This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

BDS

The dentaj qualirication shall be recogniz- Mysorc Univcrsity, Myx rc

ed qualifications in respect of BDS

student' of Farooquia Dental Collège.

Mysore when granted on i-r after

19th August. 19%

[No. V. 12018- 34/2002-pM S]

S. K.RAO. Director(ME)

New Delh i. the Ist April, 2002

S.O. l !45.—Jn exercise of the power conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948), the Central Governinent, after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby makes the folio wing amendments in ?art-I of the Sehedule to the s>aid Act, namely : —

In part I of the SchoJuIe against Sériai Number 47, and the entries reîatiog thereto the following entries shaîl be added. namely : —

University of Bachelor f"f Dental Surgery

Gandhi

BDS

47. Rajiv

Rajiv Gandhi

. Bangalcre

Health Sciences

Sciences,

University of Health Hangaloge .

The dental qualiiication shall be recogni- zed qualifications in respect of BDS students of Farooquia Dental Collège, Mysore when granted on or after 3Ist December, 2001.

[No. V. 12018/34/2002-PM S]

S. K. RAO. Director (ME)3335 967 G1/2002—23336 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6,2002/CHAITRA16,1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ministry of Coal and Mines

(Department of Coal)

New Delhi, the 27thMarch, 2002

s. o. 1146,- whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957( 20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein.

The plan bearing number: SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/LAND/258 dated 18th October, 2001 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected in the Office of the Collector, Shahdol (Madhya Pradesh)) or in the Office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Calcutta - 700 001 or in the Office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur - 495006 (Chhattisgarh).

AH persons interested in the land covered by this notification shall deliver ail maps, charts and other documents referred to in sub-section (7) of section 13 of the said Act to the Officer-in-Charge/Head of the Department ( Revenue), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur - 495006 (Chhattisgarh), within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Officiai Gazette.

Schedule

Rampur (Batura) Block

Sohagpur Area, District- Shahdol (Madhya Pradesh)

Plan No: SECL/BSP/GM(Plg)/Land/258 Dated 18-10-2001 (showing the land notified for prospecting)

Boundary Description.

A-B Line starts from point 'A' on the village boundary of Beliya and passes along the Eastern boundary of villages Beliya, Rampur, Beki Beriha an meets at point "B".

B-C Line passes along the Southern boundary of villages Beriha,

Rampur and meets at point " C.

C-D Line passes through village Rampur, then partly along the Western

boundary of villages Rampur and Beliya and meets at point "D".

D-A Line passes through village Beliya and meets at the starting point "A".

[F.NO.43015/1/2002/PRIW] SANJAYBAHADUR, Dy.Secy.

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

New Delhi, the 20th Mardi, 2002

s. o. 1147.— Whereas^ it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum pro

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 rnay, within twenty one days from the date on whîch the copies of this notification issued under sub- section (i) 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 Devendra Dixit, Compétent Authority, Mathura-Tundla Branch Pipeline Project, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Divisional Office Building, 65/2, Sanjay Place, Agra (Uttar Pradesh) - 282002.

Schedule

Tehsil- Eitmadpur

District- Agra

State- Uttar Pradesh

Name of Village Khasara No.

Area

Square Mètre

Hectare Are

5

3

4

1

2

Dhaurau

02 00 05 67

222 230 231 232

00 00 00 00

05 01 10 01

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

67 67 36 04 68 75 70 05

01 01 04 11 02 10 06 08

233 234 236 258 259 263 264 277

Gurha

825

00

06

37

Dharera

664 665

00 00

10 15

04 92

Tehsil- Mathura

District- Mathura

Nagla Gukhrauli 330 720

00 00

10 04

39 70

Tehsil- Sadabad

District- Hathras

Mirtiawali

2690 2691 2700

00 00 00

02 02 01

76 77 50

[No.R. 31015/37/2000/ORI1 S.S. KEMWAL, Under Secy.

967 GI/2002—33344 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. APRIL 6,2002/CHAITRA16,1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3345 3346 THE GAZETTE OF [NDIA : APRIL 6,2002/CHAITRA16,1924 (PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3347

New Delhi, the lst April, 2002

S. O. I148.-Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary m the public interest that for the transportation of the natural gas frorn exploration blocks in the Northern/ Southern Offshore of Goa and structures in Andhra Pradesh of M>> Gas ïumsportaîion and Infrastructure Company Limited to the various consumers ot District oi Beigaum, ir the state of Karnataka. a pipeline should be laid by M/s Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited,

Ând, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose oflaying such pipeline, it îs 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 annexée! hereto 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 us 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 lndia, are made available to the gênerai public, obiect in wntmg to the acquisition of right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shn Atul Kuinar Tiwari, Compétent AuthoTity, GTIfcLPipehne Project and the Deputy Commissioner. Belgaum, Kaniataka, Pin : 590 0023348 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL6,2002/CHAITRA16,1924 IPART II—SEC. 3(II^J SCHEDULE

I Tan Isa • Chikodi

District - Belgaum

State -

Karnataka.

•SI. No.

Survey No.

Area

Hissa No.

Village Name

Gat No.

Are

Hectare

nCeniiaru\| 1

3

5

6

7

4

11 1

Dud Ganga Rjver

40 Kurl

between Kawalgi boundary & syno.330

0

330

1A/1 l

2B/2

2B/1

1A/1B/2

2A/1+3B/B2

2A/1+3/C

0 23 60 332

Nala

Nala

331

30 10 80 20 90 20 10 40 70 30 30 90 10 40 70 80 Nala 335

336

1A/2

1A/1B/1

1B

2A+38/A

2A/1+3B/1

2A/2+3A

1

2

3

4

5

6

9

10

11

12

In syno.330

Between synos.335 & 331/332

1

2

3

4

5

Between syno.335 & 331/332

10

11

12

13

14

4

5

6

9

10

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

01 06 04 04 04 09 00 00 00 03 01 03 00 00 00 00 01 02 06 02 00 00 07 03 03 06 oo" 06

20 40 - 10 00 80 80 60 70 20 20 40 403349

State -

District - Belgaum

i jka • Chitod

Gat No.

Area

Survey No.

Hissa No

Village Name

SI. No.

1

Hectare

1

4

S

6

Are 7

2

3

Centiare |

8 I

Kurli

336

337

Road

345

346

351

06 06 00 00 00 17 15 02 05 10 14 16 09 09

20 50 20 40 50 50 70 40 10 00 90 80 20 50

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

11 12 15 16 17 1 2 Between syno.337 & 345 2 3 7 8 4 5

352

1 i 2 3 4

17

0

50

5 6 7 8 9 10 '

0 27 20 2

Appachiwadi

3E3 38

0 44 60 39

0

70

66

Temple Land 1 •i / • • Temple land l 1 J

0 0

90 90

08 91 42 41 34

0

50

00

)

44

1 2 5 2

0 0 0 0

40 70 50 20

04 00 42 57 43 46 47

0 09 80

)

48 49

1 2 Govt. Land & Others Govt. Gairana

0 0

50 90

43 083350 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL6,2002/CHAITRA16,1924 [P,\Rr II—SEC 3(ii)] i

Taiuka - Chikod

District - Belgaum

State - Karnataka Village Name

Gat No

Area . SI. No.

Survey No,

Hissa No.

1

2

3

4

5

Hectare 6

Are 7

Centiare 8 Appachiwadi

90

90

Road 50 51

Between syno.49 & 50 2 (Govt. & Others) 3 2 Govt. Gairana Between synos.52 & 53

.s.

52 Road 53 54 56 57

A & Ot

Govt. & Others 1 1 Go\ 2 In syno.57

between synos.58 & 75/1, 76/1 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tersO 0 0 0 0 0

03 25 08 11 61 04 64 16 14 42 70 01 14 06 17

20 70 30 80 30 90 30 50 30 30 40 10 20

Canal 58 Road 76 75

1+2A )

0 61 30

1+2B i

74

1 12 20

0

1+2+3+ 4A+4B+5 6A+6B 3

00

83 84

0

1

0

20 77 02

_ 01

80 40 40

81 85 93

1 08 30

1 2 3

2

0 0 0 1

01 01 05 05

90 30 30 70

100 101 92 102 103

0

13 70

l )

03

Cari track

Between syno 103 & Kudnur boundar

0

30

y

Koganoli

06 3

20

1 1 04 40

596 617 629

0

97

40

1 2 3 '

0

628 630

0

02 67

60 703351

Otafeict • M g a um

StSt* •KWfWtMM

TaJuka • MtodJ

Surv"y No.

HtamNo.

VMagvNsnw

QDMo

i si. ".

Centiare

ï

Hactam

6

2

3

4

5

A fM Ara 7 t Kogfltf

631

0 88 80

1 }m

m synos.639 (NH-4)

1 0 0

38 83 05

00 80 60

636

637

Rond

638

0

30

82

640

0

60

67

i } 1 1

""7

m

2 3 4

646

645

Road

me

Road

72T

eetween syno".645 & 652

3+2+1

5

6

7

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Between synos.6524721

1

2

3

4

720 719

717 716

1 2 3 1+2 1

715

2 3 7

8

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 û 0 0 0 0

t4 21 21 33 00 04 19 98 10 05 07 13 25 08 05 05 05 11 13 10 01 04 11 06 06 05 22 02 03 08 04 02 02 02 01 03

20 10 90 50 70 80 40 00 90 40 20 60 40 20 30 30 90 00 20 30 40 90 60 60 30 70 80 70 30 60 90 80 20 60 50 T._ , „

—

967GW20Q2—4

Taluka - Chikodi

District - Belgaum

State - Karrtataka

Village Nama

SI. No.

Survey No.

Area

Hissa No.

Gat No.

Hectare

Centiare

Are 1

2

5

6

7

8 3

4

Koganoli

745

0 52 90

l l

1A i

758

1B

1

2

00

85

3

4

0 07 30 752

756

50

08

0

l l

40 River

07

Dud Ganga between syno.756 &

0

Kagal boundry

[No.L. 14014/20/02-G.P] SWANp SINGH. Direct"3353 3354 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6,2002/CHAITRA16,1924 (PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3355 3356 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA- APRIL6.2002/CRA1TRA 16,1924 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)] 3357

New Delhi, the lst April, 2002

S.O.ll49.-fkVh'ereas ît appears to the Central Government that ît îs necessary in the public mtercst that for the transportation of the natuial gas from exploration blocks m the Northern/ Southern Offshore of Goa and structures in AndhraVradesh ot Ms Cias "lianbpûrtation and lnlVastructuie Company Limited to the vanous consumeis ot Distnu oi Belgaum, IP the state of Karnataka. a pipeline should be laid by M/s Gas Iiaiibportation and lnfiastuicture Company Limited,

Àiid, whereas. u appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, u îs necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under \shich ihe said pipeline is pioposed to be laid and which îs descnbed in the Schedule annexed heieto \'o\\ therefoie. in exercise of the powers conferred b\ sub-section ( 1 } of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User m Land) Act !9b2 pO of 196;.), the Cential Government heieb> declaies us intention to acquire the right of user therem

Any person interested in the land descnbed in the said Schedule may within twentv- one da\s from the date of which the copies of the notification, as published in thc Ga/etu of India, are made ava^lable to the général public, ob|ect in wntmg to the .icqui;,ition of right of user therein for la\ing of ihe pipeline under the land to Shn Atul Kumar T m a n. Compétent Authonty, GTlCLpipeline Project and the Deputy ( ommi'.sionei, Belgaum, Kamataka, Pin 590 0023358 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APR1L6.2002/CHAITRA16.1924 (PART II—SEC. 3fii)l ' *

SCHEDULE

I

Stat" • Karnataka

District • Befeaum

Taiuka • 'thani

Area

VHlagt) Naroe

Survey No.

Hissa No.

SI. !• ;.

Gat No

Hectare

Are Centiare 1

2

3

4

6

7

8 5

PANDEGAON

68

2/B 1 1

2A+1 >

2A+2 J

1 "

79

2

3

4A

4B '

33

2

1

82

54 20

0

0

00

46

80

0

46

60

0

23

0

00

22

1A+3/1 "

1A+3/2 I

1B }

2 '

92

1 .

1+2/1

1+2/2

3

4

2

93

1A |

A^ )

B J

96

i 1

98

0

90

13

30

0

12

0

35 20

0

10

20

2 (Govt Land& Others)]

1+2 '

2

99

1A

18

2

100

1

2A

2B

101

1

0

25 00

0

00

22

60

0

28

20

0

27

0

10

22

Road

Between syno.101&104

104

1A

1B

16

3

1

2

0

60

08

0

03 50

0

40

013359 State • Karnataka

District • Belgaum

Takika • Athani

Area

Hissa No.

Village Nams

Survey No.

3at No.

(

SI. N <.

Centiare Hectare

3

i

2

4

Are

6

8 5

7

10 Pandegaon

4

16 15

1+2 2 3 4

9

14

13

0

0

18 70

16 80

0

26 40

0

19

0

60

0

20 80

4+5+6

10

i " 1 )

6

11 7 6

1

2

3

4

5

0

00 30

0

99 40

0

00 10

0

14 50

0

07 50

0

05 20

0

13 30

0

09 80

0

08 20

6 (Govt Land & Others)

7

0

09 00

0

14 70 Khilegaon

Nala

2

Between syno. 143 & Ranjani boundr)

f

143

2/6 |

1/7 "

1/8

1/9

0

07 70

1/10

1/11

0

30 90

1/12

1/13

1/14

1/15

1/16 '

144

1 ,

2 }

0

42 90

Road

Between syno. 144&145

145

1A2 "

2B

2

1A1 ,

146

1 i

2 ) 967 GI/2002—5

0

01 70

0

15 90

0

59 203.160 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL6,2002/CHAITRA 16,1924 |PARI II—SEC 3(ii)|

District • Belgaum

State - Karnatakd

Tuluka •• / ftam

Village Na.i? (

.'•urvey No.

Gat No

Si. N<.

Hissa No.

Area

Hectare

Centiare

1

4

3

2 T

2+3C \

55

4 KHILEGAON

5 2+3A

I

2+3B 1

147

² l1 '

150

1+2B l 1+2A '

Be.ween synos 150&154

Road 154 5

6

1 " 2A 1 2B f 2C J 1 .

2+3

4 5 7 8 1+2 Betwen synos 7&34

7 Nala 34

1 \

2

3 ] 1

33

2 <

3

4 5/1

5/2 6 7

8 9/1 9/2

10 .11 12 13 5

6

Are 7

8

60

1 11

70

44

0

40

0

08

10

40

0 0

07 15

90

0 16

80

0 93

58

0

06

20 70

0

0

65 50

80

0 483361

8t"t" • Karnkt&K"

i3letrt§< • Belgaum

Qat No Ar"d "^

Hlsta No.

{*"~ JB1. i^o,

HflStflM Ar" Centiare

5 6 7 8 ¹ ,- •• • 2 î a

1B

KHILEQ"n.. 32

70

71

0

XA 1A 1

31

90

50

0

2 3

4

t

30

l ))

49 00

0

I

60

33

0

29 28

00

02

0

bS

0

30

74

l !

90

98

0

10

0 08

]

60

30

62

-

2B 1 and 2 1 2 1+2 3A 3B 4 1A 1B 2 3 (A 1B 2 1 2 3 1 2 3

*•

4

5A/1

5A/2

5B/1

o

90

10

5B/23362 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6,2002/CHAITRA16,1924 (PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

District • Belgaum

State -

Karnataka

Taluka Atfiani

Gat No.

Area

Hissa No.

Survey No.

SI. -Jo. VINag* Name

Hectare

Ara Centiare

4

5

7

8 2

3

6

88 20

0

KHILEGAON

62

20

17

Between syno.60,62 & 63

0

CartTrack

00

26

0

Ajur

683363 3364 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6,2002/eHATTRA16,1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3365 3366 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA APRIL6,2002/CHAITRA 16,1924 [PART II—SEC 3(u)] 3367

967 GI/2002—6

3371

New Delhi, the lst April, 2002

S.0.1150.—. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is nccessar) 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 Bijapur, 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 (1) of section 3 bf 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 acquisition of right of user therein laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Rakesh Singh, Compétent Authority, GTICLPipeline Project, in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur, Karnataka. Pin : 586 101.

SCHEDULE

Indi

District - Bijapur

Tatuka- Sl. No. Village Name Survey No.

Hissa No.

Gat No.

4

5

1 1

2 Chadchan

1 Between syno.297& 307

State - Karnataka Area Are 7 82 63 11 59

Centiare 8 50 10 50 60

Hectare 6 0 0 0 0

3 299 297 Road 307 308

1A 1B 1C 2

91 34 07 00

60 10 80 50

0 1 0 0

310 311 320 317

70

43

0

319

74 60

20 00

0 0

322 323

1A 1B 2 1 2 1 1 2

20 00 78 09

90 80 60 50

0 1 0 0

324 329 Road 388

50

54

0

380

Between syno.329 & 388 1 2 3 4 1 2 3

70 20

0 1

86 23 379 378

1A1 1A2 1B 2

368 369

1 2

80 30 20 50 80

07 01 39 38 65

0 0 0 0 0

365 360

50

56

0

1 2 3 43373 Taluka - Indi

District - Bijapur Hissa No.

GatNo.

Survey No.

Village Name

SI. No.

-'

State - Karnataka Area Are 1

5

Hectare 6

7 '

Centiare 8 2 Chadchan

3 355

4

1A

1B

2A

2B1

Between syno.355 & 350

88 03 27 07

10 70 60 70

0 0 0 0

CartTrack 350 Road 486

27

0

20

485

Between syno.350 & 486

1

2

1

2

3

4

76 61 76

0 0 0

90 40 50

481 482 476

475

1 2 1 3

0 0 0 0

02 13 17 39

70 40 90 40

473 472

0 0

31 06

50 70 Road 16

0 0

24 23

20 30

17 18

3B 3A 2 1 Between syno.472 & 16 2/A 2/B 2 1B 1B1 1C

0 0 1 0

27 29 01 25

40 30 30 80

20 28 29 30

1 2

1 0

05 01

80 40 498 35

1 2 3 1A

26 36 Cart Track Between syno.36 & 38/1,2, 3

0 0 0 0

57 03 99 07

00 40 70 003374 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6,2002/CHAITRA16,1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Indi

Village Name Survey No.

Taêuka- SL No.

District - Bijapur Hissa No.

Gat No.

1

2

Hectare 6

State - Karnataka Area Are 7

5

Centiare 8 Chadchan

3 38

2 Havinal

4

1+2+3A

1+2+3B

Near syno.240

0 0 0

56 33 74

50 40 10 BORI RIVER 240 237

0

18

60 239

90 40 60

0 0 0

59 58 30

32

40

0

242

1A 1B 2A 2B 2 1A 1B1 1B2 1 2A 2B Between syno.142 & 180

Nala 180 Road 174 174 173

24 08 16 06 28 12 20 16

60 40 80 80 40 10 70 30

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

170

05 54 00

50 20 30

0 0 0

169

20

52

0

167

In syno.180 3 2 2A 2B 1A 1B 2 1 2 1 1A 1B 1C 1D

1 1

42 36 13 25 23 34

20 00 20 90 80 80

0 0 0 0 0 0

166 165 164 163 162 161

80 80

35 87

1 2 3 4 5 1

0 0

1563375

State - Kamataka

Taluka -

District - Bijapur

Indi

Hissa No.

Gat No.

Survey No.

SI. No.

Village Name

5

Hectare 6

1

2

Area Are 7

Centiare 8 Havinal

3 156

4 2A 2B

155 87

1 2

0 0 0 0 1 1

83 88 47 41 09 37

40 80 00 30 30 90

88 89 90

1 2A 2B 2C In syno.90 & 98

In syno.98 & 92

In syno.92 & 93

63 12 64 03 62 07 51 10 44

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

50 90 50 60 70 30 70 90 10 Hathalli

3

Canal

98

Canal

92

Nala

93

CartTrack

66

160

0

19

40

159

Between syno.93 & 66/2

2

1

2

1

2

158 157

1 2 3

0 0 0 0 0 0

20 42 16 13 15 45

50 10 40 30 00 80

156 155

1 2

154 153

0 0 0 0 , 0

44 45 00 11 11

80 90 20 80 70 4 Kanchinal

CANAL

13

1

59

10

15

1 2 Between syno.154&153 1A 1B 1C 2A 2B1 2B2 1 >2

0

59

70 967 GI/2002—73376 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA- APRIL 6.2002/CHAITRA 16,1924 |PARI II—SEC 3(ii)l Taluka - SI. No.

District - Bijapur Hissa No. ndi Village Name Survey No

1

4

1 2 Kanchinal

3 19

2

3 1

20

2 1

22

Kerur

118-

5

117

2 1 2 1 2 Betweensyno.117&81

Road 81 82

83

Between syno.88 & 69

88 Cart Track 69

Between syno.71 & 55

71 Cart Track 55

59

1 2 1

58

2

1A

51

1B

2

1

50

2

1A

49

1B

C

2 In syno.49 In syo.49

Canal Cart Track 9

1

48

2

218

Taddewadi

6

215

1

216

2 Gat No.

State - Karnataka Area Are

5

Hectare 6

7

Centiare 8

56

50

0

50

0

68

60

24

0

30

0

39

90

0

37

00

0

40

06 23

0

40

63

0

40

40 00

0 1

16 04

80

0

20

84

0

70

0

50

10

0

70

05 53

0

90

0

35

70

42

0

20

78

0

00

45

0

60

16

80

0 0

10

02

0

50 40

56

0

70

0

00 70

88

0

80

15

03377 District - Bijapur Hissa No.

Taluka -

SI. No.

indi

Village Name

Survey No.

Gat No.

1

5

Hectare 6

State - Kamataka Area Are 7

Centiare 8 2

4

Taddewadi

3 216

3 4A 4B

50 40

0 56 0 27

212 211

1 2

0 39 0 38 0 24 0 07

90 10 30 00

210 209 Canal 156

0 88 0 05 0. 04

50 80 30

Road Canal 159

Between syno.209 & 156 1A/1A 1A/1B 1A/2 1B 2 In syno.156 In syno.159 1 2

1

160 161 135 134 Cart Track 135 Canal 225

0 19 0 22 0 59 0 70 0 43 0 0 5- 0 17 0 01 0 07

60 . 70 80 00 00 40 70 30 30

Between syno.134 & 135 2 Between syno.134 & 135 A B1 B2

Between syno.137 & 138

0 08 0 17 0 28 0 09 0 16

80 10 80 20 30

136 137 Canal 138 139

1 2

0 27 0 16

10 50

140 141

0 37

80

144

0 49

60

143

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

0 68

903378 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. APRIL 6,2002/CHAITRA16,1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ndi Village Name Survey No.

Taluka- Sl. No.

District - Bijapur Hissa No.

Gat No.

5

4

2 Margur

1 7

Hectare 6 0 0

State - Karnataka Area Are 7 17 30

Centiare 8 80 90 3 STREAM 136 134

1

14

20 135

1 2 3 1 2 3 4 Between syno.135 & Canal

0 0 0

80 04 03

40 10 00 Cart Track Canal 89

1 2A 2B 2C 3

80 60 10

30 31 76

0 0 0

101 90 91

1 2

45 89

30 80

0 Cl

95P 95

40

0

00

94

1 2 3 4 5 1A 1B 2A 2B Between syno.94 & CT Between Nala & syno.69

08 18 05 72 71 56 29 04

60 60 50 50 90 40 50 50

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nala Cart Track 69 70 71 66 Cart Track 49

Between syno.66 & 49

1

2

Between syno.49 & 52

10 20 20 10

56 03 35 96

1 0 1 0

Ohulkhed

Canal 52 138 141

1 23379 State - Karnataka Taluka - Indi

District - Bijapur

Village Name

GatNo

SI No

Survey No

Hissa No

1

3

5

2 Dhulkhed

Hectare 6 0

Area Are 7 17

Centiare 8 30 145

21

0

00 144

74 14

0 0

90 90 NH-13 112

4 3 1A 1B 2A 1 2 Between syno 112 & 144 1 2 3 Between syno 112 & 115

33 03

00 10

1 0

Canal 115

89

0

20 114

1+2A 1+2B 1 2

00 54 05

70 90 30

0 0 0

116 Cart Track 117

Between syno 116 & 117

1

2

57 15 21 11

0 0 0 0

50 70 10 10 118 119 120 121

0

59

00 122

0

18

70 123

0

46

00 g

Chanegaon

215

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 Between syno 215 & 190

1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

23 06 50 48 26 28 60 04

30 30 90 20 10 50 20 50 canal 190 192 186 185 184 canal 180

Between syno 180 & 184

1

2

1

08

103380 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. APRIL6,2002/CHAITRA 16,1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ndi

District - Bijapur

State - Karnataka

Taluka - SI No. Village Name Survey No.

Hissa No.

Gat No.

