knc wléége of Hindi :—

1. Doordashan Maintenance Centre, Dhanbad.

2. Doôrdarslran Low Vmtbt T#ansmittef, Uda^ttr,

3. Doordarsftari Lôw I^ower Tr*iSEfifitter, Duftgarpur

4. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter, Banswara

5. Doôdarshan Low Power Transmitter, SoTohi.

6. Doofdafsliaîi Low Pow'er Tfan&ftitter, Motint

Abu.

7. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter,

Nathdwara.

8. DoOrdarsHân Low Power ffansmitter, Safwara.

9. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter, Valkbh-

nagar.

10. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter Salumber.

11. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter, Kesariyaji.

12. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter, Kushalgarh

13. Doordarshan Maintenance Centre, Haridwar.

14 Djordarshan Low Power Transmitter, Handwar.

15. Doordarshan Low Power transmitter, Kotdwar.

\6. Dobfdarshan Low Power Transmitter, Yamuna

Nagàr.

17. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter, Dak Pathar.

18. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter, Kalagarh.

19. Doordarshan Maintenance Centre, Uttarkashi

20. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter, New Tihari

21. Dooriarshan Maintenance Centre, Barêilly.

22. Daordarshan Low Power Transmitter, Shahjahan-

pur

23. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter, Pilibhit.

24. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter.

Pooranpur.

25. Dooriarshan Low Power Tran!,mitt*r,*Tanakpur.

MÎHÏSTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

26. Doordarshan Low Pawef Traasmitter, Lakfthnpur,

M£w Delhi, the 27th Fëbtir.ry, 2002 khen.

[No. E-llOll/l/93-Hindi]

S.S. K ATARIÂ, Director (Offleial Languie)

S. O. 944.—Whereas u appear to the Central Government that ît is necessary v\ the pûbJic interest that for the transport of petrokum:g!6 THE GAZETTE OF INDIÀ*: -MÂRCH 16, 20Ù2/PHlAXGUNA 25, 1923 [PARI U-~SBC. 3(ii)] products f/oni KIAïI to Mu.v,t GG3 k 3U.^ of Gujaiat, a pipeline shouîd bo 'laid by the Oil aud Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

Aid whereas, it appears to the Central Go- vernment that for the purpose of laying suc h pipeline it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the k.nd under which the said Pipeline is proposed to bs laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexcd to this noti- fication :

Now, therefore, if exercise of the powers conferred by sub-fection (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act. 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby déclares its in- tention to ac'quire the right ' of user therein ;

Any person interestcd in the land describsd in the said Schedule may within twtnîy one days from the date on which the copies of this noti- fication, as published in the Gazette of India, are mad.fi available for the gênerai public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein fo¹" the laying pipe-lin e under the land to to the Comptent Aui.hority, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Construction and Maintenance Division. Makarpu"?. Road, Vadodara-390009.

SCHEDULE

State : Gujarat District : Bharuch Taluka : Hansot

Centiare

A-e

Hectare

Village

Block. No.

ANKLWA

11 10 18 13 12 16 27

40 75 30 68 70 50 00

247 248 258 263 264 265 200

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

[F. No. O-12016/52/2001/ONG/D-IV] N. C. ZAKHUP, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 27th February, 2002

S. O. 945.—Whe/eas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the p-jblic interest that for the transport of pstroleum p-oducts from GNCO to GGS IV in State of Gujarat, a pipeline should be laid by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

A.r"d whereas; it appears, to ths Central Go- vornment that for the purpose of laying such pipeline it is necessary to acquire the right of user2817 in the land'under v/hich the said Pipeline is" proposée! to be laid, and 'winch is describsd in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the poweis conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land). 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby déclares its intention to acquire the îight of user therein ;

Any person interested in the land des>crifced in the said Schedu'e may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this noti- fication, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available for the gênerai public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for the laying of pipeline under the land to the Compétent Authority, Oil and Natural Gas'Corporation Ltd., Construction and Maintenance Dicvision, Makarpura Rbad, Vadodara-390009.

SCHEDULE

State : Gujarat District : Bharuch Taluka : Vagra

Are

Village

Survey No.

Hectare

Centiare

154 0

10 79

AMBHEL

155 0

22 12

40 30

161/A-3

158

340 0

13 78

338 0

16 77

344

345

347

28 34

Cart track

01 561

122 0

19 63

121 0 ?22"i 88

112

[F. No. O-12016/42/2001/ONG/D-IV] N. C. ZAKHUP, Under Secy.

710 GI/2002—32818 THE GAZETTE ÔF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2002/ PHALGUNA 25, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3fiftl SCHEDULE

Pipeline from Limbe dra EPS-X to Limbodra

GGS-I

State : Gujarat Dist. : Mehsana Taluka : Mansa

Are

Village

Hectare

Conti-

Survey No.

aire

131

Mubarakpur

130 00

Cart

track

138 00

41 New Delhi, tho 28th Fcbruary, 2002

206 00

Cart

track

205 00

12 94

204 00

14 70

Cart

track

200 00

17 64 S. O. 946.—Wticreas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in tbe public interest that for the transport&tion of petroleum products from Limbodra EPS to Limbodra GGSI in the State of Gujarat, a pips- line shuld bs laid by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited.

199 00

13 52

198 00

15 29

Cart track

184 00

Cart track 00

188 00

189 00

47 And whereas, it appears, to the Central Go- vernment that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the tend under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid,' and which is described in the Schedule annexcd to this notification ;

[F. No. 0-12016/14/2001/ONG/(D-IV)]

N. C. ZAKHUP, Under Secy.

Now, iherefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-seelion (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Govcmment hereby déclares its in- tention to acquire right of user therein ;

Any pjrson inte -osted m the land describsd in the said Schedule m within twenfy one days from ths date on which the copies of the noti- fication issued under sub-sec1ion (1) of section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are mads available to the gênerai public, object in writing to th-3 laying of the pipeline under the land to ihft Compétent Authority, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Construction and Mairtenance Division, Makarpira Road. Vadodara-:90009, 2S19

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2002

S. O. 947.—Whereas it appcars to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum products frcm Limbodra EPS to Limbodra GGS in the State of Gujarat, a pipe- line should be laid by the OU and Natural Gas Corporation Limited.

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

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may wittrn twenty one days frcm the date en whicb- the copies of the2820 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16,2002/PHALGUNA 25, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 3 4 5 1 2 Cart track 00 01 76 453 00

36 •46

455

82 notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the gênerai Public, object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to the Compétent Authority, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Construction and Maintenance Division, Makarpura Road, Vadodara-390009.

[F. No. O-12016/15/2001/ONG/D-IV]

N. C. ZAKHUP, Under Secy.

SCHEDULE

Pipeline from Limbodra EPS-X to Limbodra

GGS-I

State : Gujarat Dist : Mehsana Taluka : Mansa

Are

Village

Hectare

Centi-

Block No.

are

332

Aaluwa

329

Cart track

328

327

324

Cart track

323

321

320

319

318

317

360

365

13 52

430

388

387

Cart track

411

Cart track

422

423

m oo2821 New Delhi, the 28th February, 2002 S. O. 948.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public inteiest that for the transportation of petroleum products from GNJS to GGS IV in the State of Gujarat, a pipeline should be laid by the OU and Natural Gas Corporation Limited.

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

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (î) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby déclares its inten- tion 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 noti- fication issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made availabîe to the gênerai public, object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to the Compétent Authority, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, Ltd., Construction and Maintenance Division, Makarpura Road, Vadodara-390009.

SCHEDULE

Pipeline from GNJS to GGS IV.

State ; Gujarat District ; Bharuch Taluka ; Vagra Village

Block Hectare Are Centi-

No.

are

59 Janiyadra

185

180

179 0 18

85 [F. No. O-12016/36/2001/ONG/D-IV] N. C. ZAKHUP, Under Secy.

2822 THE GAZETTE OF ÏNDIA : MARCH 16, 2002/PHALGUNA 25, 1923 [PART II-~-SEC. 3(îi)J

of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962(50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby déclares its inten- tion to acquire the right of user therein ;

Any person interested in the land described in the ?aid Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the noti- fication issued under sub-section (1) of seciion 3 of the said Àct, as published in the gazette of India, are made available to the gênerai public, object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to the Compétent Authority, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd." Construction and Maintenance Division, Makarpura Road, Vadodara-390009.

SCHEDULE

Pipeline from GNXX to GGS IV.

State : Gujarat District - Bharuch Taluka : Vagra

Centi-

Hectare Area

Village

are

Block No.

Ambhel

292 293 296 295 372 380 370 368 363/A-B 367 365 14 9 13 11 19/A-B 22

05 06 05 16 14 05 09 13 31 27 30 02 14 05 21 07 01

Cart track

New Ddhi, the 28th February, 2002

23 24 87

Cart track

20 76 46 64 56 85 36 52 33 30 42 47 •69 46 32 67 29 50 45 21 68 86 74 06

08 08 02 17 02 25 08

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

81 80

S. O. 949.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transporta tion of pet- roleum products from GNXX to GGS IV in the State of Gujarat, a pipeline should be laid by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited.

[F. No. O-12016/39/2001/ONG/D-IV] N. C. ZAKHUP, Under Secy.

And whereas, it appears, to the Central Govern- ment that for the purpose oi' laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acqirire the right of user in the laad under vvhica the said pipeline is proposée to be laid, and which is described in the Schcdule annexed to this notification.

Now, thsrefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-scction '(1) of section 3 of the Peîrole-an and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisition2823 New Delhi, the 28th February, 2002

S. O. 950.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Motwan GCS to 'T Point, Utran in the State of Gujarat, a pipeline should be laid by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited.

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

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerais Pipeline (Acquisition) of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby déclares its inten- tion to acaquire the right of use* 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 noti- fication issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the gênerai public, object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to the Compétent Authoriiy Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, Ltd., Construction and Maintenance Division, Makarpura F Road, Vadodara-390009.

SCHEDULE

Pipeline from Motwan GCS to T. Point.

State : Gujarat District : Surat Tauka : Hansot

Village

Hectare Are

Bîock No.

Cent- are

A m od

149 0 02 15

146 140 141 142 120 121 122 123 114 116 115

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20 23 15 16 10 07 06 07 14 03 12

00 80 00 95 00 30 95 32 64 66 80

[F. No. O-12016/42/2001/ONG/D-IV] N. C. ZAKHUP, Under Secy.

2824 THE GAZETTE OF INDÏA- : -MARCH 16, 2002/PHALGUNA 25, 1923 [PART' II—SEC. 3{ii)J

public interest that for the transportation cf petroleum products from GNYF to Dahej GGS in the State of Gujarat a pipeline shculd be laid by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited.

And whreeas it appears to the Central Go- vernment that for the purpoSe of laying the said pipeline it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the Iand under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Scheduîe annexed to this notification ;

Now therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) ofSsction 3 of the Petroleum and Minerais Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby déclares its inten- tion to acquire the right of user therein ;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Scheduîe may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the noti- fication issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the gênerai public, object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to the Compétent Authority, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Construction and Maintenance Division, Makarpura Road, Vadodara-390009.

SCHEDULE

Pipeline from GNYF to Dahej GGS.

State : Gujarat District : Bharuch Taluka : Vagra

Village

Are

Survey Hectare No.

Centi- are

Jolwa

11 01

Cart track

70 56 86

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 47 41 01 23 03

13 14 9/A Cart track 352 350/A-B

58 34 95 01 12

[F. No. O-12016/43/2001/ONG/D-IV] N. C. ZAKHUP, Under Secy.

New Delhi the 28th February, 2002

S. O. 951.—Whs.-oas it appsars to the

Cjitral 3 î v a ; i n î it tha: it is ajcsssary in the 28-5

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sectkm (1) of secticn 3 cf the Petroleum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby déclares its inten- tion to acquire the right of user therein ;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this noti- fication, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available for the gênerai public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for the laying of pipeline under the land to the Compétent Authority, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Construction and Mainte- nance Division, Makarpura Road, Vadodara-390009.

SCHEDULE

Pipeline from GNCO to GGS IV.

State ; Gujarat District ; Bharuch Taluka - Vagra

Are

Village

Hectare

Centi- are

Survey No.

Limdi

199/A-B

205

208

202

0 0 0 0

03 24 05 13

50 57 20 26

[F. No. O-12016/46/2001/ONG/D-IV] N. C. ZAKHUP, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2002

S. O. 952.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of petroleum products from GNCO to GGS IV in State of Gujarat, a pipeline should be laid by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

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

710 QI'?003—4-2826 THE GAZEITE OF INDIA ; MARCBL16, 2002/PHALGtTNA 25, 1923 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)J from the date on which the copies of the noti- fication issued under Sub-seclion (1) of section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the gênerai Public, object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to the Compétent Authority, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, Ltd., Construction and Maintenance Division, Makarpura Rcad, Vadodara-390009.

SCHEDULE

Water Injection Pipeline from IKA-I to GGS

Kathana

State ; Gujarat Dist ; Anand Taluka ; Borsad

Village

Hectare Are

Block No.

Centi- are

Divel

210 151 220 223 224 228 231 232 233

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

05 96 14 12 08 09 16 08 13

20 00 56 48 32 36 64 32 52

[F. No. O-12016/55/2001/ONG/D-IV] N. C. ZAKHUP, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2002

S. O. 953.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from IKA 1 to Kathana GGS in the State of Gujarat, a pipeline should be laid by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited.

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

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

Âny person interested in t h e l a nd described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days 2EZT

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2002

S.O. 954.—Whereas it appears to the Cential Government that it is necessafy in the public inteïest that for the transportation of petroleum products from IKA 1 to Kathana GGS in the State of Gujarat, a pipeline- should be laid by the Oil and NatUral Gas Corporation Limited.

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

Now therefore, in exercise of the powers con- ferred by sub-section (1) of tection 3 of the Petroleum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Govern- ment hereby déclares 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 issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made avail- able to the gênerai public, object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to the Compétent Authority, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Construction and Maintenance Division, Makarpura Road. Vadodara-390 009.

SCHEDULE

Water Injection Pipelines From IKA-I

To GGS-Kathana

Taluka : ficrsad

Dist : Anand BÏock No.

Are

State : Gujafat viflâgë

Hec- tare

Cen- tiare

~ ~4~

Dëhwan{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1}}}} 06 10 03 03 03 03 12 10 10 05 05 05 06 06 07 00 07 1012 1013 Cart-Track 1011 1004 1005 1006 1002 1001 1000 899 898 897 99 « 993 812 813 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 24 40 12 12 15 20 48 40 45 25 25 30 10 20 28 90 50 ↩

:g:s ''THE GAIETÏE OF INDIA : MARtH 16t-ZCK>2/PHALGÛSA 25, 1923 [PART II—-SSC. 3(ii>] 1 3 4 5 Dehwan 814 00 15 60

796

785

784

12 48

783

00 00 00

782

00 00 50

787

00 08

700

00 15 60

790

00 19 76

597

00 19 76

598

00 11 70

Kankapura

599

00 18 72

[F. No. O-12016/56/2001/ONG/D-IV]

N. C. ZAKHUP, Under Secy.

iù4

SCHEDULE

WATER INJECTION PIPELINES FROM K-21

TO GGS-KATHANA

State : Gujarat Dist : Anand Taluka : Borsad

Block No.

Are

Village

Hec- tare

Cen- tiare

Dehwan

06 24

1012

1013

Cart-Track 00

1011

00 03

1004

1005

03 20

1006

00 12 48

1002

1001

00 10

1000

00 05 25 New Delhi, the 28th February, 2C02

899

00 05 25 S.O. 955.—Whereas it appears to the Centra i

898

05 30

897

994

06 20

00 07

993

Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum prcducts from K21 to Kathana GGS in the State of Gujarat, a pipeline should be laid by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limted.

812

00 00

813

00 07 50

814

15 60

783

00 00 And whereas, it appears, to the Central Govern- ment that for the pujpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification ;

07 25

796

00 05 60

785

784

782

00 00 50

00 08

787

32 Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers con- ferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petro- leum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby déclares its intention to acquire the right of user there in;

00 15 60

700

790

19 76

597

598

00 11 70

599

18 72

Kankapura

233

[F. No.O-12016/57/2001/ONG/D-IV] N. L. ZAKHUP, Under Secy.

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 issued under sub-sèction (1) of section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made avail- able to the gênerai public object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to the Compé- tent Authority,. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Construction and Maintenance Division, Makarpura Road, Vadodara-390 009.

710 GI|2002—5.

:&3Û THE GAZETTE OF i K D I A . ^ M A R g ft 16, 20027 PHALGCNA 25, 1923 [PART I I —S E C. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2002

S.O. 956.—Whcreas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Gandhar GGS III to GGS I and GGS V to GGS I in the State of Gujarat, a pipeline should be laid by the OU and Natural Gas Corporation Limited.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers con-* ferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petro- leum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1562), the Central Government heieby déclares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule mày within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, as published în the Gazette of India, are made available tb the gênerai public object in writing to the iayingoflhe pipeline under the land to the Compétent Aùthority, Oil and Natûral Gas Corpo- ration Ltd., Construction and Maintenance Division, Makarpura Road, Vadodara-390 009.

SCHEDULE

12" DIA L.P.G. PIPELINE FROM GANDHAR GGS-IIÏ TO GANDHAR GGS-I & GGS-V TÔ GGS-I.

State: Gujarat Dist. : Bharuch Taluka : Vagra

Are

Block No.

Village

Hec- tare

Cne- taire

3 4 5

Gandhar

322 (Govt. (Land

80"

321 (Govt. Land)

[F.No. O-12016/60/2001/ONG/D-IV] N. C. ZAKHUP, Under Secy.

2831

710 GI/2002—62832 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA25,1923 |PAR i II—SEC. 3(ii)J 2833

New Delhi, the 1 lthMarch, 2002

S. 0.957.— Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is

necessary in the public interest that for the transport of Natural Gas in the State of Gujarat frora Village Mora, Taluka Chourasi, Dist. Surat to Village Utran, Dist. Surat, pipelines should be laid by the Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And, whereas, for the purpose of laying such pipelines, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the lands described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

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

Any person, interested in the lands described in the said Schedule may within twenty-one days from the date of which the copies of the notification, as published in the Officiai Gazette, are made available to the gênerai public object in writing to the acquisition of right of user therein or laying of the pipelines under the land to The Compétent Authority, Gujartat State Petroleum Corporation Limited, Block No. 15, 2nd floor, Udyog Bhawan, Sector No. 11, Gandhinagar-382 011, Gujarat.

2834 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA 25,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

District : Sura t
Name of Taluka	Name of Village	Survey/ Block No	Sub-Division No.
1	2	3	4

70 Chourasi

Limla

138 ** 1 41 **

142 **

07 Damka

443**

444 **

442

80 Ichhapor

695**

698 **

716**

733**

735**

800**

24 40 10 10 59 88 80

00 00 00 00 00 00 00

10 02 23 05 01 01 02

Jahangirpura

Variav

Kosad

798 ** 891 ** 924** 925** 65 1240* 164

75 39 37 62 00 26 40

00 00 00 00 00 00 00

04 08 07 24 03 14 01

162** 158 160 147 143 747* 32 *

4 3*

44 44 02 96 41 58 39

2 5 0* 2 4 9* 240* 220 * 239* 2 3 8* , 29 1

00 00 00 00 00 00 00

02 11 04 11 02 04 052835

1086*

1 Cont....

81 **

6 05 04

7 43 89 2 Kosad Utran

4 5 00 00

* Additional area not covered in the earlier notification vide S.O. No. 907 dtd. 02.05.2001 ** Additional area not covered in the earlier notification vide S.O. No. 2531 dtd. 19.09.2001

[No. L-14014/4/99-GP (Part-IV)] SWAMISINGH, Director2836 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA 25,1923 (PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 1 lthMarch, 2002

S. o. 958.— In pursuance of clause (a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby authorise the persons mentioned in column (1) of the Table given below to perform. the functions of the compétent authority under the said Act for laying of the pipeline by M/s Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited (GTICL) having its registered office at R.P.L. House, 3rf Floor, 15, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038 for transpontation of natural gas produced in the exploration blocks of its promoter company,namely; M/s Relianpe Industries Limited in Northern and Southern offshore of Goa and structures in Andhra Pradesh for distribution to various consumers located in the State of Maharashtra in respect of the areas mentioned in column (2) of the said Table.

'Table'

Ai eaj"f jurisdiction

Name and Address of the persons

(1)

(2) Districts of Sindhudurg, Kolhapur, Solapur and Sarigli of Maharashtra State/

Shri S.D.Bhise, Retired Deputy Collector of Maharashtra Revenue Department, Government of Maharashtra, C/o M/s Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited, R.P.L. House, 3rf floor, 15, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038.

(2)

Districts of Sindhudurg, Kolhaplur, Solapur and Sangli of Maharashtra State.

Shri D.S.Dhotre, Retired Deputy Collector of Maharashtra Revenue Department, Government of Maharashtra, C/o M/s Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited, R.P.L House, 3ri floor, 15, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038.

[No.L-14014/9/Ol-GP] SWAMISINGH, Director2837 2838 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA 25,1923 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)] 2839 710 GI/2002—72840 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA25,1923 [PART II—SEC. J(ii)] 2M12842 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16,2002/PHALGUNA 25,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2843 2844 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA25,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2845 2846 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16,2002/PHALGUNA 25,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2847 Ï10 GI/2002—82848 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA • MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA 25,1923 | PART II—SEC 3(ii)] 2849 2850 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA 25,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2851 2852 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16,2002/PHALGUNA 25,1923 [PART II—SEC 3(II)] 2853 2854 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA • MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA 25,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(U)| 2855 710 GI/2002—92856 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA25,1923 [PARI II—SKC. 3(n)] 2857 2858 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA 25.1923 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)] 2859 2860 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 16.2002/PHALGUNA25,1923 [PAKI II—SEC. 3(II)]

New Delhi, the 13thMarch, 2002

S. 0.959.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of the natural gas from exploration blocks in the Northern/Southern Offshore of Goa and structures in Andhra Pradesh of M/s Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited to the various consumers of District Gulbarga in the State of Karnataka, a pipeline should be laid by M/s Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company 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 in the 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(l) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby déclares 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 of which the copies of the notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the gênerai public, object in writmg to tr". acquisition of right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to SiiT M.Lakshminarayana, Compétent Authority, GTICL Pipeline Project, in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Vikas Bhavan, Gulbarga, Karnataka, Pin; 585 101.

2861 SCHEDULE 1 State - Karnataka Taluka - Aland District - Gulbarga

SI. No. Village Name Survey No

Hissa No.

GatNo

Area 2

Are 7

Centiare 8

Hectare 6

1 1

3 47

Kamanhalli

58 27

0 0

1/1 1/2 2 3

70 42

3 7

05 24

0 0

50 20

8/1 8/2

9/1 9/2

40 39

10 1 2A 2B

40 32

3 1/1/1 1/1/2

0 0

1/2 2 2A

2B 1

35 25

10 80 69

0 0

10 road

2 Between syno.69/2 &69/1

1

0 0

04 00

40 70 69 68

1 2

0 0 0

90 90 80 3 2 7

1 A B C

E F G

702862 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA 25,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

District - Gulbarga

Taluka - Aland SI. No.

Survey No

Hissa No.

Village Name

Gat No.

State - Kamataka Area1 Hectare 6 Are 7 5 Centiare 8 2 Kamanhaili 3 6 0 0

34 16

20 90

0 0 0 0

11 15 05 00

70 50 40 70

0 0

05 16

80 30

Sakarga

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

43 11 20 98 39 08 30

80 50 80 60 90 50 20

0 56

0 0

77 30

00 00

4 1/1 1/2 4 3/1 3/2 2 1 7 6/1 6/2 5 10/1 10/2 11 4/3 3 1-1 2 1 2A 2B 1A 1B 1C 1D 2A 1A 1A2 1A3 1A 2A 2B A B C D

71 81

0 0 0 0 0 0

69 22 23 14 14 15

80 00 60 70 60 70

1 2 3 4 1A2863

District - Gulbarga

Taluka - Aland SI. No. Village Name Survey No

Hissa No.

Gat No.

State - Karnataka

Area

Are 7

Centiare 8

Hectare 6

2 Sakarga

0 12

1 0

06 31

50 90 79 6

0 78

90 10 40 90

0 0 0 0

07 19 17 26

40 80 20

0 0 0

19 22 52

4 1B 2 3 A B C D 3 A B 2A 2B 4 5 6 7A 7B2 8 1 2A 2B 2C 2D 2B In syno.9/2

45 06 87

0 0 0

00 20 00 Road 18 19

Sawaleswar

184

Nala 175

A B C D E 15 13 11 14 12 10 Between syno. 184 & 175 3 8 7

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

70 50 10 60 60 50 00 30 30 00 60

17 27 35 08 10 44 05 10 03 02 052864 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA • MARCH 16.2002/PHALGUNA 25,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] s

Taluka - Aland SI No. Village Name Survey No

District - Gulbarga Hissa No.

GatNo

itate - Karnataka AreaHectare 1 3 4 6 5 2 Sawaleswar 174 0 Centiare 8 60 Are 7 00 3 1A

187

1B A B C

188

A B

61 34

3 4

0 0

70 90

38 29

Between syno.20 & 23

Nala

3 4

5 6 7

3 Between syno.24 & 43

0 0

Road

10 30

1 38

43 47

3 4

6 7

8 9

102865 Village Name Survey No

District - Gulbarga Hissa No.

GatNo

State - Karnataka Area Taluka - Aland SI. No1 3 5 2 Sawaleswar Hectare 6 0 Are 7 36 Centiare 8 40 44

4 11 A B C

0 50

Road (SH- 10) 45

Khanapur 71

1 0

43 00

80 70

0 10

60 76

20 80

0 0

10 08

0 29

40 78

In syno.44 A B C 1A 1B 1C 1D 2 1A 1B 2A 2B 1 A B C A B

20 70 70

0 0 0

53 25 22

79 80 81

0 0

19 04

10 40 84

ROAD 83

0 0 0

18 03 54

70 80 50

2 1A 1B 2A 2B 2C 3 1A 1B B 3 Between syno.84 & 83 1 2A 2B 2C

0 59

702866 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 16.2002/PHALGUNA25,1923 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)] District - Gulbarga Hissa No. Village Name Survey No

Taluka - Aland SI. No

Gat No.

State - Karnataka AreaHectare Are Centiare 1 4 2 3 5 6 7 •8 Khanapur 42 1A 1B

Cart Track

2 Between syno.42 & 35

37 40

C 1

2A 2B

2C 1

8 g

2 1A+C

0 0 0 0

60 06 09 26

50 70 30 30

0 0

25 22

40 50

•

02 78

Between syno.33 & Jeerhalli Boundry

Jeerhalli

Nala Nala 37

1/1 Hebhalli

1/2 2 2A

2C 2D 1

45 09

80 40

0 0 1

10 35

90 20

2 5.

0 0

51 74

80 30

2

1

2 1A

1B

Between syno.50 & 45

Nala

902867 State - Karnataka

District - Gulbarga

Taluka - Aland

GatNo

Village Name Survey No

Hissa No.

Area SI. No.

Centiare Hectare Are 7 1 5 2 Hebhalh 3 47 27 8 90 6 0

4 1 2A 2B

0 49

C A

C D

80 39

20 36

1 05

80 445

Aland

1E 2A

30 444

443

AA 1/A

1/B

1/C 1/D

2/A

2/B

2/C

58 07

0 0

00 Road 353

Between syno.443 & 353

1

2/1

351

2/2 2/1/A

2/1/B

30 352

2/1/C 2/1/D 2 1A

3552868 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA 25,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

District - Gulbarga

Taluka - Aland SI. No. Village Name Survey No

Hissa No.

Gat No.

State - Karnataka Area1 Are 7 Centiare 8 3 5 Hectare 6 2 Aland 90

4 1B 2 3 4/A 4/B

357

04 22

30 10

366

1 0

359

2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/5 2/6 2/7 2/8 2/9 5 1A 1B 1C 1D A 2B

08 00

0 0

30 30

363 360

0 33

1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 2C 2D

30 86 33 07

90 90 80 30

Between syno.362 & 239

0 0 0 0

361 362 Cart Track 239

0 76

238

1 2 1 1A 2

91 46

20 20

0 0

237 236

A B2869

District - Gulbarga

Taluka - Aland SI. No. Village Name Survey No

Hissa No.

Gat No.

State - Karnataka Area 1

Hectare 6

Are 7

Centiare 8 2 Aland

38 05 14

70 60 50

0 0 0

Road 236 254

4 B/B B/A C D E In syno.236 2 A B C D

50 40

0 0

81 09

Between syno.254,255&23

Road 255

0 06

00 258

1 2 3 4A 1 2 3

10 70

0 0

01 98

259 260

276

0 0 1

30 70 70

52 12 03

267

1A 2B 2C D E F 2 3 2 B A

0 20

60 268 268 266

0 94

265

A 1/B 2/A 2/B 1/A A B C B/12870 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA 25,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Taluka - Aland

District - Gulbarga Hissa No. Village Name Survey No

SI. No.

State - Karnataka Gat No.

AreaCentiare Are 1 4 Hectare 6 10 2 5 7 3 Aland 269 269 SH-32

00 40

A

Between syno.269 & 265

206

A B

B/A

B/B

176

A 1

174

2/A-1

2/A-2

2/A-3

2/B 1

177

178

2B A B

D E

179 182

1A-A 1B 2

181

C 8

Kinnisultan 70

15A

15B 16A

16B

16C 8

12 17

18 19

49 08

1 37

0 0

23 12

20 40

0 0

102871 State - Kamataka

District - Gulbarga

Area Taluka - Aland SI. No. Village Name Survey No

Hissa No.

Gat No.

i Are 2 3 5 1 g Honahalli Road 4 Between syno.87 & Kinnisultan Boundry

7 02 42

Centiare 10 90 70

Hectare 6 0 0

87 3

45 67

70 70

0 0

2 1

7 ÏO

55 63 12 07 61

30 90 20 20 40

0 0 0 0 0

A B1 B2 B3 1 A B 2 1 3 2 2A 2/B

0 26

1-A1

1-A2 1-B 1-C1 1-C2

1-4D 1-E 1-F1

68 46

60 06

0 0

0 30

1-F2 2 3 2A 2B 1A-1

1A-2

0 57

10 29

1-B+2-2 2-1 1-C 1-A 1-B 1-C 1-D 2 3-A 3-B 3-C 3-D

710 GI/2002—11

2872 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA;MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA25,1923 [PART II—Stc: 3(ii)]

District - Gulbarga

State - Karnataka Village Name

Taluka - Aland SI. No.

Survey No

Hissa No.

( 3at No.

Area1 3 Hectare 6 Are 7 Centiare 10 5 2 4 4-1 4-2A 4-2B 4-2C 4-2D

1 0

09 07

00 00 Tadakal

30 1128

A B

1127

ROAD

Between syno. 1127 & 1126

1126

1125 1122

0 0 0 0 0 0

33 13 10 14 33 07

60 90 80 80 90 80

1124

A B C

NALA

0 0

37 08

80 30

)

Between syno. 1124 & 111C

1110

1 00

1097

A1 A2 B1 B2 C A B

1095 1094

0 0 0

39 44 03

90 10 00

1092

0 21

1091

0 31

1083

1084

0 36

1062

0 32

1061

A B A1 A2 B C A B C A B C D A B A2873 District - Gulbarga

Taluka - Aland SI No

Village Name Survey No

Hissa No

State - Kamataka GatNo

AreaCentiare 1 2 3 5 10 Tadakal 80 4 B 1064 Cart Track Hectare 6 0 0

Between syno 1064 & 1058

1058 1057

1056

1055

1000

994

993

966

968

ROAD

Are 7 00 60 11 21

00 90

0 0 0

A B A B C D A B

1 1

04 71

20 70

A B C D E A B A B C

10 50

D(Between syno 956 & 968)

956

A2 B

958 952

840

841

842

0 0

61 76

A B C D m F A

B1 B2

0 0

42 05

70 70

A B1 B2

302874 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH16,2002/PHALGUN A25,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Gat No.

Taluka - Aland SI. No. Village Name Survey No

District - Gulbarga Hissa No.

State - Kc Are

irnataka a1 4 5 2 Tadakal Hectare 6 0 Are 7 56 Centiare 10 40 3 843 936

A1 A2 B-1 B-2 C D2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 00 03 07 12 28 08

90 40 80 90 70 20 30

901 902 903 904 905 906 897

B2 A B1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

41 01 00 09 09 15 01 16 23 16

00 10 40 80 00 60 30 30 20 60

907 883 884 885 886 874 873 872 871 865

A B

0 0

00 01

40 50

870 867

866

915

A1 A2 B1 B2 A1 B B2 A B

Between syno.803 & 917

00 27 33 10 14

40 30 60 70 10

0 0 0 0 0

916 917 ROAD 803 7992875 Taluka - Aland SI. No. Village Name Survey No

District - Gulbarga Hissa No.

Gat No.

State - Karnataka Area 1

2 Tadakal

Are 7 37

Centiare 10 10

Hectare 8 0

798

0 55

789

790

797

4 B A B A B A/2 B B/1 A B

01 03

80 60

Between syno.790,797 & 791

0 0

ROAD 791A

A B-1 B-2

59 42 13

0 0 0

10 20 40 772 771 769

60 768

699

B A A B-1 C A B C

A/B/C A

70 70 30 50 70 10

0 0 0 0 0 0

00 08 09 26 65 92

700 740 701 713 714 736

0 28

735

0 35

720

0 56

50 732

A B C A-1 A-2 B A B C A B C

0 0

27 41

10 40 7312876 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. MARCH 16,2002/PHALGUNA25,1923 [PART H—SEC 3(ii)] Survey No

District - Gulbarga Hissa No.

Gat No.

Taluka - Aland SI. No

Village Name

State - Karnataka Area1 4 5 2 Tadaka! Hectare 6 0 Are 7 32 Centiare 10 40 3 725 724

0 90

10 11

Nagalgaon 19

A-1 A/1 -A A2 A/B B/1 B/2 C-1 C-2 D 2 1

0 0

08 44

40 20

18 17

0 58

.3"

0 86

1 2 3 1 2 2/2 2/4 3 4/1 4/2 4/3 4/4 2/3 1 2/1 2/2 1 2/1 2/2

0 0 0

44 53 50

20 40 60 Sangunda

11 10 55

0 10

A B C A B C D 1

0 0

67 35

70 202877 State - Karnataka Area Survey No

District - Gulbarga Hissa No.

