This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGD. No. DL (N) 04/0007/2003-05 रजिस्ट्री सं०डी एल ( एन ) 04/0007/ 2003-05

भारतका राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 49 ]

नई दिल्ली, नवम्बर 30 दिसम्बर6 , 2003 , शनिवार/अग्रहायण 9-अग्रहायण्ण 15, 1925 No. 49] NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 30- DECEMBER6 , 2003, SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA 9- AGRAHAYANA 15, 1925 इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह अलग संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II -खण्ड 3 -उप-खण्ड (ii) PART II-Section 3 Sub- section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों । रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी 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)

CABINET SECRETARIAT New Delhi , the 25th November , 2003 मंत्रिमंडल सचिवालय नई दिल्ली, 25 नवम्बर , 2003

S.O. 3304. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section (1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Rajasthan Home (Group -V) Department vide Notification No. F. 14 (5) Home/Gr. V/2003 Jaipur dated 3rd June 2003, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Rajasthan for investigation of Case FIR No. 198/2003 registered at Police Station Sodala , Jaipur ( South) , Jaipur under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( Act No. 45 of 1860) and attempts , abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with said offences and any other offences committed in the course of the same transactions arising out of the same facts.

का०आ ० 3304.- केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं० 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए राजस्थान राज्य सरकार के गृह ( ग्रुप-5 ) विभाग की अधिसूचना सं. एफ. 14 ( 5 ) गृह/ग्रुप. 5/2003 जयपुर दिनांक 03-06- 2003 द्वारा प्राप्त राजस्थान राज्य सरकार की सहमति से पुलिस स्टेशन सोडाला, जयपुर ( दक्षिण ) , जयपुर में भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं . 45 ) की धारा 302 और 201 के अधीन दर्ज मामला एफआईआर सं . 198/2003 और उपर्युक्त अपराधों से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और षडयंत्रों तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किन्हीं अन्य अपराधों के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण राजस्थान राज्य पर करती है । "

[No. 228/50/2003 -DSPE] SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy.

[सं० 228/50/2003 -डी.एस.पी.ई. ] शुभा ठाकुर, अवर सचिव

(7433)

3534 G1/2003 7434

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2003 /AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

गृह मंत्रालय ( एफ. एफ. आर. प्रभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 20 नवम्बर , 2003

का०आ० 3305.-निष्क्रांत हित ( पृथक्करण ) अधिनियम , 1951 ( 1951 का 64 ) की धारा 13 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा , श्री एस. एन. अग्रवाल, अपर जिला न्यायाधीश, तीस हजारी , दिल्ली को तत्काल प्रभाव से राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र , दिल्ली के अपील अधिकारी के रूप में नुियक्त करती है । 2. इसके द्वारा भारत सरकार, गृह मंत्रालय , ( पुनर्वास प्रभाग ) दिनांक 6 जून, 2001 की अधिसूचना संख्या 1 ( 1 ) / 2000- बंदोबस्त का अधिक्रमण किया जाता है ।

[सं ० 1 (3 )/2003- आर० एंड एस० ओ० ] पी० के ० कौल , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

(FFR DIVISION)

New Delhi , the 20th November, 2003 S.O. 3305. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - scction ( 1 ) of Section 13 of the Evacuec Interest ( Separation ) Act, 1951 (LXIV of 1951 , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri S. N. Aggarwal , Additional District Judge , Tis Hazari , Delhi as Appellate Officer for the National Capital Tarritory of Delhi with iminediate effect.

2. This supersedes Government of India, Ministry ofHome Affairs ( Rehabilitation Division ) ' s Notification No. 1 ( 1 )/2000 - Settlement dated 6th June, 2001 .

[No. 1 ( 3 )/2003 -R& SO] P. K. KAUL , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 25 नवम्बर , 2003

का ०आ० 3306.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के अनुसरण में, गृह मंत्रालय के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों में हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान रखने वाले कर्मचारियों की संख्या 80 % से अधिक हो जाने के फलस्वरूप उन्हें एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है :

1. केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक सुरक्षा बल इकाई, लखनऊ एयरपोर्ट, लखनऊ, उत्तर प्रदेश ।

2. केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक सुरक्षा बल इकाई , ओ एन जी सी, गंधार, गुजरात ।

3. केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक सुरक्षा बल इकाई, सिविल एयरपोर्ट , आगरा, उत्तर. प्रदेश ।

4. केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक सुरक्षा बल इकाई , बी.एच.ई.एल. , जगदीशपुर, उत्तर प्रदेश ।

5. केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक सुरक्षा बल इकाई , आई एस पी नासिक रोड, नासिक, महाराष्ट्र।

6. केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक सुरक्षा बल इकाई, ए पी एस यू, मदुरई, तमिलनाडु ।

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 7. केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक सुरक्षा बल इकाई, एस वी पी एन एयरपोर्ट, अहमदाबाद, गुजरात ।

8. केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक सुरक्षा बल इकाई , ए जी पी पी , फरीदाबाद, हरियाणा ।

9. केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक सुरक्षा बल इकाई, दाबोलिम एयरपोर्ट, गोवा । 10. केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक सुरक्षा बल इकाई, एन सी एल सिंगरौली, मध्य प्रदेश ।

11. केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक सुरक्षा बल इकाई, इस्को, बर्नपुर, पश्चिम बंगाल ।

12. केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक सुरक्षा बल इकाई, पंजाब एवं हरियाणा सिविल सचिवालय , चण्डीगढ़ ।

13. केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक सुरक्षा बल इकाई, नागपुर एयरपोर्ट, नागपुर, महाराष्ट्र ।

14. केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक सुरक्षा बल ईकाई, पुणे एयरपोर्ट , महाराष्ट्र । 15. केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक सुरक्षा बल इकाई, डी टी पी एस , दुर्गापुर , पश्चिम बंगाल ।

16. केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक सुरक्षा बल इकाई, आई पी पी एस , नई दिल्ली । [सं० 12017/1/2002-हिन्दी]

राजेन्द्र सिंह, निदेशक ( रा ० भा० ) New Delhi , the 25th November, 2003 S.O. 3306.- In pursuance of sub - rule (4 ) of Rule 10 oftheOfficial Languages ( Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 , the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Ministry of Home Affairs where the percentage of Hindi knowing staff has gone above 80%:

1. Central Industrial Security Force Unit , Lucknow Airport , Lucknow , Uttar Pradesh .

2. Central Industrial Security Force Unit , ONGC Gandhar,Gujrat.

3. Central Industrial Security Force Unit, Civil Airport , Agra , Uttar Pradesli .

4. Central Industrial Security Force Unit , BHEL , Jagdishpur, Uttar Pradesh .

5. Central Industrial Security Force Unit , ISP Nasik Road, Nasik , Maharashtra ,

6. Central Industrial Security Force Unit , APSU . Madurai , Tamilnadu .

7. Central Industrial Security Force Unit , SVPN Airport, Ahntedabad, Gujarat .

8. Central Industrial Security Force Unit, AGPP. Faridabad , Haryana.

9. Central Industrial Security Force Unit , Daboliin Airport, Goa.

10. Central Industrial Security Force Unit , NCL Singrauli , Madhya Pradesh .

11. Central Industrial Security Force Unit, IISCO . Bumpur, West Bengal .

7435 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6 , 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

12. Central Industrial Security Force Unit , Punjab & Haryana Civil Secretariat , Chandigarh.

13. Central Industrial Security Force Unit, Nagpur Airport , Nagpur , Maharashtra.

14. Central Industrial Security force Unit, Pune Airport, Maharashtra .

15. Central Industrial Security Force Unit, DTPS , Durgapur, West Bengal .

16. Central Industrial Security Force Unit , IPPS , NewDelhi .

शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा आवास एवं शहरी विकास निगम , लिमिटेड, नई दिल्ली को मात्र छह करोड़ सत्तासठ लाख चौंतीस हजार रुपए का समेकित स्टाम्प शुल्क अदा करने की अनुमति प्रदान करती है जो उक्त निगम द्वारा जारी किए जाने वाले मात्र एक हजार अठहत्तर करोड़ सत्तर लाख रुपये के समग्र मूल्य के एक से 574 तक की विशिष्ट संख्या वाले हुडको बंधपत्र श्रृंखला एचबी- XXXI ए, एचबी- XXXI बी, एचबी XXXI सी, एचबी- XXXI डी, एचबी- XXXI ई तथा 0001 से 10213 तक की विशिष्ट संख्या वाले हुडको बंधपत्र एचबी XXXIII ए, एचबी XXXIII ख, एचबी- XXXIII ग पर स्टाम्प शुल्क के कारण प्रभार्य है ।

[No. 12017/ 1 /2002 -Hindi ] RAJENDRA SINGH, Director ( OL)

[सं. 37/2003 - स्टाम्प/फा. सं. 33 /55/ 2003-बि.क ]

आर० जी० छाबड़ा, अवर सचिव वित्त मंत्रालय (राजस्व विभाग )

ORDER

आदेश

New Delhi , the 13th November , 2003 नई दिल्ली, 13 नवम्बर , 2003

STAMPS

स्टाम्प

का०आ ० 3307.- भारतीय स्टाम्प अधिनियम , 1899 (1899 के 2 ) की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा तमिलनाडु इलैक्ट्रीसिटी बोर्ड, चेन्नई को मात्र दो करोड़ दस लाख रुपये का समेकित स्टाम्प शुल्क अदा करने की अनुमति प्रदान करती है जो उक्त बोर्ड द्वारा जारी किए जाने वाले मात्र दो सौ दस करोड़ रुपये के समग्र मूल्य प्रोमिसरी नोटों के रूप में वर्णित एक- एक लाख रुपये प्रत्येक के 8.90 प्रतिशत तमिलनाडु इलैक्ट्रीसिटी बोर्ड पॉवर बंधपत्रों ( श्रृंखला -1 , 2, 3 और 4 ) पर स्टाम्प शुल्क के कारण प्रभार्य है ।

[सं. 39/2003 - स्टाम्प/फा. सं. 33/52/2003 - बि.क. ]

आर ० जी० छाबड़ा, अवर सचिव

S.O. 3308.-In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899 ), the Central Government hereby permits Housing & Urban Development Corporation Limited, New Delhi to pay consolidated stamp duty of rupees six crore sixtyseven lakh thirty four thousand only chargeable on account of the stamp duty on bonds described as HUDCO Bonds Series HB- XXXI A, HB- XXXI B , HB -XXXIC, HB -XXXI D , HB- XXXIE bearing distinctive numbers from 1 to 574 and HUDCO Bonds Series HB -XΧΧΙΠ Α, ΗΒ - XXXIII B and HB- XXXIII C bearing distinctive numbers from 0001 to 10213 , aggregating to rupees one thousand seventy eight crore seventy lakh only, to be issued by the said Corporation .

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

[No. 37/2003 - STAMP/F . No. 33 /55/ 2003 -ST] (Department of Revenue)

R. G. CHHABRA, Under Secy .

ORDER

आदेश

New Delhi , the 13th November, 2003

STAMPS

नई दिल्ली, 13 नवम्बर , 2003

स्टाम्प

S.O. 3307. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b ) of Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899 ), the Cenral Government hereby permits Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai to pay consolidated stamp duty of rupees two crore ten lakh only chargeable on account of the stamp duty on 8.90 % Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Power Bonds ( Series - 1 , 2, 3 and 4) ofrupees one lakh each in the nature of promissory notes aggregating to rupees two hundred ten crore only, to be issued by the said Board.

[No. 39 /2003 - STAMP/F . No. 33/52/2003 - ST] R. G. CHHABRA, Under Secy .

आदेश

का०आ ० 3309.- भारतीय स्टाम्प अधिनियम , 1899 (1899 का 2 ) की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा आन्ध्र प्रदेश पॉवर फाइनेंस कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड, हैदराबाद को मात्र सात करोड़ उन्चास लाख नौ हजार दो सौ पचास रुपए का समेकित स्टाम्प शुल्क अदा करने की अनुमति प्रदान करती है जो उक्त कारपोरेशन द्वारा जारी किए जाने वाले मात्र नौ सौ अ‌ट्ठानबे करोड़ सत्तर लाख रुपये के समग्र मूल्य के ऋणपत्रों के रूप में वर्णित असुरक्षित अपरिवर्तनीय विमोच्च पॉवर बंधपत्रों ( श्रृंखला III/ 2003 और श्रृंखला IV/ 2003 ) पर स्टाम्प शुल्कके कारण प्रभार्य है ।

नई दिल्ली, 13 नवम्बर, 2003

[सं. 38/2003 - स्टाम्प/फा. सं. 33/47/ 2003- बि.क. ] स्टाम्प

आर० जी० छाबड़ा, अवर सचिव का०आ ० 3308.- भारतीय स्टाम्प अधिनियम , 1899 (1899 के 2 ) की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त 7436

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2003 /AGRAHAYANΑ 15 , 1925

ORDER

New Delhi , the 13th November, 2003

STAMPS

S.O. 3309. In cexercise of the powers conferredby clause ( b ) of Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act . 1899 ( 2 of 1899 ), the Cenral Government hereby permits Andhra Pradesh Power Finance Corporation Limited. Hyderabad to pay consolidated stamp duty of rupees seven crore forty nine lakh nine thousand two hundred fifty only on account of the stamp duty on Unsecured Non - Convertible Redeemable Power Bonds (Series III/2003 and Series IV/ 2003 ) in the nature of debentures aggregating to rupees ninehundred ninety eight crore seventy lakh only, to be issued by the said Corporation.

| No.38 /2003 - STAMP/ F . No. 33 /47/2003 -ST]

R.G. CHHABRA, Under Secy .

(केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड )

नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम्बर, 2003

(आयकर )

का०आ ० 3310. सामान्य जानकारी के लिए यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अधोलिखित संगठन को उसके नाम के सामने उल्लिखित अवधि के लिए आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 6 के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड (iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ " संस्था " श्रेणी के अन्तर्गत निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुमोदित किया गया है: -

(i ) अधिसूचित संस्थाअपने अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों के लिए अलग लेखा बहियों का रख- रखाव करेगी;

( ii) अधिसूचित संस्था प्रत्येक वित्तीय वर्ष के लिए अपनी वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान गति-विधियों की वार्षिक रिटर्न प्रत्येक 31 मई को अथवा उससे पहले सचिव, वैज्ञानिक और औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग ' टेक्नोलॉजी भवन ' न्यूमहरोली रोड, नई दिल्ली- 110016 को प्रस्तुत करेगी;

(iii) अधिसूचित संस्थाकेन्द्र सरकार की तरफ से नामोद्दिष्ट निर्धारण की आयकर की विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने के अतिरिक्त अपने लेखा परीक्षित वार्षिक लेखों की एक प्रति तथा अपने अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों, जिसके लिए आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत छूट प्रदान की गई थी, के संबंध में आय एवं व्यय खाते की लेखा परीक्षा की भी एक प्रति संगठन पर अधिकार क्षेत्र वाले ( क ) आयकर महानिदेशक ( छूट) 10 मिडिलटन रो , पांचवां तल, कलकत्ता -70007 । ( ख ) सचवि, वैज्ञानिक एवं औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग तथा (ग ) आयकर आयुक्त, आयकर निदेशक ( छूट ) को प्रत्येक वर्ष 31 अक्तूबर को अथवा उससे पहले प्रस्तुत करेगी ।

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] क्रम सं अनुमोदित संगठन

का नाम

अवधिजिसके लिए अधिसूचना प्रभावी है 1.

मैसर्स वेदान्त कल्चरल 1-8-2003 से 31-3-2006 फाउंडेशन , 1 ए, लैण्ड्स एण्ड मालाबार हिल डोंगार्सी रोड, मुम्बई -400006

टिप्पणी:- अधिसूचित संस्था को सलाह दी जाती है कि वह अनुमोदित के नवीकरण के लिए तीन प्रतियों में और पहले ही अधिकार क्षेत्र वाले आयकर आयुक्त/आयकर निदेशक ( छूट ) के माध्यम से केन्द्र सरकार को आवेदन करें । अनुमोदन के नवीकरण के लिए आवेदन पत्र की तीन प्रतियां सचिव, वैज्ञानिक और औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग को सीधे भेजी जाएगी ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 293/2003/फा. सं. 203/88/2003- आयकर नि.- II ]

संगीता गुप्ता, निदेशक ( आयकर नि.- II ) (CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES ) New Delhi , the 14th November , 2003 (INCOME TAX)

S.O. 3310.-It is hereby notified for general information that the organisation mentioned below has been approved by the Central Government for the period mentioned below , for the purpose of clause ( iii ) of Sub- section ( 1) of Section 35 of the Income-tax Act , 1961. read with Rule 6 of the Income-tax Rules , 1962 under the category " Institution" subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The notified Institution shall maintain separate book ofaccount for its research activities:

(ii) The notified Institution shall furnish the Annual Return of its scientific research activities to the Seretary , Department of Scientific & Industrial Research , Technology Bhavan ' , New Meharauli Road , New Delhi - 1100 16 for every financial year on or before 3 1st May of each year;

(üⅲ) The notified Institution shall submit , on behalf of the Central Governunent , to ( a) the Director General ofIncome-tax (Exeraptions ) , 100 Middleton Row . Ith Floor , Calcutta - 700071 , (b ) the Secretary . Department of Scientific & Industrial research . and (c) the Commissioner of Income - tax/Director of Income tax (Exemptions) having jurisdiction over the organisation , on or before the 31st October each year, a copy of its audited Annual Accounts and also a copy of audited Income & Expenditure Account in respect of its research activities for which exemption was granted under sub - section (1) of Section 35 of Income - tax Act, 1961 in addition to the return of Income - tax to the designated assessing officer.

7437 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

S. No. Name of the orga- nisation approved

Period for which notification is effective

1-8-2003 to 31-3-2006

एवं हस्तांतरण ( बी.ओ.टी. ) आधार पर मौजूदा 2 से 6 लेनों में विभाजित परिवहन मार्ग के चौड़ीकरण की परियोजना के लिए जिसमें राजस्थान राज्य में राष्ट्रीय राजमार्ग सं.-8 ( एन. एच. -8 ) के जयपुर और किशनगढ़ खंड पर मौजूदा 2 लेनों को किलोमीटर 273/500 से कि. मी. 363/885 किया जाना भी शामिल है ( फा. सं. 205/45/ 2002- आयकर नि.- II )

[अधिसूचना सं. 295/2003/ फा. सं. 205/45/2002- आयकर नि.- II ] M/ s . Vedanta Culturál Foundation , 1A, Lands End, Malabar Hill , Dongarsi Road, Mumbai -400006

संगीता गुप्ता, निदेशक, ( आयकर नि.- II)

New Delhi , the 19th November , 2003 Notes : The notified Institution is advised to apply in

S.O. 3311 .--It is notified for general information that enterprise/industrial undertaking, listed at para (3 ) below has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of Section 10 (23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 , read with Rule 2E of the Income- tax Rules , 1962 , for the assessment years 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006.

triplicates as well in advance for renewal of the approval , to the Central Government through the Commissioner of Income -tax/Director of Income tax (Exemptions) havingjurisdiction. Three copies ofthe application for renewal of approval shall also be sent directly to the Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research .

2. The approval is subject to the condition that- [Notification No. 293/2003 /F.No . 203 /88/2003 -ITA -II ] SANGEETA GUPTA, Director ( ITA- II)

नई दिल्ली, 19 नवम्बर , 2003

(i) the enterprise/industrial undertaking will conform to and comply with the provisions of Section 10(23G) ofthe Income - tax Act, 1961 , read with rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules , 1962;

कां०आ ० 3311.- सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 2ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 10 ( 23 - छ ) के प्रयोजनार्थ कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2003-2004 , 2004-2005 और 2005-2006 के लिए नीचे पैरा ( 3 ) में उल्लिखित उद्यम' को अनुमोदित करती है ।

(ii) the Central Government shall withdraw this approval if the enterprise/ industrial undertaking:- (a) ceases to carry on infrastructure facility ; or (b) fails to maintain books of account and get such accounts audited by an accountant as required by sub -rule (7) of Rule 2E of the Income -tax Rules , 1962.

2. यह अनुमोदन इस शर्त के अधीन है कि:-

3. The enterprise/industrial undertaking approved is-

(i ) उद्यम/ औद्योगिक उपक्रम आयकर नियमावली , 1962 के नियम 2ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 10 (23छ ) के उपबंधों के अनुरूप होगा और उनका अनुपालन करेगा;

(ii) केन्द्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापिस ले लेगी यदि उद्यम/औद्योगिक

उपक्रमः- (क) अवसंरचनात्मक सुविधा को जारी रखना बंद कर देता है, अथवा

M/s . GVK Jaipur Kishangarh Expressway Pvt . Ltd. Oasis, 5-8 , Veer Vihar, Queens Road, Jaipur -302021 Rajashtan for their project of widening of the existing 2 lanes to 6 lanes divided carriageway facility including rehabilitation of existing 2 lanes from KM 273/500 to KM 363/885 on Jaipur and Kishangarh section of the National Highway No. 8 (NH-8) in the State of Rajasthan, on Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) Basis (F. No. 205/45/ 2002/ΙΤΑ-Π) .

(ख )खाता- बहियों का रख- रखाव नहीं करता है तथा आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 2ङ के उप नियम ( 7 ) द्वारा यथा अपेक्षित किसी लेखाकार द्वारा ऐसे खातों की लेखा परीक्षा नहीं कराता है, अथवा

(ग ) आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 2 ड़ के उप नियम

[Notification No. 295 /2003 / F.No . 205 /45/ 2002 - ΙΤΑ- Π ] SANGEETA GUPTA, Director ( ITA-II) नई दिल्ली, 19 नवम्बर , 2003

(7 ) द्वारा यथा अपेक्षित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करता है ।

3. अनुमोदित उद्यम/औद्योगिक उपक्रम है: -

का०आ० 3312.- सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार सायकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 2ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 10( 23- छ ) के प्रयोजनार्थ कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2002-2003 , . मैसर्स जी.वी.के. जयपुर एक्सप्रेसवे प्रा. लि. ओयसिस, 5-8, वीर विहार, क्वीन्स रोड, जयपुर-302021 राजस्थान को निर्माण, संचालन 7438

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2003 /AGRAHAYANA 15, 1925

2003-2004 और 2004-2005 के लिए नीचे पैरा ( 3 ) में उल्लिखित उद्यम/औद्योगिक उपक्रम को अनुमोदित करती है ।

2. यह अनुमोदन इस शर्त के अधीन है कि: -

(i) उद्यम/औद्योगिक उपक्रम आयकर नियमावली , 1962 के नियम 2ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 10 ( 23 छ) के उपबंधों के अनुरूप होगा और उनका अनुपालन करेगा;

(ii) केन्द्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापिस ले लेगी यदि उद्यम/औद्योगिक उपक्रमः -

( क) अवसंरचनात्मक सुविधा को जारी रखना बंद कर देता है; अथवा

(ख ) खाता बहियों का रख - रखाव नहीं करता है तथा आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 2ङके उप नियम ( 7 ) द्वारा यथा अपेक्षित किसी लेखाकार द्वारा ऐसे खातों की लेखा परीक्षा नहीं कराता है; अथवा

( ग ) आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 2ङके उप नियम ( 7 ) द्वारा यथा अपेक्षित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करता है । 3. अनुमोदित उद्यम/औद्योगिक उपक्रम है : -

मैसर्स जी.वी.के . इण्डस्ट्रीज लि. , कोहिनूर रोड सं. 1 , बंजारा हिल्स, हैदराबाद -500034 को 440 मेगावाट, फेज- II , गैस आधारित संयुक्त साइकिल पावर परियोजना, जगुरुपाडू, आंध्र प्रदेश की उनकी परियोजना के लिए ( फा. सं. 205/36/1998- आयकर नि.- III (खंड- III) ) [ अधिसूचना सं. 296/2003/ फा.सं. 205/36/1998-आयकर नि.- II (खंड- III) ]

संगीता गुप्ता, निदेशक, ( आयकर नि.- II) New Delhi , the 19th November , 2003 S.O. 3312. It is notified for general information that enterprise/ industrial undertaking , listed at para ( 3 ) below has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of Section It) (23G) of the Income - tax Act , 1961 , read with Rule 2E of the Income- tax Rules , 1962 , for the assessment years 2002-2003 , 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.

2. The approval is subject to the condition that- ( i ) the enterprise/ industrial undertaking will conform to and comply with the provisions of Section 10(23G) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 , read with rule 2E of the Income- tax Rules, 1962;

(ii) the Central Government shall withdraw this approval if the enterprise/ industrial undertaking :-

( a) ccases to carry on infrastructure facility ; or

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] (b) fails to maintain books of account and get such accounts audited by an accountant as required by sub -rule (7) of Rule 2E of the Income-tax Rules , 1962; or

3. The enterprise/industrial undertaking approved is-

M/s . GVK Industries Ltd. , Kohinoor , Road No. 1 , BanjaraHills , Hyderabad- 500034 for their project of 440 MW , Phase II gas based combined cycle power project at Jegurupadu, Andhra Pradesh (F. No. 205/36/ 1998 -ITA- II (Vol . III).

[NotificationNo. 296/2003/ F.No . 205/ 36/ 1998/ITA - I (Vol. III) ] SANGEETA GUPTA, Director ( ITA- II ) नई दिल्ली , 19 नवम्बर , 2003 (आयकर)

का०आ० 3313.- सामान्य जानकारी के लिए यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अधोलिखित संगठन को उसके नाम के सामने उल्लिखित अवधि के लिए आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 6 के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड (ii) के प्रयोजनार्थ " संस्था " श्रेणी के अन्तर्गत निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुमोदित किया गया है :-

(i) अधिसूचित संस्था अपने अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों के लिए अलग लेखा-बहियों का रख- रखाव करेगी;

(ii) अधिसूचित संस्था प्रत्येक वित्तीय वर्ष के लिए अपनी वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान गतिविधियों की वार्षिक रिटर्न प्रत्येक 31 मई को अथवा उससे पहले सचिव, वैज्ञानिक और औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग ' टेक्नोलॉजी भवन', न्यू महरोली सेड, नई दिल्ली- 110016 को प्रस्तुत करेगी;

(iii) अधिसूचित संस्थाकेन्द्र सरकार की तरफ से नामाद्दिष्ट निर्धारण अधिकारी को आयकर की विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने के अतिरिक्त अपने लेखा परीक्षित वार्षिक लेखों की एक प्रति तथा अपने अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों, जिसके लिए आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत छूट प्रदान की गई थी, के संबंध में आय एवं व्यय खाते की लेखा परीक्षा की भी एक प्रति संगठन पर अधिकार क्षेत्र वाले ( क ) आयकर महानिदेशक ( छूट ) 10 मिडिलटन रो , पांचव तल, कलकत्ता- 7000711

(ख ) सचिव, वैज्ञानिक एवं औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग तथा (ग) आयकर आयुक्त/आयकर निदेशक ( छूट ) को प्रत्येक वर्ष 31 अक्तूबर को अथवा उससे पहले प्रस्तुत करेगी । [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

क्रम सं अनुमोदित संगठन का नाम

अवधिजिसके लिए अधिसूचना प्रभावी है 1.

7439

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2003 /अग्रहायण 15 , 1925

S. No. Name of the orga- nisation approved

Period for which notification is effective

1-4-2001 से 31-3-2004

एलपीजी इक्विपमेंट रिसर्च सेंटर, आईटीआई मेन गेट के सामने, ओल्ड मद्रास रोड, दूरवानी नगर, बंगलौर -560016

टिप्पणी:-अधिसूचित संस्था को सलाह दी जाती है कि वह अनुमोदन के नवीकरण के लिए तीन प्रतियों में और पहले ही अधिकार क्षेत्र वाले आयकर आयुक्त/आयकर निदेशक ( छूट ) के माध्यम से केन्द्र सरकार को आवेदन करे। अनुमोदन के नवीकरण के लिए आवेदन पत्र की तीन प्रतियां सचिव, वैज्ञानिक और औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग को सीधे भेजी जाएंगी ।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 297/2003 फा. सं. 203/30/2002- आयकर नि.- II ] संगीता गुप्ता, निदेशक ( आयकर नि.- II) New Delhi , the 19th November, 2003

(INCOME TAX)

S.O. 3313. It is hereby notified for general information that the organisation mentioned below has been appoved by the Central Government for the period mentioned below , for the purpose of clause ( ii) of sub- Section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the Income tax Act , 1961 , read with Rule 6 of the Income-tax Rules , 1962 under the category "Institution" subject to the following conditions : - (i ) The notified Institution shall maintain separate books of accounts for its research activities:

( ii ) The notified Institution shall furnish the Annual Return of its scientific research activities to the Seretary. Department of Scientific & Industrial Research , Technology Bhavan' , New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi - 110016 for every financial year on or before 31st May of each year;

(iii) The Motified Institution shall submit , on behalf of the Central Government, to ( a) the Director General of Income tax (Exemptions) , 10 Middleton Row, 5th Floor, Calcutta- 700071 (b ) the Secretary, Department of Scientific & Industrial Research , and ( c) the Commissioner of Inconie tax/Director of Income tax (Exemptions ) having jurisdiction over the organisation , on or before the 31st October each year . a copy of its andited Annual Accounts and also a copy of audited Income & Expenditure Account in respect of its research activities for which exemption was granted under Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of Income tax Act , 1961 in addition to the return of income tax to the designated assessing officer.

LPG Equipment Research 1-4-2001 to 31-3-2004 Centre (LERC) , Opp . ITI Main Gate, Old Madras Road, Doorvaninagar- Bangalore-560016

Notes : The notified Institution is advised to apply in triplicates as well in advance for renewal of the approval , to the Central Government through the Commissioner of Income tax/Director of Income tax (Exemptions) having jurisdiction . Three copies ofthe application for renewal of apaproval shall also be sent directly to the Secretary , Department of Scientific and Industrial Research .

[Notification No. 297/2003 /F.No. 203 /30/2002 - ITA- II ] SANGEETA GUPTA, Director (ITA- II) नई दिल्ली, 24 नवम्बर , 2003

(आयकर)

का०आ० 3314.- सामान्य जानकारी के लिए यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अधोलिखित संगठन को उसके नाम के सामने उल्लिखित अवधि के लिए आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 6 के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा (I) के खंड (iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ " संस्था " श्रेणी के अन्तर्गत निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुमोदित किया गया है: - (i) अधिसूचित संस्थाअपने अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों के लिए अलग लेखा बहियों का रख- रखाव करेगी;

(ii) अधिसूचित संस्था प्रत्येक वित्तीय वर्ष के लिए अपनी वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान गति-विधियों की वार्षिक रिटर्न प्रत्येक 31 मई को अथवा उससे पहले सचिव, वैज्ञानिक और औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग ' टेक्नोलॉजी भवन ' न्यूमेहरोली रोड, नई दिल्ली-110016 को प्रस्तुत करेगी;

(iii) अधिसूचित संस्थाकेन्द्र सरकार की तरफ से नामोनिर्दिष्ट निर्धारण अधिकारी को आयकर की विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने के अतिरिक्त अपने लेखा परीक्षित वार्षिक लेखों की एक प्रति तथा अपने अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों, जिसके लिए आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत छूट प्रदान की गई थी, के संबंध में आय एवं व्यय खाते की लेखा परीक्षा की भी एक प्रति संगठन पर अधिकार क्षेत्र वाले ( क ) आयकर महानिदेशक ( छूट ) 10 मिडिलटन रो , पांचवां तल, कोलकात्ता- 7000711

(ख ) सचिव, वैज्ञानिक एवं औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग, तथा (ग ) आयकर आयुक्त/आयकर निदेशक ( छूट ) को प्रत्येक वर्ष 31 अक्तूबर को अथवा उससे पहले प्रस्तुत करेगी। 7440

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2003/AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

क्रम सं अनुमोदित संगठन का नाम

अवधिजिसके लिए अधिसूचना प्रभावी है 1. मैसर्स पार्श्वनाथ विद्यापीठ 20/6 मथुरा रोड, फरीदाबाद- 121006 . 1-4-2000 से 31-3-2001 टिप्पणी:-अधिसूचित संस्था को सलाह दी जाती है कि वह अनुमोदन के नवीकरण के लिए तीन प्रतियों में और पहले ही अधिकार क्षेत्र वाले आयकर आयुक्त/आयकर निदेशक ( छूट ) के माध्यम से केन्द्र सरकार को आवेदन करे । अनुमोदन के नवीकरण के लिए आवेदन पत्र की तीन प्रतियां सचिव, वैज्ञानिक और औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग को सीधे भेजी जाएगी ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 306/2003/फा. सं. 203/10/2000- आयकर नि.- II ] संगीता गुप्ता, निदेशक ( आयकर नि.- II ) New Delhi , the 24th November , 2003

(INCOME TAX)

S.O. 3314. It is hereby notified for general information that the organisation mentioned below has been appoved by the Central Government for the period mentioned below, for the purpose of clause ( iii) of Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the Income tax Act , 1961 , read with Rule 6 of the Income tax Rules , 1962 under the category "Institution" subject to the following conditions :-

(i ) The notified Institution shall maintain separate books of accounts for its research activities :

( ii) The notified Institution shall furnish the Annual Return of its scientific research activities to the Seretary . Department of Scientific & Industrial Research , Technology Bhavan ' , New Mehrauli Road. New Delhi - 110016 for every financial year on or before 31st May of each year;

( iii) The notified Institution shall subinit , on behalf of the Central Government, to ( a) the Director General of Incometax ( Exemptions) , 10 Middleton Row, 5th Floor . Calcutta - 700071 , (b ) the Secretary , Department of Scientific & Industrial Research , and (c) the Commissioner of Income tax/Director of Income tax (Exemptions ) having jurisdiction over the organisation , on or before the 31st October each year . a copy of its audited Annual Accounts and also a copy of audited Income & Expenditure Account in respect of its research activities for which exemption was granted under Sub - section (1 ) of Section 35 of Income tax Act , 1961 in addition to the return of income tax to the designated assessing officer.

S. No. Name of the orga- nisation approved

Period for which notification is effective

M/s Parshwanath Vidya 1-4-2000 to 31-3-2001 1. Peeth , 20/6 , Mathura Road, Faridabad- 121006

Notes : The notified Institution is advised to apply in triplicates as well in advance for renewal of the approval , to the Central Government through the Commissioner of Income tax/Director of Income tax ( Exemptions) having jurisdiction . Three copies of the application for renewal of approval shall also be sent directly to the Secretary , Department of Scientific and Industrial Research .

[Notification No. 306/2003 /F.No . 203/ 10/2000 -ITA -II ] SANGEETA GUPTA, Director (ITA - II) नई दिल्ली, 24 नवम्बर , 2003 (आयकर )

का०आ० 3315.- सामान्य जानकारी के लिए यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अधोलिखित संगठन को उसके नाम केसामने उल्लिखित अवधि के लिए आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 6 के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड (iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ " संस्था " श्रेणी के अन्तर्गत निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुमोदित किया गया है: - (i) अधिसूचित संस्था अपने अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों के लिए अलग लेखा बहियों का रख- रखाव करेगी;

(ii) अधिसूचित संस्था प्रत्येक वित्तीय वर्ष के लिए अपनी वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान गति-विधियों की वार्षिक रिटर्न प्रत्येक 31 मई को अथवा उससे पहले सचिव, वैज्ञानिक और औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग ' टेक्नोलॉजी भवन ' न्यूमेहरोली रोड, नई दिल्ली -110016 को प्रस्तुत करेगी;

(ख ) सचिव, वैज्ञानिक एवं औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग , तथा (ग) आयकर आयुक्त/आयकर निदेशक ( छूट ) को प्रत्येक वर्ष 31 अक्तूबर को अथवा उससे पहले प्रस्तुत करेगी । 7441 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

S. No.

क्रम सं

Name of the orga- nisation approved

अनुमोदित संगठन का नाम

अवधिजिसके लिए अधिसूचना प्रभावी है

Period for which notification is effective 1-4-2001 से 31-3-2004

1 .

1. M/s . Nowrosjee Wadia Maternity Hospital Sir Ness Wadia Research Society Acharya Donde Marg , Parel, Mumbai -12 1-4-2001 to 31-3-2004 मैसर्स नौरोजी वाडिया मेटर्निटी हास्पीटल सरनेस वाडिया रिसर्च सोसायटी, आचार्य डोन्डे मार्ग , पैरेल , मुम्बई-12

Notes : The notified Institution is advised to apply ins triplicates as well in advance for renewal of the approval , to the Central Governinent through the Commissioner of Income tax/Director of Income tax (Exemptions ) havingjurisdiction . Three copies of the application for renewal of approval shall also be sent directly to the Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research .

टिप्पणी:- अधिसूचित संस्था को सलाह दी जाती है कि वह अनुमोदन केनवीकरण के लिए तीन प्रतियों में और पहले ही अधिकार क्षेत्र वाले आयकर आयुक्त/ आयकर निदेशक ( छूट ) के माध्यम से केन्द्र सरकार को आवेदन करें । अनुमोदन के नवीकरण के लिए आवेदन पत्र की तीन प्रतियां सचिव, वैज्ञानिक और औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग को सीधे भेजी जाएंगी ।

[Notification No. 305 /2003 / F.No. 203/ 13 /2002 -ITA- II ] SANGEETA GUPTA, Director (ITA- II ) नई दिल्ली, 25 नव -बर, 2003 (आयकर)

[अधिसूचना सं. 305/2003/फा. सं. 203/13/2002- आयकर नि.- II ] संगीता गुप्ता, निदेशक ( आयकर नि.- II) New Delhi , the 24th November , 2003 (INCOME TAX)

का०आ० 3316.- आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 का 43) की धारा 10 के खंड ( 23 -ग ) के उपखंड ( V ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा " श्री द्वारकाधीशजी मंदिर, जिला-द्वारका , जामनगर " को वर्ष 1999-2000 से 2001-2002 के लिए निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए उक्त खंड के प्रयोजनार्थ अनुमोदन करता है , अर्थात्: -

S.O. 3315. It is hereby notified for general inforination that the organised mentioned below has been approved by the Central Government for the period mentioned below, for the purpose of clause ( ii ) of Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the Income tax Act , 1961 , read with Rule 6 of the Income- tax Rules , 1962 under the category "Institution" subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The notified Institution shall maintain separate books of accounts for its research activities;

(1) कर- निर्धारिती अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल अथवा अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल करने के लिए उसका संचयन पूर्णतया तथा अनन्यतया उन उद्देश्यों के लिए करेगी जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई है;

(ii) The notified Institution shall furnish the Annual Return of its scientific research activities to the Secretary, Department of Scientific & Industrial research , ' Technology Bhawan' , New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi - 110016 for every financial year on orbefore 31st May of each year,

(ii) कर- निर्धारिती उपर्युक्त कर निर्धारण वर्षों से संगत पूर्ववर्ती वर्षों की किसी अवधि के दौरान धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 5 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट किसी अथवा एक से अधिक ढंग अथवा तरीकों से भिन्न तरीकों से उसकी निधि ( जेवर जवाहिरात , फर्नीचर अथवा किसी अन्य वस्तुआदिके रूप में प्राप्त तथा अनुरक्षित स्वैच्छिक अंशदान से भिन्न) का निवेश नहीं करेगा अथवा उसे जमा नहीं करवा सकेगा ;

(iii) यह अधिसूचना किसी ऐसी आय के संबंध में लागू नहीं होगा, जोकिकारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो जब तक कि ऐसा कारोबार उक्त कर निर्धारिती के उद्देश्यों की प्राप्ति के लिए प्रासंगिक नहीं हो तथा ऐसे कारोबार के संबंध में अलग से लेखा पुस्तिकाएं नहीं रखी जाती हों;

(iv) कर- निर्धारिती आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार अपनी आय विवरणी नियमित रूप से आयकर प्राधिकारी के समक्ष फाइल करेगा;

(iii) The notified Institution shall submit, on behalf of the Central Government, to ( a) the Director General ofIncometax (Exemptions ), 10 Middleton Row, 5th Floor, Calcutta- 700071 ; (b ) the Secretary , Department of Scientific & Industrial Research , and (c) the Commissioner of Income tax/Director of Income tax (Exemptions ) having jurisdiction over the organisation, on or before the 31st October each year, a copy of its audited Annual Accounts and also a copy of audited Income & Expenditure Account in respect of its research activities for which exemption was granted under Sub - section (1) of Section 35 of Income tax Act, 1961 in addition to the return of Income - tax to the designated assessing officer.

3534G1 /2003-2 7442

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2003/AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

(v ) विघटन की स्थिति में इसकी अतिरिक्त राशियां और परिसम्पतियां समान उद्देश्यों वाले धमार्थ संगठन को दे दी जाएंगी ।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 313/2003/फा. सं. 197/72/2003- आईटीए-1 ]

आई ० पी ० एस० बिन्द्रा, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th November , 2003

(INCOME TAX)

S.O. 3316.-In exercise of the powers conferredby the sub - clause (v ) of clause (23C ) of Section 10 of the Income- tax Act , 1961 (43 of 1961 ), the Central Government hereby notifies the " Shri Dwarkadhishji Mandir , Dwarka Distt. Jamnagar " for the purpose of the said sub-clause for the assessment years 1999-2000 to 2001-2002 subject to the following conditions , namely:-

( i ) the assessee will apply its income , or accumulate for application , wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established;

( ii ) the assessee will not invest or deposit its fund (other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form ofjewellery , furniture etc. ) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above other wise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub - section ( 5 ) of Section 11 :

( iii) This notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of business , unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts are maintained in respect of such business:

( iv ) the assessee will regularly file its return to income before the income -tax authority in accordance with the provisions of the income - tax Act , 1961 ;

(v) that in the event of dissolution. its surplus and the assets will be given to a charitable organisation with similar objectives:

[Notification No. 313 / 2003/F.No . 197/72/2003 - ITA-IJ

I.P.S. BINDRA , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 25 नवम्बर, 2003

(आयकर)

का०आ० 3317.-आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 का 43) की धारा 10 के खंड ( 23 - ग ) के उप - खंड ( V ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा " कलकत्ता

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] जोरास्ट्रियन कम्यूनिटीज रिलिजियस एण्ड चैरिटी फंड , कोलकत्ता " को वर्ष 2002-2003 से 2004-2005 के लिए निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए उक्त उपखंड के प्रयोजनार्थ अनुमोदित करता है , अर्थात्: - (i) कर- निर्धारित अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल अथवा अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल करने के लिए उसका संचयन पूर्णतया तथा अनन्यतया उन उद्देश्यों के लिए करेगी जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई है;

(ii) कर- निर्धारिती उपर्युक्त कर निर्धारण वर्षों से संगत पूर्ववर्ती वर्षों कीकिसी भी अवधि के दौरान धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 5 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट किसी एक अथवा एक से अधिक ढंग अथवा तरीकों से भिन्न तरीकों से उसकी निधि ( जेवर जवाहिरात , फर्नीचर अथवा किसी अन्य वस्तु आदि के रूप में प्राप्त तथा अनुरक्षित स्वैच्छिक अंशदान से भिन्न) का निवेश नहीं करेगा अथवा उसे जमा नहीं करवा सकेगा;

(iii) यह अधिसूचना किसी ऐसी आय के संबंध में लागू नहीं होगा, जोकि कारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो जब तक कि ऐसा कारोबार उक्त कर निर्धारिती के उद्देश्यों की प्राप्ति के लिए प्रासंगिक नहीं हो तथा ऐसे कारोबार के संबंध में अलग से लेखा पुस्तिकाएं नहीं रखी जाती हों;

( iv) कर- निर्धारिती आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार अपनी आय विवरणी नियमित रूप से आयकर प्राधिकारी के समक्ष फाइल करेगा;

(v) विघटन की स्थिति में इसकी अतिरिक्त राशियां और परिसम्पतियां समान उद्देश्यों वाले धमार्थ संगठन को दे दी जाएगी ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 309/2003/फा. सं. 197/46/2003- आईटीए-1 ] आई ० पी० एस ० बिन्द्रा, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th November, 2003

( INCOME TAX)

S.O. 3317.- in exercise of the powers conferred by the sub - clause (v ) of clause (23C ) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act , 1961 (43 of 1961 ) , the Central Government hereby notifics the " Calcutta Zoroastrian Community's Religious and Charity Fund , Kolkatta " for the purpose of the said sub-clause for the assessment years 2002-2003 - to 2004-2005 subject to the following conditions , namely :---

(i ) the assessee will apply its income, or accumulate for application . wholly and exclusively to the objeets for which it is established:

( ii ) the assessee will not invest or deposit its fund (other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form of jewellery . furniture etc. ) 7443 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6 , 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above other than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in Sub - section (5 ) of Section 11;

(v) विघटन की स्थिति में इसकी अतिरिक्त राशियां और परिसम्पत्तियां समान उद्देश्यों वाले धर्मार्थ संगठन को दे दी जाएगी।

(iii) This notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains ofbusiness , unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts are maintained in respect of such business:

[अधिसूचना सं. 311/2003/फा. सं. 197/173/2001- आईटीए-1 ] आई ० पी० एस ० बिन्द्रा, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th November , 2003 (iv) the assessee will regularly file its return of income before the income - tax authority in accordance with the provisions of the Income- tax Act , 1961 ;

(INCOME TAX)

(v) that in the event of dissolution , its surplus and the assets will be given to a charitable organisation with similar objectives.

[Notification No. 309 /2003 /F.No . 197/46 /2003 - ITA - I ] 1.P.S. BINDRA, Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 25 नवम्बर , 2003

S.O. 3318. In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub - clause (v ) of clause ( 23C ) of Section 10 of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) , the Central Government hereby notifies the " Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple Trust , Trivandrum " for the purpose of the said sub- clause for the assessment years 1995-1996 subject to the following conditions , namely :-

(आयकर)

(i) the assessee will apply its income, or accumulate for application, wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established:

का०आ० 3318. आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 का 43) की धारा 10 के खंड ( 23 - ग ) के उपखंड ( v ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा " श्री पद्मनाभास्वामी टेम्पल ट्रस्ट, त्रिवेन्द्रम " को वर्ष 1995-96 के लिए निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए उक्त उप- खंड के प्रयोजनार्थ अनुमोदित करती है, अर्थात्:-

(ii) the assessce will not invest or deposit its fund (other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form of jewellery, furniture etc.) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above other wise than in any one or more ofthe forms or modes specified in Sub - section (5 ) of Section 11:

(i ) कर - निर्धारिती अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल अथवा अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल करने के लिए उसका संचयन पूर्णतया तथा अनन्यतया उन उद्देश्यों के लिए करेगी जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई है;

(iii) this notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of business . unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts are maintained in respect of such business:

(iv) the assessee will regularly file its return of income before the income- tax authority in accordance with the provisions of the Income -tax Act , 1961 ;

(ii) कर -निर्धारिती उपर्युक्त कर निर्धारण वर्षों से संगत पूर्ववर्ती वर्षों की किसी भी अवधि के दौरान धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 5 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट किसी एक अथवा एक से अधिक ढंग अथवा तरीकों से भिन्न तरीकों से उसकी निधि ( जेवर- जवाहिरात , फर्नीचर अथवा किसी अन्य वस्तु आदि के रूप में प्राप्त तथा अनुरक्षित स्वैच्छिक अंशदान से भिन्न) का निवेश नहीं करेगा अथवा उसे जमा नहीं करवा सकेगा ;

(v) that in the event of dissolution , its surplus and the assets will be given to a charitable organisation with similar objectives .

[NotificationNo. 311 /2003 /F.No . 197/ 173 /2001 - ITA -I | I.P.S. BINDRA. Under Secy .

(iii ) यह अधिसूचना किसी ऐसी आय के संबंध में लागू नहींहोगी, जोकिकारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो जब तक कि ऐसा कारोबार उक्त कर निर्धारिती के उद्देश्यों की प्राप्ति के लिए प्रासंगिक नहीं हो तथा ऐसे कारोबार के संबंध में अलग से लेखा पुस्तिकाएं नहीं रखी जाती हों;

7444

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2003 / AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

[PART II - SEC . 3 (ii) ] ( आर्थिक कार्य विभाग )

New Delhi , the 25th November , 2003 (बैंकिंग प्रभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 25 नवम्बर , 2003

का०आ ० 3319. राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) स्कीम, 1970 के खण्ड के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970 की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 3 ) ( ज ) एवं ( 3 - क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा श्री आनंद स्वरूप अग्रवाल, व्यवसायी एवं पत्रकार, 35 - ए, सिविल लाइन्स, बरेली को अधिसूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए पंजाब नेशनल बैंक में अंशकालिक गैर- सरकारी निदेशक के पद पर नामित करती है ।

[फा. सं. 9/ 17/2000- बीओ -1 ]

रमेश चन्द, अवर सचिव

(Department of Economic Affairs )

S.O. 3320.- In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( f) of Sub- section 3 of Section 9 of the Banking Companies ( Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings ) Act , 1970 read with sub - clause ( 1 ) and (2) of clause (9 ) of the Nationalized Banks ( Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme , 1970 , the Central Government , after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India hereby nominates Shri Biswabandhu Bhattacharya , General Secretary, All India Allahabad Bank Officers ' Association and posted as Assistant Manager ( JMG Scale - 1 ) , Provident Fund Department , Head Office , 14, India Exchange Place , Kolkata as Officer Employee Director on the Board of Directors of Allahabad Bank for a period of three years with effect from the date of notification or until his successor isappointed or till he ceases to be an officer of Allahabad Bank, or untill further orders , whichever is earlier, provided that he shall not hold office continuously for a period of six years .

