This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGD. NO. D. L. -33001/90 रजिस्ट्री संपडी एल-33001/99

भारत राजपन्न The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY,

सं. 19]

No. 19 ]

नई दिल्ली, शनिवार , मई 10, 2003 /वैशाख 20 , 1925 NEW DELHI , SATURDAY, MAY 10 , 2003/VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह अलग संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके SeparatePaging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

PART II Section 3 Sub-section (ii)

भारतसरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़ना ) द्वारा जाती किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence)

मंत्रिमंडल सचिवालय

नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2003

V का. आ. 1375.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार के गृह ( पुलिस ) अनुभाग -12 की अधिसूचना सं. 1424/6-12-2003-1 ( 11 )/2003 दिनांक 03-03-2003 के साथ पठित उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार के गृह ( पुलिस ) अनुभाग -12 की संशोधन अधिसूचना सं. 1614/6-12-03-1 ( 11 )डी/03 दिनांक 22-03-2003 द्वारा प्राप्त उत्तर प्रदेश राष्य सरकार की सहमति से अकराबाद पुलिस स्टेशन अलीगढ़ , उत्तर प्रदेश में भारवीय दंड संहिता, 1860 की धारा 302/201 के अधीन दर्ज मामला अफ़्यध सं. 19/2003 और उपर्युक्त अपराधों से संबंधित अथवा संसमत प्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और षडयंत्रों तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अक्षका उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्‌भूत किसी अन्य अपराध असक अपराधों के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य पर करती है।

[सं. 228/19/2003 -डी.एस.पी.ई. शुभा ठाकुर, अवर सचिव

CABINET SECRETARIAT

New Delhi, the 29th April, 2003

S.O. 1375. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 28 of 1946) , the Central Government with the consento the Government of Uttar Pradesh Home(Police) Section- 12 accorded vide Notification No. 1424/6-12-2003 - I( 11 ) /2003 dic 03-03-2003 readwith Notification No. 1614/6-12-03-1 ( 11 ) D/ 03 dated 22-3-2003, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members ofthe Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh for investigation ofthe cas 1232 GI/ 2003 .

(3527) 3528

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003/VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

crime No. 19/2003 registered at Akrabad PS , Aligarh , U.P. U/s 302/201 of Indian Penal Code , 1860 and attempts , abetments and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[No. 228/19/2003-DSPE]

SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy.

वित्त एवं कम्पनी कार्य मंत्रालय

(आर्थिककार्य विभाग )

(बैंकिंग प्रभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1376.- बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम, 1949 ( 1949 का 10 ) की धारा 56 के साथ पठित धारा 53 द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर घोषणा करती है कि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के उपबंध सरकारी राजपत्र में इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से 31 मार्च , 2005 तक मयूरभंज सेंट्रल को- आपरेटिव बैंक लि. , बारीपदा ( उड़ीसा ) पर लागू नहींहोंगे ।

[फा. सं. 1 (17 )/2003-ए.सी. ]

मंगल मरांडी, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND COMPANYAFFAIRS

(Department ofEconomicAffairs)

(Banking Division)

NewDelhi, the 24th April , 2003

S.O. 1376.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 read with Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 ( 10 of 1949) the Central Government on recommendation of the Reserve Bank ofIndia declares that the provisions of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 11 of the said Act shall not applyto the Mayurbhanj Central Co-Coperative Bank Ltd. , Baripada (Orissa) from the date ofpublication ofthis Notification in the Official Gazette to 31st March, 2005.

[F. No. 1( 17)/2003-AC]

MANGAL MARNDI, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1377.- बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम, 1949 ( 1949 का 10 ) की धारा 56 के साथ पठित धारा 53 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर घोषणा करती है कि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के उपबंध सरकारी राजपत्र में इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से 31 मार्च, 2005 तक बौध सहकारी सेंट्रल बैंक लि. , बौध ( उड़ीसा ) पर लागू नहीं होंगे ।

[फा. सं. 1 ( 18 )/2003-ए.सी. ]

मंगल मरांडी, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi, the 24thApril, 2003

S.O. 1377. In exercise ofthe powers conferred by Section 53 read with Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act , 1949 ( 10 of 1949) the Central Government on recommendation ofthe Reserve Bank of India declares that the provisions of Sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 11 ofthe said Act shall not apply to the Boudh Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. , Boudh(Orissa) from the date of publication of this Notification in the Official Gazette to 31st March, 2005.

[F. No. 1 ( 18)/2003-AC]

MANGAL MARNDI, Under Secy.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

1529 उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्तामामले विभाग )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल , 2003

का. आ. 1378.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानकब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के वितरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

क्रम संख्या

स्थापित तिथि स्थापित भारतीय मानक (कों) की संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1.

आईएस 10109: 1981

200210 31 आईएस 10109:2002-तेल दाब स्टोव- अर्न्तलम्ब बर्नर टाइप -विशिष्टि (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

20021231.

आईएस 10433: 1983

आईएस 10433 ( भाग 2 ) : 2002- तेल -चालित युग्मको के लिए स्टड टी बॉडी ( स्टड रन ) विशिष्टि भाग 2 बॉर स्टॉक से निर्मित

(पहला पुनरीक्षण)

आईएस 10481 : 1983

2002 10 31 आईएस 10481: 2002- द्रवीय तरल पावर- पद्धतियों से संबंधित सामान्यनियम

(पहला पुनरीक्षण)

आईएस 11346: 1985

200212 31 आईएस 11346: 2002- कृषि व जलपूर्ति के पम्पों के लिये स्वीकार्यता परीक्षण की संहिता (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

5 .

आईएस 12406: 1988

200302 28 .

आईएस 12404: 2003 सामान्य प्रयोजनों के लिए मध्यम घनत्व के रेशा बोर्ड-विशिष्टि (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

आईएस 12725 : 2002-

आईएस 12725: 1988

20021130 वायु चालित तरल पावर - पद्धतियों सेसंबंधित सामान्यनियम (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

7 .

आईएस 13073: 1991

200211 30 आईएस 13073 ( भाग 1 ) : 2002- कंक्रीट और सिंचाई बाँधों के लिए विस्थापन मापी युक्तियों का संस्थापन रख- रखाव और प्रेक्षण-रीति संहिता

भाग 1 साहुल द्वारा विक्षेप मापन (पहला पुनरीक्षण) [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] 3530

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

2002-11-30 8.

आईएस 13108 ( भाग 1 ) : 1986

आईएस 13108 ( भाग 1 ) : 2002- प्रकाशिकी और प्रकाशिक उपकरण- माइक्रोस्कोप भाग 1 प्रकाश माइस्क्रोस्कोपी में सामान्य उपयोग का निमज्जन तेल

(पहला पुनरीक्षण)

2002-11-30

आईएस 13722: 1993

आईएस 13722: 2002- उत्पाद ग्रेड ए और बी के लिए मीटरी सूक्ष्म अंतराल वाली चूड़ी सहित शैली 1 की घटकोणीय ढिबरियाँ

(पहला पुनरीक्षण)

2002-11-30 10.

आईएस 13723 : 1994

आईएस 13723 : 2002- मीटरी सूक्ष्म अंतराल वाली चूड़ी सहित शैली 2 की षटकोणीय ढिबरियाँ उत्पाद ग्रेड ए और बी

(पहला पुनरीक्षण)

2002-11-30 11.

आईएस 13724: 1994.

आईएस 13724: 2002- उत्पाद ग्रेड ए और बी के लिए मीटरी सूक्ष्म अंतराल वाली चूड़ी सहित षटकोणीय पतली ढिबरियाँ ( शेम्फर किए गए )

(पहला पुनरीक्षण)

2002-12-31 12.

आईएस 13225: 1993

आईएस 13725: 2002- उत्पाद ग्रेड ए और बी के लिए मीटरी सूक्ष्म अंतराल वाली चूड़ी सहित षटकोणीय शीर्ष वाले पेंच

(पहला पुनरीक्षण)

2002-12-31 13.

आईएस 13726: 1994

आईएस 13726 : 2002- उत्पाद ग्रेड ए और बी के लिए मीटरी सूक्ष्म अंतराल वाली चूड़ी सहित षटकोणीय शीर्ष वाले काबले

(पहला पुनरीक्षण)

-2002-11-30 14.

आईएस 14231 ( भाग 8 ) : 2002- टेलीविजन और ध्वनि संकेतों के लिए केबलकृत वितरण तंत्र भाग 8 रिटर्न पाथ की प्रणाली कार्यकारिता

2002-12-31 5.

आईएस 14231 ( भाग १ ) : 2002- टेलीविजन और ध्वनि संकेतों के लिए केबलकृत वितरण तंत्र भाग 9 डिजिटल माड्यूलित संकेतों के लिए केबलकृत वितरण प्रणाली के अन्तरपृष्ठ

2002-09-30 16.

आईएस 14483 ( भाग 2) : 2002- उर्वरक एवं रासायनिक अन्तःक्षेपण पद्धति भाग 2 जल- चालित कैमिकल इंजेक्टर पम्प [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

$531 (1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 17.

2002-08-31

आईएस 13726: 1994

आईएस 15154: 2002- काजल-विशिष्ठि

18.

2002-12-31 आईएस 15196: 2002- प्लास्टिकफुटवियर फर्मे-विशिष्टि

19.

2002-09-30 आईएस 15205: 2002- खिताब ( इमलशन टाइप )-विशिष्टि

20.

2002-10-38 आईएस 15210: 2002- कार्य-स्थल पर वायु- विनाइल क्लोराइड का निर्धारण चारकोल नलिका/गैस क्रोमेटोग्राफीय विधि

21.

2002-12-31 आईएस 15211 : 2002- कार्य-स्थल पर वायु- वाष्पीय एरोमैटिक हाईड्रोकार्बनों का निर्धारण- चारकोल नलिका/ विलायक अनअधिशोषण/गैस क्रोमेटोग्राफीय विधि

22.

2002-09-30 आईएस 15214: 2002- निर्मित उत्पाद के आंकड़ों के वर्णन और अन्तरण प्रणाली को कार्यान्वित करने की सामान्य आवश्यकताएं

23.

2002-11-30 आईएस 15215: 2002- एक दो तरफा लचीले प्रिंटेड तारों के बोडौँ की अनुष्ठित भार्गदर्शक पुस्तिका

24.

2002-10-31 आईएस 15218 ( भाग 1 ): 2002- विद्युतरोधी पदार्थ-आयनन विकिरण के प्रभाव का निर्धारण भाग 1 विकिरण अन्तक्रिया एवं मात्रा मापण

25.

2002-12-31 आईएस 15220: 2002- हैलोजनकृत हाइड्रोकार्बन-हैलोन 1211 और हैलोन 1301 अगिनशमन माध्यम- विशिष्टि

26.

2002-12-31 आईएस 15221: 2002- हैलोन 1211 और हैलोन 1301 (हैलोजनकृत हाइड्रोकार्बन.)-अग्निशमन माध्यम के सुरक्षित प्रहस्तन और अंतरण की कार्यविधि-रीति संहिता

27.

2002-2-31 आईएस 15222: 2002- आग से बचाव के लिए अग्निशमन के माध्यम से रूप में कार्बन डाईआक्साईड-विशिष्टि

28.

2002-12-31 आईएस 15224: 2002- तापहढ़ पोलिएस्टर रेजिन ( कांचरेशा प्रबलित ) से बनाई गई प्लास्टिक की परभाषी चद्दरों को अकेले अथवा एस्बेस्टोस सीमेंट चद्दरों /इस्पात चद्दरों/एल्यूमिनियम चद्दरों के साथ बिछाना- रीतिसंहिता 3532

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003/VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] (1)

(2)

(3)

(4). 29.

2002-11-30 आईएस 15227: 2002-

आईएस 13726: 1994

डेल्टामेथ्रीन यू.एल.वी.-विशिष्टि

30.

2002-10-31 आईएस 15228: 2002- साइफलूथ्रीन- जल में इम्लशन (ई. डब्ल्यू. )

विशिष्टि

31.

2002-11-30 आईएस 15229: 2002- मीटोलाकलोर तकनीकी-विशिष्टि

32.

2002-11-30 आईएस 15230: 2002- मीटोलाकलोर ई सी-विशिष्टि

33.

आईएस 15231 : 2002-

2002-12-31 ऐनीलोफोस + 2, 4- डी ईस्टर ई सी-

विशिष्टि

34.

आईएस 15232: 2002-

2002-11-30 फेनोक्सेप्रोप-पी-ईथाइल तकनीकी-

विशिष्टि

35.

आईएस 15236: 2002-

2002-10-31 प्रोफेनोफौस + साइपरमेथ्रिन इम्लसीफियंबल

सान्द्र-विशिष्टि

36.

2002-09-30 आईएस 15237: 2002- पेनकौनेज़ोल इम्यूलसीफियबल सान्द्र-

विशिष्टि

37.

2002-10-31 आईएस 15239: 2002-

फेनोक्साप्रोप- पी ईथाइल इम्लसीफियबल

सान्द्र - विशिष्टि

38.

2002-09-30 आईएस 15240: 2002-

प्रोफेनोफोस इम्यूलसीफियबल सान्द्र

विशिष्टि

39 .

2002-11-30 आईएस 15242: 2002-

चुम्बक ( स्कूल एवं कालेज के प्रयोग के लिए )

विशिष्टि

40.

आईएस 15243: 2002-

2002-12-31 मौसम विज्ञान प्रयोजन के लिए गति

स्केल सैट

41.

आईएस 15247: 2002-

2002-09-30 टूल्सके शेंक के स्वचलित बदलाव के लिए

7/24 टेपर- स्पिंडल नोज के लिए टेपर

42.

आईएस 15248: 2002-

2002-11-30 मशीन टूल्स के लिए दो- पीस जबड़ों वाला

स्वतः केन्द्रण वाली चक ( टंग व ग्रुव टाइप) -

अन्तर्विनियम योग्य माप तथा स्वीकरण

परीक्षण विशिष्टियाँ 3533 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

2002-11-30 43.

आईएस 15249: 2002-

आईएस 13726 : 1994

मशीन टूल्स - पावर चक पर जबड़े की जड़ाई

2002-11-30 44.

आईएस 15251 : 2002-

भारी काम के लिए जूतों के लास्ट विशिष्टि

2002-11-30 45.

आईएस 15253:2002- डियूगेज- विशिष्टि

2002-12-31 46.

आईएस 15256 ( भाग 1 ): 2002- बैंकिंग - कुंजी प्रबन्धन (खुदरा) भाग 1 कुंजी प्रबन्धन का परिचय

2002-11-30 47.

आईएस 15256 (भाग 4 ): 2002- बैंकिंग - कुंजी प्रबन्धन ( खुदरा ) भाग 4 जन कुंजी कूट लेखन के प्रयोग द्वारा कुंजी प्रबन्धन तकनीक

2002-11-30 48.

आईएस 15256 ( भग 6 ): 2002- बैंकिंग- कुंजी प्रबन्धन (खुदरा ) भाग 6 कुंजी प्रबन्धन योजनाएं

2002-11-30 49.

आईएस 15259:2002- होम लिफ्टों का संस्थापन और रख रखाव रीति संहिता

2002-11-30 50.

आईएस 15260: 2002- वस्त्रादि मशीनरी- टू- फार- वन टिवस्टर शब्दावली

2002-12-31 51.

आईएस 15261: 2002- ज्यामितीय उत्पाद विशिष्टियां ( जी पी एस ) पृष्ट गठन: प्रोफाइल पद्धति- संपर्क. (स्टाइल्सस ) उपकरणों के अभिहित अभिलक्षण

2002-12-31 52.

आईएस 15262: 2002- ज्यामितीय उत्पाद विशिष्टियां ( जी पी एस) पृष्ट गठन: प्रोफाइल पद्धति पारिभाषिक शब्द, परिभाषाएं और पृष्ठ गठन पैरामीटर

2002-11-30 53.

आईएस 15264: 2002- ज्यामितीय उत्पाद विशिष्टियां ( जी पी एस) पृष्ठ दोष- पारिभाषिक शब्द, परिभाषाएं

तथा पैरामीटर

2002-12-31 54.

आईएस 15268 ( भाग 1 ): 2002- प्रकाशिकी और प्रकाशिक उपकरण - माइक्रोस्कोप, स्लाइड भाग 1 आयाम, प्रकाशिक गुणधर्म और

मुहरांकन 3534

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 20, 1925

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4) 55.

2002-12-31

आईएस 13726: 1994

आईएस 15268( भाग 2) : 2002- प्रकाशिकी और प्रकाशिक उपकरण माइक्रोस्कोप - स्लाइड भाग 2 सामान की गुणवत्ता फिनिश तथा पैकेजिंग का तरीका

56.

2002-11-30 आईएस 15270 ( भाग 1 ): 2002- प्रकाशिकी और प्रकाशिक उपकरण - माइक्रोस्कोप - आवरण ग्लास भाग 1 आयाम, छूटे , मोटाई और प्रकाशिक गुणधर्म

57.

2002-11-30 आईएस 15270( भाग 2 ) : 2002- प्रकाशिकी और प्रकाशिक उपकरण - माइक्रोस्कोप - आवरण ग्लास भाग 2 सामान की गुणवत्ता फिनिश तथा पैकेजिंग का तरीका

58.

2002-12-31 आईएस 15276: 2002- तरल शक्ति और सामान्य उपयोग के लिए धातु की नालियों के संयोजक 24ओ-छल्लो के वेल्ड निप्पल के साथ संयोजन यंत्र

59.

2002-12-31 आईएस 15277: 2002- तरल शक्ति और सामान्य उपयोग के लिए धातु की नालियों के संयोजक चूड़ी वाले द्रवचालित तरल. शक्तिसंयोजक यंत्र के लिए परीक्षण पद्धति

60.

2003-01-31 आईएस 15283 : 2002- आवधिक प्रकाशनों के यूनियन केटलॉग में प्रविष्टिका ले- आउट

61.

2002-12-31

P आईएस 15298 ( भाग 1 ) : 2002- व्यावसायिक उपयोग के लिए सुरक्षित, संरक्षी और नौकरी पेशा फुटवियर भाग 1 अपेक्षाएं और परीक्षण पद्धतियाँ

62.

2002-12-31 आईएस 15298( भाग 1 ) : 2002- व्यावसायिक उपयोग के लिए सुरक्षित, संरक्षी और नौकरी पेशा फुटवियर भाग 1 सुरक्षित फुटवियर की विशिष्टि

63.

2002-12-31 आईएस 15298 ( भाग 3 ) : 2002-

व्यावसायिक उपयोग के लिए सुरक्षित , संरक्षी और नौकरी पेशा फुटवियर भाग 3 संरक्षी फुटवियर की विशिष्टि [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

3535

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10 , 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 64.

2002-12-31 आईएस 15298 ( भाग 4 ) : 2002- व्यावसायिक उपयोग के लिए सुरक्षित , संरक्षी और नौकरी पेशा फुटवियर भाग 4 व्यावसायिक फुटवियर की विशिष्टिं

65.

2002-12-31 आईएस 15299: 2002- मशीनी औजार- हब फ्लेंजों द्वारा सादे घिसाई चक्र का आरोपण

66.

2002-12-31 आईएस 15300 : 2002- दाबन के औजार- पंच- नाम पद्धति तथा परिभाषिक शब्दावली

67.

आईएस/ आईएसओ 10011-1: 1990, 2002-12-31 आईएस/आईएसओ 19001 : 2002 गुणता तथा/अथवा पर्यावरणीय प्रबन्ध पद्धतियों के संपरीक्षण की मार्गदर्शिका

आईएस/ आईएसओ 10011-2 : 1991 , आईएस/आईएसओ 10011-3 : 1991 , आईएस/ आईएसओ 14010: 1996, आईएस/ आईएसओ 14011 : 1996 और आईएस/आईएसओ 14012 : 1996

68 .

आईएस/आईईसी 60309-1 : 1996

2002-10-31 आईएस/आईईसी 60309-1 : 2002- औद्योगिक प्रयोजनों के लिए प्लग , सॉकेट- आउटलेट और कपलर्स भाग 1 सामान्य अपेक्षाएं (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

69.

आईएस/आईईसी 60309-2 : 1996

2002-12-31 आईएस/आईईसी 60309-2 : 2002- औद्योगिक प्रयोजनों के लिए प्लग , सॉकेट- आउटलेट और कपलर्स भाग 2 पिन और सम्पर्क नलिका साधित्रों की आयाम विनियम अपेक्षाएं (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

इन भारतीय मानकों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. के.प्र.वि./13: 2 ]

पी. दक्षिणामूर्ति, अपर महानिदेशक MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi , the 30th April , 2003

S.O. 1378.- In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each: 123261/ 03-2 3536

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 2003 /VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

SCHEDULE

SI No.

Date ofEstab- lishment

No. and Year of the Indian Standards Established

No. and Year ofIndian Standards, if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

1. IS 10109 : 2002-

IS 10109 : 1981

2002-10-31

Oil pressure stoves- offset burner type- specification

(FirstRevision)

IS 10433 : 1983

2002-12-31

2. IS 10433 ( Pt 2 ) : 2002-

Male stud tee body (stud run) for oil -hydraulie couplings- specification

Part 2: Made from bar stock (FirstRevision)

IS 10481: 1983

2002-10-31

IS10481 : 2002 -Hydraulic fluid power-general rules relating to systems (FirstRevision)

IS11346: 1985

2002-12-31

IS 11346:2002-

Tests for agricultural and water supply pumps code of acceptance (First Revision)

5. IS 12406: 2003-

IS 12406 : 1988

2003-02-28

Medium density fibre boards for general purpose-specification (FirstRevision)

6. IS 12725 : 2002-

IS 12725 : 1988

2002-11-30

Pneumatic fluid power general rules relaring to systems

(FirstRevision)

2002-11-30

IS 13073 : 1991

IS 13073 (Pt 1 ) : 2002-

Installation , maintenance and observ- ation of displacement measuring devices in concrete and masonry dams-code of practice Part 1: Deflection measurement using plumb lines

(FirstRevision)

2002-11-30

8. IS 13108 ( Pt 1) : 2002-

IS 13108 (Part 1) : 1986

Optics and optical instruments- microscopes Part 1 : Immersion oil for general use in light microscopy (FirstRevision)

9 IS 13722: 2002-

IS 13722: 1993

2002-11-30

Hexagon nuts , style I , with metric fine pitch thread-product grades AandB (FirstRevision) [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

3537

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20 , 1925

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

10. IS 13723 :2002-

IS 13723: 1994

2002-11-30 Hexagon nuts , style 2, with metric fine pitch thread-product grades

A andB

(FirstRevision)

11. IS 13724: 2002-

IS 13724: 1993

2002-11-30 Hexagon thin nuts , (chamfered) with metric fine pitch thread-product grades

Aand B

(First Revision)

12. IS 13725 :2002-

IS 13725: 1993

2002-12-31 Hexagonheadscrews with metric fine pitch thread-product grades

A and B

(FirstRevision)

13. IS 13726:2002-

IS 13726: 1994

2002-12-31 Hexagon head bolts with metric fine pitch thread product grades

AandB

(FirstRevision)

14. IS 14231 : (Pt . 8) : 2002-

2002-11-30 Cable distribution system for television and sound signals Part8: System performance of return path

15. IS 14231 : (Pt . 9): 2002-

2002-12-31 Cable distribution system for television and sound signals Part 9 : Interfaces of cable distribution system for digitally modulated signals

16. IS 14483: (Pt . 2): 2002-

2002-09-30 Fertilizer and chemical injection system Part 2: Water driven' chemical injector pump

17. IS 15154: 2002-

2002-08-30 Kajal-specification

18. IS 15196: 2002-

2002-12-31 Plastic footwear lasts

specification

19. IS15205: 2002-

2002-09-30

1 Oxidation hair dyes (emulsion type)

specification

20. IS 15210 : 2002-

2002-10-31 Workplaceair- determination of vinyl chloride- charcoal tube/gas chromatographic method 3538

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003/VAISAKHA 20, 1925

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

21. IS 15211 : 2002-

2002-12-31

Workplace air- determination of vaporous aromatic- hydrocarbons -charcoal tube/ solvent desorption/gas chromatographic method

2002-09-30

22. IS 15214: 2002-

Generic requirements for implementation ofproduct manufacturing description data and transfer methodology

2002-11-30

23. IS 15215 : 2000-

Performance guide manual for single and double-sided flexible printed wiringboards

2002-10-31

24. IS 15218: 2002: (Pt. 1 ):2002- Electrical insulating materials -deter- mination of the effects of ionizing radiation Part 1 : Radiation interaction and dosimetry

2002-12-31

25. IS 15220 : 2002-

Halogenated hydrocarbons-halon 1211 and halon 1301-fire extinguishing media specification

2002-12-31

26. IS 15221 : 2002-

Safe handling and transfer procedures ofhalon 1211 and 1301 (halogenated) hydro- carbons)-fire extinguishing media- code ofpractice

2002-12-31

27. IS 15222: 2002-

Carbon dioxide as fire extinguishing media for fire protection specification

2002-12-31 28. IS 15224 : 2002- Lalying of plastic translucent sheets made from thermosetting polyester resin (glass fibre reinforced) alone or inconjunction with asbestos cement sheets/ steel sheets/ aluminium sheets codeof practice

2002-11-30 29. IS 15227 : 2002-

Deltamethrin ULV- specification

2002-10-30 IS 15228 : 2002- Cyfluthrin emulsion in water (EW) - specification

2002-11-30 31. IS 15229: 2002-

Metolachlor technical- specification

2002-11-30 32. IS 15230 : 2002- Metolachor EC- specification [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3539

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 10 , 2003/वैशाख 20 , 1925

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

33. IS 15231 : 2002

2002-12-31 Anilophos +2 , 4 - D ethyl ester EC -

specification

34. IS 15232 : 2002

2002-11-30 Fenoxaprop - P -ethyl

technical - specification

35. IS 15236 : 2002

2002-10-31 Profenofos + Cyper -

methrin emulsifiable

concentrate - specification

36. IS 15237 : 2002

2002-09-30 Penconazole emulsifiable

concentrate - specification

37. IS 15239 : 2002

2002-10-31 Fenoxaprop - P - ethyl emulsifiable concentrate - specification

38. IS 15240: 2002

2002-09-30 Profenofos emulsifiable

concentrate - specification

39. IS 15242: 2002

2002-11-30 Magnets ( for use in schools and colleges ) - specification

40. IS 15243 : 2002

2002-12-31 Velocity scale set for

meteorological purposes

41. IS 15247 : 2002

2002-09-30 7/24 tapers for tool shanks for automatic changing - tapers for spindle noses

42. IS 15248: 2002

2002-11-30 Self- centring chucks for machine tools with two piecejaws ( tongue and groove type) sizes for interchangeability and acceptance test specifications

43. IS 15249 : 2002

2002-11-30 Machine tools - jaw mountings on power chucks

44. IS 15251: 2002

2002-11-30 Lasts for heavy duty shoes specification

45. IS 15253 : 2002

2002-11-30 Dew gauge - specification 3540

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 2003/VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

(4)

(1)

(3)

(2)

2002-12-31

IS 15256 (Part 1 ) : 2002

46.

Banking - Key management (retail) Part 1 : Introduction to kcy management

47.

2002-11-30

ت IS15256 ( Part 4): 2002 Banking - key management (retail) Part4:Key management techniques using public kcy cryptography

2002-11-30 48 IS 15256 ( Pt. 6) : 2002

Banking - key management (retail) Part6: key management schemes

2002-11-30 IS 15259: 2002 Installation and maintenance of home lifts code of practice

2002-11-30 50, IS 15260 : 2002 Textile machinery - two for one twisters - vocabulary

51.

2002-12-31 IS 15261: 2002 Geometrinscal product specification (GPS ) - surface texture : profile method - nominal characteristics of contact ( stylus ) instruments

2002-12-31

7 52. IS 15262 : 2002 Geometrical product specifications ( GPS ) - surface texture: profile method -terms , definitions and surface texture parameters

2002-11-30 53. IS 15264: 2002

Geometrical product specifications (GPS) - surface imperfections terms , definitions and parameters

2002-12-31 IS 15268 (Pt 1 ) : 2002

Optics and optical instruments - microscopes - slides Part 1: Dimensions , optical properties andmarking 3541 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20 , 1925

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

55.

2002-12-31 IS 15268 (Pt 2): 2002 Optics and optical instruments - microscopes - slides Part 2: Quality ofmaterial standards of finish and mode of packaging

56.

2002-11-30 IS 15270 (Pt 1 ) : 2002

Optics and optical instruments - microscopes - cover glasses Part: 1 Dimensional , tolerances , thickness and opticalproperties

57.

2002-11-30 IS 15270 (Pt 2): 2002

Optics and optical instruments - microscopes - cover glasses Part2: Quality of materials, standards of finish and mode ofpackaging

58.

2002-12-31 IS 15276 : 2002 Metallic tube connections for fluid power and general use 24 cone connectors with o - ring weld - on nipples

59.

2002-12-31 IS 15277: 2002 Metallic tube connections for fluid power and general use test methods for threaded hydraulic fluid power connections

2002-01-31 60. IS 15283 : 2003 Layout of an entry in a union catalogue of periodical publication

2002-12-31 61. IS 15298 (Pt 1 ) : 2002 Satety, protective and occuptional footwear for profesional use Part 1 : Requirements and test methods specification

2002-12-31 62. IS 15298 (Pt 2) : 2002

Satety, protective and occuptional footwear for profesional use Part2: Specification for safety footwear 3542

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003 /VAISAKHA 20, 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] (1)

(2)

(4)

63. IS 15298 (Pt 3) : 2002

2002-12-31

* Satety, protective and occuptional footwear for profesional use Part3 : Specification forprotective footwear

64. IS 15298 (Pt 4) : 2002

2002-12-31

Satety, protective and occuptional footwear for profesional use Part4: Specification foroccupational footwear

65.

2002-12-31

IS 15299 : 2002 Machine tools - mounting ofplain grinding wheels by means of hub flanges

66.

2002-12-31

IS 15300 : 2002 Tools for pressing - punches - nomenclature and terminology

67.

2002-12-31

IS/ISO 19011 : 2002 Guidelines for quality and/ or environmental management system auditing

IS/ISO 10011-1 : 1990 , IS/ISO 10011-2 : 1991 , IS/ISO 10011-3 : 1991 , IS/ISO 14010-1996, IS/ISO 14011 : 1996 AND IS/ISO 14012: 1996

68. IS/IFC60309-1 : 2002

IS/JEEC 60309-1 : 1996

2002-10-31

Plugs , socket -outlets and couplers for industrial purposes Part 1 : General requirements (FirstRevision)

69. IS/IEC 60309-2: 2002

IS/ IEC 60309-2: 1996

2002-12-31

Plugs , socket - outlets and couplers for industrial purposes Part 2: Dimensional interchangeability requirements for pin and contact - tube accessories (FirstReviosion)

Copy ofthese standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Calcutta , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur , Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. CMD/13 :2]

P. DAKSHINAMURTY, Addl . Director General 3543

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

कोयला मंत्रालय

नईदिल्ली, 28 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1379.- कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास) अधिनियम 1957 ( 1957 का 20) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 9 की उपधारा (1) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के कोयला और खान मंत्रालय (कोयला विभाग) की अधिसूचना संख्याक का.आ.879(अ) तारीख 25 सितम्बर 2000 के राजपत्र , भाग-2 , खंड 3 , उपखंड (II) तारीख 25 सितम्बर 2000 में प्रकाशित होने पर उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त भूमि कहा गया है) खनिजों के खनन , खदान , बोर करने , उनकी खुदाई करने और खनिजों को लताश करने , उन्हें प्राप्त करने , उन पर कार्य करने और उन्हें ले जाने के लिए अधिकतर , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उपधारा (1) के अधीन , सभी विल्लगमों से मुक्त होकर , आत्यंतिक रूप से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित हो गए थे:

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार का समाधान हो गया है , कि वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , नागपुर (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् सरकारी कम्पनी कहा गया है ) ऐसे निबंधनों और शर्तों का जिन्हें केन्द्रीय सरकार इस निमित अधिरोपित्त करना उचित समझे , अनुपालन करने के लिए इच्छुक्तः

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 11 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश देती है, कि इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में के पूर्वोक्त अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने के बजाए. तारीख 15 दिसम्बर , 2001 से निम्नलिखित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए , सरकारी कम्पनी में निहित हो जाएंगे , अर्थातः-

1. सरकारी कम्पनी , उक्त अधिनियम के उपबंधों के अधीन यथा अवधारित प्रतिकर , ब्याज , नुकसानियों और वैसी ही मदों की बाबत किए गए संदायों की केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतिपूर्ति करेगी ।

2. सरकारी कम्पनी द्वारा शर्त (1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को संदेय रकमों का अवधारण करने के प्रयोजन के लिए एक अधिकरण का गठन किया जाएगा तथा ऐसे किसी अधिकरण और ऐसे अधिकरण की सहायता के लिए नियुक्त किए गए व्यक्तियों के संबंध में उपगत सभी व्यय , सरकारी कम्पनी वहन करेगी और वैसे ही उक्त भूमि में या उस पर निहित होन वाले अधिकारों के लिए या उनके संबंध में सभी विधिक कार्यवाहियों, जैसे अपील आदि की बाबत उपगत , सभी व्यय भी सरकारी कम्पनी व्दारा वहन किए जाएंगे

123291/03-3 3544

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003/VAISAKHA 20, 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 3. सरकारी कम्पनी , केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों को ऐसे किसी अन्य व्यय के संबंध में , जो उक्त भूमि में या उस पर इस प्रकार निहित होने वाले पूर्वोक्त अधिकारों के बारे में , केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों द्वारा या उनके विरूद्ध किन्हीं कार्यवाहियों के संबंध में आवश्यक हो , क्षतिपूर्ति करेगी ।

4. सरकारी कम्पनी को , केन्द्रीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन के बिना , उक्त भूमि में पूर्वोक्त अधिकारों को किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को अंतरित करने की कोई शक्ति नहीं होगी; और

5. सरकारी कम्पनी , ऐसे निर्देशों और शर्तों का, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा , जब कमी आवश्यक हो , उक्त भूमि के विशिष्ट क्षेत्रों के लिए दिए जाए या अधिरोपित किए जाएं , पालन करेगी ।

[ फा. सं. - 43015/ 14/94- एल.एस.डब्ल्यू.पी.आर.आई. डब्ल्यू. ] संजय बहादुर, उप सचिव

Ministry of Coal

New Delhi , the 28th April , 2003

S. O. 1379.- Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Coal , number S.O. 879 (E) dated the 25th September, 2000, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary Part - il , section 3 , sub- section ( ii), dated the 25th September , 2000, issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act , 1957 (20 of 1957) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the rights to mine , quarry, bore, dig and search for win , work and carry away minerals in the lands described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said lands) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub -section ( 1 ) of section 10 ofthe said Act ;

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

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1) of section 11 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the aforesaid rights in the said lands so vested, shall , with effect from the 25th September, 2000 , instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government , vest in the Government company, subject to the following terms and conditions, namely: - [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

3545 1. the Government company shall reimburse the Central Government all payments made in respect of compensation, interest, damages and the like, as determined under the provisions ofthe said Act .

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

3. theGovernment company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its officials regarding the aforesaid rights in the said lands so vesting.

4. the Government company shall have no power to transfer the aforesaid rights in the said lands so vested, to any other person without the previous approval of the Central Government; and

5. the Government company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed by the Central Government for particular areas of the said land as and when necessary.

[No. 43015/14/94-L.S.W. /P.R.I.W. ] SANJAY BAHADUR] Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 28 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1380.- कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास) अधिनियम 1957 ( 1957 का 20) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 9 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के कोयला और खान मंत्रालय (कोयला विभाग) की अधिसूचना संख्याक का.आ. 3378 तारीख 6 दिसम्बर 2001के राजपत्र , भाग-2 , खंड 3 , उपखंड (ii) तारीख 15 दिसम्बर , 2001 में प्रकाशित होने पर उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त भूमि कहा गया है) में खनिजों के खनन, खदान , बोर करने , उनकी खुदाई करने और खनिजों को लताश करने , उन्हें प्राप्त करने , उन पर कार्य करने और उन्हें ले जाने के लिए अधिकतर , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उपधारा (1) के अधीन , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर , आत्यंतिक रूप से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित हो गए थे:

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार का समाधान हो गया है , कि वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , नागपुर (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् सरकारी कम्पनी कहा गया है) ऐसे निबंधनों और शर्तों का जिन्हें केन्द्रीय सरकार इस निमित अधिरोपित करना उचित समझे, अनुपालन करने के लिए इच्छुका 2546

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10 , 2003 /VAJSAKHA 20, 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 11 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश देती है , कि इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में के पूर्वोक्त अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने के बजाए , तारीख 15 दिसम्बर , 2001 से निम्नलिखित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए , सरकारी कम्पनी में निहित हो जाएंगे , अर्थातः-

1 सरकारी कम्पनी, उक्त अधिनियम के उपबंधों के अधीन यथा अवधारित प्रतिकर, ब्याज , नुकसानियों और वैसी ही मदों की बाबत किए गए संदायों की केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतिपूर्ति करेगी ।

2 सरकारी कम्पनी द्वारा शर्त ( 1 ) के अधीन , केन्द्रीय सरकार को संदेय रकमों का अवधारण कारने के प्रयोजन के लिए एक अधिकरण का गठन किया जाएगा तथा ऐसे किसी अधिकरण और ऐसे अधिकरण की सहायता के लिए नियुक्त किए गए व्यक्तियों के संबंध में उपगत सभी व्यय , सरकारी कम्पनी वहन करेगी और उसी प्रकार इस प्रकार निहित उक्त भूमि में या उस पर निहित होन वाले अधिकारों के लिए या उनक संबंध में सभी विधिक कार्यवाहियों, जैसे अपील आदि की बाबत उपगत , सभी व्यय भी सरकारी कम्पनी द्वारा वहन किए जाएंगे

3. सरकारी कम्पनी , केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों को ऐसे किसी अन्य व्यय के संबंध में , जो उक्त भूमि में या उस पर इस प्रकार निहित होने वाले पूर्वोक्त अधिकारों के बारे में, केन्द्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों द्वारा या उनके विरूद्ध किन्हीं कार्यवाहियों के संबंध में आवश्यक हो, क्षतिपूर्ति करेगी ।

7 4. सरकारी कम्पनी दंगे , केन्द्रीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन के बिना , उक्त भूमि में पूर्वोक्त अधिकारों को किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को अंतरित करने की कोई शक्ति नहीं होगीः और

5 सरकारी कम्पनी, ऐसे निर्देशों और शर्तों का , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा , जब कभी आवश्यक हो , उत्तम के विशिष्ट क्षेत्रों के लिए दिए जाएं या अधिरोपित किए जाएं , पालन करेगी ।

[फा. सं. - 43015/7/98- पी.आर.आई. डब्ल्यू. ]

संजय बहादुर, उप सचिव [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

35 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

New Delhi , the 28th April , 2003

S. O. 1380.- Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal and Mines (Department of Coal ) number S.O. 3378 dated the 6th December, 2001 , published in the Gazette of India, Part - II , Section 3 , Sub- Section (ii ) , dated the 15th December , 2001 , issued under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the rights to mine , quarry, bore, dig and search for win, work and carry away, minerals in the lands described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said lands ) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 10 of the said Act ;

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

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the aforesaid rights in the said lands so vested, shall , with effect from the 15th December, 2001 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government , vest in the Government Company, subject to the following terms and conditions , namely:-

1. the Government Company shall reimburse the Central Government all payments made in respect of compensation, interest, damages and the like, as determined under the provisions ofthe said Act .

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

3. the Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its officials regarding the aforesaid rights in the said lands so vesting.

4. the Government Company shall have no power to transfer the aforesaid rights in the said lands so vested, to any other person without the previous approval of the Central Government; and

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

[No,43015/7/98- P.R.I.W.J SANJAY BAHADUR] Dy. Secy.

3548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10 , 2003/VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]

नईदिल्ली, 6 मई, 2003

का. आ. 1381.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास) अधिनियम, 1957 ( 1957 का 20) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 7 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र भारत 2, खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii) तारीख 22 जून 2002 में प्रकाशित, भारत सरकार के कोयला और खान मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या 2061 तारीख 10 जून, 2002 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की भूमि का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी ।

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का पूर्वोक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात और झारखण्ड सरकार से परामर्श करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि इससे संलग्न सूची में वर्णित 3208.50 एकड़ (लगभग) या 1298.98 हेक्टेयर ( लगभग) माप वाली भूमि अर्जित की जानी चाहिये ।

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 9 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए घोषणा करती है कि उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित 3208,50, एकड़ (लगभग) या 1298.98 हेक्टेयर (लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि अर्जित की जाती है । इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक संख्या राजस्व 7/2002 तारीख 22.11.2002 का निरीक्षण उपायुक्त, चतरा, झारखण्ड के कार्यालय या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1 , काउन्सिल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता के कार्यालय या सेन्ट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड (राजस्व विभाग) , दरभंगा हाउस राँची , झारखण्ड के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

अनुसूची

अमरपाली ब्लाक

(उत्तरी करनपुरा कोलफील्ड्स)

जिला चतरा (झारखण्ड)

थाना

ग्राम

जिला क्रम संख्या

थाना संख्या 1

टन्डवा

विगंलात

चतरा

49/206 2

टन्डवा

चतरा होनहे

50/207 3

टन्डवा

चतरा

51/208 कुमरांग खुद

टन्डवा

चतरा

52/209 कुमराग कला

चतरा 5

टन्डवा

54/211 उर्दू

(अर्जित की गई भूमि को दर्शात हुए सभी अधिकार)

टिप्पणियाँ क्षेत्र एकड़ में

क्षेत्र हेक्टयर में

568.50 230.16 भाग

515.00 208.50 भाग

710.00 287.45 भाग

965.00 390.69 भाग

450.00 182.18 भाग

कुल क्षेत्र या

3208.50 एकड़ (लगभग) 1298.98 हेक्टयर (लगभग) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10 , 2003 /वैशाख 20, 1925

$549 ग्राम विगंलात में अर्जित किए गए प्लाट संख्यांक -

1 (भाग) , 2 (भाग) , 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 , 12, 13 , 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 , 31 , 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 , 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 , 67, 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72, 73 , 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91 , 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 , 101, 102, 103, 104 , 105, 106 , 107, 108, 109, 110, 111 , 112, 113 , 114 , 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121 , 122, 123 , 124, 125, 126 , 127, 128, 129, 130 , 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141 , 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151 , 152, 153 , 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160,

175, 161, 162, 163 , 164 , 165 , 166, 167 , 168, 169 , 170, 171 , 172, 173 , 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181 , 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190,

205, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201 , 202, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231 , 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241 , 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256 , 257, 258, 259 , 260, 261 , 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271 , 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278 , 279, 280, 284 (भाग) (रास्ता) 291 , 292 (भाग) , 293 से 727, 728 ( भाग) और 729 ।

ग्राम होनहे में अर्जित किए गए प्लाट संख्यांक

274 (भाग) , 651 (भाग) , 685 (भाग) , 687 (भाग) , 690 (भाग) , 691 (भाग) , 695, 696, 697, 698, 699, 700, 701 , 702. 703 (भाग) , 704 (भाग) , 705 706 (भाग) , 707 (भाग) , 718 (भाग), 719, 720, 721 (भाग) , 722, 723 , 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 729, 730, 731, 732, 733, 734, 735, 736, 737, 738, 796,

801 ,

797, 800, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806, 807 (भाग) 844 (भाग), 855 (भाग) 856, 857, 872 (नाला), 874, 875, 876 (भाग) , 877 (भाग) , 878 और 885 ।

ग्राम कुमरांग खुर्द में अर्जित किए गए प्लाट संख्यांक -

1 , 2, 3 , 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 , 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 , 23,

22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 , 32, 33, 34, 35, 36,

39,

37, 38, 40, 41 , 43,

42, 45, 46,

44,

47,

51 ,

48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 , 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 , 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 89, से 117, 127 (भाग) (रास्ता) , 135,

134, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141 , 142, 143 , 144, 145, 147, 148,

146,

150, 151 ,

149,

153,

152, 154 , 155, 156, 157 , 159,

158, 160, 163,

161, 162,

165, 166,

164,

167, 168, 169, 170, 171 , 172, 207 (भाग) , 208 (भाग) , 211

(भाग) , 209

(भाग) और 370 (भाग) , (रास्ता) । 3550

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10 , 2003/VAISAKHA 20, 1925

ग्राम कुमरांग कला में अर्जित किए गए प्लाट संख्यांक -

3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 , 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 , 22, 23, 1 , 2,

25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 , 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 , 42, 43, 24,

45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 , 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 , 62, 63, 44,

65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 , 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81 , 82, 83, 64,

85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91 , 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 , 102, 84,

104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111 , 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 103,

119, 120, 121 , 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131 , 132, 118,

134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141 , 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 133,

149, 150, 151 , 152, 153 , 154, 155, 156, 157 , 158, 159, 160, 161 , 162, 148,

164, 165, 166, 167, 168 , 208, 210, 211 , 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 163,

220 , 221 , 222, 223, 224, 225 , 226, 227, 228, 229 , 230, 231 , 232, 233, 219 ,

235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241 , 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 234,

250, 251 , 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257 , 258, 259, 260, 261 , 262, 263, 249,

265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271 , 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 264,

280, 281 , 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291 , 292, 293, 279,

295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301 , 302, 303, 304, 416, 419, 420, 421 , 294,

422, 423, 424, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440 , 441 , 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451 , 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461 , 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 , 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481 , 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491 , 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501 , 502, 503 , 504, 505, 506, 492,

508 , 509 , 510 , 511 , 512, 513 , 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520 , 521 , 507 ,

523 , 524, 525, 526, 527 , 528 , 529, 530 , 531 , 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 522,

538, 539, 540, 541 , 542, 543 , 544, 545, 546, 547 , 548, 549, 550, 537,

578 , 579, 580, 552 554

572

(भाग) , (भाग) ,

(नाला), 574,

570,

575, 576, 577 ,

551,

587 |

586,

582, 583 , 584, 585,

581,

ग्राम उर्दू में अर्जित किए गए प्लाट संख्यांक -

23,

22,

21 ,

20,

19,

17, 18,

15, 16,

13, 14,

12,

11 ,

10,

5, 6 , 7, 8, 9,

2, 3, 4,

42,

41 ,

40,

39,

38,

37,

36,

35,

34,

33 ,

32,

31 ,

30,

29,

28,

27,

26,

25,

24,

61 ,

60,

59,

58,

57,

56,

55,

54,

53,

52,

50, 51 ,

49,

48,

47,

46,

45,

44,

43,

81 ,

80,

79,

78,

77,

76,

75,

74,

73,

72,

71 ,

70,

69,

68,

67,

66,

65,

64,

63 ,

62,

100,

99,

98,

97,

96,

95,

94,

93,

92,

91 ,

90,

89,

88 ,

87,

86,

85,

84,

83,

82,

115,

114,

113,

112,

111 ,

110,

109,

108,

107,

106,

105 ,

104,

103 ,

102,

101 ,

130,

129,

128,

127,

126,

125,

124,

123,

122,

121 ,

120,

119,

118,

117 ,

116,

145,

144,

143,

142,

141 ,

140,

139,

138,

137,

136,

135,

134,

133,

132,

131,

160,

159,

158,

157,

156,

155,

154,

153,

152,

151 ,

150,

149,

148,

147,

146,

175,

174,

173,

172,

171 ,

170,

169,

168,

167 ,

166,

165 ,

164,

163 ,

162,

161 , [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

176, 177, 176, 179, 181 ,

180, 182, 183 ,

192,

191, 193, 194, 195, 196 , 197, 198 ,

207,

206, 208 , 209, 210 , 211 , 212, 213,

222,

221, 223, 224, 225 , 226, 227, 237,

236, 238, 239, 240, 241 , 242, 251, 262, 253, 254, 255, 250, 257, 258, 259,

266, 267, 268 , 269, 270 , 271 , 272, 273, 274,

285,

281, 282, 283, 284, 286, 287, 288,

296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301 , 302, 303, 304, 305,

311 , 312, 313 , 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320,

326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331 , 332, 333, 334,

341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350,

356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 383 , 364, 365 , 366, 367,

373, 374, 375, 378, 377, 378, 379, 380,450

481, 462, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489,

498, 497; 498, 499, 500, 501 , 502, 503,

511 , 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 525,527 , 528, 529 , 530, (भाग) , 531, 007 (भाग) ,

582, 584, 585 (भाग) और 649 |

578, 577,

सीमा वर्णन

क-ख-ग

भारत का सजपत्र : मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

3551 184, 185, 186, 187, 188 , 189, 190, 199, 200, 201 , 202, 203 , 204, 205, 214, 216,

215, 217, 218, 219, 220,

228 , 229, 230 , 231 , 232, 233, 234, 235,

243, 244, 245, 248, 247, 248, 249, 250, 260, 261 , 262, 263, 264, 265, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 289, 290, 291 , 292, 293, 294, 295, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 351 , 352, 353, 354, 355, 368, 369, 370, 371 , 372, (माग) , 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 490, 491 , 492, 493, 494, 495, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508 , 509, 510, 518, 519, 520, 521 , 522, 523, 524, 570, 571, 572, 573, 574, 575,

रेखा ग्राम होनहे में प्लांट संख्या 651, 721 , 691 , 690, 687, 685, 703, 704, 706, 707, 718, और 807 से होकर बिन्दु "क" से आरम्भ होती है और बिन्दु "ग" पर मिलती है ।

ग-घ -ङ

रेखा ग्राम होनहे में प्लॉट संख्या 844, 876, 877 और 887 से होकर ग्राम नौडिहा और होंनहे में धस्वर्या नदी के साथ गुजरती है और बिन्दु "ड" पर मिलती है ।

छसेच रेखा ग्राम कुमारांग खुर्द में प्लांट संख्या 208, 209, 211 और 207 से होकर गुजरती है और बिन्दुव" पर मिलती है ।

च-छ-ज रेखा ग्राम कुमराग कला मैं प्लांट संख्या 554 और 552, ग्राम उर्दू में प्लांट - संख्या 450, 530 , 537 और 695 से होकर गुजरती है और बिन्दु "ज" पर मिलती है ।

ज-झ--ट रेखा ग्राम उर्स में प्लांट संख्या 585 के केन्द्र से, उर्दू और सिजुआ, कुमरांग कला और सिजुआ, विगंलात और पचंडा ग्रामों में सम्मिलित सीमा से बरकी नदी की केन्द्रीय रेखा से होकर गुजरती है और बिन्दु "ट" पर मिलती है ।

ट-क

रेखा ग्राम विगंलात में प्लांट संख्या 728, 292, 2 और 1 , ग्राम होनहे में प्लांट संख्या 855, 274 और 651 से होकर गुजरती है और आरंभिक बिन्दु "क" पर मिलती है ।

123291703-4

[फा. सं. -43015/23/2000 - पी.आर.आई. डब्ल्यू

संजय बहादुर, उप सचिव 3552

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10 , 2003/VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

New Delhi , the 6th May, 2003

S. O. 1381. whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal and Mines number S.O. 2061 dated the 10th June, 2002 , published in the Gazette of India, Part II , Section 3 , Sub - section ( ii ) dated the 22nd June , 2002, under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development ) Act, 1957 ( 20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ), the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire the lands in the locality specified in the schedule appended to that notification .

And whereas the competent authority, in pursuance of section 8 of the said Act, has made his report to the Central Government .

And whereas the Central Government after considering the report aforesaid and after consulting the Government of Jharkhand is satisfied that the lands measuring 3208.50 acres (approx. ) or 1298.98 hectares (approx . ) described in the schedule appended hereto should be acquired.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of section 9 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the lands measuring 3208.50 acres ( approx. ) or 1298.98 hectares ( approx.) ) described in the said schedule are hereby acquired ..

The plan no. Rev./7/2002 dated 22.11.2002 of the area covered by this notification may be inspected in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, Jharkhand or in the office of the Coal Controller , 1 , Council House Street , Kolkata or in the office of the Central Coalfields Ltd. , ( Revenue Section ) , Darbhanga House, Ranchi , Jharkhand.

Schedule

Amarpali Block

(NorthKaranpura Coalfields)

District : Chatra (Jharkhand)

(Showing land acquired) .

All rights .

District

Remarks

Thana

Village

Area in hect.

Thana No.