Gat No.

Taluka - Aland SI. No, Village Name1 3 5 Centiare 10 80 2 Sanagunda Hectare 6 0 Are 7 51 57

0 53

0 71

4 2 3A 3B 1A 1B 1C 1E 1F 1G 1H 11 U A B C D Between syno.78 & 79

0 0 0

96 06 40

40 20 80 Road 78 83

Road 85

0 0 0 0

20 70 20 10

82 03 55 23

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

59 16 15 09 13 11 04

00 20 80 30 60 00 60 19 18

A B C D E F In syno.83 2 1 A B 3 4 1 2 3 1 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F 1G

1 94

60,"7" THE GAZETTE OF INDIA.MARCH 16.2002/PHALGUNA25,192^^_ _I J A R T J ^ .^

District - Gulbarga

State - KarnataKa

Hissa No.

Village Name Survey No

Taluka - Aland SI. No.

Gat No.

AreaHectare Are Centiare 1 2 5 6 7 Sangunda 3 18 River

4

2 lnsyno.18/1 & 18/2

3

0 0 0

01 16 09

Savalagi

18 9

10 90 50 10 60

5 4

36 22 32 74

0 0

60 70 40

2 1

1 27

2 1

00 14

Belambgi 210

C D

0 96

192

C D m F G

1 56

191/1A

10 50

3 4

191/2 191/3 191/4 191/5

193

188

5 7

14 36 35 222879 State - Karnataka

District - Gulbarga Hissa No.

Taluka - Aland SI. No. Village Name

Gat No.

Survey No

Area

' 5

2 Belambgi

Hectare 6 0 0

Are 7 10 34

Centiare 10 40 30

20 60

0 0

25 05

187

15 61

90 00 186/3

0 0

10 03 66

40 30 40

0 0 0

185 183

177

175

55 05 22

0 0 0

10 90 30 15

V.K.Salgar 322

1 69

40 323

44 40

0 0

90 20 327

4 6 8 9A 9A1 9B 10A 10B 7A 7B 7C 3 2A 2B 4 2 A B C D E F 1A 1B 2A 2B 3 4 A B C D E F 2A 2B 1 A B C D

U J

0 65

00 710 GI/2002—122880 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA 25,1923 [PARI II—SEC. 3(ii)] Taluka - Aland SI. No. Village Name Survey No

District - Gulbarga Hissa No. GatNo

State - Karnataka Area1 4 3 5 Hectare 6 Are 7 Centiare 10 2 V.K.Salgar A 326 B 1A

325

1B 1C 1D

339

313

312

A B

30 30

30 00

24 06 10

Between sno.293 & 342

A

342 Road 293

290

1C 1D

289

286

0 0 0

00 74

08 00

1B

Between sno.286 & 65

A

Cart Track 65

B 1

3 4

5 6

o •

C

Between sno.90 & 69

SH-322881 Taluka - Aland SI. No. Village Name Survey No

Gat No.

State - Karnataka Area

District - Gulbarga Hissa No.

1 Are 7 Centiare 10 5 Hectare 6 2 V.KSalgar 3 90

47 03 81 33 12

90 20 90 70 10

0 0 0 0 0

4 A B 1+2 3A 4 1 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 2F

93 134

135

90 78 80 61 00 00

00 00 50 50 40 30

0 0 0 0 0 0

131

0 0 0

87 43 91

90 80 20 16

Lengti

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

50 10 20 17 14 06 38

00 40 00 50 00 90 90 Road 72 57

40 58

1 2 3 1 2A 2B 2C 2D 3 3 4A 4B 4C 4 1 2 3 Between sno.73 & 72 1 A B C D E EE F 1 2 3

0 43

302882 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA25.1923 [PARI II—SEC. 3(ii)] Taluka - Aland SI. No

Village Name Survey No

District - Gulbarga Hissa No.

State - Karnataka Area

Gat No.

Hectare 1 5 Are 7 Centiare 10 2 3 4 6 Lengti

19 A

60 41

2 3

5 4 1

6 2

3 1

90 00

0 0

00 90 70

55 24 06 07

0 0 0

20 80

40 27

0 0

20 30

48 04

00 50

4 Between sno.46 & 31

River 31

2 2A

2AA

2EE

Ladmoghali

0 0

30 30

0 0

01 70

02883 Taluka - Aland SI. No. Village Name Survey No

District - Gulbarga Hissa No.

Gat No.

State - Karnataka Area 1

2 Ladmoghali

4 2

Hectare 6 1 0

Are 7 16 44

Centiare 10 00 40

18 25

A B C

26 27

1 2

50 50 70 50

" 1 0 0 0

-3

31 41 33 26 nn

[No L-14014/16/02-GP SWAMISINGH, Directe2884 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . MARCH16, 2002/PHALGUNA25.1923 |PARI II—SEC. 3(U)] 2885 985K THF OAZF.TTR OF INDIA : MARCH 16.2002/PHALGIJNA 25.1923 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)1 2887 710 GI/2002—132888 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA 25,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J 2889 zoJO lHh GAZbl'lË OF IND1A MARCH 16.2002/PHALGUNA25, 192? |PARI II—SIC 3(h)]

New Delhi, the 13thMarch. 2002

S. O. 960.—, Whereas ît appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of the natural gas from exploration blocks in the Northern/ Southern Offshore of Goa and structures in Andhra Pradesh of M/s Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited to the various consumers of District Gulbarga in the state of Karnataka, a pipeline should be laid by M/s Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited;

Now, therefore. in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby déclares 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 of which the copies of the notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the gênerai public, object in writing to the acquistion of right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri M. Lakshminarayana, Compétent Authority, GTIL Pipeline Project, in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Vikas Bhavan, 'Gulbarga, Karnataka, Pin : 585 101.

2891

SCHEDULE

District - Gulbarga

Village Name Survey No

Hissa No

Taluka - Gulbarg SI No

GatNo

State - Karnataka Area5 1 1 2 Varnal Hectare 6 0 Are 7 12 Centiare 8 40 3 Nala 22

4 In syno 22 1 2 2/1 2/2 1 (Govt & Others) 1 2 3 4 5/2 5/1 6 7/2 7/1 8/1 8 9/3 9/2 9/1 9 9/4 10 11/2 11/1 12 13 14/1 14 15 16 17 18/2 18/1 19 20/1 20/21 21 22 23/1 232892 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 16,2002/PHALGUNA25.1923 |PARI II—SKC 3(n)|

District - Gulbarga

State - Karnataka Village Name

Hissa No.

Taluka - Gulbargs SI No.

Survey No

GatNo

Area1 Hectare 6 Are 7 Centiare 8 3 5 2 Varna! 4 24 25

28/2

28/1

29 30

31 32

32/2

36 37

38 39 40 41

55 56

20 00 Dongargaon

3 1

11 99 52

4 0 0

219 212

80 70

213

206

1A 1A 1B 1A

205

1B B

214

190

191

3 A

fi7

n2893 a

District - Gulbarga

Taluka - Gulbarg SI. No. Village Name Survey No

Hissa No.

GatNo

State - Karnataka Area

Are 7

Centiare 8

Hectare 6

2 Dongargaon 185

186 184

90 20 70 60 50 00 70

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

29 61 19 33 15 08 28

176

163

1 1A 2B B C 3+4 B 5 1 2 3 5 1 2A 2B A B 4

80 50 40 10

62 13 51 10

0 0

164 165 Cart Track 87

30 50

27 09

1 0

Road 81

30 50 40

67 21 19

0 0 0

Betweensyno.165&87 1 2 3 4 Between syno.87 & 81 1 2 1 2 1

2 3 4

37 34

51 50

20 50 80 40

31 33

0 0 0 0

90 00

33 04

3 4

0 0

49 32

60 30

42 28

0 0

1 2 3 4

Kinni(Sadak) 101

102

4 1 2

30 30 fin

31 30 fin

0 0 n2894 THE GAZETTE OF IND1A MARCH16.2OO2/PHALGUNA25.1923 [PARI II—SEC. 3(n)l

District - Gulbarga

Taluka - Gulbarg SI No Village Name Survey No

Hissa No

Gat No.

State - Karnataka Area

Hectare Are Centiare 1

8 Kinni(Sadak)

ROAD

Between syno.102 & 98

1

98/1

98/2 NALA

29 07

Between syno.77 & 98

1

1 2

80 60

00 60

1(Govt&Others)

2 3 4

8 9

60 40

39 05

0 0

Road

In syno 30 1

Dorjamaga

1 (Govt & Others

)

In syno 5 1

CANAL 6

0 0

2 5 4

0 0

132895 Taluka - Gulbarg

State - Kamataka

District - Gulbarga

St. No. Village Name

Hissa No.

Survey No 1

Gobarwadi

Gat No.

Area

Are

Hectare 6

Centiare 8 5

5 Between syno.102& 104

103 104 Cart Track 102 101

100

1 3 1 2 1 2 3

98 97 Mullamari

18 16 29

0 0

09 29

30 60 20 60 10 50 10 50

30 0

00 70 0 0 0

13 23 17

Between syno.56 & 97

Nadhi 56

1 2 1 1/2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

68 71 49 47 40

1 2/1 2/2

41 42 36 35

Canal 32

Govt. Land 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 In syno.33 1 2 3 710 GI/2002—14

10 0 32

70 0 06

90 0 29

10 0 30

90 10 90 30 40

26 14 40 08 03

0 0 0 0 0

10 50

00 78 54 04

0 0 0 0

66 06

0 0

50 0 772896 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH16.2002/PHALGUNA 25,1923 [PARI II—Str 3(n)|

District - Gulbarga

Taluka - Gulbargg SI. No. Village Name Survey No

Hissa No.

Gat No

State - Karnataka Area 1

Hectare 6

Are 7

Centiare 8

Nilkoda

1 2 3

0 0 0 0

21 44 77 18

90 90 40 70

72 75

A B C

1 0

42 04

30 70

74 76

1 2

56 55

1 2 3 5 6

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

25 25 08 24 13 46 05 33

70 10 60 20 50 40 40 60 7

Kalmandargi

51 137

1 2 3 4

[No L-14014/17/02-GP] SWAMI SINGH. Director 289/ i^ KJ.^L.1 1^ (^ 1NL)1A:MARLH16,2OO2/PHALGUNA25,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Z .,., J.JW IHb u A z i il 1E Uh 1ND1A:MARLH16,2002/FHALGU>JA25,1923 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)]2901

New Delhi, the 15th Mardi, 2002

s.o. 961.— Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 1405 dated the 19th June, 2001 issued under sub section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of users in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (herein after referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of users in the lands specified in the Schedule appendèd to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Crude Oil from Viramgam in the State of Gujarat to Panipat in the State of Haryana via Chaksu in the State of Rajasthan by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the Augmentation of Viramgam-Chaksu, Chaksu-Panipat and Chaksu-Mathura sections of Salaya- Mathura Pipeline System Project.

And whereas, copies of the said notifications were made available to the public on 09.07.2001;

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

And whereas, the Central Government, after considering the said report has decided to acquire the right of users in the lands specified in the Schedule appendèd to this Notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby déclares that the right of user in the lands specified in the Schedule appendèd to this notification are hereby acquired;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest from the date of publication of this déclaration, in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from ail encumbrances.

2902 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA 25,1923 [PART II-—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

District: PATAN

State : GUJAPJVT

Taluka : PATAN

Area

Sq.mtr.

Surveylno. Sub-Division no.

Name of the Village

Hectare c Are

MANUND

2230

99 '

2231

2289

2288

2287

2286

2285

2284

2283

2281

2280

2273

2274

2110

2108

2059

2125

2126

2127

2042

2041

2043

2044

2036

2008

85.

2009

2007

1853

1852

1854

1849

922903 1 3 6 I 4 I 2 I 5 I 01 48 0 1649 2 184Ô

1832

1833

1834

1835

1773

1770

1776

P 1

1776

1768

23 0

54 04 09 04

0 0

55 00

80 12

65 0 0 0

28 0

80 0

49 0

05 0

64 03

17S9

1758

1743

1741

1740

1649

P P P1

1651

1609 1608 1606

1605

1664

1665

1663

1667

1712

1713

60 04

0 0 0 0

08 75 17 0

90 0

65 0

29 0

03 10

81 05

81 0 0

44 0

07 04

35 0

01 09

28 0

70 05 05

91 0

48 0

DABHD!

454

453

452

456

457

458

575 573

513 514

710 GI/2002—15

00 06 55 24 08

06 02

0 0 0

64 03

72 13

32 00

20 00

85 02

29 07 07 81 0 0 0 0 0 02904 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA25,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 6 1 2 3 < 5 I 07 92 0 511 11

516

518

510

503

07 55 46

502

307

39, 61

308

',0

309

313

310

316

317

261

268

269

12.

270

256

0 -

255

254

0 0

79 RUVAVI

337

336

339

10 22

341

887

342

362

20 69

361

380

360

97 28 17

381

382

0 0

383

392

389

390

412

413

13 A v ?^ -

414

1. ">"V zyu31 3 6 I 2 i 4 ⁰ I 01 00 415 0 416 0 12 45 501 90 0 50 167 KANI 20 00 166

165

4 130

28 0

131

132

1 132

2 127

133

11 65 2 105

3 105

4 105

5 104

19 05 77

J04

13 97

14 99

1 101

10 0

44 48 17 101

76 79

18 76

55 [No. R-25011/10/2001—OR-I] S. S. KEMWAL, Under Secy.

34- 164. 19 74 ↩

2906 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:MARCH 16,ZOOluHAUJUNA25, MIS u ^i n—o_<. JUDI

|i ,„ l 11 u . x. J^HJJ2909 2910 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA 25,1923 [PART H—SEC. 3(ii)] 2911 710 G1/2002—162912 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA 25,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ù)] 2913

New Delhi, the 15thMarch, 2002

S. 0.962.— Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is

necessary in the public interest that for the transportationofcrude oilfrom Crude Oil 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 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited);

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

Now; therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(l) of the section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby déclares 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 issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the gênerai public, object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri D.KParekh, Compétent Authority, Mundra - Bhatinda Crude Oil Pipeline, Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited, (A subsidiary of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,), P.B. No. 43, Unit 2, HPCL, At & Post Khari rohar•', Tal; Gandhidham, State Gujarat.,2914 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA25,1923 [PARI II—SKC 3(n)|

SCHEDULE

District:Kutch

State:Gujarat

TahsihAnjar

Survey Nameof Village		Part if Any
No.

2 1		3
327/4 Bhuvad 327/3 326 325


	Ar. Sq.mt Ha.
	4
	22 85

326 325	44 46 36 02 0 0 0 0 0

Trowers 671 -	P Cart Track	26 04	07 73

265/1		30	35
-	Nala	06	03
267/2		17	46
267/1		30	95
269		20	65
268		21	70
-	Nala	05	87
276		11	07
271/3		49	50
271/2		03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	62
275/2		09	88
275/1		34	52
275/1	P Cart Track	01	72
274		11	40
283		24	00
284		50	41
282/3		07	99
285/1		21	80
286		27	31
Trowers 671	P	20	43
-	River	05	63
460/3		17 0 0 0	02
Trowers 671	P	37	83
187/1		11	76
186/1 185		08 29 0 0 0 0	95 74

184		23	88

2915

TahsiltAnjar District:Kutch StaterGujarat

Name of Village Survey Part if Any	ROUArea
No.
	Ar. S>q.mt Ha.
1 2 3	4
Bhuvad 684 (ContdL.) 166 692 165/3 165/2 165/1 P Trowers 671 164 - Nala 152 151/2 148 147 146 Trowers PP 671 Nala Nagalpur Nana - 2 - 1 P River 3 9 Mitha Paswaria P P Govt. Land Trowers 162 - Nala 101 102 103 104/2 88/1 88/2 89 212 Nala - 8 7 86/2 - River	0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	70 25 49 51 16 61 12 14 22 87 08 71 48 98 11 33 05 69 26 29 23 39 00 73 26 16 25 07 10 22














		11 75
		10	41
	0 0 0 1 0	04	30
		02	04
		12	48
		02	78
		13	20
		50	35
		03	74
		49	50
		21	47
		10	73
	0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0	23	44
		88	50
		04	47
		02	87
		04	61
		27	17

2916 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA25,1923 IPART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

TahsihAnjar District :Kutch State:Gujarat

ROUArea
Ha. Ar. Sq.mt
4
0	10	04
	08	64
	12	51
	33	96
	15	43

Part if Any

Nameof Village

Survey No.

3 P Govt. Land

1 Mitha Paswaria (Contd..) Khara Paswaria

River - Churakiya

Cart Track

P

P Cart Track

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

08 12 33 15 24 01 00 59 36 00 12 01

64 51 96 43 95 39 28 86 47 75 68 71

P Cart Track

24 95
01 39
00 28 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
59 86
36 47
00 75
12 68
01 71
0 08 99
0 01 11
19 22
05 57
03 69 0 0 0 0
14 00
01 78
0 0 00 91 27 43 06 01 13 48 49 29 04 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21		32 92 13 78 23 61 87 71 21 71 57

P Cart Track

Cart Tirack

Nala

P Cart Track

Cart Track

2 Trowers 162 234 - 175 174 235 .- 197/2 200 199 199 198 Trowers 204 Trowers 204 Trowers 204 4 - 3/1 Trowers 204 - Trowers 204 47 46 49 52 50 51 63 64 - 85 86

2917

TahsihAnjar District:Kutch State-.Gujarat

ROU Area Part if Any Survey Nameof Village
No.		Ar. Sq.mt Ha.

3 2 1		4
221 Khara Paswaria P 222 (Confd..) 118 Trowers P 204			85 05 93 35

		0 0 0 0	24 12 11 00

296 Âjapar 295 Trowers 319 293 291/1 292/2 292/1 278 284 279 283 - 225 224 227 228 232 231 230 - 185 186 182 181 171 180 176 175 174 161 Ajapar 162 (Contd..) 160	P Govt. Land f P Cart Track \ P	0 0 0	25 47 21 15 80 08 31 27



			00 05 35 05

			32 09
	P	0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <0	36 76
			18 93
	P		28 84
			37 39
	Cart Track		00 99
			42 46
	P P		19 23
			25 66
			14 43
			06 99
			18	63
			30	70
	Cart Track		04	04
			26	83
		0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0	19	11
			55	90
			15	33
	P		18	26
			44	26
			05	83
			40	73
			30	34
			20 01	20 68

	P Cart Track		01	39
	P		15	17

[No. R-31015/47/02—OR-ÏÏ] HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.

2918 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 1(5,2002/PHALGUNA25,1923 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)] 2919

Minlstry Of Coal and Mines

Department of Coal

New Delhi, the 1 lthMarch, 2002

O R D ER

S. 0.963.— Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Energy ( Deptt. of Coal) number SO. 2082, dated the 30* June, 1981, issued under Sub Section (i) of Section - 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act 1957 (20 of 1957), for an area of 3070.00 acres (approx.) or 1242.36 hectares (approx.), published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 1* August, 1981, the lands âfld rights in or over such lands described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said lands) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from ail encumbrances under sub- section (1) of Section 10 of the said Act.

And whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as the said 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 confefred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the lands and rights so vested shall, with effect from the l*¹ August, 1981, instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the said Government Company, subject to the following terms and conditions namely :-

(1) the said company shall reimburse the Central Government ail payment made in respect of compensation, interest, damages and the like, as determined under the provisions of the said Act;

(2) a tribunal shall be constituted for the purpose of determining the amounts payable to the Central Government by the said company under condition (1) and ail expenditure incurred in connection with any such tribunal and persons appointed to assist the tribunal shall be borne by the said company and, similarly, ail expenditure incurred in respect of ail légal proceedings like appeals etc., for or in connection with the rights in or over the said lands so vested shall also be borne bv the said comoanv;

710 GI/2002—172920 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA 25,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (3) the said company shall indemnify the Central Government and its officiais against any other expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its officiais regarding the rights in or over the said lands so vested;

(4) the said Company shall hâve no power to transfèr the said lands to any other person without the previous approval of the Central Government; and

(5) the said Company shall abide by such directions aind conditions as may be given or imposed by the Central Government for particular areas of the said lands as and when necessary.

[No. 19/58/80—CL/PRIW]

SANJAYBAHADUR,Dy Secy2921 2922 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA25,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2923

New Delhi, the 1 lth March, 2002

S. 0.964.— Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 680, dated the 20* March, 2001, issued under sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India, Part - II, Section- 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 31M March, 2001, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire lands and ail rights in the locality specified in the Schedule appended to that notification ;

And whereas the compétent authority in pursuance of section 8 of the said Act has made his report to the Central Government ;

And whereas the Central Government after considering the report aforesaid and after consulting the Government of Maharashtra is satisfied that the lands measuring 334.13 hectares (approximately) or 825.64 acres (approximately) and ail rights in or over such lands as described in Schedule appended hereto should be acquired;

2924 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA • MARCH16,2002/PHALGUNA 25,1923 PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 9 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby déclares that the land measuring 334.13 hectares (approximately) or 825.64 acres (approximately) and ail rights in or over such lands as described in Schedule are hereby acquired.

The plan bearing number C-I (E)III/JJJR/689- 0801, dated the 11* August, 2001 of the area covered by this notification may be inspected in the office of the Collector, Chandrapur (Maharashtra) or in the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House . Street, Kolkata (Pin 700 001) or in the office of the Western Coalfields Limited (Revenue Department), Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440 001 (Maharashtra).

Schedule Gouri Deep Open-Cast Project Ballarpur Area District - Chandrapur (Maharashtra)

( Plan No C-I(E)III/JJJR/689- 0801 dated the 11* August, 2001) AH Rights

Sériai Number	Name of village	Patwari circle number	Tahsil	District	Areain hectares	Remarks
	Goigaon		Rajura	Chandrapur	106.32	Part
1 2 3	Mutra	6 6 7	Rajura	Chandrapur	34.07	Part
	Antargaon fKhurdï		Rajura	Chandrapur	193.74	Part

Total area : 334.13 hectares

(approximately)

825.64 acres

(approximately) Plot numbers acquired in village Goigaon :

84, 85, 86, 125/1 part, 126 part, 127 part, 132 part, 133/1 part, 133/4 part, 134/1B part, 135/1 part, 135/2 part, 136/1A part, 136/1B part, 136/2 part, 137/1- 137/2 part, 138/1- 138/2- 138/3- 138/4, 139/1- 139/2- 13*9/3- 139/4- 139/5, 140, 141/1A- 141/1B- 141/1C- 141/2A- 141/2B, 142/1- 142/2, 143/1- 143/2A- 143/2B, 144/1- 144/2, 145/1- 145/2, 146/1- 146/2- 146/3, 147, 148,149,150, 155, 156/1- 156/2- 156/3, 157, 158/1- 158/2, 159, 160/1- 160/2, 161, 162/1- 162/2- 162/3- 162/4, 163/1 A- 163/1B-163/2, 164/1- 164/2- 164/3- 164/4, 165/1- 165/2- 165/3- 165/4, 166/1- 166/2, 167 to 175, 176/1A- 176/1B- 176/2, 177/1- 177/2, 178/1- 178/2- 178/3, 183/1 A- 183/1B- 183/2- 183/3- 183/4, 184/1- 184/2- 184/3, Road Part.

2925

Plot numbers acauired in village Mutra :

8, 9, 10/1- 10/2, 11, 12, 13/1- 13/?, 14, 26, 27, 28/1- 28/2- 28/3- 28/4, 29/1- 29/2- 29/3- 29/4- 29/5, 30/1- 30/2, 244, 245/1- 245/2- 245/3- 245/4- 245/5.

Plot numbers acquired in village Antargaon (Khurd) :

6/1- 6/2- 6/3- 6/4- 6/5, 7, 8/1- 8/2, 16/1- 16/2- 16/3- 16/4- 16/5- 16/6, 19, 20, 34/1- 34/2- 34/3, 35/1- 35/2- 35/3, 36/1- 36/2- 36/3- 36/4- 36/5, 37/1A- 37/1B- 37/1C- 37/1D- 37/1E- 37/1F- 37/2, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44/1- 44/2, 45 to 48, 49/1A- 49/1B- 49/2, 50/1- 50/2A- 50/2B- 50/3-1- 50/3-2 - 50/3-3'- 50/3-4, 51/1- 51/2- 51/3- 51/4, 52/1- 52/2, 53, 54/1- 54/2, 55/1- 55/2, 56/1- 56/2, 57/1- 57/2, 58/1- 58/2- 58/3- 58/4- 58/5, 59, 60, 61/1- 61/2, 62, 63/1- 63/2- 63/3- 63/4, 64, 65/1- 65/2, 66, 67/1- 67/2, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72/1- 72/2, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77/1- 77/2- 77/3, 78 to 83, 84/1- 84/2, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91/1- 91/2, 92/1- 92/2- 92/3- 92/4- 92/5, 93/1- 93/2, 94/1- 94/2- 94/3, 95/1- 95/2, 96/1A- 96/1B- 96/1C- 96/2- 96/3- 96/4, 97/1- 97/2- 97/3- 97/4, 98, 99/1-99/2- 99/3, 100/1- 100/2- 100/3- 100/4, 101/1- 101/2, 102/1- 102/2- 102/3- 102/4, 103, 104/1- 104/2, 105/1- 105/2, 106/1- 106/2- 106/3, 107/1A- 107/1B- 107/2, 108/1- 108/2- 108/3- 108/4, 109/1- 109/2- 109/3- 109/4, 110/1- 110/2- 110/3- 110/4, 111, 112, Road Part.

Boundarv description :

A - B:

Line starts from point 'A' and passes through village Antargaon (Khurd) and passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 6/1- 6/2- 6/3- 6/4- 6/5, 8/1- 8/2, 16/1- 16/2- 16/3- 16/4- 16/5- 16/6 and meets at point 'B'.

B - C:

Line passes through village Antargaon (Khurd) and passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 16/1- 16/2- 16/3- 16/4- 16/5- 16/6, 19, 20, 34/1- 34/2- 34/3, 50/1- 50/2A- 50/2B- 50/3-1- 50/3-2- 50/3-3- 50/3-4 then passes along the common village boundary of villages Goigaon and Antargaon (Khurd) and meets at p o i n t 'C

C - D:

Line passes through village Goigaon and passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 184/1- 184/2- 184/3, 183/1A- 183/1B- 183/2- 183/3- 183/4, 178/1- 178/2- 178/3, 174, 173, 172, 155, 156/1- 156/2- 156/3, 148, 149, 150, 146/1- 146/2- 146/3, 84, 85, 86, 126 and meets at point 'D'.

D - E:

Line passes through village Goigaon and passes in plot numbers 126,125/1, 127, 132, 133/4, 133/1, 134/1B, 135/1, 135/2, 136/2, 136/1B, 136/1A, 137/1- 137/2 and meets at point 'E'.

2926 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. MARCH L6.2002/PHALGUNA 25,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

E - F:

Line passes along the common village boundary of villages Goigaon and Mutra, then passes through village Mutra along the outer boundary of plot numbers 30/1- 30/2, 26, 27, 14, 13/1- 13/2, 12, 11, 8, 9, 245/1- 245/2- 245/3- 245/4- 245/5 and meets at point 'F'.

F - G: Line passes through village Mutra along the eastern bank of nallah and passes along the outer boundary of plot number 245/1- 245/2- 245/3- 245/4- 245/5 then proceeds through village Antargaon (Khurd) along the eastern bank of nallah and passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 112, 111, 110/1-110/2-110/3-110/4, 67/1- 67/2, 66, 65/1- 65/2, 64, 63/1- 63/2- 63/3- 63/4 and meets at point 'G'.

G - A: Line passes through village Antargaon (Khurd) and passes along the outer boundary of plot number 63/1- 63/2- 63/3- 63/4, crosses road and passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 43, 44/1- 44/2, 42, 41, 40, 37/1A- 37/1B- 37/1C- 37/1D- 37/1E- 37/1F 37/2, 6/1- 6/2- 6/3- 6/4- 6/5 then passes along the eastern bank of nallah and along the outer boundary of plot number 6/1- 6/2- 6/3- 6/4- 6/5 and meets at starting point 'A'.

[No. 43015/8/99—PR1WJ SANJAYBAHADUR, Dy. Secy.

292-7

rai Manager, Government Opiam aad Alkaloid Wéate, Gazipur for adjudication.

The référence under adjudication is as under :

"Whether the action of the management of Gov- ernment Opium and Alkaloid Works, Ghazi- pur in terminating the services of Shri Ashra- fullah, w.e.f. 7-1-94 is justified ? If not, to" what relief the workman is entitled ?' MINISTRY OF LABOUR

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2002

2. Admitted facts are; that the workman, Ashra- fullah, was appointed as càsual worker in Government Opium and Alkaloid Works Undertaking, Ghazipur on. 16-4-88. Four catégories of workers are recognised under the certified Standing Orders of the establishment viz : (a) Permanent Workers, (b) Temporary Work- res, (c) Casual Workers; and (d) Seasonal Workers. The workman continuously served as casual worker since his appointment till 7-1-94. On a report of Cen- tral Industrial Security Force Staff alleging theft of 35 gram opium on search from the workman, his services were terminated on 7-1-94. The management, also lodged a criminal case with the Kotvvali Police- under the NDPS Act, which was investigatcd and a charge sheet was submitted. The workman was tried before the Additional District Judge and was acquittée! on 19-1-96 by the said Court.

S.O. 965.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 15_0|2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Govern- ment Opium and Alkaloid Works and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-2-2002.

[No. L-42012/152/2000-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

3. The main plea of the workman, is, that on his honourable acquittai on merit, the very base causing his termination stood evaporated and so he is entitled to reinstatement as casual worker. He was duly select- ed on the said post by prescribed procédure and was working till his termination. The Central Industrial Security Force in unholy league with the management falsified a criminal case under 21 NDPS Act, which resulted into acquittai with clear finding that thé re- covery was false and motivated.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRTBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT :

Rudresh Kumar, Presiding Officer.

I.D. No. 159/2000

Réf. No. L-42012/152/2000/IR(DU)

dated 28-9-2000

BETWEEN

Shri Ashrafullah S/o Shri Abdullah R/o Mohalla Kaji Tola, P.O. Ghazipur City, Gazipur, (Ù.P.)-226010.

AND

The General Manager, Government Opium and

Alkaloid Works, Gazipur.

AWARD

4. The management has refuted workman's allega,- tions that he was implicated in a falsified case or there existed any motive to falsify a case against hjm. ïîe was found in unlawful and unauthorised possession of 35 gram Opium while passing from the outer gâte of the factory and his search yielded recovery of the. contraband. The management after satisfying itself with the report, lodged F.I.R. against the workman and also terminated his services as casual worker. It is admitted that the workman was acquitted by the court on some minor contradictions but this exigency will not entitle him reinstatement or continuity in service. Re- covery was effected from him by Central tndustrial Security Force which was an independent unit assignée to look after security of the factory and preveDt pil- ferage etc. The workman had confessed his guilt b&- fore the Central Industrial Security Force which form- ed basis of his termination. The décision of the court, thus, cannot wash out admission of the workman and so the workman is not entitled to be reinstated. It is pleaded that Rule 12(b) of the certified Standing Orders did not require any departmental enquiry on misconduct committed by the workman. The workman is not entitled to reinstatement, simply, on his acquit- tai in the criminal case under the NDPS Act.

4. As discussed above the facts are admitted. The only question requiring considération is, whether ihe By Order No. L-42012/152/2000/IR(DU) dated 28-9-2000, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) and of Sub-section (1) and Section 2 (A) of ITJ. Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dis- pute between Ashrafullah S/o Abdullah and the Gene- 710 GI/2W2—182928. j t HE GAZETTE QF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2002/ PHALGUNA 25, 1§[23_..._ [PARI.II—SEcLaCu)]. wofkman isentitled tô'benefit of reinstatement/con- tinuity in service as casual worker on h'.s acquittai in criminal case under Seciion 21 NDPS Act?

New D;l!ii, th? lÇth February, 2002 6. Admit^edly, tenrunation of sedvices w;-s based on unauthorised and unlawful recovery which also formed basis cf criminal prosecution. The décision of the criminal couri is OQ rnerit. Learned judçe d.ïscusced évidence tendered by prosecution and he!d fhe alîe?ed recovery unbelievable. This décision was noî chal'eng- ed. Thus, it be safely inferred that there was no re- covery under law. The management d*d not enquire into the recovery or judgecî suitability of the workman but soleîy acted en report of Central Industrie] S;cu- rity Force which was heid untrustworthy. Since the very basis of termination is rendered nonest on. acquit- tai, the workman is entitled to reinstatement.

S.O 966.—în iTO\-.>arcc of Section 17 of Ihe îndv.---r=t>l D>pr,/es /.et, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen*v:il Gr>ve- ii?i:nt h?icby publishes the awr.rd (^•:\ No. 85 °o) c-; il:- CenU-i! Government Indus- ir'cî Tr bj.f!°l!L-'bc - C.'urt, Kar.pur now as sho'.vn in t:ie A:v.-3::urc :i *':- liKÎn .'.rial D'sputc betv/een the cn3p]oy;rs in rtlr/.'Gn V> îhe rnar.a;?:nnent of C.iD Carreen Sp2i".:''t Aç"n C'.nt'. ?r.d t'heir workmm, wh:di w^s recsived bv the C'erAral Government on 19-2-2002.

[Ko. L-14012'19;97-IR(DU)] KULBÎ? RAT VERMA, D e* Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFO^E SRI R. P. PANDEY, PRESIDÏNG CTT\C^r> CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INCUf:-TR?,\L TR ;îîUNAl -CU?4-LABOUR COURT S/.IIVODAYA NAGAR KANPUR

ïndv.sîr;?! Dispute No. 85 of 1993

In the raaiter of discute between—

Smî. Vi1?£:n-i Ravindran 22 A Défonce Colony Agra Cdtiît.

7. The Government Opium and Alkaloid Works Undertaking adop+ed iV"?h!3. The rpanaie- men' was not under oblifpt'on to issned anv show cpi'se noiiee to h^m nnd vas emnowered to tempr>flfe h;s services OM+n'oht wi^ho'it nnv nb+;ce. Acoi-iiftn1 r>f the "'"ricmin in c'T^'^nl case will not miliffy his terminatien under Ru-e 12(2~î.

AND

The O-nteon Officer Shrt IIÎ:'. Ccntefn o ^hVaii RC:JJ, A~-- C:.n:t.