(Banking Division)

New Delhi , the 25th November, 2003

[F. No. 9/6/2003 -Β.Ο.Ι ] RAMESH CHAND , Under Secy .

रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोर्ड )

नई दिल्ली, 10 नवम्बर , 2003

S.O. 3319. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section (3 ) (h) and ( 3 -A) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies ( Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings ) Act. 1970 read with sub- clause ( 1 ) of Clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks ( Management & Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 , the Central Government , hereby nominates Shri Anand Swarup Agarwal , Businessman and Journalist . 35 - A. Civil Lines . Bareilly as part -time non -official director of Punjab National Bank for a period of three years from the date of notification.

F. No. 9/17/2000 -B.O.1 ]

[ RAMESH CHAND , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 25 नवम्बर , 2003

का०आ ० 3321.-रेल मंत्रालय ( रेलवे बोर्ड ) , राजभाषा नियम 1976 ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) के नियम 10 के उपनियम ( 2 ) और ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में उत्तर मध्य रेलवे के मंडल रेल प्रबंधक कार्यालय , आगरा को , जहां 80 % या उससे अधिक अधिकारियों/कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक, ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है ।

[सं . हिंदी-2003/रा. भा . 1/12/3 ]

आर० आर० भंडारी सचिव

MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

(RailwayBoard)

New Delhi , the 10th November, 2003

S.O. 3321 .--Ministry of Railways (Railway Board ) . in pursuance of Sub Rule ( 2 ) and (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language Rules, 1976 ( use for the official purposes ofthe Union ) hereby , notify Divisional Railway Manager's Office , Agra of North - Central Railway , where 80 % or more Officers/Employees have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi.

का०आ ० 3320.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबंन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम, 1970 के खण्ड 9 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) और ( 11 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970 की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 3 ) के खण्ड ( च ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के बाद, एतद्वारा श्री विश्वबंधु भट्टाचार्य, महासचिव अखिल भारतीय इलाहाबाद बैंक अधिकारी संघ. जो सहायक प्रबंधक ( जएमआ स्केल -1 ) भविष्य निधि विभाग, प्रधान कार्यालय , 14 , इंडिया एक्सचेंज प्लेम, कोलकाता में तैनात हैं को अधिसूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए या उनका उत्तराधिकारी नियुक्त किए जाने तक या इलाहाबाद बैंक में उनके अधिम्गी न रहने तक या अगले आदेश तक, इनमें से जो भी पहले हो, इलाहाबाद बैंक के निदेशक बोर्ड में अधिकारी कर्मचारी निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है , बशर्ते कि वह लगातार छः वर्ष की अवधि तक पद धारण नहीं करेंगे ।

[ सं. 9/6/2003- बीओ- [ ] रमेश चन्द, अवर सचिव

[No.Hindi -2003/OL - 1 / 12/31 R. R. BHANDARI , Secy.

7445 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

विदेश मंत्रालय

(सी.पी.वी. डिवीजन )

नई दिल्ली, 13 नवम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 3322.- राजनयिक कौंसली अधिकारी ( शपत एवं शुल्क ) अधिनियम 1948 ( 1948 का 41 वां ) की धारा 2 के अंक ( क ) के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा भारत का राजदूतावास , हनोई में निम्नलिखित सहायकों को 13-11-2003 से सहायक कौंसली अधिकारी का कार्य करने हेतु प्राधिकृत करती है ।

(1) श्रीडेविड वी. कुमार

(2) श्रीराजूखर

[सं.टी. -4330/01/2003 ]

उपेन्द्र सिंह रावत, अवर सचिव ( कौंसुलर )

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(C.P.V. Division)

New Delhi , the 13th November, 2003

S.O. 3322. In pursuance of the clause ( a) of the Section 2 of Diplomatic and Consular Officers ( Oaths and fees) Act , 1948 (41 of 1948 ) , the Central Government hereby authorise following Assistants in the Embassy of India , Hanoi to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 13-11-2003 .

(i) Shri David V. Kumar

(ii) Shri Raju Khar

[No. T-4330/01/2003 ]

U.S. RAWAT, Under Secy. ( Cons .)

उपभोक्तामामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )

नई दिल्ली, 21 नवम्बर, 2003

का.आ. 3323.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाईसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं : -

अनुसूची

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

भामा भाग अनु. वर्ष क्रम लाइसेंस संख्या सं.

स्वीकृत करने की तिथिवर्ष/माह

लाईसेंस धारी का नाम व पता

संख्या

1 2

6 1. 6368278

2002-12-16

01008

सख्त चाश्नी वाली चीनी की मिठाईयाँ ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

मैसर्स लिओ फूडस,

24-60/9 , फर्स्ट फ्लोर,

आईडीए उप्पल, हैदराबाद

2002-12-30

2. 6368379

08391

कुशनिंग के लिए रबड चढ़े नारियल जटा की शीट (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

मैसर्स कोहिनूमर फाइबर प्रॉडक्टस पीपीवीआई, 254 ए, पुझाथि कक्कड़ कन्नूर , जिला 670005 7446

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2003/ AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

4 1

2002-12-30

3. 6368480

01489 01

मैसर्स आन्ध्रा सीमेंटस लि. ,

दुर्गानगर (पीओ) ,

विशाखापटनम

2001-12-26

4. 6368581

पोटलैंड पोजोलाना सीमेंट भाग 1 फ्लाईएश आधारित (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

01417

मैसर्स मणियम ज्वेलरी ,

58 , बाजार स्ट्रीट,

नामक्कल, 637001

2002-12-30

5. 6368682

मैसर्स श्री सांई इंडस्ट्रीज, 583/2- बी, अवनाशी रोड , सिविल ऐरोड्रम पोस्ट, कोयम्बतूर 641014

2002-12-30

6. 6368783

मैसर्स श्री सांई इंडस्ट्रीज , 583/2- बी, अवनाशी रोड , सिविल ऐरोड्रम पोस्ट, कोयम्बतूर 641014

2002-12-30

7. 6368783

मैसर्स श्री सांई इंडस्ट्रीज, 583/25 बी, अवनाशी रोड , सिविल ऐरोड्रम पोस्ट, कोयम्बतूर 641014 8. 6368884

2002-12-26

मैसर्स तुंगा पीवीसी पाइप्स प्रा.लि. , 134 , बोम्मासान्द्रा इंड. एरिया, होसूर रोड, बंगलौर 562158

2003-01-01

9. 6368985

मैसर्स कर्नाटक प्रेशर व्हीसल्स लि. , 13 - सी अट्टिबेले इंड. एरिया, अनेंकल तालुक, बंगलौर 560107

2002-12-30

10. 6369078

मैसर्स मणियम एक्वा प्रा.लि. , एस.न. 42, पेट बशीराबाद क्वाटाबल्लापुर मण्डल,. रंगा रेड्डीजिला

2002-12-30

11. 6369179

मैसर्स साउथर्न क्रिस्टल वॉटल, थाइयूर रोड, केलमबक्कम , कॉचीपुरम जिला 603 103

2002-12-20

12. 6369280

मैसर्स श्रीवास्तवा सिंथेटिक्स प्रा. लि. , 1/14 , केट्टनाकोंडा (गाँव) इब्राहिमपटनम ( मंडल) , कृष्णा जिला 521456

2002-12-24

13. 6369381

मैसर्स दक्कन सीमेंट्स लि. (स्लेग सीमेंट डिवीजन ) , भवानीपुरम जनपहाड, पी ओ नेरेडुचेरला मंडल , नालगोंडा जिला-508218 स्वर्ण एवं मिश्रतधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन- विशिष्ट (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

08034

89 निमज्जनीय पम्पसैट ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

09283

निमज्जनीय पम्प सैटों के लिए मोटरें ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

09283

निमज्जनीय पम्प सेटों के लिए मोटरें ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

09537 03

विद्युत संस्थापन के लिए कंडयूट भाग 3 कंडयूट विद्युत रोधक सामग्री के लिए दृढ़ सांद्र कंडयूट

2000

14899

स्वचल उपयोग के लिए द्रवित पैट्रोलियम गैस ( एलपीजी) के धारक विशिष्टि

14543

98 पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर ( पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

14543

98 पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर ( पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

989

02645

जल सह कार्य यौगिक की विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

00455

89 पोर्टलैंड धातुमल (स्लेग) सीमेंट (चौथा पुनरीक्षण) [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

7447

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15 , 1925

2002-12-24

14. 6369482

मैसर्स श्री वेंकटासाई पैकेजिंग इंडस्ट्रीज , यूनिट 2 , प्लॉट नं. 755 से 757 सुबाश नगर, आईडीए जीडिमेटला, हैदराबाद 500055 15. 6369583 2003-01-02 मैसर्स सिस्टर वोटर 394/3 डेविड नगर पाडापई, श्रीपेरूमपुडूर तालुक-601301 16. 6369684 2003-01-01 मैसर्स संगीताज्वेलरी , चित्तूर रोड, समीप साउथ जंक्शन , कोची-682016

17. 6369785 2003-01-06 मैसर्स सप्तगिरि एक्वा सिस्टम्स प्रा लि. , 40-41 संतोष कॉटेज विजयानगरम सेतिपति पोस्ट, डिंडीगुल-624314 18. 6369886 2002-11-20 मैसर्स मेरीमेक यमर्स, नं. 95वाँ मेन राजाजी नगर, इंडस्ट्रियल टाउन ए.डी. हल्ली राजाजी नगर , बंगलौर-560079

19. 6369987 2002-12-30 मैसर्स टॉवर इंडिया मिनरल वॉटर, 4/2ए थिरूवल्लूर हाई रोड़ , पुंडुचेतराम गाँव-602107 20. 6370063 2002-12-23 मैसर्स इंडो प्रिकास्ट इंडस्ट्रीज, सी-5 आईडीए उप्पलशी रोड, हैदराबाद-500039 21. 6370164 2003-01-01 मैसर्स श्री साबरी इंडस्ट्रीज, 203, 100 फीट रोड टाटाबाद ( पीओ ) कोयम्बतूर-641012 22. 6370265 2002-12-30 मैसर्स जस एच 20 नेट वर्किंग, 93/1 ए बजानी कोयलस्ट्रीट, एथिपेट, चेन्नई-600058 23. 6370366 2002-12-12 मैसर्स मयूरी बेवरेजिज, प्लाट नं . 36 और 37, सागर हाउसिंग कॉम्पलेक्स, सागर रोड, रंगारेड्डी जिला 24. 6370467 2002-12-02 मैसर्स पी. मनोहरलाल ज्वेलर्स 8-2-674/6/1 /ए रोड नं. 13, बंजारा हिल्स, हैदराबाद-500034 5

10212 01

86 विस्फोटकों की पैकिंग हेतु सामान्य अपेक्षाएं भाग 1 व्यापारिक उच्च विस्फोटक (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

14543

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर (पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) विशिष्टि

01417

99 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

14543

98 पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर (पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

05759

94 प्रतिहिमशीतलक (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

14543

98 पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर (पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

12592

पूर्व ढलित कंकरीट मैनहोल के ढक्कन और फ्रेम भाग 1 ढक्कन

08472

98 पम्प पुनर्योजीस्वच्छ ढंडे पानी के लिए (पहला पुनरीक्षण )

14543

98 पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर (पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

14543

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर (पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिरनल जलके अलावा) विशिष्टि

01417

99 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/श्पिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण) 7448

[PART II SEC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2003/ AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

1 2

2003-01-02

25. 6370568

08112

89 43ग्रेड साधारण पोर्टलैंड सीमेंट (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

मैसर्ससाई श्रीनिवासा इंडस्ट्रीज,

के. अग्राहरम जग्गायापेट मण्डल

कृष्णाजिला -521175

2003-01-06

26. 6370669

मैसर्स अमुल्स स्क्रीन एण्ड पम्प्स, 6/9 कुंज नैकर थोट्म एथिपलायम रोड, चिन्नावेदमपत्ति गणपति ( पी ओ ) कोयम्बत्तूर -641006 2003-01-10

27. 6370770

मैसर्स इंडस मिनरल वॉटर, मानेल्लूर ( मेडू) माधरपक्कम पी.ओ. , गुम्मीडिपोंडी, तिरूवेल्लूर जिला 2003-01-07

28. 6370871

मैसर्स बीटीएम बेवरेजिज प्रा.लि. , सर्वे नं. 124/1 बी 9 वाँ किमी अंचेलागरि गाँव करवर रोड, हुबली-580024 2003-01-10

29. 6370972

मैसर्स श्रीसेल्वा मुथुकेमारन इंडस्ट्रीज, 1/2292 , अन्नाई टेरेसा स्ट्रीट, सोलियमन नगर , रेड हिल्स, चेन्नई-600052 2002-12-16

30. 6371065

मैसर्स वाम्शी पॉलिमर्स शेड नं. 51 आईडीए फेस -2 , चेरलापल्ली, आर आरं जिला 600051 31. 6371166 2003-01-13 मैसर्स थेन्तराल मिनरल वॉटर, 1/2481 , शिवान्ती अतिथन नगर, थिरूवल्लूर हाई रोड, रेड हिल्स, चेन्नई-600052 32. 6371267 2002-12-30 मैसर्स नेशनल इक्यूप्मेंट कम्पनी 151 - बी अबाइया नायडू ले आउट, पी.एन. पलायम रोड, गणपति पी.ओ. कोयम्बत्तूर-641006 2003-01-10

33. 6371368

मैसर्स सौन्द्रर्या एजेन्सिस , 9, मरूधू पन्डियार नगर, कोडिकलूर करन्थात्तनगुडि पोस्ट थन्जावूर -613002 2003-01-14

34. 6371469

मैसर्स कृष्णा एग्रो फूड्स, 217 , ओल्ड महापालीपुरम रोड, शोलिंगानाल्लूर, चेन्नई-600119 2003-01-13

35. 6371570

मैसर्स भवानी ट्रेडर्स प्लाट नं . 4 चर्च रोड (सम्मुख-पोनियाम्मन कोइल ) इंजामबक्कम , चेन्नई 600041 2002-12-26

36. 6371671

मैसर्स दावनम ज्वेलर्स 506/507 एवेन्यूरोड बंगलौर 560002

08034

निमज्जनीय पम्प सेट ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

14543

98 ( पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

14543

98 पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर (पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

14543

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर (पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) विशिष्टि

14151

सिंचाई तंत्र के छिड़काव यंत्र के लिए पालीइथाइलीन पाइप

14543

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर (पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) विशिष्टि

09283

निमज्जन पम्प सेटों के लिए मोटरें (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

14543

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर (पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

14543

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर (पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

14543

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर (पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

01417

99 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन -विशिष्टि (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण) 7449

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6 , 2003/अग्रहायण 15 , 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2003-01-02

37. 6371772

मैसर्स जुपीटर केबल्स प्रा.लि. यूनिट 2 प्लाट नं. 15 पार्ट आईडीए कुक्टपल्ली कुतबूल्लापुर मण्डल आर आर जिला ( आं.प्र. ) 500037

2003-01-16

38. 6371873

मैसर्स आर-विन एक्वा प्रॉडक्टस न्यूनं. 18, ग्राउण्ड फलोर, गंगारोड एगमोर चेन्नई -600008

2003-01-16

39. 6371974

मैसर्स शक्तिएक्वाप्रॉडक्टस 65, पेरियापलायम रोड, जेसीक्रॉस रोड, शोलोवरम पोस्ट, चेन्नई -600067

2003-01-02

40. 6372067

मैसर्स लक्ष्मी श्रीनिवास इंडस्ट्रीज सर्वे नं . 241 /एए रेडलाकुंता गाँव कोडाड मंडल नलगौंडा जिला (आं. प्र.)

2003-01-10

41. 6372168

मैसर्स येलग्रीस फूड्स इंडिया एस.एन. 23/2 बी गोल्लापल्ली गाँव अलसांदापुरम , वणियम्बकडी-635751

2003-01-08

42. 6372269

मैसर्स एम के वाटर्स नं. 119, नीरकोमार्ला पॉल्ट्री फार्म कोडिगेहल्ली मेन रोड बासवानापुरा, बंगलौर 560036

2002-01-17

43. 6372370

मैसर्स सुदेशी एसोसिएट्स 61 - ए, पूनमाल्ली रोड, एक्कतुथंगल, चेन्नई 600 097

2003-12-13

44. 6372471

मैसर्स किलोस्कर इलैक्ट्रिक कं. लि. , पी.बी.नं. 5555 इंड. सबर्ब राजाजी नगर , बंगलौर

2003-01-10

45. 6372572

मैसर्स न्यूसिफेरा रिन्यूएबल एनर्जी सिस्टम्स राघवेन्द्रा नगर, पीछे- देवानूर चर्च नालंदा कॉनवेंट पेरालेल रोड तुमकर 572 102

2003-01-14

46. 6372673

मैसर्स हिन्दुस्तान फूड प्रॉडक्टस 6, पाँचवी स्ट्रीट कुमारन कॉलोनी वडापलानी , चेन्नई-600 026

2003-01-03

47. 6372774

मैसर्स पेस्सीव एलॉयस प्रा.लि. 10/76- बी अवनाशी रोड अरासूर पोस्टकोयम्बत्तूर-641 407

2003-01-17

48. 6372875

मैसर्स श्री बालाजी वॉटर प्रॉडक्टस आर.एस.नं. 381 / 9बी, 381/9डी त्रिचे मेन रोड पिडागाँम, विल्लुपुरम 605401 3534G1/2003-3

00694

1100 वोल्ट तक की कार्यकारी वोल्टता के लिए पीवीसी रोधित केबल ( तीसरा पुनरीक्षण )

14543

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर (पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

14543

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर (पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

08112

43 ग्रेड साधारण पोर्टलैंड सीमेंट (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

14543

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर ( पैकेज प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

14543

पैकेजबन्दमिनरल वॉटर ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

14543

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉए ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) विशिष्टि

06331

" e " टाइप सुरखा के साथ हीन केजीय प्रेरण मोटर

12933

सौर सपाट संग्राहक- विशिष्टि भाग 1 अपेक्षाएं ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

14543

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर ( पैकेजबंट प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) विशिष्टि

00398

शिरोपरि प्रेषण कार्यों के लिए एल्युमीनियम के चालक भाग 4 एल्युमीनियम मिश्रधातु लड़दार चालक एल्युमी- मैग्नी-सिलिकॉन टाइप ( तीसरा पुनरीक्षण )

14543

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) विशिष्टि 7450

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2003 /AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

1 2

4 49. 6372976 2003-01-14 मैसर्स ज्योति ब्रास मैटल वर्कस 6/128, इंजीनियरिंग कॉलेज रोड, अनन्तपुर 515 002 50. 6373069 2003-01-01

मैसर्स सीटी मिनरल्स 2-14-159/24 नल्लापाडू, नल्लापाडू पंचायत गुंटूर 522 009 51. 6373170 2003-01-10 मैसर्स पीवीएस इंटरप्रासेज तुरकापालाम पेडापलाकालूर ( पीओ ) गुटूर ग्रामीण मण्डलम, गुंटूरजिला

52. 6373271 2003-01-08 मैसर्स जुपीटर केबल्स प्रा.लि. , यूनिट-2 , प्लॉट नं ए -15 पार्ट आई डी ए कुकटपल्ली कुतबुल्लापुर मण्डल, आर.आर. जिला ( आ.प्र. ) 500 037

2003-01-17

53. 6373372

मैसर्स वानीविलास माइन्स एण्ड मिनरलस नं. 153/210/1 , रेलवे गोल्लहल्ली , नेलामंगला तालुक, बंगलौर रूरल , बंगलौर-562 123

54. 6373473 2003-01-17 मैसर्स वेंगो एक्वालैब, 34, 5वां क्रॉस 22वां मेन , विनायक नगर पुत्तेनहल्ली गाँव , जेपी नगर, 5 वां फेस, बंगलौर-560078 55. 6373574 2003-01-14 मैसर्स वामशी पॉलिमर्स, शेड नं. 51 , आईडीए फेस 2 , चेरलापल्ली, आर.आर. जिला - 500 051

56. 6373675 2003-01-16 मैसर्स वामशी पॉलिमर्स शेड नं. 51 आईडीए फेस -2 , चेरलापल्ली, आर. आर. जिला-500 051 57. 6373877 2003-01-10 मैसर्स बागदेवी सोलर सिस्टम्स शेड नं. 6 , साइट नं. 45 3 रा क्रॉस, 3रा मेन 1 स्टेज , इंडस्ट्रियल सबर्ब यशवन्तपुरा , बंगलौर 560 022 58. 6373978 2002-12-30 मैसर्स गौरी मैच फैक्टरी, एस.नं. 1755/बी, 1757/ 2बी डी.नं. 394/ 1 ए से ए4 पालापति रोड, कीला थिरुथंगल, शिवकासी यूनियन

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

00204 02

92 टॉवर काबले की विशिष्टि भाग 2 अलौह धातु (पांचवां पुनरीक्षण)

98 पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर ( पैकेजबंद 14543 प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

05950

84 शॉट फायरिंग केबल के विशिष्टि (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

14543

98 पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

14543

98 पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टि

04984

95 पेय जल आपूर्ति के लिए उच्च घनत्व वाले पोलिएथाइलीन पाइप (चौथा पुनरीक्षण )

14151

सिंचाई तंत्र के छिड़काव यंत्र के लिए पालीइथाइलीन पाइप

12933

सौर सपाट संग्राहक- विशिष्टि भाग 1 अपेक्षाएं ( पहला पुनरीक्षण ,

02653

डिब्बी बन्द निरापद दियासलाई (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

[सं. सी.एम डी 1/13 : 11 ] एम.० ए० यू० खान, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर) 7451 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15 , 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS , FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi , the 21st November, 2003

S.O. 3323.- In pursuance of sub -regulation ( 5) of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification ) Regulations 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

Title of the Standard

IS No. Part Sec . Year Name & Address of the Party

Sl. No.

Licence No.

Operative Date (Year/Month)

01008

81 1. 6368278 2002-12-16

Specification for Hard Boild Sugar Confectionery (Second Revision )

M/ sLeo Foods, 24-60/9 I Floor IDA Uppal Hyderabad

08391

2. 6368379 2002-12-30

87 M/sKohinoor Fibre Products PPVI, 254 A Puzhathi Kakkad KannurKanpur District-670005

Specification for Rubberized coil sheets for Cushioning (FirstRevision)

01489 01

91 3. 6368480 2002-12-30 M/sAndhra Cements Ltd. Durga Nagar (P. Ο ) Visakhapatnam

Specification for Portland Pozzolana Cement Part 1 : Flyash Based (Third Revision)

4. 6368581 2002-12-26

01417

99 M/sManjam Jewellery 58, Bazaar Street Namakkal-637001

Gold and GoldAlloy's Jewellery/Artefacts Fineness and Marking Specification (Third Revision)

2002-12-30

89 5. 6368682

08034

Submersible Pump Sets (FirstRevision)

M/ s Sri Sai Industries 583/2-B , Avinashi Road CivilAerodrome Post Combatore-641014

6. 6368783 2002-12-30

09283

Motors for Sumersible Pump Sets-Specification (FirstRevision)

M/sSri Sai Industries 583/2-B , Avinashi Road CivilAerodrome Post Coimbatore-641014

7. 6368783 2002-12-30

09283

Motors for Submersible Pump Sets-Specification (FirstRevision)

M/sSri Sai Industries 583/2-B , Avinashi Road Civil Aerodrome Post Coimbatore-641014

2002-12-26

8. 6368884

09537 03 M/s Tunga PVC Pipes Pvt . Ltd. 134, Bommasandra Indl .Area Hosur Road, Bangalore -562158

Specification for Conduits forElectrical Instalations Part3 : Rigid Plain Conduits ofInsulatingMaterials

9. 6368985 2003-01-01

14899

Liqueified Petroleum Gas (LPG) Containers for Automative -Specification

M/sKarnataka Pressure Vessels Ltd. 13- C, Attibele Indl . Area Anekai , TalukBangalore- 560107 7452

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2003/AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

2002-12-30

10. 6369078

M/ sManyam Aqua Pvt . Ltd. S.No. 42 Pet Basheerabad Quatabullapur Mandal Rangareddy District 2002-12-30

11. 6369179

M/s Southern Crystal Water Thaiyur Road Kelambakkam KancheepuramDistrict -603103 12. 6369280 2002-12-20 M/ s Srivatsa Synthetics P. Ltd. 1/14, Kettanakonda (Village) Ibrahimpatnam (Mandal) Krishna District -521456 2002-12-24

13. 6369381

M/s Deccan Cements Ltd. , (Slag Cement Division) Bhavanipuram , Janpahad P.O. NereducherlaMandal Nalgonda District-508218 2002-12-24

14. 6369482

M/ sSree Venkatasai Packaging Industries, Unit II Plot Nos. 755 to 757 Subash Nagar Ida Jeedi MetlaHyderabad- 500055 15. 6369583 2003-01-02 M/s Sister Water 394/3 David Nagar Padappai Sri Perumpudur Taluk-601301

2003-01-01

16. 6369684

M/ s Snageetha Jewellery Chittoor Road Near South Junction Kochi - 682016 2003-01-06

17. 6369785

M/ s Sapthagiri Aqua Systems Pvt. Ltd. 40-41 , Santosh Cottage Vijayanagaram Settipatti Post Dindigul-624314 18. 6369886 2002-11-20 M/sMerrimack Ymers No. 9 . 5thMain Rajaji Nagar Industrial Town A.D. Haiti Rajaji Nagar Bangalore - 560079 2002-12-30

19. 6369987

M/sTower India Mineral Water 4/2 A Thiruvallur High Road Puduchatram Village-602107 20, 6370063 2002-12-23 M/s Indo Precast Industries C-5 . Ida Uppalshi Road Hyderabad- 500039 5

14543

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

14543

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water ( Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

02645

Specification for Integrated Cement Water Proofing Compounds (FirstRevision)

00455

89 Specification for Portland Portland Slag Cement (FourthRevision)

10212 01

General Requirements for Packages ofExplosives Part 1: Commercial High Explosives(First Revision)

14543

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water ( Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

01417

99 Gold andGold Alloys Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness andMarking-Specification (Third Revision)

14543

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water(Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

05759

94 Antifreeze Coolant- Specification (First Revision)

14543

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water ( Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

12592 01

Specification for Precast Concrete Manhole Coversand Frames- Part 1: Covers Part2: Frames भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6 , 2003/अग्रहायण 15 , 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1 2

2003-01-01

21. 6370164

M/ sSri Sabari Industries 203, 100 Feet Road Tatabad (P.O. ) Coimbatore -641012 2002-12-30

22. 6370265

M/sJasH20 Net working 93/ 1A Bajani Coil , Street Athipet Chennai -600058 23. 6370366 2002-12-12 M/sMayuri Beverages Plot No. 36 &37 Sagar Housing Complex SagarRoad Rangareddy District

2002-12-02

24. 6370467

M/sManoharlal Jewellers 8-2-674/6/ 1/A Road No. 13 BanjaraHills Hyderabad- 500034

25. 6370568 2003-01-02 M/ s Saj Srinivasa Industries K. Agraharam Jaggayyapet Mandal , Krishna District - 521175

26. 6370669 2003-01-06 M/ sAmuls Screen & Pumps 6/9 Kunni Naicker Thottam AthipalayamRoad Chinnavedampatti Ganapthy (P.O. ) Coimbatore-641006 27. 6370770 2003-01-10 M/ s Indhus Mineral Water Manellore (Medu ) Madharapakkam P.O. Gummidipoondi Tiruvallur District 28. 6370871 2003-01-07 M/sBTM Beverages Pvt . Ltd. Sy. No. 124/ 1B 9th Km. Anchelageri Village Karwar Road Hubli -580024 29. 6370972 2003-01-10 M/ s Sri Selva Muthukumaran Industries 1-2292 , Annai Teresa Street Soliamman Nagar Red Hills Chennai -600052 2002-12-16

30. 6371065

M/sVamshi Polymers Shed No. 51 Ida Phase - II Cherlapally R. R. District-600051 31. 6371166 2003-01-13 M/s Thentral Mineral Water 1/2481 , Sivanathi Athithan Nagar Thiruvallur High Road Red Hills Chennai -600052

7453

08472

Pumps Regenerative or Clear, ColdWater-Specification (FirstRevision)

14543

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

14543

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

01417

Gold and GoldAlloys , Jewellery/ Artefacts -Fitness and Marking - Specification (ThirdRevision)

08112

89 Specification for 43 Grade Ordinary Portland Cement (First Revision)

08034

89 Submersisble Pump Sets (FirstRevision)

14543

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

14543

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water ( Other than Packed Natural Mineral Water)

14543

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water ( Other than PackagedNatural Mineral Water)

14151

IrrigationEquipment SprinklerPipes- Specification-Part 1 Polyethylene Pipes

14543

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water ( Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water) 7454

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2003/AGRAHAYANΑ 15 , 1925

4 32. 6371267 2002-12-30 M/ s National Equipment Company 151 -B Abbaiah Naidu Layout P.N. Palayam Road Ganapathy P. O. Coimbatore-641006 33. 6371368 2003-01-10 M/ s Soundarya Agencies 9 , Marudhu Pandiyar Nagar Kodikalur Karanthattangudi Post Thanjavur-613002 34. 6371469 2003-01-14 M/ sKrishna Agro Foods 217, Old Mahapalipuram Road Sholinganallur , Chennai -600119 35. 6371570 2003-01-13 M/sBhavani Traders , Plot No. 4 Church Road (Opp . Ponniamman Koil) Injambakkam, Chennai -600041

36. 6371671 2002-12-26 M/ sDavanam Jewellers , 506/507 Avenue Road, Bangalore-560002 37. 6371772 2003-01-02 M/ sJupiter Cables Pvt . Ltd. , Unit II, Plot No. A- 15 Part IDA, Kukatpally qutbullapur Mandal , R. R. District (A.P. ) - 500037 38. 6371873 2003-01-16 M/ s R -Vin Aqua Products , New No. 18 Ground Floor, Genga Road, Egmore , Chennai -600008 39. 6371974 2003-01-16 M/ s Shakti Aqua Products 65 , Periya Palayam road JC Cross road Sholovaram Post Chennai -600067

40. 6372067 2003-01-02 M/ s Lakshmi Srinivasa Industries Survey No. 241 / AA Redlakunta Village KodadMandal Nalgonda District (A.P. )

41. 6372168 2003-01-10 M/sYelgris Foods India S. No. 23/2 B Gollapalli , Village Alasandapuram, Vaniyambadi -635751 42. 6372269 2003-01-08 M/ sMK Waters , No. 119. Neerkomarla Poultry Farm Kodigehalli, Main Road, Basavanapura , Bangalore - 560036

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii)] 5

09283

95 Motors for Sumersible Pumpsets-Specification (FirstRevision)

14543

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water ( Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

14543

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural , Mineral Water)

14543

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

01417

99 Gold and Gold Alloys Jewellery/Artefacts - Fineness andmarking specification (Third Revision)

00694

89 Specification for PVC Insulated cables for working Voltages uptoand including 1100V (Third Revision )

14543

98 Specification for Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged natural , Mineral Water)

14543

Specification for Packaged Drinking water ( Other than Packaged natural Mineral Water)

08112

89 Specification for 43 Grade Ordinary Portland Cement ( First Revision)

14543

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

14543

Specification for Packaged Drinking water ( Other than Packaged natural Mineral Water) 7455

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15 , 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

43. 6372370 2003-01-17 M/s Súdesi Associates , 61-A, Poonamallee Road, Ekkatuthangal , Chennai -600097 44: 6372471 2002-12-13 M/sKirloskarElectric Co. Ltd. P.B. No. 5555 , Indl. Suburb , Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore 45. 6372572 2003-01-10 M/ s Nucifera Renewable Energy Systems Raghvendra Nagar Behind Devanur Church Nalanda Convent, ParallelRoad Tumkur-572102 46. 6372673. 2003-01-14 M/sHindustan Food Products , 6, Fifth Street Kumaran Colony, Vadapalani , Chennai -600026 47. 6372774 2003-01-03 M/ sPassive Alloys Pvt . Ltd. 10/76 -B Avinashi Road Arasur Post, Coimbator -641407 48. 6372875 2003-01-17 M/ s Sri Balaji Water Products , R.S. No. 381 /9B , 381/ 9D Trichy, Villupuram-605401 49. 6372976 2003-01-14 M/sJyothi Brass Metal Works , 6/128, Engineering College Road, Anantpur- 515002 2003-01-10

50. 6373069

M/sSiti Minerals , 2-14-159-24 , Nallapadu Nallapadu , Panchayat Guntur -522009

51. 6373170 2003-01-01 M/ sPVS Enterprises , Turkapalam Pedapalakalur (PO) , GunturRural, Mandalam, Guntur

2003-01-08

52. 6373271

M/sJupiter Cables Pvt . Ltd. , Unit Il, Plot No. A- 15 Part JDA, Kukatpally Qutubllapur Mandal , R. R. District (A.Ρ. )- 500037 53, 6373372 2003-01-17 M/ sVanivilas Mines and Minerals, No. 153/210/1 Railway Gollabhai Nelamangala Taluk BangaloreRural Bangalore -562123 5

14543

Specification for Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

06381

3 Phase Induction Motor with type of Protection ' e '

12933

Solar Flat Plate Collector Specification Part1 :Requirements (First Revision )

14543

Specification for packaged Drinking Water ( Other than PackagedNatural , Mineral Water

00398

Aluminium Conductors for Overhead Transmission Purposes : Part4: Alluminium Alloys Straned Conductors (Aluminium Magnesiumsilicon Type) (Third revision)

14543

Specification for packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural , Mineral Wat Water)

00204 02

92 SpecificationforTowerBolts Part2 : Non-Ferrous Metals (FifthRevision)

14543

Specification for packaged Drinking Water ( Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

14543

Specification for packaged Drinking Water ( Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

05950

Specification for Short Firing Cables (For use other than Shafts) (First Division)

14543

Specification for packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural , Minerals Water) 7456

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2003/ AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

1 2

54. 6373473 2003-01-07 M/ s . Vengo Aqua Lab 34, 5th Cross 22nd Main Vinayakanagar, Puttenahali Village J. P. Nagar 5th Phase , Bangalore -560078 55. 6373574 2003-01-14 M/ s . Vamshi Polymers , Shed No. 51 , IDA Phase -2 , ChelrapallyR.R. District-500 051

56. 6373675 2003-01-16 M/s. Vamshi Polymers , Shed No. 51 IDA Phase - II , Cherlapally, R. R. Districr-500 051 57. 6373877 2003-01-10 M/ s. Vaagdevi Solar Systems Shed No. 6 , Site No. 45 III Cross , III Main, I Stage Industrial Suburb Yeshwanthapura Bangalore-560022 58. 6373978 2002-12-30 M/s. Gowri Match Factory S. Nos . 1755/2B , 1757/ 2B D. No. 394/A1 to A4 Palapatti Road Keela Thiruthangal Sivakasi Union .

[PART II - SEC. 3 ( ii)] 5

14543

Specification for packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water

04984

Specification for High Density Polythylene Pipes forportable water supplies (ForthRevision)

14151 02

99 IrrigationEquipment SprinklerPipes- Specification,, Part2:Quick Coupled Polythylene Pipes

12933 01

SolarFlat Plate Collector Specification Part 1 : Requirements (FirstRevision)

02653

SafetyMatches in Boxes (Second Revision )

[No. CMD- 1/ 13 : 11 ] M. A. U. KHAN , Dy. Director General (Marks)

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2003

का.आ. 3324.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो विनियम 1987 नियम 7 के के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में एतद्वारा अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे रद्द कर दिए गए हैं और वापस ले लिये गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

क्रम सं. रद्द किए गए मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

भारत के राजपत्र भाग 2; खंड 3, उपखंड ( ii )में का.आ. संख्या और तिथि प्रकाशित

3 2

7 टिप्पणी

आईएस 14901 ( भाग 1 ) : 2001 द्वारा अतिक्रमित

का.आ. 0115 दिनांक 1975-01-11

1. आईएस 3700 ( भाग 1 ) : 1972

2. आईएस 3700 ( भाग 2 ) : 1972

आईएस 14901 ( भाग 3 ) : 2001 द्वारा अतिक्रमित

का.आ. 0770 दिनांक 1975-03-08

आईएस 14901 ( भाग 2 ) : 2001 द्वारा अतिक्रमित

का.आ. 2939 दिनांक 1975-09-06

3. आईएस 3700 ( भाग 3 ) : 1973

4. आईएस 3700 ( भाग 4 ) : 1968

आईएस 14901 ( भाग 7 ): 2001 द्वारा अतिक्रमित

का.आ. 4599 दिनांक 1968-12-28

2001 द्वारा अतिक्रमित

आईएस 14901 ( भाग 7 ) :

का.आ. 4599 दिनांक 1968-12-28

5. आईएस 3700 ( भाग 5 ) : 1968

2001 द्वारा अतिक्रमित

आईएस 14901 ( भाग 7) :

का.आ. 4599 दिनांक 1968-12-28

6. आईएस 3700 ( भाग 6) : 1968

2001 द्वारा अतिक्रमित

'आईएस 14901 ( भाग 3 ) :

का.आ. 5032 दिनांक 1971-11-06

7. आईएस 3700 ( भाग 8 ) : 1970 भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

3 2

7457

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6 , 2003/अग्रहायण 15 , 1925

आईएस 14901 ( भाग 8 ): 2001 द्वारा अतिक्रमित

का.आ. 3451 दिनांक1986-10-04

8. आईएस 3700 ( भाग 10 ) : 1982

आईएस 14901 ( भाग 1 ) : 2001 द्वारा अतिक्रमित

का.आ. 0889 दिनांक 1974-04-06

9. आईएस 3715 ( भाग 1 ) : 1971

आईएस 14901 ( भाग 2 ): 2001 द्वारा अतिक्रमित

का.आ. 0231 दिनांक 1974-01-26

10. आईएस 3715 ( भाग 2 ) : 1971

आईएस 14901 ( भाग 7) : 2001 द्वारा अतिक्रांत

का. आ. 0115 दिनांक 1975-01-11

11. आईएस 3715 ( भाग 3 ) : 1971

12. आईएस/ आईएसओ 4033 :1979

आईएस 1364 ( भाग 6 ) : 2002 द्वारा अतिक्रमित आईएस 14901 ( भाग 1 ) : 2001 द्वारा अतिक्रमित

का.आ. 1367 दिनांक 1968-04-20

13. आईएस 4400 ( भाग 1 ) : 1967

आईएस 14901 ( भाग 3 ) : 2001 द्वारा अतिक्रमित

का.आ. 2578 दिनांक 1968-07-20

14. आईएस 4400 ( भाग 2 ) : 1967

आईएस 14901 ( भाग 2 ) : 2001 द्वारा अतिक्रमित

का.आ. 0368 दिनांक1969-01-25

15. आईएस 4400 ( भाग 3 ) : 1968

आईएस 14901 ( भाग 7 ) : 2001 द्वारा अतिक्रमित

का.आ. 0223 दिनांक 1986-01-25

16. आईएस 4400 ( भाग 4) : 1981

17. आईएस 4400 ( भाग 8 ) : 1970

आईएस 14901 ( भाग 3 ) : 2001 द्वारा अतिक्रमित

का.आ. 3305 दिनांक 1972-01-21

आईएस 14901 ( भाग 3 ) : 2001 द्वारा अतिक्रमित

का.आ. 3328 दिनांक 1986-09-27

18. आईएस 4400 ( भाग 10 ) : 1967

[सं. सीएमडी-1/3 : 7 ]

एम ० ए० यू० खान, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर )

New Delhi , the 27th November . 2003

S.O. 3324.-- In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rulc ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Burcau of Indian Standards Rules , it is , notified that the Indian Standards , Particulars of which are mentioned in the schedule give hereafter. have been cancelled and stand withdrawn .

Sl.No. No. & year of the Indian Standards Cancelled

SEHEDULE

Remarks

S.O. No. & Date published in the Gazette of India Part - II , Section - 3 , Sub - section ( ii )

S.O. 0115 dt. 1975-01-11

IS 3700 (Pt . 1 ) : 1972

Supersededby iS 14901 (Pt 1 ) : 2001

S.O. 770 dt. 1975-03-08

IS 3700 (Pt. 2) : 1972

Superseded by IS 14901 ( Pt 3 ) : 2001

S.O. 2939 dt . 1975-09-06

3. 1S 3700 (Pt . 3 ) : 1973

Superseded by IS 14901 ( Pt 2 ) : 2001

S.O. 4599 dt. 1968-12-28

4. IS 3700 (Pt . 4) : 1968

Superseded by IS 14901 (Pt 7) : 2001

S.O. 4599 dt . 1968-12-28

5. IS 3700 ( Pt . 5 ) : 1968

Superseded by IS 14901 (Pt 7) : 2001

S.O. 4599 dt . 1968-12-28

6. IS 3700 (Pt . 6) : 1968

Superseded by IS 14901 (Pt 7) : 2001

S.O. 5032 dı . 1971-11-06

IS 3700 (Pt. 8 ) : 1970

Superseded by IS 14901 ( Pt3 ): 2001

S.O. 3451 dt . 1986-10-04

8. IS 3700 (Pt . 10) : 1982

Superseded by IS 14901 (Pt 8 ) : 2001

S.O. 0889 dt . 1974-04-06

9. IS 3715 (Pt . 1 ) : 1971

10. IS3715 (Pt . 2) : 1971

Superseded by IS 14901 ( Pt 1 ) : 2001

S.O. 0231 dt . 1974-01-26 Superseded by IS 14901 (Pt 2): 2001

S.O. 01 15 dt. 1975-01-11

11. IS3715 (Pt . 3 ): 1971

12.

IS/S.O. 4033 : 1979

Superseded by IS 14901 ( Pt 7 ) : 2001 Nil

Superseded by 1S 1364 ( P16 ) : 2002

S.O. 1367 dt . 1968-04-20

13.

IS4400 (Pt . 1 ) : 1967

3534 2003--4

Superseded by IS 14901 ( Pt 1) : 2001 7458

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2003 /AGRAHAYANΑ 15 , 1925

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

14. IS4400(Pt . 2) 1967

S.O. 2578 dt . 1968-07-20 Superseded by IS 14901 (Pt 3) : 2001 15. IS4400( Pt . 3) 1968

S.O. 0368 dt. 1969-01-25 Superseded by IS 14901 (Pt 2): 2001 16. IS 4400( Pt . 4) 1981

S.O.0223 dt . 1986-01-25

Superseded by IS 14901 (Pt 7) : 2001 17. IS4400( Pt . 8 ) 1970

S.O. 3305 dt . 1972-10-21 Superseded by IS 14901 (Pt 3 ) : 2001 18. IS4400(Pt . 10) 1983

S.O. 3328 dt . 1986-09-27

Superseded by IS 14901 (Pt8): 2001

[No. CMD - I/3 : 7]

M. A. U. KHAN , Dy. Director General (Marks )

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2003

का.आ. 3325.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

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

क्रम संख्या

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

2003-05-31 1. आईएस 228 ( भाग 22 ) : 2003 - इस्पात के रासायनिक विश्लेषण की पद्धतियाँ भाग 22 तापीय चालकता पद्धति द्वारा इस्पात में कुल हाइड्रोजन का निर्धारण (हाइड्रोजन 0.1 पीपीएम से 5 पीपीएम)

2003-05-31 2. आईएस 228 ( भाग 23 ) : 2003- इस्पात के रासायनिक विश्लेषण की पद्धतियाँ भाग 23 प्रकाशिक उत्सर्जन स्पेक्ट्रमी मापी द्वारा इस्पात में कुल नाइट्रोजन का निर्धारण (नाइट्रोजन 0.002 से 1.0 प्रतिशत )

2003-05-31 3. आईएस 228 ( भाग 24 ) : 2003- इस्पात के रासायनिक विश्लेषण की पद्धतियाँ भाग 24 अक्रिय गैस संलयन द्वारा इस्पात में नाइट्रोजन का निर्धारण-तापीय चालकता पद्धति (नाइट्रोजन 0.001 से 0.2 प्रतिशत )

2003-05-31

आईएस 397 : 1999

4. आईएस 397 ( भाग 0 ) : 2003- उत्पादन के दौरान गुणता नियंत्रण की प्रणाली भाग ० नियंत्रण सारणी के चयन के लिए मार्गदर्शिका ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

2003-06-30

आईएस 417 ( भाग 1 ) : 1974

5. आईएस 417 ( भाग 1 ) : 2003- फुटबालों, वॉलीबालों, वास्केटबालों, नेटबालों , थ्रोबालों और वाटर- पोलो बालों -विशिष्टि भाग 1 फुटबाल (चौथा पुनरीक्षण )

2003-07-31

आईएस 550 ( भाग 1 ) : 1991

6. आईएस 550 ( भाग 1 ) : 2003- तिजोरियाँ भाग 1 विशिष्टि (चौथा पुनरीक्षण)

2003-04-30

आईएस 616: 1986

7. आईएस 616 : 2003- श्रव्य , वीडियो एवं समान इलैक्ट्रॉनिकी उपकरण- सुरक्षा अपेक्षाएँ (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण) भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6 , 2003/ अग्रहायण 15 , 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

8. आईएस 940 : 2003- सुवाह्म अग्नि- शामक पानी टाइप (गैस कारतूस )- विशिष्टि

(चौथा पुनरीक्षण)

9. आईएस 1151 : 2003- परिष्कृत चीनी- विशिष्टि (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

10. आईएस 1152: 2003- आइसिंग चीनी-विशिष्टि (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

11. आईएस 1191: 2003 - उत्प्लव घनत्व निर्धारण- पारिभाषिक शब्दावली और प्रतीक

(दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

12. आईएस 1559 ( भाग 5 ) : 2003- फेरोसिलिकॉन का रासायनिक विश्लेषण भाग 5 फेरोसिलिकॉन में एल्युमिनियम का निर्धारण (एल्युमिनियम 0.05 से 1.75 प्रतिशत )

( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

13. आईएस 1855 : 2003- खानों में वेष्टन द्वारा और व्यक्ति- रोहण द्वारा ढुलाई के लिए लड़दार इस्पात के तार के रस्से- विशिष्टि (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

14. आईएस 2721 : 2003 - जस्तीकृत इस्पात चेन लिंक जेगले का कपड़ा-विशिष्टि

(दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

15. आईएस 3025 ( भाग 56 ) : 2003- जल और अपशिष्ट जल के नमूने लेने तथा परीक्षण ( भौतिक एवं रासायनिक) की पद्धतियाँ भाग 56 सेलेनियम

(पहला पुनरीक्षण)

16. आईएस 3096: 2003 - महीन ग्रेड पैलेडियम- विशिष्टि (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

17. आईएस 3633 : 2003- काली चाय- विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

18. आईएस 3917: 2003 - स्कूप टाइप बैड सामग्री-विशिष्टि (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

19 . आईएस 4351: 2003- स्टील के दरवाजों के फ्रेम- विशिष्टि (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

20. आईएस 4392: 2003- वस्त्रादि- हस्त निर्मित नमदे- विशिष्टि (पहला पुनरीक्षण )

21. आईएस 4622 : 2003- स्थिर- व्हील गेट के संरचनात्मक डिजाइन कीसिफारिशें (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

7459

2003-05-31 आईएस 940: 1989

2003-06-30 आईएस 1151 : 1969

2003-06-30 आईएस 1152: 1976

2003-04-30 आईएस 1191 : 1971

2003-05-31 आईएस 1559 ( भाग 5 ) : 1982

2003-07-31 आईएस 1855 : 1977

2003-07-31 आईएस 2721 : 1964

2003-06-30

2003-06-30 आईएस 3096: 1965

2003-06-30 आईएस 3633: 1972

2003-06-30 आईएस 3917 : 1966

2003-05-31 आईएस 4351: 1976

2003-04-30 आईएस 4392: 1967

2003-05-31 आईएस 4622: 1992 7460

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2003/ AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

4 1

2003-05-31

आईएस 4926 : 1976

22. आईएस 4926 : 2003- तैयार कांक्रीट- रीति संहिता (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

2003-05-31 23. आईएस 4989 ( भाग 4 ): 2003- हाइड्रोजन और ध्रुवी विलायक की आग बुझाने के लिए बहुप्रयोगी जलीय फिल्म बनाने वाले झाग एवं सांद्र - विशिष्टि

2003-05-31

आईएस 5542: 1969

24. आईएस 5542 : 2003 - तुफान विश्लेपण की मार्ग दर्शिका (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

25 .

