This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGD. No. DL (N( 04/ 0007 /2003-05 रजिस्ट्रीसं०डी एल ( एन ) 04/ 0007 /2003-05

भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

नई दिल्ली, मई 23 मई 29 , 2004, शनिवार /ज्येष्ठ 2-ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

सं. 22]

NEW DELHI, MAY 23-MAY 19, 2004, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 2- JYAISTHA 8, 1926 No. 22]

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).

मंत्रिमंडल सचिवालय नई दिल्ली, 19 मई, 2004

hereby appoints Shri Rajendra Prasad Vyas , Advocate, Jodhpur and Retainer Counsel of the Central Bureau of Investigation in the Rajasthan High Court, as Special Pub- lic Prosecutor, for conducting the prosecutions , appeals , revision or other matters arising out of the cases investi- gated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur.

[No. 225/20/2004-DSPE]

SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy. नई दिल्ली, 19 मई , 2004 का० आ० 1237.- केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा (8 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियोंकी प्रयोग करते हुए, राजस्थान उच्च म्वीयालय में केन्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो के रिटेनर काउंसेल श्री राजेन्द्र प्रसाद व्यास, अधिवक्ता, जोधपुर को दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा अन्वेषित मामलों से उ‌द्भुत अभियोजनों, अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों अथवा अन्य विषयों का संचालन करने के लिए राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय , जोधपुर में विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं० 225/20/2004-डी० एस० पी० ई० ]

शुभा ठाकुर, अवर सचिव

CABINET SECRETARIAT New Delhi, the 19th May, 2004

का.आ. 1238. केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 संपठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए पंजाब राज्य सरकार के गृह और न्याय विभाग ( गृह IV शाखा ) कीअधिसूचना सं. 5 /74/04-3114/785 दिनांक 4-3-2004 द्वारा प्राप्त पंजाब राज्य सरकार की सहमति से पुलिस स्टेशन, सदर, रोपड़ में भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 364 के अधीन दर्ज प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट सं. 161 दिनांक 3-9-2001 और उक्त अपराध से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से S.O. 1237.-In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (8 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) the Central Government

(2521)

1567 GI/2004 2522

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29, 2004/ JYAISTHA 8, 1926

उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराध के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण पंजाब राज्य पर करती है ।

[सं. 228/19/2004-डी.एस.पी.ई. ] शुभा ठाकुर, अवर सचिव NewDelhi, the 19thMay, 2004

S.O. 1238. In exercise of powers conferred by Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 ( Act No. 25 of 1946) , the Central Government with the consent ofthe State Government of Punjab , Department ifHome Affairs and Justice (Home IV Branch) vide Notification No. 5/74/04-3114/785 dated 4-3-2004 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Punjab for investigation of FIR No. 161 dated 3-9-2001 registered at Police Station Sadar, Ropar under Sec- tion 364 IPC and any other offence in relation to or in connection with the said offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

[No. 228/ 19/2004-DSPE] SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy. नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2004

का. आ. 1239.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा (8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री गोपाल सरन अधिवक्ता को मुम्बई में केन्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो से संबंधित मामलों के लिए विशेष न्यायालयों में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा संस्थित मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं . 225/20/2003- डी. एस. पी.ई. ]

शुभा ठाकुर, अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 20thMay, 2004

S.O. 1239. In exercise of the powers conferredby Sub- section (8 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 ( Act No. 2 of1974), the Central Govemment hereby appoints Shri Gopal Saran, Advocate , as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting cases instituted by the Delhi Special Establishment in the Special Courts for Cen- tral Bureau of Investigation cases at Mumbai .

[No. 225 /20/2003 -DSPEJ SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy.

गृह मंत्रालंय

नई दिल्ली, 2 अप्रैल, 2004

का. आ. 1240.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, सरकारी स्थान (अप्राधिकृत अधिभोगियों को बेदखली) अधिनियम 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] ३ द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए श्री एम.आर.के.एस. राव, सहायक निदेशक, आसूचना ब्यूरो , नई दिल्ली को जो सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी हैं, श्री वी. पी. खुराना के स्थान पर उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए सम्पदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है और निदेश देती है कि उक्त अधिकारी निदेशक, आसूचना ब्यूरो , नई दिल्ली के नियंत्रणाधीन सभी सरकारी वास सुविधा के संबंध में, उक्त अधिनियम के द्वारा या उसके अधीन सम्पदा अधिकारी को प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेगा और अधिरोपित कर्तव्यों का पालन करेगा ।

[सं . 6/सी-2/2003 ( 1 ) एफ.पी.- II ] निर्मला देव, डैस्कअधिकारी ( एफ. पी.- II ) MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NewDelhi, the 2nd April, 2004

S.O. 1240.In exercise of powers conferred by Sec- tion 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupations) Act 1971 (40 of 1971) , the Central Govt . hereby appoints Shri M.R. K. S. Rao, Assistant Director, Intelli- gence Bureau, New Delhi, a Gazetted Officer of the Government to be the Fistate Officer vice Shri V.P. Khurana, Assistant Director, for the purpose of the said act and directs that the Estate Officer shall exercise the powers conferredandPerform the duties imposed on the Estates Officer by or under the said act in respect of all Govt . accommodation under the control ofthe Director, Intelli- genceBureau at NewDelhi.

[No. 6/C- II/2003 ( 1) PF -II) NIRMALA DEV, Desk Officer (PF -II) वित्त मंत्रालय

(राजस्वविभाग)

केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च, 2004

(आयकर)

का. आ. 1241-सामान्य जानकारी के लिए यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अधोलिखित संगठन की उसके नाम के सामने उल्लिखित अवधि के लिए आयकर नियमावली, 1962 केनियम 6 के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( 3 ) के प्रयोजनार्थ " संस्था" श्रेणी के अन्तर्गत निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुमोदित किया गया है :-

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

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

( 3 ) अधिसूचित संस्था केन्द्र सरकार की तरफ से नामोद्दिष्ट निर्धारण अधिकारी को आयकर की विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने 2523

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29 , 2004/फयेश्ठ 8 , 1926

[भाग - खण्ड 3(ii) ]

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 शुद्ध प्रति संगठन पर अधिकार क्षेत्र वाले ( क ) आयकर महानिदेशक ( छूट ) 10 मिडलटन रो, पांचवा तल, कलकत्ता-700071 , ( 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 ।

क्र. सं.

अवधिजिसके लिए अधिसूचना प्रभावी है

अनुमोदित संगठन का नाम

(iii) The notified 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 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 Ac- counts and also a copy of audited Income & Expenditure Account in respect of its re- search activities for which exemption was granted under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of Income-tax Act, 1961 in addition to the re- turnof income tax to the designated assessing officer.

1-4-99से 31-3-2002

Period for which notifiacation is effectiv

S.No. Name ofthe organisation approved

1. दि. इंडियनलॉ इन्स्टीट्यूट, भगवान दास रोड, नई दिल्ली-110001

1-4-99 to 31-3-2002 टिप्पणी.-( i ) उपर्युक्त शर्त ( i ) " संघ " के रूप में श्रेणीबद्ध संगठन परलागूनहींहोगी ।

1. The Indian Law, Institute Bhagwandas Road, New Delhi - 11000 .

Notes : (i ) Condition ( i ) above will not apply to the organisaton categorised as " Institution " .

( ii) 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 करें । अनुमोदन के नवीकरण के लिए आवेदन पत्र की तीन प्रतियां सचिव वैज्ञानिक और औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग कोसीधे भेजी जाएंगी ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 105/2004/फा. सें. 203 / 17 / 1999 - आयकर नि.- II ] संगीता गुप्ता, निदेशक ( आयकर नि.- II)

(ii) The notified Institution is advised to apply in triplicates as well in advance for fürther renewal of the approval to the Central Government through the Commis- sioner of Income tax/Director of income tax ( exemptions ) having jurisdiction . Three copies of the application for renewal of approval should also be sent directly to the Secretary Department of Scientific and Industrial Research .

[Notification No. 105/2004 /F. No. 203 / 17 / 1999- ITA-II ] SANGEETA GUPTA. Director ( ITA- II ) MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue )

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES New Delhi , the 19th May, 2004 ( INCOME TAX )

( सेन्ट्रल इकॉनौमिक इन्टेलीजेन्स ब्यूरो ) आदेश नई दिल्ली, 24 मई, 2004

S.O. 1241. It is hereby notified for general infor- mation that the organisation mentioned below has been approved by the Central Government for the period men- tioned below for the purpose ofclaluse ( iii ) of sub - section (1) of Section 35 of the Focome-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 seperate books of accounts for its research activities:

का. आ. 1242. अतः संयुक्त सचिव, भारत मरकार जिन्हें विदेशी मुद्रा संरक्षण और तस्करी निवारण अधिनियम, 1974 ( 1974 का 52 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत विशेष रूप से शक्ति प्रदान की गई हैं, ने उक्त उप- धारा के अधीन आदेश फाइल सं. 673/40/2003 - सी.यू.एस. VIII दिनांक 09-03-2004 को जारी किया और यह निर्देश दिया कि श्री सुशान्त अग्रवाल, सुपुत्र श्री आर. एम. अग्नवाल , निवासी-नं. इं-१, पंचशील पार्क, नई दिल्ली को निरूद्ध कर लिया जाए और केन्द्रीय कारागार, तिहाड़, नई दिल्ली में अभिरक्षा में रखा जाए ताकि उन्हें भविष्य में चीजों की तस्करी करने से रोका जा सके ।

2. अतः केन्द्रीय सरकार के पास यह विश्वास करने का कारण है कि पूर्वोक्त व्यक्ति फरार हो गया है या स्वयं को छिपा रख है जिससे यह आदेश निष्यादित नहीं किया जा सकता ।

(ii) The notified Institution shall turnish the Annual Return of its scientific research activi- ties to the Secretary Department of Scientific &Industrial Research, "Technology Bhawan". New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi - 140016 for every financial year on or before 31st May of each, year:

2524

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2004/FYAISTHA 8 , 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 3. अतः अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 7 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्ति का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा पूर्वोक्तव्यक्ति को यह निर्देश देती है कि वह शासकीय राजपत्र में इस आदेश के प्रकाशित होने के 7 दिन के भीतर पुलिस आयुक्त, दिल्लीके सम्मुख उपस्थित हो ।

3. अतः अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 7 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ख) द्वारा प्रदृत्त शक्ति का प्रयोत करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एतदद्वारा पूर्वोक्त व्यक्ति को यह निर्देश देती है कि वह शासकीय राजपत्र मैं इस आदेश के प्रकाशित होने के 7 हिन के भीतर पुलिस आयुक्त, दिल्ली के सम्मुख उपस्थित हो ।

[फा. सं. 673/40/2003- सी.यू.एस.- VIII ]

एस. सी. गुप्ता, उपसचिव ( कोफेपोसा)

[ फ्त्र. सं. 673/02/2004 - सी.यू.एस.- VIII ] एस. सी. गुप्ता, उपसचिव ( कोफेपोसा) (Central Economic Intelligence Bureau)

ORDER

New Delhi , the 24th May, 2004

S.O. 1242. Whereas the Joint Secretary to the Gov- ernment of India, specially empowered under sub - section ( 1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act , 1974 (52 of 1974) issued Order F. No. 673/ 40/2004 -Cus . VIII dated 09-03-2004 under the said sub- section directing that Shri Sushant Agrawal S/o Shri R. M. Agrawal, R.o No. E-9 . Panchasheel Park, New Delhi be detained and kept in custody in the Central Jail , Tihar, New Delhi with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods in future .

S.O. 1243. Whereas the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered under sub-sec- tion ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act , 1974 (52 of 1974) issued Order F. No. 673/02/2004-Cus . VIII dated 16-03-2004 under the said sub - section directing that Shri Anil Goel S/e Shri Brij Lal Goel , ( 1 ) R/o B - 137, Preet Vihar, Delhi -92 , (2) Director, M/s . KMG International , 375, Main Road, Gazipur, Delhi be detained and kept in custody in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi with a view to prevent- ing him from smuggling goods in future.

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

3. Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers con- ferred by clause (b) of sub - section (1 ) of Section 7 of the said Act , the Central, Government hereby directs the aforesaid person to appear before the Commissioner of Police , Delhi within 7 days of the publication of this order in the Official Gazette .

3. Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs the aforesaid person to appear before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi within 7 days of the publication of this order in the Official Gazette.

[F.No.673/40/2003 -Cus . -VIII] S. C. GUPTA , Dy. Secy. ( COFEPOSA)

[F. No.673/02/2004-Cus. -VIII] S. C. GUPTA, Dy. Secy. (COFEPOSA) आदेश

वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 24 मई, 2004

(वाणिज्य विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 14 मई, 2004

का. आ. 1243.-अतः संयुक्त सचिव, भारत सरकार जिन्हें विदेशी मुद्रा संरक्षण और तस्करी निवारण अधिनियम, 1974 ( 1974 का 52 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत विशेष रूप से शक्ति प्रदान की गई है, ने उक्त उप - धारा के अधीन आदेश फाइल सं. 673/02/2004- सी.यू.एस . VIII, दिनांक 16-03-2004 को जारी किया और यह निर्देश दिया कि श्री अनिल गोयल, सुपुत्र श्री बृज लाल गोयल, ( 1 ) निवासी बी. 137, प्रीत विहार, दिल्ली -92 (2 ) निदेशक, मैसर्स के. एम. जी. इंटरनेशनल, 375, मेन रोड, गाजीपुर, दिल्ली को निरूद्ध कर लिया जाए और केन्द्रीय कारागार, तिहाड़, नई दिल्ली में अभिरक्षा में रखा जाए ताकि उन्हें भविष्य में चीजों की तस्करी करने से रोका जा सके । /

2. अतः केन्द्रीय सरकार के पास यह विश्वास करने का कारण है किपूर्वोक्त व्यक्ति फरार हो गया है या स्वयं को छिपा रखा है जिससे यह आदेश निष्पादित नहीं किया जा सकता ।

का. आ. 1244.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम, 1964 के नियम 12 के उपनियम ( 2 ) के साथ पठित, निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम, 1963 (1963का 22 ) की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( i ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स क्वालिटी सर्विस और सोल्यूशन (गोवा ) , जो कि फ्लैट नं. 109 , खलप मेंशन, वास्को- डी- गामा, गोवा-403802 पर स्थित है, को इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से और तीन वर्ष की अवधिके लिए बाणिज्य मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 के साथ संबद्ध अनुसूची खनिज और अयस्क ग्रुप-1 अर्थात्, केवल लौह अयस्क, मैगनीज अयस्क फैरो मैगनीज जिसके अंतर्गत फैरी मैगनीज स्लेग भी है बाक्साईट जिसके अंतर्गत कैलशिंड बॉक्साईट भी है के गोवा पर निर्यात से पूर्व निम्नलिखित शर्तों 2525

भारत का रोजपत्र : मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

[भाग II- खपड 3 ( ii) ]

time under sub-rule (1 ) ofrule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection ) Rules, 1964;

के अधीन निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता प्रदान करती है, अर्थात्:-

[F. No.5/3/2004-EI &EP]

RAJ SINGH, Director

नई दिल्ली, 14 मई, 2004

(1 ) मैसर्स क्वालिटी सर्विस और सोल्यूशन (गोवा ) , खनिज और अयस्क( ग्रुप-1 ) निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम, 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन निरीक्षण प्रमाण पत्र देने के लिए उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए इस निमित्त निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा नामनिर्दिष्ट अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी ।

का. आ. 1245.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम, 1963 ( 1963 का 22 ) की धारा 17 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, शहद उत्पाद निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण , निरीक्षण और मानीटरिंग ) नियम, 2002 का और संशोधन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित नियम बनाती है, अर्थात्:-

1. (1 ) इन नियमों का संक्षिप्त नाम शहद उत्पाद निर्यात (क्वालिटी, नियंत्रण , निरीक्षण और मानीटरिंग ) संशोधन नियम, 2004है।

(II ) मैसर्स क्वालिटी सर्विस और सोल्यूशन ( गोवा ) , इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में निर्यात (निरीक्षण और क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) नियम, 1964 के नियम 12 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के अधीन ऐसे निर्देश से आबद्ध रहेंगे तो उन्हें समय - समय पर लिखित रूप में दिऐजाएं ।

(2) ये राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख को प्रवृत्त होंगे । [फा, सं. 5/3/2004-ईआई एण्ड ईपी]

राज सिंह, निदेशक

2. शहद उत्पाद निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण, निरीक्षण और मानीटरिंग ) नियम, 2002 में,-

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (Department ofCommerce)

(i ) नियम 3 के उपनियम ( क ) में, " इस संबंध में आवश्यक निर्देश जारी करेगी । " शब्दों के स्थान पर " इस संबंध में आवश्यक निर्देश जारी करेगी ; या " शब्द रखे जाएंगे;

New Delhi , the 14th May, 2004

(ii ) नियम 7 में उपनियम ( घ ) के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित उपनियम रखा जाएगा , अर्थात्: -

" (घ) अपील का निपटारा उसकी प्राप्ति से तीस दिन के भीतर किया जाएगा । "

[फा. सं. 6/3/2000- ई . आई एण्ड ईपी ]

राज सिंह, निदेशक

टिप्पण:-मूल नियम भारत के राजपत्र, भाग II, खंड 3 , उपखंड (ii ) में का.आ. 277 ( अ ) , तारीख 4 मार्च, 2002 द्वारा प्रकाशित किए गए थे और तत्पश्चात् उनमें अधिसूचना का. आ. 1444 ( अ ) , तारीख 19 दिसम्बर, 2003 द्वारा संशोधन किया गया था ।

S.O. 1244. In exercise ofthe powers conferredby sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Export (quality Control and Inspection) Act , 1963 (22 of 1963 ) read with sub - rule (2) ofrule 12 ofthe Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules , 1964 , the Central Government hereby recognises for a period of three years from the date of publication of this notification, M/ s . Quality Services & Solutions (Goa) , located at Flat No. 109 , Khalap Mansion , Vasco - da - Gama , Goa - 403802 , as an agency for the Inspection of minerals and Ores, Group- 1 , namely, Iron Ore,Manganese Ore , Ferro manganese including Ferro man- ganese slag, Bauxite including Calcined Bauxite specified in the Schedule annexed to the Ministry of Commerce notification number S.O. 3975, dated 20th December, 1965 , prior to export at Goa subject to the following conditions , namely:-

NewDelhi , the 14thMay, 2004

S.O. 1245.- In exercise of the powers conferredby Section 17 ofthe Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963 ) , the Central Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Export of Honey (Quality Control, Inspection and Monitoring) Rules , 2002, namely:-

(1) that M/ s . Quality Services and Solutions (Goa) , shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in granting the certificate of inspection under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores Group - I (Inspection) Rules , 1965;

1. (1 ) These Rules may be called the Export of Honey (Quality Control , Inspection and Monitoring) Amendment Rules, 2004.

(2) They shall come into force from the date oftheir publication in the Official Gazette.

(ii) ThatM/s . Quality Services and Solutions (Goa) , inthe performance oftheir function under this notification shall be bound by such directives as maybe given to them in writing from timeto 2526

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 8, 1926

2. In the Export of Honey ( Quality Control , Inspec- tion and Monitroing) Rules, 2002,-

(1) In sub rule (a) of rule 3 , for the words " the council shall issued necessary instruction in this regard. " The words " the council shall issue necessary in- struction in this regard; or " shall be substituted;

(ii) in rule 7 , for sub -rule ( d) the following sub rule shall be substituted, namely:-

" (d) The appeal shall be disposed ofwithin thirty days of its receipt. "

[F. No. 6/3/2000-ΕΙ & ΕΡ] RAJ SINGH, Director Note :- The Principal rules were published in the Gazette of India, Part II , Section 3 , sub - section ( ii) vide S.O. 277 (E) dated the 4th March 2002 and was subsequently amended vide notification S.O. No. 1444(E) dated 19th December, 2003 .

भारी उद्योग एवं लोक उद्यम मंत्रालय (भारी उद्योगविभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2004

का. आ. 1246.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) निबम , 1976 के नियम-10 के उप नियम-4 के अनुसरण में भारत वैगन एण्ड इंजीनियरिंग कंपनी लि. पटना के निम्नलिखित कार्यालय को , जिनके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक, अधिकारियों/ कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, अधिसूचित करती है:-.

1. भारत वैगन एण्ड इंजीज़ियरिंग कंपनी लि. , मुजफ्फरपुर इकाई, मुजफ्फरपुर -842001 (बिहार ) 2. भारत वैगन एण्ड इंजीनियरिंग कंपनी लि. , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , 104, आकाशदीप, 26-ए बाराखम्भा रोड, नई दिल्ली-110001

[फा. सं. ई. 11012/1/2001 - हिन्दी]

राजेश कुमार सिंह , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRY AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES

(Department of Heavy Industry) New Delhi , the 20th May, 2004

S.O. 1246.- In pursuance of the sub- rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes ofthe Union) Rules , 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following office whereof more than 80% of staff have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi :-

1. Bharat Wagon & Engineering Company Ltd. MuzaffarpurUnit, Muzaffarpur-842001 (Bihar)

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii )] 2. Bharat Wagon & Engineering Co. Limited, Zonal Office , 104 Akashdeep 26-ABarakhamba Road, New Delhi - 110001

[F. No. E. 11012/ 1/2001 -Hindi ] R. K. SINGH, Under Secy.

कृषि मंत्रालय

1 ( कृषिअनुसंधान और शिक्षा विभाग )

( भारतीय कृषि अनुसंधान परिषद्)

नई दिल्ली, 19 मई , 2004

का. आ. 1247.-कृषि उत्पाद उपकर अधिनियम , 1940 की धारा 7 ( 2 ) तथा भारतीय कृषि अनुसंधान परिषद्‌ द्वारा निर्मित स्थाई वित्त समिति के विनियम 2 ( iv ) के अनुसरण में, शासी निकाय ने अपने सदस्य डा. पी. के. सिंह, कुलपति, चन्द्रशेखर आजाद कृषि एवं प्रौद्योगिकी विश्वविद्यालय, कानपुर-208002 ( उत्तर प्रदेश) को 5-5-2004 से एक वर्ष की अवधिके लिए स्थाई वित्त समिति के सदस्य के रूप में चुना है ।

[ फा. सं. 6 (1 )/2003 -गवर्नेस सैल ] शशि मिश्रा, अपर सचिव MINISTERY OF AGRICULTURE

(Department of Agricultural Research and Education) (Indian Council of Agricultural Research) New Delhi, the 19th May, 2004

S.O. 1247.-In pursuance to Section 7(2 ) of the A. P. Cess Act. 1940 and Regulation 2 ( iv) of the Standing Finance Committee Regulations framed by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, the Governing Body has elected Dr. P. K. Singh , Vice-Chancellor, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture & Technology, Kanpur 208002 (Uttar pradesh) its Member to the Stand- ing Finance Committee for a period of onefone year with effect from 5th May, 2004.

[F. No. 6 ( 1 )/2003-Gov-Cell ] SHASHI MISRA, Addi . Secy .

स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय

(स्वास्थ्यविभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 13 मई, 2004

का. आ. 1248.-दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 की 16 ) की धारा 10 की उपधारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय दन्त चिकित्सा परिषद् से पसमर्श करने के पश्चात् एत‌द्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है, नामत:-

अनुसूची के भाग -1 में क्रम संख्या 34 तथा उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के सामने निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां जोड़ी जाएंगी; नामत:

2527

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

34 तमिलनाडु मास्टर ऑफ डेंटल सर्जरी एम.डी.एस.

सं. का. आ. 5757 तारीख 17 दिसम्बर 1985 में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्

डा. एम.जी.आर. रागास डेन्टल कालेज एवं ( पेडोडान्टिक्स ) आयुर्विज्ञान विश्व- हास्पिटल , चैन्नई,

विद्यालय , चैई । (तमिलनाडु ) के एम.

(तमिलनाडु डा. एम. डी. आर. आयुर्विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, चैन्नई ।

उक्तअधिसूचना में, " नियोजकों के प्रतिनिधि " ( केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा इस निमित्त उस सरकार द्वारा मान्यता प्राप्त नियोगको यो संगवनों से परामर्श करने के पश्चात नियुक्त किए गए हो ) शीर्षक या अपान क्रम मैं. है और उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित क्रम संख्यांक और प्रविष्टि रखी जास्ती, अपर

" 6 कैप्टन राजेश टंडन, विदेशी ।

एम.ए. ) मुम्बई

पोत प्रबंध प्रबंधक संगम ( एफ. ओ. एम ए

एसटी 14918/5/2000 -माटी डी. एस. छात्रों के संबंध में निम्नलिखित दन्त चिकित्सा अर्हताएं तभी मान्यताप्राप्त अर्हताएं होगी यदिवे 9-4-2003 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान कीगई हों।

(i ) एम. डी. एस. ( पेडोडान्टिक्स)

[फा. सं.वी-12018/5 /2003- पी.एम.एस. ]

पी. जी. कलाधरन, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (Department of Health)

NewDelhi, the 13thMay, 2004

पाद टिप्पण: - मूल नियुम का. आ., 5757 तारीख 11 दिस111 दिसम्बर, 1985 द्वारा प्रकाशित किए गएकिए गए थे और पश्चातवती का.का. आ. 568 तारीख 1 करवरी , 1991 , का.आ. 277 तारीख 27 जनवरी , 1996. का. आ. 868 तारीख 18 अप्रैल, 2001 और का. आ. 3386 तारीख 5 दिसम्बर, 2001 द्वारा संशोधन किए गए ।

MINISTRY OF SHIPPING (Shipping Wing)

New Delhi , the 20th May, 2004 $.O. 1248. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948), the Central Government after consultation with Dental Council of India hereby makes the following further amendments in Part - I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

2. In Part - 1 of the Schedule against Serial Number 34, and the entries relating thereto, the following entries shall be added, namely;

M.D.S

(Pedodontics)

Master ofDental Surgery

S.O. 1249. In exercise of the power & conferred Section 5 of the Seamen's Provident Fund Act, 1966 ( 4 1966), read with paragraph 3 of the Seamen's Provident Fund Scheme, 1966, the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification ofthe Government of India in the Ministry of Shipping (Shipping Wing) number S.O. 5757, dated the 11th December, 1985, namely:-

(The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G. R. Medical University Chennai)

34The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.GR. Medical University Chennai.

The following dental qualification shallbe recognized qualifi- cation in respect of MDS students of Ragas Dental College &Hospital , Chennai (T.N. ) when granted

In the said potification, under the beading "Employers " Representatives (Appointed by the Central Government after consultation with Organisations of employer's recognised by that Government in this behaện) for serial number 6 and the entry relating thereto, the following serial number and entry shall be substituted, namely:

on or after 9-4-2003. (i) MDS (Pedodontics)

[F. No. V. 12018/5/2003 -PMS]

"6. Capt . Rajesh Tandon , Foreign Owners Representatives and Shipmanagers Association (FOSMA) Mumbai" .

P.G. KALADHARAN, Under Secy.

(No. ST-14018/5/2 ( RK)- पोत परिवहन मंत्रालय

NANAK CHAND , Under Secy (नौवहन पक्ष)

नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2004

Foot Note: The principal notification was published vide S.O. 3757, dated Hth December, 1985 and subsequently amended vide S.O. 568. dated 13th February , 1991 , S.O. 277, dated 27th January, 1996, 5.0. 868, dated th April , 2011 and 5.0.3386, dated the Sth December, 2001, الدلالة का. आ. 1249.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, नाविक भविष्य निधि स्कीम, 1966 के पैरा 3 के साथ पठित नाविक भविष्य निधि अधिनियम, 1966( 1966 का 4) की धारा 5 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए भारत सरकार के पोत परिवहन मंत्रालय (नौवहन पक्ष ) की अधिसूचना 2528

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2004 /JYAISTHA 8, 1926

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii)] विद्युत मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 27 अप्रैल, 2004

Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints the Officer of National Hydro-electric Power Corporation Ltd. (NHPC) mentioned in column (1 ) of the Table below, being officer equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officer of the Govern- ment, to be Estate Officer for the purpose of the said Act who shall exercise the power conferred and perform the duties imposed on Estate Officers by or under the said Act , within the limit of his jurisdication specified in column (2) of the said Table in respect of categories of public premises specified in column (4) thereof.

TABLE

Local limits Name of

Desig-

कोयला औरखान मंत्रालय

(कोयलाविभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 12 मई, 2004

का.आ. 1253.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित परिक्षेत्र की भूमि से कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है ।

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

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक संख्यांक डी. जी./08547, तारीख 1 सितम्बर, 2003 का निरीक्षण मुख्य महाप्रबंधक (खोज प्रभाग ) केन्द्रीय खान योजना और डिजाइन संस्थान, गोंडवाना प्लेस, कांके रोड, रांची के कार्यालम में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1, काउसिंल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कलकत्ता के कार्यालय में या जिला कलक्टर, रायगढ़, छत्तीसगढ़ के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है।

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाली भूमि में हितबद्ध सभी व्यक्ति उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उपधारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट सभी नक्शों, चार्टों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर मुख्य महाप्रबन्धक ( खोज प्रभाग ), केन्द्रीय खान योजना और डिजाइन संस्थान, गोंडवाना प्लेस, कांके रोड, रांची को भेजेंगे ।

अनुसूची

पेलमा ब्लाक, मंड- रायगढ़ कोयला क्षेत्र

जिला रायगढ़ , छत्तीसगढ़

सी.एम.पी.डी.आई. रेखांक संख्यांक डीजी/08547 , तारीख 1 सितम्बर, 2003

क्र. ग्राम

थाना

ग्राम

जिला

तहसील

तालुका

क्षेत्रफल क्षेत्र

टिप्पणियां सं.

सं.

* (एकामें ) (लगभग)

( हेक्टेबर में) ( लगभग)

1. पेलमा

तमनार

188

1586

642

घारघोड़ा रायगढ़

संपूर्ण

2. उरबा

तमनार

1210

490

रायगढ़

भाग

घारषोड़ा

3. हिनझार

317

तमनार

615

रायगढ़

248

घारषोड़ा

भाग

113

तमनार

4. जारीहिडीह

भाग

घारघोड़ा

227

रायगढ़

तमनार

285

5. लालपुर

237

घारघोड़ा

रायगढ़

भाग

250

तमनार

माधवादुमार

घारघोड़ा

भाग

रायगढ़

7. खारा

तमनार

रायगढ़

घारघोड़ा

भाग

वन

वन कक्षसं.

तमनार

573/

583

रायगढ़

236

घारघोड़ा

भाग

8. पश्चिमी तोलगे

577

पी.एफ.

तमनार

662

366

148

रायगढ़

घारघोड़ा

भाग

9. पूर्वी तोलगे आरक्षित वन

10. शीलोट

637/

तमनार

872

353

घारघोड़ा रायगढ़

भाग

आरक्षित वन

638

5804

कुल

2349

(लगभग ) ( लगभग )

सीमा वर्णन

क-ख रेखा " क " से प्रारंभ होती है और पश्चिमी तोलगे संरक्षित वन के वन कक्ष संख्यांक 573 के दक्षिणी भाग से होकर गुजरती है और उरबा ग्राम की उत्तरी सीमा पर बिन्दु " ख " पर मिलती है ।

ख- ग रेखा पश्चिमी तोलगे संरक्षित वन के वन कक्ष संख्यांक 577 के दक्षिणी भाग से होकर गुजरती है और ग्राम उरबा के उत्तर- पूर्वी भाग से होकर ग्राम उरबा और हिनझार की सीमा पर बिन्दु " ग " पर मिलती है । भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

2531 ग-घ रेखा ग्राम हिनिझार के उत्तरी भाग से होकर गुजरती है और पूर्वी तोलगे आरक्षित वन के वन कक्ष संख्यांक 662 से होकर गुजरती है और बिन्दु" घ " पर मिलती है ।

घ-ङ रेखा तोलगे पूर्वी आरक्षित वन के वन कक्ष संख्यांक 662 और ग्राम जारहिदीह और लालपुर से होकर गुजरती है और लालपुर और माधवा दुमार ग्राम की सीमा तक बिन्दु "ङ" पर मिलती है । उच रेखा ग्राम माधवादुमार के उत्तरी भाग से और सिलोट आरक्षित वन के वन कक्ष संख्यांक 638 के दक्षिणी भाग से और खारा ग्राम से होकर गुजरती है और केलो नदी को पार करती है और बिन्दु " च " पर मिलती है ।

च-छ रेखाग्राम खारा और सिलोट आरक्षित वन के वन कक्ष संख्यांक 637 से होकर गुजरती है बिन्दु " छ " पर मिलती है ।

छ-क रेखा सिलोट आरक्षित वन के वन कक्ष संख्यांक 637 से और केलों नदी के पश्चिमी किनारे के साथ गुजरती है और बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती है।

[फा. सं . 43015/10/ 2003- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू]

संजय बहादुर, निदेशक

MINISTRY OF COAL AND MINES

(Department ofCoal)

New Delhi, the 12th May, 2004

S.O. 1253. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed.

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

The plan of the area bearing Number DG/08547 , dated the 1st September, 2003 covered by this Notification can be inspected at the office ofChiefGeneral Manager (Exploration Division) , Central Mines Planning and Design Institute, Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street , Calcutta or at the office oftheDistrict Collector, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

All persons interested in the land covered by this notification shall deliver all maps , charts and other documents referred to in Sub-section (7) of Section 13 of the said Act to the Chief General Manager (Exploration Division) . Central MinePlanning and Design Institute, Gondwana Place , Kanke Road, Ranchi within ninety days from the date ofpublication ofthis Notification in the Official Gazette .

Schedule

PelmaBlock, Mand-Raigarh Coalfield

District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

(CMPDI Plan bearing No. DG/08547 dated the 1st September, 2003 )

Tahsil

Thana

Village

Taluka No.

Village No.

Sl. No.

188

Tamnar

Pelma

Tamnar

2. Urba

317

Tamínar

3. Hinjhar

113

Tamnar

4. Jarhidih

285

Tamnar

5. Lalpur

Tamnar 250

6. Madwa- dumar

Tamnar 65

Forest

7. Kharra Forest

Compart- ment Number

Remarks District

Area (hectare) (approx. )

Area (acres) (approx.)

Full

642

1586

Raigarh

Gharghoda

Part

490

1210

Raigarh

Gharghoda

Part

248

615

Raigarh

Gharghoda

Part

227

Raigarh

Gharghoda

Part

237

Raigarh

Gharghoda

Part

Raigarh

Gharghoda

Part

Raigarh

Gharghoda 2532

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 8, 1926

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

Village

Tahsil

District

Remarks Sl . No.

Village No

Taluka No.

Area (acres) (approx.)

Area (hectare) (approx. )

573/577 29

583

236

Gharghoda Raigarh

Part 8. West Tolge Tamnar P.F.

662

366

148

Part

Raigarh

Gharghoda

9. Tolge East Tamnar R.F.

10. Silot R.F. Tamnar 637/638 29

872

353

Part

Raigarh

Gharghoda

Total:

2349

5804

(Appro- ximately)

Boundary Description :-

A-B Line starts from ' A' and passes through the southern part of forest compartment Number 573 of West Tolge PF and meets at points ' B ' on the northern boundary of Urba village .

B-C Line passes through the southern part of forest compartment nümber 577 of West Tolge PF and passes through the north - eastern part of Urba village and meets at point ' C ' at the boundary of Urba and Hinjhar villages .

C-D Line passes through the northern part of Hinjhar village and continues through northern part of forest compart- ment number 662 of Tolge East Reserve Forest and Meets points 'D' .

D-E Line passes through the forest compartment number 662 of Tolge East Reserve Forest and villages Jarhidih and Lalpur and meets points ' E ' at the boundary of villages Lalpur and Madwadumar.

E-F Line passes through northern part of Madwadumar village , southern part of forest compartment number 638 of Silot RF and Kharra village and crosses River Kelo and meets at point ' F' .

F-G Line passes through village Kharra and forest compartment no . 637 of Silot and meets at point ' G' .

G-A Lines passes through compartment number 63.7 of Silot RF and along the western bank of Kelo River and mect point 'A' .

[F. No. 43015 /10/2003 -PRIW] SANJAY BAHADUR, Director

नई दिल्ली, 14 मई, 2004

का.आ. 1254.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम, 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( i ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 648 ( अ ) , तारीख 6 जुलाई, 2001 जो भारत के राजपत्र भाग 2 , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) तारीख 6 जुलाई, 2001 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की भूमि और ऐसी भूमि में समस्त अधिकारों को अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी।

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का, पूर्वोक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और महाराष्ट्र सरकार से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 217.08 हैक्टर ( लगभग ) या 536.42 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि में या ऐसी भूमि पर, के समस्त अधिकारों का अर्जन किया जाना चाहिए ।

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 215.47 हैक्टर ( लगभग ) या 532.43 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि में या ऐसी भूमि पर के सभी अधिकारों का अर्जन किया जाता है । 2533 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले रेखांक सं. सी- I/III/एफ.आर. /697-0602, तारीख 18 जून , 2002 का निरीक्षण कलेक्टर, नागपुर ( महाराष्ट्र ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1 , काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता ( पिन -700001 ) के कार्यालय में या वैस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड ( राजस्व विभाग ) , कोल एस्टेट, सिविल लाईन्स, नागपुर-440001 ( महाराष्ट्र) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

अनुसूची

न्यूबीनाब्लॉक

नागपुर क्षेत्र

जिला नागपुर ( महाराष्ट्र )

(रेखांक सं. सी- I ( ई ) /IIII/एफ.आर. /697-0602, तारीख 18 जून, 2002 )

सभी अधिकार

टिप्पणियां

क्षेत्र हैक्टेयर में

जिला

तहसील

पटवारी सर्किल

ग्राम का नाम

क्र. सं.