AWARD

1. C-Qtr^l Govcr'icicn;, Mishtry of Labovr, New 9. As such, the 'rnrVmp'! h enti'ierl •'o' r"""?:t;'te

ment as casual worker \v;îh fui' back wn.res.

•Lucknow,

12-2-2002.

RTJDRESH KUMAR. Presidin? Officer

2929

On the basis of thèse allégations, it has been prayed by tne management that tne ciaim of the concerned workman be rejected. • • .

4. The concerned workman has filed rejoinder in whien she has reiteruted the facls aiieged by her in ihe ciaiin siutemcnt.

5. The concerned workman filed afndavit and exa- mined herseli as W.W.l and -fiied a few documents in support of lier case.

6. As the management stopped appearing in the case after 25-7-20GJ, the case proceeded exparte against the management.

agaiii3t îhe pnnciples of naturel jusiice. It has fur- tiisr been aiieged by her in her statemeiil of daim tfaat whlle lermiiiated the services cf îhe concerned workman Ihe muriugcraent ci:d not ccmpîy with Ihe provisions o£ section 25G of tue Indusurial Disputes Àct and a junior employée Baideo Singh. son of Buag Smgh wlio was tippciuted at the same post on 1-9-91 coniinued to woik aftei lier termination. The management has also fppo^nted one anoJier person by name Sri Rajeab. aftcr her terminai; en from the service and the management thereby committed breach ci provisions oi seciion 25H of the Act. On the bas:s of ûiese allégations it had been prayed by her ibat sue may be re.inM.alcd in seivice wùh full back wages and ail cojiïequenUal benefits.

7. I hâve heard the authorised représentative for the concerned workman and hâve gone through the record ci the case. The concerned workman has proved her case by filing évidence on affidavit. From. her évidence as weli as ïrom the admission of the iTuaiigement in their wriiten statement it has been proved thaï the concerned workman continuously worîced under the management more than 240 days preceding the daie of termination of her service. It has also been admitted by the management that ai. the urne o! termination of her service of the con- cerned werkman no notice or notice pay or retrench- rnent compensation was tmid to her. In this way according lo the own admission on the part of the management it is established thaï the provisions of section 25F of the Act hâve been breached. As noue appeared from the side oE the management to rebut thé évidence addueed by the concerned workman I hâve no hésitation in holding that the termination of the service of the concerned workman with elïecî frum S-2-95 is bad in law being in violation of the provisions of section 25F of the Act and is liable to be set aside.

8. The workman has also proved the fact that after her tedmînation ihe management engaged Rajesh. Thus from the un-rebutted évidence of the concerned workman it is also proved that the management has also breached the provisions of section 25H of the ACÎ.

9. In view of above considérations the action of the management in terminating the service of the concerned workman with effect from 1-2-95 is heîd as illégal and void and the concerned workman îs held entitled for reinstatement in service with full back wages and ail consequential benefits. Aocord- ingîy the ménagement is directed to reinstatç the cencerned workman in service and to pay her arrears cf back wages within a period of one month from the date of publication of the award in the Officiai Gazette.

10. Référence is answered accordingly.

R. P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer 3. The management; has fiied writien statement with the allégations thai ihe concerned woikman was noL appoiuted as leguiar and permanent employée. The appcùûtîiiwiK of ihe concerned workman was niade m Joiy, 1992, v/hich was pureiy temporary, and on ad hoc busis ior a peiicd of two years, which was extendable by a penod of one year cr more. The concerned woïkman v/os paid consolidaied salary alongWith oUier benefits as rat-ntioned in the Standing Operating Procecdmgs. It hits been aiieged that îhe concerned woïkmati was pc.lcl cash incentive on receipis of quantitative discount équivalent to one months pay and ailowunce siid no bonus was sver paid to her. The services of Ihe concerned workman were not exieiided beyond îwo years bat the conti- nued in the employaient. Tiras lier continuation in the employment dutisg the extended period was febsoiu-.tly ad hoc in nature. It has been further aiieged by the management that îhe concerned work- maa is not a workman and no industrial dispute exnt between the pariies n, the Y/orLman was discharging Éhe funclions of managerîal nature. It has al"o been alltged that the Unit cunteens are not com- mercial or Industrial establishments and thèse are primarily weîfare .ne usures organisée at the unitdevel for làe constituenls of the unit, lî has been aiieged thaï by îhe very nature and concept the unit canleens are iherrreivc?. a lemperary arrangement. It has bien allegecl by the ir.anng/.'ment in para 9 of their wri'ted stattraent tbx.t as par Government of India Office Mémorandum No. BOCCS/003.81/Q/CAN/D (Mov)_ datcd November, 7, 1977, unit run canteeiis are privaie undertikirgs of respective units and their fundà r.re non govsmment fi.-r.ck and the Canteen Siores Dep?j!ment has no ecîmiaistrative control over the un"î cantesis cr their pc:&cnnel wfao are employ- ed by ihe naît--, under vaiious terms and conditions mutu.'Uy pet-ied beaveen ihe units ar.d the employées. It ha-; further been aihged that the units are not State insîrarnenîaiities nor govemoenl establishment, the employées are not governïie-it servarts ar:d the Ceni'ril Government hr.s no control over their service conditions and his >i-o jusiEd'ctlon over the service cond'ticjs of employées. Shattuject C;mteen is nlso a unit run canteen. It h?s been denied by the maîiagcmeaï :b.;-.f ii. hr.s vkAiSeô the provisions of section 25 G and H of ilie Âct eu the eroand that the services ci the concerned workman s'ood deter- mined on expiry of two years frorn the d?te of his ar;po:ntmsGt 'jilefi: îhe snine were formally extend- ed eceh ycar, her.ee question of rs;renchrr>enî does not rrise.. The coacemed workman is net enîitled to continue against any tesular or permanent post.

2930 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2002/ PHALGUNA 25, 1923 [PART It-=-SEc. 3(ii)]

Arakkonam in termiriating the services ^f Shri S. Anandaraj, who has been ' engaged through Pilani Enterprises for opération and maintenance of DG sets w.e.f. 19-11-99 is légal and justified? If Dot, to what relief the workman is entitled?" New Delhi, the 19th February, 2002

S.O. 967.—la pursiumce of Section 17 of ths Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government liereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 367/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Cliennai now as shown in Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the em- ploycrs in relation to the management of Garrison Engiaecr, Military Engineering Service and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 19-2-2002.

[No. L-14ûll|31|2000-lR(DU)]

KULDÏP RAI VERMA, Desk Offices

ANNEXURE

BJBFQRE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL T R I B U N A L T C U M - L A B O UR COURT, CHENNAI

Thuursday, the 31st January, 2002

2. On receipt of the order of référence from the Ministry of Labour, the case has been taken éft file as I.D. No. 367/2001 and notices were sent to both' the parties to the dispute, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal en 15-2-2001 to prosecute this case further. On that date, the I Party/Workman and his représentative were présent. But neither fhe II Party nor the représentative from the Management was présent. The I Party/Workman has not chosen to file his Claim Statement. Though the case has been adjourned to various dates of hearings for filing of Claim Statement of the I Party/Workman, no claim statement was filed. Though a représentative was présent for the I Party/Workman on subséquent dates of hearing, he has not chosen to file any authorisation or any Claim Statement on behalf of the I Party/Workman. Inspite of various notices were sent to' the II Party/Management to différent dates of hearings by registered post with acknowledge- ment due and they were duly served on the II Party/ Management, no one for the Management appeared before this Tribunal and has chosen to file the ob- jections, if any to the claim made by the 1 Farty| Workman as referrsd to in the Scheduled mentioned industrial dispute.

PRESENT:

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 367/2001

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Shri S. Anandaraj .and the Management of the Garrison Engineers,

Naval Air Station, Arakkonam.)

BETWEEN

Shri S. Anandaraj : I Party/Workman.

AND

The Garrison Engineers, : II Party/Management.

Naval Air Station, Arakkonam.

3. When the matter was taken up finally on 31-1-2002, to pass orders on the basis of available materials, both the parties were not présent. No représentation was made on either side. Neither the Claim State of the I Pasty/Workman nor the Statement of Objection of the II Party/Management filed, in spite of notices sent by Registered Post to both the parties and were duly served. Hence, this Tribunal has left with no option but to give a dis- posai of thia case on the basis of the availabls materials. Since both sides to this dispute evinced no interest to prosecute this case before this Trbunal, ever since the beginning, this case is closed and accordingly, an award is passed holding that 'no dis- pute' now exists between the parties, as referred to in the Schedule of Référence as an industrial-dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman

: Unrepresented.

For the Management

: Unrepresented.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 31st January, 2002.) AWARD

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :—

On either side : None.

Documents Maïked :—

The Govt. of India¹, Minisfry of Labour in exer- cise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (I) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), hâve referred the following dispute for adjudication vide Order No L-14Oll/31/2000-IR(DÛ) dated 27-12-2000:—

On either side : Nil.

Sd/- "Whether the action of the Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Service, INS Rajali,

PresMirig Offieer2931 New Delhi, the 20th February, 2002 S.O. 968.—In purauance of Section 17 of the Ifldustrkl Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. CGIT-2/61 of 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. II, Mumbai now as showln in the Annexure in the Industrial Dis- pute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of Artillery Centre, Nashik Road and their workman, which was received by the Centrai Govern- ment on 20-2-2002.

[No. L-14012/3/2001-IR(DU)J KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBAI (CAMP: PUNE)

PRESENT :

S. N. Saundankar, Presiding- Officer.

Référence No. CGIT-2/61 of 2001 EMPLOYEES IN RELATION TO THE MANAGE- MENT OF THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE (Civs HEADQUARTERS

The Officer-in-Charge (civs.), Headquarters, Artillery Centre, P.O.: Nashik Road Camp,

Nashik (Maharashtra) 422102.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN Mr. Kisan Murlidhar Korade, 89, Sukâpar Patha, Distt. Bhagur, Bîmj-422 502.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer : Mr. V. Narayanan, Advocate. For the Wofkmen : No Appearance.

CSîûp : Pune, Dated lst"February, 2002

AWAÎSB

The Government of India, Ministryof Labour by its Order No. L-14012/3/20Ql/IR(DU), dated 27-4-2001, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, hâve refer- red the followujg dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

"Whether the action of the management of Artillery Centre, Nashik Road, in terminat- ing the services of Mr. Kisari Murlidhar Korade, Ex-Baîber w.e.f. 8T7-85 is légal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled?" 2. Pursuant to the iîptice workman, Korade and the management Artillery Centre, Nashik Road, appeared before the Tribunal on 7-8-2001 and consequently matter was fixed for filing Statement of Claim by workman. It is seen from the record work- man did not put Statement of Claim at Mumbai, though sufficient time given. Since the matter per- tain to Nashik Road, it was fixed at Nashik Camp on 12-12-2001 to 14-12-2001. However, though he appeaTed there, did not put Statement of Claim, and when the matter was fixed at Pune camp though he received notices vide (Exhibit-I8), did not turn up nor put Statement of Claim which shows workman is not interested in prosecuting the référence and there- fore, the following order is passed :—

ORDER

Référence stands disposed of for non-prosecution.

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 20th Februaty, 2002 S.O. 969.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ret No. 195/2001) of "the Central Government Industrial Tribunal|Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Archaeolo- gical Survey of India and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 20-2-2002.

[No. L-42012/196/9S-IK(DU)] KULDÏF RAI" VERMA, Désk Ofgcer2932 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2002/ P H A L G U WA 25, 1923 [PART l i —Ù £ C. 3i,ii)] ANNKXURE

z,u uiûers wiia wsre junior to hini. 'juie Ccnîral Ad- iiiijjiStïauve ÀiiOuiiUi aii^cit-û me lst rany-lviùiiûge- ttiwiii lu pxcpuiâ a ^iuiiuiiua ksi tmo. accoiUiiigiV u, ust CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 1NDUSTRIAL TRJJiUNAL-CUùl-LAïsGUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

Was piwj.tiicti 0x1 j l - l J - i y y/ OUt il VVaS UoicUtiVC. iUL-s^ii ain lst i'ari}-iuuiîage.L.jeiH aoniiitecl nib inis- '-aKe oui uo coiiJ'j.ou was • L*U.ÛC. ± IS iai:.c.a tlie aisp^Le ciiûiiCii^iiig uJi in'ùu^uj. iiud ciuxiiitci ior re- iiibia^uîeni va.ii uack vages aûd LOI oiiisr bericfits irom 21-^,-1996.

Shri S. K. Dhai, O&'c", (Sr. Brunch), Presiding Oaicer, C.G.l.I'.-cum-Lauour Court, Biiubaaeswar.

ï. riiic lu rai-.y-nj.an^^o^atiiL haa ûied û;e Vtii.ten Tr. Inaustual Dispute case No. 195/2001

^icii.wi'xlwiil. ixlCj IJdïC i a k - jl Ujfc, ùlaiiQ Ui...i, tiiO —iîCl

A"il*.._)- v^CiiCulun \> as tX bwûSOlîai Cii&UUi v.OiKcr. rilS Date of conclusion of hearing—16-h Jan. 2002

cûgtijicra^ii^ v.'Uj j^4i.iii.--.l on aie auvjiUL-juAv ci tfae Date of Passing Avard—14th Feb. 2002

'Auii; ill ûili-'JiOlIÎ ;_,(..ivjiûS. i\!w ilùS iîOt "AOiJviJU C0-.Ul- BETWEEN

j u o u j iy ior ^-tU u - y s. i\ giav"atiGà Lst ÏVL.S ^ i c ^ u i cd Tlie Management of Archeeological Survey of India, Horticulture

Division No. 4,

Lewis Road, Near Ravi Taîkies, Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda. ...lstParly-

Management.

AND

oy liiiiii as per trte oiricaou ci tus Ccn.ial Auiiu^iSt- i'a.i\e iiiCuiiai iii rciGCC: cf dis \/oikjnc:i aiid the u^ras of tlie 2nd Party-Workman was tound pLce at ôi. ïvo. b5 oî die giudaaLcn ^st. Tiie euployj.rent iias been gi/en iicc^iding io iiie sanionty ci the hst but the îurn of IÏIÔ 2-ad Party-Workman has not reached for v.hich hsï has not given eiiipicyment. The ailegaf.ion cf the 2ad Pany-wori::nan, ihat sonie juniors hâve beeu appohi.ed has l een denied.

4. On the above pieadîngs of tha parties the foî-

iowing Issues hâve r-..en setded.

Their Workman, Shri Gclakha Bihari Bhoi, S|o. Kaiiash Elioi, Aî|Po. Chanaimt, Via, Balipaîna, Dist. Khurda-752 115. ...2nd Party-

Workman.

APPEARANCES :

1. Whether fh.3 r.cjcn of the Mrnagement in refu- sing to engage Shri Golakha Bihari Bhoi is legs! and j^sJiied?

Shri Shankar Pradhan, Foreman ( H ),

2. Whether ûie Organisai :on of the Management is c e m ^j aicei the définition of Induslry?

Horticulture Division No. IV, B.3SR . . For the lst Party-

3. Whether the Disputant is a Workman under

Management.

him?

Shri Golakha Bihari Bhoifi . . For Himself-

4. If nol, what relief the Workman is eniitîed to?

Workman.

AWARD

5. The 2nd Parîy-Workman has examined himseif and exhibited soms documents. No évidence has bt.en i,dduced on behalf of the lst Party-Managernent,

FINDING3

ISSUE NO. II & III

6. As regards Issue No. II & III, H is .ont been The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of Powers conferred by Ciause (d) of sub-section (l.) and sub-ssçtion 2(A) oî Section 10 of the Indusiiial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 ot 1 9 4 /) ha:ve referred tfce foliowing dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-42"J12/196/98/L.-l(DU), Dated 24/28-12-1998.—

pressed on behalf of the l&î. Par ^y-Management. Hence, EO fiîidings w.ll bs necîssary in respset of thèse two issues.

ISSUE NO. I

"Whether the action of trie management oî Archaeoiogical Survey of India in rcfus'ng to engag; Sliïi Gnlakba Bihari Bhoi is legai and justùîsd ? If not, v-hat relief the v.'ork- man is eafi.led t o ?"

7. The 2nd Parly-Workman in 1rs évidence has ttatcd Aat, he Las worked from June 1990 lill 20-2-1996 a.!d is was bzoi> p.iid Rs. 25 pet day end Eubsequenjy ha was psici ai tlie rate of Es. 51.42 Paiss ;"-er day. His évident.:.; doc; not disdos? snecii'cilly tow many c r 's he iï::cl v/crktd in a cx'snJar year. His only subniiss: vi is ihr.t he had vorked from Ji'ns 1990 t?!l 20-2-199fi c:\d hs îv.s conpk-ied 240 days '.vithout anv L:3ak in ,± calenc'dr year. On the other hanc the lst Fa: • -;-MruiL:"ein-.ni has ex^ibl'ed sorne c-ocui7;;r_:ts. v/lùch hzi boen m;rfcd £r, E;.;î.-A. \vh;;ch c'çcV'Srr-, Lh?f, tl!3 CIPAS woit^d bv ihe 2iXÎ Far'v- Wor"!cmin, Ihe exh:"')it TCVCP/S 'haï, he h:^ \yorl:d loss than 240 c".avs in a cn^enebr yc^r, Tnis hv; vet bf:cn dispuîed. aux hr.s bean rebirteci b" '':l;~ ?v.é Partv-Vf'c-Vrnrri. îr j svbrn.' !°^ en b=!hs!f ci! ->T lst F"'t3'->*'-v^.çer-:r: :^st, the engageaient o-." :he 2. The case cf the 2nd Party-Workman is thaï, he was working as N.M.R. Gardensr under the lsiPartj- Management from 33-7-1990 io 20-2-1996 and ic- ceived a sum of Rs. 1455 per laonth towards his wages. He worlced under ihe 1 si Party-Mraagcment about six years. île and 29 olhers il!ed a case befora the Central Administrative Tribunal for their regub- rization. When the ense was psndinc he was refused employaient with eff?c: from 21-2-1996 aloni wi'.h others^ without coraplance o*? Section 25-F ( a ) ( b ), 25-G and 25-H of (he ïndus'rhl Dispute Act. 7 h? principle of natural jnsî'c? has net been foilowcd bv the lst Parîy-Manaeement. ït is furthsr plended th'.c the Isî Party-Management has given ernpîoyment îo- 2nd-Party-Workman was needed on the availability of the work in différent gardens m a particular period. So, îhey hâve taken îhe stand that, ihe vork being seasoial and die engagement being dépendent on the avaiîibillly of the work, the claim of ihe 2nd Party- Workman for reguiarization does not arise.

8. The grievance of the 2nd Party-Workman is that, the gradation list prepared by die Ist Party-Manage- ment as per the direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal is defective and has been preppared without application of mind. If, that is the case, this Tribunal bas got no power to déclare the gradation list as invaîid as this is not îhe subjsct matter of. the réfé- rence. If the 2nd Party-Workman was aggrieved he could hâve taken ifo shelter befere the Central Admi- nistrative Tribunal for quashing of the said pradat'on 11 of the Tndu"*"p1 D's- nntp A "t. On thr> othw v/ni-ds. *h<*. potion of th? 1 st

p'ni-fi7_lV/rfln-a'-p;omr!t ir| rfflK'ii-r rmT*'nirmpnt tO Fhrj G^nVho •R:hqri R^ r v.

' —

9. Tn v"ew of mv flndin'T<3 pîven in fpsnprt of Tocinf No. 1 the ?nd P^rtvAVnrVmnn ^W noT^Vha •R'bi-ri "phoi"" ïs not ptifi*1ed f^r ynv rpi;"F T^;<; îcn,,e h c?icO answered in favonr of the ist Party-Man^Êe- ment.

10. Référence is answerari nccord:n?1y.

S. K. DHAL, P-??Idln^ Officer New Delhi, ihe 20îh February, 2002 S.O. 970.—In pursnance of Section 17 of the Industriel D'sDiite^ Act, 1947 C14 of 1947), îhe Cen'ml Government h-:reby publi"hes the award CPef. No. 6QIQ9) of thî Central Government Indus- trial Trbnn?HL">1nnf C^urt B"n^iOre new ^s shown in the Annexure in the Itidu?trial Dispute betweenthe

_.;-293a :

eraployers in relation' to tirs management "of Archaso- logxal Sarvey of India and tlisir woïkman which was received by the Central Goverunent on 20-2-2002.

[No. L-42012|239|98-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN", III MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Dated : 4th February, 2002

PRESENT :

Hon'bîe Shii V. N. Kulkarni, B.Cbm., LLB., Prcsiding Officer.

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE C. R. No. 69J99

ï PARTY :

Shri Srikantappa Bin Basappa, Amruthapura, Amruthaoura Post, , Tarikere 'Taluk, Chickmagaîur--577228 Advocate—R. Srinivasa.

II PARTY :

The Superintending Archaeologist, Acchaeolog'cal Survey of India, Kendriya Sadan, Vtb Floor, 'F' Wing, Koramangala, Mangalorc-560034 Advoca'.e—Ravi Jagan.

AWARD

1. The Central Govermrent by exercising the powerc c.nferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred th's dispute vide Order No. 42012(239! 98|IR(DU) dated 2nd December, 1999 for adjudica- tion on the following çcheduîe ~.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Department of Archaeological Survey of India, Bangalore Circîe, in terminatjng the services of Shri Srikantappa Bin Basappa, Ex-Casual Labourer is légal and justified ? If not, to wihat relief the wovkman is entitled?" 2. First p-rty was engased as a Casual Labourer with the Second Party. His services were terminat;d and therefore, indusirial dispute is raised.

3. Parties appeared and Ëïed Claim Statement and Coimter respectively.

4. The case of ihe first party in brief is as follows : 5. It is the case of the first party that he was en- gaged as Casual Labourer in the year 1986. On 3-5-1994 the Second Party issued a Circular to stop2934 THE GAZETTE OF ESTDIA: Wff^;lfr 2PS&Jffl&U3WNA 25, 1923 [PART IfeaSp^ 3jC#] 16. First party ha& filed- writtea a#aaen%- an&

I hâve gone tbroflgh the- same carefeiliy.

the work; of Casual Labourers aad- sabscqujsntiy 4$ 17-10-1994 another letter was issued and tfac- first party gave représentation to the Labour Court, Mangalore in th year 1997. Conciliation meeting was heîd and the second party engaged him again as a Casual Labourer on 1-11-1997.

17. T^ évidence of MW1 is that the first party was engaged as Casual Labour. He further says that he was engaged for construction of ancient monu- ments at différent places. He further says that first party was taken on work whenever there was work. He has given detajls of the days on which the first party has worked year wise. He has stated that he has not undertaken before the Conciliation Officer that they will regularize the Services.

6. It is the further case of the workman that from 20th Mardi, 1998 the management stopped to givc work to tihe first party and refused employaient. The action of the management is not correct. The termi- nation is without" issue of notice and enquiry. The termination is against the undertaking given by the management on 14th Octobei, 1997 before the Assis- tant Labour Commissioner, Chikmagalore.

18. Against this the first party has given évidence stating that he has worked from 1-6-1986 to 1994 and he has worked for more than 240 days. Ex. W3 b the record filed in this regard. He has given detaiied évidence in support of his claim.

7. The Government of India has issued an office mémorandum in the ysar, 1993 giving some gnjde- lines in the matter of recrcitment of persons on daily wages. Détails are given in para 3 of the Claim Statement. The first party has worked for more than 240 days continuously and therefore, the action of the management is not correct. The first party workman has prayed to pass award in his favour.

8. Against this the case of the management is brief

is as foliows :

9. The référence is not maintainable. It is the case of the management that the first party was en- gaged as a Casual Labourer and the work entrustsd to him was of a casual nature and was working only for intermittent periods.

19. MW1 has stated in his cross examination that according to the statement first party has worked for 240 days in one, of the year i.e. after 8-6-1988. One thing is clear that the first party was engaged and has worked for 240 days. According to the first party he has been working from 1986 to 1994. We hâve the document. Ex. W3 given by the ASI and according to that if is clear that the first party was working with the second party from 1-6-1986 to 3-5-1994. This itself is sufficient to say that the management is not correct in terminating the services of the first party without complying the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act. According te the documents it is clear that the first party has continuousîy worked with the second party manage- ment for a long period.

10. It is the further case of the management that the first party was engaged as a substitute Labourer, whenever tha regular staff was on leave and therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the first party that# he is terminated without notice and enquiry etc. Question of complying the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act does not arising at ail.

20. Admittedly there is no enquiry or notice was given to the first party before refusing the work. MW1 has stated in fais évidence that the first party was engaged for construction of ancient monuments at différent places. Surprisingly enough it is not statîd by him that the first party was engaged for the said work for a spécifie period or that work is completed. According to ths first party workman has been continuously working and the action of the management is illégal.

11. It is the further case of the management that the first party has not worked continuously for 240 days and therefore, the claim of the first party is not correct.

12. It is true that the Ministry of Personnel, New Delhi has indicated in its office mémorandum dated 10-9-1993 that the temporary status would be con- ferred on casual îabourers who are in employment and who hâve rendered continuous service of at least one year.

21. There are some documents to show that the instructions were given to regularize daily wagers. It is in the cross examination of MW1 that some of the workmen were regularised on fulfilling the requir- ed norms and in accordance with the direction of the Ministry. It appears that the first party workmaa has also worked continuously for a; long period and the management is not justified in refusing the work.

13. It is the further case of the management that the first party was not in employment on the date of the Mémo and therefore, the case of the workman is not correct. Management for thèse reasons kas prayed to reject the référence.

22. It is also in the records that earlier there was conciliation meeting and again the first party was engaged as Casual Labourer. According to the cross examination of MW1, Ex. W2 are the Attend- ance Rolls and they are signed by the officer.

14. It is seen from the records that the manage- ment has examined one witness wlho is Deputy Superintendent. Some documents are also marked in his évidence.

23. He further soid that it is true that that "he is a rîpular employée". He futther said that they hâve not intimated the casual Iabourers that they hâve got intimation tbat io the effect casual labouras should not be eagaged.

15. Against this workman got examined himself as WW1 and some documents are marked. After the closa of the évidence, I hâve heard botb. sides and perused the documents produoed by the parties.

24. MW1 admits in his cross-rexamination that they hâve not issued any notice to the workman and2935 that he was engaged for a particular project and he cannot be continued etc.

25. Taking ail this into considération I am of the opin:on ; liât the management is not justified in refus- ing tlie work to the first party workman. According- ly 1 procicd to pass the following Order :

ORDER

The référence is partly ailowed and the manage- ment is directed lo take (he first party workman for work as he was engaged earlier. Further if the first parîy workman i'ulfillcd the necessary conditions, he caa be considered for rcgularization.

(Dictated to PA iranscribed by her corrected and signed by me on 4th February, 2002).

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2002 S.O. 971.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 462/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the emp- loyers in relation to the management of D /o Post ?nd their workman, which was received by the Central Cjovernment on 22-2-2002.

[No. L-42012/157/95-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Wednesday, the 30th January, 2002 PRESENT :

K. Kartîiikeyan, Presiding Officer.

Tndustriai Dispute No. 462/200!

(Tamil Nadu State Tndustrial Tribunal I.D. No. 1/98) (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of Sub-section ( l) and Sub-section 2(A) 710 Gl'2002—19

of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri K. Manian and the Management of ( 1 ) Director of Postal Service, Coimbatore and (2) Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupur. )

BETWEEN

Sri K. Manian.

. .1 Party/Workman.

AND

1. The Director of Postal . .II Party/Manage- Services Western Région ment. Coimbatore.

2. Superintendent of Post Offices,

Tirupur.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : M/s. R. Sivakumar and S. Suresh, Advocates.

For the Management (1 and 2) : Sri K. Sivajothi, ACGSC.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exer- cise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-42012/157/95-IR(DU) dated lOth July, 1997.

This référence has been made earlier to the CGIT- cum-Labour Court, Bangalore and as per the orders of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, the same was transferred to file of Tamil Nadu State Indus- trial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 1/98. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, the Government of India, Ministrv of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken oh file as I.D. No. 462/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side, informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 1-3-2001. On recepit of notice frora this Tribunal, counsel on either side présent with their respective parties end prosecuted this case further.

When the matter came up before me for final hear- ing on 3-1-2002, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other material papers on re- cord, the oral and docufnentary évidence let in on either side, the written arguments filed by the learned counsel on either side and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this tribunal has passed the following : —

AWARD

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

"Whethef the action of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupur, Coimbatore, in2936 THE GAZETTE OF 1NDIA : MARCH 16, 2002/PHALGUNA 25, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] dismissing the services of Sri K. Manian w.e.f. 28-10-92 without holding propepr enquiry is just, proper and légal ? If not, to what relief is fhe workman entitled for ?"

2. The averments in the Claim Statement of the

I Party|Workman are briefly as follows : —

harsh to the alleged charges. 2nd Show cause notice on the proposed punishment was not issued. So, the quantum of punishment is illégal, unjust and arbitrary. Against thaï; dismissal order, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Director of Postal Services, Western Région, Coimbatore, Appellate Authority. The appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority mechanically without any application of mind. So, the Petitioner initiated conciliation proceedings before the Assistant 'Labour Commissioner (Central). As theie was no scope for any seulement, the conciliation officer sub-< mitted his failure report to the Government which in turn referred this case to this Tribunal for adjudica- tion. Therefore, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner to the post of Posmaster along wih full back wages and other attendant benefits.

3. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupur Divi- sion, Tirupur (hereinatfer refers to as Respondent), has filed a Counter Statement. The averments in that Counter Statement are briefly as follows :—

The I Party/Workman Sri K. Manian (hereinafter refers to as Pelitioner) was working as Extra Départ- mental Branch Postmasjer, Thengumarahada Branch Post Office from 11-10-1983, which cornes under the administrative jurisdiction of Tirupur Postal Division. On 1-7-92, the SDO Satyamangalam visited Thengu-f marahada Post Office for taking up annual inspection. On inspection, he pointed out certain discrepancies in the entries of the daily accounts of the Branch Post Office and also pointed out that there was shortage of Rs. 1758.15 in the office account balance. Accord- ingly, the same was made to. Not satisfied with the preliminary explanation given by the Petitioner, the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupur Divi- sion placed the Petitioner OFF DUTY by his order dated 7-7-1992. A charge mémo dated 29-9-92 was issued alleging that the Petitioner had failed to main- tain absolute integrity because he has utilised certain amounts of Post Office for his personal expenses. In the charge mémo, the Petitioner was directed to submit his explanation withii ten days from the receipt of the charge mémo. Even thefugh more than 20 documents were relied upon by the II Party' Management hereinnfter refers to as Respondents) to frame Ihe charges copy of Ihose basic documents were not produced ta the Petitioner to enable him to file effective reply. The state- ments obtained from five persons were also not provided to the Petitioner. Using his officiai capacity, l'he SDO had coerced the Petitioner unduly with Ihe .nlse promise that the Petitioner will be let off with minor penalties, if the Petitioner submits an explana- tion to his dictation. Without realising the mala fide designs, believing the words of the SDO, the Petitioner submitted a letter dated 16-10-1992. The contents of. this letter will clearly prove the state of mind on which it was written. Even in that so-called admission letter dated 16-10-92, nowhere the Petitioner had specifically admitted the charges levelled against him. He has not stated that he does not liks to be heard in person. On réalisme that this letter dated 16-10-92 may not service their purpose. the Sub Divisional Ins- pector Sri P. K. Nataraian, personnllv visiied the Peti- tiorer on 21-10-92 and further coerced him to trv to set another letter. Tn thaf letter also'. the Petitioner had not stated that he does not like to be heard in person. To the shock of the Petitioner. the 2nd Resr>ondent passed an order dated 28-10-98 dismissina; the Peti- tioner statine that the Petitioner had admitted the charees and he does not like to be heard in person. The Resoondent committed a grave error in dismissing the Petitioner without even the enquiry to prove the charges. Whiïe tmssing the order of dismissal, the 2nd Respondent had not taken into account the past re- cord of the petitioner. Even, if the allesed charees are assumed to be proved, it does not deserve the punish- ment of dismîssal from service. Imposing the extrême "penalty of dismissal is totally dknroportionate and

The Petitioner was working as a Branch Postmaster, Thengumarahada on 11-10-83 he was placed OFF DUTY from 1-7-92 (Afternoon) on détection of frauds committed by him. He was dismissed from service w.e.f. 28-10-1992 as a resuit of disciplinary action. The SDO Satyamanagalam, visited Thenguma- rahada Branch on 1-7^92 for annual inspection and noticed shortage of Rs. 1,758.15 in office balance be- sides various other frauds in money order payments and issue of money order committed by the Petitioner. The defrauded amount could not be made good bv the Petitioner immedîately. Therefore, the amount was charged under unclasisfied payment in the accounts of Thengumarahada Post Office on 1-7-92. The short- age was not out of certain discrepancies in the entries of daily accounts but because of the misappropriation of the Government money by the Petitioner for his personal expenses. The Sub Divisional Inspector, Satyamangalam, having detected the shortage of office balance and other financial irregularities committed by the Petitioner placed him OFF DUTY on 1-7-1992 (AN) pending further investigation and subject to rati- fication by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupur. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupur by his order dated 7-7-92, ratified the put off duty action taken against the Petitioner. The further investigation revealed that the Petitioner did commit misappropria- tion in 15 Savings Account to the tune of Rs. 16,550 and in 46 R.D. Accounts to the tune of Rs. 4,354.50 also. Therefore, disciplinary action was instituted by the Respondent against the Petitioner through a chrage mémo dated 29-9-92 framing three spécifie charges namely : (1 ) kept office balance short of Rs. 1758.15 utilising the same for his personal expenses, (2) non- credit of money order issue collection for Rs. 315 received on 18-6-92 and (3) non-credit of deposit amounts received for crédit in S.B. Account No. 136428 on 23-4-92 Rs. 100 on 12-5-92 Rs. 200, and on 15-6-92 Rs. 100. The disciplinary rules contem- plate that the statement of defence in reply to charge mémo is limited the admission or déniai of the charges communicated to the charged Government servant. For such admission or déniai, inspection of documents is not necessary. The question of providing access for2937 Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim of the Petitioner.

4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the Petitioner himself has examined as WW1 and on the side of the Respondent 3 witnesses were examined. Ten exhibits hâve been filed on the side of the Peti- tioner, while two exhibits as Exs. Ml and M2 which were already marked as Exs. W7 and W8 on the side of the Petitioner hâve been marked. The learned coun- sel for either parties submitted their respective written arguments.