Area in acres

Serial number

Part

230.16

49/206 Chatra 568.50

Tandwa

Binglat

Part

208.50

50/207 Chatra 515.00

Tandwa

Honhe

Part

287.45

Tandwa 51/208 Chatra 710.00

Kumrang Khurd

Part

390.69

Tandwa 52/209 Chatra 965.00

Kumrang Kalan

Part

182.18

450.00

54/211 Chatra

Tandwa

Ursu

Total area

3208.50 Acres (approx. )

1298.98 Hectares . ( approx . ) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003 /वैशाख 20, 1925

$3553 Plot numbers acquired in village Binglat: -

1 (P), 2(P) , 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,25,26,27,28,29,30, 31,32,33,34,35,36,37, 38, 39, 40, 41 , 42, 43 , 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 , 51 , 52, 53 , 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 , 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 , 69, 70 , 71 , 72, 73 , 74, 75 , 76, 77, 78 , 79, 80, 81 , 82, 83 , 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 , 89, 90, 91 , 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 310, 311 , 312, 313 , 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321 , 322, 323 , 324, 325, 326, 327, 328 , 329, 330, 331 , 332 , 333 , 334, 335 , 336, 337, 338 , 339 , 340, 341 , 342, 343 , 344, 345 , 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351 , 352 , 353 , 354, 355, 356, 357 , 358, 359, 360, 609 , 610 , 611 , 612, 613 , 614, 615 , 616, 617, 618, 619, 620, 621 , 622, 623 , 624, 625 , 643, 644 , 645 , 646, 647, 648, 649 , 650, 651 , 652, 653 , 654, 655, 656, 657, 658 , 659, 660, 661 , 662, 663 , 664, 665, 666 , 667, 668, 669, 670. 671 , 672, 673 , 674, 675 , 676, 677, 678, 679 , 680, 681 , 682, 683, 684, 685, 686, 687, 688, 689, 690, 691 , 692, 693 , 694, 695 , 696, 697, 698, 699 , 700 , 701 , 702, 703, 704, 705 , 706, 707, 708 , 709, 710, 711 , 712 , 713 , 714, 715, 716, 717, 718 , 719, 720, 721 , 722 , 723 , 724, 725, 726,

100, 101 , 102 , 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111 , 112, 113 , 114, 115, 116, 117 , 118 , 119, 120 , 121 , 122, 123 , 124, 125 , 126, 127, 128 , 129, 130, 131 , 132, 133 , 134, 135, 136, 137 , 138, 139, 140, 141 , 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151 , 152, 153 , 154, 155, 156, 157, 158 , 159, 160, 161 , 162, 163, 164 , 165, 166 , 167 , 168 , 169, 170, 171 , 172, 173,174, 175, 176, 177 , 178 , 179, 180, 181 , 182, 183, 184, 185 , 186, 187, 188, 189 , 190, 191 , 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197 , 198 , 199 , 200, 201 , 202, 203 , 204, 205 , 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 , 211 , 212, 213 , 214, 215 , 216, 217, 218 , 219, 220 , 221 , 222, 223 , 224, 225 , 226, 227 , 228 , 229 , 230, 231 , 232, 233 , 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243 , 244, 245, 246, 247 , 248, 249, 250, 251 , 252 , 253, 254 , 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261 , 262, 263, 264, 265 , 266, 267, 268, 269, 270 , 271 , 272, 273 , 275, 276, 277, 278, 279 , 280, 284(P) (rasta) , 291 , 292 (P) , 293,294,295,296,297 , 298 , 299, 300, 301 , 302, 303, 304, 305, 306 , 307, 308 , 309 , 361 , 362, 363 , 364, 365 , 366, 367, 368 , 369, 370, 371 , 372, 373 , 374, 375, 376, 377 , 378, 379, 380, 381 , 382, 383 , 384, 385 , 386, 387, 388, 389, 390 , 391 , 392, 393 , 394, 395 , 396, 397 , 398, 399, 400, 401 , 402, 403 , 404, 405 , 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411 , 412, 413, 414, 415 , 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421 , 422, 423 , 424, 425 , 426, 427 , 428, 429, 430, 431 , 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439 , 440, 440, 441 , 442, 443, 444, 445, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449 , 450 , 451 , 452, 453 , 454, 455, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461 , 462, 463 , 464, 465,466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 , 472, 473, 474, 475 , 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481 , 482, 483 , 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491 , 492 , 493 , 494, 495 , 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501 , 502, 503 , 504, 505 , 506, 507, 508, 509 , 510, 511 , 512, 513 , 514, 515 , 516 , 517, 518 , 519, 520, 521 , 522 , 523 , 524, 525, 526, 527, 528 , 529 , 530, 531 , 532, 532, 533 , 534, 535, 536, 537 , 538, 539, 540, 541 , 542, 543 , 544, 545 , 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551 , 552, 553, 554, 554, 555 , 556, 557, 558, 559, 560 , 561 , 562 , 563 , 564, 565, 566, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571 , 572, 573 , 574, 575 , 576, 577, 578 , 579 , 580, 581 , 582, 583 , 584, 585, 585, 586, 587, 588 , 589 , 590, 591 , 592 , 593, 594, 595, 596, 597, 598, 599, 600, 601, 602, 603, 603, 604, 605 , 606, 607, 608, 626, 627, 628 , 629, 630, 631 , 632, 633 , 634, 635, 636, 637, 638, 639, 640, 641 , 642, 727,727, 728 (P) and 729 .

Plot numbers acquired in village Honhe: -

274(P) , 651 (P) , 685 (P) , 687(P), 690(P), 691 ( P) , 695 696, 697, 698 , 699, 700, 701 , 702, 703 (P) , 704 (P) , 705 , 706 (P) , 707(P), 718 (P), 719 , 720, 721 (P ), 722 to 738 , 3554

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10 , 2003/VAISAKHA 20, 1925

796, 797, 800 , 801 , 802, 803 , 804, 805, 806 , 807 (P) , 844 (P ), 855 (P) , 856, 857, 872 (nalla) , 874, 875 , 876 ( P), 877 (P) , 878 (P) and 885 .

Plot numbers acquired in village Kumrang Khurd: -

Plot numbers acquired in village Kumrang Kalan: -

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32, 33,34,35,36,37, 38 , 39, 40, 41 , 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 , 54, 55 , 56, 57, 58 , 59, 60, 61 , 62, 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 , 72, 73 , 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 , 79, 80, 81 , 82, 83, 84 , 84, 85 , 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91 , 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 , 102, 103 , 104, 105, 106, 107 , 108 , 109, 110, 111 , 112, 113, 114, 115 , 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121 , 122, 123 , 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 , 129, 130, 131 , 132, 133, 134, 135 , 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141 , 142, 143 , 144 , 145 , 146, 147, 148 , 149, 150, 151 , 152, 153 , 154, 155 , 156, 157, 158 , 159, 160 , 161 , 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168 , 208, 210 , 211 , 212 , 213, 214, 215 , 216, 217, 219, 220 , 221 , 222, 223 , 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229 , 230 , 231 , 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241 , 242, 243, 244, 245 , 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 , 251, 252, 253 , 254, 255, 256, 257 , 258 , 259 , 260, 260, 261 , 262, 263 , 264, 265, 266, 267, 268 , 269, 270, 271 , 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277 , 278 , 279, 280, 293 , 294, 296, 297, 298 , 299, 300, 301 , 302, 303,304, 416, 419 to 424, 435 to 551 , 552 (P), 554 (P) , 570 , 572(nalla) and 574, 575, 576, 577 , 578, 579, 580 , 581 , 582, 583 , 584, 585, 586, 587.

Plot numbers acquired in village Ursu : -

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32, 33,34,35,36,37 , 38, 39, 40, 41 , 42, 43 , 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 , 52, 53 , 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 , 62 , 63 , 64, 65 , 66, 67, 68 , 69, 70, 71 , 72, 73 , 74 , 75, 76, 77, 78 , 79, 80, 81 , 82, 83 , 84, 84, 85 , 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91 , 92 , 93 , 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 , 102 , 103 , 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 , 109, 110, 111 , 112, 113 , 114, 115, 116, 117 , 118 , 119, 1. , 121 , 122, 123 , 124 , 125 , 126, 127, 128 , 129, 130, 131 , 132, 133, 134, 135 , 136, 1 , 138, 139, 140, 141 , 142, 143, 144 , 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151 , 152, 153 , 1 , 155 , 156, 157 , 158 , 159 , 160, 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165, 166, 167, 168 , 169 , 170 , 1 , 172, 173 , 175 , 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181 , 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 19 , 190, 191 , 192 , 193, 194, 195 , 196, 197, 198 , 199, 200, 201 , 202, 203, 204, 205, 26, 207, 208 , 209, 210, 211 , 212, 213 , 214, 215 , 216, 217, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221 , 22 , 223 , 224 , 225 , 226, 227 , 228 , 229, 230, 231 , 232, 233 , 234 , 235, 236, 237, 238 , 2 9 , 240, 241 , 242, 243 , 244, 245, 246, 247, 248 , 249, 250, 251 , 252, 253, 254, 255, 26 , 257, 258 , 259 , 260, 260 , 261 , 262, 263 , 264, 265 , 266, 267, 268, 3555

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003 /वैशाख 20, 1925

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

269, 270, 271, 272 , 273 , 274, 275 , 276, 277 , 278 , 279, 280, 293, 294, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308 , 309 , 310 , 311 , 312, 313 , 314 , 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321 , 322, 323 , 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338 , 339, 340, 341 , 342, 343, 344, 345 , 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351 , 352, 353 , 354, 355 , 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 363 , 364, 365, 366, 367, 368 , 369, 370, 371 , 372, 373 , 374, 375, 376, 377, 378 , 379, 380, 450(P), 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481 , 482, 483 , 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489 , 490, 491 , 492, 493 , 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501 , 502, 513 , 504, 505 , 506, 507, 508 , 509, 510, 511 , $ 12, 513 , 514 , 515 , 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521 , 522, 523 , 524, 525, 527, 528, 529, 530(P), 531 , 537 (P), 571 , 572, 573 , 574, 575 , 576, 577, 582, 584, 585 (P) and 649.

Boundary Description: -

A-B-C

Line starting point 'A' through plot numbers 651 , 721 , 691,690, 687, 685, 703, 704, 706, 707, 718 and 807 in village Honhe and meets at point 'C' .

C-D-E

Lines pass along Dhardharya Nadi in villages Naudiha and Honhe through plot numbers 844, 876, 877 and 878 in village Honhe and meêts at point 'E' .

E-F

Line passes through plot numbers 208 , 209 , 211 and 207 in village Kumrang Khurd and meets at point 'F' .

F -G -H

Lines pass through plot numbers 554 and 552 in village Kumrang Kalan , plot numbers 450, 530, 537 and 585 in village Ursu and meets at point 'H' .

H- I -J - K

Lines pass through centre of plot number 585 in village Ursu , Central line of Barki Nadj from common boundary in villages Ursu and Sijhua, Kumrang Kalan and Sijhua, Binglat and Pachanda and meets at point 'K' .

K-A

Line passes through plot numbers 728, 292 , 2 and 1 in village Binglat , plot numbers 855 , 274 and 651 in village Honhe and meets at starting point ' A' .

[No.43015/23/2000-P.R.I.W. ] SANJAY BAHADURĮ Dy. Secy.

3556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003 /VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

[PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 7 मई, 2003

का. आ. 1382.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है ;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम, 1957 (1957 का 20 ) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस क्षेत्र में कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ;

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र का रेखांक सं. जी.ई.ओ. /736 तारीख 27 नवम्बर, 2002 का निरीक्षण भारत कोकिंग कोल लि० (सम्पदा विभाग ) , कोयला भवन, धनबाद के कार्यालय में या उप आयुक्त, बोकारो (झारखंड) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1 , काउसिंल हाऊस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाली भूमि में हितबद्ध सभी व्यक्ति उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उपधारा (7 ) में निर्दिष्ट सभी नक्शों, चार्टों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर भारसाधक अधिकारी / विभाग अध्यक्ष ( सम्पदा) भारत कोकिंग कोल लि ० , कोयला भवन, धनबाद को भेज सकेंगे ।

अनुसूची

चन्द्रपुरा उप बेसिन , झरिया कोलफील्ड्स

जिला - बोकारो

सभी अधिकार

क्र.सं. ग्राम

थाना थाना सं .

107 पिपराडिह

चन्द्रपुरा

108 चन्द्रपुरा

चन्द्रपुरा

रातारी

110

चन्द्रपुरा

4. रंगामती

चन्द्रपुरा

5. घातियारी

चन्द्रपुरा

रेखांक सं . जीईओ/736/02 तारीख 27 नवम्बर, 2002 (पूर्वेक्षण के लिए अधिसूचित की जाने वाली भूमि दर्शित करते हुए )

जिला

टिप्पणियां

क्षेत्र एकड़ में

क्षेत्र हैक्टेयर में

बोकारो

भाग

64.199

158.636

बोकारो 99.827 40.399 भाग

बोकारो 59.797 24.199 भाग

40.030

बोकारो

16.200 भाग

बोकारो 19.768 8.000 भाग

योग 378.058 एकड़ (लगभग)

या 152.997 हैक्टेयर (लगभग ) 35 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

सीमा वर्णनः

क-ख रेखा बिन्दु ' कं से प्रारंभ होती है और ग्राम पिपराडिह से होकर जाती है और ग्राम पिपराडिह और रातारी की सम्मिलित सीमा पर बिन्दु 'ख ' पर मिलती है ।

ख-ग-घ रेखा ग्राम पिपराडिह और रातारी की सम्मिलित सीमा से प्रारंभ होती है और चन्द्रपुरा से होकर जाती है और रातारी और चन्द्रपुरा की सम्मिलित सीमा पर बिन्दु ' घ ' पर मिलती है ।

घ, - ड. रेखा रातारी और चन्द्रपुरा की सम्मिलित सीमा से प्रारंभ होती है और चन्द्रपुरा और रंगामती की सम्मिलित सीमा पर बिन्दु 'ड. ' पर मिलती है।

ड. - च रेखा चन्द्रपुर और रंगामती की सम्मिलित सीमा से प्रारंभ होती है और पिपराडिह और रंगामती. की सम्मिलित सीमा पर बिन्दु " च " पर मिलती है ।

च - छ

रेखा पिपराडिह और रंगामती की सम्मिलित सीमा से प्रारंभ होती है और रंगामती और घातियारी की सम्मिलित सीमा पर बिन्दु " छ " पर मिलती है ।

छ - ज रेखा रंगामती और घातियारी की सम्मिलित सीमा से प्रारंभ होती है और घातियारी से होकर जाती है और घातियारी और पिपराडिह की सम्मलित सीमा पर मिलती है ।

ज - क रेखा घातियारी से होते हुए जाती है और घातियारी और पिपराडिह की सम्मिलित सीमा पर बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती है ।

[फा. सं. -43015/3/2003- पी.आर.आई. डब्ल्यू..]

संजय बहादुर, उप सचिव 3558

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003 /VAISAKHA 20, 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 7th May, 2003

S. O. 1382.- whereas it appears to the Central Government, that Coal is likely to be obtained from the land 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 Area (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20th 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 No. Geo/ 736 dated 27th November, 2002 eontaining the area covered by this notification can be inspected in the office of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited (Estate Department) Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad or in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro (Jharkhand ) or in the office of the Coal Controller, 1 , Council House Street, Kolkata .

All persons interested in the land covered by this notification shall deliver all 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(Estate ), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan , Dhanbad within 90 days from the date of publication of this notification.

Schedule

Chandrapura Sub - Basin Jharia Coalfields

District-Bokaro

Block 'A'

Sl.No

Thana

Village

Thana No. 1 .

107 Pipradih Chandrapura

108 2. Chandrapura Chandrapura

Ratari

Drg . No. Geo/736/02

27th November , 2002

dated : (Showing land to be notified for prospecting)

All Rights

District

Remarks

Area in hectares

Area in acres

64.199

Bokaro 158.636

Part Bokaro

99.827

Part

40.399

Part

110 Bokaro

Chandrapura

59.797

24.199

40.030

Part

87 Bokaro

Rangamati Chandrapura

Ghatiari

16.200

19.768

88 Bokaro

Chandrapura

8.000

Part

Total Area 378.058 acres ( approx .)

Boundary Description

A-B

152.997 hectares. (approx .)

Line starts from ' A ' and passes through village Pipradih and meets at common boundary of village Pipradih and Ratari at point 'B ' .

B - C-D Line starts from common boundary of village Pipradih and Ratari and passes through Chandrapura and meets at common boundary of Ratari and Chandrapura at point ' D' .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 10 , 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

D-E Line starts from common boundary of Ratari and Chandrapura and meets at commonboundary of Chandrapura and Rangamati at point ' E' .

E-F Line starts from common boundary of Chandrapura and Rangamati and meets at common boundary of Pipradih and Rangamati at point ' F' .

F-G Line starts at common boundary of Pipradih and Rangmati and meets at commonboundary of Rangamati and Ghatiari at point ' G ' .

G-H Line starts from common boundary of Rangamati and Ghatiari and passes through Ghatiari and meets as common boundary of Ghatiari and Pipradih .

H-A Line passes through Ghatiari and meets at common boundary of Ghatiari and Pipradih at point - ' A' .

[No. 43015/3/2003- P.R.I.W.J

SANJAY BAHADUR] Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 9 मई, 2003

का. आ. 1383.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है, कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है ।

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास) अधिनियम, 1957 (1957 का 20) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 4 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उसमें कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ।

इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र की रेखांक सं.. राजस्व/48/ 2002 तारीख 18 सितम्बर, 2002 का निरीक्षण नार्दर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड ( राजस्व अनुभाग) , सिंगरौली के कार्यालय में या कलेक्टर, सीधी ( मध्य प्रदेश) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1 , काऊंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ;

इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाली भूमियों में हितबद्ध सभी व्यक्ति उक्त अधिनिराम की धारा 13 की उपधारा (7) में निर्दिष्ट सभी नक्शों, चार्टों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को इस अधिसूचना के भारत के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से, नब्बे दिन के भीतर, भारसाधक अधिकारी /विभागाध्यक्ष ( राजस्व) , नार्दर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, सिंगरौली को परिदत्त करेंगे । 123261/63-5 3560

पूर्वेक्षण के लिए अधिसूचित भूमि : - सब ब्लाक अ

ग्राम का नाम तहसील क्रम संख्या

चितरंगी 1. नौढ़िया

सिंगरौली

रजखड़

सिंगरौली

सोलंग

सिंगरौली 4. सिगाही

सीमा वर्णनः

क खः

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

अनुसूची

गोरबी ब्लाक बी विस्तार - II

नार्दर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड

सिंगरौली

जिला सीधी ( मध्य प्रदेश)

६

टिप्पणी

जिला

क्षेत्रफल एकड़ में (लगभग)

भाग

18.00

सीधी (म.प्र.)

भाग

69.00

सीधी (म.प्र. )

भाग

71.00

सीधी (म.प्र. )

भाग

18.00

सीधी (म.प्र. )

योग 176.00 एकड़ (लगभग) अथवा 71.23 हेक्टेयर (लगभग)

रेखा बिन्दु क से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम सिगाही, सोलंग तथा राजखंड से होकर जाती है तथा बिन्दु ख पर मिलती है ।

ख- गः

रेखा बिन्दु ख से आरम्भ होती है और ग्राम राजखंड तथा नौढ़िया से होकर जाती है, तथा बिन्दु ग पर मिलती है ।

ग - घः

रेखा बिन्दु ग से आरम्भ होती है और ग्राम नौढ़िया तथा राजखंड से होकर जाती है तथा बिन्दु घ पर मिलती है ।

घ -कः

रेखा बिन्दु घ से आरम्भ होती है और ग्राम राजखंड, सोलंग तथा सिगाही से होकर जाती है और आरंभिक बिन्दु क पर मिलती है ।

उप खंड " ख '

ग्राम का नाम तहसील क्रम संख्या

1 . सोलंग

सिंगरौली 2.

सिंगरौली

मुहेर

जिला

टिप्पणी

क्षेत्रफल एकड़ में (लगभग)

2.50

भाग

सीधी (म.प्र. )

62.00

भाग

सीधी (म.प्र. )

योग 64.50 एकड़ (लगभग) अथवा

26.10 हेक्टेयर ( लगभग) [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

1561 सीमा वर्णनः

ड- च

रेखा बिन्दु ङ से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम मुहेर, सोलंग और पुनः मुहेर से होकर जाती है तथा बिन्दु च पर मिलती है ।

च - छ

रेखा बिन्दु च से आरम्भ होती है तथा मुहेर से होकर जाती है तथा बिन्दु छ पर मिलती है ।

छ - ज

रेखा बिन्दु छ से आरम्भ होती है तथा ग्राम मुहेर से होकर जाती है तथा बिन्दु ज पर मिलती है ।

जङ रेखा बिन्दु ज से आरम्भ होती है तथा ग्राम मुहेर से होकर जाती है तथा आरंभिक बिन्दु ङ पर मिलती है ।

[फा, सं, -43015/ 1/2003- पी.आर.आई. डब्ल्यू.

संजय बहादुर, उप सचिण

New Delhi , the 9th May, 2003

S. O. 1383.-Whereas it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the locality mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (I) of section 4 of the Coal BearingAreas (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.

2 . The plan bearing number Rev/48/ 2002 dated the 18th September 2002 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected in the office of the Northern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section ), Singrauli or in the office of the Collector, Sidhi (Madhya Pradesh) or in the office of the Coal Controller, 1 , Council House Street, Kolkata

3. All persons interested in the lands covered by this notification shall deliver all 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 Department (Revenue) , Northern Coalfields Limited, Singrauli within ninety days from the date of the publication of this notification in the Gazette of India.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003 /VAISAKHA 20, 1925

3562

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ji) ]

Schedule

Gorbi Block ' B ' Extension - II

Northern Coalfields Limited

Singrauli

Distt . Sidhi (Madhya Pradesh)

Land notified for prospecting

Sub- Block ' A'

Tahsil Sl . No.

Name of the village

District

Remarks

Approx. area inacres

Part

18.00

Sidhi (MP)

Chitrangi 1

Naurhiya

Part

69.00

Sidhi (MP)

Singrauli 2

Rajkhand

Part

71.00

Sidhi (MP)

Singrauli

Solang

Part

18.00

Sidhi (MP)

Singrauli

Sigahi

Total area or Boundary Description

176.00 acres (Approx 71.23 Hectares (Approx)

A-B Line starts from point ' A' and passes through village Sigahi , Solang and Rajkhand and meets at point 'B' . , B-C Line starts from point ' B ' and passes through village Rajkhand and Naurhiya and meets at point ' C' .

C-D Line starts from point ' C ' and passes through village Naurhiya and Rajkhand and meets at point 'D' .

D-A Line starts from point ' D' and passes through village Rajkhand , Solang and Sigahi , and meets at starting point ' A' .

Sub -Block " B "

District

Tahsil Sl.No. Name of the village

Remarks

area

Approx. acres

Part

2.50

Sidhi (MP)

Singrauli 1

Solang

Part

62.00

Sidhi (MP)

Muher

Singrauli 2

Total area or Boundary Description :

64.50 Acres (Approx . )

26.10 Hect . (Approx. )

E-F Line starts from point ' E ' and passes through village Muher , Solang and again village Muher and meets at point ' F' .

3663

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003 /वैशाख 20 , 1925

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Line starts from point ' F ' and passes through village Muher and meets at point F-G 'G' .

G-H Line starts from point ' G' and passes through village Muher and meets at point 'H' .

H-E Line starts from point 'H' and passes through village Muher and meets at starting point 'E' .

[No.43015/1 /2003- P.R.I.W. ] SANJAY BAHADUR]Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 9 मई, 2003

का. आ. 1384.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम, 1957 (1957 का 20 ) की ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) धारा 7 की उपधारा (i ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र, तारीख 10 जून, 2002 में प्रकाशित, भारत सरकार के कोयला विभाग की अधिसूचना संख्या 2060 , तारीख 22 जून, 2002 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना में संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की भूमि का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का पूर्वोक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात और झारखंड सरकार से परामर्श करने के पश्चात, यह समाधान हो गया है कि इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में दर्शित 1254.80 एकड़ (लगभग) या 508.02 हैक्टेयर (लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि अर्जित की जानी चाहिए ।

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 9 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए घोषणा करती है कि इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 1254.80 एकड़ (लगभग) या 508.02 हैक्टेयर (लगभग) माप वाली भूमि अर्जित की जाती है ।

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक सं. राजस्व 6/2002 तारीख 7.10.2002, का निरीक्षण उपायुक्त, चतरा में या उपायुक्त लातेहार, झारखंड के कार्यालय या कोयला नियंत्रक़, 1 , काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता में या सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लि० (राजस्व अनुभाग ) , दरभंगा हाउस , रांची (झारखंड ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है । 3564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ) अनुसूची

मगध ब्लाक विस्तार

सभी अधिकार

ब्लाक क

क्र.सं. ग्राम थाना

थाना सं.

4. 1.

टन्डवा

29/186 1. सराधु

2. मासिलांग टन्डवा 61/218

55 3. आरा बालुमाथ

बालुमाथ

4. चमातू

5. फुलबसिया बालुमाथ 58 सराधू ग्राम में अर्जित की गई भूखंड संख्यांकः-

(उत्तरी करनपुरा कोलफील्ड्स ) जिला - चतरा और लातेंहार (झारखंड )

रेखांक सं. - राजस्व/6/2002

तारीख - 7.10.2002

( अर्जित की जाने वाली भूमि को दर्शाते हुए)

जिला क्षेत्र एकड़ में क्षेत्र हैक्टर में टिप्पणियां

चतरा

253.80

102.75 भाग

66.80

चतरा

165.00

भाग

61.25 24.80 भाग

लातेहार

219.53

542.25

भाग

160.00 64.78

लातेहार

भाग

कुल क्षेत्र 1182.30 एकड़ (लगभग)

या 478.66 हैक्टेयर ( लगभग)

2 541 (भाग) ,544(भाग) ,545(भाग) ,546, 547,548 (भाग) , 549, 550, 551 (भाग) , 553 (भाग) , 555 (भाग ) , 556( भाग) ,699( भाग) , 706(भाग) , 708(भाग) , 718(भाग) , 719(भाग) , 720 , 721,752,753, 754, 755(भाग) ,756से761 , 762( भाग) , 765(भाग) , 766(भाग) , 773 (भाग) 774, 775(भाग) ,779(भाग), 780(भाग) , 781 (भाग ) , 782(भाग) , 783 से 790, 791 ( भाग) , 792से 795, 796( भाग) , 800 से 809, 810( भाग) , 811 से822, 823 (भाग) , 824(भाग) , 873 (भाग) ,874 (भाग) , 1707 (भाग) , 1708 (भाग ) , 1730 ( भाग ) , 1731 (भाग), 1744 (भाग) , 1745 ( भाग ) और 1833 (भाग) ।

मासिलांग ग्राम में अर्जित की गई भूखंड संख्यांक

53 से 68, 69 ( भाग ) , 81 से 95, 96 (भाग ) , 97 से 114, 304 (भाग) , 308 (भाग),

312( भाग) , 313 से 317, 318 (भाग) और 319 ( भाग) । 3566 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

आरा ग्राम में अर्जित की गई भूखंड संख्यांक -

342,343(भाग) , 344

362, 363 (भाग) ,

से 364(भाग) , 365,375(भाग) , 376 (भाग ) , 380 (भाग ) , 381 , 382,383 (भाग) , 384, 385(भाग) , 386,387,388 (भाग ) , 389(भाग) , 397 (भाग) , 398 (भाग) , 399 ( भाग ) , 400 से 407,408 ( भाग) ,423 (भाग) , 425(भाग) , 427 (भाग) ,428,429,431,432,433,434(भाग) ,435 (भाग) ,436(भाग) , 439(भाग) ,440 (भाग) , 690(भाग) , 691 ( भाग ) , 693से 696,697( भाग) , 698 से 703 , 704(भाग) , 705, 706(भाग) , 715(भाग) , 716, 717, 718(भाग) , 744(भाग) , 753(भाग) , 756 (भाग) , 758 से 761 , 765(भाग) , 766, 767 (भाग) , 768, 769, 770 (भाग) , 771,791 (भाग) , 2006 और 2029

चमातु ग्राम में अर्जित की गई भूखंड संख्यांक -

442(भाग), 469 से 477, 494 (भाग) , 503 से 766, 767 ( भाग) , 769 (भाग) , 770, 771 (भाग) , 773 (भाग) , 774,775(भाग) , 776 (भाग) , 777(भाग) , 778, 779 (भाग) , 785(भाग) , 786 (भाग) , 787 (भाग) , 791 (भाग) , 792, 793 , 794, 796,797,798(भाग) , 806(भाग) , 807 (भाग) , 808, 809. (भाग) , 811 ( भाग) , 958 (भाग) , 970 (भाग) , 971 , 972 (भाग) , 973,974, 1082(भाग) , 1096 (भाग) , 1097, 1098, 1099, 1100 (भाग ) , 1101 से 1107 , 1115(भाग ) , 1116, 1117 (भाग ) , 1153, 1155से 1295, 1296 (भाग) , 1297, 1302 (भाग) 1303 (भाग) , 1304 से 1364, 1365 (भाग) , 1366 , 1587 (भाग) , 1588 (भाग) , 1612 (भाग) , 2102 (भाग ) , 2103, 2104 (भाग) , 2106 ( भाग) ,2107 (भाग) , 2108,2109,2110 (भाग ) , 2111 ( भाग ) , 2112 ( भाग) , 2113 (भाग ) , 2114से 2133,2134 (भाग) 2135(भाग) , 2136से 2160 , 2161 (भाग) , 2162 ( भाग) , 2163 से2230, 2231 (भाग) , 2233 (भाग) , 2236 (भाग) , 2237, 2238, 2239 ( भाग) , 2244 (भाग) , 2245(भाग) , 2246 ( भाग) , 2247 (भाग) , 2475 (भाग) , 2476 ( भाग) , 2477 (भाग) , 2518 (भाग) , 2519(भाग) , 2520 ( भाग ) , 2522 ( भाग ) , 2526(भाग) , 2527 ( भाग) , 2528(भाग) , 2529(भाग) , 2550, 2551 , 2552,2553 , 2557, 2558 , 2559 , 2560 , 2561,2562, 2563,2564,2565, 2566,2567,2574,2581 (भाग) , 2582, 2583(भाग) , 2584,2585 (भाग) ,2589, 2616 (भाग ) , 2617 (भाग) , 2619,2620,2621,2622,2624, 2625, 2627,2628,2629, 2630, 2631,2632, 2633, 2636( भाग) , 2637(भाग) ,2645, 2691 , 2693,2694,2697,2699,2700 और 2703 |

फुलबसिया ग्राम में अर्जित की गई भूखंड संख्यांक

1395(भाग ) , 1396से 1402, से 1414,1438 से 1449, 1303 (भाग) , 1391 ( भाग) , 1392 से 1394, 1403 (भाग) , 1405 (भाग),1406(भाग) , 1407 1450(भाग) , 1451 (भाग), 1512 (भाग) , 1533(भाग) , 1535, 1536, 1537 (भाग) , 1538 से1542, 1546 ( भाग ) , 1547, 1549 ( भाग) , 1550 ( भाग ) , 1551 , 1552 , 1553(भाग) , 1556(भाग) , 1557 (भाग) , 1616 (भाग) , 1617( भाग) , 1619 (भाग) , 1623 ( भाग) , 1624, 3566

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10 , 2003/VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

1625, 1626 ( भाग) , 1627 (भाग) , 1628 (भाग) , 1635 (भाग ) , 1636 (भाग) , 1637(भाग) , 1638, 1639 ( भाग ) , 1640( भाग) , 1780 (भाग) , 1820 (भाग) , 1822 ( भाग) , 1823(भाग और 1831 ।

ब्लाक क

सीमा वर्णन : -

क-ख रेखा बिन्दु " क " से आरंभ होकर ग्राम आरा में भूखंड संख्यांक 439 , 440, 343 और 697 से गुजरती है और बिन्दु "ख " पर मिलती है ।

ख-ग रेखा ग्राम चमातु में भूखंड संख्यांक 1587 , 2581 , 442, 494 और 607 से होकर गुजस्ती है और बिन्दु "ग" पर मिलती है ।

ग- घ-ड. रेखा ग्राम फुल बसिया में भूखंड संख्यांक 1391 , 1395 , 1450, 1451 , 1509, 1619, 1550, 1512 और 1303 से होकर गुजरती है और बिन्दु " ड. " पर मिलती है ।

ड. -च रेखा ग्राम फुलबसिया में नाला के भाग केन्द्रीय रेखा के साथ साथ गुजरती है और बिन्दु " च " पर मिलती है ।

च-छ रेखा ग्राम फुलबसिया में भूखंड संख्यांक 1823 , 1820, 1537, 1546, 1553 , 1556, 1557, 1550, 1619, 1617 , 1616 , 1623 , 1628 , 1627 , 1626 , 1637, 1635 , 1636, 1640, 1639 , 1640, 1406, 1405, 1403, 1780 और 1391 ( जो का 0 आ 0 3155 तारीख 20.10.62 द्वारा कौषला धारक क्षेत्र अर्जन और विकास अधिनियम, 1957 की धारा 9 ( 1 ) के अधीन अर्जित पिन्डारकम मणेशपुर ब्लाक की सम्मिलित सीमा का भाग रुप है ) से होकर गुजरती है और बिन्दु "छ " पर मिलती है ।

छज रेखा ग्राम फुलबसिया, चमातु और गणेशपुर ( जो का०आ ० 3155 तारीख 20.10.62 द्वारा कोयलाधारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम 1957 की धारा 91 के अधीन अर्जित पिन्डार कम गणेशपुर ब्लाक की सम्मिलित सीमा का भाग रुप है ) में नाला के भाग केन्द्रीय रेखा के साथ साथ गुजरती है और बिन्दु "ज " पर मिलती है ।

ज-झ रेखा ग्राम चमातु में 2333, 2231 , 2236, 2239, 2244, 2529, 2526, 2527, 2522, 2520, 2476, 2520 , 2518 और 2538 भूखंड संख्याकों से होकर गुजरती है और बिन्दु " झ " पर मिलती हैं ।

झ- अ रेखा ग्राम सराधु में भूखंड संख्यांक 1744, 1745, 1731 , 706, 796 और 1708 से होकर गुजरती है और बिन्दु " " पर मिलती हैं ।

अ-ट- ठ रेखाएं ग्राम मासिलांग में भूखंड संख्यांक 319, 318, 304 और 96 से होकर गुजरती है और बिन्दु " ठ" पर मिलती हैं ।

ठ-ङ- ढ रेखाएं मासिलांग ग्राम में भूखंड संख्यांक 69, 312 और 308 से होकर गुजरती है और बिन्दु "ढ " पर मिलती हैं ।

ढ- ण- त रेखा ग्राम सराधु में भूखंड संख्यांक 1833, 1707, 874, 873 , 810, 823 , 824, 791 , 782, 781 , 779 , 775 , 773, 762, 765, 755, 766 , 544, 541 , 556, 555, 545 , 553 , 548 , 553, 551 , 719, 718 , 719, 708, 706 , 1730, 1731 , 1745 और 1744 से होकर गुजरती हैं और बिन्दु " त" पर् मिलती हैं ।

त- थ -द रेखाएं ग्राम चमातु में भूखंड 2538 , 2518 , 2519, 2477 , 2476, 2475, 2520, 2522 , 2617, 2616, 2527 , 2528, 2245 , 2246, 2247, 2112 , 2113 , 2111 , 2110, 2107, 2106, 2104, 2102, 2134 , 2135, 2161 , 2162 , 767 , 769, 771 , 773 , 775 , 776, 777 , 779, 785 , 786 , 787 , 791 , 794, 798, 806, 807 , 811 , 809 , 998, 970 , भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

972, 974, 1082, 1096, 1100, 1115 और 1117 जो (का ० आ० सं० 870) "अ " तारीख 2-12-1994 के द्वारा कोयला धारक क्षेत्र अर्जन और विकास ( अधिनयम , 1957 की धारा 9( 1 ) के अधीन अर्जित मगध ब्लाक की सम्मिलित सीमा का भाग रुप है ) से होकर गुजरती है और बिन्दु. "द " पर मिलती हैं ।

द-ध-न-प रेखाएं ग्राम चमातु में भूखंड संख्यांक 1296, 1302, 1303 , 1365 ( नाला ) 2585, 2636 , 2637, 1612, 1587, 1612 और 1588 जो का0 आ0 सं 0 870 "अ " तारीख 2-12-94 द्वारा कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास) अधिनियम, 1957 की धारा 9 ( 1 ) के अधीन अर्जित मगध ब्लाक की सम्मिलित सीमा का भाग रुप है से होकर गुजरती हैं और बिन्दु "प" पर मिलती है ।

प-फ- क रेखाएं ग्राम आरा में भूखंड संख्यांक 704, 706, 715 , 718, 2006, 744, ( नाला) 791 , 770, 767 , 765 , 756, 753 , 790, 794, 363 , 364, 365 , 380, 376, 375 , 383 , 385 , 389, 399, 398, 397 , 408, 423 , 427 , 425 , 435, 436, 434 और 439 जो का0 आ 0 सं 0 870(अ) तारीख 2-12-94 द्वारा कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन और विकास) अधिनियम , 1957 की धारा 9 ( 1 ) के अधीन अर्जित मगध ब्लाक की सम्मिलित सीमा का भाग रुप हैं ) से होकर गुजरती है और बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती हैं । लाके 'ख '

क्रम सं० ग्राम थाना थाना सं० जिला क्षेत्र एकड. मैं क्षेत्र हेक्टर में टिप्पणियां

2 3

27/184 चतरा 46.30

18.75

टंडवा

कुन्डी

भाग भाग

टंडवा

10.61

29/186 चतरा 26.20

2. सराधु

कुल क्षेत्र 72.50 एकड़ लगभग

या 29.36 हेक्टर लगभग

ग्राम कुन्डी में अर्जित की गई भूखंड संख्यांक

1 (भाग) , 9 (भाग), 10 से 72 , 73 ( भाग ) , 74,75 (भाग) , 76 ( भाग), 79 (भाग), 80 भाग, 81 से 87, 88 (भाग), 89 (भाग ), 90 से 108 , 109 (भाग) , 110 (भाग) , 111 से 121 , 122 (भाग) , 124 (भाग) , 125, 126, 127 (भाग) , 136 (भाग) , 137 (भाग) , 138 से 141 , 142 (भाग) , 144 (भाग) , 154 (भाग) , 157, 158 , 159 (भाग) , 160 (भाग) , 161 (भाग) , 163 (भाग) , 164 से 169, 170 ( भाग) , 171 (भाग) , 183( भांग) , 242 (भाग ) और 400

ग्राम सराधु में अर्जित किए जाने वाले भूखंड संख्यांक

448 ( भाग) , 449, 450, 451 ( भाग), 452, 453 (भाग) , 454, 455( भाग) , 474, 475, 476 और 477 (भाग ) 1954(भाग) और 1955 |

सीमा वर्णन

ब-भ रेखा " ब " से आरंभ होकर ग्राम सराधू में भूखंड सं 0 477 , 1954 और 448 से होकर गुजरती हैं । 12326103-6 3568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003/VAISAKHA 20, 1925

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii)] भ- म- य रेखाएँ ग्राम कुडी में भूखंड संख्यांक 9, 1, 242, 171 , 170, 163 , 161 , 160, 183, 154, 159, 109, 144, 142, 136, 137, 127, 124 और 122 से होकर गुजरती हैं और बिन्दु " य " पर मिलती हैं ।

य-ब रेखांए ग्राम कुंडी में भूखंड संख्यांक 89 , 88 , 80, 79, 76, 75, 73, तथा ग्राम सराधु में भूखंड संख्याक 453, 455, 451 और 477 से होकर गुजरती हैं तथा आरभिक बिन्दु "ब " पर मिलती हैं ।

[फा. सं. -43015/24/2000- पी.आर.आई . डब्ल्यू. ]

संजय बहादुर, उप सचिव

New Delhi , the 9th May, 2003

S. O. 1384, whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal and Mines number S.O. 2060 dated the 10th June , 2002 , published in the gazette of India, dated the 22th June ,2002, under Sub-section (I ) of section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire the lands in the locality specified in the schedule appended to that notification;

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

And whereas the Central Government after considering the report aforesaid and after consulting the Government of Jharkhand is satisfied that the lands measuring 1254.80 acres (approximately) or 508.02 hectares ( approximately) described in the Schedule appended hereto should be acquired.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( I ) of section 9 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the lands measuring 1254.80 acres (approximately) or 508.02 hectares (approximately) described in the said Schedule are hereby acquired.

The plan No. Rev./6/2002 dated 7.10.2002 of the area covered by this notification may be inspected in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, Jharkhand or in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar , Jharkhand or in the office of the Coal Controller, 1 , Council House Street, Kolkata or in the office of the Central Coalfields Ltd. , (Revenue Section) , Darbhanga House, Ranchi , Jharkhand.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

Schedule

Magadh Block Extension

North Karanpura Coalfields

District - Chatra & Latehar

Block'A'.

Thana

Village

Thana No. SI . No

29/186

Tandwa

Saradhu

Masilaung Tandwa 61/218 2.

Balumath 55

Ara

Balumath 56 4. Chamatu

Balumath

Phulbasia

Drg . No. Rev/6/2002

Dated : 7/10/2002

(Showing land acquired)

All Rights

District

Area in Remarks hectares

Area in acres

8 .

Part

102.75

253.80

Chatra

Part

66.80

165.00

Chatra

Part

24.80

61.25

Latehar

542.25

219.53

Part

Latehar

Part

64.78

160.00

Latehar

Total Area 1182.30 acres (approx. )

478.66 hectares . (approx.)

Plot numbers acquired in village Saradhu : - 541 (P), 544 (P) , 545 (P) , 546 , 547, 548 (P), 549, 550, 551 (P ), 553 (P) , 555(P), 556(P ), 699(P) , 706(P), 708 (P ), 718(P) , 719 (P) , 720 , 721, 752 to 754, 755(P) , 756 to 761 , 762(P) , 765 (P), 766(P) , 773 (P ), 774 , 775 (P) , 779(P) , 780(P) , 781 (P), 782 (P), 783 to 790, 791 (P) , 792 to 795 , 796(P), 800 to 809, 810(P), 811 to 822, 823 (P ); 824( P ), 873 (P), 874(P ), 1707(P) , 1708 (P), 1730(P) , 1731 (P), 1744(P), 1745 (P) and 1833(P) .

Plot numbers acquired In village Masilaung : - 53 to 68 , 69(P ), 81 to 95 , 96(P), 97 to 114 , 304(P), 308 (P), 312 (P), 313 to 317 , 318 (P) & 319(P).

Plot numbers acquired in village Ara:- 342, 343 (P), 344 to 362, 363 (P), 364(P), 365, 375 (P ) , 376 (P ), 380(P), 381 , 382, 383 (P) , 384, 385 (P), 386 to 388 , 389 (P), 397(P) , 398(P), 399(P) , 400 to 407 , 408 (P), 423 (P0 , 425 (P ), 427(P ), 428 , 429, 431 to 433, 434(P) , 435 (P ), 436(P) , 439(P) , 440(P) , 690(P), 691 (P), 693 to 696, 697(P), 698 to 703, 704(P), 705 , 706(P ), 715 (P) , 716, 717, 718 (P ), 744(P), 753 (P), 756(P) , 758 to 761 , 765 (P ), 766, 767 (P) , 768 , 769, 770(P), 771 , 791 (P), 2006 & 2029.

Plot numbers acquired in village Chamatu: - 442(P), 469 to 477, 494(P) , 503 to 766, 767( P), 769(P ), 770 , 771 (P), 773 (P), 774 , 775 (P ), 776 (P ) , 777 ( P), 778 , 779(P) , 785 (P) , 786(P) , 787 (P ) , 791 (P), 792, 793 , 794(P ) , 796; 797 , 798 (P), 806(P ) , 807 (P ), 808, 809 (P ) , 811 (P) , 958 (P ), 970(P), 971 , 972(P), 973, 974 , 1082 (P) , 1096(P), 1097 to 1099, 1100(P), 1101 to 1107 , 1115 (P), 1116, 1117(P), 1153 , 1155 to 1295 , 1296(P), 1297, [PART II-SEC. 3(i)) 3570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10 , 2003/VAISAKHA 20, 1925

1302 (P ) , 1303 (P) , 1304 to 1364, 1365 (P), 1366, 1587 (P) , 1588(P) , 1612 (P), 2102 (P) , 2103 , 2104(P) , 2106 ( P ), 2107 (P) , 2108, 2109 , 2110(P ), 2111 (P) , 2112 (P), 2113 (P) , 2114 to 2133 , 2134(P) , 2135 (P ), 2136 to 2160, 2161 (P), 2162 (P), 2163 to 2230, 2231 (P), 2233 (P ) , 2236 (P) , 2237 , 2238 , 2239 (P), 2244 (P), 2245 (P) , 2246(P) , 2247 (P) , 2475 (P) , 2476(P) , 2477 (P), 2518 (P) , 2519 (P), 2520(P) , 2522 (P), 2526(P ), 2527 (P) , 2528(P) , 2529(P) , 2550 , 2551 , 2552 , 2553 , 2557, 2558 , 2559, 2560, 2561 , 2562, 2563 , 2564, 2565 , 2566 , 2567 , 2574, 2581 (P), 2582, 2583 (P) , 2584, 2585 (P) , 2589, 2616(P) , 2617(P), 2619 , 2620, 2621 , 2622, 2624, 2625, 2627, 2628, 2629 , 2630 , 2631 , 2632, 2633 , 2636 (P) , 2637 (P), 2645, 2691 , 2693, 2694, 2697, 2699, 2700 & 2703 .

Plot numbers acquired in village Phulbasia : 1303 (P), 1391 (P) , 1392 to 1394, 1395(P), 1396 to 1402, 1403 (P), 1405(P), 1406(P ) , 1407 to 1414, 1438 to 1449 , 1450(P) , 1451 (P) , 1512(P) , 1533 (P) , 1535 , 1536, 1537(P), 1538 to 1542 , 1546(P) , 1547 , 1549(P), 1550(P) , 1551 , 1552, 1553 (P) , 1556 ( P) , 1557 (P), 1616(P) , 1617 (P) , 1619(P ) , 1623 (P ), 1624 , 1625 , 1626 (P), 1627(P), 1628 (P) , 1635 (P), 1636(P) , 1637 (P) , 1638 , 1639 (P) , 1640 (P) , 1780 (P) , 1820( P) , 1822 (P), 1823 (P) & 1831 .

BLOCK - A Boundary Description

A-B 697

Line starting Point ' A' passe through plot numbers 439, 440 , 343 and in village Ara and meets at Point 'B ' .

B-C

village

Line passes through plot numbers 1587, 2581 , 442, 494 and 607 in Chamatu and meets at Point ' C' .

C-D-E

Lines pass through plot numbers 1391, 1395, 1450, 1451 , 1509, 1539, 1550 , 1512 and 1303 in village Phulbasia and meets at Point 'E' .

E-F

Line passes along the part central line of Nalla in village Phulbasia and Chetar and meets at Point ' F' .

F-G

Line passes through plot numbers 1823, 1820, 1537, 1546, 1553, 1556, 1557, 1550, 1619, 1617, 1616, 1623, 1628, 1627, 1626, 1637 , 1635, 1636, 1640, 1639, 1640, 1406, 1405 , 1403 , 1780 and 1391 in village Phulbasia ( which form part common boundary Pindarcom Ganeshpur Block acquired U/S-9 ( I ) of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development ) Act, 1957 vide So.No. 3155, dated 22.10.62 ) and meets atPont 'G' .

G-H

Line passes along the part central line of Nalla in village Phulbasia, Chamatu & Ganeshpur (which forms part common boundary of Pindarkom Ganeshpur Block acquired U/S -9 (I) of Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition & Development) Act , 1957 vide. So.No. 3155 dated 20.10.62 and meets at Point ' H' .

3571

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

H- I

Line passes through plot numbers 2233 , 2231 , 2236, 2239, 2244, 2529, 2526, 2527 , 2522 , 2520, 2476, 2520 , 2518 and 2538 in village Chamatu and meets at Point ' I' .

I-J

Line passes through plot numbers 1744, 1745, 1731, 706, 796 and 1708 village Saradhu and meets at Point 'J ' .

J-K-L Masilaung

Lines pass through plot numbers 319 , 318, 304 and 96 in village and meets at Point ' L' .

L-M-N and

Lines pass through plot numbers 69, 312 and 308 in village Masilaung meet at Point 'N' .

N-O-P

Lines pass through plot numbers 1833 , 1707, 874, 873 , 810 , 823 , 824 , 791 , 782 , 781 , 779 , 775 , 773 , 762, 765, 755, 766, 544, 541 , 556, 555 , 545, 553 , 548 , 553 , 551 , 719 , 718 , 719 , 708 , 706, 1730, 1731 , 1745 and 1744 in village Saradhu (which forms part common boundary ofMagadh Block acquired U/S -9(I) of Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition & Development ) Act , 1957 vide So.No. 870(E) dated 02.12.94 and meets at Point ' P' .

P-Q-R

Lines pass through plot numbers 2538 , 2518, 2519, 2477, 2476, 2475 , 2520, 2522 , 2617 , 2616, 2527 , 2528 , 2445, 2446, 2447, 2112, 2113 , 2111 , 2110 , 2107, 2106, 2102, 2134, 2135 , 2161, 2162, 767, 769, 771 , 773 , 775, 776, 777 , 779, 785, 786, 787, 791 , 794, 798 , 806, 807, 811 , 809, 958, 970, 972, 974 , 1082, 1096, 1100, 1115 and 1117 in village Chamatu (which forms part common boundary of Magadh Block acquired U /S -9 ( I ) of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development ) Act, 1957 vide So.No. 870 ( E) , dated 02.12.94 and meets at Point ' R' .

R-S-T-U

Lines pass through plot numbers 1117, 1296, 1302, 1365 (Nalla), 2585, 2636, 2637 , 1612 , 1287 , and 1588 in village Chamatu (which forms part common boundary of Magadh Block acquired U/S -9( I ) of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 vide So.No. 870 (E ) date 02.12.94 . and meets at Point ' U' .

U-V-A

Lines pass through plot numbers 704, 706, 715, 718 , 2006, 744 (Nalla ) , 791 , 770, 767 , 765 , 753, 690, 744, 691 , 363 , 364, 365, 380 , 376 , 375 , 383, 385 , 389, 399, 398 , 397, 408, 423 , 427, 425, 435 , 436, 434 and 439 in village Ara (which forms part common boundary of Magadh Block acquired U/S- 9( I ) of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 vide So.No. 870(E) date 02.12.94 . and meets at starting Point 'A' .

3572

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003/VAISAKHA 20, 1925

Block-B

All Right

Remarks Village Thana

District

Thana No.

Area in

acres

Area in hectares

Sl . No

7 .

2 .

3 .

1 .

Part

46.30

18.75

Kundi

27/184 Chatra

1 .

Tandwa

26.20

10.61

Part

Tandwa 29/186 Chatra

2. Saradhu

Total 72.50 acres (approx.)

29.36 hectares . (approx.)

Plot numbers acquired in village Kundi : - 1 (P), 9(P), 10 to 72, 73 ( P), 74 , 75 (P), 76(P) , 79(P), 80( P), 81 to 87 , 88(P) , 89(P), 90 to 108 , 109(P) , 110(P) , 111 to 121 , 122(P) , 124(P) , 125 , 126 , 127(P), 136 (P) , 137 (P), 138 to 141 , 142(P) , 144 (P), 154(P ), 157, 158, 159(P), 160 (P), 161 (P), 163 (P ), 164 to 169 , 170(P ) , 171 (P) , 183 (P ) , 242 ( P ) and 400.

Plot numbers acquired in village Saradhu : - 448(P) , 449 , 450 , 451 (P), 452 , 453 (P), 454, 455(P), 474, 475 , 476(P), 477 ( P) , 1954(P) and 1955.

BLOCK - B

Boundary Description : -

W-X

Line starting from ' W' passes through plot numbers 477, 1954 and 448 in

village Saradhu and meets at Poiint ' X' .

X-Y -Z

Lines pass through plot numbers 9, 1 , 242, 171 , 170, 163 , 161 , 160 , 183 , 154, 159 , 109, 144, 142, 136, 137 , 127 , 124 and 122 in village Kundi and meets at Point ' Z' .

Z-W

Line passes through plot numbers 89 , 88 , 80, 79 , 76, 75, 73 in village Kundi and plot numbers 453 , 455, 451 and 477 in village Saradhu (which forms part common boundary of Magadh Block acquired U/S- 9(I ) of Coal Bearing Areas ( Acquisition & Development ) Act , 1957 vide So. No. 870(E) , dated 2.12.94 and meets at Starting Point ' W' .

[No. 43015/24/2000-P.R.I.W. ] SANJAY BAHADUR] Dy. Secy.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 7 मई, 2003

का. आ. 1385.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार, का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962(1962का 50) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियमं कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की भारत के राजपत्र में तारीख 5 अक्टूबर 2002 को यथा प्रकाशित अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 3156 तारीख 3 अक्टूबर 2002 द्वारा, मुन्द्रा फ्तन स्थित अपरिष्कृत तेल संस्थापन मुन्द्रा से गुजरती हुई पाइपलाइन पंजाब राज्य में भटिंडा तक अपरिष्कृत तेल के परिवहन के लिए एक पाइपलाइन गुरू गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड (हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड की समनुषंगी ) द्वारा भूमि के भीतर पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 15 नवम्बर 2002 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात, और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित करने का विनिश्चय किया है ;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त. शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ;

और केंन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निदेश देती है कि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार, इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त गुरू गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड (हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड की समनुषगी) में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

तहसील : भीनमाल

जिला : जालौर

राज्य : राजस्थान गाँव का नाम

सर्वेक्षण नं.

ROU क्षेत्रफल.

हिस्सा क्रमांक

(सर्वेक्षण क्रमांक)

हॅक्टर

एर्यर वर्ग मी.

4 धानशा

697

[फा. सं. आर-31015/39/2001-ओ.आर-11 ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 3574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003/VAISAKHA 20, 1925

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi , the 7th May, 2003

S. O. 1385.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O.3156, dated the 3rd October , 2002, issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , published in the Gazette of India, on the 5th October ,2002, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transport of crude oil from crude oil terminal at Mundra Port in the State of Gujarat to Bathinda in the State of Punjab through Mundra -Bathinda crude oil pipeline by Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited (a subsidiary of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited);

Andwhereas , copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 15th November , 2002;

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

And whereas , the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire the right ofuser therein;

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

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4)of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in the Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited ( a subsidiary ofHindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited) free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

Tehsil Bhinmal

District Jalore

State: Rajasthan

ROU - Area Name of Village Survey No.

Part Any

Are .

Hect.

Sq.mt. 1

Dhansa >

697

[No. R-31015/39/2001 - O.R. - II ]

HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.