Hectare

Centiar"

1

2

3

A'rea Are 7

4

8

5

6

10

Shirgur

45

04

0

70 46

1A

42

1/B 2

1

70 ROAD

Between syno.45 & 46

03

80

0

42

1

2

3 4

44

60

0

5 Govt.Land

00

90

0

44 17

A/1

A/2

06

70

1

A/3 1

18A

12

90

2

0

72

20 16A

0

1

15

76

60

0

2 1

12

90

2

0

62 06

20 Cart Track Between syno.12 & 15

0

09

60 14

0

90

68

BHIMA RIVER

0

[No L. 14014/22/02-G.R] SWAMISINGH. Directe3381 3382 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL6,2002/CHAITRA 16,1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3383 967 GI/2002—83384 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6,2002/CHATTRA16,1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3385 3386 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6,2002/CHAITRA16,1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3387 3388 THE GAZETFE OF INDIA : APRIL 6,2002/CHAITRA16,1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3389 3390 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6,2002/CHATTRA16,1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3391 967 GI/2002—9339? THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. APRIL 6,2002/CHAITRA16,1924 PART II—SEC 3(ii)] 3393 3394 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6,2002/CHAITRA16,1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3395 3396 THF. GAZETTE OF INDIA. APRIL 6,2002/CHAITRA16,1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 3rd April, 2002

s.o. 1151.— Whereas by the notifications of the Government of India in the ivnnistry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 1535, dated the 3rd July, 2001 and number S.O. 2528 dated the 19th September, 2001. issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (herein after referred to as the said Act), the Centra! Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land, specified in the Scheduîe appended to thèse notifications 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 Oii Corporation Limited for implementation of the "augmentation of Virmgam-Chaksu, Chaksu-Panipat ànd Chaksu Mathura Sections of Salaya-Mathura Pipeline System Project" in Tehsil-Rohtak, District-Rohtak in Haryana State.

And, whereas, copies of the said gazette notifications were made available to the public on 20.07.2001 and 08.10.2001 respectively.

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

And, whereas, the Central Government has after considering the said report, decided to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the Scheduîe appended to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby déclares that Right of User in the land specified in the Scheduîe appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipelines ;

And, further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government 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.

Schedule

Tehsil

DistRohtak

Naine OT village

Mustatil No 3

1

KuKana

Rohtak Hadbast No. 2 16

Khasra/Killa No 4 172 174 1728/175 1729/175 186 288 1856/289 1857/289 1615/290 1616/290 1829/291 1562/292 1563/292 293 1618/294

1536/295 297 304 305 320 321 338 389 407 408 1085

1086 1087

1088

1089 1095

1099 1100 1101 1105 1106 1110 1111 1112 1115 1116 1118 1147 1175 1176

Hectare. S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

State: Haryana Area Are 6 01 11 02 00 15 11 02 06 03 00 01 03 02 06 00 05 10 15 02 00 06 00 05 04 02 01 07 11 02 02 02 08 10 01 01 06 03 03 01 02 05 02 01 02 05

Sq.Mtr 7 26 38 53 25 18 38 53 32 79 00 26 79 53 32 25 06 12 18 53 25 32 75 56 07 53 26 59 38 53 53 53 85 12 26 26 32 79 79 26 53 06 53 26 78 063398 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL6,2002/CHAITRA16,1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2 |

I 3 |

I 4 |

i 1 I

83

37

Ismayila 11 Biswa

84

110

I 6 | 00 03 07 02 06 02 02 02 02 01 10 01 10 01 05 01 03 05 12 08 05 07 06 02 02 03 06 00 05 01 15 03 03 10 00 00 03 01 03 01 06 02 04 05 02 04 02

7 | 25 79 59 53 32 53 53 53 53 26 12 26 12 26 06 26 79 06 65 85 06 59 32 53 53 79 32 00 06 26 18 79 79 12 00 76 04 52 79 01 83 53 05 56 02 55 28

I 5 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1178 1253 1254 1255 1276 1277 1280 1281 1282 1319 1744/1320 1321 1324 1333 1386 1755/1387 1388 1391 1392 1752/1393 1396 1402 1403 1405 1406 1407 1412 1414 1415 1420 1421/2/2 1422/1 1422/2 1423 1424 16 25/2 25/3/2 1/1 1/2 10 11/1 11/2 20/2 21 5/1/2 5/23399 4 |

1 I ² I 3 |

I 6

111

135

136

156

6/1 6/2 15/1 15/2 16 25 5 6/2 15/1 16/2 17 24/1 24/2 25 4/1 4/2 5 7/1 14 17 24/1 24/2 4 7/1 7/2 14 17 23 24 3 4 8 13 18

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

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

I 7 | 55 26 25 05 83 58 83 58 83 83 00 77 76 05 81 01 51 83 83 32 56 01 58 53 05 58 07 53 55 0? 76 58 58 56

401

1012

1015

1016

1102

1104

1116

1119

1121

1127

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

01 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 00

01 51 51 51 76 52 25 76 51 51 967 GI/2002—103400 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6,2002/CHAITRA 16,1924 [PART H—SEC. 3(ii)] 4 1 I I 3 | I 5 | I 6 | 7 | 79 Ismayila 9 Biswa 14 0 03 16 2 38 30 16 0 04 63 17 0 10 18

19

21

22 23

4 20

5

6/2

14

17

18

22

1 21

2 45

3/1

3/2

8/1

8/2

9

13/1

13/2

18

23/2

3 49

7/2

8

13

14/1

14/2

17

24

4 73

7

14

17/1

17/2

24/1

24/2

4/1 78

4/2

7

14

17/1

17/2

24 98

3/1

13 0

11

00 0

00

79

0

03

66 13

0

04 0

03

25 0

00

61 09

0

32 06

0

14 0

12

61 09

0

00

51 0

25 0

00

63 0

10

26 0

01

63 10

0

01 01

0

82 0

05

04 03

0

54 03

0

38 0

11

00 00

0

38 11

0

38 11

0

38 0

11

53 0

02

11 09

0

28 02

0

05 04

0

31 05

0

88 10

0

38 11

0

38 11

0

58 0

06

58 06

0

28 02

0

30 04

0

53 02

0

05 04

0

04 03

0

79 03

0

83 06

0

58 0

06

04 0

03

05 04

0

83 06

0

00 0

003401 [ 6 | 7 |

I 4

! 1 "Ir 2 iI ³ |

r" i

103

119

124

136

141

147

0 00 06 32 05 06 02 02 04 55 02 53 00 25 06 83 06 83 06 83 06 83 06 58 06 58 05 82 06 58 06 83 05 06 02 02 06 58 06 83 00 00 00 25 01 78 06 58 06 58 06 58 06 58 06 58 01 77 04 30 05 56 01 52 02 02 02 02 03 04 00 00 01 01 06 07 06 07 08 58 06 58 06 58 06 83 05 06 00 76

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

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0

151

00 76 00 76

0 0

174 1773402 THE GAZETTE OF 1NDIA : APRIL6,2002/CHAITRA 16,1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(H)] 4 | I 3 | I 2 178 I 6 | 00 7 I 25 I 5 0 189 00 51 0 00

51

190/1

264

14

44

0

51 00

0

05

0

82 Gandhra

9

15/1

00

25

0

04

81

17/1

0

17/2

0

00

17/3

24

4

19

7/1

7/2

8/1

8/2

13

0

01

0

06

06

0

51 52 32 83

0

03

29

0

00

25

77

0

01

77 01

0

06

0

83 01

77

18/1

0

05

18/2

23

3/1

28

8 0

06 06

0

0

06

01

0

04

0

22/1

39

22/2 1/2 2 9/2

10

11 00

0

01

0

83 83 52 81 25 26 04

81 0

00

51 0

06

0

83 05

0

82

01 0

01

20/1/1

04

05

20/1/2

0

02

78

20/2/2

0

06

21/2

5

49

6

15

16

24 0

83 02

28 0

06

83 0

06

83 0

06

83 0

00

0

03

00 79 0

25/1

03

04 0

25/2

1

50

60

4 5 7/1

7/2 04

55 0

04

30 0

02

53 0

03

54 0

03

29 0

06

83 0

14/2

01 01

0

17/1

05

31

17/2

03403 1 | 2 I 3 7 51 6 00 0 4 23/2 06 05 24 0 3/1 69

3/2 4

8/2

06

0

05

01

0

01

76

0

00

06

83

0

06

13/1

0

05 00

0

13/2

13/3

51 76 00

0

25

18/1/1

0

04

18/1/2

0

18/2/2

22

0

54

02

0

23/1

84

00 03 03 02 00

76

0

30

23/2

2/1

2/2

2/3

3/2

9

12

19

20 21

22 93

94

16 25 1

10

11

20 21/1 108

5 04 00

25

0 0

0

06

83

00

0

00

00

00

0 0

0

06 06

83 83

83

0 0 • 0

06 00 05

00 06

0

01

52

0

01

26 06

0 0

06

32 32

0

06

83

0

83 06 04

05

0 0

00

00

0

06

83 06

58

6/2

15/1

0 0

15/3/1

51 32

16/2

116

16/3 25/1 5 00 06 04

0 0

03

05 04

58

0 0 0

06 06

58

58

6

15

165/3/1

166 174

176

180

185

0 0 0

06 04 01

55 01 00

51

0 0

01

52

0

00

51

0

00

0

00

51 513404 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL6,2002/CHAITRA16,1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 4 1 r 2 i I 7 I T ~ " ~1 00 25 1 1 H Naunand 43 3 I 23 22/1 00 22/2 76 58 06 3/1 44 8 12

58 06

5 0 0 0 0

00

51

0

54

0

13/1/1

28

0

13/1/2

18 19/1 03 02 00

0

25 00 31 00 05

0 0

19/2

22 2/1

48

2/2 9

12 19/1

19/2 21

32 29 29 06 03 03

0 0 0

58 06

0

06

0

58 52 01

0

06

0

26 05 01

0 0

05

22/1

70

21 1

73

10

74

11 6 15

16 06

0

06 58 58

0

55 06 04

0

51

0

00 02

0

28 32

0

07 83 06 06 06

76 00

0 0 0

25/1

5/1

89

5/2 5/3 6/1 6/2

7/1

101

106

4

g

57

82 05

0

25 00

0

82 05

0

00 00

0

52 01

0

76 00

0

26 01

0

58 06

Pakasma

7 14

17 24/1 06

0 0 0

58 83 58 0

05 06 06 04

51 00

0 0

24/2/1

26 01

0

24/2/2

10

32 51 06 00

0 0

5/2/1

5/2/2

6

58 063405 4 I 6 | I 5 I ^ | l 1 I ² |I 3 l 15 0 06 58 06 0 16 17 24

25 11

6

15

16 0

0

00 04

07 51 55 0

01

77 0

02

28 0

06

32 0

06

83

25/1/1

0

02

28

25/2/1

12

1 10

11 72

2/1 2/2 9

12

19 21 22 73

3

8 12 13

18 0

04

55 0

0

02 04

28 30 0

00

25 0

0 0

01 05 06

01 57 32 06

58 0 0

83 0 0

06 01 05

26 57 0

06

58 0

06

0 0

01 05

58 52 06 0

00

76

19/1

19/2 22 74

3/3 4 7/1

7/2

8

13 18/1 0

53

53 02 02 06

58 01

01 06

0 0 0 0 0

07 51

0

00 00

25

0

05

82

0

06

58

18/2

23 102

5/2

6 15/1

15/2 16

0 0

03 03

29 54 06

58

0 0

00 00 04

0 0

03

05 79

0

78

0

02 06

83

25/1/1

104

0

05

1/2/1/3

1/2/2 2

0

01

06 01

0 0 05 00

31 25

10/1

0

28

10/2

0 02 00

763406 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA APRJL6,2002/CHAITRA16,1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 ! 2 3 5 0 4 10/3 10/4

11/1

11/2

11/3 11/4

20/1

20/3 21/2

21/3

105

1/1

1/2

10 4

130

7/1/1

7/1/2

7/2

14/1

14/2

131

17 24 5/1/2

5/2/2

6/1

15

16

17

24

25 3/1/1

140

4/1/1

4/1/2

7 8

13

18

23

205/1

206 212/5

229/1

230 21/2

59

Bhalaut

103 104

1

0

6 I 7 | 01 01 03 04

0 0

00 25 00 00

0 0

06 32 00 25

0

00 51

0

06 32 06 07

0 0

00 51

0

01 77

0

04 30

03 04 06 58

0 0

0

00 51

0

05 06

01 01 05 57

0 0

01 26

0

06 83 06 58 02 02

0 0 0

03 54

0

06 58

0

06 83

0

04 55

0

0

02 53 06 58

0

00 25 02 02

0 0

0

00 51 04 30

0

00 51 06 07

0 0

06 58

0

06 83 05 82

0 0

00 76

0

00 76

0

01 01

0

00 51

0

00 51 00 00 06 58

0 0 03407 | 7 I . 4 | ¹ I 2 I •. 10 ! 6 I 06 83 11 I ... 5 | 0 0 06 0

106

0

04 02

140

0 0

06 06

83 55 02 83 83

0

06

83

20 16 25/2 5 6 15

0

06

83

04 00

55 51 05

04 01

01

147

0 0 0 0 0

06

83

0

83

00 08

0 0 0

04

18 17 24 25 4 7 14/1 14/2 17/1 18

06 00 07 03 04

05

07

08

174

00

51

23 2 3

0 0 0 0

06

00

32 51

0 0

0

03 03

0

07

0

03

03

•h

06

183

8 9/1 9/2 12 19 20 21 1/1

00

29 54 08 79 29 58 25

06

1/2 2/2

32 25

9 10

11

00 03 04 00

06

12 19

06

204

22 2

06 05

06 06 03 03 00

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i

02 <

04 05 51 07 58 58 82 58 58 29 29 51 02

9 12 19/1 19/2 21/1 21/2 22

0 i

04 i 05

213

967 GI/2002—11

9

58 25

D(L :

I 3 ,|

I 2

1 1

4 I 10

11

20 21 1

229

267 306 309 327

54

R o o r ki

23 3/1

5 16

3/2 8 13/1

⁶ I

06 06

5 | 0 0

06

0

0

06 04

7 32 58 58 58 30 0

76 52 25 25

00 01 00 00

0 0 0 0

00

00

0

05

31

76

00

83 83

06 06

0 0 0 0

07

06

0

19/2

21

0

06 83 53

05 06 02

0 0

55

04

28

02

51 55

00 04

0 0 0 0

22/2

2/2

9/1

9/2

1t

12/1/1

12/1/2

19 20/1

00

00

0 0

0 0

20/2

21/1

0

21/2/1

0

01 82 54 77 77 26 83

01 05 03 01 01 01 06

0 0

21/2/2

16/1

1

33 34

10

11

44

4/2 5/1

27 0

25

00

02

01 00 00 02

0 0 0

26

00

0

5/2/1

0

6/1/1

7/1

7/2

14/1 14/2 17 23

24

56

3 4/1 7/1

25 28 29

00 02 03

0 0

58 25

06 00

83 25

06 00

0 0 0 0

58 0

06 06

32 26 00

01 00

0 0 0

W M4 V.J'..->••-

51 00

51

13/1

13/2

14

17 0 0

00

05

56 0

06

83 0

24/1

65

4/2 7

8

13 14

18 0

06

58 0

05

31 07

0

08 00

00 0 0

07 00

0

08 51 07

0

08

19/1

22/1 22/2 00

0

51 0

51 00 06

0

83

23/1

79

16 00

00 0 0

28

25/1

02 00

0

25

25/2

80

25/3 1 0

04

05 0

00

51 0

0

10 11

20 0

84 0

00

90

5

6 0

06

83 0

06

83

0

28

0

55 04

05 03

04

105

06

83 06

58 0

06

58 0

06

03

18 0

0

116

0

05

0

01

26

13 0

1

0

00

253410 THE GAZETTE OF ÏNDIA : APRIL6,2002/CHATTRA16,1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2 1 3 |

! t |

I " I

129

138

139

147

156

160

7 83 83 83 26 06 25 05 52 83 83 58 04 26 05 78 31 52 83 25 77 55 52 31 27 01 25 83 83 83 76 26 55 53 83 25

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

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

167

4 | 19 22 2 9/1 9/2 10 11 12 20 21 1 10 6 15/1 15/2 16/1 16/2 25 4 5/1 5/2 6 7 14 3 4 8 13 18 2272/1 22/2/2 23/1 19/2 22/1 3

01 03 02 01 00 00 01 00 01 00

26 04 78 01 25 25 01 25 77 51

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

176

177

181/1-3

182

214

221

226

230

252/2

259

— it3411 4 l 1 I " 1 2 53 1 3 | 2 Polungi 5 0 I 6 00 04 0 6 15 0 06 I 7 | 25 55 83 16

3

25 1

10

7

4

5

6

7 0

06

83 06

0 0

83 31 05 02

0

0

00

02 25 0

06

32 0

01

52 00

16/2

10

4/2 4/3

4/4

7/1

7/2 8/1

8/2 0 0

76 76 00

03

04 0 0

00

51 0

00

0

00

00

25 51 76 0 0

00

00 0

00 04

8/3

13/1

0 0

51 81 54

13/2

0

03 03

29

18/2

0

06

83

23/1

18

03

54 0 0

03

29

23/2

2/1

3/1 0

00

00

51 :• 51 0 0

04 01

55 01

3/2

3/3

8/1/1

8/2 9

12

19 22/1

21

2/1

12 0 0

00

00 0

00

51 0

05

56 0 0

06 06

83 83 0 0

56 76 0

05 00 01

20/2

33

0

06

52 07 31

21/1

1/1

3 4#

1/2 5/1

6

15

16 0 0

05 01

0

00

26 51 03

29 0 0

06

0

06

83 83 0

06

83

24/1

24/2 25 —

M>

0

02 00

0 0

03

28 76 29

0

78 023412 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6,2002/CHATTRA16,1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] r " 1 II 2 I 3 | 4 |

I • I| 7 05 4/2 I 6 0 0 04 06 83 7 0 00 25 un

0

58 82

0

06 05

25

0

14/2

17

18/2/1

00 25 25

00 00 00 00

0 0 0

18/2/2

18/3/1

18/3/2

07

06

0

23/1

01

0

01 00

76

0

23/2 24

01

52

0

62

00

.51

63

0

|[No. R. 2MJ11/17/2001/UKI]

xSS KFMWAT TTnH*rSprv

967 GI/2002—12

New Delhi, the 3rd Apnl. 2002

S. 0.1152.— Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest, that for the transportation of crude oil from Crude Oil Terminal(COT) at Mundra Port in the State of Gujarat to Bhaitinda in the State of Punjat^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 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 this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the gênerai public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying pipeline under the land to Shri D.K.PAREKH, 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 & PO Khari Rohar, Tal. Gandhidham, State Gujarat3417

SCHEDULE

Tahsil : Dhanera District : Banaskantha State : Gujarat

269

0 19 81

41 87

0

332 331

0 19

329

0 02

07 67

P

330

63

0 38

330 P Cart Track

0 01

⁵llj 335 P

25

0 26

336 P

11 71

0

P

320

88

0 563418 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6,2002/CHAITRA16,1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Tahsil : Dhanera District : Banaskantha State : Gujarat

fahsil : Dhanera District : Banaskantha State : Gujarat

[F. No. R-31015/48/2001OR-IL] HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.

U2Ï3422 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL6,2002/CHAITRA16,1924 [PART H _SE C. 3(ii)] 3423 967 GI/2002—13 [PARTlI-SEc.3(ii)]

^==±======^^^^OFDmA^m:^2KS{AirRAl6,l92A

3 4 26

T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA • A P R IL 6 . 2 0 0 2 / C H A I T R A 1 6 , 1 9 24

[ P A RT I I —S E C. 3 ( i i )]3427

New Delhi, the 3rd April, 2002

S. 0.1153.— Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crude oil from 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 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 on which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section(l) 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.K.PAREKH, 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 & PO Khari Rohar, Tal. Gandhidham, State Gujarat3428 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL6,2002/CHATTRA16,1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J.

SCHEDULE

Taluka :- D""sa District :- Banaskantha State :- Gujarat

[F. No. R-31015/49/2001OR-ÏÏ] HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy3434 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6,2002/CHATTRA16,1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3435 3436 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6,2002/CHATTRA16,1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3437 3438 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6,2002/CHAITRA16,1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3439

967 GI/2002—15

New Delhi, the 3rd April, 2002

S. O. U54.— Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crude oil from 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 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 on which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section(l) 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.K.PAREKH, 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 & PO Khari Rohar, Tal. Gandhidham, State Gujarat3^2 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6,2002/CHATTRA16,1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

Taluka :- Mundra District :- Kutch State :- Guiarat

Taluka :- Mundra District :- Kutch State :- Gujarat

ROU Area

Name of Village

Survey No

Part if Any

1

2

3

244

Ha. Ar. Sq.mi 4

0 69 60 Mokha Contd...

246 -

Cart Track

157 157

P P

Cart Track

155

154

153/1

153/2

Cart Track

152 150/2

t

Cart Track

250/1

251

253/2

253/1 254/1 254/2

254/4

259

P

Trowers 258 -

Mithi River

325/2

Nala

- 322/1

322/2 323/1 323/2

323/3

319/2

320 Trowers 344/1 271

P P

Cart Track

- 263/1

263/2

262

Cart Track

- 133

0 0

17 10

66 98 0

18

35 01

ov

98 59

41

0

0 43 36 0 39 88 0 00 53

95 22 0 d 0

05 18 05 51 0 04 59 0 00 40 0 32 36 0 21 47 0

42 56 Q 0

22 27 22

0 09

78 92 0 15 30 0 28 80 {

0 10 36

14

0 0

0

06 25

73 64 35 0 09 91 0 23 33 0 07 47 0 0

0 0

19 31 57 28

90 24 59 79 0 08

0 15

66 31 0 0

41 15

41 49 0 0

06 43

83 623446 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA APRIL6,2002/CHAITRA16,1924 |PART II—SEC 3(ii)l

[F No R-31015/2/2002 OR-II ] HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy3447 MINISTRY OF LABOUR

New Delhi, the 1 Ith March, 2002 S.O. 1155.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. CGIT-13/1993) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in rela- tion to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11-3-2002.

[No. L-12012/224/92-IRfB-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, MUMBAI PRESENT :

Shri Justice S. C. Pandey, Presiding Officer.

Référence No. CGIT-13/1993

PARTIES : *

Employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India.

AND

Their Workmen.

APPEARANCES :

For the Management : Shri R. N. Shah, Advocate. For the Workman : Ms. Lata Desai, Advocate. STATE : Maharashtra.

Mumbai, dated, the 22nd day of Februarv, 2002

AWARD

1. The Central Government has referred the follcw- ing question to be answered by this Tribunal in exercise of the powers under clause (d) of Sub-scetion (1) 967 GI|2OO2—46.

and Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (The Act for short).

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in trcating Shri Mahesh M. Rao, Head Clcrk as having retircd service is légal and justified ? What relief the work- man is entitled to and from what date ?" 2. The necessary facts giving rise for answering this référence are as follows :

The workman, Mr. Mahesh M. Rao, was employed as a Head Clerk with the State Bank of India, at its Overseas branch, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Bombay. (The Bank for short). By the leîter dated 13-5-1989. the Bank, informed the workman that he was deemed to hâve been voluntarily, retired for the reason he did not give any explanation for his absence for more than 90 days consecutively from duty without leave and did not résume duty within thirty days from the receipt of the last notice dated 1-3-1989 served on 9-3-1989. It was stated in the letter dated 13-5-1989, that since the workman had not joined duty within thirty days from 9-3-1989, he would be deemed to hâve retired with expiry of notice with effect from 8-4-1989. It is not in dispute that workman received his retirai dues. The workman, however, was not satisfied with the order intimating him the Bank had treated him to hâve voluntraily retired. He, therefore, raised an Industiral Dispute. The reconciliation proceedings failed. A fail- ure was reported to the Central Government which referred the dispute to this tribunal in the terms quoted above.

3. The stand taken by the workman before this Tribunal in his statement claioi inter alia is to the following effect. The facts of this case indicated that the Bank could not hâve treated him hâve voluntarily retired in the eyes of law. Consequently, the retire- ment may be deemed compulsory amounting to re- trenchment in the eyes of law. He was retired without any compensation, and consequently, the order treat- ing him to hâve voluntarily retired deserves to be set aside. It has been pointed out as a matter of fact, amount wihch, there appears to be no dispute between the parties the workman was absent from duties from 16-8-1988. Consequently, by registered letter dated 10-9-1988 the workman was asked to résume the duties within three days and give his explantaioii. It was pleaded in this first notice itseî f there was men- tion of Voluntary retirement (Thèse pleadings appear to be contrary to the text of the notice). It was further pleaded that on 15-11-88 another registered letter was sent. The workman does not dispute that in letter he was asked to report on duty within thirty days of the notice. It was mentioned in this notice that he would be deemed to hâve voluntatilsr retired from service after expiry of thirty days and shall be liabSe to pav the Bank salary of one month and allowances in lieu of his absence. It was furthe pleaded that thereaffer, the workman received notice dated 1-3-1989. It is admitted in the pleadings of the workman at pages 3, paragraph 2 of his daim statement that the letter was titled as unauthorised absence from duty and it was stated in the letter that the workman Mr. Rao had reported on duty on 6-12-88 for a day and thereafter reported on duty on 6-12-88 for a day and thereafter stated that the workman should join duties within3448- THE GAZETTE OF JNDIA : APRIL 6, 2002/CHAITRA 16, 1924 [PART II—SUC. 3(ii)] thirty days and in case he did not tio so shall be hâve retired from service after 30 days. It appears frôra the plead&rgs of the workman that tbis notice dated 1-3-1989 was not in accordance wfth the seule- ment as there is so exjSlanation called from the work- man requiring him to give reason for his absence. Whereby he was deemed haVe vdlurrtarily retired. The other pleadings regarding facts need not detain us except the mention of the following facts. It îs not disputed by him for the reason he had accepted the retrial benefits. The notice dated 13-5-1989, 6-6-1989, 15-9-1989, 27-11-1989 and host of others hâve been referred to notices. Thèse may not hâve any bearing an the main dispute in the référence save for the pur- pose of drawing the inference that the workman is not estopped from raising the plea as he has done. This tribunal is not referring to this part of pïeadings as the plea of estoppel not pressed before the tribunal by the Bank. However, there is further pleadings made by way of amendraent in paragraph 5A of the statement of elaim that it was compulsory serve three notices before treating the workman to hâve voluntarily re- tired. Since this plea was allowed by my predecessors even after the arguments were closed it is necessary to mention it.