5. The Point for my considération is—

"Whether the action of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupur, Coimbatore, in dismissing the services of Sri K. Maman w.e.f. 28tb October, 1992 without holding proper en- quiry is just, proper and légal ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled for ?"

Point :—

the original document and supply of copies of docu- ments anses only when the charged government ser- vant dénies the charges and formai enquiries are ordered. In the statements dated 16-10-92 and 21-10-92 the Petitioner admitted the charges and pleaded guilty and declared no further enquiry was required. Therefore, there is no point in providing access of the document and the charged government servant himself did not want any further enquiry. The contra contention of the Petitioner is only an after thought and is baseless. In the written représentation dated 16-10-92, the Petitioner had admitted that he gave the statement before the SDI, Satyamangalam on 1-7-92 realising the grave mistakes committed by him and that he felt guilty for the inconveniences caused to the members of public. This représentation was submitted by him on his own accord. There was no need for the 2nd Respondent to dictate and get such représentation from the Petitioner, as there were al- ready enough materials and évidences to prove the misdeeds committed by the Petitioner. That written représentation was submitted by the Petitioner in reply to the charge mémo dated 29-9-92. The Petitioner submitted another représentation dated 21-10-92. It is false to state that his représentation dated 21-10-92 was obtained by Sri P. K. Natarajan, then Sub Divi- sional Inspector, Satyamangalam under coercion. Sri P. K. Natarajan was relieved from the post of SDI, Satyamangalam on 20-7-92 itself on transfer as Assis- tant Superintendent of Post Offices, Coimb.itore South Sub-Division. He assumed charge of that post at Coimbatore on 21-7-92. He had no jurisdiction over the areas under Satyamangalam Sub-division in Tiru- pur Division. The Petitioner has given baseless and false information. The Petitioner in his représentation dated 21-10-92 clearly declared that no further en- quiry was called for besides his réitération of uncondi- tional admission of charges. He has also declared that he submitted that représentation on his own accord without inducement of anybody. The findings of the Disciplinary Authority was based on the unconditional admission of the charges besides taking inlo account the gravity and nature of offences committed by the applicant. The nature and gravity of the offences com- mitted are the criteria to décide the penalty. The charges framed against the Petitioner were misappro- priation of public money, which tells upon the inte- grity of the Petitioner. The charges were substantiated by the évidence on record and hence justified penalty was imposed. The punishment order was passed by the 2nd Respondent on receipt of written statement of defence from the Petitioner unconditionally and cate- gorically admitting the charges and' pleading guilty. The question of issuing a 2nd show cause notice did not arise. The departmental disciplinary rules as it stands do not provide for show cause notice on the quantum of punishment to be imposed. The Ist Res- pondent after carefully considered the appeal of the Petitioner, passed a speaking order dated 26-2-93 jejecting the appeal. There are no valid grounds to déclare the orders of punishment of dismissal from service imposed in mémo dated 28-10-92 as illégal. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled to seek remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the punish- ment was imposed following the departmental ruleS.

It is admitted that the Petitioner Sri K. Manian was working as Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster al Thengumarahada Branch Post Office under the con- trol of Tirupur Postal Division from 11-10-83. It is also admitted that the SDO, Satyamangalam visited the Thengumarahada Branch Post Office on 1-7-92 for taking up annual inspection and on that day, the Petitioner was there in service. Ex. Wl is the original appointment order dated 20-11-80 issued to the Peti- tioner for appointing him as Thengumarahada Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster of that branch post office. That was a temporary appointment. Subse- quently, the Petitioner was selected as E.D. Branch Postmaster, Thengumarahada. The communication dated 24-8-83 is Ex. W2. Ex. W3 is dated 5-12-86 issued to the Petitioner as a certificate of cash prize. It is the admission of WW1 that Postal Sub Divisional Inspector from Satyamangalam came to inspect the Branch Post Office on 1-7-92 and found out shortage of cash. Without accepting his explanation, he placed him under suspension and the order passed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupur Division dated 7-7-92 is Ex. W4. Later he was issued a charge mémo dated 29-9-92 and it is Ex. W5. It is his évidence that he gave a reply dated 16-10-92 for the charge mémo and the xerox copy of the same is Ex. W6. He would further say in his évidence that he gave another letter dated 21-10-92 and the xerox copy of the same is Ex" W7 and he gave both Ex. W6 and W7 at the instance of Mr. P. K. Natarajan, who in- formed him that he will do the needful and help him and three years subséquent to that he was given a dismissal order under Ex. W8. It is his further évi- dence no enquiry was conducted by the Respondent/ Department and he preferred an appeal. The xerox copy of the same is Ex. W9. The Director of Postal Services, Western Région dismissed his appeal by an order dated 26-2-93 and it is Ex. W10. In the cross examination, it is his évidence that the shortage of cash balance on that day detected by the inspecting officer is the amount kept separately by him as un- delivered money order amount kept in depo?it. He2938 THE GAZETTE OF 1NDIA : MARCH 16, 2002/ PHALGUNA 25, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J the décision, since he considered that the Petitioner's further rétention in Government service is not désirable in public interest and he deserves severe penalty and the imposing of such punishment is not dispropor- tionate LO the gravity ot the proved charges. Nothing worth crédit was elicited in tne cross examina ion oi MW3 to discrédit his évidence in Chief. From the oral and documentary évidence, it is seen that ihe charged officiai, the Petitioner herein was given an opportunity to admit or deny the charges levelled against him as per provisions of Rule 8 of P & f E.D. Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 19'64. In his written représentations under Wt> and "W7 the Peti- tioner has admitted the charges unconditionally anu requested the Respondent Department not to hold any further enquiry. He.had also preferred an appeai against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority by availing the opportunily of preferring an appeal and the Appeîlate Authority after due considération of the case, has rejected the appeal. From this it is seen that Petitioner was given reansoble opportunity to défend his case based on records, but he cnly has chosen to give his reply in writing admitting the guilt and has aiso informed the authorities not to hold any enquiry. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Petitioner was not given by the Respon- dent reasonable opponunity to put forth his defence effectively. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioner as supportive judgements are not applic- able to the prescrit facts and circumstances of the case. Under such circumstances. I corne to the conclusion that the action of the Superintendent of Post Offices. Tirupur Division, Coimbatore, in dismissing the ser- vices of Sri K, Manian w.e.i. 28-10-92 is just, proper and légal, since, as per the provisions of Rule 8 of E.D. Agent (C & S) Rules, 1964, no enquiry need to be conducted in this case. Hencc, the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner/Workman Sri K. Manian is not entitled for any relief. No cost.

(Dictated to the Stcnogtapher, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me i" the open court on this day the 30th January, 2002.)

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

VVitneses Examined :

For the I Party/Workman : •

WWJ—Sri K. Manian.

For the II Party/Management :

MW1— Sri P. K. Natarajan.

MW2—Sri K. Chandrasekaran.

MW3—Sri S. Ramasamy.

Documents Marked :

For the I Party/Workman :

Ex. No. Date Description would admit that he had not given the same in writing It is also his admission tiiat wiien the inspecting auiho- rity came to his office, he had not produced tue entire cash balance in the office on that day. But he would say that only aliter he told him that there was a short- age of cash balance, he gave that amount kept sepa- rately from the lowsr drawer of ihe table. Admittedly, he had not stafted so ejner. in bis Claim Statement or in his earlier previous replies under Exs. W6 and W7. If realiy, what he stated in the cross examination is true, he wouid not havc failed to mention the same in the earlier replies as well as in his Claim Statement. The non-mentioning of the same ciearly shows that it is only an after thought of the Petitioner raiscd for the first time as his defence while he gives lus évidence in the cross examination. The said inspecting authority Mr. P. K. Natarajan lias been examined as MVV1. He has given évidence with respect ot his annual ins- pection conducted in the Thengumarahada Branch Post, Office on 1-7-92. It is his évidence that when he veri- ried the cash balance and stamp account, there was. a différence in cash balance to the extent of Rs. 1758.13 and that when he asked the reasons for deficiency in the cash, the Petitioner had admitted that he utilisée! that amount on an urgent need and he cannot pay thaï, amount immediately. It is his further évidence thaï he never met the Petitioner on 21-10-92 ar.d on 2lsi July, 1992 in pursuance of his transfer as Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Coimbatorc, on pro- motion, he handed over the charge to Inspector of Post Offices, Mettupalayam. It is his spécifie évidence that he had not asked the Petitioner to give a letter Ex. W7 to the department and he does not know about the reply dated 16-10-92 given by the Peti- tioner to the charge mémo. MW2 the Assistant Super- intendent of Post Offices, Tirupur Division had de- posed that he was in additional charge l'or Satyaman- galam Sub-division from 21-7-92 to 31-12-92 and that on 21-10-92 the Petitioner came to him at Sub Divi- sional Offices, Satyamanagalam and gave the original letter of Ex. W7 and it is Ex. M l. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of MW2 to discrédit his évidence in Chief in respect of Ex. M I. IV1W3 de- posed that in 1992 he was working as Senior Super- intendent of Post Offices, Tirupur Division. It is his évidence that MW1 inspected the branch post office ->f Thengumarahada on 1-7-92 and found out some defects and he ratified the action of Sri P. K. Nata- rajan, Postal Inspector, who placed the Petitioner under suspension and on receipt of the report from the Postal Inspector, he issued charge sheet to the Petitioner. He would further say that as per request of the Petitioenr through his letters dated 16-10-92 and 21-10-92, and on the basis of his admission, as per request he has not conducted any enquiry, consi- dering the gravity of the charges, he passed an order dated 28-10-92 dismissing him from service w.e.f. 28-10-92 and the xerox copy of the proceedings is Ex. M2. He would further sav that the Anpellate Autho- rity on the order dated 26-3-92 Ex. W4 rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority. It is his further évidence that the order he passée under Ex. M2 is iustified and was in accordance with service rules of P & T. E. D. Agents (C & S) Rules, 1964 and that he took

Wl 20-11-80—Original appointment order a*

EDDA.

W2 24-0.8-83—Original order of appointaient as ED Branch Postmaster.

W3 05-12-86—Original certificatc or cash prize.

W4 07-07-92—Original order' of piit oiï duty.

W5 29-09-92—Original Charge mémo issued to the Petitioner.

W6 16-10-92-—Xerox copy of the rcpresen'a- tion of the Petitioner to Superintendent of Post Offices.

W7 21-10-92—Xerox copy of the représenta- tion" of tHe Petitioner to the Superintendent \ of Post- Offices, Tirupur.

W8' 28-10-92—Original order of dismissal of the Petitioner irora service by Superintendent of Post Offices.

W9 08-12-92—Xerox cupy of theappeal péti- tion submitted by the Petitioner Sri K. Manian.

VV10 26-02-93—Original order passed by the Post Master General rejecting the appeal of the Petitioner.

For the II Party/Managemeni :

Ex. No: Date Description • Ml" 21-10-92—Original représentation of the > Petitioner.

M2 28-10-92—Xerox copy of the order of dis- •missal.

New Delhi, the 20-.h February-, • 2002 S.O. 972.—In pursunnce of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pubiishes the award (Réf. No. ID-167(2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Ci,urt Lucknow as shown in thé Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Railway and Ihcir workman. whicb was reccivsd by the Central Government on 20-2-2002.

IN'o. L-41012!8r>|200MR(B-I)i

,UAY KUMAR, Desk Offker

29-19

ANNEXURB

CENTRAL GOVhRNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW PRESENT :

Ruùresh Kumar, Presiding Cjfficei.

I.D. No.: 167J2001

Ref : No. L-41012 86]2001 IR(B-II) datcd

16-J0-2001 •

BETWEEN

Mohan S|o Shrl MaganlaL H. No. 1801 J. Mohalia-Chandrashekhar Azad, Nai Basti, Kotwali, Jhansi, 284001.

AND

The Divisional Raiîway Manager, Central RaJvay, Jhansi Madal, Jhansi, 284001.

AWARD

By order No. L-41012j86|2001|lR(B-II) datcd 16-10-2001, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of pervers conferred by clause ,,'d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) ef Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). referred the industriel dispute between Shri Mohan S|o Shri Magan Lai and The Dhisional Rail- way Manager, Central Raiiway, JHiansi for ridiudica- tion. '

Thj référence under adjudication is as under:

"'Whe'her tJ-o ac'ion of the Management of Dhi- sional Rjilvay Manager, Central Railway. Jhansi ^i terminating the services of Shri Mohan i\o SI.il Mapan Lai E. w.e.f. 2-6-199 7 is légal and justified ? Tf not, what relief the workman is entitled ?" ' 2. Both the ^-uties admit that the workman, Mohan. \\ho>e cause is to be adjudicated, is no longer olive. He died on 17-5-200.1. The référence order was passed on 16-10-2001 after his death. So, the référence order "-veking adjudication of a decéased is not legally compétent and maintainable.

3. It is informej that the wife ot the deceased Smt. Munni De"i has aheady addresFed to the Ministry on 11 -1 - Î002 to implead her as a party. It l's also ïnformed ':i'f A L C ( C ), Kanpur was aKo approached. Thuî, i. is open to tisc Ministry to rel'cr a new or revised icfercnce in the name of the de- ceased's wife, Sni¹. Munni D;vi.

4. The référence order being not maintainable is .returned without-idjudiaction.

Lucknow. 111-2-2002.

RUDIîESH KUMAR, Presiding Ufficer2940 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2002/ PHALGUNA 25, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 20th February, 2002

S.O. 973.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmnent hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. CITR-13J97) of'the Industriel Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Aimer (Raj.) as shown in the Annexure in the Lndustrial Dispute between the emp- loyers in relation to the management of Western Rail- way and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-2-2002.

|ND. L-41011|03j96-IR(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officcr2941 ?94l THE GAZETTE OF 1NDIA : MA.RCH 16, 20027 PHALGUNA 25, 1923 [PART H—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 20th February, 2002

S.O. 974.—In pursuancc of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Âct, 1947 (M of 1947), the Cent- ral Government htreby publishes ths award (Réf. No. ID-39|2OOl) of the Central Governraem Indusriul Tribunal-cum-Laboui" Court, Hyderabad as shown in '.lie annexure in ths Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and thejr workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-2-2002.

[No. L-12012|406|2C00-IR(B-I): AJAY KUMAR, Desk Office r

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Shri E. Isrnail, Presiding Officer. .

Dated : 6-h November, 2001

INDUSTRIAL DISFUTENO. 39|2001

BETWEEN

Sri Nadigadda -Ramesh Kumar, Harijanawada, Chinnamandam, Rayachoty, Cuddapah Distt.

.. Petitioner.

2943

AND - The Dy. General Manager, Sîate Bank of India, Zonal Office, Regnigunta Road,

Tirupathi-517501. .. Respondent.

AFPEARANCES :

For the Pe'itioner : NIL.

For the Respondent: Sri B.G. Ravindra Reddy, Advocate.

AWARD

The Government of Indiai, Ministry ol Labour by its order No. L-120Ï2!406|20()0-IR(B-I) dated 7-6-2001 referred the following dispute under Section 10(1 ))d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The référence is,

"Whether the action of the management of Sfate Bank of India, Chinnamandam Branch in dismissing services of Sri Nadigadda Kumar^ Messenger is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

Inspite of several adjournments given from 20-7-2001 the petitioner was connnuously absent for eight adjournments including 6th November, 2001. Hence, heard the arguments of the respondenf's counsel. As the peti'ioner has not turned-out inspire of number of adjournmenfs and the pefitioner has fail- ed to produce amv évidence in support of h:"; claim. Therefore, the référence is ordered against the peti- tioner and 't is held that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

Accordingly a 'Nil' Award is passed, Transmit.

"Dictafed to Kum. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assis- tant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced bv me in the Open Court on this the 6th day of November, 2001.

E. ISMAIL, Pres;ding Officer Appendix of évidence

witness examined for the Witness exam'ned for Petitioner

the Respondent NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner|Union NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

710 GI/2002—20

New Delhi, the 20th February, 2002 S.O. 975.—In pursuance of Section 17 of ths In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref No. 693/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the emp- loyers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-2-2002.

[No. L-12012/576/98-IR(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Wednesday, the 16th January, 2002 PRESENT :

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 693/2001

(Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court CGID

No. 341/99)

(In the matter of the députe for adjudication undtr clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Shri P. M. Gunaseelan and the Management of the State Bank of Tndia.)

BETWEEN

Shri P. M. Gunaseelan. . .1 Party/Workman.

AND

The Assistant General Manager, . . II Party State Bank of India, Management.

APPEARANCE:

For the Workman : V. S. Ekambaram, Authoris- ed Représentative.

For the Management : Sri R. Krishnaraachari and J. John, Advocates.

ORDER

The Government of India. Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-, section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) ot Section 10 o.f Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), hâve referred the following dispute ïor adjudication vide2944 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2002/ PHALGUNA 25, 1923 [PART. J I - £ E C, Stfi)J Order "No. L-12012/576/98-ÏRfB-T)

New Delhi, the 22nd Februaty, 2002 "Whether the demand of the worknian Shri P. M. Gunaseelan, wait list.No.. 473 fpr îœstoring the wait list of temporary messengers in the establishment of State Bank of India :and cpn.sequential . appointaient jjierewpon as temporary messenger is jusfified?' If so, to Wh#t fçjjef the said wîvkman is ewtitled ?"

S.O. 976.—In pursuaiice of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Go^eraraent Jtaejîeby pubitehes the jodfraait {Rcf. No. CGIT-49 of 2001 U/Sec. 33 (b)] of tbe Central Gov- ernment Industrial Tribunal No. II, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in .relation to the management of Standard Chartered Griadifiys' Baok and their workeian, which was ieeeiy.ed by the Central Gowrœnent on 21-2-2002.

fNo. L-12014/1/2002-IRGB-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

2. Xhis référence, has Jbeeïj,,mâ"i.e êarjier. îo, Jhc Tjajnil jjf.adu Prjjacipal Labour Co"rt, where it was taken orj file as CGIDKo. 341/99. When thematter vvas .perjj&ng eaqjjiry in thaï Labour Coart, asper.the orders of the .Gay.erojnent of Iiidia, Ministiy of Labour, this case also has bfien trsnsfej/ed from tbe file pf.the Labour Court to the-file et this. Tribunal for,adjudica- tion. On receipt of records from that Labour Court, the ca$e has been îakea eu-file as I.D. No. 693/2001 a"d "Qtiçes> were sept ta both the parties to the dis- pute, informing them aboxit thi transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with, a dv'eçtton to appear befroe this Tribunal on IS-JO-OOOl.

• BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. JJ./MUMBAI

PRESENT :

S. N:.Saui"iânkar, Pxesidiog Officer.

Application No. CGIT-2/2 of 2001 3. This is an isdustrial disputeraised by the I-Party/ Workman Sri iV.M. Gmaasaclaii, wait list No. 473. deraanding the II Party/Management State,Bank of India for rasioring -the wait list of tempeiary mes^en- gers in the establishment of State Bank of ladia "jid consequenfial appointmera thereupon as temporary messenger.

(Arisingout of Réf. No. CGIT-2/49 of.2001)

PARTIES :

Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank" 90, Mahatma Gandhi Road,

Muaibafc4G0001.

. . . Applicant.

Vs.

4. When the matter h takui up today, représenta- tive of the I PartylWor*.rœan files a ineœo" dated 16-1-2002, requesting.this Tribuaal to close this référ- ence, since the same industrial dispute bas been piose- "ïtgd betweea the parties before the Tamit Nadu Prjnejpal Labour C^art as CCîiD Ko. 33Ï/99 ,tad the gaine.bas bi-eircfetrçci lo Lok Adiilat fot fuMher proceèdings. Tjte (n<£fflo in recorded.

Sudhtr P. Jitekar, Shiv Ganga Building, Fiat No. 17, 3rd FJoor, Barrage Road, Kulgaon, Badlapur-421503. . . .Opponent. APPEARANCES :

5. In view of the mémo filed by the autfoprifisd représentative for the I Partv/Wovkman todi'y in Court and recorded, :he or.i<"r of- tsfeeence as an industrial dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal is closed and ordared • aecardingly.

For, tbe Applicant : Mr. K. T. Rai, Reprâsentotïve.

For the OppoBWit : Mr. P. N. Subramanyan, (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typçd;byihim, corrected.#nd>pronottneed by me in the Qee" Ca"rt on this day the 16th: îanuary, 2062.)

.Représentative. Mumbai, dated 2nd January, 2002 K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presidjrig Officcr

JUDGMENT

This is an application filed by the management, Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank, seeking permis- sion for their action of transfer of services of workman Shri Jitekar from 'the establishment situated aT Mahatma Gandhi Road, Mumbai to the R.M.C. estab- lishment -situated at 82,' Dr. A. Nairf Road,JAgripada, Mymbai, .dunng,tha,pend"ncy of tfee Référence'No. 2/49 of 2001, under.Section 332245 Agripada, Mttobai* dttring- the peadeacy of Î M. No. 2/49 of 2001,111 connection- witît the transfer of the Award staff ta RM€ locale* at Bycutta m Mumbai. Aecording-ta appficant, management for bona fide and good* reasoos hrthe ordiaary course of business and" in" bona fide exercise of managetial fonctions thé stait Award was passed ^nd therefore the permission was saoght.

2. Whén'the' matter wasfixed forfiimg sayto the application' by the- Opponenr, the appïicant battît vide application (Exhibit-5) contenéed tfrat bank does not wish to prosecute the application and îherefore tlïe application be - disposed: of. Therefore the following orderis passed :—

ORB6R !

AppiHratk>n<;staods. disp©sed of- for nofflHptrosecu- tioft; No "rd®r-: as ta costs i" .vkw of'the! pecuîraF ckaiHfâtafiees os record.

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Preakttng Offlcesr New Delhi, the 2Ûth - Februaty, 2002 S.O. 977.—IQ pursuance of Section 17 of tbe In- dustrialJOsputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central GOTemmsatiterefef. publishe" the awasd (Réf. No. 395/2001) of tiÉs-Ceateai Goverœoent Indœtriai Tri- banal, Gheana&HOW-as sltown in the Anaexuiie ia the IœtetrM Dispute* t>etween the- emptoyers in reltïioH to the.managejûent"f ONGC;-Chennai afld thdt-work-. mail, whidi.Hfas" reoajved by ihe Central Governaaent 0"= 19-2Î-2("2.-

[Nô. - L-20Q40j67j94-IRfCil )] S. S. GOTTA, Under Secy,

ANNEXGRE-'

BlFOflBiTHE CENTRAL GO VEENMENT ' INDUSTRIAL TRïBDMAJL^GUJiMiABeUR COURT, CHENNAI

Moffltoy, tbs 31st Decemter, 2001 PRESENT:

TC Karthifceyaîi, Presiding Officer

iNmîSTRXALlDlSPUTE NÛ. 395[20ai (Tamil Nadu State [ndustrial Tribunal I.D. No. 81|95) (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under ciause 4d> x^Safe-atetfefr < 1 > aad'Stifo^eetion 2( A) oiySerttmï'10 oJ*theilBëustïiat Disputes Act, 194? (14 of 1947), betwg®"'thé- Woriwaiï Sri G. Sûbra- manian and the Management of (1) Rao Seismic Sô*tàee' P.' Lld', (2) Birfa Engineering Service and (3)> ONGGO

BETWEÊN ••

Sri'G. SubrjBnania" : I'PartyjWorJcinaiî.

AND

1. Mjs. Rae Seistœe. Services (P) Ltd. KurinjipadL : II PartyjJVlaiiagejiîeDt.

2. M|s, Birla Engyjsering Services,

CucMalore.

3. The.Sr.. Depily Directe (IRJ ,

Oiï and.Natosal G&i, ConMi"Êsi0n, CheaBai.

AFPEARANCES :

Foi thBiWo*fca*a* : S#i.N."S*r"BïaHïan' and¹ S. Ravicteocfa-an, AdvocataK

Fôrthe'Management r "(1) M|s. T.S. Gopalan & Cb. • Adrocstes.

(2> M/s. T . K. RamboHiar, R. S.:>Va"ida*"]a", Ravikuœar Paul, P.L. Thulasidas and V. Paritibaiiy Advocates.

(3) MM..M. S, Krishaaa aad Radhaterishnatt, Thei Govt, of Inii% Mimstïy ©i Lab®*w in- exercise o£pawe*s eoofenfed by clause of Section' 10 of IndastBalïDis-- pute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), haw rrfecredtbe.-oMi- ceraed InëostriaL Dispste foœ adjudJcatioa-vide X)rdep No., L-2004ô]é7j94-IRfC-I> datedr 7-12-1995.

This refeaeace has teea inad^*adter.ta4he.Tai8Ét< Naéu- &tate IndmtEiaiTpbsaaii, where it suas'taken >on> file- asIJDV No. 8 V95: When the matter was 'peadiag enquiry.jn that Tritana}" the Govt. of-lmfe, Miaistry of- Labou*=was pleased. to order- trafflsfei: &i this. case froBJ-that;Tribunal to this Trabonal for adjaà&aticsï.- O" receipt • of. recewls fïor"ithat . Tritatoi the: case,èas4>ee&4afc.n on fiIft'aa.IJ3tNa '295\2QS)t aaé^ netkaes .wer© ^ent to tlïe coua&d on tecatèiem. ecther side, infoMaing them about the traasf"r -of tiâs case to this Tribuàaly with- a diFeeMo#lto. apptar before tbis Ttibunâi oa-.2ûf2^200l. On rece^- of ^©tiee from tbis Tribunal;, coansel on e&h&r side pse^at with fheir resfiectiva parties and-pre^cated tbis^ case further.

Wheo the matter - came 2946 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2002/PHALGUNA 25, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)j niditer 'having stood over till this date for considéra- tion, uns iriounal bas passed the lollowing :—

AWARD

The industrial'Dispute referred to in the above order of j.ei.ercnce uy ine Central Government lor adjudica- tion oy uns iriDunal is as ioilows :—

"Wheiher the acioa of the Management of Rao ôeismic JtM. L,m., Contracter cl O.N.U.C. in iciminatuig ihe services oi Shri G. Sub- ramanuin v.e.t. 1-11-91 is légal and jusufied? If not, to wna*. relief is the workman entit- led?"

2. The I Party/Workman Shri G. Subraraanian (nercniauer reicia io as Fe^iiocer) has raised this in- ousirial dispute against the three Managements M|s. Rao Seismic Services Fvt. Ltd., M/s. Birla Jbngineenng Services and Ou and JNaiurai Gas Commission, Cnennai, requesung tuis inbunal to pass an award dnrecang tnese managements to reinstate mm m service wnh conimuity oi service and bacic wages etc. The averments in the Claim Statement are briefly as loliows :—

visor had no authority or competency to terminate the contract of service of the Petitioner. Hence, the ter- mination of the Petitioner is illégal, ultra virus and is invahd in law and against tne canons o£ natural justice. However, the Petitioner has made an earnest appeal to the management ol M/s. Rao Seismic Ser- vices Pvt. Ltd. for his reinstatement but it endcd in vain. The Petitioner was lastly sent a notice on llth November, 1991 to M/s. Rao Seismic Services Pvt, Ltd. demanding for his reinstatement with continuity of service, back. wages and ail other attendant benents. The notice sent by registered post was returned as refused by the addressee. The Petitioner has raised an industrial dispute on 26-11-91 against M/s. Rao Seis- mic Services Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Birla Engineering Services before the Labour Officer, Cuddalore for con- ciliation. But both the< managements hâve not avail- able for any seulement. So, it resulted in a failure. Subséquent to failure of conciliation report of the Labour Officer, Cuddalore, the Petitioner has raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Cudda- lore. M/s. Rao Seismic Services Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Birla Engineering Services claimed to be sub-contractor and contractor respectively in respect of Ihe works under Oil and Natural Gas Commission, the principal employer, they contended before the. Labour Court, Cuddalore in LD. No. 527192 that the Oil and Natural Gas Commission is a necessary party to the dispute and the claim of the Petitioner before the Labour Court was not maintainable on that score. Hence, on the said preliminary issue, the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court at Cuddalore passed an. order hold- ing that Oil and Natural Gas Commission is a neces- sary party to the dispute and directed the Petitioner to raise an industrial dispute before the Assistant Com- missioner of Labour (Central), Chennai for concilia- tion, since Oil and Natural Gas Commission is a Central Government of India Undertaking. Accord- ingly, the I.D. No. 527/92 was dismissed on 8-6-93. The Petitioner's sincère efforts and représentations made to the management of Respondents for his rein- statement did not yield any fruitful resuit. Ultimately the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central),. Chennai, sent a failure report of conciliation. So, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour has referred this dispute for adjudication by the Tribunal. The Management of M/s. Birla Engineering Services and Oil and Natural Gas Commission are vicariously liabie to answer the claim of the Petitioner under the pro- visions of Contract Labour (Régulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and as per Labour Law Enactments. Hence, the Petitioner requests this Hon'ble Tribunal to pass an award against ail the three managements directing them to reinstate the Petitioner into service with con- tinuity of service and back wages etc. from the date of termination together with costs.

3. The management of M/s. Rao Seismic Services Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter refers to as lst Respondent) has filed a Counter Statement. The .averments in the Counter Statement are briefly as follows :—

The Petitioner was initially employed as electrician (sknied worKer) by me Management of M/s. Rao Seismic Services Pvt. Ltd. irom 11-11-86. He worked as such uptn 29-2-88. Tnerearter he was depjoyed as motor man tnl the end of September, 1991. M/s. Rao Seismic Services Pvt. Ltd. is an industrial establish- ment doing drilung worics, cabie testing, engineering repair and re-construction and oîher alned works in- voived in manulacturing process under a sub-contract with M/s. Jùina Jbnguieenng Services, which was a contractor under Ou and IN attirai Gas Commission, India, conceined with thèse works. Thtis, M/s. Rao Seismic Services Pvt Ltd. is the immédiate employer of the Petitioner as sub-contractor under M/s. BirJa Engineering Services, trie contractor. M/s. Birla Engi- neering Services and Dil and Natural Gas Commission are the principal empioyers of the Petitioner. Thus, ail the three managements are liabie to answer the claim of the Petitioner as joint! y and severally liabie. The Petitioner was discharging his duty as electrician and later as motor man ever since 11-11-86 till 20-9-91 continuousiy. By his continuons and uninter- rupted services, for au tne requisite days more than the statutory lirait, he is deemed to hâve become a permanent workman under M/s. Rao Seismic Services Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot be ousted or terminated from service without any enquiry as contemplated under labour enactments. While sd, a dispute between the immédiate supervisor by name Sri Varaprasad Rao and the Petitioner with regard to payment of lesser wages to him and co-workers. The said supervisor was expioiting the labour and other innocent workmen and the said supervisor was making unlawful gain over their ignorance. Since the Petitioner questioned the same, the said Sri Varaprasad Rao ter- minated the Petitioner âbruptly from service in the lst week of October, 1991 without assigning any rea- son. The Petitioner was illegally stopped from service for no fault of his. There was no charge against him and no enquiry was conducted. The Petitioner was not at ail heard. The Petiticner was not afforded with any opportunity to represent or défend. The said super-

Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Madras is engag- ed in the exploration and location of oil fields in the country. Cauvery Basin is one of the areas identified for oil exploration. Oil and Natural Gas Commission had entered into a contract with a Rmsian Firm called M/s. Techno Export, USSR, which w:is later on2947 ment came to an end on 26-9-91. The work at Bhu- vanagiri 7 site was completed on 20-10-91 and the said rig along with the site personnel were shifted to additional site No. 1 Tirutonipuram cailed TRM. On 30-12-91, a notice was put up informing that the work at Tirutonipuram No. 1 site will be compîeted on 1-2-92 and the concemed workmen wiil be retrenched from services. Foiïowing this notice, the workmen in ail the sites went on strike. On 8-1-92 the représen- tatives of the workmen and the Respondent came to an understanding before the Sub-Collector, Cuddalore by which it was agreed that any workman whose ser- vices were to be dispensed with due to the ciosure of the site work will be paid compensation @ 150 days wages. The remaining workmen in the site were also terminated by 15-11-1992. Even if the Petitioner had continued in empioyment, conséquent to the compîe- tion of the work at Bhuvanagiri 7 site, he would hâve been shifted to Tiruîonipuram 1 site and his services would also hâve corne to an end on 1-2-92. Therefore, even if for any reason, it is held that some relief to the Petitioner is cailed for, at best, he can oniy daim wages for the period upto 31-1-92 and compensation @ 150 days wages. Under no circumstances, he would be entitled to relief of reinstatement. When the work of the lst Respondent itseif was temporary, there was no scope to treat the Petitioner as a permanent work-

4. The management of M/s. Birla Engineering Ser- vices (hereinafter refers to as 2nd Respondent) has filed a Counter Statement. The averments in that Counter Statement are briefîy as foilows :—

This industrial dispute is not maintainable as against this Respondent, since admittedly there was no master and servant relationship between the Petitioner and this Respondent. The relief claimed in the pétition is oniy against other Respondents and therefore, this Respondent is an unnecessary party to the proceedings. The lst Respondent M/s. Rao Seismic Services Pvt, Ltd. is a contractor appointed by this Respondent for supply of manpower to the Russian experts at the driiling sites and base camp. As such, tbe lst Res- pondent employed severai employées including the Petitioner for driiling work of Bhuvanagiri 7 site. The payment of the Petitioner was made oniy by M/s. Rao Seismic Services Pvt. Ltd., the lst Respondent. Since the averments contained in paras 1 to 7 do not pertain to this Respondent, this Respondent is not adverting to the said averments. With regard to aver- ment in para 8, it is not correct to state that this Res- pondent is vicariously liable to answer the claim of the Petitioner under the provisions of contract labour (Régulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The terms of référence made by the Government pertain oniy to the lst Respondent and in such circumstances, it is beyond the scope of the terms of référence to grant any relief against this Respondent. In any event, the this Respondent, since no privity of contract existed between the Peîiîioner and this Respondent. The dril- ling work at Cauvery basin has come to an end. Ail the remaining employées were retrenched from service renamed as V/o Machino Imports for supply of rigs anu 10 dig wens as per tne direction ot trie ueojogisis àna Engineers ot un aua JNaiurai Gas Comirussion. lue saiu .Kussian i"irm brougùt in tiiree rigs lor aig- ging weiis m tne Cauvery uasin. Each ng wili hâve us own crew and service personnel, wiio wiii niove aiong wiui tne ng rrom one sue to anotner ror bcring wens. iNormauy, uiere wni be no inter-transier ot ser- vice personnel among tne tnree rigs. Wnne tne macm- neiy ana equipments ot the rigs were brougnt by tne Kussian .Pimi, iviacnmo Impons, tne saia Ku&sian Fjim used to place inuents on M/s. JSiria Jbngineermg Ser- vices (.nereinauer rexers to as 2nd Kespondeni), a division OÏ Oenerai Marketing and maniuacturing Co. Lia., ior supply oï aiesei housmg lacniUes ana inanuai laDour. Un i4-y-S8, tne 2na ".espondent M/s. niria jbngineermg Services entered into a contract with lst Re&ponaeni M/s. Kao Seismic Services Fvt. Lid toi suppiy ot trained manpower tor drniing opérations of tne znd Kespondent to tne Kussian finn lor opéra- tion ot tne ngs. M/s. Rao Seismic Services Fvt. Ltd. depioyed the Peu|tioner to tlie 2nd Responûent, M/s. Bina Engineering Services, who in tirai, piaced the services oï tne Peutioner at the disposai oî tne K.ussian Firm to work as an assistant motor man. l'he Peci- tioner was required to attend to tne maintenance of gênerator sets, ine Petitioner worked m the group of worismen, attached to the ng, which was operating in Bhuvanagrn JNo. 7 well. ïnere were severai reports ag^iiisî: tne Peutioner ihat ne was rn the habit ot pil- fermg materials beiongmg to the Kussian Fum. Ihough the retitioner was warned on severai occasions, ne continued to indmge in such pnterages. On 20-9-91,1 the Petitioner had stealthity removed a wrist watch t>e- longing to a Russian imgmeer. The Russian Firm ad- dressed a letter dated 2S-9-91 to the 2nd Respondent M/s. Bina Engineering Services informing that the Petitioner has stoien a wrist watch from a Russian Engtne.;r and ihereioie, ne should not be depioyed for their work. Pursuant to the letter from the Russian Firm, the 2nd Respondent M/s. Biria Engineeringr Services sent a letter dated 26-9-91 requestmg M/ s. Rao Seismis Services Pvt. Ltd. that the Petitioner should be replaced with some other assistant motor man. Accordmgly, the Petitioner was not depioyed for work from 26-9-91. The lst Respondent was oniy a contractor for the 2nd Respondent, who in turn was a contractor to the Russian Firm Machino Imports. No workman engaged by the lst Respondent can ciaim- a right for empioyment because the opportunity for engagmg the services of thèse workmen were subject to the subsistence of the contract and the principal being satisfied with the men depioyed by them. When. the principal has given categorical instructions not to députe the Petitioner, the lst Respondent had little choice. Therefore, the non-employment of the Peti- tioner cannot be said to be unjustified. In fact, it was the Petitioner who has brougnt about the situation whereby he could not be depioyed for werk. There- fore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold that the non-employment of the Peti- tioner is justified and he is not entitled to any relief. Oil and Natural Gas Commission was operating 3 rigs in the Cauvery basin. One rig was operating at Pan- rutti. second rig at Bhuvanagiri 7 site and the 3rd rig at Tirutonipuram near Mayavaram. The Petitioner was working in the Bhuvanagiri 7 drili site, till his engage-2948 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2WÈ/ PHALGUNA 25, 1923 [PARI I P - S E C. 3(ii.>] 2ad Respoadent is not the exclusive contracter of tfrts Responûeni Theretore, it is prayed:that ihis Hon-ble î rtbunal may be pieased to ûismiss- the ap- piicauon as agamat mis Répondent.

aftet due notice and payment by the lst Respondent. Hence, the daim ot reinstatement with bacK wages as claimed by the Petitioner is totally not rnaintainable and hable to be dismissed. Hence, this Hon t>k i,ourt may be pieased to dismiss the claim of the- Petitioner against this Respondent.