3575 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 7 मई, 2003

का. अ. 1386. - केन्द्रीय सरकार' पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962.. ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 3458, तारीख 21 दिसम्बर, 2001 , जो भारत के राजपत्र, भाग 2, खण्ड-3 , उपखण्ड (ii ) तारीख 22 दिसम्बर, 2001 के पृष्ठ 7605--7623 पर प्रकाशित की गई थी, में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है, अर्थात-

उक्त अधिसूचना की इस अनुसूची में: -

( क) पृष्ठ 7616 पर, स्तंभ 1 में गॉव " नासोली " , के सामने,

(i) स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण नं० "388 " , के स्थान पर, सर्वेक्षण नं० "388 " , रखा जाएगा

[फा. सं. आर -31019/29/2001- ओ.आर- II ] हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 7th May, 2003

S. O. 1366. In exereise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.0,3458, dated the 21 * December,2001 , published at page 7623-7640 , in Part II , section 3 , sub-section (ii) of theGazette of India, dated the 22nd December , 2001 , namely: -

Inthis Schedule to the said notification,-

A) at page 7634, against village " Nasoli " , in column 1 ,

(1) in survey number "388 ", in column 2, shall be substituted by no ."386"

[No. R-31015/39/2001-0.R.- HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy

नई दिल्ली, 7 मई, 2003

का. आ. 1387. - केन्द्रीय सरकार पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्बन) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रक्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2063 तारीख 19 जून 2002 , जो भारत के राजपत्र, भाग- 2 , खण्ड-3, उपखण्ड ( ii) तारीख 22 जून 2002 के पृष्ठ 6007से पृष्ठ .. 6026 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है, अर्थातः-

123261 /03-7 3576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 20, 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ) उक्त अधिसूचना की इस अनुसूची में: -

(क)

पृष्ठ 6008 पर, स्तंभ 1 में गॉव "धनपुरा " के सामने : -

(i) स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण नं० " 60 ", के सामने, स्तंभ 4 में क्षेत्रफल "0-11-04 ", के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल "0-22-92 " , रखा जाएगा;

( ii) स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण नं० " 50 ", के सामने, स्तंभ 4 में क्षेत्रफल "0-01-20" , के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल " 0-03-67 " , रखा जाएगा ;

(iii) स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण नं0 " 42 " , के सामने, स्तंभ 4 में क्षेत्रफल "0-14-15 " , के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल "0-14-76 ", रखा जाएगा ;

पृष्ठ 6009 पर, स्तंभ 1 में गाँव " धनपुरा"

(iv) स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण नं0 " 19 " , के सामने , स्तंभ 4 में क्षेत्रफल "0-16-45" , के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल "0-17-69 " , रखा जाएगा ;

(v) स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण नं० "39 ", के सामने, स्तंभ 4 में क्षेत्रफल "0-20-86 " , के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल "0-21-04" , रखा जाएगा ; ,

(ख) पृष्ठ 6018 पर, स्तंभ 1 में गाँव "खाण्डादेवल"

(i) स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण नं0 " 439 ", के सामने, स्तंभ 4 में क्षेत्रफल "0-25-50" , के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल "0-26-00 " , रखा जाएगा

(ii) स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण नं0 " 438 ", के सामने, स्तंभ 4 में क्षेत्रफल "0-43-81 " , के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल " 0-76-50 " , रखा जाएगा ;

(iii) स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण नं 0 "434 ", के सामने स्तंभ 4 में क्षेत्रफल " 0-01-00 " , के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल " 0-17-70" , रखा जाएगा ;

(iv) स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण नं० " 450 " , के सामने , स्तंभ 4 में क्षेत्रफल "0-15-00 ", के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल " 0-15-80" , रखा जाएगा ;

(v) स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण नं0 " 520 " , के सामने, स्तंभ 4 में क्षेत्रफल "0-24-82 ", के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल " 0-26-00" , रखा जाएगा ;

(ग)

पृष्ठ 6023 पर स्तंभ 1 में गॉव " धानसा"

(i) स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण नं0 " 751 ", के सामने, स्तंभ 4 में क्षेत्रफल " 0-01-94 ", के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल " 0-17-89 ", रखा जाएगा ;

(ii) स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण नं० " 101 " , के सामने, स्तंभ 4 में क्षेत्रफल " 0-14-60" , के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल "0-18-10 " , रखा जाएगा ;

स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण नं0 " 197 " , के सामने, स्तंभ 4 में क्षेत्रफल "0-33-93 " , के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल " 0-34-40" , रखा जाएगा ;

स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण नं0 " 196 ", के सामने, स्तंभ 4 में क्षेत्रफल " 0-00-40 " , के स्थान पर (iv)

क्षेत्रफल " 0-01-00 " , रखा जाएगा ;

(v) स्तम्भ 2 के सर्वेक्षण नं० "275 ", (कार्ट ट्रेक) , के सामने, स्तंभ में क्षेत्रफल "0-06-96", के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल " 0-15-44" , रखा जाएगा;

[फा. सं. आर-31015/39/2001- ओ.आर-11 ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 10, 2003/बैशाख 20, 1925

New Delhi , the 7thMay, 2003

S. O. 1387. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.0,2063, dated the 19th June, 2002 , published at page 6026 to 6045, in Part II , section 3 , sub-section ( ii) ofthe Gazette of India, dated the 22nd June, 2002, namely:-

Inthis Schedule to the said notification, -

at page 6027, against village " Dhanpura",

(i) in survey number "60" , in column 2, for the area "0-11-04" , in column 4, the area "0-22-92 " , shall be substituted;

(ii) in survey number " 50" , in column 2, for the area "0-01-20" , in column 4, the area"0-03-67", shall be substituted;

( iii) in survey number "42 ", in column 2, for the area "0-14-15 " , in column 4, the area "0-14-76" , shall be substituted; at page 6028, against village " Dhanpura",

(iv) in survey number " 19 " , in column 2, for the area "0-16-45 ", in column 4, the area "0-17-69" , shall be substituted;

(v) in survey number " 39 " , in column 2, for the area "0-20-86 " , in column 4, the area "0-21-04 ", shall be substituted;

at page 6037 , against village " Khandadewal",

(i) in survey number " 439" , in column 2, for the area "0-25-50" , in column 4, the area "0-26-00 " , shall be substituted;

(ii) in survey number " 438 " , in column 2, for the area "0-43-81 " , in column 4, the area "0-76-50 " , shall be substituted;

(iii) in survey number "434" , in column 2, for the area "0-01-00 " , in column 4, the area " 0-17-70 " , shall be substituted;

(ii) in survey number " 450 " , in column 2, for the area "0-15-00 " , in column 4 , the area " 0-15-80 " , shall be substituted;

(iv) in survey number "520", in column 2 , for the area "0-24-82 " , in column 4, the area "0-26-00 " , shall be substituted;

at page 6042, against village " Dhansa",

(i) in survey number " 751 " , in column 2, for the area "0-01-94 ", in column 4, the area "0-17-89 " , shall be substituted;

(ii) in survey number " 101 " , in column 2 for the area "0-14-60 ", in

column 4, the area "0-18-10" , shall be substituted;

(iii) in survey number " 197 " , in column 2, for the area "0-33-93 " , in column 4, the area "0-34-40" , shall be substituted:

(iv) in survey number " 196" , in column 2 , for the area "0-00-40 " , in column 4, the area "0-01-00" , shall be substituted;

(v) in survey number "275 " , in column 2, " Cart Track G.L " , in column 3, for the area "0-06-96" , in column 4, the area "0-15-44 " , shall be substituted.

[No: R- 31015/39/2001 -OR.4H ]

HARISH KUMAR , Under Sety.

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003 /VAISAKHA 20, 1925

3578

ANNEXURE

श्रम मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 4 अप्रैल, 2003

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. -1, DHANBAD

Inthematter of a reference U/s . 10 ( 1 ) (d) (2A ) of the Industrial Dispates Act, 1947

Reference No. 79 of 2000

Parties:

का. आ. 1388.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) की धारा 16 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, तूतीकोरिन पोर्ट ट्रस्टकार्यों हैंडलिंग लेबर पूल को अगले आदेश जारी होने तक, उपर्युक्त अधिनियम को प्रभाव में लाने से छूट प्रदान करती है ।

Employers in relation to the management ofAmlabad Colliery of M/s . B.C.C. Ltd. [फा. संख्या आर. -11015/ 1 / 2000 - एसएस- II ]

AND

संयुक्ताराय, अवर सचिव

TheirWorkman

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Present:

Shri S. H. Kazmi , Presiding Officer:

New Delhi , the 4th April , 2003

Appearances:

: Shri H. Nath, Advocate .

FortheEmployers

: Shri S.C. Gour, Advocate .

For the Workman

State: Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal .

S.O. 1388. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (2 ) of Section 16 of the Employees Provident Fund&Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ( 19 of 1952) , the Central Government hereby exempts the Tuticorin Port Trust Cargo Handling Labour Pool from the operation of the above-mentioned Act, till further orders .

[F. No. R- 11015/ 1 /2000-SS- II]

Dated, the 28th March , 2003

AWARD

SANJUKTA RAY , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 16 अप्रैल , 2003

ByOrder No. L-20012/348/99 - IR (C -I ) dt . 28-1-2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

का. आ. 1389.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- I, धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 79/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-4-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/348/99- आई. आर. ( सी. -1) ]

"Whether the action of the management of Amlabad Colliery of M/ s.B.C.C Ltd. , P.O. Amlabad, Distt . Dhanbad in not accepting the date ofbirth of Shri Chhote Lal Rajwar, Mining Sirdaras 6-1-55 as per I.I.No.76 is justified ? If not to what reljef the workman is entitled ?" एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 16th April , 2003

S.O. 1389.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 79/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court- I Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 16-04-2003.

[No. L-20012/348/99 - IR (C-I)]

S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

2. The case of the concerned workman , in short, is that he was appointed in the year 1971 and since then he has been rendering his service under the management , It has been said that in the year 1982 the management of Amlabad Colliery gave him a woking experience certificate indicating his date of birth as6-1-1955 , as per Form 'B ' record to enable the workman to pass mining sirdar examination to competency, subsequent to which the concerned workman appeared in the said examination and passedthe same and received the Mining Sirdar Certificate fromDirectorate General of Mines Safety Office, Dhanbad on 11-11-1982 in which his date of birth was recorded as 6-1-1955 . It is said that the concerned workman all along wasunder impression that his date of birth was recorded as6-1-1955 but in the year 1987 when the service excerpt [भाग II- खाण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का रामपत्र : सई 10, 2003/पैशावा 20, 1925

$579

which is a statutory register and the age is to be determined on the basis of the entries made therein .

Inthe rejoinder filed on behalf of the workmanalso whilecontroverting or denying several statements made in the written statement of the management it has been specifically denied that the age recorded at the time of initial appointment holda good. It is further assertedtherein that in view ofintroduction of 1-1-76 in the year 1988 the age recorded in Form ' B' automatically comes to an end and the age as per Mining Sirdar Certificate supersedes. It has been said that the concerned workman is entitled to remain in employment till 5-1-2015 on the basis of date of birth mentioned in the Mining Sirdar Certificate of competency.

4. It is evident from the above that the moot question involved in the present case that requires consideration is whether on the basis of the material put forward on behalf of the parties , the date of birth of the concerned workman as mentioned in the Mining Sirdar Certificate can be taken as final and conclusive or not for all practical purposes .

was issued to him indicating his date ofbirth as 24-10-1940, he came toknow about it and protested by mentioning the date of birth as, 6-1-56 and returned the same to the management for making necessary correction in their records. It is further said that since the workman was not given any time to check his own record , in haste he indicatedhis date of birth as 6-1-56 in stead of6-1-55 in the service excerpt . Further the case is that in the year 1988 JBCCI for coal industry vide 1-1-76 issued for the first time, a policy decision that the date of birth recorded in Mining Sirdar /Overman certificate of competency issued by D.G.M.S. shallbetaken as conelusive proof for allpurposes including superannuation and on the basis of such instruction correction of date ofbirth were made in several such cases. Further it has been said that the concerned workman reminded the management from time to time for correction ofdate of birth as per Mining Sirdar Certificate of competency and based on 1-1-76 of JBCCI but neither the correction was made by the management nor it communicated to the concerned workman the reasons for not doing so and ultimately being left with no alternative the industrial dispute was raised by the concerned workman before A.L.C. (C) , Dhanbad . But as no conciliation could be made finallythe dispute was referred to this Tribunal for adjudication . Lastly it has been said that the management by not making necessary correction in this date of birth as per 1-1-76 of JBCCI has violated the agreement of National Coal Wage and concerned workman , as such , is entitled for the recording ofdate ofbirth as 6-1-55 as per 1-1-76 .

5. In support of their respective claims both the sides have led their oral as well as documentary evidence. One witness was examined on behalf of the management and likewise one witness was examined on behalf of the workman also . Few documents filed on behalf of the management are marked Exts . M- 1 to M -4 and these produced from the side of the workman are marked Exts. W- 1to W-5 . The relevancy or significance ofthose materials would be looked into and considered in course of discussions made hereinafter .

6. It is evident that the claim of the concermed workman is mainly rather solely based on Mining Sirdar Certificate of competoricy in which the date ofbirth of the concemed workman is mentioned as 6-1-55 . The date of issuance of the said certificate is 11-11-82. 1

It has been submitted that as per 1-1-76 of JBCCI for coal industry the date of birth mentioned in Mining Sindar Certificate has got to be taken as binding , final or conclusive for all practical purpose and so in that viewithe manaagement should have made the correction in the cate ofbirth if the same was mentioned elsewhere in any other manner and instead if superannuating the concerned workman in the year 2000 it should have allowed him to continue with his service till his retirement on the basis of the date ofbirth mentioned in the Miing Sirdar Certificate.

3. The management's case, on the other hand, in short'is that the concerned workman was appointed on 24-10-71 and on the date of his appointment has age was recorded as 31 years in Form ' B ' Register which is a statutory register of the company being maintained under theMines Act, 1952 and the concerned workman accepted itby putting his L.T.1./signature on the said register . Further it has been said that the concerned workman declared his qualification in the service except as Class - X but no document regarding educational qualification andage was produced by him in support of his date of birth , It is also said that the concerned workman obtained Mining Sirdar Certificate after working for more than ten years in M/s . BCCL and so his date ofbirth recorded in the said certificate is not tenable as per 1-1-76 and moreover as per Mines Act, 1952 nobody can be employed to work in a mine below the age of 18 years and if the date of birth as mentioned in the Mining Sirdar Certificate is accepted then at the time of his appointment the concerned workman was only aged about 16 years 9 months . Further , it has been said that the concerned workman raised the dispute in the service excerpt with respect tohis date ofbirth only in the year 1987 though hewas appointed on 24-10-71 .

7. The concerned workman was appointed on 24-10-71 and at the time of his appointment in Porm B' Register (Ext . M- 1 ) his date of birth was recorded as 31 years as on 24-10-71 . This fact is not in dispute rather the concerned workman in hls evidence has identified ind . admitted his L.T.1 . appearing thereon . The assertion ofthe In its rejoinder also it has been asserted on behalf of the management that the concerned workman had to be retired as per the date of birth given in Form ' B ' Register [PART II-SEC . 3(ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 20, 1925

3580

workman can only be taken as 16 years and few months at the time of his appointment . Naturally the question would arise whether for working in mines any person of such age could have been appointed or not . The management's contention is that such persons are not considered eligible for being appointed in a mine on any post whatsoever . It is not suggested that just on account of these facts or aspects the claim of the workman is required to be brushed aside , but at the same time the aforesaid aspects coupled with conduct of the concerned workman, as noticed above , certainly creates a reasonable suspecion or doubt about the genuineness of the claim of the concerned workman.

This argument advanced on behalf of the workman does not appear to be convincing that the date of birth mentioned in the Mining Sirdar Certificate has got to be taken as binding, final and conclusive as per 1-1-76 of JBCCI irrespective of mentioning of some other date in some other documents , such as , Form ' B ' Register. From a plain reading of the contents of the relevant clause of 1-1-76 also not such impression can be gathered and there is nothing contained as such . It is true that importance has been attached to Mining Sirdar Certificate so for as the date of birthis concerned but it did not speak that the same would be binding or conclusive or would be having overriding effect upon any entry in that regard as contained in Form ' B' Register or would supercede any such entry in Form ' B ' register , as suggested . Particularly so far as the facts of the present case is concerned it is reiterated that it stands admitted that at the time of appointment the said date ofbirth was mentioned in Form ' B ' register in presence ofthe workman and the concerned workman has admitted his L.T.I. appearing thereon , but despite being aware of such entry in Form ' B' Register no any step was considered necessary to be taken for correction of date of birth if according to the concerned workman the same was wrong or incorrect . There is also complete silence on his part as to onwhat basis the date of birth was mentioned in aforesaid manner in the Mining Sirdar Certificate.

workman is only this much that his date of birth was wrongly recorded therein . The concerned workman , as such, was well aware of the fact that in Form ' B ' his date of birth was mentioned in the aforesaid manner . If at all , according to him, the same was incorrectly mentioned then he could have raised objection or could have sought correction therein immediately or soon thereafter. But he did not do anything like that and it is only when Mining Sirdar Certificate was issued to him by D.G.M.S. in which his date of birth was mentioned as 5-1-55 . He started taking advantage of that but even then did not make any representation before the management for correction of his date of birth . In the year 1987 when service expcerpt (Ext. W- 2) was sent to him for inviting objections, if any, he did not raise any objection as the column meant for that purpose is blank. Simply in a very strange or peculiar manner as against the column meant for some other purpose he wrote down 6-1-56 as regards which also now he says that in haste instead of mentioning 6-1-55 he had mentioned 6-1-56 . Copies of two representations said to have been submitted before the management for correction ofage or dateofbirth are dated 24-12-90 (Ext. W3/ 1 ) and dated 15-7-98 (Ext. W-3). Those were, as such , submitted at a much belated stage when the date of superannuation was fast approaching. Despite having full knowledge about his dateofbirth mentioned in Form ' B ' Register why no step was taken for a long time by the concerned workman for correction of date of birth ? and further if the date of birth wasmentioned in the Form ' B ' register in the aforesaid manner then how and no what basis the date of birth was mentioned in some other manner in Mining Sirdar Certificate . These are some of the pertinent questions for which no explanation whatsoever is forthcoming. The management's contention in this respect is that the concerned workman managed to get his date of birth mentioned in Mining Sirdar Certificate in the aforesaid manner just in order to put in some more years of service under the management otherwise there was no occasion of mentioning of date of birth other than what stood mentioned in Form ' B ' register recorded at the time of appointment.

It iswell known that Form ' B ' Register is maintained under Sec. 48 of the Mines Act, 1952 and for this reason the same is considered as statutory register. Quite naturally any entry or particulars mentioned therein with respect to anyworkman bears much importance and significance and the same cannot be ignored or bye- passed so easily in the face of or due to the existence of any other document whatsoever . In a particulars or different set of facts and circumstances , the entries made in Mining Sirdar Certificate may assume significance or may be treated as final but in the facts and circumstances of the instant case it is reiterated that it is not possible to take the date of birth mentioned in the said certificate as correct , final or conclusive by ignoring the entry made in that regard in Form 'B' register and few glaring circumstances involved, asnoticed above .

It can not be lost sight of and often it is seen these daysthat just for remaining in service for some more years the course of action is planned meticulously and by taking the concerned staff of the establishment in collusion , tampering and manipulation are being made in the entry of the date of birth recorded in some of the document and further in some of the document the date of birth is inserted as per the desire of the workman concerned. Here is a case where difference between two dates is not just of one or two years rather quite obviously there is big difference of 15years or more . It is further to be kept in mind that if the date of birth as mentioned in Mining Sirdar Certificate is accepted to be actual date of birth of the concerned workman then on that basis the age of the concerned [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20 , 1925

Thus, in view of discussions made hereinabove on the basis of materials on record it is difficult to accept the date ofbirth of the concerned workman mentioned in the Mining Sirdar Certificate as binding and conclusive for all practical purposes including superannuation , as suggested, on behalfof the workman . Consequently the action ofthe managementwhich has been questioned cannot be held to be improper or unjustified.

8. The award is , thus , made hereunder:

The action ofthe management ofAmlabad Colliery ofM/s . B.C.C. Ltd. in not accepting the date ofbirth ofthe concerned workman , Chhote Lał Rajwar, Mining Sirdar as 6-1-1955 as per I.I.No. - 76 is justified and the concerned workman , as such , is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.

In the circumstances of the case , however, there would be no order as to cost .

S. H. KAZMI , PresidingOfficer .

नईदिल्ली, 16 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1390.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को.को.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 39/91 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-4-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -20012/356/90- आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 16th April, 2003

S.O. 1390. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute. Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 39/91 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- 1 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the empoyers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-4-2003.

[No. L-20012/356/90-1R(C-1 )]

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NOX 1, DHANBAD

Inthe matter ofa reference Sec. 10 ( 1) (d) (2A) ofthe Industrial DisputesAct . 1947

Reference No. 39 of 1991

PARTIES: Empoyers in relation to the management of Tetulmari Colliery ofM/S . B.C.C.Lad . AND

TheirWorkmen

3581 PRESENT: Shri S. H. KAZMI , Presiding Officer APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Shri H. Nath , Advocate For the Workman : Shri D. Mukherjee,

Secretary, BiharColliery

KamgarUnion .

State: Jharkhand .

Industry: Coal.

Dated, the 26thMarch2003

AWARD

By Order No. L- 20012/356/90-1.R. (Coal -I ) dated 16-4-1991 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-sec . ( 1 ) and Sub - sec . (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

"Whether the action of the management of Tetulmari Coffiery under Sijua Area ofM/S. Bhart Coking Coal Ltd. in denying the employment to thedependent son- in - law of Smt. Chain Kumarn , 1.D. Card No. 222339 in justified ? If so , to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. Precisely, the case of the sponsoring union is that the concerned workman , Chain Kumari has been working as permanent quarry worker at Tetulmari Colliery since long with unblemished record of service . He submitted an application before the management on 12-4-85 for voluntar retirement under the scheme of the management for female workers and she sought employment for her dependent son-in - law in her place . It has been said that while submitting the said application all the necessary formalities were complied with and as per form submitted for the said purpose and filled up by the management, the date ofbirth of the concerned lady was recorded asdt . 25-11-19381 However, it has been said that after submitting the aforesaid voluntary retirement application the concerned workma was anxiously waiting for employment of her dependent son - in- law, but curiously enough instead of employing her dependent son - in - law the management issued a letter of superannuation wherein and where by it superannuated the concerned workman w.e.f. 29-11-1988 . She protested. vehemently against the illegal and arbitrary superannuation butthe management did not pay any heed and then seeing no other alernative the industrial dispute was raised on her behalfbefore the Conciliation Officer but no conciliation couldbe arrived at due to non - cooperative and anti -labour attitude ofthe management and so ultimately the dispute was referredto this Tribunal by the appropriate government for adjudication . Lastly it has been said that the action of the management in denying employment to the dependent son- in-law ofthe concerned workman was illegal , arbitrary and unjustified and as such the relief has been sought for direction to the management to provide employment to the dependent son- in- law of the concerned workman with: retrospective effect and with all consequential benefits .

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] 3582

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003 /VAISAKHA 20, 1925

management has submitted the fact that the concerned lady had submitted ,an application on prescribed form on 12-4-85 for voluntary retirement under the said Scheme in order to secure employment for here son - in - law, but in its case isthat certain discrepancy was noticed in the service recordwith respect to the mentioning ofdate ofbirth ofthe said lady and so in the year 1986 she was referred to a MedicalBoard for aseertainment or assessment of her age . The Board thereafter assessed her age as 58 years as on 28-11-86 and then on that basis service record was corrected and in accordance with the finding of the Medical Board ultimately she was superannuated w.e. f. 28-11-88. Further the stand of the management is that since as per Board's assessment of age the lady was not aged 56 years or less on the date of her application which was a necessary requirement as contained under the said scheme, there was no question of allowing her prayer and providing employment to her son- in - law.

3. On the other hand , apart from raising few questions with respect to the maintainability of instant s reference the management in its written statement has come out with the case that the age and date of birth of the concerned workman recorded in various registers and records of the colliery differed and varied, so she was referred to Area Medial Board for the assessment of her age. The Apex Medical Board assessed her age was 58 years as on 28-11-86 and therefore her age and date of birth was recorded as 28-11-28 . She reached the age of superannuation on 28-11-88 and accordingly she was superannuated w.e.f. the said date. Further , it has been said that while the concerned workman was in employment her service excerpt was sent to her but she did not raise any objection with respect to the assessment of her age and date of birth. It is said that after going through her application it was found that here application for V.R.S. was not within the time limit stipulated in the NCWA- IV nor she was eligible as per the said scheme neither she was permanently disabled either from injury or disease nor her case was so certified by the coal company concerned. Lastly, it has been said that the action of the management in the aforesaid regard was perfectly justified.

In their respective rejoinders also both the sides reiterated their stands already taken in their written statement and the management again took the firm stand thatsince the concerned lady had already crossed the age limit prescribed for V.R.S. She was not entitled to the benefits prescribed therein .

4. It is evident from the stands taken on behalf of the respective sides , as seen above, that the moot question involved that requires consideration is as to how far the denial of employment to the dependent son - in - law of the concerned ladyby the management was justified or whether the concerned lady deserves the employment for her dependent son - in - law as per the said scheme or not .

5. TheMedical Board's report has been filed but the same has not been proved by any witness . This however does not assume much significance as the fact of appearance of the concerned lady before the Board and then the assessment of her age by the Board in the aforesaid manner are not disputed. There was no any statement in the written statement to that effect but however in the last para at page 2 ofthe rejoinder filed on behalf of the workman in reply to the management's written statement the statement has been made only to the effect that the Medical Board did not determine the age as per medical jurisprudence which is evident from the alleged Medical Board report. Significantly the concerned jady has not been examined to challenge the said aspect and the management's witness was also not given any suggstion that, in fact , the concernedworkman never appeared before any Medical Board or never any such Board subınitted its report after examining the said lady . It cannot be denied that as per the provisions of NCWA in case of discrepancy or variance in service record in respect of mentioning of date of birth of a workman he or she is required to be referred to a Medical Board for determination of actual age and then on the basis ofthe findings of the Board the necessary correction is made in the aforesaid regard in the service records.

It isapparent from all that has been indicated above thatholding of medical examination of the concerned lady by the Medical Board remained unchallenged and undisputed.

No oral evidence has been lead on behalf of the workman in support of her claim. However, one document has been produced and marked Ext . W- 1 which is photo copy of the application submitted by the concerned lady for voluntary retirement . On the other hand , the management has examined one witness and produced few documents which are Exts . M - 1 to M- 4 and which are service excerpt issued to the concerned workman , superannuation notice , photo copy of Form ' B ' register etc.

6.One service excerpt (Ext. M- 1 ) has been produced to show that in the year 1987 the concerned lady was served with the same wherein here date of birth was clearly mentioned as 28-11-28 but she did not- raise any objection in that regard. In the rejoinder of the workırian simply denial has been made in regard to issuance of any such service excerpt but neither the concerned lady nor any other witness has been examined in support of the said denial or It is not in dispute that during the relevant period there was voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced by M/ s . BCCL for its female employes and it was provided therein that a female worker may retire in favour of her husband , son or son- on - law . The copy of the said scheme containing the details has been produced by the management and the same is marked Ext . M- 2 . The [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20 , 1925

3583 to disown the thumb impression of the concerned lady appearing thereon . No suggestion was given to the management's witness that the said document was , in fact, amanufactured one. Therefore , it remained undisputed that in the year 1987 she was served with service excerpt and she did not raise any objection thereon . No any document has been produced to show that even after 1987 the concerned lady ever raised any objection before the management prior to raising the industrial dispute in the year1990.

explanation why she was not produced or was not examined. Eventhe concerned dependent of the said lady for whom the employment was sought under the said scheme has not turned up for his evidence. Simply the copy of the said application for voluntary retirement has been exhibited on behalf of the workman . Though the management's witness was cross -examined in the manner as aforesaid but as it can be very well observed nothing couldbe elicited out ofhim to discredit his statement given earlier or stand taken by the management . During arguments few statements made during cross -examination were . referred but those were of not much significance and further theworkman's representative failed to convince how simply on the basis one or two statements made here and there in course of his evidence the said witness should be disbelieved or the management's case should be taken as not substantiated,

Ext.M-4 is the photo copy of Form ' B ' as the original of the same, as per management's witness , was seized by the police in connection with a criminal case. It is evident from the said document that earlier the date ofbirth of the concerned lady was mentioned as 25-11-38 but later it was corrected as 28-11-28 on the basis of Medical Board's finding. MW- 1 has also said in his evidence about the correction being made as per the findings of the Medical Board.

8. Thus, in view ofall the aforesaid Ido not find any merit in the claim as raised in the instant case and consequently the action of the management in denying the employment to the dependent of the concerned lady cannot be held to be unjustified.

9. The award is, thus , rendered as hereunder:

The action of the management of Tetulmari Colliery under Sijua Area of M/s . B.C.C. Ltd. indenying employment to the dependent son -in -law of Smt . Chain Kumari is justified and consequently no relief as prayed for can be granted.

In the circumstances of the case, however, there would be no order as to cost.

S.H. KAZMI , Presiding Officer.

नई दिल्ली, 16 अप्रैल , 2003

7. It is not disputed that the concerned lady could have been allowed to retire voluntarily under the said scheme only if she would have been aged 56 years or less than that. It is also to be observed that the correction in date ofbirth was not made arbitrarily or behind the back of the concerned lady rather before that she was given the opportunity and as per the company's rule or NCWA she was referred toMedical Board as the management noticed discrepancy or variance in mentioning of the date of here birth in service record. She appeared before the Board and never raised any objection either before or after the Medical Board's finding. Even in the year 1987 she did not raise any objection. No any industrial dispute was raised on her behalf challenging here superannuation in the aforesaid manner . It was only in the year 1990 when the present dispute was raised several objections were put forward on her behalf.

का. आ. 1381.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन ओवरसीज बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीब, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 62/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-4-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/56/2002- आई. आर. (बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 16th April , 2003 Grantofrelief as prayed in the instant case was quite dependent upon the aspect as to what, it fact, was the age ofthe concerned lady at the time when the application for voluntary retirement was submitted before the management . Since on the basis of the Medical Broad's report she was not found eligible for extending benefit under the said scheme she was over aged and since she never objected or challenged the Medical Board's action or here superannuation by raising industrial dispute , it is not possible tohold herein that the dependent of the concerned lady was entitled to be appointed in her place under the said scheme. Even if it is taken that as per the terms of reference it can also be adjudicated whether the concerned lady was rightly superannuated or not even then on the basis of the materials. it is difficult to hold that her superannuation was wrong. It is once again pointed out that the concerned lady who would have been the best person to make statement upon several aspects involved did not choose to appear for her evidence nor there is any

S.O. 1381.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 62/2002 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the 123291/03-8 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003 /VAISAKHA 20, 1925

3584

till this date for consideration , this Tribunal has passed the following: ---

AWARD

Dispute between the management of Indian Oversees Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 16-4-2003 .

[No. L- 12012/56/2002- IR(B- II) ]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above mentioned order of reference by the Central Govt . for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :-- ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT CHENΝΑΙ

Friday, the 4th April. 2003

"Whether the action of the management of Indian OverseasBank in ordering dismissal of the workman Shri V. Natarajan from service by order dated 5-4-1997 is justified? Ifnot, what relief is he entitled to?"

Present: K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 62/2002

2. The facts of the industrial dispute raised by the I party/Workman are briefly as follows :-- [In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub - section (1 ) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri V. Natarajan and the Management of Indian Overseas Bank] .

BETWEEN

: IParty/Workman

Sri V. Natarajan

AND

: II Party/Management

The Regional Manager , Indian Overseas Bank, Coimbatore

Appearance:

: I Party in person

For the Workman

For the Management : M/s.T.S . Gopalan & Co. , Advocates

TheGovt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1 ) and sub- section 2( A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the concerned industrial dispute for adjudication vide Order No.L- 12012/56 /2002 /IR (B - II ) dated 7-7-2002.

On receipt of the order of reference from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour , this case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 62/2002 and notices were sent to the parties to the dispute by registered post, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 7-8-2002 to file their respective Claim Statement and Counter Statement and to prosecute this case further . Accordingly, the I Party/ Workman and the counsel on record for the II Party/ Management have filed their respective claim statement and counter statement and prosecuted this case further.

The Petitioner/Workman Sri V. Natarajan is an ex- serviceman with the post graduate degree and also holds a degree in law. The Respondent Indian Overseas Bank is a nationalised bank having branches throughout India . The Petitioner was appointed as a Watchman on 7-11-1985 . As awatchman he was also used to be posted as Armed guard. Afterworking in the Regional Office , Coimbatore for some time, the Petitioner was transferred to Ganapathy branch at Coimbatore . When the Petitioner was working in Ganapathy branch, on 29-7-1993 he quarrelled with the customerMr. M. Rajendran and assaulted him . Disciplinary action was taken by the Respondent/Management and the Petitioner was awarded punishment of stoppage of three increments by art order ofthe Disciplinary Authority dated 27-5-95. There were reports that the Petitioner quarrelled with the customer who left the branch saying that he would not come back to the branch as long as the Petitioner was there . In another incident , the Petitioner has assaulted a lady sweeper . So the Petitioner was transferred from Ganapathy to Kavindapady branch on 12-6-94. DuringMay, 1996 the Petitioner was transferred to Velampalayam branch from Kavindapady branch . The staff of the branch , used to have their savings bank account in the branch in which they are posted and whenever they are transferred they will transfer the S.B. account to the branch to which they are posted. Though the Petitioner was transferred from Kavindapady to Velampalayam branch during May , 1996 he had not transferred his S.B. account to the Velampalayam branch . On 17-10-96 the Petitioner had gone to Kavindapady branch to draw money from his S.B. account . At about 1.00 p.m. he had slapped another staff member Sri P. Jagadeesan without any provocation for the assault. TheBranch Manager reported the incident to the Regional Office, Coimbatore. A charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner on 1-11-96 for the incident took placed, on 17-10-96 and he was called upon to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him . The Petitioner gave a reply dated 14-11-96 denying the allegations . Adomestic enquiry was conducted . In the domestic enquiry Branch Manager Sri G.Krishnamurthy, Sri P. Jagadeesan, whom the Petitioner had assaulted and Upon perusing the Claim Statement , Counter Statement, documentary evidence let in on either side, the other material papers on record , after hearing the arguments advanced by the I Party in person and learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over 3585

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Respondent /Management have been marked as Ex . WI to W29 and Ml to M5 respectively . The Petitioner /Workman asparty in person and the learned counsel for the II Party/ Management have advanced their respective arguments.

6. The point for my consideration is

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Overseas Bank in ordering dismissal of the workman Shri V. Natarajan from service by order dated 5-4-1997 is justified ? If not , what relief is he entitled to?"

Point:-

the persons who were present in the branch at the time of incidentMr. Murali, Mr, Perumal and Mr. Rajendran were examined. The Petitioner has not examined any witness or let in any evidence. The Enquiry Officer gave a report on 20-3-97 holding that the charges against the Petitioner were proved. On 24-3-97 , the copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer was furnished to the Petitioner and was informed aboutthe proposed punishment of dismissal . He was asked to appear for personal hearing and show cause against the proposed punishment. The Petitioner made a representation on 29-3-97. After considering his representation , the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order of punishment on 5-5-97 dismissing the Petitioner from service . Against that order the Petitioner preferred an appeal and the same wasdismissed on 3-3-98 .

It isnot disputed that the Petitioner/Workman Sri V. Natarajan was an ex - serviceman and was given an appointment in the Respondent/Bank as a Watchman -cum- Armed Guard . Petitioner himself has admitted in his Claim Statement that in the years 1995 , 1996 and 1997 the Respondent/Management has given him punishment of stoppage of increments . The contention ofthe Respondent/ Management in their Counter Statement that when the Petitioner was working in Ganapathy branch he quarrelled with a customer on 29-7-93 and assaulted him and for that disciplinary action was taken and the Disciplinary Authority by an order dated 27-5-95 awarded the punishment of three increments . So from this it is seen that the Petitioner has been punished by the Disciplinary Authority for his act of misconduct of assaulting a customer of the Respondent/ Bankbranch.

3.Against this order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority against the Petitioner, he raised an industrial dispute. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent/Management has given him 1/3rd of the salary as subsistence allowance for 6 months from the date of suspension and then paid ½ of the salary for one year and three months .. In spite ofthe Petitioner's request , the eligible subsistence allowance was not paid to the Petitioner by the Respondent/Management . The earlier punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on the Petitioner in the year 1995, 1996 and 1997 by stopping his increment is harsh and oppressive . The findings of the Enquiry Officer has no basis in evidence . The witnesses examined on the side of the management about the alleged assault of the Petitioner on Baghavathiammal had deposed that they did not know whether the Petitioner had beaten her. On 17-10-96 messenger Jagadeesan only assaulted the Petitioner with a Chair at Kavindapady branch and had abused the Petitioner with unparliamentary words . The finding of the Enquiry Officer has been given on fabricated and false evidence and the enquiry itself is unfair and hence , the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer are to be set aside and the Respondent/Management may be directed to reinstate the Petitioner in service with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits .

4. In the Counter Statement the Respondent/ Management has alleged that the Petitioner has referred to various irrelevant matters in his Claim Statement and he has not made out any case to interfere with the domestic enquiry or the findings ofthe Enquiry Officer. The conduct ofthePetitioner on 17-10-96 coupled with his past conduct warranted that punishment of dismissal . Hence , the punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be harsh or excessive. Therefore , it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal maybe pleased to make an Award rejecting the claim ofthe Petitioner.

7. Ex . WI is the charge sheet dated 13-8-93 issued to the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority of the Respondent/Bank management . It is alleged in the charge sheet that on 29-7-93 at about 11.00 a.m. the Petitioner had quarrelled with a customer of the branch Sri M. Rajendran and assaulted him on his left cheek and it amounts to a riotousdisorderly and indecent behaviour and also ofwilful insubordination and disobedience to lawful and reasonable order ofhis superiors which is a gross misconduct in terms oftheBipartite Settlement. Ex. W2 is the copy of the letter given by the Petitioner to Regional Manager , Coimbatore seeking 15 days time for submitting his reply . Ex. W3 is letter dated 13-9-93 sent by the Disciplinary Authority to Petitioner granting him extension of time till 15-9-93 to submit his reply . Ex.W4 is the reply given by Petitionerto Disciplinary Authority for the charge memo under Ex .WI denying the charges levelled against him . Ex. W5 is the letter sent to the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority informing him about the appointment ofthe Enquiry Officer to hold an enquiry into the charges levelled against hiện , Ex.W6, W7, W8 , W9 , W10 , WII , W12 , W13 are all the documents pertaining to the domestic enquiry conducted for the alleged misconduct mentioned in the charge menio Ex.Wl. Ex.W14 is final order passed by the Disciplinary Authority in view of the Enquiry Officer's findings that the charges against the Petitioner had been established. In that order of punishment stoppage of future increments for three years due in the year 1995 , 1996 and 1997 haye 5. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, with the consent of the either side 29 documents on the side of the Petitioner and 5 documents on the side of the 3586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

[PART II-SEC, 3 (ii )]

matter and his assurance for future better conduct has no value attached to it and his appeal has no merit . Thus , the Appellate Authority has confirmed the order of punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

been imposed as punishment. Ex. WI5 is the order given to the Petitioner for transferring him to Kavindapady branch from Ganapathy branch of the Respondent/Bank . Ex .W16 is the another charge memo dated 1-11-96 issuedto the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority for the alleged misconduct ofthe Petitioner on 17-10-96. It is allegedthat when the Petitioner while working as an Armed guard in Velampalayam branch he had committed an act of gross misconduct on 17-10-96 around 1.00 p.m. by slapping Sri P. Jagadeesan another staff member at Kavindapady branch when many customers were present and witnessing the incident and thereby he had created a very bad scene by his indecent behaviour . Ex . W 17 is the copy of the reply given by the Petitioner to Disciplinary Authority denying the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet Ex .W16. Then enquiry was conducted . Ex . W18 to W21 are the xerox copy ofthe domestic enquiry proceedings and the findings ofthe Enquiry Officer. Ex. W22 is the notice issuedby the Disciplinary Authority to the Petitioner informing him about the personal hearing on 2-4-97 in respect of the proposed punishment ofdismissal from service . Ex . W23 is the written representation given by the Petitioner to the Disciplinary Authority on 29-3-97. In that explanation under Ex . W23 , the Petitioner has admitted that on the date of occurrence he had been to Kavindapady branch to withdraw cash from his Account and the alleged incident is a concocted story and the witnesses are all interested witnesses and theEnquiryOfficer has given a biased finding. The Enquiry Officer has failed to examine him the charge sheeted employee and hence , the entire proceedings is prejudiced and it is against the principles of natural justice . Ex .W24 is the final order given by the Disciplinary Authority to the Petitioner dated 5-4-97 dismissing the Petitioner from bank service with immediate effect and without notice in terms of Clause 17.6( a) of Bipartite Settlement dated 14-12-66. Ex. W26 is the copy of the letter dated 5-5-97 sent by Petitioner to Appellate Authority after preferring the appeal requesting him for a personal hearing. Ex . W27 is the letter dated 19-12-97 sentby the Appellate Authority to the Petitioner informing him that the Petitioner will be given personal hearing on 20-1-98 . Ex . W25 is the copy of the written representation dated 20-1-98 given by Petitioner to ppellate Authority during the personal hearing , wherein he has stated that the instant case , had happened under unforeseen circumstances and he had regretted wholeheartedly . Further, he has requested therein to take a lenient view and consider reducing the punishment for dismissal which will enable him to correct and resurrect himself and he will assure that he will not give room to any such acts in future . Ex. W28 is the copy of proceedings of personal hearing by the Appellate Authority . Ex. W29 is the covering letter dated 9-3-98 sent by the Chief Officer of Regional Office, Coimbatore to the Petitioner along with order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 3-3-98. In that order the Appellate Authority has stated that the Petitioner had no sufficient cause to show leniency in the

8. The Petitioner has submitted a lengthy written argument, which are quite irrelevant to the dispute referred to for adjudication which is in respect of the action taken by the Respondent/Management in dismissing the Petitioner from service by an order dated 5-4-97. A perusal ofthe entire records clearly show that a proper domestic enquiry has been conducted by the Respondent/ Management for the misconduct committed by the Petitioner/Workman as alleged in the charge sheet under Ex .W16 and the Petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to take part in the domestic enquiry as a charge sheeted employee and he availed the same and had participated in the domestic enquiry and availed the opportunity of put forth his defence effectively . The Petitioner also has not whispered anything about the conduct of the domestic enquiry by the Enquiry Officer except making a stray reference in his contention that the Enquiry Officer has given a biased finding and he has not been given an opportunity by examining himself as a witness and to let in defence evidence . A perusal of the entire enquiry proceedings filed by the Petitioner himselfclearly disproves the contention of the Petitioner as incorrect . While giving hiswritten representation to the Appellate Authority, under Ex .W25 the Petitioner has not stated that the enquiry has been conducted by the Enquiry Officer in a prejudicial manner and the Enquiry Officer has given a perverse finding and there was no sufficient evidence on the side of the management to prove the charges levelled against him . On the other hand , he has admitted that the incident has been taken place under unforeseen circumstances for which he has regretted wholeheartedly . He would further say in that representation that he request the Appellate Authority to take lenient view and consider for reducing the punishment ofdismissal which will enable him to correct and resurrect himself . So , under such circumstances , it is seen that the Petitioner himself has admitted having committed such a grave misconduct as alleged in the charge sheet under Ex. W 16. A perusal of the Enquiry Officer's report under Ex. W21 clearly shows that he has discussed in detail the evidence placed before him by the two Management witnesses to prove the charges levelled against the Petitioner delinquent employee for him to come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the Petitioner have been proved. Further , the Petitioner himself has filed documents to that effect that for the previous misconducts committedby him , the Respondent/ Management took disciplinary action conducted domestic enquiry and awarded him punishments for the proved misconducts . So from this it is seen that the past conduct of the Petitioner / Workman was not good . While awarding punishment for the proved misconduct alleged in the charge sheet Ex .W16 3 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

W10 18-08-94 Letter from Enquiry Officer to Petitioner regarding Enquiry on 23-08-94 .

W11 23-08-94 Enquiry proceedings .

W12 10-04-95 Show cause notice issued by Discipliniry Authority to Petitioner.

W13 22-04-95 Carbon copy of the letter from Petitioner to Disciplinary Authority seeking time to submit reply For show cause notice.

W14 27-05-95 Final order passed by Disciplinary Authority in respect of charge sheet dated13-8-93,

W15 12-06-95 Letter of Chief Officer to Petitioner regarding Revocation of Petitioner's suspension.

W16 01-11-96 Charge sheet issued to Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority.

W17 14-11-96 Explanation given by Petitioner to, change sheet.

W18 17-01-97 Letter from Chief Officer to Petitioner regarding Appointment of Enquiry Officer.

W19 27-11-97 Notice of enquiry sent by Enquiry Officer to Petitioner .

the Disciplinary Authority has taken into consideration the past misconduct of the Petitioner/Workman also and has given the punishment, which he has proposed in the , 2nd show cause notice . The Appellate Authority also after considering the entire documents and written representation given by the Petitioner himself, has passed an order of dismissing the appeal by confirming the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority for the proved misconduct of the Petitioner . Thus , it is seen that the conduct of the Petitioner on 17-10-1996 coupled with his past conduct warranted the punishment of dismissal , as contended by the learned counsel for the II Party/ Management. The Petitioner has not made out any case to interfere with the domestic enquiry or with the findings of the Enquiry Officer . Hence , the punishment of dismissal cannot said to be harsh or excessive or disproportionate to the gravity ofthe misconduct committed by the Petitioner . Under such circumstances , it can be held that the action of the management of Indian Overseas Bank in ordering the dismissal ofthe Petitioner/ Workman Sri V. Natarajan from service by order dated 5-4-1997 is justified . Hence , the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief. Thus , the pointis answered accordingly.

W20 Enquiry proceedings . Enquiry Officer's report. W21 20-03-97

9. In the result , an Award is passed holding that the concerned workman Sri V. Natarajan is not entitled for any relief. No cost.

W22 24-03-97 Show cause notice issued by Disciplinary Authority.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed byhim, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court onthis day the 4th April , 2003.)

W23 29-03-97 Explanation given by Petitioner to show cause notice.

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :-

W24 05-04-97 Final Order issued by Disciplinary Authority against the Petitioner.

Oneither side

None

Documents Exhibited :-

W25 20-01-98 Appeal preferred by the Petitioner to Appellate Authority.

Forthe 1 Party/ Workman :-

W26 05-05-97 Letter from Petitioner to Appellate Authority.

Ex . No. Date

Description

W27 19-12-97 Letter from Appellate Authority to Petitioner Regarding personal hearing .

13-08-93 Charge sheet- cum-suspension order issued to Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority.

W28 20-01-98 . Proceedings of personal hearing before Appellate Authority .

W2 01-09-93 Letter from Petitioner to Regional Manager seeking time to submit reply to charge sheet..

W29 09-03-98 Letter of Chief Officer to Petitioner enclosing the Order of Appellate Authority dated3-3-98 .

For the 11 Party /Management :----

Ex . No. Date

Description

W3 13-09-93 Letter from Disciplinary Authority to Petitioner Granting time to submit reply to charge sheet .

M1 09-01-96 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to ChiefOfficer.

W4 24-09-93 Explanation submitted by Petitioner to DisciplinaryAuthority.

M2 18-01-96 Xerox copy of the warning letter from ChiefOfficer to Petitioner .

W5 12-10-93 Letter of Disciplinary Authority to Petitioner regarding Appointment of EnquiryOfficer.

M3 20-02-96 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to ChiefOfficer .

W6 20-10-93 Letter from Enquiry Officer to Petitioner regarding Enquiry on 1-11-93 .

M4 08-03-96 Xerox copy ofthe letter from ChiefOfficer to Petitioner .

W7 01-11-93 Enquiry proceedings .

W8 04-05-94 Letter from Enquiry Officer to Petitioner regarding Enquiry on 7-5-94.

M5 17-10-96 Xerox copy of the letter from Senior Manager of Kavindapady branch to Regional Office .

W9 07-05-94 Enquiry proceedings [PART II SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

3588

नई दिल्ली, 16 अप्रैल, 2003

September, 2001 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

का. आ. 1392.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 288/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank represented through the Regional Manager (Haryana), UCO Bank, Zonal Office , Chandigarh in imposing punishment of removal from bank service with immediate effect upon Shri S. C. Kakkar , vide their letter dated 19-4-2000, is just and legal ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

[सं० एल -12011 /109/2001- आई. आर. ( बी. II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 16th April , 2003

S.O. 1392.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref No. 288/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their workman , received by the Central Government on 16-04-2003 .

[No. L- 12011/109/2001 - IR (B- II)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Presiding Officer : SHRI S. M.GOEL

Case No. I.D. 288/2001

PRESENT:

2. In the claim statement, the workman has pleaded that the UCO Bank Management have illegally dismissed the workman on the charge of coming late in the branch and for his riotous , disorderly and indecent behaviour in the premises of the branch and for damaging of bank's property which have been wrongly proved by the Enquiry Officerdespite the evidence recorded during the course of enquiry. It is further pleaded that the charge sheet is illegal , wrong and against the rules: It is further pleaded that enquiry proceedings were not held in accordance with the prescribed procedure . The findings of the enquiry officer isnot based on the evidence produced during the enquiry and the same were twisted in favour of the management and enquiry officer has proceeded in a bised manner by adopting double yardstick in evaluating the evidence and he believed the prosecution witnesses and ignored the defence version who were eye witnesses, thus the prejudice has been caused to the workman . The disciplinary-authority has also ignored the facts on record and the punishment is very excessive and harsh and quite disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and the same are liable to be set aside and the workman has prayed that the punishment of dismissed be set aside and he be reinsfated in service with full backwages and other benefits .

...Applicant

The General Secretary , UCO Bank Empls . Union , Central Office , C/o . UCO Bank , G.T. Road, Jalandhar (Punjab )-144001 .

८ V/s .

UCO Bank, The Zonal Manager , UCO Bank , Zonal Office , S.C.O. 1092-93 , Sector 22-B ,

...Respondent

Chandigarh - 160022 .

REPRESENTATIVES :

Shri R. P. Rana

For the Workman :

For the Management : Shri N. K. Zakhmi

AWARD

(Pased on 27-03-2003)

3. The bank management filed written statement alongwith the entire enquiry proceedings. In the written statement it is pleaded that workman was guilty of serious acts ofmisconduct and charge sheet dated 6-1-1998 as per Bipartite Settlement was issued containing the charges in the charge sheet for different charges and the reply was found unsatisfactory and enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges . The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry in accordance with the prescribed procedure adhering to the principle of natural justice and the workman was given full opportunity of defence . The punishment was imposed on the basis of charges proved and to the proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and he was censured for coming late and for riotous disorderly indecent behaviour he was dismissed from service but he will be eligible to receive the terminal benefits as admissible to him. It is further submitted that the action of the disciplinary authority is fully legal and just and quite commensurate withthe misconduct committed by the workman and the appeal was also rightly rejected by the appellate authority. It is further pleaded that the management has rightly The Central Government Ministry of Labour vide Notification No. L- 12011/ 109/2001 - IR(B . II ) dated 7th 3589 भारत का राजपत्र मई 10, 2003/ वैशाख 20 , 1925

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

imposed the penalty of removal from service and the same is not harsh in view of the gravity of the charges and the workman is not entitled to any relief and the bank management prayed for the rejection of the reference.

4. The management placed on the record the entire enquiry proceedings which I have gone through with the active assistance of the learned counsels for both the parties . Arguments have been heard on the fairness and legality of the enquiry and enquiry report and on the point of quantum of punishment.

sheeted for coming late , and for his riotous and indecent behaviour and also for damaging the property ofthe bank. It is alleged that workman was coming late on the few dates and his leave was marked in the attendance register for which he was censured but the actual charge was that he created a scene by his indecent and riotous behaviour and he also torned out some papers lying on the seat of the branch manager Shri Talwar. It is not disputed that the workman has a long chequered career in the bank and he wasworking as special assistant in the branch . He already served the bank for long 29 years . In my considered opinion, the penalty imposed upon the workman for the above alleged misconducts are very disproportionate to the gravity of alleged misconduct and it is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 11 -A of the I.D. Act 1947 in the matter ofpenalty ofremoval from service.As it is the solitary incident, it required some sympathetic consideration . thus , it is held that enquiry has been conducted in fair and proper manner and there is no infirmity in the enquiry . By exertising the powers conferred U/ S11 - A of I.D. Act 1947, the punishment ofdismissal/removal from service is substituted with the punishment of stoppage of four increments for one year to meet the ends of justice. The workmen is ordered to be reinstated în service with backwages and other benefits . The punishment is substituted mentioned above. The reference is answered accordingly . Govt . be informed.

Chandigarh 27-3-2003

S.M. GOEL , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 16 अप्रैल, 2003 का. आ. 1393.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार रिचर्डसन एंड कुडास लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, मुंबई नं. 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 45/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था । 5. The learned counsel for the workman in all fairness to him has not argued on the fairness and conduction of the enquiry proceedings . It is admitted case of the parties that the workman was given full opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses of the management and to produce his own witnesses during the enquiry proceedings in his defence . He was given full opportunity to defend himself and it is argued by the learned counsel for the workman that the findings of the enquiry officer is not based on the evidence . It is vehemently argued that the enquiry officer hasbelieved the version of the prosecution witnesses who were not eye witnesses to the incident but he ignored the statement of the eye witnesses produced by the workman inhis defence . It is further argued that by this action ofthe enquiry officer , the enquiry officer has wrongly proved the charges. The learned counsel for the workman has further argued that the workman was working with the bank management as special assistant and have about 29 years of service with the bank and he has an unblemish record of service throughout and the charges of the management is concocted and the learned counsel also made submission that the punishment of removal from service is harsh punishment and also not communsurate to the alleged misconduct. He has prayed for the intervention of this Tribunal U/S11 -A of the I.D. Act 1947 in the matter of punishment and prayed that in view ofhis unblemish record of long service of about 29 years , the punishment of removal isharsh one.

[सं. एल -42012/8/88 - आई , आर. ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 16th April , 2003 6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the management has argued that the charges have been proved fully against the workman and enquiry was conducted in fair manner and the enquiry report is also based on the evidence recorded during the enquiry. It is further argued that punishment is also communsurate to the alleged misconduct which were serious in nature and the workman has been rightly punished for his misbehaviour ofrioutous and indecent nature .

S.O. 1393. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.45/98 ) ofthe CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court , Mumbai No. 1 as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Richardson & Cruddas Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on10-04-2003.

[No. L-42012/8/88 - I (M)] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

7. I have gone through the entire enquiry file and also to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties . The workman is not disputing the conduction of the enquiry and it is there on the file that the enquiry was conducted in fair and legal manner adhering tothe principle of natural justice . The workman was charge 3590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003/VAISAKHA 20, 1925

ANNEXURE

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

Shri Justice S.C. Pandey. Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO . CGIT -45/1998

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of M/s . Richardson & Cruddas Ltd.

AND

Their Workman .

APPEARANCE :

For the Management : Shri S.Z. Chowdhary , Advocate.

For the Workman : Shri V.T. Mirajkar, Adv.

: Maharashtra .

State

Mumbai dated the 31st day of March , 2003

AWARD

1. This is a reference made by the Central Government under Section 10( 1 )(d) read with Section 10 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act . The terms of the reference are as follows:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s . Richardson & Cruddas ( 1972) Ltd , Mumbai in not allowing to attend the duties to Shri G.S. Pandey, Machine Welder w.e.f. 24-12-1997 and not paying suspension allowance for the period from 14-10-1995 to 24-12-1997 is justifiable ? If not, to what reljef the workman is entitled to ? "

2. The matter was argued for sometime on behalf of the workman . The parties , however, have concluded an amicable settlement . Today , a joint application has been filed on behalf of the parties requesting this tribunal to dispose of this reference in terms of the settlement .