4. This tribunal shall deal with the Statement Cla'im of the Bank very shortly mentioning only those facts which are only relevant for deciding the main con- troversy in the case. It is stated by the Bank that the workman was in the habit of remaining abstnt without any authorizatïon. He had exhausted his leave by remaining absent from 24-12-1987 to 5-3-1988., from 14-3-1988 to 6-5-1988 and 9-5-1988 to 12-9-1988 and was absent from duty on 16-8-19S8. He was served with two notices 10-9-1988; and 15-11-1988. The workman joined on 6-12-19M for a day, and then again remained unauthorisedîy absent. The workman was served with a notice dated lÔfh March. 1989 asking him

5. The parties filed affidavits in support nf be rro"s-e^aminf' bv the workman. Thereaffer. the case rf tlip p".r1ip<; was closed.

6. Tt has been -ireuM bv Ms. La*a Desai on behalf of the worVmqp tha* riin-^p XVT nf ih? sPtttement was not complied with by the three notices dated 10-9-1988, 16-8-1988 and 11-3-1989. She further argued that services of thfee notices was mandatory before ai workman could be deemed to hâve been retired. It v>as argued that this was clear from the pleadiflgs and the évidence of représentative of the Bank in cross-examination. It was asserted that the workman wa$ not on unauthorized leave despite the admission made by the workman in cross-examination. It was argued that îhe managements vitness deposed to the contrary. It was argued that the mental condi- tion of the workiftan was such that he could not take steps to file application for leave.

7. On the other hand a counter argument was made on behalf of the Bank by Shri R. N. Shah, Advocate that the case governed by the clause XVI of the Bipartite Settlement dated 17th Septembfir, 1984. There was no mention of three notices in that Bipartite settlement. It was argued that the workman was in the habit of tajking fcave foi* long time without autho- rization. He would then joir, for a short period in order to create a break and then' again go on leave. It was argued that in year 1988 the workman appeared on duty only for 8 days. Previously, he was absent for 690 days. It was further argued that no appli- cation supported by médical certificaie was filed before the Bank. The évidence led on behalf of workman is not in respect of the period during v.hich he was absent. He specifically relied on notice dated 1-3-1989 for argumg that clause XVI of the Bipartite Settlement was complied with-. He prayed that noticel order datédf 13-5-1989 hôldins that the workman harf volantarily retired be upheld. No other argument was raised.

8. In order to résolve controversy between the parties, it is necessaty to refer to clause XVI con- taîned in Mémorandum ' of Settlement dated 17th Septëmber 1984 it is reproduced herein as below :

XVI. VOLUNTARY CESSATION OF EMPLOY- MENT BY THE EMPLOYEES :

Tn supersessiort' of clause 2 of the Settlement" dated 8th Septëmber 1983 the following shall apply:—

Where an employée has not submilted any applica- tion for leave and abssnt himself from woïk for a! period of 90 or mere consécutive days without or béyobd any leave te his crédit or absents himself for 90 or more consécutive days beyohd the period of leave originally sandioned or subsequemly extended or where there is satisfactory évidence that he has taken up employment m India or the management is satisfied that he has no présent intention of joininp duties, the management may at any time thereafter give a notice to the employee's last known add'ress calling upon the employée to report for duty vïthin 30 days of the notice, stating inter alia, the grounds for the management comine to the conclusion that the émoloyee has no intention nf joininp dutie<; and fùrnîshine necessary évidence, where nva'lable. Unies? the employée reports for dutv withi'n 30 davs or un]p" he 3449 frqm the date of the expiry of the afotesaid notice without préjudice to îhe banks right to take any action under the law or rules of service.

application. In this case if we count his absent from 7-12-1988 to 1-3-1989, then classe XVI does not apefy. On the date of notice daîed 1-3-1989 the workman w.as not absent from duty for 90 consécu- tive days. Therefore, the managcmeiit canaot sUeeèed by sayïng that he was absent from the date between T-12-i-9#8 to 1-3-1989 and for this reason alone it was eirfffled to serve notice for voluntary retiiement aated 13--S-1989.

H. ïn view af afsresaid raatter it is now necessary •to esnsider tfcat whethei the maaagement can take advantage af the fwo eaiiier notices. "Phe notice dated 16tè Sépteœber, 1988 (An-riexure A) at page 6 of the iist èf 4<3cuiBeEt eannot be c-karty within clause XVI (ibid). for $ie ifcasoR il ioes not invoke that clause, ït reads as f-oîtews :

OB : A©M : 88

16,th Sepiember, 1988

Pear Siv,

"

UNAUTHORISED ABSENCE FROM DUTY In case of an employée who has gone abrdad, and has not submitted any application for leave and absents himself for a period of 150 or more consécutive days •vvïtbout or beyond any leave to his crédit or absents :bimself for 150 or more consécutive days beyond the period of leave originally sanctioned or stfbse- quBirtiy extendéd and where ïhe management has feasons to believe that he ha? no intention of joiaing çkrties, the management may at any tirne tfeereafter give a notice -to the employee's last known adéiess calling upon-the employée to report for 4uty w-ithin 30 days of the notice. Unless the employée reports fox duty within 30 days or unless he gives an expias;' tion for Ms absence satisfying the management, the empjpyee v/rll be deemed to hâve vohffitarily retired frpm the Baak's service on the expiry of the samej notice. ïn the event of the employée sabraitting a satislactory reply, he shall be pennittecî to repprt for duty rhereafter ^ithyi 30 days from the date of the expiry of the afores-aid notice without préjudice to thé bank's right to tâke any action under the law ,ar rules of service."

It is observed that you are absenting from duty un- authorisedly since lOth August 1988.

3. You are, therefore advised to, report for duty within 3 days of the receipt of this Mémorandum and expiai" the reasprçs for your absence.

Yours faithfully,

DY. GENERAL MANAGER

It is obvious that i,t is within 90 days from lOth of August and gives ,oniy 3 days time. The second notice re,a4s as under :

15th November, 1988

OB : EST : 89 : 172

Dear Sir,

Authorised Absence From Duty.

Please refer to our letter No. ,0B : TEST : 88 : 261 dated the l"6th Septeraber, 1988 calling upon you to report for cKity. Il is observed that you are eontin"ing lo be absent from duty since 16th August, 1988.

The above position is ihighly irregular and in con- travention of the rules governing your service in the Bank. You are, therefore, hereby advised to report for duty within 30 days of the date of this Notice. If you fail to de so, you will be deemed to hâve volun- tarily ïetke.4 from the service on the expiry of ihis Notice in whieh case you wouîd also be liable to Ray to the Bank one roonlh's pay and allowances in lieu of (he Notice.

Yours feithfully,

9. At this stage, this tribunal may notice the légal position regarding the construction of Clause XVI Bipartite Sôttlenaent. The principles for eojjsîruing a éeeuraent like tfeat w-ouid be tbe "ame as m case of an enaetment. Tbe intention of the parties has to be gathered from the words employed by them. There is no power to .add or subtract. It is also to. be noted that the conséquence of opération of clause XVI ahove is deemed voluntary retirement whieh results in pénal conséquences to the workfflan in the sensé that he is fictionaily retired by the opération of clause XVI of the Bipartite settlement without his consent. Therefore, clause XVI has to be construed strictly in the letter and spirit. Not only service of notice is mandatpry but the manner of service shovdd strictly "omply with the ietter of clause XVI, in every aspect. For éxample, you cannot serve notice prior to 90 days of consécutive absence and hold that absence subséquent to notice shall also be counted for reckoning nineîy days. The notice served earlier than ninety days cannot ask for explanation regarding the çonduet subseuent to notice. Mor can it req-uire a person to joîn prior to expiry of consécutive 90 days pi absence in tenns of clause XVI. The tribunal is firmly of the view that compliance of clause XVI is mangatory for the deemed voluntar} retirement under jts terras. The woïkman is given option to rejoin within thirty days of notice or ofïer an explanation when is continuously absent for 90 days. Prior to expiry of absence of ninety consecutiye days the .question of opération clause XVI of the Bipafîïïë setfiemerit dœs not arisc. it is also mandatory that he should %e given 30 daiys for rejoining or offerîngi explanation. It is also clear from the ïast sentence' of class XVI that even after explanation an.d rejoining îhe right of the Bank under the law or the rules of the service is not destroyed.

Dy. General Manager

The other .notice maiked as Annexure B dated 15tb November, 1988 does refer to notice 16th August, 19§8. It is open to argument that this notice was also served after expiry 90 consécutive 10. It is aparent from the firat part for above clause XVI of Mémorandum aforesaid (which is relevant to our case) that the emffowe SÎKMÛÎ be absent for 90 consécutive days or more without leave3450 THE GAZETTE OF I N DU : APRIL 6, 2002/CHAITRA 16, 1924 [PART II—SEC. ?(ii)l days because 90tIi day expited on 15th November, J988. However, thc workman joined within 30 days of receipï cl this notice cri 6-12-1988 and was permitted io do M. Thciei'ore, also he would be deemed to hâve compîied with the requiremeni of clause XVI within 30 days. It is also clear from the cross-examina'ion of Shri A. L. Bhrigawde that there is provision in iiiie rules for granting extra ordi- nary leave without pay and the workman had Sied application for leavc from 16th August, 1988 to 5-12-1988 on the ground of illness of his mother. The leave application is on îecord as item, No. 3 at page 5 of the documents fîjed by the Bank. It appcdis from the note vn Ihis that leave was treated as unauthonzed and cxplanaîion was called. from the woifman. However, notice dated 15th Novem- ber, 1988 was exhausted when the workman joined the Bank office within 30 days on 6-12-1988. The Bank had option to proceed against him under the iaw or ihe rules by way of departmental action.

12. Now we corne to notice dated 1-3-1989. It reads as under :

OB : EST : 89 : 172 Ist March, 1989 Dear Sir,

STAFF AWARD

UNAUTHORISED ABSENCE FROM DUTY We invite your attention to our letter No. OB : EST : 88 : 495 dated 15lh November, 1988, calling upon you to report for duty within 30 days of the reccipt of the Notice and hâve te advise that you had resumed yoisr duties on\y for a day i.e. on oth Deeember, 1988 and mnaining unautborisedly ab- sent. Since the 7tn December,"l988.

2. The abovj position is highly irregular and in contravention of the rules govtrning your services in thc Bank. You are, therefoie, advised to report for duty witbin 30 days of the date of this notice. If you fail to do so you vvill be deemed to hâve volun- tariiy retired from the service of the Bank on the expiry of this Notice, in which case you would slso bc Stable to pay to the Bank one month'S pay and allowances in lieu of the Notice period, failing which the Bank will be constrained to set off the same against ycur services dues and any other amount payable to you.

Yours faithfully,

Dy General Manager

The notice dated 1-3-1989 was drafted even prior to expiry of 90 consécutive days of absence on the part of workman Shri A. L. Bhingardeve says in paragraph 7.

"I sa> that a final nclicc dated Ist March, 1989 was sent tu him on tlhe very day by regis- tered post instructing him to report for duty within 30 days from the date of the notice and informing him that failing to report for duty wiihin 30 days he would he deemed to hâve voluntarily retired from the service on expiry of the notice period." Therc is ao pleadina or proof that tiiis notice dated 1-3-1989 was served'on 9-3-1989. That apart the workman was not bound. to comply with notice dated 1-3-1989 for the reason on that date 90 consécutive days had not expired. He could not be asked to expia in the absence of 90 consécutive days with ré- férence to a notice dated J-3-1989, nor could be asked to joui on the pain of voluntary retirenient. This noiiee cannot bc held to be covered by clause XVI of the Bipartite tetflemenf. It appears that the fact that ninety days had not expired on 1-3-1989 was noticed by the Bank authorities. Therefore, jn the order dated 13-5-1989 thev haye mentioned that the notics dated 1-3-1989 was'received by the work- man on 9-3-1989. Apart from the fact that date of service would not bc î élevant as held above no attempt was made on behalf oi the Bank by filing ackaowledgement of receipt of letter that letter was aciually received by the workman on 9-3-1989. It may be noticed that order dated 13-5-1989 relies on notice dated 1-3-1989 and states that it was served on 9-3-1989. There is neiiher pleading nor proof of the fact of service on 9-3-1989. There is no presumption that a registered letter sent on 1-3-1989 would bs delivered on 9-3-! 989. The workman was residing at Bombay at Linking Road, Khar. The notice dated 1-3-1989 is strictly construed as it resulted in pénal conséquences. For ail thèse reasons oider dated 13-5-1989 is bad. The bank has failed to sustain its case on the basis of notice dated 1-3-1989.

13. This tribunal, Uicrefore, cornes to the conclu- sion that the clause XVI of Bipartite agreement dated 17th September, 1984 was not compîied with beforc passing the ordt-r dated 13th May, 1989 whereby the workmen was deemed to hâve retired voluntarily. The order retiring the workman is in- valid and can not be justified legally in terms of clause XVI ot the Bipartite seulement dated 17th September, 1984. The légal conséquence of ihis avv^rd would be that Mr. Mahcsh M. Rao shall be deemed to be in service with elïect from 13th May, 1989.

14. Tiiis is not a case of discharge or dismissal of thc workman as adir.itiedly be received retirai bene- fi's on the assumpiion lhat he had voluntarily retired by application of clause XVI (ibid). This tribunal cannot grant lurther relief to the workman 11A of the Act. This is :io1 a case of punishment or ret- renchment. It is true thai my predecessor had refused intérim relief "o Ihe workman. Unfortunately, for him ihe matter had to be pending even after final arguments were heard on 27-1-1997. It is his Counsd Ms. Lata Desai then sought one adjourn- ment for amending 3451 any avvard in respect of anv further relief as consé- quence of holding thaï Order/Letter dated 13th May, 1989 is illégal. The workman shall be deemed be in services wilh eftect from that date. It is made clear tîiat this award ?hall no* corne in the way of Bank for taking dc-partmcntal action.

15. Accordingly, the workman is entitted only to relief'of the uinstaiwiient as already stated above.

S. C. PANDEY, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the I3th March, 2002 S.O. 1156.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. I.D.A. 37/98) of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court. Sangli as shown in the Annexure in the industrial Dispute between ihe employers in relation to the management of Sangli Bank Ltd., and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 13-3-2002.

[No. L-12012/226/97-lR(B-I)J AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI V. S. PADALKAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, SANGLI Référence (IDA) No. 37198 ADJUDICATION

BETWEEN

The Chairman, Sangli Bank Ltd., Rajwada Chowk, Sangli-416 416.

... ist p a m,

AND

The General Secretary, Sangli Bank Employées Union, Clo. Sangli Bank Ltd., Phadke naud, Pune-2. (411002)

..Ilnd party.

In the matter of reinstafe with continuity of service and full back wages

\PPEARANCES :

Ist party in Person—absent.

Ilnd party in Person—absent.

ORDER BEL JW EX. O-I

(Date : 19-1-2002)

The Référence ient for adjudication by M'nis.ry ot Latour to this court. The notice to Ilnd party was issued to file Statement of claim.

Till 3-10-2001 the statement of claim nol filed therefore the order of statement of cla;m not tilcd passed on 3-10-200!. Without statement of claim I cannot adjudicate ths dispute between parties. Hence 1 hâve no other alternative to pass following order :

ORDER

The demand of Ilnd party workman is hereby rejected. Référence is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Date : 19-1-2002.

Sangli.

V. S. FADALKAR, Presiding Otficer New Delhi, the 13th March, 2002 S.O. 1157.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. I.D. 88190) of the Central Government Indus- trial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute betvieen the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Patiala and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11-3-2002.

[No. L-12012/85/90-JR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer3452 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRjL 6, 2002/CHAlTRÀ 16, 1924 IPART II—SFP *r;ni ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S. M. GOEL, FRE£IDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. JNDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDÎGARH

Case No. I.D. 880[9O

Shvji Ram peon through General Seçretary, State Bank of Patiala Staff Union, 3135 Sector 22-D, Chandigarh.

. Apphcant.

Versus

General Manager (Opération), State Bank of Patiala,

The Mail, Patiala. . . Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the workaian : Shn H^dial Singh.

For the management : Shri N. K. Zakhmi.

AWARD

(Passed on 18th of January, 2002) The Central Govf. vide No. L-12012|85|90-lR- (B-3) dated llth 3uly, 1990 lias referred the îol- lowing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the State Bank of Patiala in terminating the services of Shri Shivji, peon-cum-frash at theit branches Ludhiana and Saiabha w.e.f. 12-6-1987 is légal and justified ? H not, to what relief the con- cerned workman is entitled to and from what dgrte ?"

2. The applicant filed the claim statement stating that he ^orked in Saban Bazar Ludhjana Branch from 23-9-85 to 6-10-85 .and 10-2-1987 to 22-5-1987. He also worked from 1-6-1987 to 11-6-1987 in Sarabha Nagar branch of the bank. Hîs services were termi- nated thereafter. Large number of persons were em- ployed after his termination but he was not given re-employment. 'fhere was no compîaint in his work and conduct. Tlius the management lias violated the provisions of Sections 25-C and H of the I.D. Act. 1947. The applicant prayed for reinstatement in service with full backwages.

3. In written statement the preliminary objection has beea taken that the applicant was engaged for a spécial period and after the expiry of this period his services wexe disengaaed and therefore, it falls within the définition çtf Section 2(oo) fbb) of the I.D. Act and thus the management has not violafed the pro- visions of I.D. Act, 1947. Moreover he has not coropleted 240 davs of service in a calendar year immçdiately before his termination of service, so thei warkman has "p .right to claim any reinstatement. The period of Working as alleged in the daim statement has frje#n admijtted by the management. I* is also pleadèd that no person was ever engaged by the> management in place of the applicant. Thus the workrâaTi is not entltled to any relief.

4. Repjication was also filed by the workirçan re- iterating the claim made in the claim statement.

5. Both the parties filed their respective affidavit in support of their lespeclive leadings. The witnesses of both the parties were cross-examincd by each side.

6. I hâve heard bo!h the parties and gone through the record of the case. The facts of the case are not in disputed. It is admitted by both the parties that the apphcant had worked with the management from| ,23-9-1985 to 6-10-1985, 10-2-1987 to 22-5-19,87 and froxn 1-6-87 ta 11-6-1987 in différent branches of the bank. It is thus clear that the workman has not put in 240 days of service in one calendar year imme- diately before his termination. The argument put forth by the learned caunsel for the workman is that •many persons ha,v2 been re-empîoyed after bis termi- nation. No name has been given by the workrnan either in claim statement or in affidavit who has been employed by the management after the terminaiton of the workman.

7. The leqiroed counsel for the management has argued that since the workman lias not completed 240 days of service during one year immediately before his termination and the référence was not made by the Ministry for violation of Section 25-H of the I.D. Act 1947 so the référence cannot be adjudieated upon and the workman cannot be granted any relief. He has relfed on the judgement of Hon'ble Ihmjab & Haryana High Court rejwrted in F.J.R. Vol. 85 Karnal Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. V. Industriel Tribunal (F&M) page 167, Ram Gopal Saini Vs. t he Judge Labour Court No. 2 Jaipur and others reported in Lab. I.C. 610 of Hon'We High Court of Rajasthan. Tn my considered opinion, there is force in the argu- ments of the learned counsel for the management. It is now settfed lâw fbai the person who has not fcom- pleted 240 days of continuous service during one calendar year immediately before his termination has no industrial right. Moreover the work- man has not menfiened any name who has been employer! aller his termination. In absence of any name not given by the workman, it cannot be hëld that the management has employed any person after the termination of the services of the workman. Moreover there must be spécifie référence to be referred by the Central Govt in référence to the violation of Section 25-H of the I.O. Acf. ~7n absence of the spécifie référence, tbe vorlcman is not entitled to the benefit of re-employment.

8. In view of the above discussion made in thé earlier paras, there is no merit in the référence, the same is rejected and the workman is not entitled to any relief. Central Govt. be informed. Chandjgarh.

18-1-2CIO2.

S. M. GOEL, Presidmg Officer3453 Fazilka Bfttach w.ei. 3Qtfe JanQary, 1984, vvas juScitt^ft? If n©t, to wftat relief the workmaa is entitted to ?"

2. The applicant in the clai" stateinent stated that he was appointed as godown keeper by the manage- ment on 3-11-1983 against a permanent post and his services were terminated on 30-1-1984. It is also alleged that after the termination of the services of the workman fresh hands were recruited. Th" pétition of the manageemnt in recruiting the other person in place of the workman is illégal and un- justified. He has teqàested for tfce reinstatement in service wijthall attendant benefits.

New Delhi; tlic 13th Mardi, 2002

S.©-. 1158.-—m pttrsœwce of Seatîbn- 17 of the In-

3. In written sîatam'ent the respondéht has pfeaded that' aie wôrkmân Vvas engaged as tenipotary godown ikeeper at Faxilka] brànch fronï 3--iI-ft83 to: 30-1-1984 for 89 days and appointaient was made against temporary seasbnal vacancy. Silice the ap- pomtmerit wà^ for" seàMrM wbïk and' i&t 8$ days, the violation of the prévisions of Section 25-F of the Act. And the workman deserves no relief from the management.

4. The applicant also fîled rejoinder reiterating the

claim made in the daim statement.

dustrieDispute Aet, 1947 (14 of 1947), fhe Centrai Government hereby pubîishes the award (Ref; No. I.D. 167(89) of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal-cnm-Labour Court Cnaïïdigârh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, whifch¹ was received by the Central Government on 11-3-2002.

[No. L-12012|95|89-IR(B-I)j AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

(Dated : 2-1-2002)

référence. So the action of (lie management of State Hank of India in terni Inating the services of Shri Tota Ram Godown Keeper at Fazilka 3-iranch w.e.f. 30-1-84 ï> ius'ified and wnrkman is nof cntitled to any relief, Centra! Govt. be informed.

Chandigi'irh.

2-1-2002.

S. M. GOEL, Presiding OiTiccr New Delhi, the 13,th March, 2002 S.O. J159.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the lndustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the awarJ (Réf. V>. ID. 166/91) of the Central Government lndustrial Tribunal;Labour Court, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure in the lndustrial Dispute between the cm- ployers in relation to the management of Northerav Railway and their workman, which was reccived by the Central Government on 11-3-2002.

[No. L-41011/24/91-IR(B-D]

AJAY KUMAR. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI M. S. GOEL, PRESID- ING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

(Réf. No. I.D. 166/91)

H. K. Sharma

. . Workman.

Versus

Northern Railway

. . Management.

PRESENT :

Fur the workman : None.

For the management : P. P. Khorana,

AWARD

Dated : 3-1-2002

The CentralGovt. Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred on thçm under section 10(l)(d) and Sub-scction 2-A, of section 10 of Ihe Indusfrjal Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to os îhe act), vide their lcttcr No. L-41011/24/91-I.R. (D.U.; Uated 31-10-91, rcfcrrcU the following Industrial di'putc to this Tribunal for adjudication:—

"Whcfher ihe action of jîjanagement of Rail- ways in not posting Shri H. K. Sharma as Station Superintendent in the Grade of Rs. 2375-3500 (Pre-revised 840-1040) is justified ? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?"

2. Case repeatedly called. None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman despite many notices. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the présent référence. In view of the above, since the workman is not interested to pursue with the présent référence, the same is rturned to the Central Govt. for want of pro"ecu- tion. Centra] Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh.

2-1-2002.

S. M. GOEL, Frc'idin? Officer New Delhi, the 15th March, 2002 S.O. 1160.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. CGIT/1.C/R/149Î95) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in relation îo the management of Western Railway and their workman, whicli w&' received by the Central Governmc-nt on 14-3-2002.

[No. L-41012/l09/94-TR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Dcsk Officer3455 ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALl CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

Case No. CGIT/LC/R/149|95

Shri K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer.

properly. The Enquiry Officer had not considered the médical certincates filed by him. The enquiry officer wrongly held the charges proved against him. The finding of Enquiry Officer is perverse. The Discipi$nary authority "wfrongly accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and passed the order of dis- missal from service on 13-1-92. He was not given the enquiry report to submit his explanauon for the considération of disciplinary authority. The enquiry was conducted in his absence. In view of ail thèse facts, the order of removal from service passed by! the management against him is bad in law. This order deserves to be quashed. He is entitled io reinstatement with ail back wages.

Shri Faruq Ahmed, C/o Jeetendra K, Ved, General Workmens Union, Rly. Qr. 328-A, Post Godhara, Gujarat. Applicant.

Versus

The Divisional Electrical Engineer, Western Railw&y, Near Railway Station, RaUam. Non-applicant.

AWARD Passed on this îst day of Mardi, 2002

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-41012/109/94-IRB.I dated 7-8-95 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :—

4. The case for management is that the workman remained absent from duty wîthout any authofit5f w.e.f. 7-4-90 to 18-4-90 and 2-6-90 to 13-6-90. For this misconduct the management issued a chargesheet on 25-7-90 which was received by the workman on 26-7-90. The enquiry officer was appoiated by the management to hoîd the DE against the workman. The workman was given opportunity to put up his defence before the Enquiry Officer. He submitted his reply on 31-7-90 before the Eaquiry Officer aod denied charges framed aorainF* him. On 20-11-90, the Enquiry Officer was appointed and the workman was informed to appear before him for participating in the enquiry proceedings. Inspite of service cf notice on him, he deliberately absçnted hiroself from participating in the enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer proceeded exparte against him After the completien of Enquiry, the charges were found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer.