2003-06-30

आईएस 5800 : 1979

आईएस 5800: 2003 - पूरी तरह भौतिक तरीकों द्वारा संरक्षित संतरे का रस- विशिष्टि (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

2003--06-30

आईएस 5975: 1970

26 . आईएस 5975 : 2003- कच्ची चीनी-विशिष्टि (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

2003-06-30

आईएस 5982: 1970

27. आईएस 5982: 2003- रोपित श्वेत चीनी- विशिष्टि (पहत्या पुनरीक्षण)

2003-06-30

आईएस 6200 ( भाग1 ) : 1995

28 . आईएस 6200 ( भाग 1 ) : 2003- सार्थकता के लिए सांख्यिकीय परीक्षण भाग 1 नार्मल, टी. और एफ- परीक्षण

(तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

2003-06-30 29.

आईएस 6347: 1971

आईएस 6347 : 2003- वस्त्रादि- मछली पकड़ने के लिए पोलिएथाइलीन मोनोफिलामेंट की सुतली-विशिष्टि (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

2003-07-31 30 .

आईएस 6812: 1972

आईएस 6812 : 2003 - घुटने के जोड़ों, घुटनों से नीचे के कृत्रिम अंग रोपण के लिए एकाक्ष की विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

2003-06-30 31.

आईएस 7016 ( भाग १ ) : 1988

आईएस 7016 ( भाग १ ) : 2003 - लेपित एवं उपचारित कपड़े की परीक्षण पद्धतियां भाग १ रबड़ अथवा प्लास्टिक लेपित कपड़ा- ब्लाकिंग प्रतिरोधिता ज्ञात करना (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

2003-06-30 32.

आईएस 7016 ( भाग 13 ): 1987

आईएस 7016 ( भाग 13 ) : 2003 -लेपित एवं उपचारित कपड़े की परीक्षण पद्धतियां भाग 13 रबड़ अथवा प्लास्टिक लेपित कपड़ा- सिल्वट प्रतिरोधिता ज्ञात करती (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

2003-06-30 33.

आईएस 7016 ( भाग 14): 1987

आईएस 7016 ( भाग 14 ) : 2003- लेपित एवं उपचारित कपड़े की परीक्षण पद्धतियां भाग 14 रबड़ अथवा प्लास्टिक- लेपित कपड़ा- निम्न ताप प्रभाव परीक्षण (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

2003-04-30 34.

आईएस 7356 ( भाग 2 : 1993

आईएस 7356 ( भाग 2 ): 2003 - मिट्टी और राकफिल बांधों में दाब मापों के लिए संस्थापन , प्रेषण तथा रख- रखाव की रीति संहिता भाग 2 दोहरी ट्यूब वाले द्ववचालित (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

7461

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15 , 1925

35. आईएस 7373 : 2003- निचले अंगों के लिए कृत्रिम अंग रोपण फिटमेंट के लिए कूल्हा विसहरण जोड़ इकाई- विशिष्टि (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

36 . आईएस 7533: 2003- वस्त्रादि- मछली पकड़ने के लिए पोलिएमाइड (नाइलन) मोनोफिलामेंट की लाइन- विशिष्टि

(पहला पुनरीक्षण)

37. आईएस 7732: 2003 - पूरी तरह भौतिक तरीकों द्वारा संरक्षित सेब का रस - विशिष्टि

(पहला पुनरीक्षण)

38. आईएस 8331 : 2003- वस्त्रादि-अंगोला शर्टिंग- विशिष्टि (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

39 . आईएस 8389 : 2003-वर्षामापी, रिकार्डिंग टाइप का संस्थापन और उपयोग -रीति संहिता

(दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

40. आईएस 8713 : 2003 - पूरी तरह भौतिक तरीकों द्वारा संरक्षित आम कारस-विशिष्टि

(पहला पुनरीक्षण)

41 . आईएस 8833 : 2003- कोको बीज- नमी की मात्रा ज्ञात करना (सामान्य पद्धति)

(पहला पुनरीक्षण)

42. आईएस 9314: 2003- कोको बीज- नमूना लेना ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

43. आईएस 9537 ( भाग 8 ): 2003-विद्युत संस्थापनों के लिए तार नालियां-विशिष्टि भाग 8 एल्युमिनियम मिश्रधातु की दृढ़ चूड़ी रहित तार नालियां 44. आईएस 9755 : 2003- वस्त्रादि- उर्वरकों की भराई के लिए उच्च घनत्व पोलीइथाइलीन ( एस.डी.पी.ई. )/पोली-प्रोपाइलीन (पी.पी. )- विशिष्टि

(चौथा पुनरीक्षण)

45 आईएस 10085 : 2003- जीरकन आटा अथवा रेत का रासायनिक विश्लेषण

(पहला पुनरीक्षण )

46. आईएस 10434 ( भाग 1 ) : 2003- कंक्रीट और चिनाई वाले बाँधों मेंविरूपण मापन युक्तियों के म्थापन , रख- रखाव और प्रेक्षण की मार्गदर्शिका

भाग 1 रोधी किस्म के जाड़मीटर

(पहला पुनरीक्षण)

47. आईएस 12664 ( भाग 1 ): 2003 कृत्रिम अंग- निचले अग्रोगों में कृत्रिम अंग रोपण के लिए सैशफुट ( पैर ) भाग 1 डिजाइन और आयाम (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

2003-05-31 आईएस 7373: 1985

2003-06-31 आईएस 7533 :1975

आईएस 7732: 1975

2003-05-31

2003-06-30 आईएस 8331:1993

2003-05-31 आईएस 8389 : 1983

2003-05-31 आईएस 8713:1978

2003-04-30 आईएस 8833: 1978

आईएस 9314: 1979

2003-04-30

2003-04-30 आईएस 9314: 1979

आईएस 9755 : 1999

2003-06-30

2003-06-30 आईएस 10085 : 1982

2003-04-30 आईएस 10434 ( भाग 1 ) : 1982

2003-07-31 आईएस 12664 ( भाग 1 ) : 1989 [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 7462

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2003 /AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

2003-06-30

आईएस 12933 ( भाग 1 ) : 1992

48. आईएस 12933 ( भाग 1 ): 2003 -सौर सपाट पट्टिका संग्राहक- विशिष्टिभाग 1 अपेक्षाएँ (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

2003-06-30

आईएस 12933 ( भाग 2 ): 1992

49. आईएस 12933 ( भाग 2 ): 2003 - सौर सपाट पट्टिका संग्राहक- विशिष्टि भाग 2 घटक (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

2003-06-30

आईएस 12933 ( भाग 3) : 1990

50. आईएस 12933 ( भाग 3 ) : 2003 - सौर सपाट पट्टिका संग्राहक- विशिष्टि भाग 3 मापन उपकरण (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

2003-07-31

आईएस 12933 ( भाग 5 ) : 1992

51. आईएस 12933 ( भाग 5): 2003 - सौर सपाट पट्टिका संग्राहक- विशिष्टि भाग 5 परीक्षण पद्धति (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

2003-04-30

आई एस 13252: 1992

52. आईएस 13252: 2003- सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी उपस्कर - सुरक्षा-सामान्य अपेक्षाएँ (पहला पुनरीक्षण )

2003-04-30

आईएस 13452 ( भाग 5 ) : 1992

53. आईएस 13452 ( भाग 5 ) : 2003 - फेरोक्रोमियम का रासायनिक विश्लेषण भाग 5 उच्च कार्बन फेरोक्रोमियम/चार्जक्रोमियम में डाइक्रोमेट अनुमापन द्वारा क्रोमियम ज्ञात करना (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

2003-04-30 54. आईएस 13452 ( भाग 7 ) : 2003- फेरोक्रोमियम का रासायनिक विश्लेषण भाग 7 फेरोक्रोमियम/चार्जक्रोमियक में क्षारमितीय पद्धति द्वारा फासफोरस ज्ञात करना

2003-07-31

आईएस 14252:1995

55. आईएस 14252: 2003- वस्त्रादि- उच्च घनत्व वाली पोलीइ- थाईलीन ( एच.डी.पी.ई. )/पोली प्रोपाईलीन ( पी.पी. ) से बने रेत भरने के बोरे- विशिष्टि (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

2003-07-31 56. आईएस 15086 ( भाग 3 ) : 2003 - प्रोत्कर्ष निरोधक भाग 3 प्रोत्कर्ष निरोधक के लिए कृत्रिम प्रदूषण परीक्षण

2003-05-31 57. आईएस 15140: 2003- स्वचल वाहन- सुरक्षा पेटी समुच्चय- विशिष्टि

2003-04-30 58. आईएस 15275 : 2003-ताले विशिष्टि

आईएस 275 , आईएस 1018 आईएस 4230 , आईएस 4231 और आईएस 12197

2003-04-30 59. आईएस 15293: 2003- वायु आकाशीय- नट, सेल्फलॉकिंग , 425° सें. , अथवा कम के अधिकतम प्रचालन तापमान सहित- प्रापण विशिष्टि

2003-05-31 60 . आईएस 15303 : 2003- इलेक्ट्रोथरमल ऐटोमिक ऑबजोरपशन स्पेक्ट्रोमेटरी पद्धति द्वारा पानी में एन्टीमनी, लोहा व सेलेनियम ज्ञात करना 7463 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6 , 2003/अग्रहायण 15 , 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4 61.

2003-04-30 आईएस 15305 ( भाग 3 ) : 2003- प्राकृतिक गैस - संपीडन गुणक का परिकलन भाग 3 गुणधर्म का उपयोग करते हुए परिकलन

आई एस 275 , आई एस 1018 आईएस 4230 , आईएस 4231 और आईएस 12197

2003-05-31 62. आईएस 15321 : 2003 - गालित धातु के स्प्लैश रक्षी हुड - विशिष्टि

2003-06-30 63. आईएस 15322: 2003- कण फिल्टर में प्रयुक्त श्वसन संरक्षी उपस्कर-विशिष्टि

2003-06-30 64. आईएस 15323: 2003- श्वसित्र संरक्षी उपस्कर में प्रयुक्त गैस फिल्टर और संयुक्त फिल्टर-विशिष्टि

2003-06-30 65. आईएस 15324 : 2003-पोत निर्माण- हवा से स्टार्ट होने वाले तंत्र काचयन एवं परीक्षण- रीति संहिता

2003-06-30 66. आईएस 15325: 2003 - जड़ित स्वचलित उच्च एवं मध्यम गति की जल फुहार प्रणालियों के डिजाइन और संस्थापन की रीति संहिता

2003-06-30 67 आईएस 15326 ( भाग 1 ) : 2003 - वैल्डिंग हेतु गुणता अपेक्षाएँ- धात्विक सामग्री की संलयन वैल्डिंग भाग 1 चयन एवं उपयोग के मार्गदर्शी सिद्धांत

2003-06-30 68. आईएस 15326 ( भाग 2 ) : 2003 - वैल्डिंग हेतु गुणता अपेक्षाएँ- धात्विक सामग्री की संलयन वैल्डिंग भाग 2 गृहत गुणता अपेक्षाएँ

2003-06-30 69. आईएस 15326 ( भाग 3 ) : 2003 - वैल्डिंग हेतु गुणता अपेक्षाएं धात्विक सामग्री की संलचन वैल्डिंग भाग 3 मानक गुणता अपेक्षाएँ

2003-06-30 70. आईएस 15326 ( भाग 4 ) : 2003 - वैल्डिंग हेतु गुणता अपेक्षाएँ- धात्विक सामग्री की संलेयन वैल्डिंग भाग 4 प्राथमिक गुणता अपेक्षाएँ

2003-05-31 71. आईएस 15327 : 2003- वैल्डिंग समन्वय कार्य एवं दायित्व

2003-07-31 72. आईएस 15328 : 2003 - दाब - रहित भूमिगत जल निकास एवं भवनों के बाहर मल- जल व्यवस्था में प्रयुक्त अप्लास्टिकृत पॉलीविनायल क्लोराईड ( पी.वी.सी. यू. ) पाइपें-विशिष्टि

2003-05-31 73. आईएस 15336 : 2003- वस्त्रादि- हौजरी के लिए एक्रिलिक धागा-विशिष्टि

2003-05-31 74. आईएस 15337: 2003- मृदु इस्पात भूमिगत पाइप लाइनों की संरक्षा के लिए कोलतार आधारित संरक्षारणरोधी फीता-विशिष्टि

2003-05-31 75. आईएस 15338: 2003- प्रत्यक्ष रीडिंग प्रकाशिक उत्सर्जन निर्वात स्पेक्ट्रोमीटर द्वारा ढ़लवा लोहे का स्पेक्ट्रोमैट्रिक विश्लेषण- प्वाइंट टूप्लेन तकनीक

2003-07-31 76 . आईएस 15339 : 2003- जन पुस्तकालय- मार्गदर्शी सिद्धान्त

2003-06-31 77. आईएस 15340: 2003- कॉयर फैल्ट-विशिष्टि

2003-05-31 78. आईएस 15345 : 2003 - फेम रहित दरवाजे और खिड़कियों के संस्थापन-रीति संहिता 7464

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 6, 2003/AGRAHAYANΑ 15 , 1925

2003-05-31 79 . आईएस 15346: 2003 - पनीर/छैना की संवेदनात्मक मूल्यांकन विधि आईएस 275, आईएस 1018 आईएस 4230 , आईएस 4231 और आईएस 12197

2003-05-31 80. आईएस 15347 : 2003- माल्टेड मिल्क फूड- संवेदनात्मक मूल्यांकन विधि

2003-05-31 81. आईएस 15348: 2003- श्रीखण्ड की संवेदनात्मक मूल्यांकन विधि

2003-05-31 82. आईएस 15349 : 2003- आईसक्रमी -संवेदनात्मक मूल्यांकनविधि

2003-06-30 83 . आईएस 15350: 2003- स्वचल वाहन - प्रज्वलन प्रणाली- परीक्षण पद्धति

2003-05-31 84. आईएस 15352 : 2003 - खुले प्रणालों में द्रव प्रवाह मापन- जलमितीय नौकाओं के लिए स्थिति आबद्ध उपस्कर

2003-05-31 85. आईएस 15353: 2003- वियरों और प्लूमों द्वारा खुले प्रणालों में द्रव प्रवाह मापन-V-आकार विस्तृत शिखर वियर

2003-07-31 86. आईएस 15354: 2003- एक बार उपयोग के लिए परीक्षण दस्ताने- विशिष्टि

2003-07-31 87. आईएस 15355: 2003 - द्रवित पेट्रोलियम गैस ( एल पी जी ) मोटर वाहनों के लिए रबड़ हौज़ और हौज़ समुच्चय- विशिष्टि

2003-06-30 88. आईएस 15356 : 2003 - ऐसिटएलडीहाईड-विशिष्टि

2003-06-30 89 . आईएस 15357 ( भाग 1 ) : 2003- फोटोग्राफी- अन्दर के कमरों में प्रोजेक्शन भाग 1 स्थिर प्रोजेक्टरों के लिए स्क्रीन प्रदीप्ति परीक्षण

2003-06-30 90. आईएस 15357 ( भाग 2): 2003-फोटोग्राफी- अन्दर के कमरों में प्रोजेक्शन भाग 2 स्थिर और वीडियो प्रोजेक्शनों के लिए स्क्रीन प्रदीप्ति परीक्षण

2003-06-30 91. आईएस 15357 ( भाग 3 ): 2003- फोटोग्राफी- अन्दर के कमरों में प्रोजेक्शन भाग 3 संचरण प्रोजेक्शनों स्क्रीन का वर्गीकरण और उनके संचरण दीप्ति स्तरों का मापन

2003-07-31 92. आईएस 15358 : 2003- खुले प्रणालों में द्रव प्रवाह मापन -हिम अवस्थाओं के अन्दर प्रवाह मापन

2003-07-31 93 . आईएस 15359 : 2003 - उत्प्लव घनत्वमापी निर्धारण- ज्वरीय प्रणालों में निलंबित अवसाद परिवहन मापन

2003-05-31 94. आईएस 15360 : 2003 - खुले चैनलों में द्रव प्रवाह के मापन- बैड सामग्रीके नमूने लेना

2003-07-31 95. आईएस 15361 : 2003- कच्चा प्राकृतिक रबड़ - धारीदार धूमायित पट्टियाँ-मार्गदर्शिका

2003-07-31 96 . आईएस 15366 : 2003 - रंग रोगन उद्योग के लिए डोलोमाइट-विशिष्टि

2003-07-31 97. आईएस 15368: 2003- घरेलू और ऐसे ही प्रयोजनों के लिए केबल रील

2003-07-31 98. आईएस 15369 : 2003- वाल्टस ( कोष- कक्ष ) की संरचना की रीति संहिता 7465 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6 , 2003/ अग्रहायण 15, 1925

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2003-06-30 99 . आईएस 15377 : 2003 - डायरेक्ट-टू- होम सेवाओं के लिए डिजिटल सैट टौप बॉक्स-विशिष्टि

2003-06-30 100. आईएस 15386: 2003 - दाबकृत सिंचाई पद्धतियाँ-रेखीय ( ग्राफिक) प्रतीक

2003-07-31 101. आईएस 15391: 2003- अतप्त बेल्लित गैर- दिशात्मक विद्युत इस्त की चद्दर एवं पत्ती-अर्ध- प्रकृमित प्ररूप- विशिष्टि

2003-07-31 102. आईएस 15392 : 2003 - खाद्य पैकेजबन्दी के लिए एल्युमिनियम एवं एल्युमीनियमय मिश्रधातु से बनी अनावृत पन्नी- विशिष्टि

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

[सं. सीएमडी-1/13 : 2 ]

एम० ए०यू० खान, उप महानिदेशक (मुहर )

New Delhi , the 27th November, 2003

S. O. 3325.-Inpursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules 1987, the Bureau 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:

THE SCHEDULE

Date of Establishment

No. & Year of Inidan

SI. No.

No. & Year of the Indian Standards Established

Standards, ifany, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

2003-05-31 1. IS 228 (pt . 22): 2003- Methods of chemical analysis of steels Part22: Determination of total hydrogen in steel by thermal conductivity method (hydrogen 0.1 ppm to 50 ppm)

2003-05-31 2. IS 228 (Part. 23) : 2003- Methods of chemical analysis of steels Part23 : Determination of total nitrogen in steel by optical emission spectrometer (Nitrogen 0.002 to 1.0 . percent)

2003-05-31 3. IS 228 (Part. 24): 2003- Methods of chemical analysis of steels Part24: Determination of nitrogen in steel by inert gas fusion thermal conductivity method (Nitrogen 0.001 to 0.2 . percent )

2003-05-31

IS397: 1999

4. IS 397 (Part . 0) : 2003- Methods for statistical quality control during production Part0 : Guidelines for selection ofcontrol charts (FirstRevision)

3534Gl/2003-5 7466

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2003 / AGRAHAYANΑ 15 , 1925

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

4 5. IS 417 (Part. 1) : 2003-

2003-06-30

IS 417 (Pt 1 ) : 1974

Footballs , volleyballs , basketballs , netballs , throwballs and water-

polo balls---specification

Part 1 : Footballs

( Fourth Revision)

6. IS 550 (Part . 1) : 2003-

2003-07-31

IS 550 (Pt 1) : 1991

Safes

Part1 : Specification

(FouthRevision)

7. IS 616 : 2003-

IS616 1986

2003-04-30 Audio, video and similar electronic apparatus- safety requirements

(Third Revision)

8. IS 940 : 2003-

IS 940 : 1989

2003-05-31 Portable fire extinguisher , water type ( gas cartidge)-specification

(FourthRevision)

9. IS1151 : 2003-

IS1115: 1969

2003-06-30 Refined sugar-specification

(Second Revision)

10. IS 1152 : 2003-

IS 1152 : 1992

2003-06-30 Icing sugar-specification

(Second Revision)

11. IS 1191 : 2003-

IS 1191 : 1971

2003-04-30 Hydrometric determinations-vocabulary

and symbols

(Second Revision)

12. IS 1559 (Pt. 5): 2003-

2003-05-31

IS 1559 (Pt 5): 1982

Chemical analysis of ferrosilicon

Part5 : ( aluminium 0.05 to 1. 75 percent )

(Second Revision)

13. IS 1855 : 2003-

IS 1855 : 1977

2003-07-31 Standed steel wire ropes for winding and man-riding haulages in mines-specification

(Second Revision)

14. IS 2721 : 2003-

IS 2721 : 1964

2003-07-31 Glvanzed steel chain link fence fabric- specification

(Second Revision)

15. IS 3025 (Pt56) : 2003-

2003-06-30 Methods of sampling and test (physical and chemical) for water and wastewater

Part 56 : Selenium

(FirstRevision)

16. IS 3096 : 2003-

IS 3096: 1965

2003-06-30 Finegrade palladium-specification)

(FirstRevision) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

74674

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

17. IS 3633 : 2003-

Black tea-specification (Second Revision)

18. IS 3917 : 2003-

scoop type bed material samplers- specification

(FirstRevision)

19. IS 4351 : 2003-

Steel door frames-specification

(Second Revision )

20. IS 4392 : 2003-

Textiles Hand- made NAMDHAS- specification

(FirstRevision)

21. IS4622 : 2003-

Recommedations for structural design of fixed-wheel gates

(ThirdRevision)

22. IS 4926 : 2003-

Ready-mixed concrete code of practice ( Second Revision)

23. IS 4989 (Pt . 4) : 2003-

Multipurpose agueous film forming foam liquid concentrate for extinguishing hydrocarbon and polar solvent fires- specification

24. IS 5542 : 2003-

Guide for storm analysis

(FirstRevision)

25. IS 5800 : 2003-

Orange juice preserved exclusively by physical means-specification

26. IS 5975 : 2003-

Raw Sugar-Specification

(FirstRevision)

27. IS 5982 : 2003-

Plantation white sugar-Specification (FirtRevision)

28. IS 6200 (Pt 1 ) : 2003-

Statistical tests of significance

Part 1: Normal

T-AND F-tests

(Third Revision)

29. IS 6347 : 2003-

Textiles-polythylene monofilament twines for fishing-Specification

(FirstRevision)

30. IS6812 : 2003-

Kneejoint, uniaxial for below knee pros- theses-Specification

(Second Revision )

IS 3633 : 1972

2003-06-30 IS 3917 : 1966

2003-06-30 IS4351 : 1976

2003-05-31 IS4392: 1967

2003-04-30 IS4622: 1992

2003-05-31 IS4926 : 1976

2003-05-30

2003-05-31 IS 5542: 1969

2003-05-31 IS5800 : 1979

2003-07-30

2003-06-30 IS 5975 : 1970

IS5982 : 1970

2003-06-30

2003-06-30 IS 6200 (Pt 1 ) : 1995

2003-06-30 IS6347 : 1971

2003-07-31 IS6812 : 1972 7468

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2003/AGRAHAYANA 15, 1925

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

2003-06-30

IS 7016 (Pt 9) : 1988

31. IS 7016 (Pt 9 ): 2003-

Methods of test for coated and treated fabrics

Part 9 : Rubber-or plastics-coated fabrics-determination of blocking resistance

(Second Revision )

2003-06-30

ISS7016 (Pt 13): 1987

32. IS7016 (Pt13) : 2003-

Methods of test for coated and treated fabrics

Part 13: Rubber or plastics coated fabrics-determination of crush resistance

(FirstRevision)

2003-06-30

IS 7016 (Pt 14) : 1987

33. IS 7016 (Pt 14) : 2003-

Methods of test for coated and treated fabrics

Part14 : Rubber-or plastics-coated fabrics-lowtemperature impact test (FirstRevision)

2003-04-30

IS7356 (Pt2) : 1993

34. IS 7356 (Pt2) : 2003-

Installation, observation and maintenance of instruments for pore pressure measurements inearth and rockfill dams-code ofparactice

Part 2: Twin tube hydraulic piezometers

(Second Revision )

2003-05-31

IS7373 : 1985

35. IS 7373 : 2003-

Hip disarticulation joint unit for lower lime prosthetic fitments-Specification

(Second Revision)

2003-06-30

IS7533 : 1975

36. IS 7533 : 2003-

textiles polyamide (nylon ) monofilament line for fishing- Specification

(FirstRevision)

2003-05-31

IS 7732 : 1975

37. IS7732 : 2003-

Apple juice preserved exclusively by physical means- Specification

(FirstRevision)

2003-06-30

IS 8331 : 1993

38. IS 8331 : 2003-

Textiles angola shirting- Specification

(Second Revision )

2003-05-31

IS8389 : 1983

39. IS8389 : 2003-

Installation and use of raingauges , recording- code ofpractice

(Second Revision)

2003-05-31

IS8713 : 1978

40. IS8713 : 2003-

Mango juice preserved exclusively by plijysical means-Specification

(FirstRevision) [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

7469

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6 , 2003/अग्रहायण 15 , 1925

41. IS 8833 : 2003-

Cocoabeans-determination of moisture content (routine method)

(FirstRevision)

42. IS 9314 : 2003-

Cocoabeans-sampling

(FirstRevision)

43. IS 9537 (Pt. 8) : 2003- Conduits for electrical installations- Specification

Part8 :Rigid non-threadable conduits of aluminium alloy

44. IS9755 : 2003-

Textiles-High density polyethylene (HDPE)/ propylene (PP) woven sacks for packing fertilizers Specification

(Fourth Revision)

45. IS 10085 : 2003-

Chemical analysis of zircon flour or sand (FirstRevision)

46. IS 10434 ( Pt 1) : 2003-

Installation , maintenance and observation ofdeformation measuring devices in concrete and masonry dams-guidelines

Part 1: Resistance typejointmeters

(FirstRevision)

47. IS 12664 (Pt 1) 2003

Artificial limbs- Sach foot for lower extremity prostheses

Part 1 : Design and dimensions (FirstRevision)

48. IS 12933 (Pt 1) : 2003-

Solar flat plate collector-Specification Part 1: Requirements (Second Revision)

49. IS 12933 (Pt2) : 2003-

Solar flat plate collector-Specification Part2: Components (Second Revision)

50. IS 12933 (Part 3 ) : 2003-

Solar flat plate collector-Specification Part3: Measuring instruments (FirstRevision)

51. IS 12933 (Pt5) : 2003-

Solar flat plate collector-Specification Part 5: Test, Methods (SecondRevision)

52. IS 13252 : 2003-

Information technology equipment-safety- general requirements (FirstRevision)

IS8833 : 1978

2003-04-30 IS9314 : 1979

2003-04-30

2003-04-30 IS9755 : 1999

2003-06-30 IS 10085 : 1982

2003-06-30

2003-04-30 IS 10434 (Pt 1) : 1982

2003-07-31 IS 12664 (Pt 1): 1989

2003-06-30 IS 12933 (Pt 1) : 1992

2003-06-30 IS 12933 (Pt 2) : 1992

2003-06-30 IS 12933 (Pt 3 ): 1990

2003-07-31 IS 12933 (Pt 5) : 1990

2003-04-30 IS 13252 : 1992 7470

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2003/ AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 2

2003-04-30 53. IS 13452 (Pt 5) : 2003-

IS13452 (Pt 5) : 1992

Chemical analysis of ferrochromium Part5: Determination of chromium in high carbonferrochromium/chargechromeby dichromate titration (FirstRevision)

2003-04-30 54. IS 13452 (Part 7) : 2003-

Chemical analysis of ferrochromium Part7: Determination of phosphorus in ferrochromium/chargechrome by alkalimetric method

55. IS 14252 : 2003-

IS 14252 : 1995

2003-07-31 Textiles-High density polyethylene (HDPE) /polypropylene (PP) woven sack for filling sand-Specification (FirstRevision)

2003-07-31 56. IS 15086 (Pt. 3) : 2003-

Serge arrecters Part 3 : Artificial pollution Testing of surge arresters

57. IS 15140 : 2003-

2003-05-31 Automotive vehicles- Safety belt assembly- Specification

2003-04-30

IS275 , IS 1018 IS 4230 , IS 4231

58. IS 15275 : 2003- Padlocks-Specification

& IS 1297

59. IS 15293 : 2003-

2003-04-30 Aerospace- nuts , self- locking, with maximum operating temperature less than or equal to 425 ° C-procurement Specification

60. IS 15303 : 2003-

2003-05-31 Determination of antimony, iron and selenium in water by electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometric method

61. IS 15305 (Pt. 3) : 2003-

2003-04-30 Natural gas-calculation of compression factor Part 3: Calculation using physical properties

62. IS 15321 : 2003-

2003-05-31 Molten metal splash protective hoods-Specification

63. IS 15322 : 2003-

2003-06-30 Particle filters used in respiratory protective equipment- Specification

64. IS 15323 : 2003-

2003-06-30 Gasfilters and combined filters used in respiratory protective equipment- Specification 7471 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15 , 1925

4 65. IS 15324 : 2003-

2003-06-30 Ship building-selection and testing of air starting systems- codeofpractice

66. IS 15325 : 2003-

2003-06-30 Design and installation of fixed automatichigh and medium velocity water spray system- codeofpractice

2003-06-30 67. IS 15326 (Pt. 1) : 2003-

Quality requirements for welding- fusionwelding of metallic materials Part 1 : Guidelines for selection and use

2003-06-30 68. IS 15326 (Pt. 2) : 2003-

Quality requirements for welding- fusionwelding of metallic materials Part 2 : Comprehensive quality requirements

2003-06-30 69. IS 15326 (Pt 3 ) : 2003-

Quality requirements for welding- fusion of metallic materials

Part3 : Standards quality requirements

2003-06-30 70. IS 15326 (Pt 4): 2003-

Quality requirements for welding ofmetallic materials Part4:Elementary quality requirements

2003-05-31 71. IS 15327 : 2003-

1 Welding coordination- task and responsibilities

2003-07-31 72. IS 15328 : 2003-

Unplasticized non-pressure polyvinyl chloride ( pvc -u) pipes for use in underground drainage and sewerage systems- specification

2003-05-31 73. IS 15336 : 2003-

Textiles Acrylic yarn for hosiery- specification

2003-05-31 74 IS 15337: 2003-

Coaltar based anticorrosion tape forprotection of underground mild steel pipelines-specification

2003-05-31 75. IS 15338 : 2003-

Spectrometric analysis of cast iron bydirect reading optical emission vacuum spectrometer-point to plane technique 7472

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2003/AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

76. IS 15339 : 2003-

2003-07-31 Public library-guidelines

2003-06-30 77. IS 15340 : 2003--

Coirfelt-specification

78. IS 15345 : 2003-

2003-05-31 Installation of frameless door and window shutters- code of practice

2003-05-31 79. IS 15346 : 2003-

Method for sensory evaluation ofpanner /chhana

80. IS 15347: 2003-

2003-05-31 Malted milk food-method for sensory evaluation

2003-05-31 81. IS 15348 : 2003-

Method for sensory evaluation ofshrikhand

2003-05-31 82. IS 15349 : 2003-

Ice cream-method for sensory evaluation

2003-05-31 83. IS 15350 : 2003-

Automotive vehicles-ignition systems-methods of test

84. IS 15352: 2003-

2003-05-31 Liquid flow measurement in open channels -position fixing equipment for hydrometric boats

85. IS 15353 : 2003-

2003-06-30 Liquid flow measurement in open channels by weirs and flumes-v- shaped broad- crested weirs

86. IS 15354 : 2003-

2003-07-31 Single-use rubber examination gloves-specification

87. IS 15355 : 2003-

2003-07-31 Rubber hose and hose assemblies for liquid petroleum gas in motor vehicles-specification

88. IS 15356 : 2003-

2003-06-30 Acetaldehyde- specification

2003-06-30 89. IS 15357 (Pt 1) : 2003-

Photography -- projection in indoor rooms

Part1: Screen illumination test for stillprojectors

2003-06-30 90. IS 15357 (Pt 2) : 2003-

Photography-projection in indoor rooms

Part2 : Screen luminance test for still and video projection 7473 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2003-06-30 91. IS 15357 (S15357 (Pt 3 ): 2003-

Photography-projection in indoor rooms Part3: Classification oftransmitting projection screens and measurement oftheir transmitted luminance levels

2003-07-31 92. IS 15358 : 2003-

Liquid flow measurement in open channels-flow measurements under ice conditions

2003-07-31 93. IS 15359 : 2003-

Hydrometric determinations- measurement of suspended sediment transport in tidal channels

2003-05-31 94. IS 15360 : 2003- Measurement of liquid flow in open channels-bed material sampling

2003-07-31 95. IS 15361 : 2003-

Raw natural rubber- ribbed smoked sheets (RSS )- guidelines

2003-07-31 96. IS 15366 : 2003- Dolomite for paint industry- specification

2003-07-31 97. IS 15368 : 2003-

Cable reels for household and similar purposes

2003-07-31 98. IS 15369 : 2003-

Code ofpractice for construction ofvault (Strong- room)

2003-06-30 99. IS 15377 : 2003-

Digital set top box for direct -to -home (DTH) services-sepcification

2003-06-30 100. IS 15386 : 2003-

Pressurized irrigation systems- graphic symbols

2003-07-31 101. IS 15391 : 2003-

Cold rolled non-oriented electrical steel sheet and strip - semi- processed type-specification

2003-07-31 102. IS 15392 : 2003-

Aluminium and aluminium alloy bare foil for food packaging-specification

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

[No. CMD-I/ 13: 2]

M.A.U. KHAN , Dy. Director General (Marks) 3534 G1 /2003-6 7474

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2003 /AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

श्रम मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 7 नवम्बर , 2003

का. आ. 3326.- 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- II , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 54/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-11-03 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं० एल-20012/75/96- आई.आर. ( सी- I) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF LABOUR

New Delhi , the 7th November, 2003 S.O. 3326. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes , Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 54/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- 11 . 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 6-11-03 .

[ No. L -20012/ 75/96 -IR (C-I) ]

S.S. GUPTA , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer

fu the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10( 1) ( d) of 1.D. Act , 1947.

REFERENCE NO . 54 OF 1997

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of Sijua Arca of M/ s . BCCL and their workman , APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman Shri S. N. Goswami , Advocate.

Onbehalf of the employers Shri H. Nath ,

Advocate

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal Dated , Dhanbad the October, 2003 .

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1) ( d) of the I.D. Act . , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 20012 / 75 / 96 - IR ( C - I ) dated the 1st May, 1997.

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

"Whether the demand of the Union is justified that Sri Samsuddin Mia , " General Mazdoor " is eligible for change of his designation as " Compressor Operator" with Grade " A" pay w.e.f. 4-2-1987 ? If so, to what relief is the workmen entitled ? "

2. The case of the concerned workman according to Written statement submitted by the sponsoring Union on hisbehalf in brief is as follows :-

Y It has been submitted that the concerned workman was initially appointed as " General Mazdoor " at Mudidih collieryunder Sijua Area No. V. under the management in the year 1971. They submitted that subsequently management changing his service condition assigned the concerned workman to perform duty as Compressor Operator by issuing authorisation letterdt. 4-2-88 under clause 36 of the Mines Regulation and appointed him at 6/10 quarry/OCP Modidih colliery and being appointed he started performing his duty as compressor Operator with effect from 4-2-88 regularly on sanctioned post . They submitted that the nomenclature and categorisation ofjob assignment of " Compressor operater" as recommended by the Wage Board is in Grade A Pay scale but the management exploiting his service as compressor operator used to pay him wages as per Category I , General Mazdoor arbitrarily and illegally and violating the principle of natural justice . Accordingly he submitted several representations to the management requesting them to change his designation as Compressor operator and to pay him wages as per that pay scale but the management intentionally deprived him from enjoying that designation and pay scale and thereby victimised him. In the circumstances he raised an industrial dispute for conciliatiort which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication . The concerned workman accordingly submitted his prayer to pass award with direction to the management to designate him as Compressor operator with Grade A pay scale w.e.f. 4-2-88 and difference of wages which he received as Cat . I General Mazdoor inspite of his rendering service as Compressor Operator .

3. Management on the contrary after filing written statement -cum - rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring Union asserted in the written statement on behalf of the concerned workman . They admitting the fact of concerned workman's employment as General Mazdoor in Cat . I submitted that in the year 1988 he was deployed as compressor operator atOCP, Mudidih colliery and worked in that capacitytill 1993. They submitted that the job of compressor Operator was purely temporary in nature and when the compressor was stopped in the year 1993 he was reverted back to his original post of General Mazdoor. They further submitted that as the work of compressor has been stopped there was no scope ofhis regularisation as Compressor Operator 7475 भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 6 , 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

and for which demand for his regularisation as Compressor Operator is baseless and for which he is not entitled to get any relief.

4. The points to be decided are :-

"Whether the demand of the Union is justified that Sri Samsuddin Mia , " General Mazdoor " is eligible for change of his designation as " Compressor Operator " with Grade ' A' pay w.e.f. 4-2-1988 ? If so , to what relief is the workman entitled ? "

FINDING WITH REASONS

5. It transpires from the record that the concerned workman in order to substantiate his claim examined himself as witness in this case while management also examined one witness as MW - 1 in support of their case . Considering the facts disclosed in the pleading of both sides I find no dispute to hold that the concerned workman got his appointment as General Mazdoor in Cat . I at Mudidih colliery under Sijua area No. V under the management. It is the contention of the concerned workman that the management under clause 36 ofMines Regulations , 1957 issued lettersdt . 4-2-88 to him appointing him as Compressor Operator at 6/10 Quarry/OCP Mudidih colliery and accordingly with effect from 4-2-98 he started performing his duty at 6/10 OCP, Mudidih colliery as Compressor Operator and in that capacity he continuously worked there for years together. His first contention is that inspite of his rendering service continuously for years together management did not consider to regularise him in the said post though he submitted repeated representations . His second contention is that the post of compressor is in Cat . A and the management though exploited his service for years together as compressor operator did not consider necessary to pay difference of wages for his service rendered by him . He alleged that the management although paid him wages of Cat. I General Mazdoor inspite of his rendering service as compressor operator.

disclosed in para- 3 of the written statement -cum - rejoinder filed by the management submitted that MW - 1 deposed falsely before the Tribunal to the effect that the concerned workman did not work continuously as Compressor Operator. Para 3 of the written statement- cum - rejoinder speaks clearly that the concerned workman in the year 1988 was deployed as Compressor Operator at OCP, Mudidih colliery and he continued to work in this capacity till 1993. Therefore , the facts disclosed in para - 3 of the W.S. -cum-rejoinder speaks clearly that as Compressor Operator he rendered his service continuously till 1993 . MW- 1 during his evidence though denied this fact has failed to produce the log book to show that service rendered by the concerned workman as Compressor Operator was not continuous . It is seen that for long five years the concerned workman continuously discharged his duties as Compressor operator . It is the contention of the concerned workman that his service was deployed by the management as Compressor Operator against regular vacancy . To rebut this claim management, have failed to produce any cogent paper. There is no dispute to hold that the concerned workman temporarily was appointed as compressor operator. Temporary appointment does not mean to , interpret that a workman shall remain temporary for years together in the matter of discharging his duties particularly if it is not established that for any particular project which is for a limited period he got his appointment . It is the specific contention ofthe concerned workman that against regular vacancy managment gave his appointment . From the record I have failed to find out any material on the part of the managemnt about denial of this fact excepting the fact that the compressor work was stopped in the year 1993. During hearing management have failed to produce any paper to show that compressor work was stopped in the year 1993. On the contrary from the documents marked as Ext. W- 2 to W- 2 (4 ) shows clearly thatthe concerned workman , during the period of 1993 and 1994 submitted representations to the management for his regularisation as Compressor Operator while he was very much discharging his duties . All the representations were duly received by the management as it bears official number and endorsement . As the management have failed to produce any material papers to rebut the claim of the concerned workman there is sufficient reason to consider that he discharged his duties as Compressor Operator till 1994. MW- 1 during his evidence has raised question about competency of the Manager about giving appointment of the concerned workman as Compressor Operator. He submitted that Director , Technical was the competent authority to give any such appointment . Management in the Written statement -cum -rejoinder did not raise this issue. As such the management through evidence of MW- 1 intended to incorporate a new story. Apart from this face Sec .36 of the Coal Mines Regulations is clear that Manager was competent enough to appoint any workman for securing his service . It is seen that at the time ofexploitation The concerned workman in course of his evidence relied on the appointment letter issued by the Manager under clause 36 of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957. The appointment letter shows that his appointment as Compressor Operator at 6/10 Quarry was temporary in nature . On the part of the management evidence is forthcoming to the effect that the appointment letter in question issued under signature of the Manager was manaufactured one . Accordingly I do not find any scope to raise any question about authenticity of the appointment letter in question. It is seen that appointment of the concerned workman was temporary in nature. It is the specific claim of the concerned workman that till 1998 he discharged his duties as Compressor Operator continuosły . MW 1 in course of his evidence categorically denied that the concerned workman continuosly worked as Compressor Operator from 4-2-88 to Dec. 1993. Learned Advocate for the concerned workman referring the fact 7476

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2003/AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

how the concerned workman was exploited and how vindictively he was reverted back to his original post without receiving slightest benefit inspite of exerting higher responsibility for years together .

of the service of the concerned workman as Compressor Operator this question relating to competency of the manager was not raised. It was only raised when the concerned workman to redress his grievance raised the industrial dispute .

Accordingly after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances I hold that the concerned workman is entitled to get relief according to his prayer. In the result , the following Award is rendered:-

"The demand of the Union is justified that Sri Samsuddin Mia , " General Mazdoor " is eligible for change ofhis designation as " Compressor Operator " with Grade ' A' pay w.e.f. 4-2-1988 . Consequently, the concerned workman is entitled to the following relief:-

(1) He is to be regularised to the post of Compressor Operator with effect from the date of such appointment and his wages should be fixed in the minimum grade .

(2) Management will pay difference of wages duringtheperiod of his service as Compressor Operator till the date of his reverting back to hisoriginal post of Genl. Mazdoor Cat. I. 6.After careful consideration ofall materials on record I find nodisputeto hold that the concerned workman though got his initial appointment as General Mazdoor cat . I subsequently in the year 1988 was appointed as Compressor Operator on temporary basis . It is the specific allegation of the concerned workman that management for years together continuously though exploited his service as Compressor Operator never paid him wages in that category. On the contrary they although paid him wages as General Mazdoor in Cat . I. Even they did not consider necessary to pay difference of wages . In course of hearing management have failed to produce as single scrap ofpaper rebutting his claim . The appointment letter Ext. W - 1does not speak anything that the concerned workman will be debarred from enjoying the grade of compressor Operator in course of his discharging duties as such . Therefore , there is sufficient scope to say that decision of the managment not to pay difference ofwages to the concerned workman was illegal , arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice when it has been established that for years together he acted as Compressor Operator being appointed by the management.

The management is directed to implement the Award within three months from the date of publication of the Award in the Gazette of India in the light of the observation made above.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 नवम्बर, 200.

7. There is reason to believe that a lay man cannot be appointed as Compressor Operator without having any knowledge to operate the machine . As management considered him competent he was appointed for the said post. No evidence is forth coming that during long years of rendering his service as Compressor Operator he was found incompetent. Therefore , with all competency he discharged his duties as Compressor Operator .

का. आ. 3327. 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 केबीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II, धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 168/1991 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-11-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-20012/177/91 - आई.आर. (सी-1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 7th November, 2003

S.O. 3327.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes , Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 168/91 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- II , 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 received by the Central Government on 6-11-2003.

[No. L -20012/ 177/ 91 -IR (C -I) ] S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

8.As no evidence is forthcoming that there was no regular vacancy of compressor operator under the management it shouild be taken into consideration that he was appointed as compressor operator against regular vacancy though his initial appointment was on temporary basis . As the appointment of the concerned workman was not against a job of limited period there is no scope to consider that for unlimited period he was liable to discharge is duties temporarily as Compressor Operator. It is seen that the moment when the concerned workman raised his voice for his regularisation as Compressor Operator and demanded the wages as per that post he was reverted back. The letter of appointment does not include any such clause of reversion . There is also no allegation that the concerned workman was absolutely incompetent to discharge his duties as Compressor Operator. The only offence which he committed is that he demanded for his regularisation along with pay scale . The attitude of the management I should say was not only illegal and arbitrary but also it violated the principle of natural justice . Their act has exposed clearly 7477 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

Shri B. Biswas ,

PresidingOfficer.

Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 168 of 1991

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Bhatdih Collicry of M/s . BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

: Shri Surendra Prasad

Onbehalf ofthe workman

Authorised

Representative.

On behalf of the employers : Shri H. Nath, Advocate

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad the 15th October, 2003 .

AWARD

was no necessity for the same as his age was duly recorded inForm- A of Coal Mines Provident Fund and in his school leaving certificate. They alleged that Medical Board illegally and arbitrarily ignoring his age recorded in the Form A as well as in the School leaving certificate assessed his age to be 60 years and thereafter on the basis of that report management stopped him from work with effect from 13-3-87. As the decision of the management in stopping the concerned workman from his work was absolutely of unfair labour practice they took up the matter with the management at different levels and ultimatly the manage- ment accepting the date of birth recorded in the Form A register as well as in the School Leaving certificate reinstated him in service with effect from 12-6-89 . They submitted that during the period from 13-3-87 to 11-6-89 the concerned workman was stopped from his regular service illegally arbitrarily and violating the principle of natural justice and thus he was deprived of getting his wages during that period for no fault of him . After reinstatement when the concerned workman placed his demand for wages during the period in question the management refused to consider his prayer . Accordingly he raised an Industrial Dispute through his sponsoring Unionbefore the ALC (C) for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication . Accordingly, the concerned workman submitted his prayer to pass award directing the management to pay wages and allowances for the period from 13-3-87 to 11-6-89 holding that he was in service at that time .

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L - 20012/ 177/91 - IR ( Coal - I) dated, the 9th December , 1991.

SCHEDULE

3.Management on the contrary after filing written statement -cum - rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring Union asserted in the written statement on behalf of the concerned workman . They submitted that the concerned workman was a Sand Munshi at Bhatdih Colliery, They disclosed that the concerned workman was superannuated from his service. On the basis of the report of the Medical Board age determination committee held on 31-1-87 as his age was assessed as 60 years as on 31-1-87.

"Whether the management of Bhatdih Colliery in Mohuda Area No. 2 of M/ s . Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. isjustified in denying payment ofwages to Shri Ram Milan Sahi , Sand Munshi for the period from 13-3-87 to 11-6-89? If not , to what relief is the workmen is entitled ?"

2. The case of the concerned workmen according to the Written statement submitted by the sponsoring Union on his behalf in brief is as follows :-

It has been submitted by the sponsoring Union that the concerned workman was a Sand Munshi at Bhatdih Colliery. They sumitted that during 1987-88 the management took unilateral step to reduce manpower by forcibly sending workmen to company's Medical Board in order to get them declared attendance of 60 years of age . Accordingly, by letter dated 21-1-87 the concerned workman was forced to appear before the Company's Medical Board for assessment of his age although there

Thereafter the sponsoring Union took up this dispute with the Director (Personnel ) and it was decided that age recorded in the School Leaving certificate of the concerned workman should be considered as final and accordingly his age was verified from the Board of High School and Intermediate Examination , Allahabad, U.P. The deputy Secretary of that Board vide his letter No. 787/88-89/4447 dated 10-3-89 intimated that the date of birth of the concernedworkman in the register was recorded as 1-8-35. Accordingly, on the basis of that report the concerned workman was allowed to resume his duty with effect from 12-6-89 . They submitted that since the concerned workman didnotwork from 13-6-87 to 11-6-89 no wages was paid to him rightly and for which he is not entitled to get any relief. Accordingly management submitted their prayer to pass award rejecting the claim of the workman.

7478

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2003 /AGRAHAYAΝΑ 15 , 1925 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] 4. The points to be decided in this reference are:----

"Whether the management of Bhatdee Colliery in Mohuda Area No. 2 of M/s . Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. isjustified in denying payment of wages to Shri Ram Milan Sahi , Sand Munshi for the period from 13-3-87 to 11-6-89? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

FINDING WITH REASONS

workman was sent to the Medical Board for assessment of his age . They submitted that as the Medical Board assessed the age of the concerned workman as 60 years as on 31-1-87 he was superannuated from his service with effect from 13-3-87. However, on receiving report from the School Board he was reinstated in service on 11-6-87 accepting his date of birth as on 1-8-35 . They submitted that the concerned workman before his date of superannuation relying on the report of the Medical Board failed to produce any authentic paper relating to his date ofbirth as 1-8-35 .

