This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्रीसं०डी एल ( एम ) 04/0007/2003-05

REGD. No. DL (N) 04/0007/2003-05 भारत को राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं.25]

नई दिल्ली, जून 13 - जून-19, 2004, शनिवार /ज्येष्ठ 23-श्रेष्ठ 29 , 1926

NEW DELA JUNE 13-JUNE 19, 2004, SATURDAY /JYAISTHA 23 - JYASTHA 23, 1936 No.:25]

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्यादअपने संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके

Separate Paging is given to this Part inorduthimay be filed as a separate compilation

भाय - खण्ड 3- उप- खण्ड (1) Tution 3- Sub- section (il)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय की StatutoryOrders and Notificat ned bythe Ministries ofthe Goverment of Indi (OtherOwner thanwin the Miranday ofDefence)

मंत्रिमंडल सचिवालय नई दिल्ली, 8 जून , 2004

का० आा० 1390.- केन्द्रीय सरकार दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) भात 24 की उप- धारा (8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त समितयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, तमिलानडु उच्च न्यायालय में केन्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो के रिटेनर काउंसेल श्री एम. चंद्रशेखरन , अधिवक्ता, चेन्नई को दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा अन्वेषित मामलों से उद्भुत अभियोजनों, अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों अथवा अन्य विषयों का संचालन करने के लिए तमिलनाडु उच्च न्यायालय, चेन्नई में विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं० 225/12/2004-डी० एस० पी० ई ० ] भाष्कर खुल्बे, निदेशक CABINET SECRETARIAT

New Delhi , the 8th June, 2004

S.O. 1390.-In exercise of the powers conferred by the provisions of Sub- section (8 ) of Section 24 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) the Central Government hereby appoints Shri N. Chandrasekharan, 1760 G1/ 2004

Advocate, Chennai and Retainer Counsel of the Contral Bureau of Investigation in the Tamil Nadu High Court, as SpecialPublicProsecutor, for contacting the prosecutions, appeals, revision or oder matters arising out of the cases investigatedbythe Dolbi Special Police Establishment in the Tamil NaduHigh Court at Chennai .

[No. 225/12/2004-DSPE ] BHASKAR KHULBE, Direstor नई दिल्ली, 8 जून, 2004

का. आ. 1391.-धारा 24 उपधारा ( 8 ) दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार श्री दयान कृष्णन, अधिवक्ता को विशिष्ट पुलिस,स्थापना द्वारा कायण किये गये केस आर. सी.6/1991/एस.आई. यू.- IX/नई दिल्ली(ओ. पी. शर्मा ट्रेप केस ) का ट्रायल विशिष्ट न्यायाधीश, दिल्लीके न्यायव्य में तथा इस कांक से संबंधित सभी मामलों जैसे अपील व रिवीजन हेतु निधन में संचालन करने हेतु एतद‌या निकुमा कारती है ।

[सं० 225/14/2004- डी० एस० पी० ई ० ] भाष्कर खुल्ने, निदेशक

(3195) 3196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 19 , 2004/JYAISTHA 29, 1926

New Delhi , the 8th June , 2004 S.O. 1391. In exercise of the powers conferredby Sub- section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Dayan Krishan, Advocate , as Special Public Prosecutor for the conduct of cases R. C. -6 /91/SIU -XI / CBI/ New Delhi (O.P.Sharma Trap Case ) institutedby the Delhi SpecialEstablishment in the Court of Special Judge Delhi and appeals , revision or other matters arising out of this case in revisional or appellate Courts , establisbed by law.

[No. 225/ 14/2004-DSPE]

BHASKAR KHULBE , Director कार्मिक , लोक- शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय ( कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 10 जून, 2004

का. आ. 1392. - केन्द्र सरकार, " सिगरेट और अन्य तम्बाकू उत्पाद ( विज्ञापन निषेध औरव्यापार एवं वाणिज्य, उत्पादन , आपूर्ति और वितरण विनियमन ) अधिनियम, 2003 " की धारा 25 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए नीचे दी गई तालिका के कॉलम 3 में दर्शाए गए अधिकारी को कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग के संबंध में एतद्वारा प्राधिकृत करती हैं, उक्त अधिकारी उपर्युक्त अधिनियम की धारा 4 के अंतर्गत्त कार्य करने के लिए सक्षम अधिकारी होगा :

क्र. सं . कार्यालय का नाम

प्राधिकृत व्यक्ति (1) (2)

(3)

उपसचिव ( समन्वय ) 1. कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग और पेंशन तथा पेंशनभोगी कल्याण विभाग

यह अधिसूचना तत्काल प्रभाव से लागूहोगी ।

[फा. सं. आई.-25017/ 1/2004 - प्रशासन- III]

वी. के. वेलुकुट्टी, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL , PG & PENSIONS (Department of Personnel & Training) New Delhi , the 10th June , 2004

S.O. 1392. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 25 of " The Cigarettes and other Tobacca products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce , Production , Supply and Distribution) Act , 2003" , the Central Government in the Department of Personnel & Training hereby Authorizes the officers indicated in Column 3 of the Toble given below who shall be competent to act under Section 4 of the said Act; S.No. Office

Authorised Person (1)

(2)

(3)

1. Department of Personnel & Deputy Secretary (Coord.) Training and Department of Pensions & Pensioner's Welfare

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] कार्यालय आयुक्त: केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क एवं सीमा शुल्क रायपुर, 25 मई, 2004

संख्या 03/2004 सीमा-शुल्क

मा.आ. 1393. सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा 8 (क) के तहत मुझे प्रदेस शक्तियों का प्रतीग करते हुए में एच.के. जैन, आयुक्त, सीमा शुल्क एवं केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क, रायपुर एत‌द्वारा छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य के रायपुर स्टोर डिपो ( आर. एस .डी. ) कापा, रायपुर में स्थित कन्टैनर कीर्पोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के इमलैण्ड कन्टैनर डिपो को आयातित वस्तुओं को उतारने और निर्यातित वस्तुओं को लादने के स्थान के रूप में इस आधार पर अनुमोदित करता हूं कि वे सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 के संबंधित प्रावधानों तथा इस संबंध में भारत सरकार ( अथवा ) आयुक्त, सीमा शुल्क एवं केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क द्वारा समय- समय पर जारी अन्य निर्देशों का अनुपालन करेंगे ।

आगे, सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 की धारा 8 ( ख ) के तहत मैं उपरोक्त इनलैण्ड कन्टैनर डिपो , रायपुर स्टोर डिपो , कापा, रायपुर में निहित सीमा शुल्क क्षेत्र का एतद्‌द्वारा विनिर्दिष्ट करता हूँ, जिसका क्षेत्रफल 12.8448 हेक्टेयर निम्नानुसार है ।

पूर्व दिशा में बलौदाबाजार रोड ।

पश्चिमदिशा में रायपुर स्टोर डिपो गुड़स शेड। उत्तर दिशा में : फूड कार्पोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया का गोदाम । दक्षिण दिशा में : रायपुर स्टोर डिपो रेलवे केबिन । [फा. सं. VIII ( सी.शु. )-48-06/2003 /के.उ.शु./तक]

एच. के. जैन, आयुक्त OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER : CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

Raipur, the 25th May, 2004 No. 03/2004- CUSTOMS

S.O. 1393- In exercise of the powers conferred on me under Section 8( a) of the Customs Act, 1962 , I , H.K. Jain, Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Raipur , hereby approve the Inland Container Depot of Container Corporation of India Ltd. located at Raipur Store Depot (RSD) , Kapa, Raipur in the State of Chhattisgarh, as a place for unloading of imported goods and for loading of export goods, subject to the strict observance of relevant provisions of Customs Act, 1962 and other instructions issued, in this behalf, by the Govt. of India (or) Commissioner ofCustoms & Central Excise from time to time .

Further under Section 8 (b ) of the Customs Act , 1962, I hereby specify the limits of the Customs Area comprising the above Inland Container Depot , Raipur Store Depot, Kapa, Raipur and measuring 12.8448 Hectares as under:-

East Side : BalodaBazar Road.

West Side : Raipur Store Depot goods shed.

North Side

This notification shall come into force with immediate effect.

[F. No. 1-25017/ 1/2004-Ad. III]

VAK. VELUKUTTY, Under Secy.

:Godown ofFood Corporation of India .

South Side : Raipur Store Depot Railway cabin .

[F. No. VIII (Cus.) 48-06/2003 /CX/Tech]

H. K. JAIN , Commissioner 3197

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय (स्वास्थ्यविभाग)

नईदिल्ली, 7 जून , 2004

का.आ. 1394-भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102 ) के प्रयोजन हेतु इरकुट्स्कस्टेट मेडिकल इंस्टीट्यूट द्वारा प्रदत्त चिकित्सा अर्हता डिप्लोमा ( चिकित्सा स्नातक ) उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 के अधीन एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता है;

और डा. चेरकाशिन एलेक्जेंडर फियोदोरोविच , रूस के नागरिक , जिनके पास उक्त अर्हता है नारायण कृष्ण सेवा संस्थान, पसरट्टा बाजार, हाथरस-204101 से धमार्थ ( चैरिटेबल ) कार्य हेतु और न कि व्यक्तिगत लाभ हेतु जुड़े हैं; 1:

अतः अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ग ) के अनुसरण में, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा यह विनिर्दिष्ट करती है कि भारत में डा. चेरकाशिन एलेक्जेंडर फियोदोरोविच द्वारा चिकित्सा आयुर्विज्ञान की प्रैक्टिस करने की अवधि:-

(क) मार्च, 2004 से आगे 6 माह की अवधि; अथवा (ख ) उस अवधि जिसके दौरान डा. चेरकाशिन एलेक्जेंडर फियोदोरोविच, नारायण कृष्ण सेवा संस्थान , पसरट्टा बाजार, हाथरस- 204101 से जुड़े हैं, जो भी कम हो, तक सीमित रहेगी ।

[संख्या वी-11016/1/2004-एम ई( नीति- Ⅰ ) ]

पी.जी. कलाधरण , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Departmentof Health)

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2004

S.O. 1394. Whereas medical qualification Diploma (Medical Graduate ) granted by Irkutsk State Medical Institute is a recognised medical qualification for the purpose of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956) under Section 14 of the said Act ;

And whereas Dr. Cherkashin Alexander Fyodorovich, Russian national , who possess the said qualification is attached to Narayan Krishna Sewa Sansthan, Pasratta Bazar, Hathras- 204101 for the purpose ofcharitable work and not for personal gain;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of clause (c) of sub- section (1 ) of the Section 14 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby specifies that the period of practice ofmedicine by Dr. Cherkashin Alexander Fyodorovich in India shall be limited to:-

(a) aperiod ofsix months from March 2004 onwards;

(b)the periodduring which Dr. Cherkashin Alexander Fyodorovich is attached to Narayan Krishna Sewa Sansthan, PasrattaBazar, Hathras -204101 , whichever is shorter.

[No. V- 11016/1/2004-ME(Policy -I) ]

. P. G. KALADHARAN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 7 जून , 2004

का. आ. 1395.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102 ) के प्रयोजन हेतु यूनिवर्सिटी ऑफ ट्यूरिन द्वारा प्रदत्त चिकित्सा अर्हता डाक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 के अधीन एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता है ;

और डा. एंड्रिया पेट्रिनी, इटली के नागरिक, जिनके पास उक्त अर्हता है मित्रानिकेतन सोशल सर्विस सोसाइटी , मित्रानिकेतन अस्पताल , वागमन, केरल से धमार्थ ( चैरिटेबल ) कार्य हेतु और न कि व्यक्तिगत लाभ हेतु जुड़े हैं;

अतः अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 की उप- धारा (1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) के अनुसरण में, केन्द्र सरकार एत‌द्वारा यह विनिर्दिष्ट करती है कि भारत में डा. एंड्रिया पेष्ट्रिनी द्वारा चिकित्सा आयुर्विज्ञान की प्रैक्टिसकरने की अवधि:-

(क) अप्रैल, 2004 से आगे छह माह की अवधिः अथवा (ख) उस अवधिजिसके दौरान डा. एंड्रिया पेट्रिनी , मित्रानिकेतन सोशल सर्विस सोसाइटी, मित्रानिकेतन अस्पताल, वागमन, केरल से जुड़े हैं, जो भी कृम हो, तक सीमित रहेगी।

[संख्या वी-11016/1/2004- एम ई(मीति- Ⅰ ) ]

पी.जी. कलाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 7th June , 2004

S.O. 1395. Whereas medical qualification Doctor, ofMedicine granted by University ofTurin is a recognised: medical qualification for the purpose ofthe Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956) under Section 14 of the said Act;

And whereas Dr. Andrea Petrini , Italian national , who possess the said qualification is attached to Mitraniketan Social Service Society, Mitraniketan Hospital Vagamon, Kerala for the purpose of charitable work and not for personal gain;

Now, therefore , in pursuance of clause (c) of sub- section ( 1 ) of the Section 14 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby specifies that the period of practice.of medicineby Dr. Andrea Petrini in India shall be limited to:-

or (a) a period of six months from April, 2004 onwards ;

(b) the period during which Dr. Andrea Petrini is attached to Mitraniketan Social Service Society, Mitraniketan Hospital Vagamon , Kerala , whichever is shorter.

[No. V- 11016/ 1/2004 - ME (Policy - 1) ]

P. G. KALADHARAN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 7 जून , 2004

का. आ. 1396.- भारत आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102 ) के प्रयोजन हेतु रॉयल कालेज ऑफ फिजिशिएंस एंड सर्जन्स ग्लैसो की चिकित्सा अर्हता एफ.आर.सी.एस. उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 के अधीन एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता है ;

और डा. जन जकुबोस्की, ब्रिटिश नागरिक, जिनके पास उक्त अर्हता है राष्ट्रीय तंत्रिका विज्ञान केन्द्र , कलकत्ता पीयरलेस अस्पताल कैम्पस, 360 पंचसायर कोलकाता -700094 से धमार्थ (चैस्टेिबल ) कार्य हेतु और न कि व्यक्तिगत लाभ हेतु जुड़े हैं;

अतः अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) के अनुसरण में, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा यह विनिर्दिष्ट 3198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19. 2004/ JYAISTHA 29. 1926

करती है कि भारत में डा. जन जकुबोस्की द्वारा चिकित्सा आयुर्विज्ञान की प्रैक्टिस करने की अवधि:-

( क) इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तिथि से छह माह की अवधिः अथवा

(ख ) उस अवधि जिसके दौरान डा. जन जकुबोस्की, राष्ट्रीय तंत्रिका विज्ञान केन्द्र, कलकत्ता पीयरलेस अस्पताल कैम्पस , 360 पंचसायर कोलकाता-700094 से जुड़े हैं, जो भी कम हो , तक सीमित रहेगी ।

[संख्या बी-11016 / 1/2004- एम ई( नीति -1 ) ]

पी.जी. कलाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 7th June , 2004

S.O. 1396- Whereas medical qualification FRCS of Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons . Glasgow is a recognised medical qualification for the purpose ofthe Indian Medical Council Act , 1956 ( 102 of 1956 ) under Section 14 of the said Act:

And whereas Dr. Jan Jakubowski . British national , who possess the said qualification is attached to National Neurosciences Centre , Calcutta , Peerless Hospital Campus, 360 Panchasayar, Kolkata - 700094 for the purpose of charitable work and not for personal gain:

Now, therefore, in pursuance of clause (c) of sub- section ( 1 ) of the Section 14 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby specifies that the period of practice ofmedicine by Dr. Jan Jakubowski in India shall be limited to

(a) a period of six months from the date of issue of this notification ; or

(b) the period during which Dr. Jan Jakubowski is attached to National Neurosciences Centre Calcutta, Peerless Hospital Campus , 360 Panchasayar, Kolkata- 700094 , whichever is shorter.

[No. V- 11016/ 1 /2004 - ME (Policy - 1 ) ] P. G. KALADHARAN . Under Secy. नई दिल्ली, 7 जून , 2004

का. आ. 1397.-- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 (1956का 102 ) के प्रयोजन हेतु न्यूयार्क मेडिकल कालेज द्वारा प्रदत्त चिकित्सा अर्हता डाक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 के अधीन एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता है;

और डा. रिचर्ड एफ. कोहन , अमेरिकी नागरिक, जिनके पास उक्त अर्हता है अमृता आयुर्विज्ञान और अनुसंधान केन्द्र संस्थान, अमृता लेन , एलमक्करा , कोचीन से धमार्थ ( चैरिटेबल कार्य हेतु और न कि व्यक्तिगत लाभ हेतु जुड़े हैं;

अतः अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 4 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) के अनुसरण में, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्धारा यह विनिर्दिष्ट करती है कि भारत में डा. रिचर्ड एफ. कोहन द्वारा चिकित्सा आयुर्विज्ञान की प्रैक्टिसकरने की अवधि: -

(क ) इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तिथि से छह माह की अवधिः अथवा

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii ) ] (ख ) उस अवधि जिसके दौरान डा. रिचर्ड एफ. कोहन, अमृता आयुर्विज्ञान और अनुसंधान केन्द्र संस्थान, अमृता लेन , एलमक्करा, कोचीन से जुड़े हैं , जो भी कम हो, तक सीमित रहेगी।

[ संख्या वी -11016/ 1/2004- एम ई ( नीति -1 ) ]

पी.जी. कलाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi . the 7th June , 2004

S.O. 1397. Whereas medical qualification Doctor ofMedicine granted by New York Medical College is a recognised medical qualification for the purpose of the Indian Medical Council Act . 1956 ( 102 of 1956 ) under Section 14 of the said Act;

And whereas Dr. Richard F. Cohan , American national , who possess the said qualification is attached to Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Amrita Lane , Elamakkara , Cochin for the purpose of charitable work and not for personal gain;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of clause ( c) of sub- section ( 1 ) of the Section 14 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby specifies that the period of practice of medicine by Dr. Richard F. Cohan in India shall be limited to:-

(a) a period six months from the date of issue of this notification; or

(b) theperiodduring which Dr. Richard F. Cohan is attached to Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre , Amrita Lane , Elamakkara , Cochin , whichever is shorter:

[No. V- 11016/ 1 /2004- ME(Policy-I)] P.G. KALADHARAN, Under Secy.

वस्त्र मंत्रालय नईदिल्ली, 3 जून, 2004

का. आ. 1398.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के प्रयोग के लिए) राजभाषा नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम 4 के अनुसरण में, वस्त्र मंत्रालय के अंतर्गत आने वाले निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को जिनमें 80% से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, अधिसूचित करती है :

1. क्षेत्रीय तसर अनुसंधान केन्द्र, केन्द्रीय रेशम बोर्ड, स्वामी विवेकानंद वार्ड, साँई मंदिर के सामने , पोस्ट बॉक्स नं. 17, भंडारा -441 904 ( महाराष्ट्र);

2. बुनियादी बीज गुणन एवं प्रशिक्षण केन्द्र , बुनियादी तसर रेशमकीट बीज संगठन, केतअवप्रसं, केन्द्रीय रेशम बोर्ड, राम्पाचोड़ावरम ( आंध्र प्रदेश ) ;

3. बुनियादी बीज गुणन एवं प्रशिक्षण केन्द्र, बुनियादी तसर रेशमकीट बीज संगठन, केतअवप्रसं, केन्द्रीय रेशम बोर्ड, खरसवाँ ( झारखंड) ;

3199 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

जल संसाधन मंत्रालय

(बेसिन प्रबंधन अनुभाग)

4. बुनियादी बीज गुणन एवं प्रशिक्षण केन्द्र, बुनियादी तसर रेशमकीट बीज संगठन, केन्द्रीय रेशम बोर्ड, बिलासपुर;

नई दिल्ली, 7 जून, 2004

5. बुनियादी बीज गुणन एवं प्रशिक्षण केन्द्र , बुनियादी तसर रेशमकीट बीज संगठन, केन्द्रीय रेशम बोर्ड, काठीकण्ड (झारखंड);

का. आ. 1399.-जबकि बिहार राज्य के भौगोलिक क्षेत्र में आने वाले एवं झारखण्ड राज्य के भौगोलिक क्षेत्र में संभावित जलमग्नता वाले बरनार जलाशय परियोजना का प्रबंधन बिहार पुनर्गठन अधिनियम, 2000 की धारा 63 के प्रावधान के अंतर्गत दिनांक 14-11-2000 को प्रकाशित एक का. आ. 1015 ( अ ) के द्वारा बिहार राज्य को सौंपा गया था । 6. प्रदर्शन सह तकनीकी सेवा केन्द्र, केन्द्रीय रेशम प्रौद्योगिकी अनुसंधान संस्थान, केन्द्रीय रेशम बोर्ड, राजगोपालाचारी वार्ड, भंडारा -441 904 ( महाराष्ट्र);

7. वस्त्र समिति, " अंकुर " दूसरी मंजिल, मिर्जापुर रोड, लाल दरवाजा, अहमदाबाद-380 001 ।

[सं. ई-11016/1/99- हिन्दी]

और जबकि अब यह स्पष्ट हो गया है कि बरनार जलाशय परियोजना, इसका आवाह क्षेत्र एवं इस जलाशय से बिहार राज्य को जल आपूर्ति संबंधी अन्य कार्य बिहार राज्य में ही स्थित हैं तथा झारखण्ड राज्य में इससे किसी प्रकार की जलमग्नता नहीं हो रही है, के कारण से बिहार राज्य को हो रही जल की आपूर्ति को संशोधित किए जाने की संभावना नहीं है जिससे इस पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव पड़ सकता था । सुधीर भार्गव, संयुक्त सचिव

MINISTRY OF TEXTILES

New Delhi, the 3rd June , 2004

और जबकि उक्त अधिसूचना में बरनार जलाशय परियोजना को सम्मिलित किए जाने के कारण उक्त अधिसूचना के प्रावधान को लागू करने में कठिनाई आ रही है ।

अब , ऐसी स्थिति में, उक्त अधिसूचना की धारा -2 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का उपयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार ने उक्त अधिसूचना में आंशिक संशोधन कर उक्त अधिसूचना के अनुबंध-1 में से बरनार जलाशय परियोजना को हटा दिया है ।

[सं. 5/6/2001 - बीएम ] S.O. 1398.-In pursuance of Sub-rule 4 of rule 10 ofthe Official Language (Use for official purposes of the Union) , Rules , 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the Ministry ofTextiles, whereof more than 80 % staff have acquired working knowledge ofHindi:

ए. डी. भारद्वाज , आयुक्त ( परियोजना )

MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES

(BasinManagement Section)

1. Regional Tasar Research Centre, Central Silk Board, Swami Vivekanand Ward, Opposite Sai Mandir, Post Box No. 17 , Bhandara -441904 (Maharashtra);

New Delhi , the 7th June , 2004

2. Basic Seed Multiplication and Training Centre , Basic Tasar Silkworm Seed organization, CTR&TI , Central SilkBoard, Rampachoravaram (Andhra Pradesh);

S.O. 1399.-Whereas management of Barnar Reservoir Project falling in the geographical area of the State of Bihar and having likely submergence in the geographical area of the State of Jharkhand was entrusted to the State of Bihar under the provision of Section 63 of Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 through a S.O. 1015 (E) published on 14-11-2000.

3. Basic Seed Multiplication and Training Centre, Basic Tasar Silkworm Seed organization, CTR&TI, Central SilkBoard, Kharaswar (Jharkhand)

4. Basic Seed Multiplication and Training Centre, BasicTasar Silkworm Seed organization, Central SilkBoard, Bilaspur

And whereas it has now been established that supply of water to the State of Bihar is not likely to be modified to its disadvantage by reason of the fact that Barnar Reservoir Project , its catchment and other works related to supply of water from the reservoir to the State of -Bihar are located in the State of Bihar and there is no submergence in the State of Jharkhand.

5. Basic Seed Multiplication and Training Centre , Basic Tasar Silkworm Seed organization, Central SilkBoard, Kauthikand (Jharkhand) ;

Andwhereas difficulty has arisen in giving effect to the provision of the aforesaid notification due to inclusion oftheBarnar Reservoir Project in the aforesaid notification.

6. Demonstration cum technical service centre , Central Silk Technology Research institute , Central Silk Board , Rajgopalachari Ward , Bhandara -441904 (Maharashtra );

7. Textile Committee " Ankur " , Second Floor , Mirzapur Road, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad- 380001;

Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 2 of the said notification, the Central Government inpartial modification of the aforesaid notification deletes the Barnar Reservoir Project from the Annexure I of the aforesaid notification.

[No. 5 /6/2001 -BM] [No. E- 11016/1/99 -Hindi ]

A. D. BHARDWAJ, Commissioner (Projects) SUDHIR BHARGAVA, Jt. Secy.

3200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004 / JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] उपभोक्तामामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

( उपभोक्तामामले विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 3 जून , 2004

का.आ. 1400.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स प्रिमियर इन्स्ट्रमेंट्स एंड कंट्रोल लिमिटेड, 132 ऊटी मैन रोड, पैरीयानाइकन पलायम, कोयम्बटूर -641020 द्वारा विनिर्मित " प्राइकोल - 10- आर -1 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित " टैक्सी मीटर " के माडल का, मिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " प्राइकोल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /2003 / 565 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती उक्तमाडल " टैक्सी मीटर " समय और दूरी मापने वाला उपकरण है जो निरन्तर रूप से योग करता रहता है और यात्रा के किसी भी समय पर किराया दर्शाता है । सार्वजनिक वाहन के यात्री द्वारा संदेय प्रभार की गई यात्रा की दूरी और कतिपय गत्ति के नीचे , अधिकृत समय, प्राधिकृत किराया के अनुसार अनुपूरक प्रभारों से मुक्त किराया उपदर्शित करता है । " के " घटक 2720 पल्स/कि.मी. है।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. - 21 ( 232 )/2002 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान - [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3201 भारर्स का राजपत्र जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Departmentof Consumer Affairs)

New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2004

S.O. 1400.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( See the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-sections and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approwl of the model of "Taxi Meter " with digital indication ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) of "PRICOL- 10R- 1 " series with brand name " PRICOL " manufactured by M/ s Premier Instruments and Controls Limited, 132 , Ooty Main Road, Periyanaicken Palyam, Coimbatore-641020 and which is assigned the approval mark IND /09 /03/565;

Instrument which totalizes continuously and indicates the fare , at any moment ofjourney , the charges payable by the passenger of a public vehicle as function of the distance traveled and below a certain speed, the length of the time occupied, independent of supplementary charges according to the authorized tariffs . The " K" factor is 2720 pulses/ kilometer.

[F. No. WM- 21 (232 )/2002 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY , Director , Legal Metrology 3202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19, 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

[PART II SEC. 3(ii) ]

नईदिल्ली, 7 जून, 2004

का.आ. 1401.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उस प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स सुमित स्केल कं० , गांधी सोसायटी, सावरकुण्डला-3645,15 , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित काउंटर मशीन के माडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " सुमित स्केल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2003/204 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्तमाडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक काउंटर मशीन है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 10 कि.ग्रा. है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित माडल विनिर्मित किया गया है विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के काउंटर मशीन भी होंगे जो 500 ग्रा. से 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की रेंज की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. - 21 ( 87) /2003 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3203 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

New Delhi , the 7th June , 2004

S.O. 1401. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7) and Sub- section ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of counter Machine with brand name " SUMIT SCALE " ( herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Sumit Scale Company, Gandhi Society, Savarkundla - 364515 (Gujarat ) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/03 /204 :

The said Model ( see the figure given) is a Counter Machine . The maximum capacity is 10 kg .

[F. No. WM- 21 ( 87)/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY , Director , Legal Metrology 1760Gl:04-2 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] 3204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

नई दिल्ली, 7 जून , 2004

का.आ. 1402.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान ही गयीं है कि उक्त फोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 की 60 ) तथा बाटे और माप मानंक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिध्यिम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों की प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स राय इलेक्ट्रानिक्स. 6 , विजय नगर कालोनी, वाराणमा 221010 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थतां वर्ग-3 ) वाले " एल सी बी " श्रृंखलां के स्वतःसूचक , अस्वचालित अंकक सूचन सहित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " राय " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 2004 /22 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्त मोंडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृतमापी गेज प्रकार के भारतीय सेल पर आधारित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 3 किग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 40 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( है ) 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलने युक्ति हैं जिसका शंतप्रतिशेत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड प्रदर्श तौलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टांपिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकन करने के अतिरिक्त , मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहार के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा ।

Electronics

और केन्द्रीय सरकार सवत अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रम्मागपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है से विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि.ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक " ई" मान के लिए 100 मे 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान ( एन ) अंतराल सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10* या 5 × 10* के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. - 21 ( 62)/94 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान

T 3205 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

भाग II = खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 7th June , 2004

8.0, 1402. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section (7) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the self- indicating. non -automatic (Table top type) weighing instument with digital indication of medium accuracy (accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " ROY" (hereinafter referred to as the model ) , ' LCB ' series manufactured by M/s . Roy Electronics , 6 , Vijaynagar Colony, Varanasi - 221 010 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /2004/22 ;

The said Model ( see the figure given below) is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 3kg . and minimum capacity of 40g. The verification scale interval ( e) is 2g . It has a tare device with a 100 percent substractive retained tare effect . The light Emitting Diode display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230V, 50Hz alternative current power supply.

Sealing: In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also done to prevent opening of the machine for fraudulent practices.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section ( 12) of the Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50 kg. and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg to 2g and with number verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10k, 2 × 10k or 5 × 10k , k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the approved Model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 (62) /1994 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director. Legal Metrology 3206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29, 1926

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

नईदिल्ली, 7 जून 2004

का. आ. 1403.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) तथा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स मिहिर स्केल इण्डस्ट्रीज, इण्डस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, सावरकुण्डला अमरेली जिला-364515 ( गुजरात ) द्वारा विनिर्मित काउन्टर मशीन के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड कानाम " मिहिर स्केल इण्डस्ट्रीज " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2003/554 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक काउण्टर मशीन है जिसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 5 कि. ग्रा. है ।

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्तमॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत, उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडलविनिर्मित किया गया है विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 500 ग्रा. से 50 कि. ग्रा. तक रेंज की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 220)/2002 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3207 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

New Delhi , the 7th June , 2004

S.O. 1403.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over period of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the said Model of a counter machine, with brand name " Mihir Scale industries" (herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Mihir Scale Industries , Industrial Estate, Savarkundla, Amreli -District -364515 (Gujarat) and which is assigned the approvalMark IND/09/2003/554 .

The said Model ( see the figure given below) is a counter machine its maximum capacity is 5kg.

[F. No. WM- 21 (220 )/2002 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY , Director, Legal Metrology [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

3208

नई दिल्ली, 7 जून, 2004

का. आ. 1404.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स सुधा स्केल कं. , होथी भाई स्ट्रीट , सावरकुण्डला-364515 ( गुजरात ) द्वारा विनिर्मित काउन्टर मशीन के माडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सुधा स्केल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त माडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2003/58 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

Sudha

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत, उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिसे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 500 ग्रा. से 50 कि, ग्रा. तक की रेंज की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 304) /2002 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3209 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926-

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 7th June , 2004

S.O. 1404. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority; is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Model ) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now; therefore , in exereise of the powers conferred by Sub - section (7 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of counter machine with brand name "Sudha Scale Co. " ( herein referred to as the Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Sudha Scale Co. , Hothibhai Street, Savarkundla - 363515 (Gujarat ) and which is assigned the approval Mark IND/ 09/03/58;

The said model (see the figure given below) is a counter machine with maximum capacity is 5 kg .

SCALE IND

Sudha

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by Sub - section ( 12 ) of the said Section, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the model shall also cover the counter machine of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with capacity ranging from 500g to 50 kg manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the approved Model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 (304)/2002] .

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director, Legal Metrology 3210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]

नईदिल्ली, 7 जून , 2004

का० आ० 1405.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स टेक्नो वे सिस्टम प्रा. लि. , 276/8 , एलीस काम्पलेक्स, जी आई डी सी इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, मोकरपुरा, बड़ौदा-390010 द्वारा विनिर्मित " टेब जी एन- 100 पी 1 " श्रृंखला के अंकक प्रकार की स्वचालित तोलन मशीन ( भारसेल आधारित ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " टेक्नो " है ( जिसे इसमें मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2003 /430 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र प्रकाशित करती है; सीलबन्दी: स्टाम्प लगाने वाली प्लेट के पास पैनल बोर्ड के पीछे की ओर सील लगाने का स्थल दिया गया है । कपटपूर्ण उपयोग से बचने केलिए समुचित स्थान पर अतिरिक्त सील बन्द की जाती है ।

TAB GN160 - PY BAGGING WEIGNER

माडल ( दी गई आकृति) के अनुसार एक अंकक प्रदर्श प्रकार की स्वचालित बेईंग मशीन है । यह स्थिर शीर्ष के अधीन गुरुत्वीय भरण के सिद्धांत पर कार्य करती है । मशीन 20 कि० ग्रा ० से 100 कि० ग्रा० के बीच किसी रेंज में परिदत्त करने के लिए समायोजित की जा सकती है । यह मशीन चाय, काफी, मसाले, चीनी, कणिकाओं रसायन और औषध उत्पादों आदि जैसे मुक्त प्रवाह उत्पादों को भरने के लिए डिजाइन की गई है । यह 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्टज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करती है ।

[फा ०सं० डब्ल्यू० एम०-21 ( 95 )/2001 ]

पी० ए० कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3211 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

New Delhi , the 7th June, 2004

S.O. 1405. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of the Automatic Weighing Ma- chine ( load cell based ) of digital type " TAB GN - 100 P1 " series and with brand name " TECHNO" ( herein referred as the Model ) Manufactured by M/s . Techno Weigh Systems Pvt . Ltd. , 276/8 , Allied Complex, GIDC Industrial Estate , Makarpura , Baroda-390 010 and which is assigned the approval Mark IND/09/2003 /430 ;

Sealing : the sealing point is provided on the back side of the panel board near stamping plate . To avoid fraudulent use and additional sealing is done at the appropriate place.

The Model ( as per the figure given) is an Automatic Weighing Machine of digital display type. It works on the principle of gravity feed under constant head . The Machine can be adjusted to deliver any range between 20 kg. to 100 kg . The Machine is designed to fill free flowing products such as tea, coffee, spices , sugar granules , chemical and Pharmaceutical products . It operates on 230 Volt , 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

[F. No. WM-21 ( 95)/2001 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 1760 GI/04-3 3212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19, 2004/ JYAISTHA 29, 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 7 जून, 2004

का०आ० 1406.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स एवराइट स्केल्स इण्डिया, आर जेड 48/9 , गली सं ० 2 , तुगलकाबाद एक्सटेशन , नई दिल्ली -110019 द्वारा विनिर्मित माध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एवराइट " श्रृंखला के तुल्य रूप सूचन सहित अस्वचालित, तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म मशीन प्रो वेट प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एवराइट " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2003/633 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

LOOSE WEIGHT

CAPACITY

100 Kg . 300 Kg . 500 Kg.

उक्तमॉडल एक मेनिकल लीवर आधारित अस्वचालित ( प्लेटफार्म मशीन प्रो वेट प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 300 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 100 ग्रा . है ।

जाएगा । स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त, कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए भी सील बंद किया और, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुस्वार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित माडल विनिर्मित किया गया है विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा० या उससे अधिक के " ई" मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान ( एन ) अंतराल सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से 1000 कि० ग्रा० तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 * के हैं जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्यके समतुल्य है ।

[फा० सं ० डब्ल्यू० एम०-21 (48 )/2003 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3213

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 19 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 7th June , 2004

S.O. 1407. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform machine - Pro weight type) with analogue indication of " EVERITE" series of medium accuracy ( Accuracy : class- III) and with brand name "EVERITE" ( herein referred to as the said Model ) manufactured by M/ s . Everite Scales India , RZ-48/ 9 , Gali No. 2 , Tugalakabad Extension, New Delhi - 110019 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 2003/633;

CAPACITY

LOOSE -WEIGHT 100

The said Model is a mechanical lever based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform machine - Pro Weight type) with a maximum capacity of 300 kg. and minimum capacity of 2 kg. The verification scale interval (e ) is 100 g. In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices .

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 12) of the said section, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with capacity ranging between 50 kg and 1000 kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k, 2 × 10k or 5× 10%, k, being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design, accuracy and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 (48)/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 3214

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004 /JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

नई दिल्ली, 7 जून , 2004

का.आ. 1407.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट तथा माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स एवराइट स्केल्स इण्डिया, आर जेड -48 /9 , गली सं . 2 , तुगलकाबाद एक्सटेशन , नई दिल्ली-110019 द्वारा विनिर्मित काउंटर मशीन के माडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " एवराइट " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2003/632 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त माडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक काउंटर मशीन है जिसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 5 कि. ग्रा. है ।

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित माडल विनिर्मित किया गया है विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 500 ग्रा. से 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की रेंज की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम . 21 (48 )/2003 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3215

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 7th June, 2004

S.O. 1407.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Wéights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of counter machine (herein referred to as the said model) with brand name " EVERITE " , manufactured by M/s . Everite Scales India , RZ-48/9 , Gali No. 2, Tugalakabad Extension, New Delhi - 110019 and which is assigned the approval mark IND /09/2003/632;

The said model (see the figure ) " is counter machine" .

The maximum capacity is 5 kg.

Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of the said Section, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity in the range of 500g to 50 kg . manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model have been manufactured .

[F. No. WM- 21 (48)/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 3216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19, 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii)]

नईदिल्ली, 8 जून , 2004

का.आ. 1408.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट माप मानक (मॉडलों काअनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा (7 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स अग्रवाल प्राडक्ट, मंगला मार्ग , ब्रह्मपुरी , जयपुर, राजस्थान द्वारा विनिर्मित " वेस्ट-01 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित टैक्सी मीटर के माडल का, जिसकें ब्रांड का नाम " बेस्ट" है ( जिसे इसमें मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2003/426 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र प्रकाशित करती है ।

ELECTRONIC FARE METER - BEST - 01

Power

Vacant

fire

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को सीलबन्द करने के अतिरिक्त अनाचार के लिए उपकरण को पल्स जनरेटर, केबल और किराया मीटर को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सील बंदी की जा सकेगी ।

उक्त माडल एक टैक्सी किराया मीटर है जिसमें दूरी और समय मापक युक्ति सहित अंकक सूचन समाविष्ट है । यह निरंतर योग करता है तथा यात्रा के किसी क्षण में किराया और यात्री द्वारा संदेय प्रभार उपदर्शित करता है । संदेय किराया कतिपय गति से ऊपर तय की गई दूरी और अनुबंधित यात्राके दौरान उस गति से नीचे लगे समय का फलक है । मीटर का पठन छह खंडीय द्रव क्रिस्टल प्रदर्श द्वारा मीटर पठन उपदर्शित किया जाता है और विद्युत प्रदाय डी सी 9 वी 18 वी है । मीटर का " के " कारक 1270 स्पंद प्रति किलोमीटर है ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. 21 ( 215) /2002 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3217 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

New Delhi , the 8th June, 2004

S.O. 1408.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over period of sus- tained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of a Taxi Meter with digital indication of ' Best -01 ' series with brand name " BEST" (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/ s Agarwal Product , Mangla Marg , Bhrampuri , Jaipur, Rajasthan and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/2003/426;

In addition to stamping plate , the sealing may be done to prevent opening of the pulse generator, cable and the fare meter for malpractice . :

The said model is a Taxi Meter with digital indication incorporated with a distance and time ineasuring device. It totalizes continuously and indicates at any moment of the journey, the charges payable by the passenger. The to pay is a function of the distance travelled above a certain spooified speed and the time clapsed below that specified speed during the journey. The reading of the meter is indkontodyby six segment liquid crystal display (LCD) and power supply is DC 9V- 18V. The 'K' factor of the meter is 1270 pulses/Kilometer.

[F. No. WM -21 (215 )/2002]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 3218

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

नई दिल्ली, 8 जून , 2004

का.आ. 1409.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स मेटलर - टोलेडो इन्डिया प्रा.लि. , अमर हिल्स, साकी विहार रोड, पोवई, मुंबई -400072 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग -3 ) वाले " टी डब्ल्यूएस -50 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टैंक वेइंग बैचिंग प्रणाली ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " मेटलर - टोलेडो" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त माडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 /2003 / 354 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्तमाडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टैंक बेइंग बैचिंग प्रणाली ) है । जिसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 50 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल 50 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्तिहै जिसका शतप्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । निर्वात प्रतिदिप्त ( वी ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदिर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हटर्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत पर कार्य करता है ।

METTLER TOLEDO

Recipe ID ?

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त माडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री जिससे अनुमोदित माडल काविनिर्माण किया गया है, से विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि.ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. के " ई" के मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन भान अंतराल सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 ×10* 2 × 10 के या 5 × 10 * , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. 21 ( 109 ) /2002]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3219 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

New Delhi , the 8th June , 2004

S.O. 1409.-Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the self- indicating, non -automatic weighing instrument (Tank Weighting Batching System) with digital indication of " TWS 50 series of medium accuracy ( accuracy class -III ) and with brand name "Mettler-Toledo " (hereinafter referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/ s Mettler-Toledo India Pvt. Ltd. , Amar Hills , Saki Vihar Road Powai , Mumbai-400072 and which is approval mark IND/09/ 2003/354.

The said model (see the figure given below) is a strain guage type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Tank Weighing Batching System) with a Maximum capacity of 50 kg . and minimum capacity of 1 kg. The verification scale interval ( e) is 50g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The vacuum fluorescent (VED) display indicates the weighing result . The instruments operates on 230V, 50Hz alternative current power supply.

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instru- ments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10000 for 'e' value of 100mmg to 2g and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10000 for ' e' value of 5g. or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10k or 5 × 10k , k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design andwith the same materials with which , the said approval model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 ( 109)/2002]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 1760G1 /044 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 3220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29, 1926

नई दिल्ली, 8 जून, 2004

का.. 1410.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स मेटलर- टोलेडो इन्डिया प्रा.लि. , अमर हिल्स, साकी विहार रोड , पोवई, मुंबई -400072 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग -3 ) वाले " टी डब्ल्यूएस -3000 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टैंक वेइंग बैचिंग प्रणाली ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " मेटलर - टोलेडो" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त माडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /2003 / 355 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त माडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टैंक बेइंग बैचिंग प्रणाली) है । जिसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 3000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 10 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अनतराल 500 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्तिहै जिसका शतप्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । निर्वात प्रतिदिप्त ( वी ई डी) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हटर्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत पर कार्य करता है ।

METTLER TOLEDO

Recipe ID ?

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त माडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री जिससे अनुमोदित माडल काविनिर्माण किया गया है, से विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान अंतराल सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से 5,000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 के 2 × 10के या 5 × 10 के , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम . 21 (109 )/2002 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3221

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 8th June, 2004

S.O. 1410. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the self- indicating, non -automatic weighing instrument (Tank Weighing Batching System) with digital indication of " T'WS 3000 " series of mediin accuracy (accuracy class - III) and with brand name "Mettler -Toledo " (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s.Mettler-Toledo India Pvt . Ltd. , Amar Hills , Saki Vihar Road, Powai , Mumbai -400072 and which is approval mark IND/09/2003/355 .

The said model (see the figure given below) is a strain guage type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument (Tank Weighing Batching System) with a Maximum capacity of 3000 kg. and minimum capacity of 10 kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 500 g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The vacuum fluorescent (VED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instruments operates on 230V, 50Hz alternative current power supply.

SMETTLER TOLED

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by Sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instru- ments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg . and up to 50kg and up to 5,000 kg. with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for value of 5g. or more and with 'e' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10 or 5 × 10k, k being a postive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the approval said model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 (109)/2002 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 3222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

[PART II-SEC: 3 (ii)]

नईदिल्ली, 8 जून, 2004

का.आ. 1411.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा (7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स मेटलर- टोलेडो इन्डिया प्रा.लि. , अमर हिल्स, साकी विहार रोड, पोवई, मुंबई -400072 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग -3 ) वाले " टी डब्ल्यूएस-2000 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण के माडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड को नाम " मेटलर- टोलेडो" है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त माडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2003 /703 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त माडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । जिसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 20000 कि.ग्रा. औरन्यूनतम क्षमता 100 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल 5 कि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शतप्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हटर्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत पर कार्य करता है । स्टांपिंग प्लेट का मुद्रांकन करने के अतिरिक्त, मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहार के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा ।

METTLER TOLEDO

Recipe 103

२ और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त माडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री जिससे अनुमोदित माडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है, से विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान अंतराल सहित 5 टन से अधिक और 100 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2× 10 * या 5× 10 % , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. - 21 ( 109 ) /2002 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3223 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19 , 2004 /ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

New Delhi, the 8th June , 2004

S.O. 1411. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non - automatic weighing instrument with digital indication of " TWS 2000 " series of medium accuracy ( accuracy class - III ) and with brand name "Mettler- Toledo " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s. Mettler - Toledo India Pvt . Ltd. Amar Hills , Saki Vihar Road Powai , Mumbai -400072 , and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2003/ 703 .

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument with a Maximum capacity of 20,000 kg and minimum capacity of 100 kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 5kg. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The vacuum fluorescent (VFD ) display indicates the weighing result. The instruments operates on 230V, 50Hz alternative current power supply . In addition to sealing the stamning plate, sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices.

METTLER TOLEDO

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by Sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instru- ments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and upto 100 tonne with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10000 for 'e' value of 5kg or more and with 'e ' value of 1 × 10k, 2 × 10k or 5 × 10k , k being a postive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM- 21 ( 109)/2002 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 3224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 19 , 2004/JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 8 जून, 2004

का.आ. 1412.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अव, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स भाग्यश्री इंडस्ट्रीज , प्लाट सं. 39-40, चित्तारेड्डी, तार बन्द एक्स रोड, सिकन्दराबाद-500009 , आन्ध्र प्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग -2 ) वाले " एम आई जे " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) उपकरण का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " सिलिकोन "" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त माडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 /2003 /498 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्तमाडल एक विकृत मापी प्रकार का भार सेल पर आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) है । जिसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शतप्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदिर्शित करता है। उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हटर्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । स्टांपिंग प्लेट सील करने के अतिरिक्त, कपटपूर्ण व्यवहार के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए इसको भी सील किया जाता है ।

SILICON

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त माडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदितं माडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि. ग्रा. से 50 मि.ग्रा. तक " ई" मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5,000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान अन्तराल सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10* या 5× 10, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. - 21 (41 )/2003 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3225 भारत का राजपत्र: जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 8th June , 2004

S.O. 1412. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the non - automatic (Table top type). weighing instrument with digital indication of " SIJ" series of high accuracy (accuracy class - II ) and with brand name " SILICON" ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s. Bhagyashree Industries , Plot No. 39-40, Chitareddy Colony, Tarbund X Road, Secunderabad- 500009 , Andhra Pradesh and which is assigned approval mark IND/09/2003/498 .

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a Maximum capacity of 30 kg . and minimum capacity of 100 g. The verification scale interval (e) is 2 g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The light emitting diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing result. The instruments operates on 230V, 50Hz alternative current power supply. In addition to sealing the stamping plate sealing is also done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices .

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by Sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instru- ments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50 kg. with verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 100 to 50000 for 'e' value of 1 mg . or 50 mg. and for verification scale interval in the range 5,000 to 50,000 for ' e' value of 100 mg . or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k, 2 × 10k or 5 × 10k, k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same prin- ciple. design and with the same materials with which, the approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 ( 41 )/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 3226

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 8 जून , 2004

का.आ. 1413.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) और बाट तथा माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स भाग्यश्री इंडस्ट्रीज , प्लाट सं. 39-40 , चित्तारेड्डी, तार बन्द एक्स रोड, सिकन्दराबाद -500009 , आन्ध्र प्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग-3 ) वाले " एस आई टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित ( टेबलटॉप प्रकार ) उपकरण का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " सिलिकोन" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त माडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 2003 / 499 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

SILICON

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत मापी प्रकार का भार सेल पर आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टांपिंग प्लेट सील करने के अतिरिक्त , कपटपूर्ण व्यवहार के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए इसको भी सील किया जाता है । औरकेन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित माडल किया गया है , से विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि.ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान अन्तराल सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10के, 2×10के या 5 × 10के, हैं , ' के' जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम . 21 ( 41 ) /2002 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3227

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 8th June , 2004

S.O. 1413. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non- automatic (Tabis top type ) weighing instrument with digital indication of " SIT " series of medimum accuracy (accuracy class- III) and with brand name " SILICON " ( herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s Bhagyashree Industries , Plot No 39-40, Chittareddy Colony, Tarbund X Road, Secunderabad -500009 , Andhra Pradesh and which is assigned the sproval mark IND/09/2003/499 .

The said model is a strain guage type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with a Maximum capacity of 30 kg and minimum capacity of 100 kg. The verification scale interval ( e) is 5g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The light emitting diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230V, 50Hz alternative current power supply.

In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing is also done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices.

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub- Section ( 12) of section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instru- ments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of to 10000 for ' e' value of 100mg to 2g and for verification scale interval in range the 500 to 10000 for 'e' value of 100 mg or more with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10k or 5 × 10k, K being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 (41 )/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 1760 GI/04-5 3228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 19 , 2004/JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii)]

नई दिल्ली , 8 जून, 2004

का.आ. 1414.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स. भाग्यश्री इंडस्ट्रीज , प्लाट सं ० 39-40 , चित्तारेड्डी , तार बन्द एक्स रोड, सिकन्दराबाद 500009 , आंध्र प्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग -3 ) वाले " एस आई पी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) उपकरण का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " सिलिकोन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदल चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2003/ 500 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत मापी प्रकार का भार सेल पर आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 500 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधायतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदिर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्टऔर 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टांपिंग प्लेट सील करने के अतिरिक्त, कपटपूर्ण व्यवहार के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए इसको भी सील किया जाता है । औरकेन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त माडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 50 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान अंतराल सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से 1000 कि. ग्रा. तक की रेंज में अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10%, 2 × 10* या 5 × 10 %, हैं ' के ' जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. मं. डब्ल्यू. एम. 21 (41)/2003 ]

पी. ए. नर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक भाप विज्ञान [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

3229.

New Delhi , the 8th June, 2004

S.O. 1414. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approvalof Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non - automatic (Platform type ) weigh- ing instrument with digital indication of " SIP " series of medium accuracy ( accuracy class - III ) and with brand name "SILICON" (herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s Bhagyashree Industries , Plot No. 39-40 , Chittareddy Colony, Tarbund X Road, Secunderabad - 500009, Andhra Pradesh and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2003/500 ;

The said model is a strain guage type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrumentinstrument (Platform type ) with aMaximum capacity of 500 kg and minimum capacity of 2 kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 100g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The light emitting diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230V, 50Hz alternative current power supply.

In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing is also done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices .

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shalf also cover the weighing instru- ments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity In the range of 50kg to 1000kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10000 for 'e' value of 5kg or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10k or 5 × 10k , k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manu- facturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the approval model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM -21 ( 41 )/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology [PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] 3230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19, 2004/JYAISTHA 29, 1926

नई दिल्ली, 8 जून, 2004

का.आ. 1415.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स टेक्नो स्केल इंडस्ट्रीज़ , 47 , श्री सोमनाथ साक, नरनपुरा रोड, अहमदाबाद-380013 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग -3 ) वाले " टी टी एस " श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित , अंकक सूचन सहित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " टेक्नो" है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2003 / 520 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत मापी प्रकार का भार सेल पर आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 10 कि ० ग्रा ० और न्यूनतम क्षमता 20 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 1 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टैम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त, मुद्रांकन कपटपूर्ण व्यवहार से मशीन को खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए भी किया जाएगा । और, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि० ग्रा० से 2 ग्रा० तक या " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण में भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा० या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि ०ग्रा ० तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10%, 2 × 10* या 5 × 10 %, के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य है ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. - 21 ( 104 ) /2002 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3231 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 8th June, 2004

S.O. 1415.-Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non - automatic (Table top type) weighing instrument with digital indication of "TTS " series of Medium accuracy (accuracy class- III) and with brand name " TECHNO" (herein referred to as said Model ) manufactured by M/s . Techno Scale Industries, 47, Shree Somnath Soc, Naranpura Road, Ahmedabad - 380013 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2003/520;

The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capacity of 10 Kg . and minimum capacity of 20 g . The verification scale interval (e) is 1g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The light emitting diode (LED) display indicates theweighing result . The instrument operates on 230V, 50 Hz alternative current power supply.

In addition to sealing the stamping plate, sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub -section ( 12) of Section 36 , of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 100 mg . to 2 g or with verification scale interval 500 to 10,000 for 'e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10k or 5 × 10k , k, being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 (104)/2002]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 3232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19, 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 8 जून , 2004

का.आ. 1416.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट तथा माप मानंक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा (7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स टेक्नो स्केल इंडस्ट्रीज़ , 47 , श्री सोमनाथ साक , नरनपुरा रोड, अहमदाबाद-380013 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग-3 ) वाले " टी टी एस " श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित, अंकक सूचन सहित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " टी० पी० एस०" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उवत मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2003/ 521 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृतमापी प्रकार का भार सेल पर आधारित अस्वचालित का तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 300 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) का मान 50 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धास विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टैम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त , मुद्रांऊन कपटपूर्ण व्यवहार से मशीन को खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए भी किया जाएगा। और, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के इस अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि०ग्रा ० से अधिक 1000 कि० ग्रा० तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10%, के है, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य है ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. 21 (104 )/2002 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3233

भारत का राजपत्रः जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926 UN

ADU

New Delhi , the 8th June , 2004

S.O. 1416. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity withthe provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions peuty mis opes y Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- sections (7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non - automatic (Platform type ) weighing instrument with digital indication of "TPS " series of special accuracy ( accuracy class - III) and with brand name " TECHNO" (herein referred to as the said Model ) manufacturedby M/ s. Techno Scale Industries 47, Shree Somnath Soc , Naranpura Road, Ahmedabad- 380013 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/2003/521;

The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument (platform type) with a maximum capacity of 300 kg and minimum capacity of 1 kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 50g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The light emitting diode (LED ) indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230V, 50 Hz alternate current power supply.

In addition to sealing the stamping plate , the sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices .

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 12) of Section 36, of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instru- ments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity in the range of 50kg to 1000 kg. with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5 g or more and with ' e ' value of 1 ×10k, 2 × 10k or 5 × 10k, k, being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manu- facturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 ( 104)/2002 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] 3234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19, 2004/JYAISTHA 29, 1926

नई दिल्ली, 8 जून, 2004

का०आ० 1417.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स हरियाणा फाउंडरी वर्क्स , 31 - सी, मदन पार्क, पूर्वी पंजाबी बाग , नई दिल्ली -110026 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " डी एल आई " श्रृंखला के अर्थ स्वसूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म मशीन भारोन्मुखभार प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एच एफ डब्ल्यू" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चत् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2003/480 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

.CUNDRY WORKE

उक्तमॉडल यांत्रिक स्टील यार्ड प्रकार का लीवर आधारित अस्वचालित ( प्लेटफार्म मशीन भारोन्मुख भार प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 300 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 100 ग्रा ० है । जाएगा । स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त , कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए भी सीलबंद किया और, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित माडल विनिर्मित किया गया है विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा० या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान ( एन ) अन्तराल सहित 50 कि०ग्रा ० से 1000 कि०ग्राम० तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " भान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 %, के हैं जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य केसमतुल्य है ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. 21 (30 ) /2003 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3235 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi, the 8th June, 2004

S.O. 1417.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions; and

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the saidAct, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non-automatic (Plateform machine- Pro-Weight type) weighing instrument with analogue indication of "DLI" series of Medium accuracy (accuracy Class- III) and with brand name "HFW" (herein referred to as the said Model ) manufactured by M/s . Haryana Foundry Works , 31 -C, Madan Park , East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi - 110026 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2003/480;

The said Model is a mechanical steelyard type liver based non -automatic weighing instrument (Plateform machine -Pro Weight type) with a maximum capacity of 300 kg . and minimum capacity of 2 kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 100g .

In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also done to stop the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices.

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by Sub - section ( 12) of Section 36, of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments ofsimilar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg and up to 1000kg. with verification sacle interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e' value of 1 ×10k, 2x10 or 5 × 10k, k, being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 (30)/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 1760 G1 /046 [PART II-SBC. 3 (11)] 3236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

नई दिल्ली, 8 जून , 2004

का.आ. 1418.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और भाप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स हरियाणा फाउंडरी वर्कस , 31 - सी , मदन पार्क पूर्वी पंजाबी बाग, नई दिल्ली -110026 द्वारा विनिर्मित काउंटर मशीन के मॉडल का जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " एच एफ डब्ल्यू " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चंत् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एम डी/09/2003/481 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

यह मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक काउंटर मशीन है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 10 कि.ग्रा. है ।

ToWeigh10Kg

FIMRYANAFOUNDRYWORKS और, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 500 ग्रा. से 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. 21 (30 )/2003 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3237 भारत का राजपत्र: जून 19 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

New Delhi , the 8th June, 2004

S.O. 1418.-Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the saidAct, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of counter machine with brand name "HFW " (herein referred to as the said Model ) , Manufactured by M/s. Haryana Foundry Works , 31-C, Madan Park, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi - 110026 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /2003 /481 ;

The said model (see the figure given below ) is a counter machine. Its maximum capacity is 10 Kg .