The Diseiplinary Authority accepted the report "Whether the action of the management of Divisional Electric Engineer (TPO) West- ern Railway, Ratlam in terminating the services of Shri Faruq Ahmed w.e.f. 13-1-92 is justified or not ? If not, what rleief the workman is entitled for ?"

of enquiry officer and passed the order of removal "from service on 13-1-92. The Departmental En- quiry was conduetsd against the workmaa in a just and proper manner. The workman was given ample opportunity to défend his case. The order of remo- val from service passed by the management is just and proper and does not require any interférence. The workman is not eatitted to reinstatement with back wages as claimed by him.

5. The followïng^ issues arise for décision in this case and my findings thereon are noted herein- after :—

1. Whether the DE conducted by the manage-' ment against the workman is just and proper ?

2. Whether the order of dismissal passed by the management against the workman on 13-1-92 is just and proper?

3. Whether the workman is-entitled to> reinstate-

ment with back wages ?

2. The case for the workman is that he had put in years continuous service in Western Railway, Ratîam division as permanent electrical Khaîasi. He was wrongly chargesheeted on 25-7-90 on the alléga- tions of unauthorised absence from 7-4-90 to 18-4-90 and from 2-6-90 to 30-6-90. He had submitted médical, certificate for both periods from a qualified private médical practitioner duly countersigned by the Western Railway, Médical Officer. After 18-4-90, he had resumed his duty at Ratlam. Thereafter he had taken leave to visit his native place Godhra. On completion of his period of leave, he was returning ftom Godhra to Ratlam on 2-6-90 but he could not reach Ratlam as both up and down Unes were blocked due to Raiiway accident between Morwani and Bildi. He informed his superior officer regard- ing his inabiiity to attend duty due to said accident. He returned to Godhra and fell ill. He was under the treatment of private doctor at Godhra w.e.f. 25-5-90 to 4-7-91. He had sent the médical certi- ficate duly countersigned by the Railway doctor to his immédiate officer for sanctioning the leave.

3. The workman further allèges that the DE was conducted against him by the management in a biased manner. The Enquiry Officer had not acted properly in discharRinsî "his duty as Enquiry Officer. He gave a iinding for the period of abesnce which was not fhe subject raatter of enquiry. No proper opportanity was given to him to défend his case

ReHeï and costs ? Issues No. 1 : , On the perusal of De papers, it appears that the Eriqu-iry Officer had given ampte opportunity to the workman to put up his defence properly. It has been .admitted by the workmap in his statement that inspite of service of. notice .on him he did not partici- pate in the Enquiry Proceedings. This very state- ment goes to show that he had deliberatelv absented himself from participating in the DE. It- was his duty to appear before the Enquiry Officer to prove 967 GII20O2—17, *t> '? Tî ï= 1: * _ ~ _ E T Tr

' ~ 'r" r AT ' î - -' Ar- ? . ÏL ^ "on 1 •' ' "TT ^V TP \ \c \ o ~%

his defence. Ile fiïiled to do so. He c-ould hâve • easily put up his defence regarding his iJlness before the Enquiry Officcr in respect to the peiiod of his absence from duty. He failed to produce the médi- cal certificaics also before the Enquiry Officer for considération. He could hâve been easily approa- ched the Enquiry Officer to get the relevant médical certificates produced from the management, if he had at ail submitted the same in the office of his superior officer. This in action of the workman goes to show that neither he was sick during the period of his ab- sence from duty nor there was any such circumstance which prevented him from attending his duty.

7. In view of the facts stated above, it lias been amply estabîished that the workman was given adé- quate opportunity by the Enquiry Officer to prove his defence. It was the workman who did not ihink it proper to avail off this opportunity. It is therefore held that the DE conducted against the workman is iust and proper. Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.

8. Issue No. 2 :

From the enquiry papers, it appears that the! En- quiry Officer bas considered the entire facts! and évidence on record available to him during the en- quiry proceedings. The enquiry Report does not appear to be perverse. The Enquîrv Officer has reasoijably considered and given his finding based on the ma^erial available to him. Àt the same time this court cannot sit as a court of appeal over the order of Disciplinary Authority. The report of Enouiry Officer does not suffer from any légal infirmity.

i 9. The punishment of removal from service as given bv the management on the basis of report!sub- mitted by the Enauïrv Officer does not appear tjo be •mproper. The charges hâve been held to be prpved asainst the workman. To remain absent from jduty without anv leeal authority is a serions misconduct. Such tvpe of négligent workers donot deserve any svmrathv in the oresent circumsiances. It has be- come a fashion to remain absent from dutv on sorne pretext or other after gettms emplovment in a oublie ^c'or. Such activity must be curbed. Taking ail îbe"e facts into circumstances. I find that the tjunish- rnent of removal from service awarded by the manneernent against the workman is iust and nrooer. T> (!n^<; rot recuire any intereference in th's case.

This issue is answered accordingly.

10. Tçsue No. 3.—In view of mv fmdinïrs elven on Tssue Nos. 1 and 2. the workman is not entitled to re- in statement wïth back wages.

11. Tssue No. 4.—On the reasons stafed above, il is held that the management has rïghflv terminated the services of irorkman Shri Faruq Ahmed w.e.f. 13-1-92. The workman is not entitled to reinstate- ment wifh back wases and other conséquent! al benefits as claimed by him. His dismissal from senàce is just and proper.

12. The référence is answered in favour of the man- agement and against the workman.

13. Copv of the award be sent to the Government of Tndia, Ministry of Labour as per rules.

K. M. RAI, Presidine Officer rr .r r T T_ - >- -( . 11

Nev, Delhi, Ihe 15ih Mardi, 2002 S.O. 1161.—In pursnance of Section 17 of tho Industrial ^Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), tiis Ccniral Oo^ernmcnt lieieby pubîishes the award (Réf. No. CGITjLC!R]244!97) of the Central Gov- ernment Indiîstrial Tribunal-cuin-Labour Court, Jabalpur as ^bown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the cm;loyers in relation to the management ci Wi-s'.crn Railway and their work- rni'n, whJch wa-- rccc'vcd bv tîic Central Governmsnt on 14-3-2002.

jNo. L-41012jl58;96-IR(B-I)l A.1 A Y KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNFXTjRE

BEFORE 1"HF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT JNDUSTRIAI, TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COt RL JABALPUR

Tas; K\ Cn!r:i.C!R'244|97

P-:esiding OITiccr.—Shvi K. M. Rai.

Shri Manna Z ra E-A, G;mgm-n Western R^ilway Bamania Siation, H011. Secy. GW Union, Sinduri Mataa Dev-.than. SI Nagar, PO. Godhri.

.App'icant

Versus

The Division al Rs'lway f îanager, Wfs'ern RaHway, Railway Station, Railarn.

. . Non-applicant

AWARD

Passcd on th': !st day of Mardi, 2002 \ The Cnvr-nmcnt of Trulb, Ministrv of Labour VHU: O'-d-r Nn. L-1!01?.'158i96-TR(B)'dt. 19-9-97 h.is referred ibe foll^win^ di"nute for adjudication by thir- tribunal—

"W.hsfhrr the rc'.'tm of the management of Railw?.y Marnée. Western Railway, R^tîim in îe"rv'iri!'î\? the sprv'ices of Shri3457 4. The following issues ha\e been framed in this case and my nndings thereon are noted hereinafîer:-

Manna Jhera, Ex. Gangman vide order dt. 11-2-94 is légal and jusîified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

1. Whether the DE conducted by tlhe manage- ment against the v.oïkman is just and pro- per ?

2. Whether ihe order of dismissal from service passed by the management against the workman on 11-2-94 is légal?

3. Wheiher the workman is entitied to rein-

statement wiïh back wages ?

4. Relief and costs ?

2. The case for the workman is thaï he had put in 32 years of continuons service in the Western Raiiway, Ratlam Division as Gangman. He is illi- terate and does not know how to read and wriie. His mother tongue is Gujarati, he was isued a charge- sheet in the year 1992 for being unauthorised absent from duty w.e.f. 3-9-91 to 23-1-92. He was suffier- ing from serions aliment during the said period and was being treated by a qualiiied private médical prac- titioner. He had intimated the gang jamadar regard- ing his serious aliment. The Gang Jamadar did not communieate the saine to the PW1 for needful action. The management had dmded to hold DE against him. He had participated in the enquiry proceed- ipgs. The Enquiry Otficer did not hère him properly dunng the enquiry proceedings. Every thing was conducted in Hindi whidh was not followed by thè workmr.n. The Enquiry Officer did not act in a fair and jusi manner while conducting the enquiry proceedings. He was not given adéquate opportu- nity to prove his deîeuce before him. The enquiry Officer wrongiy held ihe charges proved against him. He was not given the icport of enquiry officer io explain the circumstances to tihe Disciplinary Autho- rity. The Enquiry Officer had not applied his mind in holding the charges proved against him. The Disciplinary Authority wrongiy relied on the report of the enquiry officer and passed the order of dismis- sal from service against him en 11-2-94. TMs order deserves to be quashed. He is entitled to reinstate- ment with ail back wages.

5. Issue No. 1.—It h~s bcen speciâcally admiîtîd by tue workman in his staiement of claim that he had participated in the enquiry proceedings and the en- quiry was conducted against him in nis présence. He has not been able to siiow Ihat the Enquiry Officer had not given him the adéquate opportunity to put up his defence before him properly. He had aîso been given tlhe copy of enquiry report by the mana- gemeni. it has not been proved that the workman dees not understand Hindi. It was his duty TO produce médical cet dûcatc before the Enquiry Officer io prove that he rcmamed absent from duty on account of serious illncss. He could hâve also exa- mined Jamadar to preve his contention. He did not think it proper to examine the said Jamadar before Enqujry Officer to prove the fact of illness during the relevant period. The reasons are best known to the workman only. Taking ail thèse facts into considération. It is held that the enquiry has been conducted against the workman in a just and proper manner. Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.

3. The case for the management is îhat the work- man was employed as gangman on 28-4-67. He remained in employmint for the period of 27 years. He remained absent from duty without authority on varions dates. He deliberateiy absented himself from duty w.c.f. 3-9-91 to 23-1-92, 10-2-92 to 15-5-92 and 21-5-92 to 3-9-93 without any authority. For this miseonduct, a chargesheet was framed against him and DE was decided to be conducted. The work- maa fully understands Hindi, he had participated in the enquïry proceedings and he was given ample opporîunity to détend his. case before the Enquiry Otncer. He was supplied the copy of the report of Enquiry Officer before passing the order of dismisial from service. The workman had never submitted any médical certificate to the compétent authority for sanctioning the leave as cJaimed by him. He never mentioned the name of Gang Jamadar to whom he %àd communicatcd the lacis o£,bis ilîness.. He a3sû did not Sle any médical certificate before the Enquiry Officer to pïove his deience. The Enquiry Officer conducted the DE-m à just and fair manner by giving adéquate opporîunity ip the workmaû to défend.his case properly. Tlhe finding,of the Enquiry Officer is based on the facts and évidence available on record. 'Hk report docs not tuffer from any perversity. The 6rde.r of disinissal from service,' passed by the mana- gement, against the workman is perfectly légal and does not requise any interférence. The workman is ncl eniitied '^^ny itlief as ciauned .by-iiyn.

6. Issue No. 2 and ' 3.—The enquiry officer had heid the charges proved against the workman after considering ail the relevant material availabîe on record. His flnding does noî sulfer trem any perver- sity. The workman has not béer) given any cogent reason to discard the report of enquiry officer in which the charges hâve bcen proved against him. The Disciplinary Authority secepted this report and pass- ed the order or dismisyal from service w,e.f. 11-2-94. The workman deliberateiy absented himself from duy without any iawfui authority. He also eould not prove that due to serions illness he was not able to juin hia duty during the relevant period. Np employé; can be aiiowtd to remain absent from duty withoui geîting leave properly sanctioned by the compétent authority. Ihe workman chose io remain absent fjorn duty without getting his leave sanctioned from, She compétent auihority. The workman's choice to remain absent from duty without getting his leave sanctioned from the compefent authority is unjusti- fied. It shows his ciear négligence towards his duty. Such action of any worker aœounts to serious mis- eonduct. la such a circumstances, no leniency can be shown in respect to imposition .of punishment re- garding the charges t'ound proved against the work- man. In the .présent day, it has become common practice io rcitiain absent from duty in public sec* or on some pit-text or ofher which is highly objectioh- able. Such worker s do not deçerve to be rctained in servie: at ail. Taking ail thèse facts Mo consi- dération. I find that the order of termination passed by ihz management against the workman on 11-2-94 'ss perfsciiy jus: end proper in the ciicumstances ot3458 THE GAZETTE OF IND1A : APRIL 6, 2002/CHATTRA 16, 1924 [PART II—SEC. 3{n)\ • le case. The workman is not entitled to reinstate- ment vvith back wages and other monetary beneâts as elaimed by him. Issues No. 2 and 3 are answered accordingly.

7. Issue No. 4.—On Ihe icasons stated above it s held that the order of dismissal from service passed by the management on 11-2-94 against the workman is pcrfectly just and légal. The workman is not en- tiîled îo reir.sfafement with back wages as claimed by him.

8. Tho référence k accordingly answered in favour of the management and against the workman.

9. Gopy of ihe award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per raies.

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 15th March, 2002 S.O. 1162.—In pursuance of Section 17 of îhe Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. C.R. No. 97/98) of the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Bangalore, as shown in the Annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by tbe Central Govern- ment on 14-3-2002.

[No. L-12012/74/98-IR(B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, "SHRAM SADAN" III MAIN, in CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Dated : 5th March, 2002

PRESENT :

Hoifblë Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B.Corn., LLB.. Presiding Officer,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE C.R. No. 97/98

I PARTY II PARTY Sri R. K. Sagargol, The Assistant General S/o Shri Kadappa, Manager (Personnel), Rudraswamypeth, State Bank of India. Janrkhandi (PO) Head Office, Bijapur (Dist.)-586101 St. Marks Road, Advocate-K. V. Sathyanarayana Bangalore-560009

Advocate-Ashok.. B. Patil.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (2A) of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. 12012/74/ 98/IR(B-I) dated 13th November, 1998 for ad- judication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating ffie services of Shri Revanâppa Kadappa Sagargol is légal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ?" 2. The lst Party was working with the 2nd Party. His services were terminâted and therefore, Indus- trial Dispute is raised.

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

4. The case of the lst Party in brief is as follôws :—

5. The case of the lst Party is thfft he was appoin- ted by the 2nd Party Management as a Sweeper- cum-Messenger on daily wages during March, 1982 and was continued as such up till 1984 and again thereafter he was appointed as Sweeper-cum-Messen- ger w.e.f. March 1990 and continuously he was allowed to work up to 31-1-1994 and thereafter, the management has refused work. The Management refused work w.e.f. 31-1-1994. The action of the management is not correct.

6. It is the further case of the lst Party that the 2nd Party management is in the habit of conti- nuing to give job only one day or two days in a month, though, virtuaîly, he has been terminâted from the services w.e.f. 31-1-1994. The workman with the hope of getting absorbed, continued in the bank services but the management has not regulari- sed his services. He belongs to Schedule Caste Community and studied up to 9th Standard.

7. It is his further case that he worked for more than 240 days during many years in between viz. 366 days during 1992 and 356 days during 1993. He was discharging permanent, nature of duties. Refusai of work tantamount to retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The management has not çomplkâ with3459 the mandatory requirements under Section 25 F clauses (a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. Further the action of the management is in violation of Section 25 N as Chapter VB of the Jndustrial Disputes Act is applicable to the 2nd Parties management. The action is illégal. The workman for thèse reapons and for some other reasons has prayed to pass the award in his favour.

8. Management appeared and filed Counter. The case of the management in brief is as under :

9. It is true that the lst Party has served in the Bank as a Sweeper-cum-Messenger since 1982 at intermittent periods. The nature of employmtut is purely of a temporary nature and such appointment in the bank is goyerned accordingiy by the Bi-partite settlement dated 17th November, 1987. Whenever the dispute is raised it should be in terms of the settlement.

10. It is the further case of the management that the settlement dated I7th November, 1987 provided for categorization of temporary employées working in the bank into A, B and C catégories and a to pro- vided an opportunity for absorption in the services of the Bank after holding an interview. The criteria is to consider the length of temporaty services etc. as stated in para 2 of the Counter. The Claim of the lst Party workman is not maintainable.

11. It is the further case of the management that as a resuit of the Bipartite Settlement dated 30th July, 1986 the panel of temporary employées that was prepared in accordance with the aforesaid settlement dated 17th November, 1987 would be made use of for permanent appointment in the Bank against vacancies arising during the year 1994, 1995 and up to December, 1996 where after the said panels would lapse, Without préjudice to what is stated above, the référence can only be sorted out in accordance with the new norms to be settled, for absorption of such ex-temporary employées as the first party, in the subséquent settlements to corne, if so provided for. The 2nd Party for thèse reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to reiect Ihe référence.

12. It is seen from the records that management examined one Mr. Y. R. Shapur, the Chief Manager. His évidence is that the lst Party workman has worked in the 2nd Partv bank at Bagalkot froro 1991 to 1994 as a Temporary Sweeper-cum-Messenger. He was asked to work in the îeave vacancies. He savs that he has no idea of his workins in the said bank e^riier to 1991. It a^pears the case was adioutned for further ex^mins'ion and thereafîer the management could not keep him présent.

13. The management examined--. one Shivanand G. Thiigadi, Manager, Hubïi. His évidence is that the workrnnti w^s wirkwv as Temporary Sweeper-cum-Messeng^r. No Appoïntm?ht Order w"s giveu ÏO ihe work- man and he is not entitled for any relief. They hâve not termânated the services of the lst Party. He has also given évidence about Bipartite Settlement and two agreements.

14. He further said that there were cate- gorization according to the agreement. He further says that who ever has worked for 240 days, they were given 'A' Category and the period was from 1-7-75 to 31-12-87. The date was extended up to 31-7^88. He says that the lst Party was not in ahy category.

15. In his cross examination MW2 has said that lst Party has worked from 1982 to 1990 at two pïaces in Bagaîkot and Jamkhandi.

16. Agcinst this workman gave detailed évi- dence in support of his case. He says that he has worked from 1982 to 1994 at two places i.e. Jamkhandi and Bagaîkot. He says that he worked from 1982 to 1983 and again in 1990. He has given detailed dates of having worked in the bank. He has filed documents. He is cross examined but nothing is elicited from his cross examination to disbelieve his évidence.

17. I hâve heard the arguments of both sides. I hâve perused ail the documents filed by the parties. The workman has filed some extracts in order to establish that he workëd with the bank in 1982, 1983, 1990 and 1991. He has aîso filed certain certificates given by the respective Branch Managers and aecording to thèse certifîfîcates the workman bas work- ed for number of days given in the certificates. According to one cerfificate, it is cîear that he has worked as Temporary Sweeper cum Messenger on full scale wages at Bagaîkot Branch.

18. We are having one letter which says that the workman has worked temporariîy during 1991 and he was deputed to work at Bagaîkot Branch. If we consider ail thèse certificates if is abundantly clear that this workman has worked for years toeether and his services were taken by the respective Branch Managers.

19. Of course worktnan has said in this cross examination thaf no aDoointment order was aiven. but that itseîf is not sufFcient to say that the workmtm bas not worked for num- ber of days cîaimed by him.

20. MW2 has categoricaîly stated in his CTOKU ^xanijppîïon *hot lst prrîy workman wor!;;-'. from 1982 to 1990" at 2 place i.e.

Babalkot and Jamkhandi. Tliis cross examina- tion of MW2 is sufficient to sa}' that for a long period as contended by the workman he has vvorked with thc bank.

21. MW-.l has stated thaï the case of the workman does not fail under any category and he is not entitled to permanent job. To believe this the management has filed any documents. On the other hand the lst Party has filed extracts and also certificates given by the Branch Managers of the 2nd Party Bank to the eïïect that he has worked for many year with the Bank.

22. The management has filed seulement. According to this seulement the temporary workman has to be regularised. In the instant case it is not in dispute that the workman has worked continuously from 1982, 1983, 1990 and 1991. Therefore it is clear that he can be considered for regularization.

23. I hâve given my best considération to the material before me and I am of the opinion that the case of the workman can be considered by the management for re- gularization if he fulfills ail the necessary con- ditions required for regularization. Accord- ingly, I proceed to pass the following Order;

ORDER

The référence is partîy allowed. The management is directed to regularize the ser- vices of thc workman if he fulfills the neces- sary conditions required for regularization in terms of seulement and other rules. No other benefits are awarded.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her correcî- ed and signed by me on 5th March. 2002).

V. N. KULKARNÏ. Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 15th March, 2002 S.O. 1163.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 92 of 1993) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. I, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the empioyers in, relation to the management of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14-3-2002.

[No. L-J 2012/39/88-D-II(A) /IR(B-I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Offioer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, DHANBAD In the matter of a référence under Section 10(1 )(d) C2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Référence No. 92 of 1993

PARTIES :

Empioyers in relation to the management of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipûr.

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT :

Shri S. H. Kazmi. Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

For the Empioyers : Shri B. K. Mukherjee, Advocate.

For the Workman : Shri R. N. Ganguïy, Advocate. STATE : Bihar. INDUSTRY : Banking.

Dated, the lst March, 2002

AWARD

By Order No. L-12012/39/88-D.lI(A,)/lR.B.I dated 26-8-1993 the Central Government in the Minis- try of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section J0 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur in terminating the services of Shri Sudha Ratan Singh, ex- empïoyee at R-Block branch. Patna w.e.f. 7-3-85 h légal anci justified ° K net. to v.lut relief ;he workman is eutitled to .'"' 3461-

automaticaily on expiry of the contractual penod. Further, according to ttie management, automalic ces- sation of service after. expiry ot stipuiated period does not constitute 'retrenchment' and is, therefore, outside the purview of Chaptcr "VA' of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has aiso been stated that such termina- tion of service as a resuit of non-renewal of the con- tract has been excluded from the définition of 'retrench- rnent' under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Induslnai Dis- putes Act and so there is no justifiable claim as raised which can be adjudicated by the Tribunal. Further, the case is that the concerned workman admittedly . has not completed 240 days attendance in a year and has not completed one year's continuous service within the meaning of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act and further the provision of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act hâve no applica- tion as those relate to retrenchment whereas in the case of the concerned workman there ts no question oî any retrenchment at ail. It is also the case that tha concerned workman was never appointed on regular basis rather he was engagea for a specified period. For the regular appointaient, it is sa'd, there is set procédure in the Bank i.e. recruitment tnrou.s"h Bank- ing Service Recruitment Boarcl.

While making parawise continents to the written statement fiied on behalf of the workman aiso while controverting or dening several claims raised by the concerned workman, it was reiterated thaï the con- cerned workman was appointed pureîy on temporary basis for 80 days from 17-12-84 to 6-3-85 as Clérk and on expiry of 6-3-85 the service of the concerned workman wns aufomatically terminated. Tt has aïso been asserted that the concerned workman was never appointed against permanent post and he was aopoint- . ed purely on temporary basis to cope up with exigency situation on account of sudden increase of wnrk and/or as leave substitute and/or for extra contractual work of non-recurring mode. It has also been averred thaï considering the nature of engagement of the concern- ed workman there is no application of provision of para 522(4) of Sastri Awa^d as weïl It has also been denied that any fresh hands were appoinfed by îhc Bank in place of the concerned workman. As regard? the number of few cases which hâve been furnished by stating that those were aîso similar disputer. ïn which adjudication has been made in favour of fhe workmati. it has been renlied tbat those matters are tfffl sub- iudice either before Hon'b'e Suprême Court or before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. As such, accordin" to the management, those are of no h eb to Ûiz concerned workman.

2. Briefly stated, the case or claim of the concernée! workman is that he was appointée! on 17-12-1984 as Clerk-cum-Cashier and his service was let'niinated w.e.f. 7-3-i98S. It has further been stated thaï he was appointed against permanent vacancy on permanent basis although he was wrongly described as temporary workman. It is said that he was selected after holding proper test as regards suitability and competency for the job on which he was appointed and the manage- ment was fully satisfied with his performance but even. then the management terminated his service on account of the policy décision of the management to recruit workman describing Mm as temporary and terminat- ing his service before completion of 90 days of at- tendance so that the management would not be reqxiir- ed to make him permanent. It has also been said that before terminating the service of the concerned work- man the management did not prépare or publish senio- rity list of cîerks and/or clerk-cum-cashier as required by Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, and further principle of "last corne first go" as provided under Section 25 (G) of the Industrial Dis- putes Act was also not followed before taking such \ action. Further it has been said that before terminating the service the management did not give 14 days notice or wages in lieu thereof under para 522(4) of Shastri Award. Further. the claim is that after terminatioi* of service of the concerned workman fresli persons, were appointed but no notice was given under regisfer- ed cover to the concerned workman as provided under Rule 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules. 1957. Subsequently it is said that industrinl dispute was raised and conciliation was itiitiated. but due to adamant attitude of the management conciliation pro- ceeding ended in failure whereafter the dispute was referred to this Tribunal for adjudication, only upon the direction made-by the Hon'ble High Court in ifs writ jurisdiction. It is also the case that the manage- ment did not give notice to the concerne^ workman in the prescribed manner as required under Industrial Disuutes Act, 1947 although it was manckwv to give notice to the retrenched emoloyee individuaHv under registered cover and a? such the action of the manage- ment in terminating the service of the concerner! wnrk- man is illégal. arbHrnrv. mala fide and also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Further it has been said that the action of the manage- ment amounts to tmfaîr labour nractice also as ner Schedule 'V of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. The termination of service of the concerned workman. as t>er the daim, is, in fact, retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Tndu'triai Disputes Act. 1947 and non-ccmrsliance of Rule 77 of the Tndustrial DisDutes (CenfnO Ruîes makes the terminntion illégal and void. Lastlv. it has been said that the workman is enfitîed for reinsfatement with ail ccnseauential benefits.