संख्या

भाग

187.77

कामटी

नागपुर

1. बीना

भाग

27.70

सावनेर

नागपुर

2. भानेगांव

कुल क्षेत्र-215.47 हैक्टेयर ( लगभग )

या

532.43 एकड़ (लगभग ) ग्राम बीना में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्यांक:

147, 148/1-148/2-148/3 , 149/1-149/2-149/3, 150, 151/1-151/2-151/3 , 152/1-152/2-152/ 3, 153/1-153/2-153/3, 154/का-154/क2, 154/ख1-154 /ख2-154/ख 3 , 155 से 159 , 160 /1-160/2 , 161/1-161 /2-161/3 , 162/1-162/2-162/3 , 163/1 , -163/1-163/2-163/3 , 4/1 , 4/2 , 4/3 , 4/4 , 5/ 1-5/ 2 , 6 , 7, 8 , 9,10 /1-10/ 2 , 11 , 12/1-12/2-12/3 , 13 से 24, 25/1-25/2-25/3, 30 से 32, 39/ 1-39/ 2 , 133/1-133/2-133/3 , 134/1-134/2-134/3 , 135/1-135/2-135/3, 136/ 1-136/2 , 137 , 138 , 139, 140/1-140/2-140/3 , 141/1-141/2-141/3, 142/1-142/2-142/3 , 143/1-143/2-143/3 , 144/1-144/2, 145/1-145/2-145/3-145/4, 146/1-146/2-146/3, 164, 165 , 166/1-166/2-166/3-166/4 , 167 से 184, 185/क, 185/ख , 186, 187, 188 , 189 सड़क भाग

ग्राम भानेगांव में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्यांक:

11, 13, 14 , 15, 16 क-16 ख, 83/1-83/2-83/3

सीमावर्णनः

क-ख

रेखा बिन्दु " क " से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम भानेगांव से होती हुई प्लाट संख्या 13 , 14, 11 , 16- क-16ख , 83/1-83/2-83/3, की बाहरी सीमा के साथ- साथ जाती है और बिन्दु " ख " पर मिलती है ।

ख-ग-घ-ङ

रेखा ग्राम भानेगांव और बीना की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा के साथ - साथ जाती है फिर ग्राम बीना से होती हुई जाती है, प्लाट संख्या 134/1-134/2-134/3 , 133/1-133/2 , 133/3 , 136/1-136/2 , 137 सड़क, प्लाट संख्यांक 185/ख, 189,188 नाला के साथ-साथ जाती है फिर नाला पार करती है और प्लाट संख्या 5 / 1-5/2 , की बाहरी सीमा के साथ - साथ जाती है, सड़क पार करती है और प्लांट संख्या 32 की बाहरी सीमा के साथ- साथ जाती है, सड़क पार करती है फिर प्लाट संख्या 39/1-39/2 , 30 की बाहरी सीमा के साथ- साथ जाती है और बिन्दु "ङ' पर मिलती है ।

कुक

रेखा प्लाट संख्या 30 की बाहरी सीमा के साथ- साथ ग्राम बीना से जाती है, सड़क पार करती है और प्लाट संख्या 25/1- 25/2-25/3 , 24 , 23 की बाहरी सीमा के साथ- साथ जाती है, सड़क पार करती है और प्लाट संख्या 18 , 17 की बाहरी सीमा के साथ-साथ जाती है, सड़क पार करती है और प्लाट संख्या 15 , सड़क, प्लाट संख्या 155, 154/क1-154/क2, 150 की बाहरी सीमाके साथ- साथ जाती है और ग्राम भानेगांव और बीना की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा के साथ- साथ जाती है और ग्राम भानेगांव से होती हुई प्लाट संख्या 13 की बाहरी सीमा के साथ- साथ जाती है और आरंभिक बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती है ।

[फा. सं. 43015/2/98- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू]

संजय बहादुर, निदेशक 2534

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29, 2004/JYAISTHA 8, 1926

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)]

NewDelhi , the 14thMay, 2004

S.O. 1254. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 648 (E) dated the 6th July, 2001 , issued under Sub - section ( 1) of Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Develop- ment ) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) and published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub section ( ii) , dated the 6th July, 2001 , the Central Government gave notice ofits intention to acquire lands and all rights in the locality specified in the Schedule appended to that Notification;

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

Andwhereas the Central Government after considering the report aforesaid and after consulting the Government of Maharashtra is satisfied that the lands measuring 217.08 hectares (approximately) or 536.42 acres ( approximately ) and all rights in or over such lands as described in Schedule appended hereto should be acquired;

Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the land measuring 215.47 hectares ( approximately) or 532.43 acres (approximately) andall rights in or over such lands as described in Schedule are hereby acquired.

Theplan of the area bearing number C- I (E)/III/FR/697-0602 dated the 18th June, 2002 covered by this Notification may be inspected in the office of the Collector , Nagpur (Maharashtra) or in the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street , Kolkata (Pin 700 001 ) or in the office of the Western Coalfields Limited (Revenue Department ), Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001 ( Maharashtra) .

SCHEDULE

New Bina Block, Nagpur Area

District-Nagpur (Maharashtra)

(Plan No. C-1 (E)/III/FR/ 697-0602 dated the 18th June, 2002)

AllRights

Tahsil

District

Remarks Serial Name of village number

Patwari circle number

Area in hectares

1. Bina

Kamptee

187.77

Nagpur

Part

2. Bhanegaon

Saoner

27,70

Nagpur

Part

Total area: 215.47 hectares (approximately)

532.43 acres (approximately) Plot number to be acquired in village Bina :-

4/1,4/2, 4/3, 4/4, 5/ 1-5/2, 6, 7, 8 , 9, 10/1-10/2, 11 , 12/ 1-12-2-12/3 , 13 to 24, 25/ 1-25/2-25/3; 30 to 32, 39 /1-39/2, 133/1-133/2- 133/3, 134/1-134/2-134/3 , 135/1-135/2-135/3 , 136/1-136/2, 137, 138, 139, 140/1-140/2-140/3 , 141/1-141/2-141/3 , 142/ 1-142/2- 142/3, 143/1-143/2-143/3-144/1-144/2, 145/ 1-145/2-145/3-145/4, 146/1-146/2-146/3 , 147, 148/1-148/2-148/3 , 149/1-149/2-149/3, 150, 151/1-151/2-151 /3 , 152 /1-152/2-152/ 3 , 153/1-153/2-153/3 , 154/A1-154/A2-154/B1-154/B2-154/B3 , 155 to 159, 160/1- 160/2, 161/1-161/2-161/3 , 162/ 1-162/2-162/3, 163/ 1-163/2-163/3, 164, 165, 166/1-166/2-166/3-166/4, 167 to 184, 185A, 185 /B, 186, 187 , 188, 189, Roadpart .

Plot numbers to be acquired in Village Bhanegaon :-

11 , 13, 14, 15, 16/A- 16/B , 83/1-83/2-83/3

Boundary description :-

A-B:

Line start from point ' A' and passes through village Bhanegaon along the outer boundary ofplot number 13, 14, 11 , 16/A- 16/B , 83/ 1-83 /2-83 /3- and meets at point 'B' .

B-C-D-E: Line passes along the common village boundary of villages Bhanegaon and Bina then passes through village Bina, along the outher boundary ofplot numbers 134/1-134/2-134/3 , 133/1-133/2-133/3 , 136/1-136/2, 2535 भारत का राजपत्र: मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

137, Road, plot numbers 185/B, 189, 188, Nallah, crosses Nallah, then passes along the outer boundary of plot number 5/ 1-5 /2 , crosses road and passes along the outer boundary of plot number 32, crosses road, thenpasses along the outer boundary of plot numbers 39/ 1-39/2 , 30 and meets at point 'E ' . ,

E-A:

Line passes through village Bina along the outer boundary of plot number 30, crosses road and passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 25/ 1-25/2-25 /3 , 24, 23, crosses road and passes along the outer boundary ofplot numbers 18, 17 , crosses road then passes along the outer boundary of plot number 15, road, plot numbers 155 , 154/A1-154/A2, 150 then passes along the common village boundary ofvillages Bina andBhanegaon and passes through village Bhanegaon along the outer boundary of plot number 13 and meets at starting point ' A' .

[No.43015/2/98-PRIW]

SANJAY BAHADUR, Director

नईदिल्ली, 17 मई, 2004

का. आ. 1255.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित भूमि में कोयला अभिक्रप्य किए जाने कीसंभावना है ।

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

इसअधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले रेखांक संख्या एसईसीएल/बीएसपी/जीएम/पीएलजी/भूमि/285, तारीख 6 जनवरी, 2004 का निरीक्षण कलक्टर, अनुपपुर ( मध्य प्रदेश ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1 काउसिंल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता-700001 के कार्यालय में साउथ ईस्टने कोलफील्ड्स लि. (राजस्व अनुभाग ) , सीपत रोड़, बिलासपुर-495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाली भूमि में हितबद्ध सभी व्यक्ति उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उपधारा (7 ) में निर्दिष्ट सभी नक्शों, चार्टी और अन्य दस्तावेजों को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भार साधक अधिकारी/विभागाध्यक्ष ( राजस्व) साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लि. , सीपत रोड, बिलासपुर-495006 (छत्तीसगढ़ ) को भेजेंगे

अनुसूची

जमुना- कोतमा ब्लाक " एफ " ( पहलाविस्तार )

जमुना-कोतमा क्षेत्र

जिलाअनुपपुर ( मध्य प्रदेश )

(रेखांक संख्या: एसईसीएल/बीएसपी/जीएम ( पीएमजी ) /भूमि/285 तारीख 6-1-2004 पूर्वेक्षण के लिए अधिसूचित भूमि दशति, हुए)

टिप्पणी

क्षेत्र हैक्टेयर में

जिला

तहसील

बन्दोबस्त

ग्राम का नाम

क्र. सं.

संख्या

भाग

225.000

अनुपपुर

463

अनुपपुर

वैखल

योग-225.000 हैक्टर

योग-225.000 हैक्टर (लगभग ) या 555.97 एकड़ (लगभग ) सीमा वर्णन

क-ख

रेखा ग्राम दैखल और रकशा की सम्मिलित सीमा पर बिन्दु " क " से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम दैखल से होते हुए बिन्दु " ख " पर मिलती है ।

रेखा ग्राम दैखल से होकर ग्राम दैखल की पूर्वी सीमा के साथ होते हुए बिन्दु " घ " पर मिलती है ।

ख-ग-घ

घ-क

रेखा ग्राम दैखल से होते हुए आरंभिक बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती है ।

[फा. सं. 43015/9 /2004-पीआरआई

संजय बहादुर, निदेशक 2536

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29, 2004/JYAISTHA 8, 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 17th May, 2004

S.O. 1255. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands mentioned in the Sehedule hereto annexed .

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

The plan bearing Number : SECL/BSP /GM (PLG )/LAND/285 dated the 6th January, 2004, of the area covered by this notification can be inspected in the office of the Collector, Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh) or in the office of the Coal Controller, 1 , Council House Street , Kolkata - 700001 or in the office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section) , Seepat Road, Bilaspur -495006 ( Chhattisgarh ) .

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

SCHEDULE

Jamuna-Kotma Block- " F " ( 1st Extension)

Jamuna -KotmaArea

District Anuppur (Madhya Pradesh )

(Plan No. SECL/BSP/GM/PLG)/LAND/285 dated 6-1-2004 ( showing the land notified for prospecting) Serial Name ofvillage

Tahsil

District

Remarks number

Settlement number

Area in hectares

1. Daikhal

463

Anuppur

225,000

Part

Anuppur

Total: 225.000 Hectares

Total: 225.00 hectares ( approximately) or 555.97 Acres (Approximately) .

Boundary description :-

A-B

Line start from point "A" on the common boundary of village Daikhal and Raksha , then passes through village Daikhal and meets at point " B " .

B-C-D Line passes through village Daikhal, then along the eastern boundary of village Daikhal and meets at point "D" .

D-A

Line passes through village Daikhal and meets at the starting point " A"

[F. No.43015/9/2004-PRIWJ

SANJAY BAHADUR, Director शुद्धिपत्र

पंक्ति3 ,

नई दिल्ली, 17 मई, 2004

" 180/13 , 180 /14d " के स्थान पर " 180/13, 180/14क " पढ़ें ।

पंक्ति7, 8

" 191/2 , 191 /3d , 191/3 Ik , " के स्थान पर " 191/2, 191 /3 क 191 /3 ख, " पढ़ें ।

पंक्ति19,

" 210/1 , 3 210/2, " के स्थान पर " 210/1, 210/2," पढ़ें ।

का. आ. 1256. भारत के असाधारण राजपत्र तारीख 17 फरवरी, 2004 के भाग II , खंड 3, उपखंड ( ii ) में पृष्ठ क्रमांक 9 से 12 पर प्रकाशित, भारत सरकार, कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का. आ. 202(अ ) तारीख 17 फरवरी , 2004 में,

पंक्ति23,

पृष्ठक्रमांक 3 ,

" 225/4, 225/5,225/5 " के स्थान पर "225/4, 225/5" पढ़ें।

(1 ) ग्राम आमगांव ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले खसरा संख्यांक में,

पृष्ठक्रमांक 4,

पंक्ति2,

पंक्ति9,

" 150, 180/1 क, " के स्थान पर " 150, 180/1क" पढ़ें ।

" 273 /1d , 273/1 ख , " के स्थान पर "273/1 क, 273 /1 ख , " पढ़ें। 2537

G भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8, 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

रेखा ण-त-थ-द,

पंक्ति 21 ,

पंक्ति2 ,

" 303/1d, 303 / 1 ख " के स्थान पर " 303/1 क, 303/ 1 ख " पढ़ें ।

" से हेतु हुए " के स्थान पर " से होते हुए " पढ़ें ।

पंक्ति3 ,

(2) ग्राम पोंडी ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले खसरा संख्या में,

" दक्षिण सीमाए " के स्थान पर " दक्षिण सीमा" पढ़ें ।

पंक्ति5,

[फा. सं.43015/18/2000- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू] "85/1, 85/2 85/2 , " के स्थान पर " 85/1 , 85/2," पढ़ें ।

संजय बहादुर, निदेशक पंक्ति 10,

CORRIGENDUM

" 104/4, 04/5, " के स्थान पर " 104/4, 104/5, " पढ़ें।

New Delhi, the 17th May, 2004 पृष्ठक्रमांक 5,

पंक्ति31,

" 158/14 , 168/15 , " के स्थान पर "158/14, 158/15, " पढ़ें।

पंक्ति 45,

S. O. 1256. In the notification of the Govern- ment of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 202 (Ε) , dated the 17th February, 2004, published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part II , section 3 , sub-section (ii ) , at pages 12 to 22,-

" 170/1 , 170/2, 170/2, " के स्थान पर "170/1 , 170/2, " पढ़ें ।

Inthe schedule,-

पृष्ठक्रमांक 6,

(1), at page 14,

पंक्ति 4 ,

inkhasra numbers to be acquired in village Amgaon (Part),-

" 187/1 , 87/2, " के स्थान पर " 187/1 , 187/2," पढ़ें ।

(a) in line 1,

पंक्ति 46 ,

for " 147/2 , 147/03 , " read " 147/2 , 147/3," and

" 2582/28 , 258/29 , " के स्थान पर "258/28 , 258/29, " पढ़ें ।

for " 19/2, 196 " ,read " 195/2 , 196" ;

(b) in line 7,

(ii) at page 15, -

पृष्ठक्रमांक 7,

(a) in line 3,

पंक्ति 26 ,

for " 211/6 , 211 / " , read " 211/6 , 211/7 ";

" 362/4, 363/5 , " के स्थान पर " 362/4 , 362/5, " पढ़ें।

(b) in line 8,

पंक्ति 34,

for " 225/4 , 255/5 , 255/5 " read " 225/4, 225/5 " ; and "396/6, 386/7 , के स्थान पर " 396/6 , 396/7, पढ़ें।

पृष्ठक्रमांक 9, (4) ग्राम बाहनपाट ( भाग ) मैं अर्जित किए जाने वाले खसरा संख्या में ,

(d) in khasra numbers to be acquired in village Pondi (Part),-

पंक्ति 1 ,

inline4,

" 4/5 , 5 / 1d, 5/1 [ k " के स्थान पर " 4/5, 5/1 क, 5/ 1ख " पढ़ें ।

for " 85/1 , 85/2 , 85/2 , " read " 85/1 , 85/2";

पंक्ति39,

(iii) at page 16, -

" 158/1 , 258/2 , " के स्थान पर " 158/1 , 258/2," पढ़ें।

(a) in line 36, for " 169,170/ 1 , 170/2, 170/2 , " , read " 169,170/ 1 , 170/2, " , and पृष्ठ क्रमांक 10,

(b) inline 45,

पंक्ति 10,

for " 193/7 , 195/8 , " read " 193/7 , 193/8,";

" 225/6 , 22/7 , " के स्थान पर " 225/6 , 225/7, " पढ़ें ।

(iv) at page 17,-1

पंक्ति 34,

(a) in line24, for " 258/27 , 2582/28 , " read " 258/ 27,258/28 , " and

" 306, 207 " के स्थान पर " 306, 307, " पढ़ें ।

(b) in line46,

पृष्ठ क्रमांक 12 , सीमा वर्णन में, रेखा अ -र -ठ-ड

for " 362/4 , 363/5 , " read " 362/4 , 362/5," ;

पंक्ति 1 ,

(v) at page 18,

(a), in line 3 , for " 386/7 , 396/8 , " read " 396/7 , 396/8," and

"पोंडी बाहनपाटए पोंडी- भिलाईकलाए" के स्थान पर " पोंडी बाहनपाट, पोंडी- भिलाईकला " पढ़ें ।

(b) in line32,

रेखा ड-ड-ण

for " 524/9 , 524/1 , " read " 524/9 , 524/10,";

पंक्ति 2,

(vi) at page 19,

" दक्षिण सीमाए " के स्थान पर " दक्षिण सीमा" पढ़ें ।

inkhasra numbers to acquired in village Bahanpat (Part) , -

(a) in line 29 ,

पंक्ति3 ,

for " 158/1 , 258/2 , " read " 158/1 , 158/2,";

" दक्षिण पूर्वी सीमाए " के स्थान घर " दक्षिण पूर्वीसीमा" पढ़ें।

1567GI/2004-3 2538

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29, 2004/ JYAISTHA 8, 1926

(b) in line 37, for " 199/2, 199 /, " read " 199/2 , 199/3," ;

(vii) at page 20,

(a) in line 3 , for " 224/2 , 225/ , " , read " 224/2 ; 225/1 , " ;

(b) in line4, for " 225/6 , 22/7 , " , read " 225/6 , 225/7," ;

(d) in line6, for " 240/4, 240/, " , read " 240/4 , 240/5,";

(e) in line 7, for " 240/17, 240/1, " , read " 240/17, 240/18,";

(f) inline 21 , for " 277/5 , 277 / , 277/ , " , read "277/5,277/6, 2777 ," ;

(g), in line 22, for " 306, 207, " , read " 306, 307, " , and

(h) in line24, for "320/3 , 32, " , read " 320/3 , 321," ; [F. No. 43015/18/2000 -PRIW] SANJAY BAHADUR, Director पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय शुद्धिपत्र नईदिल्ली, 27 मई, 2004.

का. आ. 1257.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962( 1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 2389 तारीख 14 अगस्त 2003 में, जो भारत के राजपत्र, भाग II, खण्ड 3 , उपखण्ड ( ii ) तारीख 23 अगस्त 2003 , में पृष्ठ 5827 और 5828 पर प्रकाशित की गई थी, निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्: -

उक्त अधिसूचना की अनुसूची में:- पृष्ठ 5828 पर गॉव" दुगनी " के सामने

सर्वे नम्बर " 254/1 और 254/2 ", में क्षेत्रफल " 0.01010 ", के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल " 0.1010 " , रखा जाएगा ।

[फा. सं. आर. - 31015/35/2001/-ओ. आर- II ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

AMENDMENT

New Delhi , the 27th May, 2004

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii )] of the Gazette of India, dated the 23rd August, 2003 , namely:-

In the Sehedule to the said notification:- atpage 5829 , against village " Dugni " insurvey number " 254/1 and 254/2 " , for the area 0.01010 , the area "0.1010 ", shall be substituted.

[F. No. R-31015/35/2001 -OR-II] HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy. नईदिल्ली, 27 मई, 2004

का. आ. 1258.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962( 1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 2389 तारीख 14 अगस्त, 2003 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 23 अगस्त, 2003 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में महाराष्ट्र राज्य में पानेवाडी ( मनमाड़) से मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या ( इंदौर ) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुंबई- मनमाड पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 10अक्टूबर, 2003 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं;

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

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

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख सेकेन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

जिलाः धार

तहसील: धरमपुरी

S.O. 1257. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land) , Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) . the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Govern- ment of India in the Ministry ofPetroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2389, dated the 14th August , 2003 , published atpages 5828 and 5829 , in Part II , section 3 , sub - section (ii)

राज्य: मध्यप्रदेश ग्राम का नाम

सर्वे नम्बर

क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर 1

I गुजरी

0.1080 2 डेहरिया

29/3

0.0830 20/2

0.0200 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

0.0500

351/3

3. सिरसोदिया

0,0600

350

0.0440

338

0.0320

315/2/1

0.0540

300

294/2

0.0990

294/1

0.4410

2539

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8, 1926

0.0450

419

326

0.1186

325/1

0.0680

325/2

0.2490

256

0.0540

488

0.0070

452/1

0.1620 10. सुन्दैल

0.0580

341

0.0900

190

0.1620

346

0.1200

182/10

0,1800

345

0.2580

131/3

0.0830

501

4. चिकट्यावद

0.0440

500

0,0400

5. लोधीपुरा

0.0400

195/1/2

0.0620

195/4

11. साला

0.0680

0.0350

0.0140

28/1

75/1

0.0210

75/1/2

75/2

0.0640

-0.0620

28/5

0,1070

104

12. लुन्हेरा

0,0640

78/1

0.1080

29/1

0.0120

121

0.0190

6. दुधी

0.0840

0.0680

0.0250

0.1700

0.0180

7. एकलाराखुर्द

0.1710

14/1

8. गुलझरी

0,0490

106

0.0180

47/1

0.1010

0.0180

65/1/1

0.4650

65/3

65/4/1

0.0878

0.0400

0.0160

0.1260

52/5

0.0220

472

9. बिखरूण

462/2

0.5590

462/3

462/4

0.0020

134/1

0.0910

185/2/1

0.1310

251/3

13. दुगनी

[फा. सं. आर. /35/2001-ओ आर- II ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 27th May, 2004

S. O. 1258.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of petroleum and Natural Gas number S. O. 2389 dated the 14th August, 2003 , issued under Sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 23rd August, 2003 , the Central Government declared its intentionto acquire the right of user in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai-Manmad Pipeline Extension Project from Panewadi (Manmad) in the State of Maharashtra to Manglya (Indore) in the State of Madhya Pradesh by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

Andwhereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 10th October, 2003;

And whereas the competent authority has, under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act , submitted his report to the Central Government;

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

2540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2004/JYAISTHA 8, 1926

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

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right ofuser in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on the date of the publication of this declaration in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

Tehsil :Dharmpuri District : Dhar State : Madhya Pradesh

Area in Hectare Name ofVillage Survey No.

0.1080 1. Gujari

29/3

0.0830 2. Dehriya

20/2

0.0200

351/3

0.0500 3.. Sirsodiya

350

0.0600

338

0.0440

315/2/1

0.0320

300

0.0540

294/2

0.0990

294/3/15

0.4410

341

0,0580

190

0.0900

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

62.

6. Dudhi

0.1700

0.0180 7. Aklarakhurd

14/1

0.1710 8. Guljhari

106

0.0490

47/1

0.0180

0.1010

0.0180

65/1/1

65/3

0.4650

65/4/1

0.0878

0,0400

0.0160

0.1260

52/5

472

0.0220 9. Bikhrun

462/2

462/3

0.5590

462/4.

0.0450

419

326

0.1186

325/1

0.0680

325/25

256

0.2490

488

0.0540

452/1

0,0070

724

0.1620 10.. Sundrel

0.1620

346

182/10

0.1200

345

0.1800

131/3

0.2580

501

0.0830 4. Chiktyavad

500

0.0440

0.0400 5. Lodhipura

0.0400

195/1/2

0,0620

195/4

78/1

0.0640

27/3

11. Sala

27/4

27/2/1

0.0680

27/1 /2ΚΗ

28/3

0.0350

28/1

0.0140

75/1

75/1/2

0.0210

75/2

0,0640

28/5

0.0620

104

12. Lunhera

29/1

0.1080

121

0.0120 6. Dudhi

0.0190

0.0840

0.0680

0.0250

0.1070

0.0020

134/1

0.0910

185/2/1

251/3

0.1310 13. Dugni

[F. No. R- 31015/ 35/2001 -OR- II]

HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.

2541

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 26 मई, 2004

का. आ. 1259.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, को लोक हित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उड़िसा राज्य में पारादीप से पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में हल्दिया तक कडे तेल के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए,

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को. उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि जिसके भीतर पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए,

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है,

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के अन्दर पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री अरविन्द घोष, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, पाराद्वीप हल्दिया पाइपलाइन परियोजना, इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमीटेड, कसबेरीया, डाकघर खंजनचक, पूर्व मिदनापुर (पश्चिम बंगाल ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 721602 2542

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29, 2504/JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

अनुसूची पुलिस थाना : नन्दकुमार

जिला : पूर्व मिदनापुर गाँव का नाम

प्लॉट संख्या

अधिकारिता सूचि संख्या

हेक्टेयर 1

4 जलपाई

5076

5077

5078

5081

5082

5091

5092

5093

5096

5098

5099

5101

5102

5103

5104

5107

5283

5284

5285

5286

5287

5294

5295

5307

5337

5347

5349

5350

5351

5352

5369

5371

5372

5431

5501

5502

00.

5503

5504

5507

5537

5538

5652

5653

5654

5657

5658

5865

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] राज्यः पश्चिमी बंगाल

क्षेत्रफल

एयर

वर्ग मीटर

15 2543

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8, 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

क्षेत्रफल

प्लॉट संख्या

गाँव का नाम

अधिकारिता सूचिसंख्या

हेक्टेयर

4 1

5866

5867

5868

5869

5871

5880

5881

5882

5883

5884

5906

5911

5913

5914

5915

5916

5923

5924

5925

5926

5927

6325

6796

6797

6799

6800

6801

6802

6803

6804

6806

5075/10010

5370/10012

5502/10022

5537/10024

वर्गमीटर एयर

5283/10035

6841

6853

6854

6855

6856

6860

6863

6869

6871

शीतलपुर

432

433

434

00 02

00 2544

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29, 2504/ JYAISTHA 8, 1926

गाँव कानाम

प्लॉट संख्या

अधिकारिता सूचिसंख्या

हेक्टेयर 1

436

437

445

446

447

448

459

460

461

462

466

468

876

877

878

879

880

881

890

903

904

905

908

917

922

925

926

927

928

940

941

942

944

945

946

965

967

970

971

972

973

974

975

976

1035

1053

1055

1489

1490

1491

1492

[PART II-SBC. 3( ii)] क्षेत्रफल

एयर

वर्ग मीटर 5

16.

584

72 39

74.

25 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29 , 2004/ पेष्ठ 8 , 1926 [ भाग II- खष्ठ 3 ( ii) ]

प्लॉट संख्या

गाँव का नाम

हेक्टेयर

अधिकारिता सूचि संख्या

1493

1501

1945

1946

1947

1959

1968

1969

1970

1980

1981

1986

1988

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2036

2037

2038

2039

2044

2047

2049

2050

2051

2052

2064

2065

2071

2076

2087

2088

2089

2545 क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

76.

30 00

62 07

20 00

97 01

1946/3897

13 02

1947/3909

96 02

1947/3910

80 02

2006/3920

17 09

917/3966

2510

2511

2512

2513

2516

2521

2522

2523

2526

2546

2557

1567G1/2004-4

20 00

79 05

46 01

95 01

09 08

67 03

89 01

20 00

96 00

20 00 2546

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29, 2504/JYAISTHA 8, 1926

गाँव का नाम

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

क्षेत्रफल

प्लॉट संख्या

अधिकारिता सूचिसंख्या

2558

2559

2500

2561

2562

2563

2564

2566

2570

2584

2585

2586

2593

2594

2595 6

2596 हेक्टेयर

एयर

वर्ग मीटर 4

6 00

54 00

71 00

21 00

44 00

40 00

38 00

60 00

20 00

76 00

80 00

15 00

37 00

20 00

54 00

04 00

2521/4142

2564/4137 00

20 00

2593/4139

80 भवानीपुर

1671 se

1707 07

1708

1709 98

1710

1712

1713 Be

1717 28

1718

1724 A

1725 Sa

٢٥

1726

1732

पुलिस थाना- चण्डीपुर

0 08 सुलतान पुर

199 4

aat OS

00 200

Orc.

ег

201

202

203

204

aras

206

207

57 00

59 00

26 00

62 00

01 01

2 00

ssas 00

208

219 00

asas 00

220 00

00 221

5221

222 04

01 2547

भारत का राजपत्र : नई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

प्लॉट संख्या

गाँव का नाम

अधिकारिता सूचि संख्या

हेक्टेयर

224

225

227

228

229

235

236

237.

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

314

315

316

317

318

968

970

971

974

975

980

981

427/1856

976/1892

1042

1070

1071

1073

1074

1075

1092

1093

1094

1095

1096

1116

1178

1185

1186

1188

00 :

1198

1199

1211

1278

1279

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

05 2548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29, 2504/JYAISTHA 8, 1926

गाँव का नाम

प्लॉट संख्या

अधिकारिता सूचिसंख्या

हेक्टेयर 1

1280

1281

1282

1283

1284

1285

1286

1303

1304

1305

1306

1511

1514

1515

1516

1518

1519

1520

1521

1522

1523

1526

1590

1591

1592

1593

1595

1651

1653

1654

1655

1656

1657

1658

1659

1650/1928

00 वारवाँकी

102

103

104

105

106

111

112

[PART II SEC . 3( ii ) ] क्षेत्रफल

वर्गमीटर

एयर

07 भारत का राजपुत्र : मई 29 , 2004/फवेष्ठ 8 , 1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

2549 क्षेत्रफल

प्लॉट संख्या

गाँव का नाम

हेक्टेयर

अधिकारिता सूचि संख्या

-4

115

116

255

256

269

270

284

285

286

290

291

292

299

300

303

304

310

311

315

316

320

321

322

323

325

343

325/731

326/727

434

गोमुठा

436

437

438

439

514

515

525

526

527

530

00 .

531

539

550

551

552

554

555

556

557

561

वर्गमीटर

एकर

70 01

16 11

02 01

20 00

23 00

18 06

59 05

73 05

55 09

31 04

20 00

21 01

11 01

83 01

28 02

20 00

58 03

71 00

33 02 2550

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 29, 2504/JYAISTHA 8, 1926

गाँव कानाम

प्लॉट संख्या

अधिकारिता सूचि संख्या

हेक्टेयर 1

562

565

566

567

569

602

652

724

725

741

752

753

754

755

757

758

759

760

761

762

763

764

765

775

778

779

780

781

783

784

786

970

971

973

974

975

976

979

1055

1057

1059

1060

1061

1062

1066

1078

1079

1080

1083

1084

1086

[PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii)] क्षेत्रफल

एयर

वर्ग मीटर

20 2551

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8, 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

क्षेत्रफल

प्लॉट संख्या

गाँव कानाम

अधिकारिता सूचिसंख्या

हेक्टेयर

4 1

1091

1092

1093

1094.

1095

1117

1161

1162

1163

1165

1166

1167

1195

1198

1199

1200

1201

1218

1219

1220

1228

1236

1237

1239

1240

1241

1242

1243

1244

1245

1246

1247

1251

1252

1749

1863

416

00 सरिपुर

417

426

427

429

433

434

435

436

437

438

454

455

वर्गमीटर

एयर

51 2552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29, 2504/ JYAISTHA 8, 1926

गाँव का नाम

प्लॉट संख्या

अधिकारिता सूचिसंख्या

हेक्टेयर 1

456

457

458

26/2250

456/2256

456/2361

539

713

714

723

724

727

728

729

731

100

732

733

734

735

736

737

740

741

742

745

779

780

784

785

788

789

790

792

1710

1712

1713

1717

1718

1719

1720

1721

1722

1723

1724

1726

1725

1729

$00

1751

1752

1755

1759

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] क्षेत्रफल

एयर

वर्ग मीटर

46:

01.

01 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

प्लॉट संख्या

गाँव कानाम

हेक्टेयर

अधिकारिता सूचिसंख्या

1768

1769

1770

1771

1772

1773

1774

1775

1776

1777

1778

100

1779

1809

1811

1812

1839

1840

100

1841

1843

00.

1844

1845

1846

1847

1848

1849

1868

1869

1879

1880

1881

1882

1883

1884

1885

1886

1903

1904

1981

1985

1986

1987

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1996

1997

1998

1999

1567 GI/20045

2553 क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर

छ्यर

900

00-

01 2554

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29, 2504/JYAISTHA 8, 1926

गाँव का नाम

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] क्षेत्रफल

प्लॉट संख्या

अधिकारिता सूचि संख्या

हेक्टेयर 1

2000

00 एयर

वर्ग मीटर

1812/2264

00 दामोदरपुर

303

310

311

312

313

323

324

341

358

359

362

363

364

365

367

369

370

371

385

386

387

388

389

415

418

419

421

422

424

425

435

937

1197

1198

1228

1229

1230

1231

1233

1234

1235

1236

1239

1240

1277

1278

1282

1284

1285

00 00

01.

68.

61.

20.

59 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926 [भाग- खण्ड 3 (ⅱ) ]

2555 क्षेत्रफल

प्लॉट संख्या

गाँव का नाम

हेक्टेयर

अधिकारिता सूचि संख्या

1286

1287

1288

1289

1317

1346

1347

1348

1349

1357

1358

1359

1360

1387

1388

1389

1394

1395

1659

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

1229/1653

00 00 88

1278/1701

युरुरि

.42

00.

105

106

107

108

109

110

170

171

172

173

174

183

184

187

498

499

500

501

502

699

00 2556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 29, 2504/ JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

गाँव कानाम

प्लॉट संख्या

अधिकारिता सूचिसंख्या

हेक्टेयर 1

502/766

गाजीपुर

119

121

124

198

100

213

219

320

321

322

324

325

326

327

406

407

416

417

420

421

426

439

440

447

448

455

456

457

464

465

466

469

470

473

474

475

477

478

491

492

493

496

497

510

511

512

513

514

319/753

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] क्षेत्रफल

वर्गमीटर

एयर

26 भारत का राजपत्र: मई 29 , 2004/ श्रेष्ठ. 6 , 1926

2559

प्लौट संख्या

गाँव का नाम

हेक्टेयर

अधिकारिता सूचिसंख्या

465/755

477/757

119/771

328/797

407/811

513/819

513/820

513/821

चाकनान

994

291

भगबानखाली ( भाग- II )

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

783

794

795

796

797

798

799

801

802

803

816

817

818

819

820

824

825

826

827

828

829

830

835

836

840

841

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

03.

:02

90 2558

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29, 2504/ JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

गाँव का नाम

प्लौट संख्या

अधिकारिता सूचिसंख्या

हेक्टेयर 1

842

843

844

845

846

847

848

849

850

852

853

854

867

873

990

873/1012

873/1083

878/1085

986/1104

986/1105

00 विशालचक

107

108

109

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)] क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

94 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

गाँव का नाम

2559 क्षेत्रफल

प्लॉट संख्या

अधिकारिता सूचि संख्या

हेक्टेयर 1

110

111

112

113

114

115

133

146

147

148

169

171

173

174

175

176

177

181

182

183

185

186

187

192

193

238

255

00 भगबानखाली ( भाग -1 )

78/759

00 पुलिस थाना भुपतिनगर

वजयनगर

326

1409

1410

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

06 2560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 29, 2504/ JYAISTHA 8, 1926

गाँव का नाम

प्लॉट संख्या

अधिकारिता सूचिसंख्या

हेक्टेयर 1

1417

1420

1421

1422

1424

1426

2:00

1450

1451

1452

1453

100

1454

1528

1.00

1556

1557

1558

1563

1564

1565

1:00

1566

1572

1573

1743

1746

1747

1748

1750

1758

1.00

1787

1821

1822

:00

1823

1832

1833

1864

1865

1866

1880

1881

1905

1906

1908

1909

1934

1942

1455/2290

1456/2291

1572/2318

1573/2319

1564/2321

1564/2322

1576/2326

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii ) ] क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

95.

15/

28 2561

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

क्षेत्रफल

प्लॉट संख्या

गाँव का नाम

हेक्टेयर

अधिकारिता सूचि संख्या

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

1576/2327

1759/2343

1759/2344

1746/2352

1764/2353

1881/2369

1881/2370

1881/2371

1882/2372

1879/2391

1879/2392

00 07

1879/2393

1879/2394

1879/2399

1879/2402

1909/2403

335

491

डिशिमुलिया

519

526

531

532

534

535

536

550

551

552

553

554

556

558

629

631

636

637

638

643

648

546/674

559/675

637/726

670/734

614/794

532/691

632/801

643/803

550/673

339

दक्षिन बरोज ( भाग -II ) 333

1567 GI/2004-6

02 2562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2504/JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

गाँव कानाम

प्लॉट संख्या

अधिकारिता सूचिसंख्या

हेक्टेयर 1

345

355

356

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

371

375

376

377

378

381

382

383

384

385

355/901

380/941

331

00 शिमुलबारी

120

470

72/959

332

दक्षिन बरोज ( भाग -1 )

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

92 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

2563 क्षेत्रफल

प्लॉट संख्या

गाँव का नाम

अधिकारिता सूचिसंख्या

हेक्टेयर

196

197

198

200

201

202

207

219

220

221

222

223

235

245

246

247

3/259

-00

128/271

242

विरिवारी

514

516

518

528

529

531

532

533

535

536

537

541

542

543

550

551

554

555

556

558

642

649

650

652

664

665

666

668

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

07 2564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 29 , 2504/JYAISTHA 8, 1926

प्लॉट संख्या गाँव का नाम

अधिकारिता सूचि संख्या

हेक्टेयर

4 1

729

558/922

2001

240

जूखिया

2256

2257

2258

2259

2266

2267

2268

2269

2273

2274

2279

2317

2567

2568

2569

2577

2578

2585

2586

2592

2593

2596

2597

2598

2599

2601

2608

2670

2671

2672

2673

2677

2678

2679

2680

2687

2832

2256/3321

2256/3331

225

1525

00 ईक्षुपत्रिका

1774

1776

1788

1789

1790

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

71 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2565 क्षेत्रफल

प्लॉट संख्या

गाँव का नाम

हेक्टेयर

अधिकारिता सूचि संख्या

1814

1818

1820

1821

1822

1823

1829

1830

1831

1840

1845

1846

1847

1848

1849

1850

1851

1853

1854

1858

1859

1860

1862

1863

00 .

1893

1900

1905

1906

1907

1908

1918

2008

229

शादुल्याचक

214

442

443

444

445

446

वर्ग मीटर.

एयर

20 00

96 00

34 04

02 06

71 01

84 00

73 00

20 00

14 01

35 02

67 03

14 02

20 00

77 00

60 10

24 02

60 07

98 02

55 01 2566

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 29 , 2504/JYAISTHA 8, 1926

गाँव कानाम

प्लॉट संख्या

अधिकारिता सूचिसंख्या

हेक्टेयर 1

447

459

460

465

466

580

71/833

82/834

00 फकिरचक

228

127

129

131

132

133

135

150

151

152

154

155

156

00:

157

227

129/279

156

किसमत वाजकुल

1994

2001

2002

2005

2007

2008

2010

2011

2012

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2033

2034

2036

2037

2038

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii)] क्षेत्रफल

एयर

वर्ग मीटर

20 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

गाँव का नाम

प्लॉट संख्या

अधिकारिता सूचिसंख्या

हेक्टेयर 1

3 .

2040

2041

2045

2090

2091

2092

2472

2473

2474

2482

2483

2484

2485

2486

2487

2509

2510

2512

2513

2514

2515

2609

2986

2987

2991

2992

2993

2995

2996

2997

2999

3008

3009

3010

3012

3023

3024

3026

3027

3028

3029

3030

3031

3032

3036

3037

3038

3039

3040

3041

3620

2567 क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

20.

60 2568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29, 2504/ JYAISTHA 8, 1926

प्लौट संख्या

गाँव का नाम

अधिकारिता सूचिसंख्या

हेक्टेयर 1

3036/17049

3036/17050

3036/17051

3039/17052

3039/17053

4400

4450

4513

4804

4805

4847

4848

4849

4850

4851

4852

4853

4856

4857

4858

4868

4893

4895

4896

4897

4898

4903

4929

4930

4934

4935

4936

4937

4938

4853/17290

4894/17298

4898/17299

4852/17338

4943/17310

5257

5260

5261

5270

5271

5272

5273.