Y 5. Considering the evidence of both sides and also considering materials on record I find no dispute to hold that the concerned workman was appointed as Munshi by the management of Bhatdee Colliery in the year 1977. The concerned workman in course of his evidence categorically disclosed that not only in the CMPF declaration Form 'A' his date of birth was recorded as 1-8-35 but also in his admit card the same date of birth was recorded. He disclosed that he appeared in the Matericulation examination but could not pass the said examination . He submitted that before appearing in the said examination School Board issued Admit card to him wherein his date of birth was recorded as 1-8-35 . He alleged that inspite ofdisclosing his date ofbirth as 1-8-35 relying on declaration Form A and aiso the Admit card management did not consider necessary to record the same in the official register. On the contrary they asked him to appear before the Medical Board for assessment of his age . He submitted that as per order of the management he was compelled to appear before the Medical Board on 31-1-87 and on the same day said Medical Board assessed his age as 60 years as on 31-1-87 and superannuated him from his service with effect from 13-3-87 illegally arbitrarily and violating the principle of natural justice prior to his actual date of superannuation. He disclosed that thereafter , when the sponsoring Union took up this matter with the management they agreed to accept his date of birth as 1-8-35 and reinstate him to his service on 11-6-89 . He disclosed that for the arbitrary act of the management he remained idle for the period from 13-3-87 to 11-5-89 and for which he was deprived of getting his wages . The management in course of hearing admitted that to verify the date of birth of the concerned workman as recorded in the admit card called for a report from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education , Allahabad vide letter No. 787/88-89/4447 dated 10-3-89 and the Board in reply confirmed the date of birth of the concerned workman as 1-8-35 and submitted particulars to that effect which in course of the evidence of MW - 1 was marked as Ext. M - 1 . This document speaks clearly that the concerned workman appeared in the examination conducted by the Board in the year 1953 and his date of birth was recorded as 1-8-35. Therefore, it is clear that long before his appointment as Munshi under the management the concerned workman appeared in the said examination.

6. It is the contention of the management that as no date of birth was recorded either in the Form B Register or in the declaration Form-A of the C.M.P.F. the concerned

7. In this connection the question which has been cropped up is on whom the responsibility to rest to verify the age of a workman at the time ofgetting his employment . JBCCI Circular No. 76 is very much clear on this point . It has been specifically mentioned that if a workman fails to produce any credible paper in support of his age at the time of his entry in the service his age in that circumstances should be assessed by the Medical Board and decision to that effect should be considered as final . It is seen that the concerned workman joined the management in the year 1977. The work of a Munshi cannot be carried on by an illeterate person . Therefore , definitely before entry in the service it was the bounded duty of the management to consider his qualification . If the submission of the management is taken into consideration it should be presumed that they did not check any paper relating to his qualification at the time of his entry in the service . No ' satisfactory explanation is also forthcoming why the management did not verify the age of the concerned workman at the time of his entry in the service. It is the statutory provision that all column of the Form B register should be filled in while a workman gets his appointment . Management admitted that the column meant for recording ageof the concerned workman was left blank . This should be considered as gross deriliction of duty but the management have failed to give any satisfactory explanation to that effect . No satisfactory explanation also is forthcoming why after long years of service the concerned workman was placed before Medical Board for assessment ofhis age . In clause E of the JBCCI Circular it speaks clearly that " Medical Board constituted for determination of age will be required to assess the age in accordance with the requirment of Medical Jurisprudence" and the " Medical Board will as far as possible indicate the accurate age assessed and not approximatley" . Management though relying on the report of the Medical Board superannuated the concerned workman from his service long before his actual date of superannuation did not consider necessary to produce the report before the Tribunal incourse of hearing to consider if the said medical test of the concerned workman was held following Medical Jurisprudence . Again According to clause A (ii ) of the said circular it transpires that in the case of appointees who have pursued studies in a recognised educational institution, his date of birth recorded in the school leaving 7479 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6 , 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

Ihold that theperiod of idleness i.e. from 13-3-87 to 11-6-89 should be considered as on duty period and he is very much entitled to get wages and other consequential relief for that period . I hold that in the circumstances the concerned workman shall be victimised for the arbirtary act of the management . Accordingly , the concerned workman is entitled to get relief in view of his prayer.

In the result, the following Award is rendered:-

certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances provided the same was issued prior to the date of employment. It is seen that the concerned workman got his employment in the year 1977. Whereas he appeared in the Matriculation examination in the year 1953 i.e. long before getting his employment he appeared in the said examination and his date of birth in his Admit card was recorded as 1-8-35. Therefore, according to JBCCI circular his date of birth recorded in the said Admit card shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances .

"The management of Bhatdee Colliery in Mohuda AreaNo. 2 ofM/s . Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. is justified in denying payment ofwages to Shri Ram Milan Sahi , SandMunshi for the period from 13-3-87 to 11-6-89 . Consequently, he is entitled to get wages for the period from 13-3-87 to 11-6-89 . "

The management is directed to implement the Award within three months from the date of publication of the Award in the Gazette of India in the light of the observation made above.

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 7 नवम्बर, 2003

8. It is the contention of the management that the concerned workman did not produce the said Admit card before he was sent to Medical Board for assessment of his age. On the contrary the contention of the concerned workman is that not only he placed his record to the management , Before he was sent to Medical Board but beforeMedical Board he also produced the same record in support of the proof of his date of birth but neither the "anagement nor the Medical Board paid any heed to his appeal . The concerned workman in course of his evidence categorically mentioned that in the declaration Form A of the C.M.P.F. his date ofbirth was recorded as 1-8-35 though management denied it . However , in course of hearing management did not consider necessary to produce the said declaratrion Form A to establish their claim . Accordingly, there is no scope to draw any inference in suopport of the claim of the management .

का० आ० 3328.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II, धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 105/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-11-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल -20012/36/98 - आई.आर. ( सी-1 ) ] एस० एस० गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 7th November , 2003

S.O. 3328. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes , Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 105/99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- II , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relationto the management of CCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-11-2003.

[No. L -20012/36/98 - IR (C+I) ] S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

Shri B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer.

Considering all facts and circumstances , I hold that there was no reason to suppress the record wherein his date of birth was recorded . It is not at all believable that the concerned workman started his agitation only after he was superannuated by the management relying on Medical report . On the contrary there is sufficient scope to draw conclusion that it was the management who have exposed their gross negligence in recording age of the concerned workman froin the very beginning of his service . It is seen that under active interference of the Director ( Personnel ) the admit card of the concerned workman was checked and when its genuinity was proved he was reinstated in service . There was scope for verification of that certificate by the management at an early date but instead of doing so they ignoring the claim of the workman following short method placed him before Medical Board for assessment of his age and thereafter on the basis of the report he was superannuated from service long before actual date of his superannuation and for which he had to remain idle for about two years . I find sufficent reason to believe that for the arbitrary act of the management the concerned workman remained idle for the period from 13-3-87 to 11-6-89 and therefore this period should be treated as part of his service period. It is seen that management not only arbitrarily superannuated the concerned workman from his service butalso illegally deprived him from his work. Accordingly,

Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of 1.D.Act , 1947 .

7480

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2003 / AGRAHAYANΑ 15 , 1925

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii )] Reference No. 105 of 1999

reinstate the as concerned workman in service setting aside the order of dismissal along with back wages and other consequential relief.

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Pindara Colliery of M/ s . CCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the workman : None

Management on the contrary after filing written statement-cum- rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in the writteen statement on behalf of the concerned workman.

Onbehalf of the employers Shri S. Jamal , Sr. P.O.

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad the 13th October, 2003 .

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act . , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/ 36/98 - IR ( C- I ) dated, the 29th January, 1999 .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Pindra Colliery of M/ s. CCL , P.O. Topa, Distt . Hazaribagh in terminating the services of Sri Soma Bhuiya PR workerw.e.f. 26-3-1993 is legal andjustified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?"

2. The case of the concerned workmen according to the written statement submitted by the sponsoring Union onhis behalf in brief is as follows :-

The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workman was terminated from his service all on a sudden without giving any notice and also without following any procedure of law. They submitted that the Project Officer was neither the appointing authority nor could have been considered as Disciplinary Authority. Therefore , the impugned order of termination was unauthorised invalid and inoperative.

They submitted that the concerned workman started absenting from his duties with effect from 19-1-1992 without permission and information and without sufficient cause . He was issued chargesheetdt . 16-11-92 for commission of misconduct of unauthorised absence from duty under signature of the colliery manager who is competent authority to issue chargesheet to workman working in a coal mine as the concerned workman was a piece rated worker. They submitted that even after issuance of chartgesheet the concerned workman did not consider necessary to submit his reply. Thereafter on directon of the Agent/Project Officer of the colliery Mr. R. R. Prosad Senior P. O. took up hearing on domestic enquiry as Enquiry Officer. They submitted that before taking up hearing on domestic enquiry the said Enquiry Officer repeatedly issued notice to the concerned workman at his parmanent and present local address by regd . post butinspite of repeated issuance of notice he did not turn up and for which the Enquiry Officer took up hearing on domestic enquiry exparte and after completion of enquiry proceeding the submitted his report to the disciplinary authority holding the concerned workman guilty to the charges brought against him and the disciplinary authority after considering the report and consulting all relevant papers terminated the concerned workman from service vide letter dt. 26-3-93 . They submitted that the concerned workman did not bother for his service and did not approach the management even after termination of his service and the present demand raised by the concerned workman in the year 1997. is based on his after thought at he instigation C. S. Pathak, Vice President of the United Coal Workers Union with malafide motive for earning huge amount from the Public Sector Undertaking. They submitted that as the concerned workman did not report for his duty at any point of time he is not entitled to get any relief.

Accordingly management submitted prayer at pass award rejecting the claim of the workman.

4. The points to be considered in this reference

are:-

They disclosed that application on account of illness and followed by awaiting of leave on medical ground could not be considered as misconduct . Accordingly, termination of the concerned workman on that ground not only was arbitrary but also improper and violation of the principle of natural justice . They alleged that no chargesheet was issued to the concerned workman and also no opportunity was given to him to defend his case . They submitted that the concerned workman was on medical leave on the ground of his illness and inspite of knowing this fact management violating the principle of natural justice terminated him from service. Even before such termination management did not consider necessary to give him opportunity to hear him . Accordingly, they raised an industrial dispute before the ALC ( C) for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication.

"Whether the action ofthe management of Pindra Colliery of M/ s . CCL, P. O. Topa, Distt . Hazaribagh in terminating the services of Sri SomanBhuiya PR worker we.f. 26-3-1993 is legal and justified. If not, to what reliefis the workman entitled ? "

The sponsoring union accordingly, submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to 7481 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5. FINDINGS WITH REASONS

It is the contention of the management that inspite of issuance of chargesheet the concerned workman did not submit any reply and for which disciplinary authority vide office letter dt . 6-1-93 (Ex . M- 2 ) appointed R. R. Prosad asEnquiry Officer MW- 1 during his evidence disclosed that after taking charge of the enquiry proceedings he issued two notices to the concerned workman at his place of residence by registered post . Copies of the said two notices had been marked as Ex. M-3 and M- 3/ 1 . during his evidence . I have made clear observation in my order onpreliminary issue why the notices issued by the Enquiry Officer had been considered as valid one . It is seen that the Enquiry Officer during domestic enquiry not only recorded statement of management witness but also consulted attendance register relating to attendance ofthe concerned workman.

It appears from the record that before taking up hearing this case on merit preliminary hearing was taken up to consider if domestic enquiry held against the concerned workman by the Enquiry Officer was fair , proper and according to the principle ofnatural justice. The said hearing on preliminary point was taken up exparte as neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared at the time of said hearing inspite ofgiving the opportunity. Thereafter, order on preliminary pointwas passed vide order No. 12 dt . 27-5-03 and it was observed clearly that domestic enquiry held against the concerned workman by the Enquiry Officer was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice. Accordingly, at his stage I do not find any sufficient ground to reopen this issue again .

on 6. Here the point for consideration is whether the management have been able to substantiate the charge brought against the concerned workman and if so the concerned workman is entitled to get any relief under Section 11A of the I.D. Act in view of punishment inflicted onhim It transpires that at the time of hearing this case merit neither the concerned workman nor his representative was found present . Accordingly, there was no scope to hear the concerned workman relating to the charges brought against the concerned workman . Considering the materials on record I find no dispute to hold that the concerned workman was an employee under the management. It is the contention of the management thatas the concerned workman started absenting himself from duty with effect from 19-1-92 without prior sanction ofhis leave or without prior intimation to the management and also without sufficient cause a chargesheet dated. 16-11-92 was issued to him. It transpires that management issued the chargesheet to the concerned workman after remaining himself about continuously for about eleven months . The chargesheet during evidence of MW - 1 was marked as Ext. M - 1 . The charge which was brought against the concerned workman as per chargesheet is as follows:-

"You are found absent from 17-1-92 till date on your duty without prior permission and sufficient reason which is a gross misconduct as per sub- clause (i) of clause 26 of the Standing Order by which your service is governed.

You are hereby directed to submit your explanation in respect of your above cited unauthorised absence from your duty to reach the undersigned not later than three days of receipt of this chargesheet . Ifyou fail to submit any explanation in the specified date it will be presumed that you have no explanation to offer and thereafter disciplinary action will be taken against you deemed fit by the management .

Sd/-Illegible.

CollieryManager .

It transpires clearly that during the year 1991 the concerned workman put his attendance for only 45 days and thereafter he started himself absenting from duty continuously with effect from 19-1-92 . It is the contention of the management that not only upto the date of issuance of chargesheet but also upto the date ofpassing his termination order by the disciplinary authority upto i.e. 26-3-93 he remained himself absent without notice andalso without showing sufficient cause . It is, therefore, clearthat for more than one year the concerned workman remained himself on unauthorised leave without assigning any sufficient cause . But as per facts disclosed in the writtenstatement submitted by the sponsoring union on behalf ofthe concerned workman I find a different picture. The sponsoring Union submitted that on account of his illness the concerned could not attend to his duties and to that effect he submitted leave application on medical ground . Therefore , accordingto the facts disclosed in the written statement the concerned workman could not attend to his duties during the period in question . It is really shocking to note that inspite of getting ample opportunities the concerned workman or the sponsoring union did not considered necessary to produce a single medical paper either incourse of preliminary hearing or in course of hearing the instant case on merit . They also have failed to produce any copy of the application to show that leave application was duly submittedto the management intimating the fact relation to his suffering from illness . It is seen that excepting the facts disclosed in the written statement the concerned workman or the sponsoring union did not considered necessary to adduce oral evidence or to produce documentary evidence to substantiate their claim. Facts disclosed in the pleadings cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence until and unless the same is substantiated by cogent evidence. As per provision laid down in the certified Standing Order the management did not commit any illegality in issuing chargesheet against the concerned workman for committing misconduct on the ground of 3534GI/2003-7 7482

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2003 /AGRAHAYAΝΑ 15 , 1925

[PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii)]

and for which he is not entitled to get any relief. In the result, the following award is rendered :-

absentism . It is seen that after a lapse of about 11 months from the date when he started absenting himself management issued the chargsheet for committing inisconduct on the ground of absentism.

"The action of the management of Pindra Colliery of M/ s . CCL, P.O. Topa , Distt . Hazaribagh in terminating the services of Sri Somar Bhuuiya, PR worker w.e.f. 26-3-93 is justified. Consequently , he is not entitled to getany relief. "

B. BISWAS Presiding Officer .

नई दिल्ली, 7 नवम्बर, 2003

7. Management in course of hearing has sufficiently established the charge of misconduct brought against the concerned workman in course of hearing. Accordingly onus was on the concerned workman/union to counter act the allegation brought by the management . I find no hesitation to say that the concerned workman union have lamentably failed to establish their claim that management illegally, arbitrarily and violating the principle of natural justice issued the chargesheet for committing misconduct by the concerned workman on the ground of absentism. I therefore , on careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances hold that management in course of hearing have been able to establish the charge brought against the concerned workman .

का. आ. 3329.- 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 केबीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 89/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-11-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं ० एल-20012/155/96- आई.आर.( सी- I ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 7th November, 2003

S.O. 3329. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes , Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 89/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court - II , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexture in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 6-11-03 .

[No. L - 20012/ 155/96 -IR(C - I) J S.S. GUPTA , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

SHRI B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer .

Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1 ) ( d) ofthe 1.D. Act , 1947.

REFERENCE NO . 89 OF 1997

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Bastacolla area of M/ s . BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the workman : Mr. K. Chakravorty, Advocate .

Onbehalf of the employers : Shri R.N. Ganguly, Advocate 8. It transpires from therecord that management considering report of the enquiry officer and also considering all aspect terminated the service of the concerned workman vide office order dt: 26-3-93 (Ext . M -9) . In the wrtitten statement submitted by the sponsoring union it has been alleged that on the ground of absentism punishment inflicted on the concerned workman was too barsh and it violated the principle of natural justice . On the contrary from the submission of the management it transpires that the concerned workman was in the habit of remaining himself absent from duty as of his choice , they diclosed that during the whole year of 1991 the concerned workman attended to his duties for only 45 days and during the year 1992 after 17-1-92 he never attended to his dutics . This attitude on the part of the workman has exposed clearly that he did not consider necessary to maintain any sort of disciplin in the matter of his attendance . It is fact that he took the plea ofhis ailment which compelled him to remain himself absent from duty but he has lamentably failed to establish this fact . Accordingly that plea cannot be considered with any importance to reconsider the punishment inflicted on him taking into consideration of the provision as laid down under Section 11A of the 1.D. Act . It must be the duty of every workman to maintain discipline at the place of his work for smooth running of the administration . It is seen that as the concerned workman did not care to abide by the norms of the management. I have failed to find out any cogent ground to hold that the punishment inflicted on the concerned workman was unjustified. On the contrary there is reason to believe that for the maintenance of discipline the punishment which was imposed cannot be said to be unjustified. Accordingly I do not find any reason to invoke the provision of Section 11A of the 1.D. Act to reconsider the punishment imposed on him 7483 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भास्त का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad the 15th October, 2003.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act . , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L -20012 / 155 /96 -IR ( C -I) dated the 24 July, 1997.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Dobari Colliery of M/s . BCCL , in dismissing the services of Shri Bhodhan Sawra, Miner Loader, is legal and justified? If not to what relief is the said workman entitled ?"

2. The case of the concerned workmen according to the Written statement submitted by the sponsoring Union on his behalf in brief is as follows:-

that he was engaged in the underground in production side and fully aware about the importance of production ofcoal he started himself absenting from duty with effect from 6-1-92 without any information and approval of the management . As his absence from duty was continuous without showing any sufficient cause management issued chargesheet to him which was sent at his permanent address as well as at his present address by registered post and a copy of the same also was posted in the notice board . They submitted that notice sent to the concerned workman at his home address was duly received by him and he acknowledged its receipt by putting his LTI in his postal document on 28-8-92. They alleged that inspite of receiving the said chargesheet the concerned workman did not consider necessary to submit his reply. Thereafter the disciplinary authority issued order for holding domestic enquiry against him and appointed enquiry officer to that effect . Thereafter the Enquiry Officer after giving reasonable opportunity to the concerned workman for his defence conducted the domestic enquiry proceeding exparte as he deliberately avoided to defend his case. Theydisclosed that final hearing of the said proceeding was fixed on 25-5-93 and till that date the concerned workman did not appear . Accordingly, after completing the said enquiry exparte the enquiry officer submitted his report holding the concerned workman guilty to the charges . Thereafter, Disciplinary authority considering the report and also considering all aspects came to the conclusion aboutcommission of serious misconduct by the concerned workman and accordingly dismissed him from service vide orderdt. 5/6-11-93. They submitted that considering the misconduct committed by the concerned workman the disciplinary authority was compelled to dismiss him from service and in passing the said order neither they committed any illegallity nor they showed any impropriety violating the principle of natural justice . Accordingly, they submitted prayer to pass award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman.

4. The points to be decided in this reference are:-

The sponsoring union in the written statement disclosed that the concerned workman was a permanent miner loader at Dobari Colliery and his identity card no. was 20-11-77. They submitted that unfortunately the concerned workman owing to his serious illness absented from duty and to that effect he intimated the management . They alleged that inspite of getting knowledge of this fact of serious illness of the concerned workman management adopting anti labour policy issued a false and frivolous chargesheet to him for committing misconduct on the ground of absentism without prior intimation and without any reasonable cause . They submitted that as the said chargesheet was not served to the concerned workman question of its reply on his part did not arise . Inspite of this fact the management conducted domestic enquiry proceeding against the concerned workman without his knowledge and in his absence exparte and thereafter on the basis of that enquiry report the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service illegally, arbitrarily and violating the principles of naturaljustice.

"Whether the action of the management of Dobari Colliery ofM/ s.BCCL in dismissing the services of Shri Bhodhan Sawra , Miner Loader, is legal and justifed ? If not, to what relief is the said workman entitled ? "

FINDING WITH REASONS According they raised an industrial dispute before the ALC ( C) Dhanbad for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication . The sponsoring union accordingly submitted prayer on behalf of the concerned workman to pass award directing the management to reinstate the concerned workman in service with full back wages and other consequent relief setting aside the order of dismissal .

3. Management on the contrary after filing written statement -cum -rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in the written statement on behalf of the concerned workman.

Admitting the fact of concerned workman's posting atDobari colliery as permanent miner/loader they submitted

5. It appears from the record that before taking up hearing this case on merit the hearing on the point of preliminary issue if the domestic enquiry held against the concernedworkman by the enquiry officer in view of charge sheet issued to him for committing misconduct on the ground of absentism was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice or not. The said issue onpreliminary point was disposed of vide order No. 33 Dt . 11-6-03 and it was decided that domestic enquiry held 7484

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 6 , 2003/ AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] against the concerned workman was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice . Accordingly at this stage I do not find any reason to rcopen this issue again for discussion.

6. Here the point which is to be taken into consideration is if the management have been able to substantiate the charge brought against the concerned workman and if so whether the punishment inflicted upon the concerned workman deserved to be modified relying on the provision as laid down under Section 11A of the I.D. Act , 1947.

been categorically denied by the management and MW-2 relying on the A/D card Ext . M-2 submitted that the chargesheet which was sent to the concerned workman was duly received by him and he acknowledged receipt of the samebyputting his LTI in the same. The L.T.I. appearing in the A/D card was not challenged by the concerned workman as not of his LTI , during cross -examination of MW- 1 or by filing any separate petition. Therefore, there issufficient reason to believe that the concerned workman though received the chargesheet did not consider necessary to submit his reply. It is the specific contention ofthe concerned workman that as he fell seriously ill he could not get scope to attend his duty and for which he time to time informed the management about reason for his absence . From the submission of the concerned workman two materials facts have come into light i.e. the reason for absence of the concerned workman was for his serious illness and that he time to time intimated this fact to the management . There is no dispute to hold that the concerned workman continuously for a long period remained himself absent from duty. It is the plea of the workman that ground for such long absence was owing to his serious illness . It is peculiar to note that nowhere in his written statement he disclosed actually from which disease he was suffering from. It is seen from the record that sufficient opportunity was given to him to establish his claim in course of hearing but he has failed to produce a single scrap of medical paper to show that he was actually under treatment for his serious ailment . From the report of the enquiry officer it has revealed that the concerned workman never attended colliery hospital for his treatment. Therefore , onus on the concerned workman to establish that actually he was lying seriously ill and that was the cause for his undue absence from duty. Considering all materials on record I have failed to find out any material to uphold his claim and for which there is no way out but to draw conclusion that the pea of ailment taken by him was false. The concernedworkman also in course of hearing has failed to produce a single scrap of paper to show that time to time he intimated the management about his illness and the reason for his absence from duty. Accordingly the plea which has been taken up by him in not at all acceptable .

7. It transpires from the record that in course of preliminary hearing management examined the concerned workman as MW- 1 . Inspite of getting scope the concerned workman did not consider necessary to adduce any evidence in support of his case . During evidence ofMW- 1 copy of the chargesheet which was received by the concerned workman was marked as Ext . M - 1 . Considering the facts disclosed in the pleadings of both sides 1 find no dispute to hold that the concerned workman was miner loader in the underground of Dobari colliery. It is the specific allegation of the management that the concerned workman started himself absenting from duty without prior permission or knowledge of the management from 6-1-92 . They submitted that as the absence of the concerned workman from duty was continuous finding no other way they issued chargesheet to himdt. 3-8-92. They submitted that inspite of receiving the chargesheet which was sent to him at his home address by regd . post with A/D as he did not consider necessary to give any reply domestic enquiry against him was taken up by the enquiry officer being appointed by the disciplinary authority. MW - 1 i.e. the Enquiry officer during his evidence disclosed that after assuming charge of the enquiry proceeding he issued notices to the concerned workman but as he evaded notices he hanged the notice of enquiry in the notice board and fixed date for holding domestic enquiry. He further disclosed that on the date of hearing as the concerned workman did not consider necessary to appear he took up the said enquiry proceeding exparte and after completing his enquiry submitted report holding the concerned workman guilty of the charges . It transpires that final hearing on domestic hearing was held on 25-5-93 . Therefore , it is clear luat the concerned workman without the knowledge of the management and also without assigning any satisfactory reason remained himself absent unauthorisedly for more than one year. On the contrary it is the contention of the workman that as he fell scriously ill he was compelled to remain himself absent from duty and time to time he intimated this fact to the management but the management without considering his inability to attend his duty on the ground of his illness issued charge shect to him with the allegation of committing misconduct on the ground of absentism. He further disclosed that he did not receive the chargeshect which was issued against him . This fact has

8. Inview of the facts and circumstances discussed above there is sufficient reason to believe that the man- agement was justified in issuing chargesheet against the concerned workman for committing misconduct on the ground of his long and continuous absence . Certified standing order is clear that in case of unauthorized absen- teewithout showing any justifiable cause for more than 10 daysamountedto misconduct and the management is em- powered to issue chargesheet . There was as scope on the part of the concerned workman to give reply to the chargesheet after receiving the same with satisfactory rea- son why he was refrained from attending his duty. It is seen that inspite of receiving the chargesheet and also 7485 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

getting ample scope he did not consider necessary to sub- mit his reply. It is seen that the enquiry officer before tak- ing up hearing of the domestic enquiry proceeding issued notices to him in the same address where chargesheet was sent and received by him but he evaded to receive the notice not only but also did not consider necessary to appear in course ofdomestic enquiry with a view to defend his case . I have reason to believe that it was a tactical policy adopted by the concerned workman with a view to linger the dispute in question.

9. I have carefully considered the enquiry report sub- mitted by the enquiry officer (Ext. M - 9) . In his report he has clearly assigned reason why he found the concerned workman guilty to the charges . On careful consideration ofall the fact and circumstances I have failed to find out any material to say that the enquiry officer being biased submitted his report holding the concerned workman guilty to the charges . I do not find any material to say that the enquiry officer illegally, arbitrarily and violating the prin- ciple ofnatural justice submitted his report . In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above 1 hold that man- agement in course of hearing have been able to establish- ment the charge brought against the concerned .

10. It is seen from the record that the concerned work- man was dismissed from his service by the disciplinary authority after considering the enquiry report and other material facts . The letter of dismissal during evidence of MW- 1 was marked as Ext . M - 10. Now the point for consid- eration is if the order of dismissal from service of the con- cerned workman by the management can be reviewed or not . Section 11A of the I.D. Act is as follows :-

"Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court , Tribunal or National Tribunal for ad- judication and in the course of the adjudication pro- ceedings , the Labour Court , Tribunal or National Tribunal , as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and condition if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other reliefto workman including the award ofany lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dis- missal as the circumstances ofthe case may require . "

his duty. Inspite of claiming so he did not disclose the name of the disease which he was suffering from . He had ample scope to high light the ground of his ailment in his reply to the chargesheet but evaded himself from doing so. He also has failed to produce a single scrap of medical paper to establish his claim in course of hearing . Even he did not consider necessary to submit any paper to show that he time to time intimated the ground of his ailment to the management . The concerned workman has failed to establish that actually he was lying ill during the period in question. Accordingly there is sufficient reason to believe that he created this issue for getting his relief knowing fully well that during this period be was never lying ill . Considering the conduct ofthe concerned workman I have failed to find out that he was repetant for the wilful miscon- duct committed by him. The conduct of the concerned workman if looked into will expose that enjoyment of unauthorised leave affecting production of coal was ofhis right. It has to be bornd in mind by every workman that every organisation have its own norms which must be fol lowed by them not only for the upliftment and progress of the industry but also for the interest of maintaining disci- pline. The management I consider have absolute right to take disciplinary action against the workman if his conduct proves tobe aprejudicial act to maintain the production as wellas growth ofthe Industry and also a violation to main- tain its discipline. It is seen that the management did not commit any illegality in issuing chargesheet to the con- cerned workman . There was sufficient scope to convince the management the reason of his absence but he did not consider necessary to do so. The concerned workman in course of hearing has failed to justify that the order of dismissal passed against him was unjustified. There is scope to say that the concerned workman not only ex- posed his extreme indiciplinary attitude but also for such wilful act the production ofthe management was affected. It cannot be considered that enjoyment of unauthorised leave is a liberty to any workman. In the instant case ifany lenient view is taken in reviewing his punishment it may give indulgence to other workmen to commit such type of misconduct in future and in that circumstances it will be verymuch difficult on the part ofthe management to main- taindiscipline in the organisation not only but also they willbeplaced in real difficulty to maintain production as well as growth of the Industry. Accordingly, after consid- ering all aspects carefully I do not find any reason to re- view the order of dismissal of the concerned workman in- voking Section 11A ofthe I.D. Act . In the result the follow- ing award is rendered:

Therefore, according to the provision as laid down under Section 11A of the I.D. Act it is to be taken into consideration if the order ofpunishment inflicted on the concerned workman was unjustified or not .

"The action of the management of Dobari Colliery of M/s . BCCL in dismissing the services of Shri Bhodhan Sawra, Miner is legal and justified. Conse- quently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief."

B. BISWAS , PresidingOfficer 11. It is seen that management issued chargesheet to the concerned workman after a lapse of six months from the day i.e. 6-1-92 where from he started absenting from duty. It is seen that the chargesheet was duly received by him. It was the plea of the concerned workman that as he was lying seriously ill he could not get scope to perform 7486

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2003 /AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 7 नवम्बर, 2003

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Jealgora Colliery of M/s . BCCL in dismissing Sri Kamal Kishore Vishwakarma, MCL from service isjustified? If not, to whatrelief, the concerned workman is entitled ?"

2. The case ofthe concerned workman according to the written statement submitted by the sponsoring Union onhis behalf in brief is as follows :-

का. आ. 3330.- 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- II , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 31/96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-11-03 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं ० एल-20012/ 122/95- आई.आर. ( सी- I ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 7th November, 2003

S.O. 3330.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/96) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- II . 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 received by the Central Government on 6-11-03 .

[No. L- 20012/ 122/ 95 - IR( C -I ) ]

S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

SHRI B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) ofI. D.Act , 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 31 OF 1996

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Jealgora Colliery of M /s . BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the workman : None.

Onbehalf of the employers None

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad the 16th October, 2003

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1) ( d) of the I.D. Act. , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 20012/ 122/ 95 - IR ( Coal -I) dated the 26th March, 1996.

The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workman got his appointment on 17/23-4-82 as Miner/ Loader under the management on compassionate ground. They alleged that the Agent of Jealgora Colliery issued a chargesheet against the concerned workman vide chargesheet No. AJ/ Charge- sheet/PS / 12/96 dt . 12/13-1-88 under para 27 (2) , ( 17) and (19) of the certified standing order, (a) for theft , fraud or dishonesty in connection with the company's business or property ( b) giving fake information regarding his name , age, father's name , qualification or previous service at the time of employment and ( c) any breach of the Indian Mines Act or any other Act or of any rule or by laws thereunder or of standing orders. They alleged that the concerned workman not only was suspended from his service forthwith but also asked himto submit his reply to the chargesheet within 48 hours. It has submitted further that the management not only refused to allow time to the concerned workman for three weeks to submit his reply to the chargesheet but also on his demanddid not furnish the particulars relying on which they issued chargesheet to him . They further alleged that management thereafter by an a arbitrary order appointed the enquiry officer and the said enquiry officer by his letter No. Sr. P.O./Enquiry/235dt. 11/ 12-2-88 fixed the date ofenquiry on 19-2-88 . They alleged that the said enquiry officer did not apply his mind properly at the time of conducting the domestic enquiry. They submitted that at the time of domestic enquiry the enquiry officer did not consider necessary to examine any officer of Bihar Secondary Schools Examination Board to establish the veracity of the report submitted by the Board relating to their claim that the matriculation certificate in question was not correct . They submitted that in course of said enquiry proceeding the concerned workman out of confusion and sheer desperation made a confession pleading himselfguilty to the charges. Immediately thereafter the enquiry officer concludedhearing of domestic proceeding without giving any chance to the concerned workman to adduce defence witness on his part . Thereafter on 9-3-88 the enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority holding the concerned workman guilty to the charges and thereafter he was dismissed from his service by the Agent of Jealgora Colliery vide his letter No. A7/dismissed/ 526dt . 15/19-4-88 arbitrarily, illegally and violating the principle of natural justice.Accordingly they raised an industrial dispute before the ALC ( C), Dhanbad for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal .

7487 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

4. FINDING WITH REASONS

The sponsoring union accordingly submitted prayer on behalf of the cornicerned workman to pass award with direction to the management to reinstate the concerned workman in service with full back wages and other consequential reliefs recalling the said order of dismissal .

3.Management on the contrary after filing written statement-cum- rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in the written statement on behalf ofthe concerned workman .

Considering the facts disclosed in the pleadings both sidesI find no dispute to hold that the concernedworkman got his employment as Miner/Loader at Jealgora colliery on 17/ 23-4-82 on compassionate ground as piece rated workman. It is the contention of the management that in the year 1986 applications were invited from the piece ratedworkers having matriculation qualification for their regularisation as time rated workers . They submitted that' inresponse to that call the concerned workman submitted his application annexing a copy of his certificate for matriculation examination issued by Bihar Secondary School Examination Board: It is the contention of the management that to verify the genuinity of the said certificate they called for report from the Board. They submitted further that on receipt of the said report from the Board theycame to know the concerned workman submitted afalse and forged certificate with a view to get regularisation ofhisjob as time rated worker from piece rated worker . Accordingly they issued chargesheet No. AJ /CS/PS/R- 16 dt. 12/ 13-1-88 to the concerned workman for committing misconduct under clause 27 ( 2) ( 17) ( 19) of the certified standing order. It is seen that the concerned workman submitted a petition dt . 20-1-88 with a prayer for three weeks time to submit his reply to the charge . Therefore , it is clear that the concerned workman received his chargesheet .

They submitted that the concerned workman was appointed as a Machine coal loader on piece rated and posted at Jealgora colliery. In the year 1986 applications were invited for time ratedjob from the piece rated workers having matriculation qualification. In response to the said call the concerned workman submitted his application annexing his matriculation certificate and claimed for his employment in time rated job from piece rated jobs . Thereafter, on verification of said matriculation certificate it was found that the said certificate issued by Bihar secondary School Examination Board Patna was not genuine and accordingly chargesheet bearing No. AJ/CS/ PS /R . 16 dt . 12/ 13-1-88 was issued to him for committing misconduct under clause 27 (2 ) ( 17) ( 19 ) of the certified standing order. After receiving the chargesheet the concerned workman submitted his reply on 20-1-88 but as the said reply was found to be unsatisfactory a departmental enquiry was started against him by the enquiry officer A. K. Singh under order of the disciplinary authority. They submitted that the concerned workman fully participated in the said enquiry proceeding and full opportunity was given to him to defend his case. They further submitted that in course of said enquiry proceeding the concerned workman admitted his guilt and confessed that he submitted a forged matriculation certificate to get his employment as time rated worker. They disclosed that the Enquiry officer thereafter submitted his report holding the concerned workman guilty to the charges . They submitted that as the charge brought against the concerned workman was very serious in nature they did not either took any arbitrary decision or commit any illegality in dismissing the concerned workman from his service . They also denied the fact of violating the principles of natural justice in taking such decision. Accordingly management submitted that the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief in view ofhis prayer .

5. It furthertranspires from the record that domestic enquiry against the concerned workman was started on 19-2-88. Therefore , it is clear that inspite of getting three weeks time from the date of his filing application dt . 20-1-88 the concerned workman did not consider necessary to submit his reply. It is clear from the record that the concerned workman was very much present in course of domestic enquiry proceeding . Therefore , there is no scope to say thatin absence of the concerned workman the said enquiry proceeding was taken up . I have carefully considered the report submitted by the Board of Secondary Examination Biharand it exposed clearly that the matriculation certificate which the concerned workman relied on was not a genuine document issued by them . Therefore , there is sufficient reason to believe that for his wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss to the management he submitted his forged matriculation certificate . It is seen that incourse of enquiry proceeding the concerned workman confessed his guilt relating to submission of forged matriculation certificate . The concerned workman in his pleadings also admitted this fact.

are:- 3. The points to be decided in this reference

"Whether the action of the management of Jealgora Colliery of M/ s . BCCL in dismissing Sri Kamal Kishore Vishwakarma , MCL from service is justified. If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

6. In the pleading the sponsoring Union on behalf of theconcerned workman have taken plea that the management illegally and arbitrarily did not give sufficient opportunity to him to defend his case. I have already discussed above that the date of filing petition for time and the date of commencing the enquiry proceedings the concerned workman got ample scope to give his reply to the chargesheet buť he did not consider necessary to do so .

7488

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2003 /AGRAHAYANA 15, 1925

7. It is the specific allegation of the management that for his wrongful gain the concerned workman submitted his forged matriculation certificate . Accordingly onus shifted on the concerned workman to establish that such claim of the management was absolutely false . The record shows clearly that inspite of giving ample opportunities the concerned workman neither appeared nor adduced any evidence before this Tribunal in course of hearing to substantiate his claim. No where in his pleading I find any whisper that the certificate which he produced was genuine. On the contrary he in course of enquiry proceeding made his confessional statement about submission of forged matriculation certificate . I have carefully considered the charge brought against the concerned workman by the management . There is sufficient reason to believe that by relying on forged document his intention was to cheat the management for his wrongful gain . The allegation is no doubt serious . It is seen that full opportunity was given to the concerned workman to disprove the charge not only before the Enquiry Officer but also in course of hearing before this Tribunal but he has failed to avail the opportunity grossly.

8.Accordingly, after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances I find no sufficient ground to hold that management illegally, arbitrarily and violating the principle of natural justice dimissed him from service . Accordingly, the concerned workman is not entitled to get anyrelief.

In the result, the following award is rendered :-

"The action of the management of Jealgora Colliery ofM/ s . BCCL in dismissing Sri Kamal Kishore Vishwakarma, MCL from service is justified . Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled toget any relief. "

B. BISWAS , PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 7 नवम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 3331.- 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 में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 94/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-11-03 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं० एल-11012/83/2000- आई.आर. ( सी- I ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 7th November, 2003

i S.O. 3331. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 94/2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court - II , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Airlines and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on 6-11-03 .

[No. L- 11012/83/2000-IR (C -I) ] S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( NO. 2), MUMBAI PRESENT:

SHRI S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CGIT-2/94 of2000

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF INDIAN AIRLINES

TheRegional Director,

IndianAirlines,

WesternRegion, New Transport Complex, Mumbai-400099.

V/s.,

Their Workmen

TheRegional Secretary,

AirCorporation Employees Union,

OldAirport,

Santacruz(East) ,

Mumbai -400 029.

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER

: Ms. Pooja Kulkarni , Advocate .

FOR THE WORKMEN

: Mr. N.G. Helekar, Advocate. Mumbai, dated 23rd September, 2003

AWARD

PARTII

Bythe interim Award dated 7-10-2002 , this Tribunal held that the domestic enquiry conducted against the workmanMahamunkar was as per the principles of natural justice and the findings of the Inquiry Officer are not perverse . Consequently point as to whether punishment ofdismissal imposed on the workman is justified and proper in the light ofthe action of the management Indian Airlines, in so far of issues 3 and 4 remains to be adjudicated by this Tribunal.

2. The punishment as above was imposed on the workman on the charge of theft of three wrist watches and cash of Rs . 85,000/- from a registered baggage of a passenger in collusion with the co - workers namely Vaim 7489

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2003/ अग्रहायण 15, 1925

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

and Satam on 5-1-1995 . According to the workman the criminal case on the incident of theft is pending before the Court, his past record is unblemished, he put about 15 years service as Helper / Loader and in that context punishment imposed on him is disproportionate . It is his further contention that co- accused Mr. Vaim though was found guilty along with workman in the joint enquiry, management continued him in service with lesser punishment , however he has been singled out for punishment of dismissal thereby, he was discriminated. On the other hand , the management's contention is that in a delicate industry like Indian Airlines, where faith is important , since workman found guilty for commission of theft of registered baggage of the passengers , is a grave offence attracting major misconduct resulting in dismissal. It is pointed out that even one single misconduct like theft , warrants dismissal . It is therefore, contended that the punishment imposed is apt and adequate .

3. In so far as issues nos . 3 & 4 to be adjudicated by this Tribunal referred to supra Workman filed affidavit in lieu of Examination- in- Chief (Ex. 25 ) and closed oral evidence vide purshis (Ex. 26 ) . Management Company did not lead oral evidence vide purshis (Ex . 27) .

4. Workman filed written submissions Ex. 31 along with copies of rulings and the management Ex . 32. On perusing the record, the written submissions and hearing the counsels. I record my findings on the issues for the reasons mentioned below :

5. As stated above , according to workman punishment of dismissal imposed upon him is disproportionate to the proved charge of theft. It is well settled that penalty must commensurate with the gravity ofoffence charged and that discretion conferred by action 11 - A of Industrial Disputes Act on the Tribuna! is to be exercised considering the overall evidence. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in case Mithilesh Singh Vis . Un. an of India referred to above , pointed out that the scop of interference with punishment awarded by the Disciplin. Authority is very limited and it is for the employ concernedto show how the penalty is disproportionate . It is seen from the record that case of theft in connection withworkman and others is pending in Court. In the enquiry proceedings the charge of theft has been proved. At this juncture, the Learned Counse! Mr. Helekar for the workman submitted that along with workman another worker namely Vaim was charge sheeted and was found guilty, however the management continued him in service with lesser punishment whereas , he is singled out for severe punishment and thereby he was discriminated . Their Lordships of Supreme Court in case Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vis . Jitendra PD . Singh & Anr. (2001) 10 SCC 530 observed " it would be denial ofjustice to the appellant if he alone is singled out for punishment by way ofdismissal from service" . In the case in hand, as stated above co -accused though found guilty was not dismissed, whereas workman has been dismissed , therefore , in view of the above said decision , justice has been denied to workman. In this context the punishment imposed if looked, certainly needs interference by this Tribunal.

FINDINGS

ISSUES

3. Whether the action of the management No ofM/ s . Indian Airlines Ltd. in dismissing Shri H. M. Mahamunkar from the services of the Indian Airlines is justified and proper?

4. What relief the workman concerned is entitled?

As per order below.

REASONS

6. Accordingto workman his past record is unblemished . No past adverse has come forward through management. It is therefore , clear that his past record is unblemished. At this moment , the learned counsel for management Ms. Pooja Kulkurni submits that one single misconduct like theft warrants dismissal, relying on ChandrakantK. Patil V/ s . Union of India & Ors 1995 IL CLR 445. As stated above , criminal case of theft is pending before the Court and that the workman has been singled out and considering his long service about 15 years as Loader, to my view punishment ofdismissal imposed upon the workman is rather harsh and disproportionate hence needto be interfered and that with holding of two increments infuture is apt and proportionate punishment and the same needs to be imposed.

So far power under Section 11 - A of Industrial Disputes Act is concerned . Their Lordships of Supreme Court inMithilesh Singh V/s. Union of India & Ors . 2003 SCCL& S- 271 observed:

"the scope of interference with punishınent awarded by Disciplinary Authority under Section 11 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act is very limited and unless the punishment appears to be shockingly disproportionate , the Court cannot interfere with the same " .

7. Workman admits in cross examination para 8 that he does labour work and earns Rs. 1,500 per month, thereby he is gainfully employed, consequently, question of payment of back wages does not arise. Considering the relevant aspects discussed supra the punishment imposed being disproportionate , consequently action of the management is improper and unjustified, issues are answered according and hence the order:

3534GI /2003-8 7490

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2003 / AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

ORDER

The action of the management of M/s . Indian Airlines in dismissing the workman Shri H. М. Mahamunkar is improper and unjustified and that punishment of withholding of two increments in future is apt and adequate and the same is imposed upon him instead of punishment of dismissal .

Management Indian Airlines is directed to reinstate the workman in service with continuity in service , however, without back wages .

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 7 नवम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 3332.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ब्रिटिश गैस एक्सप्लोरेक्शन एण्ड प्रोडक्शन इंडिया लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- I , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 37/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-11-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं ० एल -30012/109/97- आई.आर. ( सी- I ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 7th November, 2003 S.O. 3332. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes , Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/98 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court - I , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of British GasExploration and Product India Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-11-2003.

[No. L - 30012/ 109/ 97 - IR (C -1) ]

S.S. GUPTA , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

SHRI JUSTICE S. C. PANDEY, Presiding Officer.

REFERENCE NO . CGIT -37/1998

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of M/ s . British Gas Exploration and Production India Ltd. ( substituted instead of M/ s . Enron Oil and Gas India as per paragraph 2 of this Award)

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

AND

Their Workmen

APPEARANCES :

For the Management

: Sh. B.G. Goyal & G.L. Govil , Advocates For the Workman

: Sh. Abhay Kulkarni , Adv.

State:

Maharashtra

Mumbai , Dated the 24th October, 2003 .

AWARD

1. This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause ( d) of sub - section 1 and sub section 2A of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( the Act for short ) for resolving the Industrial Dispute between M/s . Enron Oil and Gas India Ltd. (the company for short ) and Sh. Joseph Rodrigues (theworkman for short ) . The terms of reference as given in the Schedule are as follows :

"Whether the action of the management ofM/ s . Enron Oil& Gas Ltd. in terminating the services of the workman Sh . Joseph Rodrigues is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

2. Atthe outset it may be stated that the Counsel for the workman, Sh . Abhay Kulkarni filed an application dated 23-6-2003 for substituting the name of M/ s . British Gas exploration and Production India Ltd. instead that of M/ s. Enron Oil and Gas India Ltd. because the former had acquired the assets and liabilities of the later during the pendency of this reference . The learned counsel for M/ s. Enron Oil and Gas India Ltd. has not disputed the substitution. On the other hand Mr. Adriam Williams , the Personnel Manager of British Gas Exploration and Production India Ltd. has filed a reply to the application accepting the fact that this company had acquired 30% stake ofM/ s . Enron Oil Gas India Ltd. in Panna Mukta and TapteOil field for joining the joint venture with ONGC Ltd. and Reliance Industries from 15-2-2002 . For this reason , it did not have any objection to substitution of its name instead ofM/s. Enron Oil and Gas India Ltd. Consequently the aforesaid, the application is allowed and it is directed that the name of M/ s . British Gas Exploration and Production India Ltd. shall be substituted in place of M/ s . Enron Oil and Gas Company as first party to the reference.

3. It was claimed by the workman in his statement of claim, that hejoined the services of the company from 17th April , 1995 as an Office Assistant and was paid Rs . 2,800 asmonthly wages . It is the case of the workman that on 30thNovember, 1995 he was askedby the Superior Officers of the Company not to attend the office from 1st December, 7491 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2003/ अग्रहायण 15 , 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1995. By that time , it was pleaded by the workman that he had worked for 238 days continuously . The workman stated that his devotion to duty and good character were proved by a certificate issued by the company . The workman claimed that his services were terminated orally without assigning any reason before he could completed 240 days for he would have been entitled to the benefit of Section 25F of the Act read with Section 25F thereof. Accordingto the workman, the motive for termination on the part of the company was ulterior and malafide . The workman asserted that the nature of his job was permanent and perrinial . It was claimed that the aforesaid claim was substantiated by the fact that Sarvashri Kaushik , Vijay and MissTahal Ramani were employed by the company for performing the functions of workman after his termination . The workman pleaded further that Sh . Andrew Fernandes who was appointed later than him was retained by the company. It was alleged that termination of services of workman being illegal , a demand for reinstatement was admitted for Conciliation. However, the parties could not settle the dispute in those proceedings . On failure of Conciliation a report to that effect was sent to Central Govt. which referred the dispute to this tribunal . The workman claimed that the termination of his services was illegal and unjustified. It was made with view to avoid the operation of section 25F read with Section 25B of the Act . It was claimed that junior persons have been retained in service . It was further asserted that Section 66 of the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act , 1948 has been violated . It was claimed that termination was illegal and void, and consequently , the workman be awarded reinstatement with full back wages with effect from 30th November 1995 or any other suitable relief be given to the workman .

the workman amounted to delivering letters to outside parties, (ii ) bringing lunch to visitors from hotels ( iii) Doing other sundry jobs . The workman was a daily wager. He was paid Rs . 125/- per day. He was not given any letter of appointment as he was employed orally. It was the practice ofthe company to give letters of appointmentto its regular employecs . The wages of the workmen were calculated by the company as a daily rated comployce at the rate of Rs . 125/- per day. He was not given consolidated wages for a month. However, when the workman was required to do extra work beyond his normal hours , he was paid wages overtime work . In course of time , the volume of the company's work grew and it was found thai workman could not cope up with the extra work. Consequently, the services were handed over to professional Caterers and Carrier service ofthe company with effect from 30-4-95 . Therefore, the workman's service were no longer required . It was denied that the workman was employed as an Office Assistant . It was denied that the workman was appointed onpermanent post or that he was told that his post shall be made permanent . It was asserted that the services of the workman were of casual nature and his services were terminated when they were not required. The workman was not punished and thereforc, no enquiry was held . It was asserted in the written statement paragraph 4( c ) that the certificate dated 01-7-1996 was issued by Mr. P.E. Lavia , General Manager, Drilling much after the servies of the workman stood terminated on 30-11-1995 . It was obtained by the workman for the purpose of obtaining employment else where. It was asserted that the workman obtained a job on the basis of the certificate but abandoned it . The company stated that workman had worked for 228 days between 17-4-95 to 30-4-95 and not 238 days . The company further submitted that the services of Mr. Kaushik Mehta and Vijay Deokar and Hema Tahalramani could not be compared withthat of the workman. In short it was that all the three persons were more qualified. They were not daily rated employees . Mr. Andrew Fernandez was appointed on01-4-95 prior to the workman as an Office Asstt. He was notjunior to the workman . It was denied that nature ofthe job ofthe workman was permanent and perinnial in nature. All other allegations in the Statement of claim were denied .