In rejoinder filed to the written sfntem.rit of

3. The mana2amer£ on the o t he hand. npart from raising severni techmci¹ r>Tv'"*t*rvns *iav<* corne ont with the case. as disclosei in its writfen sratenent, that the concerned work- man was aopoï.nted jn a^-hoc vacanev nnd twreiv on temn^nirv Msts and w?g rtot anpojnt^cl far reeular tr"nd of dutv. Tt h^% also been nverr^d that 1hn concerned workman wns atmointed for tbe spécifie ppnorî ps pef rcnti*nct stsH frfc ser^ce c^rrie to an et>d

4. From the nforesard stands taken on behalf of both the "des it is évident tbat the cor-; iesue which. in facî. is bone of cor/"ntion is whe*ber in view c' the facts and circum^tances irsvolved the ror>cerned v/nrkman can be said fo have b^en re^ren^'ie-1 fro-rr hh service of the concemed Bank or not. Tbe oth.pi' aspects and relief as claimed bv the concerned work- man are quite deper4deîît unoti the find'ng" whichS1S2 TKE GAZETTE C? ^ O I£ : APSJL. 6, •2"S2/'eSAn2A 15. T924 [?â*r S^SOS'Ci)] would be arrivçd at on tbe aforesaid core- issue •= involved.

5. In support of their respective stands both the sides hâve led oral as well as documentary évidence. One witness has been examined trom the side ot the management and iikewise on behalf ox the workxnan one witness has been examitied, who is none other than the concerned workman himssif. Few documents hâve also been exhibited on behalf of the parties which are marked Ext. W-l séries and M-l séries. The rele- vancy and significance of the matenals placed in course of the proceeding wouid be gone into and considered in course of discussions made hereinafter.

ment Ietter and on 8-12-94 accordingly direction was inaae to ihat eiïect but even then uo such letîer was proauced by die concerned workman and any expla- nation whatsoever in. that regard was also not fur- mshed. It is due to such attitude on the part of the concerned workman it has been urged on behalf of tue management that ths concerned workman has deliberatciy iried to suppress the material fact by not Pioducing the appointaient Ietter as in tlie event of production of such Ietter the reality would hâve corne inîo light and he would hâve been left with no claim to justify. Considering lie circumstances of ihis case this submission made on behalf of the management cannot be entirely brushed aside though it cannot be taken to be the sole basis for discarding the entire claim of the concerned workmsn.

7. The managem:nt's plca, as seen above, is that îhe concerned workma-i was engaged initially for 30 days wh'.ch was extended upto 80 days and so on expiry of 80 days on "6-3-85 the service of the con- cerned workman was automatically terminated. The management^ witness CM W - l) has also supportedthe said fact and further in support of such stand taken or the fac-s mentioned, attendance register has also been predueed for !he relevant period which shows that attendance of the concerned workman was marked from 17-12-84 to 6-3-85 only and further in that ths nams of th-; concernée! workman is mentioned separa- teîv under the head "temporarv". Fâtticularlv • nc'e nc*hin" bas been prnduced in rebutfal of the said stand taken bv the management the oral évidence as al?o the said document oroduced from the side of the manaectrent cwn well he taken to be the material. which POTPÎV corroborft'e¹? and supports the mnnage- ment's rtond of engagement for a specified period.

6. As it is apparent from the above, it is not in dispute that the concerned workman worked as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the concerned Bank from 17tb December, 1984 to 6-3-85. In the written statement of the workman, howcver, 7-3-85 is the date men- tioned which seems to be incorrect ia viçjv of own document of the workman (Exr. W-l séries) wherein clearly 6-3-85 is mentioned as the date uptil which the concerned workman worked in the Bank and this is in conformity with the entries made in the Attend- ance Register also (Ext. M-l séries) produced by the management. The dispute, in fact, is with respect to the nature, mode and the manner oî appoint- aient or engagement of the concerned workman. As per ths management the appoïntment was purely on ad-hoc or temporary basis for a specified period i.e. for 80 days in total, due to exigency aiisen and also in order tcf cope with pressure of work in the Bank and no soener the saij period îapscd there was autcm?tic cessation of employaient which in no way can be termed as "retrenchment"'. Tlie workman, on the other hand, submits that he was selec'ed after holding proper test resardmc his suitability and corn- petencî and it is incorrect fo sav that his employment v/ai ccntractual or for a specified period.

3v;>\

or competency of the person concerned is required to be tested particuiarly when lie was going to be appointed on a post of Clerk-cum-Cashier.

9. Ext. W-l séries are the copies of the représen- tations said to havc beea subraitted by the concerned workman before the management after his stoppage from work or after his termination av alleged. In ail those documents there is not even the whisper about ihe nature or manner of appointment rather from some of ihe letters or the représentations it appears that the concerned workman M as engaged temporarily as they speak about ths assurance given for régula- risation by the authorilies of the management. In para 6 of the rejoinder filed on behalf of the concerned workman also at one place it has been stated that it is incorrect to suggest that the concerned workman has no claim for his régularisation. If a person is appointed on a reguiar basis and as against a perma- nent post and if his services are terminated on any ground whatsœver lie would not pray for régularisa- tion of his service rather straight-away he wouid s'eek relief for reins'atement. Quite apparently therefore such conflicting stand taken créâtes a great amount of doubt as far as the gemrineness of the claim of the concerned workman if concerned.

As such in view of the facts and circumsfances as noticed abov'e the only inferencs which can be drawn is that the engagement or the appointment of the con- cerned workman was for a limited or a specified period and he was not appointed on reguiar basis and so this case is well covered under the provision of Sec. 2(oo) (bb) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947j> which is one. of the exceptions provided tor not treating the case to ne a case of "retrenchment" and consequently when it cannot be treated to be a case of retrenchment no question arises of any application or violation of Sec. 25-G or 25-H of Industrial Dis- putes Act, 1947 or Rule 77 or Rule 78 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. The Hon'ble Suprême Court in a case reported in 1996(1) U.J. (S.C.) 229 has held that when ^appointment is for a fixed period unless there is finding that power under Cl. (bb) of Sec. 2(oo) was misused or vitiated by its malafide exercise it cannot be held tbat termination is illégal. So far as the facts of the présent case are concerned thèse are not of such nature out of which it can be inferred that the aforesaid provision of the Tndustrial Disputes Act was either misused or vitiated bv its malafide exercise. Therefore, the aforesaid décision of Hon'ble Suprême Court squarely covers the présent case.

10. By producing a copy of an award passed by this Tribunal on 26-5-95 in Référence No. 109 of 1991 decided analogously with Référence No. 131 of 1991. it was veheme.'itly urged on behalf of the con- cerned workman that exactlv nnder similar circum- stance the then Presidin? Officer of the Tribnual ex- tended relief to the workman who were parties in those référence cases and ordered for their reinstate- ment of course wiîhjut baek wapes. Havjng gone fhrough the said award ths same does not appear to he an award passed under similar circumstances or on 'd'entical facts. It is apparent from page 27 of the said award while noficina the provision of Sec. 2(oo) (bb) of Industrial Disputes Act. J947 the Tribunal made observation that the said provision was inserted r"f>7 GTi2002—18.

in the Act by Act 49 of 1984 which has not been given rétrospective effect. Further, it observed that ad- mittedly the concerned workman were termi- nated from service prior to this provision was brought on Ihe statute bfr.k and before the insertion o[ this provision the law was that a termination of setvice of a workman was retrenchment, excluding three exceptions provided under Section 2(00) of the Act. After having noticed these aspects the Tribu- nal lastly held that the concerned, workmen notwith- standing the terms of their appointment given in the appointaient letters, havc to bc deemed to hâve been retrenched from service when on the expiry of a certain period their service was terminated by the management. Mainly upon Hich finding the relief was granted by the Tribunal to those workmen as in that it was found that the mandatory requirement as provided under Sec. 25-G, 25-H? and few prescribid rules were not loilowed. In the instant case the fact is completely différent. Tn this case admittedly the concerned workman was appointed on 17-12-84 and es alleged his service was terminated on 6-3-95. The provision of Sec. 2(oo) fbb) of the Industrial Dis- putes Act was -nserted in the Act by Act 49 of 1984 w.e.f. 18-8-84. Therefore, quitc obviously the con- cerned workman was appoîPted and was also dis- en.gaged admittedly after coming into force of the aforesaid provision and not before the introduction or coming into effect of said provision as in the case in which aforesaid award was passed. Therefore quite apparsntly the said ciied award which admitted- Jv is under challenge before the Hon'ble High Court does not come to the rescue of the concerned work- man or help him in any way.

11. No doubt, the practice of engaging a person on any post whatsoever on ad-hoc basis or temporarny for a limited period and then appointing some another person after dis-engjaging the earlier one again for a specified period instead of appointing someone on reguiar basis can only be deprecated in strong terms but merely on that count if leaving aside prescribed norms and pro- cédures the relief would be granted to those persons by making them. permanent then at the same time that would also be against thr public policy and the same would be termed as violative of several provisions in regard to equality as enshrined in our Constitution. Particuiarly Art. 16(1) of Constitution of India guarantees equality of opportun!ty for ail citizens in the matter relating to employ- ment or appointment to anv of fhe office under the State and one of the m^ans of assur- ine! this riçht fo ail the citizens is to provide opporfunify of employment or appointment to public office by invitinp; nersons to such em- nlovment through public ndveriis^ment or throush other mode of public reernitment like Emolovment Fxchange efc. as in the présent case whrro sélection is rennired to be mnde throueh Banking Service Recruitment Bôard. Therefore, recruitment on ad-hoc or temporary3464 THE GAZETTE OF 1NDIA : APRIL 6, 2Ô02/vCHAITRA 16, 1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(n)l [PART II—SEC. 3(n\)j New Delhi, the 1 lth Mardi, 2002 basis for a spécifie period canndt provide basis for claiming any right of regular ap- pointment as the same will provide déniai of equal opportunity to other aspirant, who may be otherwise eligible for the employment con- cerned. However, in case of the Bank as stat- ed by the managements witness who happens to be an officer of managerial rank such type of practice regarding engagement for a speci- fied period has now been stopped or changed. I do not find myself convinced that merely by taking the aforesaid action of the manage- ment as unfair labour practice, reinstatement of the concerned workman is necessarily re- quired to be ordered.

S.O. 1164.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Réf. No. B-48J98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the annex- ure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of UCO Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 07-03-2002.

[No. L-12013ll5|98-IR(B-II)]

C. GANGADHARAN. Under Sîcy.

12. Much argument has been made from the side of the management as regards the delay caused in raising the dispute which ac- cordingr to it, has made this dispute as over-stale dispute, but in view of the find- ings arrived at above I consider it needless to go into that aspect as well and to make an elaborate discussion for coming to a spécifie finding.

13. Thus, in view of ail the aforesaid consi- dérations and discussions made above on the basis of materials on record it is finally con- cluded that it stands not established that the concerned workman, in fact was retrenebed from his service and consequentlv. in mv view, the conc^rned workman cannot be said to be entitled for reinstatement or for any relief whatsoever.

*

14. The award is thus rendered as here- under : The action of the m.ana semant of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur in dis-engaging or terminating the service of the concerned workman w.e.f. either 6-3-85 or 7-3-85 is justified and consequentlv the concerned work- man is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.

However, there would be no order as to

cost.

S. H. KAZML Presidins Officer3465 "Whether the action of the management of XJCO Bank is justified in selecting' Shri Subhash Sharma working as Computer Terminal Operator when he was a clerk and not ALPM Operator in Johari Bazar Branch, Jaipur and ignoring the common seniority in sélection of CTO resulting in déniai of post of CTO to Shri Sudhir Minglani? If not to what relief the affected workman is cntitled ?"3466 THE GAZETTE OF JNDIA : APR1L 6, 2002/CHAITRA 16, 1924 |PART II—SEC. 3 ( U )] Accounts Departments shall be eligiblc for ail the posts mentioned above. However, employées who do not accept work in both Cash and Accounts Departments m ternis of Para 1.3 above shall be eligible for func- tional allowance posts in their respective departments only".

"For positions carrying computor îeiated allow- ance sélection wil! be made from amongst the clérical cadres staff as per the existing or future policy/settlements in our bank which shall include passing of an aptitude test. The management will provide training iacilities as deemed necessary."

2.1 "Existing permanent ALPM Operator in the Jaipur Centre shall hâve préférence fur sélec- tion to the post of CTO's".

"Re : Sélection for the post of ALP Operator at our NEI Jaipur Branch

With référence to your application dated 2.vl-95 sent in rseponse to our Notification dated 16-1-95 and subséquent training which you hâve successfully com- pleted, you are hereby posted as ALPM Operator at NEI Jaipur Branch on the following ternis and conditions :—

1. Your posting in the said capaciîy shali be effec- tive from 15-9-95 subject to your reporting at the above Branch.

2. Your sélection to the said post shall be subject to the disqualification mentioned in paras 3.5 and 3.5.4 in part-Il of the promotion policy seulement dated 13-4-1988.

3. Your sélection to the said post shall be on the basis of probation as per provisions of paras 5.3 and 5.4 of the promotion policy seulement referred to above." 5.6.1 "Functional Spécial Allowance posls.in the clérical cadre viz. Spécial Assistant, Head Cashier category 'E' Assistant Head Cashier, Teller, Cashier-in-Charge, Stenographer, Operators of Machines of ail types for which Spécial Allowance is provided under the Bipartite Seulement shall be filled up by open notification on the basis of région wise common seniority (région tlefined liereïfter) subject to fulfillment of the conditions pro- vided Employées working in both Cash and3467 New Delhi, the llth March, 2002

S.O. 1165.-—-In pursu.mce of Section 17 of the Iudustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 477/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers. in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workman. which was received by the Central Government on 08-03-2002.

[No. L-12012/170/97-IR(BII)l C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

• " ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 1NDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 5th March, 2002

PRESENT :

K. Karthikeyan. Presiding Officer.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 477/2001

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal T.D. No. 19/98) (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) uf. Section3468 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2002/CHAITRA 16, 1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri K. Natarajan and the Manage- ment of the Manager, Bank of India.)

BETWEENBETWEEN

Sri K. Natarajan.

. . .. I Party/Workman

AND

. . .. H Party/Management

The Manager, Bank of India, Areyapalayam Branch.

APPEARANCE:

For the Workman : M/s. Row & Reddy, Sri S. Vaidya-

nathan and W. T. Prabahar, Advocates.

For the Management : M/s. S. Ramasiibramaniam &

Associates, Advocates.

Branch Manager maintained a separate register to note down the number of days the Petitioner was engaged and counter- signed the satr>"; in order to get the payment. The Petitioner had called for certain documents from the Management wbich are exclusively with the Management. Since the Petitioner is a class IV employée doing the office work, sponsorship through the Employment Exchange is not necessary. The Petitioner dénies that his entry is a backdoor entry. The recruitment through Employment Exchange is not mandatory. When it is admitted by the Respondent in their Counter Statement that the Petitioner was engaged on temporary basis, the action of the Management of Respondent/Bank in denying employment without any rhyme or reason is nothing sort of victimtsation and unfair labour practice. As per the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conféraient oi Permanent Status to workmen) Act, 1981, the Petitioner is deemed to hâve attained permanent status and the action of the Management in terminating his services is illégal. The Respondent/Bank is goyerned by the Banking Régulations Act, 1949. Section 2 of this Act, clearly says that the provisions of Bankins; Régulation Act shall be in addition and not in dérogation of any other law. The bank is governed by Sastri Award, Desai Award and Bipartite Settletnent. After discharging the Petitioner, the Management has recruited new casuals in his place. This is an ntter viola- tion of Section 25G and 25H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rules 77 and 78 of Central Rules, 1957. By a notification under Section 9 of Tamil Nadu Industrial Estab- lisment (Conforment of permanent status to workmen) Act, 1981, the Sourthern Railway is exempted from the'provisions of that Act. Like that, no notification has been issued exemp- ting banks from the provisions of that 1981 Act. So that Act will apply to the banks as an establishment in Tamil Nadu. The preambie and Sections 1(2) and 1(3) of the 1981 Act, make it very c'ear that the said act will ipply to ail establish- ments in Tamil Nadu whether State or Central. Any Circular regarding procédure for recruitment cannot hold good as an Act supersedes administrative circulars. Administrative instruc- tions, circulars cannot hâve overriding efïect on a Statute. Section 3 of the Conferment Act for permanency states that 'notwithsîanding anytlrng contained in any law for the time bein" in force, every workman who is in continuous service for a period of 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months in an industrial establishment shall be made permanent.' While comnuting 480 days of continuous service, the Respondent/ Workman hâve included the Sundays and Holidays as the Respandent/Bank is required to be closed statutorily tinder the nrovisions of Section 25 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the action of the Management of Bank of India in terminatin" the services of the Petitioner w.e.f. 8-6-1994 is not iustified. Hence, the Respondent/Bank mav be directed to rein'tate the Petitioner in service w.e.f. 8-6-1994 with back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.

7. When the matter was taken up for enquiry. one witness on either side has been examined as WW1 and MW1 îvs- pectivelv and four documents hâve been marked on the side of ths T Partv as Ex. Wl to W4. The learned counsel on either side hâve advancèd their respective arguments.

8. The Point for aiy considération is—

"Whether the action of the Management of Bank of India in terminatin? the services of Sri K. Nyfaraian of Arevapalayam Branch w.e.f. 8-6-94 is iust;fied or not ? If not, to what relief the workman is entiiled ?"

Point :—

deposed that ever since the epening ai the Respondent/Bank Branch at Areyapalayam, he was employed as a temporary casual sub staff and was doing the work of Peon in the office by attending office work, stitching vouchers and doing the work of cleaning furniture of the bank. It is also his évidence that when he was workiag there one Mr. T. K. Krishnamurthy was the Manager of that branch and at the inception he was given Rs. 20 as daily wage and he used to received his wages on daily rated basis once in a week and for the wages paid to him, vouchers used to be prepared in the bank and in October, 1991 his daily rate of Rs. 20 as wages was inercased to Rs. 40 and he was coniinuouyy working for 15 months from 27-3-1991. It is also bis évidence that the wages taid to him daily was régula rly noted down by the Manager of the Bank in a separate book kept by him and that document will show the days on which he worked in the bank branch as temporary casual sub staff on daily rate basis and he was stopped from service by the Managïr Sri S. Krishnamurthy on 8-6-94 and that subséquent to his non-employment, as a temporary casual sub staff, one Mr. Lakshmanan is doing the work as part-time sweeper and he was not given any com- pensation subséquent to the stoppage from work. The then Manager Sri T. K. Krishnamurthy has been examined as MW1. It is his évidence that when tbe Respondent/Bank Branch at Areyapalayam, Satyamangalam Taluk, Erode Dist. was openedj, he joined as a Branch Manager of the bank and apart from a lady engaged as a casual labourer for cleaning the office premises and to provide water, he engaged three more people as Casual Labourers on rotation basis to attend to the day to day misceilaneous work in the bank branch and to assist staff in the bank in dav to day work and one ameng them is the Petitioner Sri K. Natarijan. AH thèse tbree Casual Labourers did the work on rotation basis from the date of opening of the branch. till the permanent staff was nosted to the branch in July, 1992. Except the évidence of MW1. there is no record filed on the side of the management that the Petitioner as one among the three casuals, who was engaaed bv MW1 on rotation basis. It is also not rleaded in the Counter Statement ot the Respondent/Bank. Il is the admission of MW1 that the Petitioner was initially engaged on daily wages of Rs. 20 and subseqnenfly, it was increased to Rs. 40 per day and he used to pay him the daily wages from his pocket and later he used to get it reimbursed. This is also not pleaded in the Counter Statement. Tn the cross examination, MW1 has admitted that he used to initial his signature in the pass book entries and current account ledçers and he used to maintain a book for coolie charges paid bv bim to the daily wages Casual Labourers for petiing re- imbursed from the bank and he used to initial it for entries made for the pavment daily One sisr'i nme'i book he main- tained for the payment of wages made daily is kept in the bank. The xerox copv of one sucii rough book, produced bv the Petitioner is Ex. W2. Tt is his admission that on 29-1-92 rectuestine him to give him advice for getting a post of Daftry/Sepov. for that branch, instead of engaging a person daily on coolie basis. The xerox copy of that letter is Ex. W4. Though MW1 has deposed in cross examination that apart from the Petitioner he engaged two other persons by name Sri Muthu and Sri Rangan, it is his admission that apart from maintainine the daily rough book for the payment of wages to the coolies for gettina them re.imbursed fnm the Mnnaee- ment. he has not maintained any other document in the branch. In Ex. W2 it is not mentioned that three persons were emnloyed as casual labourers and one among them is the Petitioner. No name of the casual labourer is mentioned in that note book Fx. W2 for the daily wages paid. Though it is admitted bv MW1 in his évidence that fhe records for rav- inent of wat in the bank branch. no document to that efïect has been filed into Court to establish the version of MW1. In Ex. W4, communication, MW1 has stated that there was ordv one subordinate staff as part-time Sweener. It is the admission of MW1 that perma- nent snb-staff wa< nosted onlv in July. J992. From the entries available in Fx. W2, it is seen that it is a proof for number or d av tbe Petitioner hfd worked in the bank as a casual ••nb staff r>n navment of daily waces. In Ex. W3 circular, the Rnnk of rnd>'a. Zona) Office had instructed the Manager not to eno^cre m" casual snb-staff for more than 240 <îavs. ït is the nlea nf tbe Petitioner in his replv çtatement and his évi- dence os WW1 fhat subséquent to his non-emnlovment as a tcmrn^rv casua' sub-staff of the Resnondent/BanJc. nne Mr. T akshmanî'n 'S "ioinc the work as nart-time "weeoer. Volliin seen that the Petitioner was engaged by the Respondent/Ban\ The Petitioner has stated in his Claim S'atement thnt he was appoffited as a casual sub staff by ths Respondent/Bank and • he was attendmg the office work and assisting the bank staff in their dav to rlav work, for thit he "/as nnid Rs. <*0 as daiiv waae--. Tn the Ceunter of the Resoondcnt'Bank, it is illeaed that the Petitioner was not apoointed bv the r>-Tordent/Bank for anv particular iob at an" point of t'oie, but had adiiitted thrt the Petitioner was taken oniv "s a cisual hnsed on dav to div requirements and tHe T>f>r,t\^Pr vas raid for the work done on day to dav basis. that beina a cannai employée, the Petitioner hac. no hcnl r'^ht for enirtlovrn^nt and his casual servies came t"> a" end nf tV>^ close of the work on èach dav. Therefore.. this i<= not T c a^ of non-""in1o^"Tient or termination of services bv the "fann""- "ip"t. From this. it is seon that it is not Hisniited tbat t^e PotitiVnor WpS emplo-"ed as a casual =nh-staf? on pavw-nt rf Rs. 40 per day as daily wages. The Pstiiioner as WW1 ha".

:;s j C asual Labourer to do thc y.ork of sub-.staff in ;he bank i>i;:nch and he was paid daily wagcs l'or thc samc and Jie vas cautmtiously working for a substamial period. till he was iion-ernpJoyed.

Crompton Engineering (Madra,) l'vt. Lld. V", AddiUonal Labour Court, Madras & others. lt i.> the contention vi tfc Respondent in their Co:i.iicr Statement that thc IViitioner alone hnd stopped coming Io wor.k -s c;:su.d cmpîoycj Io l'-i- hani, as and when lie cornes and uffered for work, thc wages wcic paid to him on daily rati-d basis and he will not be p:td wages for the days hc has ,iot turned up for woik ami he would furlher contend that v.'. it is held in the above cited case decided by the Madras High Court ïhat 'there is no principle or provision of !avv eniitling a casnal werkman to îeinstatement simply bccatise he was so employed on moie than one occasion or he so worked for a long period of time. Therefore, such an employée is not entitled to rein statement. even if hc had been so employed for a long time.' But the Hon'ble ITigh Court has held in

l'. J! is thc plca and évidence of t;-,e Petitioner !hat tlie statiuory obligation of Respoudent/Uank Management to c Miipiy with the provM'ons under Section 25F of the Indusîrial Oi-putes Act, 1947 lias been vioJated. Therefore. the Petitioiier ii ciiutlcd to be reinstated with .11 conseqiicnti.il bcneilts. But th"? Respondent would contend in their Counter Statcmcnt tii.it thc Petitioner on his ovvn \otition stopped oihï'ing his (.•a-tul services and in such cireumstances, the question of violation of Section 25F or 2(,oo) dnes not iirise. lt is the tuither contention of the Refondent/Management in ;he Counter Statement and ;he Petitioner wr not les-' th,m one venr ;>s defined in Section 25B." Fro'n lïio ertries madc in Fx. W2 fur the daily wages paid to Ihe Pétition;r as casual employée of the Respondent/Bank, it is seen that he lias not workeil for 120 davs continuously in the T2th months period imme- cl:ntely preceding to the date of his non-employrnent. From thc évidence both oral and documentary available in this case, it is seen that the Petitioner has not satisfied tfic requiremenls for availinu the benefits under Section 25F of the Act. Hence, the contention of the Petitioner thit the Respondent/Bank by not issuing notice, and by not inaking any payment of com- pensation to him prior to his non-emplovrncnt on 8-6-94 is a violation of Section 25F of the Industriel Disputes Act, 1947 is incorret. The learned counsel for the Répondent quoting ;> décision of the Suprême Court ot India rcported as 1998 H LU 15 Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others Vs. State ôf Bihar & others has argued that the Petitioner cannot claim thc benefit under Section 25F of the Act stating that the provision of law has been violated hy the Respondent/ \funagement, since the Respondent Management before îerminating his services has not given any notice or notice pay 'V retrenchment compensation. He v/ould funher contend thaï as per the décision of tjie Suprême Couit in that case, the Petitioner cannot be said to hâve been retrenched vvithin thc meaninT of Section 25F .if the Indusrrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioner was appo'iited as a casual sub staff in tement of *"'e P-nitioner. the requirement of the service ns Class TV in i'io" bank branrh is permnnently available. when" as ',n thc ritoc! 'iinrcm- Court case, it was i engagement of temporarv ;n inturp nv.d the concerned emplovces vvere ensaged. til! the necessity for their enlacement was available lliere.