3. After examining terms of settlement as requested by the counsel for parties , this tribunal comes to the conclusion the terms are valid and are in accordance with law. Accordingly this tribunal passes this award on the following terms ofsettlement:

(a) The workman shall be reinstated in the employment of the company with continuity ofservice in and from 31-3-2003 and shallbe paidan amount of Rs . 3,15,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs fifteen thousand only) towards back wages for the period of suspension and/or unemployment on account of termination of services.

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] (b) The agreed amount payable to the workınan under the settlement is Rs . 3,15,000 ( Rupees Three lakhs fifteen thousand only ) shall be paid to the workman subject to various statutory deductions .

(c) The said amount of Rs . 3,15,000 ( Rupees Three lakhs fifteen thousand only) shall include suspension allowance , back wages , bonus, leave wages and yarious other allowances etc. which the workman would have earned had he not been suspended and/or terminated.

(d) The workman agrees and undertakes that he shall not make any claim of whatsoever nature against the company in future including any claim in relation to the period of unemployment, onaccount of suspension and/or termination ofhis services forming subject matter of the above reference except what is agreed hereinabove .

(e) The workman agrees and undertakes that he shall submit his resignation before the end of working hours of 31-3-2003 under the prevailing Voluntary Retirement Scheme declaredbytheCompany .

(f) The Company agrees and undertakes to accept the resignation of the workman under the prevailing Voluntary Retirement Scheme and relieve him from the end of working hours of 31-3-2003 .

(g) The Company agrees and undertakes to pay to the workman the amounts payable under this settlement and the Voluntary Retirement Scheme at the time ofpayment ofterminal dues to the other workmen retiring under the said Voluntary Retirement Scheme.

(h) In view ofaforesaid terms and conditions , the parties to the reference shall pray the Hon'ble Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 to dispose of the said reference in terms ofthis settlement .

4. Accordingly as prayed by the parties this reference is disposed by passing the award on aforesaid terms . No costs .

S.C. PANDEY. Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 16 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1394.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, आसनसोल ( संदर्भ संख्या 95/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं . एल -22012/ 375/98- आई . आर. ( सी . II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी 3591

मई 10 , 2003/ वैशाख 20 , 1925

भारत का राजपत्र

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 16th April, 2003

S.O. 1394.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 95/1999) of the Central 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 receivedbythe Central Government on 10-04-2003

[No. L- 22012/375/98 -IR(C-II ) ]

N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT , ASANSOL PRESENT:

Shri Ramjee Pandey, Presiding Officer Reference No. 95 OF 1999

PARTIES:

Agent, Bhanora Colliery, EC ... Management

Vs.

Hari Prasad

Workman.

REPRESENTATION :

Shri P.K. Das , Advocate .

For the Management :

3. The case ofthe union (workman ) , in brief, is that the workman viz . Hari Prasad was appointed in the company as U/frman and at present he is posted at Bhanora Colliery under Sripur Ares ofECL as Dhowrah Supervisor. The year of birth of the workman is 1944. The company issued an Identity Card which mentions the year of birth of workman as 1944. The company supplied Service Excerpt Format to the workman in 1987 in which also the year of birth is recorded as 1944. The Service Excerpt Format is the extract of 'B ' Form, hence it is apparent that in ' B ' Form also the year of birth is recorded as 1944. The school leaving certificate issued by Headmaster of Janta Uchcha Vidyalay, Aliganj , Distriet Monghyr also disclosed the date ofbirth of workman as 31-12-1944 . On 1-1-1995 the Election Commission issued an Identity Card in which the age of the workman has been assessed as 50 years which also corborates the year of birth as 1944. After take -over of the company by the Government ( Nationalisation ) also the company issued another Identity Card which also discloses the year of birth of the workman as 1944. Further case of the workman is that the management got the year of birth ofthe workman in ' B ' Form changed by cutting, overwriting and manipulating the same as 1942 with malafide intention without any basis . Although the workman took up this issue to management earlier and lastly on 12-10-1996 with the request to remove the anomaly and correct the year of birth as 1944 instead of 1942 but the management remained silent compelling the union to raise the dispute before ALC(C), Asansol but there also the management remained silent at the time of conciliation proceeding . It is contended by the union that actual year of birth of the workman is 1944 and the management may be directed to rectify and correct the same .

Shri S.K. Pandey , Chief

For the Workman (Union) :

General Secretary of Koyala Mazdoor Congress , Asansol .

State:WestBengal .

Industry: Coal

Dated the 24th January , 2003

AWARD

Inexercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d ) of Sub- section (1 ) and Sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its order No. L- 22012 /375/98/ IR(CM- II ) dated 7-7-99 has referred the following dispute for adindication by this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Bhanora Colliery of M/ s . ECL in not rectifying the year of birth in ' B' Form Register as 1944 instead of 1942 in respect of Sh . Hari Prasad is justifiable ? If not, to whatrelief the workmen concerned is entitled ?" In response to the summons issued by the Tribunal both parties appeared through their respective representatives . Shri S.K. Pandey , Chief Genl . Secretary of Koyala Mazdoor Congress appeared for the union and Shri P.K. Das , Advocate appeared for the management. Both the parties filed their respective written statements and contested the dispute .

1232G1/03-9

4. The case of the management, in brief, is that actual year ofbirth of the workman is 1942. Form ' B ' Register ofthe colliery is a statutory document urider the provisions ofMines , Act 1952, and year of birth of the workman has been recorded as 1942 in the Form ' B ' Register which also containsthe signature of the workman . In 1987 the company issued service excerpts form to the workman inviting objection, ifany, but the workman did not raise any dispute and hence his subsequent objection can not be tenable . The management has denied all the facts and allegations made in thewritten statement of the union . Further case of the management is that actual year of birth of the workman is1942which is recorded in Form ' B ' Register and the act ofthe management in not rectifying the same is legal and justified.

5. Both the parties have examined one witness each and also filed certain documents in support of their cases . The union has examined only one witness viz . the workman , Hari Prasad , who has supported his case made out in the written statement. As documentary evidence the union has produced xerox copies of Identity Card issued by the management of Bhanora Colliery in 1967 , Identity Card issued by Coal Mines Authority Ltd. in 1982 , school leaving certificate, Service Record Excerpts (SRE ) which is extract ofForm 'B ' Register , Declaration in Form ' A ' submitted to the office of Coal Mines Provident Funding 1996-duly 3592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003/VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

certifiedby the officer of the management and nomination form sent by management to CMPF in 1996. Genuinness of these documents have not been disputed by learned lawyer for the management .

6. The management has examined also only one witness viz. Shri Shyam Nandan , Sr. Personnel Manager of the colliery . As documentary evidence the management has produced xerox copy of relevant portion of Form 'B ' Register.

7. Only point for consideration is as to whether 1944 is the actual year of birth of the workman or 1942 and as to whether the action of management in not rectifying the same is justified . In this regard learned lawyer for the management submitted that Form ' B' Register is a statutory document to prove the date of birth of an employee ofthe company and the ' B ' Form Register proves the fact that the year ofbirth of the workman is 1942. On the other hand it was submitted on behalf of the union that all the documents filed on behalf of the union prove the fact that year of birth of the workman has been recorded in every document as 1944. He further submitted that the SRE suggests the fact that in Form ' B ' Register also it was recorded as 1944. He drew my attention towards the entry in' B ' Form Register and submitted that year of birth has beenmanipulated by over writing .

8. In view of contrary submission I purused the evidence on record including the documents of both the parties . After perusal of entry in ' B ' Form Register 1, also find that entry of year ofbirth of the workman is different in mode of writing and the pen in comparison to other entries on the same documents which supports the submission on behalf of the union that the same has been manipulated . Further I find that all the documents filedby the union positively suggest that 1944 is the recorded year ofbirth of the workman . The SRE is the extract of ' B ' Form Register which was sent to the workman by the management and this SRE also suggests that in ' B ' Form also the year of birth was recorded as 1944 and this fact also suggests that the entry in this regard in ' B' Form has been tampered. The SRE and the Identity Card issued by the management is admission of the fact that actual date of birth ( year ) of the workman recorded is 1944

9. In view of above discussion I am of definite opinion that the union has succeeded to prove that actual date of birth of the workman recorded as 1944 is correct . Accordingly I find and hold that 1944 is the correct recorded date of birth of the workman and the action of the management of Bhanora Colliery of M/ s . E.C.Ltd . in not rectifying the same is not justified. Cosequently the workman is entitled to get all the benefits to which he is entitled . In the above manner the award is passed.

RAMJEE PANDEY , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 16 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1395.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय ई.सी. एल. प्रबंधतंत्र के

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, आसनसोल (संदर्भ संख्या 89/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल -22012/348/98-आई. आर. ( सी. II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, सैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 16th April, 2003

S.O. 1395. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central 1Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 89/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Disputes between the employers in relation to the management of BCL and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 10-04-2003

[No. L-22012/348/98- IR (C- II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL PRESENT: Shri Ramjee Pandey, PresidingOffice.

REFERENCE NO . 89 of 1999

PARTIES: General Manager , J.K. Ropeways, ECL . Management

Vrs.

Shri Hira Ahir

...Workman REPRESENTATION :

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

For the Union(Workman) : Shri S. K. Pandey, ChiefGeneral Secretary , Koyła Mazdoor Congress.

Industry: Coal.

State: WestBengal .

Dated the 31st January, 2003 AWARD

In exercise ofpowers conferred by clause (d) ofSub- section ( 1 ) and Sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , Govt, of India through the Ministry ofLabour vide its Order No. L -22012/348/98/IR/ (CM- 11 )) dated 7-7-1999 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of J.K. Ropeways in dismissing Shri Hira Ahir is legal and Justified? If not , to what relief is the workman concerned entitled?" [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

3593 2. Inresponse to the summons issued by the Tribunal both parties appeared through their respective representatives. The management appeared throught Shri P.K. Das , Advocate and the Union (Workman ) appeared through Shri S.K. Pandey, ChiefGeneral Secretary of K.M.C. Both the parties filed their respective written statements and contested the dispute.

7. First point for consideration is as to whether the charge against the workman has been established and the finding of enquiry officer is correct . It is admitted that the workman was absent from his duty from 17-1-1991to 22-7-91 . Only plea taken by the workman is that due to sickness ofhis father he became absent but during enquiry this fact has not been proved by the workman rather he has admitted his misconduct. In this view of the matte I find that charge of absence from 17-1-1991 to 22-7-1991 hasbeen established and the finding of enquiry officer is correct inthis regard.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the workman namely Shri Hira Ahir was appointed in the year 1980 and he was posted as B.M. H.A. at J. K. Ropeways ofM/s . ECL . He was chargesheeted and after conducting domestic enquiry he was dismissed from service on ground of unauthorised absence from duty from 17-1-1991 to 22-7-1991 . The union has challenged the order ofdismissal .

8. Next point for consideration is as to whether punishment of dismissal from service is harsh and disproportionate tothe nature of misconduct. In this regard learned lawyer for the management submitted that absence ofworkman is for more than six months which is an unauthorised absence putting the management in dislocation ofwork. He further submitted that in past also the workman had poor attendance and hence the punishment ofdismissal is justified. On the other hand it was submitted on behalf of the workman that in past th workman was neither charge -sheeted nor punished for any type of misconduct and hence in certain compelling circumstances absence of the workman is not a gross misconduct attracting the highest punishment.

4. The case ofthe union (workman), in brief, is that on account ofprolonged sickness ofhis father the workman became absent from his duty during allged period . He did not avoid to attend the duty deliberately. He had informed the management about the fault of his absence due to sickness of his father . When after death of his father the workman reported for his duty, he was not allowed rather he was charges -heeted and after conducting enquiry was dismissed from his service . The enquiry was conducted in haste and his confession about charges was extorted by the management after giving threats to him . Further case of the union is that punishment of dismissal from service is harsh and disproportionate to the nature ofmisconduct. No second show- cause notice was given to the workman before passing the order of dismissal . On the basis of above mentioned pleadings a prayer has been made to directthe management to reinstate the workman în service withbackwages.

9. In view of contrary submissions I perused the enquiry report and the evidence during enquiry. It s admitted by learned lawyer for the management that the workman was neither chargesheeted not punished in past for absence or any type of misconduct . Although charge- sheet finds plea for allegation of habitual absenteeism bet theperiod of absence has not been mentioned in the charge- sheet . No second show- cause notice was given to the workman which could disclose the intention of the competent authority to consider the past absence at the time of passing order of punishment and the workmari remained unheard on allegation of past absence and hence that allegation can not be taken into consideration.

5. The case of the management, inbrief, is that the workmanbecame absent without leave or prior intimation to the management and the absence was unauthorised. Charges-heet was given to the workman but his reply was not satisfactory. Hence a domestic enquiry was conducted. The workman was given sufficient opportunity to defend himselfbut during enquiry he admitted his misconduct. No threat was given to the workman by the management and the allegation of the union in this regard is false and imaginary . After the enquiry report was submitted the charge against the workman was established and hencear the workman was dismissed from service . The order of dismissal is legal andjustified.

10. From above facts it is clear that only charge against the workman has been proved that he remained unauthorised absent for a period of six months . In my opinion also the misconduct is not gross to the effect that itwillwarrant highest punishment . Hence I find and hol thatpunishment ofdismissal is harsh and disproportionate tothe nature of misconduct . Hence the order ofdismissal isset aside and the management is directed to reinstate the workman in service but in the facts and circumstances of the case, with 30 % back wages . In the above manner the award is passed.

6. Although the union has alleged in written statement that the workman was threatened by the management and the enquiry was concluded in haste, but during hearing on the point of fairness and validity of enquiry proceeding the representative ofthe union did not challenge the same and hence by order dated 26-2-2003 enquiryproceeding has been held to fair and valid.

RAMJEE PANDEY Presiding, Officer THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003/VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

3594

नई दिल्ली, 16 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1396.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय ई.सी. एल. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकक्षा/ श्रम न्यायालय आसनसोल ( संदर्भ संख्या 18/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-22012/70/97- आई. आर. ( सी. II ) ]

एन . पी. केशवच, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 16th April , 2003

S.O. 1396. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( i4 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 18/1998 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothemanagement of ECL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-04-2003 .

[No. L-22012/70/97- IR (C - II)] N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL PRESENT: Shri Ramjee Pandey , Presiding Office.

REFERENCE NO . 18 of1998

Parties:

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,Govt, of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 22012/ 70/ 97 / IR/ (CM - II)) dated 11-6-1998 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Amritnagar Colliery under Kunustoria Area of ECL in dismissing Sh . Parmeshwar Hansda , U.G. Loader atAmritnagar Colliery on the charges of long unauthorised absence from duty is justified? If not, towhat relief the concerned workınan is entitled ?" 2. In response to the summons issued by the Tribunal both parties appeared through their respective representatives . Shri P. Goswami, Advocate appeared for the management and Shri M. Mukherjee , Advocate , appeared for the union (workman ) , Both the parties filed their respective written statements and contested the dispute,

3. The laww farts of the case , in brief, are that the workman viz . Shri Parmeshwar Hansda was a permanent employee of M/ s . E.C.L. and was posted at Amritnagar Colliery as U.G. Loader . He has been dismissed from service on the charge of unauthorised absent from duty from 14-6-93 to 8-2-1994 which is under challenge .

.Management

Agent, Amritnagar Colliery, ECL

Vs.

..Workman Sh. Parmeshwar Hansda, U.G. Loader

Representation :

For the Management : Shri P. Goswami , Advocate. For the Union (Work) : Shri M. Mukherjee, Advocate Industry: Coal .

State:West Bengal .

Dated the 24th January, 2003

AWARD

Inexercise ofpowers conferredby clause (d) ofSub- section ( 1 ) and Sub-section 2(A ) of Section 10 of the 4. The case of the unjon (workman), in brief, is that the workman suddenly fell ill and was undergoing medical treatment which was beyond his control due to which he could not resume his duty during above mentioned period. No sooner the workman was declared fit by the doctor he reported for his duty on 1-4-1994 but the management did not allow him to resume the duty on the ground that he wascharge- sheeted. Further case of that workman is that during early period of his illness he was taking kabiraj medicines but when his illness became sorjous he reported inhis colliery hospital from where he was referred to Central Hospital , Kalla, where he got treatment . The workman submitted reply to the charge-sheet but the same was not considered. Further case of the union is that the workman was not given opportunity to defend himself during enquiry proceeding violating the principle of natural justice . The whole procedure and process was adopted by incompetent officer and hence the order of dismissal from service is illegal . The finding of Enquiry Officer is baseless and the defence taken by the workman was not considered . Hence the finding ofthe Enquiry Officer is against the materials on the record . The competent authority also did not consider the medical evidence given by the workman and passed the order ofdismissal without application of mind . On the basis of above mentioned pleadings the unjon has prayed to direct the management to reinstate the workman in service with back wages .

5. The case ofthe management , in brief, is that the workman remained absent from his duty without leave or [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

3505 भारत का राजपत्र मई 10, 2003/ वैशाख 20, 1925

illness ofworkman from 14-6-1993 to 22-10-1993 and the charge ofunauthorised absence of workman from 14-6-1993 to 22-10-1993 has been established .

prior intimation to any competent authority . The plea of illness taken by the workman is fake and fabricated. In past also attendance of workman was poor and he is a habitual absentee . The charge against the workman has been established during enquiry proceeding and the workman was given full opportunity and he also participated in enquiry. Further case of the management is that the competent authority found that charge against the workman was established during enquiry and considering the fact that workman was habitual absentee he was dismissed from service. The order of dismissal is legal and justified and hence the action of the management may be held to be proper and justified.

8. Next point for consideration is as to whether the punishment of dismissal from service is shocking and dis- proportionate to the nature of misconduct. Learned lawyer for the management contended that the workman has absented himself for a long period putting the companyto suffer in production and hence punishment ofdismissalis justified. On the other hand learned lawyer for the union contendedthat only absence from 14-6-1993 to 22-10-1993 has no documentary support but this is not a gross misconduct warranting maximum punishment of dismissal from service.

6. Although the union has pleaded in the written statement that the workman was not given opportunityto defend himself but at the time of hearing on the point of fairness and validity of enquiry proceeding, the union did not challenge the same rather admitted that the enquiry was conducted in presence ofworkman and learned lawyer for the union agreed to make submission on the basis of materials in enquiry and hence by order dated 29-4-2002 enquiry proceeding has been held to be valid and fair.

After hearing both the parties in this regard and considering the materials on record 1 find that absence of workman from 14-6-1993 to 22-10-1993 has been explained by him with a plea that during this period also he was ill. Although the workman has not produced any documentin support of his illness during this period but before the Enquiry Officer he has positively stated in his evidence that he was ill during this period also and he was getting medical treatment from Kabiraj. There is no evidence ofthe management in contrary to this plea ofthe workman . There is nothing on the record to show that in past any such misconduct was committed by the workman.

9. In the view of above discussion I am ofopinion that the charge proved against the workman is not a gross misconduct warranting capital punishment of dismissal from service . A minor punishment could meet the ends of justice. In this view of the matter, I find that punishmentof dismissal from service is shocking and disproportionate to the nature of misconduct. Hence the order of dismiss ! is set aside and the management is directed to reinstate the workman in service . Although the management has neither pleaded nor proved that the workman was gainfully employed anywhere, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, the workman is entitled to only 40% ofbackwages In the above manner the award is passed.

RAMJEE PANDEY, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1397.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार आई आई एसब आर. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 10/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-42012/6/98-आई. आर. (डी.यू. )

कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी 7. First point for consideration is as to whether the charge against the workman has been established and finding ofEqnruiry Officer is correct. It is admitted fact that theworkman was absent from his duty from 14-6-1993 to 8-2-1994, Only plea taken by the workman in defence is that he was ill during that period due to which he could neither take leave nor gave prior intimation , Learried lawyer for the union submitted that although the workman has pleaded and proved during enquiry the fact that he was ill but the EnquiryOfficer did not consider this aspect of the matter and has given a wrong finding . On the other hand, learned lawyer for the management submitted that medical certificate submitted by the workman covers the period onlyfrom 23-10-1993 to 8-2-1994 and document has been filed topravehis illness from 14-6-1993 to 22-10-1993 and the Enquiry Officer has correctly come to the finding that charge against the workman has been proved. I persued the enquiry report and the evidence collected during enquiry. During enquiry the workman has stated that he was seriously ill due to which he could not inform the management. He has produced the medical certificate showing that due to illness he was undergoing treatment inCentral Hospital , Kalla of the company. This fact has not been disbelieved by the Enquiry Officer. As regards the period from 14-6-1993 to 22-12-1993 he has stated that during this period he was taking medical treatment from Kabiraj . This fact has not been disbelieved by the Enquiry Officer. I find that Enquiry Officer has given the finding without discussing the evidence of workman and hence finding isnot correct. I find that the workman had sufficient reason to be absent from 23-10-1993 to 8-2-1994. However I find that no medical evidence has been given to prove the 3596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 20, 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi , the 17th April, 2003

relief Smt. K. Shashikala is entitled?"

2. The First party was working with the Management. She was terminated and therefore , Industrial Dispute is raised.

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

4. The case of the workman in brief is as follows :

S.O. 1397. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref No. 10/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of I.I.H.R. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 17-04-2003.

[No. L -42012/6/ 98 - IR (DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT

"Shram Sadan"

III Main , III Cross , II Phase , Tumkur Road, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore

Dated 3rd April, 2003

PRESENT

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni , B.Com. , LL.B.

PresidingOfficer CGIT-cum-LabourCourt, Bangalore

C.R. No. 10/2001

IParty

IIParty

The Director General , M/s. IIHR( CAR) , Hesaraghatta Lake Post, Bangalore-560089

Smt. K. Shashikala, D/o M.S. Krishnarao , Ex-Librarian (T-6) 1125/3 , Bharthi Rao Road, Indiranagar, Mysore - 570010

AWARD

5. The firstparty was selected and offered with the technical post of Librarian by a Memorandum dated 17th March 1992. She was appointed to the said post of Librarian on 6-4-1992 and she was required to work under Dr. K.C. Mohan, Officer- in-charge of the Library. She was terminated on1-7-1996. She was doing the technicaljob of the Librarian continuously for the period from 6-4-1992 to 1-7-1996. The first party continued to associate and friendly with Smt. Shobha R. Kaveri as a responsible colleague and this was not liked by the management . The Second Party Management intensely issued meme making false allegation against her . She gave reply and requested the management to withdraw the same and that request was not considered. Again one more memo was issued saying that she did not turn up on 2-2-1993 despite being sent word through Shri K.S. Puttaswamy Gowda. The first party did not receive anymessage on 2-2-1993 though worked through out and the same shebrought to the notice of her superior officer, bya letter dated3-2-1993 . The said letter was forwarded to the Senior Administrative Officer with a shara that such messages should be routed through him . This irked the SeniorAdministrative Officer. The management refused to permit the first party to do Ph . D. and denied the opportunity to apply and join the Lecturer's post in the University of Mysoreby a note dated 21st February 1994. It also extended theperiod ofprobation of the first party by a Memo dated 10-1-1995 , The Second Party also divested the Dr. K.C. Mohan from the charge of the Library by an order dated 5-12-1995 as he was not ready to be a party to the grand design ofthe Senior Administrative Officer and the Director totarmish the career of the first party as the said Officer's ego did not like the independent attitude ofthe first party. Both the officers tried their best to subjugate the young lady, the first party by all means. She was denied a number of higher qualifications . The management illegally terminated her . She approached the Director but nothing was done. The action of the management is malafide . It is unfair labour practice . The action of the management is not correct. The first party for these reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to pass award in her favour .

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub - section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L -42012 /6/ 98 - IR ( C- II) dated 15th January 2001 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Against this the case of the management in brief is as under :-

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Institute of Horticultural Research , Bangalore in terminating the services of Smt . K. Shashikala, Ex, Librarian (T-6) is legal and justified ? If not, to what

7. The application filed by the workman is not maintainable . She was a Group B Officer under the Secorid party management and with the constitution of Central Administrative Tribunal , this tribunal has no jurisdiction.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

3597

12. At the outset I am of the opinion that there is noclear and cogent evidence to prove the same . MW Thas said in his cross examination that he also joined services as temporary on probation . When first party was woning hewas working as Upper Division Clerk and the first party was working in Library . He was in the Administrative Department in the pay scale of Rs . 1200/- and the first party was in the pay scale of Rs . 2200/-. He admits inthis cross examination that the first party was working inthe higher pay scale than him. He said that he has no condern withLibrary Section at all and he has nothing to do with the Supervision of work of first party Section. He also says in his cross examination that he has not given any report about the work of the first party.

First party was selected to the post of T-6 (Technical Officer) (Library) and she was posted to work in the Library Section at the Institute . As per the terms other appointment, it was a temporary with a probation period of two years initially and she worked only in the section with specific allocation of work and at no point of time she worked as a Librarian. The allegations made by her are not correct. Memos were issued based on facts. Granting of permission to an employee to take up higher studies is not a matter of right .Allegations made by the workman about Ph.D. degree course is not correct . The main contention of the management is that during the period of probation her work was not satisfactory and the departmental Chief after going through all available materials on record did not recommend her case for confirmation and therefore , as per rules she was found unfit to be retained in service. The termination is in accordance with the rules . She is governed under CCS (TS)Rules .Action of the Management is not malafide .As per the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.A. 503/1997 dated 31-1-2001 reported in 2001 LLR (560), "unless a stigma is cost, the termination of either a temporary or probationer should not be interfered with" . Management for these reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to reject the reference.

13. With this cross examination it is clear that absolutely there is no evidence to establish that the probationary period of the workman was not satisfactory. It is not known under whom she was working. Admittelly MW1 was not the person who had supervised her work and she has not worked under him . According to MWI he had no supervision over the work of the first party Section . He has also not given any report . Absolutely there is no evidence on facts to prove that the Probationary Period was not satisfactory.

14.Management has relied the following decision, Rules and Bye Laws of IIHR :

(1) Rules and Bye laws of IIHR

(2) Rules 5 ofCentral Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

(3 ) Updating ofRecruitment Rules....... at ICAR, HQ. ICAR -Research Institutes,

(4) Endorsement of ICAR.

8. It is seen from the records that the management examined one witness Mr. Dwarakanath, MW1 who is working as Assistant . He has given evidence stating that he has been working with the Management since last 25 years. He is aware of the facts of the case. He speaks about Ex.M - II and said that the workman applied for officer post, Library Department, and some other documents are also marked in his evidence . He further said that the appointment was temporary and she was on 2 years probation period . He said that her performance was not satisfactory..

(5) 2002 LLR 232 (The Div. Controller , KSRTC V/sC.R. Kuppalli and another).

(6) AIR 2002 SC 23. (P.N. Verma, V/s Sanjay GandhiPGI ofMedical Sciences & Another)

(7) AIR 1998 SC . 327 Life Insurance Corporation of India & another Vis Raghvendra Seshagiri Rao Kulkarni) .

9. Against this workman got examined herself. She told that she was terminated on 1-7-1996 without following provisions of Industrial Dispute Act. No Domestic Enquiry was held against her . She was refused employment . She has also produced documents . She further said that she has been terminated alleging misconduct that she associated with Union activities and employees who were given charge sheet. All the allegations are not correct.

(8) 1998 LLR 1167 (Birla VXL Ltd. V/s. Stateof Punjab and others).

(9) AIR 2002 SC 300 (M/ s Kalyani Sharp India Ltd V/ s Labour Court And Others) .

10. This is all the evidence adduced by the parties. Both the parties have given written arguments . Number of decisions are relied by the workman and the management. I have heard them in detail. I have carefully perused all the documents and decisions .

(10) AIR 1997 SC 1855 (Physical Research Laboratory V/s K. G. Sharma) .

( 11) 1999 (III) LLJ 1434 Supreme Court dated 3-9-97.

11. According to the management the probation period was not satisfactory and her appointment was temporary so she was terminated. In order to subsidies this management must adduce some evidence about her work.

15. Admittedly in order to take the benefit of the rules, bye laws and the decision on facts it has to be 3598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003/VAISAKHA 20, 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( 1) ]

(11) 1998 (1 ) Kar L.J332 (DB )-ILR 1998 KAR 172

(12) 1999 LLR 917

(13) 2000 LAB IC 1022-(2000) 3 SCC239

(14) 1995 (1) LLJ51

(15) 1984 (1 ) LLJ110

(16) 1981 (2) LLJ70

(17) 19792 SCC80

established that work of the first party was not satisfactory during her probation period. Unless on facts it is established I am of the opinion that the decisions relied by the management are not applicable to the facts of the present case because facts of the case on hand are quite different from the facts of the decisions relied by the management. Unless it is proved with clear and cogent evidence that the work of the first party was not satisfactory, termination is not proper. Evidence ofMW1 will not help the management at all . In fact MW1 was working in the lower pay scale than theworkman..

(18) 1978 ( 1 ) LLJ322- AIR 1978 SC474

21. I have read them carefully. Keeping in mind the principles held in the above decisions I am ofthe opinion that on facts management has failed to prove that the work ofthe first party workman was unsatisfactory.

Order: 22.Consideringall this I proceed to pass the following

ORDER

16.Ofcourse it is true in the appointment order it is said that she will be working on probation of 2 years form the date of her appointinent and failure to complete the period of probation to the satisfaction of the competent authority, will render her liable to be discharged from service. Absolutely there is no evidence of any officer of the management to speak and prove that the work of the first party was not satisfactory during the probationary period.

17.According to the management her probationary period was extended. Confidential report and memo is filed but this is not sufficient to say that the management has proved that the work of the first party is not satisfactory.

The reference is allowed. The order of termination is set aside and the management is directed to reinstate the first party workman to her original post which she was holding on the date of termination with full back wages and continuity of service is granted. Accordingly reference is disposed of.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 3rd April, 2003)

V.N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer.

नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2003

18. Through out the workman has said that it is a malafide intention and the officer has managed to issue memo. In the letter dated 12th February 1996 it is said that her probationary period was not satisfactory and the same was extended by one year with effect from 6-4-1994. There may be some evidence to establish that who assessed the work and gave report to the effect that the work is not satisfactory and again the probation period is extended. It is not explained as to why probation period was extended .

19. Considering all this I am of the opinion that the evidence ofMWI is not sufficient to prove that her work was not satisfactory . I am already held that MWI has admited m his evidence that he was not personally supervised the work of the first party.

का. आ. 1398.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल इंश्यूरेन्स कॉरपोरेशन लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केबीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण, भीलवाड़ाके पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 20/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-4-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-17012/31/98-आई. आर. ( बी. II ) ] 20. The learned counsel appearing for the workman has relied the following decisions:

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव (1) 1999 ( 1 ) LLJ1109

New Delhi, the 17thApril, 2003 (2) 1989-1991 VOL . II FullBench Judgement of CAT

(3 ) 19978 SCC767

(4) 1999 LAB IC 1125

(5) 1990 LLR81

(6) ILR2000 KAR 402

(7) 1977 (2) LLJ 225

S.O. 1398.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No. 20/99) ofthe Industrial Tribunal , Bhilwara (Rajasthan) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of National Insurance Corporation Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16-04-2003.

(8) 1981 (2) LLJ9

(9) 1992 LAB 1C657

(10) 1993 ( I ) LLJ 127

[No. L- 17012/31/98-IR (B- II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण, भीलवाड़ा ( राज. ) औद्योगिक विवाद प्रकरण संख्या : 20/99

विवाद मध्य:

श्री गोपाल लाल पाराशर पुत्र श्री शांति लाल काबरो का मोहल्ला , बड़ा मंदिर के पास, भीलवाड़ा।

3599

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10 , 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

प्रार्थी/कामगार

एवं

शाखा प्रबंधक, नेशनल इंश्योरेंस कार्पोरेशन लि.

खेतावत मार्केट, भीलवाड़ा।

विपक्षी/नियोजक

उपस्थित:

( श्री महेश चन्द्र पुरोहित, आर. एच. जे . एस. , न्यायाधीश ) प्राथी कीओर से श्री प्रभाष चौधरी , प्रतिनिधि।

विपक्षी की ओर से : श्री अजय मेहता, प्रतिनिधि।

पंचाट

दिनांक 1 नवम्बर 2002

भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या एल. 17012/ 31/98/आई आरं ( बी-11 ) दिनांक 31-3-99 के द्वारा निम्न विवाद इस नयायालय को न्याय निर्णयन के लिए प्रेषित किया गया:

"Whether the action of the Management ofNational Insurance Company Ltd. in terminating the service of Sh . Gopal Lal Parasar , Ex. IVth Class employee with effect from 1-5-86 is legal and justified ? If noi what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?" प्रार्थी कामगार की ओर से स्टेटमेंट आफ क्लेम प्रस्तुत कर प्रकट किया गया कि उसे सर्वप्रथम विपक्षी ने अक्टूबर 1984 को चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के पद पर नियोजित किया तथा अप्रैल 1986 तक नियमित नियोजन में रखते हुये कार्य कराया । 1-1-1986 से उसें कार्य पर रखना बंद कर दिया । उसने प्रत्येक कलेंडर वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक समय तक कार्य किया । इस दौरान उसने नियमित रूप से आफिस में पानी भरा , सफाई की, डाक वितरित की, रुपया बैंक में जमा कराने का काम किया, कार्यालय समय पूर्व कार्यालय खोलने का कार्यालय समय बाद कार्यालय को बंद कर चाबी अधिकारी के यहां रखने का कार्य किया । उसे बिना किसी कारण, बिना जांच के सेवा पृथक किया गया । उसके बजाय विपक्षी ने दलेल सिंह , पृथ्वीराज को सेवा में रख रखा है तथा ये प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ हैं । प्रार्थी कामगार ने समस्त वेतन, परिलाभों सहित पुनः पूर्व पद पर नियोजित करवाने की प्रार्थता की है ।

विपक्षी नियोजक की ओर से स्टेटमेंट आफ क्लेम का जवाब प्रस्तुतकर प्रकट किया गया कि प्रार्थी एवं उत्तरदाता के मध्य कभी श्रमिक एवं नियोजक का संबंध नहीं रहा । प्रार्थी को पूर्णतः दैनिक वेतनभोगी श्रमिक के रूप में रखा था एवं उससे प्रतिदिन की दर से मुख्यतः पानी भरने के कार्य की एवज में भुगतान किया जाता रहा । प्रार्थी 123261/03-10

काकोई कार्य समय निर्धारित नहीं था । वह किसी के निर्देशों पर कार्य नहीं करता था । प्रार्थी ने किसी भी वर्ष में 240 दिन कार्य नहीं किया । अतः धारा 25( एफ ) का उल्लंघन करना नहीं माना जा सकता है । प्रार्थी द्वारा आकस्मिक रूप से किये गये कार्य की एवज में उसे भुगतान उनके द्वारा प्रस्तुत बिलोंके आधार पर किया जाता था । प्रार्थी द्वारा विवाद उठाने में काफी विलम्ब किया गया है तथा विलम्ब का संतोषजनक कारण नहीं दर्शाया गया है । प्रार्थी अभी बेरोजगार नहीं है । प्रार्थी कामगार का स्टेटमेंट आफ क्लेम निरस्त करने की प्रार्थना की गई ।

प्रांर्थी की ओर से गोपाल लाल का शपथपत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया जिसके खंडन में विपक्षी की ओर से सहा. मंडल प्रबंधक अमर चंद गर्ग का शपथपत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया । दोनों पक्षों द्वारा एक दूसरे के शपथपत्रों पर जिरह की गई।

दोनों पक्षों द्वारा लिखित बहस प्रस्तुत की गई । लिखित बहस की नकलें एक दूसरे को दिलवाई गई ।

प्रार्थी की ओर से प्रार्थी गोपाल लाल का शपथपत्र पेश हुआं है जिसमें उसने बताया है कि दिनांक1-10-1984 से 30-4-1986 बैंक उसने निरंतर कार्य किया है । प्रत्येक कलेंडर वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक दिन कार्य किया है । नियोजन के दौरान उसने नियमित रूप से कार्यालय में पानी भरने , सफाई करने, डाक वितरित करने , कार्यालय की पत्रांदि की रजिस्ट्री आदि करवाने का काम किया है । कार्यालय समय से कार्यालय कोखेलने का कार्य होता था व कार्यालय समाप्ति पर शाम को कार्यालय बंद करने का कार्य किया व कार्यालय की चाबी अधिकारी के घर पहुंचाने का कार्य भी किया । प्रार्थी को बिना किसी कारण सेवा पृथ्थक किया गया है । सेवा पृथक करने से पूर्व एक माह का अग्रिम सूचना पत्र अथवा उसके एवज में एक माह की वेतन राशि अदा नहीं की है, न कीई निपूर्ति राशि अदा की है । अतः धारा 25 ( एफ ) की पालना नहीं की गई है । अतः उसे वतः लाभों सहित पुनः सेवा में लिया जाये । इसके खेडेन में विपक्षी की ओर से श्री अमरं चैद का शपथपत्र प्रस्तुत हुआ है जिसमें बताया गयाँ हैं कि प्रार्थी ने कभी निरंतर रूप से कार्य नहीं किया है । उसने किसी भी एक वर्ष में 240 दिन कार्य संपादित नहीं किया है । बिबाद काफी समय बाद उठाया गया है ।

यहीं पर दस्तावेजात में प्रदर्श 1 , 334 रु. 50 पैसे की रसीद, प्रदर्श 2 बोनस के बदलै एक्सप्रेसियों का विवरण, प्रदर्श 3 कार्य दिवस का विवरण प्रदर्श डी. 1 से डी. 20 वाऊचर की फोटो प्रतियां है । यहाँ पर जहां तक प्रार्थी के द्वारा विपक्षी के यहां एक वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य करने का प्रश्न है , विपक्षी प्रतिनिधि का कथन है किं प्रार्थी ने उनके यहां किसी एक वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य नहीं किया है, जबकि यह भार प्रार्थी पर था कि प्रार्थी ने विपक्षी के यहां 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य किया है । अर्पनै कथन की पुष्टि में 2002 (98 ) एफ. एल. आर. पेज 179 दी रेंज फोरेस्ट ऑफिसर बनाम एस.टी. हट्‌दीमाली का दृष्र्ष्यात प्रस्तुत किया जिसमें यह निर्णित किया गया है किएक वर्ष में 240 दिन साबित करने का भार कामगार पर था । विपंक्षी की ओर से 1994 एलएबी.आई.सी. पेज 1370 पाली सेंट्रल को- ऑपरेटिव बैंक विरुद्ध सुनील कुमार शर्मा का दृष्टांत पेश किया 3600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003 /VAISAKHA 20, 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

तक की अवधिके पिछले वेतन लाभों के रूप में 60 % ही दिलाये गये थे । इसके विपरीत विपक्षी के द्वारा प्रस्तुत दृष्टयंत डिवीजनल फोरेस्ट आफिसर विरुद्ध रघुवीर सिंह के दृष्टांत में दैनिक वेतनभोगी श्रमिक के द्वारा 295 दिन कार्य किया गया था परंतु 8 वर्ष की अवर्णित देरी होने के कारण श्रम न्यायालय का पुनः सेवा में लिये जाने का आदेश अपास्त किया गया था । प्रार्थी के द्वारा प्रस्तुत दृष्टांत अजब सिंह का भी इस दृष्टांत में हवाला दिया गया है । यहां अब यह देखना है कि क्या यहां देरी का बिन्दू उठाया गया है अथवा नहीं ?

जिसमें यह अधिनिर्णित किया गया है कि अगर 240 दिन की सेवाएं लगातार नहीं हो व सेवा समाप्ति जुबानी की गई हो तो धारा 25 (एफ) का उल्लंघन नहीं माना जा सकता । इसके खंडन में प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि का कथन है कि प्रार्थी ने एक वर्ष में विपक्षी के यहां 240 दिन से अधिक काम नहीं किया है । 2001-1 एल.एल.जे. पेज 1162 म्यूनिसिपल कार्पोरेशन, कोटा बनाम रामचन्द्र का दृष्टांत पेश किया गया जिसमें बताया गया है कि अब कामगार की छंटनी करने के पूर्व धारा 25 ( एफ) कीपालना करना आवश्यक है । 2000-1 एल.एल.जे. पेज 614 मैनेजमेंट आफ होल्टीकलचर डिपार्टमेंट आफ देहली एडमिनिस्ट्रेशन विरुद्ध त्रिलोक चंद का दृष्टांत पेश किया जिसमें यह अधिनिर्णित किया गया है कि दैनिक वेतनभोगी ने 240 दिन लगातार कार्य किया है तो धारा 25 ( एफ ) औद्योगिक विवाद अधि. लागू होता है । 1990 एलएबी.आई.सी.पेज 1451 यशवंत सिंह विरुद्ध स्टेट आफ राज. पेश किया गया जिसमें बताया गया कि अंशकालीन कामगार भी कामगार की परिभाषा में आता है । यहां पर कामगार गोपाल लाल का शपथपत्र है कि उसने एक वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य किया है । पानी भरना, सफाई करना, डाक वितरित करना, पत्रादि की रजिस्ट्री कराना, कार्यालय खोलना, बंद करना आदि का पूरे समय में कार्य किया है । उसका प्रतिपरीक्षामें भी कथन है कि वह 9 से 5 तक कार्य करता था । विपक्षी की ओर से श्री अमरचंद गर्ग का मात्र यह कथन है कि विपक्षी ने एक वर्ष में 240 दिन कार्य नहींकिया है , परंतु उसकी प्रतिपरीक्षा से जाहिर है कि यह सही है कि माह अक्टूबर 1984 से अप्रैल 1986 तक वह लगातार कार्य करता था । प्रदर्श पी . 2 में मई 1985 से सितम्बर 1985 तक का वाऊचर दर्ज नहीं है । काम का समय 10 से 5 का रहता है । प्रदर्श 3 के दिन प्रदर्श 2 में नहीं जोड़े गये हैं । प्रदर्श 3 के कुल दिन 161 हैं जो प्रदर्श 2 में नहीं जोड़े गये हैं । अप्रैल 1986 से मई 1986 के बीच 12 महीनों के 286 कार्य दिवस श्रमिक के हुए जिसमें रविवारीय व अवकाश नहीं जोड़े आज खुद कहा कि श्रमिकके 286 दिन नहीं हुए थे । प्रदर्श 2 व 3 के सन् 1985 के अगर कार्य दिवस जोड़े जाते हैं तो ये 240 दिन से अधिक होते हैं । अतः स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने विपक्षी के एक वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य किया है । प्रार्थी ने यह भी जाहिर किया कि उसने 9 से 5 बजे तक कार्य किया है । उसकी प्रतिपरीक्षा से ऐसा कोई तथ्य नहीं आया है कि यह माना जाये कि प्रार्थी ने 9 से 5 बजे तक कार्य नहीं किया हो । अतः प्रार्थी के द्वारा पूर्णकालीन रूप से एक वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य करना साबित माना जाता है । Matter is in Regional language .

प्रार्थी ने अपने क्लेम में देरी के बारे में कुछ भी नहीं कहा है । विपक्ष ने जवाब में बताया है कि प्रार्थी ने काफी लम्बे अन्तराल से विवाद उठाया है । जानबूझकर विवाद को उठाने में विलम्ब किया गया है । मामला अक्टूबर 1984 से अप्रैल 1986 के मध्य का है । यहां पर जो रेफ्रेन्सहुआ हैवह 31-3-1999 का है । प्रार्थी ने अपने शपथपत्र में देरी के बारे में कुछ नहीं कहा है । इसके विपरीत विपक्षी के शपथपत्र से जाहिर है कि कथित विवाद माननीय समझौता अधिकारी के समक्ष उठाया गया है । वइ बर्तमान में वाद के रूप में न्यायालय के समक्ष प्रस्तुत किया गया है । वह काफी लम्बे अंतराल से उठाया गया है जिसका कोई समुचित कारण प्रार्थी द्वारा एवं विवाद प्रेषित करते समय केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा जाहिर नहीं किया गया है । प्रार्थी द्वारा जानबूझकर कथित विवाद को उठाने में विलम्ब किया गया है । अतः स्पष्ट है कि करीब 13 वर्ष बाद रेफ्रेन्स हुआ है । प्रार्थी के द्वारा देरी का कतई कोई कारण नहीं बताया गया है । अजब सिंह के मामले में श्रमं न्यायालय के समक्ष देरी का बिन्दू नहींउठाया गया था परंतु यहां पर देरी का बिन्दूउठाया गया है । डिवीजनल फोरेस्टआफिसर विरुद्ध रघुवर के प्रकरण में यही अधिनिर्णित किया गयाहै कि अजब सिंह के मामले में देरी का बिन्दूनहीं उठाया गया था। अतः वह प्रकरण अजब सिंह के प्रकरण से भिन्न माना जाकर श्रम न्यायालय द्वारा पारित पंचाट निरस्त किया गया । यहां पर भी प्रार्थी के द्वारा कतईं देरी के बिन्दूको वर्णित नहीं किया गया है । विपक्षी के द्वारा इस बिन्दूको गंभीर रूप से लिया गया है । डिवीजनल फोरेस्ट आफिसर विरुद्ध रघुवीर सिंह में भी श्रमिक द्वारा 295 दिन काम करना मानते हुए भी 8 वर्ष की अवर्णित देरी मान कर श्रम न्यायालय द्वारा पारित पंचाट अपास्त किया गया था । इन सभी बिन्दुओं को ध्यान में रखते हुए 8 वर्ष की देरी अवर्णित मानते हुए कामगार को पुनः सेवा पर नियोजित करने का आदेश अपास्त किया गया है । यहां पर भी करीब 13 वर्ष बाद में रेफ्रेन्स प्राप्त हुआ है । प्रार्थी के द्वारा देरी का कोई कारण वर्णित नहीं किया गया है , जबकि विपक्षी द्वारा इसे गंभीर रूप से लिया गया है । अतः उक्तविवेचन के आधार पर प्रार्थी कोई राहत पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।

अतः प्रासंगिक विवाद का उत्तर इस प्रकार दिया जाता है कि:-

The action of the Management of National Insur- ance Company Ltd. , in terminating the service of Sh. Gopal Lal Parasar , Ex. IVth class employees with effect from 1-5-86 is not legal and justified. Workman raised the dispute after an inordinate delay, hence ; not entitled to any relief.

पंचाट की प्रति भारत सरकार को भेजी जाये ।

विपक्षी प्रतिनिधिका कथन है कि प्रार्थी ने विवाद काफी विलम्ब से उठाया है । अतः पोषणीय नहीं है । वह कोई राहत पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है । इसके बारे में 2002 ( 93 ) एफ.एल.आर. पेज 82 डिवीजनल फोरेस्ट आफिसर बनाम रघुवर का दृष्टांत प्रस्तुत किया गया इसके खंडनमें प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि का कथन है कि न्यायालय यदि विवाद उठाने में देरी समझती है तो गत वेतन वगैरा नहीं दिलाये जा सकते । अपने कथन की पुष्टिमें 1999 एलएबी.आई.सी. पेज 1435 अजब सिंह विरुद्ध दी. सरहिंद को-ऑपरेटिव मार्केटिग का दृष्टांत प्रस्तुत किया गया । इसमें बताया गया कि विवाद 7 वर्ष बाद उठाया गया था । श्रम न्यायालय के समक्ष देरी का प्रश्न नहीं उठाया गया था । अतः कामगार की सेवाएं निरंतर मानी जाकर उसका विवाद उठाने से लेकर पंचाट पारित करने

महेशचन्द पुरोहित, न्यायाधीश [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 10 , 2003/वैशाख 20 , 1925

3601 नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल , 2003

TheGovt . of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , have referred the concerned dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L- 11012/ 102/98/ IR (C- I) dated 17-5-1999. :

का. आ. 1399.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एअर इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 124/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-4-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/102/98-आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 17th April, 2003

S.O. 1399.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 124/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Chennai now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Air India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 17-4-2003.

[No. L- 11012/ 102/ 98- IR (C-I) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai , where the same was taken on file as I.D. No. 89/99 . When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, Government of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case also from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication . On receipt of records from that Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , this casehas been taken on file as I.D. No. 124/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side, informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal , with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 1-2-2001 with theirrespective parties and to prosecute this case further . Accordingly, the learned cousel on either side along with their respective parties have appeared and prosecutedthis case further. The Claim Statement of the I Party/Workman was filed earlier before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, When the matter was pending before that Tribunal for adjudication and the Counter Statement of the II Party/ Management was filed before this Tribunal after the case has been transferred to this Tribunal for adjudication . Tribunal for adjudication.

Tuesday, the 8th April , 2003

PRESENT : K. KARTHIKEYAN, PresidingOfficer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 124/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 89/99)

Upon perusing the Counter Statement , Counter Statement, the Documentary evidence let in on either side , the other material papers on record and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal has passed on merits, the following:-

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order ofreference by the Central Govt . for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :-

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause(d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Workman Sri N. K. Arunachalam and the Management of Air India, Chennai).

BETWEEN

Sri N. K. Arunachalam

"Whether the management of Air India is justified in dismissing Shri N. K. Arunachalam, Casual worker from the services of the company from 6-6-97 and if not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ? " : I Party/Workman AND

: II Party/Management

2. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the I Party/Workman Sri N. K. Arunachalam ( hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) are briefly as follows:-

TheManagement ofAir India, AIT, Chennai .

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman : M/ s . S. Senthilnathan,

M. Christopher and

S. Shanmugasundaram, Advocates

For the Management : M/ s. Aiyer & Dolia,

N. Krishnakumar, J. Shanker. ,

Advocates

The Petitioner joined the services under Air India in the year 1990. He was employed as Casual Labourer since then. His last drawn wages were Rs . 975/- per month. He was discharging his duties sincerely and diligently . The Petitioner was issued a memo dated 20-12-93 alleging a charge of dishonesty in connection with the employer's business . The Petitioner replied the said memo denying the charges . A domestic enquiry was conducted by the Party/Management to enquire into the alleged misconduct mentioned in the charge memo. Based on the findings of 3602

[PART II SEC. 3(11)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10 , 2003/VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

standing order . The Enquiry Officer did not give any satisfactory reply. The Petitioner was informed that the enquiry was conducted following model standing orders . The copy of the model standing order was also not furnished to the Petitioner. Thus , the II Party/Management and the Enquiry Officer were not definite about the rules and regulation application to the Petitioner in respect of the charges. Since reasonable opportunity was denied, the Petitioner did not participate in the domestic enquiry. He was set exparte in the domestic enquiry and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the Petitioner is guilty of charges framed against him . On the strength of the report ofthe Enquiry Officer the services of the Petitioner were terminated by an order dated 6-6-97 . The II Party/ Management issued show cause notice and even before the Petitioner would submit his explanation, his services were terminated. The order of termination is illegal and unjustifiedand contrary to the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner was deprived of an opportunityto participate in the enquiry . The failure to furnish the copy of rules applicable forced the Petitioner to leave the enquiry . The dismissal of the Petitioner from service on the basis of the defective enquiry is not sustainable in law . The Petitioner has been acquitted in respect of similar and Identical charges by the criminal court holding that the prosecution has not proved the charges beyond all reasonable doubts . it is an acquittal on merits . Therefore , the II Party/ Management should have followed the criminal court verdict and accordingly , the Petitioner should have been reinstated. The occurrence took place in 1991 and the II Party/Management framed the charges after two years . The charge is belated and hence it is unsustainable in the eye of law . The past conduct of the Petitioner has not been considered by the II Party /Management before imposing the capital punishment of dismissal from service . The Petitioner was not given opportunity to submit his explanation to the 2nd show cause notice. The Petitioner haswritten to II Party/Management on 27-6-97 requesting the II Party/Management to reinstate him in service with all benefits . He also made several representations , thereafter in person. Hence , it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an Award holding the termination order dated 6-6-97 passed by the II Party/ Management is unjustified and direct the II Party / Management to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity of service , full back wages and all other attendant benefits .

3. The averments in the Counter Statement filed by the II Party /Management Air India, AIT, Chennal , (hereinafter refers to as Respondent ) are briefly as follows:-

The Petitioner was engaged as a Casual Labour in Air India and continued to work as such till 1990. When he was interviewed for appointment in unskilled category .He was also subjected to pre-employment medical examination to assess his medical fitness for the said category . He the Enquiry Officer , the II Party/Management by an order dated 6-6-97 terminated the Petitioner from service. Against thatorder of termination, the Petitioner raised an industrial disputebefore the Labour Commissioner, Central, Chennai for conciliation. The conciliation proceedings ended in a failure . On submission of failure of conciliation report by the Labour Commissioner , the Govt. was pleased to refer this matter to this Tribunal as an industrial dispute for adjudication. It is alleged in the charge memo dated 22-12-93 that on 2nd May, 1991 at about 10.00 hours while the Petitioner was on duty Mr. Oggu Peter Bose, Security Guard, Air India noticed the Petitioner and Mr. Venugopal another Casual Labour moving in a suspicious manner while off loading the imported cargo from the flight IA- 195 . Subsequently Mr. Chellappan , shift in- charge Security and Mr. Oggu Peter Bose entered the aircraft and noticed the Petitioner and Mr. Venugopal pilfering some items froma small cargo box which was a part of import cargo . Immediately , both the Petitioner and Mr. Venugopal were brought down from the aircraft and a personal search was conducted on the Petitioner and Venugopal . In that search , it was found that the Petitioner was in possession of 27 pieces of ICS with different making concealed in the kerchief and kept in the right side pant pocket. On further enquiry the Petitioner has stated that the ICS were pilfered by Mr. Venugopal and subsequently handed over to him for safe custody. The panchnama was drawn subsequently on the seizure ofpilfered property and that the Petitioner had also confessed having jointly committed the pilferage of the ICS for personal monetary gain , during subsequent enquiries conducted by the security personnel. It is further alleged that the said act on the part of the Petitioner would constitute misconduct under section 14(3 ) (b ) of the Model Standing Orders applicable to the Petitioner. In the meanwhile , criminal prosecution was also initiated by the II Party /Management . A case was filed as C. C.No. 1328/ 1991 on the file of Judicial Magistrate , Saidapet . In the criminal case, the learned Judicial Magistrate held that the charges framed under section 381 of IPC was not proved beyond all reasonable doubts and acquitted the Petitioner. Thejudgment was delivered on 17-11-94 . Till such time , the Respondent/Management the II Party /Management did not frame any charges . The Petitioner was not suspended . He was not permitted to work at the same time . He was directed to face the prosecution. Even after the acquittal by the Criminal Court, the II Party /Management didnot come forward to give employment to the Petitioner. On the other hand, the charge memo was issued . The Petitioner sent a letter to the II Party/Management to drop the domestic enquiry in view of the acquittal by the criminal court . The II Party /Management conducted domestic enquiry . The Petitioner was assisted by a co - employee in the domestic enquiry. The Petitioner raised a preliminary issue in the domestic enquiry to that effect , whether the enquiry was conducted in accordance with rules of the Airport applicable to workers or on the basis of any certified [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ] -

3603

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

and hence the enquiry was conducted ex-parte. The competent authority has dismissed him from the services ofAir India based on the findings of the Enquiry Committee which conducted its proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Model Standing Orders (Central) . If this Hon'ble Tribunal comes to a conclusion that there is not fair and proper enquiry, then the Respondent may be allowed to let in evidencebefore this Tribunal to prove the charges. Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim of the Petitioner with cost.