In its written statement , the company stated that reference is liable to be rejected on the ground of laches . The services of the workman were terminated from 30-11-95 . The workman filed a complaint before 5th Labour Court, Bombay under M.R.T.U. & P.UL.P.Act after 1 year . An objection was raised on the question of maintainability of that complaint before that Court by the company. Thereupon, the workman withdrew the complaint and raised the dispute . It was further asserted that the company acted as an operator for the joint venture ofOil and Natural GasCorporation and Reliance Industries Ltd.

5. It appears from the order sheet dated 04-3-99 that workman had stated that he did not wish to file the rejoinder to written statement . He filed certain documents and then he filed his affidavit on 11-6-99 . Thereafter, on 01-9-99 rejoinder was filed on behalfofthe workman . The workman shifted his stand in his rejoinder. The workman claimed that he was employed with effect from 4th April, 1995. Не was refused employment from 1st December, 1995. Therefore , there was violation of Section 25F. of the Act and his termination was void abinitio . The workman stated that he reported for duty for many days but was not allowed to resume dutics . It was stated that on the allegations made in the written statement that termination of the services of It was engaged in the activity of exploration and production of oil on their behalf and itself. It entered into contracts dated 22-4-94 with the Consortium of the aforesaid companies for development of Panna Mukta Fields and Mid South Tapti fields . It was alleged that for the purpose , the company had opened its office temporarily at Amiya Apartments, 63 -A, Linking Road, Santacruz. (West ) Mumbai . However, this temporary office was shiftedto Midas Sahar Plaza, Kandivita M. V. Road, Andheri (East ) Mumbai . It is alleged that workman was appointed at Santacruz Office . His appointment was casual . The job of 7492

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2003 /AGRAHAYANΑ 15 , 1925

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] the workman on account of increase in the volume of business of the management of the company and acquisition of specialized services for the job done by him, amounted to change within Section 9 -A of the Act for item Nos . 10 and 11 of the Fourth Schedule . It was stated that this was unfair labour practice covered by items No. 5 ( a ) (d) (f) and 13 of the Fifth Schedule of the Act . It was further stated there was violation of Section 25G , 25N and Rules 76 , 76 -A and 77 of the Rules . There was violation ofModel Standing Orders also.

6. The company denied the claim of the workman in its reply stating that the Statement of the workman in the rejoinder that he was employed for 4-4-1995 appeared to be false. It placed certain documents on record to prove the falsity of the claim . It was stated that in the rejoinder this claim appeared to have been made for the first time because Mr. P. llavia had given the certificate stating that he worked from 4-4-1995 . It was said that the certificate was not accurate . It was not an official work certificate but purported to be a testimonial . There were other facts stated in the reply . They need not detainus as because they werc in the nature of evidence . The allegations regarding violation of Section 9 -A of the Act or those regarding commission of unfair labour practice were controverted in the reply.

7. This tribunal did not frame issues as the controversy was clear . The workman filed his affidavit in licu of examination in chicf. He was cross examined by the counsel for the company. He further filed the affidavit of Mr. Fernandez who was also cross -examined . After that the workman closed its evidence. The company filed the affidavits of Mr. V. L. N. Ro . Ms. Sabita Gracias . The conmpany closed its case after both the witnesses were cross - examined.

8. At present this tribunal is not dealing with the nature of the appointment of the workman, It is proposed to deal with it later. The point that arises for consideration is whether the workman has established to satisfaction of this tribunal that termination of services of the workman amounted to retrenchment in violation of Section 25 - F of the Act within the meaning of Section 2( 00 ) of the Act . It is not in dispute that services of the workman were not terminated by way of punishment for any misconduct . The workman lias stated that he was appointed as an Office Assistant for performing the work of permanent nature .He clamed that he was retrenched in violation of Section 25 - F of the Act because he had functioned as an Office Asstt . from 4-4-1995 to 30-11-1995 . Section 25 - B ofthe Act defines continuous services for the purpose of Chapter V - A of the Act. Section 25 - F ( which is in Chapter V- A of the Act ) becomes operative only when the workman has worked continuously not less than one year. This is clear from plain terms of that section. However, for the purpose of Chapter V - A. Section 25 - B ( 2) of the Act has made a

deeming provision. It is the nature of proviso to Sub - section (1) of Section 25 - F. Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 25 - B of Act defines continuous service to mean the uninterrupted service for the period except where the intcrruption is on account of sickness or authorized leave , or an accident or strike which is not illegal , lock out or cessation of work , which is not due to any fault of the workman . The Sub- section 2 ( a) of Section 25 -B of the Act says inter alia that the workman who is not continuously worked for one year asgiven in Sub - section ( 1 ) shall be deemed to be in service for a period of one year provided during the 12 calendar months preceding date from which the calculation has to be made, has actually worked for the employer for not less than one hundred and ninety days under ground in a mine and two hundred and forty days in other cases . (We are not concerned herewith the period of six months or the explanation . They have been omitted from consideration. ) It is obvious that workman was not working underground in mine , therefore , he ought to have proved that he had worked for 240 days continuously as an Office Asstt . The workman had stated in his statement of claim that he was appointed on 17-4-95 . He did not amend the Statement of his claim filed on 14-10-98 . He had also filed the affidavit dated 11-6-99 , wherein he had stated that he was appointed on 17-4-95 . The rejoinder was filed on 1-9-99 . Then only it was stated that he was appointed on 4-4-1995. In his fresh affidavit dated 15-3-2002 , the workman should have explained how he was saying that he was appointed on 4tlu April , 1995 and how did he commit the mistake . The second affidavit is significantly silent about the mistake . He was cross -examined on this question . He stated that in his affidavit the dated 17-4-95 was a misprint . The witness was shown notice served by Poojary Advocate to the company Exhibit M- 22 . He denied that the notice was sent under his instructions . Similarly, he denied that another notice Exhibit M - 23 was sent under his instructions . The workman was shown Ex -M.24 a complaint filed by him and MRTU & TULP Act . He admitted his signature on that document . He admitted the exhibit M25 dated 17-3-97 was filed under his signature. The workman has not examined Poojary Advocate for showing that Exhibit M22 and Exhibit M23 were not sent under his instructions . The inference is that they were sent under his instructions . These two notices show that the workman had claimed that he was appointed on 17-4-95 . This aspect of the matter is further confirmedby the fact that the workman had filed complaint before the Labour Court , Bombay under M.R.T.U & TULP Act alleging that he was appointed on 17-4-95 . The workman has not given any satisfactory explanation for deviation from his consistent conduct . It has been argued mat workman was given a letter of appointment in writing , but the same could not be produced before the tribunal because it was taken back by the Administrative Manager. This explanation appears to be an after thought . The workman did not say in his statement of claim that he was appointed by an order/ a letter in writing . If there was one . he could 7493 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

Manager of the company is forth right . Sarita Gracias has also proved that the letter dated 6-4-95 dictated to her by Mr. John Fernandes . The interview was held on 11-4-95 . Thus, it is heid on the basis of weight of evidence that workman was appointed on 17-4-95 orally and not on 4-4-95. It is not in dispute between 17-4-95 to 30-4-95 the workman had not completed 240 days . He completed 228 days. Therefore , oral termination of his services on 30-4-95 does not amount to retrenchment in violation of Section 25-F of the Act . The workman was unable to prove that he was appointed permanently. The company has filed several vouchers proving that he was a daily rated employee . This tribunal shall show in the sequel thatjob of workman was ofcasual nature .

9. The next contention raised on behalf of workman is to the effect that on the pleadings of the company itself show that services ofthe workman were terminated because of expansion of its office operations at Santacruz and consequently the workman was unable to cope up with the work attached to him . It was argued that Section 9 -A of the Act read with item No. 10 and 11 of the Fourth Schedule shali be attracted. It would therefore , proper to reproduce the exact pleadings of the company. " The First Party says and submits that its earlier office at Santacruz was in a formative stage and gradually the operations started expanding at a speedy rate and accordingly the volume of work increased substantially. It was then that the First Party realized that the Second Party was unable to cope up with the volume of work and that the need for engaging the services of professional caterers and courier services and accordingly the First Party terminated the services of the SecondPartywith effect from 30-11-1995. "

Ifthese be the pleadings then we have to see whether the company was required to give notice of change under Section 9 -A . Section 9 A of the Act is as follows :

"9 -A. Notice of Change:-Noemployer, who purposes to effect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workman in respect ofany matter specified in the Fourth Schedule, shall effect such change :-

(a) without giving to the workman likely to be affected by such change a notice in the prescribed manner of the nature of the change proposed to be effected ; or

(b) within twenty - one days of giving such notice:

Provided that no notice shall be required for effecting, any such change :-

(a) Where the change is effected in pursuance of any [Settlement or award ] ; or

(b). Where the workmen likely to be affected by the change are persons to whom the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification , Control and Appeal ) not have omitted to mention it . Secondly, the affidavit dated 11-6-99 does not mention that he was appointed by a letter/ ordergivento him in writing . On the other hand his aforesaid affidavit in paragraph clearly indicates that at that stage case was that he had not worked for 240 days. Further, his affidavit in paragraph 5 relies on the document filed by the company to show that he was not a daily wager. This tribunal cannot understand how the workman missed to state in his earlier affidavit about the letter of appointment and stated that he was appointed on 17-4-95 . Apart from the aforesaid facts , the company placed on record the letter dated 6th April , 1995 to the effect that workman was required to appear for interview on 11th April 1995. (Marked as Exhibit M3 ) . It is true that Johin Fernandes had filed the affidavit supporting the case ofthe workman . He was the administrative manager of the company at that tinie . He denied that he had instructed Sarita Gracias to issue letter datedApril 6, 1995 by signing it on his behalf. Sarita Gracias had filed the affidavit contradicting John Fernandes. She stated that she had signed the letters on behalf of Fernandes . She further stated contradicting Fernandes that interview was held on 11-4-95 . Thus , the testimony of Fernandes who had admittediy some grievance against the company, and was inclined to be friendly, toward the workman appears to be tainted. Mr. Fernandes had gone to the extent of supporting the workman stating that it was he who had taken back the letter of appointment from the custody of workman at the instance of Mr. Slaughter. It has been argued that Mr. Fernandes had an axe to grind against the company, and he was the meinbers of same musical band, as the workman and consequently his evidence should not be considered as worthy of credence . This tribunal ignores these circumstances . It gives more weight to the other preponderence of probabilities . The workman has not been able to show that his presence was marked in the muster roll prior to 17-4-95 . Moreover, stronger cvidence could be produced by showing that workman was paid wages between 2-4-95 to 17-4-95 for the work done by him . This evidence would be clinching piece of evidence . In absence of this evidence , the workman had relied only upon the so called work certificate issued by P.E.Elavia (Exhibit Wl) . Ex- W 1 dated July 1, 1996 appears to be a personal testimonial issued by Mr. Elavia. He purported to give a certificate regarding the work of me workman . Mr. Elavia had given his certificate in July 1996. He was not examined to show how he gave date to be 4th April 1995. It could be inaccurate particularly when the certificate was given after 7 months of discharge . This tribunal has noticed the circumstances that militate against the theory that workman was appointed on 4-4-1995. This tribunal holds on the basis of broad preponderence of probabilities without entering into many fine points againsı the workman , that he was appointed on 17-4-95 . In this connection; this tribunal does not accept the testimony of the workman and John Fernandes . On the other hand, the evidence of V.L.N.Rao , who was working as a Personnel 7494

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; DECEMBER 6 , 2003 /AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

Rules , Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules , Revised Leave Rules , Civil Service Regulations , Civilians in Defence Service (Classification , Control and Appeal ) Rules or the Indian Railway Establishment Code or any other rules or regulations that may be notified in this behalf by the appropriate Government in the Official Gazette , apply." Ignoring the proviso for our purposes , it is clear that employer is prohibited from affecting a change in the conditions of service of a workman mentioned in the Fourth Schedule unless a notice is given of change and 21 days expired after service of notice of change . It is argued admittedly that the termination of services of workman on account of the fact that he could not fulfill his obligation because of expansion of the office of the company. Such a change in service conditions of the workman was covered by item No. 10 and 11 of the Fourth Schedule . These items reads as under 10. Rationalisation , standardization improvement of plant or technique which is likely to lead to retrenchment of workmen: 11. Any increase or reduction (other than casual) in the number of persons employed or tobe employed in any occupation or process or department or shift . [ not occasioned by circumstances over which the employer has no control ] . ог 10. In the opinion of this tribunal item No. 10 of the Fourth schedule is attracted when it relates to plant or technique . The pleadings of the company refer to the establishment which was being used as office. Item No. 11 does not apply to casual workmen . The workman has not taken the plea in his Statement of claim regarding the violation of section 9A of the Act . However, it is necessary to record a finding if the job of the workman was of casual nature within the meaning of item No. 10. In this connection, the company has filed an undated application filed by Joseph Rodrigues marked as Annexure A to the reply of rejoinder. The workman in cross -examination admitted that he had applied for the post of office boy. The aforesaid document (Annexure A) appears to be that application. Although , the workman stated that he was not appointed against casual vacancy, there is overwhelming evidence in support of the case of the company that his appointment was casual . The word ' casual ' has not been defined in the Act. Therefore, ordinary meaning has to be given. It means irregular appointment . The following circumstances show that the workman was not regularly appointed.

(i) He was orally appointed. In this connection , the tribunal has not accepted the evidence led by the workman that there was an order in writing in earlier paragraphs .

( ii ) The company has brought on record Exhibits M-3 , M - 1 land M -1 3. They are the appointment letters of Hema Tehalramani . Kaushik Mehta

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii)] and Andrew Fernandes respectively. A perusal of these letters show that the company had elaborately mentioned the terms of contract employment with the offer of employment . These documents also show thatthe company utilized elaborate procedure regarding the regular appointments in case of aforesaid persons . The letters of appointment of Mr. Vijay Deokar M 15 tells the same story. Infact , if we carefully study these documents M1 to M18 it would appear, the company took considerable pains to satisfy itself about suitability of the employee before making permanent appointment . It took care to define the nature of duties , the terms of contract and the fixed the monthly salary in each workman the order of appointment . The evidence of V.L.N.Rao , who had worked as Personnel Manager had stated in support the above in paragraph 11 that those who applied for permanent posts were required to file application forms. He stated paragraph 12 that he had filed documents in respect of Hema C. Tahalramani , Telephone Operator cum receptionist . Mr. Kaushik Mehta, Andrew Fernandes and Mr. Vijay Deokar, Mr.Rao was cross examined in details , but his testimony regarding the aforesaid appointments was not challenged.

(iii) The workman himself admitted in cross examination that he was appointed as a daily wager at rate of Rs . 125/- per day. He evasively denied that he did notdo over time . Не corroborates the Mr. Rao's deposition in paragraph 3 that he and Rocky Fernandes were appointed on daily wages of Rs.125/- . The witness further added that they were paid Rs . 190/- per day if they worked on Saturday or Sunday. This tribunal has already pointed out that the regularly appointed workmen were givenmonthly wages .

(iv) The next aspect of the appointment is that he wasworking as an Office boy. He was not given any special work . The evidence on record suggests that workman along with Mr. Rocky Fernandes was working as an Office boy. He was performing sundry jobs .

(v) The workman has admitted in cross examination that he was paid by vouchers . He also stated that certain initial payment were made by cheque . He produced Ex- W5 a cheque ofRs . 1,630/ - and stated that for this cheque he had signed the voucher . He admitted that he received pay through cash vouchers . He has [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6 , 2003 /अग्रहायण 15, 1925

7495 filed W- 3 which shows that he was paid Rs. 190/- for working on Saturday.

( vi) This tribunal finds as per affidavit of Mr. Rao

the workman was working between 8 AMto 5 PM. He was required to do the cleaningjob, to prepare tea and coffee . He was delivering letters, taking order for lunch and keep the food warm after bringing it from the restaurant. He was doing this . It was claimed by the workman that his main work was preparing Xerox copies of records , faxing the weather reports and receipt and dispatch documents . He used to relieve the telephone operator . However, the workman failed to prove these facts . He admitted that he was required to clean the tables and put mineral water . However, he denied that he was required to bring lunch .He admitted that he used to make list of the requirements of the staff but denied that he was not required to serve the lunch . He stuck to his version . He admitted that Dattaram Humbe was a Clerk on the Accounts Deptt . Mr.John Fernandes , the defence witness who was working in the company had not said any word regarding the nature of work. This tribunal after considering the entire circumstances in the case finds that the preponderance of probabilities on that the workman was not stating true facts . The version of Mr.Rao is accepted and a finding is recorded that duties ofthe workman were not of clerical nature . He lent a helping hand by arranging for the lunch of the affairs and dispatching the letters . He did not do any specific clerical work . He was a casual ( irregular) employee . His work was not ofpermanent nature .

11. The next contention raised on behalf of the workman is that Section 66 of Bombay Shops and Establishments Act , 1948 has been violated when the services of the workman were terminated . In fact the workman has not pleaded specifically how the aforesaid Actwas applied to the ease beyond saying in paragraph 6 (1) of Statement of claim that Section 66 of the aforesaid Aet was violated. In fact the company had denied that there was a breach and submitted that even if there be breach it would be of technical nature . Although , there was no formal pleadings on the part of the workman , that he was working in a ' Commercial establishınent ' as defined by the Section 2(4 ) of the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act. 1948. However, the pleadings of the parties as well as evidence on record led by both the parties shows that the workman was working in the office of the company at

Santacruz which was performing operations of oil exploration for joint venture of ONGC and Reliance Industries Ltd. It would be " Commercial Establishment " of the company and shall be covered by the definition of Establishment' within the meaning Section 2 ( 8) of Bombay Shops and Establishment Aet . It is true that if Shops and Establishment Act could be applied in these proceedings then in absence of notice under section 66 (b ) of the Bombay Shops Establishment Act, 1948 would be fatal to the case ofthe company. It is a local Aet dealing with employer- employee relationship in the State of Maharashtra. The Act on the other hand deals with industrial disputes . The two acts are not in parimateria . They derive their leitmotif from the entries in the concurrent list. The Act is mainly concerned with entry No.22 , 23 and 24 whereas the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1946 , is welfare measure covered by entry Nos . 23 and 24 of the Constitution. Of course, the entries over lap but the Aet in pith and substance a legislation for resolving an industrial dispute . Both the Act and Bombay Shops and Establishment Act operate in different field . Both the enactment were pre constitution laws and are covered by concerned under Article 372 of the Constitution. Unlike other Acts of similar nature in other State the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act does not provide any forum for setting aside illegal termination in violation of Section 66 of the Act . However , violation of Section 66 of the Bombay Shop's and Establishment Act , 1948 has been made punishable under 52(f) of that Aet . It appears that idea was to create a penal liability. Even so , creation of prohibitive injunction by statute may give rise to a civil remedy because violation of that injunction renders an Act totally void . Nevertheless , because termination may be deemed to be void for violation of Shops and Establishment it does not became an Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 under the Act . This tribunal iscompetent to give an adjudicatory award only in actual industrial dispute or deemed industrial dispute under section 2 - A of the Act. It cannot usurp the jurisdiction of proper court while deciding the industrial dispute . In the opinion of this tribunal the violation of section 66 (b ) of the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act is not an industrial dispute and therefore , it cannot be raised before this tribunal . The workman may have general remedy under Civil law or even a Constitutional remedy under Article 226 ofthe Constitution . But he cannot avail remedy under the Act. The workman raised the dispute in this forum where industrial disputes are adjudicated upon. He cannot take aid of another Act which does not deal with industrial disputes. The learned counsel for the workman has drawn. attention of tills tribunal to the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of N.L.Mehta Cinema Ent.P.Ltd. vs. Vijay G.Shivgan 1988 I CLR 416. The ease is distinguishable because the workman had sought his remedy under the [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 6, 2003 /AGRAHAYAΝΑ 15 , 1925

7496

अनुबन्ध

औद्योगिक विवाद अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय जोधपुर

पीठासीन अधिकारी :- श्रीमती निशा गुप्ता, आर.एच.जे.एस.औ. वि. ( केन्द्रीय ) सं.:- 26/2001

सत्यनारायण स्वामी पुत्र श्री नारायणदास स्वामी जरिये महामंत्री रेलवे कैजुअल लेबर यूनियन, डागा स्कूल के पास , बीकानेर ।

....प्रार्थी

बनाम

1. दी जनरल मैनेजर, स्टेट बैंक ऑफ बीकानेर एण्ड जयपुर हैड ऑफिस तिलक मार्ग , जयपुर ।

general law by filing a writ petition directly in the High Court for the violation of section 66 of the Act. He had not chosen a remedy under the Act . The case of Krishna Chandra Yadav vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court 2003 I CLR 147 is case under the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act . That Act provided a remedy under section 26 of the Actbefore Labour Court . The Labour Court granted the remedy of reinstatement . In writ petition the order was set aside . In further appeal the Division Bench restored the order of the Labour Court . The proceedings in that case , were not taken up under the Act , before an industrial Tribunal . Thus, that case has no application. This tribunal has not cited several decisions cited either parties for the reason the facts of this case themselves resolve the dispute . It is unnecessary to cite any decision when the facts and law are plain and simple.

2. शाखा प्रबन्धक, स्टेट बैंक ऑफ बीकानेर एण्ड जयपुर भुजिया बाजार, बीकानेर ।

....अप्रार्थीगण

उपस्थिति:-

(1 ) प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधी हाजिर नहीं।

12. This tribunal now answers the reference by saying that the termination of services of the workman Joseph Rodrigues was within the bounds of law. There is no violation of the Act for which this industrial dispute was referred to this tribunal . This tribunal cannot grant any reliefto the workman under the facts and circumstances of case . No costs .

(2) अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधी श्री पी. के. लोहरा उप . अधिनिर्णय

दिनांक 26-8-2003 S. C. PANDEY, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 10 नवम्बर, 2003

श्रम मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार, नई दिल्ली ने अपनी अधिसूचना क्रमांक एल. 12012/249/97- आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) दिनांक 5 जनवरी , 2001 से निम्न विवाद वास्ते अधिनिर्णय इस न्यायालय को प्रेषित किया है:-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank ofBikaner & Jaipur, in terminating the services of Sh . Satya Narayan and Shri Shyam Sunder is justified? Ifnot , to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled ? "

का. आ. 3333.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ बीकानेर एंड जयपुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/लेबर कोर्ट , जोधपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. नं. 26/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-11-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-12012/249/97- आई.आर. ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 10th November, 2003

उक्तरेफरेन्स इस न्यायालय में प्राप्त होने पर दर्ज रजिस्टर्ड किया जाकर पक्षकारों को जरिये नोटिस आहुत किया गया, प्रार्थी ने अपना मांग्र - पत्र प्रस्तुत किया जिसका जवाब अप्रार्थी की ओर से पेश किया गया तथा यह प्रकरण वास्ते शपथ- पत्र प्रार्थी हेतु 19-5-03 को नियत किया गया लेकिन प्रार्थी की ओर से 19-5-2003 , 10-7-2003 , व आज भी शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत नहीं किया, आज स्वयं प्रार्थी या उसका कोई प्रतिनिधी भी हाजिर नहीं है जिससे यही प्रतीत होता है कि प्रार्थी इस प्रकरण को आगे चलाने में कोई रुचि नहीं रखता है तथा उसके व अप्राथी के मध्य अब कोई विवाद शेष नहीं रह गया है । अतः समस्त तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए इस प्रकरण में कोई विवाद नहीं रह जाने का अधिनिर्णय ( नोडिस्पियुट एवार्ड ) पारित किया जाता है । S. O. 3333. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 26/2001 ) ofthe Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Jodhpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank ofBikaner & Jaipur and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 07-11-2003 .

यह अधिनिर्णय आज दिनांक 26-8-2003 को खुले न्यायालय में हस्ताक्षर कर सुनाया गया ।

निशा गुप्ता, न्यायाधीश [No. L- 12012/249/ 97 - IR (B - I ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 7497 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15 , 1925

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 10 नवम्बर, 2003

short 'The Act' ) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal which runs as under:-

"Whether the action of the management State Bank of India, Jaipur in terminating the ser ices of Shri Babulal , Safai Karamchari w.e.f. 23-3-099 is justified? If not, to what relief is the women entitled ?"

2. The workman Shri Babulal Cherwal in h का. आ. 3334.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/लेबर कार्ट , जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी 38/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07-11-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-12012/58/2000- आई.आर. ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 10th November, 2003

S.O. 3334. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes , Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Case . No. CGIT- 38/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 7-11-2003 .

statement of claim has averred that he was employed as Safaiwala on 28-4-1997 by the non - applicant management who continuously worked up to 22-3-1999 . But on 23-3-1999 his service was terminated in violation of the provision under Section 25 -F of the Act. He has further stated that the junior employees to him were retained and after his termination the fresh employees were appointed, whereby the management has acted in violation of Sections 25 -G & 25 -H ofthe Act. He has prayed to reinstate him in the service with all the consequential benefits . Resisting the claim , the non - api..icant management in their reply have pleaded that workman was not employed by the management and that on account of the leave of the regular employee of the bank he had worked with the management as the casual wager .

[No. L - 12012/58/2000-IR (B -I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

Onpleadings of the parties the following points for determination were framed :-

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

1. Whether the applicant - workman was appointed to the post ofCleaning Employee (Safaiwala) on 28-4-97 on the daily wages by the non -applicant . who continuously worked up to 22-3-1999 ? BOA

Case No. CGIT- 38/ 2000

Reference No. L- 12012 /58/ 2000 IR-(B - I) dated 27-6-2000

2. Whether the non - applicant have violated the provision under Section 25- Fof the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947by not awarding the compensation to the workman ? BOA

Sh . Babulal

R/ o Sitabari , Kamani Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj .)

Versus

Assistant General Manager , State Bank of India , Zonal Office , TonkRoad, Jaipur (Raj .)

PRESENT:

3. Whether at the time of the termination of the service of the workman , the other workmen junior to him were working in the office of the non - applicant bank and after the termination of the service of the workman, new workmen have been appointed by the non - applicants and thus , non- applicants have violated the provisions under Sections 25 -G & 25 -H of the Industrial Dispute Act , and rules 77 & 78 under the Act ? BOA

SHRI R.C. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

Shri R. C. Jain

Forthe applicant

4. Whether the termination order dated 23-3-1999 is unjustified and illegal ? BOA

Sh. Yashpal Garg

Forthe Non - applicants

08-10-2003

Date of award

5. Whether the applicant -workman is entitled for the reinstatement in the service with all the consequential benefits and with continuity of the service ? BOA AWARD

6. Whether the present dispute does not fall within the definition of the Industrial Dispute under the Act ? BONA

The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause D of sub- Section 1 and sub- Section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( for

3534GI/2003-9 7498

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2003 /AGRAHAYANA 15, 1925 [PART II- SEC. 3( ii) ]

Presiding Officer

Shri B.N. Pandey

Leading Case: L.D. No. 47/1998

7. Whether the applicant is not a workman in accordance with the definition under Section 2(S ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ? BONA

Shri Jagdish & Others

-Workman/Petitioners

Versus

In the evidence the workman has filed the affidavit, who was cross examined on behalf of the non - applicant.

I. Lt. Governor Delhi & others through the Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration, New Delhi .

At the stage of the defence evidence the workman on 7-10-2003 moved an application in presence of the representative for non - applicant that the non - applicant management has issued an appointment letter in his favour and now he does not press the claim and any consequential relief thereto and is not willing to further contest the claim .

2. The Administration, NewDelhi Municipal Committee, (N.D.M.C.) Town Hall, Parliament Street, NewDelhi.

I have heard the workman and the representative for the non - applicant .

3. The Secretary, NewDelhi Municipal Committee, (N.D.M.C.)

Town Hall Parlament Street, NewDelhi ,

In view of the facts stated in the application dated 7-10-2003 filed by the workman himself, it appears that both the parties have come to a settlement and the workman is not willing to further contest the claim. Accordingly the no dispute award is passed in the instant reference.

-Management/ Respondents R. C. SHARMA , Presiding Officer . Consolidated Cases:

नई दिल्ली, 11 नवम्बर, 2003

1. I.D. No. 48/1998 Shri Jamaluddin & others Workman/

Versus Petitioners

Lt. Governor, Delhi & others

Management/ Respondents

2. I.D. No. 49/1998

Shri Ram Khilari & others Versus Workman/ Petitioners का. आ. 3335. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एन. डी. एम. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नई दिल्ली, ( संदर्भ संख्या 47/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-11-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Lt. Governor, Delhi & others Management/ Respondents

3. I.D. No. 50/1998

[सं ० एल-22025/2/2003-आई.आर. ( सी- II ) ] एन.पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 11th November. 2003

Shri Kaneya Lal & others Versus Workman/ Petitioners

Lt. Governor, Delhi & others Management/ Respondents

4. I.D. No. 51/1998

Shri Arun Kumar & others Versus Workman/ Petitioners

Lt. Governor, Delhi & others Managment/ Respondents

5. I.D. No. 52/1998

S.O. 3335.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes , Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47/ 1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court . New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of New Delhi Municipal Corporation and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-11-2003 .

[No. L- 22025/2/2003 -IR (C- II)]

Shri RL . Gautam & others Versus Workman/ Petitioners

Lt. Governor , Delhi & others

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

Management/ Respondents ANNEXURE

6.. I.D. No.53/ 1998

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

Versus

Shri Mahtab Singh & others Workman/ Petitoners

Lt. Governor, Delhi & others

TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT : NEW DELHI

Management/ Respondents 7499

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15 , 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

7. I.D. No. 54/1998

Workman/ Shri Chander Bhan & others

Versus

Lt. Governor, Delhi & others

Petitioners Management/ Respondents 8. I.D. No. 55/1998

Shri Laxman & others

Versus

Lt. Governor, Delhi & others

Workman/ Petitioners Management/ Respondents 9. I.D. No. 56/1998

Shri Shyam Lal & others

Versus

Lt. Governor, Delhi & others

Workman/ Petitioners Management/ Respondents 10. I.D. No. 57/1998

Shri Gaze Singh & others Versus

Lt. Governor , Delhi & others

Workman/ Petitioners Management/ Respondents 11. I.D. No.58/ 1998

Shri Kamla Devi & others

Versus

Lt. Governor, Delhi & others

Workman/ Petitoners Management/ Respondents 12. 1.D. No. 59/1998

Mohd. Sabir & others

Versus

Lt. Governor, Delhi & others

Workman/ Petitioners Management/ Respondents 13. I.D. No. 23/2001

Shri Narayanan & others

Versus

Workman/ Petitioners Lt. Governor, Delhi & others Management/ Respondents 14. I.D. No. 24/2001

Workman/ Shri Vir Singh & others

Versus

Lt. Governor, Delhi & others

Management/ Respondents Petitioners 15. I.D. No. 126/2000

Workman/ Shri Neeraj Bansal & others

Versus

Lt. Governor , Delhi & others

Petitioners . Respondents Management/ 16. I.D. No. 34/2001

Workman/ Shri Jagana & others

Petittioners Versus

Lt. Governor, Delhi & others

Management/ Respondents 17. I.D. No. 97/1998

N.D.M.C. WaterSupply

Workman/ Workers Union

Versus

Petitioners Lt. Governor, Delhi & others Management/ Respondents 18. I.D. No. 123/1998

N.D.M.C. Water Meter

Workshop Association

Versus

Workman/ Petitioners Lt. Governor, Delhi & others

Management/ Respondents 19. I.D. No. 96/1998

N.D.M.C. Medical & Health

Workman/ Employees Union

Versus

Petitioners Lt. Governor, Delhi & others

Management/ Responents 20. I.D. No. 118/2003

Shri M.P. Dwivedi & others

Workman/ Petitioners Versus

Lt. Governor, Delhi & others Management/ Respondents 21. I.D. No. 119/2003

Shri Subhash Chand & others

Versus

Workman/ Petitioners Lt. Governor, Delhi & others Management/ Respondents

AWARD

All the above mentioned 22 cases are based on almost same and similar facts and involve common question/dispute to be decided between the parties . Hence , with the consent of the parties counsel , all of them have been consolidated , taken and heard together and are being disposed ofby this common award which shall govern all ofthem . I. D. No. 47/1998 is taken as the leading case .

2.At the very outset it is worth to be mentioned that these cases involve industrial dispute but have not been referred by the appropriate government under Section 10 ofthe I.D. Act , 1947 to this Tribunal . Some of them have been referredby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the rests filed by the claimants directly in the Tribunal . It is alleged that some of the workman being aggrieved from the descriminatory actions of the respondent - management in not giving them equal, reasonable and proper pay scales as being given to other employees in view of the Shiv Shankar Committee Report and the Supreme Court Judgement, filed writ petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which were collectively disposed of by a single order dated8-5-97 with the directions to each petitioner to avail of such remedies as available to them under law and in 7500

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2003 / AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

accordance with proper forum. After the said order of the Apex Court , some of the workman - petitioners approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of filing writ petitions No. 47/98 to 59/98 and others . There upon the Hon'bleHigh Court of Delhi , after hearing parties counsel , was pleased to transfer these writ petitions to this Tribunal with a direction that the writ petitions shall be treated as reference under the I. D. Act , 1947 and disposed of in accordance with law. A copy of the said order dated 22-1-98 and 13-2-98 of the Hon'ble High Court ofDelhi is also available on the record . The order 22-1-98 runs as "that all the writ petitioners should approach before the Industrial Tribunal and the Industrial Tribunal (Labour) and the Industrial Tribunal shall adjudicate all the points raised by the petitioners and respondents and give its award in accordance with law" . Further on 13-2-98 Hon'ble High Court ordered that the writ petition Nos. 47 to 59/98 may be transferred to the Industrial Tribunal . The writ petition filed here in shall be treated as reference made by workman. It is in this context that the present industrial dispute of I.D. Case No.47/98 to 59/98 and 23/2001 and 24/ 2001 whose paper - books of original writ petitions have been received from the Hon'ble High Court and the rests which have been directly instituted before this Tribunal have been registered as references in this Tribunal .

Inbrief the claim of the petitioners in I.D. Case No. 47/98 to 59/98 and 23/2001 , 24/2001 , 126/200 and 34/2001 are that they have been working in N.D.M.C. in various categories of workman in different pay scales of class III and class IV employees but they are not getting their pay scales and other benefits which are being given to other similarly placed employees of N.D.M.C. working in other wings , in view of Shiv Shanker Committee pay scale report and decision of R.D. Gupta's case of Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the actions of Management of N.D.M.C. (New Delhi Municipal Council ) in not giving the same pay scales and benefits to the petitioners is discriminatory, arbitrary and also against the well established principle of equal pay for equal works , principles of natural justice and fair play. Hence they claim parity in their pay scale and other benefits with other similarity placed employees .

4. In 1.D.No.97/98 the petitioner - workman claim that they are working in water wing and discharging their duties in various capacity such as Beldar, Khalasi , Mason , Peon , Male Painter, Fitter , Inspector, Lab Attendant, Lab . Asst . cum Sample Takers , Bacteriologist and Chemist but they have been denied the benefit of S. S. Committee Pay Scale . Hence they claim the same benefits which have been extended to more than sixty other categories of employees of the Management of respondents .

5. In I.D.No. 123/98 the petitioners- claim that they are part and parcel of Electric Wing of N.D.M.C. They also discharge ministerial functions such as meter mechanic issue meters frown the store for repairing to the repairers

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] and attend the complaint at site and maintain the records ofcomplaints . They have prayed for giving them of S.S.C. pay scale in the light of judgement of R.D. Gupta Vs. Lt. Governor Delhi case of the Apex court and Shiv Shanker Committeereport .

6. In I.D.No.96/ 98 the petitioners claim that they are employees of N.D.M.C. working in hospital " Charak Palika " , P.M. Hospital , Dispensaries , Health Centres. Vet . Hospital, Health Education Unitetc. of N.D.M.C. which is part and parcel of Health Staff. They discharge all civil functions including the supply ofelectricity, water, disposal of sewege and maintenance of health services , that the N.D.M.C. has accepted in principles to make the payment of pay scale in accordance with S.S.C. report to all its employees irrespective of any category in the N.D.M.C .; that the benefits of the S.S.C. report was extended to 8 categories ofSweepers , Assistant Sanitary Inspector , Chief Inspector, Dy. Sanitary Officer , Dak Suitors , iviaiaria Inspectors , Anti Malaria Officer, Drivers , Clerks, Store Keepers , Record Keepers which form part of health department . That some of the employees working in health department of N.D.M.C. are inter transferable with other department of N.D.M.C. and some categories of the staff working in the health department have been extended the benefit of S.S.C. pay scale but petitioners have been denied, thatthe duties of the applicants are to provide medical and health services round the clock to the other employees of N.D.M.C. belonging to electricity, water, the administrative staff; and that the juniors to the petitioners are getting higher pay scale than their seniors and thus there is a gross violation of the principles of equality and equal pay for equal work. Therefore , they have also prayed for giving then the benefits of S.S.C. pay scales .

7. The petitioners of I.D. No. 118/03 have alleged that they are working in the various capacity i.e. junior trades men, senior draftsmen and head draftsman in the electricity department of N.D.M.C. w.e.f. various dates but despite their various representations and also resolutions of the N.D.M.C. itself they have not been provided benefits of S. S.C. report although the officials working in the same categories ofD.E.S.U. are getting the said benefits . Hence the petitioners have prayed for their parity in pay scales .

8. In I.D. No.1 19/03 the petitioners alleged that they are working in public relation department of N.D.M.C. on various posts i.e. Senior Librarian, Assistant Librarian and LibraryAttendant: that the total strength of the department isof 59 employees out of which 26 employees are getting their salary on the basis of the S.S.C. pay scale and remaining 31 employees are not getting the said pay scale; that the petitioner are getting pay scale of Rs . 750-940 only whereas the others who are much lower to the petitioners aregetting higher scales in view of the S.S.C. report. Hence they have also prayed for getting the pay scales as being paid to others.

7501 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2003/ अग्रहायण 15 , 1925

toonly staffworking in the electricity wing or grant ofex- gratia payment only staff working in the clectricity and water wing cannot be legally sustained as it suffers from voice of discrimination . Hence the petitioners claim that they are also entitled to the benefit of S.S.C. pay scale. Regarding preliminary objections of the management it has beenalleged that the claims of the petitioners are not belated atall; that the petitioners have been raising their claims from the verybeginning and approached the management on so, many times for the same, that the Hon'ble High Court has itself ordered that the writ petitions filed before, itshall be treated as reference made by the workraan . Therefore, it cannot be argued that the present dispute is barred and or not maintainabie in absence of reference in accordance with the provisions of I.D. Act; that the written statements filed by the management of N.D.M.C. is wrong and misconceived ; hence the claimants/petitioners petitions deserve to be allowed.

11. In documentary evidence both the parties filed various documents and in oral evidence the workman Jamaluddin petitioner of 1.D.No.48/98 has filed his own affidavit and he was also cross- examined; the management did not adduce any verbal evidence .

9. The claim of the petitioner have been opposed by the N.D.M.C. by way of filing written statement . In the written statement it has been, inter alia, alleged that the claim oftheworkmen petitioners is highly belated because through resolutions dated 19.10.87, 9.2.88 , 26.2.88 and also various other of N.D.M.C. , the benefits of pay and allowances as per the S.S.C. report was extended to various employees of several categories but the petitioners took no step to make any such claim ever since then . Hence their claims are highly belated and liable to be rejected summarily on this ground alone ; that the petitioners have not come to this court by way of raising an industrial dispute through appropriate government and that the intention ofthe Hon'ble High Court while deciding the writ petitions was not to bye - pass the procedure laid down by the 1.D. Act , 1947; that the procedure as provided in the I.D. Act, 1947 has not been followed by the petitioners in raising the present dispute and no reference was made by the appropriate government in accordance with the procedure laid down in l.D. Act , 1947 ; Hence the petitions are liable to be dismissed; that the petitioners are not entitled for grant of pay scales as recommended by S.S.C. particularly in accordance with the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2669 of 983 which was confined only to the ministerial staff of N.D.M.C. and the petitioners are not members of ministerial staff. That vide resolution No. 11 dated 26.2.88 N.D.M.C. haddecided toconsider grant of pay scale of the S.S.C. to other categories but that decision was not final because according to it clarifications were required from Labour Commissioner/Deini Administration and these clarifications were only to consider the demand of equal pay for equal work. That the carpenters are not transferable to any other department and it is incorrect to say that the carpenters were appointed for any common cadre ; that all the petitioners are already getting Rs . 100/- PM as non recoverable relief as is being given to the other employees ; that the prayer of the petitioners/ claimants cannot be allowed and it is liable to be dismissed with costs.

12. In I.D.No.47/ 98 Shri Om Dutt one of the petitioners filed affidavit and was cross - examined. In LD.No. 48/98 Shri Jamaluddin filed his affidavit and was also cross examined. In I.D.No.49 /98 Shri Ram Khilari appeared as WWI and was cross-examined . In I.D.No.50/98 Slıri Kananey Lal appeared as WW1 and was cross -examined . In I.D.No.51 / 98 Shri Arun Kumar appeared and cross - examined. In I.D.No.52/98 Shri R.L. Gautam appeared as WW1 and cross- examined. In I.D. No.53 /98 Shri Mehtab Singh appeared as WWI and was cross - examined . In I.D.No. 54/98 Shri Chander Bhan appeared as WWI and was cross -examined. In I.D No.55/98 Shri Ram Lakhan appeared as WW1 and was cross- examined. In I.D.No. 56/98 Shri Shyam Lal appeared as WW1 and was cross - examined . In I.D.No.57/ 98 Shri Gazey Singh appeared as WWI and was cross- examined . In I.D.No. 58/98 Smt . Kamla Devi appeared as WWI and was cross -examined . In I.D.No.59/98 Mohd. Sabir appeared as WWI and was cross - cxamined . In I.D.No.23/ 2001 no oral evidence . in I.D.No.24/2001 Sri Subhash Chandra one of the petitioners filed his affidavit . In I.D.No. 126/2000 , ID.No.34/2001 no verbal evidence was led by any party. In 1.D.No.97/98 Shri Kanwar Singh appeared as WWI and was cross - examined . In i.D. No. 123/98 Shri Kanchan Singh appeared as WW1 and was cross -examined . In I.D.No.96/ 98 Shri G.L.Hora appeared as WW1 and was cross -examined . In I.D.No. 118 and I.D.No.1 19/2003 no evidence was led by either party . No oral evidence was ledby the N.D.M.C. in any of the cases .

10. The petitioners have also filed their rejoinder reiterating their earlier versions made in their original petitions. It has been further alleged that the Secretary of N.D.M.C. issued a circular dated 26.6.91 to all Assistant Secretaries for implementing pay scales of left out categories given by S.S.C.; that the question of grant of S.S.C. pay scale to the workmen petitioners arose only because management/respondent authorities have granted the said pay scale out of their own whims and fancíes to other similarly placed employees working under them. Hence workmen/petitioners are also , claiming similar treatment on the ground ofequality and equal opportunity ; that in the case ofR.D. Gupta Vs. Lt. Governor and others theHon'ble Supreme Court has also passed the judgement on the similarview. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held in the R.D. Gupta's case that " the grant of S. S.C. pay scale

13. In the petitions in which the management filed no written statement and parties adduced, no separate 7502

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 6, 2003 /AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925 [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] evidence , the A.R. ofthe management adopted same written statement and documents in evidence adduced in other petitions consolidated with this case. A/R of the workman has also adopted the same evidence of connected cases.

14. I have heard Ld , counsel A/R of both the sides and perused the files .

held that" the claim to be paid the correct salary computed on the basis ofproper pay fixation is a right which subsists during the entire tenure of service and can be exercised at the time of each payment of the salary " . Therefore , I find no force even in the second objection of the respondents and hold that the claims can not be said to be highly belated.

15. As regards the preliminary objection of the raanagement on the ground of maintainability of the petitions in absence of any reference through the appropriate government I have already decided that objection through my order dated 18-3-2002 passed on a separate sheet which shall form part of the award. In view of the order of the Hon'ble High Court treating the writ petitions itself as reference made under the I. D. Act . I have rejected preliminary objections raised by the management and held that the claim petitions are maintainable. The other petitions which were filed directly before the tribunal were also admitted as they were based on similar facts and grounds and against the same management of N.D.M.C.

16. The next objection of the respondents is that the ciaims are highly belated. It has been alleged that the petitioners have raised their claims on the basis of the report of S.S. Committee and various resolutions of N.D.M.C. by which the benefits of pay and allowances were given to some of the staff members as per the S.S.C. report . The first resolution was passed on 19.10.87, the second and third resolutions were passed on 9.2.88 and 26.2.88 respectively through which benefits of S.S. C. report were extended to various all other categories of workers butthe petitioners took no steps to make any such claim ever since then. On the other hand the petitioners/ workmen have refuted this contention on the ground that they have been raising their demands ever since the benefits , of pay scales etc. were extended by the N.D.M.C. itself to other categorics of similarly placed employees .

18. Now coming to the merits of the case , the main question to be decided in the dispute is as to whether the action of the management of N.D.M.C./respondents in not granting the pay scales and other benefits in view of S.S.C. report pay scales as claimed by the petitioners and as being given to other categories of similarly placed employees of N.D.M.C. is just and proper ? If not to what relief, ifany are the petitioners entitled ?" In this regard it is worth to be mentioned that the respondents have not specifically denied that the committee of the management of N.D.M.C. , its secretary and Administrator agreed through its resolution No.1 dated 26.2.88 and also various other resolution and settlement with the workers union to give the pay scale and other benefits of S. S.C. pay scales to all its employees as alleged by the petitioners . Rather it has been admitted that vide resolution No.1 dated 26.2.88 committee of the N.D.M.C. conceded to grant S.S.C. pay scales to all its employees . It is also to be noted that the N.D.M.C. adduced no evidence at all to show as to why the petitioners are not being given so far the relief claimed. On the other hand the workmen petitioners have filed photostat copy of report of committee and sub - committee ofN.D.M.C. & various resolutions of committee of N.D.M.C. , orders and recommendations of Secretary and Administrator of the N.D.M.C. , copy of Settlement arrived atbetween the members Union and officials of the Union of the workmen and officers of management of N.D.M.C. including various orders and judgements of the courts in support of their claims and genuineness of most of them has been admitted by the A.R. of the respondents. In rebuttal there of no document or evidence at all has been adduced by the management.

17 In this regard, the petitioners have alleged and also adduced various documentary evidence in support oftheir claim that they have been continuously raising their demands from the very beginning when the benefits were given to other similar employees ; that they also filed various writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court , they also went on strike resisting their claims in view of Shiv Shanker Committee's report and R.D. Gupta's case . They also held meetings through their union with the authorised members of the committee of the N.D.M.C. These facts have not been denied by the Management . Therefore , at this stage it cannot be accepted mat the petitioners did not raise their claims at the earliest or at any other point of time. Besides, in the case of M.R.Gupta Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1996 ( Supreme Court ) page 669 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that " Non - fixation of pay scale is a continuing wrong . Hence question of limitation does not arise in a case offixation ofpay scale " . The Hon'ble Court

19. It has been alleged that Shiv Shanker Committee ( in short S.S.C. ) was constitutedby the Govt . to go into the question of revisions of pay scales of the Technical Staff of Delhi Electric Supply undertaking and it submitted its report in 1973. Consequentially by resolution No. 154 N.D.M.C. granted the benefits of pay and allowances as perS.S.C. report to the staff of the electricity Wing only. Subsequently N.D.M.C. granted S.S.C. pay scale to some other member of its staff in the electricity wing and there by the N.D.M.C. created a class within a class which gave riseto widespread discontentment among other categories of staff working in the N.D.M.C .. There upon legal proceedings were initiated and ultimately the matter came before the Hon'ble Supreme Court . The Hon'ble Supreme Courtdelivered its judgement on 7-8-1987 in C.A. No.2969 of1983 (R.D.Gupta's case) where in it was held that paying S.S.C. pay scales to only the staff working in the electricity [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

wing was discriminatory. The court held that there should be uniformity of pay scales and that all the ministerial staff working in the N.D.M.C. are entitled to get pay scales as perS.S.C. pay scales report and like wise all of them are entitled to get ex - gratia payment and payment should also be made from a date common to all . On receipt of the said judgement the committee of the management sought sanction of the Delhi Administration vide letter dated 8-9-87 . In the said letter it was also requested that a clarification be given as to whether relief granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is to be limited to the ministerial staff only or it should be extended to the holders of other common transferable posts borne on unified cadre . The case was laid down before the committee of officers headed by the Administrator for consideration and decision . There upon it was resolved by the committee of officers on 9.2.88 and decided by the Administrator that the benefits of Supreme Court judgement dated 7-8-87 be extended to the ministerial staff comprising of office superintendent/ H.A./Accountant , Personal Assistant , Sr. Clerks , Stenos , Jr. Clerk, Assistant Store Keepers , Adremea - operators and on for fixation of pay etc. be taken up in anticipations ofconfirmation of minutes . Secondly the case regarding other categories be examined after a clarification is received from Delhi Administration and the directions ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the petition filed by the Karayalya Chaturth Shreni Karamchari Association .