11. It is contended on the side of the Res- pondent by the Jearned counsel for thc Res- pondent that the Petitioner had produced a certificate for his educafional qualification as Ex. Wl. From the par^culars, it is seen that he had studied in the concenrrd school from VII standard to IX standard. The date of birth mentioned in Column 7 of lhat certi- ficate is 8-9-65. That is so, it is not possible for the Petitioner to be in VIII standard at his âge of 10. On the basis of Ex. W l, it can- not be said that he possessed educafional quali- fication of VIII standard. On the basis of Ex. W l . it cannot be considered that he has got requisite qualification to be posted os Class IV in the Respondent|Bank branch bv way of reinstatement as per the request of the Peti- tioner herein. This contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent'Bank cannot b^ accepted as correct- in view of the décision of the Suprême Court of Irdia in a case re- ported as 1990 I LLJ SC 320 between BHAGWATÏ PRASAD and DELHI STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORA- TION, it is held in that case "once the ap- pointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a cons'der- able length of time. it would bc hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective oosts on the cround that ihey lack the prescribed oducational Qualifications."' In view of this décision of the Suprême Court. it cannot be said that the Petitioner is not elmibie to be employed in the Class TV post of the RespondentlFnnk. where he was emp^y- ed on casual basis earlier.

10 As contended bv the learned counse! for t!io P.espoodent "'iat nor.-om-'ovtnent will nrise îr'v v/hen rm emolover refused to cjve "⁷ork to a person. who i>. entitled to w"rk. as it is held by the Hish Court of Madras in a case decided between3471 by me in the open court on this day the 5th Mardi, 2002.)

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the I Party|Workman :

WW1 Sri K. Natarajan

For the II Party|Management :

MW1 Shri T. K. Krishnamurthy

Documents Marked :

For the I Party|Workman :

Ex. No. Date :

Description

Wl 8-4-93—DupMcate Transfer Certi-

ficate of the PetiHoncr'W"-¹ "^on.

W2 Nil—Xerox copy of the détails of

coolie charges Reimbursed.

W3 12-8-82—Xerox copy of the Circu- lar issued by the Bank of India Zonal Office to ail Régions Regarding engagement of temporary sub-staff.

W4 29-01-92—Xerox copy of the letter from the Manager, Areyanalayam Branch to the Régional Manager, Coimbatore Région with regard to recruitment of Sepoy-Daftary.

For the II Party|Management.—Nil 12. From ail thèse materiais available in this case, it is seen that this is not the case of non-employment or termination of services by the management. For the allégation of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement that ail of a sudden from 8-6-94 he was orally informed that h^s services were no longer required has not been substantiated with any acceptable or oral évidence. It is the contention of the Respondent in the Counter Statement that the Petitiôner on his own volition stopped offering his càsual services, so the question of viola- tion of Section 25F or 2(oo) does not arise. As the Petitiôner was not terminated by the Respondent, as alleged by the Petitiôner, the question of violation of Section 25F or 2(oo) does not arise. On the other hand, there is sufficient évidence available in this case to corne to the conclusion that the Petitioner was engaged on casual basis and for the days he offered his services to the Resnondent iBank Branch for the work of sub-staff of the bank, he was paid wages. For that, entries are available in Ex. W2, the xerox copy of note book showing the payment of daily wages initialled by MW1. So, it cannot be said that the Petitioner was not at ail employed by the Areyapalayam Branch of the Respondent|Bank In the absence of acceptable évidence on the side of the Petitioner to show that he has work- ed for a period of 240 days continuously in the preceding twelve months prior to his non- employment on 8-6-94, as contended by the Respondent (Management, the Petitioner is not entitled for any notice, or notice pay or re- trenchment compensation under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Taking. into considération ail thèse facts, it can be con- cluded that the Petitioner h a vin a wotked as a casual labourer in the permanent post of sub- staff temporarily for a substantial period, tbe Respondent|Management, the Bank of India can be directed to provide emplovment to the Petitioner in the next subsequently aris^.g vacancy in fhe permanent DOSÎ of sub-staff in the RespondentlBank. Thus. the point is answered accordincly.

New Delhi, the 13th March, 2002 13. In the,resuit, an Award is passed direct- ing the management of Brmk of India to pro- vide emoloyment for the PetitionerIWorkman Sri K. Nataraian in the RespondentlBank ser- vices as a sub-staff in the next subséquent arising vacancy in the p?rmanent post No Cos<\

S.O. 1166.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Govemment hereby rrablishes the award (Réf. No. 34|98) of the Labour Court, Sangji as shown in the annexure în the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of Syndicate Bank and their workman. which was leceived by the Central Government on 13-3-2002.

fNo. L-12012|234|97-IR(B-n)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Sccy.

(Dictated to the Steno'm-apher. transcribed 3t\d tyned bv him- corrected and pronounced H1 GI/2002—19 ~x~ ~, T HF G A Z L 7 IH Of i l ' I MA - A F R IL • ' :. Z C ^2 '' - - I A I T T .A > '" J S - I-

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI V. S. PADALKAR, PRES1DING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, SANGLI

Référence (IDA) No. 34198

ADJUDICATION

BRTWEEN

Syndicate Bank,

Zonal Office, Maker Tower No. 'E'

Cuffe Parade, Coloba, Mumbai-400005 Ist party.

AND

Sh. Annasaheb Martand Mole, C|o. A.D. Yedke, 312JB, S.T. Stand Road, Shri Ganganagar, Sangli-416416.

Ilnd party. In the matter of reinstate witb continuitv of service and full back wages APPEARANCES :

Ist party in Person—absent.

Ilnd party in Person—absent.

O R D ËR BELOW EX. O-l

(Date : 19-1-2002)

The Référence between the above refened parties has been sent for adjudicnts by Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, Delhi. The notice to llnd Partv was issued to file state- ment of claim on 29-l-'^8. The notice was duîy fcrved on Ilnd party. The Ilnd party till 3-10-2001 not filed Statement of claim therefore order of No Statement of claim passed on 3-10-2001.

Without Statement of claim I cannot adjudicate the dispute hence I hâve no Other alternative to pass the following order.

ORDER

Référence of Ilnd party for reinstatement is hereby rejected. No order as to costs,

Sangli.

Dated : 19-1-2002.

V. S. PADALKAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 13th March, 2002

S.O. 1167.—In pursinince of Section 17 of the Industrial I>fsputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government herebv pubJishes the awarà (Réf. No. 13812000 'rfthe Cent- ral Government Tndustriul fribunal-cum-i abour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the annexurc in ;he Industrial Dispute T A FT Iï I ; 3: 5 , ' J O*

between the eœployers in "-eiatioi tn the ina;:ar,crient of Central Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Centra! Govcnmont on 13-3-2002.

fNo. L-12012|272|99-IRfB-I)j

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S. M. GOEL. PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRTB UNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

O se No. I.D. 13812000

The General Secretary,

, Central Bank of India Employées Union (Haryana) Palika Vihar, Ambala (Haryana) .. Petitioner.

Vs.

Central Bank of India, The Régional Manager, CBI, Tawahar Market, Model Town.

Rohtak.

.. Refondent.

REPRESENTATIVE :

For the workman : None.

Fo the Management : Sh. Shami Kaplifh.

AWARD

(Passed on 11-2-2002) The. Central Govt. Ministry of Labour vide Notification No. L-12Ô12|272!99IIR(B.II) dated 2-2-2000 has referred the following dispute to thi<= Tribunnl for adjudication :

"Whether the action of management of Central Bank of India represented by Régional Manager Central Bank of Indip Rohtak in imposing jtunishment of dismissal from service upon Shri Viiav Singh Teller. vide their order No. RO|PRS|94-95l831 dated 7-7-94, is just and légal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled and from v/liich date." 2. None appeared on behaîf of the workman desoite notire. It appears that workman is not interested to pansue with the présent référence. In view of the abr>ve, the présent référence is returned to the Central Governmenf f<"

Chandigarh.

Dated : 11-2-2002. S. M. GOEL. Presidin? Officer New Delhi, the 13th March, 2002 S.O. 1168.—In purstiaitce of Sec'ion 17 of the Industria!

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the awsrd (Réf. Ne. 79[97) of the Central Government Industria! Tribunal-cnm-Labour Court. Chandigarh3473 as shown in the annexiire in ihe Industrial Di&pute between the employers m relation to the management of UCO Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 13-3-2002.

[Nô. L-120'2|343l95-IR(B-II>]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHR1 M.S. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICES, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUS! RIAL TRÏBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH Réf. No. I.D. 79|97

Yashwant Singh .. Workman.

. . . Versus

, .

UCO Bank .. Management.

PRESENT :

For the workman—None.

For the Management—None.

AWARD

(Dated : 26th of February, 2002)

The Central Government Ministry of Labour in exercise of power conferred on the unde Section 10(i)(d) and Sub- section 2-A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act), vide their letter No. L-12012/343/95-l.R.(B-lI) dated 31-12-1996 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal :—

"Whether the action Of the management of UCO Bank represented through its Zonal Manager SCO 1092- 93 Sector 22-B, Chuudigarh and Senior Manager UCO Bank Sec. 22-D, Chandigarh in terminating the services of Shri Yashwant Singh S|o Shri Roop Singh a daiîy rated water boy in Sector 22 branch of the Bank w.e.f. 12-7-94 is just and légal. If nut to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?"

2. None appeared on behalf of the workman despite notice. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the présent référence. In view of the above, the présent référence is returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution. Central Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh.

26-2-2002. S. M. GOEL, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 15th Marrh, 2002 S.O. 1169.—In pursiunçe of Section 17 of the Iudustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 ôf 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 63(91) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandi- garh as shown in the annexare in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workman, which was receiv- ed by the Central Government on 14-3-2002.

CNo. L-12012|430|90-IR(B-II)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH Réf. No. I.D. 63/91

Shri Suresh Lai .. Workman.

Versus

Central Bank of liidia .. Management.

PRESENT :

For the Workman : None.

For the Management : Shammi Kaplish.

AWARD

(Dated 21st January, 2002)

The Central Government Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred on the under Section 10(l)(d) and Sub- section 2-A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinatfer referred as the Act), vide their letter No. L-12012/430/90-I.R.(B-2) dated 3-6-1991 referred the follow- ing Industrial dispute to this Tribunal :—

"Whether the action of the Régional Manager, Central Bank of India, Ludhiana in not giving promotion to Shri Suresh Lai w.e.f. 23-7-88 to the post of clerk is légal and justified? If not fb what relief is the workman entitled?"

2. None appeared on behalf of the workman despite notice. It appears that workman is not interebted to pursue with the présent référence. In view of the above, the présent réfé- rence is returned to the Central Government for want of prosecution. Central Government be informed.

Dated : 21-1-2002.

S. M. GOEL, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the Hth March, 2002

S.O.' 1170.—In pursiiuuce of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes. the award (Ref-, No.- 7)2000) of the Central3474 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 20O2//CHAITRA 16, 1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(iiJ] Government Industrial Tribunal-I, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the emp- loyers in relation to the management of M|s. Kuwait Air- ways and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 13-3-2002.

[No. L-11012|64|99-IR(C-!)]

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 MUMBAI

PRESENT:

Shri Justice S.C. Pandey, Presiding Offieer.

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-0712000

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of M|s. Kuwait Airways

AND

Their Worlunen

APPEARANCES :

For the Management : Ms. Aditi Tripathi, Advocate. For the Workman : Mr. Chavan, Advocate. STATE : : Maharashtra.

Mumbai, dated the 27th day of February, 2002

AWASLD

The Central Govermnent has reteiTed the foitewing ques- tion to be answered by this Tribunal jji exercise of its powers under clause (d) of Sub-section ( î) End Scb-section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (The Act for short).

"Whether the action of tht management of M/s. Kuwait Airways in transferring Mr. Fonseca, Sr. Station Supdt. from Mumbai to Delhi w.e.f. 8-1-1999 violâtes the seulement dated 16-6-1995? If so, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?" 2. It appears from the order sheet that Shri Chavan, Ad- vocate was appearrirg for the workman and he had appeared before this Tribunal on 20-1-1-21)01, 23-I-2U02 and today, although he has not filed his authority.

3. Mr. Chavan has made a slatement at the Court that this référence relates to transfer of Mr. H. Fonseca from Mumbai to Delhi. She bas already joined at Delhi and does not want to press for tnis référence any further. In view of the statement made by Mr. Chavan at the Court, this réfé- rence is disposed of by saying lhat there is no longer any dispute between the parties.

S. O. PANDEY. Presiding Offieer

ORDÈR

Ne-* Delhi, the 14th March, 2002 S.O. 1171.—^Whereas the Central Govemment was ot" the opinion that an industrial dispute exîstcd bstween the management of FCI and tbeir work- ir.en;

And whereas the Central Government was of the opinion lhat the above dispute mvolved a question ot' naiiouaf importance and sliould be adjudicated by a national industrial tribu¹""!;

And whereas ilie Central Go ^erruneni m exercise of the powers conferrett by Section 7B of the I. D. Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)', constituted a National Industrial Tribunal vide Mimstry of Labour Order No L-220r2!439,'95-IR(C-II) dated 15-12-1998 with headquarters at Calcutta and appointed Justice Sli. A. K. Chakravartj as its Presiding Offieer and in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (IA) ot Section 10 of the said Act, referred the said industrial Dispute to the said National Industriel Tribunal for adjudication;

And whereas Justice Sh. A. K. Chakravarty relin- qu'shed cliurgs of tbe above said National Industrial Tribunal en 31-12-1999;

Advocâte—L. M. Chidaaandayya.

2nd Party

1. ShriR. Nagaraju,

District Manager (I/C), FCI Mysore Depot, Mysore, Karnataka Statu.

NoW, therefore, A National Industrial Tribunal is constituted with headquarters at Calcutta! with Jus- ticî Sh. B. P. Sharma as its Presiding Officer and the said above dispute is rcierred to the said National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication with the direc- tion that Justice Sh. B. P. Sharma shall proceed in the matter from llhe stage at whiGh it was lett by Justice S.h. A. K. Chakravarty and dispose of the same according to iaw.

[No. L-22012|439|95-IR(C-II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

2. Tbe Régional Manager, FCI Régional Office, Bangalore-27, Advocâte—A. S, Bopaûna.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers confenred by clause (d) of Sab-section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-22012/1S5/9&/IR (CM-K) dated 26th Aprii, 1999 for adjudication on the foltowing schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of FCI, Godown, Mysore in denying employaient to 22 workers (list enelosed) w.e.f. January, 1998 is justified ? If not, to what relief th© concerned workmen are eatWed?" New Delhi, the J5th Maroh, 2002

2. The Ist Party workmen were worîrïng with the. management. The Management denied employrnent to 22 workers and therefore, this dispute is raised.

3. Parties appeared and filed Claim Statemeflt and

Côuhter respectivety.

4. The ease of the Ist Party Workmen iâ as

under:—

S.O. 1172.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Goverrunent hereby pubMshes the award (Réf. No. 59/99) of the Central Goveromênt Industrial Tribu- nal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the AflrJexure in the Industrial Dispute between the erap- loyers in relation to the management of FC1 and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- Hieat oa 14-3-2002.

[No. L-22012/185/98-IRfC-II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Oificer

ANNEXURE

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

5. There are 22 workmen in this dispute. The case of thèse workmen is that they are workmen uflder Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Aet. The management engaged them for the work of transpoit- ing food grains from one part of the country to the oîher part of the couiry. There are various dépôts in the country for the purpose of Storage and Distri- bution of Food Grains to the public at large through the Public Distribution System. One such dépôt is at Mysore. The management was required to appoint the regular workers for loading, unloading, handling and transporting the food grains at FSD Mysore. The activïty carried on by the 2nct party is an îndustry within the meaning under Section 2(j) of the Act. Dated : 6th March, 2002

PRESENT :

Hon'fele Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B. Com., LLB., Presiding OffiGet, CGIT-CUM-Labour Court, Rahgalore.

C.R. No. 59/99

Ist Party

6. It is the further case of the workmen that the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka has heJd that the 2nd Party are required to treat the workers who are working with the contractor of the FCI on principal to principal basis. There is a con- tinuity cf work at FSD, Mysore. The Management is under légal obligation and duty to provide work con- tinuouslv without any interruption to the îst Party workmen. The workmen afe doing the manual work of the 2nd Party. The management instead of regu- larizing their services and absorbing them has been getting the work donc through o+hers intermcdiately, if any, is onîy for the name sake and is not the real pefson controïïmg attd difêctitig thé nature of work discharged by the Ist Party workrrien.

Shri Nagraj and others, C/o Food Labour Contract Society Ltd., FCI Bannimantap Extension, Mysore-15,3476 THE GAZETTE OB INDIA : APRIL 6, 2002/ CHAI IRA 16, 1924 [PARI II—SEC. 3(ii)] 7. It is the further case of the workmen that after the abolition of the Contract Labour, through the orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, the lst Party workmen were getting a sum of Rs. 6000.

8. It is the fuither case of the Workmen that from the month of January, 1998 the management stopped the work of the lst Party without any reasons and tne action of the management is not correct. There was a police case as stated in para 10 of the Claim Statement. The déniai of work is not correct and it amounts to lock out within tlie meaning of Section 2(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act. A very lengthy Claim Statement is filed by the lst Party conteuting that there is unfair labour practice etc.

9. It is the further case of the workmen that they are entitled for ail the benefits inciuding the enhance- ment of the rates based on the consumer price index , etc. inciuding the wages at the rate of Rs. 6000 per month. The workmen for thèse reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to pass award in their favour.

10. The case of the management in brief is as under :

11. The main contention of the management is that thèse workmen are not the workmea within the mean- ing of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thèse workmea were working under the Contractor and they are not the employées of the 2nd Party. There is no relation- ship of master and servant between the Management and the lst Party. It is true that one of the dépôt is at Mysore and it is not true that the 2nd Party is required to appoint the regular workers for loading, unloading and transporting the focd grains at FSD, Mysore. In fact the 2nd Party has entrusted the load- ing and unloading work to contractors on contract basis whenever work was available. Ali the alléga- tions made by the workmen are not correct.

12. It is not correct that the 2nd Party has intro- duced the co-operative society exclusively for the work- ers working at FSD. It is true that the activity carried on by the 2nd Party is an Industry within the mean- ing under Section 2(j) of the Act. [t is not correct to say that the ist Party hâve becn working for more than a décade with the 2nd Party. It is not correct to say that the Assistant Manager of the 2nd Party will supervise the workers of the party workmen under the direct supervision and control of the 2nd Party.

13. The question of regularizing the services of the lst Party Workmen and absorbing them does not arise at ail. It is denied that the lst Pari y workmen are entitled for full salary from January, 1998 to June. 1998. The management for thèse reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to reject the référence.

14. It is seen from the records that management examined MW-1, Assistant Manager and various docu- ments are marked for the management. MWî lias ftiyen defaiîed évidence saying that the workmen are not the employées of the 2nd Party. 2nd Party has not appoint- ed regular workers or loadinp and unionding etc. The 2nd Partv management has ï|o control over the work of the Ht Party. There is no relationship of employer aaj employée. 2nd Party was not paying îh; wa^es to the lst Party. MWI is net cross examined by the workmen.

15. It is seen from the records that the first party workmen remained absent and the counsel also re- mained absent. After giving s officient time MWI was discharged. Thereafter the cu&e was posted for the évidence of lst Party but lst Party workmen remained absent,

16. I Lave heard the arguments of the learned coun- scl appearhig for the management. I hâve perused ail the relevant documents relied by the management. There is no reasons to discard the évidence of MWI. The évidence of MWI is unchallenged because he is not even cross examined by (he Workmen.

17. According to MWi there is no reiationship of Master and Servant between the. management and thèse workmen. The workmen hâve failed to prove that they are regulariy appointed by the management and they are entitled for regularization.

18. The évidence of MWî is that thèse workmen were working with the Contractor. The workmen for the reasons best known to them hâve not attended this Tri- bunal and hâve not adduced any évidence.

19. Considering the évidence of MWI and the docu- ments relied by the management, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the référence. Accordingly I proposed to pass the following Order :

ORDER

The référence is rejected. ,

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

V. N. KULKARNI. Presùiin.o Oflicer New Delhi, thi 15th March, 2002 S.O 1173.—In .purMiance of Section 17 of-the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 H 4 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government herèbv publishes the award (Réf. No. 85J1999) of ihe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrirl Dispute between ihe employers in relation to the management of ECL and their workman, which was receiied by the Central Government on 14-3-2002. >y

• N'o. L-220t2,362|98-IR(C-ïï)J N. P. KESAVAN lïvsk Office *-'-_Çf7 \

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Shri Ramjee Pandey, Presiding Officer.

Référence Number No. 85 of 1999 PARTIES :

Amritnagar Colliery of M|s.

E.C.L,

...Management

Vrs.

Shri Surendra Nahak, Ex-Under Ground Loader . .Workman.

REPRESENTATION:

For the Management—Shri P. K. Goswprni,

Advo'cate. For the Workman—Shri H. L. Soni, Secreîary, (Union)

Koyli Mazdoor Congress.

STATE : West Bengal 1NDUSTRY : Coal.

thaï the order of dismissal was passed after proof of misconduct on the part of the workman during domes- tic enquiry which was complétée! fairly and hence the workman is not entitied to get any relief.

The Union admitted thaï the workman was absent from fcs duty from 7-10-1996 îo 4-12-1996, but the Union. controverted the iact thaï management '"vas not given information. Furlher case of Union is that the workman e.g. Shri Surendra Nahak was sick and had been undsr going treatmenî at Bansra Hos- pital and the fact of ilîncss of the workman was informed to the management. Further case of the Union is that the authority of the colliery referred the workman to Bansra Hospital for treatment whien he got treatment from 1P-12-96 te 7-4-97 as indoor patient as well as outdoor patient. It has been further pleaded by the Union thar the workman became absent from his duty due to his sickness which was beyond his -control and hence he WPS not liable to be punïshed. It has ocen fuitiier pleaded that Ihe order of dismissal is the maximum punïshment which is too fevere and disproportionata to the nature cf misconduct alleged. Accordingly a prayer has been made by the Union that the Order of dismissal may be set aside.

Dated : 15-2-2002

AWARD

In exercise ot powars conferred by the clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of section 10 of the Industral Dispute Act. 1947, Govt. of InJ:- "- —-¹- AT:iistry of Labour vide Oide<- No. L . -. •• ,^.., i:> (CM-II) dated 7-7-1999 h as referred the foliowing dispute for adiudica'ion by this Tribunal.

"Whether îhe action of the management of ECL, Kunusrona Coîlierv in dismissina Shri Surendra Nâhak, Ex-Under Ground Loader is légal and justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled ?"

Afier receipt of the reierence summons were sent to the parties by regisiered post. In response to the summons both the parties appeared through Iheir représentatives and filed their respective written s.atements.

To décide the dispute between the parties it is necessary to state tho î'act of the case. The workman e.g. Shri Surendra Nahak, was em- ployed as Ex-Und°r Grc^md Loader under the management. He becamo absent from his duty from 7-10-1996 to 4-42-1996, and on the ground of thèse absence the management dimvs"ed him from service.