5291

5292

5294

5295

5296

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] क्षेत्रफल

वर्गमीटर

एयर

06 2569

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

क्षेत्रफल

प्लॉट संख्या

गाँव का नाम

अधिकारिता सूचि संख्या

हेक्टेयर

4 1

5297

5298

.5299

5302

$5303

6610

6612

6613

6615

6617

6618

6619

100

6620

6709

6710

6711

6712

6732

6736

6737

6740

6741

6747

6748

6811

वर्गमीटर

एयर

5291/17363

00 00

6711/17571

8296

8297

8298

8299

8300

8301

8309

8310

8311

8312

8408

8481

8483

8484

8485

8486

8488

8491

8499

8500

8501

8502

8503

8523

00 1567 G1/2004-7

00 2570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29, 2504/JYAISTHA 8, 1926

गाँव का नाम

प्लॉट संख्या

अधिकारिता सूचिसंख्या

हेक्टेयर 1

8524

8534

8535

00 ல் 888

8567

8568

8569

8570

8571

8572

8577

8578

8579

8580

8581

8583

8584

9106

9118

9122

9123

9132

9133

9134

9135

-9166

9167

9169

9170

9189

9190

9191

8572/11405

8312/17840

8485/17842

9133/17862

15858

15867

15868

15878

15879

15880

15881

15903

15904

15906

15907

15909

15910

15911

15913

15982

[PART II SBC . 3 ( ii) ] क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

00 2571 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

क्षेत्रफल

प्लॉट संख्या

गाँव का नाम

अधिकारिता सूचिसंख्या

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

00 00

15904/16389 15868/18722

20 66

[फा. सं. आर-25011/10/2004- ओ.आर-1 ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 26th May, 2004

S. O. 1259.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum ( crude from Paradip in the State of Orissa to Haldia in the State of West Bengal , a pipeline should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

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

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

Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri Arabinda Ghosh , Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited , Paradip Haldia Crude Oil Pipeline Project , Kasberia , Post office Khanjanchak , Purba Midnapur 721602 (WestBengal) .

2572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29, 2504/ JYAISTHA 8, 1926

Police Station : Nandakumar

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)) State: West-Bengal

District: Purba Midnapur

Name of Village

Jurisdiction ListNo.

Hectare

Plot. No.

5076

Jalpai

5077

5078

5081

5082

5091

5092

5093

5096

5098

5099

5101

5102

5103

5104

5107

5283

5284

5285

5286

5287

5294

5295

5307

5337

5347

5349

5350

5351

5352

5369

5371

5372

5431

5501

5502

5503

5504

5507

5537

5538

5652

5653

5654

5657

5658

5865

Area

Are

Sq. mtr.

98 06

.02

02 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

Name ofVillage

Plot No.

Hectare

Jurisdiction ListNo.

5866

5867

5868

5869

5871

5880

5881

5882

5883

5884

5906

5911

5913

5914

5915

5916

5923

5924

5925

5926

5927

6325

6796

6797

6799

6800

00.

6801

6802

6803

6804

6806

5075/10010

2573 Area

Are

Sq.mtr.

5370/10012

5502/10022

5537/10024

5283/10035.

6841

6853

6854

6855

6856

6860

6863

6869

6871

Shitalpur

432

433

434

01 2574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29, 2504/JYAISTHA 8, 1926

NameofVillage

Jurisdiction ListNo.

Plot No.

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

Are

Hectare

436

437

445

446

447

448

459

460

461

462

466

468

876

877

878

879

880

881

890

903

904

905

908

917

922

925

926

927

928

940

941

942

944

945

946

965

967

970

971

972

973

974

975

976

1035

1053

1055

1489

1490

1491

1492

Sq. mtr.

25 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2575

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

Nameof Village

Jurisdiction ListNo.

Plot No.

Hectare 1

1493

1501

1945

1946

1947

1959

1968

1969

1970

1980

1981

1986

1988

2011

2012

2013

2014

00.

2015

2036

2037

2038

2039

2044

2047

2049

2050

2051

00:

2052

2064

2065

2071

2076

2087

2088

2089

1946/3897

1947/3909

1947/3910

2006/3920

917/3966

2510

2511

2512

2513

2516

2521

2522

2523

2526

2546

2557

00 Area

Are

Sq. mtr.

20 2576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 29 , 2504/ JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

Name of Village

Plot No.

Hectare

Jurisdiction List No.

2558

2559

2560

2561

2562

2563

2564

2566

2570

2584

2585

2586

2593

2594

2595

2596

[PART II SBC. 3 (ii) ) Area

Are

Sq . mtr.

2521/4142

2564/4137

2593/4139

1671

Bhabanipur

1707

1708

1709

1710

1712

1713

1717

1718

1724

1725

1726

1732

Police Station - Chandipur

199

Sultanpur

200

201

202

203

204

206

207

208

219

220

221.

222

01 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2577

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

Nameof Village

Jurisdiction ListNo.

Plot No.

Hectare

4 1

224

225

227

228

229

235

236

237

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

314

315

316

317

318

968

970

971

974

975

980

981

00 Area

Are

Sq. mtr.

-08

427/1856

976/1892

1042

1070

1071

1073

1074

1075

1092

1093

1094

1095

1096

1116

1178

1185

1186

1188

1198

1199

1211

1278

1279

1567 G1 /2004-8

05 2578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29, 2504/ JYAISTHA 8, 1926

Nameof village

Plot No.

Jurisdiction ListNo.

Hectare 1

1280

1281

1282

1283

1284

1285

1286

1303

1304

1305

1306

1511

1514

1515

1516

1518

1519

1520

1521

1522

1523

1526

1590

1591

1592

1593

1595

1651

1653

1654

1655

1656

1657

1658

1659

1650/1928

00 Barbanki

102

103

104

105

106

111

112

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

Are

Sq. mtr.

.04

00.

07 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2579

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8, 1926

Nameof Village

Plot No.

Jurisdiction ListNo.

Hectare 1

115

116

255

256

269

270

284

285

286

290

291

292

299

300

303

304

310

311

315

316

320

321

322

323

325

343

325/731

326/727

00 Gomutha

434

436

437

438

439

514

515

525

526

527

530

531

539

550

551

552

554

555

556

557

561

00 Area

Are

Sq. mtr.

27.

33 2580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2504/JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

Narne of Village

Plot No.

Hectare

Jurisdiction List No.

562

565

566

567

569

602

652

724

725

741

752

753

754

755

757

758

759

760

761

762

763

764

765

775

778

779

780

781

783

784

786

970

971

973

974

975

976

979

1055

1057

1059

1060

1061

1062

1066

1078

1079

1080

1083

1084

1086

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) Area

Are

Sq. mtr.

00 2581

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

NameofVillage

Plot No.

Hectare

Jurisdiction ListNo.

4 1

1091

1092

1093

1094

1095

1117

1161

1162

1163

1165

1166

1167

1195

1198

1199

1200

1201

1218

1219

1220

1228

1236

1237

1239

1240

1241

1242

1243

1244

1245

1246

1247

1251

1252

1749

1863

416

Saripur

417

426

427

429

433

434

435

436

437

438

454

455

00 Area

Are

Sq . mtr.

01.

07 2582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29, 2504 /JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

Name of Village

Jurisdiction List No.

Plot No.

Hectare 1

456

457

458

26/2250

456/2256

456/2361

539

713

714

723

724

727

728

729

731

732

733

734

735

736

737

740

741

742

745

779

780

784

785

788

789

790

792

1710

1712

1713

1717

1718

1719

1720

1721

1722

1723

1724

1726

1725

1729

1751

1752

1755.

1759

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

Are

Sq. mtr.

20-

25 2583

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

[ भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Name of Village

Plot No.

Hectare

Jurisdiction List No.

1768

1769

1770

1771

1772

1773

1774

1775

1776

1777

1778

1779

1809

1811

1812

1839

1840

1841

1843

1844

1845

1846

1847

1848

1849

1868

1869

1879

1880

1881

1882

1883

1884

1885

1886

1903

1904

1981

1985

1986

1987

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1996

1997

1998

1999

Area

Are

Sq. mtr.

20.

01 84

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2504/JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

Name of Village

Jurisdiction List No.

Plot No.

Hectare 1

2000

1812/2264

309

00 Damodarpur

310

311

312

313

323

324

341

358

350

362

363

364

365

367

369

370

371

385

386

387

388

389

415

418

419

421

422

424

425

435

937

1197

1198

1228

1229

1230

1231

1233

1234

1235

1236

1239

1240

1277

1278

1282

1284

1285

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ) ] Area

Are

Sq. mtr.

63)

02-

59 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

Name of Village

Jurisdiction ListNo.

Plot No.

Hectare 1

1286

1287

1288

1289

1317

1346

1347

1348

1349

1357

1358

1359

360

1387

1388

1389

394

895

1659

1229/1653

1278/1701

00 Ururi

107

108

109

110

170

171

172

173

174

183

184

187

498

499

500

501

502

699

1567 GI /20049

2585 Area

Are

Sq. mtr.

4 06.

89 01 00

04 0800

83 2586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2504/JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

Name of Village

Plot No.

Jurisdiction ListNo.

Hectare

502/766

Gazipur

119

121

124

198

213

219

320

321

322

327

406

407

416

417

420

421

426

439

440

447

448

455

456

457

464

465

466

469

475

477

478

491

492

493

496

497

510

511

512

513

514

319/753

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

Are

Sq. mtr.

00,

00.

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

Name of Village

Jurisdiction List No.

Plot No.

Hectare 1

465/755

477/757

119/771

323/797

407/811

513/819

513/820

513/821

00 Chaknan

994

291

Bhagabankhali ( Part - 11 )

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

783

794

795

796

797

798

799

801

802

803

816

817

818

819

820

824

825

826

827

828

829

830

835

836

840

841

2587 Area

Are

Sq . mtr.

41 2084 29 83

22 2588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2504/JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

Name of Village

Plot No.

Hectare

Jurisdiction ListNo.

842

843:

844

845

846

847

848

849

850

852

853

854

867

873

990

873/1012

873/1083

878/1085

986/1104

986/1105

Bishalchak

107

108

109

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

Are

Sq. mtr.

02 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

Name of Village

Plot No.

Jurisdiction ListNo.

Hectare 1

110

111

112

113

114

115

133

146

147

148

169

171

173

174

175

176

177

181

182

183

185

186

187

192

193

238

255

00 Bhagabankhali (Part - 1 ) 38

78/759

Police Station - Bhupatinagar

326

1409

00 Bijoynagar

1410

2589 Area

Are

Sq. mtr.

01.

06 2590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2504/ JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

Name of Village

Plot No.

Jurisdiction List No.

Hectare 1

1417

1420

1421

1422

1424

1426

1450

1451

1452

1453

1454

1528

1556

1557

1558

1563

1564

1565

1566

1572

1573

1743

1746

1747

1748

1750

1758

1787

1821

1822

1823

1832

1833

1864

1865

1866

1880

1881

1905

1906

1908

1909

1934

1942

1455/2290

1456/2291

1572/2318

1573/2319

1564/2321

1564/2322

1576/2326

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

Are

Sq. mtr.

15 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2591

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

Nameof Village

Jurisdiction List No.

Plot No.

Hectare 1

1576/2327

00 Area

Are

Sq. mtr.

1759/2343

1759/2344

1746/2352

1764/2353

1881/2369

00 03

1881/2370

1881/2371

1882/2372

1879/2391

00 00

1879/2392

00 10

1879/2393

1879/2394

00 03

1879/2399

1879/2402

1909/2403

00 Disimulia

335

491

519

526

531

532

534

535

536

550

551

552

553

554

556

558

629

631

636

637

638

643

648

546/674

559/675

637/726

670/734

614/794

532/691

632/801

643/803

550/673

339

Dakshminbaraj (Part - II ) 333

02 2592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2504/ JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

Name of Village

Plot No.

Hectare

Jurisdiction ListNo.

345

355

356

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

371

375

100

376

377

378

381

382

383

384

385

355/901

380/941

331

Simulbari

120

470

72/959

332

Dakshminbaraj (Part -1 )

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

Are

Sq. mtr.

92 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2593

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8, 1926

Nameof Village

Plot No.

Jurisdiction ListNo.

Hectare 1

196

197

198

200

201

202

207

219

220

221

222

223

235

245

246

247

3/259

128/271

00 Biribari

514

242

516

518

528

529

531

532

533

535

536

537

541

542

543

550

551

554

555

556

558-

642

649

650

652

664

665

666

668

00 1567 GI /2004-10

Area

Are

Sq. mtr.

04.

38.

54 2594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29, 2504 /JYAISTHA 8, 1926

Name of Village

Hectare

Plot No.

Jurisdiction ListNo.

4 1

729

558/922

240

Jukhia

2256

2257

2258

2259

2266

2267

2269

2273

2274

2279

2317

2567

2568

2569

2577

2578

2585

2586

2592

2593

2596

2597

2598

2599

2601

2608

2670

2671

2672

2673

2677

2678

2679

2680

2687

2832

2256/3321

2256/3331

1525

225

Ikshupatrika

1774

1776

1788

1789

1790

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

ATE

Sq. mtr.

0200

$80

07 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2595

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8, 1926

NameofVillage

Plot No.

Jurisdiction ListNo.

Hectare 1

1814

1818

1820

1821

1822

1823

1829

1830

1831

1840

1845

1846

1847

1848

1849

1850

1851

1853

1854

1858

1859

1860

1862

1863

1893

1900

1905

1906

1907

1908

1918

2008

229

00 Sadulyachak

214

442

443

444

445

446

00 Area

Are

Sq. mtr.

01 2596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2504/ JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

Nameof Village

Plot No.

Jurisdiction List No.

Hectare 1

447

459

460

465

466

580

71/833

82/834

Fakirchak

228

127

129

131

132

133

135

150

151

152

154

155

156

157

227

129/279

156

1994

00 Kismatbajkul

2001

2002

2005

2007

2008

2010

2011

2012

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2033

2034

2036

2037

2038

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

Are

Sq. mtr.

20 [ भाग II- खण्ड ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

Name of Village

Jurisdiction List No.

Plot No.

Hectare 1

2040

2041

2045

2090

2091

2092

2472

2473

2474

2482

2483

2484

2485

2486

2487

2509

2510

2512

2513

2514

2515

2609

2986

2987

2991

2992

2993

2995

2996

2997

2999

3008

3009

3010

3012

3023

3024

3026

3027

3028

3029

3030

3031

3032

3036

3037

3038

3039

3040

3041

3620

2597 Area

Are

Sq. mtr.

60 2598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2504/JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

Name of Village

Jurisdiction ListNo.

Plot No.

Hectare

3036/17049

3036/17050

3036/17051

3039/17052

3039/17053

4400

4450

4513

4804

4805

4847

4848

4849

4850

4851

4852

4853

4856

4857

4858

4868

4893

4895

4896

4897

4898

4903

4929

4930

4934

4935

4936

4937

4938

4853/17290

4894/17298

4898/17299

4852/17338

4943/17310

5257

5260

5261

5270

5271

5272

5273

5291

5292

5294

5295

5296

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

Are

Sq. mtr.

48-

90.

06 भारत का राजपत्र: 29 , 2004 /ज्येष्ठ 8,1926 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4 .

5297

5298

5299

5302

5303

6610

6612

6613

6615

6617

6618

6619

6620

6709

6710

6741

6732

6736

6737

6740

6741

6747

6748

6811

2599

5291/17363

6711/17571

8296

8297

8298

8299

8300

8301

8309

8310

8311

8312

8408

8481

8483

8484

8485

8486

8488

8491

8499

8500

8501

8502

8503

8523

8524

8534

8535

8567

8568

02 2600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29,2004/JYAISTHA 8, 1926

8569

8570

8571

8572

8577

8578

8579

8580

8581

8583

8584

9106

9118

9122

9123

9132

9133

9134

9135

9166

9167

9169

9170

9189

9190

9191

8572/11405

8312/17840

8485/17842

9133/17862

15858

15867

15868

15878

15879

15880

15881

15903

15904

15906

15907

15909

15910

15911

15913

15982

15904/16389

15868/18722

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

[No. R-25011/10/2004- O.R. - I ] RENUKA KUMAR , Under Secy.

2601

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Details of Workmen श्रम मंत्रालय

S. Name

Designation

नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2004

No.

Date of Engage- ment

Division in Which working

PWD ED -V

7-2-82

Sr. Mch.

1. Kashi Nath

PWD ED-V

1-12-81

Mechanic

2. Kirti Ram

PWD ED -V

2-8-83

Fitter

3. Bekunth Lal

PWD ED -V

14-10-82

Lab . Asstt .

4. Joginder Singh

का. आ. 1260.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नम्बर- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 28/96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-04-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

PWD ED - V

1-1-82

Paniman

5. Baleshwar Pandit

[फा. सं. एल-42012/286/94- आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) ]

PWD ED -V

11-1-82

Paniman

6. Joginder Thakur

कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी

PWD ED -V

2-6-82

Welder

7. Mahabir Singh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

PWD ED-V

26-2-83

Auto Elect

8. Iqbal Singh

New Delhi, the 29th April , 2004

28-1-81 PWD ED -V

Wire Man

9. Rakesh Kumar

It has been further stated that they are working under P.W.D. Electrical Division - 5 and Sh. Rakesh Kumar is working in P.W.D. Electrical Division- 9. That 2500 workers areworking . Their work is maintenance ofBuilding, roads, construction work . It is unit of Director General work C.P.W.D. , New Delhi so the provision of the ID Act are applicable.

S.O. 1260.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 28/96) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. II , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CPWD and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 28-04-2004 .

[F. No. L-42012/286/ 94 -IR (DU) ]

Classification of Workmen ( a ) Workmen shall be classified as:

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

(1) Permanent

ANNEXURE

(2) Probationers

(3) Badlies

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT- II, NEW DELHI

(4) Temporary

L.D. No. 28/96

(5) Casual

Presiding Officer : R. N. RAI

(6) Apprentices

In the Matter of:

Kashi Nath

Versus

C.P.W.D.

AWARD

(b) "A Permanen workman is a workman who has been engaged on a permanent basis and includes any person who has satisfactorily completed a probationary period of three months in the same or another occupation in the industrial establishment , including breaks due to sickness , accident , involuntary closure of the establishment . "

That non - regularisation of services of workmen connected with the dispute from their respective dates of employment is unfair labour practices as per provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947.

"Whether the action of management of CPWD in not regularising the services of the 9 workmen from the date of their appointment in the respective post and time scale of pay and category as shown in the enclosed Annexure A is fair and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to ?"

That the workman are entitled to regularisation as they have been working for a long time.

Management has filed WS . In the WS it has been admitted that workers are working as has been stated in The claimants have filed statement of claim . There are 9 claimants . Some are working since 1981 and some since 1982 and some since 1983. Their names are given below:-

1567 GI/2004-11 2602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2004/JYAISTHA 8. 1926

[ PART II- S

opposite party so his case can not be separated from the otherworkmen .

It was stated by the management that Baleshwar Pandit, Joginder Thakur , Mahavir Singh , Iqbal Singh have been regularised. The remaining workmen are also eligible forregularisation:

the statement of claim . 3 workmen out of the 9 have been regularised in 1994. It has been further stated that the workmen have not passed the test and they do not have requisite qualification for being regularised. They are muster roll employees but they are not eligible for recruitment according to the rules framed in this behalf. They have to pass trade test and they have not requisite qualification so their case has not been considered .

The reference is replied thus .

The action of the management of CPWD is neither fairand nor justified. The workmen concerned are entitled to be regularised from the date of joining their services with full backwages and they are also entitled to get all the benefits of regularisation from their date of joining the services . The Award is given accordingly.

Dated: 8-04-2004

The applicants have filed the re -joinder. In re -joinder they have stated that the services of Sh. Iqbal Singh have been regularised during pendency of the case they have been working for a period over 20 years . In (2ra ) of the ID Act, 1947 it has been provided that the workman as casual and temporary labour cannot be employed to deprive them: ofpermanent nature ofjob . So they have every right to be regularised.

Heard Argument from both the sides and perused the documents on the record.

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 29 अप्रैल, 2004

का. आ. 1261. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , एस.सी.सी.एल. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण, गोदावरीखानी ( संदर्भ संख्या 75/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-04-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Itwas submitted by learned counsel of the workman that it has been admitted that they are working for over 20 years . Some of the workers who joined after them have been regularised but their case has not been considered by the management. He drew my attention to A.T.R. 1986 SC 76 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there should be equal pay for equal work. These workmen are doing the same work which the other workman are doing. Since they are not regularised so, they are not getting equal payments .

[ फा. सं. एल-22013/ 1/2004- आई.आर. ( सी- II ) ]

एन. पी . केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 29th April , 2004

The learned counsel for the workman drew my attention to 1990 I L.L.J 320. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the minimum educational qualification should be considered at the initial stage. These workmen have got practical experience . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that in case the workers are working for a long period, their educational qualification should be relaxed.

S.O. 1261. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 75/2002) of Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court Godavarikhani as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-04-2004.

It was argued from the side of the management that the workmen applicants have not passed the trade test according to the rules laid down. They do not have educational qualification for eligibility.

[F. No. L- 22013/ 1 /2004 - IR( C- II ) ] N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, GODAVARIKHANI

Present:

Smt. K. Suvarchala, M.A. , B.L. , Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

Friday, the 26th day of March, 2004 Industrial Dispute No. 75 of 2002

The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that educational qualification should be relaxed in case the work is for a long period . Their practical experience should be taken into consideration. There is no force in the argument of the management that the workman applicants have not passed trade test and they do not have requisite qualification . On these two points the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court would prevail the workman have been working for a period over 20 years . As such they have got a long experience , in such circuinstances the rule regarding trade test and eligibility qualification should be relaxed and the workman deserve to be regularised. There are 9 workmen . The workman Rakesh Kumar has not filed affidavit but he has beenworking since 28-1-81 . That has been admitted by the 2603

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Between:-

ofthepetitioner amounts to illegal retrenchment U/s . 2(00) of I.D. Act .

Abid Khan, Ex-Badli Filler,

1.K. 1 Incline,

---Petitioner.

C/ o B. Amarender Rao , Advocate, STS- 317 , Bus Stand Colony, Post: Godavarikhani -505 209, Distt. Karimnagar A.P.

And

The General Manager, M/ s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. ,

-Respondent .

Sreerampur Division, Sreerampur, Distt . Adilabad, A.P.

4. 8 workman were dismissed by the respondent under order dated 26-12-1992 including the petitioner at Sl. No. 8. The respondent company called 20 persons dismissed earlier for an interview including the petitioner. Thepetitioner and 19 others appeared before the committee forthe interview. He passed the filling test and other tests conducted by the company, but the petitioner was not reinstated by the respondent though 19 other workmen were reinstated. The Medical certificates issued by the company hospital nearby private hospitals and the Government M.G.M. , Hospital at Warangal where the petitionerwas given treatment received by the respondent and accepted by the respondent company.

This petition coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Amarender Rao , Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri D. Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the respondent and having stood over for consideration till this date, the court passed the following :-

AWARD

1. This matter is referred to this court by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in his order dt . 20-08-2002 to adjudicate whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. in dismissing Sh. Abid Khan, Ex -Badli Filler, Indaramkhani - I Incline of Sreerampur Division of M/ s . S.C.Co. Ltd. , from services is legal and justified, if not , to what reliefthe appellant is entitled?

5. From 1994 onwards, the petitioner was compelled tomove frompillar to post before the respondent authorities for reinstatement into service till 99 , The union moved conciliation before the Asstt . Commissioner of Labour, Mancherial which resulted in the present reference before the court by the Govt. ofIndia. The delay ifany is not want on nor wilful. The petitioner is facing severe financial problems and poverty. As such, he could not approach this court earlier. Without issuing any charge - sheet and without conducting any sort of domestic enquiry, capital punishment ofdismissal from service cannot be imposed on the petitioner by the respondent. It is arbitrary, unjust and against the principles of natural justice and well established provisions of law. The said action of the respondent is illegal , unjust and is liable to be quashed by this court . He filed the petition to declare the action ofthe respondent in dismissing him from service w.e.f. , 29-12-92 as illegal and unjust and consequently direct the respondent company for re - instatement of the petitioner into service with continuity ofservice and full back-wages.

2. To this, the petitioner filed the claim statement stating that he was appointed as Tunnel Mazdoor , Category- I at Sreerampur 2 A Incline in the respondent company. Later, he was promoted as Badli Filler. He is put -in a long service of more than 10 years without any kind of remarks . The respondent authorities transferred the petitioner from SRP- 2A Incline to Indaramkhani - I Incline during March, 1992 , but the atmosphere and water of I.K. I Incline Area was not suïted to the health of the petitioner. He fell ill very seriously and as such was compelled to take treatment in the company hospital and nearby private clinics. Since there was no improvement in his health condition, he was shifted to Govt . M.G.M. Hospital , Warangal .

6..To this , the respondent filed the counter stating that the dispute raised before the authority is not maintainable . The reason is that the petitioner was disempanelled from the company's rolls 10 years back and thedispute is raised after 10 years and is grossly belated in point oftime.Hence , on the principles of laches , the dispute has to be rejected. The petitioner had taken away his terminal benefits and there is no relationship of Master and Servant which is very much essential to maintain a dispute.When the terminal benefits were taken away, there is cessation of services .

7. The petitioner was empanelled as Badli and the word Badli is defined in the standing orders as substitute. As per the policy ofthe company, the petitioner is supposed to complete 190musters in a calendar year to be regularised as a coal filler, a permanent employee on the rolls of the company, but the petitioner has failed to put 190 musters in any year during the said period of 10 years from the date of his empanelment i.e. , 10-11-82 to the date of dis- 3. The respondent has not issued any charge - sheet to him nor levelled any charges of absenteeism or otherwise. No domestic enquiry was conducted and no show -cause notice was issued . The petitioner was dismissed from service by the respondent w.e.f. , 26-12-92 illegally and unjustly. From 1982 till 1992 , for more than 10 years , the petitioner continuously worked under the respondent .He is put - in a continuous service of more than 240 days service as per Section 25 - B of I.D. Act . Prior to dismissal of the petitioner w.e.f.. 26-12-92 , no notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent company . The mandatory provisions of Section 25 -F, Gand H of I.D. Act were not at all complied by the respondent . Several juniors to the petitioner are still working in the company. The dismissal 2604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

empanelment, i.e. , 29-12-92 . The completion of 190 muster will amount to good attendance and conduct which are the terms and conditions of the empanelment . Even, within 10 years , the petitioner could not put up 190 musters continuously. His attendance and performance was quite unsatisfactory and he was dis -empannelled w.e.f. 29-12-92..

8. The petitioner was never appointed as Tunnel Mazdoor , at S.R.P. 2 - A Incline, and the petitioner is put to strict proof thereof. The petitioner worked as Badli Filler and as per the said definition , the Badli Filler is allotted coal filling work when the regular coal filler were absent.

9. The petitioner has put in 97 musters in 1989 , 88 musters in 1990, 54 muster in 1991 and in subsequent year in 1992 he is put- in only 20 musters . The petitoner is a chronic absentee. It is not true that the petitioner transferred from S.R.P. 2 -A Incline to Indaramkhani - I Incline during March , 1992. The petitioner was transferred from SRP. 2 -A Incline to I.K. I Incline on 24-5-91 . The petitioner has not reported for duty immediately at Indaram - I Incline , but subsequently produced an out station sick certificate for the period from 1-6-91 to 4-2-92 though he was absent from duty without any leave or any intimation .

10. The contention of the petitioner that no notice was issued is not correct . The services of the petitioner are purely temporary and he was empanelled as Badli . The dis- empanelment does not require any notice as alleged by the petitioner . As the petitioner was Badli Filler, the provisions ofSection 25 - F, G and H are not applicable to the facts of the instant case . It is not true that the petitioner had submitted medical certificate issued by the Company's hospital , nearby private hospitals and Govt . M.G.M. Hospital , Warangal . The petitioner was a chronic absentee and he was dis - interested in company's employment. As it is evident that during the past 10 years from 1982 till 1992 , he has never put in 190 musters in any calendar year. He worked as Badli only. The petitioner was unauthorisedly absent . As his services are temporary in nature, he was dis- empanelled from the company services . For the first time, the petitioner raised the dispute before the Asstt . Commissioner ofLabour, Mancherial to cover up his laches and as claim is barred by the principles of laches , the petitioner is trying to make out a case stating that he hails from a very poor family and subjected to economic death which is not correct in view ofthe submissions made supra. 11. As per the terms and conditions of empanelment . it clearly shows that the petitioner's service in the company is temporary in nature . Under law, any temporary employee can be terminated and no notice or charge - sheet is required for terminating the temporary empanelment . No domestic enquiry need be conducted nor dis -engaging the petitioner amounts to capital punishment as alleged by him . Hence , the claim statement may be dismissed.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] 12. On behalf of the petitioner WW - 1 is examined and Ex. W- 1 to Ex. W- 13 are marked

Onbehalf of the respondent WW - 1 is examined and Ex. W- 1 to M- 8 are marked.

13. Heard both sides .

14. The petitioner worked in the respondent company. Later, the petitioner was dismissed from service.

The first and foremost defence putforth by the respondent company is that there is delay of 10 years in filing the petition . The petitioner was dis -empanelled from the company's roll 10 years back. The dispute is raised after 10 years.

15.While arguing that there is no limitation for the dispute under the Industrial Dispute , the Advocate for the petitioner cited Ajaib Singh and Sirhind Co-op. Marketing- cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. and Another, reported in 1999 LLJ ( 1 ) P. 1260. Their Lordships held :-

" The object of the act is to do succour to weaker sections of the society which is a pre - requisite for a welfare State to ensure Industrial peace and pre -empt Industrial tention, the Act further aims at enhancing the Industrial Production which is acknowledgedto be life blood of the developing society" .

"The court referred Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopal BivaandOthers reported in 1963 - II -LLJ 608 held :-

Provisions of Articles 181 now 137 of the Limitation Act apply only to applications which were made under the Code of Civil Procedure Code and its extension to applications U/ s . 33 -C(2 ) ofthe Act was not justified . This position was further to be free and explained by the court in Town Municipal Council , Athani Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Habli and others reported in 1969 - II -LLJ 651 of page 660-661 " .

Their Lordships held :---

"That the finding that worknman had not given explanation for delay, even without pleading as to delay by the management, not justified" .

While contradicting the point that the period of limitation is not applicable to the dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act , the respondent Advocate had filed the decision in Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka Vs. Sri Shivalinga dt. 5-10-2001 , Supreme Court of India , reported in 2002( 1 ) CLR 321. In which, their Lordships held:-

"Delay in approaching for reference of dispute . Service of respondent was terminated on 25-5-1985 . Respondent approached Labour Officer with the dispute on 17-3-1995 and the same was followed by reference to Labour Court . Labour Court held delay of nine years to be fetal and on that basis rejected 2605

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

the reference. Learned Single Judge and in Appeal, Division Bernch of High Court held otherwise and directed reinstatement of the respondent . Hence, the respondent preferred the appeal before the Supreme Court . " While allowing the appeal , their Lordships held:-

The attendance of the petitioner is not complied with the rules of the respondent company. A minimim of 190 days present has to be shown for regularisation of the employment . This fact was admitted by the petitioner in his cross -examination . In his cross -examination , the petitioner himself stated that a person must complete 190 musters in a year for regularisation. It is quite clear that the petitioner never worked in his service the minimum musters of190 days.

The petitioner further agitating before the court that no charge- sheet was framed and no domestic enquiry was held without giving him an opportunity, the respondent companyhad removed him from service.

" In cases where there is a serious dispute or doubt in such relationship and records of the employer become relevant, the long delay would come in the way of maintenance of the same . In such circumstances, to make them available to a Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute appropriately will be impossible. Asituation ofthat nature would render the claim to have become stale" . Their Lordships held :-

19.While arguing that as per the principles ofnatural justice, the petitioner is entitled for an opportunity to defend himself, the Advocate for the petitioner cited 1996 LLR 289 inLaxmi Narain Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and others . Their Lordship held:-

" Two decisions relief by the Learned Counsel , have no application to the case on hand and confirmed the Award passed by the Labour Court holding delay of nine years to be fatal " .

Asper the decision cited by the petitioner Advocate dt. April 18, 1999, the Limitation Act is not applicable to the disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act .

"Before an employee held to the guilty of absence from duty, a proper domestic enquiry should be conductedby the department by issuing show -cause notice by framing charge- sheet and specified findings should be recorded by the enquiry officer after following the procedure for conducting domestic enquiry in accordance with law which admitted has not been done in this case . "

The decisiondt. October, 2001 is the recent decision where the Act is applicable or not, we have to go into the facts.

Their lordships held:-

" The petitioner was entitled to salary and all other consequential benefits".

16. The second point raised by the respondent is that the petitioner is Badli Coal filler. He never worked 190 days in a year continuously.

The contention of the petitioner is that he worked from 10-11-92 to 29-12-92 continuously.

20. The petitioner Advocate also cited S.K. Khuddus Vs. Managing Director, A.P. State Warehousing Corporation and Another reported in 1992 LLJ P. 13. Their Lordships held:-

"Principles of natural justice require that even a temporary employee must be given an opportunity tobe heard before being dismissed from service" .

The question that arises for consideration is , whether aworkman engaged temporarily on daily - wage basis can bedismissed from service with a stigma, without giving his an opportunity of hearing . The following case is referred:-

17. The petitioner was examined as WW- 1 . He filed the appointment order, i.e. , marked as WW- 1 . He deposed that his yearly musters are above 200 in the year 1983. His musters is 192 and half, company had given him a letter, i.e. , Ex. W- 2 . He admitted in his cross -examination. It is mentioned in Ex. W- 1 that he will be removed at any time. In Ex. W- 2, 177 and half, 15 days are included. The company had given him a letter marked as Ex. W- 3 . In that, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner is a Badli Filler. The petitioner was transferred to Indaramkhani - I Incline.

The version of the respondent is that the petitioner did notjoin his new post .

"Md. Akhtar Ali Vs. A.P.S.E.B. , Hyderabad reported in 1987 (5) S.L.R. 38. It was held that though service rule is not applicable to a contingent employee , still enquiry must be held" .

21. In the present case on hand, it is quite clear that no enquiry was conducted by the respondent company. The plea taken by the respondent Advocate is that as the petitioner is a Badli Filler and his appointment is temporary, no enquiry need be conducted, but as per the above decision, even though the service rules are not applicable to the contigent employee , still enquiry must be held.

18. MW- 1 deposed that the petitioner never worked 190 days . He filed the muster register marked as Ex. M- 1 to Ex. M-8 . The petitioner worked maximum days in the year 1989 , i.e. , 161 days , i.e. , marked as Ex. M-5 . MW - 1 further deposed that the petitioner was transferred to Indaramkhani - I Incline on 24-5-91 . The petitioner produced the sick certificate from 1-6-91 to 4-2-92. The petitioner approached the respondent after the delay of 8 months .

2606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2004/JYAISTHA 8, 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

Ex. W- 13 dt. 25-12-2001 Dismissal order, xerox copy.

ForManagement :-

As the petitioner was deprived of right of hearing, I feel that the dismissal order passed by the respondent is not as per law by following the principles of natural justice.

Ex. M- 1 dt.-

Attendance particulars for the year 1985 ofpetitioner, xer . copy.

dt. -

Ex. M-2

Attendance particulars of the petitioner for the year 1986 xer. copy

In the result, petition is allowed. The order of dismissal of the petitioner is set- aside . The employee must be given a chance of reinstatement afresh as the employee isatemporary worker . He had taken all his terminal benefits. He is not entitiled for any continuity of service or wages . There shall be no order as to costs .

Ex. M-3 dt.-

Attendance particulars of the petitioner for the year 1987 xerox copy.

Dictated to the Stenographer , transcribed and typed byhim corrected and pronouned by me in the open court on this , the 26th day of March, 2004.

Ex-M-4 dt.-

SMT. K. SUVARCHALA, Chairman -cum -Presiding Officer

Attendance particulars of petitioner for the year 1988 xerox copy.

Appendix of Evidence

dt.-

Ex.M-5

Witness-examined

Attendance particulars of petitioner for the year, 1989, xer . copy.

Forworkman:-

Ex.M-6 dt.-

WW. - 1 Abid Khan , petitioner

ForManagement:-

Attendance particulars of petitioner for theyear, 1990, xerox copy.

Ex. M-7 dt.-

MW- 1 S.V. Narsimha Rao , Sr. Personnel Officer, SCCo . Ltd. , Sreerampur Area, Dist . Adilabad .

Attendance particulars of petitioner for the year, 1991 , xerox copy.

Exhibits

Ex. M-8 dt.-

Ex. W- 1 at. 9-11-82 Office-order, xerox copy.

Attendance particulars of petitioner for the year, 1992, xerox copy.

Ex. W-2 dt. 11-8-93

नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2004

Lr. issued to the petitioner by Fit Office Assistant , Sreerampur No. 2 -A Incline .

Ex. W-3 dt.-

Identity card original

Ex - W-4 dt. 22-1-97 Discharge card.

Ex. W-5 dt. 26-12-92 Removal Order, xerox copy.

Ex. W-6 dt. 4-7-88

का. आ. 1262,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14. ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.ई.सी.एल. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण कोलकाता ( संदर्भ संख्या 23/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-04-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Application ofpetitioner for the post of Watchman in S & PC department, xer . copy.

[फा. सं. एल-22012/263/2000- आई.आर. ( सी.एम.- II ) ] Ex. W-7 dt . 20-8-2002 Reference copy.

Ex. W-8 dt . 29-3-2001

एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 29th April , 2004

Lr . addressed to the Secretary to Government of India, New Delhi by A.L.C. ( Central ) , Mancherial , хегох сору.

Ex. W-9 dt . 25-4-2000 S.C.W. Union Conciliation letter, хегохсору.

Ex. W- 10 dt 14-7-99 Lr. addressed to the Dy. CME, SRP 2A Incline by Supdt . , of Mines, IK No. 1 Incline, xer . copy.

Ex. W- 11 dt. 7-1-97

S.O. 1262. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 23/2002) of the Cent. Govt . Indus . Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Coal India Limited, and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 28-04-2004.

Report of Supdt . , of Mines SRP 2-A Incline, xer. copy.

Ex. W- 12 dt. 11-9-93 Report of 2 Pit Office Asst. , Sreerampur No. 2 A Incline, xer. copy.

[F. No. L-22012/263/2000 - IR (CM - II) ] N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer 2607 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

ANNEXURE

4. A "No Dispute " Award is accordingly passed and the present reference is disposed of.

HRISHIKESH BANERJI, Presiding Officer CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL : ATKOLKATA

Kolkata,

Reference No. 23 of 2002

Dated, the 17th February, 2004 .

नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल , 2004 Parties Employers in relation to the management of Dankuni Coal Complex, South Eastern Coalfields Limited

AND Their workmen

Present:

Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Banerji , Presiding Officer

का. आ. 1263.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 कां 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार कोडीट फैक्टरी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण चेन्नई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 40/196 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-04-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Appearance:

[फा. सं. एल-40012/6/95 - आई.आर. (डी.यू. ) ] Onbehalf ofManagement

"कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी Mr. A. Banerjee , Advocate with

Mr. S. Mukherjee, Advocate

-New Delhi , the 29th April , 2004 Onbehalf ofWorkmen

None.

Industry: Coal.

State: West Bengal.

Dated: 17th February, 2004.

AWARD

S.O. 1263. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 40/1996) of Industrial Tribunal Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Codite Factory and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-04-2004.

[F. No. L-40012/6/95 -IR(DU) ]

KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer By Order No. L- 22012 / 263 /2000 /IR( CM - II) dated 03-10-2002 the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 10 ( 1 )( d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, TAMIL- NADU CHENΝΑΙ- 104

Thursday, the 15th day of April , 2004

PRESENT:

"Whether the action of the management of Dankuni Coal Complex of SECL in'not giving the admissible benefit of seniority etc. to Sh . Tapan Das Gupta, Foreman- in -Charge during the period he continued in civil cadre is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

THIRUK.S. VENKATACHALAM, B.Sc.B.L. DTL. ,

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 40 OF 1996

[Inthe matter ofdispute for adjudication Under Sec . 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the Workmen and the Management of Codite Factory, Aruvankadu (Bilgris ) 643 202] .