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (12 ) of Section 36 , of the said: Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity in the range of 500g to 50 kg. manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design, accuracy and with the same materials with which , the approved model have been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 (30)/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology :

[PART II SBC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19, 2004/JYAISTHA 29, 1926

3238.

कोयला और खांन मंत्रालय

(कोयला विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 10 जून , 2004

का.आ. 1419.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, सरकारी स्थान (अप्राधिकृत अभिभोगियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम, 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 1857, तारीख 24 जून, 1994 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्: -

उक्तअधिसूचना की सारणी में क्रम सं. 43 और उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के पश्चात् निम्नलिखित जोड़ा जाएगा, अर्थात्:-

नीलजय दक्षिण, नीलजय विवृत के सभी स्थान और वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लि. , नागपुर या उसके नियंत्रणाधीन अन्य स्थान ।

44. उप- क्षेत्र प्रबंधक/अभिकर्ता, नीलजय उप - क्षेत्र, डाकघर- बेल्लोरा, तहसील- वानी, थाना- सीरपुर, जिला यवतमाल

नयागांव विवृत के सभी स्थान और वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लि. , नागपुर के या उसके नियंत्रणाधीन अन्य स्थान ।

45. उप- क्षेत्र प्रबंधक/अभिकर्ता, नयागांव उप- क्षेत्र , डाकघर- बेल्लोरा , तहसील- वानी, थाना- सीरपुर, जिला यवतमाल

मंगोली उप- क्षेत्र/नीरगुडा परियोजना के सभी स्थान और वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लि. , नागपुर या उसके नियंत्रणाधीन अन्य स्थान ।

46. उप - क्षेत्र प्रबंधक/अभिकर्ता, मंगोली उप- क्षेत्र, डाकघर- सखारा ( कोलगांव ) , थाना- सीरपुर, तहसील-वानी, जिला यवतमाल

कोलगांव परियोजना के सभी स्थान और वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लि. , नागपुर या उसके नियंत्रणाधीन अन्य स्थान ।

47. परियोजना अधिकारी, कोलगांव , कोलगांव परियोजना, डाकघर - सखारा ( कोलगांव ) , थाना- सीरपुर, तहसील- वानी, जिला-यवतमाल

मुख्य महाप्रबंधक काम्प्लैक्स, ऊर्जागांव टडाली के सभी स्थान और वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लि. , नागपुर के या उसके नियंत्रणाधीन अन्य स्थान । 48. उपमुख्य कार्मिक प्रबंधक, वानी क्षेत्र, सी.जी.एम. का कार्यालय, ऊर्जाग्राम , टडाली डाकघर, जिला-चन्द्रपुर

[फा. सं. 43022/5/93 /एल.एस.डब्ल्यू./पी.आर.आई.डब्ल्यू]

संजय बहादुर, निदेशक

MINISTRY OF COAL AND MINES

(Department of Coal)

New Delhi , the 10th June, 2004

S.O. 1419. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupation) Act , 1971 (40 of 1971 ) , the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification ofthe Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 1857, dated the 24th June , 1994 namely :-

In the Table to the said notification , after serial number 43 and the entries relating thereto , the following shall be added namely : ----

All premises of Neeljay South , Neelijay Open Cast and other premises belonging to or under the control of Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur.

44. Sub -Area Manager/ Agent , Neclijay Sub -Area, P.O. Bellora, Teh. Wani , Thana : Sirpur, District- Yavatmal.

All premises Naigaon Open Cast and other premises belonging to or under the control of Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur.

45. Sub - Area Manager/ Agent , Naigaon, Sub - Area . P.O. Bellora , Teh . Wani , Thana : Sirpur, District- Yavatmal .

All premises of Mungoli Sub-Area/Nirguda Project and other premises belonging to or under the control of Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur.

46. Sub -Area Manager/ Agent , Mungoli Sub - Area, P.O. Sakhara ( Kolgaon) , Thana : Sirpur, Teh.: Wani , District-Yavatmal .

3239

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

All premises of Kolgaon Project and other premises belonging to or under the control of Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur.

47. Project Officer, Kolgaon, Kolgaon Project, P.O. Sakhara (Kolgaon), Thana: Sirpur, Teh.Wani , District-Yavatmal.

Allpremises ofChief General Manager Complex, Urjagram Tadali and other premises belonging to or under the control of Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur.

48. Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Wani Area, CGM Office, Urjagram , Tadali PO, District Chandrapur.

[File No. 43022/5/93 -LSW/PRIW] SANJAY BAHADUR, Director

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून, 2004

का.आ. 1420.- केन्द्रीय सरकार , कोयला खान भविष्य निधि तथा प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 46 ) की धारा उग की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) , तारीख 4 अगस्त, 2001 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं . का.आ. 1891 तारीख 24 जुलाई , 2001 में संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:-

उक्त अधिसूचना में " तीन वर्ष की अवधि तक या अगले आदेशों तक, इसमें से जो भी पूर्वतर हो " शब्दों के स्थान पर " 31-12-2004 तक या अगले आदेशों तक , इसमें से जो भी पूर्वतर हो " शब्द और अंक रखे जाएंगे ।

[फा. सं. 20/29/2000-ए.एस.ओ. पी.आर.आई.डब्ल्यू. - 1 ]

संजय बहादुर, निदेशक

New Delhi , the 14th June, 2004

S.O. 1420.- In exercise of the Powers conferred by Sub -section (1 ) of Section 3 (c) of the Coal Mines Provi- dent Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) , the Central Government hereby amends the notifica- tion ofthe Government of India in the Ministry of Coal, number S.O. 1891 dated the 24th July, 2001 Published in Part- II, Section 3 , Sub-section (ii ) dated the 4th August, 2001 of the Gazette of India namely:-

In the said notification , for the words " for a period of three years or until further orders , whichever is earlier " the words and figures " to 31-12-2004 or until further orders , whichever is earlier " shall be substituted.

[File No. 20 /29/2000 -ASO/PRIW- I]

SANJAY BAHADUR, Director

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून, 2004

का.आ. 1421.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, कोयला खान भविष्य निधि तथा प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 46 ) की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए भारत के राजपत्र भाग II, खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) , तारीख 4 अगस्त, 2001 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 1892 तारीख 24 जुलाई, 2001 में संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्:-

उक्त अधिसूचना में " तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए " शब्दों के स्थान पर " 31-12-2004 तक " शब्द और अंक रखे जाएंगे ।

[फा. सं. 20/29/2000- ए.एस.ओ. /पी.आर.आई.डब्ल्यू.- II ]

संजय बहादुर, निदेशक

New Delhi , the 14th June, 2004

S.O. 1421. In pursuance of Sub- section (2) of Section 9 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellą neous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948 ) , the Central Government hereby amends the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal , number S.O. 1892 dated the 24th July , 2001 Published in Part - II, Section 3 , Sub - section (ii) dated the 4th August, 2001 of the Gazette of India namely:-

In the said notification, for the words " for a period of three years " the words and figures " to 31-12-2004 " shall be substituted.

[File No. 20/29/2000 -ASO/PRIW - II]

SANJAY BAHADUR, Director 3240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29, 1926

1 पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 10 जून , 2004

का०आ० 1422.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पैट्रोलियम और खनिज माइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का० आ० 2384 तारीख , 12 अगस्त, 2003 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलान अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में, गेल ( इंडिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा संघ राज्य क्षेत्र पांडिचेरी में एसआरसीएम से जीआर एस एल गैस पाइपलाइन परियोजना के माध्यम से प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 17 सितम्बर, 2003 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

और पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्बन्ध में जनता से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और उन्हें अननुज्ञात करदिया गया है;

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

'औरकेन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है , उस में 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 हैकि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइनें 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 निदेश देती है कि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार, इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को , केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए, पाइपलाइनें बिछाने का प्रस्ताव करने वाली गेल ( इंडिया ) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा और तदुपरि, भूमि में ऐसे उपयोग का अधिकार, इस प्रकार अधिरोपित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, गेल (इंडिया) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

सर्वे नं०

जिला तहसील गांव

आर० ओ० यू अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल (हैक्टेयर में) 2

0.00.5 जी.पी पान्डिचेरी कारैकल 5, नेदूनगाडू 291/1

291/2

0.01.5

291/3

0.01.0

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

0.03.0

291/5

पान्डिचेरी कारैकल 5 , नेवूनमाडू

152/2 0.03.5 जी.पी

151/3 0.01.5 जी.पी

139/3 0.00.5 जी.पी

0.03.0 जी.पी

139/4

0.04.5

140/5

0.02.5

141/3

0.00.5

141/1ची

0.03.0

141/2

0.05.5

141/3

0.05.0

141/4

0.06.5

149/2

0.01.5 जी.पी

149/6

0.01.5 जी.पी

148/1

0.07.0

148/4

167/2

0:05.5

167/3

0.08.5

167/4.

0.01.5 जी.पी

170

0.03.0

173/1

0.03.5

173/28

9.06.0

173/2वी

0.005

173/0

0.01.0

173/4

0.02.0

173/5

0.06.5

173/6

0.07.5

174/3

0.00.5

1743

0.10.5

179/1

179/3

179/5

0.00.5

193/1

0.03.0

193/4- 0.11.5

195/5

0.10.5

0.03.5

195/5

199/4: 0.01.0

1956

0.03.0

194

0.01.9 जी.पी

0.02.0

91/2

90/1

0.09.0

90/2

0.00. जी.पी

90/3

0.17.0

90/4

0.01.0 जी.पी 3241 [ भाग 1]-खण्ड 3 (H) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जूम 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

10:00.5 जी.पी

0:00.5 89/1

पान्डिचेरी कारकल 5 , ने ধুমগাडू

मान्डिचेरी कारकल 6, कुरूममगरम् 229/6

89/2

0.01.0 जी.पी

229/7

0.08.5 85

0.35.0

229/16 0.00.5 जी.पी 52/1

0.04.5

230/1

001.0 52/2

0.04.0जी.पी

230/2 0.00.5 52/3

0:00.5

230/50.02.0 52/5

0.00.5

230/7

0:02.5 53/5

0.11.5

0.08.0

230/8

0.01.5 जी.पी

0.00.5

230/9

55/1

0.00.5 जी.पी

230/11 0.00.5जी.पी 55/3

0.02.0

0.09.0

233/1

55/4

0.12.5

0.02.5

233/4

0.00.5

233/5

0.025 55/6

0.00.5

233/7

0.03.0

0.02.5

58/2ए

233/9

0.02.5 58/2बी

0.05.5

233/10

59/1

0.02.5

0.01.0 जी.पी

0.02.0

234/1

59/2

0.05.0

0.01.0

0.06.5

59/3

234.2/ए

62/1

0.06.0

234/2थी 0.015 62/2

-0.05.5

334/3

0.02: 5 64/1

0.10.0

234/4

0.02.5 64/2

0.07.5

284/5 0.12.0 64/3

0.00.5जी.पी

234/6

0.00.5

66/3

234/7

0:00.5 जी.पी 66/4

0.05.0

12:15/1

001.0 जी.पी

0.00.5 जी.पी

215/2 0,005.5 71/1

0.01.0

10.09.5

214

1 /2A

0.12.0

0.06.5

338/3

0.02.0 जी.पी

238/5.

0.03.5

3.24.0

कुल

238/8

0.04.0

0,02,0

6, कुरूमबगरम् 221/6 ,

कुल

1.04.0 221/7

0.06.0

[फा० सं०एल-14014/33/03 -जी ०पी० ] 221/8

0.01.0

स्वामी सिंह , निदेशक 221/11 0.01.0 जी.पी THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 19, 2004/ JYAISTHA 29, 1926

3242

1 MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

0.03.0

291/5

5. Nedun-

Pondy- Karaikal

New Delhi , the 10th June , 2004

cherry S.O. 1422. Whereas by notification of the Gov- ernment of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natu- ral Gas number S.O. 2384 dated the 12th August , 2003 , issued under Sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petro- leum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land speci- fied in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of natural gas through SRCM to GRSL gas pipeline project in the Union Territory of Pondicherry by the GAIL ( In- dia) Limited;

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 17th September, 2003;

And whereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the competent authority;

And whereas the competent authority has , under Sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted its 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 pipelines , has decided to acquire the right of user therein .

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

And, further , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the land for laying the pipelines shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest, on the date of the publication of the declaration, in the GAIL (India) Limited, proposing to lay the pipelines and thereupon the right of such user in the land shall , subject to the terms and conditions so imposed, vest in the GAIL (India) Limited, free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

District Taluk

Survey No.

Area to be Acquired for inHect.

Village No. & Name

0.00.5 GP

291/1

5. Nedun-

Pondy- Karaikal

0.01.5

291/2

kadu

cherry

0.01.0

291/3

152/2 0.03.5 GP.

kadu

0.01.5 G.P.

151/3

0.00.5 G.P.

139/3

0.03.0 G.P.

139/4

0.04.5

140/5

0.02.5

141/3

0.00.5

141/1B

0.03.0

141/2

0.05.5

141/3

0.05.0

141/4

0.06.5

149/2

149/6 0.01.5 GP.

0.01.5 GP.

148/1

0.07.0

148/4

0.05.5

167/2

0.08.5

167/3

0.05.0

167/4

170

0.01.5 GP.

0.03.0

173/1

0.03.5

173/2A

0.06.0

173/2B

0.005

173/3

0.01.0

173/4

0.02.0

173/5

0.06.5

173/6

0.07.5

174/2

0.00.5

174/3

0,10,5

179/1

0.00.5

179/3

0.00.5

179/5

0.03.0

193/1

0.11.5

193/4

0.10.5

195/3

0.01.0

195/4

0.03.5

195/5

0.03.0

195/6

194

0.01.5 GP

0.02.0

91/2 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

3243

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ पेष्ठ: 29, 4926

1 22.

5 Pondy- Karaikal 5. Nedun- 90

/10.09.0

Pondi- Karai- 6-Kurum-

0.02.0

221/6

90/2

0.00.5 GP

0.06.0 kadu

cherry

221/7

cherry

bagaram

0.01.0 90/3 :0.17.0

221/8

221/11 0.010 P 90/4

0.01.0 GP

229/6 0.00.5 89/1

0.00.5 GP

229/7 0.085 89/2

0.01.0 GP

229/16 0.00.5 GP 85

0.35.0

52/1

0.04.5

230/1 0.01.0

230/2

52/2

0.00.5

0.04.0 GP

230/5 0.02.0 52/3

0,00,5

230/7

0.025

0.00.5

52/5

230/8 0.08.0 53/5

0.11.5

230/9 0.00.5 54

0.01.5 GP

230/11. 0.00.5 GP 55/1

0.00.5 GP

233/1 0.03.0 55/3

0.02.0

-233/4 0.02.5 55/4

0.12.5

233/5 0.025

0.00:5

233/7 0.03.0 55/6

0.00.5

233/9 0.02.5

0.02.5

58/2A

233/10 0.02.5 58/28 0:05.5

234/1 0.02.0 59/1

0010GP

0010

234/2A

59/2 0.05.0

0:01.3

234/28

59/3 0.06.0

234/3 0.02.5 62/1

0.06.0

234/4 0.02.5 62/2

0.05.0

234/5 0.12.0 64/1

0.10.0

0.00.5

234/6

64/2

0.07.5

234/7 0.00.5 GP 64/3

0.00.5 GP

215/1 0.01.0 GP 66/3

0.00.5

0.006.5

215/2

66/4

0.05.0

214

0.09.5

0.00.5 GP

238/3 0.06.5 -71/1

236/5 0.03.5

0.01.0

238/8 0.04.0 71 /2A 0.12.0

0.02.0 GP

TOTAL 1.04.0

3.24.0

[F. No. L- 14014/ 33/2003-G.Pl TOTAL

SWAMI SINGH, Director 1760 G1/04-7 3244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19, 2004/JYAISTHA 29, 1926

1 नईदिल्ली, 10 जून, 2004

गदग का.आ. 1423.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि कर्नाटक राज्य में दहेज- हजीराहजीरा - उरान-दाभोल- बैंगलूरउरान-दाभोल- पाइपलाइन परियोजना के माध्यम से पेट्रोलियम गैस के परिवहन के लिए गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा , एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है , 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 उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में 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 उप - धारा ( 1 ) केअधीन भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में, श्री एस.एस. पट्टनशेट्टी , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड, सं. 21 , पैलेस रोड, माउण्ट कारमेल कॉलेज के सामने, बैंगलोर -560 052 (कर्नाटक ) को लिखित रूप में आपेक्ष भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य: कर्नाटक

जिला: गदग

भाग/

सर्वेसं.

ग्राम का

तालूका

आर. ओ. यू.

नाम नाम

हिस्सा सं. अर्जित

( यदिकोई करने के

हो)

क्षेत्रफल

लिए (हेक्टेयर में)

गदग

174

0-36 लक्कुंडी

रास्ता

0-03 सर्वे सं. 174, 150 और

156के बीच में

150

0-08

156

1-07

155

3-05

154

1-15

158

1-21

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

159

लक्कुंडी

1-28

160

0-38 सर्वे सं.

नाला

0-06 160में

117

2-08

116

0-20 253

1-36 115

0-19 268

2-25 269

1-24 271

2-03 सर्वेसं.

0-15

रास्ता

€71, 272और

265के बीच में

265

2-35 277

1-05 सर्वे सं.

277और 291 राष्ट्रीय राजमार्ग -630-07 के बीच में

291

0-33 290

0-33 288

1-03 287

1-04 576

1-36 571

1-10 570

0-21 572

1-08 सर्वे सं.

0-06

जलधारा

572और 539

के बीच में

रास्ता

0-02 सर्वेसं. 572और 539 केबीच में

539

2-19 540

0-26 538

2-02 537

2-06 534

1-21 669

2-02 670

1-27 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3245 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

गदग

680

लक्कुंडी

1-16

217

मेवंडी

1-02 679

1-27

231

0-15 सर्वे सं.

232

2-31 679और 583

233

1-34

0-07

के बीच में

السلام

सर्वे सं.

583

2-17

233औरग्राम

0-06 636

0-01

सीमाके बीच में

625

2-15

हिरेवडवट्टी

0-06

110

1-07 628

0-12

109

1-22 624

1-05

112

623

0-03

1-09

108

0-03 617

2-37

113

0-26 616

0-20

113

मुंडर्गी

0-16 12

चुर्चीहाल

3-02

113

0-17 13

1-16

114.

1-10 सर्वे सं. 13 में

0-04

रास्ता

114

0-02

0-13

4(नाला) 17

1-25

116

0-17 16

2-26

118

0-22 सर्वे सं.

119

0-04

0-11 बैलगाड़ी

16, 34और28 रास्ता

119

0-36 के बीच में

120

0-35 34

0-06

120

0-10 28

1-32

120

0-18 33

2-05

125

1-05 32

0-25

124

0-02 मुंडर्गी मेवंडी

170

0-14

126

1-03 सर्वे सं.

126

1-10 170और 171 नाला

0-011

127

0-03 के बीच में

मुंडर्गी

208

तॉम्र गुंडी

1-32 171

3-10

158

0-11 179

2-16

159

3-04 164

0-16

163

1-05 सर्वे सं.

161

1-21 164और 180

रास्ता

0-04

162

2-04 के बीच में

सर्वे सं.

180

2-10

162और 148.

0-10

नाला

185

1-34

के बीच में

219

0-27

148

1-32 230

1-37

144

2-28 3246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

1 मुंडर्गी

143

ताँम्रद गुंडी

0-15 मुंडर्गी

138

1-26

139

1-02

140

2-17

142

0-05

133

0-03

132

2-26

सर्वे सं.

नाला

0-11

132 औरग्राम सीमा के बीच में

मुंडर्गी

नाला

बसापुर ग्राम सीमा और सर्वे सं. 34के बीच में

0-07

1-39

सर्वे सं.

35 और 36

रास्ता

0-03 मुंडर्गी

के बीच में

0-26

0-24

1-20

1-07

सर्वेसं.

0-07

रास्ता

38 और 17 के बीच में

1-04

2-23

मुंडर्गी

सर्वे सं.

18 और ग्राम सीमा

0-08

नाला

के बीच में

कलकेरी

मुंडर्मी

163

0-02

162

0-20

1-08

161

0-20

160

रास्ता

0-06 सवें सं. 160में

165

0-24

166

0-17

167

0-27

0-25

168

169

0-25

170

0-36

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

5 कलकेरी

171

0-38

172

0-36

173

1-00

178

0-20

179

1-33

180

1-29

184

0-30

187

2-25

188

0-02

186

2-00

185

0-02 सर्वे सं..

रास्ता

0-08 186और 9 केबीच में

1-10

0-07 बूदीहाल

1-03

0-14

0-13

1-08

0-01

1-32 सर्वे सं.

0-16

जलधारा

32और 38 के बीच में

0-01 60

0-18 तिप्पापुरा

सर्वे सं.

0-11

रास्ता

60और58 के बीच में

0-10 59

1-10

2-08

0-38

1-13

1-35 2

0-31 सर्वेसं.

0-05 4 और 14 बैलगाड़ी रास्ता

के बीच में

0-23 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3247

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

सर्वे सं.

मुडर्गी तिप्पापुरा

मुंडर्गी

भाला

0-12

14और38

के बीच में

1-00

1-19

1-21

0-03 कोर्लहल्ली

290

1-10

291

0-27

292

0-35

293

0-11

294

1-31

283

0-22

282

2-27

मुंडर्गी

295

1-04

296

0-03

278

1-25

सर्वे सं.

278 में

रास्ता 0-08

277

0-23

276

0-34

275

0-29

260

1-01

259

1-17

सबै सं,

259और 258 ट्रैन 0-02

मुंडर्गी

के बीच में

सर्वे से.

259और ग्रामाला

0-23 सीमा के बीच में

258

0-01

सर्वे र्स,

259और 258 रास्ता

0-07

के बीच में

256

0-01

0-10

2-30

1-04

सर्वे सं.

रास्ता

87और88

0-04

के बीच में

कोर्लहल्ली

2-13

0-01

1-30 सबै सं

82 171

गाला

0-11 के बीच में

171

1-22

170

0-34 सर्वे से.

169 #

रास्ता 0-03

0-31

169

166

0-29

165

0-32

1-01

164

0-02 ग्राम सीमा और गाला रास्ता

लिडचाल

के बीच में

ग्राम सीमा और सर्वे सं. 192

1-06

नाला

के बीच में

192

0-05

1-23 सर्वे सं

1और2

नाला

0-06 केबीच में

0-20

1-14

0-34

1-10 गंगापुस

0-07

नाला

सर्वे सं. 33 में

0-37

0-27

0-24 87

1-05

1-21 88

सर्वे सं

88 और 14

नाला

0-09 के बीच में

2-05

0-05 सर्वे सं

14 और 19 बेलगाडी रास्ता 0-04 के बीच में 3248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19, 2004/JYAISTHA 29, 1926

1 मुंडर्गी

1-05 गंगापुरा

मुंडर्गी

0-11

सर्वे सं. 32 में

रास्ता

0-04

2-33

सर्वे सं. 9में

रास्ता

0-07 मुंडर्गी

0-01

1-10 मुंडर्गी सेरनहल्ली

0-12

0-20

सर्वे सं. 11 में

0-07

रास्ता

0-13

0-17

1-21

0-04

0-14

0-06

0-01

1-08

सर्वेसं. 2 में

रास्ता

0-06

0-16

0-15

0-09

0-16

0-12

0-10

0-12

0-09

0-10

0-08

0-20

0-10

0-17

0-11

[PART II SBC. 3 (ii) ] 2

सेरनहल्ली

0-22

0-21

0-19

0-21

सिंगटालूर

0-18

0-16

0-21

0-31

0-13

0-18

1-00 19318

0-02

ग्राम भूमी

के चीफ में

0-10

0-14

0-14 सर्वे सं.

50 और 13

0-08

बैलगाड़ी राम्रका के बीच मे

1-16 12

2-30 97

1-07 96

0-18 95

0-29 94

0-02 103

0-14 93

1-07 88

2-10 87

0-29 80

1-29 79

0-24 65

3-03

नदी

[फा. सं. एल-14014/5/04-जी. पी. '

स्वामी सिंह, निदेशक [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

New Delhi , the 10th June , 2004

Gadag (India) Limited; S.O. 1423. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum Gas through Dahej- Hazira-Uran-Dabhol-Bangalore Pipeline Project in the State of Karnataka, a pipeline should be laid by the GAIL Andwhereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition ofRight 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 Shri S.S. Pattanashetti , Competent Authority, GAIL (India) Limited, No. 21 Palace Road, Opposite Mount Carmel College, Bangalore -560052 (Karnataka).

SCHEDULE

State:Karnataka

District:Gadag

Name of the Taluk

Survey No.

Name of theVillage

Hissa No.

Area tobe acquired for ROU in hectare

Lakkundi

Gadag

174

0-36

Road

0-03

InBet . Svy. No. 174, 150 156

150

0-08

156

1-07

155

3-05

154

1-15

158

1-21

159

1-28

160

0-38

Nala 0-06

In Svy. No.- 160

3249 2

5 Lakkundi

117

2-08 116

0-20 253

1-36 115

0-19 268

2-25 269

1-24 271

2-03

0-15

Road

InBet. Svy. No. 271 , 272

265

2-35 277

1-05

NH-63

0-07 InBet. Svy. No. 277 and291

291

0-33 290

0-33 288

1-03 287

1-04 576

1-36 571

I-10 570

0-21 572

1-08

Stream 0-06 InBet. Svy. No. 572 539

Road

0-02 InBet. Svy. No. 572 539

539

2-19 540

0-26 538

2-02 537

2-06 534

1-21 669

2-02 670

1-27 680

1-16 679

1-27

Nala

0-07 InBet. Svy. No. 679 583

583

626

2-17 0-01 3250 .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

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

S 625

Lakkundi

2-15

Gadag

Nala

Hireva-

Mundargi

0-06

davatti

628

0-12

110

1-07 624

1-05

109

1-22 623

1-09

112

0-03

1 617

2-37

108

0-03

0-20

616

113

0-26

1 12

3-02

Mundargi Churchihal

0-16

113

2 13

1-16

113

0-17

Road

In Svy.

0-04

114

1-10 No. 13

114

0-13

4(Nala) 14

0-02

116

0-17 17

1-25

118

0-22 16

2-26

119

0-11

Cart

0-04

In Bet. Svy.

0-36

119

Track

No. 16 , 34

120

0-35 28

120

0-10 34

0-06

120

0-18 28

1-32

125

1-05 33

2-05

124

0-02 32

0-25

126

1-03 170

Mevundi

0-14

126

1-10

Nala

0-11

In Bet . Svy.

127

0-03 No. 170

171

208

1-32

Tamrada- gundi

171

3-10

158

0-11 179

2-16

159

3-04 164

0-16

163

1-05

Road

0-04

InBet . Svv.

161

1-21 No. 164

180

162

2-04 180

2-10

0-10

Nala 185

1-34

In Bet. Svy. No. 162 148

219

0-27

148

1-32 230

1-37

144

2-28 217

1-02

143

0-15 231

0-15

138

1-26 232

2-31

139

1-02 233

1-34

140

2-17

Nala

142

0-05

0-06

133

0-03 InBet. Svy. No. 233 VB 32

भारत

[ भाग - खण्फ 3 (ii) ]

0-07

2-26

132

Mundargi Budikal

Tanмада-

Mundargi

شمر 041

Nala

gundi

1-08

014 InBet. Svy. No: 132 and VB

0-13 In Bet. VB and Nala

Basapur

0:06

Svy.No. 34

1-08

0-07

0-01

1-39

1-32

Road 0-08

InBet. Svy. No. 35&36

Stream

InBet. Svy.

0-16 36

No.32

0-26

0-24

001

1-07

0-07

Road

Thippa-

InBet. Svy:

0-18

pura

No.38&17

1-04

Road

InBet. Svy.

No.60

2-23

Nain

InBet. Svy. No. 18&VB

0-10

1-10

0-20

163

Kalleri

2-08

0-20

162

10250-38

1-08

161

0-20

160

1-35

Rond 00-06

InSvy. No. 160

031

20-24

165 5574

0.05

Bat Sky. No. 4 and 14

167

0-27

0-29

0-25

InBet. Svy. Na Mand

170

0-36

0-38

171

00-1 62/2

1-19

172

173

1-20

0.08

0-20

178

1-10

290

179

1-39

0-27

291

1-29

190

0-35

292

0-30

184

293

2-25

187

1-31

294

0-02

188

0-22

283

9010 200

186

2-27

0:290.00

282

1-04

295

0-08

Road

InBet Svy.

0.03 No. 186 and 9

296

1-10

278

1700 G04-م 3252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/JYAISTHA 29, 1926

Road 0-08 Mundargi Korlahalli

[PART II-SBC. 3(ii)]

1-23

Mundargi Bidanala

In Svy. No.278

277

0-23

276

0-34

275

0-29

260

1-01

259

1-17

Drain 0-02

InBet. Svy. No. 259 and 258

0-23

Nala

InBet. Svy.

No. 259

andV.B.

258

0-01

Road

0-07

InBet. Svy.

No. 259

and258

256

0-01

0-10

2-30

1-04

Road

0-04

InBet. Svy. No. 87

and88

2-13

0-01

1-30

Nala

0-11

InBet. Svy. No. 82 and

171

170

0-34

Road 0-03

In Svy.

No. 169

169

0-31

166

0-29

165

0-32

164

1-01 Bidanala

Road

0-02

InBet. VB andNala

Nala

1-06

InBet VB

and Svy.

No. 192

192

0-05

0-06

Nala

InBet. Svy.

No. 1 and 2

0-20

1-14:

0-34

1-10

0-07

Nala

In Svy. No. 33

0-37

0-27

1-45.

1-21

Nala

0-09

InBet. Svy.

No.88.& 14

2-05

0-05

0-04

In Svy. No. 14 Cart Track

&19

1-05

0-11

0-04

In Svy. No. 32 Road

2-33

Road

0-07

In Svy. No. 9

0-01

1-10

Seranahalli

0-12

0-20

Road

0-07

InSvy. No. 11

0-13

0-17

1-21

0-04

0-14

0-06

0-01

1-08

Road

0-06

In Svy. No. 2

0-16

0-15

0-09

0-16

0-12

0-10

0-12

0-09 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3253

भारत का पत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

= 1

नईदिल्ली, 10 जून, 2004 42

0-10

Mundargi Seranahalli

0-08

0-20

0-10

0-17

का.आ. 1424.-केन्द्रीय सरकारको लोक में यह आपक प्रदीत होता है कि कर्नाटक राज्य में दहेज- इजीरा- उरान-दाभोल- बैंगलूर पाइपलाइन परियोजना के माध्यम से पैट्रोलियम गैस के परिवहन के लिए गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड जारा , एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी आहिए;

0-11

0-22

0-21

0-19 जाए; और, केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया 59

0-21

0-18

Singa-

talur

0-16

0-21

अतः , अंब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पैट्रोलियम 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, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;

0-31

0-13

0-18

1-00

0-02

Village land

InBet. Svy. No. 19 and 18

0-10

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 भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में, श्री एस.एस. पट्टनशेट्टी, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड, सं. 21 , पैलेस रोड़, माउण्ट कारमेल कॉलेज के सामने , बैंगलूर-560 052 (कर्नाटक) को लिखित रूप में पेक्ष भेज सकेगा । 17

0-14

अनुसूची

0-08 राज्य: कर्नाटक

जिला: बहरलारी

120

InBet. Svy. No. 50 and

Cart Track

तालूका नाम

ग्राम का नाम

सर्वे सं.

1-16

125

2-30

हिस्सा सं (यदि कोई

भआर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए 97

1-07

हो

0-18

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयरमें) 95

0-29

0-02

5 103

0-14

नविले

6-02

ए 93

1-07

हूविन- हडगली

2-10

बी1

1-17 87

0-29

0-11

ए2

1-29

0-24

बी

0-23

River

3-03

0-15

0-14 InBet . Svy. No. 79 and VB

ए

बी

0-10

1 [F. No. L- 14014/5/2004-G.P. ] SWAMI SINGH, Director

0-07 3254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 19, 2004/ FYAISTHA 29, 1926

0-08

भूविन- नविले

हूविन-

0-12 हडगली

हडगली

0-06

ए

0-03

बी

0-04

सी

0-23

ए

0-11

ए

0-06

ए1

बी1

0-06

0-14

ए 1

0-07

बी

0-10

ए

0-07

बी

0-12

0-14

ए

0-11

बी

0-12

ए

1-31

ए

0-25

0-03

बी

ए2 0-01

0-28

ए/3ए

0-29

ए/3बी

0-02

बी

0-19

0-12

ए

0-14

बी

0-17

सी

0-19

ए

बी/ 1 0-06

0-17

बी/2

0-13

ए 1

0-08

ए 2

0-12

बी 1

0-16

बी 2

PART II Sec. 3( ii)]

0-20

नविले

ए

0-20

बी

1-01 75

0-03

ए/2

0-03

ए

हूविन-

हडगली

0-28

बी 1

0-19

ए

0-22

बी

1-12

1-19

ए

बी

0-01

50 बैलगाड़ीरास्ता 0-05

0-01

0-02

सी

0-16

0-02

ए

0-22

0-03

सी/1

सी/2 0-34

0-28

बी/1

0-16

ए

बी

0-17

0-07

एफ/3

0-17

एफ/2

जी 0-07

0-14

बी

0-18

0-17

ए

बी

0-10

0-11

सी

0-01

ए

0-39

बी

0-01

सी হাজম : জুন 19, 2004/ पेड 29, 1926

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (i) ]

1 2

001

126

नविले

हूविन- ভূचिन-

हडगली

127

हडगली

001

128

0-12

0-01

149

150

0-02

151

1-06

152

ए

152

0-31

बी

153

0-01

12-03

201

202

0-02

0-22

203

0-29

200

2/2

0-22

199

2/3

0-02

199

0-11

196

ए

0-03

198

बी

207

2-05

6-22

208

209

8-03

बी

208

1-03

210

0-05

नाला

193

0-25

187

ए

0-35

187

बी

0-08

190

8-39

ए

0-01

191

ए

191

0-32

182

रास्ता 0-07

235

0-24

ए

1-07

236

ए

239

1-12

009

238

245

204.

252

रास्ता

0-12

263

0-33

3065

5 2

0-03 देवगोंडन- ग्रामसीमा औरसर्वे सं.

हल्ली

40के बीच में

001

0-24 41

ए

0-35 * 41

बी/1

बी/2

001

0-34 142

0-06

2011

बी 0-25

0-31

1-28

0-03

सी/3

0-04

सी/2

0-07

सी/4 0-04

0.05

बी

0-01

0-06

1-30

337

ॐ

1-08

345

0-01

344

0-08

343

007

ए

सी

343

0-06

0-15

342

बी

सी

0-13

342

0-27

341

0-24

0-21

340

ए

340

सी

0-03

0-14

346

बी

347

0-03

0-11

347

सी

0-04

0-18 3256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

1 2

सी

0-26

348

देवगोंडन-

हूविन- हुविन-

352

सी

हडगली हल्ली

0-15 हडगली

353

सी

0-01

399

0-04

जलधारा

0-18

405

ए

405

बी

0-28

395

0-04

ए

395

0-27

बी

0-27

391

ए/1

391

0-16

बी

390

0-04

ए

नाला

390/ए

0-04

390/बी/1

1-21

390

बी/ 1

2-00

389

1-31

165

हुगलूरु-

164

0-22

ए

193

1-00

ए/1

1-27

193

ए/2

153

0-24

ए

बी

1-06

153

154

0-03

सी

सी/1

0-26

152

सी/2

0-10

0-14

151

ए

147

0-38

146

1-05

ए

बी

0-28

146

0-03

145

144

1-12

ए

112 बैलगाडी रास्ता 0-03

113

0-01

114

0-37

ए

बी

114

0-37

0-06

110

जलधारा

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii)]

100

0-16 हुगलूरु-

0-28

0-09

0-22

ए

1-01

बी

1-08

107

0-06

रास्ता

1-02

0-01

बी

0-36

बी

1-17

1-04

ए

0-10

बी

0-04

जलधारा

1-21

0-28

ए

0-16

बी

सी

0-05

0-03

डी

0-32

सी

0-33

ए

सोगी

373

0-38

ए

1-02

374

बी

480

1-02

481

0-27

484

0-18

477

0-07

0-03

475

ए/2

0-20

475

बी

474

0-05

ए

1-22

473

450

0-10

450

0-04

1(बैलगाडी) रास्त

0-31

449

0-37

453

एं

453

0-18 [ भाग - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3257

भारत का राजपत्र जून 19, 2004, ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

447

0-36 हडगली

447

0-02 हडगली

454

0-21

454

बी

0-01

446

ए

0-31

सी

0-35

446

442

005

(कैलगाडी)

रास्ता

444

0-13 वरकनहल्ली

0-38

1-18

0-31

ए

सी

0-34

0-20

0-05

10.

30-09

0-21

ए

0-12

की 1.03

0-17

2-11:

1-17

114

0-34

113

1-07 वरकनहल्ली सर्वे सं. 113.

0-05

और 93के

रास्ता

बीज में

0-39

0-38

0-20

0-31

0-29

1-15

87::

1-00

85.

बी

0-27

सी

0-24

1-18

68-

3-00 2

123

अडवी मल्लनकेरी

बी

1-00

120

0-39

121

0-27

130

बी

0-07 119

0-02 131

1-22

134

1-10

135

0-01 133

0-38

1-09 139

141

0-06 142 रास्ता नाय 0-12 143

0-01

146

0-29

ए

बी

1-03 146

155

1-05 157

0-26 158

0-15

ए

सी

158

0-16 159

0-05 156 बैलगाडी रास्ता 0-07

1-10 49

0-08 50

1-09

0-17

रास्ता 0-09 21

4-16 [फा. सं . एल-14014/5/04- जी.पी. ]

स्वामीसिंह , निदेशक New Delhi , the 10th June, 2004

S.O. 1424. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that forthe transportation of Petroleum Gas through Dahej Hazira-Uran-Dabhol-Bangalore Pipeline Project in the State ofKarnataka, a pipeline should be laid by the GAIL (India)Limited;

pipline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the

And whereas it appears to the Central Government thatforthe purpose of laying the said pipline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said Schedule annexed to this notification ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and [PART II-Sac. 3(ii)) 3258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29, 1926

0-11

Namile

Huvina-

0-12

hadagali

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right ofUser in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

1-31

0-25

0-03

0-01

0-28

A/3A

0-29

A/3B

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule 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 Shri S.S. Pattanashetti , Competent Authority, GAIL (India) Limited, No. 21 Palace Road, Opposite Mount Carmel College, Bangalore- 560052 (Karnataka) .

0-02

SCHEDULE

0-19

District: Bellary

State: Karnataka

0-12

0-14

Hissa No.

Survey No.

Name of the village

Name of the Taluk

0-17

0-19

0-06

B/1

Area tobe acquired for ROU in hectare

0-17

B/2

0-13

A/1

0-02

Navile

0-08

A/2

1-17

Huvina- hadagali

0-12

0-11

0-16

0-23

0-20

0-15

0-20

0-14

1-01

0-10

0-03

A/2

0-07

0-03

0-08

Huvina- hadagali

0-12

A 0-06

0-03

962

178

022

0-04

Rat 17

1-12

0-23

1-19

001

0-06

0-01

0-06

0-05

CartTrack

0,14

0-01

0-07

0-10

0-02

0-07

0-16

0-12

0-02

0-14

31 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

3259 1

45 Huvina- Huvina-

0-22

Huvina-

187

0-25

A 54

C/1

0-03

hadagali hadagali

187

hadagali

0-35

hadagali

C/2

0-34

190

0-08 55

B/ 1

0-28

189

0-39 56

0-16

191

A. 0-01 56

0-17

191

0-32 56

F/3

182

0-07

Road

0-07

F/2

0-17

235

0-24 56

0-07

236

1-07 92

0-14

239

1-12 93

0-18

238

0-09 94

0-17

245

2-04 94

0-10

252

Nala

0-12 94

0-11

263

0-33 96

Road

0-01

0-03

InBet.

Devgonda-

0-39

Nahalli

V.B. and

0-01

Sy.No.40

126

001

0-01

127

0-01

0-24 128

0-12

B/1

0-35 149

0-01

B/2

0-01 150

0-02

0-34 151

0-02

0-06 152

106

152

0-31

0-25 153

0-01

0-31 201

2-03

1-28

202

0-02

C/3

0-03 203

0-22

0-04 200

0-29

0-07.

199

2/2

0-22

C/4

0-04

199

2/3

0-02

0-05

198

0-01

0-11

0-06 198

0-03

337

207

2-05

1-30

336

208

0-22

1-08

345

209

0-01

0-02

344

208

0-03

0-08

343

A 210

0-07

1-03

343

193

Nala

0-05

C 0-06 1760 G1 /04-9 3260

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

4 1

5 342

147

0-38

0-13

Huvinaha- Devgonda-

Huvinaha- Hugaluru

146

1-05

A 342

hadagali

0-15

hadagali Nahalli

146

0-28

342

0-13

145

0-03 341

0-27

1-12

144

341

0-24

112

0-03

CartTrack 340

0-21

113

0-01 340

0-03

0-37

114

A 346

0-14

0-37

114

B 347

0-03

110

Stream 0-06

347

0-11

100

0-16

Road

396

0-04

0-28 396

0-18

0-09

348

0-26

0-22

A 352

0-15

1-01

0-01

353

1-08 399

Stream 0-04

107

Road

0-06 405

0-18

1-02

405

0-28

0-01 395

0-04

0-36

B 395

0-27

1-17 391

A/ 1

0-27

1-04

0-16

391

0-10 390

0-04

Stream 0-04

Nala

390/A

1-21 390/B/1

0-04

0-28

A 390

B/1

1-21

0-16 389

2-00

0-05

C 165

1-31

Hugaluru

0-03 164

0-22

0-32

A/ 1

193

1-00

0-33

A 193

1-27

A/2

373

0-38

Sogi

153.

0-24

153

1-06

374

1-02

B 154

0-03

480

1-02 152

C/1

0-26

0-27

481

C/2

152

0-10

484

0-18 151

0-14

477

0-07 3261 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

475

Huvina-

A/2

0-03

Varakanahali

Sogi

Huvina-

1-15

1-00

0-20

475

-Contd.

hadagali

0-05

474

B 0-27 473

1-22

0-24

C 450

-0-10

1-18 450

0-04

1 (Cart Track)

449

0-31

3-00

1-00

Adavi Malla- 123

453

0-37

nakeri

0-18

453

0-39

120

447

0-36

C/2

0-27

121

0-02

447

C/3

130

0-07 454

0-21

0-01

454

0-02

119

0-31

446

1-22

131

0-35

446

134

1-18 442

CartTrack 0-05

135

0-01

0-13

441

133

0-38 2

0-38

Varakanahalli

139

1-09

0-06

141

1-18

0-31

142 Road Nala 0-12 8

0-34

0-01

143

0-20

0-29

146

0-05

146

1-03 10

0-09

155

1-05

0-21

0-12

157

0-26

1-03

158

0-15

0-17

158

C 0-16

2-11

159

0-05

1-17

156

0-07

CartTrack

0-34

114

1-07

113

1-10 Inbet.

0-08

Sy. No.

1-09 113

0-05

Road

and93

0-17 93

0-39

0-09

Road 92

0-38

4-16 91

0-20

0-31

[F. No. L- 14014/5/2004-G.P. ] 89

0-29

SWAMI SINGH, Director 3262

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

नई दिल्ली, 10 जून, 2004

का.आ. 1425.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है किकर्नाटक राज्य में दहेज- हजीरा- उरान-दाभोल- बैंगलूर पाइपलाइन परियोजना के माध्यम से पेट्रोलियम गैस के परिवहन के लिए गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा , एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में , जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खजिन 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, उस भूमि में 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 अभीन भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में, श्री एस.एस. पट्टनशेट्टी, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड, सं. 21 , पैलेस रोड़, बैंगलोर-560052 ( कर्नाटक ) को लिखित रूप में आपेक्ष भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य: कर्नाटक

जिला: तुमकूर

सर्वेसं.

उ. का.अ.

ग्राम का

तालूका नाम

नाम

अर्जित

करने के

भाग/ हिस्सा सं. (यदि कोई हो)

लिए

क्षेत्रफल

(हेक्टेयर

में) 1

5 सिरा

0-12 राणद हुणसी

2-10

1-26

2-35

00-22

4-02

सर्वे सं.

रास्ता 0-407

39में

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ]

2-19

सिरा गणद हुणसी- जारी 39

1-03 सर्वेसं. नाला

0-03 36में

1-21 34

1-31 31

3-16 26

0-34 जी. रंगनहल्ली

0-13

2-36 28

2-03 23

1-01 22

0-38 20

0-06 21.

2-01 18

0-24 19

0-12 10

2-17 सर्वेसं. नाला 0-09 10में

1-20

009

नाला

0-12 सर्वेसं. 11में

1-36 51

2-01 देवरपुर

1-25 46

0-38 47

1-06 श्यागदडवी 47

0-21 46

3-22 39

0-01 44

0-21 40

1-31 42

0-08 41

0-39 12

0-35 13

1-02 19

1-00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

3263 1

5 सिरा

श्यागदडवी

0-11

सिरा

0-36

हुथिलदोरे

0-31

2-21 21

1-23

2-24

बैलगाडी

सर्वेसं.

0-07

1-31 21और 8 रास्ता

सर्वे सं. 60और रास्ता

0-09 के बीच में.

61के बीच में

0-33

0-28 सर्वे सं. 8 में रास्ता

0-08

3-10 41

0-06

0-31 हल्ली

1-02 53

1-21

3-39 40

0-39

2-04 76

0-27

2-38 45

दोड्‌डाल-

0-28

2-31 दमडुवु

1-07 41

2-30

होन्नेनहल्ली

4-07 42.

0-22

1-00 43

2-06

गुड्डद

0-31 17

0-37

रंगनहल्ली

1-34

1-31 15

1-08

1-25 11

0-04

2-12 13

2-00

सर्वेसं

यस्ता

0-04 सर्वे सं. 13 नाला

0-09

13में

औरग्रामसीमा

0-30 के बीच में

2-31 मंगनहल्ली

0-07

सर्वे सं. 4 में नाला

3-06 4

1-15

3-37 5

0-14

2-03

0-10

0-04 11

1-18

0-06 2

0-30

चिक्कसमुद्र-

1-04 कावलु

5-15 42

1-04

हुयिलदोरे

सर्वेसं नाला

0-08 43

0-37

55में

0-37

271

अग्रहार

0-08 45

0-37

253

2-12 46

0-33

सर्वेसं. 253 नाला

0-14 सर्वे सं. 46में

रास्ता

0-04

और259 में 3264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

5 1

अग्रहार

259

सिरा

0-33

1-06

255

257

0-39

256

249

1-34

0-10

248

1-07

पुणजहल्ली

1-27 मालनहल्ली 1

2-00

1-39

1-22

0-15

1-32 चिक्क अग्रहार 89

0-09

1-22

सर्वे सं.

रास्ता

0.03

91में

1-25

सर्वे सं. 86

0-24

और 97 के नाला

बीचमें

1-30

1-08

1-31

0-04

रास्ता

सर्वे सं.

99में

101

0-06

2-02 बटगेनहल्ली

0-06

0-17

2-10

0-11

2-19

0-12

0-07

सर्वे सं. 28 नाला

ग्राम सीमाके

बीच में

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii)]

0-12

सिरा होसबीजेनबेल्ला 34

0-33

0-09

1-01

1-08

6-08

सर्वे सं. 27में रास्ता

0-03

0-01

5--05

0-10

चिक्क गिरेनहल्ली 4

3-19

0-07

सर्वे सं. 3 में नाला

0-37

0-39

1-26

0-09

सर्वे सं. 11 में जलधारा

0-31

1-19

0-11

सर्वे सं. 13 में जलधारा

0-22

ग्रामसीमा और नाला

देवरहल्ली

गुब्बी

सर्वे सं. 70के

बीच में

0-27

0-22

0-10

सर्वे सं. 68

0-14

और 74 के रास्ता

बीच में

1-22

0-07

0-38

1-24

0-12

ग्रामसीमा और नाला

0-12

तोगरि गुंटे

गुब्बी

सर्वेसं. 47के

बीच में

0-13

1-10

रास्ता

0-05

सर्वेसं.

42में

1-27

3-03

2-16 3265

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3-24

1-01

नल्लूरु

गुब्बी

गुब्बी रेवनाल

1-23

0-05

नाला

सर्वेसं.

55में

1-21

1-25

2-00

0-29

सर्वेसं. 59

1-06

और 58 के रास्ता

0-05

के बीच में

1-39

1-02 रास्ता

0-05

सर्वेसं.

64में

1-22

6-07

0-16

0-17

1-36 21

0-23

होत्रेनहल्ली

0-20 23

106

0-35

0-09

2-34

0-38

107

सर्वे सं. 4

108

1-20 और 3 के

0-05

रास्ता

0-08

सर्वे सं.

बीच में

108में

0-01

सर्वे सं. 3 में रास्ता

109

1-24

1-10

1-20

115

1-23

121

1-19 11

2-24

1-26

135

1-08

कुरुबरहल्ली

136

2-14

2-12

कल्लुगुडी 41

139

1-33 42

0-02

0-33

138

2-07

140

3-15.

2-35

0-11

144

2-01

0-01

तोणचनहल्ली 12.

0-29

1-14

0-10

0-35 29

0-07

0-35

2-34

0-01

0-02

रास्ता

सर्वेसं.

1-06

13में

0-38

0-01

1-22

0-23

0-14

2-29

रास्ता

0-04

सर्वेसं.

0-20

47में

1-18

0-16

5-21

19 3266

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

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

5 21

3-01

गुब्बी सातेनहल्ली

चंदगेरे

0-12

गुब्बी

सर्वे सं. नाला

0-09

0-33 21में

0-35 19

1-26

0-25 20

0-24

सर्वेसं.

नाला

0-02 23

0-01

23में

1-07 24

0-22

सर्वे सं.

रास्ता

0-03 25

0-38

26में

0-05

0-34 26

0-30

0-02 40

1-19

कग्गेरे

0-02 39

0-02

0-33 सर्वेसं. 40

0-01

मणीमारी अमृत 131

39और 38 रास्ता

0-07

कावल

के बीच में

130

0-35 38

1-09

117

1-08 36

0-07

118

0-01

116

0-07 35

0-05

115

0-38

1-08

104

1-00 109

1-22

इरकसंद्र

105

0-01 110

1-00

101

0-08 नंदीहल्ली

0-33

0-34 40

1-05

0-37

0-14

0-23

0-03

0-19

15-24 32

1-06

1-03 31

1-00

0-28 30

0-14

0-18

सर्वे सं. रास्ता

0-04 28

1-00

87में

1-00

0-38 25

0-17

0-23 चंदगेरे

0-31

रास्ता

0-03

सर्वे सं. 1 में

0-37

रास्ता

सर्वे सं. 1 में

0-08 47

0-25

सर्वे सं. 1 में जलधारा 0-01 12

0-16

0-01

182

0-09

181

1-03 14

0-11

0-27

180

0-11 3267

19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

5 रीन मडी 15

2-01

1-05

नारर्वगल

तुमकूर

1-31

2-32

0-12 55

001

गंदी 0-06

सर्व संवितरक

044 6में

सर्वेसं. बैलगाडी 0-13 6

0-24

92और रास्ता

127के

20-37

बोरगोंडनहल्ली 12

बीच में

0-02

सर्वे सं नाला

127

2-17 9 में

125

0-25 9

1-07

0-04

रास्ता

सर्वेसं.

0-22

125और

2-09

128के

0-02

बीचमें

48 :

0-25

तुमकूर असलीपुरा

128

0-19 47

1-25

0-02 45

1-18

समलेमें 128 वितरक

और

नदी

काग्गेरी

0-09

130

0-254 1017

1-18

132

1-03 रास्ता

0.07

सर्वे से

134.

004 10में

133

1-31 सर्वे सं. 10 नाला 0-02

वितरक 0-05

सर्वे सं

और 12 के

133में नदी

बीच में

0-25

2-13

1-19

0-39 26

0-08

0-34 2720

1-03

1-03 23

001

0-01

0-25

0-06

0-35

0-23

021

1-08

005

0-14 34

0-10

मूडगेरे

0-34

गौडीहल्ली 24

0-08

बुगडनहल्ली

0-07

254

अमानिकेरे

0-01

0-12 22

1-00

0-08

सर्वेसं. नाला

0-01

2, 14और

सर्वे सं. नाला

12के

0402

22में

बीच में

1760 G1/04-10 3268

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

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

0-26

1-04 तुमकूर बुगडनहल्ली 12

तुमकूर गोल्लहल्ली

अमानिकेरे

0-30

0-01 13

0-22 15

0-13

0-38

सर्वेसं.

0-01

नाला

0-24

35में

0-15

सर्वेसं. नाला

0-04 103

वक्कोडी

1-22

34में

102

1-15

0-06

2-05

104

0-01 105

0-18

हेग्गेरे

170

0-23 100

0-29

0-21

169

वितरक नदी

सर्वे सं.

168

0-15 100में

0-05

167

0-13 सर्वेसं.

166

0-02 100 और ग्राम भूमि 0-11

0-31

165

89 के बीच

0-10

नाला

सर्वेसं.

में

165और

1-20

146के

0-01

बीच में

1-24

146

0-18 86

0-32

145

0-04 16

0-37

गोल्लहल्ली

147

0-27 15

0-16

0-25

144

0-04

सर्वे सं. रास्ता

143

0-31 17में

नाला

सर्वे सं.

0-09 17

1-19

143और

0-01

141 के बीच

0-25

में

0-14

0-16

141

सर्वे सं.

0-06

रास्ता

सर्वेसं.

0-03

नाला

23और

96 और

26के बीच में

ग्राम सीमा

0-03

के बीच में

0-13

0-36

कुन्कुमनहल्ली 6

0-38

0-22 30

0-02

सर्वे सं. रेलवे

0-09

सर्वेसं. रास्ता

0-03 30और

8में

31 के बीच में

0-18 सर्वेसं. रेलवे

0-14

0-25 30और

0-21 31के बीच में

0-03 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

3269

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

0-38

तुमकूर कुन्कुमनहल्ली 13

2-04

कम्बसनहली

तुमकूर

0-03

1-28 17

0-32

सर्वे सं. 34 में रास्ता

0-04

0-03

0-35

.30

लक्ष्मणसंद्र

0-01

0-10 31

0-10

1-27 32

0-11

0-17 33

0-10

0-07

सर्वे सं. 99 में रास्ता

0-08

100

0~22 35

0-11

102

1-03 36

0-16

103

नाला

0-22 37

0-07

0-13

104

(-13

454

106

0-32 39

0-08

(-39

हेत्तेनहल्ली

( -15

0-21

0-01

0-13

1-10 45

0-21

1-14 48

0-39

108

0-04 52

(0-18

109

0-07 सर्वेसं.

0-05

110

नाला .

0-06 52में

111

0-14 66

0-11

113

0-18 65

114

0-08

0-06

0-08

115

0-06 68

0-15

116

0-22 69

0-16

0-05 71

0-10

122

0-07 75

0-12

119

0-13 76

0-07

118

1-16 77

0-09

131

0-06 8)

0-02

0-20

कैदाल

(0-12

1-07 82

0-07

सर्वे सं . 54में रास्ता

0-03 83

(0-10)

0-26 88

0-02

0-34

0-24

0-39

(0-20

सर्वे सं. 47में रास्ता 0-05

0-07

सर्वेसं.