5. Oil and Natucal Gas Commission, Madras (here- inalter rerers to as 3rd Respondent) has lned a sepa- raie Uounter Statement. Ihe avermems in tnat Counter Statement are brieny as foilows :—

6. When the rnatter was taken up forenquiry, the Petitioner nas exammed himseii as w W1 anu one Sn Var-ap*asaa Kao, bupervisor ot the lst Kespontlent ana-Mr. P. i, Anu>, Manager (P & A> OI me jrd Responuent hâve examineu as Mwl anu Mvv2 respeeuveiy. iNo one on behaif of the 2né Respoaaenr has been exaœmeel as a witness lor the. .management. Ihs Fetitioner has not liled any documents as exaibits on 1ht sioe. On the side of ihe maaagemeru, y documents ha.ve been Ijled anéexhi- bited as Ex. Ml to MU. Ihe arguments ot the leurned counsel for the 2nd Resporidcnt was heard. The wnt.en arguments wereJiled by the learned xounsel for the Petiuoaer.-and the ieamed caunsel for the 3id, Respondenti:

7. The Point lor my considération is —

"Whether the action of tlxe Management of Rao Seismic Pvt. Ltd., Contracior of O.N.G.C. in termdnaîing the services of Shri G. Subramanian w.e.f 1-11-91 is légal and justified ? If not, to what relief is the worktnan eniitled?'

Point:—

There is no averment whatsoever in the daim péti- tion mat the Petitioner in his capacity as employée of the lst Responoent was at any tune engage*! m any projects ol tnis Kespondent. l'here is aosoiutety no pnvuy beuveen the Feutitmer and this. Respondent. The lst and 2nd Respontlents are corpoiaie bocues, who unueriake work lor various organisations, oae among winch is this Respondent.. Adimttedly, the Peti- tioner has. not worked at any point of time for this Respondent. On the corUrary, .it is the case of the Petitioner that he- has been engaged by the lst Res- pondent originaily as an Electncian irom 11-11-86 to 29-2-88 and thereaiter as. a motorman tili th& end of September, 1991. Trie Petitioner has iurther stated that it is the lst Respondent who is his immédiate employer. The Petiitoner has not made out any case that there exists an employer and employée reiation- ship between him and this 3rd Respondenf, whereby being entitied to raise a" inatustrial dispute.. ïheretore, this 3rd Respondent is an unnecessary party - to the proceedings. In view of the fact that there is no emp- loyer and employée reiattonship between; this Respon- dent and the Petitioner, the Petitioner does not hâve locus sîandi to raise ihis inëustriai dispute. The Peti- tioner himself admitted that it is the ist Raspondent who is his employer, under whose -supervision, guid- ance and instructions, the Petitioner has been dis- charging his duties, The very claim of the Pelitioner is for a déclaration as to whether his termination by the lst Répondent is légal and justified and seeking his reinstaiement together with back wages from the date ol termination till date ol reinstatement. There- fore, even as per the claim, the présent dispute as agdinst this Respondent is iiable to be dismissed. The law is now well ssttled that the workmen of a con- tracter cannot be deerned to be the direct employées nf the principal employer. In the instance case, tihe Pniiiioncr is only an employée ol the lst Respondent, who at titnes engaged by the 2nd Respondent to whom a few ot the contracts were glven by this Respondeat. Tiie Petitioner has himseif f.dmrtted that his; salary, bonus and other perks "re being paid to bira only by 1 bt Respondent and nowheie. tbe Petitioner- ha& stated that he had been engaged to do this RespofldentS work. Thcrefore, the Petitioner. has failed miseraWy to make out an employer-empinyee relatioaship witb this Respondent. Tiiere has been no prior notice to this Respondent and it was only atter the ^conciliation be- fore the Asstt. Labour, CoHîînissioaer (Central), Madras that this Responcient for thet fkst- tirrui' had heard about the Pelit-oner. This Respondent had âled a counter before fhe conciliation officer denyûig the cxbïcnce of arr erapioyer-employee relationship. The Petitionsr's remedy is only against the lst and 2nd Respondents, since iiie&e Respondents are under- taing piojects even from oîher companies and the

It is the averment of the Petitioner in his Claan Sta>iemeni îtselt xhaïc he was employed as an Ekctri- cian \skilled worker) by M|s. IUIO àejsmic Services Pvt. Ltd. irom 11-11-86 and that lie. was warked as such till 29-2-88 and thereatter, he was depioyed as a motorman till the end ol beptember, 1991. It is also his pleat in the Claim Statement that the lst Res- poadent M|s. Rao Sesraic Services Pvt. Ltd. is a sub- contracor oi M|s. Birla Engineering Services, who in turn is the contractor in OU & N attirai Gas Commis- sion of Inda. He has not disputed the averment of the lst Respondent in their Counter Statement thaï Oil & Natural. Gas Commission, Madras had entered into acontract with a Russian firm caHed M|s. Techno Expert, USSR, which was later ou renamed as 'V|O Machino Import', for s-upply of rigs and to dig wells as per the direction of the Geologists and Englneers of Oil & Natural Gas Commission and that tbe said Russian firm brought in three rigs for digging wells in ihe Cauvery basin and each rig will hâve its own crew and service personnel will move along with the rig from one site fo another for boting wells ar*d normally there wiil be no irrter-transfer of service per- sonnel among the three rigs and that whrle the madaà^ nery and équipements of the rigs were brought by the Russian firm Machina Imports, the said Russian firm used to place indents on the 2nd Respondent for supply of diesel, housing facilities and manual labour^ It is the contention of the îst Respoadent that on 14-9-88, the 2nd Respondent entered into a contract with tbe lst Respondent for supply of trained manpower for drilling opérations of the 2nd Respondent to fhe Russian firm for opération of the rigs and that the lst Respondent deploved the Pe^ioner to the 2nd p.ëspondent, who in turn t>Taced the services of the Fètitkmer at the; disposai of the Russian fin" to vork2949 .950 .. THE GAZETTE OF INDIA.: MARCH.16, 2002/ PHALGUNA 25, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] againsi him ajid the lst Respondent had warned him many times and subsequently, on the complaint given by tne Russian Engineer to their Contractor M|s. Birla Engmeering Services under Ex. M4, the 2nd Respon- dent gave an another complaini under Ex. M5, requesting the lst Respondïnt not to députe the Feti- tioner for the work in the side and requested thera to provide some other person, instead of the Petitioner and in pursuance of the same, the Petitioner was not deputed io Bhuvanagiri site. It is also the évidence of MW1 as per Ex. Mo and M7 lhat the Petitioner has committed various misconducts previously and ail thèse things were faken in!c considération by the lst Respondent for retrenching the Petitioner from the service of the lst Fespondent. It is not disputed lhat the work at Bhuvanafriri site 7 was complétée! in Oct-*- ber, 1991 and the lst Respondcnt M|s. Rao Se'smic Services Pvt. L*d. is not in existence for the past six years. It is clearly seen from the évidence of MWl and the docuimentarv évidence filed on the s'de of the management that it is onlv a seasonal work taken as a contractual work bv the lst Respondent and the Peti- tioner was encaeed bv the lst Respondem for such work and 9s and when the work was available, he was given fhat emplovment. So, it cannot be said thaf he is a permanent employée ot the 1 st Respondent. Further more, because of '-he misconducts committed bv the Petitioner durine his empl0ymen( and on the basis of the complaini preferred apainst h;m. he was non- employed bv the lst Respodnent. Under such circum- stances. it cannot be said fhaf the P'etitinner was non- emploved bv the lst Respondent for no fanit of h;s and it is uniustified. Fur+her. aç it is s'ated in the Srhedule of Référença of thic indnstrini d^nute hv *he Govt.. the lst Respondent Mis. Rao Sei"m*!c S^rviVos Pvt. LtH h not entered into a contract with O;l & Ntural Gas Commission. From ail the^e ava'l'He maiterials in this case, it is seen that the action of the management of M|s. Rao Seismic Services Pvt. L'd., the lst Respondent m terminatinr? the services nf Shri G. Subramanian v.e.f. 1-11-1991 is légal and iustified. Under such circums+ances, it can be held thaf the relief prayed for bv the concerned workman Sri G. Subramanian cannot be granted against ail the three Respondents. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

8. In the resuit, an Awnrd is passed holdinp that

the relief prayed for by fhe 1 st Parfvlworkman Sri G. Subramanian cannot be eranîed a;s he is not entitkd for the same. No Cost.

(D'ctated to the Sfenoerppher, transcribed and tvwd bv Wm, corrected and pronounced bv me in fhe open court on this day the 3îst December, 2001.)

K. KARTHrKEYAN, Presîdin^ OPicer

Wknesses Examined:

For the I PartyjWorkman : WW1 Sri. G.

Subramanian.

For the II PartyiManagement : MWl Sri G. S.

Varaprasadarao

MW2 Sri P. T. Anto.

DOCUMENTS MARKED :

perscnal enemity betwoen himself and the Petitioner and ihe lst Respondent Mjs. Rao Seismic Services Pvt. Ltd. is not in existence for the past six years. JV1W2, working Manager (F&A) of the 3rd Respondent had deposed that !hc 3id Respondent Oil & Na.urai Gas Commission was engagée io the work of dnlling and oil exploration at various sites known as Cauveri Basin and for this work, they had en'ered into a; con ract with one Russian fitm by name V|O Machina Imports and they engagée! local contractors for carrying out this oil exploration werk and this Russian firm had engaged M|s. Birla Engineering Services as a con- tractor for supply for manpower, who in turn hâve engaged sub-contracîor, (he lst Respondent M|s. RP " Seismic Services Pvt. Ltd. and they hâve not entered into any contract either with the M|". Birla Engineering Services or M|s. Rao Seismic Services Pv^. Ltd. and that the Petitioner Sri Subramanian was empioved by the lst Respondent Mis. Rao Se'smic Services Pvt. Ltd. and the 3rd Respondent Oil & Natural Gas Commis- sion used to appoint workers through Emnloyment Exchanse and bv open &dvertis,ement and the 3rd Resoondent OH & Namm;s";ion haw pn* q recrui'ment and promotion policy from the year 1980 and tha* is being followed for r e c r u t" the workmen for Oïl & Natural Gns Commiss'on aç and when it is necessarv and 'he Oil & Naturnl Gas Comm;ssion dis- burses ssfarv to their w<.rkmen bv pav slips, bv chenues and *here is no emoloyer-emniovee relat;oneV'p he'ween the P^^'oner and ih>* >d Resn^ndenf OU & Natnral Ga"s Crïrnm'c"îon. AU the"e th''ni"<; hrtve nof been disputed by the Petitioner and noïhing has been elicited in the cross examinât ion of the witnes"es bv *he counsel for the Pefi'ioner to discrédit their évidence in the Chief Examinntion. From ail tbese oral and documentant évidence and the facts ava'lable in this case, it is seen that the Pe^îioner was nH'her pppoin- ted nor terminated bv 'he Oil & Natural Gas Commis- sion, the 3rd Resoondsnt here^n. like fhaf, he was not annointecl or termma'ed bv the 2nd Respondent Mis. Birla Eneineerïns; Services. It is the definite admission of the Feifioner hirnself that he wss em- ploved onlv bv the lst Resnoiden* Mis. Rao Seismic Services Pvt. Ltd. Under such ci'cumsfances. as it is contended bv tbe learned counsel for the 3rd Respon- dent. in +he absence of ?nv spécifie, catégorie, oral gnrf dornmen^arv es'id^nce 'n imiTwt nf tT>i clnim of the Petitioner. it can be cnncluded that th^e k no emplover-emplovee relat'onship befween the Petitioner and the 2nd and 3rd Re^nondects. So, the Pe'itioner is not entitled for tho relief claimed agaînst them. On *he other hand. it is rhe évidence of MW1 and al*o the documents fiied on the sids of the lst Respond^nt that the Pe*'t'"oner was enpa°ed onlv bv the lst Respondent Mis. Rao Se;<;ni'c Services Pvt. Ltd., who in turn nrovîded the Petïn'cner as a manpower Io the 2nd Re^pondem, who had entered into a contract with the Rnssian Cotrmanv. who had taken the opéra- tion of drilline the cil v,e!îs for the 3rd Resnondent Oil & Natural Gas Commission. Chennai. From the available materials in this case, it is seen that there was only emplover-emplovee relntionship befween fhe Petitioner and the lst Respondent M|s. Rao Se;smic Services Pvt. Ltd., aiitd not with any o*her Re^pon- dents. Further, the other documenta and oral évidence piven bv MW1 go to show that while emploved bv the lst Respondent, :he Petitioner was engaged in the Bhuvanagiri Site and hs had committed various mis- conducts for which a ajmpîaint has been preferred

For the I PartyjWcrkman : Nil2951 For the II Fartyj Management :—

Ex. No. Date Description.

Ml 1-8-91 to 31-8-91—Extract of îhe wage regis- ter pertaining to the Fetitioner.

M2 24-8-90 & 6-9-88—Xerox copy of the letter of Assistant Labour Comrnissioner to the Respondent No, 1 regarding ccmtract labour renewal of licence.

M3 1-9-91 to M)-3~<)1—Extraet of wage register pertaining to Petiticner.

M4 25-9-91—Xerox copy of the letter from Dy. Party Chief of V|O Machine Imports to 2nd Respondent.

M5 26-9-91—Xerox copy of the letter from 2nd Respondent to' lst Respondent,

M6 10-9-91—Xerox copy of tbe letter from Sri V. Moorthy to lst Respondent.

M7 20-9-91!—Xerox copy of the letter from Sri Amaîanathan to the Ut Respondent.

M8 8-1-92—Xerox copy of the mémorandum of agreement reacbed benwen the union of lst Respondent and the management of lst Res- pondent before The Sub-Collector, Gudtîa- ldre.

M9 14-11-92—Xsrox copy of Ihe EngJish trans- lation of the Agreement made on 14-11-92 under section 18(1) of I.D. Ast between the lst Respondent and its Workmen.

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2002 S.O. 978.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Réf. No. 17411994) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the em- ployers in relation to the management of 710 GI/2002—21

Indian Oil Co. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 21-02-2002.

[No. L-30012|23|93-IR(C-I)1 S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 174 of 1994 Provincial Secretary, Petroleum Workers Union, S.C.O. 145-146, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. Petitioner

Vs.

Executive Director, M|s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., World Trade Centre, Babar Road. New Delhi-110001. •• Rerpondent.

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the Workman.—None.

For the Management.—Shri Paramiit Singh.

AWARD

(Passed on 5th February, 2002) The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour vide Notification ,No. L-30012|(23)|93,LR.(D)| (Col-I) dated Nil has referred fre following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :—• "Whether the action of the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Bhatinda in termmatinc the services of Sh. Sutender Sinsh Bain

.. Petitioner.

2. None has put up at>r"°^r"nce on be^nlf of the workman nor any évidence of the work- man is présent. It apneirs that wo^man is not interested to purs^e w^fh the rr^^nt ré- férence. In view of the ?bove, nrec^nt ré- férence is accordinfflv return^d fo the Central Govt. Central Govt. be informed. Cha"di>ffrh. 5-2-2002.

S. M. GOEL, Presiding Officcr²⁹ 52 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2002/ PIIALGUNA 25, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exer- cise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), hâve referred the concerned dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-11012/31/2001-IR(C-I) dated 10-8-2001.

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2002

S.O. 979.—In punuaiKe cf Section 17 of the Iudustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 603/2001) of the Central Government Indus- trial Tribunal Chennai, now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute beiween the employers in relation to the management of M|s. Alliance Air, Chennai and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-2-2002.

[No. JL-11012|31|2001-IR (C-I)]

S. S. GUPTA. Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT., INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAÎ

Thursday, the 31st January, 2002

PRESENT :

On receipt of the order of référence from the Ministry of Labour, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 603/2001 and notices were sent to both the parties to the dispute, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 26-9-2001 to prosecute this case further. On 2-11-2001, the learned counsel for the II Party/Management entered appearance and filed vakalat and the I Party/workman remained absent. There was no représentation at ail for the I Party/Workman. Fresh notice by registered post with acknowledgement due was ordered for the hear- ing on 16-11-2001. Though the notice was duly served on the I Party for hearing 16-11-2001 and the postal acknowledgement for the same has been received, the I Party/Workman has not chosen to appear before this Court, but remained absent. Ins- pite of the case has been adjourned to subséquent dates, for the I party/workman to file his Claim Statement, he has not filed his Claim Stdtement. Hence, the counsel for the II Party/Management was directed to file Statement of Objection for the II Party /Management to the claim made by the I Party/ Workman by raising this industrial dispute against the II Party/Management, which has been referred to in the order of référence passed by the Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal. Accordingly, the II Party/Management has filed the statement of objec- tion to the claim of the I Party/Workman mentioned as an industrial dispute. The counsel for the II Party/Management has filed a copy of the claim pétition filed by the I Party/Workman under section 2A of the Industral Disputes Act, 1947 before the conciliating authority, while raising this dispute against the II Party/Management for conciliation and has advanced his arguments this day.

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 603/2001

2. Upon perusing the order of référence in res- pect of this industrial dispute between the parties, the statement of objection filed by the II party/ Management, the other material papers on record and on hearing the learned counsel for the II Party/ Management, and after considering ail thèse relevant aspects, this Tribunal has passed on merits, the follow'r"? :-—

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Shri R. B. Paulraj and the Management of Alliance Air.)

AWARD

BETWEEN

Shri R. B. Paulraj : I Farty ./Workman.

The industrial dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudi- cation by this Tribunal is as follows :—

AND

The Manager (Grd. Opns). : II Psrty/Management. M/s. Alliance Air, Chennai.

"Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Alliance Air in terminating the ser- vices of the workman Shri R. B. Pauîraj is justified ? If not, to what relief is he en- titled ?"

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman : Unrepresented.

3. The averments in the Statement of Obi>ction filed by the II Party/Management M/s. Alliance Air, Chennai (heremafter refers to as Pespondent) are briefly as follows :—

For the Management : M|s. N. G. R. Prasad, S. Vaidyanathan, & W.T. Prabhakar, Advocates.

This Statement of Obiection of the II Partv/ Management has been filed as a reply to the dispute2953 that has been raised by I Party/Workman before the conciliaung auinoriiy, since trie 1 Jr ai i\j Workman hab not apijeared anû tued anv Claim Maternent be- lore tins iridunal in tnis indusinal ûispuie. It is averrea in tne Maternent of Objection nied by the Responaent that at no point ot time .Fetitioner/ WoiKman Sri R. B. Paul Raj was enipioyed t>y Res- ponaem/Management and no appoimnient oraer was given to hjn and no sutaiy wa^ paid by ihe Kespon- dent. Tne Petitioner/Workman was not under the control of the Respondent/Management and the voncracior was given a specJied amount of money towards supervision of the casual labour piovided by him and it was the contra-ctor who had paid the Petuioner/Workman for the work done, It is also averred in the Statement of Objection that admittedly unhke the direct employées the Petitioner/Workman was not eligibie for any weltare schemes like provi- dent fund, sick leave, casual leave, privilège leave, over stay allowance, yearly incrément of salary and tree air passage from the Res>pondent| Management and thèse welfare schemes are only meant for the employées who were directly employed by the Res- pondent and not by any contractor. Further it is averred that since the Respondent was not happy with the contractor, the Respondent terminated the contact with Mr. Gopi and the conractor terminated the services of the Petitioner. The Respondent/ Management denied the allégation of the Petitioner that the Manager (Ground Opérations) of the II Party/Management had promised to give the Peti- tioner/Workman direct emplyoment. It is also averred in the statement of objection that the Peti- tioner could hâve easily gcne to the contractor ond sought employment, but he has deliberately not chosen to do so. On the contrary, he has been harping for employment only with the Respondent, who hâve only a particular sanctioned strength. Fur- ther the Petitioner/Workman was not employed by the Respondent and hence the claim of the Petitioner is not justified.. Therefore, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to close this dispute and pass an award accordingly.

4. The point for my considération is :—

"Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Alliance Air in terminating the ser- vices of the workman Shri R. B. Paulraj is justified ? If not, to what relief he is en- titled ?"

Point :—

Though the I Party/Workman Sri R. B. Paulraj (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) has raised this industrial dispute against the II Party/Management, Manager, Alliance Air, (Subsidiary of Indian Airlines Ltd.), Chennai, he has not chosen to appear before this Tribunal inspite of notice sent by registered post has been served on him, he has not chosen to file any Claim Statement put forthing his claim raised as an iadustrial dispute against the II Party/Manage- ment. In the absence of the Claim Statement of the I Party/Workman, the II Party /Management has filed their statement of objection to the claim made by the Petitioner/Workman, by raising this indus- trial dispute against them, by. way of statement cf objection as a reply to th© case of the Petitioner put " forth in his earlier claim pétition filed under section 2A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Commissioner tor conciliation.

5. It is specifically averred in the statement of objection that at no point of time, the Respondent/ Management had empioyed the PetiLoner/Workman and no appointaient order was given to him and no salary was ^>aid by the Respondent and the Petitioner was not under the control of the Respondent and the contractor was given a specified amount of money towards supervision of the casual labour provided by him and it was the contractor who had paid him for the work done. This unrebutted averments of the II Party/Management shows that there was no employée and employer relationship between the I Party/ Workman and the II Party/Management. Ail thèse spécifie averments in the statement of objection by the II Party|Management remained undispuied as the I Party/Workman has not chosen to appear be- fore this Tribunal to put forward his claim and to deny the stand taken by the II Party/Management against the claim Jie has made earlier before the conciliating authority. Ail thèse averments of the II Party/Management in respect of the claim of the I Party/Workman raised in this industrial dispute hâve not chosen to be denied or contradicted by the Petitioner/Workman by making his plea and proving the same by acceptable légal évidence.

6. Under such circumstances, it is seen that there is no question of terminating the Petitioner Sri R. B. Paul Raj from services by the II Party/Management M/s. Alliance Air. From the averments of the II Party/Management in respect of the employment of the I Party/Workman, it is seen that he was neither appointed by the II Party/Management in service nor terminated from service. Hence, the Petitioner/Workman is not entitled to any relief against the II Party/Management, M/s. Alliance Air. Chennai, in respect of his employment. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

7. In the resuit, an award is passed on merits. holding that the Petitioner/Workman is not entitled to any relief. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Sîenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 31st January, 2002.) K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :—

On either side : None.

Documents Marked :—

On either side : Nil.

2954 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2002/ PHALGUNA 25, 1923 [PART II—SEC.JKU)J

New Delhi, ihe 22nd February, 2002 SO 980.—In Fiitevancc of Action 17 qf the Indu.tri.al Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government heicby publishes the award (R.ef. No. 605)2001) or the Central 'Government Iadustrial Tribunal Chenflai now as sbown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the etnp- loyers in relation to the management of Mjs. Alliance A'.r, Chennai and Aeir workman, whiçh was received by the Central Goverament on 20-2-2002.

LNo. L-11012)33|2001-IR(C-I)] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Thursday, the 3lst Jamiary, 2002 PRESENT :

K. Karihikeyan.—Presiding Office*.

Industrial Dispute No. 605)2001 (!n the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Sec'ion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), betweep the Workman Shri S. Velmurugnn and the Management of Alliance Air.).

EETWEEN

Shri S. Velmurugan . .1 PartyjWorkman

AND

The Manager (Grc. Opns), M s. Alliance Air, Ohennai. . ,11 PartyjManaga- ment APPEARANCE :

For the Workman.—Unrepresented.

For fhe Management.—M|s. N. G. R. Prasad, S. Vaidyanathan, and W. T. Prabhakar, Advocates.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers cenferrçd by clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industriel D'snute Act, 1947 (14 pf 1947), beve re- •trred tne concerned dispute for adjudication vide ?ndo'r™nNa L-1IO12!33|2OO1-IRCCM) dated 1Q-8-2GQ1.

On receipt of the order of référence from the Mmistry of Labour, the case has been taken on file as I. D. No. 605|2001 aad notices were sent to both tfae parues to tne dispute, With a direction to appear betore tins Tribunal on 26-9-2001 to prosecuie ihis case turther. On 2-11-2001, tne learned counsel for the il Party|Management emered appearance and fiied vakalat and ine 1 PanyiWorkman remained ab- sent. Therc was no représentation at ail for the I PartyjWorKman. Fresh notice by registered post wuh acknowiedgernent due was ordered for the hear- ing on 16-11-2001. Ihough the notice was duly seived on the I Party for heariog on 16-11-2001 and the postal aeknowledgement for the same has been received, the 1 PartyjWorkman has not chosen to appear before this Court, but remained absent. Inspite ot the case has been adjoumed 10 subséquent daies, foi the 1 panyjworkman to file his Claim Statement, Jie has not filed his Claim SLatement. Hence, the counsel for the 11 Party "Management was directed to file Statement of Objection for the II Party|Manage- raent to the claim made by the I Party|Workman by raising this industrial dispute against the II Party| Management, which has been reterred to in the order of référence passed by the Government for adjudica- tion by this Tribunal. Accoidingly, the II Party| Management which has been referred tq in the order the claim of the I PartyjWorkman mentioned as on industrial dispute. The ccun⪙ for the II Party| Management has filed this statement of objection to the claim made by the Petitioneij Workman in his earlier Claim Statement fiJed betore the conciliating authority wfaile raising this dispute for conciliation. The learned counsel for the 11 PartyjManagement has advanced his arguments ihis day.

2. Upon perusing the order of référence in respect of this industrial dispute between the parties, the state- ment of objection filed by the 11 PartyjManagement, the other material papers on record and on hearing the learned counsel for the II Pariy[Management, and after considermg ail thèse relevant aspects, this Tri- bunal has passed on merits, the following ;—

AWARD

The industrial dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Government for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—

"Whether the action of the management of M|s. Alliance Air in terminating the services ot ihe workman Sbxi S. Velmurugan is justified ? If not. to what relief is he entiiled ?"

2. The averments in the Statement of Objection filed by the II PartyîManagement, M|s. Alliance Air, Chennai (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) a re bnefiy as follows :—

This Sta^ement of Objection of the II Partv/Management has been filed as a reply to the dispute that bas been rai&ed by I PartylWorkman before the conciliating authority, sinoe fte I PartyjWoricman has not appeared and filed any Claim Statpm<=nf bfpa'-⁰ 'hé Tr^'in^' ;n t>-;s ;-riix;trhl dispn'e 'i* is averrçd in the Statement ©f Objection filed by the Répon- dent that at no |>oiat qf time PctitionerlWorlanan Sri S. Ve'tnuni^n was e-nnloved h- R.^r>--(Ient'Miinr.j;e-.ri"iu and no appointment order was given to him and no salary Was paiâ. by the Respondent. The PetitioaerjWoi^man was not "ndeT the control of the- Re".Rnndents/Management and the ciV)*i">r"nr wa<; t>ivpn n Krw;fi"d am<"mt of monev towards wapervision of the ca.snal labour provïded bv him an" it was the "ootractor who had paid the Petitjoner|Workman îor2955 Objection that admittedly unlike the direct employées the teu-iouer Woiian^n Wds noi eugioie ror any we^arc swieiiies Uke provident fmjd, sick leaye, casuai leave, privilège Jeave, over siay ailowance, yearly incrément of salary and free air passage irom the Respondent|Management, ana tijese weilare scnemes are omy meawc ior tne employées who were directly empioyed by the Resondent and not by any contractor. Fur- ther u is averred inat smce tne Respondent was not happy with the contractor, the Respondent tenninated the conract with Mr. Ciopi and the eomractor tenninated the services of the Petitioner. The Respondent|Management deniedthe allégation of the PetitiOner tnat ihe Manager (Ground Ope- ia.ionsj oi tne II Paiiy|Management had, promised to give llie JPeiiiionerjWorkman direct employaient. It isalso evsrretl in the statement of objection that the Peiitioner could hâve easiiy gone 10 tht; contracior and sougtit employaient, Dut he has deliberately not chosen to do so. On the contrary, the worK done. Jt is aiso averred iii the Statement of he has been harn-ing for employment only with the Respon- dent, who hâve only a particular sanctioned strength, Further the Petitioner|Workman was not empioyed by the Respon- dent and hence the claim of the Peiitioner is not justified Thererore, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleas&d to close this dispute and pass an award accordingly.

3. The point for my considération is—

"Wfaether the action of the Management of M|s. Alliance Air in terminating the services of the workman Shri S. Veimurugarr is justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"

Point:—

Though the I PaEtyJWatkman Sri S. Velmunigan (herein- after reiers to as Petiuoner) has raised this indusinal dispute, against the II PartylManagement. Manager, Alliance Air, (Subsidiary of Indian Airlines Ltd.), Chennai, he has not ciioscn to appear oeiore mis Trioui^l. lnspite of notice and by registered post has been served on him, he has aot choseo to file any Claim Statement put forthing his claim. raised as an mdusirial dispute against the II Pariy/Management. In the absence of the Claim Statement of the I Party|Work- man, the II Party|Management has filed their statement of objection to the claim made by the Petjtioner|Workman, by raising this industriai dispute against them, by way of State- ment ofobjection as a reply to the case of the Petitioner put foxth in his earlier elaim pétition filed under Section 2A of Industriai Disputes Act, 1947 before the Laboui Commis- sioner for conciliation.

5. It is specifically averred in the statement of objection that at no point qf time, the Respondent|Management had empioyed the Petitioner|Workman and no appointment order wa& given to him and no saiary was paid by the Responaent and the Petitioner was not under the control of the Respon- dent aad the eorrtractor was given a specified amount of money towards supervision of the casuai labour provided by him and it was the contracter wbo had paid the Petitioner| Workman for the work done. This unrebutted averments of the II Party| Management shows that there was no employée and employer relationship betweerr the I Party|Worknj.an and the II PartylManagement. Ail thèse spécifie averments in the statement of objection by the II Party] Management re- mained undisf"ted as the I PartvlWorkman has not chosen te appear befçire Ais Tribunal to put forward his claim and to deuy tàxe stand taken by the TI party [Management against the claim he has made earlier before the conciliating autho- rity. At thèse averments of the II PartylManagement in respect of the caim ©f the I Party|Workraan raised in this industrial dispute hâve not chosen to be denied or contradicted by the PétitionIWorkman bv m-Hng his plea and proving the same by acceptable légal évidence,

6. Under such cirçumstançes, "it is seen thut there ts no "ruastion of feraaiHating the Tetitianer Sfj S. Vejinunigan from uerviCRshv the II Partv/•Mat-aupinent Mis. Al'iance Air. From tW avenaents ef the n PartviManagement in respect of tbe empleyment of the I Psirty|Wojkm#n, it is. seen that he was neitfter appointed b ythe il PartylManagement in service nor teHfitnated from service. ffence, the PetitionerlWorkman " n©t entitled to any relief agajnst the II Party|Manage- ment, MJs. AHraHee Atr, Chennai, in respect of hia eniplwK- ment Thus, the point is answeréd accoidingly.