2. When the case is called out today, none appears for the union, though the management is represented. Shri Tapan Das Gupta the concerned workman is however present and he files an application of the union signed by the General Secretary ofthe union concerned praying that since the workman concerned is not interested to pursue the matter, the present proceeding may be closed. Xerox copyofa letterofthe concerned workman is also annexed withthe application in this regarů .

Between

Shri A. SubramaniaPillai, S/o Anavadam Pillai, D.No. 83, Sudalai Madan Koil St. , Tirunelveli -643206 .

And

3. In view ofthe application of the sponsoringunion and also the letter of the workman concerned it is clear that neither the union, nor the concerned workman is interested toproceedwith the present reference . This Tribunal, in the circumstance, has no other alternative but to pass a "No Dispute"Award.

2608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29, 2004/ JYAISTHA 8, 1926

The General Manager, Codite Factory, Aruvankadu (Bilgris) -643 202 .

REFERENCE : Order No. L- 140012/6/95 - IR (DU) dated 24-4-1996 , Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi .

This dispute after remand coming on this day for final disposal , upon perusing the reference, Claim and Counter statements and all other connected papers on record and both parties being absent, this Tribunal passed the following

AWARD

The Govt . of India has referred the following issue foradjudication by this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Codite Factory in terminating the services of Shri A. Subramania Pillai , Labourer in Gas Chemical Section, Cordite Factory, Aruvankadu , Coonoor is just, proper and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to? "

Petitioner called absent. No representation. Industrial Dispute dismissed for default.

Dated at Chennai , this 15th day ofApril, 2004 K.V. VENKATACHALAM, Industrial Tribunal.

नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2004

का. आ. 1264. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.सी.जी. वेक्सीन लेबोरेटरी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केबीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 60/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-04-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[फा. सं. एल-42012/162/92 - आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th April, 2004

S.O. 1264. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 60/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of B.C. G. Vaccine Laboratory and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-04-2004.

[F. No. L-42012/162/92- IR(DU) ]

KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, CHENNΑΙ Wednesday, the 10th March, 2004 PRESENT : K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 60/2001 (TamilNadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 26/99 ) (Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudcation under clause(d) ofsub-section (1 ) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , between theManagement of B.C.G. Vaccine Laboratory and their workmen)

BETWEEN

Sri M. Mallikarjuna

IParty/Workman

AND

: II Party/Management TheDirector, B.C.G. Vaccine Laboratory, Chennai.

Appearance:

For the Workman : M/s . D. Hariparanthaman V.Ajoy Khose, Advocates .

FortheManagement : Mr. J.O. Jayanathan, CGSC

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide Notification No. L-42012/ 169/92 IR (DU) dated 29-4-1997 has earlier referred this industrial dispute to CGIT -Cum- Labour Court at Bangalore for adjudication . Subsequently, itwas transferred as per Order No. L-42012/ 169/ 92 IR(DU) dated 26-12-97 to Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , Chennai for adjudication. The Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal has taken the same on its file as I.D. No. 26/99 and after the constitution of this Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, the said industrial dispute was transferred to this Tribunal and after getting the records of this dispute , it was renumbered as I.D. No. 60/2001 . The Schedule mentioned dispute is hereunder: -

"Whether the action of the management of B.C.G. Vaccine Laboratory, Madras in terminating the services of Shri M.Mallikarjuna, ad- hoc Safaiwala w.e.f. 30-11-1990 is proper, legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled? " 2.After the reference was taken on file , notices were issued toboth sides and both sides have filed the Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively.

3. The allegations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement and the additional Claim Statement are briefly as follows:-

2609 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

hewas in continuous employment for eight years and nine months. Even in the order No.A - 12021/5/ 89 -Admn, dated 21.3.89, it is clearly mentioned that ad- hoc appointment would not bestow on the Petitioner any claim for appointment to the said post on regular basis and services rendered on ad- hoc basis would not count for the purpose ofseniority in the grade and confirmation. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot claim that his service is to be regularised. Since it was an ad - hoc appintment automatically got terminated with effect from 1-12-90, as per the conditions stipulated in the offer of appointment and which the petitioner has accepted , therefore , there is no illegality in the termination of ad-hoc appointment of the Petitioner. The 1st Respondent has sent a letter dated 21-4-90 to Commissioner of Police, Chennai, requesting him to verify the antecedent of the petitioner to find out his suitability for appointment in the Central Govt . Service. The Commissioner of Police vide his letter dated 16-11-90 informed the Respondent that the Petitioner had once been convictedby a Court of Law under Section 75 Clause (i ) of CPC in Crime No. 1663/90 and he was fined with Rs . 100/-. Therefore, as per Rule 19 (1 ) of C.C.S. classification and appeal Rules , even a permanent employee can be terminated from service , if he is convicted by a criminal court oflaw. In this case, the Petitioner's conviction was for his violent assault on a woman, using vulgar language against her and for outraging her modesty in a public place . Therefore, the Respondent feels such a person cannot be permitted towork in Central Govt . Department even on ad- hoc basis. Moreover, the services of the Petitioner got terminated automatically once it was decided not to extend his ad-hoc appointment . Therefore , the Respondent prays that the claimmay be rejected with costs.

5. In such circumstances , the points for my consideration are

(1) "Whether the action of the Respondent/Man- agement in terminating the services of the Peti- tioner is proper, legal andjustified?"

(ii) "To what relief the Petitioner is entitled?"

Point No. 1:

The Petitioner was employed by the 1st Respondent in the year 1982 in its laboratory as Casual Labour on daily wage basis . In the year 1987 he was engaged as Casual Labour along with three others namely M/s . Mahendran , Nandan and Edward Manoharan. Then he was appointed as Safaiwala Grade D post on ad -hoc basis for a period of six months till 20-9-1989 and this was extended from time to time till 30-11-1990 . Thus, the Petitioner had worked totally for eight years and nine months continuously without any break on ad-hoc basis . Subsequently, he was informed by the Respondent/Management not to report for work in future , since the management has received certain complaints from the police on enquiry. The Petitioer has issued a notice brought to the management's notice , the illegality committed by them in terminating this service the ground of certain bad record and that too without any enquiry as per the provisions contemplated under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But, he has not received any reply from the management . Though the work done by the Petitioner was continuous in nature , the Respondent issued orders eversinonth as stated above. Further inMarch, 1989 he was selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee for the post of Safaiwala . Therefore, the action of the II Party/Management in terminating his service in the above said circumstances is mala fide, arbitrary and also amounts to colourable exercise of powers . His juniors namely M/s . Mahendran, Ashok Kumar, Edward Manohar, Pushparani , Rajendran, Rathi , Malligavathi, Muniammal were continued in service, even after his termiantion and they have been later regularised . Therefore, thetermination of the Petitioner is arbitrary and in violation ofSection 25G ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it is also mala fide and unjustified . Further, the workmen of the Respondent namely Mr. Sampath and Ramachandranwho were convictedby criminal court and paid fine of Rs . 75/ - were retained and continued in service . When asked by the Petitioner, the management told that the Petitioner was once convicted under Section 75 ofthe City Police Act and paid fine ofRs . 100/- and therefore , it has lost confidence on the Petitioner and terminated the services of the Petitioner. But, the punishment given by the criminal court in a summary procedure is extremely minor nature of offence and the Respondent/Management has not issued any memo or conducted any enquiry and therefore , the termination suffers from illegality and violative of Rule 14 ofCCS (CCS) Rules . Therefore, for all these reasons , he prays that an award may be passed in his favour.

6. In this case, the Petitioner has examined himself as WW1 andalso marked documents Ex.Wl to W21 . Ex. WI series are the orders engaging the Petitioner/Workman along with three other workmen on daily rated wages . Ex . W4 is theoffer of appointment and order appointing the Petitioner onad-hoc basis as Safaiwala and Exs . W5 to W7 are the extension orders issue to the Petitioner. Ex . W9 is copy of lawyer notice issued by the Petitioner to the Respondent. Ex. WI0 is the copy of order of Appellate Authority in the case ofone Mr. Ramachandran . Exs .W11 to W20 are the proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central). It is admitted by both sides that the Petitioner was working as Casual Labour from the year 1983 and/ he was appointed as Safaiwala on ad - hoc basis from 21-3-89 to 30-11-90 . The Respondent contended that the Petitioner 4. As against this , the Respondent in its Counter Statement stated that the petitioner is not maintainable as the Respondent is a Central Govt . Department and it is controlled and governed by the rules and regulations of the Central Govt. and Labour Acts are not applicable to the Respondent . Though the Petitioner was working as Casual Labour on daily wage basis from 15-1-1983 on piece meal basis i.e. with periodical breaks , it is false to contend that

1567 GI/2004-12 2610

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2004/JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

termination is ab initio void. He further relied on the rulings reported as under :--

1. 1992 I LLN 150

2. 1994 ILLJ 373

worked as Casual Labour on daily wage basis till 1987 with periodical breaks. But, the Petitioner contended that he has continuously worked as Casual Labour from the year 1983, but, any how his engagement from 1983 was accepted by the Respondent in this case.

3. 1996 II LLJ 703 SC

4. 1987 II LLJ 78

5. AIR 1999 SC 1540

6. 1996 III LLJ ( SUPP) 1126

7. 1980 II LLJSC72

In1992 1 LLN 150 K. RAJENDRAN VS. DIRECTOR (P) , PROJECT AND EQUIPMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA 7. On behalfof the Petitioner, it was contended that the Petitioner has worked for more than eight years and nine months as daily wager and his appointment was extended periodically every month though the work done by him was perennial , continuous in nature , the Respondent issued periodical orders very month and it is against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and it is his further argument that in the year 1989, he was appointed as Safaiwala in the Scale ofRs . 750-12-870-EB - 14-940 on ad- hoc basis and this was also extended periodically and all of a sudden, they have denied the employment to the Petitioner on and from 1-12-1990 . Therefore , the action of the II Party/ Management in terminating the services of the Petitioner in the above circumstances is mala fide , arbitrary and also amounts to colourable exercise of power.

8. But , on the other hand , the learned counsel for the Respondent contended that the ad -hoc appointment was given to the Petitioner with a condition that his post is only on ad -hoc basisand his claim, if any for appointment to the said post on regular basis would not feasible and further, it is mentioned that the appointment on ad -hoc basis would not be counted for the purpose of seniority in the grade and confirmation . Under such circumstances , the termination on and from 1-12-1990 is only as per the conditions stipulated in the offer of appointment and the Petitioner has also accepted the same and therefore, there is no illegality in termination ofad -hoc appointment ofthe Petitioner.

LTD. NEW DELHI , the Madras High Court has held that "on the date of termination of Petitioner's service, the post ofmessenger in Madras office was available and the nature of duties performed by the Petitioner in the Madras office of the respondent continued to exist. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the service of thePetitionerwas terminated on the ground that the post ofmessenger in Madras offce ofthe respondent itselfceased to exist and in this case, sub - clause (bb) ofClause (oo) of Section 2 oftheAct will not apply to thefacts ofthe present case. Inotherwords, sub- clause (bb) will not apply to the case of the Petitioner, because the respondents cannot use the terms of employment as a device to take it out of clause (oo) of Section 2 of the Act notwithstanding the fact that the post of messenger in Madras office of the respondent continued to exist even after the termination ofservice ofthe Petitioner. The termination ofservice of thePetitioner in this case amounts to retrenchment within the meaning ofSection 2(oo) ofthe Act and the respondent has not complied with mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act by paying retrenchment compensation to the Petitioner and therefore, the impugned order of the respondent terminating the service of the Petitioner is bad in law and the same is liable to be set aside. " In 1994 II LLJ 373 JAYABHARAT PRINTERS AND PUBLISHERS PVT. LTD . Vs. LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE & ORS. , wherein the Kerala High Court has held in a similar case that" nature ofemployment must be judged by the nature of duties performed and not on the letters issued by employer. If contractual employment is resorted to as a mechanism tofrustrate the claim ofemployee to become regular or permanent against a job which continues or the nature of duties is such that the colour ofcontractual employment is given to take out from Section 2(oo), then such agreement cannot be regarded as fair or bona fide and Section 2(oo) (bb) cannot be extended to such cases where the Job continues and the employee's work is also satisfactory but periodical renewals are made to avoid regular statusto the employee. " In AIR 1999 SC 1540 M C DOVS . PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN, the Supreme Court has Held that "as such a stand was taken , it is obvious that the termination order based on misconduct is not the result 9. On behalf of the Petitioner, it is contended that it was told by the Respondent/Mangement orally that they have enquired with the police department and on their veri- fication, it was found that the Petitioner has paid a fine of Rs. 100/ - under Section 75 of C.P.Act and hence , he has been terminated from service . But , it is also admitted in Counter Statement that the 1st Respondent sent a letter dated 21-4-90 to the Commissioner of Police and requested him to verify the character and antecedents of the Peti- tioner to find out the suitability of his appointment in the Central Govt . service and the Commissioner of Police by his letter dated 16-11-90 informed that the Petitioner has once been convicted by Court of Law under Section75 of the C.P.Act and he was also fined with a sum of Rs . 100/- and therefore, the 1st Respondent came to the conclusion that a person like the Petitioner should not be permitted to work in Central Govt . Department even on ad - hoc basis and further the services of the Petitioner was ad -hoc one, they have terminated the services of the Petitioner. Under such circumstances , the learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the termination without following the provi sions of Section 25F of the Act is illegal and the order of 2611 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

appreciate the effect ofSection 294 IPC on to- day's society and its standards , and its changing views ofobsce-nity, The matter unfortunately was dealt with casually at all levels. Further, in that case , the Supreme Court has also opined that " immediate remedial measures are therefore , necessary in raising the toleration limits with regard to pettyoffences especially when tried summarily. Provision need be made that punishment offine upto a certain limit say upto Rs.2000/- or so on a summary/ordinary conviction shall not be treated as conviction at all for anypurpose and all the more for entry into and retention in Govt. service. This can brook no delay whatsoever. " In 1987 II LLJ 78 M. ANJAJAH VS. PRAGA TOOLS LTD. the Andhra Pradesh High Court while dealing with moral turpitude has stated that "every act punishable in taw would not amount to an offence involving moral turpitude. Ifthat had been the intention, then there, is no necessity at allfor statutes to say that a person convicted ofan offence involving moral tirpitude tantinoguespasedito, certain consequences or disqualifications Act must be vile orharmful to society in general or contrary to accepted rules ofrights and qutles between men and men. Merely violation of a particular statue cannot amount to the commission of an act involving moral turpitude.

Relying on these decisions , the learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that in this case , the Respondent/ Management has not issued any memo stating that he has been convicted and his moral turpitude was involved in appointing him on regular appointment. Further, no enquiry was conducted, against the Petitioner for non - absorbing the Petitioner on regular basis . Therefore, they must have taken action against the provisions under Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act , and without following the mandatory provisions, the order of termination passed in this case is void, ab initio and it has to be set aside by this Tribunal

10. But, the learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the appointment given to the Petitioner was only on ad - hoc basis and even in that appointment order, it is mentioned that the appointment is only on ad -hoc basis and he cannot claim the post on regular basis and it is also clearly mentioned in that the ad - hoc appointment would not count for seniority in the grade or confirmation

11. But, I find there is no substance in the contention of the counsel for the Respondent because the ratio disidendi of the Judgement of High Courts and Supreme Court mentioned above have clearly laid down that such practice of the employer should be deprecated and further cannot take advantage of Section 2( 00) (bb) and in this case, the appointment of the Petitioner though is casual it is only violative of Section 2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act

12. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further argued that the juniors of the Petitioner were continued to be employed under the Respondent and they have been made permanent and this will also amount to discrimination and it is against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , of any departmental enquiry against Respondent No. 1 and consequently, the impugned order of termination would fail even on that ground. If it is a simpliciter discharge order it is violative ofSection 25F ofI.D. Act and ifit is a penalty order, as contended by the appellant, it would fail on merits as not having followed the procedure ofdepartmental enquiry. In either view of the matter, the impugned order must be held to be rightly set aside by the Labour Court and the said decision was also rightly confirmed by the High Court. " In 1996 3 LLJ- 1126 the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that " employer had retainedpersons Junior to him and that the action of the employer in giving him appointment for afixed period of89 days with intermittent breaks was not bonafide ...... His service was terminated because it was no more. requiredin the light of embezzlement ofRs 550/-which he committed on 23-9-1986 at Adampur Depot.... We find that on the issue of applicability ofSection 2(oo)(bb) of the Act also, the finding arrived at by the Trial Court is perfunctory and cryptic. The entire approach ofthe labour court depicts a casual approach adoptedby the said court while deciding the dispute . The ID. Act is a welfare legislation which provides the machinery and procedure for investigation and settlement of disputes . At the same time, it confers certain rights on the workmen and protect their service conditions. It also imposes certain obligations on the workmen as well as the employers whichmust befulfilled for maintaining industrial peace . In that case, it is also held that " if the Court finds that exercise ofrights by the employer is not bona fide or the employer has adopted the methodology offixed term employment as a conduct or mechanism to frustrate the rights ofworkman , the termination of the service will not be covered by the exception contained in clause (bb). Instead the action of employer will have to be treated as an act of unfair labour practice as specified in the 5th Schedule oftheAct " In 1980 II LLJ 72 SANTOSH GUPTA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, PATIALA the Supreme Court has held that "discharge ofemployee for anyreason except on the grounds mentioned in the proviso to the definitionwould amount to retrenchment. In 1996 II LLJ 703 PAWAN KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER, the Supreme Court has held that "mere payment offine ofRs . 20/- does not go to show that the conviction was validly and legally recorded. Assuming that the conviction is not open to challenge at the present juncture , we cannot but deprecate the action of the respondent in having proceeded to adversely certify the character and antecedents of appellant on the basis of conviction per se, opining to have involved moral turpitude without satisfying the tests laid down in policy decision ofGovt. We are rather unhappy to note that all the three courts below, even when invited to judge the matter in the said perspective , went on to hold that acts involved in conviction under Section 294 of IPC per se established moral turpitude. They should have been sensitive to the changing perspectives and concepts of morality to [PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2004/JYAISTHA 8, 1926

2612

Date

Ex. No.

Description

29-06-87 Xerox copy of the application givenby Petitioner to Respondent for Group D safaiwala post .

March, 89 Copy of character certificate issued to Petitioner

W4 21-03-89 Order of appointment issued to Petitioner on adhoc basis

30-09-89

Extension order issued to Petitioner /Workman

01-01-90

Extension order issued to Petitioner/Workman

1947. But , he has not produced any document to show that his juniors were appointed on regular basis in the Respondent . The counsel for the Petitioner further argued that a reason for the termination of the Petitioner is that he has been convicted by the criminal court , but they have not given it in writing and even in the Counter Statement they have nientioned that they have obtained opinion from the police department and only on the basis of the opinion of police department, the services of the Petitioner were terminated . But the Petitioner was fined under Section 75 of City Policy Act , which is a minor one. In view of the judgements rendered by the Supreme Court , it cannot be a bar for the appointment of the Petitioner in the respondent and therefore , he prays that an award may be passed in his favour.

01-03-90 Extension order issued to Petitioner/Workman

31-08-90 Extension order issued to Petitioner/Workman

28-11-91 Copy of lawyer notice issued to Respondent by Petitioner 13. 1 find much force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the Petitioner. In this case, the Respondent/Management has not followed the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and no retrenchment compensation was paid and no notice of termination was issued by the Respondent/Management to the Petitioner, which are violative of provisions of the I.D. Act . As such, I find this point in favour of the Petitioner.

W10

Point No. 2

17/21-10-97 Order of Appellate Authority in the case of Sri V.Ramachandran

W11

Failure report.

03-12-92

The next pointto be decided in this case is to what relief the Petitioners are entitled?

28-01-94

W12

Notice issued to Government of Indiaby Petitioner

W13 23-05-94 Notice from CGIT Bangalore to Petitioner

W14 30-05-94 Copy of letter from Petitioner to CGITBangalore

W15 04-06-94 Copy of letter sent by Petitioner to Government of India

W16

14. It is admitted that the Petitioner has been termi- nated from service on 01-12-1990 and now after thirteen years, this Tribunal has to pass an award in favour of the Petitioner to reinstate him in service. Even though the ter- mination is illegal , due to long pendency of this case . I find the Petitioner is not entitled to full back wages and only for 50% (Fifty per cent ) of the back wages. As such an Award is passed directing the Respondent/Management to rein- state the Petitioner Sri M. Mallikarjuna into service with fifty per cent of back wages , continuity of service and other attendant benefits . No Costs .

Copy of Order of reference .

29-04-97

15. Thus , the reference is answered accordingly.

W17 21-10-97 Letter from High Court Legal Aid Centre to Karnataka Legal Aid Centre .

(Dictated to the P. A. , transcribed and typed by him, cor- rected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 10th March, 2004. )

W18

13-11-97

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer

Letter from Karnataka Legal Aid Board.

Witnesses Examined :-

W19 26-12-97

: WW1 Sri Mallikarjuna

Transfer order with regard to ID issued by Government of India.

For the 1 Party/Workman

None

For the II Party /Management

W20

16-12-91

Documents Marked :-

2A petition filed by Petitioner before Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)

For the I Party /Workınan:-

W21

Date

Ex. No.

Description

W1 series

02-11-92 Copy of the Counter filed by Respondent before Regional Labour Commissioner ( Central) Orders of the Respondent engaging the Petitioner as Casual

Labour on daily rated basis.

For the II Party /Management : Nil [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2004

का. आ. 1265.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकाकेन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेशन वर्कशाप ई. एम. ई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संगर और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नम्बर -1 , मुंबई के पंचार्ट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी-61/ 1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-04-2004 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. सं. एल-42012/148 /96 - आई.आर. (डी.यू.) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी New Delhi , the 20 April, 2004 S.O. 1265. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes ' the award (Ref. No. CGIT-61 / 1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. I , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Station Workshop EME and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-04-2004 .

[F. No. L-42012/ 148 /96 -IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I MUMBAI

PRESENT:

SHRI JUSTICE S.C. PANDEY, Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO. CGIT-61/ 1997 PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Station Workshop, EME , Colaba , Mumbai

AND

Their Workmen

APPEARANCES :

For the Management

Shri B.M. Masurkar, Advocate

For the Workman

2613

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

workman Sheri Nand Lal Shripat, Chowkidar without conducting proper enquiry is justified ? If not, to what reliefis the workman entitled to?"

2.The undisputed facts ofthis case are that Nandlal Shripat (hereinafter referred to as the workman) was employed as a Chowkidar at Station workshop EME since 17/11/1981 . His services were terminated by order dated 13thMarch, 1995. The conciliation proceedings before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner ( Central ) were moved on behalf ofthe workman . The commanding officer of Station workshop EME Type L (employer for short ) had disputed the jurisdiction ofthe Regional Commissioner saying that he had no jurisdiction to hear the matter as the employer was not an ' industry ' within the meaning of the Act . The Conciliation failed. Thereafter, the E.M.E. Employees Union moved the Central Government for referring the matter to thistribunal.

3. Pursuant to notice issued by this tribunal, the workman in its written statement stated that he was employed as a Chowkidar from 17-11-1981 . The workman wassuspended on 19-2-1995 . He was accused of theft but he was not given the copy of the charge sheet. The enquiry was held against him without following the established procedure and norms. He claimed that his dismissal was illegal. The union asserted in its rejoinder that this tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the industrial dispute as EME workshop in question was an industrial establishment of the Defence Department of Central Government. The workshop in question was an industry within the meaning of section 2 (j ) of the Act .

Shri Kallapura,

Advocate

Maharashtra,

State

Mumbai , dated the 12th day of October 2002 AWARD PART- I

This is a reference made to this tribunal under section 10(1 ) (d) read with sub - section 2A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act for short ) by the Central Govt . for giving an award on the following question referred by it .

"Whether the action of the management of Station Workshop EME in terminating the services of the

4. The written statement filed on behalf of the employer was to the effect that workshop in question was not an industry. After reciting the history of the.creation work it was stated that EME Station workshop in question is designated as such in 1965 in its present form the workshop performed the work of repairs of vehicles tecom equipments , Electro medical and Dental equipments . Small Arms, Kinema equipments , Engineering equipments , and other electrical job works . It also did the work of welding, painting , buffing and wood work carpentary etc. for the defence purposes: It's work done for Arnty, Navy, Armed Force , N.C.C. and D.G.D.A establishment. It is not an industry because it is performed the sovereign functions of the State . On merits ofthe case itwas stated that the workman was apprehended when he was in the process of stealing certain items kept in a Jonga Jeep belonging to United Nation at about 0.15 hours on 19th February 1995. The workman was relieved from his duties at about 23 hours in the night on 18th February 1995. After he passed the main gate of organization he returned back with a civilian named Sandeep Sakry Yeole . He was caught red handed by the sentry on duty Naik Shelke Ashok Ram Ramu and Chowkidar K.D. Jadhav. It is alleged Sandeep Sakru Yeole gave his confessional statement exhibit A in writing and Nand Lal gave Exhibit B 2614

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2004/JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]

tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate . If the answer is opposite, then this tribunal shall dispose of industrial disputes on merits.

7. The status of the workshop at the time ofdispute is stated in paragraph 4 and 5 of the written statement .

as his confessional statement . The workman was suspended there. It is alleged a departmental enquiry was held . The pleadings regarding the D.E. were to the effect that workman was served with charge sheet dated 20-2-1995 which he refused to accept . Thereafter , the enquiry was instituted. An enquiry committee of three persons headed by Captain B.K. Nair was constituted . Naik Subedar Mahesan K. was appointed as the Convening Officer . The delinquent was given a defending officer. In paragraph 11 of the statement it is stated as follows :

"4. The workshop was re -organisedby the Ministry ofDefence between 01 May 1965 to 30 September , 1965 and as a result, the base repair element of the workshop was disbanded . Outstation base repair commitments other than those ofKinema were either cancelled or transferred to other Base Workshops . The workshop was then designated as Station Workshop EMB Type " L" on 01 October, 1965 .

5. Posted Strength of Workshop : The posted strength of Station Workshop EME Colaba , Mumbai -5 is as under

" 11. The Departmental enquiry was conducted in which P - No . 1025 Chowkidar Sri Nand Lal Shripat andhis co-accused Civilian Shri Sandeep Sakru Yeole were presented before the Presiding Officer to give their confessional statement in the presence of two other members of the Enquiry Committee and his DefendingOfficer . Since the workman confessed to the charges framed against him . "

Offr

Other Ranks

JCOS/ Supervisor/

Combatants

146

Civilian Staff

ROLE

PEACE

The role of this Station Workshop is :-

It is further pleaded that since the workman had confessed to his guilt , it was considered not necessary to supply a copy of the report ofthe enquiry officer . However , the workman was served with a copy of the order dated 13th March , 1995 along with the report ofthe enquiry officer. Thereafter, considering the explanation of the workman an order dated 13th March , 1995 Exhibit J was passed removing the workman from service.

To provide light and field repairs to all type of vehicles/ equipment held by the Army, Navy, NCC and DGQA establishments of Ministry of Defence located in the station as under :-

Vehicles

3 ton 34 ton TATA, Truck 1 To NSN, Jeep Jonga /Gypsy Amb/Buses / Motor Cycle , Light RecoveryVans/Tractor/Fork Lifter Fire fighting vehs .

Telecom Eqpts

Radio set VA Mk II , PRC - 25 , Mine Detector, Telephone Set.

Instruments Eqpts

NonElectro Medical Equipments , Electro Medical Equipments, Field Inspection , PNVDS, Dental Eqpts!

SmallArms

5. The workman filed a rejoinder reiterating the fact that EME Station workshop is an industry . The workman appears to have asserted that workman had no intention to steal anything on 19-2-1995 . The confessional statements recorded on 20-2-1995 were under severe beating and third degree methods employed by military guards . Both the persons were kept in a cell and had signed papers out of helplessness and fear of life . The workman denied that he was served with a charge sheet . It was denied that an enquiry was held . It was pleaded that no enquiry was held to ascertain their facts . It should not be conducted to obtain confessional statements . It was denied that any enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer . The so called enquiry report was not enquiry report . It recommended handing over the case to police . No conclusion was drawn in the enquiry. The order of dismissal was not based on any conclusive finding against the workman.

Self Loading Rifle , Light Machine Gun, Carbine Machine , Bolt Action , Piston , Racket Launcher, Mortars .

KenemaEquipments

Projector 35mm, Projector 16mm, Theater Type Solid State amplifier, Step down transformer, Speaker Box.

Engr. Equipments'

FIP (Fuel InjectorPump)

Electrical Eqpts

Armature Winding , Alternator Repair, Bty Re- charging andElectrical Job work.

6. Before we embark upon the questions relating to validity of domestic enquiry, it is essential to determine, if the station workshop EME Type ( L) falls within the definition of Industry as defined under section 2(J) of the Act . The matter goes to the root of the jurisdiction of this tribunal . It is in the fitness ofthings that this tribunal must determine its own jurisdiction before it decides the case on merits . It would not be gainsaid, that once this tribunal comes to the conclusion that employer is not an ' industry' the reference has to be answered by saying that question referred to this tribunal does not relate to an industry and as such, is not an industrial dispute . Consequently, the 2615

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Ancy Section

The undermentioned works are being done in Ancy Section Welding Plant , Turner, Buffing, Painting and Decorating , Carpenter work, Metal- Metalsmith work, Upholster work .

establishment of defence department . It employs personnel aswell as civilians. The workshop performs the repair work for Army, Navy and Air force in respect of vehicles and equipment mentioned in paragraph 4 of the written statement . The aforesaid work is also done for other defence related establishment like NCC and DGDA .

8. The workman in its rejoinder paragraph 2, and 3 has submitted that the workshop is an industrial establishment carried out under the authority of Central Govt. under Ministry of Defence. It is covered by the Factories Act . Regular elections are held by the establishment for holding posts of Works Committee as per rules framed under the Industrial Disputes ( Central ) Rules 1947. The workman denied the knowledge of facts stated in paragraph 2 to 5. In other words , the workman admitted the paragraph 4 and 5. That apart , Major Vashisht had filed affidavit in support statement in paragraph 4 and 5 of the written statement.

12. The first question that is to be asked is whether the triple test laid down by the Bangalore Water Supply (supra) are fulfilled . They are ( i ) Systematic activity (ii ) Co- operation between employer and employee ( iii ) production or distribution of goods and services calculated to supply human wants and wishes . It is apparent that pleadings of the employer that there is systematic activity of repair and there is co-operation between the employer and the employees. The work of ' repair' of vehicles and instruments amounts to distribution of service to satisfy human wants . Then' prima facie ' the workshop is an industry. Probably, therefore, it was registered as a ' Factory ' under the Factories Act. It is, however, argued that the workshop is confined to the purpose of defence equinments for the three wings of the armed forces . Firstly, s argument is not factually correct . The establishment like NCC or DRDA may be defence related establishments , but they are independent entities and not part and parcel of armed forces . That apart , even if the work is done for repair of defence related equipment it cannot be said that workshop ceases to be an industry. This tribunal is of the view workshop not a 'defence establishment ' in the sense it has an identity of its own . It is a workshop like any other workshop which carries on the work of repair of particular type of vehicles and equipments . It is an undertaking. It has been stated by the Supreme Court in paragraph 47 of the Bangalore Water Supply at page 375 as follows:

9. The witness examined by the employer Manoj Kumar Vashisht who filed the affidavit in support para 4 and 5 of the written statement has stated in the cross- examination that workshop is governed by Factories Act . He admitted that a working committee was constituted but unable to say under what rules it was constituted. On the other hand Rajendra Ghatge stated that he was unaware if the workshop was governed by the Factories Act but readily admitted that the working committee was constituted as per rules framed under the Act. The workman had stated in paragraph 4 of his affidavit that he affirmed the statement made by him in his statement of claim and rejoinder and same be treated as part of his affidavit . Thus , workman has not been cross - examined on the aforesaid two questions . Therefore , it is fair to hold that hither to before the workshop was being treated as a factory and employees elected a works committee as per rules framed under the Act . However , from the finding recorded above it cannot be concluded that the workshop is an ' industry' . All that can be said that hereinbefore the workshop was being treated as Factory. Further that the working committee was constitued on the assumption that the rules framed under the Act were applicable to the workshop.

47. Although we are not concerned in this case with those categories of employees who particularly come under departments alleged with the responsibility for essential constitutional functions of Government, it is appropriate to state that if there are industrial units reparable from the essential functions and possess an entity oftheir own it may be plausible to hold that the employees of those units are workmen and those undertakings are industries . A blanket exclusion ofevery one ofthe host ofemployees engaged by Government in departments falling under general rubrics like , justice, defence, taxation, Legislature, may not necessarily be thrown out of the umbrella of the Act. We say no more: except to observe that closer exploration , not summary rejection is necessary.

10. The answer to the question depends upon the interpretation of the words industry under 2 ( J) of the Act read with allied provisions thereof. Fortunately, it is not necessary to make fresh attempt to interpret the definition again. It was pointed out by the three judge Bench of the Supreme Court in General Manager Telecom V/s . Srinivas Rao 1998 1 LLJ - 57 that the Banglore Water Supply and Sewage Board vs. A Rajappa and others 1978 I LLJ 349 holds the field, Consequently, it is not possible to deviate from the view taken by the majority in that decision. The tests laid down in the leading judgment given by Justice V.R. Krishna İyer have to be followed.

13. The argument that this workshop is used for sovereign functions or ' essential constitutional function' ofstate is metby saying the workshop is a severable unit . One of essential functions of the state may be the defence of the state. But the maintenance of the vehicles and equipment used by defence personnel is not neccessarily part and parcel of defence of State . It may be conceived that this kind of work can be performed by a workshop 11. It may be readily seen from the pleadings and evidence of the employer that the workshop is an 2616

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] owned by a private owner and the activity of the workshop of a private owner would not cease to be an industry - for reason it is repairing the vessels and the equipments used byArmed forces . The workshop is a different and severable unit . This tribunal quotes the relevant summary of the conclusion of Supreme Court from paragraph 131 at page 405 ofreport:

IV. The dominant nature test :

(a) Where a complex ofactivities, some ofwhich quality for exertion, others not, involves employees on the total undertaking, some of whom are not 'workmen' as in the University of Delhi case or some departments are not productive of goods and services if isolated, even then, the predominant nature of the services and the integrated nature of the departments as explained in the Corporation of Nagpur will be thee truet test. The whole undertaking will be ' ina try' although those who are not 'workmen by definition may not benefit by the Status .

(b) Notwithstanding the previous clauses , sovereign functions, strictly understood, alone qualifyfor exemption , not the welfare activities or economic and adventures undertaken by Government or statutory bodies.

(c) Even in departments discharging sovereign functions, if there are units which are industries and they are substantially severable, then they can be considered to come within S.2 (j ).

(d) Constitutional and competently enacted legislative provisions may well remove from the scope of theAct.

The case ofworkshop is definitely covered by clause (c) if not by clause (b) . Accordingly , this tribunal holds that the workshop is an industry.

15. The preliminary issues that are to be decided if the workman was given reasonable opportunity during the course of enquiry. Firstly, we must look into the charge sheet . The workman stated in his evidence that he washot servedwith the copy of the charge sheet. 'The charge sheet has been placed on record marked (Ex - D) in the statement ofclaim. There is endorsement of refusal by the workman on this document. Major Vashisht had not deposed about service. Nobody has been examined on behalf of the employer for proving that workman had refused to accept the charge sheet. The affidavit filed by M. Shivraj was withdrawn as per order sheet dated 25-2-2002 . The affidavit ofR. V. Ghatge was filed. He stated that he had knowledge about facts of case from the documents of the employer. He did not personally deal with the case . The result is there is no denial on oath by examining a person who knew

about the fact of service . In fact , the enquiry can be held to vitiated because refusal was not proved. The workman has further stated there was no enquiry. Even on this aspect of matter, nobody was examined . Thus strictly speaking there is no proof that enquiry was held. This could be proved by examining any person who was present in the enquiry. The third aspect is that even if be proved, that the enquiry was conducted as per papers filed by the employer, the evidence on record, shows that workman was not given proper opportunity to defend himself. It is true that there was some person named as a defence representative by name Salve. There is nothing on record to show that he was given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses W1 Ashok Shelke, W2 K.D. Jadhav, W3 K.D. Dutta , W4 Mahadesan K. , W5 Subedar Major M. Ramaswami who would be the witness of the employer. Nandlal has been examined as W6 . He was question a manner of another inquisition by the enquiry office after witness Sandeep Sakru Yeole ofthe coloyer was examined as witness No. 7. He was allegedly he accomplice of the workman. He too was interrogated the Enquiry Officer. There is nothing to show that the dance representative was allowed to take part in the procthe procedings and cross- examined the witnesses for the employer. In fact Nandlal should have been given an opportunity to cross -examine all the witnesses of employer . Then he should have been asked to lead evidence in or give his explanation to the evidence lead against him . It appears that no real opportunity was given to Nandlal to defend. In fact Rajendra Vinayak Rao Ghatge in cross-examination admits as much as that the workman was not given a defence representative . As to his testimony that C.S. Salve did not ask question in cross -examination the record does not show that he was ever asked to cross examine and he declined to do so . Moreover appointing a person as defence representative who set like a statue , during the course of enquirywithout taking any part in it, would not amount to giving real opportunity. It must be presumed that an illiterate person like the workman was entitled to be defended by a competent person who had full knowledge of his duties and not by a person who was incompetent or not interested in the fate of the workman . There is nothing on record to show that workman had asked to be represented by Salve . The Articles of the chargesheet did not state that the workman was charged for actual commission of the theft. The case against him was that he attempted to steal some article from Jonga Jeep along with Sandeep Sakhru Yeole on 19-12-1995 . The finding is that the workman was responsible for stealing the property and attempting to steal the property. The conclusion is that " A serious departmental disciplinary action be taken against Chowkidar Nandlal after that the case be handed over to Civilpolice for action against him and Sandeep Yealekar. The police did not take any action in the matter . This fact is also not disputed. It appears to this tribunal that no proper enquiry was held against the workman.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

16. However it has boon urged before this tribunal that apart from enquiry the confessional statement ofNandlal Chowkidar immediately at the time of apprehension should be considered for justifying the order of dismissal . In the opinion of this tribunal the confessional statement of Nandlal Chowkidar filed as annexure B cannot be considered at this stage for reason the workman had filed his affidavit only against the conduct of enquiry as he was dismissed pursuant to the enquiry. He stated in his affidavit that his statement of claim and rejoinder be treated as part of the affidavit . He had pleaded in his rejoinder that the confession was obtained under threat and coercion . In such circumstances the employer cannot fall back upon the confessional statement made prior to the holding of enquiry. This question whether the confession was voluntary or otherwise can be decided after the evidence is led on merits.

17. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that the entire enquiry held against the workman and the consequential order of dismissal dated 13th March 1995 i8 hereby set aside.

18. During the course of the arguments , the learned counsel for the employer submitted that the employer wants to lead evidence to prove the charges against the workman . This request has to be granted in view of the Supreme Court Judgement in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Companyvs. Ludh Budh Singh 1972-1 -LLJ 180. It has been held in that employer is entitled to make the request before enquiry is closed . Accordingly, the case is now shall be fixed for granting opportunity to the employer to prove the charges against workman .

2617

भारत का राजपत्र । मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

(the Act for short ) by the Contral Govt. for giving an award on the following question referred to it .

"Whether the action of management of Station Workshop EME in terminating the services of the workman Shri . Nandlal Shripat , Chowkidar without conducting proper enquiry is justified ? Ifnot, to what relief is the workman entitled to?"