0405

रास्ता

1-37 93में

0-13 93

1-02

1-00 3270

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004 / JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

[PART I-SEC . 3 (1) 4

5 1

1-12

0-22 कल्लमाठ

तुमकूर

तुमकूर होसूर

1-31

0-13

1-17

सर्वे सं. 36 और जलधारा 0-1.1 8

0-14

35 के बीच में

1-14

0-09

0-07

0:07

1-17

0-05

0-02

0-16

0-04

सर्वे सं. 20 में रास्ता

0-09 20

1-23

0-14

0-02 125

0-17

गूलूर

मानंगी

0-06 124

1-02

122

1-00

001

0-13

0-04

सर्वे सं. 122 में नाला

0-13

1-08

121

0-19 120

0-11

0-02

0-09

सर्वे सं. 120 और

1-24 बैलगाड़ी

115 के बीच में

001 रास्ता

1-04

0-33

115

0-19 118

0-02

0-16 117

1-03

0-29

0-09

सर्वेसं. 117और

0-31

112 के बीच में राज्य राज-

0-13

0-07

मार्ग -33

0-22

अक्कतंगेर कघट्टे 175

1-04

112

174

0-34

कावल

0-25

111

141

1-30

0-01

110

0-07

142

0-16

हांसूर

143

0-09

0-19

0-33

140

सर्वे सं. 27 और

0-37 75 के बीच में जलधारा

0-03

0-06

0-15

1-20

0-17

3:1

0-16

0-30

0-32 32

0-20

सर्वे सं. 32 और रास्ता 0-07

0-06

14के बीचमें

सर्वे सं. 32 और रास्ता

0-32

33के बीच में

0-36

0-22

33 3271 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

5 1

0-05

सर्वे सं. 17 में रास्ता

तुमकूर अक्कतंगेर कषट्टे 16

अरेहल्ली

तुमकूर

1-06

4-17

कावल

0-27

1-05

1-08 167

0-07

होलकल्लु

0-01

0-37

166

सर्वे सं. 7 और नाला

0-12

165

0-05

35के बीचमें

168

1-04

0-27

0-20

148

0-34

1-03

147

0-10

0-16

130

132

1-19

0-01

सर्वे सं. 32 में नाला

0-24

136

0-03

होन्नुडकी

0-01

137

सर्वे सं. 31 में नाला

0-05 135

0-21

3-02

0-26

120

0-09 121

0-13

0-08

2-00

114

0-02 113

0-33

1-34

102

1-29

बोचनहल्ली 28

1-21

112

0-04

101

0-31

हुल्लेनहल्ली

1-20

चिक्क होन्नुडकी 6

0-01

102

सर्वे सं. 6 में रास्ता

0-05

1-06

गंधमाचन हल्ली 21

0-18

0-12

0-19 सर्वे सं. 20 में रास्ता

0-05

सर्वे सं. 4 में रास्ता

0-04

0-14

सर्वे सं. 28 रास्ता

1-18

0-07

और 27

0-19 के बीच में

0-12 27

1-22

1-21

2-04

0-03

सर्वेसं. 15 में नाला

सर्वेसं. 33 में नाला 0-07

0-26

139

सासलु

0-28

135

0-26

अरेहल्ली

सर्वे सं. 135 में रास्ता 0-05

0-12

134

0-03 2

1-13

132

0-15

0-04

सर्वे सं. 2 में रास्ता

सर्वेसं . 132और

0-33

136के बीच में रास्ता 0-08 4

1-09

1-21

136

0-17 3272

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004 / JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

0-21

110

सासलु

तुमकूर

0-01

114

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

111

1-06

0-39

105

0-17

106

0-06

सर्वे सं . 105 नाला

औरग्रामसीमा

केबीचमें

0-21

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty -one days from the date onwhich 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 ofthe pipeline under the land to the Sh. S.S Pattanashetti , Competent Authority, GAIL (India) Limited, No. 21 , Palace Road, Bangalore- 560052 (Karnataka).

0-27

110

वरदनहल्ली

109

0-06

SCHEDULE

0-10

रामेनहल्ली

DISTRICT: TUMKUR

STATE : KARNATAKA

0-01

Sy. No.

0-36

Hissa No.

Name of the Village

1-21

Name ofthe Taluk

0-15

Area to be acqu- iredfor ROUin Hect.

1-04

1-33

0-12

Sira

0-01

Ganada Hunasi

0-11

2-10

0-30

1-26

0-04

सर्वे नं. 54 में रोड

0-20

2-35

1-19

0-22

0-15

4-02

1-26

In Svy.

Road

No. 39

0-04

0-07

2-19 60

0-25

1-03 [फा. सं. एल-14014/5/04- जी.पी. ]

0-03

Nala

In Svy. No. 36

स्वामी सिंह, निदेशक

1-21 New Delhi , the 10th June , 2004

1-31

3-16

0-34

G.Ranganahalli 26

0-13 S.O. 1425. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum gas through Dabhol to Bangalore pipeline project in the State of Karnataka, a pipeline should be laid by the GAIL (India) Limited;

2-36

2-03

1-01

0-38 And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification ;

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

3273

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 19, 1926

Sira

0-06

G.Ranganahalli 20

Sira

2-06

Doddalada 43

maduvu

0-37

2-01

1-34 18

0-24

1-08 19

0-12

0-04 10

2-17

2-00

0.09.

In Svy.

No. 10 Nala

Nala

0-09

InBet

Svy. No. 13

1-20

&VB.

InSvy.

0-07

Nala

In Svy.

Manganahalli

No.11 Nala

0-12

No.4

1-36

2-01

Devarapura 51

0-14 49

1-25

2-05 46

0-38

0:10 47

1-06

1-18

0-30

Chikkasama- 26

0-21

drakavalu

Shyagadadavi 47

3-22

1-04

Huyiladore

0-01

0-37 44

0-21

1-31

0-37 42

0-08

0-33 41

0-39

Road 0:04

In Svy.

0-35

No. 46

0-36 13

1-02

2-21 19

1-00

2-24 20

0-11

1-31

0-31

InBetSvy.

1-23

No.60&

In Bet Svy.

2010

Road

No. 21 & Cast Track

0-33

3,10

Road

0-08

In Svy:

034 No 8

63.

1-02 Giddanahalli 41

0-06

3-39

1-2

2-04

0-39

2-38 76

2-31 Doddalada- 45:

0-28

1-07 maduvu

Honnenahalli 62

4-07 41

2-30

1-00 42

0-22 3274

[PART II SEC. 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004 /JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

5 3

0-31

Sira Chikka

Sira Guddadaran- 8

InBet Svy.

No.86

Agrahara

ganahalli

Nala

0-24

&97

1-31

1-30 9

1-25

1-08 13.

2-12

1-31

Road

04.

In. Svy.

Road 0-04

In: Svy.

No. 13

No.99

0-30

0-06

101.

2-31

2-02

Batagenahalli 34

3-06

0-06

3-37

0-17 Vaddanahalli 70

2-10 60

0-11

2-19 58

0-04

0-12

0-06

1-04

InBet Svy.

No. 28 &

5-15

0-07

Nala

0-08

In Svy.

0-12

Hosabijena- 34

No. 55

bella

271

0-08

Agrahara

0-33 253

2-12

In Svy.

0-09 No. 253 &

101

Nala

0-14

259

0-33

1-08 259

6-08 255

1-06

Road

0-39

0.03 257

In Svy.

No. 27

256

0-01

249

1-34

5-05

0-10

248

0-10

Chikka

1-07

Punajahalli 12

Girenahalli

1-27

Malanahalli 1

3-19 25

2-00

0-07

Nala

InSvy.

1-39

No. 3

1-22

0-37

0-15

0-39

1-32

1-26 Chikka

Agrahara

Stream

InSvy.

0-09 90

0-09

No. 11

1-22

0.31

1-19 Road 0-03

InSvy.

No. 91

0-11

Stream

In Svy.

1-25

No.13 3275

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3 4

Gubbi

0-22

In Bet V. B. Nala

Devarahalli

Gubbi

& Svy.

No.70

0-27

0-22

0-10

0-14

In Bet Svy. Road

No. 68 &74

1-22

0-07

0-38

1-24

0-12

InBet V.B. Nala

&Svy.

Thogari Gunte

No.47

1-13

1-10

0-05

Road

In Svy.

No.42

1-27

3-03

2-16

1-01

Revanala

1-23

1-21

1-25

0-29

1-06

1-39

0-05

Road

In Svy.

No.64

6-07

0-17

0-23 Honnenahalli 21

ومن

2-34

0-05

In Bet Svy.

No. 4& 3

0-01

Road

In Svy.

No..3

1-10

1-23

2-24

1760 G1/04-11

1-08 Kurubarahalli 4

2-12 Kallugudi 41

0-02 42

2-07 40

2-35 32

2-01 33

0-29 34

0-10 12

0-07 29

2-34 13

0-02

Road

In Svy.

No. 13

0-01 15

0-23 10

2-29 16

0-20 17

1-18 8

5-21 19

3-24 55

Nalluru

0-05

Nala

In Svy.

No. 55

2-00 59

0-05 InBet Svy. Road

No. 59 &58

1-02 58:

1-22 70

0-16 71

1-36 72

0-20 67-

0-35

106

0-38

107

1-20

108

0-08

Road

In Svy.

No. 108

1-24

109

1-20

115

1-19

121

1-26

135

2-14

136

1-33

139

0-33

138

3-15

140

0-11

144 3276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/JYAISTHA 29, 1926

5 1

0-01 Gubbi Thonachana- 12

halli

1-14

0-35

0-01

1-06

0-38

1-22

0-14

0-04

Road

In Svy.

No. 47

0-16

3-01 Sathenahalli 21

0-09

Canal

InSvy.

No. 21

1-26

0-24

0-01

0-22

0-38

0-05

0-30

1-19

0-02

InBet . Svy.

0-07

No. 40, 39 Road

&38

1-09

0-07

0-01

3:5

0-05

1-08

1-22 Irakasandra 109

110

1:00

0-33 Nandihalli 42

1-05

0-14

0-23

0-19

1-06

1-00

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

Gubbi Nandihalli

0-14

0-18

1-00

0-17

0-31 Chandagere 45

0-37

0-25

0-16

0-09

0-11

0-27

0-12

0-33

0-35

0-25

Nala 0-02 In Svy. No. 23

1-07

Road 0-03 In Svy. No. 26

0-34

0-02

0-02 kaggere

0-33 Manimari 131

001 Amrutha

Kaval

130

0-35

117

1-08

118

0-01

0-07

116

0-38

115

104

1-00

105

0-01

0-08

101

0-34

0-37

1.03

15-24

1-03

0-28

Road 0-04 In Svy. No. 87 3277

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1-00

0-38 Tumkur Gowdihalli

Gubbi Manimari

0-23

0-01 Amrutha

0-03

Road

Kaval In Svy. No. 1

0-02

Nala

In Svy. No. 22

0-08

Road

In Svy. No.1

1-05

Naravangala

0-01

Stream

In Svy. No. 1

1-31

0-01

182

0-12

1-03

181

1-10

0-11

180

0-14

2-01

Manimari-

In Bet Svy. No. 92 Cart Track

0-13 nagadi

& 127

Kaval

2-17

127

2-32

0-25

125

0-01

In Bet Svy. No. 125 Road In Svy. No. 6 Distributory

0-04

0-06

& 128

0-24

(0-19

128

Boragonda-

In Svy. No. 128 Distributory

0-37

nahalli

0-02

& 130

0-02

Nala

In Svy. No. 9

0-25

130

1-07

1-03

132

0-22

0-04

134

2-09

1-31

133

0-02

0-05

In Svy. No. 133 Distributory

0-25

.48

0-25

Tumkur Asalipura

1-25

0-39

1-18

00-34

0-09

1-03 11

Kaggeri

1-18

0-01

0-25

Road

In Svy. No. 10

0-07

0-23

0-02

Canal

In Svy. No. 10 & 12

0-08

2-13

0-14

1-19

(0-10

0-08 Tumkur Mudagere

1-03 Tumkur Bugadanahalli

Amanikere 14

0-08 23

0-01

(0-12

0-06

In Bet Svy. No. 2

0-35

0-08 31

Nala

14 & 12

0-21

0-26 29

0-30

0-05

(0-13

0-15

1-38

0-34

Gowdihalli

0-24

0-07

0-15

0-01 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 19 , 2004 /JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

3278

0-18

146

1-22 Tumkur Heggere

103

Tumkur Vakkodi

0-04

145

0-06

102

0-27

147

0-05

104

0-25

144

0-18

105

0-31

0-29

143

100

0-05

In Svy. No. 100 Distributory

0-09

Nala

In Bet Svy. No. 143 & 141

In Bet Svy. No. 100

0-16

141

0-11

&89

Village Land

1-20

In Bet Svy. No. 96

0-03

Nala

&V.B.

0-01

Kunkumana

1-24

0-36

halli

0-32

0-22

0-37

Gollahalli

0-03

Road

In Svy. No. 8

0-16

0-18

0-04

Road

In Svy. No. 17

0-25

1-19

0-21

0-01

0-03

0-25

0-38

0-14

0-03

In Bet Svy. No. 23

0-32

0-06

Road

&26

0-03

0-13

Lakshmana-

0-01

sandra

0-38

0-10

31.

0-02

0-11

Railway

In Bet Svy. No. 30

0-09

0-10 &31

Dept.

0-08

Railway

In Bet Svy. No. 30

(0-14

&31

Dept.

0-11

1-04

0-16

0-01

0-07

0-22

0-13

0-01

Nala

In Svy. No. 35

0-08

10-04

Nala

In Svv. No. 34

0-15

1-15

0-01

001

0-13

0-23

170

Heggere

0-21.

0-21

169

(-15

0-39 168

0-13

0-18 167

0-02

166

0-05

Canal

In Svy. No. 52

0-31

165

0-11

0-06 In Bet Svy. N. 165

0-10

Nala

& 146 3279

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

0-22

116

Tumkur Hettenahalli

0-08

Tumkur Lakshmana

0-05

0-15

sandra

0-07

0-16

122

0-13

0-10

119

1-16

0-12

118

131

0-06

0-07

0-20

Kaidal

0-09

0-07

0-02

0-03

Road

0-12

In Svy. No. 54

0-26

0-07

0-34

0-10

0-39

0-02

0-05

Road

0-24

In Svy. No. 47

1-37

1-20

0-13

0-07

1-00

0-05

Road

In Svy. No. 93

1-12

Kallamatha

1-02

1-31

2-04

Kambattanahalli 34

1-17

1-28

0-14

0-04

Road

In Svy. NO. 34

1-14

0-35

0-07

0-10

1-17

1-27

0-02

0-17

0-04

Road

In Svy. No. 20

0-07

Road

In Svy. No. 99

1-23

0-22

100

0-17

125

Guluru

1-03

102

1-02

124

0-22

Nala

103

1-00

122

0-03

104

0-04

Road

In Svy. No. 122

0-32

106

1-08

121

0-39

0-11 Hettenahalli

120

0-21

Cart

In Bet Svy. No. 120

1-10

Track 91

&115

0-09

0-33

1-14

115

0-04

0-02

118

108

0-07

1-03

117

109

0-06

110-

SH-33

In Bet Svy. No. 117 &112

0-14

0-07 111

1-04

112

0-18

113

0-25

111

0-08

114

110

0-01 115

0-06 3280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

== 1

5 26

Tumkur Hosur

0-16

0-33

140

Tumkur Akkatangera

0-19

0-37

Katte Kavalu

0-03 In Bet Svy. No. 27

&75

Stream

1-20

0-06

0-15

0-16 29

0-17

0-32 30

0-30

In Bet Svy. No. 32

& 14

0-07 32

0-20

Road

0-32 In Bet Svy. No. 32

Road

0-06

&33

0-36

0-22

1-06

0-22

4-17 36

0-13

1-05

167

0-07 In Bet Svy. No. 36

Holakallu

Stream

0-11

&35

166

0-37 35

0-09

165

0-12 46

0-07

168

1-04 44

0-05

0-20

148

0-16

1-03

147

0-09

0-16

130

0-14

132

1-19 50

0-02

136

0-24 41

0-06

Manangi

137

0-01 40

0-01

135

0-21 37

0-13

0-26

120

0-13

121

0-13 35

0-19

114

2-00 32

0-02

113

0-33

1-24

1-34

102

0-01

1-21

112

1-04

0-31

Hullenahalli 101

0-19

102

0-01 24

0-16

1-06

Gandhama- 21

0-29

chanahalli

0-12 20

0-31

Road

0-05

In Svy. No. 20

0-13

0-14

Akkatangera

InBet Svy. No. 28

0-22

Katte Kavalu 175

Road

0-07

&27

174

0-34

1-22

1-30

141

2-04

0-07

142

Nala

0-07

In Svy. No. 33

143

0-09

0-28 :

3281 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

[ भाग II-खण्डः 3 (ii ) ]

139

0-26

Tumkur Sasalu

0-26

Tumkur Arehalli

135

0-12

Road

1-13

0-05 2

In Svy. No. 135

0-03 Road

0-04

134

In Svy. No. 2

0-33

0-15 3

132

1-09

In Bet Svy: No. 132 .

Road

0-08

& 136

0-17

1-21

136

0-05

Road.

In Svy, No. 17

0-21

110.

0-27

0-01

114

1-08

fit

1-06

001

105

0-39 In Svy. No. 7 &

0~17

106

Nala

0-05

0-27

In Bet Svy. No. 105

0-06

Nala

&V.B.

0-34

0-21

0-10

0-27

110

Varadanahalli

Canal

0-01

In Svy. No. 32

109

0-06

0-03

Honnudaki

0-10

Ramienahalli

Canal

0:05

In Svy. No. 31

0-01

3-02

0-36

1-21

0-08

0-15

0-02

1-04

1-29

Bochanahalli 28

1-33

0-04

001

1-20

Chaikkahon-

0-11

Road

0-05

nudaxi In Svy. No. 6

0-30

0-18

0.04

Road

In Svy. No. 54

0-19

0-20

0-04

Road

In Svy. No. 4

1-19

0-05

1-18

1-26

0-19

0:04

0-12

0-25

1-21

[F. No. L- 14014/5/ 204-G.P. ] SWAMI SINGH. Director .

0-03

Nala

In Svy. No. 15 3282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29, 1926

नई दिल्ली, 11 जून , 2004

का.आ. 1426.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि महाराष्ट्र राज्य में पानेवाडी ( मनमाड ) संस्थापन से मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या (इंदौर ) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार की उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में, जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खजिन 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, उस भूमि में 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 इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्बन्ध में श्री प्रहलाद व्ही. कचरे, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, मुम्बई- मनमाड पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना, भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड, कार्यालय पहली मंजिल, सेवा कॉम्पलेक्स, गुरूद्वारा के सामने, मुंबई- आगरा महामार्ग , धुलिया 424311 (महाराष्ट्र) की लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] New Delhi , the 11th June, 2004

S.O. 1426. Whereas it appears to the Central Govern- ment that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from the Panewadi (Manmad)terminal in the State of Maharashtra, an extension pipeline to Manglya (Indore ) in the State of Madhya Pradesh should be laid by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

Andwhereas it appears to the Central Government that forthe purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to ac- quire the right of user in the land under which the saidpipeline isproposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines(Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act, 1962(50 of1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Anyperson, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty - one days from the date onwhich copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri P. V. Kachare , Competent Authority, Mumbai- Manmad Pipeline Extention Project, Bharat Petroleum Corpo- ration Limited , at office at 1st Floor , Seva Complex , Opp . Gurudwara,Mumbai -Agra Road, Dhule 424311 (Maharashtra) .

SCHEDULE

Tahsil : Shindkheda District : Dhule State: Maharashtra

Areas

Gat/Survey

Sq. Mts .

Area

Hectors

Numbers

Nameof Village

867A

1. Betavad

तहसील:-शिंदखेडा जिला धूलियां राज्य:-महाराष्ट्र

क्षेत्र

गट/सर्वे

ग्राम का नाम

चौरस मीटर नंबर

हैक्टर आर

867A

1. बेटावद

717

239/1/1/2

2. Pashte

118/2

118/3

03 206/1D

3. Malsar

243/ 1 -A- 1

4. Mudavad

180/2

2. पढावद

180/2

5. Padhavad

239/1/2

3. पाष्टे

118/2

118/3

243/1-अ-1

4. मुडावद

206/15

5. मलसर

[फा. सं . आर-31015/16/2001-ओ आर- II ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

[F. No. R-31015/16/2001 -OR - II ]

HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 11 जून , 2004

का.आ. 1427.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की नीचे दी [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3283

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

गई अधिसूची में यथा उल्लिखित तारीखों की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. द्वारा उन अधिसूचनाओं से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया था ;

औरकेन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उक्त भूमियों में, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त उपयोग का अधिकार पेट्रोनेट सी. सी. के. लिमिटेड मेंनिहित किया था ;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को रिपोर्ट दी है कि मोटर स्प्रिट, उच्च कोटि का मिटटी का तेल और उच्च वेग डीजल के परिवहन के लिए केरल राज्य में भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड

अनुसूची

गांव का नाम

का.आ.न.व. तारीख

क्रम नं.

1. 32809 नवंबर 99

पारक्कडव ( खण्ड सं. 5 )

पारक्कडव ( खण्ड सं. 6 )

कुन्नुकरा

2. 3673 24 दिसंबर 99 त्रिकाक्करा ( उत्तरी ) ( खण्ड सं. 6 )

काक्कनाड ( खण्ड सं. १ )

आलुवाई ( पश्चिमी ) ( खण्ड सं. 37 )

आलुवाई ( पश्चिमी ) ( खण्ड सं. 34 )

पारक्कडव ( खण्ड सं. 5 )

पारक्कडव ( खण्ड सं. 6)

कडुन्ाल्लूर

करुमालूर

3. 79130 मार्च 2000 त्रिक्काक्करा ( उत्तरी ) ( खण्ड सं. 6 ) आलुवाई ( पश्चिमी ) ( खण्ड सं. 37 )

आलुवाई ( पश्चिमी ) ( खण्ड सं. 34 )

पारक्कडव ( खण्ड सं. 5)

पारक्कडव ( खण्ड सं. 6 )

कुन्नुकरा

करुमालूर

कडुनाल्लूर

4. 1624 10 जुलाई 2001 तिरुवान्कुलम ( खण्ड सं. 10 )

कडुन्नगल्लूर

5. 3281 9 नवंबर 99

पडिज्जारे चालकुटी

परपूक्करा

तोरबा

नेन्मनिकरा

6. 361414 दिसंबर 99 मुरिन्गूर तेक्कुम्मुरी

मुरिन्गूर वडक्कुम्मुरी

कल्लूर तेक्कुम्मुरी

कल्लूर वडक्कुम्मुरी 1760 G1/04-12

के इरिम्पानम संस्थापन, इंरिम्पानम , कोची से तमिलनाडु राज्य में करूर तक उक्त भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाई जा चुकी है, अतः उस भूमि के बारे में, जिसका संक्षिप्त विवरण इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट किया गया है , ऐसे प्रचालन को केरल राज्य में समाप्त किया जाए ;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार पेट्रोलियम पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) नियम, 1963 के नियम 4 के स्पष्टीकरण -1 के अधीन अपेक्षानुसार उक्त अनुसूची के स्तम्भ 7 में उल्लिखित तारीखों को केरल राज्य में प्रचालन की समाप्ति की तारीखों के रूप में घोषित करती है ।

जिला

तहसील

राज्य प्रचालन की समाप्ती की तारीख

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 आलुवाई एरनाकुलम

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 एरनाकुलम

आलुवाई

15दिसंबर 2002

केरल

परावूर

एरनाकुलम

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 एरनाकुलम

कनयन्नूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 एरनाकुलम

कनयनूर

केरल

आलुवाई

15दिसंबर 2002 एरनाकुलम

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 आलुवाई एरनाकुलम

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 एरनाकुलम

आलुवाई

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 एरनाकुलम

आलुवाई

केरल

परावूर

15दिसंबर 2002 एरनाकुलम

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 परापूर

एरनाकुलम

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 कनयनूर एरनाकुलम

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 एरनाकुलम

आलुवाई

केरल

एरनाकुलम

15दिसंबर 2002 आलुवाई

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 आलुवाई एरनाकुलम

केरल

परापूर

एरनाकुलम

15दिसंबर 2002

केरल

परावूर

15दिसंबर 2002 एरनाकुलम

परावूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 एरनाकुलम

कनयन्नूर परावूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 एरनाकुलम

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 मुकुन्दपुरम त्रिशूर

15दिसंबर 2002

केरल

मुकुन्दपुरम त्रिशूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 मुकुन्दपुरम त्रिशूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 मुकुन्दपुरम त्रिशूर 3284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

7. 9828 मई 2000

पडिज्जारे चालकुटी

किषक्के चालकुटी

पराप्पूक्करा

नेन्मनिक्करा

त्रिक्कूर

कल्लूर वडक्कुम्मुरी

कल्लूर तेक्कुम्मुरी

मरत्ताक्करा

नडत्तरा

कैनूर

पाणनचेरी ( खण्ड सं. 77 )

पाणनचेरी ( खण्ड सं . 81 )

पाणनचेरी ( खण्ड सं. 80)

पेरामब्रा

8. 1455 28 जून 2000

आलूर

कोडकरा

नेल्लाई

तोरवा

नेन्मनिक्करा

किपक्के चालकुटी

पडिज्जारे चालकुटी

कैनूर

कोपुक्कुल्लि

ओल्लूक्करा

मुलयम

पाणनचेरी ( खण्ड सं. 77)

पीच्ची ( खण्ड सं. 79 ) 9. 2496 14 नवम्बर 2000

कल्लूर तेक्कुम्मुरी

मुरिन्गूर तेक्कुम्मुरी

कल्लूर वडक्कुम्मुरी

पडिज्जारे चालकुटी

किपक्के चालकुटी

पेरामब्रा

आलूर

कोडकरा

नेल्लाई

परप्पूक्करा

तोरवा

नेन्मनिक्करा

त्रिक्कूर

मरत्ताक्करा

कैनूर

कोषुक्कुल्लि

मुलयम

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 4

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 मुकुन्दपुरम त्रिशूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 त्रिशूर

मुकुन्दपुरम

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 त्रिशूर

मुकुन्दपुरम

15दिसंबर 2002

केरल

त्रिशूर

मुकुन्दपुरम

15दिसंबर 2002

केरल

मुकुन्दपुरम त्रिशूर

15दिसंबर 2002

केरल

मुकुन्दपुरम त्रिशूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 मुकुन्दपुरम त्रिशूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 त्रिशूर त्रिशूर

15दिसंबर 2002

केरल

त्रिशूर त्रिशूर

15दिसंबर 2002

केरल

त्रिशूर त्रिशूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 त्रिशूर त्रिशूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 मुकुन्दपुरम त्रिशूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 त्रिशूर

मुकुन्दपुरम

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 त्रिशूर

मुकुन्दपुरम

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 त्रिशूर

मुकुन्दपुरम

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 त्रिशूर

मुकुन्दपुरम

15 दिसंबर 2002

केरल

त्रिशूर

मुकुन्दपुरम

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 मुकुन्दपुरम त्रिशूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 त्रिशूर

त्रिशूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 त्रिशूर

त्रिशूर

15दिसंबर 2002

केरल

त्रिशूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 त्रिशूर

त्रिशूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 त्रिशूर

त्रिशूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 त्रिशूर त्रिशूर

15दिसंबर 2002

केरल

मुकुन्दपुरम त्रिशूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 मुकुन्दपुरम त्रिशूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 त्रिशूर

मुकुन्दपुरम

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 त्रिशूर

मुकुन्दपुरम

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 मुकुन्दपुरम त्रिशूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 त्रिशूर

मुकुन्दपुरम

15दिसंबर 2002

केरल

त्रिशूर

मुकुन्दपुरम

15दिसंबर 2002

केरल

मुकुन्दपुरम त्रिशूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 मुकुन्दपुरम त्रिशूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 त्रिशूर

मुकुन्दपुरम

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 त्रिशूर

त्रिशूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 त्रिशूर त्रिशूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 त्रिशूर त्रिशूर [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

3285 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

7 पाणनचेरी ( खण्ड सं. 77 )

त्रिशूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002

त्रिशूर

पाणनचेरी (खण्ड सं. 80 )

त्रिशूर

केरल

त्रिशूर

15दिसंबर 2002 पाणनचेरी ( खण्ड सं. 81 )

केरल

त्रिशूर

15दिसंबर 2002

त्रिशूर

पीच्ची ( खण्ड सं . 79 )

केरल

त्रिशूर त्रिशूर

15दिसंबर 2002 10. 55815 मार्च 2001

पीच्ची ( खण्ड सं. 84)

केरल

त्रिशूर त्रिशूर

15दिसंबर 2002 11. 31763 नवंबर 99

पुतुशेरी ( पूर्व ) ( खण्ड सं. 32 ) पालक्काड पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 पुतुशेरी ( पूर्व ) ( खण्ड सं. 33 ) पालक्काड पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 एरिमयूर ( खण्ड सं . 21 )

पालक्काड

आलसूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 आलत्तूर ( खण्ड सं. 28 )

पालक्काड केरल

आलत्तूर

15दिसंबर 2002 कोयलमन्नम- I ( खण्ड सं. 16 )

पालक्काड केरल

आलत्तूर

15दिसंबर 2002 12. 3669 16 दिसंबर 99

पालक्काड

कोडुम्बु ( खण्ड सं. 46 )

पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 मरुतरोड ( खण्ड सं. 38)

पालक्काड पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002

पालक्काड

एलप्पुल्ली- II ( खण्ड सं. 39. )

पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002

पालक्काड

एलप्पुल्ली -1 ( खण्ड सं. 40 )

पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 एलप्पुल्ली- II ( खण्ड सं. 40)

पालक्काड पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 पुतुशेरी पश्चिमी ( खण्ड सं. 36 ) पालक्काड पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002

पालक्काड

पुतुशेरी ( पू. ) ( खण्ड सं. 33 )

पोलक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 आलत्तूर ( खण्ड सं. 28 )

पालक्काड

आलसूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 13, 6217 मार्च 2000

कनम्ब्रा- II ( खण्ड सं. 34)

पालक्काड केरल

आलत्तूर

15दिसंबर 2002 वडक्कन्चेरी- I ( खण्ड सं. 34)

पालक्काड केरल

आलत्तूर

15दिसंबर 2002 कनम्ब्रा- I ( खण्ड सं. 36 )

पालक्काड

आलसूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 कन्नम्ब्रा-1 ( खण्ड सं. 35 )

केरल

पालक्काड

आलत्तूर

15दिसंबर 2002 वडक्कन्चेरी- II ( खण्ड सं. 46 )

पालक्काड केरल

आलत्तूर

15दिसंबर 2002 वडक्कन्धेरी- II ( खण्ड सं. 44)

पालक्काड

आलत्तूर

केरल 15 दिसंबर 2002 वडक्कन्चेरी- I ( खण्ड से. 44 )

पालक्काड

आलत्सूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 कावशेरी- I ( खण्ड सं. 30)

आलतूर

पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 कावशेरी- II ( खण्ड सं. 30 )

पालक्काड केरल

.आलत्तूर

15दिसंबर 2002 कावशेरी- I ( खण्ड सं. 29)

पालक्काड केरल

आलचूर

15दिसंबर 2002 आलत्तूर ( खण्ड सं. 28 )

पालक्काड

आलसूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 एरिमयूर ( खण्ड सं. 21 )

पालक्काड

आलसूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 कोयलमन्नम- I ( खण्ड से. 17 )

पालक्काड

आलसूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 कोयलमन्नम- I ( खण्ड सं. 16 )

पालक्काड

आलत्तूर

केरल 15 दिसंबर 2002 कोयलमन्नम- II ( खण्ड सं. 17)

पालबकाड

आलतूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 कोयलमन्त्रम- II ( खण्ड सं. 15 )

पालक्काड

आलतूर

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 तेनकुरुशी- II ( खण्ड सं. 18)

पालक्काड

आलत्तूर

केरल 15 दिसंबर 2002 कन्नाडी- I ( खण्ड सं. 51 )

पालक्काड पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 कनाडी- I ( खण्ड सं . 50 )

पालक्काड पालक्काड केरल 15 दिसंबर 2002 कनाडी- II ( खण्ड सं. 50)

पालक्काड पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 कोडुम्बू ( खच्ड सं. 46 )

पालक्काड पालक्काड केरल 15 दिसंबर 2002 कोडुम्बू( खण्ड सं. 47 )

पालक्काड पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 ऐलप्पिल्ली- II ( खण्ड सं. 39 )

पालक्काड पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 ऐलप्पिल्ली- II ( खण्ड सं. 40) पालक्काड पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 ऐलप्पिल्ली- I ( खण्ड सं. 40 )

पालक्काड पालक्कांड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 3286

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19, 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

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

पालक्काड पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 पुतुशेरी ( मध्यम) ( खण्ड सं. 34)

पालक्काड

केरल

पालक्काड

15दिसंबर 2002 पुतुशेरी ( पूर्व ) ( खण्ड सं. 33 )

पालक्काड केरल

पालक्काड

15दिसंबर 2002 पुतुशेरी ( पूर्व ) ( खण्ड सं. 32 )

पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 कन्नम्ब्रा- I ( खण्ड सं. 36 )

14. 869 19 अप्रैल, 2000

आलत्तूर

पालक्काड

15दिसंबर 2002

केरल

कन्नम्ब्रा-1 ( खण्ड सं. 35)

आलत्तूर

पालक्काड

वडक्कन्चेरी- II ( खण्ड सं. 44 )

केरल 15 दिसंबर 2002

आलत्तूर

पालक्काड केरल

वडक्कन्चेरी- II ( खण्ड सं. 46 )

15दिसंबर 2002

आलत्तूर

पालक्काड केरल

कत्रम्ब्रा- II ( खण्ड सं. 34)

15दिसंबर 2002

आलत्तूर

केरल

पालक्काड

15दिसंबर 2002 वडक्कन्चेरी- I ( खण्ड सं. 44) आलत्तूर

पालक्काड

15 दिसंबर 2002 वडक्कन्चेरी- I ( खण्ड सं. 34)

केरल

आलत्तूर

पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 कवशेरी- II ( खण्ड सं. 30 )

आलत्तूर

पालक्काड केरल

कवशेरी -1 ( खण्ड सं. 30)

15दिसंबर 2002

आलत्तूर

पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 कवशेरी- I ( खण्ड सं. 29)

आलत्तूर

पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 आलत्तूर ( खण्ड सं. 28)

आलत्तूर

पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 एरीमयुर ( खण्ड सं. 21 )

आलत्तूर

केरल

पालक्काड

15दिसंबर 2002 कोयलमन्त्रम ( खण्ड सं. 16 )

आलत्तूर

पालक्काड

15दिसंबर 2002

केरल

कोयलमन्नम- I ( खण्ड सं . 17 ) आलत्तूर

पालक्काड केरल

कोयलमन्नम- II ( खण्ड सं. 17 )

15दिसंबर 2002

आलत्तूर

पालक्काड केरल

कोयलमन्नम- II ( खण्ड सं. 15 )

15दिसंबर 2002

आलत्तूर

पालक्काड

15दिसंबर 2002

केरल

तेनकुरीश्शी- I ( ब्लांक नं. 18) आलत्तूर

पालक्काड पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 कन्नाडी- I ( खण्ड सं. 51 )

पालक्काड पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 कन्नाडी- I ( खण्ड सं. 50 )

पालक्काड

15दिसंबर 2002

केरल

कन्नाडी- II ( खण्ड सं. 50 )

पालक्काड पालक्काड केरल 15 दिसंबर 2002 कोडुम्बू ( खण्ड सं . 46)

पालक्काड केरल

पालक्काड

15दिसंबर 2002 कोडुम्बू ( खण्ड सं . 47)

पालक्काड

केरल

पालक्काड

15दिसंबर 2002 मरुतरोड़ ( खण्ड सं . 38)

ऐलप्पिल्ली- I ( खण्ड सं. 40)

पालक्काड पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002

पालक्काड

केरल

पालक्काड

15दिसंबर 2002 ऐलप्पिल्ली- II ( खण्ड सं. 39 )

पालक्काड

केरल

ऐलप्पिल्ली- II ( खण्ड सं . 40)

15दिसंबर 2002

केरल

पालक्काड

15दिसंबर 2002

पालक्काड

पुतुशेरी ( पश्चिमी ) ( खण्ड सं. 36 )

पालक्काड पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 पुतुशेरी ( मध्यम ) ( खण्ड सं. 34)

पालक्काड केरल

पालक्काड

15 दिसंबर 2002 पुतुशेरी ( पूर्व ) ( खण्ड सं. 32 )

केरल

पालक्काड पालक्काड

15दिसंबर 2002 पुतुशेरी ( पूर्व ) ( खण्ड सं . 33 )

पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 कन्नम्ब्रा- IH ( खण्ड सं. 36)

15 . 1632 21 जुलाई, 2000

आलत्तूर

पालक्काड

कन्नम्ब्रा- I ] ( खण्ड सं. 35 )

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002

आलत्तूर

पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 वडक्कन्चेरी- I ( खण्ड सं. 44) आलत्तूर

पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 वडक्कन्चेरी- II ( खण्ड सं . 46) आलत्तूर

पालक्काड केरल

कन्नम्वा II ( खण्ड सं. 34)

15दिसंबर 2002

आलत्तूर

पालक्काड केरल 15 दिसंबर 2002

आलत्तूर

वडक्कन्चेरी ( खण्ड सं. 44)

पालक्काड केरल

कावशेरी -11 ( खण्ड सं. 30)

15दिसंबर 2002

आलत्तूर

केरल

पालक्काड

15दिसंबर 2002 कावशेरी -1 ( खण्ड सं. 30 )

आलत्तूर

पालक्कांड केरल

कावशेरी- I ( खण्ड सं. 29 )

15दिसंबर 2002

आलत्तूर

पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 आलत्तूर ( खण्ड सं. 28)

आलत्तूर

पालक्काड केरल

कोयलमन्नम- I ( खण्ड सं. 16)

15दिसंबर 2002

आलत्तूर [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3287 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

कोयलमन्नम- I ( खण्ड सं. 17)

पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002

आलपुर

पालक्काड

कोयलमन्नम- II (खण्ड सं. 17)

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002

आलचूर

केरल

कोयलमन्नम- II ( खण्ड सं. 15)

पालक्काड

15दिसंबर 2002

आलत्तूर

पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 तेनकुरीश्शी- I ( खण्ड सं. 18 ) आलपुर

पालक्काड पालक्काड

कन्नाडी- I ( खण्ड सं. 51 )

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002 कन्नाडी- I ( खण्ड सं. 50)

पालक्काड पालक्काड

15दिसंबर 2002

केरल

कन्नाडी- II ( खण्ड सं. 50 )

पालक्काड पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002

पालक्काड पालक्काड केरल

काडुम्बू ( खण्ड सं. 46)

15दिसंबर 2002

पालक्काड पालक्काड

काडुम्बू ( खण्ड सं. 47)

केरल 15दिसंबर 2002

पालक्काड

एलप्पुल्ली- II ( खण्ड सें. 39 )

केरल

पालक्काड

15दिसंबर 2002

पालक्काड

एलप्पुल्ली- II ( खण्ड सं. 40)

पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002

पालक्काड

पुतुशेरी ( पूर्व ) ( खण्ड सं. 33 )

पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002

पालक्काड

मरुतरोड (खण्ड सं. 38 )

पालक्काड केरल 15दिसंबर 2002

[फा. सं. आर-31015/3/2001-ओ. आर.- II ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 11th June, 2004

And whereas, the competent authority has made a report to the Central Government that the pipeline for the purpose of transport of motor spirit, superior kerosene oil and high speed diesel from the Irimpanam installation of Bhart Petroleum Corporation Limited, Irimpanam, Kochi inthe State of Kerala to Karur in the State of Tamil Nadu has been laid in the said lands so the operation may be terminated in the State of Kerala in respect of said lands the description of which in brief is specified in the schedule annexed to this notification;

S.O. 1427. Whereas , by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas numbers S. O. and dates as mentioned in the Schedule below issued under Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government acquired the right ofuser in the lands, specified in the Schedule appended to those notifications ;

And whereas , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub -section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government vested the right of user in the said lands , free from all encumbrances , in the Petronet CCK limited;

Now, therefore , as required under explanation- 1 of rule 4 of the Petroleum pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules 1963, the Central Government hereby declares the dates mentioned in column 7 of the said Schedule as the dates of termination of operation in the State of Kerala .

SCHDEULE

SI .

Taluk

District

NameofVillage

State

No.

S.O. No. andDate

Date of Termination 1

7 1. 3280 dated 9-11-99

Aluva

Parakkadavu (Block No. 5)

Emakulam Kerala 15-12-2002

Aluva

Ernakulam

Parakkadavu (Block No. 6)

kerala 15-12-2002 Kunnukara

Paravur

Emakulam Kerala 15-12-2002

Emakulam

2. 3673 dated 24-12-99 Thrikkakara (N) (Block No. 6)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Kanayannur

Ernakulam

Kakkanad (Block No. 9)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Kanayannur

Aluva

Emakulam

Aluva West (Block No. 37)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Aluva

Aluva West (Block No. 34)

Emakulam Kerala 15-12-2002.

Aluva

Emakulam Kerala 15-12-2002 Parakkadavu (Block No. 5)

Aluva

Parakkadavu (Block No. 6)

Emakulam Kerala 15-12-2002 3288

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

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

Paravur

Emakulam

Kadungallur

Kerala 15-12-2002 Karumallur

Paravur

Emakulam Kerala 15-12-2002

Emakulam

Aluva

Kerala 15-12-2002 3. 791 dated 30-3-2000 Thrikkakara North (Block No. 6)

Emakulam

Aluva

Aluva West (Block No. 37)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Aluva

Aluva West (Block No. 34)

Emakulam Kerala 15-12-2002

Aluva

Emakulam

Parakkadavu (Block No. 5)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Aluva

Ernakulam

Parakkadavu (Block No. 6)

Kerala 15-12-2002 Kunnukara

Paravur

Emakulam Kerala 15-12-2002 Karumallur

Paravur

Emakulam Kerala 15-12-2002

Paravur

Kadungallur

Emakulam

15-12-2002

Kerala

Emakulam Kerala 15-12-2002 4. 1624 dated 10-7-2001 Thiruvamkulam (Block No. 10) Kanayannur

Emakulam

Paravur

Kadungallur

Kerala 15-12-2002 5. 3281 dated 9-11-99

Kerala 15-12-2002 Padinjare Chalakkudy

Thrissur

Mukundapuram

Kerala 15-12-2002

Thrissur

Mukundapuram

Parappukkara

Thorava

15-12-2002

Kerala

Mukundapuram Thrissur

Nenmanikkara

Kerala 15-12-2002

Thrissur

Mukundapuram

15-12-2002 6. 3614 dated 14-12-99 Muringur Thekkumuri

Kerala

Thrissur

Mukundapuram

15-12-2002

Kerala

Muringur Vadakkumuri

Mukundapuram Thrissur

Kallur Thekkumuri

Kerala 15-12-2002

Thrissur

Mukundapuram

Kallur Vadakkumuri

15-12-2002

Kerala

Mukundapuram Thrissur

7. 982 dated 8-5-2000

Kerala 15-12-2002 Padinjare Chalakkudy

Thrissur

Mukundapuram

Kerala 15-12-2002 Kizhakke Chalakkudy

Mukundapuram Thrissur

15-12-2002 Parappukkara

Mukundapuram Thrissur Kerala

Nenmmanikkara

Kerala 15-12-2002

Thrissur

Mukundapuram

Thrikkur

15-12-2002

Kerala

Thrissur

Mukundapuram

Kallur Vadakkumuri

15-12-2002

Kerala

Thrissur

Mukundapuram

Kallur Thekkumuri

Kerala 15-12-2002

Thrissur

Mukundapuram

Marathakkara

Thrissur

15-12-2002

Kerala

Nadathara

Thrissur

15-12-2002

Kerala

Thrissur

Kerala 15-12-2002 Kayinoor

Thrissur

15-12-2002

Kerala

Pananchery (Block No. 77)

Thrissur

15-12-2002

Thrissur Kerala

Pananchery (Block No. 81 )

Thrissur

Kerala 15-12-2002 Pananchery (Block No. 80)

8. 1455 dated 28-2-2000 Perambra

Kerala 15-12-2002

Thrissur

Mukundapuram

Aloor

Kerala 15-12-2002

Thrissur

Mukundapuram

Kodakara

15-12-2002

Kerala

Mukundapuram Thrissur

15-12-2002 Nellayi

Kerala

Thrissur

Mukundapuram

Thorava

Kerala 15-12-2002

Thrissur

Mukundapuram

Nenmanikkarга

15-12-2002

Kerala

Thrissur

Mukundapuram

15-12-2002 Kizhakke Chalakkudy

Kerala

Thrissur

Mukundapuram

Padinjare Chalakkudy

Kerala 15-12-2002

Thrissur

Mukundapuram

Thrissur

15-12-2002

Kerala

Kayinoor

Thrissur

Kozhukully

Kerala 15-12-2002 Ollukkara

Thrissur

Thrissur Kerala 15-12-2002

Thrissur

15-12-2002 Mulayam

Kerala

Thrissur

Kerala 15-12-2002 Pananchery (Block No. 77)

Thrissur

Peechi (Block No. 79)

Thrissur

15-12-2002

Kerala

9. 2496 dated 14-11-2000 Kallur Thekkuminuri

Kerala 15-12-2002

Thrissur

Mukundapuram

Kerala 15-12-2002 Muringur Thekkummuri

Thrissur

Mukundapuram

Kallur Vadakkummuri

15-12-2002

Kerala

Thrissur

Mukundapuram

Padinjare Chalakkudy

Kerala 15-12-2002

Thrissur

Mukundapuram

Kizhakke Chalakkudy

Kerala 15-12-2002

Thrissur

Mukundapuram

Perambra

Kerala 15-12-2002

Mukundapuram Thrissur

Aloor

Kerala 15-12-2002

Mukundapuram Thrissur [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 19 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

3289 I

7 Kodakara

Thrissur

Mukundapuram

Kerala 15-12-2002 Nellayi

Kerala 15-12-2002

Thrissur

Mukundapuram

Parappukkara

Mukundapuram

Kerala 15-12-2002

Thrissur

Thorava

Mukundapuram

Kerala 15-12-2002

Thrissur

Nenmanikkara

Kerala 15-12-2002

Mukundapuram Thrissur

Thrikkur

Kerala 15-12-2002

Mukundapuram Thrissur

Marathakkara

Thrissur

Thrissur Kerala 15-12-2002 Kayinoor

Thrissur

Thrissur Kerala 15-12-2002 Kozhukkully

Thrissur

Thrissur Kerala 15-12-2002 Mulayam

Thrissur

Thrissur Kerala 15-12-2002

Thrissur

Pananchery (Block No. 77)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Thrissur

Pananchery (Block No. 80)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Thrissur

Pananchery (Block No. 81)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Thrissur

Peechi (Block No. 79)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Thrissur

10. 558 dated 15-3-2001

Thrissur

Peechi (Block No. 84)

Kerala 15-12-2002 11. 3176 dated 3-11-99

Palakkad

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Pudussery (E) (Block No. 32)

Palakkad

Pudussery (E) (Block No. 33)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Palakkad

Alathur

Erimayur (Block No. 21 )

15-12-2002

Kerala

Alathur

Palakkad

Alathur (Block No. 28)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Alathur

Palakkad

Kerala 15-12-2002 Kozhalmannam- I (Block No. 16)

Palakkad

12. 3669 dated 16-12-99 Kodumbu (Block No. 46)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Palakkad

Marutha Road (Block No. 38)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Palakkad

Elapilly -II (Block No. 39)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Palakkad

15-12-2002 Elappilly-I (Block No. 40)

Kerala

Palakkad

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Elappilly - II (Block No.40)

Palakkad

Pudussery West (Block No. 36)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Palakkad

Pudussery East (Block No. 33 )

Kerala 15-12-2002

Palakkad

Alathur

Alathur(Block No. 28)

Kerala 15-12-2002 13. 621 dated 7-3-2000

Alathur

Palakkad

Kannambra - II (Block No. 34)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Alathur

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Vadakkanchery- I (Block No. 34)

Alathur

Palakkad

Kannambra - 1 (Block No. 36)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Palakkad

Alathur

Kerala 15-12-2002 Kannambra- 1 (Block No. 35)

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Vadakkanchery- II (Block No. 46) Alathur

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Vadakkanchery- II (Block No. 44) Alathur

Alathur

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Vadakkanchery - I (Block No. 44)

Palakkad

Alathur

Kavassery - I (Block No. 30)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Alathur

Palakkad

Kavassery- II (Block No. 30)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Alathur

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Kavassery-I (Block No. 29)

Palakkad

Alathur (Block No. 28)

Alathur

Kerala 15-12-2002

Palakkad

Alathur

Erimayur (Block No. 21 )

Kerala 15-12-2002

Alathur

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Kozhalmannam - I (Block No. 17)

Alathur

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Kozhalmannam -I (Block No. 16)

Palakkad

Kozhalmannam - II (Block No. 17)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Alathur

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Kozhalmannam - II (Block No. 15) Alathur

Alathur

Palakkad

Thenkurissi - I (Block No. 18)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Palakkad

Kannadi - I (Block No. 51)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Palakkad

Kannadi - I (Block No. 50)

Kerala , 15-12-2002

Palakkad

Kanradi - II (Block No. 50)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Palakkad

Kodumbu (Block No. 46)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Palakkad

Kodumbu (Block No. 47)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Palakkad

Elappilly - II (Block No. 39)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Palakkad

Elappilly - II (Block No.40)

Kerala 15-12-2002

Palakkad

Elappilly -I (Block No. 40)

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002

Palakkad

Pudussery Central (Block No. 34) Palakkad

Kerala 15-12-2002

Palakkad

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Pudussery East (Block No. 33 )

Palakkad

Pudussery East (Block No. 32)

Kerala 15-12-2002 3290

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

Alathur 14. 869 dated 19-4-2000 Kannambra -I (Block No. 36)

Alathur

Kannambra - I (BlockNo.35)

Alathur

Vadakkanchery- II (Block No. 44)

Vadakkanchery - II (Block No. 46) Alathur

Alathur

Kannambra - II (Block No. 34)

Alathur

Vadakkanchery - I (Block No. 44)

Alathur

Vadakkanchery- I (Block No. 34)

Alathur

Kavassery - II (Block No. 30)

Alathur

Kavassery - I (Block No. 30)

Alathur

Kavassery - I (Block No. 29)

Alathur

Alathur (Block No. 28)

Alathur

Erimayur (Block No. 21 )

Alathur

Kozhalmannam -I (Block No. 16)

Kozhalmannam - I (Block No. 17 ) Alathur

Kozhalmannam - II ( Block No. 17) Alathur

Alathur

Kozhalmannam - II (Block No. 15)

Alathur

Thenkurissi - I (Block No. 18)

Palakkad

Kannadi - I (Block No. 51 )

Palakkad

Kannadi - I (Block No. 50)

Palakkad

Kannadi -II ( Block No. 50 )

Palakkad

Kodumbu (Block No. 46)

Palakkad

Kodumbu (Block No. 47)

Palakkad

Marutha Road (Block No. 38 )

Palakkad

Elappilly - I (Block No. 40)

Palakkad

Elappilly - II (Block No. 39)

Palakkad

Elappilly - II (Block No. 40)

Palakkad

Pudussery West ( Block No. 36)

Palakkad

Pudussery Central (Block No. 34)

Palakkad

Pudussery East (Block No. 32)

Palakkad

Pudusscry East (Block No. 33)

Alathur 15. 1632 dated 21-7-2000 Kannambra - 1 (Block No. 36)

Alathur

Kannambra -I (Block No. 35)

Alathur

Vadakkanchery - II (Block No. 44)

Alathur

Vadakkanchery - II (Block No. 46)

Alathur

Kannambra - 11 (Block No. 34)

Alathur

Vadakkanchery - I (Block No. 44)

Alathur

Kavassery - II (Block No. 30)

Alathur

Kavassery - 1 (Block No. 30)

Alathur

Kavassery - I (Block No. 29)

Alathur

Alathur ( Block No. 28)

Alathur

Kozhalmannam - I (Block No. 16)

Alathur

Kozhalmannam - I (Block No. 17)

Alathur

Kozhalmannam - II (Block No. 17)

Alathur

Kozhalmannam - II (Block No. 15)

Alathur

Thenkurissi -I (Block No. 18)

Palakkad

Kannadi - 1 (Block No. 51 )

Palakkad

Kannadi - I (Block No. 50)

Palakkad

Kannadi - II (Block No. 50 )

Palakkad

Kodumbu (Block No. 46)

Palakkad

Kodumbu (Block No. 47)

Palakkad

Elappilly - II (Block No. 39)

Palakkad

Elappilly - II (Block No. 40)

Palakkad

Pudussery East (Block No. 33 )

Palakkad

Marutha Road (Block No. 38)

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

7 Palakkad

Kerala 15-12-2002 Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Palakkad

15-12-2002

Kerala

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Palakkad

15-12-2002

Kerala

Palakkad

15-12-2002

Kerala

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Palakkad

15-12-2002

Kerala

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Palakkad

15-12-2002

Kerala

Palakkad

15-12-2002

Kerala

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Palakkad

15-12-2002

Kerala

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Palakkad

15-12-2002

Kerala

Kerala 15-12-2002 Palakkad

Palakkad

15-12-2002

Kerala

Palakkad

15-12-2002

Kerala

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002

15-12-2002 Palakkad Kerala

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Palakkad

15-12-2002

Kerala

15-12-2002 Palakkad Kerala

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Palakkad

15-12-2002

Kerala

Palakkad

15-12-2002

Kerala

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002

15-12-2002 Palakkad Kerala

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Palakkad

15-12-2002

Kerala

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002

15-12-2002 Palakkad Kerala

Palakkad

15-12-2002

Kerala

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Palakkad

15-12-2002

Kerala

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Palakkad

Kerala 15-12-2002 Palakkad

15-12-2002

Kerala

Palakkad

Kerala 15-12-2002

15-12-2002 Palakkad Kerala

Palakkad

15-12-2002

Kerala

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Palakkad

15-12-2002

Kerala

Palakkad

15-12-2002

Kerala

Palakkad

15-12-2002

Kerala

15-12-2002

Kerala

Palakkad

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Palakkad

15-12-2002

Kerala

Palakkad Kerala 15-12-2002 Palakkad

15-12-2002

Kerala

Palakkad

15-12-2002

Kerala

[F. No. R-31015/3 /2001 -OR - II] HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3291

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

नईदिल्ली, 14 जून, 2004

का.आ. 1428.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में विरमगाम से कोयली तक पेट्रोलियम ( अपरिष्कृत ) के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा सलाया- मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली के विरमगाम-कोयली, सैक्शन के कार्यान्वयन के लिए एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

औरकेन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खजिन पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भूमि में 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 भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्बन्ध में श्री आर ० एम० पंडया, सक्षम प्राधिकारी इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमीटेड ( पाइपलाइन प्रभाग ) पो . बा. सं. 4, डाकघर विरमगाम , जिला अहमदाबाद, गुजरात-382150 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य: गुजरात

जिला: आणंद

तालुका: आंकलाब

उप-खंड

क्षेत्रफल गांम का सर्वे

संख्या

वर्गमीटर नाम

संख्या

हेक्टर एयर

5 1

245

50 अंबाली

01 136

0 05 148

66 79

आसोदर

1085

[ फा. सं. आर-25011/3/2001- ओ आर-1 ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 14th June, 2004 S.O. 1428. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the Transportation Petroleum ( crude) from Viramgam to Koyli in the State of Gujarat, a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the Viramgam-Koyli Section of Salaya- Mathura Pipeline System;

1760 G1/04-13

And, whereas , it appears to the Central Goverment that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land 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 the 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 onwhich the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user thereinor laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri R. M. Pandya , Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), P.B. No. 4 P.O. Viramgam, Distt. Ahmedabad, Gujarat-382150.

SCHEDULE

Taluka : Anklav District: Anand State : Gujarat

Areas

Sub-

Name of Survey

No.

Village

Are Sq. Mtr.

Нес- tare

Division No.

5 1

03 50 245

Ambali

01 49 136

05 83 148

Asodar

03 66

02 63 1085

[F. No. R-25011/3/2001 -OR- I ]

RENUKA KUMAR, Under Secy.

नईदिल्ली, 14 जून , 2004

का.आ. 1429.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक •प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में विरमगाम से कोयली तक पेट्रोलियम (अपरिष्कृत ) के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा सलाया- मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली के विरमगाम- कोयली , सैक्शन के कार्यान्वयन के लिए एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि 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 उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;

3292

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19, 2004/ JYAISTHA 29, 1926

[PART I -SEC . 3 (ii)]

SCHEDULE

Taluka : Anklav

District : Anand State : Gujarat

Sub-

Nameof

Areas Survey

No.

Village

Are

Division No.

Sq. Mtr.

Hес- tare

6 Ambali 353

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्बन्ध में श्री आर० एम० पंडया , सक्षम प्राधिकारी इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमीटेड ( पाइपलाइन प्रभाग ) पो . बा. सं. 4 , डाकघर विरमगाम, जिला अहमदाबाद, गुजरात -382150 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

तालुका: आंकलाव जिला: आणंद राज्य: गुजरात गांवका सर्वे

उप-खंड

क्षेत्रफल नाम

संख्या संख्या

वर्गमीटर

एयर

हैक्टर

6 अंबाली

353

150

भेटासी तणपद

1007

आसोदर

58 1080

1079

[फा. सं . आर-25011/3/2001- ओ आर-1 ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 14th June, 2004

S.O. 1429. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that forthe Transportation Petroleum ( crude) from Virangam to Koyli in the State of Gujarat, a pipeline should be laidby the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the Viramgam -Koyli Section of Salaya- Mathura Pipeline System;

And, whereas , it appears to the Central Goverment that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land 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 the Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

00 58 150

Bhetasi

06 57 Talpad

1007

Asodar

13 58 1080

20 89 1079

22 19

[F. No. R-25011/3 /2001 -OR - II

RENUKA KUMAR, Under Secy नई दिल्ली, 14 जून, 2004

का.आ. 1430.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में विरमगाम से कोयली तक पेट्रोलियम (अपरिष्कृत ) के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा सलाया- मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली के विरमगाम-कोयली, सैक्शन के कार्यान्वयन के लिए एक पाइपलाइनें बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भूमि में 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 भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्बन्ध में श्री आर० एम० पंड्या, सक्षम प्राधिकारी इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड ( पाइपलाइन प्रभाग ) पो. बा. सं. 4, डाकघरविरमगाम, जिला अहमदाबाद, गुजरात-382150 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

तालुका: पेटलाद

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying ofthe pipeline under the land to Shri R. M. Pandya , Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited (PipelinesDivision) , P.B. No. 4 P.O. Viramgam, Distt. Ahmedabad, Gujarat -382150 .