7. Irf the resuit, an award is passed on merits, holding that the Petitioner| Workman is not entitled to any relief. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in (te open court on this day the 31st January, 2002,).

K. KARTMIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :—

On either side : —None.

Documents Marked :—

On either side : Nil.

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2002 S.O. 981.—In p.wsuanee of Section 17 of the Industriai Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Réf. No. CGIT2|106 of 2001) of the Central Government Industriai Tribunal No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Aanexure in the Industriai Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the manage- ment of Air India Ltd. and their workman which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 20-02-2002.

[No. L41012|52|2001-IR(C-I)] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. IL MUMBAI

PRESENT :

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer REFERENCE No. CGIT-2|106 of 2001 Employers in relation to the Manage- ment of AIR India.

The Managing Direçtor. Air India Ltd.. Old Airport, Santacruz, Mumbai-400029.

2956 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2002/PHALGUNA 25, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

Their Workmen

Sari R. K. Patel, 41121, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400104.

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2002 APPEARANCES :

For the Employer.—Mr. Liaz Mohd.

Représentative.

For the Workmen.—No Appearance.

S.O. 982.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indnstrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 142/1991) of the Central Government ïndustrial Tribunal-11 Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in Ihe ïndustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of TISCO and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-02-2002.

Mumbai, dated 30th January, 2002

[No. L-20012/86/91-IR(C-I)] AWARD

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ÏNDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an ïndustrial Dispute under Section 10(1 )(d)

of the I.D. Act, 1947.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-11012|52|2001- IR(C-I), dated lOth August, 2001, in exercise oï the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industriel Disputes Act, hâve re- ferred the following dispute to this tribunal for adjudication :—

Référence No. .142 of 1991

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of TISCO and

their Workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman : None.

On behalf of the employers : Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate. "Whether the action of the management of Air India Ltd. Mumbai in dis- missing the service of Mr. R. K. Patel, Ex-chief Traffic Assistant w.e.f. 3-3-1998 is légal and justi- fied? If not, what relief the work- man concerned is entitled to?"

STATE: Jharkhand

INDUSTRY : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 12th February, 2002

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1 )(d-) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/86/91- I.R.(Coal-I), dated, the 24th October, 1991.

SCHEDULE

2. On receipt of the référence notice was issued to workman Mr. Patel and also the management, Air India. However, workman though received notice (vide Exhibit-4) re- in ained absent, nor put Statement of Claim though sufficient time given on 9-10-2001, 9-11-2001, 21-12-2001 and till today, which indicates that he is not interested in prosecut- ing the référence. Therefore the following order is passed :—

ORDER

"Whether the demand of the Union for giving employ- ment of Smt. Tabiya Khatoon W/o late Md. Rafique, an ex-employee of Jamadoba Power House under M/s. TISCO Ltd., Dhanbad as dépendent of de- ceased employée is justified ? If so, to what relief she is entitled ?"

Référence stands disposed of for non-prose-

2. The case of the concerned workman according to the cution.

W.S. in brief is as follows :—

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer

The concerned workman in her W.S. submitted that Md. Rafique was Cat. I Mazdoor till the date of his death. It has been further submitted that though Md. Rafique was a Cat. I Mazdoor he was exploited by the management to act as Driver. On 25-6-84 Md. Rafique was called on by the management to perform his duty as driver but unfortunately he did not return back to his home and subsequently his dead body was recovered on 26-6-84 near the office of the Colliery and within the precinct and premises of the mines. It has been submitted that as the death of Md. Rafique was on duty according to the seulement entered into between the management aird the union a member of the deceased family was entitled to get employaient on compassionate2957 ground. It has been submitted that the management not onîy refused to give any employment to the widow of the deceased but also refused to pay any compensation to her according to the Workmen's Compensation Act. Accordingly an industrial dispute was raised before the ALC(C), Dhaubad which ulti- mately resulted référence to this Tribunal. The concerned workman accordingly submitted his prayer for passing an Award directing the management to provide employment to her on compassionate ground in place of Md. Rafique.

3. The management on the contrary after filing W.S.-cum- rejoinder hâve denied ail the claims and allégation which the concerned workman asserted in the W.S. It has been sub- mitted by the management that Md. Rafique No. 2 was em- ployed as Cat. I Mazdoor in the power house No. 1 from 27-10-80. He died on 25-6-84. It was reported to the police by the relative of late Md. Rafique No. 2 that he was murdered by the unknown criminals. Accordingly the police registered a case being Jorapokhar Case No. 217(6)/84 under Section 302 IPC and started investigation. The managment submitted that as Md. Rafique No. 2 was murdered there was no scope within the ambit of the settlement to provide ony employment to any member of the bereaved family. They submitted categorically that the provision of giving employment to anv member of the deceased family only can be considered if the persons dies in harness. Accordingly payment of com- pensation to the widow of the deceased also did not arise accordint" to the Workmen's Compensation Act. The manage- ment submitted that they hâve their own s~herne for employ- ment of dependents in the collieries of the companv. A workman is entitled to get the name of his dependents en- rolled in the résister of employment of dependents after completion of 15 vears of continuous service. The dépendent is provided with iob according to the seniority as soon as vacancy arises in the colliery. The dépendent of a workman is also eiven emplovment in case of death of the workman on account of an accident arising out of and in course of his emplovment. The management accordinalv submitted that as Md. ÎVfinue No. 2 was murdered they cou'd not consider the daim of the widow for her emoloymenf under the manage- ment. The management accordingly submitted that the daim of the concerned workman is not tenable in the eve of law and for which they submitted their oraver to pass an Award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman.

4. The points for décision in this référence are :—

"Whether the dem^nd of the Union for civinç emniov- ment to Smt. Tabiva Khatnon W/o late **d. Rafiane, an er-emniove of Jamadoba Power Houpe under Mis TTSCO IH . TVoTtbnd as dependpnt of deceased ernniowp is justified ? If so, to what relief she is entitled ?"

DECISION WITH REASONS

5. It is sdrnîtted fact that Md. Rsfiaue No. 2 was Mnzdoor Cat. T under t^e management. It î"î aiso admittpd fact that •*>(• concerned workman sot his emnlovment in the year 1980. He rt'cd on 25-6-84. Tt ii the spécifie claim of the. enneerned worFcman that on 25-6-84 the management cMled on the dpre-ised î e. Md Rafiane No. 2 to di"chnr<"e his funrt'on as d"'ver and aocordînqlv he went to ont of his hou"e but he d;d not return back and for which thev became snsn'cious. Therenftpr on the next dn te i.e. on ?6-6-84 his dead bodv vas reenvered withtn the colKerv nremises. Tt is tbe contention of the cnnrei-ned workman that in di"charae of his officia! diitv Md. Rafiaue No ? d'ed and for which /S4 under Section 302 TP.C. snd accordin?'v tooV on investi nation to that regard. The manasjement submitied that as Md. Rafinne was inmfle|"(l whi'p he was not on dutv there is no scone to. consider the emrjlovment of his nidow on comnassionnte ground accordin" to the sert'ement. Tt hns b ^n catecoricalîv submitted by the management that t^e-" fo""w their own nrocednre in the rnatter of oîving relief inc'nd'nc emn'ovment to the dereased familv membèrs on the ba*¹'"! of the sett'sment entered into between, the manaaement and thn i7nion at>d

"The demand of the Union for giving employment to Smt. Tabiya Khatoon W/o late Md. Rafique an ex- employee of Jamadoba Power Hoase under M/s. TISCO Ltd., Dhanbad as dépendent of deceased em- ployée is not justified. Consequently Smt. Tabiya Khatoon is not entitled to get any relief."

B. BISWAS. Presidine Officer New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2002 S.O. 983.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 47A997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal I, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the em- ployers in relation to the management of M/s. BCC Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 21-02-2002.

TNo. L-20012/418/95-IR(C-I)l

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, DHANBAD

In the matter of a référence under Section 10(l)(d)(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Référence No. 47 of 1997

PARTIES :

Emplovers in relation to the management of Bhowra Area of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd.

;

AND

Their Workmen.

2958 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 20(52/ PHALGUNA 25, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)3

PRESENT :.

Referesce No. CGIT-2/65 of 2000 Shri S. H. Kazmi, Presidiiig Officer.

Employers in relation to the Management of Bank of

Maharashtra,

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Shri H. Nath, Advocate.

For the Workmen : None.

STATE : Jharkhand

INDUSTRY : Coal

Dated, the llth February, 2002

Bank of MaJiarashtra, The Asstt. General Manager, BOM, Régional Office, Maha Bank Bhavan C-3, N-l, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad-431003.

AND

AWARD

Their workmen.

By Order No. L-20012/418/95-IR(C-I) dated 7-2-1997 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour lias, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

(Mr. K. T. Kherds) BOM Karmachari Sangh, The General Secretary, BOM Karmachari Sangh, 185, Shaniwar Peth, Near Police Gâte, Pune (Maharashtra) 411030.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer : S/Shri A. P. Nayak & Badarayani, "Whether the demand by the Union for régularisation of S/Shri Akhtar Ansari and 137 others (as per lis* enclosed) by tije management of Aralabad Colliery of M/s. BCCL is légal and justified ? If so, to what relief are thèse persons entitled ?"

Représentatives.

For the Workmen : No Appearance.

Camp Pune, dated lst February, 2002

AWARD

2. It appears from the record that despite notices being sent to the sponsoring union repeatedly none is appearing on behalf of the workmen to take any steps which were required to be taken from the side of the workmen. On the last date after noticmg earlier development in this case time by way of last chance was granted to the workmen to take step but without any sffect. It is thus obvions that the workmen hâve lost their interest and do not want to pursue the case.

3. In such circumstances I render a 'No Dispute' Award in

the présent référence case.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-12011/17/2000-IR(B-II), dtd, 16-6-2000, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) ;md Sub-section (2A> of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, hâve referred the following dispute to this tribunal for adjudication.

S. H. KAZMI, Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Maharashtra in awarding the ptmishment on Mr. K.T. Kherde. Computer Operator, Auraneabad Branch, vide its order under Réf. No. AX/16/PAR/ 1955/98 dated 9-7-98 is légal and iustified ? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?"

2. The General Secretary of the union Mr. Kulkarni filed Statement of Claim (Exhibit-6), which was resisted by manage- ment of Bank of Maharashtra vide Written Statement (Exhibit-11) and after framing the issues (Exhibit-14) on 28-8-2001, the rnatter was fixed for filins dociunents/list of witnesses bv bo(h the parties and the affidavit of the union bv way of Examination in-Chief. However record shows, union représentative remained absent nor put affidavit, in Mumbai and also hère at Pune Camp, thou";h notice was served v'de (Exhibit-17), which indicates, the union is not intenested in prosecuti-m; the référence and therefore the following order is passed :—

ORDER

Référence stands disposed of for "on-prosecution.

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2002

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presidint" Offieer S.O. 984.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 2/65/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in realtion to the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-02-7.002.

[No. L-12011/17/2000-IR(B-II)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBAI

(CAMP : PUNE)

PRESENT :

S. N. Saundankar, Presiding Officer.

2959

AWARD

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2002

t he Govt. of India, Miriistry of Labour in exercise of powers côrifcrred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), hâve referred the follbwing dis- pute for adjudication vide Order No. L-12011' 64|98-IR(B-II) dated 29-04-1999 :

S.O. 985.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Gbverrimëht hereby piï.b"- lishes the award (Réf. "No. 67î!2tiÔl) of ttie Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Che.hnai as shown in the annexUre in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Ëàrb'dà and their wofkmâri, which wâs reeeived by the Central €k>verrafterit o*n 2d-D2-20D2.

[No. h-\20\V64Y9%-ik(Bi\)}

t. G À N G A B M À & A N, Ùnder Secy.

"Whether the deniand of the union for ï\ot efltrusting the work related to DD sold| payable, interest warrant j dividend warrant, share applica- tions etc. in terms of clause 2.9 of the Settlement is justified? If not, what relief is the Union entitled to?"

ANNEXURE

BE^ÔftÈ TftË CENTRAL GOVT. INDUS- TRÏAL TRIBUNAL^CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CHENNAI

Thursday. the 31 st January, 2002

PRESENT :

SHri K. KART ÏTfKEYAN, Presïding O f er

TNDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No; 671 [2001 (Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court C'ÔIT

No. 3m (9f)

2. This référence has been made earlier to the Tâmil Nadu Principal Labour Court, where it was taken oh file as CGID. No. 308(99. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Labour Court, as per the orders of the Govt. of India, Mînistry .of Labour this case also has been transferred from the file of the Tamil NadU Principal Labour Court to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Principal Labour Court, the case has been taken on file as Ï.D. No. 67112001 and notices were sent to the I Party'Claïmant Union and the counsel on record for the II Party[Management, ïriforming them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 15-10-2001.

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudica- tion under clatise (â) of sifb-sëcfioh (1) and sifb-séefion (2A) of Section 10 of the Inclus- trial Disputes Act 1947 (14 of 1947), bet- ween the Workmen and the Management -of Bank of Baroda.]

BETWEEN

Thé Général Secfëfary, Bank of Bard^a Employées" Association.

T PartyiClaimant.

AND

The Assiîftafflft 'G&fferaï Maiïrfèér, (T.N.II) BatïR; oï #ar6da', CôinVbatore.

3. Though the notices wefe duly servèd on thèni, neïther the parties to proceedings nor thëîr counsel on record were présent on 15-10-2001. There is no représentation at ail on either side. Subsequently, the counsel on record for the II Party [Management alon'e was présent on a later hearing. Though rime was graiited on his requ.est for filing statement of objection for the II Party|Management for the claim of the I Party!Union raised as an industrial dispute as mentioned in the refe- rence by the Govt., no sùch statement of objection has been filed by the TT Partyl Management.

II PartylManag'tnent

APPEARANCE :

For the CMfaaTft.—Unïepresenfed For th'e Management.—M\s. K. S'. V. , , Prasad & P'. Ëhàskaraiï, ÂdvocErtes

710 GI|2002—22. •

4. On a perusal of the entire materials available in this case, it is seen that the I PartvjClaimant Union has not cho'^pn to file r'iaim Statement eith'èr before thé Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court or snhsenuent to the transïèr of fhîs case b'efôre this Tribunal a'nd they haVe chosen¹ to" not tô a'ppègr before this2960 THE GAZL1TE OF 1NDIA : MARCH 16, 2002/PHALGUNA 25, 1923 [PART II—SIX. 3(ii)J Tribunal and put forward their cîaim they hâve made in the referred industrial dispute. Having found no Claim Statcment has bccn filed by the 1 Party[Claimant for the past two years in respect of this industrial dispute, the counsel for the T! Party Management was inforoicd to file Statement of Objection of the H Party Management to the claim made by the I Party Cl aimant in this industrial dispute.

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2002

S.O. 986.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 2/199S) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-curn-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the annexure in the Industriel Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of UCO Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-02-2002.

[No. L-12012/23S/97-TR(B-II)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswa?, Presiding Ofïïcer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1 )(d)

of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Référence No. 2 of 1998

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to trie management of UCO Bank

and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman : Shri B. Prasad, State Secy.,

UCO Bank Employées Association.

On behalf of the employers : Shri P. K. Gnattcrjee, 5. When the m,atter was taken up finally on 31-01-2002, the counsel for the II Party alone was présent. Both the parties to the dispute remained absent. There was no re- présentation on the side of the I Partyl Claimant Union. The inaction of the I Party! Claimant and their non-appearance for ail the adjourned hearinsis earlier before îhe Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court, then subse- auent to the transfer of this case before this Tribunal and also non-filin g of any statement of objection to the claim of the T PartyJUnion raised as an industrial dispute in the référence, enable this Tribunal to conclude that the I Party'Claimant has no inclination or interest to prosecute this case furfher. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal has left with no other option, but to corne to a conclusion on the b^sis of available materials and the facts and circumstances of this case that no industrial dispute now exists between the par- ties for adjudication by this Tribunal, as re- fenvd to in the Schcdule of Référence by the Mi"iistry of Labour.

Authorised représentative.

STATE : Jharkhand INDUSf RY : Banking

Dated. Dhanbad, the 12th February, 2002

AWARD

6. In the resuit, 'no dispute' award is passed holding that no dispute now exists between the parties as on ir.dus+rial dispute as refprred to in the Schrdule of Référence by the Minis- trv of Labour for pdindication by this Tribunal.

The Government of India, Ministry ot Labour, m exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-12012/238/ 97-IR((B-II) dated, the 31st December, 1997.

SCHEDULE (Dictatcd to the Stenographer transcribed and tvned by him, corrected and pronounced bv mr in th<* open court on this day the 31 st Jp.ruiH'. 2002). ~ "~

K. KARTHTKEYAN, Presidinc Officer

"Whether the action ot the management of UCO Bank in terminating the service of Sh. Rama Kant Prasad, Casual Labour without observing the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is légal and iusti- fied ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled ?"

Witnesses Hxrimintd :—

On ekher side.—None

2. The case of the concerned workman ticcordiiis to W.S.

in brief is as follows :—-

Document? Mnrked :-—

On eith'^r side.—Nil

The concerned workman in his W.S. submitted that he vas anDoinfcd ;•:; Peon by the management of UCO Bank with effect from 18-9-89 to discharae the duties of Peon ancî in discharpe of his duties he had to take up différent works namely taking out ledsers/resisters from the Almirah and placing the saine on the table, canying token book, scroll book from \ccounts Denartment to Cash Department and vice-versa, posting of mails to the post office, distribution of dak through peon book, stitchin™ of voucr>ers. currency notes, serving water/tea to the members of staff and customers of2961 bank etc. He submitted that in discharge of his duties he used lo attend his office at 10.00 A.M. and he used to lemain there upto 6.00 P.M. regularly. He further submitted that after getting his appointaient en 18-9-89 he worked ur>to 22-4-ly97 continuously and on 23-4-97 he was stopped from working and was verbaliy informed that his services were no longer required. He submitted that during his work the management used to pay him @ Rs. 16, then Rs. 25, then Rs. 30 and subsequently Rs. 50 per day. He disclosed that after his termination from service he submitted représentations before the management on différent occasions but the manage- ment did not pay any importance to his représentations and as a resuit he raised in iindustrial dispute before the ALC(C) which ultimately resulted référence to this Tribunal.^ The concerned workman accordingly has prayed for passing an Award for reinstatement with back wages with effect from 23-4-97.

o. fhe management on the contiary after filing W.S.-ctim- rejoinder hâve denied ail the claim and ailegaiions with the concerned workman asserted in his W.S. The management in their W.S. submitted that the authority should not hâve taken cognizance of" a pretence cf a claim or Sri Ramakimt Prasad, the concerned workman who was utilised by the staff of the Ranchi branch of the Bank without any authority. Since nationalisation the Bank management has become a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is obliged to function within the parameter of Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution oE India in the marter of appointment. The constitution mandate to provide equal protection of law and equality before law includes the obligation of the Bank to follow gênerai norms of engage- ment/ appointment of Person in every category of service. The management submitted that it is a mandatory direction that no Branch Manager of the Bank is authorised to make any appointment to the post sanctioned or un-sanctioned and inspite. of that mandatory direction the concerned workman was purported to be engaged unconstitutionally by the Branch Manager and for which he is not legally entitled to hâve any right for his absorption in the guise of the provision of the I.D. Act, 1947. Actuajly the concerned workman had been offered some solatum for some service on isolated dates in utter violation of constitutional mandate. The management furtber alleged that the authoriiy functioned mechanically and without application of objective mind in entertaining request to initia te conciliation proceeding and îater referring the matter. The management further alleged that inspite of engagement of the concerned workman the Branch Manager did not consider necessary to take any approval of the same. He aiso did not take any approval in the matter of payment of Wages. from the compétent, authority. No appointment letter as well as no pay slip was issued to the concerned workman against work done by him under direction of the Branch Manager. The management further submitted that on 29-3-97 the Zonal Manager of the Bank specificaîly directed to ail Branch Managers that no engagement of casual woikers except those who stand empanelled as casual workers would be utilised by any Branch Manager/Head of the office, autho- rity and if inspite of violation of the same r.ny such engage- ment is made in that case the Branch Manager will be held personally resjîonsible for any such engagement. Accordingly the management submitted that as the engagement of the concerned workman was not légal and valid he is not entitled to get any relief which he has prayed for. The management accordingly has prayed for passing an Award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman.

4, The points for décision in this référence are :—

"Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank in terminating the service of Sh. Rama Kant Prasad, Casual Labour without observing the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is légal and iustified ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled ?"

DECISION WITH REASONS

that in discharge of his duties he performed ail the jobs of a Peon and for discharge of his duties the management used to pay him différent wages at différent time. lie submitted that me management wuhoui givmg an^ notice or payiug any compensation according lo the provision of law termi- nated him from his service with eitect irom 23-4-97. iiven lie was not served with notice prior to his termination îrom service. ivIW-1 during his cross-examination admitted that the coiicerned workman served at Ranchi Main Road, Branch when he rejoincd tnere. He admitted lhat he was finally reuiov- ed from his service on and Irom 22-4-97 under order of the Chief Manager. He aiso admitted that wages used to be paid to the concerned workman from the head of mise, expenses. Now considering the évidence of MW-I and WW-1 I find no dispute to hold that the concerned workman was engaged to perform certain duties at Main Road branch, Ranchi ot UCO Bank with etfect from 18-9-89. It is aiso admitted position that the concerned workman was terminated from his engage- ment With eftect from 22-4-97. Therefore it is clear that Irom Seplembcr, 1989 to 22-4-97 the concerned workman conti- nuously worked under the management. The concemed workman submitted that in discharge of his duties as Peon he used to take out ledgers/registers from the Almirah and placing the same on the table and vice-versa, carrying token nook, scroll book from Accounts départaient to Cash deptt. and vice-versa, posting of mails to the post office, distribution of dak through peon book, stitching of vouchers, carrency notes whenever required, serving water/tea to tiic members of staff and customers of Bank. From the évidence of MW-1 i hâve tailed to find out any material to contradict the nature of work done by the concerned workman. The management aiso did not raise any dispute to the effect that the concerned workman did not work more than 240 days in a year so long he was allowed to work there. The management aiso did not deuy the tact that the concerned workman was not enjjaged by the Branch Manager who used to be considered as Incharge of the branch and représentative of the management. It is the contention ot the management that after nationalisation the Bank has become a State within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India and is obliged to function within the parameter of Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India in the mater of appointment. T! >.• i.i.n..i<.Y.ii..-ii f. îther submitted that from sometimes the> .-i'.eJ ^- i i >J i i i. : : ,<> diffé- rent branches specificaîly directing i..e'ii i:<" ;v- jnj.rv any casual worker excepting the workers who hâve alreàdy been empanelled. In support of this circular the management relied on the circulars marked as Ext. M-l, M-2 and M-3. The circular marked as Ext. M-l was issued on 28-4-1997. The circular marked as Ext. M-2 was issued on 29-3-97 and the circular marked as Ext. M-3 was issued on 31-3-1990. Consi- dering the circular it is seen that the first circular was issued in the month of March, 1990. The last circular was issued in the month of April, 1997. By ail thèse circulars the manage- ment directed the Branch Managers of différent branche^ of the Bank under them not to engage any daily rated casual worker other than empanelled casual worker. By circuiar marked Ext. M-l dt. 20-4-97 it has been clearly mentioned that the Branch Manager, Manager, Divisioual Manager, Zonal Head Office will render personally accountable and liable for disciplinary action if they violate the spécifie direc- tion as per circular in the matter of engagement of daily rated casual worker. It is seen that the concerned workman was first engaged to his work on daily rated basis on 18-9-89. The circular marked as Ext. M-3 was issued atleast 6 months after engagement of the concerned workman. It is seen that inspite of receipt of the said circular the concerned workman was allowed to work there. It is further seen that the concerned workman was dismissed from his work with effect from 22-4-97 i.e. after passing the last circular marked as Ext. M-l, It is seen that inspite of existence of the circulars in question the Branch Manager who should be considered as représen- tative of the management allowed the concerned workman to work as casual basis for atleast 7 years continuously. No évidence is fortheoming on the part of the management which disciplinary action has so far had been taken against the Branch Managers who allowed the concerned workman to work for such a long period. It should be considered as a serious latches or fault on the part of the management be- cause the management aiso did not consider necessary to take any action against the Branch Managers inspite of violating the strict direction in the mattsr of engagement of daily rated casual workers. The management submitted that as after nationalisation the concerned Bank has become a state and they are to abide by certain obligations under Article 14, 16/1 of the Constitution of India in the matter of appointment. It is seen that knowing fully well about the constitutional 5. The management in order to substantiate their claim examined one witness while the concerned workman examined himself as witness in support &i bis claim. The concerned workman in course of his évidence submitted that he worked at UCO Bank Main Road, Ranchi as Peon from 18-9-89 to 22-4-97 coniinuonsly and he completed 240 dayq of work in each calendar year during this period. He further stated2%2 IHE UAZE1JE OF 1ND1A : MARCH 16, 2002/PHALGUNA 25, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J The managerrient is directed to implement the Award witfiin thrèê ntcjhths ïfônï thë'date of its publication in the Galette OÎ ïndîàV

B. BlSWA§, Presiding Officer provision the management did not consider neeessar> to keep a close watch on their oflïcers about engagement ot cfaiiy rated casliai workers. it should be borne into mind that ihe ïesponsibihty of the ofhcer should be consïdered as tiie res- ponsibility oï tne manage:;;o ; . .! : . •!.'. .v. .-i iiu'i:l in . v> cirçiiflïâtances can exonéra.. •.<.-. i. i"ln. i .~"j"'^i >i •- fault committed by the Br.\ t- W.i .. - . i . ' l: .. .-. \.x\ \' . i..-.' Brânch" Manager has no .•..:••. >;..; i. ...,.o .ni> Jippi .. l'ik-i! in thè rnatter or engagernc: . I .::> J.nr. .-. ;<.rvl i..-;.Til ••-.,. v. :. as per oucuiar. Hui sileni.. \-• i .c f->.• • i ,>. inc ir...ii. ;:o;.ic-. . sitouid rfè considëred as tacit approvai a na i cr wmch tne mâna'gement also' t'annot èxoneiate respbhsibility it any violation ot thé Article 14, 1 6 U) of the Constitution ot l n J ia in the' matk-i of hppKiiiiinciiL was made by théir owri otHcer. I he mstahi leleicnù: ci^e "UN referred to this tribunal by the Mirustn oi I ahotu iieaiin;: Shri Ramak'ant f'rasad, as the cOnceriied \M>M. uan accoidiii;; to the'Section 2 ( sj ot the I.D. Act, 194/. The concerned wprkitian subiriitted that betore termination or his service thé ii:.i!i.i. •:••;.••, I Jid i ,-t eonsider ntcessary to issue any notice ! .i y. .i . ;\\ ^ :nperjsation uiider Section 2 5F of the I.D. A .. I " .• ••- .;...•>•> :, :i in course

of K e a i î r ig a d i h i t t ed t h is t a c t, 'i IK : . ; > > . .• :: :> - . . " .• t h at t he

m a n a g e m e nt h d s ' v i d l a t ed t he m a n d a t e r} ; • ! . • . : - • . > :• . i S < . \ ' l i. •

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2002 2 5F or t hé t.D. A c t, 1 9 4 7. N ow p o i nt i<'i vi>n~.>io! i ;- il t h at o r d ef of t e r m i n a l i on p a s s ed by t he iii.i -.i,-OIIIOÎ-I a.:.i.:i~: the concerned workman was légal valid and also was in accordance With the principles of natinal justice. It is seen that the concerned work'mah was légal valid and âlso was in- more than 7 years continuously. It is further seen that the .'.'l.'"',,'!..'.'i' .-. • k ::•••. ivorked for more than 240 days in a

I I . I :I

.. :. i¹ •

• .. i 7 y e a rs b e f o re r ie v . i- i .\ m i l . ; . ! ,!

i- > < • . . . . • >' I .. " . ' pi .• . ot t h îs c l a im t he t v i . v . i id v. > •• - .:: i . -:

\ , < I : . : . IS

. . : - ^ il

. . . jo

-•

. • .. m a r k ed as E x t. U ?.

. . : ,'

So 987.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hcYcby pubhVife-i' the award (Réf. No. 5/19A&) of the Central (uneinment l'nilusiiiiil Tribunàl-cuïa-Labour Court No. 2, DJiailbad as -.howii in the annèxure in the Industrial Impute between ihe employeis in relation to the man-agemen.t of UCO'' $ank and' their wofkm'àn, which was recèived by the Central Govertimeht on 20-2-2002.

[Mo. L-12012|239j97-IR

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE T^CEJTR^ gffi^£gV™AL

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(l)(d) of tfie ' I.D. Act; 1947

REFERENCE NO. 5 OF 1998

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the, management of UCO Bank

and their WQrk.man.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman : Shri B. P.rasad, State Sec-

retary, UCO Bank' Employées Association.

On behalf of the emplovers : Shri P.K. Çhatterjee, Au-

thorised Représentative.

STATE : Jharkhand INDUSTRY : Banking

Dated, DJianbad, the 12th February, 2002

AWARD marked as Ext. W-3 séries. I hâve considëred the documents in question ahd ïïnd support of ihe claim of the concerned workman relating to his côntinuous wôrk durhrg the period in question. In this connection a décision reported in 2001 Lab I.C. page 2220 may be takeh into considération. In the said décision Their Lordships ôf the' Hon'ble Calcutta Hjgh Court cafègoricaly observed that terminatîori ot casùal workers should be cbhsidered as illégal, împroper if the said cas'ual workër is terminâïêd without serving ftny notice pàrticularly when' he w'orked for more than 240 days in a year. In the décision ieportéd in 2001 Lab I.C. page 2243 and the décision reported in 20OI II "L.L.J. page 1610 also Their Lordships upheld the same view. Thereforè it is clear that compliance of provision of Section 2'5F was mandatory. It îs seen that the management dïd not issue any notice as per provision laid down in'Section 25F of the I.D. Act and for wftich "the said terminatîon should be dëclared illégal, împroper and not in accordance \vith the pinciples of nâtùral justice. It was not expected that the beîiavioùr of the management should be like ttiàt bî use and throw policy w"hich the management showed in case of this workman. Ft is seen that the manage- ment utilised the services of the concerned worlçman for yêars togéther just likê a régulai' staff agairist the services rendered by him. The management did not cônsîder necessaiy to pay usùal wage for èqual, vvork which a réguler staff was entnlcd to get at 'that relevant t'imè. Thereforè, there is reason to ftéTiëve that the concerned workman though worked equally with fhe regular staff was not pàid properly at par witli the rêgular staff. As sûch there is also reason to believe that the concerned workman was exploïfëd by the management and thereàfter he was thrown dût. It should not be the policy of any management to treat a person in that fashion, inspite of knowing tnë fact that he djschàrged his dutiés continuously for more than 7 years. If therë is any fâult in the niatter of engagement of the concerned workman if was the fault of thë offîcer'of the management and for which the management cannot êxonerate theïr lïàbility and accordingly, there is no reason tp consider fhat the workman himielf shpuld sufter inspite of his discharge of his diities' diligehtly for years to- gether. As such after careful considération of ail the facts and circumstances I hold that the concerned workman is erîtitïed to get relief as prayed for. Tn the resuit, the following Àward is rendered :—

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section KKltK'd) of the I.D. Act, i9'4T has re'ferted the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-12012|239| 97|lR(B-ri), datëa, " th'e '31st December, 1997.

SCHBDULE

"Whether the actioç of. the management, of UCO Bank. Bero Ranchi in terminating the, services of Shri Prarhod Kumar Singh is légal and justifiéd?,]f not, to what relief the said workman is entitled?" "The action of the management of UCO Bank in termi- nating the services of Shri Rama Kant Prasad, Casual Labour without observing the provision of Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 is not légal and jusïified. Conse- quently. the concerned workman is entitled to get reinstatement, however, without any back wages." 2. I he case of, th,e concerne^ workman accoidm^ to the \\ .s. in buei is a$ follpws :—

The concernée! woikman is the W.S. submitted that he was appomtid by the management of UCO Bank, Rero Brancn for discharging nis duties as Peon with eiCect from 8-3-1990. He submi nu ihat as a paît ol lits Uuiy he had to curry yu vvork of taking oiit ledgersjregisters from the almirah, placing the same on tne tablefcounters and vice-vçrsa, carrying token i • •••;, •>•.'."i! l'.'i^'.': from Accounts Department to the Cash I;. i . s'. i-':'-i.- of vouchers|currency notes whenever re- (|iiii.'vi. li'Mi•'!!•.•<'i ol dak tnrough peon oook, postinj; of iiinM" i.i ':.' | .'M office, serving water to the member of staff .-v.¹ i :••••:'.. -. ,'iingkig ica, l'etei, cirgarette irom tne near .• .h,>p -, ..• 1U: submitted that the management used to pay hinl vvages îmtiatly (a) Rs. '0 y.îi day aad theieatter u raisedfoR> 45 pçr day and ur^ed to décharge his duties as Peon tmm'10.00, A.M. to 6.U0 P.Ai, Me submitted that m rhis way he "discharged his dutici as Feon fiom 8-3.-199O to 22-4- I,5f97 dnde'r trie management at Bero Branch of UCO Bânk ' exceptïng Holidays "and Sunday. Ou 23-4-1997 the concerned workmari al.fgcd tlîat he was discharged from his service without giving any notice ii!,egally and arbitrariîy and also ffgainsi the principles of nalural jusiiee. Accordingly hé aller his term'iriatiort of service represen'ed before the management with a prayer for considération ol rcinstateruent aàd régularisation b.m the management did not pay any teed to his appea/. Accordingly the concerned workman rajsed an indi^striai cÛsnu^e. béfpre the ÀLC(C), Ranchj for concilia- tion wlii'ch. ulnfnately rcsuïted référence to (his Tribunal. Tlie co.v';crnetl wofkriïan accordingly has prayed for his re- instatement in seivicc with ail back wag^s, from the date of termination.