2. The undisputed facts of this case are that Nandlal Shripat (hereinafter referred to as the workman) was employed as a Chowkidar at Station Workshop EME since 17/11/1981 . His services were terminated by order dated 13th March 1995. The Conciliation proceedings before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner ( Contral) were moved on behalfof the workman. The commending officer of Station Workshop EME Type L (employer for short) had disputed the jurisdiction of the Regional Commissioner saying that he had no jurisdiction to hear the matter as the employer was not an' industry' within the meaning of the Act. The Conciliation failed. Thereafter , the E.M.E. Employees Union moved the Central Government for referring the matter to this tribunal .

S.C. PANDEY, PresidingOfficer

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.I MUMBAI

PRESENTI

SHRI JUSTICE S.C. PANDEY, PresidingOfficer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-61/1997 PARTIES !

Employers in relation to the management of Station Workshop , EME, Colaba, Mumbai AND Their Workman

APPEARANCES !

For the Management Mr. K.S. Kallapura, Adv. For the Workman : Mr. B.M. Masurkar, Adv.

: Maharashtra .

State

Mumbai , dated the 31st day of March 2004

AWARD PART- II

1. This is a reference made under section 10 ( 1) (d) read with sub -section ( 10 ) 2 - A of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 1567GI/2004-13

3. Pursuant to notice issued by this tribunal , the workman in its statement of claim stated that he was employed as a Chowkidar from 17-11-1981 . The workman was suspended on 19/2/1995 . He was accused of theft but hewas not given the copy ofthe charge sheet . The enquiry was held against him without following the established procedure and norms . He claimed that his dismissal was illegal. The union asserted in its rejoinder that this tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the industrial dispute as EME workshop in question was an industrial establishment of the Defence Department of Central Government . The workshop in question was an Industry within the meaning of section 2 (1 ) of the Act . In the written statement of Station Workshop EME it was asserted that the Workshop was not an industry within the meaning of Section 2 (J) of the Act . On merits , it was asserted that the domestic enquiry was just and proper.

4. By Award Part I dated 12th October 2002, this tribunal held that employer was an industry and the domestic enquiry was bad in law. The employer was given an opportunity to prove charges:

5. It is therefore, necessary to state only these facts in this case whereby the charges framed against the workman are sought tobe proved. According to the written statement of the Employer the workman was given charge- sheet dated 19-2-1995. The purport of the chargesheet was that on 19th February 1995 he was caught at 0015 hours along with one civilian Sandeep Sakhru Yoole , when both of them were in the process of stealing the items from Jonga Jeep belonging to United Nations. It was alleged that workman was off duty at the relevant time . Both the persons were apprehended by Naik Ashoke Ramrao Shelke (the sentry) and K.D. Jadhav Chowkidar, when they tried 2618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] to steal certain items from the Jonga jeep belonging to United Nations . It was alleged that the workman was relieved from his duty of chowkidar of the EME workshop at 23 hours in the night on 18th February 1995. He returned back to steal the items. He confessed that he was guilty and gave in writing Exhibit B. Sandeep Sakhru Yeole gave this confession Exhibit A. Thereafter, the workman was subjected to enquiry which has been set aside by Award Part I dated 12th October 2002 .

6. The workman in his rejoinder had denied the allegations made against him as per charge sheet. It was claimed by him that he did not leave the premises after duty hours. He remained in the premises at the request of his immediate superior who wanted him to take out a bottle of alcohol . He claimed that he was caught because of suspicion . He was given severe beating thereafter. He was asked to sign certain statement under threat to his life. He was kept in a cell and the military guards gave him beatings. He claimed that he was unconscious and signed the paper supplied to him which are being produced as his confessional statement .

Ramana Shelke stated that the workman and another person caught when they were standing inside the outer gate and outside the inner gate . He stated that the outer gate was not locked but the inner gate was locked. He specifically stated onbeing told by Mr. Jadhav, he went near the two persons . They tried to run away. He caught them and handed over to Guard Commander. He stated that nothing was found on the person of the two delinquents. This evidence does not show that the workman and another civilian were caught in the process of stealing parts of Jonga Jeep. Ashoke Ramrao Shelke is totally silent about it. Now if we see the versions of Nandlal Shripath, the workman, in cross examination, it would be clear that he denied that he had come with Yeole from outside. He had stated that he was inside the prohibited area after finishing the duty. He denied that he had come near the wire fence where the Jonga Jeep was kept along with Yeole . He stated that another person was caught also but he was unknown to him. He said specifically, that confession was extracted from him under threat and duress. He stated that he was threatened with physical violence in the court of enquiry.

7. The issue which has to be decided now is:

Whether it has been proved by the employer that the workman was caught red handed when he was trying to steal the parts of Jonga Jeep belonging to the United Nations which was stationed in the premises under the Commanding Officer EME workshop?

8. The employer has examined two witnesses ( 1 ) Captain Ashish Vasudeva and Ashoke Shelke . The workman entered the witness box in defence of his case . The examination in chief of two witnesses was done by way of affidavit . They were cross examined by the counsel for the workman . Thereafter, the employer closed his evidence . The workman filed his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. He was cross examined by the counsel for the employer . Thereafter , he closed his case .

9. Now the evidence of Captain Ashish Vasudeva cannot be of any help. He has tried to prove the documents filed during the course of enquiry as a part of official record. The entire affidavit of Captain Ashish Vasudeva is without any significance when he admits in cross examination that he had no personal knowledge about the veracity of the contents ofdocuments filed by him alongwith his affidavit . Therefore, he only proved that the documents were filed during the course of enquiry. Since that enquiry has been set aside the documents on which the employer could be proved by the person before whom the confession was made, recorded and signed by the workman . It has not been proved by Captain Vasudeva's evidence that these documents give factually correct account. Moreover , the workman has been deprived of his right of cross examination of the concerned witness to disprove statement made in the documents . Therefore , this tribunal holds that Ashoke Ramarao Shelke is the only witness who has been examined to prove charge against the workman. Ashoke

Thus, from the evidence on record, it appears that the workman was apprehended within the prohibited area atabout 11.45 PM or 12 PM on 18-2-95 . There was another person caught with him. This is all that Ashoke Ramrao Shelke stated. Both the persons were handed over to Guard Commanders. There is nothing to show that these persons were trying to steal anything from Jonga Jeep . The workman has denied the suggestion that he was caught near the wire fence where Jonga Jeep was kept. This question was put to him though Shelke did not say so . The confession has not beenproved by examining the person before whom, the confession was made. However, the workman stated that he had made confession under threat and coercion. There is no evidence led by the employer to say that facts were otherwise. The version of the workman is accepted as it is within the pre ponderence of probability especially whenthere is nobody to rebut it. Therefore, all that is proved before this tribunal that workman was apprehended within an hour ofbeing relieved from duty in the prohibited area . One more person was also apprehended . Both tried to run away from spot . They were handed over to Guard Commander. The confession of the workman has not been proved to be voluntary, without threat or promises . This tribunal finds that the charge of attempting to steal parts of Jonga Jeep has not been proved. It has also not been proved that workman and the other person Yeole had jointly entered the premises having a common plan in their minds . It may be that they tried to run from the spot . Even this question was not put to the workman . However , standing in a prohibited area belonging to armed forces itself could entail fear of punishment and therefore , the workman tried to run not because he was in the process of stealing Jonga Jeep parts. Thus, the charge against the workman as framed by employer has not been proved .

2619

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

The Ministry of Labour byûts letter No. L- 16012/2/94/IR (DU) Central Government has referred the following point for adjudication. The point runs as hereunder:-

"Whether the action ofthe management ofManager, Govt. of IndiaPress is justified in imposing penalty to Shri Dhir Singh of reduction of pay to Rs. 1250/- permonth in the time scale ofpay Rs. 950-20-1150- EB-25-1500 for three years w.e.f. 1.8.1991 and also in ordering that the workman would not earn increment ofpay during the reduction period and also giving effect ofpostponing his future increments ? If not. to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?" 11. The next question is that has to be decided now , is regarding the relief to the workman, It is apparent that workman was caught in the prohibited area when he was offduty. Another person was also caught along with him . Under these circumstances , it would not be proper to hold that workman is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages . The fact that workman was found within the prohibited area is borne in mind for moulding relief to the workman in accordance with the ends of justice . This tribunal, therefore , holds that the workman is not entitled to back wages .He is entitled to reinstatement alone from the date of dismissal . He will be entitled to other benefits apart from the wages for the period for which he was not allowed to serve . He shall be given the benefit of seniority increment of pay etc. to date of this award as if he was in service . No costs .

12. The reference is answered by stating that the workman is entitled to relief as stated in paragraph 10 above .

S.C. PANDEY, Presiding Officer

The workman has filed statement of claim. The workman was working as Binder Grade - II in Govt. of India Press, Ring Road, New Delhi. The workman has been charged that he had manhandled and slapped Shri R. Kunjithapatham the then Manager of Govt . of India Press , Ring Road on 26.10.1989 and he was suspended on 27.10.1989. The enquiry was ordered by the Director of Printing. The enquiry was held by the Dy. Director (Admn . ) .

नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल, 2004

It has also been submitted that the enquiry officer was of the rank of the Manager because Dy. Director is equivalent to the rank of the Manager of the Press . One of the parties was the Manager of the Press . It is expected that the enquiry officer should be of the rank above the persons involved in the enquiry. The workman was not allowed to have the defence of his own choice although he requested the enquiry officer to do the needful .

का. आ. 1266.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत सरकार मुद्रणालय के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नम्बर- II, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 68/95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-04-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. सं. एल-16012/2/94- आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 29th April, 2004

The enquiry was done exparte. The two of the prosecutive witnesses i.e. Shri Om Parkash, Peon and Shri Man Singh, LDC clearly told that the enquiry officer that the story of slapping or manhandling Shri R. Kunjithapatham is cock and Dull story which was preplanned andwhole of the statements were prepared at Manager's residence . This shows that the witnesses were forced to give their statements forcibly .

S.O. 1266. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 68/95 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. II , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Government of India Press and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on28-04-2004.

[F. No. L- 16012/2/94-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

It has been further submitted that Shri Dhir Singh hadbeentaking part in the union activity for a long period and in that particular year. He was not the office bearer of the union . The management had personal grudge against theworkman and they got the chance and made false cases against him and punished him due to their own revenge and as a result of the enquiry. His three increments were reduced and stoppage of three increments for ever. Two increments of the suspension period have also not been given.

ANNEXURE

It has also been requested that the period of suspension he regularised and he may be made full payment with interest.

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL : CUM LABOUR COURT- II, NEW DELHI

L.D. NO . 68/95

Presiding Officer : R.N. RAI

In the Matter of:-

Dhir Singh

The management has filed written statement . In their written statement, it has been stated that sufficient time and opportunity to prove his case in the enquiry proceedings but he failed to do so . He cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrongs .

Versus

Govt. of India Press

That the punishment awarded is just, fair and lenient in view of the gravity of the offence and inconsonance 2620

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2004/JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

[PART I -SBC, 3 (11) ]

On 24, 10,90, 8/Shri Sudarshan Lal . B.S. Tajale and Shri Man Singh was held and copies of the evidence were given to Shri Dhir Singh . Shri Singh did not oross-examine the witnesses and the evidence of three witnesses were closed. On 1.11.1990 , Shri Singh delivered a letter and copies to I. C. and P.O. that he intended to sook the services of Shri Y. S. Siddiqui , Accountant , O/ o the AGCR as his defence Asstt. He was told that enquiry officer could not goonon postponing the Inquiry because the charged official had not found a defence Assistant .

with the discipline among staff. Principles of naturaljustice have been followed . The then Manager Shri R. Kunjithapatham who was accompaniedby S /Shri Naresh Tyagi , Overseer, D.C. Verma , Lino Operator, Shri Dhir Singh intercepted him Shri Kunjithapatham in a tune of anger questioned him as to why a report furnished by Shri Negi . AM (T) against Shri Bir Singh. Compositor Or. II had been forwarded to the Police Authorities to which Shri Kunjithapatham replied that he had done his duty as head of the office.Hearing this Shri Dhir Singh slapped him on his left cheek and rushed into the press . He was placed under suspension and enquiry was held against him.

The two charges loveled against Shri Dhir Singh are as under-

1. Shri Dhir Singh manhandled and slapped to Shri R. Kunjithapatham , the manager and rushed into the press on 26.10.1989 at 7.15 PM.

Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the records . It is clear from the enquiry itsolf that the workman did not cross - examine any of the witnesses . At least three witnesses were present when Shri R. Kunjithapatham , the thon Manager was slapped. Those witnesses were also examined but he did not cross- examine any of the witnesses . At least in this enquiry, four persons have boon examined who were present on the place of occurrence and they have not boon cross -examined so their examination in chiefwillbe road in evidenco .

2. Shri Dhir Singh absented himselfunauthorisedly from his working seat in the Hindi Section from 6.15 PM to 7-30 PM on 26.10.1989.

Shri H.A. Yadav, Jt . Director was nominated as ad- hoe Disciplinary Authority under the Presidential order issued vide Ministry of Urban Development . Thereaftor Shri Rajinder Singh , Dy, Director (Admn. ) was appointed as Inquiry Officer in this case.

The first enquiry was held on 19-07-1990 . The Inquiry Officer requestedto Shri Dhir Singh to intimate the name of his defence assistant but did not do so. Moreover Shri Dhir Singh raised the question of appointment of Disciplinary Authority and Inquiry Authority. His application/objection in this regard was forwarded to Directorate of Printing for consideration .

The next date of hearing was held on 30-07-1990: Shri Dhir Singh desired the assistance ofHindi Translator (Shri D. P. Mishra , Hindi Translator was called on 19-07-1990 ). Shri Singh was again asked whether he admitted the two charges framed against him. Shri Singh denied both the charges one by one:

The workman has also filed written arguments. The witnesses who were present on the scene of occurrence according to the chargo - shoot have boon examined . It has boon stated in the written arguments that the enquiry officer has not done anyjustice to Shri Dhir Singh by not accoding tohis request for providing the D. Asstt . of his choice . So the enquirywas done ex-parto which is against the natural justice. So the doubt arises on the propriety of the Enquiry Report. It has also been written that Shri Dhir Singh is totally innocent and has been forcibly implicated in the false casos by the management. I have gone through all the papers of enquiry report and it is apparent from the onquiry report itself that principles of natural justice have been followed , copies have been provided to him . Translator has been provided to him. Defence assistant has been provided to him and he was asked several times to cross -examine the management witnessos but he failed todo so as such the enquiry cannot be taken to be ex -parte and against the principles of natural justice. The punishment inflicted on the delinquent workman is not very execessive . He has committed a criminal offence but his only three increments have been withheld with cumulative effect. In the facts and circumstances of this ease, the enquiry is just and proper and is not liable to be set aside on any ground.

The award is replied thus:-

The action of the management of Manager, Govt . of India Press is justified in imposing penalty to Shri Dhir Singh of reduction of pay to Rs . 1250 por month in the time sele of payRs . 950-20-1150 - EB -25-1500 for three years w.o.f. 1-8-1991 and also in ordering that the workman would not earn increment of pay during the reduction period and also giving effect of postponing his future increments.

prayed for: The workman is not entitled to get any relief

The award is given accordingly.

Dated: 19-4-2004

The next hearing was held on 09.08.1990 . On that date Shri Singh did not attend the inquiry on medical ground. He alleged that the Inquiry Officer is biased and appointment of disciplinary authority is unlawful . His application was forwarded . It was considered by the Director of Printing Press but he did not find any truth in the application and it was rejected on 7-9-1990. The statement of Shri Kunjithapatham was recorded. The workman was asked to cross - examine Shri R. Kunjithapatham. He replied thathe would not examine without his defence assistant . His defence assistant met an accident as was told by him. The evidence of Shri Kunjithapatham was closed. On 8-10-1990, Shri Dhir Singh was asked to name his witness but he did not mention the name . He was also requested to cross - examine MW- 1 but he did not do so. Thereafter the witnesses of S / Shri D.C.Verma , Naresh Kumar, Ranjeet Singh and Om Prakash were recorded. Shri Singh again did not cross - examine any of these witnesses . The evidence of four witnesses was closed.

R. N. RAL, Prosiding Officer 2621

भारत का राजपत्र । भई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 29 अप्रैल , 2004

का. आ. 1267. औद्योगिक विषाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ए. एस. आई . के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक बिबाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्यौगिक अधिकरण मम्बर- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 156/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो कैत्रीय सरकार को 28-04-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ फा. से. एल -42011 /22/97 - आई.आर. ( डी.चू. ) ]

कुलदीप राय बर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी

ALC on 17-10-1995 at 11.00 hrs . In the meanwhile, the management terminated the services of all the workmen without taking even prior permission before the Conciliation Officer to teach them a lesson . The dispute has been referred to by the Ministry of Labour . The management has not paid wages , compensation , notice pay and the management has not hold any enquiry. That all the workmen have completed more than 240 days of service and has been working since long time but the management retained junior workmen in service and disregarded the principle of first come last to go thereby discriminated between the workman .

Now Delhi, the 29th April, 2004

That it was further submitted that junior to them S/Shri Dalbir Singh and Surender Prasad who were recruited in the year 1992 and were given temporary status in the year 1994 w.e.f. 1-9-1993 in the pay scale of Rs . 750-940 so violated the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

S.O. 1267, In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 156/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. II , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Archaeological Survey of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-04-2004.

[F. No. L-42011/22/97 - IR (DU) ]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

That the above workman were retained as daily rated on muster roll with a view to deny them the permanent status and privileges for years together which is also unfair labour practice as envisaged in item 10 of Fifth Schedule of Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. It has been further submitted that the management is performing the work of maintenance of building and operation , gardening, monuments, plantations ete . ofArchaeological Survey of India are covered under the definition of 2 (g) of Payment of wages Act and being the workmen under the above Act , the above workmen are covered under Industrial Employment Act.

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL : CUM LABOUR COURT- IL, NEW DELHI

LD. NO. 156/97

PRESIDING OFFICER: R. N. RAL

IN THE MATTER OF :

PUTTI LAL AND OTHERS

The services of the workmen were terminated in violation ofthe standing orders of 1946. The workman were entitled to regularisation as they have done 90 days service but their services were terminated without giving any compensation . They are unemployed and facing starvation due to unfair labour practice adopted by the management.

VERSUS

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court mayplease to reinstate the following workmen:-

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA AWARD

1. Putti Lal

2. BabuLal

3. SatyaDev

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L. -42011 /22/ 97 /IR(DU) dt, 27-09-1997 has referrfed the following point for adjudication . The point runs as hereunder:-

4. Hare Ram

5. Ravinder

6. Phool Kali

7. Khaden Prasad

"Whether the action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India in terminating the services of S/Shri Putti Lal, Babu Lal, Satya Dev, Hare Ram, Ravinder , Khodan Prasad, Phool Kali is just fair and legal ? If not what is the relief the workman are entitled ?"

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement, the management has denied the paras of the statement of claim and has admitted that they were engaged as daily wagers employed as por need of seasonal work in gardens , when the work was completed the daily wage employee were disengaged. There was no appointment letter issued to them . They are the employee of the ASI . The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not The claimant has filed statement of claim. In the statement of claim , he has given the names of 7 workers whose services were terminated on 09-02-1996 and 24-1-1996. They were employed from 1982 till 1990. It has boon further stated that the workmen had raised dispute on22-8-1995 before the Asstt . Labour Commissioner for grant of permanent status and the date was fixed by the 2622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 8, 1926

applicable to them as they were casual seasonal labour. The ASI is not an industry. The workmen have not completed 240 days , as such , 25 (F) is not applicable . The workman has filed rejoinder and in their rejoinder, they have repudiated the allegations of the written statement and have asserted that they were not the casual labourers but their service was broken notionally so that they may not become permanent worker. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1978 I LLJ - 349 has decided the definition of ' industry' . Under that definition, the applicants are the workmen and the ASI is an industry. The workman worked under the HorticultureDepartment.

Heard arguments from both the sides and peruse the written arguments and the documents on record. The learned counsel for the workmen argued that ASI is an industry. In this respect, 2000 LAB IC 613 was cited. Ithas beenheld that Horticulture Department is an industry. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also in CA No. 4375/1990 dt . December, 6 , 1995 has held that Forest Department of the StateGovernment is an industry. If casuals or temporaries are continued for long years , the object manifests itself and no scruting is needed-namely, it was to deprive them ofthe status of permanent employees .

Besides the citations, my attention was drawn to 1997 Supreme Court (L& S) cases 1079. Thisjudgment relates toCooperative Training Institute. in the amended definition of25F, training institutes have not been held industry.

It was submitted from the side of the management that none of the workmen have completed 240 days so Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable to them.

Shri Khedan Prasad worked from 1990 and did not work in any year for more than 146 days as such he is not completed 240 days .

Shri Satya Dev started worked from 1988 but he worked for 106 days for the maximum period .

Similarly Shri Hare Ram started worked from 1989 and he has not also completed 240 days. The maximum period is 127 per year. Smt . Phool Kali started worked in 1990. She has also worked for the maximum period of 148 days. Shri Babu Lal has worked for the maximum period of 138 days in a year. Shri Putti Lal started worked in 1982 and he has also worked for 153 days in one year and in the other years, all the workmen have done about 100 days or 110 days maximum, ranging from 90 days to 130 days . As such 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable. The learned counsel for the workmen said that at least they have completed 90 days , so standing orders of 1946 are applicable . The Standing Orders of 1946 are applicable when appointment letter for permanent post is issued. In this case, no letter for permanent appointment has been issued. As such, standing order 1946 is not applicable . It has been held in 1993 -LLJ - LLJ - I- 35 , in case juniors are promoted and

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii) ] the workmen are on muster roll, 25 (G) is applicable . According to the 25(G) last come first go principle is applied. Since the workman has not worked for 240 days but from the statement given above , it transpires that they have worked from 7 to 8 years and some workmen have worked for 14 years so they spent major part of their life in discharging their duties under the Horticulture Department. At least 25 (G) and (H) are applicable to them. They have been removed and somebody else placed at their places . This amountsto unfair labour practice under Section 2(RA) ofthe IndustrialDisputes Act. The work of the Horticulture Department is of perennial and permanent in nature . They have to employ workmen for maintenance of the garden. The duties of the workmen also shows that they were engaged invarious places but they worked six days in a week and they were not given payment of 7 days . They cannot said tobe the seasonal employees . They are atleast casual labourers and their services cannot be replacedby any other person under the principle last cum finst go This principle has not been followed by the Horticulture Department. As such they have violated 25 (G) and (H) . The applicant deserves to be reinstated at their post of work with 25% back wages and whenever the vacancy is created, they would be given first preference and their services would be regularised . The award is replied thus :-

The action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India in not granting permanent status/ regularisation to S/Shri Puti Lal, Babu Lal, Satya Dev, Hare Ram, Ravinder , Smt. Phool Kali and Khedan Prasad is neither legal norjustified. The workmen are entitled to be reinstated attheir previous post with 25 % back wages and no junior tothem should be regularised. They should be regularised as and when the vacancies arise and the Horticulture Department is directed to create vacancies for regularisation as they have worked for 8 to 14 years in their department. The award is given accordingly.

Dated: 20-04-2004 .

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल , 2004

का. आ. 1268.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेंट्रल 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 नम्बर-2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 108/91) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-04-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. सं. एल-12012/174/91- आई.आर. ( बी. II ) ]

अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी 2623 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

New Delhi , the .. th April, 2004

S.O. 1268.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 108/91) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No. 2 , New Delhi 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 30-04-2004.

[F. No. L- 12012/174/91 -IR (B- II)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIL TRIBUNAL : CUM

LABOUR COURT - IL, NEW DELHI

I. D. No. 108/91

PRESIDING OFFICER : R. N. RAL

IN THE MATTER OF :

K. K. ANAND

VERSUS

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L. - 12012/ 174/91 / IRB - II dt . 19-09-1991 has referrfed the following point for adjudication. The point runs as hereunder :--

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in dismissing Shri K.K. Anand, Clerk from the service of the bank is justified . If not, to what relif is the workman entitled ?"

The claimant has filed statement of claim . In his statement of claim, he has stated that on 10-04-1986 , Shri K.K. Anand, Clerk was served with a Memo under the signature of Shri Naresh Malhotra, Disciplinary Authority, Regional Manager, suspending him from the bank services with immediate effect . He was further informed that it has beendecided to hold the departmental enquiry against him for his involvement in the fraud ofRs. 2000/-and Rs . 1500/ - in HSS accounts of 20871 and 20872 respectively on 6-12-1985 at the Branch Office Parliament Street . Shri K.K. Anand sent reply to that letter and he said that he has nothing to do with the fraud alleged but another memo was served on him on 15-07-1986 which reads as under:--

Ithas been further submitted by the claimant that he has only introduced the account of Mr. Sajid and M.A.Hafis whom I had known to be residing and the address given to the Bank at the time of accounts were opened. I maintain that I had given the correct introduction and I am not aware of the type ofthe investigations made by you in this regard. All that I can say that I was at no stage associated with the so called investigation. As such, introducing ofan account is not an offence in any way. He isnot atall concerned with the withdrawal of money. The charge sheet was served on the workman on 6-6-1983 alleging that he has introduced the account oftwo persons mentioned above . They belong to Lajpat Nagar whereas the bank is in Parliament Street and he has wrongly withdrawn by forging their signatures Rs . 3500/- from account No. 20871 and account No. 20872 on 6-12-1985 by withdrawal forms and to avoid detection simply put up the teller payment stamp on the signature of the account holder appearing on the withdrawal forms . He also in connivance with Mr. M. K. Jain entered the said amount in Teller payment book . However, signatures appearing on the withdrawal forms apparently do not tally with the signatures of the account holders appearing on the specimen signature cards . On close scrutiny of the aforesaid withdrawal forms , it has been observed that the same are written in the handwriting of Mr. K. K. Anand. He has been further charged for standing guarantor for term loans ofRs . 4000/- each raised by Mr. Ramu and Mr. Budha on 13-10-1983 from Branch Office Morigate . In this way, four charges were levelled against him . One for introducing the account, the second for withdrawal of money, the third for making entry in the ledger etc , and the 4th for standing guarantor for terms loan. After serving charge sheet , the enquiry was held. It has been further stated that when the letter was sent for verification of the address . It was reported back with the endorsement left. It indicates that those two persons remained on the address as has been given in their pass book but subsequently, they left the place. It was further submitted that the introduction by the workman is correct . The address of the account holders is correct . Since they had left the place , so the registered letter came back with the endorsement left . One witness from the bank was examined and thereafter, the other two witnesses were also subsequently examined . He has only received information from Mr. Satish Chopra whereas MW-4 has stated in his cross -examination that he did not associate Mr. Anand in the investigations . This indicates that the matter was investigatedby Mr. Satish Chopra and he did not told this fact to Mr. R. K. Nagpal . It has been further submitted that the enquiry officer was first asked to search those person whose accounts were introduced. In case they are found tobe correct persons and they have withdrawn the money themselves , then all the allegations will stand false but the enquiry officer did not pay any head to the request of the workman . It has been further submitted that if a little care would have been taken, those two account holders would "That on 6-6-1983 he introduced and certified the accounts of Mr. M. A. Sajid and M.A. Hafis bearing SavingAccount Nos . 20871 and 20872 respectively. Onhis certificate and introduction the bank opened the above metnioned account . The address given by the Accounts Holders in the account opening formwas C-7/26, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi . On making the enquiries by post as well as by deputing special officer it transpired that there is no such address givenby the account holder."

have been traced and they would have admitted that they 2624

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( 11 ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2004/JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

have themselves withdrawn the amount as the amount was deposited by them and there is no complaint from their side that somebody else has withdrawn Rs . 3500/- from their account . So it is clear that there was no connivance of the other two persons and Asstt. Head Cashier with Mr. K. K. Anand . The other two persons charged for connivance were also suspended but they were made witnesses against the workman under threat of purusation that no action will be taken against them if they depose against Mr. Anand . No person has been examined to prove that he saw Mr. Anand filling the withdrawal form , deposited it, making entry in the cash book. That the enquiry proceedings will show that the bank had not producad any evidence/witnesses who could suggest that he had seen Mr. Anand anywhere near the place where these records were placed or Shri Anand sitting in the Teller cabin or dealing with the customers at any time on that day or taking cash from Mr. Nijhawan , the teller clerk. Even the MW - 7 who is the Chief Manager of the Branch in his cross -examination had confirmed that the Asstt. Head Cashier Mr. M. K. Jain, with whom the bank had alleged connivance of Shri Anand , had paid the money to Shri Ashok Nijhawan, Teller Clerk and an entry to this effect had been made by the Asstt. Head Cashier in his respective book.

It has been further submitted that the Handwriting report was authentie and proved to be a sub - standard one by the management's witness only. The enquiry officer knowing fully this fact blocked the evidence of Shri Satish Chopra, MW- 4 , during the course of cross - examination by the defence , by disallowing a number of questions , put by the defence to MW-4.

It has been submitted that the enquiry officer was not functioning as an Independent authority and was helping the bank by filling up the gaps left over by the presenting officer or by acting himself as a Presenting Officer.

Shri Anand fraudulently and in connivance with Shri M. K. Jain managed to withdraw Rs . 1,500/-from HSS A/C No. 20871 and Rs . 2,000/- from HSS A/c No. 20872 on 6th December, 1985 by withdrawal forms and to avoid detection simply put up the teller payment stamp on the signature of the accountholder appearing on the withdrawal forms.He also in connivance with Shri M. K. Jain entered the said amount in Teller Payment Book . However, signatures appearing on the withdrawal forms apparently do not tally with the signatures of the account holders appearing on the specimen signature cards . On close scrutiny of the aforesaid withdrawal forms, it has been observed that the same are writton in the handwriting of Shri K. K. Anand. In order to withdraw the above mentioned amount, Shri Anand made entries of Rs . 1,500/- and Rs . 2,000/- in respective accounts of HSS lodger. Teller cash payment book and supplementary book. Witnesses were produced from the side of the management and the workman was given sufficient opportunity to cross -examine them. All the withdrawal forms and the withdrawal forms were destroyed. Subsequently, the withdrawal forms were signed byMr. Anand. Charge No. 4 has not been proved and was not held guilty of charge No. 4. In this way, principles of natural justice have been fully followed in this case and the enquiry is quite fair. The workman has filed rejoinder and in his rejoinder, he has denied all the charges levelled against him and he has stated that he was Vice President so the management has the conspiracy to implicate him as he was Vice President of the Association and the Vice President cannot be deemed to have cordial relations with the authorities. As he always took the side of the workman, the workman was treated rudely by the authorities . As such, the entire enquiry has been conducted only to penalize the workman who is quite honest and who is not at all concerned with the withdrawal of amount as has been alleged. He has introduced the signatures of two persons , whowere acquainted with him and their addresses have also not been verified and they themselves withdrew the amount . Thet is why they made no complaint that money has been withdrawn from their account.

That it is quite clear that the enquiry was a mere formality and the entire exercise was an eyewash. The bank had pre - determined the punishment to be awarded to Shri Anand and intentionally appointed an Enquiry Officer from Bombay whose conduet was neither fair nor impartial nor bias - free. The enquiry officer did not confine himself to deal with the scope of the charges with which he was entrusted but travelled beyond that and throughout the course of enquiry proceedings acted on the pre- determined dictates of the management . That the enquiry officer did not present himself as an independent enquiry officer and filled up the gaps in the evidence presented on behalf of the management and acted in a manner not expected from an independent, impartial and un-biased presiding authority. That the act of management in dismissing Shri K. K. Anand notwithstanding constitutes unfair labour practice .

Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the records . The learned counsel for the workman submitted that it was admitted that the account was introduced by the workman but the person whose account was introduced were the correct persons . The above persons were acquainted with Shri Anand and they lived in Lajpat Nagar. Subsequently, they left that place. The cash was received by Shri Nijhawan and not by the workman . The workman was found guilty of charge Nos : 1, 2, 3 and 4 and charge No , 2 to the extent that fictitious credit entries in the ledger account and the fraudulent withdrawal against such entries were made by Shri Anand. So far as charge regarding standing guarantor to the two persons is concerned , it is quite obvious that Shri Anand had stood guarantor for term loan of Rs. 4000/- but there was more than Rs . 5000/- in their account so this charge has no validity. In case there was anything wrong , an FIR should have been lodged and proper investigation would The bank has filed written statement . In his written statement, it has been admitted that Mr. Anand introduced the accounts of Shri M. A. Sajid and Shri M. A. Hafeez bearing HSS account No. 20871 and 20872 respectively.

2625

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ] .

have been made under Section 409 IPC , but since there wasmalafide intention of the management so no FIRwas lodgedbut a domestic enquiry was held. There is no mention ofcharge No. 4. Only findings on charge No. 1 , charge No. 2, charge No. 3 have been given by the enquiry officer.

Ithas been further submitted that the documents were not given to the workman alongwith chargesheet as is evident from the enquiry date 22-09-1986 page No. 5. It has been mentioned that documentary evidence willbe produced during the course of enquiry, the presenting officer had also reserved his rights to produce other documents during the course of enquiry. The name of the witnesses were also to be given during the course of enquiry.

It isestablished law that alongwith the chargesheet, all the documents to be relied upon are to be mentioned and the name of all the witnesses must be given who will depose against the delinquent but in this case alongwith the chargesheet, papers have not been given to the workman so that he could prepare his defence and put questions to them.

1985 by withdrawal forms and to avoid detection simply put up the teller payment stamp on the signature of the account holder appearing on the withdrawal forms . He also in connivance with Shri M. K. Jain entered the said amount in teller payment book . However, signatures appearing on thewithdrawal forms apparentlydo not tally with the signatures of the account holders appearing on the specimen signature cards . On close scrutiny of the aforesaid withdrawal forms it has been observed that the same are written in the handwriting of Shri K. K. Anand . Since Shri K. K. Anand was the principal offender and other two personscons connived with him , so they were inflicted minor punishment . Shri K. K. Anand was the only person who introduced false accounts of two fictitious persons and withdrew money with his own signatures and made entries in connivance with Shri Nijhawan and Shri Jain so the part of Shri Nijhawan and Shri Jain were not so serious . The enquiry officer inflicted the punishment of dismissal on Mr. K. K. Anand and other two delinquents who connived with Mr. Anand were given minor punishment. In writ petition No. 10127 of 1992 , it has been held that the charge sheet should be proper and valid and in case proper and valid charge sheet has not been given, the enquiry will stands vitiated.

It is further submitted that the addresses of the account holders have not been verified . Landlord may have told the new addresses of the account holders and he ought to have been summoned and examined whether they have withdrawn the amount themselves or some other person has forged their signatures but this was not done by the enquiry officer intentionally. It is not possible for Mr. Anand to commit fraud. In this case , nó charge sheet has been shown and no warning has been given to PWs and no oath has also been given to PWs so that they could speak the truth at the time of their cross -examination. It has been further submitted that there were three delinquents who were charge-sheeted on the same very offence but separate enquiries have been conducted against everyone of the three which is absolutely against the concept of the co- delinquent enquiry.

My attention was also drawn to 1991 (2) SCC cases page 635 , it has been held that the evidence which was adduced in support of the charges must be very strong and in case the delinquent has unblemished character. It was argued that Shri Anand , the workman had unblemished character so the strong , proof is required to prove the charges against him . In 1995 (1 ) SC cases , 404, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that all the papers and documents and the names of the witnesses should be given alongwith charge sheet or an opportunity for proper inspection should be given if no such opportunity is given and the papers are not given, the enquiry is vitiated and the order of the findings of the enquiry officer would also be vitiated. In view of the foregoing discussions and the law cited by both the parties, it is evident that Shri K. K. Anand has introduced only two savings accounts . Those persons lived on that addresses according to the endorsement of the registered letters . It is also evident that all the papers were not given to the workman prior to the start of enquiry and alongwith the charge sheet, it is also clear that three persons were involved but separate enquiries were held which is against the principles of law.

In case three persons are involved in the same offence, the enquiry must be started against all the three persons together. There is no provision for holding separate enquiry and make the other co-delinquents . It is of-course natural that if the other two delinquents are suspended and they have been charged with the same offence, ifthey are given assurances that no action will be taken against them, then they would state under the undue influence coercion and direction of the management and their evidence cannot be relied upon.

It isfurther crystal clear that there is no complaint from the side of the account holders that Shri Anand withdrew the amount from their account . In case the account isfictitious, there is no sense in depositing the money in the account and withdrawing the money from the same account. It makes it quite clear that the account holders were the real persons and they withdrew the money from their own account that is why they did not make any complaint . As such, there is no evidence regarding the account holders being fictitious and there is no evidence that Shri Anand withdrew money from their account , as such Heard learned counsel for the management . It was argued from the side of the management that Shri K. K. Anand was involved in acts of omission and commission while working at Parliament Street , New Delhi . He introduced two accounts of fictitious persons and withdrew Rs . 3500/- from those two accounts by forging signatures of the account holders . Shri Anand fraudulently and in connivance with Shri M. K. Jain managed to withdraw of Rs . 1500/- from HSS Account No. 20871 and Rs . 2000/-from HSS Account No. 20872 on 6th December,

1567 GI/2004-14 2626

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, NEW DELHI L D. NO . 63/94

PRESIDING OFFICER : R. N. RAL

In the Matter of:

ARUNA GIRI

VERSUS

the finding of the enquiry officer is based on presumptions and conjectures and has no legs to stand upon. As such , two charges regarding introducing the account and withdrawing the money are not proved by any strench of imagination . So far as the third charge is concerned, he stood guarantor to the term loan of Rs . 4000/ -, there is no offence in standing guarantor to a term loan. In the term loan, the balance was of Rs . 5000/- whereas the term loan was of Rs . 4000/- so there is no charge proved against Mr. Anand. The fourth charge has not been proved.

ANDHRA BANK

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L. - 12012 /7 / 94/IR B - II dt , 22-04-1994 has referred the following point for adjudication . The point runs as hereunder :-

To sum up the enquiry officer has given his finding being biased in favour of the bank and principles of natural justice have not been followed in the enquiry. The enquiry proceedings are fake and deserves to be set aside and the workman applicant is entitled to get relief as prayed for. Since the workman died after sometime, perhaps due to the shock of false allegations against him , his wife is entitled to get all the emoluments as if Shri Anand were not suspended and his services were not dismissed and as if he continued in service till the date of his death.

"Whether the action of the management of Andhra Bank, New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Aruna Giri , Part -time Sweeper w.e.f. 1-2-1993 while the dispute regarding regularisation of his services ispending before CGIT, New Delhi is justified? Ifnot what relief is the said workman entitled to ? " The award is replied thus:

The action of the management of Central Bank of India in dismissing Shri K. K. Anand, Clerk from the service of the bank is not justified . Since he is dead , his wife is perfectly entitled to get all the benefits as if the workman applicant worked till his death.

The award is given accordingly.

The claimant has filed statement of claim. In the statement of claim, it has been stated that the workman performed the duties willingly, faithfully and carefully without giving any cause for complaint . The workman was employed by the Bank as part- time sweeper w.e.f. 01-10-1990. He requested for regularisation but his services were terminated w.e.f. 1-2-1993 . the action of the bank is not justified. He has completed services for more than a year so he could be regularised.