20. Thereafter the action Committee of N.D.M.C. workers federation constituted by various categories of Municipal employees came up with the demand that S. S.C. pay scales should be extended to them since they form an integral part of the employees of N.D.M.C. The action committee in order to press their demand also decided to take the path ofnon-cooperation and struck down work since 25.2.88 . In order to resolve the dispute amicably the representatives ofthe municipal employees and the members of the action committee hold deliberations with Administrator... They also gave their demand in writing. An Extraordinary meeting of Committee of officer was held on 26-2-88 wherein in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations with the labour and appreciating the genuineness of the demand, the committee decided to adopt this as a resolution in the extra ordinary meeting held on 26.2.88 . In its resolutionNo. 1 it was resolved that :-

" With reference to your demand it is clarified that N.D.M.C. wants to make payment in accordance with S.S.C. Committee's report to all its employees irrespective of its any category. It was further resolved that after taking clarification from Labour Commissioner/Delhi Administration, the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement i.e. equal pay for equal work will be considered favourably. The work of pay fixation of all categories in accordance with S.S.C. reportwould start hence forth".

7503

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6 , 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

21. It is also to be noted that the benefits of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement dated 7-8-87 in the case ofR.D. Gupta and others was already extended through resolution No.26 dated 9-2-88 and resolution No.52 dated 9-6-88 of the committee of management to 18 categories of the staff falling under 496 posts including drivers .

22. Under the orders of the Administrator dated 18.7.88 various categories of sweepers were also extended benefits ofS.S. C. scales in terms of resolution No. 26 dated 9.2.88 read with resolution No.52 dated 9.6.88 .

23. The petitioners have also filed copy of a settlement dated 29.12.90 and a copy of report dated 19.4.91 of the committee of N.D.M.C. , genuineness of both these documents has not been denied. In para 1 of the terms of settlement dated 29.12.90 it has been alleged " that all categories of employees upto group 'B ' be allowed an unrecoverable relief of Rs . 100/-w.e.f. 1st March. 1990. " In para 2 of the terms of settlement it was agreed that Administrator N.D.M.C. will constitute a sub -committee under the chairmanship of Secretary N.D.M.C. consisting officers ofN.D.M.C. as mentioned in the terms of settlement to consider the issue and give its report within 3 months. Then the N.D.M.C. shall take final decision after due consultations . Accordingly a sub - committee was constituted which gave its report on 19.4.91 (copy of report filed by the petitioners is on the record) . The settlement dated 29.12.90 was signed by two members of N.D.M.C. administration and three members of N.D.M.C. workers Federation witnessed by two persons . The next document which is report dated 19.4.91 of the sub-committee constituted in view of the settlement , which shows that the committee carefully thought over the issue including the contention ofthe federation and arrived at the following conclusion: -

( 1) The N.D.M.C. vide resolution No. 1 dated 26.2.88 had already agreed to extend inter alia the S.S.C. scales to all its employees .

(2) That the present operation of the resolution No.1 is working to the advantage of some while other categories are not getting these benefits such unequal operation is without reasonable cause or basis . Such discrimination was legally unjustified. As such , the benefits may be extended to all the categories of employees working in N.D.M.C. except those covered by different pay packages announced by Delhi Administration or Government of India . Alternatively none should get beyond what was prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and S.S.C. scales ."

24. It is strange enough that despite the above facts , settlement and various resolutions and decision of the committee ofthe N.D.M.C. itself in favour of the workmen/ petitioners the pay scales as claimed by the petitioners in 7504

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2003/AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi, the 11th November, 2003

S.O. 3336. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes , Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 136/91 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court No. 2 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-11-2003 .

view of the S.S.C. pay scales and R.D. Gupta's case judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have not been given to the petitioners so far. There seems to be no justification in not extending the same and equal pay scales and other benefits to the petitioners as are already being given to other categories of similarly placed employees of the N.D.M.C .. It only goes to show arbitrariness and discriminatory attitude of the management of N.D.M.C. and nothing else . It is also against the intention of the constitution, principles of equity and justice and equal pay for equal works. Therefor, it cannot be justified .

[No. L - 12012/ 122/91 - IR(B- II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy. ANNEXURE

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

25. In view of the above discussions I conclude that the petitioners have successfully established their justified claims against the management of N.D.M.C .. I also find that the action of the management of the respondent/ N.D.M.C. in not extending the pay scales and other benefits ofS.S.C. report to the petitioners which is already been given by the management to its other similarly placed employees is neither justified nor proper and legal . The respondents have failed to justifying their attitude towards the petitions in not giving than the benefits claimed for.

SHRI B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer. Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1 ) (d) ofthe I.D.Act, 1947. Reference No. 136 of 1991

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of CentralBank of India and their workman. APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the workman : Shri D. Ram, Authorised Representative

Onbehalf ofthe employers : Shri Sanjay Kumar , LawOfficer

Industry: Banking .

26. Hence, all the petitions/claims of the petitioners deserve to be allowed with costs . The petitioners are entitled to get the pay scales and other benefits as being given to other categories of similarly placed employees of the N.D.M.C. at least w.e.f. 1-7-91 i.e. subsequent to 19-4-91 i.e. the date of final conclusion arrived at by the committee ofthe management of N.D.M.C. on the basis of settlement dated 29-12-90 between the administration of N.D.M.C. and worker's federation of N.D.M.C. if not earlier . It is further found that the pay scale of each petitioners should be concluded and refixedby N.D.M.C. within 3 months from the date of the publication of the award in the Government Gazette.

The award is given accordingly.

State: Jharkhand Dated, Dhanbad the 16th October, 2003 . AWARD

27. Let a copy ofthis award be placed on the file ofeach connected I.D. cases , original being placed on the file of the leading I.D. Case No. 47/98 .

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act. , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L - 12012/ 122/91 - IR (B -2) dated, the 18th September, 1991 .

Dated6-11-2003 BADRI NIWAS PANDEY, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 11 नवम्बर, 2003

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank ofIndia in dismissing Shri Ram Bhagwan Singh, Armed Guard from the services of the Bank is justified? If not, to what relief is the workmen concerned entitled ? "

2. The case ofthe concerned workmen according to theWritten statement submitted by the sponsoring Union onhis behalf in brief is as follows :-

का. आ. 3336.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2, धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 136/91 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-11-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

It has been submitted by the sponsoring Union that the concerned workman being an Ex- service man was [सं० एल-12012/122/91- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव 7505 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6 , 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

and other consequential benefits setting aside the order of dismissal passed against him by the Disciplinary Authority.

3. Management on the contrary after filing W.S.- cum -rejoinder have denied all the claims and all sation which the sponsoring Union asserted in the W.S. on tehalf ofthe concerned workman. It has been submitted bythe management that while the concerned workman was posi as Armed Guard at Bhagwanpur Branch submitted : representation enclosing there with photo copy of mark sheets and school leaving certificate with request to issue necessary order for effecting straightway promotion in his favour in clerical cadre in terms of Bank's promotional Policy. The said Photo copy marksheet submitted by the workmanto the Bank transpired that he passed Madhyama Examination from Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, Patna in the year 1986 in first division . Accordingly his representation was forwarded to the Regional Officer Siwan by the Branch Manager of Bhagwanpur Brach . The said Regional Office then forwarded his representation to the Zonal Office Patna . The Zonal Office Patsa while considering the representation requisitioned the original mark sheet from the workman which was made available to the Zonal Office Patna by the workman. After receept of the said mark sheet, Zonal Office Patna sent the same to the Secretary Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board to ascertain the genuineness/ correctness of marksheet submitted by the workman . The Board accordingly informed the Zonal Office that the mark sheet submitted by the workman was wrong/ incorrect and it did not tally with the actual marks obtained by him. On receipt of the said reply the Bank again wrote to the Secretary of theBoard to inform the actual marks obtained by the workman. In reply to that letter the Board informed that the saidworkman had passed Madhyama Examination inthird division carrying 297 marks and also sent duplicate copy of the marksheet to the management . After ascertaining the correct marks and division obtained by the concerned workman from the Board the Regional Manager Siwan issued a Memo dt 23-2-88 to the workman asking him to explain the reasons for his submitting bogus marksheet. The concerned workman submitted his reply to the memo in question but as the reply given by the concerned workman was not satisfactory he was issued with a chargesheet with the allegation of committing misconduct for giving wrong information and submitting bogus marksheet etc. to the Bank with intention to gain un due advantage from the Bank . Accordingly a departmental enquiry was initiated against the concerned and Enquiry Officer was appointed to that effect. In course of the said enquiry proceeding the concerned workman fully participated in the same and represented his case through his representative. The management submitted that the concerned workman also in support of his claim examined witness . The Enquiry Officer after completing the said enquiry proceeding submitted his report to the disciplinary appointed in Bank's service as Armed Guard and posted at Bhagwan Bazar, Chapra under the management. They submitted that as per the promotional policy, workman as sub - staff i.e. IV is entitled to get straightway promotion in the clerical Cadre and grade if he passed Madhyama standard of exmination from any recoginsed Board of examination , in first division . Being interested, the concerned workman with a view to get his promotion in clerical cadre appeared in the Madhyama Examination in the year 1986 conducted by Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, Patna as a private candidate through Shri Dhaneshwar Singh Sanskrit High School , Samhota, Sharan and passed the said Madhyama Examination in first division . They submitted that having received the said certificate duly issued by the Board the concened workman applied to the Bank furnishing a copy of the certificate for his straightway promotion to the post of Clerk cadre according to the said promotioal policy. They submitted that while the concerned workman awaiting for the order of his promotion to the post of Clerk , with utter surprise he received a Memo dated 23-2-88 issued to him by the Regional Manager Siwan asking for his explanation as to why disciplinary action would not be take against him for his false declaration ofpassing the said Madhyama Examination in first division while he passed the said examination in 3rd division. Receiving the said memo the concerned workman wrote a letter to the Head Master of Dhaneshwar Singh Sanskrit High School, Samhota, Saran asking him to ascertain as to whether the certificate which has been furnished to himby the said School was genuine or not. In reply to his said letter the Head Master by Regd. letter confirmed that the certificate of the said Board which was given to him was genuine. Accordingly with all confidence he submitted his reply to the said Memo that he had passed Madhyama Examination of the said Board in first division and further informed that on receiving the Memo he got confirmation from the Head Master of the said School of his passing the examination in first division. They alleged that the Regional Manager, Siwan not being satisfied with his reply chargesheeted the concerned workman for submitting false certificate to get his promotion in the cadre of clerk and also ordered for holding departmental enquiry against him. They alleged that in course of that departmental enquiry the certificate which the concerned workman though was proved genuine the Enquiry Officer with malafide intention submitted his report to the Disciplinary authority and holding him guilty to the charge brought against him . The disciplinary authority and the Appellate authority illegally and arbitrarily confirming the report submitted by the Enqiry Officer, dismissed the concerned workman from his service violating the principles ofnatural justice. Accordingly they raised an industrial dispute which ultimately resulted reference for adjudication to this Tribunal . The concerned workman accordingly submitted his prayer for passing award with a direction to the management to reinstate him in service with back wages

3534 GI /2003-10 7506

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2003 /AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

authority holding the concerned workman guilty to the charges. After obtaining that report the disciplinary authority as well as the Appellate authority gave an opportunity to the concerned workman for making his submission in support of his plea of innocence . The concerned workman appeared before the said authority made his submission . But as the submission made by him was not satisfactory he was dismissed from his service . Management accordingly submitted prayer in view of the facts and circumstances stated above that the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief. Accordingly they submitted prayer to pass award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman .

4. The points to be decided in this reference are :-

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank ofIndia in dismissing Shri Ram Bhagwan Singh , Armed Guard from the services of the Bank is justified? If not , to what relief is the workmen concerned entitled ? "

FINDING WITH REASONS 5. It appears from the record that before hearing argument on merit it was considered if the domestic enquiry conducted against the concerned workman was fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice . In course of the said preliminary hearing management examined two witnesses as MW- 1 and MW-2 while the concernedworkman examined himself as witness in support of his claim . During evidence of MW-1 and MW- 2 documents were marked as Exts. M - 1 to M - 17 . It transpires further that in course of preliminary hearing both the management and the representative of the workman extended their argument at length . After hearing both sides vide order No. 52 dt . 10-7-2002 this Tribunal came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry conducted against the concerned workman was fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Accordingly at this stage I do not find any reason to enter into any further discussion, on this point afresh.

6. Here the point which is to be considered is whther the management has been able to substantiate the charge brought against the concerned workman and if so whether the concerned workman is entitled to get any reliefunder Section 11 -B of the Industrial DisputeAct .

7. Considering the facts disclosed in the pleadings of both sides and also considering materials on record I find no dispute to hold that the concerned workman was appointed as Armed Guard at Bhagwan Bazar Branch . I also find no dispute to hold that the management maintains the promotional policy for the sub - staff to the clerical cadre straightway who passed Madhyama Examination in First Division . Being attracted by the said promotional policy, concerned workman appeard at Madhyama Examination as private candidate conducted by Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, Patna through Shri Dhaneshwar Singh Sanskrit

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii )] High School Samhota Saran in the year 1986. It is the contention of the concerned workman that he passed the said examination in the first divsion and obtained certificate from the said school issued by the Head Master . He further submitted that on receipt of the certificate he made representation to the management with enclosed copy of the certificate with a prayer for getting his promotion in clerical cadre as per the said promotional policy. The said fact was also admitted by the management . Management submitted that on receipt of the representation submitted bythe concerned workman the Branch Manager forwarded the same to the Regional Office Siwan and the Regional Office forwarded it to the Zonal Office Patna. Then Zonal Office Patna considering the representation of the concerned workman requisitioned the original mark sheet from the concerned workman which was made available to the Zonal Office Patna by the workman . The workman also did not raise any dispute about submission of original mark sheet relating to his Madhyama Examination which was issued to him by the Head Master to the management . It is the specific contention of the management that on receipt ofthe original mark sheet the Zonal Office Patna sent the same to the Secretary Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board to ascertain its genuinness . The Board accordingly informed the Zonal Office that the mark sheet submitted by the workman was incorrect as it did not tally with the actual marks obtained by him. Then again management wrote letter to the Secretary of the Board to inform the actual marks obtained by the workman. In response to that letter the Board informed that the said workman had passed Madhyama Examination in third division having obtained total number of marks 297 and also sent the duplicate copy ofthe mark sheet to the management . On ascertaining the correct marks obtained by the workman the Regioal Manager, Siwan issued a Memo dt . 23-2-88 to the workman asking him to explain the reasons for his submitting Bogus mark sheet. They submitted that the concerned workman replied to the Memo issued to him.

1 8. Here the contention of the concerned workman is that the moment he received the Memo from the management he wrote a letterto the Head Master of his school seeking information if the mark sheet which he submitted to the management was issued by the school authority or not ? In reply to his letter the Head Master of the School authority informed him that genuine mark sheet which they received from the Board was issued to him . On receipt of the said reply the concerned workman was confirmed that the mark sheet which he deposited to the management for consideration of his promotion in clerical cadre was genuine and accordingly he submitted his reply. The Memo which was issued to the concerned workman during evidence was marked as Ext . M - 5 while reply given by the concerned workman to the Memo was marked as Ext. M-6. The representation which the concerned workman submitted to the management for his straightway 7507 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6 , 2003/अग्रहायण 15 , 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

the signature of the Secretary appearing in the mark sheet fascimile . The duplicate mark shéet also bears the seal of the Secretary of Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board marked as Ext . M-4 and he identified the same . DW - 1 on the contrary who is the Assistant Teacher of Shri Dhaneshwar Singh Sanskrit School during his evidence disclosed that the mark sheet Ext . M- 2 was actually received by the Board after publication of the Madhyama Examination result and the same was issued to the candidate i.e. the concerned workman. This witness relying on this marksheet disclosed that the concerned workman secured 557 marks in the Madhyama Examination and was placed in the first division . It is the contention of the concerned workman that he did not receive the marksheet directly from the Board . He submitted that he received the marksheet from the School authority and for which it was not possible on his part to say if the marksheet whic was handed over to . him by the School authority was genuine or not . He submitted that the mark sheet which he received Ext . M - 2 from the school authority submitted the same to the management for consideration of his promotion in clerical cadre . Both MW -2 and DW - 1 during their evidence admitted that after publication of the result of the Board no mark sheet in original is given to the candidate directly. After publication of the result the marksheets are sent to the schools and from the School the same are distributed to the candidates appearing in the said examination . Therefore considering the evidence of MW- 2 and DW - 2 there is reason to hold that the concerned workman did not obtain the mark sheet Ext . M - 2 from the Board . On the contrary from the evidence of MW- 2 it is clear that the marksheet marked as Ext . M -2 was not at all issued to School Authority by the Board. It is the contention that the original of marksheet Ext . M -4 was actually sent to the School authority after publication ofthe result in question . Considering the two marksheet it is clear palpably while the mark sheet marked as Ext . M - 2 bears only Roll No. of the candidate the other mark sheet marked as Ext . M- 4 bears the code No. and Roll No. It is the specific contention ofMW - 2 that each mark sheet should contain Code No. as well as Roll No. Accordingly considering the evidence of MW- 2 there is sufficient reason to raise question about the genuinity of the mark sheet Ext . M- 2 which the concerned workman submitted to the management for considerationof his promotion . This mark sheet was not at all issued by the Board . It is not expected that after publication of the result the Board will issue two different types of mark sheets to the School Authorities. It is also not expected that the Board suppressing the original mark sheet wherein it has been exposed that the candidate obtained 297 marks in the Madhyama Exainination and was placed in the third division concealing issued a fabricated mark sheet wherein candidate obtained 597 marks and was placed in the first division . According to the promotional policy of the management a sub- staff is entitled to get straightway promotion in clerical cadre if he passed promotion in clerical cadre was marked as Ext . M - 1 while original mark sheet which the concerned workman deposited to the management was marked as Ext. M -2 . From the mark sheet it transpires that in Madhyama Examination the concerned workman secured 557 marks and was placed in the first division . It is seen from the record further that to ascertain the genuinness of the mark sheet management issued a letter to the Secretary, Bihar Sanskrid Siksha Board Patna along with mark sheet of Maheshwar Pd. Singh , and the concerned workman . The said document during evidence was marked as Ext . M- 3. It is the contention of the management that the Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Boardby their letter marked as Ext . M- 11 intimated them that the Roll No. appearing in mark sheet marked as Ext. M -2 which the concerned workman deposited for consideration of his promotion in clerical cadre was wrong. Accordingly being dissatisfied with the reply given by the concerned workman the management issued chargesheet against him with the allegation of committing misconduct under clauses 19(5) and 19(5) (J) of the Bipartite settlement . In the said chargesheet they have brought the specific allegation that the concerned workman cheated the Bank with mala fide intention to secure straightway promotion from the subordinate cadre to the clerical cadre in terms ofclause 19 ( 2) of the Bank's Promotion Policy for award staffby fraudulent means . The chargesheet during evidence was marked as Ext. M - 7. Now Ict us consider if the management has been able to establish the charge brought against the concerned workman. In course of domestic enquiry management examined three witnesses . The concerned workman also examined three defence witnesses . Out of the three management's witnesses MW- 2 represented the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board Patna while out of three defence witnesses DW - 1 represented the Head Master of Shri Dhaneshwar Singh Sanskrit High School Samhota Saran. It is seen that MW - 2 was examined and cross - examined in details by both sides . This witness during his evidence categorically raised his dispute over genuinity of the mark sheet marked as Ext . M - 2 which the concerned workman relied on . It has been categorically submitted by this witness that cach marksheet contains code No. and Roll No. of the candidate . The marksheet which the concerned workman relied on (Ext. M - 2 ) only bears the roll No. of the candidate but does not bear the code No. He submitted relying on the duplicate mark sheet Ext . M -4 that the code No. and Roll No. of the candidate i.e. Ram Bhagwan Singh was 20/142 . He disclosed that recording of Code No. is a must . He further submitted that the duplicate mark sheet Ext . M-4 was actually issued by the Board which has exposed the marks obtained hy the candidate and the division . According to this mark sheet the concerned workman obtained 297 marks in the Madhyama Examination and was placed in the third division . MW-2 categorically denied the fact relating the issuance of mark sheet Ext. M - 2from Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board Patna though he did not deny 7508

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 6, 2003 /AGRAHAYANA 15, 1925 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

which affirms the contention of the learned Advocate for the management . Considering all aspects carefully I find sufficient reason to believe that the concerned workman was involved very much personally in procuring the fabricated marksheet only with a view to get his promotion in Clerical Cadre . This act on the part of the concerned workman amounts to an act of cheating and I consider that the management was justified in issuing chargesheet to the concerned workman. I have carefully considered all the materials evidence on record and I am satisfied that the management have been able to substantiate the charge brought against the concerned workman . It is seen that the management gave opportunity to the concerned workman to place his submission before the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority to disprove the finding of the Enquiry Officer. It has been submitted that inspite of giving sufficient opportunity the concerned workman has failed to satisfy the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority about his innocence to the charge brought against him. Accordingly the concerned workman was dismissed from his service.

9. Now the point for consideration is whether the concerned workman is entitled to get any relief under section - 11A of the I.D. Act Section 11A of the I.D Act speaks as follows :--

"Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings , the Labour Court Tribunal or National Tribunal , as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified; it may by its award set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions if any, as it thinks , fit , or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require."

As per the provision of Section 11A the Tribunal if satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified may by its award set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the concerned workman on such terms and condition as it thinks fit or give such other relief to the workman including the Award orany lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require . Main criteria which is to be fulfilled here is the order of dismissal passed by the management to be proved unjustified. In course of hearing the representative of the concerned workman has failed to establish this fact reasonably. On the contrary management relying on the decision report in 2003 ( 1 ) Bank CLR 622 (SC) page 622 submitted that there is not scope to invoke the provision of Section 11A of the instant Madhyama Examination in first division . It is seen that the cor.cerned workman being encouraged by the promotional policy appeared in the Madhyama Examination under Board as a private candidate through Dhaneshwar Singh Sanskrit High School , Samhota Saran with the expectation to get lumseif passed in the first division. It is seen that the concerned workman getting desired result in the examination submitted the certificate to the management for consideration of his promotion. It is the contention of the concerned workman that he was not at all aware if the marksheet which he relied on was genuine or fabricated because of the fact that he received the same from the School Authority . DW- 1 no doubt has admitted this fact . When from the evidence of MW - 2 it is clear that the Board did not issue fabricated marksheet Ext . M- 2 there is no question at all about receipt of the same by the school authority. Therefore , question which has been cropped up here is how the School Authority got this mark sheet . It is not expected that the School Authority will not issue genuine mark sheet to the candidate after its receipt from the Board . Here I find quite a different picture . It is seen that the mark sheet which the School Authority issued to the concerned workman was a fabricated one which at all was not issued by the Board . The concerned workman required mark sheet showing that he passed Madhyama Examination in the first división. His ambition no doubt was fulfilled but considering the evidence of MW - 2 ! find sufficient reason to believe that he has procured the mark sheet in connivance with the interested person of the School Authority suppressing the original mark sheet which was sent to that school by the Boara after publication of the Madhyama Examination . It is fact that the managementgement has failed to establish the charge directly against the concerned workman but if the circumstances is considered along with the circumstantial evidence there is sufficient reason to believe that the concerned workman was very much involved in procuring fabricated mark sheet from is school suppressing the genuine mark sheet issued by the Board . He made that with connivance with the intention to get his promotion in clerical cadre from sub- staff as per promotional policy of the management . Learned Advocate for the management submitted that not only this workman but also another workman was involved equally in procuring fabricated marksheet from the School with a view to get his promotion in clerical cadre suppressing the original marked sheet issued by the Board . That workman i.c. Mahendra Pd. Singh was also issued with chargesheet and thercafter as he said workman was dismissed from his service an industrial dispute was raised and on the basis of the industrial dispute a reference was made by the Ministry to CGIT No. 1. Dhanbad for adjudication which was registered as Ref. No. 86/91 . Learned Advocate for the management in course of hearing submitted that learned Tribunal passed award in that case in favour of the management I have considered the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer in connection with Ref. No. 86/91 7509 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

[सं० ऐल-12011/10/2001- आई .आर. ( बी- II) ]

सी० गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 11th November, 2003

S.O. 3337.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes , Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Part - II) Ref. 2/54/2001 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Mumbai No. 2 as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-11-2003.

[No. L- 12011/10/2001 - IR (B- II)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

S. N. SAUNDANKAR : Presiding Officer. Reference No. CGIT-2/54 of 2001

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF SYNDICATE BANK

TheDeputy General Manager, SB Zonal Office , Maker Tower ' E ' 2nd Floor, Plot No. 85, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 .

V/ s

Their Workmen

The Secertary, Syndicate Bank Employees Union Ground Floor, 10, Homji Street, Mumbai -400023 .

APPEARANCES:

Mr. R. N. Shah , Advocate

Forthe Employer

case. Learned Advocate for the management submitted thatthe concerned workman by submitting false certificate wanted to secure more responsible position in the Bank . The workman thus indulged into an act which could be defined as gross misconduct. The entire institution of Barking depends upon the confidence of its constitution upon the integrety of his employees because even an assistant in the Bank has to deal with huge amount which the Bank entrusts . Disclosing the fact learned Advocate for the management submitted that if any lenient view is taken in the instant case the customer may loss faith ofthe integrety of the Bank's transaction. I have carefully considered the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court . In the said decision. Their Lordships held that every officer / employee is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer . Good conduct anddiscipline are inseparable from the functioning ofevery officer/employee of the Bank , Learned Advocate by referring the said decision submitted that the concerned workman cannot be considered as trust worthy employee oftheBank and he may cause further damage to the Bank's integrety if he is not punished properly. Considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above and also considering the submission of the management I find sufficient reason that the miscief which the concerned workman committed has to be considered as serious dereliction ofduty which was not at all expected and for which he could not be considered as trust worthy staff of the management. A ful consideration all facts and circumstances I hold that the order of dismissal passed by the management cannot be considered as unjustified and for which I do not find any reason to hold any lenient view inflicted upon the concerned workman invoking the provision Section 11A of the I.D. Act .

For the Workmen

Accordingly following award is rendered:-

: Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant, Advocate.

Mumbai, dated 18th September,, 2003 .

AWARD

Part- II

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in dismissing Shri Ram Bhagwan Singh, ArmedGuard from the services of the Bank is justified Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief. "

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 11 नवम्बर, 2003

Bythe Interim Award dated 22.11.2002 this Tribunai held that the domestic inquiry conducted against the workman Sakpal was not as per the principles of natural justice and the findings of the Inquiry Officer are not pervers , Consequently, point asto whether the punishment ofdismissal imposed upon the workman is just and proper inthe context of the action of the management remains for the consideration of this Tribunal .

का. आ. 3337.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं०-2, मुम्बई के पंचाट भाग-2 ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/54/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-11-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2.. The punishment as above was imposed on the workman for the proved charge of misusing the facility under Housing Loan Scheme i.c. selling the house without thepermission of the Bank for which the loan was souglit from theBank, amounting to misconduct under the Bipartite Settlement . According to the workman he sold the house 7510

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2003/ AGRAHAYANA 15, 1925

loan was sought from the Bank without permission, workmanhad misused the housing loan facility and thereby cheated the Bank . He urged that if leniency is shown to the workman awrong message would go to employees in the banking industry that they can misuse the housing loan facility and use the sales proceeds for personal gain . He therefore submits to preserve the discipline in the Bank, thepunishment imposed is the only proportionate and apt .

for which loan was sought , to meet the expenses , of medical treatment of his ailing wife and educational experises ofhis children and that he had not caused any loss to the Bank . It is contended that Bank had recovered the amount of loan by charging heavy rate of interest and in that context, the punishment of dismissal imposed on the workman is disproportionate and harsh and also discriminative . On the other hand, Bank pointed out that workman gained pecuniary advantage prejudicial to the interests of the Bank. It iscontended that misuse of Housing Loan Scheme attract severe liability and in this connection, the penalty imposed is apt and adequate .

3. In so far as issues No. 3 & 4 which are to be adjudicated by this Tribunal , workman filed affidavit in lieu ofExamination in Chief (Exhibit-22 ) and closed oral evidence vide purshis (Exhibit 24). Management Bank however did not lead oral evidence vide purshis (Exhibit-25 ).

4. Workman filed written submissions Exhibit-26 along with copies of rulings and the management Bank Exhibit- 27. On.perusing the record, the written submissions and hearing the counsels, I record my findings on the issues for the reasons stated below:

FINDINGS

ISSUES

No.

7. It is well settled that penalty imposed mustbe commensurate with the gravity of the offence charged and that discretion conferred by Section 11 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act on the Tribunal is to be exercised considering the facts of the case as a whole . According to the workman he sold the house for which loan was sought to meet out the expense of medical treatment of his wife and educational expenses ofhis children . It is seen Bank recovered the loan amount with interest , thereby no peculiar loss caused to the Bank . If at all loss caused to the Bank could be recovered from the concerned employee. It seems workman without permission sold the house for which loan was sought is a procedural irregularity, which cannot be termed as gross misconduct to warrant extreme punishment of dismissal fronı service . Workman was appointed as Attender in 1980 and that at the relevant time he was working as Clerk who put about 15 years . Nothing on record to show that past record of the workman was blemished. "Considering all these aspects the punishment imposed in the light of the proved charge , can safely said to be rather harsh and disproportionate .

3. Whether the action of the manage- ment of Syndicate Bank, Mumbai by disınissing Shri H. K. Sakpal from the services of the Bank is just and proper?

4. What relief the workınan is entitled to?

Asperorder below.

REASONS

5. So far power under Section 11 -A of Industrial Disputes Act is concerned . Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Mithilesh Singh V/s . Union of India & Ors . 2003 SCC L& S 271 clearly observed:

"the scope of interference with punishment awarded byDisciplinary Authority under Section 11 - A of the Industrial Disputes Act is very limited and unless the punishment appears to be shockingly disproportionate, the court cannot interfere with the same".

8. So far discrimination is concerned , the Learned Counsel Mr. Sawant submits that Supreme Court has held in several cases that there should be no discrimination in the matter ofpunishment. Sujan Singh V/ s . State ofPunjab 1983 (4) CC 225. The committee member of the Union Mr. Thakur said much on the discrimination that one Hemant Dhotre , Attender was charge - sheeted for commission of gross misconduct however he was not dismissed and that his basic pay was reduced by two stages for three years . Mr. Thakur admitted in cross-exantination para 11 that facts ofworkman and said Dhotre arę different, means Dhotre had not sold his house therefore hardly can be said that workman was discriminated. Since the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the proved charge needs to be interfered and that the punishment of withholding of two increments in future is apt and proportionate and the same needs to be imposed instead punishment of dismissal , consequently issues are answered to that effect and hence the order:

ORDER

The action of the management of Syndicate Bank, Mumbai by dismissing Shri U.K. Sakpal from the services of theBank is disproportionate and therefore unjust and improper and that the punishment of withholding of two increments in future is adequate and the same is imposed upon him instead of punishment ofdismissal . Consequently, management Bank is directed to reinstate the workman in service with continuity in service, however without back wages .

6. As stated above, according to the workman punishment ofdismissal imposed on him is disproportionate and discriminatory. The proved charge is of misusing the loan facility by selling the house for which loan was sought without the permission of the Bank . The Learned Counsel for the workman Shri Sawant submits that the workman had not gained any pecuniary advantage nor he had caused any loss to the Bank as the Bank had recovered the amount ofloan with heavy rate of interest which was sufficient to teach lesson to workman and in this context , the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate hence needs to be interferred. In contra , Mr. Shah for the Bank submits that in a banking business absolute devotion, diligence , integrity and honesty needs to be preserved by every Bank employee. He submits that by selling the house for which

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer 7511 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6 , 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 11 नवम्बर, 2003

1. The Central Government has referred the following industrial dispute under clause D of Sub-section 1 of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (for short, the Act) for adjudication to this Central Tribunal which reads as under:-

का. आ. 3338.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 52/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-11-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-12011/60/2000 - आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 11th November, 2003

"Whether the action of the management of the Bank of India management for not regularising the services of Shri Dataram , Badilee Sepoy /Sub Staff claimed to have been working from 3-12-1984 at Rajakhera Branch of Bank of India and who was selected through Employment Exchange is legal and justified? Ifnot, what relief is the workman entitled and from what date?"

S.O. 3338. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 52/2000 of the CentralGovt. Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Jaipur nown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management ofBank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10-11-2003

[No. L- 12011 /60/2000- IR (B - II)]

C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

Case No .: CG1T 52/2000

Reference No. L- 12011/ 60/2000/IR(B - II)

Dated: 11-09-2000

2. The Union in its statement of claim has pleaded thatthe workman Sh. Dataram was appointed on 3-12-1984 asSepoy /Badilee by the non - applicant management after duly selecting him and that his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. He is since then continuously working with the non - applicant management and the nature of his work is perennial to that of the regular post. It is further averred that the workman is getting the basic salary, DA, House Rent Allowance , which is admissible to a permanent Sepoy, but since he has not been confirmed as Sepoy he is not getting the facilities which are admissible to the confirmed Sepoy. The workman is working for the last 16 years with the non- applicant management and not regularising his service amounts to unfair labour practice. As per the averments of the Union, this act of the non- applicant management is unfair labour practice in view of Section 2(ra) read with Schedule 5 ofthe Act. The workman had represented before the management , but his request was turneddown. Aggrieved by it, he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, who submitted the failure report to the Central Govt . The Union has prayed that the service of the workman may be regularised on the post of the Sepoy/Sub-staff.

.......Applicant Union

The General Secretary, Bank of India Employees Union (Raj . ) , C/O Bank of India , Choudhary Hotel Building , M.I. Road , Jaipur ( Rajasthan) .

Versus

Non - applicant

The Regional Manager , Bank of India , Regional Office , Rajasthan Region, Nakoda House , C-63 -B . P.B.No.346 , Sarojini Nagar, C- Scheme, Jaipur , Rajasthan.

PRESENT:

Sh. R.C. Sharma.

Presiding Officer:

Sh. Suresh Kashyap

Forthe applicant:

Sh. T. P. Sharma

For the non -petitioner :

3.Resisting the plea, the non - applicant in his written statement has stated that the present controversy does not fall within the definition of the industrial dispute under the provision of the Act. , that the workman was appointed on a fixed term for casual work and after expiry of the contractual period the employment automatically came to an end. He has pleaded that the controversy falls within the ambit of Section 2 ( oo ) (bb ) of the Act . He has also stated that in the non - applicant establishment the regular employees are appointed after following the prescribed procedure and the workman was appointed on the temporary post . He has denied the allegation levelled by the Union that the non - applicant management has adopted theunfair labour practice towards the workman .

28-08-2003.

Date of award:

7512

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 6, 2003/AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

4. On pleadings the following points for determination were framed:-

1. आया यूनियन के द्वारा उठाया गया विवाद औद्योगिक विवाद की श्रेणी में नहीं आता व निर्देश आदेश में वर्णित श्रमिक अप्रार्थी बैंक के कर्मचारी नहीं है ?

2. आया निर्देश आदेश में वर्णित श्रमिकों को अप्रार्थी संस्थान में आकस्मिक कार्य की पूर्ति के लिए एक निश्चित समयावधि के लिए नियुक्त किया गया था, यदि हाँ तो इसका प्रभाव ?

3. आया प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण अप्रार्थी संस्थान में नियमित होते के अधिकारी है ।

9. Point No.2 :-The Id. representative for the Union contends that the workman was appointed as Sepoy on 3-12-1984 and his appointment was made through proper channel who has completed near about 20 years of service with the non -applicant . Even then , the non - applicant has not regularised the service which is an unfair labour practice under section 2 (ra) and clause 10 of the 5th Schedule and is prohibited under section 25 (T) of the Act, and also punishable under section, 25 (U) of the Act. He further contends that his name was called from employment exchange and this plea of the Union as stated at para No.3 of the statement of claim has not been specifically denied by the non-applicant at para No. 3 of the written statement. Heurges that on these grounds the workman is entitled for the regularisation .

है। 4. प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण किस सहायता को प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी

5. In the evidence on behalf of the Union the affidavit of workman Sh . Dataram has been filed and on behalf of the non- applicant the affidavit of Shri P.C.Jain , ChiefOfficer has been submitted on the record. The Union has placed on record a letter Ex . W- I , addressed by the Manager to the Regional Manager , Jaipur Region , Jaipur. The non- applicant has chosen not to File any document .

6. I have heard both the parties and have gone through the record.

10.Arguing contra , the Id . representative on behalf ofthe non-applicant submits that the case of the Union is only for regularisation of the service of workman and merely working for 20 years does not create any right in his favour until he fulfills the requirements or criteria for regularisation or absorption prescribed by the management . His contention is that there is a prescribed procedure for regularising the service of the workman . The next submission made on behalf of the non- applicant is that it was a contractual engagement which falls under Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act and that no workman named in the panel has been regularised by the non - applicant as yet . Lastly, the Id. representative for the non - applicant submits thatat present there is no vacancy of the post of Sepoy in theBank .

7. Thepoint-wise discussion follows as under; -

8. Point No.1: - The Id. representative for the non- applicant submits that Shri Dataram is not covered by the definition of workman as defined under Section 2 ( S) of the Act. TheId . representative for the Union countering this submission contends that he is a workman .

11. I have given by thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions . So far as the duly appointment of the workman to the post of Badilee is concerned , two factors are noticeable. Firstly, his naine was called from the employment exchange and this plea has been incorporated by the Union at para No. 3 of the claim statement , which could not be specifically denied by the non -applicant at para No.3 of his written statement ..

12. Now I turn to another factor of the duly selection of the workman to the posting in question . The Id . representative for the workman has relied upon Ex . - W/ l , a letteraddressed by the Manager of the non - applicant bank to the Regional Manager , Jaipur region , Jaipur with regard to the formation of fresh panels of Badilees who qualified the written test held on 26-02-1984 . This letter exhibits the panel of three selected Badilees and at serial No. 2 ranks the name of workman Sh . Dataram . This letter was written on4-7-1984 . The Union has specifically pleaded that the workman was duly selected for this post who is working since 3-12-1984 till today and this plea could not be rebutted by the non -applicant . Letter, Ex . W /l is even admitted by MW-2 Shri P.C.Jain , which clearly indicates that the workman was duly appointed to the post of Badilee . Hence, the Union has been successful in establishing the facts 9. lit his written statement , the non - applicant has simply stated that the controversy is not covered by the definition of workman , but no reason thereof could be assigned. Section 2 ( S) lays down that workman means any person who is employed in an industry to do any manual, unskilled or skilled work for hire or reward , whether the terms of employment be express or implied. It is a case of the Union that the workman was employed on the post of the Badilee/Sepoy in the non - applicant bank and MW- 1 Shri PC: Jain in his cross - examination has admitted that a Sepoy performs the work of cleaning the buildings and keeping the ledger books properly etc. Under these circumstances the contention advanced by the Id . representative for the non - applicant that the worker is not covered by the definition under section 2 ( S) of the Act. , is not tenable and is rejected. This point is thus decided against the non - applicant..

7513 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

{ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

15. Undisputedly , Section 25 prohibits the unfair labourpractice.

that the name of the workman was called from the employment exchange and that he was duly selected for this post, who is working with the non - applicant management till today.

16. The Ld. representative in support of his contention has relied upon FLR 1988 ( 56) SC 121 in the matter between U.P. INCOME - TAX DEPT . CONTINGENT PAID STAFF WELFARE ASSOCIATION and UNION OF INDIA and others , wherein the workers were thecontingent paid staff in the Income-tax Department, who worked rendering the services of 4th class employees for a large number of years and their services were not regularised and no steps were taken to absorb them as members of the class IV services and they were paid wages as daily rated labourers lower than the salary and allowance which the class IV employees of the department were drawing . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed its views as under :-

13. The workman is his cross - examination has stated that since 1984 the Badilees who were senior to him have been regularised and that he was appointed to this post on transfer ofa permanent employee . As against the testimony of the workman , MW - 1 Sh . P. C. Jain could not be able to give a definite reply as to whether he workman was working against the vacant post of a permanent Sepoy and has pleaded his unawareness of the factual position in this regard. Thus , the evidence led by the Union is positive and definite which further leads to infer that the workman was appointed against the vacant post of the permanent Sepoy.

"Weaccordingly allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to pay wages to the workmen who are employed as the contingent paid staff of the Income -tax Department throughout India, doing the work of Class IV employees at the rates equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay scale of the regularly employed workers in the corresponding cadres , withoutany increments with effect from 1st December 1986."

17. Thus , the submissions advanced by the Ld . representative for the Union are fortified by the judicial verdict supra and are sustainable. Accordingly , this point is decided in favour ofthe Union .

18. Points No. 3 & 4 : Both these points relate to the reliefto be granted to the workman. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the Union has been able to establish that the workman Sh . Dataram is entitled for the regularisation of the service to the post of the Badilee/ Sepoyand further he is entitled to get all the benefits which are admissible to the regular Badilees . These points are thus answered in favour of the Union .

14. The stand adopted by the non -applicant is that it wassimply a contractual engagement, which does not give any right of regularisation to the workman. Firstly, the non- applicant has not brought any document on the recordto prove this point and , secondly, the oral evidence led this pointis vague . MW- 1 Sh. P.C.Jain in his affidavit at para 9 has stated that the workman was engaged on account of leave of the permanent employee of the Bank, but in his cross -examination he has admitted that no such document in this regard has been submitted on the record. He has stated at para 3 that the workman was given temporary appointment for specific period only to meet out certain urgent work and when the work was over his service automatically terminated without information. But, in his cross - examination he has again admitted that no such document has been placed on the record. Apart these factors , on behalf of the non -applicant even it has not been disclosed upto which period the workman was required to work on this post . How many days in total he had worked with the non -applicant management could not be pointed out by the non - applicant , whereas on the basis of the evidenbe led by both the parties it is revealed that the workman for the last 19 years is working with the non- applicant management without getting the benefits adınissible to the regular Badilees . This act on the part of the non - applicant management falls under Section -2 (ra) readwith clause 10 of the Schedule 5 of the Act which runs as under:-

The Fifth Schedule

Unfair Labour Practice

19. In the result, the reference in answered in the affirmative in favour of the Union and against the non- applicant. The award is passed in this manner that the action of the Bank of India management for not regularising the service of Shri Dataram, Badilee/Sepoy is not legal and justified and he is entitled for regularisation of his service on the said post since the date of his joining the duty i.e.w.e.f. 3-12-1984 . It is further held that he would get all thebenefits which are admissible to the regularly appointed Badilees.

R. C. SHARMA , Presiding Officer Clause 10 : To employ workmen as " badlees" , casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges ofpermanent workmen. "

3534 G1/2003-11 7514

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 6 , 2003 /AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

नई दिल्ली , 11 नवम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 3339.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 22/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-11-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-12012/174/2002 - आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 11th November, 2003 S.O. 3339. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. L22/2003 ) of the Cent . Govt . Indus . Tribunal -cum -Labour Court , Lucknow as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Union Bank of India , and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10-11-2003.

[No. L- 12012/174/2002 - IR (B - II)]

C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

SHRIKANT SHUKLA PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No : 22/2003

Ref: No. L- 12012/ 174/2002 - IR (B- II) dated: 31.1.2003/ 10.2.2003

BETWEEN

Sh . Anil Kumar Prajapati , S/o Vishwakarma Ram Prajapati R/o Mohalla, Tulsi Sagar, P.O. Peer Nagar, Gazipur.

AND

The Assistant General Manager UnionBank of India , Nodal Regional Office , Kapurthala Complex, Aliganj , Lucknow (U.P. )-226020.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] their order No. L- 12012/ 174/ 2002 - IR(B - II) dated : 31-1-2003/ 10-2-2003 has referred following issue for adjudication to thisTribunal;

"Whether the claim of Shri Anil Kumar Prajapati S / o Shri Vishwakarma Prajapati that he has rendered a continuous service of one year with the Bank is maintainable ? If yes , whether his termination from the service w.e.f. 31-12-2000 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled for ? " Shri Anil Kumar Prajapati has filed the statement of claim on 5-3-2003 along with unverified affidavit . The workman's case is that he was appointed by the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India , Main Branch, Lal Darwaja. Gazipur on thepost of waterman -cum -messenger on 1-9-1999, on the monthly salary of Rs . 600/- per month . He has also alleged that he has put in uninterrupted service of the Bank from 1-9-1999 to 30.12.2000 . However, he alleges that he was paid through cash voucher and petty cash vouchers . He has also given details of cash vouchers as follows :-

Amount

Sl. Date of No. Voucher

Purpose for which paid

1 2

1. 5-8-2002 20/-

Clearing of cooler 2. 21-9-2000 10/-

Forfilling water

3. 8-7-2000 10/-

Forfillingwater

4. 18-4-2000 30/-

Forbinging wiper 5. 22-3-2000 140/- Costof soap

6. 28-2-2000 15/- For carrying statement to the Regional Office of the Bank from the Branch Office.

7. 5-2-2000 5/- For carrying statement to the Regional Office of the Bank from the Branch Office.

8. 5-8-2000 20/- Cleaning of cooler 9. 21-9-2000 10/- Forfillingwater.

10. 2-3-2000 21/-

Forpurchasing vim ultra for cleaning glasses .

11. 18-8-2000 20.50 For purchasing one Kg . Vim ultra and 1 lifebuoy soap cake.

7515 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6 , 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

= 4

12. 21-7-2000 21/-

For cost of tea supply in

making

13. 7-6 - .2000 15/-

Rickshaw fair from branch

office to Regional Office

and Bank

14. 31-8-2000 30/-

Forworking in main hall of

theBank

15. 31-7-2000 17/ -

Costof two candles paid

to the workman

whatsoever . In additional pleas it had been pleaded inst the opposite party Bank is an undertaking of Government of India and it got it's rules for appointments ofpeons . No appointment of peon can be made otherwise than complying with these rules . In the matter of clerical/ subordinate staff , Branch Manager is not the appointing authority; hence there is no question of appointment by theBranchManager, Main Branch, Gazipur . It is also alleged that the workman has never performed any duties as alleged and in fact there is no post of waterman cum messenger in the organisation of opposite party Bank . In para 17 of the written statement it is alleged that .

16. 18-3-2000 300/- Forstaff meeting expenses for the eve ofHoli

17. 30-8-2000 90/-

Cost of six glass purchase

forthe Bank

18. 15-7-2000 120/- Misc . expenses for staff meeting held on 14-7-2000

"That in the leading case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarathi Vs State of Bihar , 1997 Lab I.C. 2075, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laiddown that dispute regarding termination ofdaily wager and further whose appointment is not according to rules is exempted from the operation ofprovisions ofIndustrial Disputes Act , 1947. " 131/-

19. 2-9-2000

Expenses towards tea etc.

inthe Bank

149/-

20. 3-6-2000

Towards Misc . expenses as per bill dated 2-6-2000 paidto Agarwal Electrostate centre

Ithas been requested that the claimant is not entitled to any relief whatsoever . The opposite party has filed the printed staff Circular No. 2018 dated 16-1-1978 , General Manager(Personnel) ' s letter No. DP : PPS : NLK : 1147: 2002 dated:29-10-2002 and photo copy of letter of Assistant General Manager No. NROL: DP: 1147: 02 dated: 16-11-2002.

The worker absented on the date of hearing i.e. 25-9-2003 and therefore , the Court ordered the case to proceed ex-parte against him.

The opposite party has examined Manager (Personnel ) , Shri S. N. Mehra and the closed the evidence . The workman did not turn up even on the date of argument, therefore , heard only Bank's representative .

The workman stated that his wages were paid through fictitious vouchers shown for the purpose of sub fictitious purchase and fictitious service to avoid payment against wages . He also alleges that his services were terminated on 3-12-2000 . The applicant's case that he represented vide his representation dated 28-12-2000 and requested the Bank to appoint him on the vacant post in terms of advertisement No. 1 /3-1 /2 /3-14. The copy of the advertisement was proposed to be produced along with the , documents . He has neither been paid retrenchment compensation nor one month notice was given to him hence the termination of his services is illegal and he is entitled to reinstatement .