29.>3 4. The poi :îs for décision in this référence are : —

•'Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank, Bero Rànchi in tçrminatiig the services of Shri Prampd Kumar Slngh, is .cgal and justified? If not, to \vhat relief the said s.orkman is entitled?" DECISION W m. REASONS

5. In course of heaiing the mariagemcKt examineJ one wiiness while the concerned workm-m exucnined nim.cif us. wiiness in order to substantiate thsiy respective clrmi. In course of évidence tne concerned workman corroboraied ail the focts which he asserted' iu his W.S. MW-1 on the cont- i.iy m coitis^ of liis cross-examinauon admitted that the concerned v\orkman WRS a casual worker and woiked at Bero Branch >.'! the l .O liank irom Alarcn. 1^90 .o /\piii, 1997'. ' He iur.h.-r submitted that in the year 19-90 regular i'c'on Bim:'l Maliaio wàs trar^ierred to Dhurwa Ranchi Branch and as a tesult of which the post of the said post cl Peon remained vaçr.ot, ar.d for which diuing that pefiod the concerned workman was engaged at the said branch on di.uy wages' basis. This witness fuitlier disclo=ed that in the mpsïih of June, 1994 a regular Peon was posted at the said Branih but irspi.e of such, ppsling the concerned workman also. was aljowed to wprk till Agri!, 199.7. He disclosed that ihe concerned workrnàn, was stopped from his work i:r-i!t-r order of the Régional Manager. He fuither submitted that incite of sLopping wbrk tljis, witness wrote letters to his s'ujperior autljpiijy umder his signatu.ie. He also admjtted that bfiipre stQppjng the work of the concerned workman he was npj. eîthçr givea any notice nor was paid, any compensation. Durijïg evjdçnpc lettos wriften by this witness were marked as Ext,. W-l and W-l|l ;u;d VV-lJl açd vouchfirs \vere marked as Çxt. W-3 séries. Nfw cpnsidjerjng tlie evijlence of the concerned workman as wéll', as MW-'l I finit no djsputetohold that the concernod \yorJkmàn was engaged by the Branch Maoagci;, lïero biv.iuii in mpnih o£ Ma'r.ch, 199.0toçarry on the work of Pco:i and the, concerned vvorkman in dis.charge of hjs d'ifieï performed différent jo,bV such as taking out ledgers/reiriblcs n.om the aliiur.ah, placing the same on tl>e table/ çountprs and vicc- vsrsa,, careying tçl.... ':..,.'k\. ,•] .*'.•.>•• Trom accounfs depint- mpqibcr of s,taJT and customiers, bringing tea, bétel etc. {••j;-.\ Uie, liearbv shop. It is alsp admjtted fact that in the'monih i .• o, k syljrfritted by the concerned workman n:.i.îi-(! a-, I M. \l. -.î serjés shows clearly that (he concerned ,,..„.;,„„_ 4—it-V" *>U{iJ.y w,orkçd undpr the management, for • •'>•!>'i . i.itipn. Fi-pm the évidence of AIW-1 I hâve •• •' :;

3. T!K I:J. i ..venu.il ,..j the contrary after filjng W.S.-cum-' lejoiiiiKi ii- -f iK'iii".l ..;1 the claims and allégation which the i.oiici.'iivo uoïkiiiiiir asserted in his W.S. The manage- ment in their W.S. subroittetf ihat the auttoriky should not haye taken cognizance of a pr^ence ot .". claim ol Shri Pramoil Kumar Singh, the cancerned. workman who was utiPsed by the staff of the Bero branch of the Bank without ar.y autho- rity. Since nationalisation the Bank management has become a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of Ind-ia ar.J ist obliged to function within the parameter of /Article 14 and' 1*6(1) of the Constitution of I.idia in the matîer of appointment. The constitution mandate to provide equal proteciipn of law and equality before law includes the obligation ojf the Bank to follow gênerai norms of engage, ment;appointment of person in every C-itegory of service. The management "ubmifted that it is a manefstory direction that no Bracch.Manager of ilje Bank is aulhorised^ to make any appointment to ihe post sanc'îo'ied or im-sanctfoned and ia.s.p^ of tfjat, mandator.y dirficti^n tho concerned- workman was purpor'ted tô b'e e"'?ag"éd u'nconstiiutïdlhally by the Br,arjch Manager and for wbich he, is nat, legally entitled to hâve any right for his absorption in the guise of the provi- sion of the I.-Ô. Act, 1947. Acfoally the concerned workman had been off"r-ed same so'u'mji for soni^ service o.n isplated dates in u'ter violation of eorstîtutional 'mandate. The manage- ment further aljeged thaf the authority functioned mecha- nically and withôut application (if 'objecti"e mirid in emértain- ing reques.t, tp initiate conciliation proceeding. The manage- ment further frllesed that inspitî of engagement of the con- cernée!. wQrkman the Branch Manager did not consider neces- sary to take any approval of the same. He also did not take any approval in the matter of payment of wages from the compétent authority. No appointaient letter was well as no pav slip was issued to the concerned workman against work donc, by him under direction of the Brapch Manager. The management firrthe- submitted tlmt- on 29-1-1997 "the Zohal Manager of the Bnrrk specifi'callv directed to ail Branch MfinaW'î thrtr no ciinrt'jeiTH'nl of casu.il, .vonkqrs exconte tfrose who sta:ii of •!•.- --n-ne an/ s'uch erinnc^ment is made in thit case the Branch Manager willbe held personally resppnwblf fnr ^"v suçh engagement, Accordinsîy the manage- ment submitted tfyat, as the errsaaenuent of the concerned workman WPS no*' le"al and vilid he 'is not érititled fo cet any__re.lief which he has proved for. The maniement nc- cordipgJv h"s prnyed for pn

long, he was nllow.ed to worJc there. The management aho did npt deny the fact that the concerned workman was not ensjaged .b> the .Branch Manager who used to be considered as, Jiichargc of the branqh représentative of the management. H is the contention of the management that after nationalisa- tion (he Bank has. become a State within the mearu'n,a of Article 12 of Constitution of India is obliged .to function with,in.;tbe puramçtcr of Article 14 and 16(1) of the-Consti- tution of. Ipdia, i|i the matter of appq.intm.ent. The manage- ment further. submitted thet from, somatimes. they issued circujars to différent branches spçcifically, directing them not to engage nav casual worker exqeptfng the workers who hâve already heen emp.melted. In support of fheïr contention tlie management relied on thé circulars marked as Ext, M-l, M-22964 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2002/PHALGUNA 25, 1923 |PART II—Sec. 3(ii)] the décision reported in 2001-11 L.L.J. page 1610 also Theii Lordships upheld the saine view. Therefore, it is clear that compliance of the provision of Section 25F of the I.D. Act was mandatory. It is seen that the management did not issue any notice as per provision laid down in Section 2: F of the I.D. Act and for which the said termination should be declared illégal, impropei and not in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It was not expected that the behaviour of ihe management should be like that of use and throw policy which the management showed in case of this workman. It is been that the management though utilised the services of the concerned workman for years together just like a regular staff against ttie services rendered by him. The management did not consider necessary to pay usual wages which a regular staff was entitled to get at that relevant time. Therefore, theie is reason to believe that the concerned workman though woiked cqually with the regular staff was not paid properly at par with the regular staff. As such there is also reason to believe that the concerned workman was exploited by the manage- ment and thereafter he was thrown out. It should not be the poiicy ot "any management to treat a person in that fashion, inspite of knowing the fact that he discharged his duties continuously for more than seven years. If there was any fault in the matter of engagement of the concerned workman it was the fault of the officer of Ihe management and for which the management cannot exonerate their liability and for that reason there is no reason to consider that the work- man himself should sufEer inspite of his discharge of his duties diligently for years together. As such lifter careful considération of al! the facts and circumstances I hold 1hat the concerned workman is entitled to get relief as prayed for. In the resuit, the following Award is rendered :—

"The action of the management of UCO Bank Bero Ranchi in terminating the services of Shri Pramod Kumar Singh is not légal and justiîied. Consequentry, the concerned workman is entitled to get reinstate- ment, however, without any back wages."

The management is directed to implement the Award wilhin three months from the date of its publication in the Gazette

of India.

... ;; Ï*I àffiS*

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2002

S.O. 988.—In pursuance cf Section 17 of the Inctustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 39|89) of the Ceniral Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Banga- lore as shown in the annexure in the Tndustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Canara Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Goverrrment on 20-2-2002.

and X-3. The circular marked as Ext. M-l was issued on 28-4-1997. The circular marked as Ext. M-2 was issued on 29-3-9 7 und the circular muiked as Ext. M-3 was issued on 31-3-1990. Considering the circular it is seen that the first circular was issued in the month cf M.trch, 1990. The las! circular was issued in the month of April, 1997. By ail thèse circulais the management directed the Branch Managers of différent branches of the Bank undei them not to engage any casual worker for any daily rated casual worker otber than empanelled casual worker. By circular marked as Ext. M-l dt. 20-4-9-7 it has been clearly mentioned that the Branch Manager, Divisional Manager, Zonal Head Office will render himself personally accountabie and liable for disciplinary action if they violale ihe spécifie direction as per circular in the ^natter of engagement of daily rated casual worker. It is seen that the concerned workman was first engaged to bis work on daily rated basis on 8-3-90. The circular marked as Ext. M-3 was issued on 31-3-1990. It is been that inspite of receipt of the said circular the concerned workman was allowed to work there. It is further seen that the concerned workman was stopped from with effect from 23-4-1997 i.e. after passing the last circular marked as Ext. M-l. It is been that inspite of existence of the circulars in quebtion the Branch Manager who should be considered as a représentative of the management allowed the concerned workman to work on casual basis for atleast 7 years conti- nuously. No évidence is fortheoming on the part of the management which disciplinary action has so far been taken against the Branch Managers who allowed the concerned workman to work for such a long period. It should be consi- dered as a serious latches or fauit on the part of the manage- ment becau.se the management also did not consider necessaiy to take any action against the Branch Managers inspite of violating the stict direction in the matter of engagement of daily rated casual workers. The management submitted that after nationalisation the concerned Bank has become a state and they are to abide by certain obligations under Article 14, J Cif 1 ) of the Constimtion of India in the matter of app^int- ment. It is seen that knowing fully well about the constitu- tional provision the management did not consider necessary to keep a close watch on their officers about engagement of daily rated casual workers. It should be borne into mind that the responsibility of tlie officer should be considered as the responsibility of the management *nd the management in no circumstances can exonerate their liability in respect of the fault committed by the Branch Manager. It is a fact that the Branch Manager has no authority to issue any anpointment in the matter of engagements of any daily rated casual workers as per circular. But silence on the part of the management should be considered as tacit approval and for which the management also cannot exonerate responsibility for violation of Article 14, 16(1) of the Constitution of India in the matter of appointment of any worker by their own officer. The instant référence case was referred to this Tribunal by the Ministry of Labour Considering Shri Pramod Kurcar Sïngh, as the concerned workman according to Ihe Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The concerned workman submitted that before termination of his service the manage- ment did not consider necessary to issue any notice under Section 25F of the I.D. Act. The management in course of bearing admitted this fact. Therefore, it is seen that the management has violated the mandatory provision of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Now point for considération is if that order of termination passed by the management against the concerned workman was légal, valid and also was in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It is seen that the concerned workman worked under the management for more than 7 Years continuously. It is further seen that the concerned woïkman worked under the management for more than 7 years continuously. It is further seen that the concerned workman worked for more than 240 days in a year continuously for 7 years before he was terminaled from his service. In support of this daim the concerned workman relied on wasesheets marked as Ext. W-3/7 séries and vouchers marked as Ext. W-3 séries. I hâve considered the documents in question and find support of the claim of the concerned workman relating to his continnous wo-k during the period in question. In this connection a décision reported in 2001 Lab I.C. page 2220 may be taken into considération. In the said décision Their Lordships of the Hon'blu Calcutta High Court cateaorically observed that termination of casual workers should be considered as illégal, improper if the said casual worker is terminated without serving imy notice parti- culnrly when he worked for more than 240 day^ in a year. In the décision reported in 2001 Lab I.C. page 2243 and

CNo. L-12O12|711j88-DIT(A)] C. GANGADHARAN, Limier Secy.

2965

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRiiiUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN ', IU MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE

Dated : 6th February, 2002

PRESENT :

Honble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B.Com., LLB., Presiding Offlcer.

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE C. R. No. 39|89

I P A R TY

Shri H.S. Padaki, Rep. by the General Secretary, Dharwar District Bank Employées Association, 9 Corporation Building, Hubli-580020. General Secretary-M. Ram Rao

II PARTY The Dy. Manager, Canara Bank, Mangalore Circle Office, Canara Bank Building, Light House, Hill Road, Mangalore 575001 Advocate-Pradeet" S. Saukar.

A.WARD

1 The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-sectkm 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-12012|711|88-D II(A) dated 18th May 1989 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank in terminating the services of Shri H. S. Padaki is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

2. The first party was working with the Second Party Bank as Temporary Workman. His services weie termi- nated and therefore, Industrial Dispute is raised.

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

4. The cases of the first party in brief is as follows:

5. The first party workman has filed a very lengthy Claim Statement.

6. The case of the first party in brief is as follows:

7. The Second Party is :n the Banking Industry and is a Nationalised Bank and the relationship between the first party and the Second party are governed by the provisions of Shastry Award, Desai Award and Bipartite Settlement etc.

8. It is the further case of the first party that he joined the services of the second oartv -M its Malimaddi. pv*ir. wad Branch as Temporary Sub Staff on 26th October 1982 and has been working at the said branch till 16th November 1983 on a number of days. He also worked at Bankatmr Branch from 18th October 1983 to 16th November 1983. He has worked at Malamaddi, Dharwad Branch as tem- porary sub staff from 23rd November 1983 on a number of days.

9. The seeond party havine considered the services of the first party as most satisfactory provided to the first party, the work of Temporary Sub staff at its Narayarrpur, Dharwad Branch from 9th December Wi in a ciear suu staff vacancy. Détails are given in para 5 of the Claim Statement.

10. The first party served the Second party bank sincerely and honestly to the bes>t ot his capacity and to the satis- faction of his superiors.

11. It is the further case that no appointaient order was aiven to him and the first party was denied Weekly Hohdays, Médical aid etc. as stated in para 7 of the Claim Statement. The above action of the management is in violation of the provisions of Shastri|Desai Award|Bipartite Seulement".

12. It is the further case that he has worked more than 240 days continuously in 12 calendar months on 19-5-1985. The management has not complied with the provisions of Industrial Dispute act as regard retrenchment hence the first party is deemed to be in permanent service from the said date.

13. It is the further case that on 6th April 1988 when the first party in a usual course approached the Second Party at its Narayanpur, Dharwad branch for work but he was suddenly informed not to corne for work and the sction of the management is illégal. The management has illegally terminated the services of the first party from 19th May 1985 without any notice, Charge sheet, enquiry etc. No order of termination was given io him. The action of the management is not correct. The first party workman for thèse reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.

14. Against this the case of the management in brief is as follows :

15. The management is fully justified in not engaging the first party workman with effect îrom 6-4-1988. The Second Party is a Nationalised Bank with many branches. The employées of the bank in the clérical and sub staff cadre (popularly known as Award Staff) are governed by the provisions of Awards and Bipartite Settlement entered into at the industry level between the Ail India Unions and the Indian Banks Association of which the Second Party is a member.

16. It is the further case of ihe management that when- ever the employées in the Subordinate cadre go on leave, in such vacancies the Daily Wagers are engaged on day to day basis and daily wagers are engaged when there is temporary workload. Tt> meet such contingencies the bank maintains a_ panel of Daily Waaers for allotment of work to the Daily Wagers in leave vacancies and thèse daily wagers are paid for the day on which they worked oni daily basis and they are entitled to wages for the Sunday if they worked without any break. A panel of Daily Wagers is maintained district wise and as and when vacancies arise in the sub staff cadre, the daily wagers are absorbed as sub staff as per their semority in the Daily Wagers Panel and if they are fit for absorption. A group of Daily Wagers, had filed a Writ Pétition against the Bank in the Suprême Court of India seeking immédiate absorption of their services on the ground that they hâve been workirîe as Daily Wagers for varying number of years. The Hon'ble Suprême Court of India has passed as order permitting the bank to absorb thèse Daily Wagers only as and when varancies arise arrf therefore. ,'t is ciear that the daily wagers will not automatically eligible for permanent absorption" as Sub Staff. First party was engaged on 27-9-1982.

17. ït is the further cse of the management that when the first partv was working as Daily Wa?er at Narainrmr Dharwar branch on 22-3-1988, a chèque bearing No ">"I15 da(ed 22-3-1988 for R<* 5000 rtrawn on Hublt- Dharwad Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., was presented by one Shri R S. Salimath, Customer of the said branch and the said chèque was sent for collection through the first party Workman. Though the said chèque was realized on 22-3-1988 itself. but the first party workman had misappro- priated the said sum of Rs. 5000 instead of dulv remitting to the Bank. The relatives of the first party workman hâve mncl" pond of the amonnt snbsecinenriv. Tnvesti^i'on vas conducted amî it was established that the first partv work- man has misappropriated the amount of Rs. 5000. The first party workman committed niisappropriation which:%6 mH GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2002/PHALGUNA 25, 1923 [P A RÏ Il-Snc. 3(ii), constituiez a scrious oftettce and thereiore, hc was not en- liiigèd IK Daily Wager w.e.i. 6-4-1988. It ij oniy on £-4-1988 after investigation the second p.irty management cuine to kiu'w of the miiiippropriation and iminediately taking ûp the malter wttîl the First party, lie had chosen to leave the branch as.uring to do nie newltul .nid hu>l absconded. The dcU.il;> of investigation are also narrated in the Counter.

18. H ls deiiied that the relationship between the flrst p.uiy r.nd the second party :ire governed by Shastry Awara. Desai Award ând Bipartite Settlements.. The Awards and Bipartite Settlements govern only the Award Staff of the Bank and the flrst Party workman beittg only a Daily Wager, is not entitled to take shelter under any of the Bipartite Settlements. AU the allégations made by the workman are not eorrect.

19. It is the further case of the management that the corlten-tion of the first party that !ie liad put in 240 days of vvork in a period of 12 months preceding the date of nori- engagement as Daily Wager is of no avail to him as he was not engaged conséquent to the act of misappropriation.

20. It is the further case of the bank that merely becaiise the first party Daily Wager has worked for more than 240 days, it shall not by itself entitle him to claim permanent absorption. The action bf the management is correct, fhe workman is not a regular employée of the bank and there- fore, question of holding regular efi-qùiry does not afise at a'1. The management for thèse reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to reject the Claim.

21. It is seen from the records that the first party has also filed rejoinder denying the contentions made by the management irr the Counter. The management has not charge sheeted the first party for misappropriation and now the second party is raising sùeh non existent issues only when the workman has claimed rights before the appropriate authdrities. It is his further case that he has nert misappro- priafed any amo-unt from the Bank. It is his further case that he was not engaged as Daily Wager w.e.f. 6-4-1988. ït is very surprising that only on 6-4-1988 the second .party had corne to know of Ihe misappropriation and ail the con- tentions are corttradictory.

22. It is further seen from the records that to this re- ioifïder, the management has fîfed reply.

23. It is eontenfled by the management that the fechïtiesl objection ra^sed by the first party is net tenable in vfew of the fSet fhat

24. It is seen irom the records that on behalf of the management MW.I, MW2. and MW3 are exa-mîned. Mwmber of documents are nrarked on behalf of the management.

25. Agairat this the workman got examined himself as WW1.

28. He further said that merely because the persons name is found in the daily wagëri parte! he has no right for permanent absorption and the short comings are noted in the work of a daily wâger, his name can be removed from the panel of cîaily wager. Tiiete was an SB Account of One Shri Salimutt as per Ëx. M2 ledger and x>n 22-3-19W5 Salimutt gave a the4ue for collection and to be dejrosited in his SB Account and the chèque for collection was on Hubii Dharwad Uiban Coopérative Crédit Bank Ltd.. Dhar- wad branch. They made an entry of that chèque in the OSC register. H\. M4 centaine 4 îhee's and tney are the original sheets of the OSC icgister. Ihe party did not corne back and pay the amount. That is why the columns showing the îeahzations particulars is blank.

29. It is furiner deposed that the account holder Salimutt issued a chèque for Rs. 5000 aad it came for clearing on 6-4-1968. When they verified his account there was no balance. Enauiries were made with the first party for collection of chèque and first party jnformed that he has fprgotteh ând he would go to bank and brjng the cash. But hé hâs not returned. He has given detailèd évidence rafcjg'artWhg the ton- firmation letter received from tbe Coopérative Ballk.

30. He further said that original .cheqwe was handed o"er to the first party for collection. Détails of Ex: M:7 are marked in his évidence. Hè à\s& States that the Bank has recovered Rs. 5000 from the first party. He speaks about investigation done in tliis case. He further said fHdt Hècatise of the above incident the naine of the first party wîfs rfcrtiov- ed from Daily Wacers panel. Ex. M15 is the faillite report sent by Conciliation Officer.

31. With this évidence it is clear fKàt the first party Was working as Daily Wager and he was entrtistéd with the collection of chèque for Rs. 5000 and he failed t^ reniit the said amount. In other words first party was a daily wager and he misappropriated the amou'it.

32. MWI is cross examintfl at length but nothing is made out from his, cross, examination so, as to disbelieye the évi- dence of MWI. Kluc'h, was argued by fhe représentative of the first party saying that there is no eiitrustment of chèque to the first party workman and fherè are no erifries to Ho'ld that the first party was responsiblè for misappropriation of the said amount. The représentative of Ihe workman tbok me in détail the cross examination MWI at para N°- W> and argued that MWI has sta'.èd. Iii his cross examination that first party has not made any .entries in Ex. M4 or Ex. M5 and the ofncers and the cterîcs haye made the entries and theie is no entBf in any bnrtk in the t>arrk /or havint; handed over the chèque Ex. M7 for collection to first party. He further submitted that they did not attèst thè" signature of, the first party for having handed over the cHequè foi- collection. He fnrther says that as per the procédure they hâve to attest the signature before handing over fhe chenue for collection.

33. It is in the cross examination of MWI ftat on' fte reverse of Ex. M7 there is only one signature of first party.

34. I hâve considered the said cross examination care- fully. I hâve also read the wrftten arguments' gfvèn by the représentative of the workman carefully.

2967

uf the workman and the learned counsel appcaring for the bank and I am of the 'Opinion that in tht instant case the woikman himself has admitted the entrustment of chèque for collection and theréfore, there is no merit in the argu- mcnls iidVcincetl by the repicscntative of the workmarr in ll'ls regard.

38. First party furlher says in his cross examination that he does not remember whether he received 2 bundles of Rs. 20 de.iomina'ion and one bundle of Rs. 10 dénomination for Rs. 2.000+ Rs. 2,000+ Rs. 1,000. He fuither says that he does not remember whether the bank paid him Rs. 5000. He further says that it is not correct to suggest though he had received Rs. 5000 from the bank he did not remit the same to the Second Party Bank. The question was put to him whether ne has any proof havine remitted that amount on that day. The answer is that he has paid this amount to MW1. Ail this on careful examination clearly establishes that the chèque in question was entrusted to the workman and he collected the amoufit and the said amount was not deposited in th.- Bank. In other words the investigation conducted by the management as deposed by the witnesses is correct and from the évidence of MW1 to MW3 and the documents leli.'d by the management, misappropriation is proved.

39. In the instant case much was argued by the représenta- tive of the fiïst party contending that there h sufficient évidence before this tribunal to establish that the flrst party workman has worked for a long period and theréfore the action of the management is illégal.

40. Admittedly the first party workman is a temporary peon and that is clear from the order of appointaient which is at page 137 of the Enquiry File. In view of this the service conditions of Bipartite Settlement and other relevant provi- sions pointed out by the représentative of the first party are not helpful for the first party workman. Temporary employée is a Daily Wager. This is clear from the appointment order of the first party workman.

41. It was argued by the learned counsel for the manage- ment that the first party workman being a daily wager and a iemporary workman, there is no merit in the arguments advanced by the représentative of the workman that service conditions are bindins. There is merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the management. The first party workman has not said that the chèque was not given to him and he has not collected the amount of the chèque.

42. On the other hand as discussed eariier the entrustment is admitted by the workman himself. We hâve the évidence of MW2 and according to his évidence Ex. M-16 is the oriainal cheoue and Ex. M-17 is the Xerox copy of the same. Ex. M-18 are the rules of the bank which are pro- duced. MW1 is cross examined by the workman but nothing is niade out from his cross examination to help the first party workman.

43. MW2 has also given évidence regarding signatures. Ex. M-20 is the signature of the Officer, Canara Bank Narayana- nur Branch. Ëx. M-21 is the signature of Shri R.S. Salimath. Ex. M-22 is the signature of Shri H.S. Phadaki. MW2 has identified the signature of the first party.

44. The standard of évidence required in such proceedings is sot that of évidence in crimiral cases. In a proceedinj" like this we will hâve to see whether the misconduct is proved and there is évidence to prove the misappropriation against the workman.

45. Irr my opinion the évidence of MW1 to MW3 and the documents are sufficient to prove misappropriation against the first party workman. MW3 has given évidence that he is working in Hubli Dharwad Urbnn Co-operative Bank Ltd. He also said that the payment under Ex. M-10 was made to the person who has brought it. He has given detailed évi- dence about the procédure of preserrting chèque and encash- ment of the same.

46. In the instant case I hâve already said that the entrustment of the chèque and the collection of the amount is admitted by the workman himself and theréfore, there is no merit in 710 GTI2002—23.

the arguments of the first party workman that entrustment is not proved and there is no évidence to say that the first party has collected the amount of chèque in question and misappropriated the same.

47. In view of the admission of the first party workman about the entrustment of the chèque I am of the opinion that the évidence of MW1 to MW3 is sufficient to prove the mis- appropriation against the workman. The représentative of the workman took me in détail the cross examination of MW3 reading word by Word. I hâve considered the entire cross examination of MW3 carefully. Of course MW3 says in his cross examination that actually he has not seen on his own eyes to whom the amount under Ex. M-16 was paid or not. He aho said that he does no: know anything about the first party. The above referred cross examination of MW3 will not help the workman in view of the spécifie cross exa- mination of WW1 which I hâve eariier referred in détail to the effect that chèque was entrusted to the workman to collect from Hubli Dharwad Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. 48. I hâve also considered cross examination of WW1 about the amount and his évidence that he paid this amount to MW1 is quite unnatural.

49. It is seen from the records that the matter is remand- ed by the High Court of Karnataka with a direction to consider the évidence of MW1 to MW3 and the workman and the documents properly.

50. After remand I hâve heard detailed arguments of both sides. I hâve read the writisn niguments of the first oarty représentative carefully. I hâve considered in détail ail the relevant documents marked in this case and I hâve discussed the entire évidence of MW1 to MW3 and I am of the opinion that the management is justified in refusing work to the first party workman when it was nroved to ihe satisfac'ion of the management that a chèque of Rs. 5000 was entrusted to the first party workman for collection and he did not remit the amount in the bank.

51. The évidence before us i' MifriciiT* !o prove the allé- gations against the workman.

52. Taking ail this into considération I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the contention put forth by the work- man that the management has not proved misappropriation.

53. I hâve given my best considération to the évidence of MW1 to MW3 and documents and I am of the opinion that the management is justified in not giving work to the first party workman. Accordingly I proceed to pass the rolIowiHg order.

ORDER

The référence is rejected.

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 6th February 2002).

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer2968 THE GAZETTE OF JNJ3IA : MARCH 16, 2002/ PHALGUNA 25, 1923 [PART II -SEC . 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 25th February, 2002

S.O. qpo.—In piiv;:i,-încï of S?ctir>n "1 of the [ndnstrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Govemment hereby publishes the award of the Tndustrial Tribunal | Labour Court, Kc'a as shciwn in iho Annexuro in the In- dr.st"'iol D:spuf^ i.^f""vn *he c:'"r!"ver% in relation to the management of FCT and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-2-2002.

['No. L-22O12|88|95-1R(C-M1

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Offîcer2969 2970 THE GAZETTE OF 1NDIA : MARCH 16, 2002/PHALGUNA 25, 1923 [PART H—SEC. 3(ii)] "In our opiivjn. tlie définition of workman as givcn ii; Section 2(s) of the Act is cornprehcnsive und vide envugh to include even a part time emp- loyée. We are of the considered opinion that even a part time cmpîoyee is covered by the définit ion of 'Workman' as given in Section ot the Act

In the instant case, no doubt the peti- tioner was appointed as a part tirae employée. Hc isi a workman as "Icfined in the Act. The termination of his service amounts to retrench- mest and the rehenchment was made in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. He is. th?reforc. entitlcd to reinstatement."

29 r,

New Delhi, the 25th February, 2002 S.O. 990.—In pursuance ot' Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the Award of the Central Govt. Indus. Tribunal- -cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure. in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Distt. Manager FCI and their work- men. received by Ihe Central Government on 22-02-2002.

[No. L-22012;24l!97-IR(CM-II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT :

Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer REFERENCE No. CGIT : 142|2000 Jhood Corporation of India

AND

Shri R. B. S. Prasad

AWARD

The Central Go ver liment, Minisiry of Labour, New Delhi, by exercising the powers- conferred by Clause (d) of Sub Section ( i) and Sub Sectiton 2(A) of Section 10 oi the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 lias referred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-22012|24L|97iR(CM-II) datcd 22-07-98 on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, through District Manager, Nagpur and Senior Régional Manager, Bhopal (M.P.) awarding penalty oi.' Rs. 43,532.77 ps. to Sh. R. B. S. Prasad, Asstt. Grade-III (Depot), FCI, Wardha Depot is just, légal proper? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

This référence was sent to C.G.I.T. Court No-II, Mumbai in Sept., 98. This file was received from Mumbai in C.G.I.T.. Nagpur in June, 2000.

Shri R. B. S. Prasad, Asstt. Grade-III (Depot), F.CI. Wardha has submitted his Stateraent of Claim on 07-09-98. He has mentioned that he was appoirsted as Watch- man in Food Corporation of India, Jabalpur on 01-05-69. He was promoted to Asstt. Grade-III (Depot) from 28-04-73 and was posîed in Jabalpur Division. In 1987 hc was transfered from Jabalpur Division to the office of District Manager, F.C.I.. Naeiour and joined at FSD, Wardha from 05-05-87.

Shri R. B. S. Prasad AG-III(D) waVfùiïc- tioning as Depot Incharge of Lamta. Jabal- pur Division from 1983 to 1985. During his tenure of postin.g heavy storo^ lo^ses were found in the stocks stored in 13 stocks of raw ricc comnion'PBC. In thèse 13 stacks shorlase of 295 Otls 90 Kgs and 900 gms rice was found, for which F.C.T. suffered lo.ss amounting to Rs. 66.579.52 ns. The report was called from workman R. B. S. Prasad nnd he had suhmitted repîv on. 16-10-91. The charsesheet was issned on 31-08-91 ofter re- ceiving' Iho reply of the workman diteci 16-10-91. The enquiry started against him2972 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2002/ PHALGUNA 25, 1923 |PARÏ TI-SEC. 3(ii)] and Shri G.P. Namdeo was appointée En- quiry Officer vide order dated Q7-12-91.

The workman has claimed that enquiry was not conducted properly and he could not défend himself. The Enquiry Officer did not found him responsable for the losses but the disciplinary authority held him responsible for causing loss to the Food Corporation of India and imposed penalty of Rs. 43,532.77 ps. The disciplinary authority vide order No. V&Sl 4(5)jJBP91 dated 09-02-94 ordered for withholding his two incréments and recovery of Rs. 43,532.77 ps. This order was further modified by Senior Régional Manager (F.C.I.- Bhopal) on 23-03-96 and the penalty of withholding of his two incréments was with- drawn.

The appeal filed by the workman to Zonal Manager, Mumbai was rejected on 09-11-95. The workman has claimed that the imposing of penalty Rs. 43,532.77 ps. is not just and proper.

The management of F.CI. contested the case. The Deputy Manager, A. N. Dhamija submitted Written Statement on 11-11-98. It is mentioned in the Written Statement that from 13 stacks shortage of 295 Qtls. 90 Kg!s and 900 gms rice was found during the period 1983 to 1985 while R. B. S. Prasad was posted as Depot Incharge at Lamta, Jabalpur Division. In percentage terms the shortage loss was ranging from 2.5 percent to 12.23 percent in différent stacks which is abnormal, Reasonable opportunity was given to R. B. S. Prasad to explain the shortage of rice while giving chargesheet by the compé- tent authority. An ailowance of 1.5 percent was given to the workman for the losses which could occur due to naturai causes. The disciplinary authority hnd considered thn en- auiry report and held the workman R .B. S. Prasad responsible for the loss camed to F.CI. The discit>linary authority has reduced the penaltv to Rs. 43,532.77 ps. Latter on th." penaltv of withholding two incréments was also withdrawn. Th^ disciolin^rv authoritv was compétent to make any modifications in the findin? of the Enauiry Officer and to impose penalty which was fons^d^ed reson- ab1e by him. Thuc the order of the Hïsci- plinarv authoritv is iustified.

I hâve considered the entire oral and docu- mentary évidence on record.

Shri R. B. S. Prasad had submitted his affidavit on 05-03-99. He was cross exaaiined on 13-10-2000. It is admitted to workman R. B. S. Prasad that he was posted at F.C.I. Center, Lamta in Madhya Pradesh from January, 1983 to January, 1985. He also admitted that he was the incharge of the Depot at Lamta and the food grains of this dépôt were in his custody. He admitted that 295 Qtls. 90 kgs. and 900 gms. rice conimon was found short from the 13 stacks. The value of the rice was Rs. 225 per Quintal. The loss caused was valued Rs. 66,579.52 Ps. He says that the loss was caused by rats, birds and the bad condition of the godown. He had made entries of ihese ] 3 stacks of rice in the register. In the storage register the receipt of the rice was of 'A' grade. He savs that the Quality Control Department had not given proper treatment

Shri R. B. S. Prasad further stated in his statement that storage loss statement is pre- pared every month but he did not r>—>I~A anv such statement from January, 1983 to January, 1985. It is therefore clear that R. B. S. Prasad was responsible for informing his superiod officers' about the loss of the food grains caused at his dépôt in Lamta from January, 1983 to January, 1985. He there- fore delibarately did not send any informa- tion about the aforesaid loss cauced to F.C.I. to his supsrior officers. He a¹r>o did not send any information that the birds or rats are causing' any loss to the food grains at his dépôt. He also did not takc any steps to save the F.C.I. Godown from this loss. The aforesaid circumst'ances show that the work- man was responsible for causinjï the loss o! 295 Qtls. 90 Kgs. and-900 sms. rice common to the Food Corporation of Lndia.