जिला: आणंद राज्य: गुजरात गांवका सर्वे

उप-खंड

क्षेत्रफल नाम

संख्या संख्या

वर्गमीटर

हेक्टर एयर

बामरोली 854

30 [फा. सं . आर-25011/3/2001-ओ आर-1 ]

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

भारत का राजपत्र : जून19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

3293 New Delhi , the 14th June , 2004

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

S.O. 1430. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that forthe transportation Petroleum (crude) from Viramgam to Koyli in the State of Gujarat, a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the Viramgam -Koyli Section of Salaya - Mathura Pipline System;

And, whereas , it appears to the Central Goverment that for the purpose of laying such pipline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the schedule annexed to this notification;

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्बन्ध में श्री आर०एम० पंड्या, सक्षम प्राधिकारी इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड (पाइपलाइन प्रभाग ) पो. बा. सं. 4, डाकघर विरमगाम , जिला अहमदाबाद, गुजरात-382150 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

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 the Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

जिला: खेडा

तालुका: महेमदाबाद

राज्य: गुजरात

गांव का सर्वे उप-खंड

क्षेत्रफल

नाम

संख्या संख्या

वर्गमीटर

एयर

हैक्टर

बीडज 467

0 05

83 Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri R. M. Pandya, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division) , P.B. No. 4 P.Q. Viramgam, Distt. Ahmedabad, Gujarat -382150.

SCHEDULE

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव Taluka : Petlad District : Anand State : Gujarat

New Delhi , the 14th June, 2004 Name.of

Sub-

Survey

Areas

No.

Village

Division HНес- Are Sq.

No.

tare

Mtr.

854

Bamroli

16 30

S.O. 1431.- Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that forthetransportation Petroleum (crude) from Viramgamto Koyli in the State of Gujarat, a pipeline should be laidby the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the Viramgam-Koyli Section of Salaya-Mathura Pipeline System;

[F. No. R-25011/3/2001 -OR- I]

RENUKA KUMAR, Under Secy.

And, whereas, it appears to the Central Goverment that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the schedule annexed to this notification;

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून, 2004

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 the Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right ofuser therein ;

का.आ. 1431.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में विरमगाम से कोयली तक पेट्रोलियम (अपरिष्कृत ) के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा सलाया - मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली के विरमगाम- कोयली , सैक्शन के कार्यान्वयन के लिए एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

3294

therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri R. M. Pandya, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Lim- ited (Pipelines Division ) , P.E.. No. 4 , P.O. Viramgam, Distt . Ahmedabad, Gujarat -382150.

SCHEDULE

State : Gujarat Taluka: Mehmedabad District : Kheda

Area

Sub-

Survey

Name of

Are No.

Village

Sq . Mtr.

Нес- tare

Division No.

05 83

467

Bidaj

[F. No. R-25011 /4/2001 -OR -I ]

RENUKA KUMAR , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 2004

का.आ. 1432.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में विरमगाम से कोयली तक पैट्रोलियम (अपरिष्कृत ) के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा सलाया- मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली के विरमगाम- कोयली सैक्शन के कार्यान्वयन के लिए एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , पैट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधार ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भूमि में 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 भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्बन्ध में श्री आर ० एन ० पंड्या, सक्षम प्राधिकारी इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड ( पाइपलाइन प्रभाग ) पो. बा. सं. 4, डाकघर विरमगाम, जिला अहमदाबाद, गुजरात -382150 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य: गुजरात महेमदाबाद जिला: खेडा

तालुका:

क्षेत्रफल

उप-खंड

गांवका सर्वे

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

6 2

[फा. सं. आर-25011/4/2001- ओ आर -1 ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 14th June , 2004

S.O. 1432. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that forthe transportation of Petroleum (crude) from Viramgam toKoyli in the State of Gujarat, a pipline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the Viramgam -Koyli Şection of Salaya - Mathura Pipeline Sys- tem;

And , whereas , it appears to the Central Goverment that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 ofthe Petroleum andMin- erals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in the Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government herebyde- clares 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 onwhich the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri R. M. Pandya, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Lim- ited (Pipelines Division ) , P.B. No. 4, P.O. Viramgam, Distt . Ahmedabad, Gujarat-382150

SCHEDULE

State : Gujarat Taluka: Mehmedabad District : Kheda

Areas

Sub-

Survey

Name of

Are Village No.

Нес- tare

Division No.

Sq. Mtr.

5 1

02 22 Bidaj 660

वर्गमीटर नाम

संख्या संख्या हैक्टर एयर

6 1

968

02 01 Kheda

01 46

1/3C

Khumarvad 562

22 660

बीडज

01 खेडा

968

1/3सी

खमरवाड 562

[File No. R-25011/4/2001 -OR - I ]

RENUKA KUMAR, Under Secy.

3295 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

नईदिल्ली, 14 जून, 2004

erals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in the Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

का.आ. 1433.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में विरमगाम से कोयली तक पेट्रोलियम (अपरिष्कृत ) के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा सलाया - मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली के विरमगाम कोयली सेक्शन के कार्यान्वयन के लिए एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri R. M. Pandya, Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Pipelines Division) , P. B. No. 4, P. O. Viramgam, Distt. Ahmedabad, Gujarat -382150

SCHEDULE

Taluka: Matar

District: Kheda State : Gujarat अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खजिन 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, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;

Area

Hectare Are

Name of the

Sq. Mtr.

No.

Village

Survey Sub- Division No.

0 08 09

Haijarabad

[F. No. R. 25011/4/2001 -OR-IJ कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथाप्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री आर. एम. पंडया, सक्षम प्राधिकारी इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड ( पाइपलाइन प्रभाग ) पो . बा. सं. 4, डाकघर बिरमगाम, जिला अहमदाबाद, गुजरात-382150 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

RENUKA KUMAR, Under Secy.

अनुसूची

नईदिल्ली, 14 जून , 2004

जिला: खेडा

तालुका: मातर

राज्य: गुजरात

क्षेत्रफल

ग्राम का नाम

हैक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर

सर्वे संख्या

उप- खण्ड

स.

का.आ. 1434.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में विरमगाम से कोयली तक पेट्रोलियम (अपरिष्कृत ) के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा सलाया - मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली के विरमगाम कोयली सेक्शन के कार्यान्वयन के लिए एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

08 09

1. हैजराबाद

[फा. सं. आर. 25011/4/2001- ओ. आर -1 ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 14th June , 2004

S. O. 1433. Whereas , it appears to the Central Gov- ernment that it is necessary in the publice interest that for the transportation, Petroleum ( crude ) from Viramgam to Koyli in the State of Gujarat, a pipeline should be laidby the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the Viramgam -Koyli Section of Salaya - Mathura Pipeline System;

And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is neces- sary to acquire the right ofuser in the land 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 andMin-

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथाप्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने. या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री आर. एम. पंड्या, सक्षम प्राधिकारी इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड ( पाइपलाइन प्रभाग ) पो. बा. सं. 4, डाकघर बिरमगाम, जिला अहमदाबाद, गुजरात-382150 को लिखित . रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 3296

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 19 , 2004/JYAISTHA 29, 1926

अनुसूची

जिला :खेडा

तालुका: नाडियाद

राज्य :गुजरात

क्षेत्रफल ग्राम का नाम

स.

सर्वे

एयर वर्ग मीटर

उप- खण्ड

संख्या

38 9

दंताली

02 59 पिपलाटा

04 1637

01 01 136.3

केरीयावी

[फा. सं. आर. 25011/4/2001-ओ. आर-1 ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 14th June , 2004

S. O. 1434. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the publice interest that for the transportation of Petroleum ( crude ) from Viramgam to Koyli in the State of Gujarat, a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for imple- menting the Viramgam -Koyli Section of Salaya - Mathura Pipeline System;

And, whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipcline , it is neces- sary to acquire the right of user in the land 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 Min- crals Pipelines (Aequisition of Right of User in the Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

6 1

02 59 Piplata

04 52 1637

1363

0 01 01 Deriavi

[F. No. R. 25011 /4/2001 -OR- I]

RENUKA KUMAR, Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून, 2004

का.आ. 1435.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में विरमगाम से कोयली तक पेट्रोलियम (अपरिष्कृत ) के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा सलाया- मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली के विरमगाम कोयली सेक्शन के कार्यान्वयन के लिए एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खजिन 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, उस भूमि में 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 भारत के राजपत्र में यथाप्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री आर. एम. पंडया, सक्षम प्राधिकारी इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड ( पाइपलाइन प्रभाग ) पो. बा. सं. 4, डाकघर बिरमगाम, जिला अहमदाबाद, गुजरात-382150 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

जिला: आणंद

तालुका: आणंद

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri R. M. Pandya , Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division) , P.B. No. 4, Ρ.Ο. Viramgam, Distt. Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 382150

SCHEDULE

Taluka: Nadiad District: Kheda State : Gujarat

राज्य : गुजरात क्षेत्रफल ग्राम का नाम

हेक्टर एयर

खण्ड

वर्ग मीटर सर्वे उप- संख्या

सं.

5 1

6 2

196 5

10 92 मे घवा गाना

Area

Hectare Are Name ofthe Survey

Sq. Mtr.

No.

Village

Sub- Division No.

5 2

0 07 38 9

Dantali

194 8/2

03 67

06 47 193

1418

07 17 संदेसर

38 1419

[फा. सं. आर. 25011/7/2001-ओ. आर-1 ]

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

3297

भारत का राजपुत्र : जून 19 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

New Delhi , the 14th June, 2004

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

S. O. 1435. Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that forthe transportation of Petroleum (crude) from Viramgam to Koyli in the State of Gujarat , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the Viramgam -Koyli Section of Salaya - Mathura Pipe- line System;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पैट्रोलियम और खजिन 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, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;

And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is neces- sary to acquire the right of user in the land 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 the Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री आर. एम. पंड्या, सक्षम प्राधिकारी इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड (पाइपलाइन प्रभाग ) पो. बा. सं. 4, डाकघर बिरमगाम, जिला अहमदाबाद, गुजरात-382150 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

जिला: आणंद

तालुका: बोरसद

राज्य:गुजरात क्षेत्रफल

ग्राम का नाम

उप- हेक्टर एयर वर्ग

खण्ड

सर्वे संख्या

मीटर Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the landto Shri R. M. Pandya , Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division) , P. B. No. 4, P. Ο . Viramgam, Distt. Ahmedabad, Gujarat-382150.

सं.

SCHEDULE

6 Taluka : Anand District: Anand State : Gujarat Area

220

नामन

53 Hectare Are

दहेमी

186

84 Survey No.

Name of the Village

Sq. Mtr.

187

36 Sub- Division No.

177

11 1

189

01 5

0 10

Meghva Gana 196

[ फा. सं . आर. 25011/7/2001-ओ. आर-1 ] 194 8/2

193

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव Sandesar

1418

New Delhi , the 14th June, 2004 1419

05 38

[F. No. R. 25011 /7/2001 -OR- I ]

RENUKA KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 2004

S. O. 1436.-Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation ofPetroleum (crude) fromViramgam to Koyli in the State of Gujarat, a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the Viramgam -Koyli Section of Salaya -Mathura Pipeline System;

And, whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is neces- sary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the schedule annexed to this notification;

का.आ. 1436.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोक हित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में विरमगाम से कोयली तक पैट्रोलियम (अपरिष्कृत ) के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा सलाया- मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली के विरमगाम - कोयली , सेक्शन के कार्यान्वयन के लिए एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

3298

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19, 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

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 the Land) Act, 1962(50 fo 1962) , the Central Government hereby de- clares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri R. M. Pandya , Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division ) , P. B. No. 4, Р. О. Viramgam, Distt. Ahmedabad, Gujarat-382150.

SCHEDULE

Taluka: Borsad

State : Gujarat

District: Anand

Area

Hectare Are Name ofthe Survey Sub-

Sq. Mtr.

No.

Village

Division No.

5 2

0 12 220

Naman

84 186

Dehmi

01 187

01 11 177

01 11 189

[F. No. R. 25011 /7/2001 -OR-I]

RENUKA KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 2004

का.आ. 1437.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में विरमगाम से कोयली तक पैट्रोलियम (अपरिष्कृत ) के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा सलाया- मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली के विरमगाम कोयली, सेक्शन के कार्यान्वयन के लिए एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पैट्रोलियम और खजिन 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, उस भूमि में 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 भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री आर. एम. पंड्या, सक्षम प्राधिकारी इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड ( पाइपलाइन प्रभाग ) पो. बा. सं. 4, डाकघर बिरमगाम, जिला अहमदाबाद, गुजरात-382150 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

जिला: आणंद राज्य: गुजरात तालुका: बोरसद

क्षेत्रफल सर्वे

ग्राम का नाम

उप- हैक्टर एयर वर्ग

मीटर संख्या खण्ड संख्या सं.

6 2

07 46 84

कसुम्बाड

[फा. सं. आर. 25011/7/2001 ओ. आर-1 ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव.

New Delhi , the 14th June, 2004

S. O. 1437. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the publice interest that for the transportation of Petroleum ( crude ) from ViramgamtoKoyli in the State of Gujarat, a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for imple- menting the Viramgam -Koyli Section of Salaya - Mathura Pipeline System;

And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is neces- sary to acquire the right of user in the land 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 the 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 this notification as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri R. M. Pandya , Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Pipelines Division) , P. B. No. 4, Р. О. Viramgam, Distt . Ahmedabad, Gujarat-382150 .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

3299

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

SCHEDULE

6 Taluka: Borsad

206

District : Anand State : Gujarat

01 43

Area

188

189

00 Hectare Are

184

05 Survey No.

Sq. Mtr.

Name of the Village

Sub- Division No.

1651

संदेसर

02 55

1420

04 2

19 3

1421

01 00 84

Kasumbad

0 07 46

[फा. सं . आर. - 25011/7/2001-ओ. आर-1 ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव [F. No. R - 25011/7/2001 -OR-I RENUKA KUMAR, Under Secy.

New Delhi , the 14th June, 2004 नईदिल्ली, 14 जून , 2004

S. O. 1438. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum ( Crude) from Viramgam to Koyli in the State of Gujarat , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the Viramgam - Koyli Section of Salaya - Mathura Pipeline System;

का.आ. 1438.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोक हित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में विरमगाम से कोयली तक पेट्रोलियम (अपरिष्कृत ) के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा सलाया - मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली के विरमगाम-कोयली, सेक्शन के कार्यान्वयन के लिए एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

And, whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is neces- sary to acquire the right of user in the land 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 Min- erals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in the Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खजिन 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, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri R. M. Pandya , Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited , (Pipelines Division) , P. B. No. 4, P. O. Viramgam , Distt . Ahmedabad, Gujarat-382150.

SCHEDULE

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री आर. एम. पंड्या, सक्षम प्राधिकारी इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड ( पाइपलाइन प्रभाग ) पो. बा. सं. 4, डाकघर विरमगाम , जिला अहमदाबाद, गुजरात -382150 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

Taluka: Anand District:Anand State : Gujarat अनुसूची

Area जिला: आणंद

तालुका: आणंद

राज्य: गुजरात क्षेत्र फल

Hectare Are

No.

Sq. Mtr.

Name of the

Village

ग्राम का नाम

Survey Sub- Division No.

हेक्टर एयर

सर्वे संख्या

वर्ग मीटर

6 उप- खण्ड संख्या

Meghva Gana 206

93 1

206

01 43

188 1

03 57 मेघवा गाना

206

10 93

189

00 1760 G1/04-14 3300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 19 , 2004/JYAISTHA 29, 1926

6 184

0 05 84 Sandesar

1651

55 1420

04 19

1421

01 00

[F. No. R - 2501 1/ 7/ 2001 -OR-I ]

RENUKA KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून, 2004

का.आ. 1439.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में विरमगाम से कोयली तक पेट्रोलियम (अपरिष्कृत ) के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा सलाया- मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली के विरमगाम- कोयली, सेक्शन के कार्यान्वयन के लिए एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खजिन 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, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] New Delhi , the 14th June , 2004

S. O. 1439. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum (Crude ) from Viramgam to Koyli in the State of Gujarat , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the Viramgam -Koyli Section of Salaya -Mathura Pipeline System;

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri R. M. Pandya, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Cor- poration Limited , (Pipelines Division ) , P. B. No. 4, P. O. Viramgam, Distt . Ahmedabad, Gujarat-382150.

SCHEDULE

Taluka: Sanand District : Ahmedabad State: Gujarat

Area Name of the

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री आर. एम. पंडया, सक्षम प्राधिकारी इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड ( पाइपलाइन प्रभाग ) पो . बा. सं. 4 , डाकघर विरमगाम , जिला अहमदाबाद, गुजरात -382150 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

तालुका: साणंद

जिला: अहमदाबाद राज्य : गुजरात

क्षेत्र फल ग्राम का नाम

हेक्टर एयर वर्ग

उप- खण्ड

सर्वे संख्या

मीटर

संख्या

6 साणंद

04 1515 2

14 [फा. सं. र. - 25011 / 45 / 2001-ओ. आर -1 ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव

Hectare Are Survey No.

Sq. Mtr.

Village

Sub- Division No.

1515 2

Sanand

04 14

[F. No. R. 25011/45/ 2001 -OR-I] RENUKA KUMAR, Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून, 2004

का.आ. 1440.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में विरमगाम से कोयली तक पेट्रोलियम (अपरिष्कृत ) के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा सलाया- मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली के विरमगाम- कोयली , सेक्शन के कार्यान्वयन के लिए एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3301

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खजिन 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, भूमि में 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 भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री आर. एम. पंडया, सक्षम प्राधिकारी इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमीटेड ( पाइपलाइन प्रभाग ) पो. बा. सं. 4, डाकघर विरमगाम, जिला अहमदाबाद, गुजरात-382150 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

जिला : अहमदाबाद राज्य : गुजरात तालुका: विरमगाम

क्षेत्रफल ग्राम का नाम

हेक्टर एयर

उप- खण्ड

वर्ग मीटर सर्वे संख्या

सं.

6 1

0 00 43 सचाणा

1129

05 05 1025

08 76 798

हांसलपुर सेरेश्वर

[फा. सं. आर. 25011/45/2001-ओ. आर. - 1 ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 14th June , 2004

S. O. 1440.-Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation Petroleum (crude) from Viramgam to Koyli in the State of Gujarat, a pipeline should be laid by the IndianOil Corporation Limited for implementing the Viramgam -Koyli Section of Salaya -Mathura Pipeline System;

And,whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is neces- sary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by Sub -section (1 ) ofSection 3 of the Petroleum and Min- erals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right ofUser in the Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right ofuser therein ;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri R. M. Pandya , Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division) , P. B. No. 4, Ρ. Ο. Viramgam, Distt. Ahmedabad, Gujarat-382150.

SCHEDULE

Taluka:Viramgam District : Ahmedabad State : Gujarat

Area

Hectare Are Name ofthe Survey Sub-

Sq. Mtr.

Village

No. Division No.

43 Sachana

05 05 1129 1025

08 798 1

Hansalpur Sereshvar

[F. No. R. 25011/45/2001 -OR -I ]

RENUKA KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 14 जून, 2004

का.आ. 1441.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में बिस्मगाम से कोयली तक पेट्रोलियम (अपरिष्कृत ) के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा सलाया - मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली के विस्मगाम कोयली, सेक्शन के कार्यान्वयन के लिए एक पाइमलाइन विक्राई जानी चाहिए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खजिन 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, भूमि में 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 भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री आर. एम. पंडया, सक्षम प्राधिकारी इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड ( पाइपलाइन प्रभाग) पो. बा. सं. 4, डाकघर विरमगाम, जिला अहमदाबाद, गुजरात-382150 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 3302

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 19 , 2004/JYAISTHA 29, 1926

अनुसूची

तालुका: साणंद

जिला : अहमदाबाद राज्य: गुजरात

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

Taluka: Sanand

क्षेत्रफल गांव का न'त्र

वर्ग

एयर

उप- हेक्टर

सर्वे संख्या

मीटर District: Ahmedabad State: Gujarat

Area

Are

Hectare

Survey No.

Sub- Division

Sq . Mtr.

Name of the

Village

खण्ड सं.

खोरज

835

01 00 4

01 खोडा

300 7

233

1/B

साणंद

1572

1687

01 58

05 2085

00 सनाथल

677

891

02 37 वसोदरा

317

29 85 [फा. सं . आर . 25011/45/2001- ओ. आर. - 1 ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 14th June , 2004

S. O. 1441. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation Petroleum (crude ) from Viramgam to Koyli in the State of Gujarat , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the Viramgam -Koyli Section of Salaya - Mathura Pipeline System;

And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is neces- sary to acquire the right of user in the land 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 Min- erals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in the 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 this notification as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri R. M. Pandya, Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited ( Pipelines Division) , P. B. No. 4 , P. O. Viramgam, Distt. Ahmedabad, Gujarat-382150.

No.

835

0 01 00 Khoraj

Khoda

01 80

300

0 01 233 1

0 00 61 Sanand

1572 1/B

0 01 00 1687

0 01 58 2085

05 17 Sanathal

0 11 00 677 891

0 02 37

Vasodara

317 5

29 85

[F. No. R. 25011/45/2001 -OR- I] RENUKA KUMAR, Under Secy.

नईदिल्ली, 17 जून , 2004

का. आ. 1442. केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962(1962 का 50 ) की धारा 2 के खंड ( क ) के अनुसरण में, उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन, गुजरात राज्य के राज्य क्षेत्र के भीतर हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉपोरेशन लिमिटेड की मुंद्रा- दिल्ली पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद पाइपलाइन के लिए सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों के पालन के लिए श्री आर. बी. सरवइया, प्रांत अधिकारी , अंजार ( जिला कच्छ) , गुजरात सरकार को प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[फाइल सं. आर-31015/6/2004-ओ. आर.- II ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 17th June , 2004

S. O. 1442. In pursuaance of Clause ( a) of sec- tion 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisi- tion of Right of User in the Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby authorizes Shri R. V. Sarvaiya, Prant Officer, Anjar (Distt Kutch ) , Government ofGujarat to perform the functions of the competent au- thority for Mundra - Delhi Petroleum Product Pipeline of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , under the said Act, within the territory of the State ofGujarat.

[F. No. R. 31015/6/2004-OR-II] HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy .

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3303

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

श्रम मंत्रालय

नईदिल्ली, 18 मई, 2004 शुद्धिपत्र

नई दिल्ली, 14 मई, 2004

का.आ. 1445.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एफ.सी.आई. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, बैंगलोर ( संदर्भ संख्या सी.आर. संख्या 9/03 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

का०आ० 1443.- केन्द्र सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह- श्रम न्यायालय , एर्नाकुलम में पीठासीन अधिकारी के पद पर श्री एन. राजेन्द्रन की नियुक्तिके संबंध में इस मंत्रालय के दिनांक 12-02-2003 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना में आंशिक संशोधन में, अन्तिम वाक्य को निम्नानुसार पढ़ा जाए:

[सं. एल-22012/310/2000- आईआर ( सी एम- II ) ]

एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 18thMay, 2004 " श्री एन. राजेन्द्रन केन्द्र सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह- श्रम न्यायालय, एर्नाकुलम में पीठासीन अधिकारी के पद पर 18-07-2005 तक अर्थात्जिस तारीख को वह 65 वर्ष की आयु के होंगे अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक बने रहेंगे " ।

[सं. ए-11016/3/2003-सीएलएस- II ] , वाई. पी. सहगल , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR CORRIGENDUM

NewDelhi , the 14th May , 2004

S.O. 1445. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. C.R. No. 9/ 03 of the Cent. Govt . Indus. Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure , in the industiral dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18-5-2004.

[No. L -22012/310/2000-IR(CM-II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

S.O. 1443. In partial amendment of this Ministry's notification of even number dated 12-2-2003 regarding the appointment of Shri N. Rajendran to the post of the Presiding Officer in the CGIT - cum-Labour Court , Ernakulam, the last sentence should be read as :

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT

"Shram Sadan",

" Shri N. Rajendran will continue to hold the post of Presiding Officer of the CGIT-cum -Labour Court, Emakulam upto 18-7-2005 i.e. the date on which he would attain the age of 65 years or until further orders "

III Main, III Cross , II Phase, Tumkur Road , Yeshwanthpur , Bangalore-560022 [No. A- 11016/3/2003 -CLS- II Y. P. SEHGAL, Under Secy.

Dated the 6th May, 2004 नई दिल्ली , 18 मई , 2004

PRESENT

का०आ०. 1444.- राष्ट्रपति , श्री एस. एस . बाल को 11-05- 2004( अपराह्न ) से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण- सह - श्रम न्यायालय-1 , नई दिल्ली के पीठासीन अधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त करते हैं ।

Shri A.R. Siddiqui , PresidingOfficer C.R. No. 9/03

[सं. ए-11016/12/2003- सीएलएस- II ] IParty

IIParty

वाई. पी . सहगल, अवर सचिव TheGeneral Secretary,

The Regional Manager ,

F.C.I. Employees Union,

New Delhi , the 18th May , 2004

FCI, RO, No. 10,

Food Corporation of India, No. 1 -P, KalingaRao Road,

P. Kalinga Rao Road,

Pallavi Complex,

Bangalore-560027

AWARD

S.O. 1444. The President is pleased to appoint Sh. S.S. Bal as Presiding Officer Central Govt . Industrial, Tribunal -cum-Labour Court - I, New Delhi , w.e.f. 11-5-2004 (A.N. ) for a peroid of three years .

[No. A- 11016/ 12/2003 -CLS- II]

Y. P. SEHGAL, Under Secy.

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferredby clause (d) of sub - section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

3304

dispute vide order No. L - 22012/310/2000 - IR ( CM - II) dated 13th March 2003 for adjudication on the following schedule: ----

SCHEDULE

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. C.R. No. 28/ 02 of the Cent . Govt . Indus . Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industiral dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India, Regional Office and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18-5-2004.

[No. L- 22012/ 170/2001 -IR (CM- II)]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer "Whether the Claim of Food Corporation of India Employees Union relating to seniority of Smt . Kusuma Raghotham , Assistant Grade III (A/ cs ) of F.C.I. , Bangalore is maintainable ? If yes , to what relief she is entitled to ? "

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT

"Shram Sadan" ,

III, Main, III Cross , II Phase, Tumkur Road, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore- 560022

Dated the 6th May , 2004

PRESENT

2. Today when the case was taken up for appearance of both the parties , the first party in person and the Second Party tarough Smt . Moitneyi Mohanty, Dy. Manager ( Legal) appeared before the Court and have filed two separate memos stating that the Seniority ofthe 1st Party Workman has been refixed and consequent upon the refixation of Seniority , Placement of Selection. Grade in the post of AG III (A/ cs ) has also been considered by the C/A vide Order No. 221 / 2004 /El dated 29-4-2004 and the same has been served upon the first party vide RO Bangalore Endorsement No. IR/6 ( 1 )/2000- IDdated 30-4-2004 and therefore , the proceedings in hand be closed as dispute settled out of the court.

Shri A.R. Siddiqui , PresidingOfficer

C. R. No. 28/02

IIParty

IParty

3. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid inemos filed by 1st Party as well as the 2nd Party, the reference on hand is to be disposed off as a dispute settled out of court . Hence the following onder :

ORDER

The reference is disposed off as settled out of court . The two memos referred to above filed by the parties shall form the part ofaward . No costs .

The Sr. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, RegionalOffice, No. 10, Pallavi Complex, Kalinga Rao Road, Bangalore-560027

The Organising Secretary , F.C.I. Loading & Unloading Workers Union , No. 28 , Ranja Snow Bldg. , S.C. Road , Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560020

A.R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 18 मई, 2004

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferredby clause (d) of sub -section 2A of the Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L- 22012/ 170 /2001 - IR (CM - II ) dated 3rd June 2002 for adjudication on the following schedule:-

SCHEDULE

का.आ. 1446.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एफ. सी. आई. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, बैंगलोर ( संदर्भ संख्या सी.आर. संख्या 28/02 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012/170/2001- आईआर ( सी एम- II ) ]

एन.पी. केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी

"Whether the Claim of the FCI Loading and UnloadingWorkers Union for adopting scientific norms in designating workmen presently working as sardars and mandals is legal and justified ? If yes, to what relief the dispute union is entitled to ?" New Delhi , the 18th May, 2004

2. In response to the notices issued to the parties by this court , both of them have made appearance through S.O. 1446. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

3305

ANNEXURE

LABOUR COURT- II ,

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- RAJENDRA BHAWAN , GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI

Presiding Officer , R. N. RAI I. D. No. 102/95

Inthe matter of:

KishanMurari

Versus

Punjab Cooperative Bank Ltd.

respective counsels . Shri K.T. Govinde Gowda filedhis Vakalat for the first party Union signed by the Organising Secretary before this court on 7-8-2002 and thereafter the case underwent several adjournments for filing of the Claim Statement of the first party Union . First Party Union, which raised the dispute and got the matter referred to this Tribunal , has failed to register its Claim Statement justifying its demand made in the reference point . The burden to substantiate the claim as tried to be made out in the reference point squarely casts on the shoulders of the first party Union. It was the first party union to file its Claim Statement agitating its rights so to say the claim made by it against the Second Party Management and then to substantiate the same by way of leading oral or documentary evidence .

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour vide its letter No. L- 12012/ 190/94 /IR B - II /Central Govt .dt. 23-11-95 has referred the following points for adjudication . The point runs as hereunder:-

3. However , as seen above the first party has not beendiligent in putting forth its Claim Statement much less in establishing its case or claim before this court by way of evidence. From the conduct of the first party union what appears is that it has lost its interest in prosecuting the proceedings and in the result there is no point in keeping the matter any more pending. Hence the following award.

ORDER

"whether the action of management of Punjab Co- operative Bank in terminating the services of Sh . KishanMurari w.e.f. 19-2-94 is justified ? If not , to whatrelief the workman is entitled? " Reference is rejected for non -prosecution. No costs.

A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 19 मई, 2004

The claimant has filed the statement of claim. In his statement of claim he has stated that the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour has been pleased to refer to this Hon'ble Tribunal , by virtue of the powers conferred on under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, the following Industrial Dispute vide Order No. L - 12012/190/ 94 dt. 23-11-1995 :

Whether the action of the management of Punjab Co-operative Bank in terminating the services of Sh. KishanMurari w.e.f. 19-2-94 is justified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

का०आ० 1447.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब कोपरेटिव बैंक लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं ० II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी-102/95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-12012/190/ 94- आई० आर० ( बी-1 ) ]

अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी

That the workman was initially given appointment by the bank as Peon- cum-Waterman in May, 1991 for a peroid of 20 days w.e.f. 27-5-1991 to 15-6-1991 . A copy ofa appointment letter bearing No.382/ 91 dt . 25-5-1991 issued by the bank to the workman is annexed hereto and marked as annexure W - I .

New Delhi , the 19th May, 2004

That the temporary appointment of the workman was extended by the Bank management from time to time and intentional short breaks in service were given by the bank. So that the workman may not claim regular appointment and the attendant benefits . This action on the part of the bank clearly constitutes an unfair labour practices . A copy each of seven more appointment letters as issued by the bank to the workman from time to time are annexed hereto and collectively marked as Annexure W - II .

S.O. 1447.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indus -trial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (ID - 102/95 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. II , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab Cooperative Bank Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on19-5-2004.

[No. L- 12012/190/94- IR(B -I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

That the workman continued to work hard and sincerely to the entire satisfaction of the bank with the fond hope that the bank management would one day give [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 3306

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29, 1926

regular appointment. This is proved by this fact that the workman was continued by the bank as Peon - cum- Waterman for over two years.

That during the course of conciliation proceeding for resolution of the industrial dispute raised by the Punjab Co-operative Bank Employee Union, the Ld . Asstt . Labour Commissioner (C) requested the bank management to file the attendance particulars of the workman for a peroid of his employment in bank which the management failed to do despite assurances given by them to do so. It is submitted that the non - production/non - filing of the attendance particulars of the workman was clearly malafide and willful . It is necessary in the interest ofjustice that the management be directed by this Hon'ble Tribunal to produce the original attendance record of the workman or file an attested copy of the same duly supported by an affidavit.

Thatinstead of taking action to appoint the workman on regular basis in recognition of his faithful and good work, which was assured to him on number of occasions , the bank management in pursuit of its anti labour policies , suddenly removed the name of the workman from the records of the bank in August, 1993 and started paying him wages on vouchers in the name of non - existant workman to destroy evidence of the employment of the workman in the bank . This action ofthe management is a clear case not only unfair labour practice but also of dishonest and fraudulent conduct .

Thatsuspecting the intentions of the management, the workman became a member of Punjab Co - operative Bank Employee Union some time in the month of December, 1993.

That the conciliation proceedings failed due to the abstinate and obdurate of the bank management and their refusal to do even belated justice to the workman undoing and/or rectifying their wrongful and illegal acts. It is pertinent to mention here that though the union readily agreed to the suggestion of the Ld . Asstt . Labour Commissioner for reference of the industrial dispute to voluntary arbitration , the management rejected the same outright.

That the said union took up the matter relating to the ill-treatment meted out to the workman by the management, first in giving artificial breaks for short peroids and then in removing his name from the records of the bank and paying him wages in the name of existant workman first with the management and then with the regional labour Commissioner(C) New Delhi.

That the action of the management in first giving short artificial breaks in service to the workman , thereafter removing his name from the records and paying him wages in the name of non - existant ' Ram Yadav' and finally terminating the service of the workman w.e.f. 19-2-1994 was manifestly illegal, evidently unjust and patently wrong on the following among other Grounds .

Because the workman had put in more than one year of continuous service in the bank.

Because the work being done by the workman was ofregular and perennial nature .

Because the bank management did not comply with themandatory requirements of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1974 before terminating from service.

Because no misconduct was even alleged against the workman nor was an opportunity of show cause given tohim before throwing the workman on the road.

That as the efforts of the union to resolve the matter mutually did not succeed , the union raised an Industrial Dispute with the Ld. Regional Labour Commissioner (C) N. Delhi vide its letter dated 18-2-1994 pointing out the illegalities and unfair labour practice being committed by the management. The union also brought to the notice of the Regional Labour Commissioner the threat given by the management to terminate the service of the workman if he reported the matter to any Govt . authority . The union accordingly requested the Id. Regional Labour Commissioner to initiate urgent conciliation proceedings inthe industrial dispute raised by it and in the mean time , direct the management to maintain status quo . Acopy of the said letter was also endorsed to the Chief Labour Commisioner (Central ) and the Chairman of the Bank, a copywhere of is appended here to and marked as annexure W- III .

Because the action of the management amounts to unfair labour practices comprehended by item No. 10 of the Fifth 1947.

That immediately on receipt of the copy ofthe above letter, in total disregard of the law of the land , rules of the natural justice and equity , the management carried out its threatand totally stopped his development in the name of the non - existent ' Ram Yadav ' and terminated his service from 19-2-1994.

Because paying wages to the workman from August 1993 to 18-2-1994 in the name of non-existing 'Ram Yadav' was clearly case of forgery and fraudulent practice.

Because the services of the workman have been terminated on account of his joining the Punjab Co- operative Bank Employees Union and therefore the action of the management constitutes victimization of the workman for bonafide trade union activities .

That after terminating the service of the workman w.e.f. 19-2-1994, the management appointed one Sh. Pradeep in his place, hereby establishing beyond any doubt that the work being done by the workman was regular and perennial nature.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

3307 PRAYER

thepresent reference is not maintainable as no relationship ofemployee and employer existed at any point of time.

That in view of the above, it is respectfully prayed this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to :-

That the concerned person Sh. Kishan Murari has himselfadmitted in his statement of claim that he was not a regular employee ofthe bank.

(a) hold that the termination of the service of the workmanby the management w.e.f. 19-2-1994 is notjustified;

That concerned person has got no locus standi to raise the present dispute.

That the content ofPara No. 1 needs no reply being matter of record.

(b) That the workman is entitled to re- instatement in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits;

That the content of Para No. 2 also needs no reply being matter of record.

(d) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may, on the facts and circumstances of the case being fair andjust.

The opposite party has filed WS . In the WS it has been stated that the present alleged dispute is not at all maintainable since this Hon'ble Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction in the matter as Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. is not a NationalisedBank and on this ground only, this present alleged dispute is liable to be rejected.

That Sh . Kishan Murari hereinafter referred as the concerned person , was never a regular employee with the bank as he was working purely as temporary hand against leave vacancies of regular employees of the bank and for limited period and hence the present dispute is not maintainable .

Thatthe content ofPara No. 3 are misconceived, false andhence denied. It is specifically denied that the bank was having any intention of constituting any unfair labour practice. It is however submitted that Sh . Kishan Murari wasemployed against leave vacancies and was working as purelytemporary hand for a limited term . It is also pertinent to point out to this Hon'ble Court that the concerned person inthese para has admitted that he was not a regular employee. It isdenied that the concerned person worked with the bank for over two years . This has been written only in order to mislead this Hon'ble Tribunal . The applicant was appointed only against leave vacancies and that too with the breaks which occurred naturally , and as per the mandatory provisions , the concerned person never worked for 240days in an calendar year. Full and final payments was made on every month which was duly signed and accepted by the concerned person and the concerned person in this way accepted that he was purely a temporary hand.

That the present terms of reference has been made mechanically by the appropriate Govt. (Govt. of India Ministry of Labour) without application ofmind and hence it is not maintainable .

That the present reference is also bad in law since the concerned person Sh. Kishan Murari have never attained the status of a regular employee as he had never worked for 240 days in a calendar year and the appropriate Govt. ought to have rejected the present case at the conciliation stage only.

That the concerned person had not come to this Hon'ble court with the clean hands and has suppressed manymaterial facts.

That the concerned person has failed to compel with the mandatory directions as given in the terms of reference andhas not submitted the documents and list of witnesses with the stipulated period and hence the present alleged dispute is liable to be rejected on this ground alone .

That contentPara 5 are totally false, wrong and hence vehemently denied. It is denied that the bank ever assured the concerned person to appoint on regular basis because ofhis good work. In fact the concemed person never work ; hardand question oftaking him as a regular employee does not arise because he was working against leave vacancies as a temporary hand. The appointment was a term basis appointment as per the appointment letter issued by the bank, each term automatically ended after expiry of that period. It is specifically denied that the bank started paying wages on vouchers in the name of non -exist workman. The bank has either extended the term of the applicant or the term ended automatically. There is not question of paying wages in the name of non -existent workman . All these malafide contentions have been written in order to mislead contentions have been written in order to mislead this Hon'ble Tribunal and by suppressing the material facts , the concerned person wants to take benefit ofhis own wrong. The concernedperson had accepted the fact that he was not a regular employee that he was a temporary hand.

That no proper and valid demand was ever served upon the management or its rejection thereof to constitute an industrial dispute and hence present alleged dispute is not maintainable .

That no industrial dispute existed or was apprehended and hence no reference could have been made and hence

That the contents of Para No. 6 are totally wrong andhence denied. The concerned person Sh. Kishan Murari was not at all the member of D.C.B.E. Union and no information was ever sent to the bank regarding this by the concerned person .

1760 G1/04-15 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 19, 2004/JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

3308

The contents ofPara E& F are totally false and hence denied.

That the contents of para No. 7 are denied for want ofknowledge.

That the contents of Para No.8 needs no reply being matter of record.

The contents of Para G are denied being misconceived and misleading. It is totally denied that the concerned person was the member of co -operative bank employees union.

Prayer clause is also misconceived and hence denied.

That the contents of Para No. 9 are totally false and hence denied. The concerned person was appointed for a limitedterm period against leave vacancies. The bank takes work from temporary hands as and when required. The concerned person has got no locus standi to raise the present dispute.

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass a not dipsute Award in the present case with heavy costs and may pass any other order /s as deemed fit in the interest ofjustice in favour of the management and against the concerned person Sh . Kishan Murari .

That the contents of Paras 10-12 are totally wrong hence denied. It is denied that the concerned person worked upto 19-02-1994 and it is also denied that the bank terminated the services . The other contents of Para 10-11 and 12 are also denied being totally misconceived. The bank has got number of permanent employees who are looking after this work and the bank has liberty to keep only those persons against leave vacancy who give maximum output because every organization believes in development.

HeardArguments from both the sides and perused papers on the record . It was submitted from the workman side that appointment letter has been given to him from timeto time. I perused the appointment letters . Taking into considerationall the appointemnt letters , the total working period does not exceed more than 50 days. It is further submitted that junior to him have been retained in service. He has worked on different names but he has put his signature . So he should be reinstated under Sec. 25 F. That the contents of Para No. 13 are totally denied being false and misconceived and merely repetition of previous paras.

Ihaveperused the cross examination ofthe workman applicant . He has stated that he was appointed on temporary basis by the Punjab - Co-operative bank and used to be appointed whenever any body went on leave . This statement clearly shows that he was appointed on leave vacancy. He was neither a daily wager nor a muster roll employee . His appointment letters also shows that he has been appointed from time to time for a fix period.

The bank appointed the concerned person only against leave vacancies and the breaks were quite natural breaks . The concerned person wants to illegally assert his right by saying that he had been paid in the name ofnon- existent Ram Yadav. In fact the concerned persons term was discontinued in the year 1993 itself when the bank employees Sh Rakesh Kumar and Slı . Mukesh Kumar had come back to their services . Thereafter his appointment against leave vacancy was automatically over. The applicant has a malaſide intentions to mislead the court and by concealing material facts he wants to find place in the bank .

It was submitted from the side of the management that he was an ad -hoc employee and according to AIR 1992 Sc 2070 he has no right to continue in service . My attention was drawn to 1995 (6) SLR 259,1995 ( 7) SLR 729,1994(7) SLR 160 , 1998 - II LLJ15 -Sc . In all the citations it has been held that an employee who is employed an ad-hoc basis or on temporary basis or leave vacancy has no right to regularisation .

The content of Para A are absolutely wrong. The concerned person never completed the mandatory requirement of 240 days in any calendar year.

The Para B are also denied. The concerned person was purely a temporary hand and that too with breaks even in month. The bank has its permanent employees for this nature of work is of regular nature , a temporary hand is always kept when banks employces go on leave.

From the side of the workman my attention was drawn to 1987 LAB I.C 1361. This ruling is not applicable as he was appointed on leave vacancy and he has not completed 240 days in a calendar year. So the case of Section 25 F is not made out. The workman is not liable to be regularised or reinstated. The law cited by the management is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case .

The contents of para C arc denied being wrongly interpreted . The question of complying the requirement of Section 25 F of Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 does not occur because the concerned person was not a regular cmployee.

The award is replied thus . The action of the management of Punjab Co -Operative Bank in terminating the services of Sh . Kishan Murari w.e.f 19-2-1994 is justified. The workman is not entitled to get any relief.

Dated06-05-2004

R.N.RAI , Presiding Officer The contents of Para D are denied . The concerned person wants to deviate from the original path . The concerned person was already on road. The bank showed mercy on him by giving him short - term appointments against leave vacanies .

3309

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 19 मई , 2004

का.आ. 1448.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एफ. सी. आई . प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, कोलम ( संदर्भ संख्या 80/02) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-5-2004 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/93/2002- आईआर ( सी एम- II ) ] एन.पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 19th May, 2004 S.O. 1448. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 80/02 of the Industrial Tribunal -Kollam as shown in the Annexure , in the industiral dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India , and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18-5-2004.

[No. L-22012/93/2002 - IR(CM -II)]

N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE IN THE COURT OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ,

KOLLAM

(Dated, this the 15th day of April, 2004)

PRESENT

Shri C. N. SASIDHARAN

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 80/02 BETWEEN

The District Manager , Food Corporation of India , Divisional Office , Changvanam , Kottyam (By Sri . A.R Ayyappan Pillia , Advocate , Kollam

Management

AND

Shri P. K Sasi , Organising Secretary, Food Corporation ofIndia, Workers Union , FCI Depot, Charinaikadu , Kottayam. (By Sri . M Muhammed Humayoon , Advocate , Kollam )

Workman

AWARD

The Government of India by order No. L 22012/93/ 2002- IR (CM - II ) dated 8-10-2002 have referred this industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal ..

The issue for adjudications is the following:

"Whether the action of the managment of FCI , Chingavanam Depot in ordering recovery of dumurage charges amounting to Rs . 24,064/-vide order dated 29-8-2001 of the Dist. Manager, Kottayam from 133 workers of Chingavanam Depot is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitle to ? "

2. In answer to notice issued from this Tribunal both sides entered appearance and the managment has filed statement advancing their contentions . But the union has not filed claim statement though several postings were given. On 19-2-2004 when this case was taken up, the union and its counsel remained absent . Hence the case was adjourned to 18-3-2004 . On that day also the union and its counsel remianed absent without any reason whatsoever. Hence the union was set ex -parte. Though the counsel for management submitted that an affidavit insupport of the case of management was being filed it is not filed so far. As the union which raised this dispute failed to comforward and prosecute the matter , it is not necessary to proceed further and no relief need be granted.

3. In view of what is stated above , an award is passed holding that the union is not entitled to get any relief and this reference is answered in the negative .

C. N. SASIDHARAN , Industrial Tribunal नई दिल्ली, 19 मई , 2004

का.आ. 1449.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एफ. सी. आई. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , बैंगलोर ( संदर्भ संख्या सी. आर. 27/02 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/169/2001- आईआर ( सी एम- II ) ]

एन.पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 19th May , 2004 S.O. 1449. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government here by publishes the Award Ref. C.R. No. 27/02 of the Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court Bangalore as shown in the Annexure , in the industiral dispute between the management of Food 3310

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

Corporation of India , regional office and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18-5-2004 .

[No. L -22012/ 169/ 2001 - IR( CM-II ) ]

N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN"

III main, III cross , II phase, Tumkur Road, Yeshwanthpur Banglore- 560022 Dated: 6th May 2004

PRESENT

SHRI A. R. SIDDIQUI , PRESIDING OFFICER

C. RNO . 27/02

IParty

II Party

The Organising Secrcatry,

FCI Loading & Unloading

Workers Union ,

RegionalOffice, No. 28 , Ranja Snow Bldg. ,

S.C Road,

The Sr. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India No. 10, Pallavi Complex, Kalinga Rao Road , Bangalore-560027 Seshadripuram,

Bangalore-560020

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub - section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred this dispute vide order . No. L- 22012 / 169/2001 - IR( CM-II) dated 3rd June 2002 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the claint of the FCI Loading and Unloading Workers Union for the payment of increased tender rate of wages for the earlier period in respect of White- Field (Bangalore ) and Unkal (Hubli ) Depot is legal andjustified ? Ifyes , to what relief the workmen are entitled to? " 2. Inresponse to the notices issued to the parties by this court , both of them have made appearance through respective counsels . Shri K.T Govinde Gowada filed his Vakalat for the first party union signed by the organising Secretary before this court on 7-8-2002 and thereafter the case underwent several adjournments for filing of the Claim

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] Statement of the first party Union . First Party Union, which raised the dipsute and got the matter referred to this Tribunal , has failed to register its Claim Statement justifying its tlemand made in the reference point . The burden to substantiate the claim has tried to be made out in the refrence point squarely casts on the shoulders of the first party Union. It was the first party union to filed its Claim Statement agitating its rights, so to say, the claim made by it against the Second party Management and then to substantiate the same by way of leading oral or documentary evidence .

3. However , as seen above the first party has not been deligent in putting forth his Claim Statement much less in establishing its case or claim before this court by wayofevidence. From the conduct of the first party union what appears is that it has lost its interest in prosecuting the proceedings and in the result there is no point in keeping the matter any more pending . Hence the following award.

ORDER

Reference is rejected for non -prosecution . No costs.

A.R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 20 मई, 2004

का. आ. 1450.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. 69/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/90/2002- आई.आर. ( बी- I ) ]

अजय कुमार, डैस्कअधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th May , 2004

S.O. 1450.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Govemment hereby publishes the award (ID . No. 69/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-5-2004.

[No. L - 12012/90 /2002 -IR(B -I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 3311 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

ANNEXURE

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

Thursday , the 25th March, 2004

Present: K. Jayaraman, PresidingOfficer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ΝΟ . 69/2002

(Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) ofsub -section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of State Bank of India and their workmen)

BETWEEN

Smt. N. Geetha

: I Party/Petitioner

AND

: II Party/Respondent

TheAssistant General Manager, State Bank ofIndia, Coimbatore,

APPEARANCE :

For the Petitioner

: Mr. V. S. Balasubrantanian

Authorised Representative

For the Management

: M/ s . S. Kanniah & N. Shanmugasundaram.

Advocates.

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide Notification Order No. L- 12012/90/ 2002 - IR (B - I) dated 25-07-2002 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in removing from the services of Smt. N. Geetha is justified ? If not, what relief is she entitled ? "

2. After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on file as I.D. No. 69/2002 and notices were issued to both the parties and both the parties entered appearance through their advocates and filed the Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively .

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

conclusion of the enquiry proceedings , the Enquiry Officer gave his report and findings on 26-5-2000. As per the findings , none of the charges levelled against her were proved exceptthe charge no . 5 which was stated to have been partly proved by the Enquiry Officer. After the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority called for submissions from the Petitioner on 29-5-2000 which was compliedby the Petitioner on 7-6-2000 . After a lapse of six months , the Respondent/Bank addressed the Petitioner on 9-1-2001 proposing the punishment of discharge from service without superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise at the stage and without disqualification from further employment. The punishment proposed was not based on the report of the Enquiry Officer and the punishment was proposed as perorder dated 18-12-2000 of the Disciplinary Authority. The order dated 18-12-2000 contained the material, which were not in the Enquiry report and in the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority after accepting the report of the findings of the Enquiry Officer forwarded itto the Petitioner for her comments thereon has not given ahy reason for rejecting the report and the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The findings of the Disciplinary Authority was not made known to the Petitioner . It was forwarded along with the second show cause notice proposing the punishment . The reasons for differing with the findings of theEnquiry Officer in respect of the charges against the Petitioner, makes the Petitioner feel that the Disciplinary Authority is keen to hold the Petitioner guilty without even specifying as to which rule of the Respondent/Bank or which provision of the Bipartite Settlement has been violated. The conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority is perverse . The Disciplinary Authority has not forwarded the findings to the Petitioner for her comments before he arrived at his decision to impose the penalty or punishment. The denial of such opportunity to the Petitioner is against the principles of natural justice and denial of reasonable opportunity . Therefore , the findings of the Disciplinary Authority is illegal as it is not having bearing to the report of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and he has not followed the principles of natural justice . Therefore , the findings of the Disciplinary Authority is arbitrary , unilaterally and against the principles of natural justice. The error of findings of a fact amounts to an error of law . Eventhe Appellate Authority has not applied its mind , on the otherhand, he has confirmed the punishment imposed bythe Disciplinary Authority. Further, even in the enquiry, the copies of documents were denied to the Petitioner and the copies were also marked without examining the author ofdocuments. There has been miscarriage ofjustice and the Petitioner has been singled out and punished unilaterally which is unjust and improper . Therefore, for all these reasons, the Petitioner prays that an award may be passed in her favour to reinstate her in service with all attendant benefits.

4. As against this , the Respondent in its Counter Statement contended that no doubt the Petitioner was The Petitioner was working in Coimbatore Main branch of the Respondent/Bank as a clerk and the Petitioner was placed under suspension on 24-4-97 . The Assistant General Manager of the Respondent/Bank served a letter calling for her explanation for certain alleged acts . The Petitioner has given her explanation but it was not accepted by the Respondent/Bank and therefore , an enquiry was initiated for the charges framed against her . After the [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

3312

working in Coimbatore main branch of the bank, when the misconducts proved against her was committed by her .

August, 1999 had informed that the complaint was closed as undetectable. It is false to allege that the order passed bythe Disciplinary Authority and the punishment proposed was not based on any evidence . In the order dated 18-12-2000, the Disciplinary Authority has clearly stated that for what reasons he had differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authorty is in order for the Disciplinary Authority to dissent with the view ofthe Enquiry Officer and arrive at a decision whichmay be inconsonance with or contrary to that of the enquiry report . It is false to allege that the Disciplinary Authority exhibited bias in holding the petitioner guilty of charges. It is false to allege that no opportunity was given to the Petitioner, on the other hand, the dissenting views along with the proposed punishment was sent to the Petitioner and she has also availed the opportunity to present the submissions against the said observations in the personal enquiry and the subsquent appellate proceedings . It is also false to alleged that the principles of natural justice has not been followed . The act of Disciplinary Authority in differing with the view of the EnquiryOfficer which by itself is legally permissible cannot by itself temed to a fresh show cause notice or fresh charge sheet. The charges framed against the Petitioner have been proved in the enquiry which solely points out to the misconducts committed by the Petitioner . The integrity is expected in its highest column which an employee of the bank. Hence, when an employee breaches the integrity and commits fraud not only the name of institution suffers butthe basis on which the banking institution function is put into question . The Petitioner having committed the misconduct and misappropriated the public money and having caused loss of confidence , the Petitioner cannot claim to be reinstated in the service of the Respondent/ Bank. Hence , for all these reasons, the Respondent prays that the claim may be dismissed with costs .

5. In these circumstances , the points for my

consideration are-

(i) " Whether the action of the Respondent / Management in removing from the services of Smt . N. Geetha is justified ? "

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

PointNo. 1:--

6. In this case, the Petitioner namcly Smt. N. Geetha was in the service of the Respondent/Bank since 1984. In April , 1997 the Respondent/Bank pending initiation of enquiry, suspended the Petitioner on 24-4-97 under Ex . W1 . After the lapse of two years , the charge sheet dated 6-4-99, marked as Ex. W4 was served on the Petitioner . In the charge sheet six charges have been framed against her. The first charge against the Petitioner is that she intercepated from the correspondence section a draft bearing No. 173436 dated 20-12-96 for Rs . 1,01,800 which was sent towards proceeds of collection for some other account and then The misconducts are while working as an Assistant at Coimbatore branch on 4-1-97 , the Petitioner intercepted from the correspondence section a draft bearing No. 173436 dated 20-12-96 for Rs . 1,01,800/- which was sent towards proceeds of collection for some other account and then prepared a SB credit challan for credit of a dormant S. B. account No. 0237/047369 and she presented the draft fraudulently for credit of the above account . She has also unauthorisedly took possession of the S.B. passbook of the above account with a viewto defraud the bank using the similarity in names and she was already aware of this fact by virtue ofworking, in NRI cell at the branch. Secondly, after credit of the proceeds through clearing of draft fraudulently removed by her to the above dormant S.B. account No. 0237/047369 of Mrs. Geetha and Sundarajan withdrew a sum of Rs . 45,000/- by means of withdrawal forms through payment counter and through teller counter at the branch. Thirdly , again with a view to obliterate the traces ofher above nefarious acts, she arranged to remove and destroy the relative credit voucher and the voucher packets containing withdrawal slips referred above . Forthly, by her above acts she had defrauded the bank to the tune ofRs. 45,000/-and fifthly, she had borrowed from the bank's customers like Mrs. Anuradha Srirangam, Sri Santhanam, Sri K. Natarajan who were all NRO accountholders andMr. Paulson, retired Tahsildar which is against the conduct rules of Award Staff. Sixthly, she was also conducting chits with staff at branch and some customers of PB division of the branch violating rules of conduct for award staff. This fraud committed by the Petitioner came to light when the original accountholder Ms. Geetha Soundararajan visited the branch on 20-3-97 and verifying the entries in her account informed to the bank that the entries relating to credit ofRs . 1,01,800 /- and subsequent debits of Rs . 25,000/- and two debits of Rs . 10,000 / - each aggregating to a total debit of Rs . 45000 /- did not relate to her account . It was also confimed by Mr. Soundararajan , the joint accountholder . Therefore , she was placed under suspension and explanation was called for and not satisfying with her explanation , the discilinary proceedings was initiated against her. Though the Enquiry Officer has held that except charge no . 5 all the other charges have not been proved and after furnishing the copy of the report to the Petitioner , which opportunity was utilised by the Petitioner , the Disciplinary Authority considered the submissions of the Petitioner against the enquiry report along with enquiry proceedings dissented with the view of the Enquiry Officer and placed his dissenting view in his order dated 18-12-2000 along with the proposed punishment . The Disciplinary Authority laid in the said order , the ground , the evidence and depositions based on which he had arrived to contradict the report of the Enquiry Officer. The Respondent/Bank also immediately preferred a criminal complaint before the police authorities during 3313

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

conductedbythe Enquiry Officer, his report is notfinalor conclusive and the disciplinary proceedings do not stand concluded. The disciplinary proceedings stand concluded with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. It is the DisciplinaryAuthority which can impose penalty and not theEnquiry Officer. Where the DisciplinaryAuthority itself holds the enquiry, an opportunity of hearing has to be granted by him . When the Disciplinary Authority differs with the view ofthe Enquiry Officer andproposes to come to a different conclusion, there is no reason as to why an opportunity ofhearing should not be granted. it will be mostunfair and iniquitous that where the charges officers succeed before the Enquiry Officer, they were deprived of representing Disciplinary Authority before the authority differs with the Enquiry Officer's report and while recording the findings ofguild imposes the punishment on the officer. In such circumstances, the charged officer must have an opportunity to represent before the DisciplinaryAuthority beforefinalfindings on the charges are recorded and the punishment imposed. As a result thereof, whenever the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the Enquiry Officer on any article of charge, then before it records itsfindings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and to give the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings ........ Principles ofnaturaljustice require the authority which has to take a final decision and can inipose penalty to give an opportunity to the officer charge with the misconduct tofile representation before the Disciplinary Authority records his findings on the charges framed against the officer. In the second authority, the same view has been expressed by the Allahabad High Court .

prepared a SB credit challan for credit of a dormant S.B. account No. 0237/047369 and she presented the draft fraudulently for credit of the above account and unauthorisedly took possession of the S.B. passbook of the above account with a view to defraud the bank using the similarty in names of the account holder and the Petitioner and she was already aware of this fact by virtue ofworking in NRI cell at the branch. The second charge is after credit of the proceeds through clearing of draft fraudulently removed by her to the above dorment S.B. account and the Petitioner withdrew a sum Rs .45,000/-by means of withdrawal forms through payment counter and through teller counter at the branch. The third charge is with a view to obliterate the traces of her above nefarious acts , she arranged to remove and destroy the relative credit voucher and the voucher packets containing withdrawal slips referred above . The fourth charge is that she had defrauded the bank to the tune of Rs . 45,000/- . The fifth charge is that she had borrowed from the bank's customers like Mrs. Anuradha Srirangam , Sri Santhanam, Sri K. Natrajan who were all NRE account holders and Mr. Paulson , retired Tahsildar which is against the conduct rules of Award Staffand the sixth charge is that the Petitioner was also conducting chits with staff at branch and some customers ofPB division of the branch violating rules of conduct . In this case , Enquiry Officer was deputed and after following the procedure , the enquiry Officer held that except the fifth charge , all the other charges framed against the Petitioner have not been proved by the Respondent/ Bank. After that the Petitioner was called for to submit representation to the enquiry officer's report. After the receipt of the submissions , the Disciplinary Authority differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer has given the proposed punishment of removal from service and also required for personal hearing . At this stage , we have to know whether the Disciplinary Authority has given an opportunity to the Petitioner with regard to his findings . But, 1 find the Disciplinary Authority has not given any opportunity to the Petitioner with regard to his findings that the charges have been proved . Though he had stated on 18-12-1997 he has passed the order, the said order was sent to the Petitioner alongwith the second show cause notice namely with the proposed punishment .