The worker has failed to prove that he worked for 240 days in the Bank. According to the para 5 of the statement of claim , he has been paid petty amounts for filling water , cost of wiper , soap , cleaning cooler etc. do not show that he had been paid wages at the rate of Rs . 600/- per month as alleged by him . On the other hand the opposite party has proved that there is no post of waterman cum messenger in the Bank. The opposite party has also proved that the sub staff is appointed as per rules of the Bank and the appointing authority of the Bank is not the Branch Manager . The opposite party has also proved that the Branch Manager has no power to select any one to appoint as sub staff either temporary or permanent . The opposite party has proved that the claimant was not appointed on the sub staff post. It has been proved that the claimant did not work for 240 days in the calendar year.

Onthe basis of evidence of the opposite party , I come to the conclusion that the worker , Shri Anil Kumar The opposite party i.e. Union Bank of India has filed the written statement and has denied the allegations contained in the statement of claim. The opposite party has stated that applicant was never appointed/recruited at Main Branch . Ghazipur at any point of time by the Branch Manager or any authority of the Bank and in fact there is no post of waterman - cum - messenger in the organisation ofthe opposite party Bank. It is also stated that as per his own version as contained in para 5 of his claim statement, it is clear that the payment shown are not towards monthly wages as alleged by the workman. Since the claimant was never appointed by the Bank and hence there is no question of termination and the workman is not entitled to any relief 7516

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2003/ AGRAHAYANA 15, 1925

C/O Bank of India, Choudhary Hotel Building, M.I. Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan.

Applicant Union

Versus

Prajapati was not appointed in the Bank . The claimant has failed to prove that he has rendered continuous service of one year with the Bank . Since he was not appointed and therefore , there is no question of his termination . The issue referred is accordingly answered and therefore, lam of opinion that the workman is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.

The Regional Manager , Bank of India SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer

Regional Office, Rajasthan Region, NakodaHouse, C-63-B , P.B.No. 346 , Sarojini Nagar, C-Scheme , Jaipur, Rajasthan .

29-10-2003

Non-applicant LUCKNOW

Present:

नई दिल्ली, 11 नवम्बर, 2003

: Shri R. C. Sharma

Presiding Officer

APPEARENCES :

Fortheapplicant : Shri Suresh Kashyap

Forthe non -petitioner : Shri T. P. Sharma

: 29-08-2003.

Date of award

का. आ. 3340.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 51/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-11-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

AWARD

[सं० एल-12011 / 155/2000- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 11th November, 2003

1. The Central Government has referred the following industrial dispute under clause D of Sub-section 1 of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( for short , the Act) for adjudication to this Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal , Jaipur which runs as under :-

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in not regularising the services of9 Safai Karamcharis (as mentioned below) against the permanent vacancies of Sweeper in various branches of the bank in Rajasthan is justified ? If not, what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to ? "

S.O. 3340. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Governinent hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 51/2000 of the Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management ofBank of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10-11-2003.

NAME OF THE DISPUTANT [No. L- 12011/ 155/2000 - IR (B -II) ]

C: GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

(1) Shri/Smt . Manoharlal , (2) Indra Kumar ,

(3) Rajrani , (4) Sankhal Ram , (5) Gurusharan, ANNEXURE

(6) Nand Kishor , (7) Fulvati , (8) Vinod Kumas, (9) Kamlesh Kumar,.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT , JAIPUR

Case No .: CGIT 51/2000

Reference No. L - 12011 /155/ 2000 / IR ( B - II )

Dated: 15-09-2000

TheGeneral Secretary, Bank of India Employees Union (Raj .) ,

2. The Union in its statement of claim has pleaded that the workmen , who are its members , are working in the various branches on the posts of the Sweepers since 1990 . But neither they are being paid as per the Bi -partite settlement with the banks , nor they are getting the benefits which are admissible to the other employees . It is further averred that their work is of the perennial nature and that they are eligible to the post of the regular Sweepers . As perthe averments the act of the non - applicant management not to declare them permanent employees amounts to 7517

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

8. The point wise discussion follows as under:-- unfair labour practice which is prohibited under Section 25 (T) of the Act . Their request to regularise their service was denied by the management. The Union has prayed thatthe services of these 9 workmen may be regularised on the posts of the Sweepers and they may be allowed to get all the benefits which are admissible to the regular employees.

9. Point No.1:- The Ld. representative for the non- applicant submits that Sh./Smt, (1 ) Manoharlal , (2) Indra Kumar, (3 ) Rajrani, (4) Sankhal Ram, (5) Gurusharan, (6) Nand Kishor, (7) Fulvati, (8) Vinod Kumar , (9) Kamlesh Kumarare not coveredby the definition of workman as defined under Section 2 (S ) of the Act . The Ld . Representative for the union countering this submission contends that all the workers named above are workmen.

3. Denying the facts as stated in the statement of claim, the non -applicant in his written statement has stated that this dispute does not fall within the definition of Section 2 ( S) of the Act, that the workmen were employed to perform the casual work with the non - applicant bank for a fixed term and after expiry of the term the contract automatically came to an end. Hence the case is covered by Section 2 (00) (bb) of the Act . It is further pleaded that separate procedure is prescribed to appoint the regular employees in the bank and prior to their appointment the names of the candidates were not called from the employment exchange .

4. On pleading the following points for determination were framed:-

(1 ) आया यूनियन के द्वारा उठाया गया विवाद औद्योगिक विवाद की श्रेणी में नहीं आता व निर्देश आदेश में वर्णित श्रमिक अप्रार्थी बैंक के कर्मचारी नहीं हैं ?

10. In his written statement, the non-applicant has simply stated that the controversy is not covered by the definition of workman, but no reason thereof could be assigned. Section 2 (S) ofthe Act layes down that workman means any person who is employed in an industry to do any manual , unskilled or skilled work for hire or reward, whether the terms ofemployment be express or implied . It is the case ofthe Union that the workmen were employed bythe non-applicant bank on the posts of Sweepers in the various branches, who are continuously working there. MW - 1 Sh. P.C. Jain has deposed that the workers were engaged as Sweepers by the non -applicant management for the temporary period. Under these circumstances the workersare covered by the definition under Section 2($ ) of theAct and they can be termed as the workmen in view of the provisions laid down in the aforesaid Section. Thus, 1 find no force in the contention advanced by the ld. representative for the non - applicant and this point is decided againstthe non -applicant.

11. POINTNO . 2 :- The Id . representative for the (2) आया निर्देश आदर्श में वर्णित श्रमिकों को अप्रार्थी संस्थान में आकस्मिक कार्य की पूर्ति के लिए एक निश्चित समयावधिके लिए नियुक्त किया गया था , यदि हां तो इसका प्रभाव ?

(3) आया प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण अप्रार्थी संस्थान में नियमित होने के अधिकारी हैं ?

(4) प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण किस सहायता को प्राप्त करने के अधिकारी है ?

5. In the evidence applicant Union has produced the affidavits of 8 workmen out of 9 workmen viz . that of Sh./Simt . ( 1 ) Manoharlal , ( 2) Rajrani , (3 ) Sankhal Ram, (4) Gurusharan , (5 ) Nand Kishor, (6 ) Fulvati , (7) Vinod Kumar , ( 8 ) Kamlesh Kumar and that of Shri Ramgopal Sharma , the Secretary of the Union. On behalf of the non- applicant the affidavit of Shri P.C. Jain , Chief Officer has been placed on the record.

applicant Union submits that permanent posts of the Sweepers are lying vacant in the bank, but the management is not intentionally regularising the services of these workmen, who are working as Sweepers in various branches ofthe non -applicant bank for the last 10 or 12 years . Theld. representative further contends that these facts have not beendenied by the non- applicant , but it has been simply stated on behalf of the non - applicant that services of the workmen can only be regularised according to rules. The ld. representative also urges that the entire relevant record must be in possession of the non - applicant bank which has not been produced before the Court . According to his contention it is not a case under Section 2 (oo ) (bb ) of the Act. , but it is matter of the regularization only . TheId. representative in support of his contention has referred to the decisions cited in 1988 (56 ) U.P.L.C. DEPT. C.P.S v. Union of India (S.C.) 121 and D.R.C.L. Emp . P. & T Deptt v. Union of India (S.C. )842.

6. The Union applicant has submitted a chart Ex . W- 1 , the list of the workmen. The non - applicant has chosen not to file any document on the record.

12. Arguing contra the ld. representative for the non- applicant contends that there is no permanent vacant posts of Sweepers in the bank and therefore the question of regularisation of the services of the workmen does not arise, that some of the workmen have admitted that they are not in the service , that their attendance was not marked 7. 1 have heard both the parties and have gone through the record.

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 7518

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 6 , 2003 / AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

given to him and that his name was not called from the employment exchange . Sankhala Ram in his cross- examination has disclosed that he used to receive the payment ofwages after 10 or 15 days:

in the attendance registers , that the permanent post in the bank are filled up as per the prescribed norms , that no such casual worker has been regularised on the post and that the judgments referred to on behalf of the Union are not applicable to this case . 1.

13. I have reflected over the rival contentions and have scanned the record .

14. Admittedly, the applicant Union has not been able to place on the record any document e.g. the appointment letter, the slip of wages or the attendance register which could show that the workmen have been recruited on the post of the Sweepers by the non - applicant bank. The Union has brought on record only one document, which is Ex. W- 1 , a list of the workmen along with the details of their employment with the non- applicant bank. The entire case thus hinges upon the oral testimony ledby both the parties.

17. These workmen have also admitted in their cross- examination respectively that no appointment letters were issued to them , tha: their attendance was not marked in the attendance register maintained by the office, that their names were not sponsored by the employment exchange , that after their employment no person working on such post was regularised by the management and they have pleaded the unawareness about the existing vacancy of the permanent posts of the Sweepers . Thus , it is crystal clear that the evidence adduced on behalf of the Union is of feeble nature and Union could not be able to prove the pertinent facts that the workmen were engaged by the management against the permanent posts and that the nature of thejob performed by then is perennial . In other words , it could not be shown that the workman are rendering the same kind of services which are being rendered by the regular employees doing the same type of work. In addition to these facts , it is pertinent to note here that the workmen Smt. Rajrani and Manoharlal have respectively admitted in their depositions that 2 or 3 months ago they have been disengaged by the management .

15. In short , the case of the applicant Union is that the workmerrwere employed by the management on the posts of the Sweepers who are working since 1990 respectively and they are performing the work which is perforined by the regular'employees. As against it , the stand adopted by the non - applicant is that the workmen were engaged temporarily on the posts of the Sweepers for a specific period to meet out certain urgent work.

18. The non -applicant has categorically stated that the workmen were engaged as Sweepers and the terms and conditions of their temporary appointment were informed to them. Shri P. C. Jain has been examined on behalf of the non -applicant, who could not be shaken on this point.

19. To conclude , the applicant Union has failed to prove that the workmen were recruited by the non - applicant management against the perinanent vacancy and they are performing the same kind of work which is dischargedby the regular employees . In the decisions referred to by the Id. representative by the applicant Union 1988 (56) U.P.L.C. DEPT . C.P.S v. Union of Inida (S.C.) 121 and D.R.C.L. Emp . P & T Deptt v . Union of India (S.C.) 842, the facts disclosed that the workiren were performing the workwhich was being rendered by the regular employees and accordingly they were allowed for their absorption in the services . Apparently , in the case in hand it has been held under the forgoing discussion that the work performed by the workmen is not of a perennial nature . Hence , the Id. representative does not find any help from the decisions referred to supra and the submissions made by the Id. representative for the Union are not tenable. Hence , this point is accordingly decided against the applicant Union .

20. POINTS No 3 & 4 :-In view of the finding arrived at in point no . 2, the workmen are not entitled for the regularisation in the service .

16. Now it has to be assessed on the basis of the oral evidence adduced by the applicant Union as to whether it has been able to prove this fact that the workmen were employed against the vacant posts who are rendering the same kind of services which is being rendered by the regular employees doing same type of work. The Union has exantinek& workmen along with its Secretary Shri Ram Gopal Sharma Smt . Rajrani in her cross -examination has deposed that after 2years of her employment, she was paid Rs . 20 per day as wages by the management, Smt . Fulwati has admitted that no appointment letter was given to her and she has to perform the work from 8 a.m. to 12. pam in the office. Workman Manoharlal has admitted that there is only one postvacant in the office on which sometimes he worked and oft some occasions the work was performed by other persons Kamlesh Kumar has disclosed in his cross- excumnation that he is discharging the functions of IVth class Daftari and that his attendance is not marked in the attendance register. Nand Kishore , workman has admitted that before his employment in the bank he had not submitted any application before the Manager and that he has no proofof working with the bank. The next workman Guru Sharan bas too admitted that no appointinent letter was given to him . Vinod Kumar has also admitted the fact that pertaining to his employment no written order was भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2003 /अग्रहायण 15 , 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Between:

Gokaran S / o Shri Kesari

R/o Vill . Bhagwatipur ,

Post-Thairava , Thana -Kherabad , Distt. Sitapur

21. On the basis of the conclusion drawn underpoint no . 2, this reference is answered in the negative against the applicant Union and it is held that the claim submitted by the applicant Union does not deserve to be allowed and that the workmen named in the reference are not entitled for the regularisation of their services as Safai Karamcharis with the non - applicant bank.

And

22. The Award is passed accordingly.

R. C. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 12 नवम्बर, 2003

The Sr. Divisional Engineer ( 1st ) Eastern Railway, DRM Office Ashok Marg , Lucknow/ The Asstt. Engineer Eastern Railway , Asstt . Engineer Office , Sitapur .

AWARD

का. आ. 3341.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनयम , 1947. ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ईस्टर्न रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण कम-लेबर कोर्ट , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी नं. 155/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Bharat Sarkar Shram Mantralaya, Ministry of Labour NewDelhi vide their order No. L -41012/76/2002/ IR(B -I ) dated 20-9-2002 has referred following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

[सं० एल -41012/76/2002- आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्कअधिकारी

New Delhi , the 12th November , 2003

क्या प्रबन्धन पूर्वोत्तर रेलवे, लखनऊ द्वारा श्री गोकरन पुत्र श्री केशरी गेटमैन को दिनांक 22-12-88 को नौकरी से निकाला जाना न्यायोचित तथा न्याय संगत है ? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार किस अनुतोष का अधिकारी है ।

S.O. 3341.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. i.D. 155/2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial/Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Eastern Railway, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 11-11-2003 .

No. L -41012 /76 /2002 -IR (B - I) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

The allegation in brief of the worker is that he was Gateman and was working under Asstt . Engineering Deptt. , Sitapur and PWI , Sitapur at gate No. 72B . He was on duty at 9.4.5 . P.M. on 9-1-1988 and while he was doing his duty a roadways bus which was going towards Khairabad Workshop 2 collied with train ignoring red light and he got the FIR registered under section 304a/427 IPC at Police Station Khairabad, Sitapur. The next following day i. e. 10- 1-1988 PWI suspended the worker from immediate effect and subsequently dismissed from service vide letter dated 22-12-88 illegally. Although the worker was acquitted from the court and accordingly the worker has requested that his termination be rejected and he be reinstated with full backwages.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT:

The O.P. contested the clain of the worker and filed his W.S. The O.P. has denied the allegations of the worker and has alleged that the worknian was responsible for not observing the rule which resulted in accident .

PresidingOfficer

Shrikant Shukla

I.D. No .: 155/2002:

Reference No. L- 41012/76/2002/IR(B- 1)

Dated: 20-09-2002

However, punishment imposed on the worker was reduced and he was compulsary retired from the service . On 9-9-2003 the A/R of the worker moved an application thatworker has already moved an application to the railway administration for compromise which is pending . He has also requested the case be taken up in Lok Adalat .

7520

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2003 /AGRAHAYANA 15, 1925

Reference No. CGIT 2/202 of 1999

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF CENTRAL RAILWAY

TheGeneral Manager,

CentralRailway,

Mumbai CST,

Mumbai -400001

Today in Lok Adalat on 29-10-2003 the DRM, Railway together with Sr. DPO Sri Shailendra Kumar appeared and delivered the cheque No. G4 80167 with pension papers . Photo copy ofwhich is paper no. C- 15 to C- 15/2 to C- 15/6 . Learned A/R of the workman Sri P.K. Tewari accepted cheque on behalf of the workman and has stated that he does not want to press the statement of claim and parties have entered into compromise and he says that accordingly the reference be disposed of.

V/s.

THEIR WORKMEN

Shri Ashok Kashinath Salunke ,

NearBajrang Mandir,

Since the worker punishment has been revised to the compulsary retirement and the pension is sanctioned and pay order is furnished together with the cheque to the A/R of the workman . The matter of illegality of the order dt. 22-12-88 is not to be gone into and accordingly the issue referred is disposed of in Lok Adalat .

Haddiwala Chawl , UpaliNagar, At& Post: Bhusawal,

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officers.

Dist: Jalgaon

नई दिल्ली, 12 नवम्बर, 2003

Appearances :

.Forthe Employer : Ms. Delilah Fernandes , Advocate

For the Workmen : Mr. Suhas Gore, Advocate

Mumbai , dated 30th September, 2003 का. आ. 3342.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , मुम्बई, के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी 2/202ऑफ 1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-11-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

AWARD

Part- II

[सं० एल-41012/165/1999- आई.आर. ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 12th November , 2003

By the Interim Award dated 22nd July, 2002 this Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry condcuted against the workman Salunke was as per the principles of natural Justice and the findings of the Inquiry Officer are not perverse, consequently , point as to whether punishment imposed on the workman in terminating his service is legal andjustified in the context of the action of the management in the light of the Issues No. 3 & 4 remained for the adjudication ofthis Tribunal.

S.O. 3342. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT 2/202 of 1999 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 Mumbai as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Railway, and their workmen , received by the Central Govemment on 11-11-200 3

[No. L-41012/165/99 -IR (B -I) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 : MUMBAI

Present:

The punishment as above was imposed on the workman for the proved charge ofunauthorised absence from 12-4-1993 to 13-6-1993 and from 6-9-1993 to 25-1-1994. According to the workman during the material period his wife and sister were suffering from Tuberculosis therefore he was constrained to be at home , consequently he could not report to duty. It is the contention of workman that his family members are dependent on him and that he is the only earning member. He is leading miserable life , and contended that considering the absence , the punishment imposed upon him is harsh and disproportionate. On the other hand, the management Railway contended that by not reporting to duty for long period as above , workman Presiding Officer

S.N. Saundankar :

7521 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

created obstacle in the smooth working of the Railway department and thus his past record is blemished and therefore the punishment imposed is adequate and proportionate.

intimation is a grave offence warranting removal from service".As stated above , workman had produced medical certificates showing illness of his wife and the near relative which, he was constrained to be at home and consequently he seems to have not reported to duty.

3. Workman filed affidavit in lieu of Examination-in- Chief (Exhibt 24 ) and the Assistant Personal Oficer Shri Sharma for the management (Exhibit 28).

4. Workman filed written submission Exhibit 31 and the management Exhibit 32. On perusing the written submissions and hearing the counsels , I record my findings on the issues for the reasons mentioned below :

Findings

Issues

3. Whether the action of the No management in terminating the services of Ashok Salunke w.e.f. 31-5-1995 is legal andjustified?

7. True it is , fact remains that the workman remained absent . Now point crops on as to whether for this absence punishment of termination is justified. It is well settiad that penalty must be commensurate with the gravity o offence charged. Discretion conferred by Section 11 -A vi the I.D. Act on the Tribunal is to be exercised considering the case as a whole . Workınan in his affidavit disclosed that he is leading miserable life. His family members viz . three children, mother , brother, sister are dependent on him. The fact that no blemished past record has been put forth, the workman was a poor Ladder -Man put about 15-17 years considering the extenuating circumstances , in the light of the observation in the case discussed supra, to my view, punishment of termination imposed on the workman is rather harsh and disproportionate and it needs to be interferred and that punislunent of withholding of two increments in future is apt and proportionate and the same needs to be imposed.

4. If not, to what relief the As per order below. workman is entitled to ?

REASONS

8. It is in the evidence of workman that he does labour work and gets Rs . 30/- to 40/- per day thereby he is gainfully employed , consequently, he is not entitled to back wages . Issues are therefore answered accordingly and hence the order:

ORDER

5. So far power under section 11 - A of Industrial Disputes Act is concerned. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Mithilesh Singh V/s . Union of India & Ors . 2003 SCCL & S27 ] clearly observed:

The action of the managenient of Central Railway, Bhusawal in terminating the services of Shri Ashok Kashinath Salunke w.e.f. 31-5-1995 for his alleged absence from duty is disproportionate , not legal and justified and that punishment of stoppage of two increments for the future is apt and proportionate .

"the scope ofinterference with punishment awarded by Disciplinary Authority under section 11 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act is very limited and unless the punishment appears to be shockingly disproportionate , the court cannot interfere with the same " .

Management consequently is directed to reinstate the workman in service with continuity in service, however, without back wages .

S.N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officers . नई दिल्ली, 12 नवम्बर , 2003

का. आ. 3343.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं०- II , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी 2/ 216/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-11-03 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-12011/40/99- आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी 6. Workman Salunke was terminated from the service based on the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer on his absence from 12-4-1993 to 13-6-1993 and from 6-9-1993 to 25-1-1994 . Admittedly workman did not report to duty during the period as above . According to him, he was absent for some reasons i.e. due to severe illness of his sister and wife. He has produced medical certificates to that effect with list (Exhibit 7). It is not that workman's near relations were not sick and in this context his absence speaks volume. The Learned Counsel Ms. Fernandes at this juncture submits that , long absence of workman created obstacle in the smooth working of Railway department, therefore under the Railway Service Rules the punishment as prescribed, has been imposed which is proportionate and apt. She relied on Mithilesh Singh V/s. Union of India & Ors . 2003 SCC L & S 271 wherein Their Lorships observed " absence from duty without prior

3534 GI/2003-12 7522

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2003 /AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 12th November , 2003

FOR THE WORKMEN

: Mr. H.M. Nabar, Representative.

Mumbai , dated 5th September, 2003

AWARD

S.O. 3343. In pursuance of Section 17 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT- 2/ 216 of 1999 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the inanagement of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11-11-2003,

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L- 12011/40/ 99 /IR(B - I ) dated22-11-1999 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

[ No.L - 12011/40/99 - IR (B.I) ]

AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

"Whether the action of the manageme of State Bank of India, Mumbai in terminating the services of Shri Pramod J. Patil and Ram K. Sawant , Messengers , w.e.f. 31-1-1995 and 15-3-1997 respectively and not regularising the services is legal and justified ? If not , what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to ? "

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 . MUMBAI

PRESENT:

S.N. Saundankar.

Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT -2 /216 of 1999

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF INDIA

The Deputy General Manager II , State Bank of India , ZonalOffice, D.G. P. House , Old Prabhadevi Road. Mumbai - 400025

V/ s.

THEIR WORKMEN

TheDeputy Gencral Secretary, State Bank of India Karmachari Sena , D.G. P. House , Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai -400025

APPEARANCES :

2. Two workers under reference viz . Patil and Sawant were engaged by the management Bank as Sub - Staff. Vide Claim Statement (Exhibit 7) State Bank of India Karmachari Sena averred that Patil was employed at the Alibag Branch ofthe Bank as Watchman and that he worked there for a total period of 1154 days from 20-2-1987 to 22-5-1993 and that thereafter he was transferred to Salay Branch where he worked as temporary Messenger for 504 days from 23-5-1993 to 30-1-1995. It is pleaded that workman Patil was empanelled and that as per the circular cr the Bank and in view of the Bipartite Settlement , Patil who worked more than 240 days and was empanelled, cannot be discontinued without assigning any reason , however, the management Bank discontinued him w.e.f. 31-1-1995 without notice and therefore his discontinuation amounts to retrenchment and the same being contrary to the provisions of Section 25 F ofthe Industrial Disputes Act is illegal . It is further averred by the Union that the workman Sawant worked as temporaryMessenger on daily wages for a period of 483 days from July 1995 to 15-3-1997 and that he was paid on ad -hoc basis under vouchers . It is contended that though Sawant worked more than 240 days and despit there being no provision in the Bi-partite Settlement for employment of Messenger he was engaged on daily wages and that without assigning any reasons , he was orally terminated on 15-3-1997 , consequently, his disengagement is also illegal . The Union contended that termination of the above said two workmen being illegal, the Bank be directed to reinstate them in service with full back wages.

FOR THE EMPLOYER

: S/ Shri R.K. Joshi &

S.V. Ghadigaonkar ,

Representativcs .

3.Management State Bank of India resisted the claim ofUnion vide Written Statement (Exhibit 9) contending thatworkman Patil though was waitlisted the cmpanelled 7523

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6 , 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

list has been scrapped after 31.3.1997, therfore, he was not eligible for absorption and consequently he was discontinued for which provisions of Section 25 F of the Act are not applicab . It is further contended by the Bank thatworkman Sawant worked as tempor.ry Messenger on daily wages for 470 days and that his work was purely temporary and as no work exists for him, he was orally discontinued w.e.f. 15-3-1997 , consequently his discontinuation also does not attract Section 25 F of the Act. It is the contention of Bank that the claim of both the workmen being devoid of substance be dismissed with costs . in limine .

4. Py Rejoinder ( Exhibit 11 ) Union reiterated the recitals in the Claim Statement denying the averments in the Written Statement contending that claim of Patil who , worked more than 1154 days and was empanelled, cannot be ignored in the light of the Bipartite Settlement and provisions of the Industrial Dis tes Act . In so far as Sawant , it is pointed out that though was not empanelled, since he worked more than 240 days , his services need to be regularised.

5. On the basis of pleadings Issues were framed at Exhibit 12 and in that context workman Patil and Sawant filed affidavits in lieu of Examination in Chief (Exhibit 20/ 21) and the Union closed oral evidence vide purshis (Exhibit 24) . In rebuttal , Manager ( Personnel & HRD ) Mr. Ghadigaonkar and Mr. Dhule filed affidavits (Exhibit 26/37) and the Bank closed oral evidence vide purshis ( Exhibit 38) .

6. Union filed written submissions Exhibit 40 with copies of rulings and the management Bank Exhibit 41. On perusing the record as a whole , written submissions and hearing both the representatives , I record my findings on the following issues for the reasons mentioned below:

Issues

Findings

Yes .

1. Whether the action of the manage- ment State Bank of India , Mumbai interminating the services of Shri Pramod J. Patil and Ram K. Sawant, Messengers , w.e.f. 31-1-1995 and 15-3-1997 respectively and not regularising their services is legal and justified?

Asper order below.

2. If not, what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?

REASONS

7.Admittedly Pramod Patil was engaged by the Bank asWatchman-cum-Messenger from 20-2-1987 to 22-5-1993 and thereafter from 23-5-1993 to 30-1-1995 for 1154 days and that he was in the waiting list . According to Union since Patil worked more than 240 days continuously and that he was empanelled he should have been absorbed by theBank however without considering his position , Bank terminated him w.e.f. 31-1-1995 which amounts to retrenchment and that since he has been retrenched without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, the action of the management in toto in respect of Patil is also violative of principles of natural justice and consequently , illegal . The Learned Representative for the Union Mr. Nabar inviting attention to the written submissions and the rulings urged with force that Patil deserves to be absorbed in view of the irregularities done by the Bank officials . He submits that workman Patil was waitlisted at Sr. No. 18 and that his juniors ' viz . Medkar, Songade were inserted and that eventually he was discontinued on the ground the list was scrapped and thereby justice has been caused to him. It is significant to note that, workman Patil was interviewed in 1988 and the waiting list was prepared of the candidates worked during 1987 to 1993. In so far as insertion of names of the persons referred to above, Manager Mr. Ghadigaonkar refuted the same. It is in his evidence that as per the region - wise waiting list candidate at Sr. No. 62 was given appointment and that the waiting list scrapped by virtue of settlement reached between the management and the Federation after 31-3-1997 . Since workman Patil was on the waiting list and that it was scrapped before reaching his Serial Number , hardly can be said that any irregularity is done by the Bank officials without placing reliable evidence to that effect . True it is workman Patil worked continuously for more than 240 days as stated above , however he worked as a temporary Sub - Staff.

8.The Learned Representative for the Bank inviting attention to detail written submissions (Exhibit 41 ) urged that the waitlist terminated employees of the State Bank of India hadpreferred a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court ofOrissa, Cuttack in OJC 9039/97 , however, the same was rejected and that appeal against the same was also rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court . He submitted that inview of the observations as above , the claim ofworkman Patil whose case is similar to the petitioners in the said petition, cannotbe accepted. The position of such waitlisted employees was the subject matter in OJC 9039/ 97before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack wherein Their Lordships observed:

"The extracted portions clearly show that panels of temporary employees /daily wagers/casual employees were to be kept alive upto March, 1997, as per the norms agreedto between the Bank and the Federation and the identification of messengerial vacancies was to be done on the basis of new norms to be 7524

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2003 /AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

in future though new norms have not been fixed as yet. We do not think it necessary to go into those hypothetical questions . It goes without saying that if the petitioners feel aggrieved about the norms when formulated the same can be questioned before the appropriate forum/authority.

Above being the position, we find no scope for entertaining the writ applications which are dismissed. No costs . "

9. On perusal the documents filed by the Bank it is seen the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in WritPetition was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Appeal No. 3083 of 1999 by the order dated 16-7-1999 . On going through the decision of the Hon'ble High Court ofOrissa, Cuttack which is applicable to the facts of the case of workman Patil , though he worked more than240 days and was empanelled, since he was a temporary Sub-Staff and that the waiting list scrapped after 31-3-1997 he cannot be absorbed/regularised . Consequently his claim does not stand to reason .

10. So far workman Sawant is concerned, he was admittedly engaged as Coolie in currency chest ofthe Bank and he was paid wages as and when work existed. He was admittedly not waitlisted. It is in the evidence ofManager Mr. Dhule that the Branch Manager had no authority to engage services if Sawant as a Coolie and consequently, his engagement was void. Fact however remains that Sawant worked more than 240 days during July 1995 to March 1997 and that he was discontinued orally on 15th March, 1997. On perusal the documents filed with list (Exhibit 14/17) it is apparent that Sawant was a daily wager. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Ors . V/ s . State of Bihar AIR 1997 SC 3657 about daily wagers pointed out that:

"daily wage employee whose services were engaged on the basis of need of work , termination of such employee cannot be construed to be retrenchment ."

Since Sawant was a temporary employee cannot claim permanency for which reliance can be had to Syndicate Bank and Ors . V/ s . Shankar Paul & Ors . AIR 1997 SC 3091 . It is seen that Their Lordships of the Supreme Court vide Judgment and Order dated 16.7.1999 in Appeal No. CC3081 of1999 referred to supra , while confirming the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa ruled that the petitioners who were empanelled and had continuously worked more than 240 days were not entitled to get relief.

finalised thereafter. It was also agreed that the modalities about drawing names from either the panel of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour shall be decided administratively or Circle to Circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation's affiliate by the Circle Management . Irresistible conclusion, therefore , is that after 31-3-1997 the panel ccased to be operative , and new terms were to be opcrated thereafter . The modalities about drawing names from either the panels of temporary employees or the panel of daily wagers and casual labour was to be decided administratively on Circle to Circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation's affiliate by the Circle management . Therefore, the local requirements were to be kept in view and it was permissible to draw names from both the list oftemporary employees and the list ofdaily wagers/ casual labourers on the basis of aforesaid settlement made in the meeting held on 21-11-1996 between Personnel & HRD Department and SBI Staff Association , Bhubaneshwar, Relevant portions of decision have been extracted above . Obviously the modalities worked out between the Bank and the S.B.I. Staff Association has reference to the settlement dated 30-7-1996 . There is no dispute so far as that aspect is concerned, what is disputed is the ratio and the power to do that. It is stated that the Federation is not competent to arrive at a settlement . Whether the Federation is competent to enter into the settlement cannot be adjudicated in these batch of writ applications , more so when the Federation is not a party to the writ applications . Additionally the daily wagers whose cases came tobe considered on the basis of impugned decisions ( settlements) have not . been impleaded as parties. All the previous settlements as referred to above were taken note of and a composite schone was formulated and the modalities were left to be determined administratively on Circle to Circle basis depending upon the local requirements in consultation with the Federation's affiliate . There is no dispute about correctness of the minutes recorded . The decision was taken administratively, and on the basis of the settlement arrived at. The currency of the arrangements made on the basis of the impugned decisions/ settlements has come to an end on 31-3-1997 . It is pleaded by the. petitioners that the modalities may be followed

11. In the light of the decisions referred to above , claim of workman Sawant also does not stand to reason , 7525 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6 , 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

PRESENT:

S.N. Saundankar.

Presiding Officer

consequently claim of both the workmen viz . Patil and Sawant being ill founded, the management has rightly rejected and that the action of the Bank in not absorbing them is wholly legal and proper, consequently their claim deserves to be dismissed . Issues are answered accordingly and hence the order:

Reference No. CGIT - 2 /12 of 2000 ORDER

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF CENTRAL RAILWAY

The Chief Workshop Manager,

Central Railway,

Matunga Workshop ,

Matunga,

Mumbai - 400019.

The action of the management of State Bank of India, Mumbai in terminating the services of Shri Pramod J. Patil and Ram K. Sawant, Messengers w.e.f. 31.1.1995 and 15.3.1997 respectively and not regularising their service is legal and justified.

V/s.

S.N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer

THEIRWORKMEN

नई दिल्ली, 13 नवम्बर, 2003

Shri Ashok Ramchandra Lokhande ,

RailwayQuarter,

Room No. 5 , Chawi No. 8 ,

Igatpuri Post,

Taluka Igatpuri ,

NasikDist .

APPEARANCES :

का. आ. 3344.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं०- II , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी 2/12ऑफ 2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-11-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

FOR THE EMPLOYER

:Ms. Delilah Fernandes , Advocate holding for Mr. Suresh Kumar.

[सं०८1012/183/99- आई.आर. ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्कअधिकारी

FOR THE WORKMEN

:Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant, Advocate. New Delhi , the 13th November, 2003

Mumbai , dated 8th September, 2003 .

AWARD

Part-II

S.O. 3344. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT - 2 / 12 of2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 2 Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-11-2003

By the Interim Award dated 25-11-2002, this Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted against the workman Lokhande was not as per the principles of natureal justice and that findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse and consequently management Central Railway was directed to lead evidence to justify its action .

[No. L - 41012/ 183/99 - IR (B.I) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2 MUMBAI

2. The simplicitor case of Central Railway is that workman remained absent unauthorisedly from 13.9.1990 onwards for about 515 days and that the said long absence created obstacle in the working of the department and therefore he was removed from the service under Railway ServiceRules by the Order dated 16.9.1993 . It is contended that the imposed punishment of removal is apt and adequate . On the other hand , workman pointed out that his daughter was missing, his wife was unwell and that due to illness he was admitted in Railway Hospital therefore, he 7526

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2003 / AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

was constrained to remain absent during the material period. In short , according to workman his absence was for reasons and consequently not unauthorised.

3 . As stated above, domestic inquiry held against the workman found vitiated . To prove the action of removal ofworkman from service in the light of the charges 6 & 7 management Central Railway filed affidavit of ChiefOffice Superintendent Mr. Patel in lieu of Examination in Chief (Exhibit 34) and closed oral evidence vide purshis (Exhibit 35) . Workman Lokhande filed affidavit (Exhibit 36) and closed oral evidence vide purshis ( Exhibit 37).

4. Management filed written submissions Exhibit 42 and the workman Exhibit 39. On hearing the counsels and perusing the record and the written submissions , 1 record my findings on the issues for the reasons mentioned below:

Issues

Findings

Notjustified.

6. Whether the action of the manage- ment Central Railway Matunga Workshop , Mumbai in removing the services of workman, Shri Ashok Ramchandra Lokhande w.c.f. 16-9-1993 isjustified?

7. Ifnot , what relief Shri Lokhande is entitled to?

Asperorder below.

REASONS

5. Workman Lokhande was removed from the service by the Central Railway based on the findings of unauthorised absence from 13-9-1990 for 515 days recorded by Inquiry Officer. Admittedly workman did not report to duty from 13-9-1990. According to him he was absent for soine reasons i.e. due to missing of his daughter, illness of his wife and hospitalisation for self sickness. Chief Office Superintendent Mr. Patel in his cross examination para 14 clearly admitted that workman's name was on the sick list înaintained by the Central Railway Hospital and that he had produced medical certificate issued by the Railway Hospital , which clearly goes to show workman was.sick and consequent event of his hospitalisation . It is not that workman was not sick and that he was not hospitalised . In this context , if we look the absence , speaks volume .

6. The Learned Counsel Ms. Fernandes submits that workman remained absent from duty without prior intimation which is a grave offence warranting removal from service as statutorily described . She has relied on Mithilesh Singh V/ s . Union of India and Ors . 2003 SCC (L& S) 271. As stated above Mr. Patel pointed out that the

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] workman had submitted his medical certificates and that according to workman as seen from his affidavit (Exhibit 36), due to difficulties as above which were beyond his control , he could not apprise the office . It seems due to illness workman could not apprise the office, consequently though he was on long absence , cannot said to be unauthorised , in as much as for genuine reasons , he was away from office.

7. Once it is clear that workman had reason to remain absent from duty, point crops on as to whether the punishment of removal imposed on the workman is disproportionate to the charge of absence from duty. It is well settled that penalty must be commensurate with the gravity of offence charged . Discretion conferred by Section 11 -A of the 1.D. Act on ti inal is to be exercised considering the case as . ole. Their Lordships of the Apex Court in the case of Mithilesh Singh referredto above pointed out that the scope of interference with punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority is very limited and that it is for the employee concerned to show how the penalty was disproportionate . On going through the rulings in the light of the admission of Chief Office Superintendent Mr. Patel that workman's name was on the sick list maintained by the Central Railway Hospital, he had produced medical certificate issued by the said hospital , his past record was unblemished and that workman had put about 20 years service as Yard Porter. Considering the above factors and the extenuating circumstances to my view, punishment of removal imposed on the workman who is a poor Porter is rather harsh and disproportionate and that it needs to be interfered and that punishment of withholding of two increments in future is aptand proportionate and the same needs to be imposed, consequently issues are answered to that effect and hence the order:

ORDER

The action of the management of Central Railway, Matunga Workshop Mumbai in imposing the punishment of removal from service of workman Ashok Ramchandra Lokhande w.e.f. 16.9.1993 isdisproportionate and therefore unjustified and that punishment of withholding of two increments in future is adequate and the same is imposed upon him instead of punishment of removal . Consequently, management is directed to reinstate the workman in service with continuity in service, however , without back wages .

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

7527

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6 , 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

नई दिल्ली, 13 नवम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 3345.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार कोंकण रेलवे कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं०-2, मुम्बई-1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी 2/50 ऑफ 2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-11-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं० एल-41012/5/2001- आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्कअधिकारी New Delhi . the 13th November, 2003 S.O. 3345. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Gomment hereby puolishes the award ( Ref. No. CGIT- 2/50 of 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , No.2 Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 12-11-2003 .

[ No. L - 41012/5/2001 - IR ( B - I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2 MUMBAI

PRESENT:

S. N. Saundankar

Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT - 2/50 of 2001 EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LIMITED , KARWAR, KARNATAKA The Regional Railway Manager, KonkanRailway Corporation Limited, Karwar-581306. (Karnataka) .

V/s.

THEIR WORKMEN

Shri Uday M. Raul ,

House No. 205 , Sal Vairchawada, P. O. Assonora . Taluka Bicholim,

North Goa , (Goa).

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer

:Mr. Gurunath Naik, Advocate

For the Workmen

: Mr. C. J. Mane Representative.

Mumbai , dated the 10th October , 2003

AWARD

The Governinent of India , Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-41012/5 / 2001 / IR (B - I) dated 24-4-2001 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of Sub - section ( 1 ) and Sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Regional Railway Manager , Konkan Railway Corporation Limited, Karwar in terminating the services of Shri Uday M. Raut , Driver w.c.f. 31-3-1998 is justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled ? "

2. Workman Raut was engaged by the management Corporation as Driver in April 1992. Vide Claim Statement (Exhibit7) workman pleaded that he was regularised in the pay scale ofDriver w.e.f. 19-4-1993 and he performed duties as Driver at various projects with sincerity and utmost care. It is the contention of workman that since he met with an accident while on duty and had suffered injuries , he did not attend duty from 3-10-1997 to 27-10-1997 for which he had given Medical certificate for granting of sick leave, however, that was turned down . Workman averred that his wife was sick from 4-12-1997 to 13-12-1997 which he had apprised to office. It is the contention of workman that for the reason of absence on the above grounds, without giving him notice and without holding inquiry Corporation terminated his services contrary to the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act and consequently it is illegal . It is contended that workman had approached Chief Engineer, KRCL , to explain his diffeculties, but he was not allowed to met. It is contended since workman is illiterate persondepending on others , delay was caused for raising the cause of his termination and therefore contended that the Corporation's action in terminating him , being 7528

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2003/ AGRAHAYANA 15, 1925

unjustified , it be directed to reinstate him in service with full back wages .

3. Management Corporation resisted the claim of workman vide Written Statement (Exhibit 16) contending thatthe workman was appointed as Vehicle Driver on daily wagebasis at the rate of Rs . 40 per day from 15-4-1992 and subsequently on monthly consolidated pay Rs. 1,625 purely on temporary basis , without any right to continue in the service and thereafter in the pay scale of Rs . 950-1500 w.e.f. 19-4-1993 for a period of one year purely on contract basis . It is averred that workman is a chronic absentee . During the period of six months from 1-1-1997 to 30-6-1997 he remained absent for many days and therby created obstacle in the smooth working of Corporation. He was counselled verbally several times but could not mend his conduct therefore for his absenteeism, hewas served charge -sheet dated 12-6-1997 , 16-6-1997 and 13-1-1998. It is contention of Corporation that workman since remained absent and despite giving charge- sheet did not respond, taking ex -parte decision , the disciplinary authority removed the workman from service w.e.f. 31-3-1998 . Itiscontended that since workman was dismissed holding inquiry i.e. complying the provisions of Section 25 of the Act, his removal does not amount to retrenchment, consequently, workman's claim being illfounded, be dismissed with costs in limine .

4. By Rejoinder (Exhibit 18) workman reiterated the recitals in the Claim Statement denying the averments in Written Statement .

5. On the basis of pleading Issues were framed at Exhibit 22 and in that context workman Raut filed affidavit in lieu ofExaminatiori in Chief ( Exhibit 25) and closed oral evidence vide purshis (Exhibit 30) . In rebuttal , Senior Vigilance Officer Mr. Raju and the Assistant Manager- Training Mr. Sajjan filed affidavits (Exhibit 31/35) and closed oral evidence vide purshis (Exhibit 38) .

6.Management Corporation filed written submissions Exhibit 39 and the copies of rulings Exhibit 41 and the workmanExhibit 40. On perusing the record as a whole and written submissions , I record my findings on the issues for the reasons stated below :

Issues

Findings 1. Whether the reference suffers from No laches/delay?

Punishment

imposed on the workman being disproportionate action is not justified.

2. Whether the action of the manage- ment ofRegional Railway Manager, Konkan Railway Corporation Limited, Karwar in terminating the services of Shri Uday M. Raut , Driverw.e.f. 31-3-1998 is justified ?

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] 3. What relief Shri Raut is entitled to?

Asperorder below.

REASONS

7. At the outset, the management Corporation has taken contention that the claim of the workman is hopelessly delayed therby suffers from laches . It is pointed outthat the workman was terminated from the service w.e.f. 31-3-1998 and that the cause was espoused in the year 2001 i.e. after about three years . In catena of Judgements Their Lordships of the Apex Court pointed out that aspect of delay is to be considered as per the facts and circumstances of each case . In the case in hand, delay is of three years . Workman has shown ignorance on the charge sheet and holding of domestic inquiry. Time limit is prescribed three years in so far as money matters are concerned, the . delay of three years if looked from this point ofview, cannot be said to be inordinate. The object of the statute is to ensure social justice to both employer and employees and to advance the progress of industry and that legislation is directing and regulating the service conditions of the workers, consequently, the relief will have tobemoulded appropriately in so far as delay is concerned . On going through the delay caused in the matter in the light of the object of the act , cannot said to be stale and suffers from laches. Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.

1 8. According to workman Raut , he was terminated without giving notice and without holding domestic inquiry is contrary to provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore his termination is illegal . Management refuted the same contending that workman remained absent without prior intimation on many occasions and that his absence being unauthorised, he was given charge sheets but he did not respond to that and eventually his absence created obstacle in the smooth working of the Corporation. He was terminated for the misconduct ofunauthorised absence under the Discipline andAppeal Rules of the Corporation. Documents filed by Corporationwith list (Exhibit 23 , 28 ) shows workman was givencharge sheets dated 12-6-1997, 16-6-1997 and also on 13-1-1998. In cross-examination para 15 workman clearly admitted that he had received charge sheet dated 13-1-1998 alleging his unauthorised absence for the period 2-9-1997 to 4-1-1998. This clearly shows that workman was made to know on his absenteeism . It is not that workman waskept in dark and that he was unaware of the inquiry.

9. From the evidence of Mr. Sajjan, Assistant Manager-Training, it is apparent that workman remained absent for many days during 1996 to 1998 without prior intimation or leave . According to workman he was absent from dutyduring 3-10-1997 to 27-10-1997 due to his accident and from4-12-1997 to 13-12-1997 because of sickness of his wife and that he had apprised the same to the [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

7529

भारत का राजपत्र': दिसम्बर 6 , 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

Corporation . He admittedly however did not file documentary evidence to that effect . Had workman met with an accident and under treatment and his wife being sick he could have filed documents to that effect however, that is wanting. Apart from this workman in his cross- examination para 16 categorically admitted that he had remained absent unauthorisedly and that charge against him was unauthorised absence which can safely said to be proved.

10. Now point crops on as to whether the punishment of termination imposed on the workman for the unauthorised absence discussed supra is justified . Accordingto Mr. Raju , Senior Vigilance Officer , workman remained absent from duty deliberately warrants removal and that consequently he was removed by the Order dated 31-3-1998 . Record shows that not once but many days during the year 1996 to 1998 workman remained absent unauthorisedly thereby he is a chronic absentee . The Learned Counsel Mr. Naik for the management Corporation submits that workman , if a Driver remained absent not only the office work is paralysed but the officers put to difficulty and thereby obstacle is created in the smooth functioning and under such circumstances, punishment of dismissal imposed upon the workman is apt and adequate , their Lordships of Supreme Court in Mithilesh Singh Vs. Union ofIndia & Ors . 2003 SCC L& S 271 observed " absence from duty without prior intimation is a grave offence warranting removal froin service" . At this juncture the Led Counsel Mr. Mane for the workman submits that workman a poor Driver put about six years service , small children are dependent on him . Considering the extenuating circumstances of unauthorised absence punishment of dismissal is harsh and disproportionate and therefore he prayed this Tribunal to interfere with the punishment under Section 11 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act . Their Lordships ofSupreme Court in Mithilesh Singh V/ s . Union of India & Ors observed :

"the scope of interference with punishment awarded by Disciplinary Authority under section 11 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act is very limited and unless the punishment appears to be shockingly disproportionate, the court cannot interfere with the same " .

It is well settled that penalty must be commensurate with the gravity of offence charged and that discretion conferred by Section 11 of the Act on the Tribunal is to be cxercised considering the record as a whole . Workman admitted that carlier for unauthorised absence his two annual increments were withheld for one year vide letter pg . 5/6 ( Exhibit 23 ) . Considering his past record , his age and the nature of the misconduct on Unauthorised absence referred to above , to my view, punishment of dismissal is rather harsh and disproportionate and that punishment of withholding of two increments in future is apt and 3534 G1/2003-12

proportionate and the same needs to be imposed and from this point of view action of the management is unjustified.

11. It is in the evidence of workman that since his dismissal he is Driver of mini bus and gets Rs . 2,000/ per month thereby, he is gainfully employed consequently. he is not entitled to back wages . Issues are answered accordingly and hence the order :

ORDER

The action of the management of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. in terminating the services of Shri Uday M. Raut , Driver , for misconduct of unauthorised absence from duty, is disproportionate and hence not justified and that punishment of stoppage of two increments for the future is apt and proportionate and the same is imposed on the workman . Consequently, management Corporation is directed to reinstate the workman Raut in service in continuity, however, without back wages .

S. N. SAUNDANKAR PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 13 नवम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 3346.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार वेस्टर्न रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. - 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी 2/122 ऑफ 2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-11-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41012/95/2001 - आई.आर. ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्कअधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th November , 2003 S.O. 3346. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. CGIT- 2/122 of 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Western Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-11-2003 .

[No. L - 41012/ 95/2001 -IR (B -I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 7530

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 6 , 2003 /AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2 , MUMBAI

PRESENT :

S.N. Saundankar.

PresidingOfficer

Reference No. CGIT - 2/50 of 2001

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF WESTERN RAILWAY The Divisional Railway Manager (Estt . ) .

Western Railway, Divisional Office , Mumbai Central , Mumbai -400008 .

V/ s.