Dated 22-4-2004

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल, 2004

का. आ. 1269.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा-17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आन्ध्रा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय नम्बर- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 63/94 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-04-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. सं. एल-12012/7/94-आईआर ( बी- II ) ]

अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 30th April , 2004

The Opposite Party has filed written statement. In the written statement, it has submitted that the management bank is a public sector bank . The claimant was not sponsored by Employment Exchange at any time and was not engaged as per the laid down procedure. It has been further sumitted that the workman was engaged as a stop- gap measure till the vacancy was filled up as per laid down procedure on permanent basis . The claimant knew that he was not eligible for appointment as his name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and that he was being engaged till the vacancy was filled in properly. The claimant is trying to conceal material facts and mislead this Hon'ble Tribunal . The claim is liable to be rejected on this ground also . It is only the part time sweeper engaged wrongly prior to November, 1988 who were regularised . It was clearly decided/agreed that no such regularisation would be done for any case after the cut off date and no such- regularisation has taken place thereafter. There was no discrimination with the workman. He has got no case as hewas appointed as a part - time sweeper ..

S.O. 1269. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 63/94) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. II, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Andhra Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-04-2004.

[F. No. L- 12012/7/94- IR (B - II) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

The claimant has filed rejoinder . In his rejoinder, he has stated that he has not been even paid one - third wages . He was given no compensation when his services were terminated on 31-1-1993 without assigning any reason and without given any opportunity to show- cause . The termination is quite illegal. That the services of the workman was terminated by an oral order w.e.f. 31-1-1993 without assigning any reason, without any opportunity to show- cause in accordance with the well - known principle of natural 2627

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

justice and without compliance with the mandatory requirements of section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act . The workman was employed from 1-10-1990 and not from 11-5-1991 as has been wrongly stated by the bank. The bank management is , therefore, clearly guilty of violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Dispute Act when his services were terminated . the bank management thereafter appointed another workman in place of Shri Aruna Giri on temporary basis and thus violated Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 also.

with the agreement reached between the Union representatives of the Andhra Bank Employees Union and the management's representatives at the 37th Industrial Relations Committee held at Andhra Bank Central Office, Hyderabad on 11-11-1988 . The said understanding was restricted to only those irregularly engaged temporary employee who had rendered service prior to 11-11-1988. No employee who had been irregularly recruited after 11-11-1988 was regularised and in fact, such persons are not to be engaged and if engaged , the management to discontinue them. The Bank has been very strict about this criteria now and has not permitted regularisation or even continuation of irregularly engaged employees .

The various documents on record filed on behalf of the workman does not make out any case for the grant of any ofthe reliefs has prayed for. Certificate ofthe working days filed does not show a continuous work for the requisite period. It has not been shown that the services of any personhad been regularised after the workman applicant. Rulings citedby the workman are not applicable in the fact and circumstances of this case.

The workman is not entitled to get any relief.

The award is replied thus:

Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record . It has been stated by the management that the workman himself has admitted that hisname was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. His job was for cleaning premises and which used to take near about 1 or 2 hours for cleaning the whole premises. Sometimes he was sent to post the letters and also arrange the dak received in the bank. No appointment letter was given to him . The learned counsel for the workman drew my attention to 2001 LLR-460 . The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that a part time sweeper engaged on daily wages is aworkman. In 1996 , ILLJ , page 706, the Hon'ble High Court has held that part time workman is not a workman. AIR 1960 , Andhra Pradesh, Page 371 , it has been heldthat part time employee is not a workman and Tribunal does not get jurisdiction.

The action of the management of Andhra Bank , New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri ArunaGiri , Part-time Sweeper w.e.f. 1-2-1993 while the dispute regarding regularization of his services is pending before CGIT, New Delhi is justified . The workman is not entitled to get any relief asked for .

The award is given accordingly. Dated 23-4-2004

I have gone through all the citations cited by both the parties but these are not applicable in the facts and circumstances ofthis case. In the written arguments from the workman, the action of the bank in terminating the service ofthe workman w.e.f. 1-2-1993 was illegal and hence unjustified as the same was done in violation of:-

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer a) Para 522 (4) of the SastryAward

b) Section 25F of the Act &

c) Section 33 (I ) ofthe Act .

नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल, 2004 का. आ. 1270.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार कैंटोनमेंट बोर्ड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं० II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 74/91 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-4-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-13012/8/90-( डी-2बी) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी

New Delhi, the 30th April, 2004

S.O. 1270.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 74/91 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court No. II, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Cantonment Boardand their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-4-2004 .

In his statement of claim , it has been stated that he has worked for more than one year but there is no paper on the record which shows that he worked for more than 240 days. It is the submission of the bank that he was appointed on stop-gap measure and when direct recruitment was made, he was asked not to come. It is the duty of the workman to show and prove that he has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year then only his case will be covered up.by Section 25 (F) ofthe Industrial Dispute Act , theworkman has not filed even a single paper which shows that he has worked for more than 240 days and he has done otherwork than sweeping premises. No vouchers , no bills have been annexed with the record . As regards the disengagement of the workman, his employment was only astop gap arrangement as such admittedly no appointment letter was issued . He was specifically informed that the prescribed mode of recruitment has to be adopted and any such candidate should be sponsored by the Employment Exchange , which was not the case of the workman .

[No. L- 13012/ 8/90-(D-2B)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer That some part time sweepers irregularly engaged prior to November, 1988 were regularised in accordance 2628

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2004/JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT- II, NEW DELHI PRESIDING OFFICER : R. N. RAL

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

= duties. The written warning was given to him that this should not be repeated further.

I.D. NO . 74/91

IN THE MATTER OF :

MANMOHAN PRASAD

VERSUS

CANTONMENT BOARD , DEHRADUN

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L- 13012/8/ 90/IR-(DU) dt . 4-6-1991 has referred the following point for adjudication . The point runs as hereunder :-

"Whether the action of the management of Cantonment Board, Dehradun in terminating the services of Shri Manmohan Prasad w.e.f. 4-5-1990 is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?" The workman has filed statement of claim. In his statement of claim, it has been stated that on 5-5-1989, the applicant was appointed as X- ray Technician against a permanent vacancy. The duty hours of the applicant were from 8 AM to 12.00 Hrs . and from 5.00 PM to 6.00 PM.

That on 31-7-1989 he was issued a charge sheet for abusing Smt . Satyawati an other employee while onduty. The charge was vague and it was not a misconduct. It has been admitted that being under the influence of liquor is not a misconductunder the rules nor was it a charge against theworkman.

That an defunct enquiry against the principles of natural justice was held. The Executive Officer issued the charge sheet, and held the enquiry. In the enquiry, he was not allowed to examine himself to prove his innocence nor produce his second witness . The self appointed enquiry officer did not give any finding. He also did not record the proceedings correctly. The applicant did not close his evidence nor did he say that he did not want to produce the second witness. No enquiry report was furnished by the enquiry officer nor a copy of it given to the applicant.

That on 4-5-1990, the services of the applicant were terminated without giving me services compensation and without complying with the provisions of Section 25F. of the ID Act . That the services of the workman were terminated during the probationary period . That the workman was X-Ray Technician Ho'was made to purchase material from the market and perform private work of the Doctor incharge of the hospital .

The management has filed written statement. In the written statement, some of the statements of the claim has been admitted and some has been denied.

That Shri Manmohan Prasad is in a habit ofattending hisduties in a drunken state as reported by Medical Officer, Incharge , Cantt . General Hospital letter dt . 27-12-1988 and 19-10-1988 . Shri Manmohan Prasad admitted that he had consumed alcohol on 23-12-1988 before attending his The workman was found under the influence of alcohol during duty hours and had also abused an Hospital employee Smt. Satyawati, Ward Aya, Cantt. General Hospital during duty hours. The claimant in his written statement has admitted that he was in a drunken stateand he denied that he abused Smt. Satyawati.

The claimant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder he has denied that he is in a habit of attending his duties in drunken state.The workman was not given any warning . It is reaffirmed that being under the influence of liquor is not amisconductunder rules framed by CantonmentBoard.

Theworkman has specifically written in his own handwriting that on 7th of June in the evening, some ofhis relatives had come and he had alcohol with them and he went to duty at 5.00 PM. He has specifically admitted before theEnquiry Officer and admitted that he was under the influence ofliquor but he denied abusing and misbehaving with Smt . Satyawati . In his affidavit, he has written that being under the influence of liquor is not a misconduct underthe rules framed by the Cantonment Board so in his affidavit also he has admitted before the Board that being adrunken state, is not a misconduct under the Cantonment BoardRules .He was terminated from service with immediate effect after the enquiry was held on 4th ofMay, 1990 and it has been written that he has been found unfit, so his services are hereby terminated with immediate effect in accordance with the rules.

Itwas argued from the side of the management that theworkman did not file even appeal. The appellate forum was the proper forum, but he did not file appeal so he could not make reference to this tribunal.

It has been submitted by the workman that in 1991 (1 ) III page, 196, it has been held that if the delinquent has not shown reason against proposed punishment, he could not further take such plea in 1981 - SC , Page 16 , in which it hasbeen held that if the misconduct is committed either in the premises or establishment or in the vicinity thereof, the misconduct would be punishable. From the enquiry report Smt . Satyawati lives in the same campus where the workman worked so he was in a drunken state in the vicinity. According to the Apex Court judgement, Supreme Court cases 1963 is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case . Similarly, ILLJ , 1981 relates to different matters and is not relevant in the facts and circumstances of this case. I have gone through all the citations.The Hon'ble APEX Court has held that delinquent isentitled to get copy of the report . The copy of report has been given to him. The law that has been cited by the learned counsel of the workman are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case . It is admitted that the workman was a probationer. His services could be terminated without holding any enquiry but enquiry was held and he was found guilty of misconduct . He has admitted in his affidavit and during the enquiry that he was in a drunken state . It has been written in the termination 2629

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

principle ofequal pay for equal work isjust fair and legal. Ifnot, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from what date?" order that he is not fit to be retained in service , so his services are terminated. As such, he could not cast any stigma on his career. The workman deserves to get no relief. The award is replied thus:-

The action of the management of Cantt. Board, Dehradun in terminating the services of Shri Manmohan Prasad w.e.f. 4-5-1990 is justified, He is not entitledto get any relief asked for .

Inhis statement ofclaim , he has stated that hewas appointed as daily rated worker on work order basis in NirmanBhawan w.e.f. 1-3-1988 . Since then the workman has been continuously performing the work of skilled category such as for attending to telephone calls, noting downcomplaint, diary/despatch work etc. The award is given accordingly.

Dated: 22-04-2004,

R.N. RAI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 30 अप्रैल , 2004

Theworkmanwas first engaged on work order basis for214days from 1-3-1988 to 30-9-1988 and was paid wages @Rs . 600 per month on hand receipt basis though the workman was entitled to the same salary and allowances which is admissible to his regular and permanent counterparts i.e. the pay and allowances admissible in the scale ofpay ofRs . 950-1500 on the principle ofequal pay for equal work laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their judgement dated 17-1-1986 in Shri Surinder Singh's case.

TheHon'ble Supreme Court in their judgement dated 17-1-1986 has held that:

का. आ. 1271.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी० पी० डब्ल्यू०डी० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में' केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं.- II, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 3/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-04-2004 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. सं. एल-42012/1/97- आई.आर. ( डी. यू. ) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी

New Delhi, the 30th April, 2004

"Wealso record our regret that many employees are kept in service on temporary/daily wage basis without their services being regularised. We hope that the Govt. will takeappropriate action to regularise the services ofall those who have been in continuous employment for more than six months "

S.O. 1271. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. II, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of C.P.W.D. and their workman received by the Central Government on 30-04-2004.

[F. No. L-420112/1 /97- IR (DU) ]

Themanagement has filed written statement . In his written statement , it has been stated that the workmanwas never engaged as adaily rated worker. Works were awarded tohim on work order basis during different periods w.e.f. 1-3-1988.He was paid at his quoted rates . Judgment inthe case ofSurender Singh is not applicable as the applicant wasnever engaged as a daily rated worker in the respondent department.

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, NEW DELHI

PRESIDING OFFICER : R. N. RAI. LD. No. 3/98

IN THE MATTER OF:

The claimant has filed rejoinder. Inhis rejoinder, he has stated that he did work ofa peon also and he remained engaged during the entire duty hours . Though the work orderswere given to him. He was a regular employee . the work order has been filed with the record from November 1988 to November 1993. It means that this workman had worked fromNovember 1988 to November 1993. Heworked previously independently thereafter a name of the contractor was given. Payment to him was made by vouchers as is relevant from the papers filed on the record.

M. N. SINGH VERSUS

C.P.W.D.

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L. -42012/1/ 97 /IR-(DU) dt . 12-12-1997 has referred the following point for adjudication . The point runs as hereunder :-

Heard arguments from both the sides and peruse the papers on the record. It is admitted that the workman has worked continuously whether he has worked as a contract or as a regular employee . This question is to be adjudicated upon. The learned counsel for the workman drew my attention to 1957 SCR 152. The Hon ble Supreme Court has held that the independent contractor is also an employee, covers employee and employer relation between the workman and the employer. It has been also held in this citationthat the main question is by whom the payment is made and by whom the work is watched. In this case, the "Whether the action of the management of CPWD , Executive Engineer, C Division and F Division in terminating the services of Shri M. N. Singh, w.e.f. 3-3-1993 engaged w.e.f. 1-3-1988 on work order, by not regularizing his services w.e.f. 1-3-1988 and by depriving him from payment of wages on the 2630

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 29 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

workman was independent contractor and the other employees of the department watched his work . He got direct payment from the employer so this law is fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.

My attention was drawn to 1990- I - LLJ - 320 . The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there should be equal pay for equal work The workman was performing the work of a peon so he should get the salary ofpeon.

It has been further submitted that in 1986 1 SCR 281 , it hasbeen held that Conciliation Officer binds the workmen and management.

In ( 1955) I SCR 1427 , it is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that agreement is not with independent contractor and also held that the direction and control of appellant and employs for a cash consideration, the employees thus appointed by the servant wouldbe, equally with the employer, servants ofthe master.

In (1957) SCR 152. it has been heldby theApex Court that if a person works under direct control of the management of CPWD and payments were received through them directly, then he should be deemed to be an employee of the employer.

In ( 1974) 1 SCR 747. the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that services are performed generally in the employer's premises, this is some indication that the contract is a contract of service. Further held that if the employer provides the machine and equipment on which the worker works, this is some indication that the contract is a contract ofservice.

Itwas argued from the side of the management that several work orders have been filed and the workman was kept on work order and payments were made by vouchers . Hiswork was extended from time to time and thereafter he was to be under a contractor . The crux of the question is whether the workman worked under the supervision of the employee and he got direct payment from the employee and his work was watched by the employee and he was an independent contractor. In such circumstances , in the context ofcitations referred to above , the workman will be considered as employee and there would be master and servant relation.

In view of the findings of the Apex Court , the workman was an employee of CPWD and he deserves to be reinstated from the date, he joined duty and he should get equal pay as the other employees of his category are getting.

The award is replied thus:-

The action of the management of CPWD , Executive Engineer , C Division and F Division in terminating the services of Shri M.N. Singh w.e.f. 3-3-1993 engaged w.e.f. 1-3-1988 on work order, by not regularizing his services w.e.f. 1-3-1988 and by depriving him from payment of wages onthe principle of equal pay for equal work is neither just and nor legal . The workman is entitled to be reinstated from 1-3-1988 at the post of peon -cum- water man as a regular employee and he is entitled to get the balance amount from 1-3-1988 as the other employess ofhis category are getting.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] The award is given accordingly.

Dated:26-04-2004

R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 30 अप्रैल, 2004

का. आ. 1272.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मध्य रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. - 1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 12/92 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-04-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[फा. सं. एल-41012/ 14/97 - आई.आर. ( डी. यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी New Delhi, the 30thApril, 2004

S.O. 1272.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 12/92 ; of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cua- Labour Court No. -I , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Railway, and their workman, received by the Centra! Government on 30-04-2004.

[F. No. L-41012/14/91 - IR(DU) KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT- 1, NEW DELHI Presiding Officer : Shri B.N. Pandey LD, No. 12/92

1. Shri Dan Singh S/o Shri Pritam Singh and

2. Shri Kshetra Pal Singh Kushwaha S /o Shri Vijay Singh r/o 66 , Hanuman Garh, Bye Pass Road, Firozabad through the President,

Rashtriya Chaturth Shreni Rail Mazdoor Congress , 2/236, Namner, Agra -Workmen

Versus

Deputy C.S.T.E. ( Construction)

-Management Central Railway, Jhansi .

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L -41012/ 14/91 - IR( DU) dated 30-10-91 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the Dy . C.S.T.E. (Construction ) , Central Railway, Jhansi isjustified in terminating the services of S/ Sh: Dan Singh , / o Sh. Pritam Singh and Kshetrapal Singh Kushwaha w.e.f. 19-7-76 ? If not, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?".

2631 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8, 1926

The management has also admitted this fact, therefore, I find that the reference and dispute regarding termination ofservices ofDan Singh has now become infructuous.

2. The workman Shri Dan Singh and Kshetra Pal Singh Kushwaha have challenged their termination dated 19-6-76 on the ground that workman Dan Singh was engaged in Central Railway Jhansi on 1-1-76 and Shri Kshetrapal Singh Kushwaha was engaged on 12-12-75 . Theyworked regularly and completed more than 240 days ofservice till the date of their termination, that on 19-6-76 the management respondent terminated their services without any notice , charge or compensation ; that subsequently on raising industrial dispute workman Dan Singh who was junior to Kshetrapal Singh Kushwaha was further employed by the respondents but despite assurances given by the management representatives they did not engage Kshetrapal Singh in service although one Bachu Singh was subsequently employed on the basis of conciliation proceedings before the conciliation officer although Bachu Singh was terminated from service on 7-9-77 which was subsequent to the termination of Kshetrapal Singh. That the workman Kshetrapal Singh also agreed to leave his back wages in case he is reinstated in service, that the management paid no heed to it hence this dispute has been referred by the Central Govt. The workman further claimed that the retrenchment order was against the provisions of section 25 -F,G and H of the I.D. Act . , therefore, it deserves to be quashed and the workman deserved to be reinstated with all other benefits and back wages.

3. The respondent management filed its written statement contesting the claim of the workman. It is alleged that Kshetrapal Singh Kushwaha did not complete 240 days of service and he himself left service at his own accord on 18-5-76 that no assurance was given to him by the railway to take back Kshetrapal Singh on duty; that it is denied that any demand for grant of temporary status was made by the workman; that the claim is baseless and liable to be dismissed.

8. As regards claim of workman Kshetrapal Singh admittedly he was engaged on 12-12-75 by the management and according to him his service was terminated w.e.f. 19-7-76 although it is denied by the management and according to the management he had left the job on his own accord on 18-5-76 . It is worth to be noted that in para 2ofthe affidavit of MW1 Shri G. C. Gupta it is admitted that Kshetrapal Singh was engaged as casual labourer on 12-12-75. In his cross -examination Shri G. C. Gupta has also admitted that it is correct that Kshetrapal Singh had completed 120 days in continuous service . The workman claim that after completion of 120 days of his service in railway he had acquired temporary status on the basis of Railway Manual. The Management has nowhere alleged nor evidence adduced to show that workman Kshetrapal Singhwas engaged in any project. Therefore , the argument ofthe Management that he could not acquire temporary status on completion of 120 days in view of the Railway Manual cannot be accepted in absence of any pleadings or evidence . There seems to be no reason to disbelieve the workman. According to railway manual a casual labour on open line acquires temporary status on completion of 120 days of continuous employment only. So if according to the management the workman had absented from service onhis own accord w.e.f. 18-5-76 it was obligatory on the management to give notice to him calling upon to join the duties and or otherwise for initiation of discplinary proceedings regarding his unauthorised absence , but nothing was done. Admittedly no notice or notice pay or compensation in view of Section 25F of the I.D. Act was given to workman Kshetrapal Singh before his termination which was mandatory. Therefore , his termination was absolutely illegal and void which cannot be legallyjustified. Admittedly his junior's Dan Singh and Bachu Singh have been subsequently re -engaged ignoring the workman Kshetrapal Singh which was unjustified and against .

provisions of law.

4. The workman also filed rejoinder to the written statement reiterating the earlier versions and denying the contents of the written statement . In support of their case both the parties filed copies of various documents and also affidavits in oral evidence.

5. The Management filed affidavit of Shri G.C. Gupta (MW1/ 1 ) and was also cross -examined. On the other side Shri Kshetrapal Singh Kushwaha filed his own affidavits and was also cross -examined.

9. Inview of the above discussions , I find that the Dy. C.S.T.E. (Construction ) Central Railway Jhansi was not justified in terminating the services of Shri Kshetrapal Singh w.e.f. 19-7-76, therefore , it is liable to be quashed. The workman Kshetrapal Singh Kushwaha has himself not claimed back wages . Therefore , the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits except back wages .

6. I have heard ld. counsel/representative of both the sides and perused the file.

10. In view of the above , claim of Dan Singh has become infructuous and that of Kshetrapal Singh Kushwaha is allowed. The management -respondent shall reinstate the workman Kshetrapal Singh within 30 days of the date ofpublication of the award in the official gazette . Parties shall bear their own costs . Award . is given accordingly.

Dated27-4-04

B. N. PANDEY, Presiding Officer 7. Shri Surender Singh A/R of the workman gave his statement before this court on 27-7-92 which is recorded on order sheet where: in he stated that " I do not press the claim of Dan Singh. Hence the pleadings submitted regarding him should not be read. " It has also come in para 2of the claim statement that on raising industrial dispute workman Shri Dan Singh who was junior to Kshetrapal Singh has been re -engaged in service by the management.

2632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2004/JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल, 2004

justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

का. आ. 1273.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार केन्द्रीय विद्यालय के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जोधपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 23/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-04-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. सं . एल-42012/197/99- आई.आर. (डी.यू.) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th April ,2004

S.O. 1273. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 23/2001 ) of the Industrial Tribunal , Jodhpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of The Principal , Kendriya Vidyalaya , and their workmen , recived by the Central Government on 30-04-2004 .

[F. No. L-42012/ 197 / 99 - IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

अनुबन्ध

औद्यौगिक विवाद अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जोधपुर

पीठासीन अधिकारी: श्रीमती निशा गुप्ता , आर.एच.जे.एस.

प्रार्थी ने अपना माँग पत्र प्रस्तुत करते हुए अभिकथित किया है कि प्रार्थी की प्रथम नियुक्ति 10-3-94 को अप्रार्थी संस्थान में रिक्त पद पर सफाई वाले के पद पर की गई, प्रार्थी ने तुरन्त कार्यभार सम्भाल लिया, प्रार्थी का कथन है कि उसने प्राचार्य मागेन्द्र शर्मा के घर पर 20-5-97 से लेकर 20-9-98 तक कार्य किया, प्रार्थी 15-9-98 को श्री शर्मा के घर पर काम पर नहीं जा सका क्योंकि उसे 14-9-98 को बुखार आ गया, 15-9-98 को जब प्रार्थी स्कूल में उपस्थित हुआ तो उसे हस्ताक्षर नहीं करने दिये गये जिस पर उसने 28-10-98 को नेशनल कमीश्नर मई दिल्ली को एक शिकायत पत्र भेजा, एक शिकायत- पत्र जयपुर भी भेजा जिसपर अप्रार्थी से जवाब माँगा गया तब अप्रार्थी प्राचार्य ने प्रार्थी से कहा कि आप सफेद पन्ने पर अपने हस्ताक्षर करके मुझे दे दो, लेकिन प्रार्थी द्वारा इन्कार कर देने के कारण दिनांक 31-3-99.को उसकी सेवाएँ समाप्त कर दी गई, सेवापृथक करने के संबंध में उस पर जोआरोप लगाये गये वे गलत , मिथ्या व मनगढ़ंत है । प्रार्थी का कथन है किउसे सेवा मुक्त करने से पूर्व कोई नोटिस , नोटिस वेतन व छंटनी मुआवजा नहीं दिया न ही कोई आरोप - पत्र दिया गया व धारा 25 - एफ, 25-जे, व 25 - एच के प्रावधानों का उल्लंघन करते हुए सेवामुक्ति की गई जो अनुचित एवं अवैध है । प्रार्थी का कथन है कि उसने सेवामुक्ति से पूर्वकेकलेण्डर वर्ष में लगातार 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य कर लिया था, सेवा समाप्ति से पूर्व कोई वरिष्ठता सूची नहीं बनाई गई तथा नियम 77 की स्पष्ट अवहेलना की गई । अन्त में निवेदन किया कि प्रार्थी की सेवामुक्ति को अनुचित एवं अवैध घोषित किया जाकर प्रार्थी को सेवा कीनिरन्तरता में पूर्ण पूर्व भृति सहित सेवा में पुर्नस्थापित किये जाने का अधिनिर्णय पारित किया जाये ।

औ.वि. (केन्द्रीय) सं.:- 23/2001

कैसराराम पुत्र श्री जादमाराम जाति मेघवाल निवासी पन्नासर भणियाणा तहसील पोकरण जिला जैसलमेर ।

...प्रार्थी

बनाम

प्राचार्य केन्द्रीय विद्यालय सीमा सुरक्षा बल डाबला जिला जैसलमेर ।

अप्रार्थी

उपस्थिति:-

( 1 ) प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधी श्री अर्जुन पुरोहित उप.

(2) अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधी श्री के. के. शाह उप..

अधिनिर्णय

दिनांक 8-1-2004

श्रम मंत्रालय भारत सरकार नई दिल्ली ने अपनी अधिसूचना क्रमांक एल. - 42012/197/99 दिनांक 31-5-2000 से निम्न विवाद वास्तेअधिनिर्णय इस न्यायालय को प्रेषित किया है:-

अप्रार्थी की ओर से जवाब प्रस्तुत किया गया जिसमें प्रारम्भिक आपत्तियों में कहा गया कि प्रार्थी अप्रार्थी के विद्यालय में कार्य करता था, विद्यालय में काम न होने पर प्रार्थी को काम पर नहीं रखा जाता था, और अवधि समाप्त होने पर प्रार्थी का कार्य विद्यालय से समाप्त हो जाता था, प्रार्थी को किसी रिक्त स्थान पर नहीं रखा । आगे जवाब में कहा गया कि प्रार्थी को अप्रार्थी ने कभी भी किसी तरह की नियुक्ति 10-3-94 को नहीं दी, प्रार्थी ने कभी भी विद्यालय में निरन्तर सेवा नहीं की, प्रार्थी डाबला में सिर्फ 8-8-97 से 5-9-97 तथा उसके बाद 13-12-97 से 15-10-98 तक रहा, उसका यह कहना कि उसने प्राचार्य के यहाँ 20-5-97 से 20-9-98 तक कार्य किया बिल्कुल गलत है, प्रार्थी 15-9-98 को विद्यालय में नहीं आया मगर 15 व 17-9-98 कोड्युिटी पर हाजिर था जिस बाबत उसके हस्ताक्षर रजिस्टर में दर्ज हैं , प्राचार्य ने प्रार्थी की गैर कानूनी गतिविधियों के बारे में अपने सीनीयर अधिकारी को लिखा, प्रार्थी केकार्य पर नहीं आने पर सर्वप्रथम प्रार्थी को 31-12-98 को कार्यमुक्त करदिया क्योंकि प्रार्थी 25-12-98 के बाद कार्य पर नहीं आया, 21-1-99 कोफिर प्रार्थी उपस्थित हुआ जिसपर उसे फिर दैनिक वेतन पर रखा व 31-3-99 को कार्यमुक्त अनुपस्थिति के कारण कर दिया, प्रार्थी ने कभी भी 240 दिन लगातार कार्य नहीं किया , प्रार्थी को सेवा से उसकी अनुपस्थितितथा अन्य शिकायतों के कारण सेवापृथक किया गया, प्रार्थी कोकिसी सबस्टीटीव वेकेंसी के तहत सेवा में नहीं रखा । शाला में कार्य "Whether the action of Principal Kendriya Vidyalaya BSF Jaisalmer in terminating the services of Sh. Keshraram S /o . Jadmaram , Ex . Group ' D' Sweeper on daily wages is legal and 2633

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8, 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

विवाद प्रार्थी द्वारा नहीं किया गया है , उसे दुबारा सेवा पर रखा गया परन्तु फिर उसके अनुपस्थित होने के कारण उसे 31 मार्च, 99 को सेवापृथक कर दिया गया । इस प्रकार 31-3-99 के पूर्व प्रार्थी ने विपक्षी के अधीन 240दिन की सेवा की हो ऐसी कोई स्थिति नहीं है । होने पर दैनिक वेतन पर रखा था और कार्य न होने पर सेवा से पृथक किया जाता था, विद्यालय द्वारा प्रार्थी की अनुपस्थिति बाबत जाँच की प्राचार्य को कोई ओवश्यकता नहीं थी क्योंकि अनुपस्थित रहने पर कोई भुगतान नहीं दिया जाता था । अन्त में निवेदन किया है कि प्रार्थी कोई अनुतोष पाने का अधिकारी नहींहै । प्रार्थी का माँग - पत्र सब्यय खारिज किया जायें ।

माँग- पत्र के समर्थन में स्वयं प्रार्थी ने अपना शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया जिसपर अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधिं द्वारा जिरह की गई तथा अप्रार्थी की ओर से बी.आर. सिंह का इंपिथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया जिस पर प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि द्वारा जिरह की गई । दोनों पक्षों की और से विभिन्न दस्तावेजात की फोटो-स्टेट प्रतियाँ पेश की गईं ।

हाजरी रजिस्टर पेश हुए हैं जिससे भी यह स्पष्ट होता है कि दिसम्बर, 98 में प्रार्थी की कोई उपस्थिति दर्ज नहीं है और इसमें इस आशय का नोट भी अंकित है कि प्रार्थी पूर्व का अपना भुगतान चाहता है, प्रार्थी का यह कथन है कि 31-3-99 का पत्र प्रदर्श-9 में ही मार्च की तन्ख्वाह देने का उल्लेख है और इससे स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी ने मार्च 99 तक काम किया परन्तु यह तर्क भ्रामक है क्योंकि सेवामुक्ति मार्च 99 में की जा रही थी इस कारण मार्च 99 तक का वेतन दिया गया है । इससे यह स्पष्ट नहीं होता कि प्रार्थी मार्च 99 तक ड्युिटी पर उपस्थित रहा । किया । दोनों पक्षों के प्रतिनिधीगण की बहस सुनी, पत्रावली का अवलोकन

प्रार्थी द्वारा यह कहा गया कि उसने 10-3-94 से विपक्षी के अधीन कार्य प्रारम्भ किया उसकी कार्य पूरी तरह सन्तोषजनक रहा, 31-3-99 को उसे सेवापृथक कर दिया गया जो कि त्रुटीपूर्ण है ।

इस प्रकार प्रार्थी जनवरी और फरवरी 99 में कार्य पर उपस्थिति रहा हो इस आशय का भी कोई साक्ष्य नहीं है । स्वयं विपक्षी की ओर से हाजरी रजिस्टर की प्रतियाँ पेश की गई हैं परन्तु उसमें भी जनवरी से मार्च 99 तक की हाजरी रजिस्टर की प्रतियाँ पेश नहीं हुई हैं, इससे भी यह स्पष्ट है कि इस अवधि में प्रार्थी काम पर नहीं था अन्यथा वे इस अवधि की हाजरी रजिस्टर की प्रतियाँ भी पेश करते ।

इस प्रकार प्रार्थी द्वारा विपक्षी केअधीन 31 मार्च, 99 को सेवामुक्ति सेपूर्व 240 दिन काम नहीं किया है, प्रार्थी को 98-99 का सैशन समाप्त होने के कारण सेवापृथक किया गया है ऐसी स्थिति में प्रार्थी कोई अनुतोष पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।

विपक्षी द्वारा यह कहा गया कि प्रार्थी को एक निश्चित अवधि के लिए लगाया था, प्रार्थी ने लगातार काम नहीं किया, उसेका काम सन्तोषजनक नहीं था, उसने विद्यालय का फर्नीचर जला दिया था इसें कारण उसे 31-12-98 को कार्यमुक्त कर दिया गया परन्तु 21-1-99 को उसकी गरीबी को देखते हुए उसे वापस काम पर रखा गया परन्तु प्रार्थी कार्य से अनुपस्थित रहा अतः उसे 31-3-99 को सेवापृथक कर दिया गया। प्रार्थी ने 240 दिन काम नहीं किया ।

अधिनिर्णय प्रार्थी का यह कथन है कि उसने लगातार काम किया, प्रतिपरीक्षा में हाजरी रजिस्टर को उसने स्वीकार किया और नोटिस मिलने के तथ्य कौं भी स्वीकार किया है परन्तु उसकी यह कथन है कि उसमें लगातार काम किया था ।

विपक्षी की ओर से श्री बी. और. सिंह प्राचार्य पेश हुए हैं जिनका यह कथन है कि प्रार्थी काम पर नहीं आया थी इस कारण उसे भुगतान नहींकिया।

अतः यह अधिनिर्णित किया जाता है कि प्राचार्य केन्द्रीय विद्यालय सीमा सुरक्षा बल डाबला, जिला जैसलमेर द्वारा श्रमिक कैसराराम पुत्र श्रीजादमाराम जाति मेघवाल निवासी पन्नासर भणियाणा, तहसील पोकरण, जिला जैसलमेर को 98-99 का सैशन समाप्त होने के कारण सेवापृथक किया तथा प्रार्थी ने 31 मार्च, 99 को सेवामुक्ति से पूर्व 240 दिन काम नहीं किया ऐसी स्थिति में प्रार्थी अप्रार्थी नियोजक से कोई अनुतोष पाने काअधिकारी नहीं है ।

निशा गुप्ता, न्यायाधीश

नई दिल्ली, 5 मई , 2004

का. आ. 1274.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पश्चिमी रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नई दिल्ली के पंचाट( संदर्भ संख्या 57/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था । विपक्षी की ओर से प्रार्थी का प्रथम नियुक्ति ओदेश पेश हुआ है जिससे स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी को 6-3-97 के आदेश से नियुक्ति दी गई, प्रार्थी को लापरवाही के सम्बन्ध में नौटिस दिये गये हैं, प्रार्थी ने अपनी गलती को स्वीकार किया है जिसके सम्बन्ध में भी प्रदर्श-3 व 4 प्रार्थमी- पत्र प्रस्तुत हुए है । 28-12-98 का आदेश पेश हुआ है जिससे स्पष्ट है किप्रार्थी को सेवापृथक कर दिया गया था, इसमें प्रार्थी को 31-12-98 तकड्युिटी पर रिपोर्ट करने का आदेश दिया गया है और उसके उपस्थित नहीं होने पर 31-12-98 को प्रदर्श 8 आदेश से उसे सेवापृथक कर दिया गया। इसके पश्चात् 21-1-99 का स्वयं प्रार्थी का प्रार्थना- पत्र है जिसके आधार पर उसे उसके निवास की व्यवस्था की गई है और फिर 31-3-99 के आदेश से प्रार्थी को सेवापृथक किया गया है और उसे वेतन भी दिया गया है, चैक मिलना स्वयं प्रार्थी ने इस पर दस्तख्त कर स्वीकार किया है ।

[फा. सं . एल-41011/8/92- आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ]

अजय कुमार, डैस्कअधिकारी इस प्रकार प्रस्तुत दस्तावेज से यह स्थिति स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी की सेवाएँ प्रदर्श-8 से ही समाप्त कर दी गई थी जिसके सम्बन्ध में कोई

1567G1/200415 2634

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 29 , 2004/JYAISTHA 8, 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] New Delhi , the 5th May, 2004

S.O. 1274.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 57/93) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, New Delhi 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 5-5-2004.

[F. No. L-41011/8/92- IR (B -I) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT NEW DELHI

Presiding Officer : SHRI B.N. PANDEY

L.D. No. 57/93

Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karamchari Parishad,

Kota.

forworkmen

Versus

Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Kota Division , Kota.

Management

the above dispute alleging that the above workmen were working as Khalasi in R.A.C. Group under Senior Electrical Foreman R.A.C. Kota . That the respondent management invited applications froin Khalasis working in Electrical Department in the grade Rs . 750-940(RP) for filling up the post of Khalasis R.A.C. in the grade Rs . 750-940 R.P. under Senior Electrical Foreman R.A.C. Kota vide their letter No.E/EL/ 840/ 12 dated 15-1-90 , that the workmen named above were already working as Khalasies in the grade Rs . 750-940(R) under Senior Electrical Foreman or R.A.C. prior to issue of notification dated 15-1-90; that the management - respondent filled up the vacancies of Khalasies gr. Rs . 750-940 consequent of the same notification dated 15-1-90 from the khalasies working in the grade of Rs . 800-1150 which is against their own instructions contained in their office order dated 15-1-90, that the action of the respondent was against the principles of natural justice and also against payment of wages Act as also against their own office order dated 15-1-90, that the khalasies who were working in the grade of Rs . 800- 1150have been put to work in the grade Rs . 750-940 which is against all rules and laws of the land . Moreover, these Khalasies S /Shri Bansi Lal and others have been shown senior to the present workmen/claimants which is also against the principles of naturaljustice and prescribed rules ofthe railways .Hence it has been prayed that the direction maybe issued to the respondent to issue correct seniority list showing names of the workmen above to those who were selected in 1990 as per notification dated 15-1-90 .

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L -41011/ 8/ 92 - I.R. (D.U. ) dated 16-8-93 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication:-

"Whether the action of the Railway Admn . in filling up vacancies of Khalasies RAC in scale of Rs . 750-940 from Khalasies in scale of Rs . 800- 1150 and giving seniority above to the following is legal and justified? If not , what relief they are entitled to?"

1. Sh . RoshanLal

2. Sh . Rajender Singh

3. Sh. Mohan Giri

4. Sh. Rajvoor Singh

5. Sh. Dos Raj Singh

6. Sh. Prem Singh

7. Sh . Sailender Singh

8. Sh. Shiv Nath Singh

9. Sh . Yogendra Kumar

2. The Divisional Secretary Paschim Railway Karamchari Parishad Kota has filed statement of claim in

3. The Management/respondent filed its written statement contesting the claim of the workman union and denying their claims . It has been interalia alleged that Khalasies working in the scale Rs . 800-1150 were never considered. The employees in question working in scale Rs. 750-940 were considered based on the facts that those persons have given their written consent for their reversion asR.A.C. in the scale Rs . 800-1150 to Rs . 750-940 . That the employees were correctly absorbed in RAC group 750-940 and conditions laid down in notification dated 15-1-90 was never ignored or overlooked, that only those employees were considered who had voluntarily opted their reversion in scale ofRs . 750-940 , therefore , the present claim of the workman and their union is liable to be dismissed with cost. During the pendency ofthe case the union/workmen absented and did not appear before this Court/Tribunal despite repeated notice and adjournments . They also did not adduce any evidence whatsoever to prove their claim. Hence the management was heard exparte . During arguments representative appearing on behalf of the management submitted that in view of the alleged notification dated 15-1-90 applications were invited from all the employees who were working and who had opted for reversion to the scale of Rs . 750-940 and above . The present petitioners could also apply but they did not apply. Hence now they could have no grievance, 2635 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) 」

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

Dated , Dhanbad, the 1st April, 2004. AWARD

TheGovt. 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-20012/193/ 96-IR(C- I) , dated the 27th August, 1997.

SCHEDULE 4. Inview of the above facts I find no merit in the claim of the union of the workmen/ workmen, they have also absented. Therefore , I hold that the action of the railway administration in filling up vacancies of Khalasies RAC in the scale ofRs . 750-940 from Khalasies in the scale ofRs . 800-1150 and giving seniority above to the present claimants/workmen cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified and the claimants workmen are entitled to get no relief. The claim is liable to be dismissed . Award is given accordingly.

Dated: 2-4-2004

B.N. PANDEY, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 मई, 2004

"Whether the demand of the Union for accepting the date ofbirth of Shri Bashistha Mistry as per the date ofbirth inForm ' B ' Register of Alkusa Colliery where he was initially appointed is legal and justified? Ifso, to what relief is the workman entitled ?" का. आ. 1275.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा० को० को०लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण 2 धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 93/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-04-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।.