The case of the management is thaï the workman became absent for such a longer period without anv information to the management and any sanction of leave bv any authoriiy md copsideriru* the fact ihat the workman was habituai absence, he'was dismissed from service. Furthei- case of the management is It is admitted fact that before order of dismissal a domestic enquiry was held and on the findïngs of the Enquiry Officer the management dismissed the workman. During hearing the Union did not challenge the faiirness of domestic enquiry. Mcre- over, from the documents fibd by Ihe management it is clear that the copy of charge slieet was "iven tq the workman md the enquiry was conducted in his présence. During enquîry the Enquiry Officer pave a finding tha!' trie charge against the wofkman has been proved and he was absent from dutv from 7-10-96 to 4-12-96 withouî anv information îo and permission of the authorilies of the management The Union chaîlenged the order of dismissal on two grounds. The tirst ground taken by the Union is thaï the workman was seriously ill due to wnïch he became absent and could not cbtain permission from the management and hence there Is no mis- conducc on the part of the workman. The second ground taken by the workman is that the punishment of dismissal from service is a cnpiîaî punishment. From îhe report of ihe enquiry Officer it is clcar îfcai during domestic enquiry the workman did not produc- any médical certificat in support of his illncs-, and hence firs;- ground taken by ihe Union does not support his plea. As regards second ground îaken by the Union, learned Lawyer for the management sub- mitted that the workman was habi'ual absentée, du? to which the management lost confidence on him From perusal of the documen's filed by the manage- ment jt is clear that the workman was neither eba*?- sheefed for his previous absence nor the enquîrv report indicates any proof of previous fbsence of the workman. Hence I de not find anv st'Pnrth in submission of the Learned Lawver for Ihe manage- ment that the workmap w-- ; a habituai absenfee The mroved fact cfn the record is th-T the TvorVvn?n beesme absent from duty for the fîrst tsrr¹⁰ frotn 7-10-96 to 4-12-96. Learned Lawyer for the •management fairlv admitted that the punishment of dismissal is a capital punishment for any workman,34-S TES GAZETIE OF E^DIA ; APB&/6, CQO^ÇKAITM 16, 1924 [FARÏ IJ^Sfc. 3(;i)] Since îhe workman bccame absent from duly for the first time for a period or less than two months, m my opinion also he punishœent of disniissal is too severe. The management could put pressure on îhe workman for correction in bis conduct by awarding a lesser punishment. In my opinioi stoppage of or>e annual incrément will meet the ends of justice. Accor- dingly the order of dismissal passed by the manage- ment is set aside and instead tbereof'the workman is ay/arded, punishment of stoppage of cne annual incrément. The management is dîrected to reinstate the workman in service with back wages subject ro stoppage of one annual incrément. AccordinpJy. in above mentioned manner, the awarc is passed.

RAMJEE PANDEY, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 20ih March, 2002 S.O. 1174.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Tn-Justrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hercby publishes the award CRef. No. 13)1994) of the Central Government Indusirial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kolkata a? • iiown in the Annexure in the Indus trial Dispute betwem the cmplevers in relation to the manage- ment of CCL and their workman, which was receiv- :! by îhï Central Government on 19-3-2002.

[No. L 22012J312I93-IR (C-H)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL 'GOVERNMFNT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Référence Ne. 13 of 1994

PARTIES :

EvnpSoyers in relation to the management of Central Coalfields Limited.

AND

Their Workmen.

APPEARA?,CES :

On behalf of Managenient.—Mr. R. N. Majum- dar, Advocaie.

On bshalf of Woïkmen.—Mr. D. Mukhetpe, Advocate wiîh Mr. A. Mukherjee, Advocate. STATE : West Bengai. INDUSTRY : Coal.

AWARD

By Order No. L-220!2|'312|93-IR(C-II), dated 21-3-1994 the Central Government in exercise of ïts pnwers under section 10(1) (d) and (2A) of the In- dustrial Dispuces Act, 1947 referred the followhig dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of tfhe management of Central Coalfields Ltd., not to extend the benefit of pension £nd encashment of leave for 240 days to the employées (list enclos- ed) is juslified ? Jf not, to what relief the employées are entitled to ?"

List of workmen

workmen

Désignation Place of SI. Name

posting No.

3

4

2

1

Shri A. C. Ghosh L. D. Cler

1.

k Office of the National Coal Deve- lopment Corpn. (P) Ltd., Ranchi

-do-

-do-

Shri P. K, Chakraborty

2.

-do-

-do- Shri K. B. Sahay

3.

-do-

-do-

Shri P. R. Das

4.

-do-

-do-

Shri Sudhir Chandra Pal

5.

-do-

•do- Miss Amiya Roy

6.

Office of the

-do-

7. Shri Badal Kumar Bhattacharjee

Chief Purchase Officer. Calcutta

•do-

PRESENT :

Mr Justice Bhnrat Presse¹ Sharma.—Presidins Officer,

-do-

Shri V. K. Vaskaram

8.

-do-

-do-

9. Shri Ranjit Kr. Majumder 347 94 3 1 2 -do-

-do-

10. Miss Sovana

Mookerjee

-do- -do-

-do- -do-

11. Miss Arati Gupta 12. Shri Suresh Chandra

Das

-do- -do-

-do- -do-

13. Shri Ajit Kumar Bose 14. Shri Prahab Kr. Chakraborty

-do-

-do-

15. Miss Krishna Ganguly

-do- -do-

-do- -do-

16. Mrs. Bani Devi 17. Shri Pushpa Ranjan

2. Ths présent dispute has been raised by the National Coal Organisation (Government of India) Employées' Association on tehalf of the 37 work- men as per the list attadhed to the schedule of réfé- rence, lt appears that the aforesaid 37 persons were appointed under the orders of the Assistant Coal Commissioner of the National Coal Organisation known as CPDC which was a Government of India Undertaking. Subsequently thèse 37 persons were absorbed in the service of the National Coal Develop- ment Corporation, in short known as NCDC. Since then they bave retired from service and their grie- vance is thaï they were not granted pensionary ad- vantage as availabk lo any Government Servant nor the encashment facility of "240 days of dut leave and aecordingly, the dispute was raised and on failure of the conciliation proceeding the matter was referred to the Government of India, Mmistry of Labour and the présent référence lus bcen made.

Ganguly

-do-

-do-

18. Shri Nitya Ranjan

-do-

-do-

Choudhury 19. Shri A. K.Roy Chowdhury

-do-

-do-

20. Shri Madan Mohan

Guha

-do-

-do-

21. Shri Dijendra La!

Majumdar

-do-

-do-

22. Shri Sanjaa Kr. Chowdhury

-do-

-do-

23. Shri Prabhat Kumar

Roy

-do-

-do-

24. Shri Ajit Kumar

Chowdhury

-do- -do-

-do- -do- -do-

-do-

25. Shri P. Shribastava 26. Miss Tva Shamtra 27. Miss Diptakana Das

Gupta

-do-

-do-

28. Shri Makhan Chandra

Das

-do- -do-

-do- -do-

29. Shri P. Raman Kutty 30. Shri N. Paremoslivnran

-do-

31. Shri G. Narasingham -do- Typist

32. Shri Prasanta Kumar

-do-

Si)

-doi

-do-

33. Shri Biswa Natii Bhattacharjee 34. Shri Bimalandu

-do-

-do-

Dasgupta

35. Shri Arait Kumar Typist

Ghosh

Office ofthe Chief Purchase Officer, Calcutta

36. Shri Ranjit Kumar -do-

-do-

Kolo

37. Shri Gopal Chandra -do-

-do-

Manna

3. From the wriltcn sfaiement filed on behalf of the union it appears that th^ NCDC was formed as a Government of India Undertaking with efïect from !-10-1956 and a number of collieries belonging to the Central Government were made constituents of the sait' Corporation which staried its functioning on 1-5-1957. Subsequently, the said NCDC¹ was re- named as Central Coalfields Ltd., a subsidiary of the Coal India Ltd. It is stated that before commencement of work of the NCDC ihe collieries which were brought under the said Corporation had been work- ing directly under the Government of India and the employées of the said coîlicries were regular govera- ment employées, becauss ail the collieries were Central Government organisations which were trans- ferred to ib? NCDC with effect from lst of Novem- ber, î'056. Il is further stated that the said collieries which were brought under the NCDC in 1956 con- tinued to function, directly under the Central Govern- ment till 30th April, 1957 and accordingly ail appointment letters to the employées of the said collieries were issued dunng the above period by the Central Government and the employées enjoyed the same service conditions as other Central 'Government employées. One appointment letter regarding thèse 37 workmen were isbued on 27-3-1957" by the Coal Production and Development Commissioner, a compé- tent authority undsr the Government of India. The NCDC accepted and exiended the benefit of pension and encashment of leave as per Central Government Ru!es to ail the employées of the said collieries who wc""? employé,-s of the (.\:n(raJ Government from bëfore and who were taken over by the NCDC upon the said collieries being taken over by the NCDC. It is further stated that there were some employées who were al^o appointed by the Government of - Indja authority during the period from 1-10-1956 to 30-4-i 957 and thf-y functionec! directly under the Central Government in the office of the Coal Produc- tion and Development Commissioner, but for some reasons their cases were not taken note of and faci- lity of pension and encashment of leave of 240 days as per the Central Government Rules were not ex- tended io them, even though they were- ail the Central Government employées and subsequently they were also taken over by the NCDC which was subse- quently remanded as Central Coalâelds Ltd, It is stated that- tîie 7nresent dispute concerns the employées appointed during the period 1-10-1956 anJ 967 GII20O2—ZO.

30-4-1957 by the Central Government but they werc not given the benefit ot pension and leave facility as per the Ce îtra] Government Rules, even though they were appointed by <>e Central Government and werc taken over by the NCDC. It h stated that the other employées of ihc NCDC who were eaflier Central Government employées perior trr 1-10-1956 enjoyed the said beneftf of pension and encashment of leavs a" per Ceiitral 'Government Rules. In tliis connec- tion an example of one Shiï M. L. Guha is cited and it is stated that bc was appoùited in Match. 1957 by (Jie Complroller and Auditor Gênera] of India, but hc has been given the benefit cf pension and eneash- me:it of lcàvï of 2 40 du\s> as uvailable to the Central Gavemmenf employées "but the aforesaid 37 emp- loyée.:! wSio were senior to him were not given this fidliiy vad b.-nefit wh>ch is in violation of the princjples equajify a:, erAhrined. under Article 14 of the Constitution of India imd it is thereby illégal and malafid? and unconstilutional being violativc of the principes of eouality ?nd fair play. It is stated that ihough the atoresaid Shri M. L. Guha who was ap- pointed also in Mardi, 1957 and retired in October, 1989 was taken over employée of the NCDC and subsequently C.C.L. was given pensionary benefit and encashment of lea,ve facilîty, similarly situated îhe^s 37 employées appointed during 1-10-1956 to 30-4-1057 wcre deried the*? berefits which is illégal .'nd 'mproper. It is stafed that cfter they were being taken over by the NCDC their previôus service was protected and ail facililies and renefits enjoyed by them oarlisr including benefit of pension and leave encashment continuecî to be made available to them and therefore, déniai of thèse facilities to thèse employées is viola*no of Article 14 of the Con- stitution of India nnd accordim-ly it has been nr^yed that an Award be made in favoy of thèse employées directinjr the employer to gjve the aforesaid benefits of psnsioïi and encashment of leave.

Coal Development Corporation on 1-10-1956 posses- sion of the State Collieries were handover and services oi ail Government employées serving in the said col- îieries of the Organisation known as Coal Develop- ment Commissioner vere pla,ced under the disposai of the NCDC from 1-10-1956. Sa, aceordingly after the formation of NCDC varions monthly rated emp- ployees were appointed directly, apart from the services of différent sets of monthly rated employées, whc wcre holding civil posts and were Iransferred from various departments of Government. Tt is stated Ihat one such act was earlier working in State Collieries vvhose services were grverned by the Railway Rule-. or Civil Rules and were holding civil posts and wer<- subsequently transfcu-ud to NCDC viiih the same con- dition of service. The second set was moinhly ra'.ed employées workmg in the Administrative Office of ihc Ex. C.M.E. Railway Board]Dcputy Coal Commis- sioner, Govt. of India known as Coal Production and Development Commissioner and who were also governed by RailwayjCivjl Rôles and were holding civil posts and were transferred to NCDC with elïect from 30-9-1956. It is stated that the third set of monthly rated employée:; were those v ho were working under Comptroller & Auditor General of India and whose services were governed by the Civil Rules and were holding civil posts and were transferred to NCDC after abolition of us administrative office on 30-4-57. Tt is stated fhyt îhe service of the employées who were trarrferred from the Government De- partments referred to sbove were given the protec- tion of ternis and conditions and risfhts and privikees as to pension, leave. gratuity and P.F. as would hâve been admissible to them bad they contirued in government service. T' is furMier stated that by reason of enaclment of Coal Mines (Nationalisation^ Act, 1973 ths right and title and interest of the collie- ries aforesoid were transferred to and vasted to the Central Govt. .Coal Company, i.e. Coal India Limited, It is further stated that with effect from 1-11-1975 the saïd NCDC was rengmed as Central Coal iVlds Ltd. and became a subsidiarv of îbe said Coal India Ltd. Aceordingly from the said da'e i.e.. -1-11-1975 the C.C.L. bad followrag sets of employées: —

0 ) Employées who were appointed by the Govt. till 31-5-1944 and corered ur-dei Central Pay Commissû n and governed by Railway Rules.

(2) Employées who were appoînled thereafter between 1-6-1944 till 30-9-1956 and covered under sim'lar scale of pay xmder Central Pay Cotnmiss:on but governed by Civil Ser- vice Rules. 1949.

(3"> Employées wh-* were appoin'.ed belween the period 1-10-1956 and 14-8-67 and wcre drawing poy under the Central Pav Com- mission's scale of pay but governed bv NCDC Ltd. Rules ^nd

(4) Employées who were appointed thereafter w.e.f. 15-8-1967 and nowards and covered under Central Wage Board Awards as ac- cepted by the Government of India and NCWA and governed by Wage Board Rules.

4. A wriiîen statemeut has olso been liled on behaif of the Central Coalfields Limited. It has been stated at the very outset that the référence is incompétent and not muintainaible in vievv of the fact that in none of the schedules of the Indnsînal Disputes Aet, 1947 it has been cnvmerated that îhe question of pensionary benefit ai,cl bave encashmem can be subject matter of an Industrial Dispute. It is fuit lier stated that an order under feeiion 10 of the Indus rial Disputes Act, 1947 couJd not be made mechankaîly withmit consi- dering the fact as to whether the purported dispute can be termed as industrial dispute to within the meaning of the said Acî. Iî is furfher stated that in the instant case the appropriate juovernnient, i.e... the Central Governmeat whils making ihe order of réfé- rence failed to take into account that nensionary benefit and leave encashment is nol covered by any of the schedules of the Industrial Disputes Act and,, there- fore, it could not be the subject matter of an indust- rial dispute. It is further stated that certain collieries S'tuated in différent areas of Bihar, Orissa and Masdhva Pradcsh were knowm as state collieries and thèse coi- lieries were owned bv the Government of Tndia and were being managed departmentally by the Central Govt. for some time and thereafter plaeed under the Ministry of Railway upto 31-5-194*4 and thereaf'cr bv the Ministry of Supplies and subsequentlv under the Ministry of Production till 30-9-1956. It is further stated thtat with the formaion nf the National

The management has denied the statements in the différent paragraphe of the written statement of the * :r.f

find a place in Part-XIV of the Constitution. It is also held that in the said décision that the définition of Article 12 which includes an authority within ihe terri- tory of India or under the control of the Government of India is limited in its application to Part-lII and by virtue of Article 36 to Part-W and it dœs not extend to other provisions c? the Constitution and hence its juristïc entity, whicb may be a 'state' for the purpose of Part-III or Parl-lV, could not be so far for the purpose of Part-XIV or any other provisions of the Constitution, It is also further stated that the définition of the Government Servant has been de- froed in Riîîe 2(h) of the Central Civil Semées (Cias sification, Controi and Appeal) Rules as this :

"2(h). "Governinsnt Servant" means a person who (i) is a member of a Service or holds a civil post under the Union, and includes any such person on foreign service or whose services are temporarily pïaced at the dis- posai of State Government or local or other authority ;

(ii) is a member of a Service or holds a civil post under a State Government and whose ser- vices are tempe arlly j/aced at the disposai of the Central Government ;

(iii) is in the service of a local or other authority and whose services are temporarily placed at the disposai of the Central Government."

So, it is stated that the concerned workmen did not fulfil any of the ingradients under Rule 2(h) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 so as to be termed as Govern- ment Servant in ternis ef the said appointment letter dated 20th January, 1957. It is further stated that when the- aforesaid Classification Rules came into force on lst December, 1965, erstwhiie NCDC was stiîl in existence. It is further stated that in the said atjpomtmènt letter dated 20th January, 1957 in Sériai Number 6 thereof there was a clause to. the extent as folldws :

"He/she should be prepared to join this ortn_e of this day 6th February, 1957 positively. The candidates already in the Governmsnt Service shouîd submit relea"e certifies te front the Department concerned."

It is stated that none of the workmen concerned as per the appointment letter had produeed any release eertificate from any Government Department and, therefore, it is stated that ail such montMy-rated emp- loyées were never working in any Government Orga nisation prior to the issuance of the appointaient leftei and the présent sfar:d has been taken OPIV with a view to achieve some urtdeserved benefits. It is stated thaf the basie criteria for entitleroent of pensionarv benefît and encashment of leave for 240 days is as foîlows :

union and it has been stated that the sald collieries owned and managed by the Central Government in- cluding the Organisation/Administrative Office of the Coal Production and Development Conimissioner vvere trarisferred from the management of the Centra! Gov- ernment to the said newly established NCDC which was set-up with etïect from lst October, 1956. It is denied that the said Colîieries which were brought under the management of erstwhiie NCDC in 1956 continued to function directly under the Central Gov- ernment till 3Oth Âpril. 1957 or that ail appointaient letters of employées of the said Coîlieries were issued during the above perïod by îhe Central Government or that the said employées enjoyed the said service conditions as that of other Central Government Emp- loyées. It is stated that the employées who were work- ing in the said Collieries whose services were taken- over by the erstwhiie NCDC were never issued ap- pointment letters in between the period from 1-10-56 to 30-4-57 as alleged. It is îurther stated that the employées who were working in the said Collieries and taken-over by the erstwhiie NCDC were onîy enjoying the service conditinos of Central Government since their services were regulated and governed by the Cen- tral Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949. It is stated that the appointment letter of the said 371 employées indicates that their appointments were made afresh by erstwhiie NCDC and they were never taken- over from any Central Government Organisation. Therefore, the question of their service conditions being equated with that of'the Central Government Employées did not arise. It is further stated that the appointment letter was signed by the Assistant Coal Production and Development Commissioner, Ranchi who was on depairtmer.t to erstwhile NCDC on the letter head of the NCDC. It is further stated in this connec- tion that since the beginning of the formation of the erstwhiie NCDC there was no spécifie service rule and appointment letters etc. and formates of appointaient, formates of Coal Production and Development Com- missioner were made use of by the NCDC by putting the name of NCDC in routine manner, but by no cannon of construction it can be said that the work- men by virtue of the said apuointment letter were holding a civil post, not it can be sa'd that they were subiect to Part-XFV of the Constitution of India. It is further stated that when the said Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949 were framed the Constitution of Tndia dîd not exist and in or about the year 1978 the Président of India in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 and Clause (5) of Article 148~of the Constitution of Indin and after cônsulting the Comptrolîer and Auditor General in relation to the persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department was cleased to make the Central Civil Service (Terrroorary Service) Rules, J978 in suoersession of the Rules of 1949. It is fur- ther stated that the ersf"/hile NCDC would be regarded at best an mstrumentnlîfy of the Government so as to corne under the meaning of expression "Auîhority'* under Article Î2 of *hr. Corsstihifion. It is stated that it has been heM bv their Lordships of the Hon'ble Suprême Court in the case of Aiav Hasia v Khaîid Muiib (AIR 198Î SC 187) that meteîv becau"" a juriste entify mav be m 'auThortv* and fherefore

H) Oiie who 1,as SCTved in the Government Orjjamsatmn prior iv 1-10-56 and has been taken over by NCDC thereafter imder the same ferras and conditions and same riaftts

PFÏZ Tas îo pens;on-Ieave- s " *.

" M. T Hi G A I E I IL C- I-X'L\. AFPJL 6, ^00*/-'iiAITVA 16, D2-' fFi*r II—SEC -'••>] (2) Employées who were appointée! in service in îhe Sta'e collierks, Coal Production and Development Coiumissioner, Government of Iiidia and those who were in service under Coinptroiler aid Auditor General, Government cf India and placed under NCDC afîer 1-10-56.

(3) The 'Government of India, Ministry of Steel and Mines (Department of Mines & Metals) vide ils letter Ne. €-VI-14(43)|63 dated 16-8-1965 has asked ail such employées who were holding the civil posts and whose senices were regulated by Central Civil JRules, 1949 to exercise fiheir options with thî terms and conditions as per the enclos- ed format.

Company in denying them the facilitiez Référence was iilso made of an employée known as Shri N. Kaœaswamy. In rhis connection it lias been stated on behalf of the management that the said Shri Rama- swamy was appointed on 3 lst October, 1956 and en that date he was not an employée of Coal Produc- tion & Development Commissioner, because the office of the Coal Production & Development Com- missioner was abolished and the employées of the ex-CPDC were taken-over by the ers;while NCDC with effect from 1-10-1956 and therefore, it is stated that it becemes clear that Shri Ramaswamy was appointed only for the erstwbib NCDC after Isf October, 1956 and accordingly the facility of pension and encashment of leav; was denied to him because hc was not taken-over by erslwhile NCDC from any other Government Organisation. It is stated that the work- men concerned cannot corne within the purview oi the catégories of ths employées r.s mentioned in the written statement of the union. It is also further stated that the main tlinist of the union is that the management has àcted in violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution cf ïndia by nof extending the pensionary benefit and facility for îeave encashment for 240 days to th.? v/orkmen concerned, but this TribunaJ cannot décide an issue on the alleged con- st'tutional righf of the workmen concetned. because such issues can be decided by a High Court or tïïe Hon'ble Suprême Court in its hiph prérogative writ iiirisdiction. Therefors, the claun of the union nr for that matter the workmen concerned sbould fail on this account. Accordin?lv. it has been submiVed thaf the daim of the union and the workmen k not fit fo be entertained and the same should be refused and rejected.

5. Both the parties hâve adduced évidence in support of their respective cases. So far as the orcl evîâence is concerned, union has examined two wi!- nesses swd the management examined onc witncs?.

It ;s further stated that in 1974 it was decided that the employées who were governed by Ihe Railway' the Civil Services Rules who had exercised option for NCDC benefits would be reverted back to pen- sionary benefit. In this conlext it is stated that on examination of the aforesaid materials it will be clear that where an employée would be entitled to pen- sionary benefit and encashment of leave, he shall hâve to fulfil the criteria stated above, but the 37 concern- ed workmen did not fulfil any of the criteria and in fact they were appointée only for the erstwhile NCDC after lst October, 1956 and, therefore, they were not entitled to the b'.'ncfits claimed by them. It is stated tlhat so far as the case of M. L, Guha JS concerned, he was appointed in March, 1957 by the Comptroller & Auditor General of India and whose services were placed under erslwhile NCDC, was p,iven the benefit of pension and encashment of leave. So, his case cannot be cquated with the case of the 37 concerned wockmin. It is because the said workman was an employée under the West Bengal Government and was subsequently appointed by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and later his service was placed at the disposai of the NCDC as Upper Division Cierk and he had also joinsd after obtaining ibe release certificate îrom his previous Department. It is stated thaï by reason of abolition of the office of the Controller of Coal Accounts, the Controller of Coal Accounts vide iîs lettsr daîed 30-4-1957 placed qnite ai good munbér of persons working under it at the disposai of the erstwhile NCDC and" Shri M. L. Guha was one of such employée who figured at Sériai No. 55 in the list contatned in the said Office Order da'ed 30îh April, 1957. It is further stated that consequenfly Shri M. L. Guha, who was a govemment servant snd. holding the civil,post, was riehtiy afforded ths pefS'OTiarv benefit and faciHty of encashment of leave for 2^0 d?ys. Tt js stated thaï at tfce time of his retirement Shri Guha was drawine C.P.C. scale. while the concerned emnlovee* wer? drawine ccale of Waee Board. Therefore, it is stated that the con- cerned workmen by no standard could be *aid to hâve been holdine anv civil post. It îs further st?ted that pens'rn?^ ben-nt 3vi faciîifv frr 'încasbmertf of lenve had been exten^ed 'o c"nlv tbos" emr>1ovees who Were bblrlins a civil nost hefw their service^ weîe taken- ôver W erste-h⁵¹'; VCT)C rid. fh?rc^<-o, i*r crr.zzrr^ô em-p!ov2ss we-rr w entitled -c \t an-3 ir. tV- enviai it rnnno^be said ihst thet" nir teen arv iiiscrîTrurn- tion or that the rule df equality bas bee,n flouted by the

6. WW-l. Madan Mo-han Guha happend to be îhe Vice Président of the National Ooa! Organisation (Govt. of India) Employées Association at the relevarri time. H? sfated that ahou* ^0 emplcees vere appointed by the Govt. of India in 195? by Mr. K. ï*. N'arayan, A,ssict?nt romm!¹;- sion^r. Office of thf" C"P1 Production & Development Commisâioner. The said copv of appointment letters con- tainïng the names of tbe 37 coircerned employées has been prodneed and it is marked Ext. W-1. The witness has stated that this appointment letter mentioned the terms and conditions of employment of the concerned employées and they used to get their pay as r-er Central Pay Commission scales. He further stated that some employées who were appointed by NCDC also l'sed to get their pav as ner Cen- tral Pav Commission and the employées of the Govt. of India also used tn enjev Central Pav Commission^ scales. He further stated that the C.P.C. scale was reolaced bv the Coal Wage Board scale and émoluments of the employées were încreased, but. howm'er, tbo terms and conditions of service of those emnlovees were retained. He further claîmed thaf he happerrs te be one of the concerned work- men and the concerned workmen were appointed in January, 1957 and joined their service in February. 1957. He further stated that their apnointins authority was Assistant Coal Production and Development Commis^oner, Govt. of Tndia He fur'her stated that NCDC was constiruted on lst October. 1956 and it started functionins from May, 1957 He further stated riviJa""s enioved bv *he Govt. r>î Tndia em- nlovees, t.11 1 5* "Auçiist. lOfi". T^firrr-fter. they were diréeted to ont for tbe scale "f t"y, D.A.. and attendence bonus as per Coal Waee Bosrd's awsrd. bntothçr ternie and "cond""on" of "-rvicc rçma-ned intact. Accordm? to3483 Wage Board. So far as Mr. M. L. Guha is concerned, he staied that he was an executive and was getting iacliity oî 240 days leave encashment as reîiremcnt benetit, but the others are not executives and ts such they were not given such benefit. He has also further stated that ihe workmen under référence did not produce any release order from the Government at tho time of their joining the NCDC. In his Cross examination, he has stated that CPDC was ciosed ou 20th September, 1956 and it had issued an advertisement inviting application for the post of Cierk. H" further statetl that the appointments were made by the NCDC and not by the CPDC and he had expiaintd that the advertiseraent was issued in the transition period of formation oî NCDC and liquidation oî CPDC. He further btated that the appointaient letters were issued by the Assistant Coal Production Com- missioner who was then on deputation ta NCDC. 1hîs> appointment letters were ùccording to Mm were issued on 09-03-1957. He denied that thèse concerned workmen appoimed by CPDC and not by NCDC.

bim their services before 1967 were pensionable as per Civil Service Rules which stiil appiied to itiem. The; option lorai s rnarked Ext. W-2. lie scated tiiat he rctircd trom service an lst January, 1992, but he was not granted pension. He turther stated that their services were not transferred to NCDC, though they were posted there and none of the :oncerned workmen was granved pension. Ihe witness further stated that Controlkr of Coal Accounts had office at 1, Council House Street, Calcutta ar"l it happened to be an organisation of the Gt>vt. of India. Further, he stated that other employées who were posted in NCDC had got pension on their retirement from service and one such case nas been cited by him as of M.L. Guha who worked ini- tially in Controlier of Conl Accounts Office and was trans- ferred to NCDC. He has gone to the extent to say that this workinan continued to be employée of the Govt. of India and were never employées of the NCDC. In his further examination, has has stated that he woiked in NCDC from May, 1957 on the same terms and conditions available to the employées of the Govt. of India and they were directed to exercise their option by the NCDC, but no notice under section 9A was issued. He has further stated that the NCDC is a Govt. of India Undertaking and it was subsequentîy renamed as Centrai Coalfields Limited ov CCL which is under the Coal India Limited and a Govt. of India Under- taking. He has also stated that there was no pensionary scheme, either in the NCDC or in the CCL. He has also proved the appointaient letter of Shri M. L. Guha, roarked Ext. W-3 and he has stated that the persons appointed by Mr. K. P. Narayan, the Assistant Coal Production & Deve- lopment Commissioner were not given any pension, except- ing for Shri M. L. Guha. However, in his cross-examina- tion, he had accepted tbat other Class-II and CSass-III employées appointed before lst. October, 1956 are getting pension from CCL and thiis pensionary benefit is available to them because they were the Central Govt. employées be- fore their joining CCL. He h"s further stated that he was appointed by the Govt. of India and not by NCDC, but he admitted that he had not brought any release order in terms of the Clause-6 of the appointaient Ictter. He further stated that in Febraury, 1957 he joined CPDC and subse- quently the office of the CPDC was taken over by NCDC and ail the employées of the CPDC became employée of the NCDC, but the terms and conditions of employment of such employées remained unc.hanged. However, it has beeni suggested to him that thèse 37 persons appointed vide Ext. W-l were appointed by NCDC which he has denied.