4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry , no

one has been examined as a witness on either side. 6 documents on the side of the I Party /Workman and 16 documents on the side of the II Party/Management have been marked by consent of the counsel on either side as Ex.W1 to W6 and MI to M16 respectively. In spite of sufficient opportunity was given, the learned counsel on either side neither advanced their oral arguments nor filed their written arguments . Then orders were reserved for passing an Award on merits , with the availbale materials and records.

5. The point for my consideration is

"Whether the management of Air India is justified in dismissing Shri N.K. Arunachalam, casual,worker from the services ofthe company from 6-6-97 and if not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

Point:-

continued to work as such till 2nd May, 1991, when hewas apprehended for pilferage of integrated circuits from the cargo consignment at Cargo Warehouse , Chennai Airport . Police authorities arrested the Petitioner and a criminal case was filed against him. A panchnama was drawn subsequently on the seizure of pilfered property. The management of Air India has also chargesheeted the Petitioner under clause 14 (3 ) (b ) of Model Standing Orders on 20-12-93 . An enquiry committee was constituted vide Management's letter dated 8-8-94 and the Petitioner was informed about the same and was asked to attend the enquiry . The Petitioner participated in the enquiry at the initial stage, but subsequently refused to participate in the domestic enquiry , in spite of repeated chances given to him and hence, the enquiry was conducted ex-parte. Enquiry Committee submitted its report on 16-4-96 to the management ofAir India. After going through the findings and the enquiry proceedings the competent authority concurred with the report of enquiry committe and issued 2nd show cause notice dated 17-4-1997 to the Petitioner. By a letter dated 22-5-97, the Petitioner requested 15 days time to submit his reply. As no reply was received even after 15 days , the authority passed on order of dismissal dated 6-6-97 which is also acknowledged by the Petitioner . Since the Petitioner was arrested by police authorities , his identity card was withdrawn by them and from the date of his arrest i.s, on 2-5-91 he did not come to his job with Air India. As such the contention of the Petitioner that the termination of his services is iliegal is not tenable. The Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate acquitted the Petitioner on the ground that the evidences let in by the prosecution were not satisfactory and hence found the petitioner accused not guilty. The departmental proceedings are independent ofcriminal proceedings . The enquiry committee conducted the enquiry following the principles of natural justice . It probed the document submitted before it and finally submitted its findings stating that the charge levelled against the Petitioner has been proved . The model standing orders ( Central ) has been applied to the Petitioner , since the standing orders of Air India was pending with Chief Labour Commissioner for certification and hence , the provisions of model standing orders were applied to him and when the defence counsel of the Petitioner in the enquiry proceedings questioned the applicablity of the same he was advised that the competent authority who had issued the chargesheet to the Petitioner has constituted an enquiry committee and would proceed further. When the defence counsel refused to take part in the enquiry proceedings, as he was not convinced with the reply by the Enquiry Committee regarding the applicability of the model stading orders ( Central ) and the legality of the constitution of the Enquiry Committee , he was informed that in respect of the Petitioner not participating in the enquiry proceedings the same would be conducted ex- parte. Even after repeated charges were given to the Petitioner he had not attended the enquiry proceedings

This Industrial dispute has been raised by the Petitioner/Workman Sri N.K. Arunachalam, challenging the action of the Respondent/Management , Air India, in dismissing him from servcie as unjustified. It is admitted that the Petitioner was issued a charge memo dated 20-12-93 by the II Party/Management for an alleged misconduct committed by the Petitioner alongwith another Casual LabourMr. Venugopal . The xerox copy of the charge memo is Ex.M2 . It is also admitted that a criminal complaint was given to police regarding theft of 27 pieces of integrated circuits from the cargo consignment at Cargo Warehouse, Chennai Airport and on that basis a case was registeredby theMeenambakkam police, the Petitioner was arrested by police authorities and after investigation , a criminal case as C.C.No. 1328/91 has been filed in the Judicial Magistrate Court, Saidapet . Ex . Ml is the zeroz copy offthe police complaint given to Meenambakkam police by the Senior Security Assistant of Chennai Airport . Earlier for the letter given by the Petitioner requesting the Respondent/Management to regularise his service , the HRD department of the Respondent/Management gave a letter dated 18-6-90 to the Petitioner directing him to fill up the enclosed blank form and submit the same with the xerox copy of the required documents mentioned therein. The xerox copy of that letter dated 18-6-90 is Ex . W1. In 3604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003 /VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

not be attending the enquiry proceedings and the Enquiry Committee in turn had informed them that the Enquiry Committee will further conduct the proceedings as per the provisions of model standing order ex -parte in the absence ofparticipation of the defence counsel and the employee charged. So the Enquiry Committee has subsequently conducted the enquiry ex -parte and submitted its findings that the charges levelled against the Petitioner charge sheeted employee has been proved. The xerox copy of the findings of the Enquiry Committee is Ex. M 10. Then a letter dated 16-4-96 was sent by II Party/Management to Petitioner enclosing copy of the report of the Enquiry Committee with a direction to the Petitioner to submit his comments as to why the report of the Enquiry Committee should notbe accepted. The xerox copy of that letter dated 16-4-96 is Ex . M 9. No reply has been given by the Petitioner to Ex.M 9 letter as his comments to the report of the Enquiry Committee. Then the Disciplinary Authority after having gone through the proceedings of the Enquiry Committee , the report and findings of the Enquiry Committee , concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Committee and sent a letter dated 17-4-97 to the Petitioner mentioning the proposed punishment of dismissing him from service with a direction to the Petitioner to show cause by his reply within three days as to why the punishment proposed should not be awarded to him . The xerox copy of the 2nd show cause notice dated 17-4-97 is Ex. M1 I. Ex. M 12 is the xerox copy of the postal acknowledgement of the Petitioner for having received the 2nd show cause notice . Prior to that the Enquiry Committee has sent a copy of the proceedings turned ex-parte on 19-12-94 to the Petitioner with the covering letter by registered post . The xerox copy ofthe said covering letter of the proceedings dated 19-12- 94 for the proceedings is Ex . M 13. Ex. M 14 is the xerox copyofthe postal acknowledgement of the Petitioner for having received that covering letter with the day's proceedings of the enquiry . Ex . M 15 is the xerox copy of the final order passed by the Airport Manager on 6-6-97 dismissing the Petitioner from service .

pursuance of the application submitted by the Petitioner , the HRD department of Respondent/Management sent a letter to the Petitioner dated 14-8-90 directing himto attend the interview. The xerox copy of that letter is Ex . W2 . Subsequent to the interview, the Respondent /Management HRD department sent a letter dated 14-3-91 to the Petitioner directinghimto attend the medical examination to ascertain his physical fitness . The xerox copy of that letter is Ex .W3 . It is also admitted that the Petitioner has been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate in the criminal case filed against him by the police on the ground that the charges have not been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the judgement was delivered on 17-11-94. Even prior to the judgement of criminal court, the II Party/Management has initiated the domestic enquiry and a charge sheet under Ex.M2 was issued to the Petitioner for the alleged misconduct of the Petitioner along with another Casual LabourMr. Venugopal pilferage of27 pieces of integrated circuits from the cargo consignment at cargo warehouse at Chennai Airport on 2-5-1991 . For that the Petitioner has submitted a letter dated 4-1-94 requesting the II Party/ Management to furnish him the statements recorded during the enquiry as mentioned in the charge memo. The xerox copyof the letter is Ex. M3 . In response to that letter of the Petitioner, the II Party/Management sent a letter dated 31-3-94 enclosing the photocopies of the documents , as requested by Petitioner in his letter under Ex . M3 . The xerox copy of the letter dated 31-3-94 is Ex. M4 . The Petitioner has sent his explanation to the charge memo and the same was receivedby the Respondent/Management on 22-4-94 . The xerox copy of that explanation is Ex. M5 . Not satisfying with the explanation given by the Petitioner to the charge memo , the Respondent/Management has initiated a domestic enquiry against the Petitioner to enquire into the charges levelled against him and appointed an Enquiry Committee. The same was informed by a letter dated 8-8-94 bythe Respondent/Managementto the Petitioner . The xerox copyof that letter is Ex. M6 . The Enquiry Committee fixed a date ofhearing to enquire into the charges levelled against him and informed the same by a letter . The xerox copy of that letter is Ex. M7 and the Enquiry Committee has conducted the enquiry and the Petitioner as charge sheeted employee , has taken part in that enquiry dated 13-12-94 . The xerox copy of the proceedings of the enquiry dated 13-12-94, 15-12-94 , 19-12-94 are Ex. M8 . It is admitted that the Petitioner charge sheeted employee attended the enquiry conducted on 13-12-94 and 15-12-94 with his defence counsel Sri A.R. Balasubramaniam . It is seen from enquiry proceedings Ex . M8 for the hearing on 15-12-94 the Stores Supervisor , Air India , Madras Airport, who attended the enquiry as defence counsel sought a clarification from the Enquiry Committee as to whether a casual employee is covered by model standing order. Not satisfying with the explanation given by the Enquiry Committee, the defence counsel and the charge sheeted

6. It is the contention of the Petitioner that he was deprived of an opportunity to participate in the enquiry and the failure to furnish the copy of the rules applicable forced the Petitioner to leave the enquiry and that the Criminal Court for the similar and identical charges has acquitted the Petitioner holding that the prosecution has not proved the charges beyond all reasonable doubts . Hence, the Respondent/Management should have followed the criminal court verdict and the Petitiorier should have been reinstated . It is seen from the enquiry proceedings thatsufficient opportunity has been given to the charge sheeted employee, the Petitioner herein , and he had also participated, in the enquiry with his defence counsel but, subsequently, refused to participate in the domestic enquiry, in spite of repeated chance given to him. So , the Enquiry Committee had to conduct the enquiry ex-parte .

employee informed the Enquiry Committee that they will [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 10 , 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

3605

prosecution. It is not contended by the Petitioner that the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate while acquitting him in that criminal case has given a finding that the Petitioner accused inthe criminal case has not committed the offence levelled against him in the charge sheet . Furthermore , as submitted by the Respondent/Management in their Counter Statement that the departmental proceedings are independent of criminal proceedings . The standard of proof required in a domestic enquiry is not proving the charges beyond all . reasonable doubt but preponderance of probability is sufficient . On the basis of the materials placed before the Enquiry Committee , as evidencedby the management the Enquiry Committee has come to a conclusion that overwhelming evidence has been produced by the management witnesses on the pilferage of the integrated circuits by the Petitioner and against the same no evidence either oral or documentary is made available for the employee charged and that the management had produced enough evidence by way oforal and documentary evidence to clearly establish that the Petitioner did pilfer the integrated circuits from the consignment of flight Al - 195 and thereby committed the theft of company's property and the Committee finds the Petitioner is guilty of the charge levelled against him . In a case reported as AIR 1970 CALCUTTA 154 H. MOITRA VS. CALCUTTA IMPROVEMENT TRIBUNAL, the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta has held that " in a disciplinary proceedings against the employee, if the employee deliberately not appearing and explaining the charges against him with an eye to future remedy such conduct goes against his plea and he had no opportunity to defend and that proceedings were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice". Thisdecision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case . Hence , it cannot be said that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondent/Management ex-parte is against the principles of natural justice and the Petitioner has been deprived of an opportunity to participate in the enquiry. It is held by the Supreme Court in a case reported as 1998 I LLJ 629 SC SECRETARY TO GOVT. HOME DEPTT . AND OTHERS Vs. SRI VAIGUNDANATHAN that " the Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer unless the findings are perverse and not supported by any evidence" . Here in this case also , it is not the contention of the Petitioner that the findings of the Enquiry Committee are perverse and not supported by any evidence . Therefore , the above decision of the above Hon'ble Supreme Court decision is squarely applicable to the facts of this case . As it is seen from the records , the materials available in this case, the proved misconduct committed by the Petitioner amounts to theft of the property of 27 pieces of integrated circuits from the import cargo which arrived by Al - 195 flight and it is a serious misconduct to award a punishment of dismissal as provided. Under Clause 14(4) ( c) of Model Standing Order( Central ). As stated by the Airport Manager in the 2nd show cause notice issued to Petitioner under Ex. The enquiry proceedings were also sent to the Petitioner then and there by the Enquiry Committee by registered post and the same has been received by the Petitioner. Hence , it cannot be said that the Petitioner has been deprived of an opportunity to participate in the enquiry. It is only the Petitioner who have taken a decision not to participate in the domestic enquiry on the ground that the Model Standing Order may not be applicable to him . It is the definite contention of the Respondent/Management in their Counter Statement that the Model Standing Order (Central) has been applied to the Petitioner since the Standing Orders ofAir India was pending with Chief Labour Commissioner (Conciliation) then for certification and hence the provision of Model Standing Order were applied to him. This contention of the Respondent/Management has not been disputed by the Petitioner/Workman as incorrect. It isalso seen from the enquiry proceedings that when the defence counsel of the Petitioner questioned the applicability of the same before the Enquiry Committee , the Enquiry Committee has informed the defence counsel that the competent authority, who has issued the charge sheet to the Petitioner has constituted an Enquiry Committee and hence , the validity of the domestic enquiry cannot be questioned. It is not the case of the Petitioner at the time when he participated in the domestic enquiry and also in his Claim Statement that the person who issued him the charge memo under Ex. M 2 is not the competent authority to issue him the charge memo and he is not competent to constitute that Enquiry Committee to enquire into the charges levelled against him . Furthermore, it is not their contention either before the Enquiry Committee in the domestic enquiry or in the Claim Statement that the Model Standing Order (Central ) is not applicable to the Petitioner to proceed against him for the alleged misconduct committed by him as mentioned in the charge memo Ex . M 2 , when especially, the Standing Order's of Air India was pending with the Chief Labour Commissioner for certification. Aperusal of the enquiry proceedings and the report of the Enquiry Committee clearly shows that the Enquiry Committee had conducted the enquiry following theprinciples ofnatural justice and the Petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to take part in the domestic enquiry before the Enquiry Committee to put forth his defence effectively with the assistance of a defence counsel . For the reasons best known to him, he has abstained from attending the domestic enquiry before the Enquiry Committee .It is seen from the Enquiry Committee's proceedings and reports that the Enquiry Committee had probed into the matter in detail by considering the documents submitted before it and had come to a conclusion that the charge levelled against the Petitioner has been proved. It is also not the case of the Petitioner that it is a perverse finding of the Enquiry Committee without any evidence as basis. The criminal court has acquitted the Petitioner on the ground that the charges have not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt by the 3606

[PART II-SEC. 3(1)1

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003/VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

M11 , in spite of opportunity has been given to show cause as towhy the punishment proposed should not be awarded to him, the Petitioner has not replied to the same . So , the Disciplinary Authority after considering the gravity ofthe misconduct committed by the Petitioner opined that the ends ofjustice will be met, if the Petitioner is awarded the punishment of the dismissal as proposed and has awarded that punishment of the dismissal from service of the Respondent/Management company under an order dated 6.6.97 under Ex.M15 . Hence , it cannot be contended that the management of Air India is not justified in dismissing thePetitioner from service of the company from 6.6.97 for the proved misconduct of the Petitioner which is grave in nature . The punishment awarded by the II Party / Management cannot be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the Petitioner . Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

7. In the result , an Award is passed holding that the concerned workman Sri N.K. Arunachalam is not entitled for any relief. No Cost .

(Dictated to the Stenographer , transcribed and typed byhim, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 8th April , 2003. )

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined: -

None

On either side

Exhibits marked:-

Date

Ex . No.

Description

W1 18.06.90 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner W2 14.08.90 Xerox copy of the letter from Personnel Officer to Petitioner W3 14.03.91 Xerox copy of the letter from Personnel Officer to Petitioner W4 22.05.97 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Airport Manager .

W5 27.06.97 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Airport Manager of Respondent

W6 Nil Xerox copy of the reply filed by the Petitioner Before the conciliating authority against the Counter filed by Respondent/ Management .

For thr II Party/Management :-

Ex.No. Date

Description

MI 02.05.91

Xerox copy ofthe letter from Senior Security Asstt . To Inspector of Police

M2 20.12.93 Xerox copy of the show cause notice issued to Petitioner M3 04.01.94 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Airport Manager M4 31.03.94 Xerox copy of the letter from AirportManager to Petitioner Nil

Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Airport Manager M6 08.08.94 Xerox copy of the letter from AirportManager to Petitioner M7 06.12.94 Xeroxcopyofthe notice ofenquiry M8 Nil

Xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings

M9 16.04.94 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner 16.04.96

M 10

Xerox copy of the findings of Enquiry Committee

17.04.97

M11

Xerox copy ofthe 2nd show cause notice issued to Petitioner M12 19.04.97 Xerox copy of the postal acknowledgement card.

M13 19.1294 Xerox copy of the letter from Enquiry Committee to Petitioner enclosing copy of the enquiry proceedings .

M 14 Nil

Xerox copy of the postal acknowledgement card.

M15 06.06.97 Xerox copy of the order of dismissal passed by Respondent .

18,06.97

Ml6

Xerox copy of the postal acknowledgement card.

नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल , 2003

का. आ. 1400.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन एयरलाईन्सके प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय उदयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 6/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-11012/ 23/97- आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 17th April, 2003

S.O. 1400.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 6/98 ) of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Udaipur now as [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ].

shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Airlines and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17-04-2003,

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 10,, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

3607 विपक्षी ने अपने जवाब में यह कथन किया है कि प्रार्थी है

[No. L- 11012/23 /97 -IR (C- 1 ) ]

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

अनुबंध

न्यायालयः न्यायाधीश , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिकरण एवं श्रम

न्यायालय , उदयपुर

पीठासीन अधिकारी

: श्री एल डी शर्मा, आर एच जे एस

औद्योगिक विवाद संख्या 6/98

राजेश कुमार पुत्र भंवरलाल चनाल, 306 गांधी नगर, मुल्लातलाई , उदयपुर

- - -प्रार्थी

बनाम

स्टेशन मैनेजर, इण्डियन एयरलाईन्स , देहली गेट, उदयपुर-विपक्षी उपस्थित:-

श्री रमेश नन्दवाना

:प्रार्थी की ओर से

:विपक्षी की ओर से

श्री एम. एस. चौहान

पंचाट

दिनांक 26-3-2003

भारत सरकार के श्रम विभाग द्वारा जरिये पत्र क्रमांक एल 11012/23/97- आई आर ( कोल- I ) दि. 24-3-98 के द्वारा निम्न आशय का प्रसंग निर्णय हेतु इस न्यायालय को प्रेषित किया गया । "Whether the action of Station Manager , Indian AirLines , Udaipur in terminating the services ofShri Rajesh Kumar from May, 96 is legal , proper and justified ? If not what relief concerned workman is entitled to?"

उक्त आशय का प्रसंग प्राप्त होने पर न्यायालय द्वारा दिनांक 4-4-98 को दर्ज रजि. किया जाकर पक्षकारान को नोटिस जारी किये गये जिस पर प्रार्थी की ओर से क्लेम व विपक्षी की ओर से जवाब पेश किया गया ।

संचय में प्रार्थना पत्र के तथ्य इस प्रकार है कि प्रार्थी जुलाई 91 से मई 96 तक विपक्षी इण्डियन एयरलाईन्स में बतौर सफाई कर्मचारी अपनी सेवाएं देता आ रहा था । जून 96 में विपक्षी ने बिना कोई कारण बताये प्रार्थी को कहा कि तुम्हे अब हम सेवा में नहीं रख सकते है । ऊपर से आदेश का बहाना बना कर प्रार्थी को सेवा में रखने से इंकार कर दिया । हवाई अड्‌डे पर दो सफाई कर्मचारियों की आवश्यकता प्रातःकालीन शिफ्ट एवं सांयकालीन शिफ्ट में पड़ती है जबकि विपक्षी इण्डियन एयरलाईन्स में मात्र एक सफाई कर्मचारी है दूसरे कर्मचारी के रूप में प्रार्थी नियमित रूप से अपनी सेवाएं देता रहा है । हाजरी रजि. पर प्रार्थी के हस्ताक्षर नहीं करवाये जाते थे माह के अंत में प्रार्थी को पूरा वेतन दे दिया जाता था। सेवा से पृथक करने से पूर्व न तो एक माह का नोटिस दिया, न नोटिस के बदले नोटिस पे दिया । अतः पुनः सेवा में लिया जाकर समस्त सेवा लाभ प्रदान कराये जावे ।

123291 /03-11

जुलाई 91 से मई 96 तक विपक्ष इण्डियन एयरलाईन्स में बतौर सफाई कर्मचारी अपनी सेवाएं नहीं दी है बल्कि वह दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी के रूप में आकस्मिक कार्य के लिये या अन्य कर्मचारी के अवकाश पर जाने के कारण या समय - समय पर अचानक कार्य भार में वृद्धि हो जाने के कारण या अपरिहार्य कारणों से आवश्यक होने के कारण कार्य पर रखा गया था और प्रार्थी को कार्य दिवस के आधार पर भुगतान दिया गया था । प्रार्थी की कोई वेतन राशि विपक्षी में बकाया नहीं है । प्रार्थी के जनवरी 94 से दिसम्बर 96 तक फर्दन कुल 363 दिन ही विपक्षी के यहां काम किया है और यह कार्य उसके द्वारा आकस्मिक श्रमिक के रूप में किया गया है यह काम नियमित प्रकृति का नहीं था । इस प्रकार के श्रमिक को औ.वि.अधि. के प्रावधानों के तहत किसी भी प्रकार का कोई अधिकार प्राप्त नहीं है । प्रार्थी विपक्षी के यहां नियमित कर्मचारी नहीं था इसलिये उसे सेवा मुक्त करने का कोई प्रश्न पैदा नहीं होता है । प्रार्थी ने किसी भी 12 महिनों में लगातार 240 दिन कार्य नहीं किया है । अतः वह कोई राहत पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।

मैंनें दोनों पक्षों को सुना व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया । दोनों पक्षों ने अपने कथनों के समर्थन में शपथ पत्र व दस्तावेजात प्रस्तुत कि है । प्रार्थी के अनुसार वह जुलाई 91 से मई 96 तक विपक्षी के यहां सफाई कर्मचारी के रूप में नियमित सेवाएं देता रहा लेकिन उसे जून 96 मेंबिना कोई कारण बताये सेवा से पृथक कर दिया और इसके एवज में उसे नोटिस या मुआवजा नहीं दिया । विपक्षी के अनुसार प्रार्थी नियमिव सफाई कर्मचारी नही था बल्किउसका पिता एक नियमित सफाई कर्मचारी था और विपक्षी को जब भी जरुरत होती तो वह प्रार्थी को आकस्मिक श्रमिक के रूप में कार्य हेतु रख लेता था । प्रार्थी ने अपने तर्को के समर्थन में प्रदर्श ए1 से ए 18 हाजरी रजिस्टर की फोटो प्रतियां पेश की है लेकिने इनको देखने से प्रकट होता है कि इन पर किसी अधिकारी के हस्ताक्षर नहींहै । विपक्षी ने अपना होने से इंकार किया है । प्रार्थी ने विपक्षी से सत्र 91 से 95 तक का रेकार्ड तलब किया था लेकिन विपक्षी ने जवाब प्रस्तुत किया कि उसके यहां सामान्य रेकार्ड केवल तीन वर्ष तक के लिये तथा भुगतान बाउचर पांच वर्ष तक के लिये रखा जाता है बाद में उन्हें नष्ट कर दिया जाता है । अतः उस अवधि का रेकार्ड उपलब्ध नहीं है । मेरे विचार से बिपक्षी के इन कथनों का कोई खण्डन नहीं है । विपक्षी की ओर से प्रदर्श एम 18 से एम 31 भुगतान बाउचर प्रस्तुत्त किया गया जिनको देखने से प्रकट होता है कि प्रार्थी को अंशकालिन रूप से जब आवश्यकता होती सफाई कार्य के लिये रख लिया जाता था और वह विपक्षी का नियमित कर्मचारी नहीं था । प्रदर्श एम 18 बाउचर मई 95 काहै जिसको देखने से प्रकट होता है कि प्रार्थी को नियमित सफाई कर्मचारी के अवकाश पर रहने के कारण 8 रु. प्रति घंटे के हिसाब से एकदिन में साढ़े तीन घंटे के लिये रखा और इसी दर से भुगतान हुआ । प्रदर्श एम 19 से एम 31 भुगतान बाउचर भी इसी प्रकृति के है । प्रार्थी के इन भुगतान बाउचर से भुगतान होने का कोई खण्डन नहीं किया है । अतः इन्हे देखनें से प्रकट होता है कि प्रार्थी को जब कभी आवश्यकता होती तब एक दिन में साढ़े तीन घंटे के लिये 8 रु. प्रति घंटे की दर से सफाई कार्य के लियें रख लिया जाता था । विपक्षी के तर्क में सार है कि प्रार्थी का पिता विपक्षी के यहां नियमित सफाई कर्मचारी था तथा वहू.

3608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003/VAISAKHA 20, 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय उदयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 5/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/12/97- आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 17th April, 2003.

जब अवकाश पर या अनुपस्थित होता तो प्रार्थी को सफाई कार्य के लिये आकस्मिक रूप से रख लिया जाता था । विपक्षी की ओर से नितिन पाल स्टेशन मैनेजर ने अपने शपथ पत्र में बयान किया है कि इण्डियन एयरलाईन्स एक निगम है जो किसी अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत बनाई गई है । इनके अन्तर्गत सेवा नियम बने हुए हैं । इन्हीं नियमों के अन्तर्गत कर्मचारियों की नियुक्तिव भर्ती की जाती है । किसी अधिकारी को यह अधिकार नहीं है कि वह अपनी इच्छा से किसी व्यक्ति को सेवा में रख सके या तिकाल सके। यह निर्विवाद है कि प्रार्थी को कोई नियुक्ति पत्र जारी नहीं हुआ और प्रदर्श एम 18 से एम 31 भुगतान बाउचर से यह प्रमाणित हो जाता है कि प्रार्थी को जब जब आवश्यकता होती दिन में कुछ घंटों के लिये 3 रु. प्रति घंटे के हिसाब से सफाई कार्य हेतु रख लिया जाता था । अतः यह प्रमाणित है कि वह आकस्मिक व अंशकालीन कर्मचारी था न कि एक नियमित कर्मचारी ।

S.O. 1401.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 5/98) of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Udaipur now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Airlines and their workman, which was received by the CentralGovernment on 17-04-2003 .

[No. L- 11012/ 12/97 -IR (C - 1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

अनुबंध

न्यायालयः न्यायाधीश , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिकरण एवं श्रम प्रार्थीकी नियुक्तिकिन्हीं नियमों के अन्तर्गत नहीं की गई और न ही उसे कोई नियुक्तिपत्र जारी हुआ । इन परिस्थितियों में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने ए आई आर 1997 एस सी 3657 हिमांशु कुमार विद्यार्थी व अन्य बनाम स्टेट आफ बिहार व अन्य में निम्न सिद्धांत प्रतिपादित किया है:-

न्यायालय, उदयपुर

पीठासीन अधिकारी

: श्री एल डी शर्मा, आर एच जे एस

औद्योगिक विवाद संख्या 5/98

जमनालाल पुत्र चुन्नीलाल पालीवाल, एयर पोर्ट,

अम्बाबेरी , उदयपुर

-प्रार्थी

बनाम

--विपक्षी

प्रबंधक, एयर लाईन्स, अम्बाबेरी , उदयपुर

उपस्थित:-

श्रीसीपी शर्मा

:प्रार्थी की ओर से

:विपक्षी की ओर से "Admittedly they were not appointed to the post in accordance with the rules but were engaged on the basis ofneed of the work. They are temporary employees worknig on daily wages . Under these circumstances , their disengagement from service cannot be construed to be a retrenchment under Industrial Disputes Act . The concept of" retrenchment ' ' therefore cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover these employees. The learned counsel forthe petitioners seeks to contend that in the High Court the petitioners did not contend that it is a case of reternchment but termination of their services is arbitrary. Since they are only daily - wagest employees and have no right to the posts , their disengagement is not arbitrary.

श्री एम एस चौहान

पंचाट

दिनांक 26-3-2003

भारत सरकार के श्रम विभाग द्वारा जरिये पत्र क्रमांक एल- 11012/12/97- आई आर ( कोल- I ) दि. 10-3-98 के द्वारा निम्न आशय का प्रसंग निर्णय हेतु इस न्यायालय को प्रेषित किया गया । उक्त नजीर का अनुसरण माननीय राज. उच्च न्यायालय ने 1999 ( 1 ) वेस्टर्न ला केसेज ( राज. ) 390 रेजीडेंट इंजीनियर बनाम ओम प्रकाश में किया । अतः यह माना जाता है कि प्रार्थी विपक्षी के यहां एक आकस्मिक रमिक के रूप में कार्य कर रहा था तथा उसकी नियुक्ति किन्हीं नियमों के अन्तर्गत नहीं हुई थी । अतः उसका सेवा से पृथक्कीकरण रिट्रेंचमेंट अथवा छंटनी की परिभाषा में नहीं आता है ।

अतः प्रसंग का उत्तर इस प्रकार दिया जाता है कि प्रार्थी की सेवा से पृथक किया जाना अनुचित या अवैध नहीं था। प्रार्थी कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है । पंचाट प्रकाशनार्थ भारत सरकार को भेजाजाये ।

"Whether the action of the Manager , of Indian Air lines, Udaipur in terminating the services of Shri Jamunalal Paliwal S/ o Sh . Chunnilal Paliwal , Tmp . Loader w.e.f. May 1993 without following the provisions of Sec. 25F, G& H is justfied or not ? It not, what relief the workman is entitled to?" पंचाट आज दिनांक 26-3-2003 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया।

एल. डी. शर्मा, न्यायाधीश

उक्त आशय का प्रसंग प्राप्त होने पर न्यायालय द्वारा दिनांक 24-3-98 को दर्ज रजि. किया जाकर पक्षकारान को नोटिस जारी किये गये जिस पर प्रार्थी की ओर से क्लेम व विपक्षी की ओर से जवाब पेश किया गया ।

नई दिल्ली, 17 अप्रैल , 2003

संक्षेप में प्रार्थना पत्र के तथ्य इस प्रकार हैं कि प्रार्थी ने विपक्षीके यहां सन् 1983 से मई 1993 तक लोडर के पद पर निरंतर कार्य किया । विपक्षी के यहां 90 दिन कार्यरत लोडरों को स्थाई कर दिया जाता है । का. आ. 1401.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन एअरलाइंस के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

3609 परंतु प्रार्थी को स्थाई नहीं किया गया एवं दिनांक 1-5-93 को सेवा मुक्त कर दिया गया । पार्थी ने प्रत्येक वर्ष 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य किया प्रार्थी से जूनियर व्यक्ति के कार्यरत रहते हुए उसे सेवा मुक्त किया गया। प्रार्थी के सेवा मुक्त करने के बाद गुमानलाल, नाथूलाल, नारायणलाल, शिवलाल को सेवा में लिया गया । इस प्रकार सेवा मुक्ति औ . वि.अधि. की धारा 25 एफ.जी. एच. के विरुद्ध है । अतः पुनः सेवा में लिया जाकर समस्त सेवा लाभ प्रदान कराये जावे ।

विपक्षी ने अपने जवाब में यह उल्लिखित किया है कि प्रार्थी ने विपक्षी के यहां सन 83 से मई 93 तक लोडर के पद पर कार्य नहीं किया है बल्किप्रार्थी ने यदा कदा जब भी कोई लोडर अवकाश पर रहा है तो उसके स्थान पर दैनिक पारिश्रमिक के रूप में आकस्मिक श्रमिक की हैसियत से काम किया है और उसने जब भी काम किया है तो उसको उसके पारिश्रमिक का भुगतान कर दिया गया है । प्रार्थी ने फरवरी 93 से मई 93 तक सिर्फ 81 दिन काम किया है और इसके अलावा प्रार्थी ने कभी कोई काम ऐयरपोर्ट पर लोडर का नहीं किया है । प्रार्थी को नियमित रूप से नियुक्ति ही नहीं दी गई है तो उसे सेवा मुक्त करने का कोई प्रश्न ही नहीं है । नाथूलाल , गुमानलाल, शिवलाल को कम्पनी के भर्ती एवं पदोन्नति के निर्धारित मार्गदर्शी सिद्धांत के अनुसार सेवा में स्थाई कर्मचारी के रूप में भर्ती किया गया है । नारायणलाल , वायुदूत में नियुक्त तथा और वायुदूत का विलय इण्डियन एयरलाइन्स में हो जाने से उसका स्थानान्तरण इण्डियन एयरलाइन्स उदयपुर स्टेशन पर हुआ । लोडर के पद पर नियुक्ति काअधिकार स्थानीय इण्डियन एयरलाइन्स के किसी भी अधिकारी को नहींहै । अतः प्रार्थी का क्लेम निरस्त किया जावे ।

रिकार्ड तीन वर्ष तक रखा जाता है और भुगतान संबंधी रेकार्ड पांच वर्ष तक रखा जाता है इसके बाद नष्ट कर दिया जाता है इसलिए सन् 83 से 93तक का हाजरी रजिस्टर व लोग बुक, पेमेंट वाउचर आदि उपलब्ध नहीं हैं । प्रार्थी का कथन है कि वह विपक्षी के यहां लगातार अस्थाई लोडर के रूप में सन् 1983 से 1993 तक कार्य कर रहा था, का खण्ड प्रदर्श ए 1 पत्र से हो जाती है । जो उसने विपक्षी को देना स्वीकार किया है तथा इस पर ए से बी हस्ताक्षर होना स्वीकार किया है । प्रदर्श ए 1 दि. 1-11-96 का है जिसे प्रार्थी ने स्वयं स्वीकार किया है कि विपक्षी को जब भी जरूरत होती तो उसे लोडर के रूप में बुला कर रख लिया जाता था और उसकी स्थिति एक आकस्मिक श्रमिक की थी । इसी प्रकार प्रदर्श ए 2 पत्र भी उसके द्वारा लिखा जाना स्वीकार किया गया है।. उसकी स्थिति एक आकस्मिक श्रमिक की थी । और यदि कोई लोडर का पद रिक्त हो तो उसे भर्ती कर लिया जाए । प्रार्थी के द्वारा स्वीकार किये गये इन दस्तावेजों से यह प्रमाणित हो जाता है कि प्रार्थी एक आकस्मिक श्रमिक था और उसे जब जरूरत होती तो हवाई अड्‌डे पर सामान लदाने के लिए रख लिया जाता था तथा वह विपक्षी के यहां स्थाई कर्मचारी नहीं था । प्रदर्श ए 3 से ए 5 दस्तावेज है जिससे प्रकट होता है किप्रार्थी नियमित श्रमिक नहीं था बल्कि उसे महिनों में कुछ दिनों के लिए दैनिक वेतन पर आकस्मिक श्रमिक के रूप में रखा गया था । विपक्षी की ओर से नितिन पाल स्टेशन,मैनेजर का शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया है जिसमें उसने यह बयान किया है कि इण्डियन एयरलाइन्स एक निगमित निकाय है तथा अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत बनी हुई है । उसके अनुसार इस निगम में सेवा प्रवेश के लिए नियम बने हुए हैं और कर्मचारियों की भर्ती, नियुक्तिआदि नियमानुसार ही होती है । किसी अधिकारी की इंच्छा पर नहीं है कि वह किसी श्रमिक या कर्मचारी को रख सके या निकाल सके ।

मेरे विचार से नितिन पाल के इस बयान पर कोई विवाद नहीं किया जा सकता। अतः यह जाहिर है कि प्रार्थी ने विपक्षी के यहां बाब जब जरूरत पड़ी एक आकस्मिक श्रमिक के रूप में दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी के रूप में जरूरत के अनुसार काम किया। उसकी नियुक्ति किन्हीं नियमों के अन्तर्गत नहीं की गई और न ही उसे कोई नियुक्ति पत्र जारी हुआ । इन परिस्थितियों में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने ए आई आर 1997 एस सी 3657 हिमांशु कुमार विद्यार्थी व अन्य बनाम स्टेट आफबिहार व अन्य में निम्न सिद्धांत प्रतिपारित किया है :-

मैनें दोनों पक्षों को सुना व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। दोनों पक्षों ने अपने-अपने समर्थन में शपथ पत्र व दस्तावेजात प्रस्तुत किये हैं । प्रार्थी का तर्क है कि 9 मई 93 में जब उसे सेवा से पृथक किया गया तब वह विपक्षी के यहां अस्थाई लोड़र के रूप में कार्य कर रहा था और यह कार्य वह सम् 83 से कर रहा था जबकि विपक्षी का कथन है कि प्रार्थी विपक्षी का स्थाई कर्मचारी नहीं था बल्कि आकस्मिक श्रमिक था जिसे जब जरूरत पड़ती थी दैनिक वेतन पर रख लिया जाता था । प्रार्थी ने अपने समर्थन में दस्तावेज प्रदर्श 1 से 10 प्रस्तुत किये हैं । इनको देखने से प्रकट होता है कि वह अस्थाई अनुमति के पत्र हैं जिसके द्वारा प्रार्थी. को लोडिंग कार्य के लिए हवाई अड्‌डे में प्रवेश करने की अनुमति दी गई थी । प्रदर्श फोटो कापी है जो बिल्कुल अस्पष्ट है इससे पता नहीं चलता हैकिकिस अवधि के लिए प्रार्थी को अनुमति दी गई थी । प्रदर्श 2 दि. 20-8-86 से 19-9-96 तक की अनुमति है जो बाद में दि. 19-10-86 तक बढ़ाई गई। प्रदर्श 3 अनुमति दिनांक 20-10-86 से 19-12-86 तक की है । इसी प्रकार प्रदर्श 4 दिनांक 1-3-87 से 5-5-87 की अनुमति है । प्रदर्श 5 दि. 6-5-88 से 15-5-87 तक की अनुमति है । प्रदर्श 6 दि. 16-5-87 से. 15-8-88 तक की अनुमति है । प्रदर्श 7 फोटो कापी है जो अस्पष्ट है व अवधि का पता नहीं चलता है । प्रदर्श 8 भी अस्पष्ट है व तारीख का पता नहीं चलता है । प्रदर्श 9 व 10 प्रार्थी के पहचान पत्र हैं । प्रार्थी ने प्रदर्श 11 से 27 हाजरी रजिस्टर की फोटो प्रतियां प्रस्तुत की हैं, लेकिन इनको देखने से प्रकट होता है कि इन पर किसी के हस्ताक्षर नहीं हैं । विपक्षी ने इनको अपना होने से इंकार किया है । विपक्षी ने यह स्पष्ट किया है कि विपक्षी के नियमानुसार सामान्य

"Admittedly they were not appointed to the post in accordance with the rules but were engaged on the basis ofneed ofthe work. They are temporary employees working on daily wages. Under these circumstances , their disengagement from serivice cannot be construed to be a retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. The concept of" retrenchment " therefore cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover these employees . The learned counsel for the petitioniers seeks to contend that in the High Court thepetitioners did not contend that it is a case of retrenchment but termination of their services is arbitrary. Since they are only daily - wage employees and have no right to the posts , their disengagement is not arbitrary.

3610

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 20, 1925

And

TheGeneralManager,

Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd

Mandamarri Area, Dist .Adilabad. -Respondent .

उपरोक्त नजीर का अनुसरण माननीय उच्च न्यायालय ने 1999 ( 1 ) वेस्टर्न ला केसेज ( राज. ) 390 रेजीडेंट इंजीनियर बनाम ओम प्रकाश में किया । अतः यह माना जाता है कि प्रार्थी विपक्षी के यहां एक आकस्मिक श्रमिक के रूप में कार्य कर रहा था तथा उसकी नियुक्ति किन्हीं नियमों के अन्तर्गत नहीं हुई थी । अतः उसका सेवा से पृथक्कीकरण रिट्रेचमेंट अथवा छंटनी की परिभाषा में नहीं आता है ।

This petition coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Amarender Rao , Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri D. Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the respondent and having stood over for consideration till this date, the court passed the following:-

AWARD

5 अतः प्रसंग का उत्तर इस प्रकार दिया जाता है कि प्रार्थी का सेवा से पृथक किया जाना अनुचित या अवैध नहीं था तथा औ. वि. अधि. की धारा 25 - एफ, जी, एच की पालना किया जाना आवश्यक नहीं था । प्रार्थी कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है । पंचाट प्रकाशनार्थ भारत सरकार को भेजा जाए ।

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

Facts of the case briefly are as follows: -

पंचाट आज दिनांक 26-3-03 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया ।

एल. डी. शर्मा, न्यायाधीश

नई दिल्ली, 21 अप्रैल , 2003

का. आ. 1402.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947

The petitioner worked as General Mazdoor in the respondent company. The petitioner was absent from duties for some days in every month in the year , 2000. Charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner showing his absence from duties month wise from January to December , 2000,

The petitioner submitted explanation stating that he was taking treatment in the company hospital as well as in a private hospital. Therefore, he may be excused for his absence .

का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. सी. सी. एल. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण गोदावरीखानी (संदर्भ संख्या 86/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को17-4-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 23012/1/2003- आई आर ( सी- II ) ]

एन.पी. केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी

Not satisfied with the explanation, domestic enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was dismissed from the service w.e.f. , 19-9-2002 . Hence, the petitioner filed the presentpetition.

New Delhi , the 21st April, 2003

2.Respondent filed counter.

3. Ex.M - 1 to Ex.M- 12 are marked on behalf of the management.

Ex. W- 1 to Ex . W- 16 are marked on behalf of the petitioner.

4.Heard both sides .

S.O. 1402.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 86/2002) ofthe Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Godavarikhani as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17-04-2003 .

[No. L -23012/1 /2003 - IR (C- II)]

5.Thepoint for consideration is whether the charge against the petitioner is proved, if so , whether the punishment ofdismissal of the petitioner from the service is in proportion to the charge?

N.P. KESAVAN, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

6. The petitioner filed Ex . W - 1 to Ex . W - 16 to show that he was ailing from a disease and that is the reason for his absence.

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, GODAVARIKHANI

7. The petitioner has not denied the charge in his explanation to the charge -sheet, Ex.M -2.

Present:-Sri P. GURUNADHA RAO, B , Sc . , B.L. Chairman-cum -Presiding Officer

The petitioner in his reply to the enquiry report has stated that he was absent from duties due to ill -health.

THURSDAY, The 3rd Day ofApril, 2003 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 86 of2002.

Between

In Ex.M -9, the petitioner assured that he will put in 24musters every month.

Kapirapu Rayamallu, S/o . Venkaty ,

Ex-General Mazdoor , KK- 5 Incline.

Butthe petitioner did not keep up his assurance. So, he was dismissed from the service.

C/o . Sri B. Amarender Rao , Advocate,

ST2-317 Bus Stand Colony,

Godavarikhani -505 209,

-Petitioner .

I consider that the charge against the petitioner is proved, but the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner fromthe service is not inproportion tothe charge.

Dist. Karimnagar (A.P) .

[ भाग - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10; 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

This is a fit case for exercising discretion U /s . 11 -A ofthe Industrial DisputesAct.

Hence, I answer the point accordingly Inthe result, this petition in partly allowed. The order ofdismissal of the petitioner from the service is set- aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated into service without back-wages and without continuity of Service .

The parties do bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this , the 3rd day of April , 2003.

P. GURUNADHA RAO, Chairman -cum-Presiding Officer

Appendix ofEvidence

Witnesses- examined

For workman: - ForManagement:-

Nil

Exhibits

For workman:-

Ex. W- 1 dt.

T.B. Surgery Medical Book issued by SCCLtd. ,Hospital .

Ex. W-2 dt.

Medical book issued by the SCCL Hospital for the years from 1991 to 2002 .

Ex. W-3 dt. 13-6-2002 O.P. , ticket (slip) issued by SCCL Hospital , B.Zone .

Ex. W-4 dt. 18-6-2002 Medical slip issued by SCCL dispensary

Ex. W -5dt.22-10-94

Medical slip issued by SCCL Shanthikhani dispensary.

Ex.W -6 dt. 18-11-94

Medical slip of SKINOP issued by SCCLHospital .

Ex .W-7dt.29-7-98

Medical slip .

Ex. W-8 dt. 13-8-98

Medical slip 1/2 sheet.

Ex, W-9 dt. 4-6-99

Medical prescription of Rohini Hospital, Mancherial .

Ex. W-10 dt. 24-6-99 Medicalprescription givenby Dr. G. Anjaneya Prasad , Mancherial.

Ex .W- 11 dt . 24-6-97 Clinical report and scanning Centre photo issued by Ram Sai Scanning Centre , Mancherial.

Ex.W- 12 dt. 6-7-99

Medicalprescription given by Dr. G. Rama Krishna , Mancherial .

-do-

Ex.W-13 dt.3-11-99

Ex.W-14 dt. 14-9-2000, 30-12-2000 4-3-2001

Medical prescription issued by Sudha Hospital , Karimnagar.

9611 Ex. W-15 dt.29-8-2001 Medical certificate and fitness certificate.

Ex. W-16dt.-

Application ofpetitioner.

ForManagement:-

Ex.M-1 dt. 16/21-2-2001 Charge-sheet.

Ex.M- 2 dt.24-2-2001 Explanation to charge-sheet.

Ex.M-3 dt.11-10-2001 Enquirynotice.

Ex.M-4 . dt. 17-10-2001 Enquiry proceedings in original.

Ex.M-5 dt. -do-

Enquiryreport.

Ex..M-6 dt. 22-12-2001 Letter issued to petitioner by

General Manager, Mandansarri , SOCL.

Ex.M-7dt.

Ack .. Lr.No.P/MM/7/2/01 /6073 , dt.22-12-2001 .

Ex.M-8 dt. 11-1-2002 Letteraddressed to theGeneral Manager , SCCL , Mandainarri bypetitioner.

Ex.M-9 dt.7-3-2002

Representation ofpetitioner.

Ex.M- 10 dt. 16-3-2002 Letter issued to the petitioner by General Manager , Mandamarri , SCCL .

Ex.M -11 dt.-

Ack. to Lr . No.MMR/PER/ 01 / 072/1196, dt. 16-3-2002.

Ex . M- 12 dt. 29-8-2002 Dismissal order.

नई दिल्ली, 21 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1403.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण चेन्नई ( संदर्भ संख्या 150/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-4-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[एल. - 22012/449/98- आई ओर ( सी- II ) ]

एन.पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 21st April , 2003

S.O. 1403.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , (14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 150/2001 ) ofthe 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 FCl and their workman, which was received bythe Central Government on 17-04-2003 .

[No. L-22012/449/98- IR (C- II)] NP. KESAVAN, DeskOfficer 3612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 20, 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] ANNEXURE

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

Wednesday the 9th April, 2003

Present: K. KARTHIKEYAN,

Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ΝΟ . 150/99

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal 1.D. No. 145/99)

their respective parties and to prosecute this case further. Accordingly, the learned counsel on either side along with their respective parties have appeared and prosecuted this case further. The Claim Statement and Counter Statement ofthe 1st Respondent were filed earlier before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, when the matter was pending before that Tribunal for adjudication and the Counter Statement of the 2nd Respondent and rejoinder of the 1st Respondent were filed before this Tribunal after the case has been transferred to this Tribunal for adjudication.

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), between the Workmen and the Management of the District Manager and the Secretary , F.C.I. ]

BETWEEN

: IParty/Workman

Sri K. Mariappan

Upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statements, rejoinder of the 1st Respondent , the other material papers on record, after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/ Management alone and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal has passed the following:-

AND

AWARD

: II Party/ Management

1. The DistrictManager, FoodCorporation ofIndia, Tuticorin.

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of referenceby the Central Govt . for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :-

2. The Secretary,

The National

FCI Co-operative

Contract Labour Society

Ltd. Tuticorin.

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Tuticorin is justified in denying enrolment of Shri K. Mariappan, Transport Assistant, FCI, MG Complex Depot, Milavittan Good shed under direct payment system from 01-05-1996 onwards ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?" Appearances:

For the Workman

: Shri R. Arumugam and

2. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the I Party/Workman Sri K. Mariappan (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) are briefly as follows :-

: N. Krishnakumar, Advocates

Forthe Respondent No. 1 : Shri M. Imthias, Advocate.

The II Party/Management Food Corporation of India, Tuticorin and the Secretary, National FCI Co -operative Contract Labour Society Ltd. Tuticorin, have been cited as 1st and 2nd Respondents in this industrial dispute .

Forthe Respondent No. 2 : Sri . S. Muthal Raj , Advocate.

The Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , have referred the concemed dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L- 22012 / 449/ 98 / IR ( CM- II) dated 30-07-99 .

The 1st Respondent Corporation is having storage depot atM.G. Complex and Good shed at Milavittan . Before 1990, the Ist Respondent executed the loading , unloading, storing, stacking.and transport work through different individual contractors . The Petitioner worked under a contractor inM.G. Complex to execute the above works of the 1st Respondent from 5-10-1989 continuously without any break . During 1990, the Ministry of Labour by a Notificationprohibited the employment of contract labour in various godowns / depots of the 1st Respondent Corporation in which process , operation or work of handling of food grains including loading and unloading by any means oftransport, storage and stacking is carried on . In view of the said Notification, the 1st Respondent encouraged the workers working in the 1st Respondent Corporation including the Petitioner to form a workers co- operative society, so that the workers would continued to be engaged without any break . Based on their advise/ guidance , the 2nd Respondent Co -operative Labour Contract Society was formed by the workers working in This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , Chennai, where the same was taken on file as 1.D. No. 145/99 . When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal , Government of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case also from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication . On receipt of records from that Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, this casehas been taken on file as I.D. No. 150/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side , informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal , with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 02-02-2001 with [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

3613

conditions stipulated by the Headquarters Food Corporation of India, New Delhi , but the said contention was totally incorrect when especially the 1st Respondant themselves aware that the Petitioner is working therefor the past ten years continuously without any break and preceding April, 1996 he worked for more than nine months and EPF contributions were paid for the Petitioner from 1995 onwards . The 2nd Respondent by the letter dated 28-11-1997 confirmed the said fact and stated that the Petitioner fulfilled all the conditions . The Petitioner is in no way responsible for the act of the 2nd Respondent in pot including his name. The 1st Respondent was fully aware that the Petitioner was working for them under the and Respondent and earlier contractors right from 1989 onwards. The 1st Respondent never informed that his name was not included in the list and further no time limit was specified bythe 1st Respondent for bringing the workers under the direct payment system. After failure of conciliation, the Central Govt. has referred this issue for adjudication by this Tribunal . The action of the 1st Respondent in denying the enrolment of the Petitioner under direct payment system from 1-5-96 is totally arbitrary, illegal and against law. is purely a discrimination shown on the Petitioner , when especially similarly placed workers who were worked along withhim were enrolled from 1-5-96, but the Petitioner alone was singled down by the 1st Respondent. There is no justification at all on the part of the 1st Respondent in denying the relief to the Petitioner when especially the 1st Respondent themselves fully aware that the Petitioner is working for them and discharging duties for them as per , their directions for several years and further complied with the conditions stipulated by the Food Corporation of India Headquarters , New Delhi. Juniors to the Petitioners were enrolled in the direct payment system under the ist Respondent but the Petitioner, who is a senior, is left out since all the workers were taken on the rolls of the 1st Respondent, the 2nd Respondent labour contractor Society didnothave any contract and consequently the Petitioner was without employment from 28-4-97 . Due to the unjustified action of the 1st Respondent the Petitioner is without employment from 28-4-97 . Hence , it is prayed that thisHon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an award holding that the denial of enrolment of Petitioner under direct payment system from 1-5-96 by the 1st Respondent is not justified and pass an award directing the Ist Respondent to enrol the Petitioner under direct payment system from 1-5-96 and to pay all back wages , continuity ofservice and other attendant benefits to the Petitioner.