[फा. सं. एल-20012/193/96- आई.आर. ( सी. 1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

2. In this case neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared . Management, however, represented through their learned Advocate . In course of hearing of the instant reference a settlement petition has been filed by the parties under their signature. I have considered the terms ofsettlement and I find that the terms contained therein are fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice . Accordingly I accept the said settlement and pass an Award in terms thereofwhich forms part ofthe Award as Annexure.

New Delhi , the 5th May, 2004

B. BISWAS , PresidingOfficer BCCL: GopalichuckColliery,

Ref:-Gop/per/F/03/772 Dated 23rd Dec. 02

To,

The Dy. Chief Personnel Manager (IR) ,

PootkeeBalhari Area.

S.O. 1275. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 93/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court II Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 30-04-2004.

DearSir,

[F. No. L-20012/ 193/ 96- IR (C- 1 ) ] S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

Enclose please find herewith the memorandum of settlement in Form ' H ' arrived at between in management ofP.S. Area and Sri Basist Mistry of Kendwadih Colliery.

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

PRESENT:

The same is hereby sent to you to kindly submit it before Tribunal No. II in connection of reference No. 93/97 . So that the case may be closed.

Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer .

This is as per direction from competent authority as communicated to us vide reference No. 7915-16 dated 4-10-02 fromGM (P& IR) , BCCL, Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad.

In the matter ofan Industrial Dispute under Section 10( 1 ) ( d) ofthe I.D. Act . , 1947 .

REFERENCE NO . 93 of 1999

The xerox copy of the order is enclosed for your ready reference.

PARTIES:

Encl:-As above .

Yoursfaithfully, Employers in relation to the management of Kendwadih Colliery of M/s , BCCL and their workman.

Personnal Manager, APPEARANCES :

Gopalichuck/Kendwadih Collieries Onbehalf of the workman : None

Copy to:-

Mr. S. N. Sinha, Advocate.

Onbehalf of the employers :

State : Jharkhand

Manager, Kendwadih Colliery

Industry : Coal .

2636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2004/JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED KENDWADIH COLLIERY

Form-H

Memorandum of settlement arrived in management of Kendwadih Colliery under P.B. Area and Workman/ representative under Section 12(1) of LD . Act & LD . (C) Rule 1957 .

Management Representative : Workman/Union Representative:

1. Shri P. K. Agarwal , Project Officer, Kendwadih Colliery

Sri V. S. Pandey, Joint Area Secretary, JantaMazdoor Sangh, P.B. Area.

2. Shri M.C. Yadav, P.B. Area, Dy. C.Р.М. ,

3. Shri C. L. Saw Dy. C.M.E./Manager, Kendwadih Colliery,

Shri BasistMistry, Foreman(M), Kendwadih Colliery.

4. Shri B.N. Jha, Personnel Manager , Kendwadih Colliery.

SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE Sri Basist Mistry, Foreman , Kendwadih Colliery, raised Industrial Dispute before the Asstt . Labour Commissioner (C) , Dhanbad . The Conciliation process has going on wide reference No. 1/64/94 dated 17-6-1994. The Industrial Dispute which was connected with his discripency in date of birth was ended in failure . The case was subsequently referred the C.G.I.T. - 2 under reference No. 93/97 and the same is still pending . The case for D.O.B. was ultimately referred to D.O.B. Committee at HQ on the requested of Union . After prolong discussion at HQ and the matter was resolved amicably for settlement out side the Tribunal:-

(i) That the case of Sri Basist Mistry, Foreman (M) , Kendwadih Colliery will be referred to Apex Medical Board for the assessment ofhis age.

( ii) That it is resolved that the decision of Apex Medical Board will be binding on both the parties .

(iii) That it is resolved that Sri Basist Mistry, Foreman and his concerned Union will withdraw the reference case No. 93/97 before implementation of the decision ofApex Medical Board.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 3. Sd/- (C. L. Saw)

4. Sd/- (B.N. Jha)

Witness:-( 1 ) Sd/-

(2) Sd/- नई दिल्ली, 5 मई, 2004

का. आ. 1276. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा० को० की० लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण 2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 208/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-04-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [फा. सं. एल-20012/536/97- आई.आर. ( सी. 1 ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 5th May, 2004

S.O. 1276.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 208/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court II , Dhanbad now as shown in the Anriexure 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 30-04-2004.

[F. No. L-20012/536/97 - IR(C- 1 ) ]

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) of the I.D. Act . 1947 .

Reference No. 208 of 1998

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the Management of Kusunda Area of M/ s . BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES:

Onbehalf ofthe workman : None

Onbehalf ofthe employers : Mr. D.K. Verma, Advocate.

State: Jharkhand

(iv) The copy of settlement will be submitted to the Presiding Officer with a request that reference case No. 93/97 may kindly be closed.

Management Representative Union/Workman Representative 1. Sd/- (P.K. Agarwal)

Sd/-(V.S. Pandey) 2. Sd/- (M.C. Yadav)

Sd/- (Basist Mistry)

Industry: Coal.

Dated , Dhanbad, the 8th April, 2004

AWARD

The Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10(1 )( d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this 2637

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

ANNEXURE Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/ 536/97- IR(C- 1),'dated the 30th November, 1998.

SCHEDULE

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

Inthe matter of a reference under Section 10( 1 ) (d) (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947.

Reference No. 48 of 1999

PARTIES:

"Whether the action of the management of Kusunda Area of M/s . BCCL in refusing employment under para - 9.4.2 of NCWA - IV to Smt. Jirwas Kamin dependentwife of Late Kara Bhuiya ofKhas Colliery is justified ? If not, to what relief the dependent is entitled?"

Employers in relation to the management ofMudidih Colliery of M/ s . B.C.C. Ltd.

AND

TheirWorkmen.

PRESENT : Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

FortheEmployers : Shri Rakesh Ranjan, Authorised Representative.

For the Workman

: None.

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal.

Dated, the 29thMarch, 2004 2. In this case neither the concerned workman nor his representative is found present . Management however, represented through their learned Advocate. It reveals from the record that the instant reference case is pending since 1998 for disposal. It further transpires from the record that sufficient opportunities were given to the workman but inspite of giving ample opportunities the workman/union has failed to turn up and even they did not consider necessary to submit W.S. on their behalf. Gesture of the workman/union is taken into consideration will expose clearly that the workman /union is not interested toproceed with the hearing ofthis case. Under such circumstances it is needless to adjourn the case suo moto for days together. Accordingly let a 'No dispute ' Award be passed presuming non-existence of any industrial dispute between the parties.

AWARD

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 मई, 2004

ByOrder No. L-20012/ 212/98 - I.R. (C- I) dated 29-1-99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

का. आ. 1277. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा० को ० को० लि० 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 48/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-04-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. सं. एल-20012/212/98- आई.आर. (सी-1 ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 5th May, 2004

"Whether the action of the management of Mudidih Colliery of M/ s . B.C.C. Ltd. in dismissing Sri R.K. Prasad, Lamp Cabin Incharge from the services of theCompanyw.e.f. 31-12-1985 only on the ground of unauthorised absence w.e.f. 28-8-84 to 19-10-84 (which the management has failed to establish the same through any documentary evidence) is justified? Ifnot, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

S.O. 1277.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 48/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court II, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-04-2004.

[F. No. L- 20012/212/ 98 - IR (C- 1 ) ]

2. Perused the petition filed by the management . The management in the petition disclosed that over validity of Notification No. L-20012/212/98 - IR (C - I) dated 29-1-99 issued by the Ministry of Labour , Government of India, New Delhi , whereby and whereunder the dispute, as per schedule of reference which was referred for adjudication under the provision of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , was challenged by them before the Hon'ble High Court, Jharkhand, Ranchi , in CWJC No. 1159/99 (R). They submitted further that the Hon'ble Court by order dated 25-8-2003 quashed and set aside the Notification dated 29-1-99 issued by the Ministry of Labour, Government of

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

2638

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29, 2004/JYAISTHA 8, 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

which was received by the Central Government on 30-04-04.

India under Reference Case No. 48/99 . Accordingly, the petitioner/management submitted that the instant reference is not maintainable in the eye of law.

[F. No. L-20012/136/2001 -IR(C- 1 ) ]

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) ATDHANBAD.

PRESENT Shri B. Biswas, PresidingOfficer.

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

REFERENCE No. 219 of2001

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management ofSirka Colliery ofM/s . CCL and their workman.

Appearances:

Onbehalfofthe workman : None

Onbehalfof the employers: None

3. Perused the order ofthe Hon'ble High Court dated 25-8-2003 passed in CWJC No. 1159/99(R). His Lordship of the Hon'ble High Court observed categorically that the Notification dated 29-1-99 passed by the Repondent No. 2 is quashed and set aside. On the basis of reference made by the Ministry of Labour being No. L- 20012/ 212/98 -IR (C-I) dated 29-1-99 the concerned workman appeared and submitted written statement with a view to substantiate his claim. The management being aggreived by the said reference issued by the Ministry ofLabour preferred awrit petition before the Hon'ble High Court, Jharkhand which was registered as CWJC No. 1159/99 (R) . The Hon'ble Court in disposing of the said writ petition in favour of the management have made a clear observation why the reference made by the Ministry deserved to be quashed, As the Hon'ble Court by order referred to above has quashed the reference in question it should be considered that there is no existence of the reference . Therefore when such position is prevailing there is no scope at all to consider written statement submitted by the concerned workman.

State: Jharkhand : Industry: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad the April, 2004.

AWARD

4. As a result, in view of my discussion above, relying on the decision given by the Hon'ble High Court, Jharkhand I hold that the instant reference is not maintainable in the eye of law and for which there is no scope at all to entertain the prayer of the concerned workman.

B. BISWAS , PresidingOfficer

TheGovt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of thepowers 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-20012/136/ 2001 -IR (C- I ), dated, theNil.

नई दिल्ली , 5 मई, 2004

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the Coalfield Mazdoor Union from the management of CCL , Sirka Colliery for regularisation of Sh. Dhanesh Kumar & 10 others as mentioned in the schedule of reference in time rate jobs is just and fair? If so, what relief are the concerned workmen entitled from what date?" का. आ. 1278.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी०सी ० एल ० 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 219/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-4-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. सं. एल-20012/ 136/2001 - आई.आर. ( सी -1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 5th May, 2004

2. In this reference neither the concerned workmen nor their representative appeared before this Tribunal . None also appeared on behalf of the management . Record shows that inspite of issuance of repeated notices the parties have failed to submit W.S. on their behalf. The case ispending since 2001. The gesture of the parties if looked into, will expose clearly that they are not interested to proceed with the case . Accordingly a ' No dispute ' Award isrendered and the instant reference is disposed of on the basis of ' No dispute ' Award presuming non -existence of any industrial dispute between the parties.

S.O. 1278. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 219/2001) 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 CCL and their workman ,

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer 2641 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8, 1926

New Delhi , the 5th May , 2004

S.O. 1280.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 243/ 99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- 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 30-04-2004 .

ofgiving ample opportunities they failed to turn up and even they did not consider necessary to file W.S. If the attitude of the concerned workman/union is taken into consideration, will expose clearly that they are not interested to proceed with the hearing of this case . Accordingly I do not find any reason to adjourn the case suo moto for days together . Under the circumstances , a 'No dispute' Award is rendered and the instant reference is disposed of on the basis of ' No dispute ' Award presuming non - existence of any industrial dispute between the parties .

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer [F. No. L-20012/30/99 -IR (C - 1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 5 मई, 2004 ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer

का. आ. 1281.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा०को०को ०लि० 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 207/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-04-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

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

[फा. सं. एल-20012/535/97- आई.आर. (सी-1 ) ] REFERENCE NO . 243 OF 1999

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव PARTIES :

New Delhi , the 5th May, 2004 : Employers in relation to the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. B.C.C.L and their workman .

APPEARANCES :

None

Onbenalf of the workman :

Onbehalfofthe employers : Mr. S. N. Ghosh, Advocate.

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal .

Dated, Dhanbad, the 8th April, 2004

S.O. 1281.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 207/98) 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, whichwas received by the Central Government on 30-04-2004.

AWARD

[F. No. L -20012/535/97 - IR (C -1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour , in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10 (1 ) ( d) ofthe I.D. Act. , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 20012/30/99 - IR( C - 1 ) , dated, the 4th June, 1999 .

SCHEDULE

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) of the I.D. Act . , 1947 .

REFERENCE NO . 207 OF 1998 "Whether the action of the management ofKusunda Area of BCCL in not accepting the date ofbirth of Sri Chaturi Bhuian L/Mazdoor of Dhansar Colliery determined by Apex Medical Board on 31-3-95 before which he had appeared as per the direction ofthe management is justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to?"

PARTIES : Employers in relation to Dharsan Colliery ofM/ s . B.C.C.L and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf ofthe workman : None

Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. D.K. Verma , Advocate.

Industry: Coal.

State: Jharkhand

2. In this case neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared . Management , however , represented through their learned Advocate. It transpires from the record that the instant case is pending since 1999 for disposal . Record also further shows that sufficient opportunities were given to the workman/union but inspite

1567 G1/2004-16 2642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

Dated Dhanbad, the 8th April , 2004

AWARD

The Govt. 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- 20012/535 /97 - IR(C - I) , dated , the 30th November , 1998.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Kusunda Area of BCCL in imposing punishment only onMr. Bajo Mining Sirdar, Dhansar Colliery against the chargesheet No. 475 dt. 8-4-95 is justified ? If not, what relief is the workman entitled to?" 2. In this case neither the concerned workman nor his representative is found present . Mr. D. K. Verma, learned Advocate for the management appeared . It reveals from the record that the instant reference case is pending since 1998 for disposal . It further transpires from the record that sufficient opportunities were given to the workman but inspite of giving ample opportunities the workman/union has failed to turn up and even they did not consider necessary to submit W.S. on their behalf. Attitude of the workman/union if is taken into consideration will expose clearly that the workman/union is not interested to proceed with the hearing of this case. Under such circumstances it is needless to adjourn the case suo moto for days together . Accordingly a 'No dispute ' Award is rendered and the instant reference case is disposed on the basis of ' No dispute ' Award presuming non - existence of any industrial dispute between the parties.

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 5 मई, 2004

का. आ. 1282.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा०को०को ० लि० 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 57/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-04-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. सं. एल-20012/468/2000- आई.आर. ( सी-1 ) ] एस.एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 5th May, 2004 S.O. 1282. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 57/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , II Dhanbad now as shown in the annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

[PART. II- SBC . 3 ( ii ) ] in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-04-2004.

[F. No. L- 20012/468/2000 - IR (C - 1 ) ] 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) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 57 of 2001

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management ofBCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the workman : None

Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. H. Nath , Advocate .

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal.

Dated Dhanbad, the April , 2004.

AWARD

The Govt . 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 /468 /2000( C- I) , dated, the 19th February , 2001 .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the union to regularise Sri Jai Prakash Dusadh, Wagon. Loader as C.H.P. Operator, Cat-V from the year 1994 and payment of wages of Cat . V is proper and justified? If so , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?" 2. In this reference neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared before this Tribunal . Management side however represented through their learned Advocate and filed W.S. on their behalf. It transpires from the record that the instant reference is pending since 2001. It also further reveals that sufficient opportunities were given to the workman but inspite of giving ample opportunities the workman/union has failed to appear and even they did not consider necessary to file W.S. on their behalf. The gesture of the workman/union if is taken into consideration, will expose clearly that they are not interested to proceed with the case . Accordingly, a 'No dispute' Award is rendered and the instant reference is disposed of on the basis of ' No dispute ' Award presuming non - existence of any industrial dispute between the parties .

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 5 मई , 2004 का. आ.1283 .- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार जैट एअरवेज के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण I, मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-04-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. सं. एल-11012/64/98- आई.आर. ( सी-1 ) ]

एस.एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 5th May, 2004 S.O. 1283.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 13/ 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court, I Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Jet Airways and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-04-2004.

[F. No. L- 11012/64/98- IR (C - I ) ] 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- 13/1999 PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of JetAirways

AND

Their Workmen

Santosh B. Takke (deceased) Represented by his Legal Representatives :

Shri Bhagoji Sambhaji Takke

Mukham Gaon : Talavade , Post: Herapude, Taluka : Sangameshwar, Zilla:Ratnagiri (Via) Deorukh Maharashtra

Smt. Sunderabai Bhagoji Takke , Mukham Gaon : Talavade, Post: Herapude, Taluka : Sangameshwar , Zilla :Ratnagiri (Via) Deorukh Maharashtra

2643

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

APPEARANCES :

:Mr. M. B. Jalota, Adv FortheManagement

For the Workman

:Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant, Advocate.

State: Maharashtra

Mumbai , the 12th day of April, 2004.

AWARD

1. This is a reference made by the Central Government under clause (d) of Sub -section 1 and Sub-Section 2 -A of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 (the Act for short ) for resolving the industrial dispute between the Jet Airways (the company for short) and Santosh B. Takke (the workman for short ) . The terms ofthe dispute are as follows as per schedule .

" क्या जेट एअरवेज के प्रबंधतन्त्र द्वारा दिनांक 3-11-94 से श्री संतोष भी. टक्के लोडर के सेवाएं समाप्त, किया जाना विधिवत एवं न्यायोचित है । यदि नहीं तो वे किस राहत के पात्र है ?"

2. The workman had filed his statement of claim and company its written statement . Thereafter, workman died. His legal representatives were brought on record. Thereafter , a join application dated 6-4-2004 has filed onbehalfofboththe contesting that the father ofdeceased workman shall be paid Rs . 50,000/- in full accord and satisfaction of the industrial dispute pending before this tribunal . Both the parties agree that the amount ofRs . 50,000/- has been paid through his counsel father of the workmanby way oftwo cheques dated 5-4-2000 numbered as 913510 and 9113511 drawn on Abudhabi Commercial bank for payment to Bhagaji Sambaji Takki , the father and the legal heir of the deceased workman Santosh B. Takke.

In view of the aforesaid settlement and payment of amount by cheques handed over to the counsel for the legal heirs of the workman, the reference is answeredby stating that the above dispute has been amicably settled. On payment of Rs . 50,000 to the father and legal heir of the deceased workman. Accordingly, an award is passed recording the aforesaid settlement . No costs .

S. C. PANDEY, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 5 मई, 2004

का. आ. 1284.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एअर इंडिया लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण I, मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 08/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-04-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[फा. सं. एल-11012 / 153/2000- आई.आर. ( सी -1 ) ]

एस. एस . गुप्ता, अवर सचिव 2644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29, 2004/JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

New Delhi, the 5th May, 2004 S.O. 1284. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 08/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court I , Mumbai now as shown in the annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Air India Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-04-2004 .

[F. No. L- 11012/ 153/ 2000- 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 -08/2001

PARTIES :

: Employers in relation to the management of Air India Ltd. And their workmen.

APPEARANCES :

For theManagement :Mr. Lancy D'souza For the workman

:Mr. P.S. Shetty, Advocate .

State:

Maharashtra

Mumbai , dated , the 13th day ofApril , 2004

AWARD

1. This is a reference made by the Central Government under clause 1 (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (the Act for short ) for adjudicating upon the industrial disputes Act 1947 (the Act for short ) between Air India Ltd. (the company for short ) and T. Sukumaran ( the workman for short ) . The terms of the dispute are as follows:-

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Air India Ltd. , Mumbai , in dismissing the services of Mr. T. sukumaran, Ex - Senior Cleaner w.e.f.. 30-9-98 I legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled?

2. The undisputed facts of this case are that the workman was a confirmed Senior Cleaner in the employment of the company. The workman was served with a charge sheet dated 24-9-1996 . It was alleged in that workman had stolen an electronic typewriter belonging to the company to Deoji Patel for consideration ofRs . 2000. The charge sheet was framed under the Model Standing Orders (Central ) applicable to the workman. The specific charges stated that aforesaid actions of

[PART II-SBC. 3( i) ] workman resulted in the misconduct under the following heads:

(i) Theft in connection with the Employers property.

( ii) Acts subversive ofdiscipline.

The reply dated 26-9-1996 was found unsatisfactoryby the competent disciplinary authority and consequently Shri A. S. Uzagre Asstt . Manager Cabin Crew (Admin) was appointed as the Enquiry Officer . It isalso not disputed that the enquiry was conducted in 13 settings. Itwas concluded on 31-3-1997 . A report of the enquiry officer was received by the workman. The workman challenged the findings by his reply dated 9-3-1998. Thereafter , the workman was to show causeby Notice dated 8-4-1998 to the proposed punishment of dismissal. The workman sent a reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter, the order dated 28th May 1998 dismissing the workman from services was passed as per order 20 (j ) of Model Standing Orders: Thereafter, the workman raised an industrial dispute. It resulted in failure of conciliation.

3. The workman raised the following points in dispute:

(i) Therewas error apparent on the face of record as the enquiry report considered irrelevant matters and ignored vital matters in form of the workman.

(ii) The findings recorded against the workman were perverse.

(iii) The workman was not given fair opportunity when important witnesses were not produced by the company and the request of the . workman for examining material witnesses was turned down. The burden of proof was wrongly.placed. These are some main grounds raised by the workman. It is not necessary to repeat others because they are of similar nature .

4. The company in its written statement stated the facts forming the back ground of the charge sheet . It was alleged that on 21st May, 1996 an electronic Typewriter was found to be stolen from office of Senior Manager Mr. B.A. Rego by his Stenographer Ms. Cynthia D'souza. Accordingly an FIR was lodged at Sahar Airport Police Station on the same day. On 24th July, 1996 the Network Electronic company informed Mr. Rego's office that an electronic typewriter belonging to company was in possession of Keten Singhvi . The police , thereupon, raided the house of Mr. Singhvi and recovered the typewriter on 24-7-1996 before two punch witnesses . On information received from Mr. Singhvi that he purchased theElectronic typewriter from Deoji Patel for Rs . 7,000/- the police arrested him. During the interrogation Deoji 2645 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 29 , 2004/ण्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

Patel stated that the unknown person had sold the typewriter to him for Rs . 2,000/-On 26th July 1996 Mr. Deoji Patel accompanied by Asstt. Inspector for Police kept a watch at the Medicon Bhavan, IFSD, Deoji Patel identified the workman as the person who had sold the typewriter in question. The workinan was arrested on 26-7-1996 . During the investigation , the workman accepted the guilt . The workman was accordingly given a charge sheet.

It is not necessary to repeat the facts which are not in dispute . Suffice it is to say that the company has challenged each and every contention of the workman and refuted the legal pleas taken up by the workman.

5. This tribunal framed the following issues on the pleading of the parties . The Issue No. 1 and 2 are the preliminary issues . They are reproduced as herein below:-

1. Whether the termination of services of Shri. T. Sukumaran with effect from 30-9-1998 is vitiated because reasonable opportunity was not given to him in accordance with the Principles ofNatural Justice?

Patel who had allegedly identified the workman as the personwho solding him the typewrites . Amounted to denial ofjustice. It was argued that even K. K. Singhvi was not examined. It is trve that Deoji Patel was the witness who had identified the workman and his testimonywouldbe vital to the company's case.However, non examination of a witness is a neutral circumstance so far as the workman is concerned . To reiterate this statement is being made only from the point ofview ofprinciples of natural justice . It should be noted that company could not have compelled attendance of the witness as he was not under the control of the company. Therefore, company chose to examine R. P. Mahatle MW 7. It appears from the evidence of R. P. Mahatle MW7 that he was present when Deoji Patel identified the workman, MW8 Wani also stated that Mr. Patel had identified he workman . Thus , the identification of the workman. The workman did not cross examine witnesses . It is apparent when the workman had no questions to ask to these witnesses he could not claim that he would have elicited anything favourable from Deoji Patel,No other point was urged. It appears that workman was given full opportunity to defend himself through out the enquiry.

2. Whether the findings of the Enquiry Committee are perverse or otherwise based on legal no evidence to bring home the charges framed against Shri T. Sukumaran .

6. The workman in support of his case filed his affidavit. He was cross examined by the counsel for the company. Thereafter , the workman closed his case. The company did not examine any witness in support of its case and relied on the enquiry proceedings.

8. The workman was given an opportunity to examine Defence witnesses . He examined Shri B. R. Kamble and J.D. Valendra. These witnesses do not appear to be material witnesses because it appears frem the Statement of these witnesses that on 20th May, 1996 the workman was not suspected for doing any thing wrong. Itwas stated that the enquiry Officer had examined these witnesses. Even before the company had closed its case as the statement of R. P. Mahatle MW7 was incomplete. It is true that this unusual procedure was adopted . This step was taken with a view to finish the enquiry. The workman had not objected. The learned counsel was unable to show the prejudice caused to the workman. The affidavit and the cross examination ofthe workman show that he was given full opportunity to defendhimself. Thus the Issue No. 1 is decided by holding against the workman to the effect that reasonable opportunity was given to him .

7. As to Issue No. 1 is concerned, it is not case of the workman that he was not given an opportunity of representation during the course of enquiry. The entire enquiry proceedings show that he participated in the enquiry. However, it is his case that non examination of material witnesses of the company has deprived him of reasonable opportunity of hearing. This question has been passed from the point of view of principles of. natural justice them we will consider in this paragraph the matter on IssueNo. I quoted in paragraph 5. It appears from order sheet dated 27-11-1996 that enquiry committee proposed to examine four witnesses:-

(i ) B. A. Rego, Sr. Manager, Cabin Crew.

(ii ) R. N. Vani Deputy Manager, Security.

(iii) N. R. Nayak, Duty Officer Catering , IFSD.

(iv) C. R. Sule , Asstt . Catering Supervisor.

9. The next question is if the finding of facts in the enquiry report can be assailed by the workman on the ground of perversity. A finding of fact is said to be perversewhen no reasonable can come to that conclusion as was reached by the enquiry committee . A perverse finding may result from totally mis reading ofevidence so that he conclusion drawn from it does not follow.. Afindingmayalso be declared as perverse when there is no legal evidence to support it . In other words, it is based on conjectures which no reasonable man would indulge in. This tribunal is required to examine the finding on the anvil of the tests stated above . Before we do that it is necessary to recaptulate the chain of events leading to Theworkman was informed that other witnessesmay be called. The company examined MW1 B. R. Rego, MW 2, C. R. Sule , MW3 N.R. Nayak MW 4, Ms. E. Pereira MW 5 ; R. P. Mahatle MW6 Mrs. Chakravorthy MW7. the case of the workman is that non examination ofDeoji 2646

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2004/JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] accusation of the workman. The evidence against the workman is circumstantial rather than actual. The evidence may be summarised as follows :

Singhvi and Himanshu Sanghvi that purchased that electronic typewriter from Deoji Bhai Patel after paying Rs.7,000/- as its price . Mrs. E. Pararia MW4 was a formal witness who filed and proved the copies of documents relating to the case.

(A) Shri B. A. Rego MW1 stated that on 26th May 1996. He was informed that Typewriter in question was stolen. The informant Stenographer Cynthiya D'Souza had found its cover on stair case. The matter was reported to Security and Security Havaldar found the window of the Administrative office broken open Shri . B. A. Rego lodged FIR at Sahar Police Station.

(B) It was proved by the evidence of MW2 C. R. Sule that the workman was on duty on night between 20/21 May, 2001 .

( C) MW3 N.R. Nayak MW 3 also confirmed the fact sated by C.R. Sule that on 20th May 1996 the workman was on duty He also recalled that T. Sukumaran Had told him that Chakravarty wanted a typewriter . Chakravarty MW 6 denied that he had requested for typewriter.

9. On these broad facts the enquiry officer found against the workman. It has been argued that non examination of Deoji Patel resulted in injustice . This tribunal is of the view that there was material on record that Deoji Patel and identified the workman as the seller of the typewriter. The fact of identification was proved by MW7 R.D. Mahalte and MW5 R.N. Vani . These two witnesses were not cross examined by the workman in any detail casting doubt on their veracity. Moreover, recorded confession was also proved by MW7 R. P. Mahale . It is true that confession made to Police Officer is not admissible under the Evidence Act . However, tha section does not prevent the recording of a confessiona statement by an accused. The witness has not been Shakers in cross examination. Thus there is material on record for the purpose of domestic enquiry.

(D ) MW7 R. P Mahale stated the fact regarding the investigation by Asstt. Inspector of Police. He proved the facts relating to the lodging of FIR of recovery of Electronic typewriter from Ketan Singhvi . He stated that Singhvi informed him about Deoji Patil who had sold in the typewriter. Deoji Patel told him that he had purchased the typewriter from a person whom he did not know. Itwas decided to keep a watch for finding out the person who sold the typewriter to him . After keeping watch on 25-7-1996 and 26-7-1996 , Deoji Patel identified the workman in his presence at the entrance gate . Medicon Bhavan at about 2.15 PM . Deoji Patel oral statement was recorded atPolice station so also that of workman. The workman who was arrested had also confessed to his guilt stating that he was in need ofmoney as his mother had suffered a heart attack. He produced and filed copies of documents recorded during investigation.

( i) First Information Report .

(ii) Statement of Shri Rego dated 21-5-1996 and

(iii) Panchanama of recovery of Typewriter

(iv) Statement of Mr. Singhvi .

(v) Statement of Deoji Patel dated 24-7-1996 and 26- 7-1996.

(vi) Confession of the workman dated 26-7-1996.

10. This tribunal at this stage has suo moto examined the material on record to do justice between: the parties in exercise of its powers under Section 11 - A of theAct. Even from the point ofview of Section 11 - A the conclusion in the enquiry report cannot be assailed. The evidence placed on record is not such as would authorized this tribunal to interfere in exercise ofpowers under Section 11 -A of Act . The chain events pointed out to the misconduct of the workman . The typewriter belonged to the company. It was found in possession of Singhvi family because it was received. Singhvi family purchased it from Deoji Patel . It was Deoji Patel who identified the workman as the culprit . The workman himself confessed to the guilt and R. P. Mahale proved that document . There is no substance in the argument that enquirywas vitiated because in the argument that enquiry two defence witnesses were examined before R. P. Wani's cross examination was complete. No prejudice was caused to the workman as R. P. Wani's evidence did not concern the witnesses, authorities , i.e. Kuldeep Singh vs. Commissioner of Police 1991 1 LLR 499 ( SC) Shantilal Motilal Marwadi vs. Lipton Tea 1991 II CLR 225 and SenEnmal and Stamping Work Ltd. vs. Their workmen II LLJ 369 are based on different set of facts. This tribunal finds that the domestic tribunal has reached on the preponderance of probabilities is that workman has committed the misconduct . There is no reason to interfere with the findings .

11. Accordingly, this tribunal holds that the workman's service were rightly terminated w.e.f. 30-9-98 . The order is legal and justified. The workman is entitled to no relief. The reference is answered on the above terms . No costs .

In cross examination the witness stated thatMr. Vani was present at the time of identification. The statement of R. M. Vani MW5 at page 25 ofthe paper book is corroborative aforesaid made onbehalf of the workman . Apart from that this witness further confirmed the fact of seizure of typewriter and statement made by Mr. Bharat

S. C. PANDEY , Presiding Officer 2647 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

नई दिल्ली, 5 मई, 2004

का. आ. 1285.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै . इरकान इन्टरनेशनल लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केबीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. 61/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-04-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. सं. एल-41011 /3/99 - आई.आर. (बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 5th May, 2004

S.O. 1285.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D.No. 61/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Ircon International Ltd. , and their workman , which was recived by the Central Government on 30-4-2004 .

[F. No. L-41011/3/99 -IR (B -I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT NEW DELHI

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI B.N. PANDEY

L.D. No. 61/99

Shri Mahendra Chowdhary & 36 others through

Shri Surender Singh, Advocate , General Secretary, Rashtriya Mazdoor Congress ( INTUC )

U.P. Branch, 43/16, Sector 15/A,

..Workman

Sector 16, Sikandara, Agra (U.P. )

Versus

The General Manager, M/sIrcon International Ltd. , Palika Bhawan, Sector -XIII , R.K. Puram, New Delhi.

......Management

AWARD

2. In the claim statement filed by the General Secretary on behalf of 37 workmen legality of the termination order dated 3-6-98 have been challenged and their reinstatement with full back wages and regularisation has been claimed. In the claim statement it has been alleged that the 37 workmen relating to this dispute were under the employment of M/ s . Ircon International Ltd. at Mathura from thedates mentioned against their name of the workman shown in the list attached with reference order and worked continuously without any break till the date of that termination from service . All the 37 workmen had worked for more than 240 days in every year that the management closed work of Mathura Project on 3rd June, 1998 and illegally retrenched the workman . The retrenchment compensation was not paid as per law at the time of retrenchment. Representation of these workmen also not considered and that M/s . Ircon International Limited has several project in different states of the country as well as in Uttar Pradesh and even abroad, the nature of work in which the company is engaged is pernnial in nature i. e. the workmen who are engaged in any project of Construction can be engaged in another project by maintaining continuity of their employment: that as per instructions , issued by Ircon International regarding absorption in permanent of grades ofpay it is provided that whenever it becomes necessary to engage fresh level persons discharged earlier were available should be re -engaged in order of seniority. The intake of fresh labour should be resorted to only after the engagement of such discharged labourers; that in the instant case the instructions issued from time to time had not been followed and the provisions laiddown in I.D. Act, 1947 had also not been followed. The workmen claimed their reinstatement in service as also regularisation in service; that the unfair labour practice of the management -respondent led to the Rashtriya Mazdoor Congress to raise an industrial dispute in the matter which was referred by the state government of U.P. for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal IV, Agra U.P. and was registered as Adj . Case No. 261/96 which was allowed vide award dated 8-1-98 . It was ordered in the award that the services of the present 37 workmen should not be dispensed with (or interrupted) but despite that award the management arbitrarily terminated services of the 37 workmen along with others. That the management did not pay retrenchment compensation as per law immediately at the time of closer of the project. The management has shown some workmen as retrenched and on the other hand engaged those workmen in other projects which is in clear violation ofprovisions of article 14 , 16 and 21 of the Indian Constitution; that the present workmen are out of employment since the termination. Hence they are entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and other benefits.

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its order No. L -41011/3/ 99 - IR(B - I) dated 9-2-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication:

"Whether the demand of the Rashtriya Mazdoor Congress , U.P. Shakha for reinstatement and regularisation of37 workmen (As per list ) in the management of M/s . Ircon International Ltd. is legal and justified ? If so, to what relief the said work men are entitled?"

3. In the written statement filed by the management- respondent the claim of the workmen has been denied and it has been inter alia alleged that Delhi Mathura Road Project (U.P. Sector) to which all these workmen belong, was awarded to Ircon International Limited by the U.P. PWD vide Contract Agreement No. 3 /SE- 50/91-92 dated 23-5-91 with the stipulation that the works shall be completed within a period of 48 months ; the project work 2648

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29, 2004/JYAISTHA 8 , 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] was completed in phases and was finally completed as a whole and handed over to the clients i.e. U.P. PWD on 19-2-98; that for execution and construction ofthe road project in question the aforesaid workmen in various categories were engaged locally and their services were liable to be retained for the duration of the project . On completion of the road construction project, the services ofthese workmen engaged for the construction activities were dispensed with in terms of section 25 FFF (2) of the I.D. Act after tendering due compensation and all other statutory dues . The 19 workmen have also withdrawn the final settlement from their respective provident Fund Accounts ; that the services of the present workmen have been terminated on account of closer of the project after following the provisions of Sub- section 2 of section 25 FFF read with section 25 -F, no valid claim lies for re- employment as also for keeping their names in the panel in terms of Section 25-H of the I.D. Act . However , names of the workmen whose services have been dispensed with have been entered in the panel being maintained by the IRCON management in terms of the directions issued by Supreme Court in a similar case of Suraj Jha Vs. IRCON. Accordingly as and when there would be requirement of manpower these workmen would be considered for re- employment in future , depending upon vacancies in their skills and experience and the job requirement on new projects. In preliminary objections it has been alleged that Shri Surender Singh is an Adocate and General Secretary, RashtriyaMazdoor Congress (INTUC) U.P. Branch . He has no locus standi to file the present claim petition of the workmen and that he is no more General Secretary of INTUC; that the prayer of the workman have no substance. Hence their claim deserves to be dismissed.

4. Rejoinder to the written statement has also been filed on behalf of the workman denying the contents of W.S. and reiterating their earlier pleadings.

5. Both the parties filed various documents in support of their case . Besides , the workman also filed affidavit ofBrejesh Kumar Yadav on behalf of all workmen and he was also cross - examined by the A.R. of the Management . On the other side the management- respondent has filed affidavit of Shri Pramod Kumar Manager ( MW1 ) he was also cross -examined by the AR of theworkman .

the other hand the workman has filed a copy of letter dated 26-9-98 signed by Shri Sham Krishan Registrar Trade Unions U.P. Kanpur and sent to all Regional Additional and Dy. Labour Commissioner U.P. , Industrial Tribunals and all Labour Courts of U.P. wherein it has been mentioned that election of INTUC ofU.P. Branch was held on 20-9-98 in which Shri Ashok Singh and Raja Ram Misra were elected asPresident and General Secretary of the union . Afull list ofelected members has also been attached with this letter wherein name of Shri Surender Singh has also been mentioned as one ofthe Four General Secretries including Raja Ram Mishra. Apart from it Shri Brijesh Kumar Yadav one of the claimants workmen who has filed affidavit has deposed that the INTUC is a registered Labour Union of whichhe is also a member. The present reference was made on 9-2-99 and claim statement was signed on 11-4-99 by Surender Singh. He has also affixed his official seal of general secretary bellow his signature , therefore, there is nojustification to disbelieve the evidence of the workman in this respect. Accordingly, I find no force in this preliminary objection of the management. It is worth tobe mentioned that the workman filed a writ petition No. 24331/ 1998 before the Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Allahabad which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy vide order dated 30-7-98. Thereupon being aggrieved the workmen filed petition for speical leave toAppeal No. 15573/1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed with the observation that ifthe Central Government is approached for making a reference to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 ofthe I.D. Act, the Central Government shall make the reference. Under this back-ground the present dispute has been referred by the Ministry of Labour to this Tribunal for adjudication, It is admitted fact that the management- respondent Ircon is aPublic Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and it has been established as a Contracting Construction Company. The respondent Company undertakes works of construction of building , bridges , roads , canals , dams or for other construction work ofproject by entering into contract with contractees. It is also admitted that the Ircon/Management - respondent carries on its business in different states throughout the country and even on abroad which itself goes to show that itswork and business is of perenial nature and , therefore, it employs workers as per its requirements . There is no dispute that it is governed by the I.D. Act, 1947.

6. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the file.