8. On the other hand , the learned counsel for the Respondent argued that though in this case , the Disciplinary Authority has not given any opportunity before differing with the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority has given personal hearing to the Petitioner and evenat the personal hearing, the Petitioner has given written submissions and also the Appellate Authority has given an opportunity for the Petitioner to contradict the findings ofthe Disciplinary Authority . Under such circumstances , it cannot be said that there is violation of principles of natural justice .

9. But, I find there is no point in this argument because, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that the Disciplinary Authority before recording its own findings , it must record itself the tentative reasons for such disagreement and to give the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings . In this case, the said procedure has not been followed and therefore, I find the findings of the Disciplinary Authority is in clear violation of natural justice.

10. Again , the Authorised Representative for the Petitioner argued that the Disciplinary Authority's finding 7. At this stage , the Authorised Representative for the Petitioner argued that though the Disciplinary Authority has got every power to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer , the Disciplinary Authority must have given an opportunity to the Petitioenr to go through his findings with regard to the charge . But, in this case, the Disciplinary Authority has not given any opportunity and it is against the principles of natural justice. He has relied on the rulings reported in 1998 II LLJ 809 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. KUNJ BEHARI MISRA AND 2001 LIC 2453 Α. Κ. GAUR VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA. In the first case , the Supreme Court has held that " when the enquiry is 3314

[PART II SEC . 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004 /JYAISTHA 29, 1926

division and destroyed the vouchers in an intelligent manner . But , here again without an iota of evidence and without any proof, he has come to the conclusion on surmise . The authorised representative furher arued that with regard to the fifth charge namely the Petitioner has borrowed money from the customer of the bank, and though one Ms. Anuradha Srirangam, customer of the bank was examined in the enquiry, and though the Enquiry Officer has held that charge against the Petitioner has been partly proved, there is no proof that money was given to the Petitioner as loan and there is no complaint by Ms. Anuradha Srirangam with regard to this loan . This saidMs. Anuradha has stated that she has given Rs . 50,000 to the Petitioner's husband Mr. Giridharan for purchase of shares for which the Petitioner has promised to return , in case, shares have not been purchased. But, there is no proof for lending money as loan with petitioner. As such, here again neither the Enquiry Officer nor the Disciplinary Authority has stated under what circumstances , they have come to the conclusion that borrowing of money by the petitioner has been proved by the Respondent/ Management . Again , the authorised representative for the Petitioner argued that with regard to charge No. 6 namely the Petitioner has conducted chits which is against the conduct rules and doing an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank . Though there is an admission that the Petitioner was promoting group savings in the bank amongst staff members and the Petitioner as a coordinator of the group savings scheme conducted the said chit and it is the further evidence of Mrs. Subashini , Assistant of the branch that the Petitioner has not received any monetary benefits by thisscheme. Under such circumstances , the Disciplinary Authority has not stated how this act of the Petitioner is prejudicial to the interest of the 'bank and therefore, the findings of the Disciplinary Authority is perverse and he has not given any opportunity to the Petitioner before come to the conclusion that the charges have been proved against the Petitioner.

11. But, as against this , the learned counsel for the Respondent argued that departmental enquiry is not a criminal proceedings and the departmental authorities can come to a conclusion from the inference drawn from the materials placed before them and it is also open to the authorities to draw such inferences and he relied on the rulings reported in AIR 1969 SC 966 RAILWAY BOARD, NEW DELHI AND ANOTHER Vs. N. SINGH, wherein the Supreme Court has held that it is not necessary to go into the question whether the hearsay evidence can be relied on at all in an enquiry under Article 311 and if so within what limits . Some of the inferences drawn by the General Manager were objected to by the counsel for the Respondent. They appear to be inferences offact evidently drawnfrom the material before him and as such cannot be properly objected to and it was open to him to draw those inferences . " Relying on this decision, the counsel against each charge is also perverse and he demonstrated before the Court with regard to first charge, he has stated thathe has not accepted the findings given by the Enquiry Officer and he has stated that he has gone into the case and the circumstances by which the fraud had taken place atthe branch and with the circumstantial evidence he held that the charge has been proved. But he has not stated what are the circumstances which proved the guilt against the Petitioner . The Authorised Representative argued that is clearly establishes his pre - determined mind to punish the employee . He further argued that with regard to withdrawal of amount namely the second charge, through the Enquiry Officer has held that the charge has not been proved, as no material evidence has been produced by the management. The Disciplinary Authority has based his opinion on the statement given by the bank staff Sri Venkatakrislunan and Sri G. Thomas before the investigating official and he has come to the conclusion that the charge against the employee has been proved. But, in this case even the Enquiry Officer without following the procedures have marked the statement without examining the concerned witnesses . No doubt , it is stated that the investigating official Mr. Devadoss has recorded the statement of S / Sri Venkatakrishnan and Thomas , neither the said investigating official nor the witnesses who alleged to have given the statements were examined before the enquiry. But , strangely , the statements said to have been given by the witnesses have been marked by the Presenting Officer in the enquiry . Any how , without giving an opportunity to the concerned employee and without examining the said investigating official , the said documents cannot be relied on by the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer has come to the right conclusion that no material evidence has been produced before the enquiry . As against this , the Disciplinary Authority who has already come to a conclusion to punish the concerned employee , has given a perverse finding that the statement given by the said persons namely Sri Venkatakrishan and Sri G. Thomas before the investigating offical will prove the guilt against the concerned employee . But none of the above persons have put before the enquiry and no opportunity was given to the concerned employce to cross examination of the said persons , as such the findings of the Disciplinary Authority to perverse . Again , the authorised representative argued that with regard to the charge Nos . 3 and 4 against the Petitioner are that she has be nefarious activities destroyed the concerned vouchers and also has made loss to the tune of Rs . 45,000 to the Respondent/Bank . Here also , the Enquiry Officer has held that no material evidence was forthcoming from the side of the Respondent/Management and the charges are not proved against the Petitioner. But , strangely , the Disciplinary Authority without giving any opportunityto the Petitioner has conte to the conclusion that the Petitioner persuaded Mr. Selvaraj to remove the paid vouchers from the voucher packets without creating any suspicion in the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3315

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

for the Respondent argued that the Disciplinary Authority who differed with the finding given by the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion from the inferences drawn from the circumstances shown in the enquiry. Under such circumstances , it cannot be said that the finding given by the Disciplinary Authority is perverse . Again, the learned counsel for the Respondent argued that where the officer has acted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation, good faith or devotion to duty and if there is prima-facie any material to show recklessness or misconduct in discharge of his duty and if he is acted in a manner which isunbecoming of an employee of the bank and if he had negligently or omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for exercise of statutory power, if he had acted in order to unduly favour a party and if he had been actuated by corrupt motive, however , small the bribe may bebecause Lord Coke said long ago though the bribe may be small , yet the fault is great. Under such circumstances , the Disciplinary Authority can take disciplinary action against the erred employee . In this case, it is clearly established in the enquiry that the Petitioner had made loss to the tune of Rs . 45,000 of the bank and she has misappropriated the said amount with the connivance of some of the staff members and therefore , the conclusion arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be questioned before this Tribunal . He further argued that even though the criminal proceedings have been ended without any enquiry , the Petitioner cannot take advantage ofthe circumstances , because the departmental enquiry is an independent and in that enquiry , it was clearly established that the charges framed against the Petitioner have been proved . Under such circumstances, by no stretch of imagination , it can be said that the findings of the Disciplinary Authority is perverse or one sided.

12. Though , I find some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the Respondent, since the Disciplinary Authority has not followed the principles of natural justice and since he has not given an opportunity before he came to the different conclusion that the Enquiry Officer, and since the Disciplinary Authority without basing any material evidence has come to the conclusion that the Petitioner has done the misdeeds , I find the finding of the Disciplinary Authority is perverse and he has not followed the principles of natural justice. Therefore, I find this point infavour of the Petitioner .

Point No. 2:

The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief the Petitioner is entitled?

13. In view of my finding above, I find the Petitioner Smt. N. Geetha is entitled to the relief as claim by her . Therefore, I direct the II Party/Management State Bank of India to reinstate the Petitioner Smt . N. Geetha into service withback wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits . No Costs .

1760 GI 04-16

14. The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 25th March , 2004. )

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

: Nil

Forthe I Party/Workman

For the II Party /Management : MW1 Sri K.S. Raman Documents Marked :-

For the I Party/Workman :

Ex.No. Date

Description

W1 24-04-97 Xerox Copy of the suspension order issued to Petitioner

W2 17-11-98 Xerox Copy of the show cause notice issued to Petitioner W3 12-12-98 Xerox Copy of the reply given by the Petitioner

W4 06-04-99 Xerox Copy of the charge sheet issued to Petitioner

W5 03-05-99 Xerox Copy of the reply given by the Petitioner

24-08-99 W6

Xerox Copy of the letter from Disciplinary Authority to the Petitioner

17-11-99

W7 XeroxCopy ofthe letter from Enquiry Officer to the Petitioner

W8 07-01-2000 Хегох Copy of the letter from Presenting Officer to the Enquiry Officer.

W9 20-01-2000 Xerox Copy of the letter from Presenting Officer to the Enquiry Officer

W10 26-05-2000 Xerox Copy of the findings and report ofthe EnquiryOfficer

W11 29-05-2000 Xerox Copy of the letter from Disciplinary Authority to Petitioner W12 07-06-2000 Xerox Copy of the letter from Petitioner to Disciplinary Authority.

WI3 09-01-01 Xerox Copy of 2nd show cause notice issued to Petitioner W14 22-01-01 Xerox Copy of the letter from Petitioner to Disciplinary Authority .

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004 /JYAISTHA 29, 1926

3316

W15 27-12-01

प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Xerox Copy of the letter from Disciplinary Authority to the Petitioner

[सं. एल.-12012/201/2000 - आई.आर. ( बी. - 1 ) ;

W16 05-02-01 Xerox Copy of the letter from Petitioner to Disciplinary Authority

सं. एल.- 12012/347/2000- आई. आर. (बी.- I ) ;

W17 14-02-01 Xerox Copy of the letter from Disciplinary Authority to Petitioner

सं. एल.- 12012/229 , 231 , 236, 239 , 233 , 228, 242, 243 , 237, 238, 42, 667, 426/ 98 - आई.आर. ( बी.- I ) ;

W18 09-03-01 Xerox Copy of the letter from Disciplinary Authority to Petitioner

W19 16-04-01

सं. एल. - 12012/226 और 339 , 171/99- आई.आर. (बी.- I ) ] Xerox Copy of the appeal preferred byPetitioner

अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी W20 21-04-01 Xerox Copy of the letter from Appellate Authority to Petitioner

New Delhi , the 24th May , 2004

W21 02-05-01 Xerox Copy of the letter from Petitioner to Appellate Authority

W22 03-05-01 Xerox Copy of the letter from Appellate Authority to Petitioner

W23 21-05-01 Xerox Copy of the minutes of personal hearing

W24 11-06-01

S.O. 1451. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Govem- ment hereby publishes the award (ID - 80/ 2000 , 67 to 70, 84, 133, 340 , 341 , 343 , 510 , 551 and 694/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24-5-2004 .

Xerox Copy of the letter from Appellate Authority to Petitioner

[No. L- 12012/201 /2000 - IR(B . I ) ;

W25 27-07-01

অনেক দলে No. L- 12012/347/2000 - IR(B. I);

シクルレッグ Xerox Copy of the letter from Petitioner to Regional Labour Commissioner , Chennai raising industrial dispute

W26 29-10-01

No. L- 12012/229, 231 , 236, 239 , 233 , 228, 242, 243 , 237, 238, 42 , 667,426/98 - IR(B . I): nod

No. L- 12012 /226 & 339, 171/99 - IR(B / 1) ] Xerox Copy of the reply submitted by the Respondent Before Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central)

urinAJAY KUMAR, Desk,Officer W27 Nil

bite tulio malo mentibull of Xerox Copy of the enquiry proceedings

ANNEXUREit ad ponie For the II Party/Management :-

Ex Date

Description

ابن BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL GUM-LABOURCOURT, CHENNALE Not

thingzidi bailla ja wtry to zolgizning ole Thursday , the 5th February , 2004 MI 18-12-2000

on mio היי

Xerox Copy of the order of the Disciplinary Authority.

PRESENT:

K. JAYARAMAN , PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 24 मई , 2004

Industrial Dispute Nos . 80/2000 , 67 to 76, 84, 133 , 340, 341 , 343,510,551 & 694/2001

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub - section (1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes, Act, 19471947 ( 14 of 1947) between the Management of Stateof State Bank of India and their workmen]. 2120tonsd का. आ. 1451 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी-80/ 2000 , 67 से 70, 84, 133 , 340, 341 , 343 , 510, 551 तथा 694/2001 ) को [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3317

आरत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004 )ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

I. D. No.

Reference No. & Date S. No.

TNID/ CGID No.

TSSADAH )

Appearance , for workinan

Name ofthe IIParty

Name ofthe

IPaty

S/Shri

5 2 3

1. 80/2000

Appearance for Respondent

CALI

Sri. V. S.

R.Elangovan

L-12012/201 /2000/ IR(B -I) dt. 10-10-2000 2. 67/2001

Ekambaram, Represen- Authorised

Sri K.S. Sundar &R. Uma Maheshwari, Advocates Assistant General Manager, StateBank of IndiaStative Zonal Officend Chennai .

K. Balasundram

L- 12012/243/98/ IR(B -I) dt. 07-01-1999

TNID No. 8/99

3. 68/2001

Mr. F. B. Benjamin George, Advocate

Sri. V. S. Ekambaram, Authorised Represen- tative

Assistant General Manager, StateBank ofIndia, Zonal Office, Tiruchirappalli.

Sri . V. S.

R. Arigamuthu

TNID No.

L- 12012/229/98/ IR(B -I) dt. 07-01-1999 4. 69/2001

K.Kannan

L -12012/231/98/ IR(B -I) dt. 07-01-1999

TNID No. 10/99

5. 70/2001

Mr.F. B. Benjamin George, Advocate Authorised Represen tative Ekambaram,

Assistant General Manager, StateBank ofIndia, ZonalOffice, Tiruchirappalli.

Mr. K. Veeramani, Advocate Sri . V. S. Ekambaram, Authorised Represen tative

Assistant General Manager, StateBank ofIndia, ZonalOffice, Madurai.

P. Subburaj

L- 12012/236/98/ IR(B -I) dt. 07-01-1999

TNID No. 11/99

6. 71/2001

Veeramani, Advocate Mr. K. Sri , V. S. Ekambaram, Authorised Represen- tative

Assistant General Manager, State Bank ofIndia, ZonalOffice , Madurai.

K. Chandran

L- 12012/239/98/ IR(B -I) dt. 07-01-1999 TNID No. 12/99

7. 72/2001

Mr. K. Veeramani, Advocate Sri . V. S. Ekambaram, Authorised Represen- tative

Assistant General Manager, State Bank ofIndia, ZonalOffice, Madurai

B.Nagendran

L- 12012/233/98/ IR(B -I) dt. 07-01-1999 TNID No. 13/99

Mr. F. B. Benjamin George, Advocate Sri . V. S. Ekambaram, Authorised Represen- tative

Assistant General Manager, StateBank ofIndia, ZonalOffice, Tiruchirappalli.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29, 1926

3318

G. Settu 8. 73/2001

L- 12012/228/98/ IR(B -I) dt. 07-01-1999

TNID No. 14/99

TNID

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

8 6

Mr. F. B. Sri. V. S.

Benjamin George, Advocate Ekambaram, Authorised Represen- tative

Assistant General Manager, StateBank of India, Zonal Office, Tiruchirappalli .

Mr. F. B. Sri . V. S.

Assistant

T. Veerapandian

9. 74/2001

L - 12012/242/98 / IR(B -I) dt. 07-01-1999

No. 15/99

Benjamin George,

Advocate Ekambaram, Authorised Represen- tative

General Manager, StateBank ofIndia, Zonal Office, Tiruchirappalli.

Mr. K. Sri . V. S.

M. Chelladurai

10. 75/2001

L- 12012/237/98/ IR(B -I) dt. 08-01-1999

TNID No. 16/99

A. L. Sekar 11. 76/2001

L- 12012/238/98/ IR(B -I) dt. 08-01-1999

TNID No. 17/99

Veeramani, Advocate Ekambaram, Authorised Represen- tative

Assistant General Manager, StateBank ofIndia, ZonalOffice, Madurai.

Sri . V. S.

Mr. K. Veeramani, Advocate Ekambaram, Authorised Represen- tative

Assistant General Manager, StateBank ofIndia, ZonalOffice, Madurai

S. Pandurangan

12. 84/2001

L- 12012/42/98/ IR(B - I ) dt. ' Nil '

TNID No. 25/99

L- 12012/84/99/

13. 133/2001

Mr. F. B. Benjamin George, Advocate Sri. V. S. Ekambaram, Authorised Represen- tative

Assistant General Manager, StateBank of India, ZonalOffice, Trichy/ Madurai.

Sri . V. S.

Smt.

Chinnaponnu

IR(B -I ) dt. 16-06-99

TNID No. 103/99

L-12012/339/99/

Mr. K. S. Sundar, R. Uma Maheshwari , Advocates Ekambaram, Authorised Represen- tative

Assistant General Manager, StateBank ofIndia, Z. O. Chennai .

M. Devaraj

14. 340/2001

IR(B -I ) dt . 29-12-2000

15. 341/2001

Mr. K. S. Sundar, R. Uma Maheshwari , Advocates Sri . V. S. Balasubra- manian, Authorised Representative

The General Manager, StateBank ofIndia, Z. O. Trichy

T. Mariayappan

L- 12012/ 226/99 / IR(B -I ) dt . 29-12-2000

Mr. K. S. Sundar, R. Uma Maheshwari , Advocates Sri . V. S. Ekambaram, & V.S. Balasu- bramanian, Authorised Representative

Assistant General Manager, StateBank of India, Z. O. Trichy [भाग ] भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

3319

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

8 16. 343/2001

J. Arunachalam

L-12012/347/2000/ IR(B-I) dt. 05-1-2001

Sri. V. S. Balasubra- manian, Authorised Representative

Mr. K. S. Sundar, R.Uma Maheshwari, Advocates

Assistant General Manager, StateBank of India, Chennai.

17. 510/2001

M. Jayakumar

L- 12012/ 171 /99/ IR (B-I) dt. 23-01-01/ 5-2-01

Sri . V. S. Ekambaram, Authorised Represen- tative

Mr. K. Chandra- sekaran Authorised Representative

Assistant General Manager, StateBank of India , Z.O. ,Madurai .

18. 551/2001

S.Raman

Sri . V. S.

L- 12012/667/98/ IR(B -1) dt. 24-02-99

Ekambaram,

TNID No. 37/99

Authorised

Represen-

tative

Mr. K. Chandra- sekaran Authorised Representative

Assistant General Manager, StateBank of India, Z.O. Coimbatore.

19. 694/2001

N. Anandarasu

L - 12012/426/98/ IR(B -I) dt. 11-02-99

CGID No. 342/99

Mr. K. S. Sundar , Advocate

Sri. V. S. Ekambaram, Authorised Represen- tative

Assistant General Manager, StateBank of India, Trichy.

AWARD

I. D. No. 80/2000 :-

"Whether the action of the State Bank of India in terminating the services of Sri R. Elangovan is justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

I. D. No. 67/2001 :-

"Whether the demand of the workman Sri K. Balasundaram , Wait list No. 322 for restoring the Wait List of temporary messengers in the establishment of State Bank of India and consequential appointment thereupon as temporary Messenger is justified ? If so, to what relief is he entitled ???

I. D. No. 68/2001 :-

"Whether the demand of the workman Sri R. Anganıuthu, Waitlist No. 320 for restoring the Wait List of temporary messengers in the establishment of State Bank of India and consequential appointment thereupon as temporary Messenger is justified ? If so , to whatrelief is he entitled ?

I. D. No. 70/2001 :-

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide Notification Orders mentioned in column No. 4 above has referred these 19 disputes to this Tribunal for adjudication . On receipt of the 5 references mentioned. atserial numbers 1,14,15,16 and 17 , from the Ministry for adjudication, they were taken on file by this Tribunal as I.D. Nos . 80/2000 , 340 , 341 , 343 and 510/2001 respectively. With regard to the references mentioned in serial numbers 2 to 13 and 18 , they were earlier referred to Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , Chennai for adjudication and on the constitution of this Tribunal , they were transferred to this tribunal and the same were renumbered as I. D. Nos . 67-76/ 2001, 84, 133 and 551/2001 respectively. With regard to the references mentioned in Serial No. 19, it was earlier referred to Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court and on constitution of this Tribunal , the said industrial dispute was transferred to this tribunal and the same was renumbered as 1.D. No. 694/2001 . Notices were issued to both the parties and the 1 Party/ Workmen entered appearance through their authorised representatives and the II Party/Management entered appearance through their advocates and filed their respective claim statements and counter statements .

2. The schedules mentioned in these 19 orders ofreferences are as under :-

"Whether the demand of the workman Sri P. Subburaj , Waitlist No. 355 for restoring the Wait List of temporary messengers in the establishment of State Bank of India and consequential appointment thereupon as temporaryMessenger is justified ? If so, to what relief is he entitled ? " 3320

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/JYAISTHA 29, 1926

I. D. No. 71/2001 :-

" Whether the demand of the workman Sri K. Chandran, Waitlist No. 288 for restoring the Wait List of temporary messengers in the establishment of State Bank of India and consequential appointment thereupon as tem- porary Messenger is justified ? If so , to what relief is he entitled ? "

I. D. No. 72/2001 : -

"Whether the demand of the workman Sri B. Nagendran, Waitlist No. 652 for restoring the Wait List of temporary messengers in the establishment of State Bank of India and consequential appointment thereupon as temporary Messenger is justified ? If so , to what relief is he entitled ? "

I. D. No. 73/2001 :-

"Whether the demand of the workman Sri G. Settu , Waitlist No. 612 for restoring the Wait List of temporary messengers in the establishment of State Bank of India and consequential appointment thereupon as temporary Messenger is justified ? If so , to what relief is he entitled ? " I. D. No. 74/2001 :-

"Whether the demand of the workman Sri T. Veerapandian , Waitlist No. 45 for restoring the Wait List of temporary messengers in the establishment of State Bank of India and consequential appointment thereupon as temporary Messenger is justified ? If so , to what relief is he entitled ? "

I. D. No. 75/2001 :-

'Whether the demand of the workman Sri M. Chelladurai , Waitlist No. 295 for restoring the Wait List of temporary messengers in the establishment of State Bank of India and consequential appointment thereupon as temporaryMessenger is justified ? If so , to what relief is he entitled ? "

I. D. No. 76/2001 :-

"Whether the demand of the workman Sri A. L. Sekar , Waitlist No. 305 for restoring the Wait List of temporary messengers in the establishment ofState Bank of India and consequential appoint- ment thereupon as temporary Messenger is justified ? If so , to what relief is he entitled ? " I. D. No. 84/2001 :-

"Whether the demand of the workman Sri S. Pandurangan , Waitlist No. 411 for restoring the Wait List of temporary messengers in the establishment of State Bank of India and consequential appointment thereupon as temporary Messenger is justified ? If so , to what relief is he entitled ? "

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] I. D. No. 133/2001 :-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Chennai in denying employment to Smt . Chinnaponnu , Sweeper cum Water woman of the Royapettah Branch of the management Bank with effect from 1-4-97 is justified ? If not to what relief Smt. Chinnaponnu is entitled ? "

I. D. No. 340/2001 :-

"Whether the demand of the workman Sri M. Devaraj ; Waitlist No. 435 for restoring the Wait List of temporary messengers in the establish - ment of State Bank of India and consequential appointment thereupon as temporary Messenger is justified ? "

I. D. No. 341/2001 :-

"Whether the demand for the workman Sri T. Mariyappan , Waitlist No. 621 for restoring the Wait List of temporary messengers in the establishment of State Bank of India and consequential appointment thereupon as temporary Messenger is justified ? If not, to what relief is he entitled ? "

I. D. No. 343/2001 :-

"Whether the termination and non- regularisation of Shri J. Arunachalam is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to ? " I.D. No. 510/2001 :-

Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India , in not regularising the services of Shri M. Jayakumar , temporary messenger is justified and legal ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?

I. D. No. 551/2001 :-

"Whether the demand for the workman Sri S. Raman , Waitlist No. 222 for restoring the Wait List of temporary messengers in the establishment of State Bank of India and consequential appointment thereupon as temporaryMessenger is justified ? If so , to what relief the said Workman is entitled ? " I. D. No. 694/2001 :-

" Whether the demand for the workman Sri N. Anandarasu, Waitlist No. 478 for restoring for List of temporary messengers in the establishment of State Bank of India and consequential appointment thereupon as temporaryMessenger is justified ? If so , to what relief the said workmen entitled ? "

3. In all these cases , the claim of the Petitioners are common. Both sides have made an endorsement to the effect that the evidence taken in I.D. No. 80/2000 may be treated as evidence in all other cases and a joint trial may 3321 भारत का राष्ट्र: जूत 19; 2004/ज्येष्क 291926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

be ordered. The Joint memo has been recorded and the evidence was taken in I.D. No. 80/2000 and therefore , a common award is passed in allall these cases .

4. The common allegations of the Petitioners in the Claim Statements are briefly as follows nowy plau

The Petitioner was sponsored by Employment Exchange for the post of sub - staff in Clause IV cadre in the Respondent/Bank and he after due process of selection was engaged as a messenger against a regular post at Villupuram Main branch on monthly wages as perBipartite Settlement from 9-1-1981 onwards. In order to give regular absorption to all those temporary messengers who have completed 90 days of service as on 31-10-84. the Respondent/Bank interviewed all the eligible temporary employees including the Petitioner during 1985 and Wait Listed them as per strict seniority of their initial date of entry into service. The respondent/Bank did not publish the wait list nor given any permanent appointment till 1986 in spite of Representation, Then the State Bank Employees Union, in which the Petitioner is a member filed a Writ Petition in the Supreme Court of India in W.P. Civil No. 542/87 to issue an appropriate Writ and also to quash the arbitrary illegal circulars which enabled the termination of services oftemporary employees in Class Micadre During the pendency of theWrit, the Respondent/Bank, entered into a settlement with All India State Bank of India Staff Federation for giving a chance for permanent absorption oftemporary employees who were in service during that period. Therefore, the Pentioner Union Mindrew the Writ Petition with a liberty to resort to other remediesopoiaTo the underPetitioner den later the withdrawal of the Writ Petition, the ReameondoorBanks issued an advertisement in The Hindu dated 88 in which Class IVtemporary employees were called upon to apply for permanent Absorption in the Prescribed format. Accordingly, the Positioner has submitted his application with relevant particulars and he was interviewed in June/July, 1989, But the Respondent Bank, has not announced the wait list of those persons who Jhays completed 90 days of service as 1928btiew. committee took note of the Petioner's first date of entry into service. Thereafter, the Petitiongtin 1. D. 80/2000 was informed orally 1990 tojoin at Villupuram Main Branch where he initially worked from 1. While working at Villupuram, the Respondent Bankank orally, conveyedyed toto thethe PetitionerPetitioner that as the wait list stond lapsed, his services, are not required,anymore The Petitioner's'srepresentation both oral and written to the Respondent Bank to reconsider its desi proved futile, Hence, he raisedhe, raised an industrial dispute and due to its failure, it was referred tothis Tribunal .In terms of para of the Settlement, the RespondentBanksought 19 have filled in all the, vacancies dexisting and futural with persons, like the, Petitiones who had put in days interviewed and waitlisted before fasing appointments

a To to the three categories of temporary employees referredto in para 1 of the Settlement dated 17-11-1987 But the Respondent/Bank in contravention of the terms of the settlement has been offering appointments to persons who fell within one or other three categories mention in para 1 of the Settlement to the exclusion of the Petitioner and similar others . The Petitioners have preferential right of employment over the three categories of persons mentioned in para 1 of the settlement . Therefore, the action of the Respondent/Bank is arbitrary , discriminatory and contrary tto the provisions of Settlement . The advertisement in'The Hindue Hindu' dated 1-8-88 only temporary employees who worked on monthly wage basis (on time scale) asper BipartiteBipartite Settlement like the Petitioner were eligibleble for permanent appointment . While so, the respondent/Bank issued another advertisement in The Hindu' on 1-5-91 calling for applications from those who worked on causal and daily wage basis for regular absorption ignoring the rights of temporary employees alreadywaitlisted during the year 1985 and also thosewho were interviewed as per the advertisement dated 1-8-88. Hence , the Petitioner Union has filed a Writ Petition before the High Court in WP. No. 7872/91 in which interim injunction and notice was ordered. In spite of the injunction, the Respondent Bank conducted the interview as advertised for the casual and daily wage employees who hadworked between 1-7-75 and 14-8-91 and prepared a wait list and merged it with the wait list of temporary loyees already prepared as per the settlement dated 1711-1987 Admitted both monthly, wages and daily wages formedaed two diffedifferent and distinct groups whowho were interviewed and gampanelled separately. Merging of the waiting lists of monthly waggs withgers with daily wagers resulted intreatingunequals with equals which is opposed to law, which is arbitrary and discriminatory and illegal. In subsequent settlement purporting to alter any terms of the settlement datedtdated 17-11-1987 under section 18 ( 1 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not binding on the members ofthe StateBank Employees' Union as theywere not a party to the subsequent settlement. Further, ththe categorisation oftemporaryemployees into A,B & Chased on the number ofdays they were allowed to work is bad in law. It should have been based on the seniority of first date of entry into service in accordance with the pIOVISIOS of Section 25 G and 25H of the Industrial Even the Ministry ofof Finance vide communication No. F.3-3-104/871R dated 16-08-99 directedted 16-08-90 directed the Public Sector banks to regularise the services of temporary, employees dan observance of the violation to theto the deteriment of the temporary employees like THE BEST Further preparation of waitlist in notbased 187 surat seniority RespondentBank is adopting all unfair about presies to get the work doneonin Class A y cadre after Armination the one the Petitioner's well ractice Jadustrial Disputes Aft there is no question of dereglementand thereforethere 3322

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii)] ignoring the claim for regular employment in the Respondent/Bank . Hence , the Petitioners pray that the termination of their service is illegal, unjust and to direct to reinstate the Respondent/Bank to reinstate them in service with all attendant benefits, continuity of service.

right under the wait list and further ifthere is no vacancy, wait list candidates have no right for appointment . The settlements were entered into considering the enormity of the situation, bona fide and are valid and binding on all the employees including the Petitioner/Workman . The claim of the Petitioner that he should be permanently appointed in terms of the settlement is in contravention of the aforesaid five settlements and the workman is estopped from making such a claim. The allegations of the Petitioner are vague and not maintainable. The Petitioner was engaged only for 531 days from the year 1985 to 1995 and he did not work for 240 days in a continuous block of twelve calendar months and he has no right to claim appointment or for absorption under law. therefore , his non -engagement is legal and justified. Since he was placed as wait list candidate at Serial No. 576 , he cannot be permitted to question the settlement and hè is estopped. Like the Petitioner there were 440 wait listed candidates who were not appointed and the Petitioner cannotjump over the rights of other senior wait listed candidates and claim permanent appointment. For all these reasons, the respondent prays that the claim of the Petitioners may be dismissed.

6. In these circumstances , the points for my determination are.-

(1) " Whether the action of the Respondent/Bank in terminating the services of the Petitioners is justified?

(ii) "To what relief the Petitioners are entitled ? "

Point No. 1 :-

7. In this case, it is an admitted fact that the Petitioner and other persons have been employed by the Respondent/Bank during the period 1-07-75 to 31-12-87 as temporary sub - staff against the permanent vacancies and the Respondent/Bank had given periodical breaks and substituting them by others . Only to get regularised in their services, the Union, in which the Petitioners attached has filed a Writ Petition before the Supreme Court and during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Respondent/ Bank entered into a settlement with All India State Bank of India Staff Federation for giving a chance for per- manent absorption of temporary employees, who were in service during the period it is also admitted that the bank and the federation had entered into five settlements namely the Ist settlement entered into on 17-11-1987, the 2nd settlement vas entered into on 16-07-88 3rd settlement was entered into on 27-10-88 , 4th settlement was entered into on 09-01-91 and the 5th settlement was entered into on30-07-96. The clause 7 of the First Settlement is " the suitable candidates will be wait listed in order of their respective categories and temporary services put in the Bank from 1-7-75 to 31-12-87 and any other date so fixed by the bank. " This panel will be valid upto December, 1991. In Clause II of the 2nd Settlement the cut off date of 31-12-91 was amended as 31-12-92 and in Clause 1 of 4th 5. As against this , the Respondent in its Counter Statement denied all the allegations of the Petitioners in the Claim Statements . Further , is stated that the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in a continuous block in the preceding twelve calendar months as provided under section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act . Hence , he is not entitled to any permanent appointment. Due to the exigencies of circumstances and on account of urgent needs several branches of State Bank of India throughout the country resorted to temporary engagement of temporary messengers against leave vacancies . Such temporary messengers were numerous and were demanding employment and their causes were espoused by the State Bank cf India Staff Federation and therefore , the Respondent/Bank and the federazion have entered into settlement wherein three categories namely temporary employees who have completed 240 days of continuous work during a period of twelve calendar months and the temporary employees who have worked for 270 days aggregate temporary service in a continuous block of 36 calendar months and thirdly, temporary employees who havecompleted mini 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1-7-75 or minimum 90 days aggregate service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-75 subject to other eligibility criteria. This settlement was entered into on 17-11-1987 as the first Settlement between the Federation and the Respondent/Bank . Subsequently, Second Settlement was executed on 16-7-38 and 3rd Settlement was entered into on 27-10-88 and further a settlement was entered into on 9-1-91 as 4th Settlement and lastly, on 30-7-96 the 5th Settlement was entered into between the Respondent and the Federation . Accordingly, the temporary employces were considered and wait lists were drawn and the temporary employees were appointed as hereunder- Out of the eligible temporary employees who were considered for waitlisting, 652 emporary employees were waitlisted and 212waitlisted candidates were appointed and other wait lisited candidates were not appointed as the wait list lapsed. The Petitioner in 1. D. 80/2000 was wait listed as a candidate at serial No. 576. Therefor , he was engaged against vacancies until the vacancy was filled up by another senior wait listed temporary employecand such engagement does not confer on the Petitioner any right except the right under first Settlement and hence the claim of the Petitioner that he is eligible for permanent appointment is in correct and in valid . Even the Supreme Court has held in number of cases that inclusion of candidates in a merit list does not confer any right for selection and further the Apex Court has held if the wait list is for a specified period and if it lapses the wait listed personsdo not have any further [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3323 भारत का राजपत्र: जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

Settlement, the cut off date of 1992 was amended as 31-12-1994. While so, inClause (b) ofthe 3rd Settlement introduced another category of that both the panels of temporary employees ( daily wage/ casual ) were also included in the list and para 3 of 5th Settlement dated 31-12-94 mentioned in the 4th Settlement was amended and extendedupto 31-3-97.

into in consideration of various aspects . Similarly, 2ud, 3rd, 4th and 5th settlements were also executed. In terms of Istand 2nd settlement certain categories of employees, who have worked as subordinate cadre froin 1-7-75 to 31-7-88 who were eligible and were entitled to get a chance forbeing considered as permanent appointment, subject to conditions inentioned therein. Accordingly, 1307 temporary employees out of 3164 were absorbed. The Petitioners in this industrial disputes were wait listed and hence, it is not open to them to question or cancel the same and claim priority in appointment and they are estopped by conduct. As per the 5th settlement, wait list lapsed on 31-3-97 and even assuming that the Petitioners ' names were appeared inmerit list, it will not confer any right for selection and it was also held by the Supreme Court in number of cases that wait listed persons do not have any further right ! inthe wait list. Under such circumstances, the claim ofthe Petitioners is to be rejected.

11. But, as against this , on behalf of the Petitioners, itiscontended that the 3rd Settlement in the year 1988 is not a settlement to replace 1987 settlement and it only a supplement to 1987 settlement and even in 1987 settlement, it deals only with employees who were paid scale wages, while so, the settlement 1988 dealt with daily wages/casual employees of Clause IV category, who were paid wagesi daily on mutual agreement basis . Even in this 3rd Settlement, it isclearly stated that these two categories formed two distinct and separate clause and wait list also should be maintained separately and they cannot treat these two categories as one group and it is discriminatory and arbitrary and not sustainable in law .

8. The Petitioner in this I.D. and the Petitioners in other I.Ds. have stated that they belong to separate category namely temporary employees of scale wages and the 1st settlement was entered into between the Respondent/Bank and Federation only says this category : ofpeople alone. While so, the 3rd Settlement entered into between the Respondent/Bank and Federation have... included also daily wager(s) which is a separate category, ignoring the rights of temporary employees already wait listed during the year 1985 and also those who were interviewed as per advertisement dated 1-8-88 and this Federation even though entered into a settlement, it was known to the Petitioners and the Union attached to the Petitioners and they were not party to the said settlement. Further, the Union in which the Petitioners are attached, had withdrawn the Writ Petition filed before the Supreme Court, beforewhich the settlement dated 17-11-87 was only placed by the Respondent/Bank which does not contain anyprovision for alteration or modification and therefore, to regularise the services of temporary employees and non- observance ofthe instructions is a serious violation , which isdetriment to the temporary employees like the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, since the Petitioner of this Industrial Dispute and other Petitioners in other Industrial Disputes in this batch are monthly wagers and they are different groups while the daily wagers formed another group, who were interviewed and impanelled separately and therefore, merging the wait list of monthly wagers with thedaily wagers resulted in treating unequals with equals which is opposed to law Therefore , clause 1 ( a) of ther Settlement dated 27-10-88 providing equal opportunity to unequals namely casual and daily wagers is arbitrary and discriminatory and illegal .

9. On the Petitioner side , the Petitioner Sri R. Elangovan in 1.D. No. 80/2000 was examined as WW1 and on his side one Mr. V.S. Ekambaram was examined as WW2 and marked documents as Ex. WI to W 18 on their side. On the side of the II Party/Management one Sri . R. Subramanian was examined as MW 1 and documents Ex . M 1 to M 10 were marked. On the side of the Respondent/Bank wait list with regard to temporary messengers were marked as Ex. M9.

10. On behalf of the Respondent, it was argued that due to exigencies , the Respondent/Bank resorted to temporary engagement of temporary messengers and such of those employees were demanding permanent employment and the State Bank of India Staff Federation took up the matter and therefore , a settlement was entered

12. But, as against this , the Respondent contended that only as per the settlement entered into between the Respondent/Bank and Federation the wait list were prepared and maintained till 31-3-97 . The Petitioner has accepted... that he was wait listed as perthe settlement and therefore, he cannot question the wait list prepared by the Respondent/Bank . Under such circumstances, there cannot be any violation of the conditions mentioned in the settlement . Further, the learned counsel for the Respondent. further argued that merely because the Petitioners have been in wait list, they do not get any vested right to get appointment and he relied on the rulings 1997 4 SCC282 SANJAY BHATTACHARJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA in which the Supreme Court has held that " merely because the Petitioner has been placed in waiting list he doesnot get vested rightfor any appointment, it is nothis case that anyone below his ranking in the wait list has beeen appointedwhich could give his cause for grievance, thus, he cannot seek any direction for his appointment andhe has also relied on rulings 1997 6 SCC 584 SYNDICATE BANK AND OTHERSVS. SHANKARPAUL AND OTHERS wherein the Supreme Court has held that " we are ofthe opinion that the Respondents did notget any rightbecause ofinclusion oftheir names in the saidpanel for permanent 1760 G1/04 17 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004 / JYAISTHA 29, 1926

3324

14. I find much force in this contention because clause 1(a) of the 4th settlement namely Ex . M 4 clearly stated " in simplification ofclause 7 ofthe settlement dated 17th November, 1987, as modified by Settlements dated 16-7-1988 and 27-10-1988 , interviews for permanent appointmentwill be conducted by selection committee (s) separatelyfor temporary employees and daily wagers and (separate) panelsprepared accordingly. " On contrary to this clause, the Respondent/Bank has maintained only one wait list combining the list of candidates covered in 1987 settlement and 1988 settlement, though they formed two different , distinct and separate groups/classes. Therefore , I find the Respondent/Management is not justified in considering these two categories as one and the denial of employment to the seniors like the Petitioners , while engaging their juniors who were casual employees and it amounts to illegal termination of the employees , even though their employment was temporary in nature. Even in this case, the Respondent/Bank has stated that they have released the selection list in the zonal level , there is no evidence to show that the selected list has been published in the Zonal Office ofthe Respondent/Bank and also they have not released thewait list, till they have produced before this Court under cover as ' confidential ' . Therefore , till this date , the Petitioners have no chance to look into the wait list and to question the placement of the persons in the wait list. Though the Respondent/Management has mentioned that the Petitioner inthis Industrial Dispute has been placed at serial number 576, they have not furnished any details with regard to the persons mentioned in the wait list and there is no details about their initial apppointment or the period of service etc. , whether they are daily wagers or temporary (monthly scale wagers )etc. Therefore, I find the wait list prepared by the Respondent/Bank is not in accordance with the settlement entered into by the Respondent/Bank and the Federation and therefore, the termination made by the Respondent / Bank with regard to the Petitioner in this Industrial Dispute andthe petitioners in other Industrial Disputes in this batch is not valid under law. As such, I find this point in favour of the Petitioners .

Point No. 2

The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief the Petitioners involved in these industrial disputes are entitled?

absorption in the service ofthe bank. Whatever conditional right they had come to an end with the expiry of the panel . The claim of the Respondents as contained in the Writ Petition was thus misconceived ... " and further argued that the Petitioner cannot jump over the rights of other senior wait listed candidates and claim permanent appointment . It is the further argument of the learned counsel for the Respondent that the Supreme Court in 1991 3 SCC 47 SHANKARASAN DASH VS. UNION OF INDIA held that " ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the state is under no legal duty tofill up all or any of the vacancies . However , it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons . The appelllant had not acquired the right to be appointed against the vacancy arising later on the basis of any of the rules " and further argued that in this case , the date fixed in the 5th Settlement is 31-3-1997 and after that that there was no extension for the said date and therefore , the Petitioner cannot claim any right to make him permanent on that score . After the due date fixed by settlement , he has no right to claim any priority over others . It is the further argument of the learned counsel for the Respondent that even assuming for an argument sake that the Petitioner can claim regularisation, the regularisation may arise when the initial entry of the Petitioner against and the available vacancy is found. In AIR 1997 SC 1628 it is held by the Supreme Court that "back door entries for filling up such vacancies have got to be strictly avoided. However, there would never arise any occasion for regularising the appointment of an. employees whose initial entry itself is tainted and is in total breach ofthe requisite procedure ofrecruitment and especially when there is no vacancy on which such an initial entry of the candidate could ever be effected. Such an entry of an employee would remain tainted from the very beginning and no question of regularising such an illegal entrant would ever survive for consideration , however competent the recruiting agency may be . " When there is no vacancy , the Respondent/ Bank cannot be compelled to regularise the services of the Petitioners in these industrial disputes .

15. In view of my finding that the waitlist prepared by the Respondent/Bank in terms of the settlement as alleged by them is not valid, I find the Petitioners in these industrial disputes are entitled to the relief. But , with regard to backwages , the Petitioners were terminated from service in the year 1997 and since the matters are pending more than six years , I find the Petitioners are not entitled to any back wages and with regard to reinstatement in service of the II Party /Management , continuity of service and other attendant benefits , they are entitled to the relief. Ordered accordingly. No Costs .

13. As against this , the learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that even assuming for an argument sake that settlement entered into by the Federation is binding on the Petitioner/Petitioners in other Industrial Disputes, it is clearly established by Ex . M 9 that the wait list has not been prepared as per the clause in the settlement namely the Respondent has combined both the categories and prepeared one wait list for both categories, when the clause of the Settlement has clearly stated that for these two categories wait list must be prepared separately and should be maintained separately.

3325

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

16. The references are answered accordingly.

(Dictatedto the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him, corrected andpronounced by me in the open court on this day the 5th February, 2004) .

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

Forthe I Party/Workman: WW 1 Sri R. Elangovan WW 2 Sri V.S. Ekambaram For the II Party/Management : MW1 Sri R. Subramanian Documents Marked:

For the I Party/Workman:

Date

Ex. No.

Description

8-2-88 Xerox copy of the Supreme Court order in W. P. No. 542 of 1987.

17-11-95

Certificate of Mr. Elangovan issued by Respondent .

W 3

Statement showing number of days worked by Mr. Elangovan.

Aug. 1990 toJan. 1993

1-8-88 Paperpublication in The Hindu.

16-8-90 Xerox copy of the circular issued by Ministry of Finance to ChiefExecutives of all banks .

Nil

Extract from approach paper on the issue of Temporary employees.

Nil

Reference book on staff matters Vol . II Award StaffState Bank of India Local Head Office upto 31-12-93.

20-4-88

W 8 series

Xeroxcopy ofthe administrative guidelines Issued by Res- pondent/Bank for implemen- tation of Ex. M 1 .

W 9 series 1-8-88

८

Paper publication in Hindu and Daily Thanthi with Regard to notice under section 25H of I.D. Act.

24-4-91

W 10

Xerox copy of the circular issued by Respondent to all branches .

6-8-91

W11

Xerox copy of the circular issued by Respondent to all branches.

W 12 series 20-8-91 Advertisement in Hindu and DailyThanthi.

W 13

30-11-87 Xerox copy of the D.O. letter from Ministry of Labour to Chief Officer, State Bank of India Bombay.

29-12-87

W.14

Xerox copy of the D.O. letter

from Ministry ofLabour to Chief Officer, State Bank of India Bombay.

23-7-99

W 15

Xerox copy ofthe order ofHigh Court in W.P. No. 7872/91 .

25-10-99

W 16

Xerox copy ofthe order of High Court in CWMP No. 16288/99 in W.A. No. 1892/99 .

W 17series Nil

Xerox copy of the circular issued by Respondent Regarding appointment of temporary employees to All branches.

W18

10-10-90 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Ministry of Finance, New Delhi .

For the II Party/Management:

Ex. No. Date

Description

17-11-87 Xerox copy of the settlement between Respondent and the AISBI Staff Federation. 16-7-88

Xerox copy of the settlement between Respondent and the AISBI Staff Federation .

27-10-88

Xerox copy of the settlement between Respondent and the AISBI Staff Federation .

9-1-91 Xerox copy of the settlement between Respondent and the AISBI Staff Federation.

30-7-96 Xerox copy of the settlement between Respondent and the . AISBI Staff Federation.

Nil

Xerox copy of the wait list pertaining to temporary Messengers of State Bank of India.

Nil

Xerox copy of the wait list pertaining to temporary Messengers of State Bank of India.

Nil

Xerox copy of the wait list pertaining to temporary Messengers of State Bank of India.

Nil

Xerox copy of the wait list pertaining to temporary Messengers of State Bank of India.

9-6-95

M 10

Xerox copy of the minutes of conciliationproceedings Before Regional Labour Commissioner (C),Hyderabad.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19, 2004 /JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

3326

नई दिल्ली, 24 मई , 2004

का. आ. 1452. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार नार्दन रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कमकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी-142 /2001 ) के प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय केन्द्रीय सरकार , को 24-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [फा. सं. एल-41012/40/2001 - आई ( आर बी-1 ) ]

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] services in electric Loco shed is Justified ? If not, what relief he is entitled ? "

अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 24th May, 2004

S. O. 1452. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (ID- 142/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of Northern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24-5-2004 .

[F. No. L. 41012/40/2001 - IR(B - I) ]

AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer I. D. No. 142/2001

Ref. No. L -41012/40/2001 /IR (B -1) dt. 3-9-01 BETWEEN :

Sri Dina Nath Tewari , Divisional Organisation Secretary, Uttar Railway Karmchari Union, 119/74 , Naseemabad, Kanpur U.P. 208001

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager

Northern Railway Allahabad- 211006

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide order No. L - 41012 / 40 /2001 / IR (B - I ) dated 3-9-2001 has referred the following issue for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Divisional Railway Manager, Northem Railway, Allahabad in not giving Seniority and promotion awarding to Sri Mukhram Ram S/ o Sri Puroshattam Ram , Fitter Gr. II w.e.f. 20-6-96 according to his Divisional Organisation Secretary has filed the state- ment ofclaim alleging that worker Mukhram is working in the capacity offitter Gr . II in Rs . 4000-6000 pay scale under mobile staff of Sr. Divisional Electrical Executive Engi- neer , N. R. Kanpur. Such worker was primarily appointed in Concrete sleeper plant, Subedarganj , Allahabad as FitterGr . II and vide the order of DRM, NR circular No. EMC/ CLP / Closure dated 18-6-96 and vide order of Concrete sleeper plant office order No. 280/96 dated 19-9-96 he was declared surplus and was transferred to Divisional Office Allahabad . Later on he gave his joining atDivisional Office Allahabad on 20-6-96 and vide order ofDivisional Personal Officer No. 940 /E/E . SM- 1 Non run- ning/Loose dated 24-7-96 and vide order dated 25-7-96 of the Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer mobile staff Northern Railway No. 230 /V/Chal Staff/Kanpur- 1 -III dated 25-7-96, he was posted at Loco Shed Kanpur and the worker joined the duties there at Loco Shed Kanpur on 25-7-96. It is further alleged that according to the Railway Board letter No. E -N. G/ 11-84/RE- 1/ 10 , dated 21-4-89 (printed circular No. 9880) the workers , who are declared surplus are en- titled to their natural seniority . The employees of steam shed on their transfer to Electric Loco Shed, Kanpur have been given such seniority and therefore all worker who are declared surplus on account of administrative reasons are entitled to complete seniority . Worker has been requesting for such seniority but he was asked for giving him option for the lowest seniority of direct appointment which is not according to the rules and therefore union has prayed that Mukhram be placed at his seniority in Fitter Gr . II considering his previous services and accordingly he should be given all consequential benefits and promotion together with difference of wages with interest.

The management has filed the written statement. The management has alleged that employees of Allahabad Division who have lien with Division and as such the same is applicable to the surplus employees of Steam Shed and other of the same division to give them the seniority benefit . It has been appointed out that the con- crete sleeper plant, Subedarganj , Allahabad unit is not the part of the Allahabad Division . It is quite a seperate unit. The work and production of this unit is quite differ- ent and separate seniority list and other service condi- tions is maintained of the employee working in that unit. Thus printed Circular No. 9880 as pointed out by the union is not applicable to this case.. The worker was already been informed about the same vide letter No. 755 /E /EM/NR/ Artigen/Variyatadt . 9-8-99 by railway in respect ofpromotion/ seniority of the worker. The worker wasduly and clearly informed that if he wanted to take the benefit of seniority and promotion under Allahabad Division then he will have to opt and accept the bottom 3327 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/पेष्ठ 29, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5. Photo copy of DRM Office N. R. Allahabad dated22-11-96.

The opposite party has filled the letter of Divi- sional Personal Officer dated 29-8-99 address to Mukhram, paperNo.A2-96.

Order dated 19-6-96 ofSr. Engineer, Allahabad.

Union has not produced any evidence ofMukhram in spite ofseveral opportunities.

Management has examined Head Clerk Sri S.C. Pandey.

Heard learned representative of the parties and. perused the evidence.

Sri S.C. Pandey has proved on oath that concrete sleeper plant, Subedarganj , Allahabad unit is not part of Allahabad Division of Northern Railway and concrete sleeper plant, Allahabad is seperate unit. Sri S. C. Pandey has also proved that the nature ofproduction of concrete sleeper plant is different and since it was different unit andtherefore its seniority was seperate than the worker of theN. R. employee (DRM office).

Accordingly to Sri S. C. Pandey in case worker joins Allahabad Division from different unit in that case hewill beput to the bottom of the seniority. It is admitted fact that the worker was the employee of concrete sleeper plant, Allahabad and was engaged as fitter Gr. II but since that unit was closed and therefore its employees became surplus and as such the employees ofconcrete sleeper plant Allahabad were absorbed in the Allahabad Divi- sion against supernumery post . Accordingly as per the order ofNR 280/96 dated 19-6-96 . Mukhram was trans- ferred alongwith supernumery post.

seniority and pay scale under the provision of direct recruitment. In fact order of 1996 surplus employees ofthe Steam Loco Shed given benefit or seniority under the provision ofprinted circular No. 9880 because theywere employee of Allahabad Division and their seniority and promotion was to be fixed by Allababad Division. It has beenmade clear that construction/project Unit ofwhich worker was the employee does not comes under the control ofAllahabad Division. If such employee are absorbed in any other unit with their seniority the em- ployeewho are already working in the division will be put to substantial injury and against the relevant rules . It has further been made clear that the employee who were discharged as surplus employees from concrete sleeper plant and had not given their option to accept the minimum seniority are being absorbed against the supernumery post ofconcrete sleeper plant ofAllahabad Division and they will continue to have their lien to the concrete sleeper plant unit and will not be entitled to se- niority and promotion in Allahabad Division unless they gave their consent to bottom seniority. It was duly in- formed to the claimant and other employees similarly situated vide letter No. CSP/ Aid/E -30/Stha/2344 dated 19-6-96 that they are being posted in Allahabad Division against his supernumery post of concrete sleeper plant and till they do not opt bottom seniority as per rule their lienwill be continued in concrete sleeper plant. As such conditions claim is not maintainable . It has beenpointed out that posting of the worker Mukhram in the present post inAllahabad Division is made out ofconcrete sleeper plant against supermumery post with the free consent of the worker and since the worker has opted the present posting he can not after word at later stage make any complaint/protest in the matter. In view ofthe above facts and circumstances of the case the engagement of the worker in the present post is quite fit , legal and appropri- ate and as per rule andjustified.

Witness has explained that in the category of supernumery means that the employees from Sl. No. 1 to 43 shall received the wages from the head of concrete sleeper plant and in case any of them accept bottom se- niority from the date of their option such employee will be entitledto the seniority. Mukhram has not exercised his optionand therefore he is not entitled to any seniority in the Allahabad Division.

The union inhis rejoinder has alleged that the con- cerned workman Mukhram has been absorbed in Electric Loco Shed, Kanpur under the order issued by the Chief Personal Officer, NR, New Delhi under whom Allahabad Division and concrete sleeper plant are situated and con- trolled.The concerned workman is actually entitled to his original Seniority.

ments . The union häufilled following photo copies of the docu-

Regarding surplus employee of Steam Loco Shed kanpur and Tundla, the witness said these employees shall be entitled to the seniority because they were the em- ployee ofthe Allahabad Division.