3. The averments in the Counter Statement filedby the II Party/Management Food Corporation of India, Tuticorin (hereinafter refers to as 1st Respondent ) tre brieflyas follows :-

1stRespondent Corporation and the same was registered. The Petitioner is a member of the said society . The 1st Respondent awarded the handling and transport contract to the 2nd Respondent society from 28-4-1991 . The contract was initially given for two years and subsequently extended upto 27-4-1997 . The workers/members of the 2nd Respondent Society was engaged to do the work of the 1st Respondent. The Petitioner was engaged continuously and he was directed by the 1st Respondent to do the work of preparing truck chits for'lorries in operation points inM.G. Complex and other areas and other works/jobs of the 1st Respondent assigned by the 2nd Respondent from time to time. The Petitioner worked more than 240 days in each year without any break. , The Respondent issued entry permits to the Petitioner and extended various benefits like P.F. bonus etc. The last drawn wages of the Petitioner is Rs. 1,000/-. During 1997 the Food Corporation of India, Headquarters , New Delhi decided to implement direct payment system in the 1st Respondent for the categories ofhandling labour Sardar Mandal and Ancillary Labours. It seems that the conditions imposed for extending the benefit ofdirect payment system is (1 ) the workers already working there for the last three years, (2) who had worked for atleast nine out of 12 months in the last year preceding April, 1996 and ( 3 ) EPF deductions were being made for them. The 1st Respondent implemented the said order of Food Corporation of India, Headquarters , New Delhi ,by absorbing the workers engaged through the 2nd Respondent as per the list furnished by the Secretary/ President of Labour Union . The workers working along with the Petitioner were absorbed stage by stage. The Petitioner was also under the impression that his name was also given alongwith the other workers and he would be absorbed as like other workers . In the meanwhile , the Petitioner was continued to be engaged in the work of preparing truck chit for lorries in operation points in M.G. Complex and other areas , since the transport contract was continued and the services of the Petitioner was required. The 2nd Respondent requested the labour union to give the name of the Petitioner later . Hence , the Petitioner's namewas not included in the first list. Further, the Petitioner understands that the 1st Respondent did not specify any time limit for furnishing the list of workers. When the other workers who worked alongwith the Petitioner were absorbed on direct payment systein by the 1st Respondent, the absorption ofthe Petitioner was delayed and therefore , the Petitioner approached the 2nd Respondent and the 2nd Respondent stated that the 1st Respondent will consider his case alongwith some of the workers left out. The 2nd Respondent's dialogue was protected for several months but the Respondents could not reach a solution favourable to the Petitioner. Then the Petitioner having no otheroption except to the approach the conciliation officer under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . The 1st Respondent by letter dated 31-7-97 for the first time contended that the Petitioner did not fulfil three

The 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India, District Office, Tuticorin at M.G. Complex executad handling and transporting work through private contractors prior to 1990. They have never remunerated any contract 3614

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10 , 2003/VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

have taken the contract for doing any type of work . The payment towards handling of food stocks were being made by Food Corporation of India to the contractors on the basis ofASORand for the actual volume ofwork performed as per the terms of the contract. As per the notification issued by the Ministry of Labour in 1991 prohibiting the employment of contract labour in many depots of Food Corporation of India does not cover the clerical or supervisorywork. The Food Corporation of India nowhere maintained contractors or contract employees for clerical orsupervisory work as it has its own regular staff/officers everywhere. Such regular employees/officers are appointed byFoodCorporation of India after following the statutory provisions ofFood Corporation of India Staff Regulations. There is no provision for the post of Transport Assistant in Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations . The induction of such employees as in question in FCI would meanbackdoor entry of employees in Food Corporation of India. Direct Payment System labourers are not covered byFCI Staff Regulations . Direct Payment System Labourers having beenthere in Food Corporation of India right from 1973 for doing food handiing operations in various depots all over the country and there is no provision for induction of employees under direct payment system for doing clerical or supervisory work. The averment of the Petitioner inhis Claim Statement that the 1st Respondent are fully aware that the Petitioner is working for them under the 2nd Respondent is not all true . The 1st Respondent do not have any direct link with the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent is making payment only to the Society and not to any worker directly . The three conditions laid down by the Food Corporation of India Headquarters circular havenot been fulfilled by the Petitioner as per the records maintained by Food Corporation of India which were submitted by the Society then and there. The Petitioner's name also was not found in the E.P.F. contribution list provided by the Society . If the Petitioner has really worked as a labourer in the 2nd Respondent Society, as alleged by him, his will be definitely available in the list of EPF contribution furnished to the 1st Respondent by the 2nd Respondent. The real dispute is not between the 1st Respondent and the Petitioner, it is only between the Petitioner and 2nd Repondent. The list of workers were furnished only by the General Secretary of the FCI Labour Union and not by the Society as alleged by the Petitioner. The 1st Respondent has not direct link with the Petitioner or any other worker. The Food Corporation of India had enrolled the workers as per the list furnished by the National FCI Labour Union. Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim petition of the Petitioner as there is no merit in the claim .

4. The averments in the Counter Statement filed by the II Party/Management. The Secretary , National FCI Co- operative Contract Labour Society Ltd. , Tuticorin (hereinafter refers to as 2nd Respondent) are briefly as follows:-

workers directly and therefore , the allegation of the Petitioner that he had worked from 5-10-89 for the 1st Respondent has to be proved by the Petitioner himself before this Tribunal. The work of handling contract had been awarded to Contract Labour Co - operative Society formedby the workers . The transport and handling contract wasfinalised and awarded by the Senior RegionalManager, Food Corporation of India, Tamil Nadu Region , Chennai from 28-4-91 . The said contract was extended upto 27-4-97. The allegation of the Petitioner that he was engaged continuously and he was directed by the 1st Respondent to do the work of preparing truck chits for lorries in operation point in M.G. Complex and other areas is not correct . The Food Corporation of India is directly dealing with the Labour Co-operative Society and not with individuals such as the Petitioner , the 1st Respondenthas not extended any benefits as alleged by the Petitioner in his Claim Statement and the Petitioner was never paid any wages by the 1st Respondent . As per the notification of Food Corporation of India Headquarters , New Delhi , the workers who satisfy the conditions imposed for extending benefits for direct payment system have been enrolied by the 1st Respondent as labourers under direct payment system. As per the Headquarters circular, the bio-data of the labourers maintained by the concerned labour Co- operative Society was obtained in prescribed form as per theAnnexure III to the said circular and accordingly asper the list furnished by the labour union, the 1st Respondent had implemented the direct payment system of labourers as perHeadquarters direction. The workers engaged by the Co -operative Society as per the list furnished by the Secretary and the President of Labour Union on 22-7-97 during the meeting held at the Regional Office at Chennai inthe presence of Senior Regional Manager , Joint Manager (Finance & Accounts) and District Manager, Tuticorin, the workers were absorbed in one time as per the instructions from the Headquarters Inot stage by stage asalleged by the Petitioner. The nature of work alleged to have been done by the Petitioner as Transport Assistant is a clerical job . The head load labourers (workers ) working with labour Co -operative Societies alone were entitled to work under direct payment system. The 1st Respondent had awarded contract for transportation and/or handling the food grains to the handling and transport contractors on the basis of tender enquiry and that the contract is for supply of labourers by the contractor for doing food handling operation and there is no provision for supplying ofpersonnel by contractor to Food Corporation of India for doing office/clerical work. There is no provision in the contract for bearing any liability by Food Corporation of India on account of any such employee of the contractor who might have been engaged by him to do his office/ clerical work. Such employees might have been employed by the contractor for his own convenience . Such employees of the contractor might have worked more than one place or organisation wherever the contractor might 3615

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003 /वैशाख 20, 1925

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

for the workman, since the inception of the society for whom the workmen were deployed for the period from 28-4-91 till 27-4-97 and since their counterparts 423 labourers have been taken over by the Food Corporation of India under DPS scheme . The prayer of the Petitioner may be considered by the 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India management.

5. The 1st Respondent has filed a rejoinder for the Counter Statement of the 2nd Respondent . The averments inthat rejoinder are briefly as follows :-

The allegations in the Counter Statement of the 2nd Respondent that the Petitioner complied with the three conditions stipulated in the circular issued by the Food Corporation of India Headquarters is incorrect. All 365 workers in the list furnished by the Society on 21-2-97 were absorbed by the Food Corporation of India under direct payment system . At no point of time, the name of the Petitioner was submitted by the 2nd Respondent to thelist Respondent. Further allegations of 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement that the Petitioner has fulfilled the conditions stipulated and was working with the 1st Respondent even before the formation of society are not correct. Before the formation of the society , since the contract system was prevailing at that time , the contractors were remunerated for the work turned out by them on SOR basis . Only after the formation of the society , the 1 st Respondent reimbursed the wages paid by the Society to workers and nowhere the 1st Respondent reimbursed the wages of the Petitioner. The name of the Petitioner wasnot furnished in the initial list by the 2nd Respondent because as per their declaration, his services were needed by the 2nd Respondent till the date of the termination of the transport contract. It is , therefore , clear that the services of the Petitioner was utilised by the society for their purpose. The allegation of the 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement that 35 workers have left the 1st Respondent on various grounds has nothing to do in this case . Out of the seven long absented workers, the services of five workers arere -inducted into Food Corporation of India. Moreover the number of casual labouorers furnished by the Society was 108 whereas the casual labourers as per norms required is only 64. The 1st Respondent was therefore, overburdened with excess 44 casual labourers . During this discussions held with the society on 21-2-97 , the 2nd Respondenthas stated that about 25 women casual labourers are attaining their superannuation within two years and would be reduced subsequently. This was mutually agreed by both the Respondents to restrict the Casual Labourers as per norms gradually, notwithstanding the provision for replacement of superannuated worker under dependent quota . The allegation of the 2nd Respondent that 423 labourers have been inducted by the 1st Respondent is quite contrary to their statements made earlier in the Counter Statement. The present counter has been filed by the Ex -President of the defender Society with any legal sanction with the collusion ofthe workman.

The workman involved in this dispute is the member of the Co - operative Society and was engaged by the Society. It is a fact that the Food Corporation of India had extended various benefits to the labourers since they are the Principal employer and reimbursed the employer portion ofEPF contribution, bonus etc. The Petitioner had complied with the three conditions for enrolling the worker in the direct payment system as per the circular issued by the FoodCorporationof India Headquarters at New Delhi . The 2nd Respondent Society had submitted a list of workers working in the M.G. Complex Depot and Milavittan Goods shed. The list contained 365 workers who were working in handling unit of the 2nd Respondent Society initially. At that time the Petitioner was working in the society and his services were needed by 2nd Repondent til the contract of society has ended on 27-4-97 . So , the Petitioner was retained with the Society itself for discharging their duties after contract period was over and their work was not required. The name of the Petitioner was submitted to the 1st Respondent to put them also to absorb them under direct payment system as done for the other workers. The 1stRespondent however, refused to entertain the Petitioner to put him under direct payment system. Even before the formation of the Society, as per the guidance of the 1st Respondent the Petitioner was working with the 1st Respondent , the name of the Petitioner was not included in the initial list due to the reasons stated above and the contract was existing till 27-4-97 . The list of 365 workers was furnished to the ast Respondent for direct payment system from 1-1-97 effective from 1-5-96 and therefore, the Petitioner's name could not be included in the first list. Out ofthe list of 365 workers furnished to the 1st Respondent so far 35 workers have left the 1st Respondent on various grounds such as retired, terminated, expired and long absence . The Petitioner had unblemished record of service and he is a sincere worker. If he is absorbed in FCI he will perform the work of the Corporation very efficiently as before . The Petitioner who was working in the 2nd Respondent Society may be absorbed in to the service of the 1st Respondent Corporation . Meanwhile, the Food Corporation of India/ Ist Respondent had framed a scheme for direct payment system and took over 423 labourers in the DPS scheme w.e.f. 1-3-97. If the handling and transport contract is not discharged fully and satisfactorily and if there is any loss with contractual liability, the same will be levied on the shoulders of the Society only . Therefore, the society had the obligation to discharge the contractual liability of transport contractor had to continue the services ofthe Petitioner upto the completion of the contractperiod 27-4-97. Thereafter , since the Food Corporation of India had not awarded any contract to the society, the Society had become defunct with effect from 28-4-97 . The Society can sympathies the Petitioner only and could not give any employment opportunity , since the Society was left over without any contract from Food Corporation of India since 24-7-97 . The 1st Respondent being the original employer

123291/03-12 3616

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10 , 2003/VAISAKHA 20, 1925

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 6. When the matter was taken up for enquiry , no one has been examined as a witness on either side and no document has been marked as an exhibit on either side . The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/ 1st Respondent was heard . The counsel for the Petitioner and the counsel for the 2nd Respondent have not come forward to advance any arguments , in spite of sufficient opportunity was provided to them.

7. The point for my consideration is-

Statement has also stated that the Petitioner was working with the 1st Respondent even before the formation of the society as per the guidance of the 1st Respondent . This averment of the 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement is in support ofthe contention of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement on this aspect . Neither the Petitioner nor the 2nd Respondent has let in any oral or documentary evidence to prove this contention. In the absence of one such proof, it cannot be said, when especially disputed by the 1st Respondent, the Petitioner had worked for the 1st Respondent from 5-10-89 onwards.

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Tuticorin is justified in denying enrolment of Sri K Mariappan , Transport Assistant , FCI, MG Complex Depot, Milavittan Good shed under direct payment system from 1-5-1996 onwards ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled ? "

Point:-

This industrial dispute has been raised by the Petitioner /Workman challenging the action of the 1st Respondent management of Food Corporation of India, Tuticorin in denying enrolment for him under direct payment system from 1-5-96 onwards as unjustified. It is admitted that the 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India , District Office, Tuticorin at M.G. Complex executed handling and transporting work through private contractors before 1990 and they have never remunerated any contract workers directly. It is the contention of the Petitioner that he worked under the contractor in M.G. Complex to execute the works like loading , unloading , storing, stacking and transport work ofthe 1st Respondent from 4-10-89 continuously without any break. The 1st Respondent in their Counter Statement has specifically denied this averment of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement , so it is for the Petitioner to prove strictly that he had worked for the 1st Respondent from 5-10-1989 . The Petitioner has not let in oral or documentary evidence to prove his contention.

8. It is admitted that the Ministry of Labour, Governinent of India has prohibited the employment of contract labour and hence , the 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India encouraged the workers to form Labourers Co - operative Society and the work of handling contract has been awarded to the 2nd Respondent FCICo- operative Contract Labour Society Ltd. formed by the workers . It is also admitted that the transport and handling contract was awarded from 28-4-91 by the 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India and the said contract was extended up to 27-4-97 . It is the definite allegation of the 1stRespondent that the averment of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement that he was engaged continuously and was directed by the 1st Respondent to do the work of preparing truck chits for lorries in operation point in M.G. Complex and other areas is not correct . It is further alleged by the 1st Respondent that Food Corporation of India is directly dealing with labour co -operative society only and not with individuals such as the Petitioner . The 2nd Respondent erstwhile co -operative society in their Counter

9. It is the specific averment of the 1st Respondent in their Counter Statement that the averment of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement that he was engaged continuously and was directed by the 1st Respondent to do the work of preparing truck chits for lorries in operation point in M.G. Complex and other areas is incorrect and the Food Corporation of India is directly dealing with the labour co- operative society only and not with individuals such as the Petitioner . The 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement has stated that when the society had submitted a list of workers working in the M.G. Complex Depot and Milavittan Goods Shed for the 365 workers who were in the handling unit of the 2nd Respondent Society, the Petitioner was working in the Society itself for discharging their duties, even after the contract for the society has ended on 27-4-97. It is further alleged in the Counter Statement by the 2nd Respondent that the society had obligation to discharge the contractual liability oftransport contract fully and satisfactorily and hence , the services of the Petitioner had to continue after the completion of the contract period 27-4-97 . In proof of these averments ofthe Petitioner as well as the 2nd Respondent that the Petitioner's services were utilised by the 2nd Respondent society to do the work of preparing truck chits for lorries in operation point in M. G. Complex and other areas as per the direction of the 1st Respondent, no oral or documentary evidence has been let in either by the Petitioner or by the 2nd Respondent before this Tribunal . It is the specific averment ofthe 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement that the services of the Petitioner was needed by the 2nd Respondent till the contract of society has ended on 27-4-97 and so the Petitioner was retained with the society itself for discharging their duties and their work was not required after the contract period was over . They have not stated in the Counter Statement that the Petitioner's service was utilised by the 2nd Respondent Co -operative Society to the work ofpreparing truck chits for lorries in operation point inM.G. Complex and other areas . But it is stated in the Counter Statement that the Petitioner was engaged by the Co-operative Society. It is the clear averment of the 1st Respondent in their Counter Statement that the Food Corporation of India had awarded contract for transportation and/ or handling of food grains to the handling and transport contractor on the basis of tender enquiry and the contract is for the supply of labourers by 3617 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003 /वैशाख 20, 1925

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

direct payment system has been furnished by the Secre- tary and President of the Labour Union and in that list, the name of the Petitioner was not included . It is con- firmed by the 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement that the names of 365 workers were furnished in the list given to the Ist respondent for direct payment system from 1-1-1997. The 1st Respondent also in their Counter Statement has stated clearly that as per the circulars of Headquarters for the implementation of direct payment system of labour the bio -data from the labourers main- tainedby the concerned labour co -operative society was obtained in prescribed forma as per the Annexure III to the said circular and accordingly ; as per the list furnished by the labour union, the 1st Respondent has implemented the direct payment system of labourers as per the Head- quarters direction as absorption in one time. It is further alleged that the Petitioners name was not included in the list'furnished by them . From the available materials, it is seen that the name of the petitioner has not been men- tioned in the list furnished by the Union to the 1st Re- spondent, since the service of the Petitioner was utilised by the 2nd Respondent Society for their own need. So under such circumstances , as rightly contended by the learned counsel for 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India Management, Tuticorin, the action of the ist Respondent in denying enrolment of Sri K.. Mariappan, Transport Assistant Food Corporation of India , M.G. Complex Depot, Milavittan Goods Shed under direct payment system from 1-5-1996 onwards is justified. Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief. Thus , the point is answered accordingly.

11. In the result, an Award is passed holding that the concerned workman Sri K. Mariappan is not entitled foranyrelief.

NoCost.

the contractor for doing food handling operations and there is no provision for supplying of personnel by contractor toFoodCorporation of India for doing office/clerical work. It is clearly stated in their Counter Statement that the contractor might have taken contract for doing any type of work and the employees of the contractor might have worked more than one place/organisation wherever the contractor might have taken contract and that payment towards handling of food stocks were being made by the Food Corporation of India to the contractors on the basis ofASORand that the nature of work alleged to have been done by the Petitioner as Transport Assistant is a clerical job and the head load labourers working with labour co- operative societies alone were entitled to work under direct payment system. This has not been disputed by the 2nd Respondent, the National FCI Co -operative Contract Labour Societies Ltd. in their Counter Statement . So , under such circumstances , it cannot be said that the Petitioner was engaged continuously , as per the direction of the 1st Respondent , to do the work of preparing truck chits for Iorries in operation points in M.G. Complex and other areas . The Petitioner himself in his claim statement has averred that the Petitioner was continued to be engaged in the work ofpreparing truck chit for lorries in operationpoints inM.G. Complex and other areas, since the transport contract was continued and as the service ofthe Petitioner wasrequired. So on that admission ofthe fact, the Petitioner cannot have a right to claim to be absorbed for direct payment system when it was meant for head load labourers working with labour co -operative societies alone , as contended by the 1st Respondent in their Counter Statement. The averment of the 1st Respondent in their Counter Statement that the head load labourers working with labour co -operative societies alone were entitled to work under direct payment system has not beendisputed as incorrect either by the 2nd Respondent co -operative society or by the Petitioner himself.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed byhim, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 9th April , 2003. )

K. KARTHIKEYAN, PresidingOfficer

Witnesses Examined :-

:None

On either side

Documents Exhibited :-

Oneither side :Nil

नई दिल्ली, 21 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1404.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय एफ. सी. आई. प्रबंचतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण चेन्नई ( संदर्भ संख्या 151/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-4-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था । 1

[सं. एल. - 22012/446/98- आई आर ( सी- Ⅱ ) ]

एम.पी. केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी 10. It is everybody's case that as per the decision ofFood Corporation of India Headquarters , New Delhi taken in 1997 to implement direct payment system for the categories of handling labour , Sardar , Mandal and An- ciilary labours three conditions were imposed that the worker already working there for the past three years who had worked for at least nine out of 12 months in the last year preceding April , 1996 and EPF deductions were made for them. Though it is contended by the Petitioner as well as 2nd Respondent , the Petitioner had fulfilled all the three conditions , no acceptable evidence to that effect has been let in before this Tribunal either orally or by way of documentary evidence . It is specifically stated in the Counter Statement of the 1st Respondent that the Petitioner/Workman had not complied with those three conditions and hence he is not eligible to be absorbed as a labourer for direct payment system . It is the admis- sion of the 2nd Respondent Co -operative Labour Con- tract Society that a ilst of workers for absorption for 3618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10 , 2003/VAISAKHA 20, 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( i)] New Delhi , the 21st April , 2003

S.O. 1404.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 151/2001 ) ofthe 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 FCI and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 17-04-2003.

[No. L -22012/446/98- IR (C-II)] N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Wednesday the 9th April, 2003

PRESENT : K. KARTHIKEYAN,

PresidingOfficer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 151/2001

was taken on file as I.D. No. 146/99. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, Government of India , Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case also from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, this case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 151/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side , informing them about the transfer ofthis case to this Tribunal , with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 02-02-2001 with their respective parties and to prosecute this case further . Accordingly, the learned counsel on either side along with their respective parties have appeared and prosecuted this case further. The Claim Statement and Counter Statement ofthe Ist Respondent were filed earlier before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , when the matter was pending before that Tribunal for adjudication and the Counter Statement of the 2nd Respondent and rejoinder the 1st Respondent were filed before this Tribunal after the casehas been transferred to this Tribunal for adjudication.

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 146/99)

[ In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Workmen and the Management of the District Manager & the Secretary , F.C.I. ]

BETWEEN

Upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statements , rejoinder of the 1st Respondent, the other material papers on record , after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party / Management alone and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal has passed the following:-

Sri A. Anantraj

: I Party/Workman

AWARD

AND

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

: II Party/ Management

1. The District Manager, FoodCorporation of India, Tuticorin.

2. The Secretary ,

The National

FCI Co-operative Contract Labour Society Ltd. Tuticorin.

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India , Tuticorin is justified in denying enrolment of Shri A. Anantharaj , Transport Assistant , FCI , MG Complex Depot , Milavittan Goodshed under direct payment system from 01-05-1996 onwards? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled?"

APPEARANCE:

For the Workman

: Shri R. Arumugam &

2. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the I Party/Workman Shri A. Anantharaj (hereinafter refers to asPetitioner) are briefly as follows:-

: N. Krishnakumar, Advocates

For the Respondent No I : Shri M. Imthias, Advocate.

Forthe Respondent No. 2

The II Party/Management Food Corporation of India, Tuticorin and the Secretary , National FCI Co -operative Contract Labour Society Ltd. Tuticorin , have been cited as 1st and 2nd Respondents in this industrial dispute.

: Sri . S. Muthal Raj , Advocate .

TheGovt. of India , Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub -section ( 1) and sub- section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , have referred the concerned dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L- 22012 /446/ 98/ IR (CM - II) dated30-07-99 .

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai , where the same

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003 /वैशाख 20, 1925

3619 in various godowns /depots of the 1st Respondent Corporation in which process, operation or work of handling of food grains including loading and unloading by any means of transport, storage and stacking is carried on. In view of the said Notification , the 1st Respondent encouraged the workers working in the 1st Respondent Corporation including the Petitioner to form a workers co- operative society, so that the workers would continued to be engaged without any break. Based on their advise/ guidance, the 2nd Respondent Co - operative Labour Contract Society was formed by the workers working in 1st Respondent Corporation and the same was registered. The Petitioner is a member of the said society. The 1st Respondent awarded the handling and transport contract tothe 2nd Respondent society from 28-4-1991 . The contract was initially given for two years and subsequently extended upto 27-4-1997 . The workers/ members of the 2nd Respondent Society was engaged to do the work of the 1st Respondent. The Petitioner was engaged continuously and he was directed by the 1st Respondent to do the work ofpreparing truck chits for lorries in operation points in M.G. Complex and other areas and other works/jobs ofthe 1st Respondent assigned by the 2nd Respondent from time to time . The Petitioner worked more than 240 days in each year without any break . The Respondents issued entry permits to the Petitioner and extended various benefits like P.F. bonusetc. The last drawn wages of the Petitioner is Rs . 1,000/-. Düring 1997 the Food- Corporation of India , Headquarters, New Delhi decided to implement direct payment system in the 1st Respondent for the categories ofhandling labour Sardar Mandal and Ancillary Labours . It seems that the conditions imposed for extending the benefit of direct payment system is (1 ) the workers already working there for the last three years (2) who had worked forat least nine out of 12 months in the last year preceding April, 1996 and ( 3 ) EPF deductions were being made for them. The 1st Respondent implemented the said order of Food Corporation of India, Headquarters , New Delhi , by absorbing the workers engaged through the 2nd Respondent as per the list furnished by the Secretary/ President of Labour Union . The workers working along with the Petitioner were absorbed stage by stage . The Petitioner was also under the impression that his name was also given along with the other workers and he would be absorbed as like other workers. In the meanwhile , the Petitioner was continued to be engaged in the work of preparing truck chit for lorries in operation points inM.G. Complex and other areas , since the transport contractwas continued and the services ofthe Petitioner was required . The 2nd Respondent requested the labour union to give the name of the Petitioner later . Hence , the Petitioner's name was not included in the first list. Further, the Petitioner understands that the 1st Respondent did not specify any time limit for furnishing the list of workers. When the other workers who worked along with the Petitioner were absorbed on direct payment system by the 1st Respondent ,

the absorption of the Petitioner was delayed and therefore, the Petitioner approached the 2nd Respondent and the 2nd Respondent stated that the 1st Respondent will consider his case along with some of the workers left out . The 2nd Respondent's dialogue was protected for several months but the Respondents could not reach a solution favourable to the Petitioner . Then the Petitioner having no other option except to the approach the conciliation officer under section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The 1st Respondent by letter dated 31-7-97 for the first time contended that the Petitioner did not fulfil three conditions stipulatedby the Headquarters Food Corporation ofIndia, New Delhi , but the said contention was totally incorrect when especially the 1st Respondent themselves aware that the Petitioner is working there for the past ten years continuously without any break and preceding April, 1996 he worked for more than nine months and EPF contributions were paid for the Petitioner from 1995 onwards . The 2nd Respondent by the letter dated 28-11-1997 confirmed the said fact and stated that the Petitioner fulfilled all the conditions . The Petitioner is in no way responsible for the act of the 2nd Respondent in not including his name. The 1st Respondent was fully aware that the Petitioner was working for them under the 2nd Respondent and earlier contractors right from 1989 onwards. The 1st Respondent never informed that his name was not included in the list and further no time limit was specified bythe 1st Respondent for bringing the workers under the direct payment system. After failure of conciliation , the Central Govt. has referred this issue for adjudication by this Tribunal . The action of the 1st Respondent in denying the enrolment of the Petitioner under direct payment system from 1-5-96 is totally arbitrary, illegal and against law. Itis purely a discrimination shown on the Petitioner, when especially similarly placed workers who were worked along with him were enrolled from 1-5-96, but the Petitioner alone was singled down by the 1st Respondent . There is no justification at all on the part of the 1st Respondent in denying the relief to the Petitioner when especially the list Respondent themselves fully aware that the Petitioner is working for them and discharging duties for them as per their directions for several years and further complied with the conditions stipulated by the Food Corporation of India Headquarters , New Delhi . Juniors to the Petitioners were enrolled in the direct payment system under the 1st Respondent but the Petitioner, who is a senior, is left out since all the workers were taken on the rolls of the list Respondent, the 2nd Respondent labour contractor Society did not have any contract and consequentiy the Petitioner was without employment from 28-4-97 . Due to the unjustified action of the 1st Respondent the Petitioner is without employment from 28-4-97 . Hence , it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an award holding that the denial of enrolment of Petitioner under direct payment system from 1-5-96by the 1st Respondent is not justified and pass an award directing the lat 3620

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 20, 1925

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii )] Respondent to enrol the Petitioner under direct payment system from 1-5-96 and to pay all back wages , continuity of service and other attendant benefits to the Petitioner.

3. The averments in the Counter Statement filedby the II Party/Management Food Corporation of India , Tuticorin (hereinafter refers to as 1st Respondent ) are briefly as follows :

supply of labourers by the contractor for doing food handling operation and there is no provision for supplying of personnel by contractor to Food Corporation of India fordoing office/clerical work . There is no provision in the contract forbearing any liability by Food Corporation of Indla on account of any such employee ofthe contractor who might have been engaged by him to do his office/ clerical work. Such employees mighthave been employed by the contractor for his own convenience. Such employees of the contractor might have worked more than one place or organisation wherever the contractor might have taken the contract for doing any type of work. The paymenttowardshandling of food stocks were beingmade by Food Corporation of India to the contractors on the basis ofASOR and for the actual volume of work performed as per the terms of the contract . As per the notification issued by the Ministry of Labour-in 1991 prohibiting the employment of contract labour in many depots of Food Corporation of India does not cover the clerical or supervisory work. The Food Corporation of India nowhere maintained contractors or contract employees for clerical or supervisory work as it has its own regular staff/ officers everywhere . Such regular employees/officers are appointed by Food Corporation ofIndia after following the statutory provisions of Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations. There is no provision for the post of Transport Assistant in Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations . The induction of such employees as in question in FCI would mean backdoor entry of employees in Food Corporationof India. Direct Payment System labourers are not covered by FCI Staff Regulations. Direct Payment System Labourers havingbeen there in Food Corporation of India right from 1973 for doing food handling operations in various depots all over the country and there is no provision for induction of employees under direct payment system for doing clerical or supervisory work. The averment of the Petitioner inhis Claim Statement that the 1st Respondent are fully aware that the Petitioner is working for them under the 2nd Respondent is not all true . The 1st Respondent do not have any direct link with the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent is making payment only to the Society and not to any worker directly . The three conditions laid down bythe Food Corporation of Indla Headquarters circular havenot been fulfilled by the Petitioner as per the records maintained by Food Corporation of India which were submitted by the Society then and there . The Petitioner's name also was not found in the E.P.F. contribution list providedby the Society. If the Petitioner has really worked as a labourer in the 2nd Respondent Society, as allegedby him, his will be definitely available in the list of EPF contribution furnished to the 1st Respondent by the 2nd Respondent . The real dispute is not between the 1st Respondent and the Petitioner , it is only between the Petitioner and 2nd Repondent. The list of workers were furnished only by the General Secretary of the FCI Labour Union and notby the Society as alleged by the Petitioner.

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

3621 The 1st Respondent has not direct link with the Petitioner or any other worker . The Food Corporation of India had enrolled the workers as per the list furnished by the National FCI Labour Union . Hence , it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim petition ofthe Petitioner as there is no merit in the claim.

4. The averments in the Counter Statement filed by the II Party/Management . The Secretary, National FCI Co- operative Contract Labour Society Ltd. , Tuticorin (hereinafter refers to as 2nd Respondent ) are briefly as follows:-

levied on the shoulders of the Society only. Therefore, the society had the obligation to discharge the contractual liability oftransport contractor had to continúe the services of the Petitioner upto the completion of the contractperiod 27-4-97. Thereafter, since the Food Corporation of India had not awarded any contract to the society, the Society had becomedefunct with effect from 28-4-97. The Society cansympathise the Petitioner only and could not give any employment opportunity, since the Society was left over without any contract from Food Corporation of India since 24-7-97. The 1st Respondent being the original employer for the workman, since the inception of the society for whom the workmen were deployed for the period from 28-4-91 till 27-4-97 and since their counterparts 423 labourers have been taken over by the Food Corporation of India under DPS scheme. The prayer of the Petitioner may be considered by the Ist Respondent Food Corporation of Indiamanagement.

1 5. The 1st Respondent has filed a rejoinder for the Counter Statement of the 2nd Respondent . The averments inthat rejoinder are briefly as follows:-

The workman involved in this dispute is the member ofthe co -operative society and was engaged by the Society. it is a fact that the Food Corporation of India had extended various benefits to the labourers since they are the Principal employer and reimbursed the employer portion of EPF contribution, bonus etc. The Petitioner had complied with the three conditions for enrolling the worker in the direct payment system as per the circular issued by the Food Corporation of India Headquarters at New Delhi . The 2nd Respondent Society had submitted a list of workers working in the M.G. Complex Depot and Milavittan Goods shed.The list contained 365 workers who were working in handling unit ofthe 2nd Respondent Society initially : At that time the Petitioner was working in the society and his services were needed by 2nd Repondent till the contract of society has ended on 27-4-97 . So , the Petitioner was retained with the Society itself for discharging their duties after contract period was over and their work was not required . The name of the Petitioner was submitted to the Ist Respondent to put them also to absorb them under direct payment system as done for the other workers . The IstRespondenthowever, refused to entertain the Petitioner to put him under direct payment system . Even before the formation of the Society, as per the guidance of the Ist Respondent the Petitioner was working with the 1st Respondent , the name of the Petitioner was not included in the initial list due to the reasons stated above and the contract was existing till 27-4-97 . The list of 365 workers was furnished to the 1st Respondent for direct payment system from 1-1-97 effective from 1-5-96 and therefore, the Petitioner's name could not be included in the first list. Out of the list of 365 workers furnished to the Ist Respondent so far 35 workers have left the 1st Respondent on various grounds such as retired, terminated, expired and long absence . The Petitioner had unblemished record ofservice and he is a sincere worker. If he is absorbed in FCI he will perform the work of the Corporation very efficiently as before . The Petitioner who was working in the 2nd Respondent Society may be absorbed in to the service of the 1st Respondent Corporation . Meanwhile , the Food Corporation of India/ Ist Respondent had framed a scheme fordirect payment system and took over 423 labourers in theDPS scheme w.e.f. I - 3-97 . If the handling andtransport contract is not discharged fully and satisfactorily and if there is any loss with contractual liability , the same will be

The allegations in the Counter Statement of the 2nd Respondent that the Petitioner compiled with the three conditions stipulated in the circular issued by the Food Corporation of India Headquarters is incorrect. All 365 workers in the list furnished by the Society on 21-2-97 were absorbed by the Food Corporation of India under direct payment system . At no point of time, the name of the Petitioner was submitted by the 2nd Respondent to the Ist Respondent . Further allegations of 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement that the Petitioner has fulfilled the conditions stipulated and was working with the Ist Respondent even before the formation of society are not correct. Before the formation of the society, since the contract system was prevailing at that time, the contractors were remunarated for the work turned out by them on SOR basis . Only after the formation of the society , the Ist Respondent reimbursed the wages paid by the Society to workers and nowhere the 1st Respondent reimbursed the wages of the Petitioner. The name of the Petitioner was not furnished in the initial list by the 2nd Respondent because asper their declaration , his services were needed by the 2nd Respondent till the date of the termination of the transport contract. It is therefore , clear that the services of the Petitioner was utilised by the society for their purpове. The allegation of the 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement that 35 workers have left the 1st Respondention various grounds has nothing to do in this case . Out of the seven long absented workers , the services of five workers are re - inducted into Food Corporation of India . Moreover the number of casual labourers furnished by the Society was 108whereas the casual labourers as per norms required is only64. The 1st Respondent was therefore , overburdened withexcess 44 casual labourers . During this discussions held with the society on 21-2-97 , the 2nd Respondent has stated that about 25 women casual labourers are attaining 3622

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003 /VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

their superannuation within two years and would be reduced subsequently . This was mutually agreed by both the Respondents to restrict the Casual Labourers as per norms gradually, notwithstanding the provision for replacement of superannuated worker under dependent quota . The allegation of the 2nd Respondent that 423 labourers have been inducted by the 1st Respondent is quite contraryto their statements made earlier in the Counter Statement . The present counter has been filed by the Ex -President of the defender Society without any legal sanction with the collusion of the workman.

6. When the matter was taken up for enquiry , no one has been examined as a witness on either side and no document has been marked as an exhibit on either side . The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/ 1st Respondent was heard. The counsel for the Petitioner and the counsel for the 2nd Respondent have not come forward to advance any arguments , inspite of sufficient opportunity was provided to them.

7. The point for my consideration is-

contract was awarded from 28-4-91 by the 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India and the said contract was extended up to 27-4-97. It is the definite allegation of the 1stRespondent that the averment of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement that he was engaged continuously and was directed by the 1st Respondent to do the work of preparing truck chits for lorries in operation point in M.G. Complexand other areas is not correct . It is further alleged by the 1st Respondent that Food Corporation of India is directly dealing with labour co-operative society only and not with individuals such as the Petitioner . The 2nd Respondent erstwhile co -operative society in their Counter Statement has also stated that the Petitioner was working with the 1st Respondent even before the formation of the society as per the guidance of the 1st Respondent . This averment of the 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement is in support ofthe contention of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement on this aspect . Neither the Petitioner nor the 2nd Respondent has let in any oral or documentary evidence to prove this contention. In the absence of one such proof, it cannot be said, when especially disputed by the 1st Respondent, the Petitioner has worked for the 1st Respondent from 4-10-89 onwards .

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Tuticorin is justified in denying enrolment of Shri A. Anantharaj , Transport Assistant , FCI , MG Complex Depot, Miliavittan Goodshed under direct payment system from 1-5-1996 onwards ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled ? "

Point:-

This industrial dispute has been raised by the Petitioner /Workman challenging the action of the 1st Respondent management of Food Corporation of India, Tuticorin in denying enrolment for him under direct payment system from 1-5-96 onwards as unjustified. It is admitted that the 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India , District Office, Tuticorin at M.G. Complex executed handling and transporting work through private contractors before 1990 and they have never remunerated any contract workers directly. It is the contention of the Petitioner that he worked under the contractor in M.G. Complex to execute the works like loading , unloading , storing, stacking and transport work ofthe 1st Respondent from 4-10-89 continuously without any break. The 1st Respondent in the Counter Statement has specifically denied this averment of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement, so it is for the Petitioner to prove strictly that he had worked for the 1st Respondent from 4-10-1989 . The Petitioner hasnot let in oral or documentary evidence to prove his contention .

8. It is admitted that the Ministry of Labour,

9. It is the specific averment ofthe 1st Respondent in their Counter Statement that the averment of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement that he was engaged continuously and was directed by the 1st Respondent to do the work of preparing truck chits for lorries in operation point in M. G. Complex and other areas is incorrect and the Food Corporation of India is directly dealing with the labour co-operative society only and not with individuals such as the Petitioner. The 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement has stated that when the society had submitted a list of workers working in the M.G. Complex Depot and MilavittanGood Shed for the 365 workers who were in the handling unit of the 2nd Respondent Society, the Petitioner was working in the Society itself for discharging their duties , even after the contract for the society has ended on 27-4-97 . It is further alleged in the Counter Statement by the 2nd Respondent that the society had obligation to discharge the contractual liability oftransport contract fully and satisfactorily and hence , the services of the Petitioner had to continue after the completion of the contract period 27-4-97. In proof of these averments of the Petitioner as well as the 2nd Respondent that the Petitioner's services were utilised by the 2nd Respondent society to do the work ofpreparing truck chits for lorries in operation point inM.G. Complex and other areas as per the direction of the 1st Respondent, no oral or documentary evidence has been let in either by the Petitioner or by the 2nd Respondent before this Tribunal . It is the specific averment of the 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement that the services of the Petitioner was needed by the 2nd Respondent till the contract of society has ended on 27-4-97 and so the Petitioner was retained with the society itself for discharging their duties and their work was not required Government of India has prohibited the employment of contract labour and hence , the 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India encouraged the workers to form Labourers Co - operative Society and the work of handling contract has been awarded to the 2nd Respondent FCI Co- operative Contract Labour Society Ltd. formed by the workers . It is also admitted that the transport and handling 3623

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10 , 2003 /वैशाख 20, 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

year preceding April , 1996 and EPF deductions were made for thein. Though it is contended by the Petitioner as well as 2nd Respondent, the Petitioner had fulfilled all the three conditions , no acceptable evidence to that effect has been let in before this Tribunal either orally or byway ofdocumentary evidence . It is specifically stated in the Counter Statement of the 1st Respondent that the Petitioner/Workman had not complied with those three conditions and hence he is not eligible to be absorbed as a labourer for direct payment system. It is the admis- sion of the 2nd Respondent Co -operative Labour Con- tract Society that a list of workers for absorption fordi- rect payment system has been furnished by the Secre- tary and President of the Labour Union and in that list, the name of the Petitioner was not included . It is con- firmed by the 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement that the names of 365 workers were furnished in the list given to the 1st Respondent for direct payment system from1-1-1997 . The Ist Respondent also in their Counter Statement has stated clearly that as per the circulars of Headquarters for the implementation of direct payment system of labour the bio -data from the labourers main- tained by the concerned labour co -operative society was obtained in prescribed form as per the annexure 1 to the said circular and accordingly, as per the list furnished by the labour union, the 1st Respondent has implemented the direct payinent system of labourers as per the Head- quarters direction as absorption in one time. It is further alleged that the Petitioners name was not included in the list furnished by them. From the available materials , it is seen that the name of the petitioner has not been men- tioned in the list furnished by the Union to the 1st Re- spondent , since the service of the Petitioner was utilised by the 2nd Respondent Society for their own need So under such circumstances , as rightly contended by the learned counsel for 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India Management, Tuticorin , the action of the 1st Respondent in denying enrolment of Sri A. Anantharaj , Transport Assistant Food Corporation of India, M.G. Complex Depot, Milavittan Good Shed under directpay- ment system from 1-5-1996 onwards is justified . Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief. Thus , the point is answered accordingly .

11. In the result, an Award is passed holding that the concerned workman Sri A. Anantharaj is not entitled forany relief.

NoCost.

after the contract period was over. They have not stated in the Counter Statement that the Petitioner's service was utilised by the 2nd Respondent Co -operative Society to the work of preparing truck chits for lorries in operation point inM.G. Complex and other areas . But it is stated in the Counter Statement that the Petitioner was engaged by the Co -operative Society. It is the clear averment of the 1st Respondent in their Counter Statement that the Food Corporation of India had awarded contract for transportation and/or handling of food grains to the handling and transport contractor on the basis of tender enquiry and the contract is for the supply of labourers by the contractor for doing food handling operations and there is no provision for supplying of personnel by contractor toFood Corporation of India for doing office/clerical work. It is clearly stated in their Counter Statement that the contractor might have taken contract for doing any type of work and the employees of the contractor might have worked more than one place/organisation wherever the contractor might have taken contract and that payment towards handling of food stocks were being made by the Food Corporation of India to the contractors on the basis ofASOR and that the nature of work alleged to have been done by the Petitioner as Transport Assistant is a clerical job and the head load labourers working with labour co- operative societies alone were entitled to work under direct payment system . This has not been disputed by the 2nd Respondent, the National FCI Co -operative Contract Labour Societies Ltd. in their Counter Statement . So , under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Petitioner was engaged continuously, as per the direction of the 1st Respondent , to do the work of preparing truck chits for lorries in operation points in M.G. Complex and other areas. The Petitioner himself in his claim statement has averred that the Petitioner was continued to be engaged in the work ofpreparing truck chit for lorries in operation points in M.G. Complex and other areas , since the transport contract was continued and as the service of the Petitioner was required. So on that admission of the fact, the Petitioner cannot have a right to claim to be absorbed for direct payment system when it was meant for head load labourers working with labour co- operative societies alone , as contended by the 1st Respondent in their Counter Statement . The averment of the 1st Respondent in their counter Statement that the head load labourers working with labour co -operative societies alone were entitled to workunder direct payment system has not been disputed as incorrect either by the 2nd Respondent co- operative society or by the Petitioner himself.

(Dictatedto the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 9th April , 2003.)

K. KARTHIKEYAN , Presiding Officer .

Witnesses Examined :-

:None

On either side

Documents Exhibited :---

:Nil

Oneither side

1232.61/03-13 3624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003 /VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

नई दिल्ली, 21 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1405.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण चेन्नई ( संदर्भ संख्या 152/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को17/4/2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं . एल.- 22012/450/98- आई आर ( सी- II ) ]

एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 21st April, 2003

S.O. 1405. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 , ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 152/2001) ofthe 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 FCI and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 17/04/2003 .

[No. L - 22012/450/98 - IR(C-II)]

N. P. KESAVAN, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Wednesday the 9th April, 2003

Present : K. KARTHIKEYAN ,

PresidingOfficer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 152/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal 1.D. No. 147/99) (Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workmen and the Management of the District Manager & the Secretary, F.C.I. )

BETWEEN

Sri V.C. Paulraj

: I Party/Workman

AND

: II Party/

1. The District Manager,

Management FoodCorporation of India, Tuticorin.

2.The Secretary,

The National

FCI Co-operative

Contract Labour Society

Ltd. Tuticorin.

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] Appearance:

Forthe Workman

: Shri R. Arumugam &

: N. Krishnakumar, Advocates

For the Respondent No 1 : Shri M. Imthias, Advocate.

Forthe Respondent No. 2 : Sri . S. Muthal Raj , Advocate.

T TheGovt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferredby clause ( d) of Sub -section ( 1 ) and Sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ), have referred the concerned dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L -22012/450/ 98/ IR (CM - II ) dated30-07-99.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , Chennai, where the same was taken on file as I.D. No. 147/99 . When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal , Government of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case also from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of recordsfromthat Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , this casehas been taken on file as I.D. No. 152/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side , informing them about the transfer ofthis case to this Tribunal , with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 02-02-2001 with their respective parties and to prosecute this case further. Accordingly , the learned counsel on either side along with their respective parties have appeared and prosecuted this case further. The Claim Statement and Counter Statement ofthe 1st Respondent were filed earlier before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, when the matter was pending before that Tribunal for adjudication and the Counter Statement of the 2nd Respondent and rejoinder of the 1stRespondent were filed before this Tribunal after the casehasbeentransferred to this Tribunal for adjudication.

Upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statements , rejoinder of the Ist Respondent, the other material papers on record, after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/ Management alone and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration , this Tribunal has passed the following:-

AWARD

The Industriai Dispute referred to in the above order of reference by the Central Govt . for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows:---

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Tuticorin is justified in denying enrolment of Shri V.C. Paulraj , Transport Assistant, FCI, MG Complex Depot, Milavittan Goodshed under directpayment system from 01-05-1996 onwards? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled? " [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

3625 2. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the I Party/Workman Sri V.C. Paulraj (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) are briefly as follows:-

The II Party/Management Food Corporation of India, Tuticorin and the Secretary , National FCI Co -operative Contract Labour Society Ltd. Tuticorin, have been cited as 1st and 2nd Respondents in this industrial dispute.

The 1st Respondent Corporation is having storage depotatM.G. Complex and Good shed at Milavittan . Before 1990, the 1st Respondent executed the loading, unloading, storing, stacking and transport work through different individual contractors . The Petitioner worked under a contractor in M.G. Complex to execute the above works of the 1st Respondent from 4-10-1989 continuously without any break . During 1990, the Ministry of Labour by a Notification prohibited the employment of contract labour in various godowns/depots of the 1st Respondent Corporation in which process , operation or work of handling of food grains including loading and unloading by any means of transport, storage and stacking is carried on. In view of the said Notification, the 1st Respondent encouraged the workers working in the 1st Respondent Corporation including the Petitioner to form a workers co- operative society , so that the workers would continued to be engaged without any break . Based on their advise/ guidance, the 2nd Respondent Co- operative Labour Contract Society was formed by the workers working in 1st Respondent Corporation and the same was registered. The Petitioner is a member of the said society . The 1st Respondent awarded the handling and transport contract to the2nd Respondent society from 28-4-1991 . The contract was initially given for two years and subsequently extended upto 27-4-1997 . The workers/ members of the 2nd Respondent . Society was engaged to do the work of the 1st Respondent. The Petitioner was engaged continuously andhe was directed by the 1st Respondent to do the work of preparing truck chits for lorries in operation points in M.G. Complex and other areas and other works/jobs ofthe 1st Respondent assigned by the 2nd Respondent from time to time . The Petitioner worked more than 240 days in each year without any break . The Respondent issued entry permits to the Petitioner and extended various benefits like P.F. bonus etc. The last drawn wages of the Petitioner is Rs . 1,000/- . During 1997 the Food Corporation of India, Headquarters , New Delhi decided to impiement direct payment system in the ist Respondent for the categories ofhandling labour Sardar Mandal and Ancillary Labours . It seems that the conditions imposed for extending the benefit ofdirect payment system is ( 1 ) the workers already working there for the last three years ( 2) who had worked for at least nine out of 12 months in the last year preceding April , 1996 and (3 ) EPF deductions were being made for them . The 1st Respondent implemented the said order of FoodCorporation of India, Headquarters , New Delhi , by absorbing the workers engaged through the 2nd

Respondent as per the list furnished by the Secretary/ President of Labour Union . The workers working along with the Petitioner were absorbed stage by stage. The Petitioner was also under the impression that his namewas also given along with the other workers and he would be absorbed as like other workers . In the meanwhile, the Petitioner was continued to be engaged in the work of preparing truck chit for lorries in operation points in M.G. Complex and other areas , since the transport contract was continued and the services of the Petitioner was required . The 2nd Respondent requested the labour union to give the name of the Petitioner later . Hence, the Petitioner's name was not included in the first list . Further, the Petitioner understands that the 1st Respondent did not specify any time limit for furnishing the list of workers . When other workers who worked along with the Petitioner were absorbed on direct payment systemby the 1st Respondent, the absorption of the Petitioner was delayed and therefore, the Petitioner approached the 2nd Respondent and the 2nd Respondent stated that the 1st Respondent wil consider his case along with some of the workers left out. The 2nd Respondent's dialogue was protected for several months but the Respondents could not reach a solution favourable to the Petitioner. Then the Petitioner having no other option except tothe approach the conciliation officer under section 2A of the Industrial DisputesAct , 1947. The 1st Respondent by letter dated 31-7-97 for the first time contended that the Petitioner did not fulfil three conditions stipulatedby the Headquarters Food Corporation of India, New Delhi , but the said contention was totally incorrect when especially the 1st Respondent themselves aware that the Petitioner is working there for the past ten years continuously without any break and preceding April, 1996 he worked for more than nine months and EPF contributions were paid for the Petitioner from 1995 onwards . The 2nd Respondent by the letter dated 28-11-1997 confirmed the said fact and stated that the Petitioner fulfilled all the conditions . The Petitioner is in no way responsible for the act of the 2nd Respondent in not including his name. The 1st Respondent was fully awaré that the Pétitioner was working for them under the 2nd Respondent and earlier contractors right from 1989 onwarda The 1st Respondent never informed that his name was not included in the list and further no time limit was specified bythe 1st Respondent for bringing the workers under the direct payment system . After failure of conclliation , the Central Govt. has referred this issue for adjudicatlon by this Tribunal . The action of the 1st Respondent in denying the enrolment ofthe Petitioner under direct payment system from 1-5-96 is totally arbitrary , Illegal and against law. It is purely a discrimination shown on the Petitioner, when especially similarly placed workers who were worked along with him were enroiled from 1-5-96, but the Petitioner alone was singled downby the 1st Respondent. There is no justification at ail on the part of the 1st Respondent in denying the relief to the Petitioner when especially the 1st [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 3626

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 2003/VAISAKHA 20, 1925

Respondent themselves fully aware that the Petitioner is working for them and discharging duties for them as per their directions for several years and further complied with the conditions stipulated by the Food Corporation of India Headquarters , New Delhi . Juniors to the Petitioners were enrolled in the direct payment system under the 1st Respondent but the Petitioner , who is a senior , is left out since all the workers were taken on the rolls of the 1st Respondent, the 2nd Respondent labour contractor Society did not have any contract and consequently the Petitioner was without employment from 28-4-97. Due to the unjustified action of the 1st Respondent the Petitioner is without employment from 28-4-97. Hence , it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an award holding that the denial of enrolment of Petitioner under direct payment system from 1-5-96 by the 1st Respondent is not justified and pass an award directing the 1st Respondent to enrol the Petitioner under direct payment system from 1-5-96 and to pay all back wages , continuity of service and other attendant benefits to the Petitioner.

3. The averments in the Counter Statement filed by the II Party/Management Food Corporation of India, Tuticorin (hereinafter refers to as 1st Respondent ) are briefly as follows:-

the list furnished by the labour union , the 1st Respondent had implemented the direct payment system of labourers as per Headquarters direction. The workers engaged by the Co - operative Society as per the list furnished by the Secretary and the President of Labour Union on 22-7-97 during the meeting held at the Regional Office at Chennai inthe presence of Senior Regional Manager Joint Manager (Finance & Accounts) and District Manager, Tuticorin, the workers were absorbed in one time as per the instructions from the Headquarters and not stage by stage as alleged by the Petitioner . The nature of work alleged to have been done by the Petitioner as Transport Assistant isa clerical job. The head load labourers ( workers) working with labour co- operative societies alone were entitled to work under direct payment system . The 1st Respondent had awarded contract for transportation and/or handling the food grains to the handling and transport contractors on the basis of tender enquiry and that the contract is for supply of labourers by the contractor for doing food handling operation and there is no provision for supplying ofpersonnel by contractor to Food Corporation of India for doing office/clerical work . There is no provision in the contract for bearing any liability by Food Corporation of India on account of any such employee of the contractor who might have been engaged by him to do his office/ clerical work. Such employees might have been employed by the contractor for his own convenience . Such employees of the contractor might have worked more than one place or organisation wherever the contractor might have taken the contract for doing any type of work. The payment towards handling of food stocks were being made by Food Corporation of India to the contractors on the basis ofASOR and for the actual volume of work performed as per the terms of the contract . As per the notification issued by the Ministry of Labour in 1991 prohibiting the employment of contract labour in many depots of Food Corporation of India does not cover the clerical or supervisory work. The Food Corporation of India nowhere maintained contractors or contract employees for clerical or supervisory work as it has its own regular staff/officers everywhere. Such regular employees/officers are appointed byFood Corporation of India after following the sutatory provisions of Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations. There is no provision for the post of Transport Assistant in Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations . The induction of such employees as in question in FCI would mean backdoor entry of employees in Food Corporation of India . Direct Paynient System labourers are not covered by FCI Staff Regulations. Direct Payment System Labourers having been there in Food Corporation of India right from 1973 for doing food handling operations in various depots all over the country and there is no provision for induction of employees under direct payment system for doing clerical or supervisory work. The averment of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement that the 1st Respondent are fully aware that the Petitioner is working for them under the 2nd [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

Respondent is not all true. The 1st Respondent do not have any direct link with the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent is making payment only to the Society and not to any worker directly . The three conditions laid down by the Food Corporation of India Headquarters circular have not been fulfilled by the Petitioner as per the records maintained by Food Corporation of India which were submitted by the Society then and there . The Petitioner's name also was not found in the E.P.F. contribution list providedby the Society. If the Petitioner has really worked as a labourer in the 2nd Respondent Society, as alleged by him, his will be definitely available in the list of EPF contribution furnished to the 1st Respondent by the 2nd Respondent. The real dispute is not between the 1st Respondent and the Petitioner , it is only between the Petitioner and 2nd Repondent . The list of workers were furnished only by the General Secretary of the FCI Labour Union and not by the Society as alleged by the Petitioner . The 1st Respondent has not direct link with the Petitioner or any other worker . The Food Corporation of India had enrolled the workers as per the list furnished by the National FCI Labour Union. Hence , it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim petition of the Petitioner as there is no merit in the claim.