THEIR WORKMEN

Shri Gadanna Naganna,

C/ o . Church of Christ India , Thakkar Bappa Colony, Basant Nagar, Mumbai-400071 .

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Employer

:Ms. Delilah Fernandes , Advocate holding for Mr. Suresh Kumar..

For the Workmen

: Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant , Advocate.

Mumbai , dated the 26th September, 2003 .

AWARD

Part-I

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L -41012/ 95 /2001 /IR( B -I ) dated 15-11-2001 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Western Railways , Mumbai by removing Shri Gadanna Naganna from the services w.e.f. 15-10-1996 is justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. Workman Gadanna Naganna was appointed as Gangman by the management Western Railway w.e.f. 26-10-1983 . Workman averred that due to illness and certain difficulties beyond his control , he could not report for duty from 4-5-1994. He pleaded that he had received copy of order ofhis termination from 15-10-1996 in the year 1998. It

[ PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] is his contention that Railway administration had not informed him on departmental inquiry and without giving him opportunity he was removed arbitrarily and as such the inquiry being against the principles of natural justice , vitiates and that findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are perverse , consequently workman contended to set aside the inquiry directing the Railway administration to reinstate him in service with full back wages .

1 3.Management Western Railway resisted the claim ofworkman by Written Statement (Exhibit - 8 ) -contending that Gadanna Naganna being a Railway Servant a Government Servant , governed under the Constitution of India is not a ' workman ' , within the definition of Section 2(s) of the said Act and that Railway being a welfare service is not an ' industry ' under Section 2 (j ) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is averred that since Gadanna Naganna remained absent without intimation from 4-5-1994 and the same being unauthorised , amounting to misconduct , he was issued charge- sheet dated 6-2-1995 , however , he deliberately avoided to attend the inquiry therefore the InquiryOfficer proceeded the inquiry ex - parte . It is averred that, the Inquiry Officer held the workman guilty for his unauthorised absence and based on the findings , since workman committed misconduct was removed from the service under the Railway Service Rules . It is contended Inquiry Officer based on the documents and the evidence recorded the findings and therefore the inquiry being fair and proper, findings not perverse , inquiry cannot be set aside.

4. On the basis of pleadings Issues were framed at Exhibit - 10 however in the context of preliminary issues , workmandid not lead oral evidence vide purshis ( Exhibit- 14) but the Senior Section Engineer Mr. Chattopadhyay on behalf of the Railway administration filed affidavit in lieu of Examination in Chief (Exhibit - 16) and closed oral evidence vide purshis (Exhibit - 17).

5. Workman filed written submissions with copies of rulings (Exhibit- 18 ) . On perusing the record and hearing both the counsels , I record my findings on the preliminary issues for the reasons mentioned below:

1 Issues

Findings

Yes.

1. Whether Gadanna Naganna is a ' workman' under Section 2( s) of the Industrial Disputes Act?

2. Whether Railway is an ' industry' as defined Yes . under Section 2(j ) of the Industrial Disputes Act?

No. 3. Whether the domestic inquiry conducted against the workman was as per principles ofnatural justice?

7531 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6 , 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

Yes .

4. Whether the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse?

REASONS

given to the workman only in the month of September 1997. So far the charge - sheet is concerned Mr. Chattopadhyay concedes that workman had not received the same . It is therefore apparent that the inquiry was conductedkeeping the workman in dark which is apparently contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair play. The object ofthe inquiry is to ascertain whether there was sufficient reason for the workman to absent himself from duty and that the same object has been frustrated by keeping the workman away.

6. At the outset , the Learned Counsel Ms. Fernandes holding for Advocate Suresh Kumar for the Railway inviting attention to the Written Statement para 1 submits that Railway is performing governmental function , it is not a profitmaking activity but a welfare activity. She submits that functions performed by Railway are sovereign functions therefore it is not an ' industry ' under Section 2 (j ) of the Industrial Disputes Act . On the other hand, the Learned Counsel Mr. Sawant for the workman submits that in catena of Judgments Their Lordships pointed out that Railway is an ' industry ' . His Lordship of Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1751 of 1991 by the order dated 11-10-2000 while deciding the applications filed against the Railway Department under section 33C (2 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , clearly ruled that Railway is an industry . In Writ Petition No. 1728 of 1998 in the matter of Western Railway V/ s . Virendra Kumar dated 12-6-2003 Hon'ble High Court directed the Railway administration to pay overtime allowance to the workers . In view of the rulings referred to above , it is apparent that the Railway is an 'industry ' and that Gadanna Naganna is a workman , consequently this Tribunal has jurisdiction in width to entertain and adjudicate the same . Issues No. 1 & 2 are answered accordingly.

7 So far domestic inquiry is concerned , Their Lordships of the Apex Court in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works V/ s . Their Workmen 1963 I1 LLJ SCC 367, ruled that enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held unless :

(1) the employee proceeded against has been informed clearly of the charges levelled against him;

(2) the witnesses are examined- ordinarily in the presence of the employee in respect of the charges ;

(3) the employee is given a fair opportunity to cross examine the witnesses ;

9. On perusal the inquiry proceedings filed with list (Exhibit - 12) it is seen the charge levelled against the workman was unauthorised absence from 4-5-94 . According to workman he was absent due to illness for which medical certificates filed with list (Exhibit - 13) . Nothing on record to show that workman had knowledge on the inquiry, nor anything to show that copy of the finding of the Inquiry Officer was given to him at any time . Workman appears to be illiterate since put thumb impression on the claim statement (Exhibit- 6) whereas the inquiry was admittedly held in English language . The Learned Counsel Mr. Sawant submits that inquiry was against the principles of natural justice and hence it vitiates . The question whether the principles of natural justice have been violated or not is to be found out on consideration as to whether the procedure adopted by the appropriate authority is in accordance with the law or not . Whether the delinquent knew the charges he was going to face , whether he has been given opportunity to state his case and whether the authority acted in good faith. The objective of principles of natural justice is to ensure that justice is done, that the person whose rights are going to be affected by the proposed action get a fair hearing . In the case in hand, there was no hearing, consequently inquiry is defective for which reliance can be had to State Bank of Patiala V/ s . S.K. Sharma reported in 1996 II CLR 29. It is thus clear that the inquiry vitiates in toto . So far the findings of the Inquiry Officer are concerned , there is no need to record the same since the inquiry vitiates , relying on Central Railway . CST. Mumbai V/ s . Rajan Kumar Mohalik . Assuming for a moment , point on perversity remains , going through the inquiry proceedings findings are apparently perverse . Issues are answered accordingly and hence the order :

(4) he is given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his defence if he so wishes on any relevant matter ; and

ORDER

(5) the Inquiry Officer records his findings with reasons for the same in his report .

The domestic inquiry conducted against the workman was not as per the principles of natural justice and the findings are perverse .

Management is allowed to lead evidence tojustify its action.

S.N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer 8. Admittedly workman was absent from duty from 4-5-1994 and that inquiry as to whether the said absence was unauthorised or otherwise , was conducted in English language . Senior Section Engineer of Railway Department Mr. Chattopadhyay in his cross -examination para 34 clearly admitted that copy of removal order dated 15-10-1996 was 7532

[PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 6 , 2003 /AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

नई दिल्ली, 13 नवम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 3347.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मुम्बई पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/24/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-11-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं ० एल -31011 /20/ 2000- आई.आर. ( विविध ) ] सी. गगांधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th November, 2003 S.O. 3347.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes , Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/24/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Mumbai No. 2 as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the Management of Mumbai Port Trust, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 13-11-2003 .

[No. L- 31011/20/2000 -IR (M) ]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2 , MUMBAI

PRESENT:

Shri S.N. Saundankar, PresidingOfficer.

Reference No. CGIT -2/24 of 2001

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF MUMBAI PORT TRUST

The Chairman , Mumbai Port Trust , Mumbai -400038

V/ s.

THEIR WORKMEN

The Secretary, Mumbai Port Trust Dock and Genl . Employers Union , Kamgar Sadan, Nawab Tank Road , Mazgaon , Mumbai -400010 .

APPEARANCES:

For the Employer : Mr. Umesh Nawab , Advocate ,

For the Workmen : Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant, Advocate .

Mumbai , dated the 12th September , 2003

AWARD

Part- II

By the Interim Award dated 7-2-2003 this Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted against the workman Bahlani was as per the principles of natural justice and the findings are not perverse , consequently point as to whether punishment of removal imposed upon the workman is legal and justified in the contest of the action of the management remains for the consideration of this Tribunal.

1 2. The punishment as above was imposed on the workman for the proved charge of insubordination or disobedience and/or assault/ intimidate to a superior officer and/orriotous /disorderly/ indecent behaviour subversive of discipline , prejudicial to the interest of the port amounting to misconduct attracting Regulation - III of the MbPT Employees ( Conduct ) Regulations , 1976. According to the workman he was not in drunken state nor had misbehaved and averred that punishment imposed on him is severe and disproportionate to the proved charge . On the other hand management's contention is that workman's past record is blemished . He was penalised ten times during histenure of service but he did not mend his conduct . It is contended in spite of warning and penalty workman not only abused his superior Shri V.B.S. Rao , Assistant Manager in the presence of his Security Guard but goneto the extent of manhandling him and to save his skin he left the yard without any trace which was serious misconduct and in this context punishment of removal is wholly adequate/proportionate.

3. In so far as issues No. 3 & 4 which remained to be adjudicated by this Tribunal workman filed affidavit in lieu ofExamination in Chief(Exhibit 19) and closed oral evidence vide pursues (Exhibit 20 ) . Management however did not oral evidence vide Purshis (Exhibit 21 ) .

4. Management Port Trust filed written submissions (Exbibit 22 ) . On perusing the record and hearing both the counsels, I record my findings on the issues for the reasons stated below:

Issues

Findings 3. Whether the action of the

Action is legal and justified.

Management ofMumbai PortTrust Mumbai

in terminating the service of Shri B. K. Bahlani , Asstt . Shed Superintendent by way ofremoval from service w.e.f. 16-12-1998 is legal and justified?

4. What relief the workman is entitled? As per order below.

REASONS

5. So far power under Section 11 - A of Industrial Disputes Act is concerned, Their Lordships of Supreme [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

7533

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

Court in Mithilesh Singh V/s . Union of India & Ors 2003 SCC L & S 271 clearly observed:

"The scope of interference with punishment awarded by Disciplinary Authority under section 11 - A of the Industrial Disputes Act is very limited and unless the punishment appears to be shockingly disproportionate, thic court cannot interfere with the same" .

Their Lordships further in para 10 pointed out that it is for the employee concerned to show how the penalty imposed was disproportionate to the proved charge.

6. As stated above , according to the workman punishment of removal is disproportionate . The proved charge of insubordination and/ or disorderly/ indecent behaviour attracts the provisions under the Employees (Conduct ) Regulations 1976 wherein punishment of removal is provided . While imposing punishment needless to say past record of the employee is to be seen . Workman clearly admitted in his cross- examination para 7 that for various reasons management . Trust had imposed many punishments upon him . In detail these punishments find place in the charge- sheet pg. 2/3 (Exhibit 12 ) . It is seen workman was warned for smoking in docks and for desertion of post/duty and for reporting late . His wages were deducted and increments were withheld, for negligence and late reporting to duty. It is seen despite the warning/ penalty referred to above, workman did not mend his conduct and that he had gone to the extent of abusing/ asaulting his superior, for which the only punishment of removal is apt and adequate as prescribed . No mitigating circumstances have been placed by the workman to show as to how the imposed punishment could be characterised asdisproportionate or shocking . Considering the evidence as a whole , the past record of the workman, the proved misconduct to my view warrants removal from service which is statutorily prescribed and the same has been imposed by the management , consequently, the action of the management is wholly legal and justified. Issues are answered accordingly and hance the order :

ORDER

The action of the management of Mumbai Port Trust Mumbai in terminating the services of Shri B. K. Bahlani , Assistant Shed Superintendent by way of removal from service w.e.f. 16-12-1998 is legal and justified.

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 13 नवम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 3348.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार केनरा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/70/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-11-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-12012/91/2002 - आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th November, 2003 S.O. 3348. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes, Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/70/ 2002) of the Central Government Indus . Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Mumbai No. 2 as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Canara Bank , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 12-11-2003 .

[No. L- 12012/91/2002 - IR (B- II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT:

Shri S.N. Saundankar, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CGIT -2/70 of 2002

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF CANARA BANK

TheDeputy General Manager ,

D.A. Cell Circle Office ,

CanaraBank, Mumbai City, MakerTowers ' E' , 13th Floor,

Cuffe Parade ,

Mumbai -400005

V/ s. THEIR WORKMEN

Mr. Mangesh M. Kunbi , AtPost Rajpuri , TalMurud Janjira , Dist. Raigad (Maharashtra) .

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Employer : Mr. S.V. Alva Advocate .

For the Workmaan : Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant, Advocate .

Mumbai , datedthe 17th September , 2003 AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its Order No. B12012 /91/2002 -IR (B- II ) dated 6-9-02 in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and Sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, have referred the following disputeto thisTribunal for adjudication:

[PART II-- SEC . 3 (ii) ] 7534

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 6 , 2003 / AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

Notmaintainable .

2. Whether the Reference is not maintainable as averred in Written Statement para 1 ( a) and(b) ?

Legal and justified .

"Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank , Mumbai in terminating the services of Shri Mangesh M. Kunbi Ex - Pcon w.e.f. 22-3-2000 without conducting a domestic inquiry is legal and justified ? If not , what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?"

3. Whether the action of the Management of Canara Bank Mumbai in terminating the services of Shri Mangesh M. Kunbi , Ex -Peon w.c. f. 22-3-2000 without conducting adomestic enquiry is legal and justified ?

4. What relief the workman con- As per order below. cerned is entitled to ?

REASONS

2. Workman Mangesh Madhukar Kunbi was appointed as Peon in the management Canara Bank 18-11-1997 Vide Claim Statement ( Exhibit - 7 ) workman an erred that his services were found satisfactory therefore he was confirmed in the service after completion of six month probation period . However based on the falsification of the caste certificate by Caste Scrutiny Committee, the Bank hurriedly terminated his service by the letter dated 22-3-2000 . It is pleaded that his termination being against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and hence illegal . the Bank be directed to reinstate him in service with full back wages .

6. The Learned Counsel for the management Bank Shri Alva submits that Reference is not maintainable in view of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. V/s. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors . (1994) 6 SCC 241. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that order passed by the Scrutiny Committee shall be final and conclusive and that no suit or other proceedings before any other authority against the order of the Scrutiny Committee shall lic and further directed that since the findings as recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously , it should be communicated to the concerned authority to cancel the admission or the appointment without any further notice to the candidate relying on the said decision , the workman since obtained service by producing a fake certificate , he was terminated by the Order dated 22-3-2000 and under the circumstances reference is not maintainable. On the other hand , the Learned Counsel Mr. Sawant for workman submits that as per the principles of natural justice holding departmental inquiry is a must and that removal of workman without holding domestic inquiry, is illegal and under the circumstances the Reference is well maintainable .

3. Management Canara Bank resisted the claim of workman vide Written Statement ( Exhibit - 8 ) contending that the Reference is not maintainable as it does not fall within the meaning of Section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act and in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. V/ s . Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors . (1994) 6 SCC 241. It is contended that the workman was appointed in the Bank on 18-11-1997 in Reserved Category of Scheduled Tribe on the basis of the caste certificate issuedby Sub -Divisional Officer, Alibagh dated 21-8-1996 wherein it was mentioned that he belongs to Mahadeo Koh Community however the Scrutiny Committee cancelled the sand caste certificate holding workman does not belong 10 Scheduled Tribe vide Order dated 24-12-1999 and as such by making false claim and by producing fake caste certificate , workman sought the appointment and therefore he was terminated from the service of the Bank by the Order dated 22-3-2000 relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhuri Patil's case . It is contended that as per the observations no domestic inquiry is contemplated and therefore the claim of the workman being ill founded, be dismissed with costs , in limine .

1 4. On the basis of the pleadings Issues were framed atExhibn - 9 . Both the parties vide purshis (Exhibit - 11 ) did not lead oral evidence and that they both have filed written submissions along with copies of rulings vide (Exhibit - 12 , " 13. 14& 15).

5. On perusing the record, the written submission and hearing both the counsels at length , I record my findings on the issues for the reasons mentioned below :

7. On perusal the documents filed with list ( Exhibit 10) it is seen workman had sought appointment of Peon in the Canara Bank by producing caste certificate issued by Sub-Divisional Officer Alibagh Division dated 21-8-96 wherein his caste was stated as Mahadeo Koli , S.T. and that the said caste certificate was cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee constituted by the Government of Maharashtra, holding the workman does not belong to Mahadeo Koli , S.T. Community by the Order dated 24-12-1999 .

Issues

Findings

Yes.

8. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in case Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. V/s . Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors . (1994 ) 6 SCC 241 referred to supra in para 13 : ( 15) directed, since the finding recorded 1. Whether it is proved that workman sought employment in the management Bank by pro- ducing fake caste certificate ?

7535

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

केबीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण, पूणे के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 11/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-11-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल -12012/ 16/2001- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 13th November, 2003

S.O. 3349. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 11/2001 of the Industrial Tribunal , Pune ( Maharashtra ) as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the management of Union Bank of India and their workmen , receivedby the Central Government on 13-11-2003 .

[No. L- 12012/16/2001 - IR (B - 11 ) ]

C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRIJ. L. DESHPANDE , INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PUNE

REFERENCE (IT) NO . 11/2001

BETWEEN:

First Party

Union Bank of India S. No. 88/4 , Plot No. 12, Pushpa Apartment , GujaratColony, Paud Road, Kothrud, Pune-29.

AND

Shri J. B. Bacche C.P.O. Kauds Tal . Rajgurunagar , Pune-411042

Second Party

CORAM

by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false , on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the educational institution concerned or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment and that appointing authority, should cancel the admission/ appointment , without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate from further study or continue in office in a post and further ruled that the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee shall be final and conclusive and that no suit or other proceedings before any authority should lie . In Para 16 The Hon'ble Apex Court observed when it is found to be a case of fraud played by the concerned, no sympathy and equitable considerations can come to his rescue further directing the state concerned , should endeavour to give effectto it and see that the consitutional objectives intended for the benefit and advancement of the genuine Scheduled Castes /Scheduled Tribes or backward classes , as the case may be , are not defeated by unscrupulous persons and further directed the admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status /certificate necessarily as the effect ofdepriving the genuine Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the constitution . The Division Bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1720 of 2000 in Nithin Narayan Choulkar V/s. Canara Bank wherein the petitioner Nithin had sought employment in the Bank of stating his caste as Hindu Koli by the Order dated 4th April , 2000) observed " the findings recorded by the Scrutiny Committee are essential findings of fact and it is not permissible for this Courtto sit in appeal over the decision of Committee , the petitioner was given employment in Bank against the said certificate for ST communities in view of the decision of the Scrutiny Committee the Bank has terminated the services of the petitioner which do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Bank. The petition is dismissed summarily. "

Shri . J. L. Deshpande , Industrial Tribunal , Pune .

APPEARANCES : Smt . A.A. Wachasunder , Advo- cate for the First Party.

Shri . R. P. Shaligram, Advocates for the Second Party 9. Considering the facts of the case, in the light of the decisions referred to above , to my view, the Reference is not maintainable and consequently workman's claim deserves to be dismissed . Issues are answered accordingly and hence the order :

JUDGMENT

ORDER

(Dated, 16-10-2003).

Reference stands dismissed as not maintainable . S. N. SAUNDANKAR , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 13 नवम्बर, 2003

1. This is the reference under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) and Sub-section (a) of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947. The facts giving rise of this reference may be stated, in brief'as follows:

(a) The First Party ( Union Bank of India is a nationalised Bank having its branches all over India. The का. आ. 3349.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों 7536

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6, 2003 /AGRAHAYANA 15. 1925

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

ISSUES

FINDINGS

Ycs.

1(a) Whether enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer was legal , fair and proper and principles of natural justice were followed?

No.

1 (b) Whether findings recorded by the EnquiryOfficer are perverse ?

1(c) Whether misconduct of the comp- lainant/delinquent is proved before the Enqiry Officer or before the Court ? No.

Yes.

Whether action of the management is legal and justified? 2.

3. What award?

Second Party ( Shri J. S. Bacche) , was employee of the FirstParty as a Daptaree and thus , he was in the workman category. It is alleged that on 26-3-98 , the Officer of the Firsy Party Bank handed over two NSC's for obtaining encashment from Shosari Post Office . The Second Party obtained payment amounting to Rs . 12,90/ - from the said PostOffice, but he failed to report to the Branch. The First Party Bank sent telegram on 17-4-98 to report and deposit the maturity value of NSC . However, the Second Party workmen failed to deposit the same . On 27-5-98 , the First Party Bank served chargesheet on the Second Party workmen with the allegations ofmisconduct on the ground that he collected the amount of NSC's but failed to deposit the same at the Bank . The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted report on 22-9-1998 that the charges were proved against the Second Party workmen.

Asperfinal order.

REASONS

ISSUE NOS. 1 (a), (b) & (c):

(b ) On giving personal hearing and by order dated 18-11-98 , the disciplined authority, who accidently happened to be the Enquiry Officer, passed order to dismiss the Second Party workmen from the services of the First Party Bank.

5. As pointed out above vide dated 20-2-2003 , Issue No. 1(a) has been answered in affirmative holding that the enquiry was fair and proper and principles of natural justice were followed .

( c) The departmental appeal preferred by the Second Party workmen came to be rejected. The Second Party workmen then approached the Commissioner of Labour with his grievance and copmpetent authority referred the demand of the Second Party workmen to this Tribunal for adjudication.

6. Alongwith the list Exh. C- 8 , the First Party produced copies of the enquiry papers . Then with list Exh. C- 9 , the First Party Bank produced original documents of the enquiry. I have gone through the same. I have also gone through the evidence of the Second party workmen , record before this Court as well as evidence of the witness examined bythe First party management .

( d) On receipt of the notice , the Second Party workmen filed statement of claim Exh. U -7 and submitted that the allegations in the chagesheet were vague. The Enquiry Officer himself imposed punishment without authority and the dismissal order was illegal . He further submitted that amount collected by him from the Post Office was stolen while he was travelling in the train, but this fact was not taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer.

7. From the copy of the staff circular No. 2309 , it is seen that the disciplinary authority was conferred with the authority to hold enquiry himself and also the said authority was conferred with the authority to impose punishment and dispose off departmental appeal . Thus , there is no substance in the contention that the disciplinary authority and the Enquiry officer were one and the same and the disciplinary authority was not competent to pass the order ofdismissal of Second Party workmen. It was on the basis of the authority conferred on the concerned authority vide staff circular No. 2309. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal on the basis of findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer.

2. The First Party Bank . filed its written statement and denied the allegations in the statement of claim . According to the Bank, vide staff circular dated 28-5-81 , the Enquiry Officer was authorised to hold enquiries , impose punishment and dispose off the appeals . Thus the Enquiry Officer was competent to inflict punishment . The First Party denied the allegations as regards bias attitude ofthe Enquiry Officer and submitted that the enquiry was fair and proper.

3. Following issues came to be framed at Exh . Q- 5 . Amongst them , Issue No. 1 ( a) pertained fairness of the enquiry and vide order dated 20-2-2003 , it was answered in affirmative holding that the enquiry was fair and proper and principles of natural justice were followed.

4. The issues with their findings thereof are as

follows:

8. On going through the proceedings of the enquiry, itis seen that the Second Party workmen had collected 2 NSC's to encash the same from Bhosari Post Office and he in fact , enacashed the same . The Second Party workmen did not set up the case that he did not receive the amount ofthe proceeds of the NSC, but he took stand that the said amount was stolen while he was travelling in train . He noted that the Second Party workmen did not hold complaint with the police regarding the stolen amount. On the contrary, it was the First Party Bank who filed the complaint with the police. This circumstance is material.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

9. Apart from that , before the Enquiry Officer, the Second Party workmen admitted the charges levelled against him. This is borne out from the proceedings of the enquiry, dated . 22-9-1998 and the material admission is at Page 6 of the original enquiry proceedings. Still then the Enquiry Officer through it proper to hold the enquiry into the charges .

10. It is further seen from the enquiry proceedings that on 26-3-1998 , the complainant collected two NSCs and encashed the same at Post Office Bhosari . He did not report at the Branch Office of the First Party Bank from where he had collected the NSC. He did not inform the Branch Office that the amount of NSC was stolen/lost while travelling in train. It appears from the papers of enquiry that on 9-4-98 , the First Party sent telegram Second Party workmen to report at the Bank. This was followed forwarded by reininder letters dated 11-4-98 , 17-4-98 and 23-5-98 , still then the Second Party workmen did not report at the Bank and did not resume duty. On 7-9-1998 , the Second Party workmen sent letter that would resume duty and deposit the amount . Still then , he did not resume his duties . Ultimately on 17-9-98 , the First Party Bank filed complaint with the police . All these circumstances were taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer while submitting report Exh. C - 26 on making analysis of the evidence adduced before Enquiry Officer as well as before the Court . I find that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be purverse .

11. As regards the punishment of dismissal inflicted by the disciplinary authority : It is seen from the record that the said authority has given personal hearing to the Second Party, past record of the Second Party workmen wasproduced before the disciplinary authority. It is seen that on number of ocassions punishment was imposed on the complainant - Second Party workmen for unauthorised absence . Once he was dismissed from the services , but again he has been reinstated with punishment , of stoppage of two increments . It is further seen that with record of another misconduct , he was dismissed from the services , but on appeal, the punishment was set aside . The past record of the Second Party workmen was not unblemished.

12. Apart from that, in the present case , the Second Party workmen realise two NSC's handed over to him and collected amount around Rs . 12,000/-. He did not deposit the same with the Bank and thus misappropriated the amount . The charge of misappropriation is of serious nature. No licneancy should be shown to the employee who is found guilty of misappropriation of the amount. In the present case, the First party employer is the Bank and the Second Party is the employee of the said Bank . Thus the misconduct of the misappropriation of the amount assumes more importance . The Bank must have lost faith with the Second Party workmen . Having regard of the seriousness of the misconduct proved against the Second Party and having regard to the past record of the Second Party 3534GI/2003-14

7537

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15, 1925

workmen, I find that the authority did not commit any error inimposing punishment of dismissal . Thus , this is not the case in which it could he said that the punishment of dismissal as disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the employee.

13. In view of the findings recorded above , I hold that the demand of the reinstatement of the Second Party workmen cannot be considered and the action of the management of the First Party Bank in dissmissing the Second Party is legal and just.

award: 14. As a result of this, I proceed to pass following

AWARD

1. The action of the First Party Bank in dismissing employee Mr. J. B. Bacche w.e.f. 18-11-98 is legal , just and proper and the Second Party workmen is not entitled to any relief.

2. Award accordingly.

J. L. DESHPANDE, Industrial Tribunal Dated, 16-10-2003

नई दिल्ली, 13 नवम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 3350.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स कोठारी ओवरसीज प्रा. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विषाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , मुम्बई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 41/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-11-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-36011/2/2000- आई.आर. ( विविध ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th November, 2003 S.O. 3350. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes , Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/ 2000) of the Central Govemment Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Mumbai No. 1 as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the Management of The Manager , M/ s . Kothari Overseas Pvt . Ltd. , and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13-11-2003.

[No. L-36011 /2/2000 -IR(M) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , GOA CAMP Present : Shri Justice S.C. Pandey

PresidingOfficer.

7538

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 6 , 2003 /AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

REFERENCE NO . CGIT -41/2000

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of M/ s. Kothari Overseas Pvt . Ltd. AND

THEIR WORKMEN

APPEARANCES :

For the Management

Mr. Jaiprakash

Absent

For the Workmen :

State

: Goa

Goa dated , the 29th day of October, 2003

AWARD

1. This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and Sub-clause 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( the Act for short) in resolving the following dispute between M/ s. Kothari Overseas Pvt . Ltd. (the company for short ) and Marmagoa Water Front Workers Union . (The union for short ) representing the workmen of that company. "Whether the demand of the Marmagoa Water Front Workers Union, Goa that the management ofM/ s . Kothari Overseas Pvt . Ltd. , Goa has illegally retrenched the services of 38 workmen ( as per the Annexure "A" enclosed) is legal and justified? If yes , to what relief the workmen are entitled for ? "

2. After going through the order sheets , from the date of receipt of this reference it is found that on several dates between 11-9-2000 to 13-12-2002 nobody appeared on behalf ofboth the parties . The case was then fixed for appearance of the parties at Goa camp. On 14-1-2003 F. X. Rodrigues , Gen. Secretary of the Union appeared and requested for adjournment for a next date . i.e. 15-1-2003. On that date the company was also represented by Sh . Mendez , Advocate . On next date also Mr. Rodrigues asked for adjournment to file Statement of claim saying that the workmen have dispersed to several other places and it is not possible to conduct them. It was requested 40 days time was granted for filing the statement of claim. Since 16-1-2003 no Statement of claim was filed . The case was fixed for appearance ofparties on 27-10-2003 . Nobody was present on behalf of the Union . The management was represented by Mr. Jaiprakash . The case was fixed today for appearance on behalf of the Union . None is present . The tribunal has been informed by the counsel appearing in three other cases that Union is defunct.

Looking to the facts and circumstances , it appears tothis tribunal that this dispute is not likely to be prosecuted further by the workmen on whose demand the dispute was referred to this tribunal by the Central Government . Consequently, this tribunal holds that no dispute exists between parties which can be adjudicated upon by answering this reference.

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 3. Accordingly, this reference is answered by saying that there exists no dispute for adjudication by this tribunal .

S. C. PANDEY, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 13 नवम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 3351.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मुम्बई पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/78/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-11 2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-31012/11/ 2000- आई आर ( विविध ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th November , 2003

1 S.O. 3351. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes , Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 2/78/ 2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Mumbai No. 2 as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the Management of Mumbai Port Trust , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 12-11-2003.

[No. L-31012/ 11/2000- IR (M) } ' C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : Shri Saundankar PresidingOfficer .

REFERENCE NO . CGIT- 2/ 78 of 2000

Employers in relation to the management of Mumbai Port Trust

1 The Chairman , Mumbai Port Trust , Mumbai -400 038 .

V/s

THEIRWORKMEN

Shri Yashwant Pandurang Sawai , R. No. 41 , Shivstrusti Machhimar Nagar No.4 Capt . P. P. Marg , Cuffe Parade , Mumbai -400005.

APPEARANCES : FortheEmployer

Mr. M. B. Anchan , Advocate .

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15 , 1925

[ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

For the Workmen

Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant Advocate .

Mumbai , dated the 6th day of October, 2003

AWARD

Part-II

By the Interim Award dated 19-7-2002 this Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted against the workman Sawai was as per the principles of naturaljustice however the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are perverse . consequently, management Trust was directed to lead evidence to justify its action in so far as issues Nos . 3 &4 are concerned.

2. According to management Mumbai Port Trust , workman Sawai , A' category mazdoor promoted in 1988 was apprehended with a bag containing pen sets (38 ball pens) from the cargo on 27-11-1996 which offence amounts to misconduct under the Service regulations therefore the departmental inquiry was held about the said charge and that the Inquiry Officer found the workman guilty and based on the findings , the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service by the Order dated 24-4-1999 . In appeal, however , on compassionate grounds, punishment of dismissal was reduced to removal from service . Workman denied on committing theft and that according to him, while returning to home on his way towards gate of Manganese Depot outside the shed he was stopped by the Security Guard and that he handed over the bag to the Superintendent Mr. Kadam and thereafter he was told that the bag was containing stolen pen sets . It is his case that the pen sets might have plannedby the Security Guards or somebody else and that he had no conscious possession over the said property. According to the workman he was acquitted by the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate , 5th Court , Dadar. Mumbai for the offence of theft by the Judgement and Order dated 17-7-1997.

3. To prove the charge of theft , Ramchandra Parasnath Dube ( Security Guard ) , Mr. M. M. Sharma (Assistant Security Officer ) , Mr. A. K. Shah ( Export Manager. Clear Fast Air Cargo Agency Pvt . Limited) , Mr. D. K. Bapardekar ( Shed Superintendent , Dock Department) filed affidavits in lieu of Examination in Chief (Exhibits 37 , 44. 45. 46) on behalf of the management Mumbai Port Trust and examined Police Inspector Mr. S. A. Divekar at Exhibit- 41 and closed oral evidence vide purshis ( Exhibit 47) . In rebuttal . workman Sawai filed affidavit (Exhibit 48 ) and closed oral evidence vide purshis (Exhibit 49).

4. Management Port Trust filed written submissions Exhibit 51 and the workman Exhibit 50. On perusing the record as a whole, written submissions , 1 record my findings for the reasons stated below :

7539

FINDINGS ISSUES

Neither justified nor proper.

1. Whether the action of the management ofMumbai PortTrust in dismissing Shri Yashwant P. Sawai from the services of the PortTrust, isjustified and proper?

As per order below.

2. Ifnot , what relief the workman is entitled to?

REASONS

5. As stated above , domestic inquiry in connection with charge of theft vide charge sheet dated 15-7-1997 was found improper however the findings were perverse therefore the management had to lead evidence on misconduct of the workman. The Learned Counsel Mr. Sawant for the workman at the threshold submits that the Metropolitan Magistrate for the offence of theft had acquitted the workman - accused in criminal case No. 565/P/ 96 dated 17-7-1997 therefore there was no propricty to hold the inquiry. I find no substance in the said submission of Mr. Sawant in as much as in service matters the evidence is to be looked from the angle of preponderance of probabilities and not from the point of view of benefit of doubt, as in criminal trials . True it is some ofthe witnesses in the inquiry before this Tribunal were the witnesses in the bove said police case and that the MetropolitanMagistrate referring the Panchanama and the F.I.R. and evidence led by him held the accused workman not guilty .

6. Let us scrutinies the evidence led before this Tribunal to prove the misconduct of workman in the light of preponderance of probabilities . Police Inspector Mr.Divekar (MW - 2 ) deposed that on 28-11-1996 workman accused was brought to the police station by the Superintendent Mr. Kadam and added that he had produced pen sets ( 38 ball pens ) and those were seized under Panchanama (Exhibit 42) and that he recorded the complaint of said Kadam (Exhibit 43) . He has disclosed that during investigation it was transpired that workman accused had committed theft of pens from the open shed of Mumbai PortTrust . Mr. Divekar is not the witness of the incident of finding the workman accused with pen sets therefore his evidence is no avail to the management . Mr. Sharma (MW- 3 ) stated that he saw the broken boxes in Manganese Depot Shed No.3 and there he was told that some unknown persons had removed some pens by breaking exportable goods . He does not name the accused as author of the theft therefore his evidence is also not helpful to inanagement .

7. Ramchandra Dube ( MW - 1 ) deposed to the effect that on 27-11-1996 he saw the workman crossing the road 7540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 6, 2003/AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

near Shed No. 3, who was frightened , and on opening the bag he had, one ball pen like that of stolen ball pen found inhis bag and therefore on suspicion he took him to Duty Officer Mr. Sharma . Dube is admittedly not working in the Dock Department . Alleged stolen ball pen set was not seen by him therefore hardly can be said that workman was found in possession of 38 ball pen in the bag . When according to Mr. Dubey only one pen was found in the bag contradicts the testimony of Mr. Shah (MW-4 ) who disclosed that 38 pens were recovered from workman by Mr. Kadam. Mr. Bapardekar much disclosed on checking the bag of the workman and finding pens therein , however in cross - cxamination para 4 he disclosed that he had not scen the contents in the bag nor ball pens . Thus the evidence of the witnesses of the management does not consistently point out that workman was found in possession of ball pens and those were stolen . The contention of the workman on this back ground that somebody from the Security Guard might have planted the pens in the bag, cannot be ruled out and in this context, the Judgment of Metropolitan Magistrate speaks volume.

7. On going through the record as a whole it can safely be said that workman did not commit theft of pens thereby committing misconduct under the service regulations does not arise . Since workman did not commit misconduct action of removal of workman is thus unjustified and improper. Consequently, workman is entitled to reinstatement in service in continuity with full back wages. Issues are answered accordingly and hence the order:

ORDER

The action of the management of Mumbai Port Trust by dismissing Shri Yashwant P. Sawai from the services of the Port Trust is unjustified and improper .

Management is directed to reinstate him with full back wages and continuity in service.

S.N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 13 नवम्बर, 2003 का. आ. 3352.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 123/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-11 2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-12012/60/99- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th November , 2003.

S.O. 3352. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 123/2002 of the Cent . Govt . Indus . Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and theirworkmen, received by the Central Government on 12- 11-2003.

[No. L - 12012 /60/ 1999 - IR(B - II ) C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT:

SHRI E. ISMAIL, B.Sc. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer Dated the 3rd.day of October, 2003

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 123/2002

1 (Old LD . No. 41/99 transferred from Industrial Tribunal- 1, Hyderabad)

BETWEEN:

Sri D. Krishna Rao,

S/o Sri Gopalam,

Nagulapalem,

ParachurMandal ,

Petitioner Prakasam District.

AND

The Deputy General Manager,

Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office ,

Pioneer House ,

6-3-653, Somajiguda ,

Hyderabad - 500 482.

Respondent APPEARANCES:

Forthe Petitioner :

M/ sB. G. Ravindra Reddy & S.Prabhakar Reddy,

Advocates

For the Respondent: M/s, A. Krishnam Raju & K. Ramakrishna,

Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its order No. L - 12012/ 60/ 99 /IR( B.II ) dated the 10-6-1999 referred the following dispute under section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal - 1 , Hyderabad between the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman which has been transferred to this Tribunal in view of Government of India, Ministry of Labour's Order No. H- 11026/ 1/ 2001- IR(C.II ) dated 18.10.2001 bearing No. I.D. 123/2002 . The reference is, 7541 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15 , 1925

SCHEDULE

transfer certificate issued by the school authorities be produced even though the bank had a copy with it, verified by the Branch Manager.

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank , Vijayawada in dismissing the services of Sri D. Krishna Rao , Ex . Attender , Nagulapalem branch without verifying the genuineness of the School Certificate and without giving fair opportunity in domestic enquiry is justifiod? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to?"

The reference is rentumbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 123/2002 and notices issued to the parties .

4. The same material was collected behind the back ofthe Petitioner without any notice and without examining any persons concerned in his presence at any stage , even at the stage of domestic enquiry, inferences were drawn against him that he has produced his false transfer certificate at the time of appointment . The Headmaster who issued the transfer certificate was not examined. During the course of domestic enquiry and much less any opportunity given to him to cross examine the persons who had deposite against him . The Petitioner was not allowed to have the assistance of defence counsel at the time of the enquiry and the punishment of dismissal was imposed on him on 26.7.88 even without considering the unblemished past record of the Petitioner. He approached the ALC( C) , Vijayawada but the Management continued to be adamant . Hence , the reference . Hence , he may be reinstated withback wages promotion benefits and all other incidental and consequential benefits in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The brief facts as stated in the claim'stateinent are: That the Petitioner joined at Nagulapalem branch as attender and rendered unblemished and continuous service till 26-7-88 that is , till the date of his illegal dismissal from service for alleged commission of acts or misconduct that is willful insubordination and disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders of Management and superiors and for production of non- genuine transfer certificate issued by the Headmaster , Z.P. Tharlupadu , Prakasam District , knowing and having reason to believe that the said certificate is not genuine and producing it with malafide intention to enter into the service of the bank without being cligible for the said post. That the Petitioner was appointed on 29-3-75 by the Management of Nagulapalem, Prakasam District for a period of one month from 27-3-75 . Later another appointment order dated 17-6-75 was issued by the Staff Controller of the bank after due verification of his candidature as attender . That there is no prescribed minimum education for the post of attender/ messenger in the bank either as per the rules and regulations of the bank or any other provisions of his bipartite settlement. By the date of hisjoining in the service even illiterate persons and thumb impressionists were there in the service in the bank in temporary and permanent posts . Persons who were holding temporary posts were absorbed on permanent basis in course of time, without any improvement in their educational qualification . That as per sub -clause No.39/ 81/BC/PD/ 13 / IRD dated 26.2.1981 issued by the Deputy General Manager, (Personnel ) , Head officer , Manipal , as perpage 3 of the circular, it was provided that the primary educational qualification for sub -staff cadre is passing 5th standard . The said circular was issued much time after the Petitioner's appointment in the bank .

3. The Petitioner improved his educational

5. The Respondent filed a counter stating that the Management issued a charge sheet dated 21-2-87 to the workman and he was dismissed from the bank as per proceedings dated 26.7.89. Sri D. Krishna Rao , while working as attender of Nagulupalem branch was issued with the charge sheet inter alia, charging him for commission of three gross misconducts , (1 ) doing an act prejudicial to the interest ofthe bank, vide clause No.19.5 (j ) of the Bipartite settlement, (2) willful insubordination and disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders of the Management and superior, vide Cl.No.19.5 (e) of the bipartite settlement and (3) doing an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank, vide Clause No. 19.5 (j ) of the Bipartite Settlement. The brief circumstances leading to the above three charges have been, that the transfer certificate produced by him at the time of his employment are not genuine and the Headmaster, Zilla Parishad High School , Tarlapadu , Prakasam District and knowing/having reasons to believe that the said certificate is not genuine , he deliberately produced it to the bank with a malafide intention to enter into the services of the as an attender without being actually eligible for the said post . He did not produce the certificate issued by the Headmaster for having passed VII class for verification by the bank and with utter disregard to the orders/directions of his higher officials . He did not submit any reply to the said letters . But in the letter of explanation dated 30.6.84 , he stated that he has produced the original and copy of the transfer certificate to the Branch Manager along with the application and which are lying with the bank. In fact , he was already in receipt of the original transfer certificate and did not produce the same knowing and having reasons to believe that the said transfer certificate is false .

qualifications and passed 10th class examination in the year 1988 and furnished his certificate to the bank. The Petitioner was asked to produce the record showing his candidates at the time of his initial appointment in 1975, the record pertainingto the year 1968 or so. The request was made in the year 1983 after the Petitioner completing eight years of service. The Petitioner has represented that he had produced the said record at the time of appointment and it could be verified , for which the officers of the local Management has insisted that the original certificate and 7542

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 6 , 2003 /AGRAHAYANA 15 , 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 6. That he replied to the charge sheet and denied the charges and departmental enquiry was ordered . The Petitioner participated in the enquiry and thereafter did not turn up . Hence , the enquiry was proceeded ex- parte and accordingly dismissal order was passed. Hence , the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

employee governed by the Act , a statutory condition of service to have his previous record of service considered by the employer while deciding to award punishment for any proved misconduct . In this case, as there has been non -compliance of mandatory statutory provisions by the employer before awarding punishment, rendering the order of discharge illegal , the second Respondent rightly set aside the order of discharge passed by the Petitioner " . He therefore submits that the dismissal order may be set aside .

7. This Courtby an order dated 24-12-2002 held that the domestic enquiry is validly conducted. Therefore, the only point for consideration is whether the Petitioner is entitled for any relief of reduction of punishment under Sec. 11 A of the I.D. Act . Arguments were advanced on the same lines by both the counsels .

10. It is arguedby the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the very entry of the Petitioner into service is by giving a false certificate . If such persons are retained in service what is the guarantee that they will not resort to any mischief. In fact his past record is even about L.F.C. And on the basis of the alleged matric certificate which he has passed , actually he wanted to be promoted as a clerk or cashier and then what would have been the fate of the bank if he had resorted to something more . Hence , it is submitted that the Hon'ble Court may not interfere with the punishment of dismissal already awarded.

8. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was appointed as temporary attender on 27-3-75 and confirmed as attender on 27-9-75. That there was no prescribed minimum educational qualification for the post of attender/ messenger in the bank cither as per the rules and regulations of the bank or any other provisions of Bipartite Settlement . Even illiterate persons, thumb impressionists were appointed . That as per circular dated 26-2-81 , that for sub - staff cadre the qualification is passing 5th standard. The said circular was issued after the Petitioner's appointment in the bank. The Petitioner improved his educational qualification and passed 10th class examination in the year 1988 and furnished the certificate to the bank . The Petitioner was asked to produce the certificates showing record of his qualification . The request was made in 1983 after he has completed 8 years of service . Although the bank had a copy yet they insisted for original certificate and transfer certificate issued by the school authorities . The allegation that he produced false transfer certificate at the time ofhis appointment.

1 9. The allegation that he produced a false certificate at the time of his appointment, is not correct and he was not given a fair chance to defend himself. He further submits that as per bipartite settlement the Enquiry Officer while awarding punishment , gravity of the misconduct, previous record, aggravating extenuating circumstances also has to be considered, nothing has been considered . It is not simply used actually under the bipartite settlement, it is on musters and the Enquiry Officer does not reveal the same. He relies on chapter 19, ' Disciplinary Action and Procedure Therefor ' , at 19.12 . (c ) which states the above that these three things have to be considered. He also relies on a Judgement of our Hon'ble High Court rendered by Division Bench , reported in Notes on Recent Cases , wherein their Lordships held, " Under Rule 20 ( 3 ) it is incumbent on the employer to take into account the gravity of the misconduct, the previous record if any, of the employee and any other extenuating or aggravating circumstance that may exist . This provision is not a mere procedural requirement , it vests a valuable right in every

11. No doubt in the Enquiry Report these conditions have not been satisfied. In fact, in another case reported in 1976 (5 ) APLJ page 42 the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court held, that the Tribunal is entitled to reject the application for approval if the Management fails to comply with the standing order which requires that the Management should take into account the gravity of misconduct , the previous record, if any, of the workman and any other extenuating or aggravating circumstances that may exist " . So no doubt , technically I may set aside the dismissal order but, ultimately what happens ? Another enquirywill be conducted and as I have held the enquiry is validly conducted. These two things will be considered, that is, the previous record and any other extenuating or aggravating circumstances . In fact , I will be considering these aspects apparently there is nothing on record to show that from 1975 the Petitioner has been guilty of any thing. No doubt in the petition purported to have sent against him there is mention of some L.F.C. (called as leave fare concession) but even MWI in the enquiry does not say anything about the L.F.C. So apparently we can take it for granted that his past conduct is satisfactory. The extenuating circumstances in favour of the Petitioner and he is now aged42 years and by now he must be 45 years of age has put in 15 years of service, apparently without any charges or any such things and he was discharging his duties satisfactorily. Hence , I am of the opinion that the punishment of dismissal can be modified into one of compulsory retirement . Therefore , the award is passed as follows : " The Management of the Syndicate Bank, Vijayawada has verified the genuineness of the school certificate and fair opportunity was given in domestic [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

7543

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 6, 2003/अग्रहायण 15 , 1925

ANNEXURE

enquiry. However, punishment of dismissal is modified into one of compulsory retirement as on the date of dismissal dated 26th July, 1989.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, MUMBAI

PRESENT:

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

SHRI JUSTICE S. C. PANDEY : PresidingOfficer REFERENCE NO. CGIT- 18/2002

PARTIES :

Dictated to Kum . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 3rd day of October, 2003.

E. ISMAIL, PresidingOfficer

Employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Radhakrishnan Shipping Pvt . Ltd. AND Their Workmen Appendix of evidence

APPEARANCES :

FortheManagement Sh . P.B. Achar, Adv. Sh . Kumar, Adv. Witnesses examined for the Petitioner :

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

For the Workman : Gen. Secretary.

NIL

State

: Maharashtra Documents marked for the Petitioner

Mumbai , dated the 17th day of October ' 2003 AWARD

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 13 नवम्बर, 2003

1. This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause 1 (d) of sub section 1 and sub-section 2 -A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act for resolving the Industrial dispute between Ratha Krishnan Shipping Pvt. Ltd. and Shri . Chandra Bhushan Verma represented by New Adarsh Kamgar Union 18/8 Acharya Nagar, Eastern Express Highway, Chembur through its President . The terms of the dispute are as given in the schedule as follows:

का. आ. 3353.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स राधाकृष्णन शिपिंग प्रा. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , मुम्बई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 18/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-11-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-39011/5/2002- आई.आर. ( विविध) ]

"Whether the action of the Management of M/s.Radhakrishnan Shipping Pvt . Ltd. Mumbai by orally terminating the services of Shri . Chanderbhushan Verma w.e.f. 15-4-2000 is justified? If not, what relief the workman , Shri . Chanderbhushan Verma is entitled to ? "

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 13th November, 2003

2. Today, the representative for Management Sh.P.B. Achar is present with Sh.Kumar Advocate . The notice was served on the union for its appearance today by hand . The General Secretary of the Union was present in the office. He has stated in the notice in his own handwriting that the workman is not interested and therefore , the matter be disposed of.

S.O. 3353. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 18/2002 of the Cent .Govt . Indus . Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Mumbai No. I as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of M/ s . Radhakrishnan Shipping Pvt . Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12-11-2003

In view of the aforesaid statement on behalf of the Union by its General Secretary this tribunal holds that industrial dispute does not survive for answering the reference.

[No.- L-39011 /5/2002- IR(M) ]

4. According the mater is disposed off.

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

S. C. PANDEY, PresidingOfficer.

Printedby the Manager , Govt . of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.