1.Application of Mukhram dated 16-4-96..

2.Photo copy of the worker Mukhram application dated 19-7-99 address to Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer Mobile Staff, Kanpur.

3. Photo copy of postal receipts No. 545 to 547 .

The witness has stated that the worker Mukhram was clearly told that he is being transferred to electrical Engineer Shed kanpur on supernumery post due to declared surplus . This was made clear in the betterdated 24-7-96 Sri S. C. Pandey filed the said letter dated 19-4-96 and 9-8-99 in the court. He since the orders passedwere accordingly to the policy ofthe RailwayBoard.

4.Photo copyofRailway Board letter dated 30-6-59 and 21-4-89.

3328

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 19, 2004/JYAISTHA 29, 1926

The witness Sri S. C. Pandey has cross examined by the union representative. When Sri pandey was con- fronted with the printed circular No. 9880 of the Rail- way Board , he state that the said circular is applicable in case of Steam Loco Sheds . Marshalling Yards em- ployees and the said circular was not issued in respect ofthe sleeper plant , Allahabad and the same is clear by para 1 of the said circular . Consequent on the change of traction and fuel or part closure of steam loco shed, marshalling yards , goods sheds and others reduntants as sets certain guidelines have already been issued from time to time regarding the absorption and utilisation ofsurplus staff.

Learned representative of the worker has argued that itis provided in the circular No. 9880 that deploying the surplus staff in other unit/deptt. which constitute different seniority list the following method can be adopted.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] Firstly the circular No. 9880 has been issued with regard to closure of the Steam Shed marshalling yards, goods shed and other reduntant as sets. It does not in- cludeconcrete sleeper plant and therefore concrete sleeper plant employee are not entitled to guidelines issued above . It has been proud by the management witness that the worker Mukhram was made every thing clear before his transferto Allahabad Division of Northern Railway . The seniority of regular employees of Allahabad Division, Northern Railway can not be transferred as they are not the parties in the present case. The worker has been trans- ferred from seperate unit to the Allahabad Division of Northern Railway and on specific conditions that he shall remain on supernumery post of concrete sleeper plant. Allahabad he can not claimed seniority over the regular employees of Allahabad Division of Northern Railway and as such the action of the management of DRM. Northern railway is justified and the issue is answered in affirmative in favour of the management and accordingly the worker is not entitled to any relief.

Lucknow

20-5-2004

If a small number of staff are being retrenched and they have to be transferred to various units of other departments against vacancies duly sanctioned posts they can be suitability adjusted in those units with their full seniority and merging their seniority with respec- tive units .

When large number of staff are being rendered sur- plus and they are being transferred to new units that are being set up like traction relling stock overhead equip- ment , new electric loco sheds etc. they should be given their full seniority and there should be no difficulty in re- deploying the staff with suitable re - training in identical scales and suitable grades . No minimum educational qualifications should be prescribed and the scale criteria and the sole critera would be their ability to absorb remaining/conversion training and pass the necessary tests at the end of training and course the medical fitness .

Sri Pandey has filed the order No. 280/96 of Sr. Engineer, Concrete Sleeper Plant, Allahabad. there are a small number of employees such fitter Gr. II operator II , Electrical Fitter II etc. and there are as many as 44 employees the name of Mukhram is placed at Sl . No. 42. This order does not go to show that the worker shown in that list have been transferred in DRM , NR , Allahabad against vacancy duly sanctioned instead they were transferred on supernumery post in Allahabad Division . It is also provided in the said order that all employees will continue to work as supernumery of con- crete sleeper plant , Allahabad unless and until they do not accept the bottom seniority of direct recruits . It is also provided in the said order that they will not claim the seniority and promotion in Allahabad Division of Northern Railway till exercise their option .

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2004

का. आ. 1453. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार त्रिवेणी इंजीनियरिंग व इंडस्ट्रीज लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी-101/2001 ) ( टी एनआई डी-53 /99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [फा..सं. एल-30012/ 127/98- आईआर ( सी- I ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th May, 2004

S. O. 1453. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Gov- ernment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 101/2001 ) (TNID - 53 / 99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employ- ers in relation to the management of Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. and their workman , which was received bythe Central Government on 24-5-2004 .

[F. No. L. -30012/ 127/98 - IR(C -I) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

3329 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19 , 2004/ ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

ANNEXURE

2. The schedule mentioned dispute in the order of reference is armader :-

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

Wednesday, the 24th March, 2004

"Whether the termination of the workman Sri N.J. Prim by the management of Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. (formerly Triveni Oil Field Services Ltd.) isjustified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled?" PRESENT :

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

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 101/2001

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 53/99)

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. and Sri N. J. Prim) .

BETWEEN :

Sri N.J. Prim

: I Party/Petitioner

AND

: II Party/Management

The Manager (Personnel &Admn.) Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. (Oil & Gas Division)

Formerly Triveni Oil Field Service Ltd. New Delhi .

APPEARANCE :

For the Petitioner

: M/s . R. Viduthalai & S.C. Herold Singh & R. Revathy , Advocates,

For the Management

: M/s . N.V.S. & Associates, Advocates

AWARD

The Respondent/Management is a joint venture company between Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. and Pool Co. , USA, wadertaking the job of drilling for extraction of oil from the earth . The Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Driller. He was initially put on probation for a period of six months subject to the terms and conditions contained in the annexure to the order of appointment. The Petitioner is a workman as per section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioner discharged his duties diligently and sincerely as a result ofwhich his services were confirmed and subsequently, he was promoted as driller and on and from 1-3-2004 on the basic salary of Rs. 4,000/- which was subsequently enhanced to Rs . 4,500/-. While so , the Petitioner was dehired by the Respondent by a letter dated 4-4-96 with effect from 18-5-96 without issuing any show cause notice or enquiry at all. All the requests and demands made by the Petitioner ended in vein. The Respondent dehired the Petitioner stating that the Petitioner had no work in rig on the contrary , in the place of the Petitioner one Mr. Arumugam was substituted and this amounts to an act ofvictimisation. The Petitioner while working as Driller has refused to co -operate for the personal obligation of Rig in- charge and this resulted in illegal dehiring of the Petitioner. Since the Petitioner is a workman as defined under section 2 ( s) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and since he has worked more than 12 hours per day and since he used to get instructions from the superior officers namely Rig in - charge and he used to carry out the éarmarked duties thereby , the question of managerial or supervisory cadre does not arise in the cadre of the Petitioner. His work was purely to carry out the instructions of one Mr. S. K. Minocha, Rig in-charge . He was doing only drilling work and the work operations clearly falls under a technical cadre and therefore , he is only a workman. Therefore, the termination of the Petitoner is illegal and without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it amounts to retrenchment as defined under section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the Respondent has not complied with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is mandatory requirement and therefore, the order of termination is null and void . Since the termination of the services of the Petitioner being amounts to retrenchment, the provisions of Section 25G were also violated. Hence, for all these The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide Notification No. L-30012/ 127/98/IR (C-I) dated 15-03-1999 has earlier referred this industrial dispute to Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal for adjudication . The Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal has taken the same on its file as 1.D. No. 53/99 and issued notices to both the parties . and both the parties entered appearance through thier advocates and the I Party/Petitioner filed his Claim Statement . 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 taken on file as I.D. No. 101/2001 and notices were issued to both sides and the Respondent/Management has filed their Counter Statement.

3330

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29, 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] reasons the Petitioner prays that an award may be passed in his favour.

Management in terms of para 19 of the terms and conditions of his appointment is in order and is in compliance of contract of employment entered between the. I Party and the II Party/Management . Therefore , the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, is not applicable in the case of the I Party. Hence , Respondent prays that claim may be rejected with costs.

5. In these circumstances , the points for my consideration are-

(i) "Whether the Petitioner is a workman as per section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act ? "

(ii) "Whether the termination of the Petitioner by the Respondent/Management is justified? "

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

Point No. I :-

6. The foremost point to be decided in this case is 'whether the Petitioner is a workman as defined under section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ' .

7. The Petitoner alleged that he was appointed as an Assistant Driller and this itself would clearly show that he is a workman and he worked for more than 12 hours per day and he used to get instructions from his superior officers namely Driller and Rig incharge and he used to carry out the earmarked duties , therefore , there is no question that he is in managerial or supervisory cadre and further, in this case, he has received incentives and also dress allowance and other allowances which were only given to workmen and he has carried out drilling work as per the orders of Rig incharge and therefore, he is only a workman as defined under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

8. As against this , the Respondent contended that the Petitioner's position as Assistant Driller does not fall under workman category. The hierarchy chart produced by the Respondent and other terms and conditions of the employment of the Petitioner would clearly shows thatPetitioner cannot be brought under the definition of workman as defined under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947.

9. The learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that in determining the question whether the person employed by the employer under section 2( s ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not, the Court has principally to see the main or substantial work for which the employee has been employed or engaged to do . Neither the designation of the employee is decisive nor any incidental work that may be done or required to be done shall get him outside the purview of the workman under section 2 (s ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . The principal job and nature of employment of such 4. As against this , the Respondent in its Counter Statement contended that the I Party Petitioner being management staff under the terms of contract of employment , he is not the subject matter under provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 as neither by functions nor by salary and as such, he fails to fall under the definition of workman. The II Party /Management does not have any establishment office , factory at Chennai and is not a situs of employment and consequently the issue could not have been referred to this Tribunal under section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act. The appointment letter was issued to the Petitioner by the II Party/ Management on 5-5-89 and along with the appointment letter, the terms and conditions of appointment were sent to the I Party as Annexure A to the said letter. The Petitioner has also accepted the terms and conditions of the Respondent. The job of the Assistant Driller is a management job position reporting to driller. The I Party no doubt was sent for training for a period of one week to the Institute of Drilling Technology , Dehradun in October , 1991. The I Party was promoted as a driller w.e.f. 1-3-92 on the basic salary of Rs. 4,000/- The job requirement of a driller involves direction , supervision and control and the driller is supposed to be a science graduate or a holder of Diploma or Degree in Engineering which is the management staff position . The job functions involve directly supervising the drilling crew and ensuring safe operation of the drilling equipment and is required to operate the draw works in hoisting of drill string and associated equipment and maintain proper characteristics namely weight on bit , rotary speed, pump pressure etc. while drilling operations are underway , the direct proper make up, use , maintenance and storage of drill string and associated equipment and of drill floor equipment . The Petitioner is also required to do drill string tally and provide direction and instruction for training and development of the members of his crew and he is also required to assist in moving and rigging up the rig as directed by Tool Pusher . From the above conditions , it will be clear that the I party is not a workman as per section 2 (s ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently , no remedy is available to him before this Tribunal as his job functions are outside the purview of this Tribunal . As a management staff, he is required to submit whole progress report in respect of people working under him namely Assistant Driller, Derrick man , floor men, round abouts , mechanic , electrician , welder , crane operator and radio operator etc. Being a driller, he is entitled to ensure and monitor attendance and performance of all people working under him . By no stretch of imagination , he can be termed as workman under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 . Therefore , dehiring of the I Party by the II Party/ 3331

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

inferred that he was discharging duties of a clerical nature . Ifa labour court had drawn such an inference it would have been well justified in doing so. That the employee was occasionally deputed by the managing director to undertake some important mission as could be seen from the qualification of the employee and certain letters written by him to the managing director . The question is what were his main duties and not whether he was occasionally entrusted with other work " and the Supreme Court held that the employee is a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. Basing this judgement , the learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that in this case also , the Petitioner who worked as an Assistant Driller and Driller carried out only the orders of his superiors and occasionally , even though some other supervisory work were entrusted to him, the main work of the Petitioner was only drilling work and therefore , he is only a workman as defined under Industrial Disputes Act . The next decision relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is 1998 II LLJ 578 CRICKET CLUB OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. BALJIT SHYAM AND ANOTHER, wherein the Bombay High Court while considering an employee who is a housekeeper in a cricket club is entitied to the benefits of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not, wherein the Bombay High Court has held that "the principle therefore, is one must look into the main work that must be found out from the main duties . A supervisor was one who could bind the company to take some kind ofdecision on behalf ofthe company, one who was reporting merely as to the affairs of the company and making assessment for the purpose ofreporting was not a supervisor " and the Bombay High Court has also held that " the Respondent in that case was permanent workman and as such his services cannot be terminated without complying with the provisions of standing orders or statutory provisions under section 25F ofthe Industrial DisputesAct" . The next decision relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is 2002 II LLJ 134 MANAGEMENT OF HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD. Vs. LAKSHMIAH AND ANOTHER, wherein the Division Bench of the Madras High Court has observed that "duties performed by the Respondent were not ofthose of supervisor or Manager hence , it was held that management company failed to substantiate its contention that the Respondent was performing supervisory or managerial duties and therefore , it was held to be not a workman within the meaning ofSection 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and set aside the Award passed by the Labour Court . " In that case, the Respondent employee was in the services of the appellant management as gradation analyst and Assistant ProductionManager, who alleged to have been transferred to Dhanbad by the management . Since the employee did not obey the orders of transfer , by a letter the appellant terminated the services of the 1st Respondent and employee alone to be considered by the Court. In this case, it is clearly established through the evidence and also other documents that the Petitioner was a driller and he was working in the work site physically doing the work of driller and it is also evident that the Respondent/ Management has given incentives and appreciated his work as an Assistant Driller and also his work as Driller and in such circumstances , it cannot be said that he is not a workman and the learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decisions reported in 1980 II LLJ 16 ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD. , MADRAS Vs. ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT , MADRAS AND OTHERS . In that case , a person appointed as foreman of carpentry work has been terminated. Subsequently , in a dispute raised by the said person, the Division Bench of the High Court held that "from the designation of the workman as foreman of carpentry work is ofsupervisory nature which actually letting in any evidence as to the nature ofhis duties. it is not the case of the management that the Respondent was having any control over 10 to 12 carpenters whose work he was asked to supervise . It is not their case that (the2nd Respondent concerned employee) had any disciplinary control over them or that he was himself sanctioning leave to the workmen under him . Even accepting the facts spoken to by MW1 the only evidence on the side ofthe management, it will only indicate that a particular work such as shuttering was entrusted to himto be completed with the help of 10 or 12 carpenters, who were daily rated in accordance with the designs and specifications given. This will lead to the only inference that the 2nd Respondent is the foreman or leader of the team of carpenters who were entrusted with the task ofdoing the work of shuttering. That will not make the work of the 2nd Respondent to be one of supervisory nature . " Relying on this decision, the learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that though the Petitioner in this case , accordance to the terms and conditions supervised the work of the persons worked under him, he has no control over the subordinates and only he will carry out the orders of superiors namely , Rig in-charge or other superior officers and It is also the evidence of MW1 that the drilling work is a team work and as the head of the team work , the Petitioner was doing the drilling work and his work is not supervisory in nature and he has not control over the persons , who worked under him. The next decision relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is 1993 II LLJ 425 D. P. MAHESWARI AND DELHI ADMINISTRATION & OTHERS wherein the question what are main duties of the employee who was the employee of Toshniwal Brothers Pvt. Ltd. , when she was terminated from service she has raised an industrial dispute and in that the Supereme Court has held that " that the employee was not discharging supervisory functions was itselfa very strong circumstance from which it could be legitimately

1760 GI 04-18 [PART II SEC. 3 (ii )] 3332

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/JYAISTHA 29, 1926

10. As against this , the learned counsel for the Respondent argued that even in the chief examination and cross examination of the Petitioner, he has clearly admitted that he was aware of the hierarchy chart as revealed by Ex. M47, M48 and M49 and as well as the duties and responsibilities ofAssistant Driller and Driller and the Petitioner has also admitted that he has submitted a daily progress report prepared by him and having prepared the attendance register for the persons working under him and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that he is a workman and he was appointed only in supervisory cadre and he has drawn the salary of more than Rs . 5,000/- at the time of dehiring and therefore, he is not a workman as defined under section 2 (s ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Even by virtue of salary and evenwith regard to the terms and conditions, he was appointed only as supervisory or managerial cadre and by no stretch of imagination, he can be called as a workman, it is his further admission in cross examination that there were 12 persons working under the Assistant Driller during the operation of drilling and as per the hierarchy chart, the assistant driller has to control the subordinate and that he was incharge of controlling the operations independently while getting the job done through workers who were placed below him. Even in the terms and conditions namely Ex. M 4 clause 12 says about the duties and responsibilities of the assistant driller wherein it is stated that " as a responsible officer ofthe company, you will maintain a high standard of discipline, loyalty, efficiency, integrity and secrecy and will liase between the company and the employees working under your supervision and control and will be responsible for execution of the decision taken by the management from time to time . You will assign and supervise the work of the employees working under you and guide them independently in efficient discharge of your duties. You will ensure discipline on the part of your subordinates and will be competent to take necessary steps in taking disciplinary action against erring employees working under you . " In such circumstances, the contention of the Petitoner that he is not vested with power to take disciplinary action against the subordinates and he has carried out only the orders of superiors is a false one. Even assuming for an argument sake, that he has not taken any disciplinary action against any subordinate staff, it is not the fault of the company , but it is the fault of the Petitioner. In his supervisory capacity, he has got every power to take disciplinary action independently against the erring subordinates and he has been appointed in a supervisory cadre and not as aworkman as alleged by him . Further, it is the argument of the learned counsel for the Respondent that Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which not only defines who is a workman and also states who is not a workman . The provisions of Sub - section speaking who is not a workman are elucidates as

aggrieved by that order, the Ist Respondent raised an industrial dispute and the same was referred to the Tribunal . In that the 2nd appellant took the stand that the nature of the duties performed by the 1st Respondent would show that he was employed as supervisory category and therefore, he could not come under the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In that the Division Bench of the High Court held that " there is absolutely no evidence to show that the Ist Respondent was performing the work of any supervisory or managerial cadre. As far as M3 is concerned the said statement seemed to have been made by the 1st Respondent when he was aspiring to better his carreer, therefore , in that context, when he was called upon to describe the nature ofduties assigned to him, he seems to have been given exaggerated views of whatwasperformed by him earlier. Inour considered opinion, the management has failed to substantiate its contention that the 1st Respondent was only performing duties of supervisory/managerial character. On the other hand, the evidence tendered on behalf of the appellant disclosed that the 1st Respondent was only performing the duties of ordinary skilled workman and nothing 、 more. " The learned counsel for the Petitioner relying on all these decisions argued that even though in this case it is mentioned in the terms and conditions that the Petitioner has to supervise the work of subordinates actually , the Rig in- charge , alone supervised the work of subordinates including the Petitioner and in no case the Petitioner has taken any disciplinary action independently against the subordinates . Under such circumstances , it cannot be said that the Petitioner was appointed in a supervisory cadre and therefore , he is only a workman. Again the learned counsel for the Petitoner relied on the ruling. reported in 2000 (4) LLN 302 CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA, NAGERCOIL Vs. SMT . EDITH PETER AND ANOTHER, wherein the Madras High Court has given a test to determine with regard to a workman who are an employee has multifarious duties and the question raised whether a person is workman someone other than workman, the Court shall find out what are the primary and basic duties of a person concerned and if he is incidentally asked to do some other work , may not necessarily be in tune with basic dutics , these additional duties cannot change the character and status of the person concerned. In other words , the dominant purpose of employment must be first taken into consideration and the gloss of some additional duties which are incidental must be rejected while determining the status and character ofthe person. The leamed counsel for the Petitioner argued that from the date of appointment even after the promotion, the Petitioner was doing only drilling work as per the orders of his superiors namely Rig in - charge and by no stretch of imagination he can be classified as supervisory cadre and therefore, he is a workman entitled to the benefits of the Industrial Disputes Act .

3333 भारत का राजपत्र: जून 19 , 2004 /ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

[भात -মত 3 (#)]

(1) a person who is subject to Army, Air Force or Navy Act;

(1) who is employed in police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or

(iii) who is employed mainly in managerial or administrative capacity, or

(iv) who being employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding Rs . 1600/- per month or exercises, either by nature of dutieses attached to office or by reason of powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.

&Ors . AIR 1971 SC 922, the Apex Court considered the questionwhether the transport engineers in Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution of India Ltd. were workmen ornot and held that the main work done by the employee should be held to be work done by him to find out whether he is a workman or not and it further held "a person cannot be assumed to be a workman on the ground that hedoes not come within the four exceptions in Section 2(s). The specification of the four types of work in definition in Section 2(s) obviously is intended to lay down that an employee is to become a workman only ifhe is employed to do work ofone ofthose types, while there may be employee, who not doing any such work, would be out of the scope of the word 'workman' For this without having to resort to the exceptions . purpose, aworkman must be held to be employed to do thatworkwhich is the main work he is required to do, even though he may be incidentally doing the other types ofwork. " and ultimately, it held in that case that "the employee is not a workman . " The next decision relied on by the counsel for the Respondent is 1994 II LLN 450 S.K. MAINI VS. CARONA SAHU COMPANY LTD. & ORS. wherein, the Supereme Court has held that "after giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances ofthe case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that whether or not an employee is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, is required to be determined with reference to his principal nature of duties and functions. Such question is required to be determinedwith reference to the facts and circumstances ofthe case and material on record. " "When an employee is employed to do types ofwork enumerated in definition ofworkman under Section 2(s) there is hardly any difficulty in treating him as a workman under appropriate classification but in the complexity of industrial or commercial organisation quite a large number ofemployees are often required to do more than one kind of work. In such cases, it becomes necessary to determine under which classification the employee will fall for the purpose of deciding whether he comes within the definition ofworkman or goes out of it. " It has been held by this Court in AIR 1966 305 that "the word 'supervise' and its derivatives are not words of precise import and must often be construed in the light ofcontext for unless controlled they cover an easily simple oversight and direction as manual work coupled with the power of inspection and superintendence of the manual work ofothers. Viewed from this angle, if the employee is mainly doing supervisory work, but incidentally or for a fraction of time also does some manual or clerical work, the employee should be held to be doing supervisory work. " Relying on these decisions, the learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the Petitioner's appointment itself was only in supervisory capacity and not as a workman. Even though, Inthis case, it is admitted by the Petitioner that the Petitioner was drawing the basic salary of Rs . 5,000/- at the time ofdehiring Ex. M 47 namely the chart hierarchy explicitly settles this position, wherein the Driller controls theAssistant Driller, Rigman, Derrickman, Rousta about, Senior Mechanic, Mechanic, Welder, Senior Electrician and Electrician. Further, the details mentioned about duties of Driller, according to which Driller directly supervises the drilling through and safe operations of drilling equipments and he is also required to direct other workers connected with drilling operations . Similarly the functions of Assistant Driller also talks about the management and control ofdrilling operation. As already stated, the Petitioner has admitted that he has submitted a daily progress report and he has also controlled the attendance and evaluated the performance of all the people right from Derrickman to Radio Operator and these documents clearly establish the fact that the petitioner was only appointed in a supervisory capacity and not as aworkman. The nature of the work of the Petitioner is such that by no stretch of imagination he can be called as a workman. In fact, he has admitted that he is responsible for allotment, distribution and supervision ofwork. The learned counsel for the Respondent further relied on the rulings reported in 1987 LIC 1351 of the Delhi High Court in JUGAL KISHORE MITTAL Vs. SASTA SAHITYA MANDAL, wherein the Delhi High Court has held that "the employee, who according to him aclerk and doing manual work in a sales emporium, wherein the Delhi High Court has stated that the present case is similar to the case ofMay and Baker India Ltd. Vs. Workmen, there it was held that " if the nature of duties is manual or clerical, then the person the must be held to be a workman, on the other hand, if the manual or clerical work is only a small part of the duties of the person concerned and incidental to his main work which is not manual or clerical, then such aperson would not be a workman . " The next decision relied on by the counsel for the Respondent is 1998 I LLN 161 JOHN SRI R.M. LODHA Vs. B.S. BHADANGE AND OTHERS, wherein the Bombay High Court has held that in Burmah Shell Qil Storage and Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs. Burmah Shell Management Staff Association 3334

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29, 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

Witnesses Examined :---

For the I Party/Workman : WW1 Sri N. J. Prim

For the II Party/Management : MW 1 Sri Subhash ChandGoel

Documents Marked :-

For the I Party/Workman:-

Description Ex. No. Date

W1 28-04-89 Xerox copy of the order of appointment as trainee issued to Petitioner incentives and other allowances were given to the Petitioner , it cannot be said that he has not been appointed in supervisory capacity. In the terms and conditions , it is clearly stated that he will assign to supervise the work of employees working under him and he has to guide them independently in efficient discharge of duties and he has to ensure discipline on the part of his subordinates and will be competent to take necessary steps in taking disciplinary action against the erring employees working under him . Under such circumstances , the nomenclature as a driller will not give him the status of workman . Further, he has been given training in a supervisory capacity and he was sent for training to Dehradun. All these circumstances will show that he was only in a managerial or supervisory cadre and not as a workman.

W2 03-04-90 Xerox copy of the confirmation order issued to petitoner

W3 01-03-91 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent revising compensation of thePetitioner

W 4 07-04-91 Xerox copy of the letter from respondent revising compensation subsequently to thepetitioner

W5 23-11-91 Xerox copy of the letter from respondent revising compensation of the petitioner

W 6 10-02-92 Xerox copy of the order of promotion 11. On consideration of the entire evidence in this case and also on perusal of documents in this case , I am of the opinion that though the Petitioner is called as a Driller which nomenclature gives impression as a workman, when the duties mentioned for him is only in a supervisory capacity and it is clearly mentioned that he has to supervise the work of employees working under him and guide them independently in efficient discharge ofduties and he has also given power to take disciplinary action against the erring employees . Under such circumstances , I find he was appointed only in supervisory cadre and not as a workman. Further, his salary is also above the amount mentioned in the exemption. Under such circumstances , I find the Petitioner is not a workman entitled to the benefits under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .

Xerox copy of the intimation given by respondent regarding increase in his salary W7 01-04-93

Point No. 2 : -

W 8 23-07-94 Xerox copy of the intimation given by respondent regarding revision in his salary

The next point to be decided in this case is whether the termination of the Petitioner from service by the Respondent/Management is justified?

W 9 11-07-95 Xerox copy of the performance certificate issued by respondent to petitioner

12. In view of my above finding that the Petitioner is not a workman entitled to the benefits of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , it cannot be said that the dehiring of Petitioner will amount to termination of a workman . Under such circumstances , I find this point against the Petitioner .

W10 04-04-96 Xerox copy of the letter of dehiring of the services of petitoner

Point No. 3 : -

W11 July, 1991 Xerox copy of the salary slip issued to & Feb. 92 Petitioner

The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief the Petitioner is entitled ?

W 12 25-06-91 Xerox copy of the order of transfer issued to Petitioner

13. In view of my foregoing findings , 1 find the Petitioner Sri N.J. Prim is not entitled to any relief. No. Costs.

Extract from Pipe tally book-Cauvery Project of Respondent

14. Thus , the reference is answered accordingly.

W 13 NIL

For the II Party/Management :-

(Dictated to the P.A. transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 24th March , 2004. )

Ex. No. Date Description

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

M1 28-04-99 Xerox copy of the application submitted by Petitioner

M2 28-04-99 Xerox copy of the personal data from submitted by Petitioner

M3 05-05-89 Xerox copy of the letter of appointment issued to Petitioner

M4 28-05-89 Xerox copy of the pre -employment physical examination record dated 28-5-89

M5 29-05-89 Xerox copy of the letter submitted by Petitioner to Chief Executive accepting the terms of appointment .

M 6 05-07-89 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner

M7 Nil Xerox copy of the annual confidential report.

03-02-90

Xerox copy of the letter of confirmation sent to Petitioner

M 9 14-02-90 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent

M 10 Nil Xerox copy of the reply sent by Respondent to Petitioner

M11 22-11-90 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner Instructing him to report at Jodhpur .

M 12 26-11-90 Xerox copy of the reply sent by the Petitoner.

M 13 10-12-90 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner to report for duty at Mehasana site.

M 14 15-12-90 Xerox copy of the confirmation letter ofPetitioner

M 15 1401-91 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner To report for duty at Rajamundhry .

M 16 Nil Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner confirming his Joining duty at Rajamundhry.

14-01-91

M 17

Xerox copy of the joining report of the Petitioner

14-01-91

M 18

Xerox copy of the posting letter Issued by Respondent

M 19 1901-91 Xerox copy of the group personal accident policy of Petitioner M 20 01-03-91 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent revising the Compensation ofPetitioner..

3335

M21. 07-04-91 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent revising the compensation ofPetitioner.

M22 Nil Xerox copy of the appraisal form for 1989-90 of the Petitioner

M 23 12-09-91 Xerox copy of the letter nominating the Petitioner for Training programme at the Institute of Drilling Technology.

M 24 16-09-91 Xerox copy of the bond entered into between the Company and Petitioner

M 25 08-10-91 Xerox copy of the application from Petitioner seeking grant of loan

M26 25-10-91 Xerox copy of the letter sanctioning loan to Petitioner

M 27 26-10-91 Xerox copy of the certificate issued by Institute of Drilling Technology to the Petitioner

M 28 23-11-91 Xerox copy of the letter from. Respondent revising the compensation ofPetitioner.

M 29 10-02-92 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner regarding his perquisites.

M 30 10-02-92 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent promoting the Petitioner asDriller.

M31 10-02-92 Xerox copy of the letter of transfer issued to Petitioner

M 32 25-02-92 Xerox copy of the letter of transfer issued to Petitioner

M 33 11-03-92

i Xerox copy of the fax message regarding posting of Petitioner at Jodhpur.

M 34 13-03-92 Xerox copy of the joining report of the Petitioner

Dec.

M35

90-91

Xerox copy of the appraisal report of Petitioner

M36 01-04-93 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent revising the Compensation ofPetitioner.

M37 1992-93 Xerox- copy of the performance appraisal for officer El to E4 level of the Petitioner

M38 26-10-93 Xerox copy of the telegram reposting of the Petitioner

M 39 1993-94 Xerox copy of the appraisal report of the Petitioner [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] 3336

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/JYAISTHA 29, 1926

ANNEXURE

M40 23-07-94 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent regarding revision of salary w.e.f. 1-4-94

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, DHANBAD .

Inthe matter of a reference under Sec. 10 (1 ) (d) (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

M 41 28-10-94 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent regarding payment of arrears.

Reference No. 130 of2001

M42 30-11-94 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner

M 43 1994-95 Xerox copy ofthe performance appraisal report of the Petitioner

Parties Employers in relation to the management of Bararee Colliery of M/ s . B.C.C. Ltd. AND Their Workmen.

Present: Shri B. Biswas . Presiding Officer .

M 44 11-07-95 Xerox copy of the letter from the Respondent to Petitioner regarding revision of salary .

Appearances:

M45 Nil Xerox copy of the drilling manual.

:None.

For the Employers

M 46 Nil Xerox copy ofthe well killing worksheet

:None .

For the Workman

M47 Nil Xerox copy of the hierarchy chart.

Industry: Coal.

State: Jharkhand.

M48 Nil Xerox copy of the job description of driller.

M 49 Nil

Dhanbad, the 22nd April, 2001 Xerox copy of the job description of Assistant Driller .

AWARD

M 50 Nil Xerox copy of the daily progress reports 15 Nos . Signed by Petitioner .

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई , 2004

By Order No. L -20012/ 573 / 2000 - IR (C-I) dated the 27th April, 2001 , 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 :

SCHEDULE

का. आ. 1454. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कमकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण धनबाद II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 130/2001 को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय केन्द्रीय सरकार , को 24-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[फा. सं. एल-20012/ 573/2000- आईआर(सी-1 ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

"KYA JHARKHAND JANTA MAZDOOR UNION KI MANG KI SHRI RAM NARAYAN SINGH, KARMKAR, BHARAT COKING COAL LTD . KI BARARI COLLIERY KO CAT. IV MEY PADASTHA PIT KIYA JAYA TATHA USKEY ANURUP BETAN DIYA JAYA UCHIT EVAM NAYA SANGAT HAI ? YADI HA TO KARMKAR KIS RAHAT KEY PATRA HAI TATHA KIS TARIKH SEY ?"

New Delhi, the 25th , May , 2004

2. Record shows that inspite of issuing notices to the parties neither the concerned workman nor the representative of the concerned workman appeared and filed written statement . None appeared on behalf of the management also . It, therefore , appears that the parties are not interested to proceed with the case.

S. O. 1454.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 130/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Dhanbad II now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 24-5-2004

3. In such circumstances , I render a 'No Dispute Award' in the present reference case.

[F. No. L -20012/573/2000- IR(C-I)]

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

3337 भारत काराजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

Dated, the 30th April, 2004 नई दिल्ली , 25 मई, 2004

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/559/97 - IR(C-I) dated the 24th March, 1998 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. 1455.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, कैन्द्रीय सरकार , भा.को.को.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण धनबाद-11, के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 91/1998 ) को. प्रकाशित करती है, जी केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-05-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[से. एल-20012/559/97- आई.आर. ( सी-1 ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 25th May, 2004

"Whether the action of the management in imposing reduction of three increments as a matter of disciplinary action upon Sri Sudhir Kant Jha, Minirng Sirdar, Moonidih Project is proportionate to the gravity of mis -conduct committed by him and the said punishment has been imposed after observing the principles of natural justice ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ? "

2. The case of the concerned workman according towritten statement submitted by the ponsoring Union on his behalf in brief is as follows:

S.O. 1455. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 91/1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Dhanbad- 11 now as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 24-5-2004.

[No. L-20012/559/97- IR(C- I)] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

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. 91 of 1998

Partles:

Employers in relation to the management of Moonidih Project ofM/ s . B.C.C.L.

AND

Their Workmen.

Present:

SHRI B. BISWAS, PresidingOfficer

Appearances:

Shri H. Nath , Advocate

For the Employers:

For the Workman:

Shri S.C. Gour, Adovcate

It has been submitted by the sponsoring union that the concerned workman got his employment In the year 1980 as Mechanical Fitter (Apprentice ) and thereafter he wasappointed as Mining Sirdar in the year 1989 and since that date he is working in that capacity. They alleged that on 29-11-1994 the management issued a charge- sheetto the concerned workman duly signed bythe Project Officer ofMoonidih Project, who himself happens to be party in the matter of allegations levelled agaisnt the concerned workman. They alleged that the charges brought against the concerned workman were motivated and the Project Officer was biased against the concerned workman . However, in giving reply to the said charge- sheet the concerned workman categorically denied all the charges levelled aginst him . The Project Officer himself examined the reply and forwarded to the General manager, Moonidih Area alll papers for appointment of Enquiry Officer. Thereafter Enquiry Officer.was appointed under the direction of the General Manager who thereafter conducted domestic enquiry against him and submitted his report holding the concerned workman guilty to the charges. The General Manager , who happens to be Appellate Authority under the Certified Standing Order of the Company, issued the order of Punishment for stopping of three increments cumulatively without application of his mind. As the General Manager is the Appellate Authority and knowing fully well of his position as he issued the order of punishment under his signature the concerned workman did not find any scope to file mercyappeal before him . They submitted that the charges ⚫levelled aginstthe concerned workman are absolutely false and motivated. They disclosed that if the concerned workman was involved in showing riotous or disorderly behaviour attitude to the Project Officer at his Chamber at State : Jharkhand. Industry: Coai 3338

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19, 2004/JYAISTHA 29, 1926

asMW- 1 while the concerned workman also in support of his claim examined himself as WW- 1 . In course of evidence ofMW- 1 the charge -sheet issued to the concerned workman was marked as Ext . M- 1 . The charge which has been brought against the concerned workman is as follows:

" I do hereby require you to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you for the following acts of misconduct to have been committed by you under the Certified Standing Order of M/ s . BCCLby which your services are governed.

CHARGES

On 28-11-94 at about 5.00 PM while the undersigned was sitting in his office chamber anddisposing of his official work, you entered in the office chamber in furious and violent mood and started shouting at the peak of your voice byusing unparliamentary words. While entering into the office you dashed against the door violently causing breakage of door frame and shutter.

You also inflicted many blows with your fist on the office table and used threatful words . When the undersigned tried to pacify and cool down your temper , you became more furious and violent . You indulged in such behaviour because of your undersirable demand which was not conceded by the undersigned .

The acts as mentioned above alleged to have been committed by you is a serious misconduct under the following clauses of the Certified Standing Orders .

about 5.00 P.M. on 28-11-1994 he could have easily lodged F.1.R. to the Police Station , which was located in the Moonidih premises hardly at a distance of 300 metres from office. The Enquiry Officer being biased and influenced by the Project Officer sumbitted a frivolous report without application of his mind. They disclosed that the concerned workman requested the Project Officer for sanction of an advance of Rs . 3000/- on the ground of treatment of his wife . The Project Officer instead of sanctioning the said amount slashed the medical advance to a sum of Rs . 1000/- . When the concerned workman pointed out to the Project Officer about sanction of an advance of Rs . 3000/- to other workmen , namely , Diwaker Prasad Singh and K.K. Kant without Chief Medical Officer'ssanction , the said Project Officer became furious and started shouting at the top of his voice and also abused him taking the plea that he challenged his authority. The concerned workman stayed in the Chamber of the Project Officer for 4/5 minutes and thereafter left his . Chamber, but at the time of leaving the Chamber he told the Project Officer that the matter will be reported to the higher authority as he was showing caste favouritism . The sponsoring union submitted that the Enquiry Officer did not consider any of such facts individually in course of hearing of the enquiry proceeding . The management also have failed to establish the charge of breaking doors , tables etc. during enquiry proceeding . Practically he was falsely charge- sheeted and the Enquiry Officer being biased and influenced by the Project Officer submitted his report holding the concerned workman guility . The General Manager who is the Appellate Authority depriving the workman for making appeal issued the order ofpunishment under his signature which categorically denied natural justice to the workman . In the Circumstances the sponsoring union raised industrial dispute before the A.L.C. (C) for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication.

26-1-4 : " ....... riotous or disorderly behaviour, threatening .................

26-1-10: " ....... indiscipline ."

3. Record shows that inspite of giving several chances the management did not consider necessary to submit written statment - cum - rejoinder on their part , though they submitted relevant documents and also adduced evidence on their part.

26-1-27 : " Conduct within the mine premises or its precincts which endanger life or safety of any person" .

Points to be decided :

Your explanation should reach within seven days of the receipt of this charge- sheet failing which disciplinary action will be taken against you as deem fit.

4. " Whether the action of the management in imposing reduction of three increments as a matter of disciplinary action upon Sri Sudhir Kant Jha , Mining Sirdar , Moonidih project is proportionate to the gravity of mis- conduct committed by him and the said punishment has been imposed after observing the priciples of natural justice ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled ? "

Finding with reasons :

5. It transpires from the record that the management in order to substantiate their claim examined one witness

In view of the gravity of the charges you are placed under suspension with immediate effect . During suspension period you are directed to report to MTK at 9.00 AM on every working day to mark your attendance present or to receive any communication meant for you . " [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii)]

3339 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

the incident with his own eye when it took place in the office of the Project Officer. Mahendra Pandit also did not disclose anything in support of the claim of the concerned workman . Therefore , the two witnesses who were examinedby the concerned workman practically did not ventilate anything relying on which the claim of the concerned workman could be supported. It is further allegation of the management that not only this was the first incident but also on previous occasion the concerned workmanwas charge-sheeted. However, after giving due warning he was released . The document marked as Ext . M-3/42has supported the the claim of the managatment . No incriminating material is forthcoming before this Tribunal that the concerned workman preferred an appeal against that order. I have carefully considered all the enquiry proceeding papers and also statements of the witnesses and considering all the statements and materials on record there is no sufficient reason to disbelieve the statments of witnesses of the management in absence of cogent evidence on the part of th concerned workman. It is clear from the statment of the concerned workman that he entered inside the chamber of the Project Officer at the relevant time . It is not the claim ofthe concerned workman that he had bitter relation with the Project Officer . A sum of Rs . 1000/- was sanctioned as medical advance to the concerned workman bythe Project Officer though the Medical Superintendent had recommended Rs. 2000/- to that effect. The Project Officer had discretion to sanction any medical advance toa workman. It is seen , after drawing Rs . 1000/- from the Cash Section the concerned workman entered inside the office ofthe Project Officer though he had no reason to go there. There is no reason at all that the Project Officer with a view to meet up his vengeance issued the charge- sheet against the concerned workman particularly when no incriminating material is forthcoming that he had bitter relation with the concerned workman. The concerned workmanhad the scope to move before the higher forum against the decision taken by the Project Officer in the matter of sanction of medical advance to the tune ofRs . 1000/- but he did not consider necessary to do so . The witnesses of the management who witnesses the incident in question clearly disclosed the involvement of the concerned workman in creating nuisance inside the chamber of the Project Officer. The gesture which he showed to the seniormost officer of the colliery was definitelyunbecoming .

Considering the charge- sheet it transpires clearly that the incident in question took place in the Chamber of the Project Officer who issued charge-sheet to the concerned workman under his signature. From the charge- sheet it transpires that the concerned workman on 28-11-94 at about 5.00 PM not only threatened theProject Officerbut also abused him in filthy language and in doing sohe also didnot hesitate to cause damage to the property of the management . It is the contention of the Project Officer that the concerned workman became so furious as he did not agree to meet up the undesirable demand ofthe concerned worleman. It is seen that the charges are framed against the concerned workman under Clauses 26-1-4, 26-1-10 and 26-1-27 ofthe Certified Standing Orders for committing misconduct. The concerned workman in his reply (Markedas Ext . M-3 /41 ) categoricallydenied all the charges brought against him by the Project Officer. But the fact which disclosed in the written statement submitted byhim in support ofhis claim was not agitated in his reply. He made aspersion against the Project Officer and submitted that it was the Project Officer who abused him in filthy language . During enquiry proceeding the management examined five witness and also recorded the statement of the Project Officer who categorically ventilated what illegal gesture the concerned workman showed after entering inside the chamber. The Project Officer was fully cross -examined by the concerned workman, but from cross -examination no incriminating material came out relysing on which there is scope to draw conclusion that it was the Project Officer who abused and threatened the concerned workman while the concerned workman entered inside the chamber . The other witnesses examined by the management also corroborated the incident in question. On the contrary, the concerned workman at the time of giving his statement disclosed that he applied for an advance ofRs .4000/-to the Project Officer against salary through Medical Superintendent, Moonidih Hospital for treatment of his ailing wife . The Medical Supdt .had recommended for advance of Rs . 2000/-only on 28-11-94 . When the concerned workman went to the Cash Section at about 4 P.M. he came to know that the Project Officer sanctioned a sum Rs . 1000/- as medical advance . Then he drew the said amount and at about 5.P.M. he came to the Project Officer and tried to convince the project officer why a sum of Rs . 2000/-was needed for treatment of his wife . But as the Project Officer refused to do anything he came out of his chamber and at that time she told the Project Officer that the matter will be taken up before the higher authority as well as antongst the co- workmen. However, he categorically denied the fact of threatening the Project Officer or sabusing filthy language to him. He also denied the fact of causing damage to the property of the management . The concerned workman examined two witnesses in support of his claim , namely, Binod Mishra and Mahendra Pandit . Binod Mishra at the time of giving his statement admitted that he did not see

Accordingly after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances I hold that the management have been able to substantiate the charge brought against the concernedworkman . The EnquiryOfficer after completing domestic enquiry proceeding submitted his report to the General Manager, marked Ext . M-4 . After considering the report theGeneral Manager by order dated 20/22-4-1995 (Ext. M- 5) stopped three annual increments of the 1760 G1/04-19 3340

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] concerned workman cumulatively with immediate effect as quantum of punishment .

deprived of getting natural justice by way of preferring appeal against the order of punishment issued to him. Accordingly , the order of punishment issued by the Disciplinary Authority is liable to be vitiated .

7. In the result, the following award is rendered:

"The action of the management in imposing reduction of three increments as a matter of disciplinary action upon Sri Sudhir Kant Jha, Mining Sirdar , Moonidih Project is not justified and consequently the concerned workman is entitled for restoration of the stoppage of three increments commulatively,"

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

B. BISWAS, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई , 2004

का.आ. 1456.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 25/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-05-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/493/95 - आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 25th May , 2004

S.O. 1456. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 25/ 97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court Dhanbad - II 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 24-05-2004 .

[No. L-20012/493/95 - IR(C-I )] S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 DHANBAD 6. Learned Advocate for the concerned workman submitted that as the General Manager is the Appellate Authority the concerned workman was deprived of preferring appeal against the order of punishment issued by the General Manager . Learned Advocate further submitted that the same officer cannot be the appellate authority who issued the order of punishment . In support of this claim the learned Advocate for the concerned workman relied on the implementation of the Certified Standing Orders of M/ S . BCCL . Accordingto Annexure- 'A' the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities for various Units/ Departments of BCCL have been distinguished . Accordingly to Annexure ' A ' in colliery Agent/Manager isthe Disciplinary Authroty while Area General Manager is the Appellate Authorty. Here in the instant case punishment was inflicted by the General Manager , Moonidih Area who is the Appellate Authority . As such , submission of the learned Advocate of the concerned workman stands on cogentfooting that the concerned workman was denied of his right to prefer an appeal , as he did not find any scope to prefer appeal before the General Manager , Moonidih Area who issued the order ofpunishment . In support of this claim learned Advocate relied on decisions reported in 2002 Lab . 1.C. 521 ( SC) and 2002 Lab . I. C. 605 ( Bombay High Court ). Their Lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in 2002 Lab . I.C. 52.1 ( SC) observed that appeal against dismissal order also heard by managing Director i.e. Appellate Authority liable to be set aside on account of bias , as he himself issued the order of dismissal . In the decision reported in 2002 Lab . I. C. 605 His Lordship of Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authorty cannot be the same person , as it amountsto denieal of substantive right of appeal to delinquent . In the instant case no intimation was given to the concerned workman by the management that he could prefer an appeal before any particular authority against the order of punishment imposed on hirn . As the General Manager according to Certified standing Orders has been considered as Appellete Authority obviously the concerned workman did not get any scope to prefer appeal particularly when the said General Manager being Disciplinary Authority issued the order of punishment . This amounts to denial ofjustice to the concerned workman . It is to be taken into consideration that for the interest of natural justice full opportunity is to be given to the concerned workman to his fullest satisfaction , but in the instant case the Disciplinary Authority by their own acts exposed their biasness and for which the concerned workman was

In the matter of a reference under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 3341 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

Reference No. 25 of 1997

Parties:

necessary to take any step in view of his prayer and for which he raised an industrial dispute which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication.

Employers in relation to the management of Bararee Colliery ofM/s . B.C.C. Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen

The concernedworkman made prayer to pass award directing the management to reinstate him in service after revising his date of birth and making necessary correction based on the original and authentic document as per Form 'B' serial No. 120 and Identity Card No. 12255 alongwith other consequential relief.

Present:

SHRI B. BISWAS, PresidingOfficer

Appearances:

Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For theEmployers:

For the Workman :

Shri S.N. Goswami, Advocate

State: Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal

Dated, the 28th April , 2004

AWARD

By Order No. L- 20012/493 /95 - IR(Coal- I) datedthe 11-2-1997 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) ofSub-section ( 1 ) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

3. The management , on the contrary , after filing written statement - cum - rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegation which the concerned workman asserted in the written statement . The management submitted that the concerned workman superannuated from his service on 12-6-1994 on attaining his age of 60 years . They submitted that in the Form ' B ' Register the date ofbirth of the concerned workman was recorded as 12-6-1934 . In the service excerpt also the same date of birth was recorded and the concerned workman accepting the said date of birth returned back the service excerpt to them without raising any dispute . They submitted further that after retirement the concerned workman raised an industrial dispute in respect of revision of his date of birth which cannot be entertained or permissible under any circumstance . Accordingly , the management submitted prayer to pass award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman .

Point tobedecided

"Whether the demand for revision of the date of birth of Shri Mahabir Yadav by the Union is legal andjustified ? If so, to what reliefis the workman entitled ?"

4. "Whether the demand for revision of the date of birth of Sri Mahabir Yadav by the Union is legal and justified ? If so , to what relief is the workman entitled ? "

Finding with reasons

2. The case of the concerned workman according to the written statement submitted by him , in brief, is as follows:

5. It transpires from the record that neither the concerned workman nor the management adduced any evidence in order to substantiate their respective claim . Accordingly, let me consider how far the claim of the concerned workman stands on cogent footing relying on the facts disclosed in the pleadings of both the sides . Considering the written statements of both the sides I find no dispute to hold that the concerned workman was an employee under the management . Accordingto the concerned workman as per his pleading he got initial appointment at Simlabhahal colliery under Bhalgora Area on 8-10-73 as M.C.L. Thereafter he was transferred to Bararee colliery under the same area. The contention of the concerned workman is that at the time of entry in the service his age was recorded in Form ' B' Register as 27 years. He further submitted that the management issued Identity Card to him after employment bearing No. 12255 wherein also his age was recorded as 27 years.In the year 1987 the management issued service excerpt to him for his comment wherein his date of birth was recorded as The concerned workman submitted that he was initially appointed at Simlabahal Colliery under Bhalgora Area of the management on 8-10-73 having personnel No. 02740272, 1. D. Card No. 12255 as M. C. L. Afterjoining the concernedworkman was transferred to Bararee colliery under the same area and since then he was working there. He submitted that in the Identity Card as well as in Form 'B' Register his age was recorded as 27 years at the time of hisappointment. He submitted further that in the year 1987 the management issued service except to him wherein hisdate ofbirth was recorded as 12-6-46 and accordingly he after making signature returned the service excerpt to the management without raising any objection as his correct date of birth was noted there . The management issued notice of superannuation to him and forced him to superannuate w.e.f. 12-6-1994 , before attaining the age of 60 years.Accordingly, he submitted representation to the management for rectification ofhis date ofbirth and allow him to reinstate, but the management did not consider 3342

[PART I-SEC. 3 (ii)) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19, 2004/JYAISTHA29, 1926

नईदिल्ली, 25 मई, 2004

का.आ. 1457.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा.को. को.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, धनबाद- II , के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 88/1993) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

12-6-1946. It has been alleged by the concerned workman that the management illegally and arbitrarily superannuated him from service before attaining his age of 60 years w.e.f. 12-6-1994. On the contrary the management categorically denied the fact which the concerned workman asserted in thewritten statement . They submitted categorically that in the Form ' B ' Register the date of birth was recorded as 12--1934 and he completed his age of 60 years on 11.6-1994 and for which he superannuated from service on 12-6-1994 . They further alleged that after superannuation the concerned workman raised the present dispute which is not at all tenable in the eye of law.

[सं. एल -20012/277/92- आई.आर. (सी-1 ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2004

S. O. 1457.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 88/1993) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad- II 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 24-5-2004 .

[No. L-20012/277/92- IR(C- 1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 AT DHANBAD 6. Considering the materials on record 1 find no dispute to hold that the concerned workman raised the instant dispute after his superannuation. Initially onus rests on the concerned workman to establish that at the time of his initial appointment his age in the Form ' B ' Register was recorded as 27 years . He disclosed that the management issued Identity Card to him bearing No. 12255 wherein also his age was recorded as 27 years . In spite of claiming so the concerned workman did not consider necessarytoproduce his Identity Card before this Tribunal in support ofhis claim . He also did not consider necessary toprove the copy ofthe service excerpt which was retained by him after its service by the management in support of his claim. No explanation is also forthcoming on his part whyhe made such long delay in raising the dispute in the matter of correction of his date of birth. The concerned workman also had his scope to produce authentic paper to show that his date of birth was actually 12-6-46 when he got his appointment under the management. But in spite of getting opportunity he did not consider necessary to produce any such cogent document with a view to substantiate his claim. Actually the concerned workman has failed to produce a single piece of paper to show that his actual date ofbirth is 12-6-46 and not 12-6-34 .

Inthe matter of a reference under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d)(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Reference No. 88 of 1993

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management ofLohapatti Colliery ofM/ s . B.C.C.L.

AND

Their Workmen

It is settled principle of law that the facts disclosed in the written statement cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence until and unless the same is substantiated by cogent evidence . Accordingly just relying on the facts disclosed in the pleading of the concernedworkman I find little scope to draw conclusion to the effect that his date of birth was 12-6-1946 and knowing fully well of the fact management illegally and arbitrarily superannuated him from his service.

Present:

SHRI B. BISWAS , PresidingOfficer

In view of the facts and circumstances stated above , I hold that the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief in view of his prayer.

Appearances:

7. In the result, the following award is rendered:

Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate

Forthe Employers:

For the Workman:

Shri D. Mukherjee, Advocate The demand of the union for revision of the date of birth of Shri Mahabir Yadav is not justified and hence the concerned workman is not entitled to any releif.

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer State : Jharkhand . Industry: Coal 3343 भारत का राजमत्र: जूत 19, 2004/प्पेण्ड 29, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

Dated, the30thApril , 2004

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/277 /92- IR (C -I) dated the 7th July, 1993 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour has, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d)of Sub -section ( 1 ) and Sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

the written statement submitted on behalf ofthe concerned workmen. They submitted that the sponsoring union made acomplaint dated 15-9-87 to the A.L.C. (C) , Dhanbad to the effect that the concerned workmen who were working as miner/loaders at Murulidih Colliery, Area No. II have been deprived to resume their duties there and also at Lohapatti Colliery , though they were transferred to Lohapatti by order of the General Manager dated 28-3-1982.On receipt of a copy of the complaint from the A.L.C. (C) they came to know that the union submitted a list ofworkmen containing their particulars by letter dated "Whether the action of the management of Lohapatti Colliery ofM/ s . BCCL, in terminating/ dismissing from service 3/Shri Mahendra Thakur and44 others asper annexure from 12-12-1984 isjustified ? If not, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled ?"

2. The case of the concerned workmen according to the written statement submitted by the sponsoring union on their behalf, in brief, is as follows :

The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workmen have been working as permanent . Underground Loaders at Bhatdee Colliery since long with unblemished record of service . Thereafter the management of Moonidih Area No. II vide its order No. 2400-19 transferred the concerned workmen to Murlidah Colliery and they were subsequently transferred to Lohapatti Coiliery . In pursuance of the aforesaid order the concerned workmen reported for their duties at Lohapatti Colliery , but the management of Lohapatti Colliery did not allow the concerned workmen to resume their duties on the ground that they had no Identity Card in their possession . Accordingly they submitted representation to the management several times for ailowing the concerned workmen to resume their duties but to no effect and for which they raised an industrial dispute before the A.L.C. (C) , Dhanbad. During the course of conciliation proceeding they submitted that the concerned workmen shall be allowed to resume their dutiesw.e.f. 12-12-1984, but the management did not agree to allow them to resume their duties taking the plea of manufactured and forged dosument on their part. They submitted that the management refused to allow the concerned workmen to resume duty, but one workman , namely , Kyum Mian whose name appeared in Sl . No. 1 as per order of transfer was allowed to resume his duty as per settlement entered into between them and the management . They alleged that the action of the management in dismissing the services ofthe concerned workmen was illegal , arbitrary and it violated the principle ofnatural justice .Accordingly, they submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to reinstate the concemedworkmen with full backwages.

7-4-88 indicating that the concerned workmen were appointed on 20-5-72 as miner/loaders at Murulidih Colliery.In spiteof claiming so the sponsoring union failed to show the identity cards of the concerned workmen and also failed to give the numbers of CMPF Account . They thereafter searched old records , namely, payment-sheet toascertain ifthe concerned workmen actually worked at Murulidih Colliery or not, but they did not find anything relying on which the claim ofthe sponsoring union could be supported. They disclosed that before employment of any workman by the management names are sponsored bythe Employment Exchange or applications are invited onthe basis ofadvertisement published in the Newspaper and after following proper procedure of recruitment they are recruited . In some cases the workmen are also taken onthe roll of the management on the basis of awards or settlements passed by the Tribunal or Labour Courts . Thus for recruitment of workmenby the management there should be initial documents relating to each and every workman recruited after nationalisation of Coking Coal Mines. They further submitted that all the workmen ofthe management have been provided with identity cards and their names are recorded in Form ' B ' Register. They are paid through pay- slips and they receive bonus on the basis of bonus cards . They are also provided with provident fund numbers and regular deduction is made from their wage for contribution towards CMPF. Therefore, no workman working under M/ s . BCCL can say that he does not possess documents like identity card, pay slip, CMPF receipts and various other papers . The sponsoring uinon could not produce any paper or document to show that the concerned persons were ever employed at Murulidih Colliery . Therefore , the claim ofthe concerned workmen that they were appointed on 20-5-72 at Murulidih Colliery as miner /loaders was found to be false, baseless and imaginary and for which they are not entitled to get any relief. They further submitted that the Central Government refused to make reference of the aforesaid dispute for adjudication to an Industrial Tribunal on the demand ofthe concerned workmen and for which the said union filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court, Patna, Ranchi Bench for issuance of direction to the Central Government to make a reference of the purported dispute to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The

saidwrit petition was numbered as CWIC No. 810/93 (R):

3. The management, on the contrary, after flling written statement- cum - rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in 3344

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19, 2004/ JYAISTHA 29, 1926

Thereafter as per order of the Hon'ble Court the instant reference was made by the Ministry. Considering all the facts and circumstances statedby the management they submitted that the claim of the sponsoring union is liable to the rejected for want of merit and for which the concerned workmen are not entitled to get any relief in view of their prayer .