8. So far as the documents are concerned, Ext. W-l JS tLe order of appointment dated 27-03-1957 by which the said 37 concerned workmen were appoinied and it appears irom Clause-6 of this document thaï, the candidates who were al- ready in Government service ^vere required to submit a releuse certificate trom the Department concerned. In this connection it is significant to note that it has been stated on behaif of the management that so far as Mr. M. L. Guha is coucerned, he had produced the release certificate at the time of his joining the service on his appointaient in NCDC, but the concerned workmen did not produce any such certificate. L'xt. W-2 is the option form by which ths employées of NCDC were required to opt for Wage Board recommendations and they were allowed to get higher scales, bonus and Deamess Ailowance as per recommendation. Ext. W-3 is the appoint- ment letter of Mr. M. L. Guha in ths Office of the Controlier of Coal Accounts. Ext. W-4 is the appointment letter issued on 16-11-1956 to Girish Mishra from the Office of the Coal Production & Development Commissioner. Similarly, Ext. W-5 is the appointment letter of Mr. N. Ramaswamy. Ext. W-6 is the appointment letter of Ajit Kumar Dutta. Ext. W-7 is the reply sent by the management to the Assistant Labour Commissioner after the dispute was raised before him in which the case of the management was placed. Ext. W-8 is aîso an appointment letter of Shri N. Hayiharan. Ext. W-9 is a kiter from the Assistant Coal Production and Development Com- missioner to the Assistant Purchase OiScer by way of a Reminder. Relevancy of this letter is not clear. Similar is the document Ext. W-10. Ext. \V-11 is the \erox copy of the advertisement for appointment. Ext. W-12 is the same docu- ment as earlier marked Ext. W-l. Ext. W-l3 is also the same document marked' again as earlier marked Ext. W-8. Ext. W-l4 is the document earlier marked Ext. W-4. Ext. W-l5 is the same document as earlier rnarkea Ext. W-6. Ext. W-16 is the document earlier murked Ext. W-5. Ext. W-Î7 is the document earîier marked Ext. W-2. Ext. W-l 3 is the document earlier marked Ext. W-3. Ext. W-19 is the Service Book of Shri M. L. Guha. Ext. W-20 js ihe document earlier marked Ext. W-y. Ext. W-21 is the doc:.iinent earjïër marked Ext. W-10. No document has been marked on behalf of the management.

WW-2 is Dipti Kana Roy Chowdhury. She has stated that she had filed an application in response îo an adver- tisement dated 30-9-1956 by the Secretary, Coal Production & Development Commissioner, Butty Road, Ranchi. Ac- cording to her applications were invited for the post of Lower Division Cîerk. She has also proved the advertise- ment, Ext. W-ll. She further stated that she was seîected for appointment and the appointment letter was given to her by the Assistant Coal Production & Development Com- missioner and according to her the terms and conditions of appointment were mentioned in the appointaient letter, Ext. W-l. According to her the then Assistant Coal Pro- duction & Development Commissioner was Mr. K. P. Narayan and shë had received the appointment letter in Mardi, 1957. She al"t> further stated that she did not receive her pension and cash benefit of accumulated leave on her retirement in 1997. She niso stated that she had made demand for her daim, but did not receive any reply.

9. Now, so ïar as the management is concerned, it has been submittèd that actuaily ihe concerned workmen, 37 in number, were appointed for NCDC itself and not for CPDC. But, sînee the NCDC was at ihat moment in formation stage, no independent formate was prepared and Mr. K. P Narayan, Assistant Coaî Production and Developmem Commissioner was deputed to NCDC for preparing the infrastructure for the work of NCDC to start and, there- fore, sonte formates earlier issued by the CPDC were used, but so far as the appointaient order Ext. W-l is concerned, it becoaies clear that it has been issued on the letter-head of the NCDC and not in the letter-head of any other organi- sation, such as CPDC. Therefore,'it cannot be said that the 37 concerned workmen were appointed by the CPDC and later they were taken-over by NCDC; rather, their initial appointment was for NCDC and so far as the case of M.L. Guha is concerned, he was earlier in service of the Comp- troller and Auditor General and subsequently his service? were taken-over by s.he NCDC and lie had also joined nftei submitting the release report from the orevious départaient and therefore, his service conditions remoined intact ever after the taking over by the NCDC as wp.s tho cese of othei employées coming from différent départaient; t? NCDC 7. MW-1, Swpan'Kunrar Dutta happens lo be the Personnel Manager in the CCL at Calcutta Office. According ta him he had joined CCL in 1983 as Welfare Officer and he claimed that he was acquainted wfth the f;icis nnd circumstances of the case. According to kim the workmen, named in the -ré- férence were appointed by NCDC and not by the Central Government and they toerè' not takfenover employées of the NCDC. He further stated, that the letters marked on behalf of the workmen Exts. W-4, W-5 and W-6 are ihe letters of NCDC and not of tfce Government of India. He further ex- pïained that Mr. K. P. Narayan was deputed in NCDC as Coal, Production & Development Commissioner and in that capacity he had issued the order. According to h."m Mr. M. L. Guha was an employée of the Government of India and he was takenovër in NCDC. He further stated that at the tinte when tho-concèrncd workmen ware àopointcd'they;were getting CPC pay seaîe, but subscqusntly thsy were covered by thei4jj4 ï l iE GAZETTE OI: IKD1A : AFRIL 6, 2002/ CliÀIIRA 16, 1924 [PART II—SEC, 3(iï)] vvhich liai been adnutt.vl by ibe witness for the vvurkmea

nature of the dutjes attached to the office or by ieasoii of che powers vested in hiin, functions mainiy of a rna^agerial nature."

ïilC JiiUild^ξïC^i ulUl t i r ju W^iC U I I U A C ' IL CiUUgOilCù tJX Cliip-

It is, therefore, clear that a workrnan has to be considereci from the view point of the perron empioyed in an industry or a person who has been dismissed, discharged or retren- ched and a dispute in this regard is raised, but jin the présent case the persens concerned are retued persons, as such, they do not appear to be covered by the définition of workman as mentioned in Clause (s) of Section 2 of the Industria! Disputes Àct, 1947. It has also been contended on behalf of the management that the présent dispute also cannot be termed as an industrial dispute because an indusrtial dispute can lie oniy when the matter under référence is covered by the Schedule 2 and 3 of the Indusîrial Disputes Act, 1947, but the matter of pension is not covered by any of the two schedules and, therefore, it cannot be termed as an Indus irial dispute.

lOy&Cb iilitjwi' L.-iC I N v - X ^. i j i ^ V u i j' Spv**Kn.:g UiClC vVwiC tvvu wiiicgonci oi empiCycCi i.e., cittpiojees vvtio vvcio ediiier icrvuig iii ujw i.j.uvUvb orv.icu 03' m" o o / e r a i i i e i ii or 111 tiie UiflCU ol tUsS (JU'U. t 'i JUulLl UiUX V, Cfv" LdUoCLiUtTltiy tuivÊi"- u v sr Dy uw iN^iJw " uu 01..-U1JU ..tuc^ory oi. me cuipiuycis v.'uo v.fire (iiivciiy ajjpvjiri.ca ici" iV^Li_. is. liai beeii i u o- ulûlLa Uiui. u l us Oteu lûaco tivui m îi^e \C oie concenicd, they weru givcn optxon of Wage Board Recouuaeiidaîioas|Award and wben ùiCy optcu ior iiié s^mi Uiey gui bi-uein oî their pay scul-j, tiCct:.;ess ailowa'-ce, bouus and oLier iaciiiucs in compaiision 10 tlic GuvtiJ:Mi,ai servants in oliifcr depart- ments and, iherefore, they \wre iioi entiiied to ciann ;aiy beûeiii oi pension or eucashincnt of leave. Accordingly, aîier their rttiremeut th^3 dici not g..t the benefiîs of peasion and leave encasinnent us was niacie avaiiablc to the other employées who had corne from the: other departmenls and orgacijation oi the Gov.. of ir.d.j and were absorbed by the NCDC. Therefore, it is not a question of discrimina- tion, rather, it is natural aud the question of thèse workmen being cûinpa*-ed wîth the caiegory oî the workmen aîor&said does not arisc. Sinîply because the other workmen got the benefits of pension and leave encashment, the concerned wçrkmen caniiot be lu-ld to be e'-ititied to it. There is substance in the couteritiorr of the Liarned Auvocate for the management. The évidence and the pleadings hâve made it clear that the confusion has been created îor the advan- tage being takea by thèse concerned workmen ooly because the appointaient letter was signed by the Assistant Coal Production and Development Commissianer. But, it is clear that the said Mr. K.P. Narayan, who happened to be the Assistant Coal Production and Development Commissioner, was on deputation to NCDC at tlie very formation stage of NCDC and he was making reemitment etc. on behalf Of and for NCDC. This is the reason why appointment order Ext. W-l had a!so been issued on the letterhead of NCDC and cot cr.y other organisation. The question of comparing of thèse concerne*} workmen wiih the other caté- gories of varionsn of NCDC, iherefore, does not arise and it cannot be said thet the NCDC or the CCL has discrimi- nated them agnnist other employées who hâve been given benefits of pension and leavs creathment.

10. So far thèse workmen are concerned, it iws been sub-

mitted on behalf of the management that the concerned persons cannot be adually termed as workœan within the meaning of Section 2(sj of the Tndusîriai Disputes Act, 1947 whkh rcads as fojio'vs :

"2(,s). "Workiuan" njeans a",y per.on (inciudin-g an

apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, un^kiiled, skilleii, iechnical, operational, clericaj or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the K-nns of eirpioyment be express or impîied. and for !he purpose of sny proceedirr^ under this Act in ielaiion to an inaustrial dispute, includt's any sucb person v, ho has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a conséquence of. th.it dispute, or vvhose dismis-

(D w]jo is sub;ect to tbe Air Force \ct. 1950 (45 of

1950\ or the Aitny Act, 1950 C46 of !950\ or t?,e Navy Act, 1957 <62 of 1957). or

11. In the end it has been submitted on behair of the management that in the présent case the union ail along has been stating that there has been discrimination between the em- ployées of the CCL and the présent workmen concerned 37 in number hâve been denied the same benofit wliich has been made available to the other employées of simiîar category and, therefore the matter amounts to violation of the principîes of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has been submitted that first of ail the question of discrimination, does not arise because it has been very clearly stated that the categpry of thèse employées is diffé- rent from the category of the employées who hâve been given benefiîs of pension and leave encashment and secondiy, if it is so that it is vioîativw- of the Article 14 of the Constitution, then this Tribunal has no jurisdicrion to décide the matter, because this Tribunal is not a Court of equity and such matters can be decided only by the High Court or the Suprême Court in the writ jurisdiction and, theretore, the référence is noi maintoinable. It is J so si^aifjcant to note that the union ho s ail along been blar.ûns the Govt. of India fox- injustice caused to Ihcm, but the Govt. of India has nc>' been inpleaded and, therefore, the Govt. of India or the Central Government has not been "riven opportunity to cxplain iîs stand.

("ii) who is ernp'oyed :u the noiies s?ivicc or us an

officer or other employée of a prison: or

12, In this view of the rnatter, it is not fiii) who is emnïoyed !;:a!n!y i;i J mar.agoriil or admi-

nistrative capacity; or

(!-•"! who. beipo (""i'--ïo>ed :n a "."irtor-isr'; capaci"-',

d nw \vr?e<. oxceedi"rr <>r> î'ionsrm'i sh hnndi :i î't'fs-.v; ":r i-.f!,s"''ni ^1 £.-;.jcr-,:, ii-.h;-: by -Jr-t

p'ossible to décide the matter and fo hoîd that there bas been any discriminsîion with fhe 37 c^nc,arnfxî worlcvi^n. If D_t <){}. the union felt thaï iî was a case in which the action of3485 îhe Central Coaîiields Ltd. violated or con- travened Article 14 of the Constitution, the matter should hâve been taken-up before the Hon'ble High Court or the Hon'ble Suprême Court of India for décision in tlie matter. In my view the persent référence is not main- tainable and the workmen concerned, there- fore.- are not entitled to any relief in the case.

13. The référence is accordingly decided and disposed of.

B. P. SHARMA, Presiding Officer Dated, Kolkata,

The 6th Mardi, 2002.

New Delhi, the 20th Mardi, 2002 S.O. 1175.—In pursuançe of Section 17 of the Industriai Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947;, the Centrai Government hereby pub- lishes the award of. the Industriai Tribunal! Labour Court Godavarikahni as shown in the Annexure in the Industriai Dispute beîwecn the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workman, which was receiv- ed by the Central Government on 19-03-2002.

[No. L-22025 \ 112002-IR (C-TI ) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRÏAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABQUR COURT, GODAVARIKHANI

PRESENT :

Sri P. Guranadha Rao, B.Sc, B.L., Chairman- cum-Presiding Officer.

Monday, the 4th day of Mardi, 2002 INDUSTRÏAL DISPUTE No. 64 OF 2001

BETWEEN

Dasari Komuraiah, S|o. Mallaiah, Âge 44 yrs., Occ Ex-Coal Filler, R. K. 6 Incline, R|o. Rangapeta, District Adilabad. • • Petitioner.

AND

The General Manager, \T'.. r.'-.; •..•: Collieries Co. Ltd., Uuii:^.^^^, Dist. Adilabad.

Respondent.

This pétition corning before me for final hearing in the présence of Sri J. Rajaiah, Advocaîe for the petitioner and of Sri C.S. N. Reddy, Advocate for the respondent and having stood over for considération: till this date, the court passed the foliowing :—

AWARD

1. This is a pétition filed U|s. 2-A(2) of the Industriai Disputes Act, 1947 as amended by A. P., Amendment Act 1987.

Facts of the case briefly are as foîlows :—

The petitioner was working as Coal-Filier. He was absent from duty from 1-1-98 to 24-8-98,'from 26-8-98 to 1-9-98, 7-10-98. 17-10-98, 31-10-98, 5-11-98, 7-11-98- 21-11-98. 11-12-98, 14-12-98, 15-12-98 and 19-12-98. He attended the duty for 139 days in 1995, 170 days in 1996, 71 days in 1997

He attended to duties for 70 days only in 1998.

Doaiestic enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was dismissed from the service w.e.f.. 24-5-2001 on the ground that he had not im- proved his attendance even for the subsé- quent period.

2. Respondent filed counîer stating that the peiitioner had put-in 89 musters in the year. 1999 and nill musters in the year, 2000.

3. Ex. M-l to Ex. M-li are marked.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The point for considération is whether the charge against the petiîioner is proved, if so, whether the dismissal of the petitioner from the service is in proportion to the charge?

6. Ex. Ml 6 is lettcr dt. 22-7-99 from the petitioner to the respondent expiaining his position.

Tt shows thaï the petitioner was appointed in îbc ycar. 1983, He had v/orked for 15 years regulnrly. H? \iifïered from paralysie3486 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2002/ÇHAITRA 16, 1924 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)j in the year, 1998. He had taken treatment in the Area Hospital and private hospitals. Due to his ill-health, he could attend for 70 days only in the year, 1998.

Ex. M-9 is letter dt. 20|24-9-99 giving op- portunity to the petitioner to improve his attendance during the period from, Septera- ber, 1999 to September, 2000. But the peti- tioner was absent from duties througbout the year, 2000.

I consider that the charge against the peti- tioner is proved and the punishment of dismis- sal of the petitioner from the service is in proportion to the charge.

But the petitioner worked for 15 years. Therefore, he may be considered as com- pulsorily retired from the service.

In the resuit, this pétition is partly-allowed. The petitioner shall be considered as com- Dulsorily retired from the service w.e.f., 24-5-2001 and ail the benefits available to a retired employée shall be given to him. Each party do bear their own costs.

Typed to mv dictation- coirected and pro- nounced by me in the onen court on this, the 4th day of March, 2002.

P. GURUNADHA RAO, Chairman-cum- Presidin.a OiTiccr Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses-examined

For Workman :

-Niî-

For Management :

-Nil-

Exhibits

For Workman :

-Nil-

For Management :

Ex. M-l dt. 24-2-99—Charge-sheet.

Ex. M-2 dt. 28-6-99—Enquiry proceed- ings.

Ex. M-3 dt. 28-6-99—Enquiry report.

Ex. M-4 dt. 14-7-99—Letter issued to the petitioner by General Manager, Ramakrishnapur.

V.K. M-5 dt. 14-7-99—Acknowledsfement of petitioner.

Ex. M-6 dt. 22-7-99—Letter addressed to the General Manager" S. C. Co. Ltd." Ramakrishnapur area.

Ex. M-7 dt. 2-8-99—Représentation of S. C. workers union.

Ex. M-8 dt. 24-8-99—Letter No. RK-6i 54|99|1742 issued by Superintendent of Mines, RK. No. 6 Incline.

Ex. M-9 dt. 20124-9-99—Letter issued to petitioner by P. M., RKP.

Ex. M-10 dt. 13| 17-4-2001—Letter issn- ed to petitioner by General Manager, Ramakrishnapur.

Ex. M-ll dt. 19 21-5-01—Dismissal order.

New Delhi, the 21st March, 2002 S.O. 1176.—In pursuance of Section l'y of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 oi 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Réf. 7! 1996) of the Centra] Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ECL and their workman, which was received by fhe Central Government on 20-03-2002.

[No. L-22012|306!95-IR(C-II)] N, P. KESAVAR DesL Offiqer -ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. TNDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOXJR COURT, ASANSOL

Présent :

Shri Ramfce. PaRcîey, Presiding Ofîîcer nr.FF.RnNcr. NUMBER 7. or 1905 Parties :

Shankarpur Colliery Mjs. ECL.

Management.

Vrs.

Shri Jabal Majhi • • Workman Représentation :

For the Management.—Shri P. K. Das, Àdvocate.

For the Workman (Union).—None INDUSTRY : Coal STATE : West Bengal Dated : 06-03-2002

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by the clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-sec- tion 2(A) of Section 10 of thé Industrial Dis- pute Act, 1947, Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide it's order No. L-22012' 306|95-IR(C-II) datcd 14-2-96 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal :—

"Whether the disniàssal order issued by the mgt. of Shankarpur Coiliery under Bankola Area of ECL. P.O. Ukhra, Distt. Burdwan (W.B.) in dismissing Sh. Jabla Majhi, Ex-U. G. Loader w.e.f. 15-5-89 is légal and justified? Tf not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

Both the parties h ad apoeared and were présent till 09-06-1999. Thereafrer the Presid- ing Officer was transferred and the case remain pending up till now. Again on the basis of order dated 18-01-2002 summons were sent upon the parties, and in response to (he sum- mon management appearcd today through Shri P. K. Das. Advocate. who filed a coov of Mémorandum of Settlement in "Form H". Learned Lawyer submit'ed that workman has settled the dispute, according to which now the workman is not interested to confest the dispute and the management has oromised to nav ail his l e ^i dues. Learned lawyer Shri P. K. D^s certifies the signature*; of the narties ind the LTT given bv the workman on the Mémorandum of Settlement.

From oerasal of the Mémorandum of Seule- ment it is clear thnt the v/orVman bns seftied •he dispute vA*h the management ^ccording

C4S7 to which management has promissed to pay his ail légal dues forthwith and now the work- man is not interested to contest the dispute. In view of above facts and circumstances it is clear that at présent the dispute does nnt exist and hence a No Dispute Award is passed.

RAMJEE DANDEY, Presidinç? Officer - New Delhi, the 21st March, 2002 S.O. 1177.—In pursuance of Section 47 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (\à. of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Réf. No. 12511999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labuour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management if ECL and their workman, which was receiv- ed by the Central Government on 20-03-2002.

[No. L-22012!439!98-IR(C-II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUS TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT. ASANSOL

Présent :

Shri Ramjee Pandey, Presiding Officer REFERENCE NUMBER 125 OF 1999 Parties :

Chinakuri Coliiery of Mis. È.C.L.

Management.

Vrs.

Shri Paswan.

.. Workman, J-¹13- THE GAZETTE OF E'Xlï-A :-AFPJL 6- r002/CHATTKA- It', 132- HT*-T II~-?;>- 3'-\}!

APPEARANCES :

For the .Management.—Shri P. K. Das, Advocate

For the Workman (Workman).—Nonj INDUSTRY : Coal. STATE : West Bengal Dated 1 04-03-2002

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by the clause (ê) of Sub-sectïon-( 1 ) aad Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Tndustrial Dispute Act, 1947, Goyt. of India through the Minis- try of Labour vide it's Order No. L-22012 439!98lm(C]VMl) dated 03-08-1999 has re- ferred the foliowing dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal :—

"Whether the action of the management of Chinakuri Mine No. IT of Sode- pur Area of Eastern Coaîfieids Ltd. in dismissing the services of Sh. Paswan is justified? Tf not, to what relief is the workman entitled?" After receiving the referesce summoiïs were sent to the parties by regisîèred post. în res- ponse to the summons management appeared Ihrougli Shri P. K. Das, Advocate. Although summon was served to the Union (Workman) by regstered Post which was received on 05-10-2001- none appeared on beh;\|f of ths Union (Workman) although repeated adjourn- ncnt vvero given for this; purpose. The management âlso^dië-- not . file ' any written statcment dtîHng.Àis'perlod snd tVse facts indicate that neither th^' %ahagemBnt n ^ ,.

Printed by the Manager, Govt. of India Itess, Ring Road, TSièw Delhi 110O64

v'vri PubJ'flwd bv the ContfoTI"r of Publications, ^lfti-110054. 2003

the Union is interested to contest he dispute and hence a No Dispute Award is passcd.

RAMJEE PANDEY, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 19th March, 2002 S.O 1)78.—In exercise iif tbe p3\vcrs cor:ffrr- ed by sub-section (3) of Sectien 1 of the Employées" State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1*948), the Central Government hereby appoints the lst April, 2002 as the date on whicft^e/ provisions of Chapter IV (ex;cept Sections 44' afld 45 v;hich hâve already been brought into force) ,dnd Chapter V and VI (except sub-scctron (j) ^"Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 8^w|iieh hâve aîready been brought into force) of ihe sa*d Act shall corne into force in the following- areas'in the State of Kerala, namely :—

"Kufeiwâtaffl rReVenue Village in Kanayannur • T ^" ik .îrnakuîam District."

2 .' [No. S-38013/7/2002-SS.IJ rAK©K.-,AGARWAL. Under Secv.