4. The averments in the Counter Statement filedby the II Party/Management . The Secretary, National FCI Co- operative Contract Labour Society Ltd. , Tuticorin (hereinafter refers to as 2nd Respondent) are briefly as follows:-

The workman involved in this dispute is the member ofthe co -operative society and was engaged by the Society. It is a fact that the Food Corporation of India had extended various benefits to the labourers since they are the Principal employer and reimbursed the employer portion of EPF contribution, bonus etc. The Petitioner had complied with the three conditions for enrolling the worker in the direct payment system as per the circular issued by the Food Corporation ofIndia Headquarters at New Delhi . The 2nd Respondent Society had submitted a list of workers working in the M.G. Complex Depot and Milavittan Goods shed . The list contained 365 workers who were working in handling unit of the 2nd Respondent Society initially. At that time the Petitioner was working in the society and his services were needed by 2nd Repondent till the contract of society has ended on 27-4-97 . So , the Petitioner was retained with the Society itself for discharging their duties after contract period was over and their work was not required. The name of the Petitioner was submitted to the 1st Respondent to put them also to absorb them under direct payment system as done for the other workers . The 1st Respondent however, refused to entertain the Petitioner toput him under direct payment system. Even before the formation of the Society, as per the guidance of the 1st Respondent the Petitioner was working with the 1st Respondent , the name of the Petitioner was not included

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 10, 2003 /वैशाख 20, 1925

3627 in the initial list due to the reasons stated above and the contract was existing till 27-4-97 . The list of365 workers was furnished to the 1st Respondent for direct payment system from 1-1-97effective from 1-5-96 and therefore, the Petitioner'sname could not be included in the first list. Out ofthe list of 365 workers furnished to the 1st Respondent so far 35 workers have left the 1st Respondent on various grounds such as retired, terminated, expired and long absence . The Petitioner had unblemished record of service andhe is a sincere worker. Ifhe is absorbed in FCI he will perform the work of the Corporation very efficiently as before. The Petitioner who was working in the 2nd Respondent Society may be absorbed in to the servicel of the 1st Respondent Corporation . Meanwhile , the Food Corporation of India/ 1st Respondent had framed a scheme for direct payment system and took over 423 labourers in the DPS scheme wie.f. 1-3-97. If the handling and transport contract is not discharged fully and satisfactorily and if there is any loss with contractual liability , the same willbe levied on the shoulders of the Society only. Therefore, the society had the obligation to discharge the contractual liability of transport contractor had to continue the services ofthe Petitioner upto the completion of the contract period 27-4-97. Thereafter, since the Food Corporation of India had not awarded any contract to the society, the Society had become defunct with effect from 28-4-97. The Society can sympathies the Petitioner only and could not give any employment opportunity , since the Society was left over without any contract from Food Corporation of India since 24-7-97. The 1st Resporident being the original employer for the workman, since the inception of the society for whom the workmen were deployed for the period from 28-4-91 till 27-4-97 and since their counterparts 423 labourers have been taken over by the Food Corporation of India under DPS scheme. The prayer of the Petitioner may be considered by the 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India management.

5. The 1st Respondent has filed a rejoinder for the Counter Statement of the 2nd Respondent . The averments inthat rejoinder are briefly as follows:----

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003/VAISAKHA 20, 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]

transportingwork through private contractors before 1990 and they have never remunerated any contract workers directly. It isthe contention of the Petitioner that he worked underthe contractor inM.G. Complex to execute the works like loading, unloading, storing, stacking and transport work ofthe 1st Respondent from 4-10-89 continuously without anybreak. The 1st Respondent in the Counter Statement has specifically denied this averment of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement, so it is for the Petitioner to prove strictly that he had worked for the 1st Respondent from 4-10-1989. The Petitioner has not let in oral or documentary evidence to provehis contention.

basis . Only after the formation of the society, the 1st Respondent reimbursed the wages paid by the Society to workers and nowhere the 1st Respondent reimbursed the wages ofthe Petitioner . The name of the Petitionerwas not furnished in the initial list by the 2nd Respondent because aspertheir declaration, his services were needed by the 2nd Respondent till the date of the termination of the transport contract . It is therefore, clear that the services of the Petitioner was utilised by the society for their purpose . The allegation of the 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement that 35 workers have left the 1st Respondent on various grounds has nothing to do in this case. Out ofthe sevenlong absentee workers , the services of five workers are re -inducted into Food Corporation of India. Moreover the number of casual labourers furnished by the Society was108whereas the casual labourers as per norms required isonly 64. The 1st Respondent was therefore, overburdened with excess 44 casual labourers . During this discussions held with the society on 21-2-97 , the 2nd Respondent has stated that about 25 women casual labourers are attaining their superannuation within two years and wouldbe reduced subsequently . This was mutually agreed by both the Respondents to restrict the Casual Labourers as per norms gradualiy, notwithstanding the provision for replacement of superannuated worker under dependent quota. The allegation of the 2nd Respondent that 423 labourers have been inducted by the 1st Respondent is quite contrary to their statements made earlier in the Counter Statement. The present counter has been filed by the Ex- President of the defunct Society without any legal sanction with the collusion of the workman.

6. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, no one has been examined as a witness on either side and no document has been marked as an exhibit on either side . The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/ 1st Respondent was heard . The counsel for the Petitioner and the counsel for the 2nd Respondent have not come forward to advance any arguments , inspite of sufficient opportunity was provided to them.

7. The point for my consideration is-

8. It is admitted that the Ministry of Labour, Government of India has prohibited the employment of contract labour and hence , the 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India encouraged the workers to form Labourers Co-operative Society and the work of handling contracthas been awarded to the 2nd Respondent FCICo- operative Contract Labour Society Ltd. formed by the workers. It is also admitted that the transport and handling contractwas awarded from 28-4-91 by the 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India and the said contract was extended up to 27-4-97 . It is the definite allegation of the 1stRespondent that the averment of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement that he was engaged continuously and was directed by the 1st Respondent to do the work of * preparingtruck chits for lorries in operation point in M.G. Complex and other areas is not correct . It is further alieged by the 1st Respondent that Food Corporation of India is directly dealingwith labour co-operative society only and not with individuals such as the Petitioner . The 2nd Respondent erstwhile co-operative society in their Counter Statement has also stated that the Petitioner was working with the 1st Respondent even before the formation ofthe society as per the guidance of the 1st Respondent . This averment of the 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement isin support of the contention of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement on this aspect . Neither the Petitioner nor the 2nd Respondent has let in any oral or documentary evidence to prove this contention . In the absence of one such proof, it cannot be said, when especially disputed by the 1st Respondent, the Petitioner has worked for the 1st Respondent from 4-10-89 onwards .

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Tuticorin isjustified in denying enrolment of Shri V.C. Paulraj , TransportAssistant, FCI, MG ComplexDepot, Milavittan Goodshed under direct payment system from 1-5-1996 onwards ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ? "

Point:-

3629

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20 , 1925

work ofpreparing truck chit for lorries in operationpoints in M.G. Complex and other areas, since the transport contractwas continued and as the service of the Petitioner was required. So on that admission ofthe fact, the Petitioner cannot have a right to claim to be absorbed for direct payment system when it was meant for head load labourers working with labour co-operative societies alone, as Contended by the Ist Respondent in their Counter Statement. The averment of the Ist Respondent in their Counter Statement that the head load labourers working with labour co -operative societies alone were entitledto workunder direct payment system has not been disputed as incorrect either by the 2nd Respondent co-operative society or by the Petitionerhimself.

handling unit of the 2nd Respondent Society, the Petitioner was working in the Society itself for discharging their duties, even after the contract for the society has ended on 27-4-97. It is further alleged in the Counter Statement by the 2nd Respondent that the society had obligation to discharge the contractual liability oftransport contract fully and satisfactorily and hence , the services of the Petitioner had to continue after the completion ofthe contract period 27-4-97 . In proof of these averments of the Petitioner as well as the 2nd Respondent that the Petitioner's services were utilised by the 2nd Respondent society to do the work ofpreparing truck chits for lorries in operation point inM.G. Complex and other areas as per the direction of the 1st Respondent, no oral or documentary evidence has been let in either by the Petitioner or by the 2nd Respondent before this Tribunal . It is the specific averment of the 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement that the services of the Petitioner was needed by the 2nd Respondent till the contract of society has ended on 27-4-97 and so the Petitioner was retained with the society itself for discharging their duties and their work was not required after the contract period was over. They have not stated in the Counter Statement that the Petitioner's service was utilised by the 2nd Respondent Co -operative Society to do the work ofpreparing truck chits for lorries in operation point in M.G. Complex and other areas . But it is stated in the Counter Statement that the Petitioner was engaged by the Co-operative Society. It is the clear averment of the 1st Respondent in their Counter Statement that the Food Corporation of India had awarded contract for transportation and/ or handling of food grains to the handling and transport contractor on the basis of tender enquiry and the contract is for the supply of labourers by the contractor for doing food handling operations and there is no provision for supplying of personnel by contractor to Food Corporation of Iridia for doing office/ clerical work. It is clearly stated in their Counter Statement that the contractor might have taken contract for doing any type of work and the employees of the contractor might have worked more than one place/ organisation wherever the contractor might have taken contract and that payment towards handling of food stocks were being made by the Food Corporation of India to the contractors on the basis ofASOR and that the nature of work alleged to have been done by the Petitioner as Transport Assistant is a clerical job and the head load labourers working with labour co- operative societies alone were entitled to work under direct payment system. This has not been disputed by the 2nd Respondent, the National FCI Co-operative Contract Labour Societies Ltd. in their Counter Statement . So , under such circumstances , it cannot be said that the Petitioner was engaged continuously, as per the direction of the 1st Respondent, to do the work of preparing truck chits for lories in operation points in M.G. Complex and other areas . The Petitioner himself in his claim statement has averred that the Petitioner was continued to be engaged in the

10. It is everybody's case that as per the decision of Food Corporation of India Headquarters , New Delhi taken in 1997 to implement direct payment system for the categories of handling labour , Sardar, Mandal and An- cillary labours three conditions were imposed that the worker already working therefore the past three years who had worked for at least nine out of 12 months in the last year preceding April , 1996 and EPF deductions were made for them. Though it is contended by the Petitioner as well as 2nd Respondent, the Petitioner had fulfilled all the three conditions , no acceptable evidence to that effecthas been let in before this Tribunal either orally or by way of documentary evidence . It is specifically stated in the Counter Statement of the 1st Respondent that the Petitioner/Workman had not complied with those three conditions and hence he is not eligible to be absorbed as a labourer for direct payment system . It is the admission of the 2nd Respondent Co -operative Labour Contract Society that a list of workers for absorption for direct payment system has been furnished by the Secretary and President of the Labour Union and in that list, the name of the Petitioner was not included. It is con- firmedby the 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement that the names of 365 workers were furnished in the list given to the 1st Respondent for direct payment system from 1-1-1997 . The 1st Respondent also in their Counter Statement has stated clearly that as per the circulars of Headquarters for the implementation of direct payment system of labour the bio -data from the labourers main- tained by the concerned labour co -operative society was obtained in prescribed form as per the annexure III to the said circular and accordingly , as per the list furnished by the labour union, the 1st Respondent has implemented the direct payment system of labourers as per the Head- quarters direction as absorption in one time . It is further alleged that the Petitioners name was not included in the list furnished by them . From the available materials , it is seen that the name of the petitioner has not been mentioned in the list furnished by the Union to the ist Respondent , since the service of the Petitioner was utilised by the 2nd Respondent Society for their own need. So under such circumstances , as rightly [PART II- SEC. 3 (ii )] 3630

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003 /VAISAKHA 20, 1925

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 166/2001 (TamilNadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 162/99)

(In the matter ofthe dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of Sub -section ( 1 ) and Sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Workmen and the Management of the District Manager & the Secretary , F.C.I. )

contended by the learned counsel for 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India Management, Tuticorin , the action of the 1st Respondent in denying enrolment of Sri V.C. Paulraj , Transport Assistant Food Corporation of India , M.G. Complex Depot, Milavittan Good Shed under direct payment system from 1-5-1996 onwards is justified. Hence , the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief. Thus , the point is answered accordingly .

BETWEEN

: IParty/Workman

Sri V.K. Lingam

ร 11. In the result , an Award is passed holding that the concerned workman Sri V. C. Paulraj is not entitled for anyrelief.

AND

No Cost.

1. The District Manager, : II Party/ Management

Food Corporation of India, Tuticorin.

(Dictated to the Stenographer , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court onthis day the 9th April , 2003. )

2. The Secretary ,

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

TheNational

Witnesses Examined :-

FCI Co-operative

:None

Contract Labour Society

Oneither side

Ltd. Tuticorin.

Documents Exhibited :-

APPEARANCE:

:Nil

Oneither side

FortheWorkman

: Shri R. Arumugam &

नई दिल्ली, 21 अप्रैल, 2003

: N. Krishnakumar , Advocates

For the Respondent No 1

t : Shri M. Imthias , Advocate .

For the Respondent No. 2 : Sri . S. Muthal Raj , Advocate .

का. आ. 1406.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण चेन्नई ( संदर्भ संख्या 166/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-4-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 22012/448/98- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] एन.पी. केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st April , 2003

TheGovt . of India , Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub -section ( 1 ) and Sub -section 2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ), have referred the concerned dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L- 22012 /448/ 98 / IR ( CM - II) dated 30-07-99/03-08-99 .

S.O. 1406. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 166/2001 ) ofthe 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 FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17-04-2003 .

[No. L- 22012/448/98 - IR ( C - II) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Wednesday , the 9th April , 2003

PRESENT:

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , Chennai , where the same was taken on file as 1.D. No. 162/99. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, Government of India , Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case also from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication . On receipt of records from that Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , this case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 166/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side , informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal , with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 05-02-2001 with their respective parties and to prosecute this case further. Accordingly, the learned counsel on either side alongwith their respective parties have appeared and prosecuted this case further. The Claim Statement and Counter Statement ofthe 1st Respondent were filed earlier before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , when the matter was K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer 3631

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003 /वैशाख 20 , 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

pending before that Tribunal for adjudication and the Counter Statement of the 2nd Respondent and rejoinder of the Ist Respondent were filed before this Tribunal after the casehas been transferred to this Tribunal for adjudication.

Upon perusing the Claim Statement . Counter Statements , rejoinder of the Ist Respondent , the other material papers on record, after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party Management alone and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration , this Tribunal has passed the following:-

AWARD

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

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Tuticorin is justified in denying enrolment of Shri V.K. Lingam , Transport Assistant, FCI , MG Complex Depot, Milavittan Goodshed under direct payment system from 01-05-1996 onwards ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled?"

2. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the I Party/Workman Sri V.K. Lingam (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) are briefly as follows:-

The II Party/Management Food Corporation of India, Tuticorin and the Secretary , National FCI Co - operative Contract Labour Society Ltd. Tuticorin, have been cited as 1st and 2nd Respondents in this Industrial dispute.

Respondent Society was engaged to do the work of the 1st Respondent . The Petitloner was engaged continuously andhe was directed by the 1st Respondent to do the work ofpreparing truck chits for lorries in operation points in M.G. Complex and other areas and other works /jobs of the Ist Respondent assigned by the 2nd Respondent from time to time . The Petitioner worked more than 240 days in each year without any break. The Respondents issued entry permits to the Petitioner and extended various benefits like P.F. bonus etc: The last drawn wages of the Petitioner is Rs - 1,000/-. During 1997 the Food Corporation of India , Headquarters , New Delhi decided to implement direct payment system in the 1st Respondent for the categories ofhandling labour Sardar Mandal and Ancillary Labours. It seems that the conditions imposed for extending the benefit ofdirect payment system is ( 1 ) the workers already working there for the last three years ( ii ) who had worked for at least nine out of 12 nonths in the last year preceding April , 1996 and ( iil ) EPF deductions were being made for them . The 1st Respondent implemented the said order of Food Corporation of India , Headquarters , New Delhi by absorbing the workers engaged through the 2nd Respondent as per the list furnished by the Secretary/ President of Labour Union . The workers working along- with the Petitioner were absorbed stage by stage. The Petitioner was also under the impression that his name was also given alongwith the other workers and he would be absorbed as like other workers . In the meanwhile, the Petitioner was continued to be engaged in the work of preparing truck chit for lorries in operation points in M.G.Complex and other areas , since the transport contract was continued and the services of the Petitioner was required . The 2nd Respondent requested the labour union to give the name of the Petitioner later . Hence, the Petitioner's name was not included in the first list . Further, the Petitioner understands that the 1st Respondent did not specify any time limit for furnishing the list of worters. When the other workers who worked alongwith the Petitioner were absorbed on direct payinent system by the Ist Respondent , the absorption of the Petitioner was delayed and therefore , the Petitioner approached the 2nd Respondent and the 2nd Respondent stated that the 1st Respondent will consider his case along with some of the workers left out . The 2nd Respondent's dialogue was protected for several months but the Respondents could not reach a solution favourable to the Petitioner . Then the Petitioner having no other option except to the approach the conciliation officer under section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The 1st Respondent by letter dated 31-7-97 for the first time contended that the Petitionerdid.

not fulfil three conditions stipulated by the Headquarters Food Corporation of India , New Delhi , but the said contention was totally incorrect when especially the Ist Respondent themselves aware that the Petitioner is working there for the past ten years continuously without any break and preceding April , 1996 he worked for more than nine The Ist Respondent Corporation is heaving storage depot atM.G. Complex and Goodshed at Milavittan . Before 1990, the 1st Respondent executed the loading , unloading , storing, stacking and transport work through different individual contractors . The Petitioner worked under a contractor in M.G. Complex to execute the above works of the 1st Respondent from 4-10-1989 continuously without any break . During 1990 , the Ministry of Labour by a Notification prohibited the employment of contract labour in various godowns/depots of the 1st Respondent Corporation in which process , operation or work of handling of foodgrains including loading and unloading by any means of transport , storage and stacking is carried on. In view of the said Notification , the 1st Respondent encouraged the workers working in the 1st Respondent Corporation including the Petitioner to form a workers co- operative society , so that the workers would continued to be engaged without any break . Based on their advise/ guidance , the 2nd Respondent Co - operative Labour Contract Society was formed by the workers working inlst Respondent Corporation and the same was registered. The Petitioner is a member of the said society . The Ist Respondent awarded the handiing and transport contract to the 2nd Respondent society from 28-4-1991 . The contract was initially given for two years and subsequently extended upto 27-4-1997 . The workers/ members of the 2nd

123261/ 03-14 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 3632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 2003 /VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

months and EPF contributions were paid for the Petitioner from 1995 onwards . The 2nd Respondent by the letterdated 28-11-1997 confirmed the said fact and stated that the Petitioner fulfilled all the conditions . The Petitioner is in no way responsible for the act of the 2nd Respondent in not including his name . The 1st Respondent was fully aware that the Petitioner was working for them under the 2nd Respondent and earlier contractors right from 1989 onwards . The 1st Respondent never informed that his name was not included in the list and further no time limit was specified by the 1st Respondent for bringing the workers under the direct payment system. After failure of conciliation , the Central Govt . has referred this issue for adjudication by this Tribunal . The action of the 1st Respondent in denying the enrolment of the Petitioner under direct payment system from 1-5-96 is totally arbitrary , illegal and against law. It is purely a discrimination shown on the Petitioner, when especially similarly placed workers who were worked along with him were enrolled from 1-5-96, but the Petitioner alone was singled down by the 1st Respondent . There is no justification at all on the part of the 1st Respondent in denying the relief to the Petitioner when especially the Ist Respondent themselves fully aware that the Petitioner is working for them and discharging duties for them as per their directions for several years and further complied with the conditions stipulated by the Food Corporation of India Headquarters , New Delhi . Juniors to the Petitioners were enrolled in the direct payment system under the 1st Respondent but the Petitioner , who is a senior, is left out since all the workers were taken on the rolls of the Ist Respondent , the 2nd Respondent labour contractor Society did not have any contract and consequently the Petitioner was without employment from 28-4-97 . Due to the unjustified action of the 1st Respondent the Petitioner is. without employment from 28-4-97 . Hence , it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an award holding that the denial of enrolment of Petitioner under direct payment system from 1-5-96 by the 1st Respondent is not justified and pass an award directing the Ist Respondent to enrol the Petitioner under direct payment system from 1-5-96 and to pay all back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits to the Petitioner.

3. The averments in the Counter Statement filed by the II Party /Management Food Corporation of India , Tuticorin (hereinafter refers to as 1st Respondent) are briefly as follows :-

formed bythe workers . The transport and handling contract was finalised and awarded by the Senior Regional Manager, FoodCorporation of India , Tamil Nadu Region, Chennai from 28-4-91 . The said contract was extended upto 27-4-97. The allegation ofthe Petitioner that he was engaged continuously and he was directed by the 1st Respondent to do the work of preparing truck chits for lorries in operation point in M.G. Complex and other areas is not correct. The Food Corporation of India is directly dealing with the Labour Co -operative Society and not with individuals such as the Petitioner , the 1st Respondent has not extended any benefits as alleged by the Petitioner in his Claim Statement and the Petitioner was never paid any wages by the 1st Respondent. As per the notification of FoodCorporation of India Headquarters, New Delhi, the workers who satisfy the conditions imposed for extending benefits for direct payment system have been enrolled by the Ist Respondent as labourers under direct payment system. As per the Headquarters circular, the bio -data of the labourers maintained by the concerned labour co- operative society was obtained in prescribed forma as per theAnnexure III to the said circular and accordingly as per the list furnished by the labour union, the 1st Respondent had implemented the direct payment system of labourers asper Headquarters direction. The workers engaged by the Co-operative Society as per the list furnished by the Secretary and the President of Labour Union on 22-7-97 during the meeting held at the Regional Office at Chennai inthe presence of Senior Regional Manager Joint Manager, (Finance & Accounts) and District Manager, Tuticorin, the workers were absorbed in one time as per the instructions from the Headquarters and not stage by stage as allegedby the Petitioner. The nature of work alleged to have been done by the Petitioner as Transport Assistant is a clerical job . The head load labourers (workers) working with labour co - operative societies alone were entitled to work under direct payment systein. The 1st Respondent had awarded contract for transportation and/or handling the food grains to the handling and transport contractors onthe basis of tender enquiry and that the contract is for supply of labourers by the contractor for doing food handling operation and there is no provision for supplying ofpersonnel by contractor to Food Corporation of India fordoing office/ clerical work . There is no provision in the contract for bearing any liability by Food Corporation of India on account of any such employee of the contractor who might have been engaged by him to do his office/ clerical work. Such employees might have been employed bythe contractor for his own convenience . Such employees ofthe contractor might have worked more than one place or organisation wherever the contractor might have taken the contract for doing any type of work . The payment towards handling of food stocks were being made by Food Corporation of India to the contractors on the basis of ASORand for the actual volume of work performed as per the terms of the contract. As per the notification issuedby The 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India, District Office, Tuticorin at M.G. Complex executed handling and transporting work through private contractors prior to 1990. They have never remunerated any contract workers directly and therefore, the allegation of the Petitioner that he had worked from 4-10-89 for the 1st Respondent has to be proved by the Petitioner himself before this Tribunal . The work of handling contract had been awarded to Contract Labour Co -operative Society 3633

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003 /वैशाख 20, 1925

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

theMinistry ofLabour in 1991 prohibiting the employment ofcontract labour in many depots ofFood Corporation of Indiadoes not cover the clerical or supervisory work. The FoodCorporationof India nowhere maintained contractors orcontract employees for clerical or supervisory work as it has its own regular staff/ officers everywhere . Such regular employees/officers are appointed by Food Corporation of India after following the statutory provisions of Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations. There is no provision for the post of Transport Assistant in Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations . The induction of such employées as in question in FCI would mean backdoor entry of employees in Food Corporation of India. Direct Payment System labourers are not covered by FCI Staff Regulations . Direct Payment System Labourers having beenthere inFood Corporation of India right from 1973 for doing food handling operations in various depots all over the country and there is no provision for induction of employees under direct payment system for doing clerical or supervisory work. The averment of the Petitioner inhis Claim Statement that the 1st Respondent are fully aware that the Petitioner is working for them under the 2nd Respondent is not all true. The 1st Respondent do not have any direct link with the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent is making payment only to the Society and not to any worker directly. The three conditions laid down by the Food Corporation of India Headquarters circular have not been fulfilled by the Petitioner as per the records maintained by Food Corporation of India which were submitted by the Society then and there. The Petitioner's name also was not found in the E.P.F contribution list providedby the Society. Ifthe Petitioner has really worked asa labourer in the 2nd Respondent Society , as alleged by him, his will be definitely available in the list of EPF contribution furnished to the 1st Respondent by the 2nd Respondent . The real dispute is not between the 1st Respondent and the Petitioner , it is only between the Petitioner and 2nd Respondent . The list of workers were furnished onlyby the General Secretary of the FCI Labour Union and not by the Society as alleged by the Petitioner. The 1st Respondent has no direct link with the Petitioner orany other worker . The Food Corporation of India had enrolled the workers as per the list furnished by the National FCI Labour Union. Hence , it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim petition ofthe Petitioner as there is no merit in the claim.

4.The averments in the Counter Statement filed by the IIParty/Management The Secretary, National FCI Co- operative Contract Labour Society Ltd. , Tuticorin (hereinafter refers to as 2nd Respondent) are briefly as follows:-

employer and reimbursed the employer portion of EPF contribution,bonus etc. The Petitioner had complied with the three conditions for enrolling the worker in the disect payment system as per the circular issued by the Food CorporationofIndia Headquarters at New Delhi . The 2nd Respondent Society had submitted a list of workers working in the M.G. Complex Depot and Milavittan Goods shed. The list contained 365 workers who were working in handling unit of the 2nd Respondent Society initially At that time the Petitioner was working in the society andhis services were needed by 2nd Respondent till the contract ofsocietyhas ended on 27-4-97. So, the Petitioner was retained with the Society itself for discharging their duties after contract period was over and their work was mot required. The name of the Petitioner was submitted tosthe 1st Respondent to put them also to absorb them under direct payment system as done for the other workers . The 1st Respondent however, refused to entertain the Petitioner to put him under direct payment system . Even before the formation of the Society, as per the guidance of the 1st Respondent the Petitioner was working with the 1st Respondent, the name of the Petitioner was not included in the initial list due to the reasons stated above and the contractwas existing till 27-4-97. The list of 365 wonters was furnished to the 1st Respondent for direct payment system from 1-1-97 effective from 1-5-96 and thereforaj the Petitioner's name could not be included in the first list. Out of the list of 365 workers furnished to the 1st Respondent so far 35 workers have left the Ist Respondent on various grounds such as retired , terminated, expired and long absence. The Petitioner had unblemished record ofservice and he is a sincere worker . If he is absorbed in FCIhe perfrom the work ofthe corporation very efficienty as before. The Petitioner who was working in the 2nd Respondent Society may be absorbed in to the service of the 1st Respondent corporation. Meanwhile, the Food CorporationofIndia 1st Respondent had framed a scheme for directpayment system and tool over 423 labourets in the DPS scheme w.e.f. 1-3-97.-97. Ifthe handling and transport contract is not dicharged fully and satisfactorily and if there is any losswith contractual liability, the same will be levied on the shoulders of the Society only. Therefore, the society had the obligation to discharge the contractual liability oftransport contractor had to continue the services ofthe Petitioner upto the completion of the contract period 27-4-97. Thereafter, since the Food Corporation of India had not awarded any contract to the society, the Society hadbecome defunct with effect from 28-4-97 . The Society can sympathise the Petitioner only could not give any employment opportunity, since the Society was left over withoutany contract from Food Corporation of India since 24-7-97. The 1st Respondent being the original employer for the workman, since the inception of the society for whom the workmen were deployed for the period from 28-4-91 till 27-4-97 and since their counterparts 423 labourers have been taken over by the Food Corporation of India The workman involved in this dispute is the member ofthe co-operative society and was engaged by the Society. It isa fact that the Food Corporation of India had extended various benefits to the labourers since they are the Principal [PART 11- SBC. 3 (11 )] 3634

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 20, 1925

under DPS scheme . The prayer of the Petitioner may be considered by the 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India management .

The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Respondent was heard. The counsel for the Petitioner and the counsel for the 2nd Respondent have not come forward to advance any arguments , in spite of sufficient opportunity was provided to them.

7. The point for my consideration is-

5. The 1st Respondent has filed a rejoinder for the Counter Statement of the 2nd Respondent . The averments in that rejoinder are briefly as follows: -

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Tuticorin is justified in denying enrolment of Shri V.K. Lingam, Transport Assistant, FCI , MG complex Depot, Milavittan Goodshed under direct payment system from 01-05-1996 onwards ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?"

Point:

This industrial dispute has been raised by the Petitioner/ Workman challenging the action of the 1st Respondent management of Food Corporation of India, Tuticorin in denying enrolment for him under direct payment system from 1-5-96 onwards as unjustified. It is admitted that the Ist Respondent Food Corporation ofIndia, District Office, Tuticorin at M.G.Complex executed handling and transporting workthrough private contractors before 1990 and they have never remunerated any contract workers directly. It is the contention of the Petitioner that he worked under the contractor in M.G. Complex to execute the works like loading, unloading, storing, stacking and transport work ofthe 1st Respondent from 4-10-89 continuously without any break. The ist Respondent in their Counter Statement has specifically denied this averment of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement , so it is for the Petitioner to prove strictly that he had worked for the ist Respondent from 4-10-1989 . The Petitioner has not let in oral or documentary evidence to prove his contention .

The allegations in the Counter Statement of the 2nd Respondent that the Petitioner complied with the three conditions stipulated in the circular issued by the Food Corporation of India Headquarters is incorrect. All the 365 workers in the list furnished by the Society on 21-2-97 were absorbed by the Food Corporation of Indla under direct payment system . At no point of time, the name of the Petitioner was submitted by the 2nd Respondent to the Ist Respondent . Further allegations of 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement that the Petitioner has fulfilled the conditions stipulated and was working with the 1st Respondent even before the formation of society are not correct . Before the formation of the society, since the contract system was prevailing at that time , the contractors were remunerated for the work turned out by them on SOR basis . Only after the formation of the society, the Ist Respondent reimbursed the wages paid by the Society to workers and nowhere the 1st Respondent reimbursed the wages of the Petitioner. The name of the Petitioner was not furnished in the initial list by the 2nd Respondent because as per their declaration , his services were needed by the 2nd Respondent till the date of the termination of the transport contract . It is therefore, clear that the services of the Petitioner was utilised by the society for their purpose. The allegation of the 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement that 35 workers have left the 1st Respondent on various grounds has nothing to do in this case. Out of the seven long absented workers , the services of five workers are re - inducted Into Food Corporation of India . Moreover the number of casual labourers furnished by the Society was 108 whereas the casual labourers as per norms required is only 64. The 1st Respondent was therefore, overburdened with excess 44 casual labourers . During the discussions held with the society on 21-2-97 , the 2nd Respondent has stated that about 25 women casual labourers are attaining dicit superannuation within two years and would be reduced bsequently. This was mutually agreed by both the Respondents to restrict the Casual Labourers as per norms radually , notwithstanding the provision for replacement of superamuated worker under dependent quota . The legation of the 2nd Respondent that 423 labourers have been inducted by the Ist Respondent is quite contrary to heir statements made earller in the Counter Statement. The present counter has been flled by the Ex -President of the defunct Society without any legal sanction with the collusion of the workman.

8. It is admitted that the Ministry of Labour , Government of India has prohibited the employment of contract labour and hence , the Ist Respondent Food Corporation of India encouraged the workers to form Labourers Co -operative Society and the work of handling contract had been awarded to the 2nd Respondent FCI Co- operative Contract Labour Society Ltd. formed by the workers. It is also admitted that the transport and handling contract was awarded from 28-4-91 by the Ist Respondent Food Corporation of India and the said contract was extended up to 27-4-97 , It is the definite allegation ofthe 1st Respondent that the averment of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement that he was engaged continuously and was directed by the 1st Respondent to do the work of preparing truck chits for lorries in operation point in M.G. Complex and other areas is not correct . It is further alleged by the 1st Respondent that Food Carporation of India is directly dealing with labour co - operative society only and not with individuals such as the Petitioner. The 2nd Respondent erstwhila co -operative society in their Counter Statement has also stated that the Petitioner was working with the ist Respondent even before the formation of the society as per the guidance of the 1st Respondent. This 6. When the matter was taken up for enquiry , no one has been examined as a witness on either side and no document has been marked as an exhibit on either side.

36$5

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10 , 2003/ वैशाख 20 , 1925

भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( 11 ) ]

averment ofthe 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement is in support of the contention of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement on this aspect . Neither the Petitioner nor the 2nd Respondent has let in any oral or documentary evidence to prove this contention . In the absence of one such proof , it cannot be said , when especially disputed by the 1st Respondent , the Petitioner had worked for the ist Respondent from 4-10-89 onwards .

It is clearly stated in their Counter Statement that the contractor might have taken contract for doing any typopf work and the employees of the contractor might have worked more than one place/ organisation wherever the contractor might have taken contract and that payment towards handling of food stocks were being made by the Food Corporation of India to the contractors on the basis ofASOR and that the nature of work alleged to have been doneby the Petitioner as Transport Assistant is a clerical job and the head load labourers working with labour go- operative societles alone were entitled to work under direct payment system . This has not been disputed by the 2nd Respondent, the National FCI Co-operative Contract Labour Society Ltd. in their Counter Statement . So , under such circumstances , it cannot be said that the Petitioner was engaged continuously , as per the direction of the st Respondent, to do the work of preparing truck chits for lorries in operation points in M. G. Complex and other areas. The Petitioner himself in his Ciaim Statement has avered that the Petitioner was continued to be engaged in the work ofpreparing truck chit for lorries in operation poists in M.G. Complex and other areas, since the transport contractwas continued and as the service ofthe Petitioner was required. So on that admission of the fact, the Petitioner cannot have a right to claim to be absorbed for direct payment system , when it was meant for head load labourers working with labour co -operative Societies alone, jas contended by the ist Respondent in their Counter Statement . The averment of the 1st Respondent in their Counter Statement that the head load iabourers working with labour co - operative societies alone were entitled to work under direct payment system has not been disputed as incorrect either by the 2nd Respondent Co -operative Society orby the Petitioner himself .

10. It is everybody's case that as per the decision of Food Corporation of India Headquarters , New Delhi talien in 1997 to impisment direct payment system for the categories of handling labour, Sardar, Mandal and Ancillary labours three conditions were imposed that the worter already working there for the past three years who Had worked for at least nine out of 12 months in the last year preceding April , 1996 and EPF deductions were made for them. Though it is contended by the Petitioner as well as 2nd Respondent , the Petitioner had fulfilled all the three conditions , no acceptable evidence to that effect has been let in before this Tribunai either oraliy or by way of documentary evidence. It is spécificaily stated in the Counter Statement of the Ist Respondent that the Petitioner/ Workman had not complied with those three conditions and hence he is not eligible to be absorbed as a labourer for direct payment system.It is the admission of the 2nd Respondent Co - operative Labour Contract Society that a ilst of workers for absorption for direct payment system has been furnished by the Secretary and President of the Labour Unlon and in that list , the name of the Petitioner was not included. It is confirmed by the 9. It is the specific averment of the 1st Respondent in their Counter Statement that the averment of the Petitioner in his Clalm Statement that he was engaged continuously andwas directed by the Ist Respondent to do the work of preparing truck chits for iorries in operation point in M.G. Complex and other areas is incorrect and the Food Corporation of India is directly dealing with labour co- operative society only and not with individuals such as the Petitioner . The 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement has stated that when the society had submitted a list of workers working in the M. G. Complex Depot and Milavittan Good Shed for the 365 workers who were in handling unit ofthe 2nd Respondent Society, the Petitioner wasworking in the Soclety itself for discharging their duties, even after the contract for the society has ended on 27-4-97. It is further alleged in the Counter Statement by the 2nd Respondent that the society had obligation to discharge the contractual liability of transport contract fully and satisfactorily and hence , the services of the Petitioner had to continue after the completion of the contract period 27-4-97. In proof of these averments of the Petitioner as well as the 2nd Respondent that the Petitioner's services were utilised by the 2nd Respondent society to do the work ofpreparing truck chits for lorries in operation point inM.G. Complex and other areas as per the direction ofthe 1st Respondent, no oral or documentary evidence has been let in either by the Petitioner or by the 2nd Respondent before this . Tribunal , It is the specific averment of the 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement that the services of the Petitioner was needed by the 2nd Respondent tiii the contract of society has ended on 27-4-97 and so the Petitioner was retained with the society itself for discharging their dutles and their work was not required after the contract period was over. They have not stated in the Counter Statement that the Petitioner's service was utilised by the 2nd Respondent Co -operative Society to do the work ofpreparing truck chits for iorries in operation point in M. G. Complex and othar areas . But it is stated in the Counter Statement that the Petitioner was engaged by theCo-operative Society . It is the clear averment of the 1st Respondent in their Counter Statement that the Food Corporation of Indla had awarded contract for transportation and/or handling of food grains to the handling and transport contractor on the basis of tender enquiry and the contract is for the supply of labourers by the contractor for doing food handling operations and there is no provision for supplying of personnel by contractor toFood Corporation of India for doing office/clerical work.

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ji) ] 3636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003/VAISAKHA 20, 1925

New Delhi , the 21st April, 2003

S.O. 1407.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 165/ 2001) ofthe 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 FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Goveriment on 17-04-2003 .

[No. L-22012/434/98 - IR (C-II) ]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Wednesday the 9th April, 2003

Present: K. KARTHIKEYAN,

PresidingOfficer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 165/2001

Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 161/99)

(Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of Sub - section ( 1 ) and Sub -section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), between the Workman and the Management of the District Manager& the Secretary, F.C.1 .)

2ndRespondent in their Counter Statement that the names of365 workers were furnished in the list given to the Ist Respondent for direct payment system from 1-1-1997 . The 1st Respondent also in their Counter Statement has stated clearly that as per the circulars of Headquarters for the implementation of direct payment system of labour the bio- data from the labourers maintained by the concerned labour co-operative society, was obtained in prescribed formaas per the Annexure III to the said circular and accordingly, as per the list furnished by the labour union, the 1st Respondent has implemented the direct payment system of labourers as per the Headquarters direction as absorption in one time. It is further alleged that the Petitioner's name was not included in the list furnished by them. From the available materials , it is seen that the name of the Petitioner has not been mentioned in the list furnished by the Union to the 1st Respondent , since the service of the Petitioner was utilised by the 2nd Respondent Society for their own need. So under such circumstances , as rightly contended by the learned counsel for 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India Management, Tuticorin, the action of the Ist Respondent in denying enrolment of Sri V. K. Lingam, Transport Assistant Food Corporation of India , M.G. Complex Depot , Milavittan Good Shed under directpayment system from 1-5-1996 onwards is justified. Hence , the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief. Thus , the point is answered accordingly.

BETWEEN

1Party/Workman

Sri . K. Murugan

AND

11. In the result, an Award is passed holding that the concerned workman Sri V. K. Lingam is not entitled for any relief. No Cost.

1. The District Manger,:

IIParty/Mangement

Food Corporation of India , Tuticorin .

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 9th April , 2003.)

2. The Secretary,

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

TheNational FC1 Co -operative Contract Labour Society Ltd. , Tuticorin .

Witness Examined:-

Appearance:

: None

On either side

For the Workman

: Sri R. Arnmugam & N. Documents exhibited :-

Krishnakumar, Advodates : Nil

Oneither side

For the Respondent No. 1 : Sri M. Imthias , Advocate

Forthe Respondent No. 2 : Sri S. Muthal Raj .. Advocate.

नई दिल्ली, 21 अप्रैल, 2003

The Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour in exerise of. powers conferred by clasuse (d ) of Sub -section ( 1 ) and Sub-Section 2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , have referred the concerned dispute for adjudication vide Order No.L 22012/434/98/IR(CM- II) dated 30-7-99/3-9-99.

का. आ. 1407.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार अधिकरण चेन्नई ( संदर्भ संख्या 165/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/434/98- आई. आर. ( सी. II ) ]

एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , Chennai where the same was taken on file as I.D. No. 161/99 . When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal , Government of India [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

337

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case also from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, this case has been taken on file as I.D.No. 165/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appearbefore this Tribunal on 5-2-2001 with their repective parties and to prosecute this case further. Accordingly, the learned counsel on either side along with their respective parties have appeared and prosecuted this case further. The Claim Statement and Counter Statement of the 1st Respondent were filed earlier before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , when the matter was pending before that Tribunal for adjudication and the Counter Statement of the 2nd Respondent and rejoinder of the 1st Respondent were filed before this Tribunal after the case has been transferred to this Tribunal foradjudication.

Upon perusing the Claim Statement , Counter Statements , rejoinder of the 1st Respondent, the other material papers on record, after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/ Management alone and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal has passed the following:-

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order ofreference by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows:-

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Tuticorin isjustified in denying enrolment of Shri K. Murugan, Transport Assistant, MilavittanGoodshed under direct payment systein from 1-05-1996 onwards ? Ifnot, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

2. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the I Party/Workman Sri K. Murugan (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) are briefly as follows :-

The 1st Respondent Corporation is having storage depot atM.G. Complex andGood shed at Milavittan, Besides 1990, the 1st Respondent executed the loading, unloading, storing, stacking , and transport work through deifferent individual contractors . The Pedtitioner worked under a contractor in M.G. Complex to execute the above works of the 1st Respondent froın 5-10-1989 continuously without any break. During 1990, the Ministry of Labour by a Notification prohibited the employment of contract labour in various godowns/depots of the 1st Respondent Corporation in which process, operation or work ofhandling

of food grains including loading and unloading by any means oftransport, storage and stacking is carried onz In view of the said Notification , the 1st Respondent encouraged the workers working in the 1st Respondent, Corporation including the Petitioner to form a workers co- operative society, so that the workers would continued to be engaged without any break. Based on their advise/ guidance , the 2nd Respondent Co -operative Labour Contract Society was formed by the workers working indst Respondent Corporation and the same was registered. The Petitioner is a member of the said society . The Ast Respondent awarded the handling and transport contract tothe 2nd Respondent society from 28-4-1991 . The contact was initially given for two years and subsequently extendedupto 27-4-1997 . The workers/members of the 2nd Respondent Society was engaged to do the work of the st Respondent. The Petitioner was engaged continuously and he was directed by the 1st Respondent to do the work of preparingtruck chits for lorries in operation points in MIG. Complex and other areas and other works/jobs of the st Respondent assigned by the 2nd Respondent from timeto time. The petitioner worked more than 240 days in each year without any break . The Respondents issued entry permits to the Petitioner and extended various benefits ke P.F. bonusetc. The last drawn wages of the Petitioner is Rs . 1,000/- . During 1997 the Food Corporation of India, Headquarters , New Delhi decided to implement direct payment system in the 1st Respondent for the categories ofhandling labour Sardar Mandal and Ancillary Labours . It seems that the conditions imposed for extending the benefit ofdirect payment system is ( 1 ) the workers already workingtherefore the last three years (2) who had worked. for at least nine out of 12 months in the last year preceding April, 1996 and ( 3) EPF deductions were being made for them. The 1st Respondent implemented the said order of Food Corporation of India. Headquarters , New Delhi , by absorbing the workers engaged through the 2nd Respondent as per the list furnishedby the Secretary/ President of Labour Union. The workers working along with the Petitioner were absorbed stage by stage . The Petitionerwas also under the impression that his name was also given along with the other workers and he would be absorbed as like other workers . In the meanwhile , the Petitioner was continued to be engaged in the work of preparing truck chit for lorries in operation points inMG. Complex and other areas , since the transport contract was continuedand the services ofthe Petitioner was required. The 2nd Respondent requested the labour union to give the name ofthe Petitionen later . Hence, the Petitioner's name was not included in the first list. Further, the Petitioner understands that the 1st Respondent did not specify any time limit for furnishing the list of workers. When the other workers who worked along with the Petitioner were absorbed on direct payment system by the 1st Respondent, the absorption ofthe Petitioner was delayed and therefore , the Petitioner approached the 2nd Respondent and the 3638

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003/VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

to pay all back wages , continuity of service and other attendant benefits to the petitioner.

3. The averments In the Counter Statement filed by the II Party/Management Food Corporation of Indla, Tuticorin (hereinafter refers to as ist Respondent) are briefly as follows:-

The 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India, District Office, Tuticorin at M.G. Complex executed handling and transporting work through private contractors prior to 1990. They have never remunerated any contract workers directly and therefore, the allegation of the Petitioner that he had worked from 5-10-89 for the 1st Respondent has to be proved by the Petitioner himself before this Tribunal . The work of handling contract had been awarded to Contract Labour Co -operative Society formedbythe workers . The transport and handling contract was finalized and awarded by the Senior Regional Manager, FoodCorporation of India , Tamil Nadu Region, Chennai from 28-4-91 . The said contract was extended upto 27-4-97 . The allegation of the Petitioner that he was engaged continuously and he was directed by the 1st Respondent to do the work of preparing truck chits for lorries In operation point In M.G. Complex and other areas is not correct. The Food Corporation of India is directly dealing with the Labour Co -operative Society and not with individuals such as the Petitioner, the 1st Respondent has not extended any benefits as alleged by the Petitioner in hisClaim Statement and the Petitioner was never paid any wages by the 1st Respondent. As per the notification of Food Corporation of India Headquarters , New Delhi, the workers who satisfy the conditions imposed for extending benefits for direct payment system have been enrolled by the 1st Respondent as labourers under direct payment system. As per the Headquarters circular,the bio -data of the labourers maintained by the concerned labour co- operative society was obtained In prescribed forma as per theAnnexure III to the said circular and accordingly as per the list furnished by the labour union, the 1st Respondent hadimplemented the direct payment system of labourers asperHeadquarters direction . The workers engaged by the Co -operative Society as per the list furnished by the Secretary and the President of Labour Union on 22-7-97 duringthe meeting held at the Regional Office at Chennai in the presence of Senior Regional Manager, Joint Manager (Finance & Accounts ) and District Manager, Tuticorin , the workers were absorbed in one time as per the instructions from the Headquarters and not stage by stage asalleged by the Petitioner . The nature of work alleged to have been done by the Petitioner as Transport Assistant is a clerical job . The head load labourers (workers ) working with labour co- operative societies alone were entitled to work under direct payment system . The 1st Respondent had awarded contract for transportation and/or handling the food grains to the handling and transport contractors on-the basis of tender enquiry and that the contract is for 2nd Respondent stated that the 1st Respondent will consider his case along with some of the workers left out. The 2nd Respondent's dialogue was protected for several months but the Respondent could not reach a solution favourable to the Petitioner. Then the Petitioner having no other option except to the approach the conciliatlon officer under section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The 1st Respondent by letter dated 31-7-1997 for the first time contended that the Petitioner did not fulfil three conditions stipulated by the Headquarters Food Corporation of India, New Delhi , but the said contention was totally incorrect when especially the 1st Respondent themselves aware that the Petitioner is working there for the past ten years continuously without any break and preceding April , 1996 he worked for more than nine months and EPF contributions were paid for the Petitioner from 1995 onwards . The 2nd Respondent by the letter dated 28-11-1997 confirmed the said fact and stated that the Petitioner fulfilled all the conditions . The Petitioner is in no way responsible for the act of the 2nd Respondent in not including his name. The 1st Respondent was fully aware that the petitioner was working for them under the 2nd Respondent and earlier contractors right from 1989 onwards . The 1st Respondent never informed that his name was not included In the list and further no time limit was specified by the 1st Respondent for bringing the workers under the direct payment system . After fallure of conciliation , the Central Govt . has referred this issue for adjudication by this Tribunal . The action of the 1st Respondent in denying the enrolment of the Petitioner under direct payment system from 1-5-96 is totally arbitrary, illegal and against law. It is purely a discrimination shown on the Petitioner , when especially similarly placed workers who were worked along with him were enroiled from 1-5-96 , but the Petitioner alone was singled down by the 1st Respondent. There is no justification at all on the part of the 1st Respondent in denying the relief to the Petitioner when especially the 1st Respondent themselves fully aware that the Petitioner is working for them and discharging duties for them as per their directions for several years and further complied with the conditions stipulated by the Food Corporation of India Headquarters , New Delhi . Junior to the Petitioners were enrolled in the direct payment system under the 1st Respondent but the Petitioner , who is a senior , is left out since all the workers were taken on the rolls of the 1st Respondent , the 2nd Respondent labour contractors Society did not have any contract and consequently the Petitioner was without employment from 28-4-97. Due to the unjustified action of the 1st Respondent the Petitioner is without employment from 28-4-97. Hence , it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an award holding that the denial of enrolment of Petitioner under direct payment system from 1-5-96 by the 1st Respondent is not justified and pass an award directing the 1st Respondent to enrol the Petitioner under direct payment system from 1-5-96 and 3639

भारत की राजपत्र : मई 10 , 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

The 1st Respondent has no direct link with the Petitioner or any other worker. The Food Corporation of India had enrolled the workers as per the list furnished by the National FCI Labour Union . Hence , it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim petition of the Petitioner as there is no merit in the claim.

4. The averments in the Counter Statement filedby the II Party/Management The Secretary, National FCI Co- operative Contract Labour Society Ltd. , Tuticorin (hereinafter refers to as 2nd Respondent) are briefly as follows:-

Theworkman involved in this dispute is the member ofthe co-operative society and was engaged by the Socicy . It is a fact that the Food Corporation of India had extended various benefits to the labourers since they are the Princial employer and reimbursed the employer portion ofER contribution, bonus etc. The Petitioner had complied with the three conditions for enrolling the worker in the direct payment system as per the circular issued by the Food Corporationof India Headquarters at New Delhi . The 2nd Respondent Society had submitted a list ofworkers working in the M.G.Complex Depot and Milavittan Goods shed. The list contained 365 workers who were working in handling unit of the 2nd Respondent Society initially At that time the Petitioner was working in the society and is services were needed by 2nd Respondent till the contract of society has ended on 27-4-97 . So , the Petitioner vas retained with the Society itself for discharging their duties after contract period was over and their work was not required . The name of the Petitioner was submitted tothe 1st Respondent to put them also to absorb them under direct payment system as done for the other workers . The 1stRespondent bowever, refused to entertain the Petitioner toput him underdirect payment system, Even before the formation of the Society, as per the guidance of the Ist Respondent the Petitioner was working with the Ist Respondent , the name of the Petitioner was not included in the initial list due to the reasons stated above and the contractwas existing till 27-4-97. The list of 365 workers was furnished to the 1st Respondent for direct payment system from 1-1-97 effective from 1-5-96 and therefore, the Petitioner's name could not be included in the first list. Out ofthe list of 365 workers furnished to the Ist Respondent so far 35 workers have left the 1st Respondent on various grounds such as retired, terminated, expired and long absence .The Petitioner had unblemished record of service and he is a sincere worker . If he is absorbed in FCI hewill perform the work of the Corporation very efficiently as before. The Petitioner who was working in the 2nd Respondent Society may be absorbed in to the service of the 1st Respondent Corporation..Meanwhile, the food Corporationof India / 1st Respondent had framed a scheme for direct payment system and took over 423 labourers in theDPS scheme w.e.f. 1-3-97. Ifthe handling and transport contract is not discharged fully and satisfactorily and if supply of labourers by the contractor for doing food handling operation and there is no provision for supplying ofpersonnel by contractor to Food Corporation of India for doing office/clerical work . There is no provision in the contract for bearing any liability by Food Corporation of India on account of any such employee of the contractor who might have been engaged by him to do his office / clerical work . Such employees might have been employed bythe contractor for his own convenience . Such employees ofthe contractor might have worked more than one place or organisation wherever the contractor might have taken the contract for doing any type of work. The payment towards handling of food stocks were being made by Food Corporation of India to the contractors on the basis of ASOR and for the actual volume of work performed asper theterms ofthe contract . As per the notification issuedby theMinistry of Labour in 1991 prohibiting the employment ofcontract labour in many depots of Food Corporation of Indiadoes not cover the clerical or supervisory work. The FoodCorporation of India nowhere maintained contractors or contract employees for clerical or supervisory work as it has its own regular staff/officers everywhere. Such regular employees/officers are appointed by Food Corporation of India after following the statutory provisions of Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations. There is no provision for the post of Transport Assistant in Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations . The induction of such employees as in question in FCI would mean backdoor entry of employees in Food Corporation of India . Direct Payment System labourers are not covered by FCI Staff Regulations . Direct Payment System Labourers having beenthere inFood Corporation of India right from 1973 for doing food handling operations in various depots all over the country and there is no provision for induction of employees under direct payment system for doing clerical orsupervisory work. The averment ofthe Petitioner in his Claim Statement that the 1st Respondent are fully aware that the Petitioner is working for them under the 2nd Respondent is not all true. The 1st Respondent do not have any direct link with the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent is making payment only to the Society and not to any worker directly. The three conditions laid down by the Food Corporation of India Headquarters circular have not been fulfilled by the Petitioner as per the records maintained by Food Corporation of India which were submitted by the Society then and there . The Petitioner's name also was not found in the E.P.F contribution list provided by the Society. If the Petitioner has really worked as a labourer in the 2nd Respondent Society, as alleged by him, his will be definitely available in the list of EPF contribution furnished to the 1st Respondent by the 2nd Respondent. The real dispute is not between the 1st Respondent and the Petitioner, it is only between the Petitioner and 2nd Respondent . The list of workers were furnished only by the General Secretary ofthe FCI Labour Union and not by the Society as alleged by the Petitioner.

128261/03-15 3640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10 , 2003 /VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

there is any loss with contractual liability , the same will be levied on the shoulders of the Society only. Therefore, the society had the obligation to discharge the contractual liability oftransport contractor had to continue the services ofthe Petitioner upto the completion of the contract period 27-4-97 . Thereafter , since the Food Corporation of India had not awarded any contract to the society, the Society hadbecome defunct with effect from 28-4-97 . The Society cansympathise the Petitioner only and could not give any employment opportunity, since the Society was left over without any contract from Food Corporation of India since 24-7-97. The 1st Respondent being the original employer for the workman, since the inception of the society for whom the workmen were deployed for the period from 28-4-91 till 27-4-97 and since their counterparts 423 labourers have been taken over by the Food Corporation of India under DPS scheme. The prayer of the Petitioner may be considered by the Ist Respondent Food Corporation of India management .

5. The 1st Respondent has filed a rejoinder for the Counter Statement of the 2nd Respondent. The averments in that rejoinder are briefly as follows :-

The allegation in the Counter Statement of the 2nd Respondent that the Petitioner complied with the three conditions stipulated in the circular issued by the Food Corporation of India Headquarters is incorrect . All the 365 workers in the list furnished by the society on 21-2-97 were absorbed by the Food Corporation of India under direct payment system . At no point of time, the name of the Petitioner was submitted by the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Respondent. Further allegations of 2nd Respondent their Counter Statement that the Petitioner has fulfilled the conditions stipulated and was working with the 1st Respondent even before the formation of society are not correct . Before the formation of the society, sincethe contract system was prevailing at that time , the contractors were remunerated for the work turned out by them on SOR basis . Only after the formation of the society , the 1st Respondent reimbursed the wages paid by the Society to workers and nowhere the 1st Respondent reimbursed the wages ofthe Petitioner. The name of the Petitioner was not furnished in the initial list by the 2nd Respondent because as per their declaration , his services were needed by the 2nd Respondent till the date of the termination of the transport contract . It is therefore , clear that the services ofthe Petitioner was utilised by the society for their purpose . The allegation of the 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement that 35 workers have left the Ist Respondent on various grounds has nothing to do in this case. Out of the seven long absented workers , the services of five workers are re- inducted into Food Corporation of India .Moreover the number of casual labourers furnished by the Society was 108 whereas the casual labourers as per norms required is only 64. The 1st Respondent was therefore, overburdened with excess 44 casual labourers . During the discussions held with the society on 21-2-97 , the 2nd Respondent has

[PART II SEC..3 (ii) ] stated that about 25 women casual labourers are attaining their superannuation within two years and would be reduced subsequently . This was mutually agreed by both the Respondents to restrict the Casual Labourers as per norms gradually , notwithstanding the provision for replacement of superannuated worker under dependent quota. The allegation of the 2nd Respondent that 423 labourers have been inducted by the 1st Respondent is quite contraryto their statements made earlier in the Counter Statement . The present counter has been filed by the Ex- President of the defunct Society without any legal sanction with the collusion ofthe workman.

6. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, no one has been examined as a witness on either side and no document has been marked as an exhibit on either side . The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/ 1st Respondent was heard . The counsel for the Petitioner and the counsel for the 2nd Respondent have not come forward to advance any arguments , in spite of sufficient opportunity was provided to them.

7. The point for my consideration is-

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Tuticorin is justified in denying enrolment of Shri K. Murugan, TransportAssistant, MilavittanGood shed under direct payment system from01-05-1996 onwards ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?"

Point:

This industrial dispute has been raised by the Petitioner/Workman challenging the action of the Ist Respondent management of Food Corporation of India, Tuticorin in denying enrolment for him under direct payment system from 1-5-96 onwards as unjustified. It is admitted that the 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India, District Office, Tuticorin at M.G. Complex executed handling and transporting work through private contractors before 1990 and they have never remunerated any contract workers directly. It is the contention of the Petitioner that he worked under the contractor in M. G. Complex to execute the works like loading, unloading , storing, stacking and transport work ofthe 1st Respondent from 5-10-89 continuously without anybreak. The Ist Respondent in their Counter Statement has specifically denied this averment of the Petitioner in hisClaim Statement, so it is for the Petitioner to prove strictly that he had worked for the 1st Respondent from 5-10-1989 . The Petitioner has not let in oral or documentary evidence to prove his contention.

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

3641 workers . It is also admitted that the transport and handling contract was awarded from 28-4-91 by the 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India and the said contract was extended up to 27-4-97. It is the definite allegation of the 1stRespondent that the averment of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement that he was engaged continuously and was directed by the 1st Respondent to do the work of preparing truck chits for lorries in operation point inM.G. Complex and other areas is not correct . It is further alleged by the 1st Respondent that Food Corporation of India is directly dealing with labour co-operative society only and not with individuals such as the Petitioner . The 2nd Respondent erstwhile co -operative society in their Counter Statement has also stated that the Petitioner was working with the 1st Respondent even before the formation of the society as per the guidance of the 1st Respondent . This averment of the 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement isinsupport of the contention of the Petitioner in his Claim Stateinent on this aspect . " Neither the Petitioner nor the 2nd Respondent has let in any oral or documentary evidence to prove this contention. In the absence of one such proof, it cannot be said, when especially disputed by the 1st Respondent, the Petitioner had worked for the 1st Respondent from 5-10-89 onwards.

discharging their duties and their work was not requited after the contract period was over . They have not statedin the Counter Statement that the Petitioner's service was utilised by the 2nd Respondent Co-operative Society to dothework ofpreparing truck chits for lorries in operation point in M.G.Complex and other areas . But it is statedrin the Counter Statement that the Petitioner was engaged by the Co-operative Society . It is the clear averment ofthe st Respondent in their Counter Statement that the Food Corporation of India had awarded contract for transportation and/ or handling of food grains to the handling and transport contractor on the basis of tender enquiry and the contract is for the supply of labourers by the contractor for doing food handling operations and there is no provision for supplying of personnel by contractor toFood Corporation of India for doing office/clerical work. It is clearly stated in" their Counter Statement that the contractor might have taken contract for doing any typeof work and the employees of the contractor might have worked more than one place/organisation wherever the contractor might have taken contract and that payment towards handling of food stocks were being made by the Food Corporation of India to the contractors on the batis ofASOR and that the nature of work alleged to have been done by the Petitioner as Transport Assistant is a clerical job and the head load labourers working with labour co-operative societies alone were entitled to work under direct payment system. This has not been disputed by the 2ndRespondent, the National FCI Co - operative Contract Labour Society Ltd. in their Counter Statement. So , under such circumstances , it cannot be said that the Petitioner was engaged continuously , as per the direction ofthe ist Respondent, to do the work of preparing truck chits for lorries in operation points in M. G. Complex and other areas . The Petitioner himself in his Claim Statement has averred that the Petitioner was continued to be engaged in the work of preparing truck chit for lorries in operation points in M.G. Complex and other areas , since the transport contract was continued and as the service of the Petitioner was required. So on that admission of the fact, the Petitioner cannot have a right to claim to be absorbed for direct payment system, when it was meant forhead load labourers working with labour co -operative societies alone , as contended by the 1st Respondent in their Counter Statement. The averment of the 1st Respondent in their Counter Statement that the head load labourers working with labour co-operative societies alone were entitledto work under direct payment system has not been disputed as incorrect either by the 2nd Respondent Co -operative Society or by the Petitioner himself.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003/VAISAKHA 20, 1925

नई दिल्ली, 21 अप्रैल, 2003

का. आ. 1408.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. प्रर्थधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण चेन्नई (संदर्भ संख्या 155/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-04-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/447/98- आई. आर. ( सी. II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी

Now Delhi , the 21st April , 2003

S.O. 1408. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 155/ 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received bythe Central Government on 17-04-2003.

[No. L-22012/447/98- IR (C- II)] N. P. KESAVAN, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

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

Wednesday the 9th April, 2003

Present: K. KARTHIKEYAN, PresidingOfficer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 155/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D.No. 150/99 )

[In the matter ofthe dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub -section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Workmen and the Management of the District Manager & the Secretary, F.C.I. ]

BETWEEN

worked for at least nine out of 12 months in the last year preceding April , 1996 and EPF deductions were made for them. Though it is contended by the Petitioner as well as 2nd Respondent , the Petitioner had fulfilled all the three conditions , no acceptable evidence to that effect has been let in before this Tribunal either orally or by way of documentary evidence . It is specifically stated in the Counter Statement of the 1st Respondent that the Petitioner/ Workman had not complied with those three conditions and hence he is not eligible to be absorbed as a labourer, for direct payment system. It is the admission of the 2nd Respondent Co - operative Labour Contract Society that a list of workers for absorption for direct payment system has been furnished by the Secretary and President of the Labour Union and in that list, the name of the Petitioner was not included . It is confirmed by the 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement that the names of 365 workers were furnished in the list given to the 1st Respondent for direct payment system from 1-1-1997 . The 1st Respondent also in their Counter Statement has stated clearly that as perthe circulars of Headquarters for the implementation of direct payment system of labour the bio -data from the labourers maintained by the concerned labour co -operative society was obtained in prescribed forma as per the annexure III to the said circular and accordingly, as per the list furnished by the labour union, the Ist Respondent has implemented the direct payment system of labourers as per the Headquarters direction as absorption in one time. It is further alleged that the Petitioner's name was not included in the list furnished by them . From the available materials, it is seen that the name of the Petitioner has not been mentioned in the list furnished by the Union to the 1st Respondent, since the service of the Petitioner was utilised by the 2nd Respondent Society for their own need. So under such circumstances, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India management, Tuticorin, the action of the 1st Respondent in denying enrolment of Sri K. Murugan, Transport Assistant Food Corporation of India M.G. ComplexDepot, Milavittan Good Shed under direct payment system from 1-5-1996 onwards is justified. Hence, the concemed workman is not entitled for any relief. Thus , the point is answered accordingly.

Sri S. Ravi.

: I Party/Workman

AND

11. In the result, an Award is passed holding that the concernedworkman Sri K. Murugan is not entitled for any relief. No. Cost .

: Party/Management

1. The District Manager , FoodCorporation ofIndia, Tuticorin,

(Dictated to the Stenographer , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 9th April , 2003.)

2.The Secretary,

TheNational FCI Co -operative

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Contract Labour Society Ltd, Tuticorin..

Witnesses Examined :

APPEARANCE:

Oneither side : None

DocumentsExhibited:

For theWorkman : Sri R. Arumugam and Oneither side : Nil

N. Krishnakumar , Advocates 3643

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

For the Respondent : Sri M.Imthias , Advocate No. 1

The II Party/Management Food Corporation of India, Tuticorin and the Secretary, National FCI Co-operative Contract Labour Society Ltd. Tuticorin, have been citedias 1st and 2nd Respondents in this industrial dispute.

For the Respondent : Sri S. Muthal Raj , Advocate. No.2

TheGovt . of India , Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , have referred the concerned dispute for adjudication vide Order No.L- 22012/447/98 /IR(CM- II) dated 30-07-99.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil- Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , Chennai , where the same was taken on file as I. D. No. 150/99 . When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal , Government of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case also from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication . On receipt of records from that Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , this case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 155/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side, informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal , with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 02-02-2001 with their respective parties and to prosecute this case further. Accordingly, the learned counsel on either side along with their respective parties have appeared and prosecuted this case further . The Claim Statement and Counter Statement of the 1st Respondent were filed earlier before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , when the matter was pending before that Tribunal for adjudication and the Counter Statement of the 2nd Respondent and rejoinder of the 1st Respondent were filed before this Tribunal after the case has been transferred to this Tribunal for adjudication .

Upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statements , rejoinder of the 1st Respondent , the other material papers on record, after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party / Management alone and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration , this Tribunal has passed the following:-

AWARD

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

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India , Tuticorin is justified in denying enrolment of Shri S.Ravi , Transport Assistant/ Canteen Staff, FCI , MG Complex Depot, Milavittan Goodshed under direct payment system from 01-05-1996 onwards ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled?"

The 1st Respondent Corporation is having storage depot atM.G.Complex and Good shed at Milavittan.Before 1990 , the 1st Respondent executed the loading, unloading, storing, stacking and transport work through different individual contractors . The Petitioner worked under a contractor in M.G.Complex to execute the above works of the 1st Respondent from 4-10-1989 continuously without any break . During 1990, the Ministry of Labour by a Notification prohibited the employment of contract labour in various godowns /depots of the 1st Respondent Corporation inwhich process , operation or work of handing of food grains including loading and unloading by any means of transport, storage and stacking is carried on. In view of the said Notification , the 1st Respondent encouraged the workers working in the 1st Respondent Corporation including the Petitioner to form a workers co- operative society, so that the workers would continued to be engaged without any break . Based on their advise/ guidance , the 2nd Respondent Co- operative Labour Contract Society was formed by the workers working in 1st.Respondent Corporation and the same was registered. The Petitioner is a member of the said society. The 1st Respondent awarded the handling and transport contract to the 2ndRespondent society from 28-4-1991 . The contract was initially given for two years and subsequently extended upto 27-4-1997 . The workers/members of the and Respondent Society was engaged to do the work ofthe list Respondent . The Petitioner was engaged continuously and he was directed by the 1st Respondent to do the Work ofpreparing truck chits for lorries in operation points in M.G.Complex and other areas and other works /jobs ofthe 1st Respondent assigned by the 2nd Respondent from time to time. The Petitioner worked more than 240 days in each year without any break. The Respondents issued entry permits to the Petitioner and extended various benefits ke P. F. bonus etc. The last drawn wages of the Petitioner is Rs.1,000/- . During 1997 the Food Corporation of India, Headquarters , New Delhi decided to implement direct payment system in the 1st Respondent for the categories ofhandling labour Sardar Mandal and Ancillary Labours. It seems that the conditions imposed for extending the benefit ofdirect payment system is (1 ) the workers already. working there for the last three years (2) who had worked for at least nine out of 12 months in the last year preceding April , 1996 and (3 ) EPF deductions were being madeffor them. The 1st Respondent implemented the said order of Food Corporation of India, Headquarters , New Delhi by absorbing the workers engaged through the ind Respondent as per the list furnished by the Secretary/ President ef Labour Union. The workers working along with the Petitioner were absorbed stage by stage. The 2. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the I Party /Workman Sri S.Ravi (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) are briefly as follows :-- 3644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10 , 2003/VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

the conditions stipulated by the Food Corporation of India Headquarters, New Delhi . Juniors to the Petitioners were enrolled in the direct payment system under the 1st Respondent but the Petitioner, who is a senior , is left out since all the workers were taken on the rolls of the 1st Respondent, the 2nd Respondent labour contractor Society did not have any contract and consequently the Petitioner was without employment from 28-4-9 . Due to the unjustified action of the 1st Respondent the Petitioner is without employment from 28-4-97 . Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an award holding that the denial of enrolment of Petitioner under direct payment system from 1-5-96 by the 1st Respondent is not justified and pass an award directing the 1st Respondent to enrol the Petitioner under direct payment system from 1-5-96 and to pay all back wages , continuity of service and other attendant benefits to the Petitioner .

3. The averments in the Counter Statement filed by the II Party/Management Food Corporation of India, Tuticorin (hereinafter refers to as 1st Respondent ) are briefly as follows :-

Petitioner was also under the impression that his name was also given along with the other workers and he would be absorbed as like other workers . In the meanwhile, the Petitioner was continued to be engaged in the work of preparing truck chit for lorries in operation points in M.G.Complex and other areas , since the transport contract was continued and the services of the Petitioner was required .The 2nd Respondent requested the labour union to give the name of the Petitioner later . Hence , the Petitioner's name was not included in the first list . Further, the Petitioner understands that the 1st Respondent did not specify any time limit for furnishing the list of workers. When the other workers who worked along with the Petitioner were absorbed on direct payment system by the 1st Respondent, the absorption of the Petitioner was delayed and therefore , the Petitioner approached the 2nd Respondent and the 2nd Respondent stated that the 1st Respondent will consider his case along with some of the workers left out . The 2nd Respondent's dialogue was protected for several months but the Respondents could not reach a solution favourable to the Petitioner. Then the Petitioner having no other option except to the approach the conciliation officer under section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The 1st Respondent by letter dated 31-7-97 for the first time contended that the Petitioner did not fulfil three conditions stipulated by the Headquarters Food Corporation of India, New Delhi , but the said contention was totally incorrect when especially the 1st Respondent themselves aware that the Petitioner is working there for the past ten years continuously without anybreak and preceding April, 1996 he worked for more than nine months and EPF contributions were paid for the Petitioner from 1995 onwards . The 2nd Respondent by the letter dated 28-11-1997 confirmed the said fact and stated that the Petitioner fulfilled all the conditions. The Petitioner is in no way responsible for the act of the 2nd Respondent in not including his name. The Ist Respondent was fully aware that the Petitioner was working for them under the 2nd Respondent and earlier contractors right from 1989 onwards. The 1st Respondent never informed that his name was not included in the list and further no time limit was specified by the 1st Respondent for bringing the workers under the direct payment system . After failure of conciliation, the Central Govt . has referred this issue for adjudication by this Tribunal . The action of the 1st Respondent in denying the enrolment of the Petitioner under direct payment system from 1-5-96 is totally arbitrary, illegal and against law. It is purely a discrimination shown on the Petitioner, when especially similarly placed workers who were worked along with himwere enrolled from 1-5-96, but the Petitioner alone was singled down by the 1st Respondent. There is no justification at all on the part of the 1st Respondent in denying the relief to the Petitioner when especially the 1st Respondent themselves fully aware that the Petitioner is working for them and discharging duties for them as per their directions for several years and further complied with

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 10, 2003/वैशाख 20 , 1925

3645

Society and not to any worker directly. The three conditions laid down by the Food Corporation of India Headquarters circularhave not been fulfilled by the Petitioner as per the records maintained by Food Corporation of India which were submitted by the Society then and there . The Petitioner's name also was not found in the E.PF contribution list provided by the Society . If the Petitioner has really worked as a labourer in the 2nd Respondent Society, as alleged by him, his will be definitely availablein the list ofEPF contribution furnished to the 1st Respondent by the 2nd Respondent . The real dispute is not between the 1st Respondent and the Petitioner , it is only betwech the Petitioner and 2nd Respondent . The list of workers were furnished only by the General Secretary of the FOI Labour Union and not by the Society as alleged by the Petitioner. The 1st Respondent has nodirect link with the Petitioner or any other worker . The Food Corporation of Indiahad enrolled the workers as per the list furnishedby the National FCI Labour Union . Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim petition ofthe Petitioner as there is no merit in the claim.

4. The averments in the Counter Statement filedby the II Party/Management The Secretary , National FO Co-operative Contract Labour Society Ltd. , Tuticorin (hereinafter refers to as 2nd Respondent) are briefly as follows:-

engaged by the Co - operative Society as per the list furnished by the Secretary and the President of Labour Union on 22-7-97 during the meeting held at the Regional Office at Chennai in the presence of Senior Regional Manager Joint Manager (Finance & Accounts) andDistrict Manager, Tuticorin, the workers were absorbed in one time as per the instructions from the Headquarters and not stage by stage as alleged by the Petitioner . The nature of work alleged to have been done by the Petitioner as Transport Assistant is a clerical job . The head load labourers (workers) working with labour co -operative societies alone were entitled to work under direct payment system. The 1st Respondent had awarded contract for transportation and/or handling the food grains to the handling and transport contractors on the basis of tender enquiry and that the contract is for supply of labourers by the contractor fordoing food handling operation and there is no provision for supplying of personnel by contractor to Food Corporation ofIndia for doing office/clerical work . There is no provision in the contract for bearing any liability by Food Corporation of India on account of any such employee of the contractor who might have been engaged byhim to do his office/clerical work . Such employees might have been employed by the contractor for his own convenience. Such employees of the contractor might have workedmore than one place or organisation wherever the contractor might have taken the contract for doing any type ofwork . The payment towards handling of food stocks were being made by Food Corporation of India to the contractors on the basis of ASOR and for the actual volume ofwork performed as per the terms of the contract. Asper the notification issued by the Ministry of Labour in 1991 prohibiting the employment of contract labour in many depots of Food Corporation of India does not cover the clerical or supervisory work. The Food Corporation of India nowhere maintained contractors or contract employees for clerical or supervisory work as it has its own regular staff/ officers everywhere. Such regular employees /officers are appointed by Food Corporation of India after following the statutory provisions of Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations . There is no provision for the post of Transport Assistant in Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations. The induction of such employees as in question in FCI would mean backdoor entry of employees in Food Corporation of India. Direct Payment System labourers are not coveredby FCI Staff Regulations . Direct Payment System Labourers having been there in Food Corporation ofIndia right from 1973 for doing food handling operations in various depots all over the country and there is no provision for induction of employees under direct payment system for doing clerical or supervisory work . The averment of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement that the 1st Respondent are fully aware that the Petitioner is working for them under the 2nd Respondent is not all true . The 1st Respondent do not have any direct link with the Petitioner and the Ist Respondent is making payment only to the

The workman involved in this dispute is the member of the co -operative society and was engaged by the Society. It is a fact that the Food Corporation of India ha extended various benefits to the labourers since they are the Principal employer and reimbursed the employer portion of EPF contribution, bouns etc. The Petitioner had complied with the three conditions for enrolling the worker inthe direct payment system as per the cirecular issued by the Food Corporation of India Headquarters at New Delhi The 2nd Respondent Society had submitted a list of workers working in the M. G. Complex Depot and Milavittan Goods shed. The list contained 365 workers who were working in handling unit of the 2nd Respondent Society initially.At that time the Petitionerwas working in the society and his services were neededby 2nd Respondent till the contract ofsociety has ended on 27-4-97. So , the Petitioner was retained with the Society itself for discharging their duties after contract period was over and their work was not required . The name of the Petitioner was submitted to the 1st Repondent to put them also to absorb them under direct payment system as done for the other workers . The 1st respondent however , refused to entertain the Petitioner to put him under direct payment system. Even before the formation of the Society , as per the guidance of the Ist Respondent the Petitioner was working with the 1st Respondent, the name of the petitioner was not included in the initial list due to the reasons stated above and the contract was existing till 27-4-97 . The list of 365 workers was furnished to the 1st Respondent for direct payment [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] 3646

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003/VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

wages of the Petitioner. The name of the Petitioner was not furnished in the initial list by the 2nd Respondent because as per their declaration, his services were needed by the 2nd Respondent till the date of the termination of the transport contract . It is therefore , clear that the services of the Petitioner was utilised by the society for their purpose . The allegation of the 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement that 35 workers have left the 1st Respondent on various grounds has nothing to do in this case. Out ofthe seven long absented workers , the service of five workers arere-inducted into Food Corporation of India. Moreover the number of casual labourers furnished by the Society was 108 whereas the casual labourers as per norms required isonly 64. The Ist Respondent was therefore , overburdened with excess 44 casual labourers . During the discussions held with the society on 21-2-97, the 2nd Respondent has stated that about 25 women casual labourers are attaining their superannuation within two years and would be reduced subsequently . This was mutually agreed by both the Respondent to restrict the Casual Labourers as per norms gradually, notwithstanding the provision for replacement of superannuated worker under dependent quota. The allegation of the 2nd Respondent that 423 labourers have been inducted by the 1st Respondent is quite contrary to their statements made earlier in the Counter Statement . Thepresent counter has been filed by the Ex -President of the defunct Society without any legal sanction with the collusion of the workman.

system from 1-1-97 effective from 1-5-96 and therefore, the petitioner's name could not be included in the first list. Out ofthe list of 365 workers furnished to the 1st Respondent so far 35 workers have left the 1st Respondent on various grounds such as retired, terminated, expired and long absence. The Petitioner had unblemished record of service and he is a sincere worker . If he is absorbed in FCI he will perform the work of the Corporation very efficiently as before. The Petitioner who was working in the 2nd Respondent Society may be absorbed into the service of the 1st Respondent Corporation . Meanwhile, the Food Corporation of India/ 1st Respondent had framed a scheme for direct payment system and took over 423 labourers in theDPS scheme w.e.f. 1-3-97. If the handing and transport contract is not discharged fully and satisfactorily and if there is any loss with contractual liability, the same will be levied on the shoulders of the Society only . Therefore, the society had the obligation to discharge the contractual liability oftransport contractor had to continue the services ofthe petitioner upto the completion of the contract period 27-4-97 . Thereafter , since the Food Corporation of India had not awarded any contract to the society , the Society hadbecome defunct with effect from 28-4-97 . The Society cansympathise the Petitioner only and could not give any employment opportunity, since the Society was left over without any contract from Food Corporation of India since 24-7-97 . The 1st Respondent being the orginal employer for the workman, since the inception of the society for whom the workmen were deployed for the period from 28-4-91 till 27-4-97 and since their counter parts 423 labourers have been taken over by the Food Corporation of India under DPS scheme . The prayer of the Petitioner may be considered by the 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India management .

6. When the matter was taken up for enquiry , no one has been examined as a witness on either side and no document has been marked as an exhibit on either side . The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/ 1st Respondent was heard. The counsel for the Petitioner and the counsel for the 2nd Respondent have not come forward to advance any arguinents, inspite of sufficient opportunity was provided to them.

5. The 1st Respondent has filed a rejoinder for the Counter Statement of the 2nd Respondent . The averments inthat rejoinder are briefly as follows:-

7. The point for my consideration is-

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India , Tuticorin is justified in denying enrolment of Shri S. Ravi , Transport Assistant/ Canteen Staff , FCI , MG Complex Depot , Milavittan Goodshed under direct payment system from 01-05-1996 onwards ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled ?"

Point :-

The allegations in th Counter Statement of the 2nd Respondent that the Petitioner complied witht the three conditions stipulated in the circular issued by the Food Corporation of India Headquarters is incorrect. All the 365 workers in the list furnished by the Society on 21-2-97 were absorbed by the Food Corporation of India under direct payment system . At no point of time , the name of the petitioner was submitted by the 2nd Respondent to the Ist Respondent . Further allegations of 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement that the Petitioner has fulfilled the conditions stipulated and was working with the Ist Respondent even before the formation of society are not correct. Before the formation of the society , since the contract system was prevailing at that time, the contractors were remunerated for the work turned out by them on SOR basis . Only after the formation of the society, the Ist Respondent reimbursed the wages paid by the Society to workers and nowhere the 1st Respondent reimbursed the

This industrial dispute has been raised by the Petitioner/Workman challenging the action of the Ist Respondent management of Food Corporation of India. Tuticorin in denying enrolment for him under direct payment system from 1-5-96 onwards as unjustified . It is admitted that the 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India , District, Office,Tuticorin at M.G.Complex executed handling and transporting work through private contractors before 1990 and they have never remunerated any contract workers 3647 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 10, 2003 /वैशाख 20, 1925

directly. It is the contention of the Petitioner that he worked under the contractor in M.G. Complex to execute the works like loading, unloading, storing, stacking and transport work ofthe Ist Respondent from 4-10-89 continuously without any break. The Ist Respondent in their Counter Statement has specifically denied this averment of the Petitioner in hisClaim Statement, so it is for the Petitioner to prove strictly that he had worked for the 1st Respondent from 4-10-10-1989 . The Petitioner has not let in oral or documentary evidence to prove his contention.

8. It is admitted that the Ministry of Labour, Government of India has prohibited the employment of contract labour and hence, the Ist Respondent Food Corporation of India encouraged the workers to form Labourers Co- cperative Society and the work of handling contract had been awarded to the 2nd Respondent FCICo- operative Contract Labour Society Ltd. formed by the workers. It isalso admitted that the transport and handling contractwas awarded from 28-4-91 by the 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India and the said contract was extendedup to 27-4-97 . It is the definite allegation ofthe 1stRespondent that the averment of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement that he was engaged continuously and was directed by the 1st Respondent to do the work of preparingtruck chits for Iorries in operation poini inM.G. Complexand other areas is not correct. It is further alleged by the 1st Respondent that Food Corporation of India is dealingwith labour co -operative society only and not with individuals such as the petitioner. The 2nd Respondent erstwhile co -operative society in their Counter Statement hasalso stated that the Petitioner was working with the ist Respondent even before the formation of the society as perthe guidance of the 1st Respondent. This averment of the 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement is in support ofthe contention of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement on this aspect . Neither the Petitioner nor the 2nd Respondent has let in any oral or documentary evidence toprove this contention. In the absence of one such proof, is cannot be said , when especially disputedby the Ist Respondent the Petitioner had worked for the Ist Respondent from 4-10-89 onwards .

duties, even after the contract for the society has ended on 27-4-97. It is further alleged in the Counter Statement by the 2nd Respondent that the society had obligation to discharge the contractual liability oftransport contract fully and satisfactorily and hence, the services of the Petitioner hadto continue after the completion of the contract period 27-4-97. In proof of these averments of the Petitioner as well as the 2nd Respondent that the Petitioner's services were utilised by the 2nd Respondent society to do the workofpreparing truck chits for lorries in operation point inM. G. Complex and other areas as per the direction ofthe 1st Respondent, no oral or documentary evidence has been let in either by the petitioner or by the 2nd Respondent before this Tribunal . It is the specific averment of the 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement that the services of the petitioner was needed by the 2nd Respondent till the contract of society has ended on 27-4-97 and so the Petitioner was retained with the society itself for discharging their duties and their work was not required after the contract period was over. They have not stated in the Counter Statement that the petitioner's service was utilised by the 2nd Respondent Co -operative Society to dothe work ofpreparing truck chits for lorries in operation point in M. G. Complex and other areas . But it is stated in the Counter Statement that the Petitioner was engagedby theCo-operative Society. It is the clear averment ofthe Ist Respondent in their Counter Statement that the Food Corporation of India had awarded contract for transportation and/or handling of Food grains to the handing and transport contractor on the basis of tender enquiry and the contract is for the supply of labourers by the contractor for doing food handling operations and these is no provision for supplying of personnel by contracter toFoodCorporation of India for doing office/clericalwork. It is clearly stated in their Counter Statement that the contractor might have taken contract for doing any typeof workand the employees ofthe contractor might have woked more than one place/organisation wherever the contractor might have taken contract and the payment towards handlilng of food stocks were being made by the Food Corporation of India to the contractors on the basis of ASOR and that the nature of work alleged to have been done by the Petitioner as Transport Assistant is a clerical job and the head load labourers working with labour co -operative societies alone were entitled to work under direct payment system . This has not been disputed by the 2nd Respondent, the National FCI Co-operative Contract Labour Society Ltd. in their Counter Statement. So, under such circumstances , it cannot be said that the Petitioner was engaged continuously , as per the direction of the Ist Respondent, to do the work of preparing truck chits for lorries inoperation points in M.G. Complex and other areas. The Petitioner himself in his Claim Statement has averred that the Petitioner was continued to be engaged in the work ofpreparing truck chit for lorries in operation points in M.G. Complex and other areas , since the transport 123261/03-16 3648

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10, 2003/VAISAKHA 20, 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

action ofthe 1st Respondent in denying enrolment of Sri S.Ravi , Transport Assistant/ Canteen Staff, Food Corporation of India, M.G. Complex Depot, Milavittan Good Shed under direct payment system from 1-5-1996 onwards isjustified. Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief. Thus , the point is answered accordingly.

11. In the result, an Award is passed holding that the concerned workman Sri S. Ravi is not entitled for any relief. No Cost.

contract was continued and as the service of the Petitioner was required . So on that admission of the fact, the Petitioner cannot have a right to claim to be absorbed for direct payment system, when it was meant for head load labourers working with labour co -operative societies alone , as contended by the 1st Respondent in their Counter Statement . The averment of the 1st Respondent in their Counter Statement that the head load labourers working with labour co - operative societies alone were entitled to work under direct payment system has not been disputed as incorrect either by the 2nd Respondent Co -operative Society or by the Petitioner himself.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed byhim, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court onthis day the 9th April , 2003.)

K. KARTHIKEYAN , Presiding Officer

Witnmesses Examined:

Oneither side : None

Documents Exhibited:-

Oneither side : Nil

नईदिल्ली, 21 अप्रैल , 2003

का. आ. 1409.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. , प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण चेन्नई ( संदर्भ संख्या 153/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-4-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/433/98- आई. आर. ( सी- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st April, 2003

S.O. 1409.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 153/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of FCI and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17-4-2003.

[No. L -22012/433 /98- IR(C-II)] N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

Wednesday, the 9th April, 2003 PRESENT:

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 153/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D.No.148/ 99)

(Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (14 of 1947) , 10. It is everybody's case that as per the decision of Food Corporation of India Headquarters , New Delhi taken in 1997 to implement direct payment system for the categories of handling labour , Sardar, Mandal and Ancillary labours three conditions were imposed that the worker already working there for the past three years who had worked for at least nine out of 12 months in the last year preceding April, 1996 and EPF deductions were made for them. Though it is contended by the Petitioner as well as 2nd Respondent , the Petitioner had fulfilled all the three conditions, no acceptable evidence to that effect has been let in before this Tribunal either orally or by way of documentary evidence. It is specifically stated in the Counter Statement of the 1st Respondent that the Petitioner/Workman had not complied with those three conditions and hence he is not eligible to be absorbed as a labourer for direct payment system. It is the admission of the 2nd Respondent Co -operative Labour Contract Society that a list of workers for absorption for direct payment system has been furnished by the Secretary and President of the Labour Union and in that list, the name of the Petitioner was not included . It is confirmedby the 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement that the names of 365 workers were furnished in the list given to the Ist Respondent for direct payment system from 1-1-1997 . The Ist Respondent also in their Counter Statement has stated clearly that as per the circulars of Headquarters for the implementation of direct payment system of labour the bio- data from the labourers maintained by the concerned labour co -operative society was obtained in prescribed forma as per the annexure III to the said circular and accordingly, as per the list furnished by the labour union, the 1st Respondent has implemented the direct payment system of labourers as per the Headquarters direction as absorption in one time. It is further alleged that the Petitioner's name was not included in the list furnishedby them. From the available materials, it is seen that the name ofthe Petitioner has not been mentioned in the list furnished by the Union to the 1st Respondent, since the service of the Petitioner was utilised by the 2nd Respondent Society for their own need. So under such circumstances , as rightly contended by the learned counsel for 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India Management, Tuticorin , the [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10 , 2003/वैशाख 20, 1925

364號 between the Workmen and the Management of the District Manager & the Secretary, F.C.I. )

BETWEEN

Sri A. Shanmuganathan :I Party/Workman

Upon perusing the Claim Statement , Counter States ments , rejoinder of the 1st Respondent, the other material papers on record, after hearing the arguments advanced bythe learned counsel for the II Party /Management alone and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal has passed the following:-

AND

AWARD

II Party/Management

1. The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Tuticorin.

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of referencebythe Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows:-

2.The Secretary,

The National FCI Co- operative. Contract Labour Society Ltd, Tuticorin,

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman. Sri R. Arumugam&

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India , Tuticorin is justified in denying enrolment of Shri A.Shanmuganathan, Transport Assistant, FCI , MG Complex Depot Milavittan Goodshed under direct payment system from 01-05-1996 onwards ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

N. Krishnakumar , Advocates

For the Respondent No. 1

2. The averments in the Claim Statement filedbythe [ Party/Workman Sri A. Shanmuganathan (hereinafter re fers to as Petitioner) are briefly as follows:

: Sri M.lmthias ,

Advocate

FortheRespondent No.2 : Sri S. Muthal Raj,Advocate

The II Party/Management Food Corporation of India, Tuticorin and the Secretary, National FCI Co operative Contract Labour Society Ltd. Tuticorin , have been cited as 1st and 2nd Respondents in this industrial dispute.

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section (1 ) and Sub- section 2( A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , have referred the concerned dispute for adjudication vide Order No- L- 22012/ 433 /98/IR (CM - II) dated30-07-99.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai , where the same was taken on file as 1.D. No. 148/99 . When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, Government of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this casealso from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribu- nal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt ofrecords from that Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, this case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 153/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side , inform- ing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 2-2-2001 with their respective parties and to prosecute this case further. Accordingly, the learned counsel on either side along with their respective parties have appeared and prosecuted this case further . The Claim Statement and Counter Statement of the 1st Respondent were filedearlier before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , when the matter was pending before that Tribunal for adjudication and the Counter Statement of the 2nd Respondent and rejoinder of the 1st Respondent were filed before this Tri- bunal after the case has been transferred to this Tribunal foradjudication.

The 1st Respondent Corporation is having storage depot at M.G.Complex and Good shed at Milavittan.. Before 1990 , the Ist Respondent executed the loading, unloading, storing , stacking and transport work through different individual contractors. The Petitioner worked under a contractor in M.G. Complex to execute the above works of the 1st Respondent from 4-10-1989 continuously without anybreak, During 1990 , the Ministry ofLabour by aNotificationprohibited the employment of contract labour in various godowns/depots of the 1st Respondent Corporation in which process, operation or work of handling of food grains including loading and unloading byany means oftransport, storage and stacking is carried on. In view of the said Notification, the 1st Respondent encouraged the workers working in the 1st Respondent Corporation including the Petitioner to form a workers co -operative society , so that the workers would continued to be engaged without any break. Based on their advise/ guidance, the 2nd Respondent Co - operative Labour Contract Society was formed by the workers working in 1st Respondent Corporation and the same was registered. The Petitioner is a member of the said society . The Ist Respondent awarded the handling and transport contract tothe 2nd Respondent society from 28-4-1991 . The contract was initially given for two years and subsequently extended upto 27-4-1997 . The workers/members of the 2nd Respondent Society was engaged to do the work of the Ist [PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 10, 2003 /VAISAKHA 20, 1925

3650

from 1995 onwards. The 2nd Respondent by the letter dated 28-11-1997 confirmed the said fact and stated that the Petitioner fulfilled all the conditions . The Petitioner is in no way responsible for the act of the 2nd Respondent in not including his name. The 1st Respondent was fully aware that the Petitioner was working for them under the 2nd Respondent and earlier contractors right from 1989 onwards. The 1st Respondent never informed that his name was not included in the list and further no time limit was specified by the 1st Respondent for bringing the workers under the direct payment system . After failure of conciliation, the Central Govt . has referred this issue for adjudication by this Tribunal . The action of the Ist Respondent in denying the enrolment of the Petitioner underdirect payment system from 1-5-96 is totally arbitrary, illegal and against law. It is purely a discrimination shown on the Petitioner , when especially similarly placed workers whowere worked along with him were enrolled from 1-5 %, but the Petitioner alone was singled down by the 1st Respondent. There is no justification at all on the part of the 1st Respondent in denying the relief to the Petitioner when especially the Ist Respondent themselves fully aware that the Petitioner is working for them and discharging duties for them as per their directions for several years and further complied with the conditions stipulated by the Food Corporation of India Headquarters , New Delhi. Juniors to the Petitioners were enrolled in the direct payment system under the Ist Respondent but the Petitioner, who is a senior, is left out since all the workers were taken on the rolls of the 1st Respondent, the 2nd Respondent labour contractor Society did not have any contract and consequently the Petitioner was without employment from 28-4-97. Due to theunjustified action of the 1st Respondent the Petitioner iswithout employment from 28-4-97 . Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an award holding that the denial of enrolment of Petitioner under directpayment system from 1-5-96 by the 1st Respondent is not justified and pass an award directing the 1st Respondent to enrol the Petitioner under direct payment system from 1-5-96 and to pay all back wages , continuity of service and other attendant benefits to the Petitioner.

3. The averments in the Counter Statement filed by the 11 Party/Management Food Corporation of India , Tuticorin (hereinafter refers to as 1st Respondent ) are briefly as follows :-

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 10, 2003 /वैशाख 20, 1925

3651

theMinistry of Labour in 1991 prohibiting the employment ofcontract labour in many depots of Food Corporation of Indiadoes not cover the clerical or supervisory works The FoodCorporation of India nowhere maintained contractors orcontractemployees for clerical or supervisory work as it has its own regular staff/ officers everywhere. Such regular employees/officers are appointed by Food Corporation of India after following the statutory provisions of Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations. There is no provision for the post of Transport Assistant in Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations . The induction of such employees as in question in FCI would mean backloor entry of employees in Food Corporation of India. Direct Payment System labourers are not covered by FCI Staff Regulations. Direct Payment System Labourers having been there in Food Corporation of India right from 1973 for doing food handling operations in various depots all over the countryand there is no provision for induction of employees under direct payment system for doing clerical or supervisory work. The averment of the Petitioner inghis Claim Statement that the 1st Respondent are fully aware that the Petitioner is working for them under the ind Respondent is not all true. The 1st Respondent do not have any direct link with the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent is making payment only to the Society and not to any worker directly. The three conditions laid down by the Food Corporation of India Headquarters circular have not been fulfilled by the Petitioner as per the records maintained by Food Corporation of India which were submitted by the Society then and there. The Petitioner's name also was not found in the E.P.F. contribution st provided by the Society. If the Petitioner has really worked asa labourer in the 2nd Respondent Society, as alleged by him, his will be definitely available in the list of EPF contribution furnished to the 1st Respondent by the 2nd Respondent. The real dispute is not between the 1st Respondent and the Petitioner, it is only between the Petitioner and 2nd Respondent , The list of workers were furnished only by the General Secretary of the FCI Labour Union and not by the Society as alleged by the Petitioner. The Ist Respondent has no direct link with the Petitioner or any other worker . The Food Corporation of India had enrolled the workers as per the list furnished by the National FCI Labour Union. Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim petition of the Petitioner as there is no merit in the claim.

4. The averments in the Counter Statement filedby the II Party/Management. The Secretary, National FCI Co-operative Contract Labour Society Ltd. , Tuticorin (hereinafter refers to as 2nd Respondent ) are briefly as follows:-

formedby the workers . The transport and handling contract was finalised and awarded by the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Tamil Nadu Region, Chennai from 28-4-91. The said contract was extended upto 27-4-97. The allegation of the Petitioner that he was engaged continuously and he was directed by the Ist Respondent to do the work of preparing truck chits for lorries in operation point in M.G. Complex and other areas is not correct. The Food Corporation of India is directly dealing with the Labour Co - operative Society and not with individuals such as the Petitioner, the 1st Respondent has not extended any benefits as alleged by the Petititoner in his Claim Statement and the Petitioner was never paid any wages by the Ist Respondent. As per the notification of FoodCorporation of India Headquarters, New Delhi, the workers who satisfy the conditions imposed for extending benefits for direct payment system have been enrolledby the Ist Respondent as labourers under direct payment system. As per the Headquarters circular, the bio-data of the labourers maintained by the concerned labour co- operative society was obtained in prescribed forma as per theAnnexure III to the said circular and accordingly as per the list furnished by the labour union, the 1st Respondent had implemented the direct payment system of labourers as per Headquarters direction. The workers engaged by the Co-operative Society as per the list furnished by the Secretary and the President of Labour Union on 22-7-97 during the meeting held at the Regional Office at Chennai inthe presence of Senior Regional Manager Joint Manager (Finance & Accounts) and District Manager, Tuticorin, the workers were absorbed in one time as per the instructions from the Headquarters and not stage by stage as alleged by the Petitioner. The nature ofwork alleged to have been done by the Petitioner as Transport Assistant is a clerical job. The head load labourers (workers) working withlabour co-operative societies alone were entitled to workunder direct payment system. The Ist Respondent had awarded contract for transportation and/or handling the food grains to the handling and transport contractors on the basis of tender enquiry and that the contract is for supply of labourers by the contractor for doing food handling operation and there is no provision for supplying ofpersonnel by contractor to Food Corporation of India for doing office/clerical work. There is no provision in the contract for bearing any liability by Food Corporation of India on account of any such employee of the contractor who might have been engaged by him to do his office/ clericalwork. Such employees might have been employed by the contractor for his own convenience. Such employees ofthe contractor might have worked morethan one place ororganisation wherever the contractor might have taken the contract for doing any type of work. The payment towards handling of food stocks were being made by Food Corporation of India to the contractors on the basis of ASORand for the actual volume of work performed asper the terms of the contract. As per the notification issued by

3652

under DPS scheme. The prayer of the Petitioner may be considered by the 1st Respondent Food Corporation of Indiamanagement.

5. The 1st Respondent has filed a rejoinder for the Counter Statement of the 2nd Respondent. The averments inthat rejoinder are briefly as follows :-

The allegations in the Counter Statement of the 2nd Respondent that the Petitioner complied with the three conditions stipulated in the circular issued by the Food Corporationof India Headquarters is incorrect. All the 365 workers inthe list furnished by the Society on 21-2-97 were absorbed by the Food Corporation of India under direct payment system. At no point of time, the name of the Petitionerwas submitted by the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Respondent . Further allegations of2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement that the Petitioner has fulfilled the conditions stipulated and was working with the 1st Respondent even before the formation of society are not correct . Before the formation of the society , since the contract system was prevailing at that time, the contractors were remunerated for the work turned out by them on SOR basis . Only after the formation of the society, the 1st Respondent reimbursed the wages paid by the Society to workers and nowhere the Ist Respondent reimbursed the wages ofthe Petitioner. The name of the Petitioner was not fumished in the initial list by the 2nd Respondent because as per their declaration, his services were needed by the 2nd Respondent till the date of the termination of the transport contract. It is therefore, clear that the services of the Petitioner was utilised by the society for their purpose . The allegation of the 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement that 35 workers have left the 1st Respondent on various grounds has nothing to do in this case. Out of the seven long absented workers , the services of five workers are re- inducted into Food Corporation of India. Moreover the number of casual labourers furnished by the Society was 108whereas the casual labourers as per norms required is only 64. The Ist Respondent was therefore , overburdened with excess 44 casual labourers . During the discussions held with the society on 21-2-97, the 2nd Respondent has stated that about 25 women casual labourers are attaining their superannuation within two years and would be reduced subsequently. This was mutually agreed by both the Respondents to restrict the Casual Labourers as per norms gradually, notwithstanding the provision for replacement of superannuated worker under dependent quota . The allegation of the 2nd Respondent that 423 labourers have been inducted by the Ist Respondent is quite contrary to their statements made earlier in the Counter Statement. The present counter has been filed by the Ex- President of the defunct Society without any legal sanction with the collusion of the

workman.

6. When the matter was taken up for enquiry , no one has been examined as a witness on either side and no employer and reimbursed the employer portion of EPF contribution , bonus etc. The Petitioner had complied with the three conditions for enrolling the worker in the direct payment system as per the circular issued by the Food Corporation of India Headquarters at New Delhi . The 2nd Respondent Society had submitted a list of workers working in the M.G. Complex Depot and Milavittan Goods Shed. The list contained 365 workers who were working in handling unit of the 2nd Respondent Society initially. At thattime the Petitioner was working in the society and his services were needed by 2nd Respondent till the contract of society has ended on 27-4-97. So, the Petitioner was retained with the Society itself for discharging their duties after contract period was over and their work was not required . The name of the Petitioner was submitted to the 1st Respondent to put them also to absorb them under direct payment system as done for the other workers . The 1stRespondent however, refused to entertain the Petitioner to put him under direct payment system. Even before the formation of the Society, as per the guidance of the 1st Respondent the Petitioner was working with the 1st Respondent, the name of the Petitioner was not included in the initial list due to the reasons stated above and the contract was existing till 27-4-97. The list of 365 workers was furnished to the 1st Respondent for direct payment system from 1-1-97 effective from 1-5-96 and therefore, the Petitioner's name could not be included in the first list. Out ofthe list of 365 workers furnished to the 1st Respondent so far 35 workers hiave left the 1st Respondent on various grounds such as retired, terminated, expired and long absence . The Petitioner had unblemished record of service and he is a sincere worker . If he is absorbed in FCI he will perform the work of the Corporation very efficiently as before . The Petitioner who ' was working in the 2nd Respondent Society may be absorbed in to the service of the 1st Respondent Corporation . Meanwhile , the Food Corporation of India/ 1st Respondent had framed a scheme for direct payment system and took over 423 labourers in theDPS scheme w.e.f. 1-3-97. Ifthe handling and transport contract is not discharged fully and satisfactorily and if there is any loss with contractual liability , the same willbe levied on the shoulder of the Society only . Therefore, the society had the obligation to discharge the contractual liability of transport contractor had to continue the services ofthe Petitioner upto the completion ofthe contract period 27-4-97. Thereafter, since the Food Corporation of India had not awarded any contract to the society, the Society hadbecome defunct with effect from 28-4-97 . The Society cansympathise the Petitioner only and could not give any employment opportunity , since the Society was left over without any contract from Food Corporation of India since 24-7-97. The 1st Respondent being the original employer for the workman, since the inception of the society for whom the workmen were deployed for the period from 28-4-91 till 27-4-97 and since their counterparts 423 labourers have been taken over by the Food Corporation of India [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 10, 2003/ वैशाख 20, 1925

3553 document has been marked as an exhibit on either side .

The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/ 1st Respondent was heard. The counsel for the Petitioner and the counsel for the 2nd Respondent-have not come forward to advance any arguments, in spite of sufficient opportunity was provided to them.

7. The point for my consideration is :-

with the 1st Respondent even before the formation of the society as per the guidance of the 1st Respondent. This averment of the 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement isinsupport ofthe contention ofthe Petitioner in his Claim Statement on this aspect . Neither the Petitioner nor the 2nd Respondent has let in any oral or documentary evidence to prove this contention. In the absence ofone such proof, it cannot be said, when especially dispute by the 1st Respondent, the Petitioner had worked for the 1st Respondentfrom 4-10-89 onwards. :

9. It is the specific averment of the 1st Respondent in their Counter Statement that the averment of the Petitioner "Whether the action of the management of Food Corporationof India, Tuticorin isjustified in denying enrolment of Shri A. Shanmuganathan , Transport Assistant , FCI , MG Complex Depot , Milavittan Goodshed under direct payment system from 1-5-1996 onwards? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled?"

Point-

This industrial dispute has been raised by the Petitioner/Workman challenging the action of the 1st Respondent management of Food Corporation of India, Tuticorin in denying enrolement for him under direct payment system from 1-5-96 onwards as unjustified. It is admitted that the 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India, District Office, Tuticorin at M.G. Complex executed handling and transporting work through private contractors before 1990 and they have never remunerated any contract workers directly. It is the contention of the Petitioner that heworked under the contractor in M.G. Complex to execute the works like loading, unloading, storing, stacking and transport work of the 1st Respondent from 4-10-89 continuously without any break. The 1st Respondent in their Counter Statement has specifically denied this averment ofthe Petitioner in his Claim Statement, so it is forthe Petitioner to prove strictly that he had worked for the 1st Respondent from 4-10-1989. The Petitioner has not let inoral or documentary evidence to prove his contention.

in his Claim Statement that he was engaged continuously and was directed by the 1st Respondent to do the work of preparing truck chits for lorries in operation point inM.G. Complex and other areas is incorrect and the Food Corporation of India is directly dealing with labour.co- operative society only and not with individuals such as the Petitioner. The 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement has stated that when the society had submitted a list ofworkers working in the M. G. Complex Depot and Milavittan Goods Shed for the 365 workers who were in handling unit of the 2nd Respondent Society, the Petitioner was working in the Society itself for discharging their duties, even after the contract for the society has ended on 27-4-97. It is further alleged in the Counter Statement by the 2nd Respondent that the society had obligation to discharge the contractual liability oftransport contract fully and satisfactorily and hence , the services of the Petitioner had to continue after the completion ofthe contract period 27-4-97 . In proof of these averments of the Petitioner as well as the 2nd Respondent that the Petitioner's services were utilised by the 2nd Respondent society to do the work ofpreparing truck chits for lorries in operation point inM.G. Complex and other areas as per the direction of the 1stRespondent, no oral or documentary evidence has been let in either by the Petitioner or by the 2nd Respondent before this Tribunal . It is the specific averment of the 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement that the services of the Petitioner was needed by the 2nd Respondent till the contract of society has ended on 27-4-97 and so the Petitioner was retained with the society itself for discharging their duties and their work was not required after the contract period was over. They have not stated in the Counter Statement that the Petitioner's service was utilised by the 2nd Respondent Co -operative Society to dothe work ofpreparing truck chits for lorries in operation point in M.G.Complex and other areas . But it is stated in theCounter Statement that the Petitioner was engaged by the Co-operative Society . It is the clear averment ofthe 1st Respondent in their Counter Statement that the Food Corporation of India had awarded contract for transportation and/or handling of foodgrains to the handling and transport contractor on the basis oftender enquiry and the contract is for the supply of labourers by 8. It is admitted that the Ministry of Labour, Government of India has prohibited the employment of contract labour and hence the 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India encouraged the workers to form Labourers Co -operative Society and the work of handling contract had been awarded to the 2nd Respondent FCI Co- operative Contract Labour Society Ltd. formed by the workers. It is also admitted that the transport and handling contractwas awarded from 28-4-91 by the 1st Respondent Food Corporation of India and the said contract was extended up to 27-4-97 . It is the definite allegation of the 1stRespondent that the averment of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement that he was engaged continuously and was directed by the 1st Respondent to do the work of preparing truck chits for lorries in operation point in M.G. Complex and other areas is not correct . It is further alleged by the 1st Respondent that Food Corporation of India is directlydealing with labour co-operative society only and not with individuals such as the Petitioner . The 2nd Respondent erstwhile co -operative society in their Counter Statement has also stated that the Petitioner was working [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 3654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 10 , 2003/VAISAKHA 20 , 1925

documentary evidence . It is specifically stated in the Counter Statement of the 1st Respondent that the Petitioner/Workman had not complied with those three conditions and hence he is not eligible to be absorbed as a labourer for direct payment system. It is the admission of the 2nd Respondent Co-operative Labour Contract Society that a list of workers for absorption for direct payment system has been furnished by the Secretary and President of the Labour Union and in that list, the name of the Petitioner was not included . It is confirmed by the 2nd Respondent in their Counter Statement that the names of 365 workers were furnished in the list given to the 1st Respondent for direct payment system from 1-1-1997 . The 1stRespondent also in their Counter Statement has stated clearly that as per the circulars of Headquarters for the implementation of direct payment system of labour thebio- data from the labourers maintained by the coricemed labour co-operative society was obtained in prescribed forma as per the annexure III to the said circular and accordingly, as per the list furnished by the labour union, the 1st Respondent has implemented the direct payment system of labourers as per the Headquarters direction as absorption in one time . It is further alleged that the Petitioner's name was not included in the list furnished by them. From the available materials , it is seen that the name ofthe Petitioner has not been mentioned in the list furnished by the Union to the 1st Respondent, since the service of the Petitioner was utilised by the 2nd Respondent Society fortheir own need . So under such circumstances , as rightly contended by the learned counsel for 1st Respondent Food Corporationof India Management, Tuticorin, the action of the 1st Respondent in denying enrolment of Sri A.Shanmuganathan, Transport Assistant Food Corporation ofIndia, M.G.Complex Depot, Milavittan Goods Shedunder direct payment system from 1-5-1996 onwards is justified. Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

the contractor for doing food handling operations and there is no provision for supplying of personnel by contractor to Food Corporation of India for doing office/clerical work. It is clearly stated in their Counter Statement that the contractor might have taken contract for doing any type of work and the employees of the contractor might have worked more than one place /organisation wherever the contractor might have taken contract and that payment towards handling of food stocks were being made by the Food Corporation of India to the contractors on the basis ofASOR and that the nature of work alleged to have been done by the Petitioner as Transport Assistant is a clerical job and the head load labourers working with labour co- operative societies alone were entitled to work under direct payment system . This has not been disputed by the 2nd Respondent, the National FCI Co -operative Contract Labour Society Ltd. in their Counter Statement. So, under such circumstances , it cannot be said that the Petitioner was engaged continuously, as per the direction of the 1st Respondent, to do the work of preparing truck chits for lorries in operation points in M. G. Complex and other areas . The Petitioner himself in his Claim Statement has averred that the Petitioner was continued to be engaged in the workofpreparing truck chit for lorries in operation points in M.G. Complex and other areas, since the transport contract was continued and as the service of the Petitioner was required. So on that admission of the fact, the Petitioner cannot have a right to claim to be absorbed for direct payment system, when it was meant for head load labourers working with labour co -operative societies alone, as contended by the 1st Respondent in their Counter Statement. The averment of the 1st Respondent in their Counter Statement that the head load labourers working with labour co -operative societies alone were entitled to work under direct payment system has not been disputed as incorrect either by the 2nd Respondent Co-operative Society or by the Petitioner himself.

11. In the result, an Award is passed holding that the concerned workman Sri A.Shanmuganathan is not entitled for any relief. No Cost:

(Dictated to the Stenographer , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day

the 9thApril, 2003. )

K.KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:----

: None

On either side

Documents Exhibited:-

Nil

On either side

Printed by the Manager , Govt. of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi -110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.