7. The preliminary objection has been raised that the present claim petition has been filed through Shri Surender Singh Advocate, General Secretary, Rashtriya Mazdoor Congress (INTUC) U.P. Branch Agra but he has no locus standi to file the petition. Hence the petition is incompetent and not maintainable . It has been further alleged that Shri Surender Singh. is no more General Secretary of INTUC and also not the party to the dispute. Futher all India Ircon Karamchari Sangh is not in existence. Therefore , the dispute in question cannot be raised by Shri Surender Singh in the capacity of General Secretary of INTUC . In this regard the management respondent who has raised this objection has filed no evidence at all . On

8. Admittedly all the 37 workmen alongwith others were terminated from their services w.e.f. 3-6-98 , it has also been admitted by the management that the workmen had been in continuous service for not less than one year in Delhi Mathura Road Project immediately before the closer ofthe said project w.e.f. 3-6-98. On the other hand the workmen claim that they have been in continuous service w.e.f. January, 93 till 2-6-98 and they were illegally terminated from service w.e.f. 3-6-98 . Thus it is clear that the workmen had completed more than 240 days in each years of their service before their termination . There is no dispute that the provisions of section 25 -F of the I.D. Act is applicable inthis case.According to the workmen their services were illegally terminated without compliance of the provisions 2649

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

[ भांग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

10. The Management claims that it had followed the procedure laid down in section 25F and 25FFF etc. While terminating the services of the workmen. It has also filed a copyoftermination order dated 30-5-98 which goes to show that certain amount ofsalary, one month's salary in lieu of notice and compensation as required under sub - section 2 ofsection 25FFF and under clause (b) of section 25F of the 1.D. Act alongwith other amount of gratuity and leave encashment was also tendered to them through drafts dated 25-5-98 but it is surprising to note that there is no mention as to the detail ofperiod for which the salary upto 3rd June, 1988 was paid or detail of period of their service for fixation ofcompensation@ 15 days salary/pay for every completed year of service.

ofsection 25 - F of the I.D. Act . They were paid nothing at the time of their retrenchment/termination nor any earlier notice of termination was given to them . On the other hand the management claims that the management had paid to all the workmen one month's pay, compensation, gratuity etc. as required by the provisions of section 25 - F of the I. D. Act, 1947. The workmen also claimed that the work of the workmen was ofperenial nature in the establishment of the management respondent as it carries on similar work/ business and projects at different places regularly and continuously for the whole year permanently. Therefore , there was no justification to retrench or terminate them from their service . It is also alleged that the facts and principles of closing down an establhishment has been wrongly alleged and applied in the instant case of the workman because closer of an undertaking/project could not mean closer of entire business or " Industry " . The 1D. Representative of the workman vehemently argued that if on completion of work of Delhi Mathura Road Project, work ofthatproject came to end it does not mean that the entire business/industry of ircon came to end or was bound to be closed down its establishment for want of work . He added that it has come in evidence that prior to their termination the workmen had raised a dispute for their regularisation in service which was referred to and decided by the Industrial -cum-Labour Court Agra. Therefore , being annoyed from it the management terminated services of the workmen arbitrarily and illegally. Otherwise there was no ground ofjustification for termination of the workmen. It was further argued that the provisions of section 25 -F of the I.D. Act, 1947 were also not followed strictly. Therefore, the termination order is no order in the eyes of law. It is void ab initio and liable to be quashed..

The date of appointment and designation of the present workman have been given against their names in the list ofworkmen attached with the reference letter dated 9-2-99 . It shows that they were appointed in the year 1992 and 1993 as mentioned against their names on various post. So in order to determine as to whether the correct amount was actuallytendered towards compensation or not it must have mentioned in the notice . The workman claim that it waswrongly prepared in hurry-Later on, in order to cure irregularities and illegality in the termination order and it wasalso not correct and against full payment ofsalary and compensationetc. Moreover, no payment was made to them at the time of their termination/retrenchiment . The workman admitted that certain amounts through cheque were received to them later on much after their termination. There is also no evidence to show as to when the termination order or any notice was served on the workman, There is also no evidence on record to show the compliance ofsub clause (c) of section 25F which requires that "notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by Notification in the Official Gazette. Thus I find that there was no strict compliance of section 25 F of 25FFF of the I.D. Act before retrenchment/ termination of the workman . Therefore, I find that the termination of the workman was illegal as the amount of their salary and compensation was not correctly computed and provisions of section 25 -F were not correctly followed. However, it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtas reported in 1986 S.C.C. (4+5) 383 that on termination being found illegal the retrenchment compensation received by the workman was directed to be adjusted against their back wages but was not allowed to be deducted from future wages..

11. Apart from the above, admittedly a reference case between the parties for regularisation of services of the workman was decided by the labour. Tribunal U.P. Agra in case No. 261/96 on 8-1-98 wherein it was held that "because the work of the management -respondent was being carried out through out the entire country as well as abroad, hence there should be no interuption as far as possible, in their services and they should be considered for regularisation on the basis of their seniority and in accordance with rules and procedure of the company whenever permanent vacancy becomes available . " In 9. It is admitted fact that M/s . Ircon International Limited, present management , carries on its industrial work and business throughout the country as well as in U.P. and even abroad. The nature of work in which the company is engaged is ofperenial in nature . Further there is no evidence that the present workmen were employed for or in respect ofthe construction of Delhi Mathura Road Project only. There is also no evidence that they were engaged for a limited period only. In Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. Workmen (1973 ) 3 SCC 564 , 1973 SCC (L & S) 195 it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that closure of an undertaking could not mean closure of entire business or " Industry " . The workmen were working with the management in different category like machanic, driver etc. They could also be engaged anywhere in any other project of the management but the management has wrongly applied the principle of closing down of undertakings in the instant case of the present workmen. There is nothing on the record to show that the entire business of the management was closed down on completion of Delhi Mathura Road Project. Moreover, it has also adopted a faulty and wrong procedure. There is nothing on the record to show any seniority list of workers and workmen working with the respondent -management . The principle of last come first. go was also not applied in the instant case . The procedure as laid down in section 25F and 25 FFF were also not followed strictly.

1567 G1/04 17 2650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 29 , 2004/JYAISTHA 8, 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NEW DELHI

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRIB.N. PANDEY

L.D. No. 222/98

Shri Kailash Chand through

TheGeneral Secretary,

C.P.W.D. Karamchari Union,

C-15, GoleMarket,

NewDelhi - 1 .

Workman

Versus

TheExecutive Engineer (Elect),

evidence the management has itself admitted that seperate projects are still being carried out by the management in different and various parts of the country and even in foreign and several appointments were also made after termination of the present workman. It has also admitted that a penel of the present workmen was also prepared to engage them in service whenever vacancy is available but it is clear from its own evidence of the management that eventhat procedure was not followed for the reasons best known to the management . It only goes to show that the management has acted arbitrarily and illegally in terminating the services ofpresent workman and not continuing and considering them for regularisation in service . Therefore, the action of the management of Ircon International Limited cannot be justified.

CPWD, Divn. 8, M.S.O. Police HeadQuarters , Inderprastha Estate, NewDelhi.

..Management

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its order No. L-42012/61/96-IR (DU) dated 16-11-99 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

"Whether the action of the management of the ExecutiveEngineer (Elect) CPWD Divn. 8 , MSO, Police Head Quarters New Delhi in awarding punishment of stoppage of increment and other unfair labour practice as contained in the charter ofdemand is legal and justified ? If not, to what reliefthe workman is entitled ?"

12. In view of the above discussions , I find that the order oftermination of the present 37 workmen was totally illegal and unjustified . Therefore , it deserves to be quashed. I also hold that the claim of the Rashtriya Mazdoor Congress, U.P. Shakha for reinstatement and regularisation of 37 workmen (as per list attached with the the reference order dated 9-2-99 ) in the management M/s. Ircon International Limited is perfectly legal and justified . All the workmen petitioners are entitled to be reinstated in service with 50% of back wages , continuity in service and all other consequential benefits to them . However, the amount tendered to the workmen as claimed by the management and was received by the workman or some of them, it will be adjusted against the amount ofback wages payable tothem. The management of Ircon International Limited/respondent shall reinstate all the 37 workmen in their service and make payment of the amount ofback wages in view of this award within two months from the date ofpublication of the award in the Official Gazette . Parties shall bear their own costs . Award is given accordingly.

Dated : 27-4-04

B.N. PANDEY, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 6 मई, 2004

2. Claim petition was filed on behalfofthe workman Kailash Chand through General Secretary of CPWD Karamchari Union challenging the order of management awarding punishment of stoppage of increment . It was alleged that departmental proceedings against the workman held were illegal and he was illegally punished with the stoppage of increment which deserves to be quashed and the workman was entitled to his full pay including increments etc.

3. The claim of the workman was contested by the management alleging that there was no illegality in the disciplinary proceedings against the workman and there is no illegality in the impugned order. Therefore, it deserves no interference by the court.

का. आ. 1286. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 222/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-05-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. सं . एल-42012 /61/96- आई आर (डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी

New Delhi , the 6th May, 2004

4. The workman also filed his rejoinder reiterating his earlier versions made in the claim statement and also filed certain photo copies of its documents . The management also filed its documents . After filing the rejoinder the workman and his Union absented and adduced no substantive evidence at all in support of his case. It appears that the workman or his union is no more interested in prosecuting the case. Therefore , they have intentionally left the case without adducing substantive evidence . The absence seems to be deliberate . Therefore, no dispute award is given for want of prosecution of the case. No dispute award is given accordingly. Parties shall bear their own costs .

S.O. 1286. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 222/98 ) of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CPWD , and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on 6-5-04.

Dated : 27-4-04

[F. No. L-42012/61 /96 - IR (DU) ]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

B. N. PANDEY, Presiding Officer [भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 6 मई , 2004 का. आ. 1287.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में श्रम न्यायालय , पुणे के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-05-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2651

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 29 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

"That the services of the Second Party have been terminated w.e.f. 21-12-97 and he may be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages for the intervening idle period" .

2. The Second Party has made out his case in the statement ofclaim in the following manner:

[फा. सं. एल-40012/255/99 - आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 6thMay, 2004 S.O. 1287. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Labour Court, Pune as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt. of Telecom and their workman, which was recived by the Central Government on 6-05-2004.

(a) According to the Second Party, she was in employment ofthe Pune Telecom Department as Part time sweeper since 1990. She rendered her services continuously for 7 years from 1990 to 1997. There was no stigma on her services during that period. However, in 1997, the General Manager , Pune Telecom orally terminated her services.

(b) Further, according to the Second Party, she has no source of income as also her husband has expired 10 years back. She is dependent upon her elder sister due to herunemployment. Hence , she has personally requested theGeneral Manager for her reinstatement but to no effect.

[F. No. L-40012/255/99- IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRIL R. K. BHISE, PRESIDING OFFICER, FIRST LABOUR COURT, PUNE

Reference (1DA) 935/1998

First Party

Department ofTelecom, TheGeneral Manager, PuneTelecom, Pune-411002

AND

Second Party

Smt . Bharati Misal Laxminagar, S. No. 12, Near Urdu School Yerawada, Pune-411006

: Shri R.K. Bhise Coram

(c) Further, according to the Second Party on 3-2-98 theAssistant Labour Commissioner moved the First Party at her instance for reinstatement but no response was given to itby the First Party. However, it was argued by the First Party that the nature of the employment of the Second Party was temporary and she cannot raise such a type of dispute. Thus no settlement was arrived at in between them.Hence, inspite this reference , she has prayed for her reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.

Smt . S. D. Kulkarni- Advocate for

APPEARANCES :

FirstParty

3(a) The First Party has filed written statement at Exh. 9 and denied that the appointment ofthe Second Party was apart time sweeper. In fact, no appointment letter was ever issued to the Second Party. On the contrary, in 1990, the First Party Pune Telecom has called for Quotations and accordingly it has received Quotations from Shanta Kajane, Shalan Gaikwad and the present Second Party for their work on dailywages ofRs. 20/- Thus , the work ofsweeping was given to them on contract basis. As per this contract, the period of the work was for 2 hours per day and after having understood these conditions , the Second Party has worked for two hours only as a sweeper from 1990 to 1997.

Shri Ajit Abhyankar -Union

Representative for Second Party

AWARD

(Date: 4-3-2004) 1. This reference is made by Govt . of India, Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi - 110001 by clause (d) ofsub-section (1) and section 2 -A of section 10 of the I.D.A. for adjudication of the dispute between the above referred parties over the following demands:

1567GI/2004-18

(b) Further, according to the First Party, it never happened that the Second Party was terminated from the services. The fact is that as the work of the SecondParty was on contract basis no point oftermination of her services arises. On the contrary, as per the Quotations , the First Party has been paid the wages of her work.

(c) Lastly, it has been stated by the First Party that the Second Party was given work on contract basis as per the orders of their superiors as they cannot appoint the dailywages labourers . Therefore, this work was given to the Second Party on contract basis. Therefore, the Second Party does not come in purview of the definition ofdaily 2652

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2004/JYAISTHA 8, 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] wages workmen. Hence, it is prayed for the dismissal ofthe reference.

4. In pursuance to the pleadings ofboth the parties , following issues have been framed by my learned pre- decessor at Exh . 11 dt . 15-6-2001 and I record my findings in front of each of them for the reasons stated below:

ISSUES

FINDINGS

Negative.

Relief-

continuity of service.

Reinstatement with

full backwages and

9. Thus , it has to be found out that whether it is necessary to record findings of the employee -employer relationship inbetween the Second Party and the First Party As pointed out earlier, by the Second Party that the issue of the status of the Second Party is worked under Industrial Disputes Act as well as fact of termination of the services is not open to be decided by this Court . Therefore , in the contentions of the First Party regarding the issue of the workmen and fact of termination is beyond the scope of the reference and hence, ultra -virus powers of this Court. This Court is only to decide whether the termination ofthe Second Party is made inlawful manner or not and if it is not with relief, the Second Party is entitled to. I am of the view that the contentions raised by the Second Party on the point ofemployer -employee relationship are justifiable.

1. Whether the action of the management ofPGM, Telecom , Pune in relation to DE Telecom Yerwada in terminating the services of Smt . Bharati Misal Part -time Casual labour is legal and justified?

If not , to what reliefthe said workman is entitled?

2. What Order ?

As given below.

REASONS

5. The Second Party has examined herself on oath atExh. 16 and closed the evidence vide purshis at Exh. 25 .

(6 ) The First Party has adduced evidence of Shri . Ramesh Shivrao Sangeet at Exh . 28 - A and closed its evidence vide purshis at Exh . 32.

ISSUES NO . 1 AND 2 :

10. There is evidence of the First Party through Mr. Sangeet and stated that there is production of the Quotation at Exh . 10/A submitted by the Second Party. In response to these Quotations , three persons by name Shanta Kajane, Shalan Gaikwad and present Second Party and more others have filed their Quotation and in response to it, the work of cleaning of premises was assigned to the present SecondParty. On minute scrutiny of the Quotation at Exh . 10/A , it is noticed that it does not bear any endorsement of the Office . It is also noticed that the opening words of these Quotations states that the Second Party should be given appointment on casual basis and not on contract basis . It is further to be noted that there is no mention of the place of the work, period of contract, right liability, obligations and duties . Further, it is also without the names of these witnesses . Further, the paper bearsome date as date ofdocument with much overwritings 15-12-90. However, the witness signs putting the date as 18-12-90. Thus it must be held that the assigning of the work on contractbasis of the Second party must be held as a sham and bogus.

7. It is the case of the Second Party that she was paid wages supervised and instructed by the Office ofthe First party. Therefore , there was master and servant relationship in between them. As against this, it is the contention of the First Party that the Second Party was working on contract basis with the First Party. It had called the witnesses to do work on contract basis with the First Party, and inresponse to it , the Second Party had accepted cleaning work of First Party establishment .

8. In this matter, there is no production of the orginal Quotation before the Court . The witness ofthe First party Ramesh Sangeet in his evidence at Exh . 28 - A has stated that no appointment letter was issued to the SecondParty. They have been assigning the work on contract basis on daily wages rate ofRs . 20/- per day. The period of the work was assigned for two hours . Thus , they had worked from 1990 to 1997. Further according to him, from the year 2000, change has been effected by the Central Government and by it the Central Government has withdrawn the powers of assigning the work of the Class IV persons on contract basis. Even in cross examination Shri Sangeet has admitted that he does not know how Quotations were invited by his Office. Further, why the Quotations of these three sweepers have been accepted is not been explained by him. Further all these Quatations below Exh. 10/A does not bear any seal or endorsement of his office in token of its receipt.

11. There is contention of the First Party that the Second Party was appointed on contract basis so as to mean that she was working on her own and there had been no employer - employee relationship inbetween them . In support of these contentions, no documentary evidence has been produced on record. Again the First Party witness Sangeet has admitted in his cross examination that he has no documentary evidence to show that the Second Party wasworking on contract basis . Further it is the matter of high imagination that the present Second Party engaged as a sweeper on contract basis has been given work on the same contract continuously for more than 5 years . In addition to it , the First Party witness Sangeet-Asstt . General Manager ( Legal has admitted that there was a agreement in between the First Party and Second Party on receipt of the Quotations. Further, he admitted that hedoes not have any other evidence to show that the Second Party was working on contract basis . Thus, in this matter from the documentary evidence on record , the status of 2653

भारत का राजपत्र मइ 29, 2004/ज्यष्ठ 8, 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

the present Second Party appears to be that of the workmen.

(ii ) the employment was on a contract and not as a dailywager simplification which provided inter alia that the employment shall come to an end on the expiry ofthe scheme or project .

(iii) the employment came to an end simultaneously with the termination of the scheme or project and consistently with the terms of the contract. and

(iv) the workman ought to have been approached ormade aware of the above said terms by the employer at the commencement ofemployment.

12. In this behalf, if the provisions of the section 25-F of the I.D. Act provided that no employer -employee in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until the workmen has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment, period of retrenchment, period of the notice has expired. The workman has been paid in lieu of list ofnotices , wages for the period of notice . Similarly, as perRule 81 , the employer is bound to display a seniority list ofall the workmen in the establishment, on the notice board at least 7 days before retrenchment . It has been admitted by the First Party that the Second Party is not been served with any notice of whatsoever nature nor paidany compensation or there was display of any seniority list . The Second Party was admittedly doing the work of cleaningand sweeping, regularly. This work was of regular nature . Even after the termination ofthe Second Party, the work of sweeping and cleaning by the Second Party is in existence till today. Therefore , the retrenchment of the Second Party was without any ground of whatsoever nature . Thus, the Second Party must be held to have been established case of her retrenchment amountingto illegal termination without notice , compensation and legal dues .

Theengagement of a workman as a dailywager does not by itself amount to putting the workman on notice that he was being engaged in a scheme or project which was to last only for a particular length oftime or upto the occurence of some event and therefore the workman ought to know that his employment was short lived. The contract of employment consiously entered into by the workmen with the employer would result in a notice to the workman on the date of commencement of the employment itself that his employment was short lived and as per the terms ofthe contract the same was liable to termination on the expiry of the contract and the scheme or project coming to an end. Theworkman may not therefore , complaint that by the act ofthe employer his employment was coming to an abrupt termination. To exclude the termination of a Scheme or project employee from the definition of retrenchment it is for the employer to prove the above said ingredients so as to attract the applicability of sub-clause (bb ) above said. In the case at hand, the Respondent employer has failed in alleging and proving the ingredients of sub -clause (bb ) . All that has been proved is that has been proved is that the appellants were engaged as casual workers or daily wagers in a project. For want of proof attracting applicability of sub -clause (bb ) it has to be held that the termination ofthe services of the appellants amounted to retrenchment .

13. There is defence of the First Party that it had no authority to appoint regular employees for cleaning work since 1984. There were instructions of that authority to that effect that the appointment for the cleaning work be made on contract basis. Further the power of appointing contract basis workers has been withdrawn and all the cleaning work was done by the Contractor appointed for the purpose .However, there is admission of the First Party in the cross examination through witness Sangeet that in para 7 ofExh. 28 -A some of the workmen like the Second Party who were working casually before or after 1995 hạvc beenmade permanent and that he cannot state the rules under which they were made permanent . Thus , it is clear Cut case of malafide action and discrimination on the part ofFirstParty.

14. Even otherwise the case of the Second Party have been considered u/s 2 ( oo ) (bb ) it would be noticed that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in 2003 (2) L. L. N. 1134 in the case ofS. M. Nilajkar and others and Telecom District Manager, Karnataka has obserbed that:

"Held : The termination of service of a workman engaged in a scheme or project may not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of sub-clause (bb ) subject to the following conditions being satisfied :

Closure of a project or scheme by the State Government would be covered by closing down of undertaking within the meaning of S - 25FFF. The workman would therefore be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of section 25 -F though the right of employer to close the undertaking for any reason whatsoever cannot be questioned. Compliance of sec. 25 -F shall be subject to such relaxations as are provided by sec. 25FFF. The undertaking having been closed on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control ofthe employer i.e. by its own force as it was designed and destined to have a limited life only, the compensation payable to the workman under clause (b) ofsec . 25 - F shall not exceed his average pay for three months . This is so because of failure on the part of the Respondent employer to allege and prove that the termination ofemployment fell within sub -clause (bb ) of Clause (oo) of section 2 of the Act.

(i) that the workman was employed in a project or scheme oftemporary duration.

2654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29, 2004/JYAISTHA 8, 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ) For all the foregoing reasons the decision of the Division Bench deserves to be set aside and that of the learned single Judge restored, except for the finding that the appellants were not project employees.

The project in which the workmen were engaged has come to an end. The Respondent Government may consider the appellants being accomodated in some other project or scheme or regular employment, if available,by issuing suitable instructions or guidelines . If it is not possible, the Respondent shall beat liberty to terminate the employment of the appellants after reinstating them as directedby theHigh Court and then complying with section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act . "

protect or the other due to decrease of the work still the action ofthe First Party must be held to have come within themischiefof retrenchment . Therefore, the compliance of Section 25-F being pre-requisite factor before termination of the services of the workman. In the light of the observations ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court, it has beenmade binding on the First Partyto comply with the provisions of Section 25-F and in the present matter on the other hand, admittedly threre is no compliance of this provision . Therefore, taking into account the status of the present SecondPartyas sweeper and any action on the part ofthe First Party about the further employment of the Second Partyon the basis ofthe order of superior by its own office and any action in that behalf makes the Second Party entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and continuityofservice.

15. Secondly, in the case reported in 2001 (3) L.L.N. 956 (Nagpur Bench) in the case of General Manager, TelecomNagpur and others and Naresh Brijlal Charoteand another :--

"A sweeper appointed on temporary basis raised an industrial dispute on being removed from the services.

17. It is the matter of record that there is statement ofthe payment made to the Second Partybythe First Party on hourly basis pertaining to period from 1992 to 1998 which clearly shows that she has worked for more than240 days in the year continuously. thus, it makes her entitled for her reinstatement with full back wages and continuity ofservice.

18. The point which arise in the reference that due tothe expiry ofthe alleged terms and tenure of the contract, the Second Party cannot be given reinstatement to her original post. In this behalf, it can be stated that the First Party being the Government may consider the case of the Second Party for her accomodation elsewhere , if it is not possible for it to place the Second Party workman at the sameplace.

Under Section 25F-the said sweeper raised a dispute on the grounds that juniors to him were still in service and that procedure u/ s 25F of the Act had not been followed in his termination . Petitioners contend that Respondent was not a workman under the Act and that his services being on hourly basis , s -25F is not attracted- Held definition of the workman as defined under the Act does not make any distinction between full time and part- time employee. Respondent is a workman under the Act- Therefore, compliance with s -25F procedure was mandatory and non -compliance rendered the termination void ab initio."

19. Hence, under all these circumstances , it is held that the action ofthe First Party in terminating the services ofthe Second Party, daily wage sweeper working at SDC Phones is not justifiable, and she is entitled to the reliefof reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service .Hence , I answer Issue No. I accordingly, and pass following order:

ORDER

1. The reference is allowed.

2. The First Party is directed to reinstate the Second Party as a sweeper at any office ofPune Telecom Department with full back wages and continuity of service.

3. No order as to costs .

R.K. BHISE, Presiding Officer

Place: Pune

DATE: 4-3-2004

16. Therefore , in the light of the identical matters , before Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court , and in the light of the observations under these authorities , the First Party cannot take defence that the Second Party was engaged for one hour per day and she was being paid as per the then existing daily wages rates per hour. Further, it does not lie in the mouth of the Respondent that the terms and conditions of the contract between the First Party and Second Party makes it clear that the work assigned to the Second Party was on contract basis and she was never in continuous service of the Pune Telecom or she has never completed 240 days work in Pune Telecom within 12 successive months also it does not lie in the mouth of the FirstParty. The First Party has also relied upon Judgement ofHon'ble Apex Court reported in 1992 , A.I.R. Pg . 593 , 1994 ( 1 ) LLN pg . 545, 1999 ( 1 ) LLN 579 , in the light ofthe recent authorities ofHon'ble Supreme Court . Therefore , I am of the clear view that the definition of retrenchment u/ s 2(00) of the Act is nothing but termination of the service of the workman for any reason. Even if it is assumed that the Act of the First Party interminating the services on one 2655

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8, 1926

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 6 मई, 2004

2.The Second Party has made out his case in the statement of claim in the following manner:

का. आ. 1288.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा, 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में श्रम न्यायालय पुणे के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[फा. सं. एल-40012/48/97 -आई.आर. (डी.यू. ) ]

(a) According to the Second Party she was in employment ofthe Pune Telecom Departmentas Part-Time Sweeper since 1990. She rendered her services continuously for 5 years from 1990 to 1995. There was no stigma on her services during that period. However, in 1995-GeneralManager- PuneTelecom orally terminated her services.

कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 6th May, 2004

(b) Further according to the Second Party, she has 3 childrendependent upon her. Her husband is jobless . Hence, she has personally requested theGeneralManager for reinstatement, but tono effect.

S.O. 1288. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Labour Court, Pune as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt. of Telecom . and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-5-2004.

[F. No. L-40012/48/97-IR(DU) ]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

(c) Further, according to the Second Party, on 29-3-96 the Assistant Labour Commissioner moved the First Party at her instance for reinstatement but no response was givento itmay bethe First Party. However, it was arguedby the First Party that the nature of the employment of the Second Party was temporary and she cannot raise such a type ofdispute . Thus no settlement was arrived at inbetween them . Hence , inspite this reference, she has prayed for her reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages.

BEFORE SHRI R. K. BHISE , PRESIDING OFFICER, FIRST LABOUR COURT PUNE

REFERENCE (IDA) 2 97/1998

Department ofTelecom

TheGeneral Manager

First Party

Pune Telecom Pune -411002

AND

Second Party

Smt . Shalan Arun Gaikwad No. 113 , Bhavani Peth Pune-411042

Shri R. K. Bhise

Coram

APPEARANCES :

Smt . S. D. Kulkarni-Advocate for

FirstParty

3. (a) The First Party has filed written statement at Exh. 12 and denied that the apponitment ofthe Second Party was a part -time sweeper. In fact, no appointment letter was ever issued to the Second Party. On the contrary, in 1990, the First Party Pune Telecom has called for Quotations andaccordingly it has received Quotations from Shanta Kajane , Bharati Misal and the present Second Party for their work on daily wages of Rs . 20/-. Thus the work of sweeping was given to them on contract basis . As per this contract, the period of the work was for 2 hours per day and after having understood these conditions, the Second Party has worked for two hours only as a sweeper from 1990 to 1995 .

Shri Ajit Abhyankar-Union

Representative for Second Party

AWARD

(Date: 4-3-2004)

(b) Further, according to the First Party, it never happened that the Second Party was terminated from the services . The fact is that as the work of the Second Party was on contract basis no point of termination of her services arises . On the contrary, as per the Quotations , the First Party has been paid the wages of her work.

1. This is reference is made by Govt . of India , Shram Mantralaya New Delhi - 110001 by clause (d) of sub- section (1) and Section 2 - A of section 10 of the 1.D.A. for adjudication of the dispute between the above referred parties over the following demands :

"That the services of the Second Party have been terminated w.e.f. 1-6-95 and he may be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages for the intervening idle period. "

(c) Lastly, it has been stated by the First Party that the Second Party was given work on contract basis as per the orders of their superiors as they cannot appoint the daily wages laborers . Therefore, this work was given to the Second Partyon contrary basis. Therefore, SecondParty does not come in purview of the definition of 2656

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 29 , 2004/JYAISTHA 8,1926

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii )] dailywages workmen. Hence , it is prayed for the dismissal of the reference.

4. In pursuance to the pleadings ofboth the parties , following issues have been framed by my learned predecessor at Exh. 14 dt . 18-10-2001 and I record my findings in front of each of them for the reasons stated below:

ISSUES

FINDINGS

Negative Relief- Reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.

9. Thus , it has to be found out that whether it is necessary to record findings of the employee -employer relationship in between the Second Party and the First Party. As pointed out earlier by the Second Party that the issue of the status of the Second Party is worked under Industrial Disputes Act as well as fact of termination of the services is not open to be decided by this Court . Therefore, in the contentions ofthe First Party regarding the issue ofthe workmen and fact oftermination is beyond the scope of the reference and hence, ultra -vires powers of this Court . This Court is only to decide whether the termination of the Second Party is made in lawful manner ornotand if it is not with relief, the Second Party is entitled to. I am of the view that the contentions raised by the Second Party on the point of employer employee relationship are justifiable .

1. Whether the action of the management ofDivisional Engineer, Phones (Ex- ternal MHS) Pune in termi- nating the services of Smt . Shalan Arun Gaikwad, daily wage sweeper work- ing at SDC, Phones is justi- fiedand legal . If not , what relief the workman is entitled to.

2. What Order .

As givenbelow.

REASONS

5. The Second Party has examined herself on oath at Exh . 23 and closed the evidence vide purshis at Exh. 24.

6. The First Party has adduced evidence of Shri Ramesh Shivrao Sangeet at Exh . 16 and closed its evidence vide purshis at Exh . 22.

Issue Nos. 1 and 2:

10.There is evidence of the First Party throughMr. Sangeet and stated that there is production of the Quotation at Exh . 13/3 submitted by the Second Party. In response to these Quotations , three persons by name ShantaKajane, Bharati Missal and the Present Second Party and more others have filed their Quotation and in response to it , the work of cleaning orpremises was assigned to the present Second Party. On minute scrutiny of the Quotation at Exh. 13/4 , it is noticed that it does not bear any endorsement of the Office . It is also noticed that the opening words of these Quotations states that the Second Party should be given appointment on casual basis and not on contract basis. It is further to be noted that there is no mention of theplace of the work, period of contract, right ability, obligations and duties. Further, it is also without the names of these witnesses . Further, the paper bears one date as date of documents with much overwriting as 15-12-90. However, the witnesses signs putting the date as 18-12-90. Thus , it must be held that the assigning of the work on contract basis of the Second Party must be held as a sham and bogus .

7. It is the case of the Second Party that he was paid wages supervised and instructed by the Office of the First Party. Therefore, there was master and servant relationship inbetween them. As against this , it is the contention ofthe First Party that the Second Party was working on contract basis with the First Party. It had called the witnesses todo work on contract basis with the First Party, and in response to it, the Second Party had accepted cleaning work ofFirst Party establishment .

8. In this matter, there is no production of the original Quotationbefore the Court . The witness of the First Party Ramesh Sangeet in his evidence at Exh . 16 has stated that no appointment letter was issued to the Second Party. They have been assigning the work on contract basis on daily wages rate of Rs . 20/- per day. The period ofthe workwas assigned for two hours. Thus , they had worked from 1990 to 1995. Further , according to him, from the year 2000, change has been effected by the Central Government and by it the Central Government has withdrawn the powers of assigning the work of the Class IV persons on contract basis.Even in cross -examination Shri Sangeet has admitted that he does not know how Quotations were invited by his office. Further why the Quotations of these three sweepers have been accepted is not been explained by him, Further, all these Quotations below Exh. 13 does not bear any seal orendorsement of his Office in token of its receipts.

11. There is contention of the First Party that the Second Party was appointed on contract basis so as to mean that she was working on her own and there had been no employer-employee relationship in between them . In support of these contentions , no documentary evidence has been produced on record. Again the First Party witness Sangeet has admitted in his cross examination that he has no documentary to show that the Second Party was working on contract basis. Further it is the matter of high imagination that the present Second Party engaged as a sweeper on contract basis has been given work on the same contract continuously for more than 5 years , In addition to it, the First Party witness Sangeet-Asst. General Manager (Legal ) has admitted that there was a agreement inbetween the First Party and Second Party on receipt of theQuotations. Further, he admitted that he does not have any other evidence to show that the Second Party was working on contract basis. Thus in this matter from the documentary evidence on record, the status of the present Second Party appears to be that of the workman .

2657 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 29, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 8 , 1926

(iii) the employment came to an end simultaneouslywith the termination of the scheme or project and consistently with the terms of the contract; and

(iv) the workman ought to have been appraised or made aware of the above aid terms by the employer at the commencement ofemployment.

12. In this behalf, if the provisions of the section 25 -F of Industrial Disputes Act provided that no employer- employee in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until workman has been givenone moths's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment , period of retrenchment and the period of the notices has expired. The workman has been paid in lieu oflist ofnotices, wages for the period ofnotice. Similarly, as per the Rule 81 , the employer is bound to display a seniority list of all the workmen in the establishment, on the notice board at least 7 days before retrenchment. It has been admitted by the First Party that the Second Party is not been served with any notice ofwhatsoever nature nor paid anycompensation or there was display of any seniority list. The Second Party was admittedly doing the work of cleaningand sweeping, regularly. This work was of regular nature.Even after the termination of the Second Party, the work of sweeping and cleaning by the Second Party is in existence till today. Therefore, retrenchment ofthe Second Partywas without any ground of whatsoever nature . Thus , the Second Party must be held to have been established caseofthe retrenchment amounting to illegal termination without notice, compensation and legal dues .

The engagement of a workman as a daily wager does notby itself amount to putting the workman on notice that he was being engaged in a scheme or projectwhich was to last only for a particular length oftime or upto the occurrence of some event and therefore the workman ought to know that his employment was short lived. The contract of employment consciously entered into by the workmenwith the employer would result in anotice to the workman on the date of commencement of the employment itself that his employment was short-lived and as per the terms of the contract the same was liable to termination on the expiry ofthe contract and the scheme or project coming to an end. The workman may not therefore , complaint that by the act of the employer his employment was coming to an abrupt termination . To exclude the termination of a scheme or project employee from thedefinition ofretrechment, it is for the employer toprove the above said ingredients so as to attract the applicability of sub-clause (bb) above said. In the case at hand, the Respondent employer has failed in alleging and proving the ingredients of sub-clause (bb ) . All that has been proved is that has been proved is that the appellants were engaged as casual workers or daily wagers in a project . Forwant of proof attracting applicability of sub-clause (bb ) it has to be held that the termination of the services of the appellants amounted to retrenchment.

13. There is defence of the First Party that it had no authority to appoint regular employees for cleaning work since 1984 (Exh. 13 /5and 6) . There were instructions ofthat authority to that effect the appointment for the cleaning work be made on contract basis . Further, the power of appointing contract basis worker has been withdrawn and all the cleaning work was done by a contractor appointed for the purpose. However, there is admission of the First Party in the cross examination through witness sangeet that inpara 7 ofExh. 16 some ofthe workmen like the second Partywhowereworking casually before or after 1995 have been made permanent and that he cannot state the rules under which they were made permanent . Thus , it is clear cutcase ofmalafide action and discrimination on the part ofFirstParty.

14.Even otherwise the case of the Second Party have been considered under section 2 (oo) (bb) it would be noticed that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in2003 (2) L.L.N. 1134 in the case of S.M. Nilajkar and others and Telecom District Manager , Karnataka has observed that:

"Held: The termination of service of a workman engaged in a scheme or project may not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of sub -clause (bb) subject to the following conditions being satisfied:

(1) that the workman was employed in a project or scheme of temporary duration.

Closure of a project or scheme by the State Government would be covered by closing down of undertaking within the meaning of s . 25FFF. The workman would therefore be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of $25F though the right of employer to close the undertaking for any reason whatsoever cannot be questioned. Compliance of s.25F shallbe subject to such relaxations as are provided by s.25FFF. The undertaking having been closed on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer i.e. by its own force as it was designed and destined to have a limited life only, the compensationpayable to the workman under clause (b) of s.25F shall not exceed his average pay for three months. This is so because of failure on the part of the Respondent employer to all edge and provethat thetermination ofemployment fell within sub- clause (bb ) of Cl. (oo ) of section 2 of the Act. (ii) the employment was on a contract and not as a daily wager simplification which provided inter alia that the employment shall come to an end on the expiry ofthe scheme or project.

2658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 29, 2004/JYAISTHA 8, 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] For all the foregoing reasons the decision of the DivisionBench deserves to be set aside and that of the learned single Judge restored, except for the finding that the appellants were not project employees.

Theproject in which the workmen were engaged has come to an end . The Respondent Government may consider the appellants being accommodated in some other project or scheme or regular employment, if available , by issuing suitable instructions or guidelines. Ifit be not possible, the Respondent shall beat liberty to terminate the employment of the appellants after reinstating them as directed by the High Court and then complying with section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act. "

but termination of the service of the workman for any reason. Even if it is assumed that the Act of the First Party interminating the services on one pretext or the other due to decrease of the work still the action of the First Party must be held to have come within the mischief of retrenchment. Therefore , the compliance of Section 25 -Fbeing pre-requisite factor before termination ofthe service of the warkman. In the light of the observations oftheHonourable Apex Court , it has been made binding ontheFirst Party to comply with the provisions of Section 25 -F and in the present matter on the other hand, admittedly there is no compliance of this provision. Therefore, taking into account the status of the present Second Party as sweeper and any action on the part of the First Party about the further employment of the Second Party on the basis of the order of superior by its own office and any action in that behalf makes the second Partyentitled for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.

15. Secondly, in the case reported in 2001 (3) L.L.N. 956 (Nagpur Bench) in the case of General Manager, Telecom Nagpur and others AND Naresh Briilal Charote and another;

"A sweeper appointed on temporary basis raised and industrial dispute on being removed from the service.

17. It is the matter of record that there is statement of the payment made to the Second Party by the First Party on hourly basis pertaining to period from 1992 to 1998 which clearly shows that she has worked for more than 240 days in the year continuously. Thus it makes her, entitled for her reinstatement with full back wages and continuity ofservice.

Under Section 25 -F-the said sweeper raised a dispute on the grounds that juniors to him were still in service and that procedure under Section 25-F of the Act had not been followed in his termination. Petitioners contend that Respondent was not a workman under the Act and that his services being on hourly basis , s-25F is not attracted-Held definition ofthe workman as defined under the Act does not make any distinction between full time and part time employee . Respondent is a workman under the Act . Therefore , compliance with s - 25F procedure was mandatory and non - compliance rendered the termination void abinitio " .

18. The point which arise in the reference that due to the expiry of the alleged terms and tenure of the contract, the Second Party cannot be given reinstatement to her original post . In this behalf it can be stated that the First Party being the Government may consider the case of the Second Party for her accommodational elsewhere, if it is not possible for it to place the Second Party workman at the sameplace.

19.Hence, under all these circumstances, it is held that the action ofthe First Party in terminating the services of Second Party, daily wage sweeper working at SDC Phones is notjustifiable, and she is entitled to the reliefof reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.Hence I answer issue No. 1 accordingly and pass followingorder:

ORDER

1. The reference is allowed.

2. The First Party is directed to reinstate the Second Party as a sweeper at any office of Pune Telecom Department with full back wages and continuity of service.

3. No order as to costs.

R.K.BHISE, PresidingOfficer 16. Therefore, in the light of the identical matters, before Honoureble Apex Court and High Court, and in the light of the observations under these authorities, the First Party cannot take defence that the Second Party was engaged for one hour per day and she was being paid as per the then existing daily wages rates per hour. Further, it does not lie in the mouth of the Respondent thatthe terms and conditions of the contract between the FirstParty and Second Party makes it clear that the work as Signed to the Second Party was on contract basis and she was never in continuous service of the Pune Telecom orshehas never completed 240 days work in PuneTelecom with in 12 successive months also it does not lie in the mouth of the First Party. The First Party has also relied upon Judgment of honourable Apex Court reported in 1992 A.I.R. , Pg 593 , 1994( 1 ) LLN Pg545, 1999( 1 ) LLN 579. in the light of the recent authorities of Honourable Supreme Court. Therefore, I am of the clear view that the definitionof retrenchment u/s 2( 00) ofthe Act isis nothing

Place: Pune Dated: 4-3-2004

Printedby the Manager , Govt . of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi- 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi- 110054.