Points to be decided

4. "Whether the action of the management of Lohapatti Colliery of M/ s . BCCL , in terminating / dismissing from service S/Shri Mahendra Thakur and 44 others as per annexure from 12-12-1984 is justified ? Ifnot, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled ? " Finding with reasons

5. It transpires from the record that the concerned workmen in order to substantiate the claim examined two witnesses , namely , WW - 1 and WW-2 while the management also with a view to substantiate the claim examined one witness as MW - 1 .

Considering the facts disclosed in the written statements by both sides and also considering the evidence of both sides it transpires that as per claim ofthe sponsoring union that the concerned workmen were appointed as permanent underground loaders at Bhatdee Colliery during the year 1972. It is their further contention thatthe management thereafter vide Office Order No. 2400- 19 transferred the concerned workmen to Murulidih Colliery from Bhatdee Colliery and subsequently they were transferred to Lohapatti Colliery , but the management of neither Murulidih Colliery or Lohapatti Colliery allowed them to join their duties . Accordingly , they submitted representation to the management to allow the concerned workmen to resume their duties but the management did not pay any comment to their appeal . They submitted that as per the said order 45 workmen were transferred from Bhatdee Colliery to Murulidih Colliery and as per list the name of one Kyum Mian came in Sl . No. 1. They disclosed that subsequently as per settlement the management allowed Kyum Mian to resume his duty but refused to allow the rest workmen to resume their duties . In support of their claim the sponsoring union relied on deliberation ofthe Joint Committee held on 5-10-91 at Koyla Bhawan , marked Ext . W-1 series . During hearing of the said deliberation the management submitted that Kyum Mian never workedat Lohapatti Colliery and therefore the question of his termination did not arise . However , they accepted the name of said Kyum Mian appearing in Sl . No. 1 of the transfer order alleged to have been issued vide No. 2400-19 . Disclosing this fact they further disclosed that as the wage-sheets were traced in respect of the said workman i.e. Kyum Mian it established that he worked at

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii )] Murulidih Colliery . Accordingly the management agreed to give employment to Kyum Mian provisionally as underground lander afresh at Murulidih Colliery subject to verification of his antecedent and character . Disclosing this fact it is the contention of the sponsoring union that the management though considered the employment of one workman i.e. Kyum Mian the employment of rest of the concerned workmen was not considered illegally and arbitrarily. The management categorically submitted that the said order of transfer vide Order No. 2400-19 is a manufactured one and cannot be relied on at all and for which the question of allowing the concerned workmen to resume their duties either at Murulidih Colliery or at Lohapatti Colliery did not arise at all . It transpires from the record that being aggrieved by the decision after management the sponsoring union raised an industrial dispute before the A.L.C. (C) , Dhanbad . Thereafter the A.L.C. ( C) issued notice to the management and the management after giving reply also categorically denied the fact about employment of the concerned workmen under them and also issuance of any such order being No. 2400-19 involved their transfer from Bhatdee to Murulidih and subsequently to Lohapatti Colliery . It is submitted that the A.L.C. (C) after hearing both sides submitted his report and in the report the A.L.C. ( C) observed categorically:

"Acursory lock over the zerox copy of the impugned office order dated 28-8-83 copy enclosed would certainly suggests that it pertains to the concerned 45workmenbut it is not so as reading of the contents reveals that it pertains to one and only single workman namely Shri Kyum Mian . The impugned order reads as follows :

ORDER

'In pursuance of letter Mur/Transfer (WB) / 2340 dated 1/4-7-83 Shri Kyum Mian Loader who had been transferred and released vide letter No. GM /Ar . 11/ Per/00/82 dated 28th March , 1982 is to report for duty to the Supdt . Lohapatti Colliery to work as Loader: " The contents of the impugned order dated 28-8-83 as reproduced above have no link or reference relating to the concemed 45 workman and therefore it is prima facie a forged document . This position was explained to the union representative on 25-10-88 and he was counselled and politely pursuaded to withdraw the dispute . He has favourably responded and agreed to withdraw the dispute from conciliation proceedings .

The conciliation proceedings have been thus successful in investigating the true position of the claim of the union and convincing the union 3345

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

representative to withdraw the dispute from conciliation proceedings . The dispute is thus treated as withdrawn .

that the concerned workman were permanent miner /loaders atBhatdee Colliery since 1972 and long after their work in the said colliery they were trarisferred to Murulidih Colliery during the year 1979. Therefore , it is clear that from 1972 to middle part of 1979 the concerned workmen being permanent miner/loader worked at Bhatdee Colliery continuously . The said Bhatdee Colliery was nationalised during the year 1971-72 . Therefore , from the initial stage the concerned workman were employees of the present management . Therefore , it is expected that the concerned workmen drew their wages through pay slip for years together . Definitely they had been provided with CMPF Number and their contribution was deducted from their salary. They were definitely provided with Identity Card. Definitely they received bonus card with a view to draw bonus year to year. It is really curious to note that excepting the alleged copy of transfer order No. 2400-19 which also appears to be illegible the sponsoring union have failedto produce a scrap of paper to show that the concerned workmen received wages as per wage slip , they received bonus through bonus card and their contribution towards provident fund were also deducted from their wages. They also have failed to produce Identity Card to show that they were employees under the management . It is the specific claim of the management that in case of appointment of any workman they issue letter of appointment . The concerned workmen got their appointment under the management in the year 1972. It is not the case of the sponsoring union that no letter of appointment was issued to the concerned workmen . Therefore, onus absolutely rests on the sponsoring union to establish that the concerned workmen not only received letter of appointment from the management during their employment but also received identity card, wage slip and bonus card etc. I find no hesitation to say that the sponsoring union have failed to produce a single scrap of paper that the concerned workmen since 1972 workedat Bhatdee Colliery as permanent miner/loader . Learned Advocate of the sponsoring union during hearing relled on the document marked as Ext . W-2 written by the Personnel Manager to the Dy. Personnel Manager (IR) . I have carefully considered the said letter and considering the facts disclosed in the said letter there is no scope to arrive to any conclusion that the concerned workmen got their appointment at Bhatde Colliery in the year 1972 and worked their as permanent miner/loader till the middle part of 1979. The reference in the said letter given does not tallywith the letter being No. 2400-19 alleged to have been issued by the management . Therefore , relying on this letter there is no scope to arrive to any conclusion in favour of the sponsoring union that the concerned workmen were permanent employees of the management and posted at BhatdeeColliery .

Therefore from the A.L.C. (C ) ' s report it transpires clearly that the name of the concerned workmen were inserted from Sl . No. 2 to Sl . No. 46. It is obvious that the sponsoring union was not satisfied with the order passed by the A.L.C. (C) , Dhanbad. Accordingly , the matter was referred to the Ministry and the Ministry also refused to refer the dispute considering the report. Against that order the sponsoring union preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court , Patna, Ranchi Bench and as per direction of the Hon'ble Court the instant reference was forwarded by the Ministry for disposal . It is the specific contention ofthe management that the transfer order being No. 2400-19 was manufactured one and for which there is no scope to give any importance to it . They further categorically submitted that the concerned workmen never worked either at Bhatdee Colliery or at Murulidih Colliery. Therefore the question of allowing them to resume their duties did not arise . Initial onus accordingly rests on the sponsoring union to establish that the concerned workmen were genuine permanent miner/loaders ofBhatdee Colliery and by order No. 2400-19 issued by the management they were transferred to Murulidih Colliery. In course ofhearing the sponsoring union failed to produce a single scrap of paper to show that the said order of transfer was genuine one. It is fact that the sponsoring union called for the original transfer order from the management . The learned Advocate for the management in course of hearing submitted that the question of production of original transfer order No. 2400-19 did not arise at all because of the fact that no such order ever was issued by the management. In course of hearing the sponsoring union have failed to produce an iota of evidence in support of the claim of the transfer order of the concerned workman relying on which credibility ofthe claim of the management that the said transfer order was manufactured one could be questioned. On the contrary , the report of A.L.C. ( C) which is lying with A.L.C. (C) record clearly has supported the claim of the management that the said order of transfer is a manufactured one . The management in course of hearing submitted that as their Organisation is a Government of India Undertaking they cannot shimsically appoint any workman . They are to follow regular process inthe matter ofrecruitment of any workman under them . It is the contention of the management that the moment a workman is employed he is provided with Identity Card , his salary is paid through pay slip every month . He is provided with Bonus Card for drawing bonus and also they are provided with Provident Fund Number and regular deducton is made from their wages for contribution towards CMPF . They further disclosed that the moment a workman gets employment his all particulars are recorded in the

6. Accordingly, after considering all the facts and circumstances , I find no hesitation to say that the Form ' B ' Register . It is the claim ofthe sponsoring union 3346

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

◆

sponsoring union lamentably have failed to substantiate thatthe concerned workmen were permanent miner/loaders atBhatdee Colliery since 1972 and inspite of valid order of transfer they were disallowed to join by the management ofMurulidih Colliery . It has been disclosed by the sponsoring union that they were not allowed to join at Murulidih Colliery but they were asked to join at Lohapatti Colliery, but the management of Lohapatti Colliery also refused to allow them to work there . They have failed lamentably to establish that by separate order the management asked the concerned workmen to join at Lohapatti Colliery instead of Murulidih Colliery. The question of allowing the concerned workmen to resume their duties definitely will be considered if it is established with all satisfaction that they were regular and permanent employees of the management and the management illegally and arbitrarily violating the principles of natural justice dis - allowed them to join on transfer . Here excepting the alleged order of transfer being No. 2400-19 the existence of which has been categorically denied by the management ciaiming to be a manufactured one , the sponsoring union have failed to highlight the Tribunal with other cogent document with a view to substantiate their claim. As the sponsoring union have failed to substantiate their claim lamentably the concerned workmen are not entitled to got any relief.

7. In the result, I render the following award- The action ofthe management of Lohapatti Colliery ofM/s . B.C.C. Ltd. in terminating/dismissing from service S/Shri Mahendra Thakur and 44 others from 12-12-1984 is justified and hence the concerned workmen are not entitled to get any relief as per their prayer .

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer ANNEXURE

1. Shri Sakaldeo Paswan

2. Shri Suresh Yadav

3. Shri Rajender Thakur

4. Shri Ambika Thakur

5. Shri Satender Thakur

6. Shri Raj Mahmou

7. Shri Deerogi Thakur

8. Shri MuktarMia

9. Shri Gani Mia

10. Shri Bramhadeo Thakur

11. Shri Krishna Kant Sinha

[PART II-SEC . 3 (11 ) ] 12. Shri Pramod Kumar Sinha

13. Shri Baban Sharma

14. Shri Jenlty Thakur

15. Shri Sohel Ahammed

16. Shri Sufik

17. Shri Mewalal Mahato

18. Shri Jayanti Lal

19. Shri Suresh Nonia

20. Shri Joydeo Thakur

21. Shri Suban Mishra

22. Shri Guroo Roy

23. Shrl Janti Ram Mahate

24. Shri Hirani Mondal

25. Shri Deoki Mondal

26. Shri Jango Mondal

27. Shri Jagdish Mondal

28. Shri Diren Mondal

29. Shri Dinesh Mondal

30. Shri Domar Mondal

31. Shri Budhan Mondal

32. Shri Utham Mondal

33. Shri Sarju Mondal

34. Shri Brij Bhusan Prasad Gupta

35. Shri Aklu Mondal

36. Shri Babujan Ansari

37. Shri Miswoudin

38. Shri Sahali Mia

39. Shri BhagwantaMondal

40. Shri Mahesh Mondal

41. Shri Suresh Mondal

42. Shri Ashok Kumar Sinha

43. Shri Hari Thakur

44. Shri Rghunath Mondal 3347 भारत का राजपुत्र: जून 19 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

SCHEDULE

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई , 2004

"Whether the demand of the union for absorption/ regularisation of Shri Ranjit Kumar Chakravorty and 275 others (as per list enclosed) onthe rolls of the management of Coal Handling Plant , Kalyani Project of CCL is justified? so to, what relief are the workmen entitled?" का.आ. 1458- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण धनबाद II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 121/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/259/ 1996- आई ०आर० ( सी-1 ) ]

2.The case of the concerned workman according Written Statement submitted by the sponsoring union on their behalf in brief is as follows :-

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2004

S.O. 1458-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government here by publishes the Award Ref. 121/97 of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court Dhanbad- II Now as shown in the Annexure , in the industiral dispute between the employers in relation to the management of C.C.L. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24-5-2004.

[No. L- 20012/259/96-IR(C-I ) ] S.S. GUPTA , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Present:

Shri B. Biswas : Presiding Officer

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

Reference No. 121 of 1997

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management ofCoal Handling Plant of Kalyani Project ofM / s . CCL and their workmen .

Appearances:

Onbehalf of the workmen

:Mr. D. Mukherjee , Advocate .

Onbehalf of the employers

: Mr. D.K. Verma , Advocate.

:Jharkhand

State

:Coal

Industry

Dated, Dhanbad, the 30th April , 2004 AWARD

The sponsoring Union submitted that the concemed workmen have been working at Kalyani Coal Handling Plant since long with unblemished record of service . They were originally appointed by the intermedinges to construct Coal Handling Plant and accordingto concerned workmen constructed the coal haine plant to the satisfaction of the management construction ofthe Coal Handling Plant load trial test was conducted and this operation was performed by the concerned workmen . Thereafter the said coal handling plant was handed over to the management for running it commercially and for production commercially ante the concerned workmen have been continuously in running the coal handling plant on commercial basis. Even after handling over ofthe coal handling plant by the alleged intermediaries the concerned workimen had been working continuously and regularly in the coal handling plant under the direct control supervision of the management . They submittedthat the concerned workmen are working in the said plant in different perinanent and perennial nature ofjob against permanent vacancy to the satisfaction of the inanagement . They subinitted that all implements for execution of the job are being supplied by the management and they are producing goods for the benefit of the colliery management . They submitted that each year the concerned workmen worked under the management for more than 240 days . They categorically denied the fact that the concerned workmen are neither the members of the cooperative society nor they are aware of the constitution of the alleged cooperative society. Actually they do not have any concern with the alleged cooperative society and for which this is to be treated as paper arrangementto camouflage the real issue knowing fully well of the fact . They further alleged, that the management never paid wages to them as per NCWA. Accordingly for their regularisation serveral representations were given to the management but to no effect and as a result of which they raised an industrial dispute before the ALC ( C ) Hazaribagh for conciliation , which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal. The sponsoring Union accordingly submitted prayer to pass award directing the management for regularisation of the concerned workmen as per list with other consequential reliefs .

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1 )(d) of the 1.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 20012/259/96- IR (Coal- I) , dated the 28-10-97/6-11-97.

1760 G1/04-20 [PART II SEC. 3 ( ii)] 3348

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19, 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

plant. They submitted that the contractor engaged the workmen on temporary basis and retrenched all the workers as per the provision of I.D. Act and paid them all their legitimate dues at the time of their retrenchment. They have not claimed any relief from the contractor and they have not brought any allegation against the contractor under the provision of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970. They submitted further that the present reference arising out of the demand made by the sponsoring union for providing employment to a large number of job seekers some of whom were workmen of ex - contractors have made out the peresent case taking chance of getting favourable award with the help of some manufactured document .It is submitted that the management is a Public Sector Undertaking and there exists well laid down procedure to recruit workmen in the company through Employment Exchange . After recruitment , appointment letters are issued and for the purpose of identification I.D. Cards are also issued. Payment to workman can only be given on production of pay slip which are given every month to each workman . The concerned workmen were not recruited by the management and also they did not issue any letter of appointment . No wages were paid to them by the management as per pay slips . They categorically denied the fact about the engagement ofthe concerned workmen to work under the management after taking charge of the plant by them with effect from 23-3-95. Accordingly they submitted that the claim of the sponsoring Union is not only flase , frivolous but also finds no basis and for which they are not entitled to get anyrelief.

4. Points to be Decided

"Whether the demand of the union for absorption / regularisation of Shri Ranjit . Kumar Chakravorty and 275 others (as per list enclosed) on the rolis ofthe management of Coal Handling Plant, Kalyani Project of CCL is justified ? If so , whatrelief are the workmen entitled ? "

5. Finding with Reasons

Ittranspires from the record that the sponsoring Union with a view to substantiate their claim examined one witness as WW- 1 while management also in support of their claim examined two witnesses as MW - 1 and MW- 2 .

WW- 1 who is one of the concerned workmen in the instant reference case during his evidence disclosed thatconstruction of Coal Handling Plant started in the year 1986 and at that time for the construction of the said plantthey were appointed by the contractor . In the month of December , 1992 the construction of the said plant was completed and thereafter commission of the said Plant started and finally the plant was handed over to the C.C.L. on 23rd March , 1995. Since that date i.e. 23rd March , 1995 CCL started running the said plant commercially and at 3. Management on the contrary after filing W.S. cum- rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegation which the sponsoring union asserted in their Written Statement . The submitted that no employer -employee relationship ever existed between them and the concerned workmen at any time and for which the present reference is not maintainable in the eye of law . They submitted that management entered into an agreement dt . 1-6-85 with M/s. I.C.B. Ltd. , with its headquarters at Kalina in Mumbai for construction of Coal Handling Plant at kalyani project on trun key basis . As per terms and condition of the contract M/ s . I.C.B. is required to complete design of the Coal Handling Plant and after getting approval from the company on the design they were engaged to carry on engineering job for construction of the plant. It was required to supply all equipments , materials and goods required for construction , erection and for all incidental job in connection with coal handling plant. It was also required to do the testing and to give trial run for some period after commissioning the coal handling plant and to satisfy the management that the coal handling plant was capable of handling 2.25 million tonnes per year . They submitted that the contractor i.e. M /s . I.C.B. Ltd. , engaged some sub - contractor for carrying on civil construction job or for carrying on some fabrication jobs . They disclosed that as the contract awarded to M/ s . I.C.B. Ltd. , was on trun key basis the contractor is required to select his own men, to exercise control over them , to supervise their jobs and to make payment to them . The workmen of the sub- contractors were selected and recruited by the sub- contractors . Their work were supervised and controlled by the sub - contractors , and they were paid by the sub- contractor . Thus all the workmen of the contractors engaged in the job of constraction were the workmen of M/ s . I.C.B. Ltd. , or of the sub- contractors and they had no relationship of any kind with the management . They submitted that some of the workmen of the contractor M/s . I.C.B. Ltd. and some of the workmen of sub- contractors joined to form cooperative society for getting themselves employed through the contractor and sub-contractors in the constraction of the coal Handling Plant during the period of constraction as well as trial run . A large number of job seekers approached the cooperative society to become members with the sole idea of making out a claim for their future employment into the management of M/ s . CCI . demanding absorption/ regularisation of their services to the management and adopted tacties of getting the case referred and getting employed with the help of. litigation . They submitted a list containing such a large number of person is nothing but a list of persons who are job seekers , after the company took over charge of the Coal Handling Plant at Kalyani Project with Effect from 23-3-95. Prior to that date coal handling plant was under possession, control , direction and supervision of the officers of M.s. L.C.B. Ltd. who was a contractor engaged for construction and commissioning of the coal handling 3349 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

[भाग 1 ] - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

held on 22-11-91 and 24-11-91 between the management and the representative of the J.C.M.U. marked as Ext . M- 4 with a view to show that construction of Coal Handling plant was done by M/ s . I.C.B. Co. as per agreement entered into between the said company and the management. This witness though admitted his signature in the wage sheets marked Ext. M- 5 disclosed that such type of wage sheets are prepared by the contractor . He also categorically denied the fact that the concerned workmen were appointed by the management to perform their job there . MW- 2 A.K. Shukla who was posted as Chief General Manager South Easter Coalfields during his evidence disclosed that as General Manager he was posted at Dhori Area under whose jurisdiction the said Kalyani Project initiated for construction . He stayed there as General Manager from June, 1993 to September , 1995. He disclosed that at that time the Coal Handling Plant was constructed by M/s. I.C.B. Co. on turn key basis at Kalyani Project : He categorically denied the fact that the concerned workmen as per this reference were absorbed in the said project under his order . Now considering the evidence of WW- 1 , MW- 1 , MW- 2 and considering the facts disclosed in the pleadings it transpries that the claim of the concerned workmen came into existence with effect from 23-3-95 when finally the said plant was handed over to the management and started operating. In para- 4.of the W.S. Submitted by the concerned workmen it has been specifically mentioned thatCoal Handling Plant was handed over to the management for running it commercially for production and since then the concerned workmen have been working continuously in running the coal handling plant on commercial basis . Therefore , it is seen that the entire phase ofthe coal handling plant commencing from its construction till its starting operation commercially have two phases . The first phase includes construction of the plant and its trial run by the contractor firm M /s . I.C.B. Co. Ltd. while the second phase includes the handling over the said plant to the management on 23rd March , 1995 for its operation commercially . WW-1 during his cross -examination admitted that they were served with I.D. Card issued by M/s . I.C.B. Co. Ltd. He further admitted that on production ofthose I.D. Cards the same will show the identity of the workers appointed by the said Firm . He volunteers that on the basis of the said I.D. Cards the present dispute has been raised by them . As per Written statement it is not the case ofthe sponsoring union that M/s . I. C.B. Construction Co. was camouflage contractor who started construction ofthe coal handling plant . MW- 1 during his evidence relied on relevant papers marked as Ext . M - 1 to M - 3 that on the basis ofvalid agreement contract was given to M/ s . I.C.B. Co. Ltd. on turn key basis for construction of the said coal handling plant . Considering the evidence of the concerned workman it transpires clearly that initially these workers were employed M/ s . I.C.B. Co. for construction of coal handling plant . After handing over the plant to the management the contract entered into between the thattime they were absorbed in the plant by Shukla Sahib , the General Manager , Dhoria Area . Since then they are working in the said plant continuously and practically put their attendance more than 300 days in each year . This witness disclosed that the management of CCL not only used to supervise their work but also used to supply implements for performing their work . They further submitted that the job which they used to perform are permanent in nature and it was the management who used to pay their wages for the work rendered by them but far below the rate of NCWA . The concerned workman during hisevidence relied on the pay slips under signature of the Personnel Manager of the plant Satrughan Singh which weremarked as Ext. W- I series . This witness categorically denied the fact that they used to work in the plant after 23-3-95 as member of Cooperative society . During his evidence this witness disclosed that the pay slips were prepared by a clerk of CCL Murari Singh . However , he admitted the factthat they neither received any independent pay slip for payment of wages nor they received any letter ofappointment or I.D. Card . He admitted that the contractor under whom they used to work initially supplied them with 1.D. Card and on the basis of those I.D. Cards the sponsoring union raised the present dispute on their behalf. This witness also during his evidence failed to disclose which job they used to render after the operation of the said plant commercially. On the contrary he admitted that none of the workers ever received any authorisation from the management of CCL for their respective duties in the plant. MW- 1 on the contrary during his evidence disclosed that for the entire construction of the said plant M/ s . I.C.B. Construction was engaged as per agreement . The basis on which the said company was entrusted for the work was on turn key basis , for the entire work including supply of materials . The said contractor firm M/s . I.C.B. .appointed petty contractors for different works . M/s . I.C.B. Co. and the petty contractors appointed their own man power for the contractual work and they used to pay their employees . He admitted that they had the occasion to witness the payment of those employees of the contractors . He categorically denied thefact in the matter of engagement of the concerned workmen in this reference by the management . He submitted that appointment in CCL is generally made through Employment Exchange on selection by the screening committee and on ascertaining medical fitness . He further disclosed that employees of CCL are paid through computerised payment system . He further submitted that issuance of Pay slip is a condition precedent for making payment to the employees . It is his further contention that the management of CCL issue I.D. Cards to its employees . This witness during his evidence relied on the registration certificate of the contractors marked as Exı . M - 1 . Register of the contractor under CCL marked as Ext . M - 2 . Copy of argeement showing entrustmentof I.C.B. Co. for commissioning of the Project marked as Ext . M - 3 . Photo copies of minutes of discussion [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]

JUNE 19, 2004/JYAISTHA 29, 1926

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA

3350

support of their claim relied on wagesheet Ext . W - 1 series to show that they started working under the management with effect from the date mentioned above . They also relied on the signature of the Personnel Manager on the wagesheets. MW - 1 during his evidence disclosed that the management never issued such type of wagesheets . he disclosed that the wagesheets which the sponsoring union relied on are like that of the wagesheets prepared by the contractors for payment of wages to their workers . He disclosed that the management issued computerised wagesheets seperately to each worker. Inspite of disclosing this fact MW- 1 admitted his signature on the wagesheets which the sponsoring union relied on in support of their claim. No explanation is forthcoming on the part of the management in which capacity MW- 1 signed those wagesheets . Learned Advocate for the management in course of hearing submitted that signature appearing in the wagesheets of MW - 1do not signify that those wagesheets were prepared by the management in the matter of payment of wages to the concerned workmen and for which as signature of MW - lappears in the same the management cannot be liable to take responsibility of issuing of those wagesheets for the concerned workman. It is further contention of the learned Advocate for the management that in case any workman is appointed by the management question of showing discrimination in payment ofwages will not arise as they are entitled to get wages as perNCWA . Therefore , the allegation which the sponsoring union have brought in the matter of payment of wages far below the rate of N.C. W.A. to the concerned workmen finds no basis and for which the same cannot be accepted. The representative ofthe concerned workmen in course of hearing has failed to produce a single scrap of paper to show that the concerned workmen either got any letter of appointment or provided with I.D. Card . Not a single scrap of paper excepting the wagesheets is forthcoming before this Tribunal to show that the concerned workmen put theirattendance for more than 300 days in each year . It is the contention of the sponsoring union that since 23-3-95 the concerned workmen started working regularly under the management being appointed by the General Manager. It is really curious to note that the sponsoring union did not disclose the designation of each concerned workmenwho got their appointment by order ofthe General Manager . They even did not disclose which duties had been allotted to the concerned workmen to perform . Aworkman who is appointed by the management is liable to perform duties with the help of implements provided to him by the management. Therefore , it is not the material factor to be considered . The material factor which is to be considered is what was the designation of the concerned workmen when they were appointed by the General Manager and which duties were allotted to them to perform . It is vague term to consider that the concerned workmen worked under the management continuously. untill and unless it is explained which duties they had to management and M/ s . I.C.B. Co. ended and for which there was no relationship between the said contractor and the management . As the concerned workmen were the workers of the said contractors in natural course they were not required to serve under the management for construction of the plant . But a different picture comes in when it has been claimed by the sponsoring Union that the General Manager of Kalyani Project Dhori Area appointed the concerned workmen to work in the said coal handling plant when the said plant started running commercially win effect from 23-3-95 . Therefore , it is to be looked into if the claim of the sponsoring union that the concerned workmen started working under the management being appointed by the General Manager , Kalyani Project , Dhori Area with effect from 23-3-95 finds any basis or not . MW - 2 during his evidence categorically denied the fact relating to appointment of the concerned workmen in the Coal Handling Plant kalyani Project by him with effect from 23-3-95 . It is the contention of the management that for engagement of any worker they collect names from the employment exchange as per rules and thereafter the screening committee selects the workmen on the basis of interview and appointment to that workman is given after he comes out medical test successfully . It is the further contention of the management that whether a workman is a workman of the management or not his pre- condition is thatthe said workman must be provided with independent computerised wage slips . Apart from issuance of wage slips they further submitted that not only appointment letter to each worker is issued for his engagement to work under the management but also he is provided with identity card. WW- 1 during his evidence has failed to produce neither any letter of appointment nor any I.D. card to show that they were engaged by the management . As MW- 2 categorically denied the fact about engagement of the concerned workman by him at Kalyani Project with effect from 23-3-95 , onus absolutely rests on the sponsoring union to establish that they were actually engaged by MW - 2 . It is clear in view of evidence of WW- 1 that they got their eligibility to work at kalyani Project when they were appointed by the General Manager, Kalyani Project, Dhori Area. It is not the case of the sponsoring union that though the concerned workmen were initially the workmen of M/s. I.C.B.Co. Ltd. and after completion ofthe construction work and handing over the Project to the management by the said construction company their workers were allowed to work there when it started running commercially . therefore , there is no scope to arrive into any conclusion on the basis ofthe facts stated above . It is the contention of the sponsoring, union that since March . 1995 the concerned workmen started working at Kalyani Project continuously and put their attendance for more than 300 days in each year . It is the contention of the sponsoring union that though they were appointed by the General Manager , Dhori Area Kalyani Project the management never paid them wages as per N.C.W.A. The sponsoring in भारत का राजपत्र : जून19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

perform during continuance of their work and under which designation . I find no hesitation to say that the sponsoring union in course ofhearing have failed to satisfy the Tribunal in respect of the points discussed above.

However , learned Advocate for the concerned workman during hearing relied on the following decisions in support of their claim . 1992 (2) LLN 612 (SC), 1985 Supreme Court Cases (L& S ) 975 1996-11 - LLJ 435 (SC), S.C.L.J. Vol . 15.p. 112 (SC) , SCLJ Vol . VIP. 3867 (SC), S.C.L.J. Vol. II SC- P. 1557 , 1997 LLR288 (SC) 1995 II CRL 194 , 1987 Lab I.C. P. 619 (SC), FLR- 1990 (60) P-20 (SC) .

6. In the decision reported in 1992(2 ) LLN 612 in connection with Haryana State Electricity Board their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 13 observed to the effect that "there is however, a total unaniminity of judicial pronouncement to the effect that in the even , the Contract Labour is employed in an establishment for seasonal workings , question of abolition would not arise but in the event of the same being perennial in nature , that is to say, in the event of engagement of labour force through intermediary which is otherwise in the ordinary course of events and involve continuity in the work, the legislature is can did enought to record its abolition since involvement ofcontractor may have its serious evil oflabour exploitation and thus he ought to go out of scene bringing together the principal employer and the contract labourers rendering the employment as direct and resultantly a direct employees . " In arriving into this conculusion Their Lord ships referred to the decision of AIR India Statutory Corporation Vs. United Labour Union (1993 )( 1 ) LLN 75 .

Againthe decision reported in 1985 Supreme Court cases (L&S) 975 in connection with Reserve Bank of India and Others Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that striking out the names of workmen from rolls amounts to retrenchment covered by Sec, 25F of the I.D. Act if it is found that the workman actually worked for a continuous period of more than 240 days in a year including Sundays and other paid holidays .

Inthe decision reported in 1996 II - LLJ P. 435 (SC) in connection with the Employees State Insurance Corporation , Hyderabad Vs. Rajakamal Transport & Anr . Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed to the effect " It is seen that the Insurance Court after elaborate consideration found as a fact, the appellants have the control over loading and unloading of the goods entrusted to the appellant . The appellants regular business is transportation of goods entrusted to as carrier . When the goods are brought to the warehouse of the appellants , necessarily the appellants have to get the goods loaded or unloaded through the Hemalis and they control the activities of loading and unloading. It is true as found by the Insurance Court that instead of appellants directly paying the charges from their pocket, they collect as a part ofthe consideration for transportation of the goods from the customers any pay the amount to the Hamalis . The test

3351 of payment of salary or wages in the facts of this case is not relevant consideration . What is important is that they work in connection with the work of the establishment . The loading and unloading of the work is done at their directions and control. " While in the decision reported in SCLJ Vol . 15 P - 112 (SC ) in connection with the case of Hussainbhai , Calicut Vs. The Alath Factory Thezhil , Ali , Union Kozhikode and Others Their Lordships observed . "The true test may , with brevity, be indicated once again . Where a worker or group of workers labours to produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another , that other is, in fact, the employer . He has economic control over the workers subsistence , skill and continued employment . If he for any reason chokes of the worker is vitually laid off. the presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex- contract is of consequence when, on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment , discern the naked truth , though draped indifferent perfect paper arrangement , that the real isthe management not the intermediate contractor , myriad devices , half hidden unfold after fold of legal forum depending on the degree of concealment needed, the type of industry, the local conditions and the like may be restored to when labour legislation castes welfare obligation on the real employer, based on Articles 38, 39, 42,43 and 43 -A of the Constitution . The Court must be a statute to avoid the mischief and achieve the purpose of the land and not to misled by the maya of legal appearances .

If the livelihood of the workmen substantially depends on labour rendered to produce goods and services for the benefit and satisfaction of an enterprise, the absence of direct relationship or the presence of dubious intermediaries or the make believe trapping of detachment from the management cannot snap the real life bond. The story may vary but the reference defines ingenuinity. The liability cannot be shaken off.

Again in the decision reported in LLJ Vol . II 1964 P-633 ( SC) in D.C. Dewan Mohiddan Sahib & Sons and Another Vs. United Bidi Workers Union , Salem and another Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed to the effect " On a review to entire evidence in the instant case the Industrial Tribunal found that the system of bidi manufactur through the so called intermediaries ( styled as contractors ) was a mere camouflage devised by bidi manufacture . The Industrial Tribunal also found that the so called contractors were indigent persons and served no particular duties and discharged no special functions . Raw materials were furnished by the manufacturers to be manufactured into finished product by the workrnen and the contractors had no other functions except to take the raw materials to the workmen and gather the manufactured materials . It therefore hold that so called contractors were not independent [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29, 1926

3352

This Court in Standard Vacuum Refining Co. of India Ltd. Vs. its workmen ( 1 ) and catering cleaners of Southern Railway (2) has disapproved the system of contract Labour holding it to be ' archaie' , ' Primitive ' and ofpainful nature. The system, which is nothing but an improved version of bonded labour, is sought to be abolished by the Act . The Act isan important piece of social legislation for the welfare of labourers and has to be liberally construed.

contractors and were mere employees or were functioning as branch managers of various factories, their remuneration being dependent upon the work turned out Hence it held that the bidi rollers were the employees of the bidi manufacturers and not of the socalled independent contractors . the writ petition preferred by the employer to get the award quashed was however allowed but in the Writappeal preferred by the concerned workmen the conclusions ofthe industrial Tribunal were upheld . "

Further in the decision reported in 1997 LLR 288 (SC) arising out of Air India Statutory Corporation Vs. United Labour Union and Others . Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court observe " When the contract labour system is abolished by necessary implication , the principal employer is under obligation to absorb the contract labours . The linkage between the contractor and the employee stood snapped and direct relationship stood restored between the principal employer and the contract labour as its employees . Considered from perspective all the workmen in the respective services working on contract labour are required to be absorbed in the establishment of the Principal employer.

In the decision reported in 1995 11 CLR 194 ( SC) in Parimal Ch . Laha and Ors . Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors . Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed " that the canteen workers are in fact the employees of the respondent corporation and they are entitled to minimum of the salary paid to Class IV employees ofthe Corporation . "

Learned Advocate for the workmen in course of extending argument submitted that the alleged contractor was a camouflage one and it was the management who indisguise of the said camouflage contractor exploited the services of the workmen for years together . Learned Advocate submitted that the concerned workmen should be considered as regular workmen ofthe management and in support of this claim he relied on the decision reported in SCLJ Vol . VI p . 3867. In the said decision arising ofM/s . Basti Sugar Mills Ltd. and Ram Ujagar , Their Lordships observed" It was with a view to remove the difficulty in the way of workmen employed by contractors that the definition of employer has been extended by sub- clause (iv) ofSec . 2 (j ). The position thus is (a) that the respondents are workmen within the management of Sec . 2( z ) being persons employed in the industry to do manual work for reward and (b ) they were employed by a contractor with whom the appellant company had contracted in the course ofconducting the industry for the executions by the said contractor of the work of removal of press mud which is ordinarily a part of the Industry . It follows, therefore , from Sec.2(z) read with sub - clause (iv ) of Section 2 (i) ofthe Act that they are workmen of the appellant company and the appellant company is their employer .

In Catering cleaners of South Eastern Railway Vs. Union of India reported in 1987 Lab I.C. 619 Their Lordships ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court observed that " on the facts and the report of the Parliamentary committee of petitions on the question of employing catering cleaners on contract labour system that the work of cleaning catering establishment and pantry car is necessary and incidental to the Industry or business of the Southern Railway and so requirement (a) of Sec . 10 (2 ) is satisfied , that it is of perennial nature and so requirement (b) is satisified, that the work is done through regular workmen in most railways in the country and so requirement (c ) is satisfied and that the work requires the employment of sufficient number of whole time workmen and so requirement ( d) is also satisfied. Thus all the relevant facts mentioned in Sec . 10(2) appears to be satisfactorily accounted for, in addition is the factor or profitability of the catering establishment . "

On the contrary Learned Advocate for the management relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2001 Lab 1.C. 3656 submitted that there is also no scope for direct absorption of the concerned workmen considering them as regular employees even if it is held that they were camouflage contract labour. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in the decision referred to above that " Neither Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act nor any other provision in the Act, whether expressly nor by necessary implication , provides for automatic absorption ofcontract labour on issuing a notification by appropriate Government under Sub - sec . ( i ) of Section 10 prohibiting enfployment of contract labour , in any process , operation or other works in any establishment . Consequently the principal employer cannot be required to order absorption of the contract labour working in the concerned establishment. Accordingly there Lordships of the Hon'ble Court overruled the judgement of Air India's case . Their Lordship in this judgement further observed that on issuance of prohibition notification under Sec . 10 ( 1 ) of the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition ) Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in In Shankar Mukherjee and Others Vs. Union of India and Others reported in FLR. 1990 ( 60) P. 20 ( SC) Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed " It is surprising that more than forty years after the independent , the practice of employing labour through contractors by big companies including public sector companies is still being accepted as a normal feature of labour employment . There is no security of service to the workmen and their wages are far below than that of regular workmen of the company.

3353 भारत का राजपत्र ; जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service , the industrial adjudicator will have to consider question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under genuine contract or is a mere ruse/ camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder . Ifthe contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so - called contract labour will haveto be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularise the services of the contrast labour in the concerned establishment subject to the condition as may be specified by it for that purpose in the light of para -6 of the judgement. Hon'ble Court in para - 6 observed if the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under Section 10 ( 1 ) ofthe Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act in respect of the concerned establishment has been issued by the appropriate Govt . , prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process , operation or other work of any establihment and where in such process operation or other work of the establishment the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour , if otherwise found suitable and if necessary by relaxing the conditions as to maximum age appropriating taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment, by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualification.

Therefore , from the decision referred to above it is clear that when there is prohibitory order U/s . 10( 1 ) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act and knowing fully aware of that order if the management engages contract labour thereby it will not confer any right to place claim for direct absorption of the contract labour in the organisation but if it is established that the contractor is a ruse/ camouflage in that case the contract labours should be considered as employees of the management though in the matter of their absorption the guidelines given in para- 6 should be followed .

Ittranspires fromthe document marked as Ext. M-4 that the sponsoring union entered into a discussion with the management over absorption of the concenrned workmen who worked for construction of Coal Handling plant under M/ s . I.C.B. Co. construction and under Sub- contractor. Record note of discussion held on 22-11-91 and 24-11-91 speaks clearly that management assured to consider employment of any technical hand and I.T.I. candidates amongst such workers if the company recruits persons from outside and their names are sponsored by the Employment Exchange under normal rules along with others. In respect of absorption of other workers management regretted the demand ofthe sponsoring union . It is seen that thereafter in the month August , 1984 the sponsoring union raised an industrial dispute before the ALC (C) for conciliation relating to regularisation of the concerned workmen. In view of discussions made above it is clear that all the concerned workmen were the workmen ofM/s . I.C.B. Construction Co. and Sub - contractors and theywere engaged by those organisations for Construction of Caol handling plant at Kalyani Project . The said work was completed during the month of March and plant in question was handed over to the management on 23-5-95 for its commercial operation . The conciliation proceeding was initiated by the sponsoring union against the management for regularisation of the concerned workmen when those workmen were still workmen of M/ s. I.C.B.Co. Ltd and other sub- contractors. As per minutes of discussion already referred to above the sponsoring union took the plea for regularisation of the concerned workmen as they worked for some years continuously under the contractors for construction of coal handling plant. There is no dispute to held that some years were consumed for construction of coal handling plant and for that reason the concerned workmen got the scope to work there . It is clear that the concerned workmen were not the workmen of the management but the workmen of the contractors . Management expressed their in ability in course of discussion with the sponsoring union to absorb such huge number of workers as they were suffering from surplus man power. It is clear that no employer- employee relationship was ever created between the concerned workmen and the management as they were absolutely the workmen of the contractors . I have failed to understand when such position was prevailing how the sponsoring union placed their claim bny raising industrial dispute for regularisation of the concerned workmen. If such practice is indulged in that case it is to be taken into consideration that even for construction of anyplant the management should be refrained from engaging any contractor but the are compelled to absorb the contractors workers as their workers . Such practice or demand cannot be indulged in any manner for proper growth of industry in our country. It is clear in view of discussion made above that the concerned workmen never worked under the management being 7. After careful consideration of all the decisions referred to above and also considering the facts disclosed in the pleadings of both sides and also considering evidence of the workmen and management I hold that M/s. I.C.B. Construction Co. was engaged for construction ofCoal Handling plant at Kalyani Project on the basis of proper agreement entered into between that organisation and the inanagement: Therefore , there is no scope at all to say that the said contractor who was engaged for construction of Coal Handling plant was a camouflage contractor . Accordingly on this point wherefore , scope to draw any conclusion that the concerned workmen who worked under M / s . I.C.B.Co. Construction and also under Sub -contractors are actually workers of the management .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004 / JY AISTHA 29, 1926

3354

appointed by them . On the contrary they worked under the contractor on being employed by them for the reason which I have already stated above . Therefor, contractors workers cannot be considered as the workers of the management and accordingly there is no scope at all to issue any direction to the management for their absorption . I therefore , hold that in the instant case there is no material ground relying on which the claim of the sponsoring union could be supported for absorption / regularisation ofthe concerned workmen .

In the result , the followings Award is rendered :---

"The demand of the Union for absorption/ regularisation of Shri Ranjit Kumar Chakraborty and 275 others ( as per list enclosed) on the rolls for the management of Coal Handling plant , Kalyani project of CCL is not justified. Consequently , the concerned workmen are not entitled to get any relief. "

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer .

List of Workmen mention in the Terms of Reference Order No. L- 20012/ 259/96 - IR ( C - I ) Name

Father's/Husband's Name

Manidra Charkraborty 1. Ranjeet Kr . Chakraborty

P. N. Chakraborty 2. Aditya Chakraborty

Late J. M. Das 3. Arjun Kr . Das

K.K. Upadhyay 4. Arbind Kr . Upadhyay

SiwanMahto 5. Prabhu Mahto

Patha Mahato 6. Dwarika Mahato

Late Tijan Mahato 7. Khari Ram Mahato

Md . Abdul Raut Khan 8. Mobiddin Khan

Mubarak Ansari 9. Maqbul Ansari

10. Doman Mahato

GanpatMahato

Tribeni Pd .

11. Dinbandhu Prasad

Hemlal Mahio 12. Ram Pd . Mahato

Dukhi Mia

13. Md. Siraj Ansari

Teko Mahto 14. Munni lal Mahto

Bhola Thakur 15. Arjun Thakur

Isak Ansari

16. Panbabu Ansari

Late Hiraman Mahto 17. Sanu Mahto

Rewat Lal Mahto 18. Premchand Mahto

BrahmdeoThakur 19. Rabindra Thakur

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]

20. Md . Jalil

Md. Ishaq

Chidan Mahto 21. Tika Ram Mahto

Chutu Hemrom 22. Bishwanath Hemrom

Mahawarani Singh 23. Ram Singh

SukarMahto

24. Sewa Ram Mahto

Patha Mahato 25. Rajendra Pd. Mahato

Sadhu Sharma 26. Basudeo Sharma

Nand Kishor Singh 27. Tribani Singh

Niwash Pathak 28. Ram Kr . Pathak

29. Thakur Ram Mahto Narayan Mahto

M.D. Mahori Ansari 30. Mustakim Ansari

Karli Raut

31. Bhagirath Raut

Rambridsh Yadav 32. Jagar Nath Yadav

Sukha Ranjan Das 33. Praritosh Das

Chiru Mahato 34. Deg Narayan Mahato

BirbalThakur 35. Chitta Narayan Thakur

K. R. Prajapati 36. RajendraPd.

37. Tarkeshwar Pd . Mahto Kamleshwar Ram Mahto

Md. Dilwar Ansari 38. Md . Jamal Ansari

Abdul Khan 39. Basir Khan

Dilu Mahto

40. Gopal Mahto

Late Pusa Manjhi 41. Chhutu Manjhi

Subhani Ansari 42. Imtiyaz Ansari

Patti Mahto

43. Daleshwar Mahto

KitakMahto 44. Sohan Mahato

45. Jailal Mahto

DurgaMahto 46. Gunadhan Giri

ParyagGiri

Sadhu Thakur 47. Birbal Thakur

48. Gautam Tiwari

Ram Anup Tiwari

Upendra Ch . Rai 49. Parimal Ch . Rai

D. Debsharma 50. Suprabhat Debsharma

K.N. Kurup

51. P. N. Prakash

Shiotahal Mahto 52. Basant Lal

Alarjo Purty 53. Suresh Kr . Purty

S. Kangari

54. Karlush Kangari

Tarcious Soren 55. Augesten Soren

Lankeshwar Birali 56. Gumdi Biruli

Khaira Kangari 57. Masi Das

Johan Topno 58. Soma Das Topno

Yakub Khan 59. Md . U. Khan 3355

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004 ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

[भाग भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Chaman Mahto 100. Banni Mahto

Bhular Bhagat 60. Kumar Bhagat

Bhagwan Mahto 101. Mishri Mahto

Md. Main Khan 61. Md. M. Khan

Late Harkhu Mahto 102. Ishwar Mahto

C. M. Verma 62. Shiv kumar

Narayan Mehta 63. Bhuneshwar Mehta

Parman Nanda

C.M. Verma

103. Manoj Kr .

Sitaram Singh

104. Atwari Singh

64. Rasbihari Nanda

Bhuwneshwar Giri 65. Ajit Kr . Giri

ChamanMahto 105. Hiraman Mahto

Lusa Singh

106. Sushil Singh

Suraj Mahto 66. Narayan Mahto

Late Hiraman Mahato

Rameshwar Sangh 107. Pradeep Singh

67. Tulsi Mahato

Ritlal Choudhary 68. Gopal Pd . Choudhary

Ram Pd, Giri

69. Umakant Giri

Mukund.Mahto 70. Badri Nath Mahto

Md . Jahiruddin 71. Md. Sahabuddin Ansari

Aansari

Md. Dukhi Ali 72. Md . Sarif Anshari

Jhari Ravidas

108. Karamchand Ravidas

Uttim Mahto

109. Nem Narayan Mahto

BiranSingh

110. Suresh Pd. Singh

N. Thakur

111. Uttam Kr .

Bhola Pd. Gupta 112. Birendra Pd. Gupta

DileshwarGiri 113. Ranjit Kr . Giri

RatiMahato 73. Dhanashar Mahato

Krishnakant Upadhyay 74. K.D. Upadhyay

Md. Imanuddin Ansari 75. Md. Sulaman Ansari

Tekochand Mahto 114. Harinandan Mahto

BhuliuMahto 115. Gangadhar Mahto

Goma Singh

116. Ganga Singh

LateMangal Giri 76. Shambhu Giri

Siwan Mahato 77. Punit Mahato

Budhan Mahto 117. Hublal Mahto

Raghu Mahto 118. Bhim Mahto

Shyamu Singh 78. Arjun Kr . Singh

C. M. Verma 79. Sanjay Kr .

Sitaram Bhagat 119. Phagu Bhagat

Okil Singh

120. Lalu Singh

Dhirendra Nath 80. Subrata Debsharma

Debsharma

R. S. Sharma 81. V. N. Sharma

Ram Pd . Pandey 82. Rajdeo Pandey

Ritlal Sharma 83. Umesh Sharma

Lakhan Sharma 84. Ramchandra Sharma

Md. Hadish Ansari 85. Md . Jainduddin Ansari

Md . Tahla Ansari 86. Md . Suleman Ansari

Lilu Mahto 87. Taklal Mahto

Deo Muni Sharma 88. Shivshankar Sharma

Birju Singh 89. Ramsagun Singh

BhagwanRoy 90. Larik Roy

Jagdambar Singh 91. Bhim Singh

Joytis Paswan 92. Bindeshwari Paswan

Md. Abdul Raufi 93. Ibar Ahmad

Birju Singh 94. P.N. Singh

Rambilash Singh 95. Shankar Singh

Uttim Mahto 96. Murat Mahto

B. Tury

97. Suresh Tury

Late R. Soren 98. Memia Devi

Judu Mahto 99. Doman Mahto - II

1760 GI'04-21

Sahabuddin Ansari 121. Mojib Rahman Ansari

S.Mandi

122. Rabindra Nath Mandi

Md . Naimuddin Ahmad 123. Mutsfiz Ahmad

Habib Ansari 124. Rayazuddin Ansari

Md . Rahim Ansari 125. Md. Sahid Ansari

Banarasi Sharma 126. Sukhdeo Sharma

Subhash Bharti 127. Manoj Bharti

Hamid Ansari 128. Wahid Ansari

Sh. Bhuneshwar Sharma 129. Naresh Sharma

Himmatali Mia 130. Akbar Ansari

PusaManjhi 131. Nunchand Manjhi

Badri Mahato 132. Goopai Mahato

Khadhar Mia 133. Md . Nazir Ansari

Baij Nath Mahto 134. Jogendra Mahto

BaijNathGiri 135. Yugal Kishor Giri

Monmoth Nath Ghosh 136. Tapas Kr. Ghosh

Md . Dukhi Mia 137. Samir Ansari

Givila Singh 138. B.K. Singh

Ram Yadav

139. Gaina Yadav

R.R. Choudhary 140. Kameshwar Yadav 3356

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

Mubamad Ansari 141. Sadbabu Ansari

Md . Lal Mohammad 142. Jainul Ansari

Ansari

143. Premchand Mahto - II Shyam Lal Mahto 144. Munna Singh

Rajballam Singh

Md . Salamat 145. Md . Nasim

Budhan Mahto 146. Khublal Mahto

Bhairo Sharma 147. Mangal Sharma

Ram Anup Tiwari 148. Manoj Kr. Tiwari

Bishun Yadav 149. Rama Shankar Yadav

Sahabuddin Ansari 150. Jiyaul Ansari

Mohan Chouhan 151. Munit Ram Chouhan

Teke Mahto

152. Bhimlal Mahto

Manigopal Chakraborty 153. Dulal Chakraborty

Md. Israil

154. Md . Kalim Ansari

Munka Sharma 155. Bhola Nath

Ram Pandikar 156. R.R. Raju

Basinath Jha 157. Rajnikant Jha

Nageshwar Mahto

Bhagat Lal Mahto 158.

T. Prasad

159. B. Prasad

Rajan Ansari 160. Kayum Ansari

Md . Jamiruddin Ansari 161. Alimuddin Ansari

Md. Bhaglu Ansari 162. Kurban Ansari

Habib Ansari 163. Esmael Ansari

164. Munsi Ansari

Md. Bhaglu Ansari

Md . Abdul Ansari 165. Usman Ansari

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

BudhanMandal 181. Chaturbhuz Mandal

K.D. Singh

182. Kamdeo Singh

Bhulu Mahto 183. Hari Pd . Mahto

184. Kedar Nath Ravi

Raj Nath Ravi 185. Samim Ansari

Munsi Ansari Emtiyaz Ansari - II

Nejamuddin Ansari 186.

187. Dukhah Mahato

Utim Mahato

Babuchand Mahato 188. Chunilal Mahato

Sh . Ioldu Mia 189. Mohiuddin Ansari

Khalo Ansari 190. Jalaluddin Ansari

Gulam Rasul Ansari 191. Kadir Ansari

Karim Ansari 192. Jasimuddin Ansari

Muha Manjhi 193. Hukma Manjhi

Bashu Manjhi 194. Ram Kishun Manjhi

D. Maharit

195. Sankar Maharit

Deo Lal Mahto 196. Mohan Mahto

Mahadeo Manjhi 197.. Mahabir Manjhi

198. Somar Manji

ChopaManji

KailashManji 199. Mangar Manjhi

200. Gujar Manjhi

BashuManji

Munshi Manjhi 201. Karma Manji

Mansingh Manji 202. Bipan Manji

203. Sukar Mahto

LapaMahto

Baldeo Singh 204. Kailash Singh

205. Parboti Devi

KartikManjhi 206. Rani Devi

Md . Surdali Ansari 166. Gulam Ansari

Rabout Ansari 167. Gayasuddin Ansari

KaliManji

207. Saraswati Devi

Bishu Manjhi 208. Santi Devi

Khublal Mahto 168. Bhuneshwar Mahto

Khuddu Mahto 169. Bishnath Mahto

170. Pritam Mahto

GangaMahto

Shri D.C. Ram 171. Zitendra Singh

172. Thaneshwar Mahto

Ghanshyaın Mahto

Late Maheshwar Pd .

173. Arjun Prasad

LepaManjhi

BipanManhji 209. Upashi Kamin

210. Prabati Devi - II

PurnaManji

211. Basanti Devi

DevilalManji

Ratilal Mahto 212. Mukhlal Mahto

213. Chandmuni Devi

DevilalManji 214. Basanti

Late Maheshwar 174. Harendra Prasad

Mandal

Shanichar Manjhi

HarmaManjhi 215. Surjit Devi

216. Ratin Devi

175. Laxman Mahto

Narayan Mahto

Md . EsufMia 176. Farid Ansari

HukmaManjhi 217. Atwari Devi

Siwlal Manjhi 218. Budhni

Asharafi Ansari 177. Rafiq Ansari

178. Birendra Kr . Singh

Tej Narayan Singh

Pooha Singh 179. Sanichar Singh

Khelo Mahto 180. Mahabir Mahto

ChokaManjhi 219. Parbati Devi

GopiMunnu

MahabirManjhi 220. Sital Manjhi

221. Basanti Devi - II

BenuManjhi 3357

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

2 1

B. Prasad Mahto 222. Lakhi Pd. Mahto

ChaitunManjhi 223. Motilal Manjhi

BasuManjhi Sikrari Manjhi

224.

ThabuManjhi 225. Kanti Devi

GopiMahto 226. Baburam Mahto

Chhotu Mahato 227. Kokilchand Mahato

Chhutu Mahato Parmeshwar Mahato

228.

KarticMahato 229. Dinu Mahato

ParanMahato 230. Biru Mahato

Bhagirath Mahato Ghuja Mahato

231.

JairamMahato Mahabir Mahato

232.

Neman Mahato 233. Thanu Mahato

BaliMahato 234. Shiv Pd. Mahato

NarayanMahato 235. Durga Mahato

BijaySinghBiruli 236. Srikrishna Pd. Biruli

Sohraj Pandit 237. Jainarayan Pandit

RituMahato 238. Chhtradhary Mahato

Hulash Mahato 239. Binod Mahato

Haridhan Mahato 240. Kashinath Mahato

BiruMahato 241. Janti Devi

Chaman Mahato 242. Mala Devi

Binod Mahato 243. Lali Devi

Shibu Manjhi 244. Anita Devi

245. HiraMuni

SanuManjhi

Jagarnath Manjhi 246. Kajri Kumari

Aghnu Manjhi 247. Phulmani Devi

FiratDas 248. Ratni Bai

Nanka Yadav 249. Santi Devi - II

Bodha Mahato 250. Ramlal Mahto

Fagu Mahato 251. Baldeo Mahato

Somar Mahto 252. Chola Mahto

KartikMahato 253. Manoj Mahato

Andu Mahao 254. Shrishtidhar Mahto

Ruplal Mahto 255. Jugal Mahto

NarayanMahto 256. Fuleswar Mahto

Mustafa Mia 257. Md . Abas

Mahadeeo Misra 258. P. Ramanand Misra

ChetanMadhi 259. Vijay Madhi

Somar Mahto 260. Lalu Mahto

Late Maful Mahto 261. Mohan Mahto - II

BijayMisra 262. Chandradeo Misra

Suchand Mahto

Raghu Mahto

263.

RatiMahato

264. Bharat Mahato

Lakhan Singh

265. Parmod Singh

Biswanath Mahto 266. Hari Prasad

LakhiManjhi

267. Sona Ram Manjhi

Mohan Manjhi 268. Chat Lal Manjhi

BodhanMahato 269. Pati Mahato

Shiv Tahal Mahato 270. Shantu Kr.

271. Kailash Mahato- II BhagiMahato

NakulMahto

272. Sanyu Mahto

SonaManjhi

273. Chinta Muni

Bhagirat Mahto 274. Ajit Kr.

Babu Chand Mahto 275. Jitendra Kr. Verma

Shankar

276. Sita Ram

नई दिल्ली , 25 मई, 2004

का.आ. 1459.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का -14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को. लि० के प्रबंधात्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण धनबाद II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 245/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/258/2001- आई.आर. (सी- I ) ]

एस० एस ० गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th May , 2004 S.O. 1459.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2452001 ) . of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court Dhanbad - II as shown in the Annexure , in the industiral dispute between the employers in relation to the management of B.C.C.L. and theirworkmen , received by the Central Government on 24- 5-2004.

[No. L-20012/258/2001 - IR(C-I)] S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2 , AT DHANBAD

Inthe matter of a reference under 10 ( 1 ) (d) (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act . , 1947 .

REFERENCE NO. 245 OF 2001 .

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Angarpathra Colliery , Katras Area of BCCL.

3358

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19, 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

AND

Their workmen .

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas , PresidingOfficer.

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Employers

: Shri U. N. Lal Advocate .

: None .