2973

before holding enquiry, investigation regard- ing the storage loss was conducted and after that the chargesheet was issued to the work- man. At the time of receiving the rice in the stock it's category was noted as 'A' grade. In some stacks the loss was caused 12.23 percent which is unjustified. The storage loss is calculated at each stack. Shri R. B. S. Prasad also did not maintain the technical record though technicians were working under him. If any loss was caused due to any tech- nical reasons, he could hâve recorded it in technical record.

He also stated that during enquiry the work- man had demanded ten documents out of which five documents which were relevant with îhis case were given to him. Irrele- vant documents were not provided by the En- quiry Officer.

The représentative of the management has argaed that the workman had no graudge againsî the Enquiry Officer. He has not chalkr.ged the enquiry report.

The workman has stated in the Statement of Claim that the disciplinary anthority has not passed the order dated 09-02-94 prooerly. The workman has therefore chalienged the order of discinlinary authority dated 09-02-94.

I hâve considered the order of the disci- plinary mthority dated 09-02-94.

The disciplinary authority has eiv?n detail- ed reasons for imposing ponalty. He has clearîy mentioned that the loss was caused in 13 stacks. He has mentioned the détails of Stack No. A!5|A, Stack No. Al8lA, Stack No. A!7(RRC), Stack No. AU'AfPBCV Stack No, AI9CPRC), Stack No. A!11A (PRC), Stack No. A l H R R C ), Stack No. VlRrRRC). Stack No. A!7(PBC). Stack No. AlRrPBC), Stack No. Vi2(PBC). Stack No. V!4(PBC), Stack No. V ' l ( P B C ).

It is therefore clear that the disciplinary authnritv. Senior Régional Manager, Shri M. C. Tiwari has considered the facts ^nd circnmsrances in which the losses were hi^h ^ïid he has given posent reasons for record- inq }yjç, findinsrs. He has cleariv m^n'in^d that 3n allowance of 1.5 percent can be çiven to Shri "R. B. S. Prasad but for thf los^es m op th^Ti 1.5 nf-rcent he i" l'csponsibie. Afte<- ir>ç

The appellate authority. Zonal Manager, Shri S. S. C. Madan in his order No. VIG| 5(23)MAH|94 dated 09-11-95 also held that the fîiidingf of the Senior Régional Manager was justified. It is mentioned by the appellate authority that there is prépondérance of probability of reasons îike pilferage con- tributing greately to thèse losses and the appellant (R. B. S. Prasad) being dépôt in- charge cannot escape responsibility for the same. In view of the above docum,entary and oral évidence on record the finding of the disciplinary authority and imposing of penal- ty of Rs. 43,532.77 Ps. to Shri R. B. S. Prasad. Assit. Grade-III (Depot), F.C.I., Wardha is just. légal and proper.

The domestic enquiry was conducted ac- cording to principle of natural justice. The workman was given opportunity to défend himself in the enquiry proceedings. The re- levant documents were also given to him.

The workman has not chailenged the find- ing of the Enquiry Officer. He did not pro- duce the Enquiry Officer in his défonce in this Court. He has challenged the finding of disciplinary authority only.

The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority hâve considered the entire évidence and circumstances of the case and hâve s?iven cogent reasons for holdinc R. B.S. Prasad res- nonsible for fhe losses caused to the F.C.I. Thus the action of the management of Fôod Corporation of India through District Manager. Nagnur and Senior Régional Manager, Bhopai. M. P. in awardins the penalty of Rs. 43.532.77 Ps. to Shri R. B. S. Prasad, Ass+t. Grade-III is inst. légal and proper.

ORDER

The action of the management of Food Cornoration of India through District Manager. Nagnur and Senior Repion^l Manager, Bhooal (M.P.l awarding nenaltv of Rs. 43.532.77 Ps. to Shri R.' B. S. Prasad. Asstt. Grade-TTT (Depot), F.C.I. is just. légal and proper.

The workman is not entitied to any other relief.

The référence is disposed of accordirigly.

Dated 4-2-2002.

B. G. SAXENA. Presiding Officer974 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2002/ PHALGUNA 25, 1923 [PARr II—SEC. 3(ii)l Nagpur, for déduction of wages froirï those employées who hâve parti- cipated in felay fast TJharna from 07-10-91 to 09-10-91 after making application for leave for the said purpose is proper and justifiée'? If not, to what relief they are en'itled to?"

i New Delhi, the 25th February, 2002

S.O. 991.—In pursuance of Section 17 of. ihe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the awaril of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal!Labour Court Nagour as shown in the Annexure in (he Industrial Dis- pute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and theîr workman, which was ivceivcd by the Central Government on 22-02-2002.

In this référence the employée of the F.CI. who had participated in the Relay Fasti Dharna from 07-10-91 to 09-10-91 had appli- ed for Casual Leave, Compensatory Casual Leave and Earncd Leave but the management had refused to sanction the said leave vide order dated 28-12-91. The list of workmen who participafed in Relay Fast!Dharna on 07-10-91, 08-10-91 and 09-10-91 has been piaced on the' file. Today the District Manager, F.C.I. has submitted application that the ma!ter had been settlcd between the workmen and the management. The management of Food Corporation of India has i"sued instruction wiîh regard to sanc- tion of leave for participation in the legitimate trade union activities vide circulai- No. IR! (P & ID)'9-2'S5-Pt dated 07!09-09-98.

[No. L-220l2!367iF!92-IR(C-im

N. P. KESAVAN. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

The représentative of both the parties are présent in the Court today and hâve represent- ed that the matter has been settled so they do not want to proceed further in this référence.

KEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRTAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

ORDER

PRESENT :

Shri B. G. Saxena, Presidin.q Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT 31 2001

FOOD CORPARATION OF INDIA

The management of Food Corporation of India nnd the union of Food Cornomtion of India who is represented by Shri N. S. Shukla hâve settled the matter. As no disnute bet- ween the parties exists now. the référence is disposed of accordinglv, as no dispute matter.

AND

Dated : 25-1-2002

THEIR WORKMEN

B. G. SAXENA, Presîdin? Officer AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Luhour. New Delhi, by exercising the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub Section (1) and Sub Section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-22012367F92-IR(C-lT) dated 17-03-93 on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of th: management of Food Corporation of India2975 "" JJ " New "Delhi, the 25th Febraary, 2002 S.Q. 992.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the awajd (.Réf. No. 137/2001) of the Central Govemaysnj; ïndustrial Tribunal-cum-Laboùi; Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the eiaployers in relation to the management of FCI and their workittan, which was received by the Central tîovernment on 22-0-2-2002.

INo. L-22012/430/98-IR(C-H)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABQUR COURT, CHENNAI Wednesday, the 30th January, 20.02 PRESENT :

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 137/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 113/99) (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication, under clause (,d> of sub-sec(k>n (1) and sub-section, 2(À) of Section 1& of thç lndusuii'.l Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), betweea. the Workman Sri P. Maniarasu, and the Manage- ment o,f Io,od CoipotiUion of India, Chennai.)

BJETWEEN

Sri P. Maniarasu.

'Wljetlivr the aciicii of the management of Food Coipoïi.iicn ui hidki m tcrniinuling îiie ^civi.es of tiie worknian Sri P.. Maniarasu by their order dated 12-01-1998 ? If net,, to what relief he is entiîled ?" 2. The averments in the Claim Stateraent of the I- Party/ Workman Shri P. Maniaiasu (hereiaaiter refcrs to as Peti- iio"ier) are briefly as foîlows :—

I Party/Workman

AND

The Deputy Manager (I.R.), II Purty/ Fftod Corporation of India, Management Chennaj.

APPEARANCE:

For the Workman : Mr. T. Sivaganasambandhan, Adveeate.

For the Management : Sri M. Imthias, Advocate. The Government of India, Miaistry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred bv clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub^sectir.n 2îA) (if Section 10 of Ihdustrial Dispute Act, 1947' (i4 of 19-171. hâve raferred the concenaed* Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-22O12/430/98- IR(CM-U) dated- 07-07-99.

This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Indastrial" Tribunal, where it was takea- on file as I.D. Nq. 113/99. When the rnatter was pending enquàcy in that Tribunal-, the Geveinmeat of India. Ministry, of Labour was pteased to order transfer of thjs ease foem that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. O& reeeipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been tak$n on file as I.D. No. 137/2001 and notices were sentto>the- counsel on record on ekher side, informjng tfeejsk aboat the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, wJtb a direction to appsar before this Tribunal os 01-02-2*0-1. On receipt q£ notice from this Tribunal, cauwsel on eittwr side présent wilh their respective parties aad pcosecutecj this case- f"rth"r.

When the matter cams up beiore nie for final hearing on 17-Q1-2Q02, upon perasing the Claim Statement, Counter ' Stateçaent, the other material papers, on record, the docu- mentary avideace lej- in on eitbpr sidç, upon hearing the argu- ments advanç#4 by the Içamed counsel on ejther side and this m^Me* having- staod over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following :—

AWARD

The Petilioner was working a^ a filîing maistry and subse- quently re-designated as Handling Mazdoor in the II Party/ Managoucr.i ,.t i ood Corpoi.iii-..ii of India (hereinafter refers to as i;c-;:oncieni; cFUi'.îîK'oaiont. The Petitioner was also functiomiïi; u^ Prt'sidcm of i'ood Corporation of India employées Co-Ofierative Thrift and Crédit Society. Since the Petitioner was prosecuted for the allégation of misappropria- tion of funds belonging to Food Corporation of India Em- ployées Co-operative Thrift "and Crédit Society by the Co- opérative departmisnt. The petiïioner was suspended vide letter dated 19-8-87. TÎie criminal pn^ccedings iiutiated beftire the 16th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town ia C.C. No. 5691/87. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society (crédit) passed an order against the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,28,814.22 with interest. The Food COTporation of India has been restrained by the Co-opsratiye : Trii?unal not to disburse any amount to the Petitioner. Crinfnal pro- ceedings in C.C. No. 5691187 was prosecuted by the CCWI| Madras and the same in peadiag. Inspite of the Co-operative Tribunal had given sufficieûtly lôag time to the Petitioner to settle the dues to the Foods Corporation of Indla Employées Co-operative Thrift and Crédit So.ciety, the Petitioner lias failed to pay the amoanî and consequen,tly, the Respondent termioated the services of the Petitioaer after tolding an tinquiry. The Pciiiioiwr issued îawyer'.s notice on 24-10.-97 for reiiisiut^meii! of t'ie Pciitiener in thç Respondent establishment along with back wages. But (ne Paritkmer was cnlled upon to appear before the Depnty Manag#r/P.O. for en%iir¥ on 15-12-97. At the time pf enquiry, tfee Petitionex was informed that they are not concemed with the suspension redressai of the suspension ané other tbinss conneeted with it and aiso the ccHîtentioas of the. représentations and légal notices tor reïnstatement with back wases. The Respondent has nothing to do with tbe liability of the Petitioner with the Co-operative Socisty. Even as&uming the Petitioner fails to succeed in his attempt agaiHst the order passed by the; Co-operative Tribunal. The suspension aUowance is paid to the Petitioner only till January, 1997 and subséquent to July, the suspension alîowance is not paid. The Petitioner is governed undor the Standing Orders for wo'kmen employed at Madras Harbour Standing Orders. As per that standing orders, theft, fraud, dishonesty, piîferage of any property belongiag ta the empïoyer or anyone etee in the port premises are consideredtobe misconducts.

T he p l a ce of t he b u s i n e ss of t he i .M e '¹

' : • . • : • ! ! • . .: S J > ; : ; ,A in2976 , THE GAZETTE DF INDIA ; MARCH 16, 2002/ FHALGUNA 25. 1923 - . • [FART II—SEC, 3(ii)1 Point : —

1998 and without conducting any enquiry, the Petitioner was terminated on 12-1-98. The very suspension is illégal as> it was imposed without any enquiry. The grounds of termination is farce and baseless. The providesit fund ia 1993-94 vvhich includes the contribution of management of a siîm of Rs. 85.718 available in the acconnt of the Petitioner is Rs. 1,75,658. He;is entitled for pension after retirempnt. The Respondent has not followed the procédure established in the standing orders. No proper enquiry was conducted. No mis- conduct was proved. The order wae against the principles of natural justice because of thèse infirmilies the terminaiion order suffers. The Petitioner claims saîary from April, 1986 to December, 1999 at Rs. 13,000 per month and subsistence allowance at Rs. 1000 per month, exclusive of the P.F. amount. Hence, tbis Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash the termination order and order reinstatement of the Petitioner along with al] back wages of Rs. 13,60,000, P.P. contributions and other monetary benefîts.

3. The II Party/Management Food Corporation of India (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) has filed the Counter Statement. The averments in the Counter Statemcnt of the Respondent are briefly as follows :—

The Respondent/Management constituted an Enquiry Committe and the Enquiry Committee after hearing the Petitioner gave a finding against the Petitioner and the Peti- tioner was accordingly terminated from service w.e.f. 12-1-98 by an order dated 12-1-98 for misappropriation of Food Corporation of India Staff/Workers Society funds. The aver- ments of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement that the Respondent/Management is no way concerned with the alleged liability of the Petitioner with Food Corporation of India Employées Co-operative Thrift and Crédit Society is not correct. The Petitioner was working in the Harbour premises of the Respondent and he has been elected as a Director to the Society only by the wokers of the Respondent establish- ment. Only for administrative convenience, the Food Corpo- ration of India Employées Co-operative Thrift and Crédit Society is functioning outside the Harbour promises and the Petitioner is liable to answer and responsible for the finance matters of the Food Corporation of India Employées Co- operative Thrift and Crédit Society. The Respondeat/Manage- ment has given a long time to the Petitioner herein to repay • the misappropriated amount in the Food Corporation of India Employées Co-operative Thrift and Crédit Society as directed by the Co-operative Registrar and in view of that the Rcspondent/Management bcs been enlarging his suspension .period from time to time and further criminal proceeding was also pending. The Petitioner herein was paid subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension. The suspension is due to serious misconduct namely misappropriation of Fo >d Corporation of India workers' funds and falsification of accoimts. The action taken against thé Petitioner is only as per the standing orders. The Respondent terminated the services of the Petitioner after following the rules and regula- îior.s provided in this regard. The Petitioner is not entitled fo any monthly pension, since the workers of the Food Corporation of India were covered under Contribntory Provi- dent Fund, in view of that the Petitioner is not entitled to any pension. The claim of the Petitioner made in the Claim State- ment are made with exaggeration and the Petitioner is not entitled to any amount as claimed by him. After properly conducting the enquiry for the alleged misappropriation of Food Corporation of India workers funds, the Petitioner war, termmrtted from service as per Standing Orders. Therefore, ff;e claim of the Petitioner is devoid of merits and the same

is i'ùibJe to be dismised with exemplary cost of the Respondent. 4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, no one was examinée! as a witness on either side. On the side of the Petitioner seven documents and on the side of the Respondent two documents were marked by consent of the counsel on e'ther side as Ex. Wl to W7 and Ml and M2 respectively. The counsel on either side hâve advanced their respective arguments.

5. The Point for my considération is—

It is admitted that the Petitioner Sri P. Maniarasu wa: working as ' fSing maistry and subsequ'ently re-designated a: Handîing Mazdcor under Tokerr No. 2001 and that while hë was in service, he was . ' • of Fooc Corporation of India Employ . • î x . .•: ; : ..nd Credii Society. It is also not disputed that the Petitioner was prose cuted for the allégations of misappropriation of funds belong- ing to Food Corporation of India Employées Co-operativt Thrift and Crédit Society by the Co-operative departmem and the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society (Crédit) passed an order against the Petitioner to cîeposit a sum o( Rs. 2,28,814.22 with interest nnd a criminal proceedings vu also initiated before tbe !6rt Metropolitan Maçistrate Court George Town in C.C. No. 5691/87 by CCWI/V/ing/Madra- and it is pending. Ex. Wl is the xerox copy of the summor.! issued to the Petitioner by the 16th Metropolitan Magistrats Court in C.C. No. 5691/87 and because of thèse reasons the Respondent/Manapement has passed an order dated 17-8-81 exercising the powers conferred under Section 23(1) anc 23(3)(v) of the Standing Orders for the workmen employée at Madras Harbour and placed the Petitioner under suspension with immédiate effect. The xerox copy of that suspensioi: order is Ex. W2. Then an enquiry has been initir.ted by the Respondent/Manasenient against the Petitioner in respect oi the aHgged misconduct of the misappronriation of ftmds be longing to the Food Corporation of India Employées Co- opérative Thrift and Crédit Societv. For that, an enquin notice has been issued to ths Pefiîioner dated 11-12-97 foi the enquirv fixed on 15-12-97. The Xerox copy of that enquiry notice is Ex. W3. Accordingly, an enemirv was cnnducted b> the Respondent/Manaaement on 15-12-97. The xeux coin of that proceedings of the Enquiry Committee is Ex. M2. In that enquiry, the Petitioner has also participated and pul forth his defence, in token thereof, he has subscribeJ his signature in every page of the enquiry proceedings Ex. V2, It is not disputed that the Petitioner has not paid the amount as per the award passed by the Co-operative Sub-Registrar in the arbitration proceydings. Tiie Petitioner has preferred an appeal before trie Co-operative Appellate Tribunal againsl the order passed by rjie Co-operative Sub Registrnr. The xerox copy of the order passed by the Appeîlate Tribunal in tnat appea! of the Petitioner is Ex. Ml. In the appeal, it is con- firmed that the Petitioner has misappropriated the funds belonging to the Food Corporation of India Employées Co-operative Thrift and Crédit Society and he was directed to pay the amount with interest. Seven years after the passmg of this order by the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal, the Respondent/Management hâve taken disciplinary proceedings and conducted an enquiry on 15-12-97. In pursuance of the same, the Respondent/Management has passed an order dated 12-1-98 terminàting the Petitioner trom the services ot the Corporation in view of the Court verdict and the décision has taken by the Compétent Authority. The xerox copy of the termination crder is Fx. W4. Ex. W5 is the PF Pass book of the Petitioner and Ex. W6 and W7 are the account slip and xerox copy of the accounts slip of the Petitioner for the years 1992-93 and 1993-94 respectivelv. The action taken by the < .*-••:--.-::>!••.•• 'Iqv :"v-i for the alleged misappropriation of tl-.' 1 ('•.< of India Employées Co-operative Thrift and Crédit Society funds by tbe Petitioner and in pursuance of that misconduct, the Sub Registrar of Co-operative Society has passed an Award in the Arbitration and fine same has been confirmed by the Coopérative Appellate Tribunal are not disputed. It is also not distmted that CCWI has also initiated criminal proceedings against the T'etitioner and it is pending. In the enquirv oroceedincs. the Petitioner has denied ail thèse charges. It is his contention that he lias got suffîcient funds in his P.F. acc/>unt but he has not chosen to pay the dues as per the award. It is the contention of the Petitioner that Food Corporation of India, the Respondent herein, has no way concerned with his activïties as an office bearer of Food Corporation of India Employées Co-operative Thrift and Crédit Society and for tbe alîeged misconduct of the Peti- tioner in that Society, the Respondent/Management cannot proceed against him and dismissed him from service. The xerox copy of the Standing Orders for workmen employed at Madras Harbour has been filed by the Respondent. In this standing order under the heard 'Disciplinary Action' in Clause 23(3)(v), it is mentioned that 'theft. fraud, dishonestv, pil- ferage of any property belonging to the employer or anyone ehe in the nort premises' has been listed as an act of omission and it shall be treated as a misconduct. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the Thrift Society is not in the port "Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India in terminàting the services of the workipiri Sri P. Maniarasu by their order dated 12-01-98 is justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?"2977 premises, so the said standing order is not applicable to the ietiuouers aiiegeu act OJC misconuact 01 nua inta guuiy. Une l'engouer aas> ueiuea me allégations dgamst mm doout the miodppropnuuuii oi. itinus ox me employées, eu i oud v^oipu- lauon oi i"idid ixoia tne l^ood Ccrprduon oi iiidia i^niployees coopérative i n mi and Crédit Society, as ît is toimd oy the eo-operdlive départaient ordeis or dwaid passed t>y the co-opeiduve auo Kegistiar and subsequenUy cuamined oy the ^o-Ojjci^uve /ippeliuie inounal. ne ûas stdted thaï he Ccui pay o^iiy aiter me Writ Appcai nas been disposed oi. I ne îearnea counsel lor me Respojdent has aigued that the act oi misconduct of imsappropriation ot the employées' amount liom tne bo^d t-orpoiauon ot inJia Employées Co-operative ï h r ut and Creiiit Society by ihe reationer can be coribideied a" a misconduct under the Standing Order clause 2i(3J(vJ, tnoagh the co-operative i h n tt Society is fuactioning lor ad- ministrative reasons outside the port premises. For wmch he -has reîied upon the décision of the Maûias High Court reported as lyyi (II) ULN 7/4 iingine \aives JLtd. Vs. 1-irst Additional i-abour court, JViadras and another. In that ca.se, ît is heid "decidmg the question as to whether the act complained of is a misconduct lalhng withm tne meanmg of relevant stand- ing orders ', the Court has held "in a case where the workman ot the company assauited a co-workman at a place about one kilomètre away from the factory, in the domestic enqtury the company terminated the services ot the two workmen en the ground that the act complamed of would constitute mis- conduct withm the meamng of relevant standing orders of under the standing order of the Respondent|Management and in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the above cited case, the said misconduct committed by the Petitioner car; be considered as a misconduct within the meanmg of the relevant standing orders of !he company, which is an act subversive of discipline, though the said act com- plained of took place outside the premises of the Madras Fort. Under speh circumstances,, it can be held that the action of the Management, after taking necessary steps by way of an enquiry for 'the alleged misconduct of the Petiiioner/Work- man of the Respondent establishment and had corne to the conclusion that it is an misconduct as per the standing orders of the Respondent/Management, by'passïng an order termina- tmg the Petitioner from the services, is justined. Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief. Thus. the point is answered accordingly?

6. In the-result, an Award is passed holding that the 1 Party/ Workman ;Sri P. Muniarasu is not entitled tor any relief. No Cost. " i

(.Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pwmounced by me in the open court on this day the 3Oth January, 2002).

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined : on either side : None. DOCUMENTS MARKED : For the I Party /Workman :

Ex. No. Date * Description

Wl 13-08-87 Xerox cop,y of the summon in C.C. No. 5691/87 'issued to the Petitioner by Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chermai.

42 17-8-87 Xerox copy of the enquiry notice issued suspensiûri order to the Petitioner by the Respondent | Managepient.

W3 11-12-97 Xerox .copy of îhe enqui y rctice fesued by the Respondent to the Petitioner fixing the yate of enquiry.

W4 12-01-98 Xerod copy *?f thé order of termination issued to Petitioner By th^ Kespondent.

'W5 Nil Original P.F. pass book of the Petitioner.

W6 1,992-93 Original account, slip of the Petitioner ' ùnder token No. FM 3.

W7 1993-94 Xerox copy of the account slip jf the PetîJoaer u der Token No 2001.

For the II Party/Management :

Ex. No. Date Description

Ml 19-01-90 Xetox copy of the order of the Co-opera- tive Appellate Tribunal.

M2 15-12-97 Xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings.

New Delhi, the 25th February, 2002 S.O. 993.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-LC, Bhubaneswar (I.D. Mise. No. 3512001 filed under Section 33-A in the matter of I.D. No; 2212000) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dis- pute between the employers in relation to the management of CIFA r.nd îheir vorlanan, which was received by the Central Government on 22-02-2002.

[No. L-22025|3l2002-IR(C-II)l N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GGVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

Shri S. K. Dhal, OSJS, (Sr. Braneh), Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-tabour, Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE MISC. CASE NO. 35|2001

Date of concluding of the hearing 8th Jau. 2002

Date of Passing Order-24th Jan. • 20022978 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 16, 2002/PHALGUNA 25, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J BETWEEN :

J. Babuli Pradhan.

Dhaneswar Behera.

Dinabandhu Bhoi.

Kunja Muduli.

Rama Chandra Sundaray.

6. Ashya Bhoi.

7. Naran Bhoi. Kabibar Bhoi.

8. ()_ Bichiîra Kuniar Sanial.

Pramod Kuniar Bhoi.

10.

Prafulla Kumar Bhoi.

11.

B. N. Bhoi.

12.

Sanatan Muduli.

13. <4. B. C. Mallick.

Chaturbhuj Sahu.

Ganesh Bhoi.

ï5. 16.

B. K. Behera. • Petitioner.

17.

D. Behera.

18.

Lalit Behera.

19.

20. Rabindra Mallick.

Srikanta Bhoi.

. Hemanta Kumar Sethi.

21. 22.

. Narayan Barik.

23,

. Basanta Kumar Sahu.

25 . Surnedra Kandi.

26 . Pabitra Behera.

27 . Prakash Kumar Naik.

. Sanatan Bhoi.

AND

The Management of The Direcîor.

CEP A, Kausalyaganga, Bhubaneswar.

• Opposite Party

Appearanccs :

Shri K. C. Das- Asst. • • For the Opposite

Administrative Officer Party.

Debendranath Mallick. • • For the Peti-

tioner|Complair.ants.

ORDER

2. This Miie. Case arose on the applica- tion filed by the petitioners under section 33-A o'i tte Industrial Dispute Act; 1947.

3. The case of the petitioners may be stated in brief.

An Industrial Dispute is pending bêfore this tribunal bearing I.D. 2212000 betweeh them and the Opp. Party. Référence has been made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour to answer, wfaether the action of the Opp. Party by not regularizing the services of 50 Workmen who hâve completed 240 da>^s of continuons service is justified? If not what relief the Workmen are enîitled to? The above petitioners are also the parties to that dispute. The dispute is subjudice before this Tribunal. But ail of a sudden the peti- tioners were refused employment. The Opp. Party refused empîoyment to the above 28 petitioners on 2-7-2001 who were concerned with the Industrial Dispute pending before this Tribunal. Their représentation to allow them to work till the disposai of the Indus- trial Dispute was turned down by the Opp. Party. So they hâve filed an application with a prayer that the refusai of the Opp. Party to engage them when the dispute is pend- ing is illégal and unjustifîed and they should be allowed engagement.

3. The Opp. Party has filed show cause. They hâve taken the stand that the Mise. Case is not maintainable. The Union is not compé- tent to raise a compiaint on behalf of the peti- tioners. Besides the above two technical ob- jections, the case of the Opp. Party is that when the petitioners are Casual Labourers and their services are being uiilized as per the need of the work they hâve got no condition of service and refusai to engage them does not corne under the définition of retrenchment and in that case it is not the case of the change of coadition of service.

4. As regards the first objection that, the organization of the Opp. Party does not come under the définition of Industry, no submis- sion has been made on behalf of the Opp. Party. As regards the second objection, as per the orcîer of this Court passed on 27-12-2001 the concerned petitioners hâve filed their aufhorization to be represented through their Secretary. So the two technical objections rais- ed on behalf of the Opp. Party now can mot be accepted. Comins to the merit of the case it is admitted that thèse petitioners are the party îo the Industrial Dispute i.e. I.D. Case No. 2212000 pendirrg before this Tribunal for adjudication. Tbey hâve nrayed for their rcgularization. When the mn'm t'/sdustrial Dis- pute h pending the Opp. Par¹ y hn<- ^fused2979 engagement te them. The refusai of employ- ment by the Opp. Party has not been disputed. So admittedly tiiey hâve been re- fused eroployment from 2-7-2001 and no permission, has been obtained by the Opp. Party from the Tribunal to dis-engage the peti- tioners. It is submitted on behalf of the Opp. Party that, the petitioners being the casual workâfs they hâve got no condition of service and refusai of engagement by the Opp. Party would not be a case of change of condition of service. According to the Opp. Party admittedly when they hâve pray- ed for their régularisation of services that woùld appear that they are casual workers and their services was required as per the need of the work. So, when there was no work the services of the 28 persons was not utiliz- ed and so they were refused engagement. On the ôther hând it has been submiîted on be- half of the petitioner-s that whea their claim for regularization is pending the refusai of engagement is a change of condition of ser- vice and when no permission has been obtain- ed from the Tribunal the action of the Opp. Party is illégal and unjustified. It has been further submitted that, particularly out of 50 casual workers 28 persom hâve been refused engagement. No reason has been assignée as to why they were refused engagement but not oîhers. In the opinion of the petitioners with the malâfide intention the Opp. Party has re- fused engagement to them.

dispute before the Tribunal was pendkig ki ordef to improve that tempor-acy and insecuïe status. In the présent case, a dispute is pend- ing whether thèse petitioners and others had claimed for regularization of fheir services. That means they hâve prayed for permanent status. But when the dispute is pending the Opp. Party has refused engagement to the petitioners. In the cited case it was held that the character of the temporary employaient to the petitioners beingj a direct issue before the Tribunal, that condition of employaient, however insecure, must subsist during the pendency of the dispute before the Tribunal and can not be altered to their préjudice by pùtting an end tô that temporary condition and this could hâve been done only with the express permission of the Tribunal. But in the présent case, that has not been done. The observation made by the Apex Court in the reported case was also accepted by the Orissa High' Court in the case of' the Orissa Oil India Mazdoor Union and Others and Union of India and Others, reported in 1992 (1) LLJ 414. In this case, it was held that, four conditions are required to be proved when an application is filed undeî section 33-A of the Industrial Dispute Act. Those are, there must be a dispute pmêïngi the Workman is cdncerned with that dispute, thefe is a pre- judicial of altération of service condition and such alternation should be in regard to any matter connected with the peadin* dispttte. If those conditions are availâble, withûtit express permission of tHe authority concerned" in Writing it was not open to the employer to effect disengagement. In the présent case, a dispute is peffdiïïg between the parties, the petitioners are concemed to that dispute, the petitioners hâve been refused engagement that means there is prejudicial of altération of service condition and that altération is con- nected with the pending dispute. Admittedly no permission has been obtained by the Opp. Party from the Tribunal to refuse engagement to the petitioners.

6s After carefut considération of the materials on record and after hearing of both the parties I am of the opinion that the action of the Opp. Party refusing engagement to the petitioners when the dispute is pending is riot justified and légal. The petitioners are entitled to continue in the engagement.

5. Référence may be made to the case of tfte Bhavnagar Municipality and Alibhai Karimbhai and others, reported in 1977-1- LLJ-407. In that case, it has been held that retrerichment may not, ordinariîy, under ail cïrëHmstanees, amount to altération of the con- ditions of service. But whenever the subject matter being directly connected with the con- version of the temporary employaient into permanent, tampering with the status quo ante of thèse wotfkefs is a cîear altération of the conditions of their service. In the reported case there is a demand of the workers for conversion of their temporary status to per- manent one. When a dispute was pending before the Tribunal the Management decid- ed to entrust the work which had tffl then been perfornied by thèse workers, on the emoiny- ment of the contracter by the •Municinality for the. self-same work, the services of the workers were beconie unnecessary and the Management passed the order of retrench- ment. In that .case, it was held that. retrench- meat of workers .even temporary, the em- pîoyment of the workers ceased while their

7. Hence, the Mise, (fcase is allowed on contest. The action of the Opp. Party refus- ing engagement of the peiitioners. decîa^ed as illégal and unjustified. Petitioners should bs2980 TH£GAZBTI£ OF ÏNDIA : MARCH 16, 2002/ PHALGUNA 25, 1923 LPARI H - S ^ C. 3(ii)J oiïered engagement till ihe disposai of the Industrial Dispute which is pending before this Tribunal.

8. This order is pronounced in the Open

Court today, i.e. on 24-1-2002.

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2002 S. K. DHAL, Presiding Officer

S.O. 995.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employées' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the lst March, 2002 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which hâve already been brought into force) and Chapter V and VI (except Sub-section (i) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 winch hâve already been brought into force) of the said Act shall corne into force in the foîlowing areas in the State of Tamil Naxiu namely :—

"Areas comprising the revenue villages of Sholingur, Pandianallur, Kalpattu and Malvenkatpauram of Walaja Taluk in Vellore District."

[No. S-3801'315J2002-SS.I]

ALOK AGARWAL, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 21 st February, 2002

S.O. 994.—In exercise of the powers conferrcd

by Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employées' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the lst March, 2002 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (ex- cept Sections 44 and 45 which hâve already been brought into force) and Chapter V and VI (except Sub-section (i) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which hâve already been brought into force) of the said Act shah" corne into force in the foîlowing areas in the State of Orissa namely :—

"The areas comprising the revenue villages of Bargarh Municipality, Brambschari and Bardol in Tahasil Bargarh of District Bargarh."

[No. S-38013/4/2002-SS.I]

ALOK AGARWAL. Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2002

S.O. 996 — ïn exerc.s: o¹ the powers, con- fened by Sub-seciion (5) of. Section 1 pi* the Employées' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Govt heieby appoints the lst April, 2002 as the date on wluch the provisions t of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which hâve already been brought into force) and Chapter V and .VI(exc;ptSub-";ection(l) of Sect'ôn 76 and Sections V, 18, 79 ^nd Cl *heh IVHS div\V"> bsm bi -jght2981 into force) of the said Act shall comc into force in the following areas in the State of West Bengaî namely :—

"Areas comprising the following Mouzas in S'iiguri, District Darjeeling :—Siîiguri- J.L. No. 110, Mandaiguri-J.L. No. 107, Daknikata-J.L. No. 105, Ujanu-J.L. No. 86, Kalkut-J.L. No. 44, Dabgram-J.L. No. 2."

[No. S-38013/6/2002-SS.l] ALOK AGARWAL, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 27th February, 2002 S.O. 997.-— Whereaa die Central Government is satisfied that the public interest requires tbat the Uranium Induslry, which is covered by item 19 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (14 of 1947), should be declared to be a pub- lic utility services for the purposes of the said Act :

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (vl) of clause (n) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputas Act, 1947, the Central Govern- ment hereby déclares with immédiate effect the said industry to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act for a period of six months.

[No. S-11017/9/97-IR(PL)]

H. C. GUPTA, Dy. Secy.

New Delhi, trfe 27th Februafy, 2002 S.O. 998.—Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the oublie interest requires that the services in the Security Paper Mill, Hoshangatad winch is covered by item 21 of the First Scheduie to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), should be declared to be a public utility services for th" puruposes of the said Act;

New, therefore, in exercise of the powers ccvferred by sub-clause (vi) of clause (n) of section 2 of the Indusu-ial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Govern- ment hereby déclares with immédiate effect th° said mdustry tp be a public utility service for the p'irpose; ot the sa!d Act for a period of six months.

[No. S-11017/16/97-lR(PIJl

H. C. GUPTA, Dy. Secv.