For the Workmen

State

: Jharkhand

: Coal

Industry

Dated, Dhanbad, the 30th April ,2004

AWARD

By Order No. 1-20012 /258 /2001 - IR ( Coal - I ) , dated the 13-9-2001 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 :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Angarpathra Colliery of M/ s . BCCL in dismissing Shri Birsa Munda , Miner/ Loader from 13-4-96 is justified? If not , what relief is the workmen entitled?"

2. The case of the management , in brief, is as follows:-

They submitted that the sponsoring union vide letter dated 11-7-2000 raised an industrial dispute before the A.1..C. (C) , Dhanbad for conciliation over dismissal of the concerned workman from his service by the management w.c.f. 13-4-96 which ultiniately resulted reference in this Tribunal for adjudication .

They disclosed that the concerned workman started absenting from duty unauthorisedly w.e.f. 26-7-94. Accordingly a charge - sheet was issued to hiin vide No. AP/ CS/ 95 / 239 dated 11 / 13-2-95 as per provisions of Certified Standing Order . Thereafter a departmental enquiry was held in presence of the concerned workman and full opportunity was given to him to defend his case . They submitted that after completion of departmental enquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the concerned workman guilty to the charges framed against him . They alleged that past attendance of the concerned workman was very poor. During 1992, 1993 he put his

[PART IISBC.3 ( ii) ] attendance for 38 days and 7 days respectively while during 1994 he did not put his attendance for a single day. Accordingly, onthe basis of enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and also considering his past attendance Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service vide letter No.AP/ 96/98 dated 6/ 13-4-96. They alleged that the concerned workman was never vigilant towards his duty and was in the habit of absenting from dutyunauthorisedly from time to time . Disclosing this fact they submitted that the Disciplinary Authority neither committed and illegality nor took any arbitrary decision violating the principle of natural justice in dismissing him from his service .

3. It transpires from the record that inspite of getting ample opportunity the concerned workman/sponsoring union neither appeared nor submitted any written statement and for which the instant case was fixed for exparte hearing.

Points tobe decided:

4. "Whether the action of the management of Angarthra Colliery of M/s . B.C.C. Ltd. In dismissing Sri BirsaMunda, Miner/Loader from 13-4-1996 is justified? If not, towhat relief is the workman entitiled?"

Finding with Reasons :

5. Ittranspires from the record that before taking up hearing of this case on merit a preliminary issue was framed to consider whether domestic enquirey held against the concerned workman was fair , proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice . The said issue was disposed of in favour of the management exparte vide order No. 7 dated 17-2-2004.

6. Now the point for consideration is if the management have been able to substantiate the charge brought against the concerned workman and ifso whether he is entitled to get any relief under Sec . 11 - A of the Industrial Disputes Act .

Itisthe specific contention of the management that as the concerned workman started himself absenting from duty unauthorisedly with effect from 26-7-1994 a charge- sheet was issued to him vide No. AP/CS/95 /239 dated 11/13-2-95 as per provision ofthe Certified Standing Order . They submitted that the conduct of the concerned workman relating to his past attendance to his duty was very bad. They disclosed that during the years 1992 and 1993 he put his attendance for 38 days and 7 days respectively while in the year 1994 he did not put a single day's attencance . During evidence of MW- 1 copy of charge - sheet issued to the concerned workman was marked as Ext . M - 1 while reply given by him was marked as Ext. M-2. The charge- sheet marked as Ext. M- 1 shows that under Clause 26 : 1 : 1 the same was issued for committing 3359 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, itmay, by its award , set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions , if any, as it thinks fit , or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require:

Provided that in any proceeding under this section the Labour Court , Tribunal or National Tribunal , as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record , and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter."

Therefore , before considering the fact whether the concerned workman is entitled to get any relief or not , it is to be looked into whether punishment awarded to him was justified or not .

misconduct on the ground of absenteeism . Reply to the charge-sheet given by the concerned workman as was not satisfactory a domestic enquiry was held against him through Enquiry Officer and full opportunity was given to him to defend his case . It is the specific contention of the management that inspite of giving fuli opportunity the concerned workman failed to justify the ground of his remain himself absent from duty unauthorisedly. The concerned workman took the plea that owing to illness ofhis wife and mother at his native village he was busy with their treatment and as he was sole male member of hisfamily he did not get scope to join his duty leaving them at house. Though he took this plea in course of hearing of domestic enquiry proceeding he failed to produce a single medical paper in support of his ailment of his wife and mother . Management specifically asserted that past conduct of the concerned workman relating to his attendance for duty was very bad . The concerned workman also has failed to justify the reason for his such conduct satisfactorily . It is seen that relying on the enquiry report ( Ext . M - 6 ) submitted by the Enquiry Officer the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from his service . The order of dismissal during evidence of MW - 1 was marked as Ext . M- 8 .

Charge- sheet was issued to the concerned workman under clause 26 : 1: 1 of the Certified Standing Order for committing misconduct on the ground of unauthorised absence . Accordingly , Bonus on the concerned workman to justify the reason of such unauthorised absence for a long period with congent proof. Considering all materials on record 1 find no hesitation to say that he was lamentently failed to justify his claim . He has also failed to justify his past conduct in the matter of remaining himself absent from duty unauthorisedly.

As such after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances 1 hold that the management have been able to establish the charge brought against the concerned workman .

It is seen that Disciplinary Authority after considering the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and also after considering all aspects dismissed the concerned workman from his service .

Ittranspires from the record that the management issued charge - sheet to the concerned workman after his remaining himself absent from duty unauthorisedly for more then six and half months from 26-7-94 . His previous conduct relating to his attendance for duty also was very bad . During hearing he has failed to assign any cogent ground which compelled him to remain himself absent from duty . He also has failed to explain what circumstances prevented him to give any intimation to the management for remaining himself absent from duty . If the conduct of the concerned workman is taken into consideration it will expose clearly that he took the matter of performing his duty very casually and did not at all bother to perform his duty . It is to be borne into mind that for the interest of proper growth in the Industry there is very serious role of the workers . It is seen that the concerned workman considered his service as of his Zamindar and for which he behaved in that matter . There is reason to believe that an indisciplined workman like that of the concerned workman is a burden to the Industry and for which I hold that the management did not commit any illegality or took any arbitrary decision in dismissing him from his service . I have failed to find out an iota of evidence relying on which there is scope to say that the punishment awarded to the concerned workman was unjustified and for which he is not entitled to get any relief.

8. In the result , the following award is rendered- 7. Now the point for consideration if the concerned workman is entitled to get any relief U/ S . 11 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act .

The action of the management of Angarpathra Colliery of M/S . B.C.C. Ltd. in dismissing Sri Birsa Munda , Miner/ Loader from 13-4-1996 is justified and accordingly the concerned workman is not entitled to getany relief.

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer Sec . 11 - A speaks-" Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court , Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and , in the course of the adjudication proceedings , the Labour Court , Tribunal or National Tribunal , as the case may be is satisfied [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] 3360

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

नई दिल्ली, 28 मई , 2004

impose the Punishment of reduction in the scale of pay one stage upon Shri Rajendra Bhandari , Clerk- cum-Cashier , UCO Bank Boranada Branch , Dist , Jodhpur for one year through punishment Order dated 30-12-1999 and 21-08-2000 is legal andjustified? Ifnot, what relief the concerned workman is entitled from the management ? "

का.आ. 1460.-- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय जोधपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 31/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011 / 152/2001- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 28th May , 2004

S.O. 1460 .-- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 31 / 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Jodhpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of UCO Bank and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 21-5-2004.

[No. L - 12011 / 152/2001 - IR (B - II )] C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.

अनुबन्ध

औद्योगिक विवाद अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय जोधपुर

पीठासीन अधिकारी श्रीमती निशा गुप्ता , आर. एच. जे. एस. औ. वि. ( केन्द्रीय ) संख्या: 31/2001

श्री राजेन्द्र भण्डारी , द्वारा ललित शर्मा, प्रान्तीय मंत्री, राजस्थान स्टेट बैंक वर्कस ऑरगेनाईजेशन द्वारा स्टेट बैंक ऑफ बीकानेर एण्ड जयपुर, सुराणा मार्केट शाखा, पाली मारवाड़।

प्रार्थी

बनाम

क्षेत्रीय प्रबन्धक

यूको, बैंक, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , जी -79 शास्त्रीनगर, जोधपुर ।

अप्रार्थी

उपस्थिति:-

(1 ) प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि श्री ललित शर्मा उप .

(2) प्रतिनिधि श्री जे . के. साहसमल उप.

अधिनिर्णय

दिनांक 5-5-2004

श्रम मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार, नई दिल्ली नेअपनी अधिसूचना क्रमांक एल. 12011/152/2001 दिनांक 30-10-2001 से निम्न विवाद वास्ते अधिनिर्णय इस न्यायलाय को प्रेषित किया है । : -

प्रार्थी ने अपना मांग - पत्र प्रस्तुत करते हुए अभिकथित किया था प्रार्थी राजेन्द्र भण्डारी की नियुक्ति यूको बैंक की बोरानाडा शाखा जिला जोधपुर में लिपिक के पद पर होने से कार्यरत है तथा श्रमिक संघ के सक्रिय सदस्य एवं पदाधिकारी है । अप्रार्थी ने अपने पत्र दिनांक 16-8-97 से प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध कुछ आरोप लगाये थे जिन्हें प्रार्थी द्वारा अस्वीकार किये जाने पर प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध जॉच अधिकारी नुियक्त कर जांच की गई जांच अधिकारी ने 28-9-99 को अपना जाँच प्रतिवेदन प्रस्तुत किया जिसके संबंध में प्रार्थी ने 29-11-99 को अपना प्रतिवेदन प्रस्तुत किया जिसपर कोई विचार किये बिना ही दिनांक 7-12-99 को एक कारण बताओ नोटिस जारी किया और प्रार्थी को व्यक्तिगत सुनवाई का अवसर देकर 30-12-99 को दण्डादेश पारित कर दिया । प्रार्थी को दिया गया दण्डादेश पूर्णतया अनुचित एवं अवैध है क्योंकि दण्डादेश पूर्वाग्रह से ग्रसित होकर ट्रेड यूनियन गतिविधियों के कारण विक्टीमाईज किये जाने के कारण प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध आरोप लगाये गये, जिस तथाकथित घटना को लेकर आरोप लगाये गये वह घटना बैंक परिसर के बाहर होना बताया गया है, अप्रार्थी क्षेत्रीय प्रबन्धक के पास अतिरिक्त क्षेत्रीय अधिकारिता स्थायी आदेशों के अन्तर्गत प्राप्त नहीं है जिसके द्वारा वह प्रार्थी को आरोप- पत्र में वर्णित तथाकथित दुराचरण की सजा दे सके, जॉच अधिकारी ने जो जॉच प्रतिवेदन प्रस्तुत किया है वह केवल अन्दाजों पर आधारित है, जाँच अधिकारी ने प्रार्थी की अभिरक्षा पर कतई विचार नहीं किया, जॉच अधिकारी की फाईडिंग्स पूरी तरह परवर्स है, जाँच के दौरान बैंक की ओर से कोई निष्पक्ष साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं की गई, प्रेमसिंह राठौड़ जो कि एकमात्र निष्पक्ष गवाह थे, को गवाही में प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया, जाँच के दौरान बैंक की ओर से जो गवाह पेश कियो गये हैं वे पूरी तरह विरोधाभाषी है , प्राथमिक जाँच के दौरान प्रेमसिंह राठौड़ के जोबयान हुए उसको देखने से स्पष्ट है कि 22-5-97 को श्रीम शर्मा के उपर जूता फेंकने की कोई घटना नहीं हुई और यह घटना केवल प्रार्थी को फंसाने के उद्देश्य से जोड़ी गई, किसी भी व्यक्ति ने जो बैंक का ग्राहक या सामान्य नागरिक हो, ने यह बयान नहीं दिया कि प्रार्थी के कारण बैंक के हितों को या बैंक की प्रतिष्ठा को हानि पहुँची हो लेकिन फिर भी जाँच अधिकारी ने बिना किसी साक्ष्य के आरोपों को सिद्ध मान लिया है जो पूर्णतया अनुचित एवं अवैध है, अप्रार्थी ने 30-12-99 को दण्डादेश पारित करते समय दण्ड कितनी अवधि के लिए दिया गया है , इसको कोई उल्लेख नहीं किया है । अप्रार्थी ने अपने आदेश दिनांक 21-8-2000 में यह उल्लेख किया कि जिस किसी भी कर्मचारी को दण्ड प्रक्रिया के तहत वेतन श्रृंखला में से एक श्रृंखला को कम करने के आदेश दिये जाते हैं तो उस कर्मचारी पर कम से कम पिछली वेतन वृद्धिका 12 गुणा क्षति का प्रभाव लागू हो । अप्रार्थी ने यह गैर कानूनी स्पष्टीकरण केवल प्रार्थी को प्रताड़ित करने के उद्देश्य से पारित किया है । अन्त में निवेदन किया कि अप्रार्थी के आदेश दिनांक 30-12-97 व "Whether the action of the Management of Regional Manager , UCO Bank , Regional Office , Jodhpur to 3361 भारत का राजपत्र : जून19 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

21-8-2000 को अनुचित एवं अवैध घोषित करते हुए निरस्त किया जाकर फलस्वरूप प्रार्थी की घटाई गई वेतन वृद्धि मंय अन्य लाभ एवं मय एरियर ब्याज सहित प्रार्थी को दिलाये जाने का अधिनिर्णय पारित किया जावे ।

न्याय के सिद्धांतों की पूर्ण रूप से पालना की गई है, प्रार्थी द्वारा एस. सी. शर्मा के साथ अभद्र व्यवहार, मारपीट की गई थी जिस संबंध में श्री शर्मा द्वारा प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध पुलिस में प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट दर्ज करवाई थी जिसका फौजदारी प्रकरण आज भी लम्बित है , इसके अलावा विभागीय जांच कार्यवाही भी की गई और जांच अधिकारी द्वारा आरोपों को प्रमाणित मानते हुए 26-11-97 को तत्कालीन अनुशासनिक अधिकारी द्वारा प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध दण्डादेश पारित किया, अतः पारित दण्डादेश पूर्णतः उचित व वैध है । अन्त में निवेदन किया किप्रार्थी का मांग-पत्र सव्यय खारिज किया जावे ।

प्रार्थी ने मांग- पत्र के समर्थन में स्वयं का शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया जिसपर अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधी द्वारा जिरह की गई तथा अप्रार्थी कौ ओर से किशन सिंह शेखावत् का शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया जिस पर प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधी द्वारा जिरह की गई । प्रार्थी की ओर से विभिन्न दस्तावेजात कीफोटो स्टेट प्रतियां पेश की गई ।

दोनों पक्षों के प्रतिनिधीगण की बहस सुनी, पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया।

प्रार्थी द्वारा यह कहा गया कि उसके विरुद्ध जो आरोप लगाया गया वह पूर्वाग्रह से ग्रसित है , घटना बैंक परिसर से बाहर थी, इस प्रकार विपक्षी के क्षेत्राधिकार में नहीं थी, प्रार्थी की प्रतिरक्षा पर कोई विचार नहीं किया गया, निष्पक्ष किसी गवाह ने घटना की पुष्टि नहीं की है, बैंक प्रतिष्ठा को कोई हानि नहीं हुई है । इस प्रकार दण्डादेश अनुचित और अवैध है जिसे निरस्त किया जाए ।

विपक्षी द्वारा कहा गया कि जांच उचित प्रकार से की गई, सुनवाई का अवसर देने के पश्चात् दण्डादेश पारित किया गया।

स्वयं प्रार्थी ने अपनी प्रतिपरीक्षा में यह स्वीकार किया है कि 19-4-97 को उसने मुख्यालय छोड़ने की अनुमति मांगी थी और घटना 20-4-97 की है इसने यह भी स्वीकार किया है कि उसने गवाह से जिरह की थी, अपने गवाह पेश किये थे , अनुशासनात्मक अधिकारी ने उसे सुना था, पक्ष पेश करने का अवसर दिया था, कारण बताओ नोटिस दिया गया था, उसका जवाब दिया था , विस्तृत सुनवाई काअवसर अनुशासनात्मक अधिकारी ने दिया था, इस प्रकार यह स्थितिस्वयं प्रार्थी ने स्वीकार की है कि उसे सुनवाई और बचाव का पर्याप्तं व समुचित अवसर दिया गया था और इससे स्पष्ट है कि नैसर्गिक न्याय के सिद्धांतों की पालना करते हुए जांच की गई थी ।

'विपक्षी की ओर से किशन सिंह शेखावत् पेश हुए है जिन्होंने भी जवाब का समर्थन किया है ।

प्रार्थी की सर्वप्रथम आपत्ति यह रही है कि घटना रेलवे स्टेशन की है , इस प्रकार बैंक परिसर से बाहर है और इस कारण इस सम्बन्ध में कोई आरोप- पत्र नहीं दिया जा सकता व अपने समर्थन में एल.आई.सी. 1983 पेज 1909 मैसर्स ग्लेक्सो लेबोट्रीज बनाम श्रम न्यायालय मेरठ का विनिश्चय पेश किया परन्तु उक्त विनिश्चिय में स्थाई आदेशों में इसी स्थिति का उल्लेख था कि ऐसे ही दुराचरण दण्डनीय होंगे जो संस्थान के परिसर में किये जाते है या अप्रार्थी की ओर से जवाब में कहा गया कि प्रार्थी द्वारा 20-4-97 को यूको बैंक सरदारपुरा शाखा के पूर्व प्रबन्धक श्री एस. सी. शर्मा के साथ गाली ग्लोच एवं अभद्र व्यवहार किया एवं श्री शर्मा के उपर जूता फेंका गया, जिसके संबंध में उसे 16-8-97 को एक आरोप - पत्र दिया गया । जांच अधिकारी ने प्रार्थी को समस्त आवश्यक दस्तावेजात उपलब्ध करवाने तथा बैंक प्रबन्धक की ओर से प्रस्तुत समस्त गवाहान से प्रतिपरीक्षा करने का समुचित अवसर प्रदान करने तथा प्रार्थी को अपनी प्रतिरक्षा में प्रलेखय एवं मौखिक साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करने का पूर्ण अवसर प्रदान करने के पश्चात् अपना जॉच प्रतिवेदन प्रस्तुत किया जिसके लिये प्रार्थी को दुराचरण का दोषी पाया गया, जांच अधिकारी ने प्राकृतिक न्याय के सिद्धांतों का पालन करते हुए प्रार्थी को पर्याप्त अवसर देने के पश्चात् जांच की कार्यवाही सम्पन्न की व जांच प्रतिवेदन अनुशासनिक अधिकारी को प्रेषित किया जिसके संबंध में प्रार्थी ने 29-1-99 को अपना प्रतिवेदन प्रस्तुत किया व व्यक्तिगत सुनवाई का अवसर चाहा , अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रार्थी के प्रतिवेदन पर समुचित रूप से विचार करने के पश्चात् कारण बताओ नोटिस जारी करते हुए 30-12-99 को दण्डादेश पारित किया जो पूर्णतया वैध व उचित है । अनुशानिक अधिकारी द्वारा जांच अधिकारी के निष्कर्ष से सहमत होते हुए दोनों आरोप प्रमाणित माने व लोवर डाउन ऑफ पे बाई वन स्टेज का दण्डादेश पारित किया, अप्रार्थी को प्रार्थी द्वारा किये गये दूराचरण के संबंध में अनुशासनिक कार्यवाही करने का पूर्ण अधिकार प्राप्त है । जांच अधिकारी का प्रतिवेदन प्रलेखीय एवं मौखिक साक्ष्यपर आधारित निष्कर्ष है न कि अन्दाजों पर आधारित है । प्रेमसिंह राठौड़ को साक्ष्य में उपस्थित होने के संबंध में बार - बार निवेदन करने के उपरान्त भी वह उपस्थित नहीं हुआ , बैंक प्रबन्धक की ओर से जांच में अन्य प्रस्तुत गवाह से प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध लगाये गये आरोप पूर्णतया प्रमाणित है , सभी गवाहान के बयानात के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध लगाये गये आरोप पूर्णतः प्रमाणित है और प्रार्थी के कृत्य से न केवल बैंक की प्रतिष्ठा को हानि पहुंची है वरन् बैंक अधिकारी श्री एस. सी. शर्मा का व्यक्तिगत् अपमान भी हुआ है । अनुशासनिक अधिकारी द्वारा समस्त तथ्यों, परिस्थितियों, साक्ष्य एंव प्रार्थी द्वारा उठाये गये तर्कों पर विचार करने के उपरान्त विधिवत् रूप में दण्डादेश पारित किया गया है जिसमें हस्तक्षेप किये जाने का कोई आधार नहीं है , दण्डादेश पूर्णतया उचित व वैध है । प्रार्थी का यह कथन गलत है कि अप्रार्थी ने केवल प्रार्थी को प्रताड़ित करने के उद्देश्य से गैर कानूनी रूप से 21-8-2000 का स्पष्टीकरण जारी किया हो , 21-8-2000 के जरिये कोई आदेश पारित नहीं किया वरन्यूको बैंक शाखा वोरानाडा के पत्र दिनांक 7-8-2000 के प्रत्युत्तर के रूप में वेतन में से एक श्रृंखला कम करने की अवधि 12 माह स्पष्ट की गई । अतिरिक्त कथन में कहा गया कि प्रार्थी के उक्त कृत्य से न केवल श्री एस. सी. शर्मा का अपमान हुआ बल्कि जनसाधारण में बैंक की छवि भी धूमिल हुई, सम्पूर्ण कार्यवाही के दौरान प्राकृतिक [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] 3362

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19, 2004/ JYAISTHA 29, 1926

उसकी समीपता में किये जाते है । यद्यपि यहां पर प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध क्लॉज 19-5 (जे.एल. ) का आरोप है जिसमें ऐसे किसी शब्दों का उल्लेख नहीं है कि संस्थान के परिसर अथवा समीपता में दुराचरण होने पर भी दण्डनीय होगा ऐसी स्थिति में उक्त विनिश्चिय प्रार्थी को कोई लाभ नहीं पहुंचाता ।

इसी क्रम में प्रार्थी की ओर से डी. बी. सिविल स्पेशल अपील नम्बर 391/84 मोहनसिंह बनाम यूको बैंक का विनिश्चय पेश किया जिसमें आरोप क्लॉज 19-5 ( सी) का था उसमें भी असभ्य व्यवहार बैंक परिसर में ही करने पर ही दुराचरण होगा, यह स्थिति स्पष्ट है परन्तु जहां तक क्लॉज जे और एल. का सम्बन्ध है उसमें ऐसी किसी सीमा का उल्लेख नहीं है बल्कि बैंक के हितों के विपरित किसी कार्य को दुराचरण माना गया है और ऐसे कृत्य को उकसाना भी दुराचरण है ऐसी स्थिति में उक्त दोनों विनिश्चय प्रार्थी को कोई लाभ नहीं पहुंचाते।

हो। प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में प्रक्रिया की कोई गलती रही हो ऐसी स्थिति नहीं है तथा जांच अधिकारी द्वारा साक्षियों के बयान स्वतंत्र तौर पर लेकर अपना निष्कर्ष निकाला है , प्रार्थी की ओर से गवाहों के बयानों में कुछ विरोधाभास का उल्लेख किया है परन्तु यह विरोधाभास ऐसा नहीं है जिससे कि पूरी घटना ही झुटलाई जा सकती हो। सभी गवाहान का यह स्पष्ट कथन है कि प्रार्थी द्वारा जूता फेंका गया था और जांच कार्यवाही के दौरान भी प्रार्थी की पहिचान की गई है । प्रेमसिंह के प्राररिक जांच में जो बयान हुए हैं उसमें भी घटना की पुष्टि हुई है । इस प्रकार बनावटी घटना बनाई गई हो ऐसी कोई स्थिति प्रतीत नहीं होती जैसी कि प्रार्थी का कथन रहा है तथा घटना की इस बात से भी पुष्टि होती है कि प्रार्थी ने 19-4-97 को मुख्यालय छोड़ने की अनुमति चाही थी उसका यह कथन था कि बालोतरा में मीटिंग में जाना था परन्तु बालोतरा में कोई मीटिंग हुई हो या प्रार्थी ने उसमें भाग लिया हो ऐसी कोई स्थित पेश नहीं हुई है । 20-4-97 को रविवार के शाम को यह घटना हुई घटना के समय व स्थान के सम्बन्ध में भी प्रार्थी का यह कथन है कि विरोधाभास है परन्तु यह विरोधाभास ऐसा नहीं है जिससे कि पूरी घटना ही गलत प्रतीत हो । समय में कुछ अन्तर हो सकता है और सभी का यह ऐसा कथन है कि घटना रलेवे स्टेशन की है, कौन सा प्लेटफार्म था, यह विशेष महत्व का विषय नहीं रह जाता ।

प्रार्थी द्वारा यह कहा गया है कि उसके विरुद्ध आरोप पूर्वाग्रह से ग्रसित था परन्तु इस आशय की कोई स्पष्ट साक्ष्य न्यायालय के समक्ष पेश नहीं की गई है । केवल मात्र आरोप - पत्र दे देने से यह नहीं माना जा सकता कि बैंक की ओर से किसी पूर्वाग्रह से ग्रसित होकर कोई कार्य किया गया। जांच अधिकारी उक्त रखता हो ऐसा आरोप साक्ष्य नहीं है ।

सम्पूर्ण जांच पत्रावली न्यायालय के समक्ष पेश हुई है जिससे स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी को आरोप- पत्र दिया गया, जांच अधिकारी द्वारा जांच की गई और प्रार्थी को बचाव और सुनवाई का अवसर दिये जाने के पश्चात् दण्डादेश पारित किया गया ।

प्रार्थी की यह आपत्ति है कि दण्डादेश कितनी अवधिका होगा इसमें संशोधन किया गया है परन्तु यह तर्क मान्य नहीं है । श्री शेखावत् का यह स्पष्ट कथन रहा है कि दण्डादेश 12 माह तक प्रभावी रहेगा ऐसा उल्लेख नहीं है परन्तु वेतन वृद्धि वार्षिक होती है अतः स्वाभावतः इसकी अवधि भी एक वर्ष होगी और इसी स्थिति को बाद के आदेश में स्पष्ट किया गया है । आदेश से दण्डादेश में कोई परिवर्तन किया गया हो ऐसी स्थिति नहीं है बल्कि केवल स्थिति को स्पष्ट किया गया है जिसमें कोई त्रुटी नहीं है ।

इस प्रकार प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध समुचित जांच के पश्चात् उसे सुनवाई और बचाव का अवसर देने के पश्चात् दण्डादेश पारित किया गया है जिसमें कोई त्रुटी नहीं है ।

अधिनिर्णय

अतः यह अधिनिर्णित किया जाता है कि अप्रार्थी नियोजक रिजनल मैनेजर यूको बैंक रीजनल ऑफिस , जोधपुर द्वारा प्रार्थी राजेन्द्र भण्डारी के विरुद्ध समुचित जांच के पश्चात् उसे सुनवाई और बचाव काअवसर देने के पश्चात् जो दण्डादेश पारित किया है वह पूर्णतया उचित एवं वैध है । प्रार्थी अप्रार्थी नियोजक से कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।

ह०/-

यह अधिनिर्णय आज दिनांक 05-3-2004 को खुले

न्यायालय में हस्ताक्षर कर सुनाया गया ।

निशा गुप्ता, न्यायाधीश यह आपत्ति भी की गई कि प्रार्थी विरुद्ध आरोप साबित नहीं थे परन्तु यह तर्क मान्य नहीं है । जांच अधिकारी ने संबंधित साक्षी के बयान लिये है और उसके पश्चात् जांच रिपोर्ट पेश की है । यह कहा गया है कि प्रेमसिंह स्वतंत्र साक्षी पेश नहीं हुआ है परन्तु एक साक्षी के पेश नहीं होने मात्र से अन्य साक्षियों के कथनों पर अविश्वास नहीं किया जा सकता और केवल इस आधार पर भी कि साक्षी परिवादी के रिश्तेदार है उनके कथन पर अविश्वास नहीं किया जा सकता, साथ ही विधि की यह स्थिति भी स्पष्ट है कि फौजदारी मामलों में सबूत की मात्रा विभागीय जांच कार्यवाही से बिल्कुल भिन्न होती है और न्यायालय को अवीलीय अधिकारी के रूप में काम नहीं करना है । इस सम्बन्ध में विपक्षी की ओर से ए. आई. आर . 1999 सुप्रीम कोर्ट पेज 625 अप्रल एक्सपोर्ट प्रमोशन कोंसिल बनाम ए. के. चौपड़ा, ए. आई . आर. 1983 सुप्रीम कोर्ट पेज 1102 जीवनमल कोचर बनाम भारत संघ ए. आई. आर. 1963 सुप्रिम कोर्ट पेज 1723 आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य बनाम एस. श्री रामाराव , व डब्ल्यू. एल. सी. राजस्थान यू.सी. 2000 पेज 450 आर . एस. आर. टी. सी. बनाम रमेशचन्द्र के विनिश्चय पेश किये जिसमें स्पष्ट तौर पर यह कहा गया है कि सामान्यतः न्यायालय को जांच अधिकारी द्वारा तथ्यों और दण्ड के सम्बन्ध में दिये गये निष्कर्ष में हस्तक्षेप नहीं करना चाहिए, यदि वह निष्कर्ष युक्तियुक्तसाक्ष्य से समर्थित हो या प्रक्रिया की कोई स्पष्ट गलती नहीं 3363 भारत का राजपत्र : जून19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

11th March, 2004

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 28 मई, 2004

(Dictated in open Court )

का.आ. 1461- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक आफ महाराष्ट्र के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण पुणे के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 24/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011 /274/2000- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 28th May, 2004

1. This is a Reference under Section 10( 1 )(d) ofSub- section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for adjudication of the demand for the assessment of the weekly hours of the part time sweepers , who are the members of the second party. Union the first party to the Reference is the Management of Bank of Maharashtra, through its General Manager , (Personnel ), Central Office and the Second Party to the Reference is the General Secretary of Bank of Maharashtra Karamchari Sangh, which is espousing the case of the part time sweepers engaged by the first party at its various branches , within PuneRegion.

S.O. 1461. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 24/2001 of the Industrial Tribunal Pune as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 27-5-2004 .

[No. L- 12011 /274/2000- IR(B - II) ]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. L. DESHPANDE : INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL: PUNE

2. The second party is the registered Trade Union ofthe employees working in the office and the branch of the first party Bank of Maharashtra . Some of the employees, in the list, attached to the Reference Order are the members of the second Party Union . The service conditions of the Bank employees engaged by the first party Bank are governed by the provisions of Shastri Award, Desai Award and the settlements between the Union and the Management, entered into , from time to time, which are referred to as the bi- partite settlements. Asper Desai Award, employees are classified and the part time employee is one of the class of the employees . In the Pune Rural Region, various part time sub - staffs (PTS) are engaged by the Bank at its different Branches . The sub -staff engaged by the branches, supposed to perform the following duties :-

Reference (II) No. 24 of2001 .

(1) Clearing the premises and its surroundings .

Between:

(2) Keep clean all the floorings .

(3) Filling water for drinking purpose .

.First Party.

Management of the Bank of Maharashtra, Pune(Maharashtra) , 411005

(4) Cleaning of utensiles .

AND

(5) Cleaning of the furniture , fans , windows , and cup- boards , and

.Second Party.

Their Workmen

(6) Bringing of keys of the premises.

In the matter of

3. As per the bi-partite settlement, dated, 10-4-1989, part time sub - staff, (PTS ) , is entitled to the wages at the following rates :--

Minimum 175/- p.m.

More than 3 hours

6 to 13 hours

1/3 of the scale wages .

13 to 19 hours

1/2 of the scale wages .

Adjudication of the dispute " Whether the demand ofthe Bank of Maharashtra Karamchari Sangh, that the part time Sweepers as per the list attached should be paid wages as per the annexure after assessing their weekly hours of work according to the B. S. (industrywise) , dated 10-4-1989, is legal and justified? If yes , then what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to ? "

19 to 29 hours

3/4 of the scalewages .

Appearances

Full scale ofwages.

Beyond 29 hours

: Shri M. G. Rathakantiwar , Union Representative for the Second Party workmen.

4. In the Pune Region , there were 22 PTS of 1/2 scale wages and44 PTS of 1/3 apale wages.tocording to the Union , thus , the sole wanges were not sproperly Shrimati V. D. Patil , Manager , PRR for the first party Bank .

1760 G1/04-22 3364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA standardised . The time required to perform the allotted duties in much more than what is presumed and paid . Inadequate wages to the PTS is a general issue of serious concern and many agitations were held to draw attention of the Management . Ultimately , union approached the Labour Department of the Central Government, with its demand . On failure of conciliation proceedings , Reference came to be made to this Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute over the demand of the PTS .

5. The second party filed its statement of claim and reiterated in the statement of claim that the second party reiterated the above facts to justify its demands . So also referred to cases of the four PTS engaged at different Branches , within Purne Region , as sample cases to high- light their demands that the weekly hours of the sweepers should be assessed , properly and they need to be standardised .

6. The respondent Management , in its written- statement at Exh . C- 4 admitted the rates of the wages to be paid to PTS as per the bi -partite settlement, dated , 10-4-1989 . However , it denied the allegations in the statement of claim and particularly , the averments as regards the individual cases of the four PTS . According to the Management, one of the PTS S. N. Khomane is not a member of the Union .

The management also relied upon bi - partite settlements with the BPS , dated , 22nd September, 1999 , under which , the part time Sub - staff ( PTS ) engaged at the different branches is to be absorbed as permanent in the phases and in certain proportion . According to the first party Management , the PTS are paid properly as per the BPS and it is not necessary to make revision of their working hours or standardisation of their working hours . Thus , the Management denied the demand made by the second party Union .

7. The following demand is referred to this Tribunal for adjudication . The demand with my findings thereon , is as follows :---

Demand:

"Whether the demand of Bank of Maharashtra Karmachari Sangh, that the part time Sweepers as per the list attached should be paid wages , as per annexure after assessing their weekly hours of work according to the B. S. ( industrywise) dated , 10-4-1989 , is legal and justified?. If yes , what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?"

Findings:-

Partly as per the award .

REASONS :

8. At the various branches of the first party Bank , the FTG are engaged for the propose of cleaning and

JUNE 19, 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] sweeping the premises and certain such other work . There isno dispute about the fact that they are paid wages at the rates , mentioned above. It is the grievance of the Union that the scale wages paid to some of the PTS , were not properly standardised and the time required to perform the allotted duties is much more than what is considered by the Bank for making the payment of the wages . In the statement ofclaim , the second party Union has referredto the cases of the four PTS . From the statement of claim , it is seen that there are about 66 PTS engaged by the Bank , atits different branches and offices . All of them are not before the Tribunal . The second party Union is not the recognized Union of the employees of the first party Bank . For the purpose of the present Reference , it is espousing the case of 22 PTS and the list of those 22 PTS is attached to the order of the reference . In the statement of claim itself, it is averred that the scale wages paid to some of the PTS were not properly standardised. The fact that out of the 66 PTS , the Union has made demand for 22 PTS and the statement of claim that some of the PTS were not properly paid their wages and working hours were not properly standardised, would go to show that it is not the case of the Union that there is infirmity as regards the fixation of the hours or standardisation of the hours and the PTS engaged by the Bank within Pune Region . The grievance of the Union is restricted to some of the PTS . According to the Union they are those PTS whose names are mentioned in the list annexed to the reference order .

9. Amongs them, in the statement of claim as well as in the evidence , reference is made to the case of S.M. Khomane engaged at Varawand Branch . The first party Bank has emphatically denied his claim and has taken the stand that Mr. Khomane is not a member of the Union . In the first place, the name of Shri S.M. Khomane , does not appear in the list of the PTS attached to the order of the reference . Thus , he is not the PTS , whose case is espoused by the Union through the present Reference . Therefore , consideration of his case would be beyond the order of the Reference since the name of Shri S.M. Khomane , does not appear in the list of the workman whose names are in the list said appended to the Reference Order. In the second place, the union has not placed any material on the record to show that he is a member of the Union . The Secretary ofthe Union , during the course of his cross - examination , made a statement that he would lead documentary evidence to show that Mr. Khomane is a member of the Union , but no such evidence is produced . Therefore, I need not discuss thematerial adduced by the Union on the record, as regards the PTS Mr. S.M. Khomane .

10. Next PTS referred to in the statement of claim and in the affidavit is Mr. M.M. Ghaitale , at Ghotawade Branch . In the evidence of Regional Secretary of the Union , by name Shri Shantaram Narayan Haigunde , (UW- 1 ) , it is mentioned that Shri Ghaitale is required to perform duties for 21 hours per week whereas it is shown that he is 3365 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

required to work for 13 hours , per week. The premises , which he is supposed to clean and sweep are 1265 sq. ft. besides the stair- case .

to work for 13 hours per week. Thus , the second party Bank should have paid this PTS ½ of the scale , per month , instead of Rs . 175/ - as was paid to him .

11. The first party has examined Shri Makarand Krishna Deval , (CW- 2) who is the Branch Manager at Ghotawade Branch . He deposed that Ghaitale was engaged as the PTS , on the consolidated salary of Rs . 175 /- per month effect from 16th April, 1990.

13. It is on the record that due to the shifting of the Branch, to the new premises - Shri Ghaitale's wages were increased to 1 /3rd of his scale with effect from 30-9-1993 . Acopy of that order is at Exh . C- 32 . It is then admitted position that the above referred table of the scale of the wages came into effect as per the provisions contained in the bi -partite settlement dated, 10-4-1989 . As the working hours of this/PTS were within the range of 13 to 19 hours , he should have been paid ½ of the scale wages from the shifting ofthe Branch to the new premises i.e. from 30-9-1993 as the work was increased. However , the first party , paid him 1 /3rd of the scale wages . It has also come on record through the affidavit evidence , of Branch Manager Mr. Dewale (CW - 2) that Mr. PTS Ghaitale has been given ½ scale wages with effect from 31-10-1999 . As mentioned above, he should have been paid 1/2 scale wages from 30-9-1993 i.e. the date , on which his wages were fixed at 1/3rd ofthe scale wages . Thus , the demand of the payment ofthe scale wages at the rate of 1/2 of the scale , in respect ofMr. Ghaitale (PTS) is justifiable .

14. The first party Bank has engaged Mr. A. S. Shinde at Baramati Branch . According to the Union , PTS , Mr. Shinde was working on ½ scales wages and he gave representation on 14-2-2000 for enhancement ofthe wages . During the course of the evidence , witness examined by theUnion referred to the representation submitted byMr. Shinde , PTS , but admitted during the course of the cross- examination that such representation is not on the record . Itisin the affidavit evidence ofthe Secretary ofthe Union that Mr. Shinde is required to work for more than 22 hours perweek. It is on the record that former Baramati Branch where Mr. A.S. Shinde was working, was housed in the premises of Kale Colony and then it came to be shifted to the new premises. It is in the affidavit evidence that the premises of the new Branch are larger by five times than the premises of the old Branch .

Acopy ofthe appointment order of Shri Ghaitale is produced at Exh . C-31 , at Exh . C- 33 , there is statement- cum- information sent by the Branch Manager , Ghotawade Branch to the Regional Office . It is dated 15-11-1994. Under the different columns mentioned in this form, the Branch Manager furnished information , as regard the work performed by PTS Mr. Ghaitale and in Column No. 8 of the said statement , it was mentioned that the PTS was required to work for 13 hours per week . At Exh . U- 17 , there is the xerox copy of the representation-cum- letter , sent by Mr. Ghaitale addressed to the Branch Manager , by which , Mr. Ghaitale represented that he requires about three hours for performing his work . Besides three hours , daily , he has to spend 2½ hours per week for sweeping work. This shows that he is required to work for about 18 to 19 hours per week . However, while giving the information Exh . C- 34, to the Regional Office , the Branch Manager at Ghotawade , informed that the PTS was required to spend one hour per week . During the course ofthe cross-examination , Branch Manager admitted that theBranch had received the letter from the regional office which is at Exh . C-34 . It was in respect of increase in the salary of PTS Ghaitale . There is statements , in this letter , that the Branch had shifted to new Branch and Ghaitale be paid 1 /3rd salary from the date of shifting of the Branch to the new premises . In the same letter , it was mentioned that his total working should be managed within 13 hours , in a week . During the course of the cross-examination , Branch Manager, Mr. Dewal admitted to have received the letter Exh . C-20 and the instructions received from the R.M. Office for working of the PTS should be arranged within 13 hours in a week. It be noted that formerly this Branch was working in a small Branch and at that time PTS Ghaitale was paid the consolidated wages at the rate ofRs . 175/- per month . However, subsequent to the shifting ofthe Branch to the new premises. wages were increased to 1 /3rd of the scale .

12. In this regard, it be noted that as per the table given above , the PTS are entitled to for 6 to 10 working hours , 1/3rd of the scale wages and for 13 to 19 hours 1/2 ofthe scale wages . Thus , 13 is the demarketing line. The instructions in the letter referred to above (Exh . C- 32) reveal that the Regional Office had given instructions to the Branch to see that the working hours are managed within 15 hours per week . Obviously , as per these instructions , the information in the prescribed form Exh . C-33 was furnished to show that the P.T.S. was required

15. The First Party Bank has examined the Branch ManagerofBaramati Branch Mr. S.A. Shinde. In his afidavit evidence Exh . CW- 3 , Manager, Mr. Shinde deposed that PTS Mr. Shinde was working at Baramati Branch , Extension Counter and the area of the extension counter was 350 sq . ft. The P.T.S. Mr. Shinde was paid the consolidated wages atthe rate ofRs . 175/- per month . Witness further deposed thatP.T.S. Shinde was transferred to Baramati Main Branch and his wages were increased to Rs . 1 /2.scale/ wages with effect from 5-9-1998. He further deposed that as per the bi- partite settlement of 1999 , the wages of Shri Shinde PTS, areincreased to ½ scale wages . During the course ofcross- examination Mr. Shinde admitted that PTS Mr. Shinde was working at the old premises during the period 1986 to 1998 . AtExh. C- 25 , there is zerox copy of the statement, which is required to be furnished in the prescribed form by the Bank [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 19 , 2004 / JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

3366

and C-29 , produced by the first party Bank, support this evidence of the Branch Manager, Mr. Kale .

18. It is not the case of the first party Bank that the site ofthe Branch was shifted to new place . On the contrary , Branch Manager , admitted during the course of cross- examination that they were extracting the work of 17 hours per week from the sub - staff. Now , as per the bi -partite settlement, dated 10-4-1989 , PTS is entitledto ½ of the scale wages , if he is required to work for 13 to 19 hours , during the week. By this reckoning , PTS Gaikwad was entitled to ½ of the scale wages with effect from 10-4-1989 i.e. from the date of the bi-partite settlement . Itisseen from the record that Shri Gaikwad was given ½ ofthe scale wages with effect from 1-8-1999 . In fact, he was entitled to ½ ofthe scale - wages with effect from 10-8-1989 . Therefore, the claim of the second party Union , as regards the recovery of the arrears of the wages , as per the bi- partite settlement of 1989, is justifiable . Therefore , I would direct the first party Bank to pay the arrears of wages to PTS D. N. Gaikwad at the rate of ½ of the scale wages from 10-8-1989 to 1-8-1999 .

Manager to the Regional Office . in this statement Tvh . C- 25, against the column No. 8, it is mentioned that the total working hours for a week were nine . This statement- cum- information was furnished by the Branch on 11-1-1991 . Mr. Shinde was engaged as PTS in the year 1986. That year appears in the information - cum- statement Exh. C - 25 . Now, admittedly, by the bi - partite settlement , dated 10-4-1989 , for 6 to 13 working hours , PTS was entitled to 1/ 3rd ofthe scale wages . Now, the orders on the record reveal that as perthe order Fxh . C- 23 , dated 9-9-1998 , PTS Mr. Shinde was given½ of scale wages with crfect from 5-9-1998 . As per the order dated, 28-9-2000, Exit. C- 4, the PTS Mr Shinde was given of the wage scale withelect from 31 :1-1999 .. However the fact remains that in the old premiscaso , Mr. Shinde was required to work for nine hours per week. This is borne out from the copy of the statement Exh . C- 25 . It was filled in by the Branch Manager of the Bank . Now, as per the bi-partite settlement , dated 10-4-1989 , PTS is entitled to 1/3 of the scale wages for 6 to 13 hours of work . Therefore, from 10-4-1989 , by shifting the Bank to the new premises on 5-9-1998 , PTS Shinde should have been paid 1/3rd of his sca ...wages , whereas he was paid Rs . 175/- per month as consolidated salary . Therefore , thedemand of the second party Union is justifiable to the extent of 1 / 3rd ofthe scale wages to the PTS Mr. Shinde , from 10-4-1989 to 5-9-1998.

19. The demand of the second party Union is for assessment of the weekly hours of the work for the PTS . The second party has adduced evidence in respect of only four PTS and amongst them, three are members , and one is non-member . Amongst them , I find that the assessment of the working hours was not correct, in respect of only one PTS. The second party has not adduced evidence , as regards the rest of the PTS / workmen . There is no material onthe record to show that the working hours of the rest of the PTS are also not properly assessed. There is also no evidence to show that they are the members of the second partyUnion . The allegations , in this regard , are genera? in nature, without any particulars . Therefore , I do not find necessary to direct the first party Bank to undertake the exercise of re- assessment of the working hours of all the PTS whose names are mentioned in the Annexure to the Order of the Reference .

16. Then , I turn to the case of PTS Shri D. N. Gaikwad, who is engaged at Walhe Branch . The witness examined by the first party Management, admitted, during the course of his cross - examination that Mr. Gaikwad is working at Walhe Branch since 17-2-1987. Initially, he was paid wages at 1 /3rd scale rate. As pointed out above , 1 / 3rd scale is applicable for 6 to 13 hours of work, per week . At Exh. U - 18 , there is a copy of the application, dated 16-2-1999 , bearing signature ofPTS Mr. Gaikwad. In the said application, he mentioned that he was required to work for 17 hours and 30 minutes per week and he was entitled to ½ scale wages . On this application Exh . U- 18 , the signature of Mr. Gaikwad is in English . In his evidence , the Union witness deposed that Shri Gaikwad is required to work for more than 19 hours per week. However , application Exh. U- 18 , sent by Shri Gaikwad, militates against this statement and Shri Gaikwad admitted that he was required to work for 17 hours and 30 minutes .

17. It is the case of the first party Bank with regard to Shri Gaikwad that the claim of the second party Union , with regard to G ad has already been satisfied. In the affidavit evidence (CW - 1 ) , Mr. Kale, who is attached to Walhe Branch, where Shri Gaikwad is working , has deposed that Shri Gaikwad was paid 1 /3rd scale wages with effect from 17-2 1987 and ½ scale wages with effect from 1-8- 1999 , and ¼ scale wages with effect from 31-10-1999 . The xerox copies of the orders , Exhs . C-28

20. Apart from that, the Federation of the Union has entered into the Settlement with the First party Bank on 22nd September, 1999. Copy of the said settlement is produced at Ext . C- 36 . On going through the same , it is seen that on negotiations with the representatives of the majority of the Union , it was decided to enchance the scale wages of the existing PTS . As per that settlement, within the period of three years from the date of the settlement, PTS in 1/3rd, 1/2 and 3/4 scale wages would be converted into 1/2 , 3/4 and full pay scale , respectively . It is further seen from the settlement thatthe Management of the First PartyBank agreed to absorb the PTS into the above referred scale-wages in the phased manner. The Union has admitted copy ofthis settlement and the representative of the second party did not make any comment about the same . In view the provisions in the settlement, I find that the first party Bank has already given the relief to these PTS by elevating 3367 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

NewDelhi , the 28th May, 2004 them to the upper scale. From this stand point also, I do not find it necessaryto direct the first party Bank to undertake the exercise of the re-assessment of the working hours of thePTS.

S.O. 1462.-In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government here by publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2003) of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industiral Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofLIC of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 24-5-2004.

21. In view ofthe aforesaid discussions, I hold that the demands ofthe second party Union for re -assessment ofthe hours of the work performed by the PTS is rejected and is not justified. However , the demand as regards the payment of the wages , according to the bi - partite settlement, dated, 10-4-1989 , is justifiable in the manner and in respect of some of the PTS mentioned above. I, therefore, proceed to pass the following award.

[No. L- 17011 / 16/2002 - IR(B- II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

AWARD

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, CHEMI

(i ) The demand ofthe second party Union for assessing the working hours of the PTS as per the bi- partite settlement, dated, 10-4-1989 , is not justifiable and hence rejected.

Wednesday, the 21st April, 2004

PRESENT:

Shri K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer (ii) However, the demand ofthe second party Union to pay wages to the PTS, as per the bi -partite settlement, dated, 10-4-1989, is justifiable in respect ofthe PTS Sarvashri :-

INDUSTRIALDISPUTE NO . 13/2003 (1) M. M. Ghaitale, (2) A. S. Shinde, and (3) D.N. Gaikwad.

(Inthe matter ofthe dispute for adjudication under clause (d) ofsub-section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between theManagement of LIC ofIndia and theirworkmen).

(iii) The first party Bank is directed to pay the scale wages at the rate of 1/2 to PTS Shri M. M. Ghaitale with effectfrom 30-9-1993 to 31-10-1999, less already paid.

BETWEEN

The General Secreatry, : Insurance Corporation IParty/ Claimant (iv) The first party Bank is directed to pay the wages at the rate of 1 /3rd of the scale to PTS Shri A. S. shinde, for the period from 10-4-1989 to 5-9-1998, less alreadypaid.

Employees Union, Tirunelveli .

AND

: II Party /Management (v) The First party Bank is directed to pay the arrears of scale wages at the rate of 1/2 ofthe scale to PTS Shri D. N. Gaikwad, with effect from 10-8-1989 to 1-8-1999, less already paid.

The Management, LIC of India, Divisional Office, Tirunelveli.

(vi) Award is made, accordingly.

Sd/-

11thMarch,2004

Appearance: For the Claimant : M/s . D. Geetha, M. Murugan & Veda Ramya, Advocates J. L. DESHPANDE, Industrial Tribunal

For theManagement : Mr. P. V. Raghavan , Advocate

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 28 मई, 2004

1.The Central Government Ministry of Labour vide Notification Order No. L- 17011 / 16/2002 - IR(B - II ) dated 10-12-2002 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

का०आ० 1462.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार जीवन बीमा निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नै के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the action of the management of LIC of India to impose the punishment of reduction inbasic pay bythree stages on Shri S. Bhaskaran , Record Clerk is legal and justified? Ifnot, what relief is the concerned workman is entitled to? " [सं० एल -17011 / 16/2002- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ]

2.After the receipt of the reference, it was taken on file as I.D.No. 13/2003 and notices were issued to both the सी० गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव 3368

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] parties and both the parties entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectvely .

3. The allegations ofthe Petitoner Union in the Claim Statement and briefly as follows:-

Theworkman concerned in this industrial dispute is working as record clerk under the Respondent at Tuticorin branch from 16-6-87 . while so , the Petitioner was served with charge sheet dated 28-2-97 that he has committed breach under Regulation 21 & 30( 1 ) read with 30(2) of LIC Staff Regulation, 1960 and was imposed punishment under Regulation 39 ( 1 ) (a) to ( g ) of the Staff Regulations . The allegations in the charge sheet are that the concerned employee remained absent from duty in an unauthorised manner without obtaining prior permission for the specified period. Secondly, the concerned workman failed to submit hisexplanation for official letters ; thirdly , the concerned employee refused to accept the official communications on many occasions . The Petitioner submitted his explanation for the charges and thereby proved his innocence . But not accepting the explanation given by the concerned empolyee , an enquiry was ordered and conducted on 12-9-97 . The enquiry so conducted was arbitrary, unreasonable and in violative of principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside . The Enquiry Officer has refused to entertain the workman's request for defence assistance . The Enquiry Officer even before questioning the delinquent employee about the charges called the Presenting Officer to mark the documents in proofofthe charges . Further , the Presenting Officer started cross examining the delinquent on the charge . The Presenting Officer did not examine any witness on behalf of the Management and failed to substantiate the charges . The explanation given by the Petitioner for the absence was not all taken into account . The medical and fitness certificates submitted by the workman was also not considered . The appeal preferred by the Petitioner to Zonal Manager was rejected. Again , the Memorial preferred by the Petitioner to the Chairman was also dismissed. Since the enquiry was conducted in an arbitrary manner , unreasonable and in violation of principles of natural justice and against the provisions of LIC of India Staff Regulations , the Petitioner prays the Tribunal to adjudicate on the preliminary issue ' whether the domestic enquiry held against the Petitioner /Workman is fair, proper and in accordance with principles of natural justice?'

undelivered. The concerned employee received the charge sheet on 4-3-97 and prayed that one more week's time for sending his reply and in his reply , he has admitted the charges and he has given reasons for his unauthorised absence which did not sound convincing and considering allthe facts and circumstances ofthe case , the Respondent/ Management has initiated departmental enquiry. The enquiry was conducted as contemplated under the LIC of India Staff Regulations , 1960 and after going through the entire records, the Enquiry Officer has given his report finding that the concerned employee is guilty of first two charges and absolved him from the third charge . The Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice and proposed to impose penalty as mentioned in the letter dated 3-11-97 . Even though the employee was given sufficient opportunity, he failed to submit his reply to the show cause notice . Hence , the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of reduction of five stages by an order dated 27-1-98 . The concerned employee's appeal to the Appellate Authority was considered by the authority and he took a lenient view and modified the penalty from reduction of five stages to reduction by three stages in basic pay by an order dated 25-5-99 . The concerned employee's Memorial to Chairman was duly considered by the Chairman and was rejected. The charges against the employee were that he had unauthorisedly absented himselfand the registered letters sent to his residence were returned undelivered and the entire matter was of record and the relevant papers were filed as exhibits and were made available to the concerned employee . The enquiry was held in a fair and impartial manner giving him full opportunity to defend himself. The concerned employee had not denied the charge that he had been absented unauthorisedly but only sought to justify his lapses as arising out of circumstances beyond his control and that his action was neither wilful nor wanton. However , the fact remains that he had violated the provisions of Regulations 30 and 61 of LIC of India Staff Regulations , 1960. It is false to allege that his leave application with medical certificate was not considered . In fact, the concerned workman has submitted leave applications en bloc on 17-3-97 and the said applications were submitted long after the relevant dates of absence and they were submitted only as an afterthought . Further , the medical certificates submitted by him are back dated to cover the relevant periods . It is false to allege that his request for legal assistance in the enquiry was rejected . In fact, the concerned employee has given a letter dated 6-9-97 to the competent authority requesting him to permit the concerned employee to avail the services of one Sri P. Isakkimuthu to assist in the enquiry . However , on 12-9-97, he gave another letter to the competent authority that he proposed to participate in the enquiry all by himself and without the assistance of Mr. Isakkimuthu . Since the entire enquiry is based on records and in view of the admission given by the concerned employee , there was 4. As against this , the Respondent in its Counter Statement contended that though it is true that the concerned workman Sri S. Bhaskaran has joined the Respondent/Management as alleged by him in the claim Statement , but he was unauthorisedly absent from various dates for various periods in all totalling to 455 days and that letters dated 3-6-96 , 12-6-96 and 3-10-96 were sent by registered post with acknowledgement card to the employee's residential address but returned to office 3369 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

absolutely no necessity to examine any witness in this case. Further, the examination of witness is not essential in every case. Therefore, the punishment given by the authorities is legal and justified . Hence, the Respondent prays that the claim may be dismissed with costs.

5. In these circumstances , the points for my consideration are-

(i) " Whether the action of the Respondent/ Management to impose the punishment of reduction in basic pay by three stages on Sri S. Bhaskaran , Record Clerk is legal and justified ?"

(ii) " To what relief he is entitled?"

Point :-

6. The charges framed against the concerned employee namely Sri S. Bhaskaran are that he remained absent from his duties in an unauthorised manner without obtaining prior permission for a specified period in all totalling to 455 days and secondly, the said Mr. Bhaskaran failed to submit his explaination for the official letters dated 3-6-96, 12-6-96 and 3-10-96 sent by Registered Post with acknowledgement card, thirty Mr. S. Bhaskaran refused. to accept the official communications on many occasions in which the domestic enquiry was held and after following the procedures , the Enquiry Officer has held out of the three charges framed the first two charges have been proved against the concerned employee and the Disciplinary Authority after giving show cause notice have imposed the punishment of reduction in basic pay by five stages by and order dated 27-1-98 . On appeal against that order , the Appellate Authority have reduced the same by three stages in the basic pay by an order dated 25-5-99 and the concerned employee's Memorial submitted to the Chairman was also rejected . Therefore, the Petitioner Union has raised this dispute and on its failure , it was referred to this Tribunal for adjudication.

7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner in this case argued that though three charges were framed against the concerned employee , the first two charges are one and the same . In this case , even though it was charged against the concerned employee that he has absented for duty for more than455 days unauthorisedly without any leave or without obtaining prior permission from his superiors , from the documents produced by the Respondent/Management namely Ex . MIseries , it is clear that the Petitioner has applied for medical leave alongwith medical certificate, but it is not known whether sanction was accorded for the said applications or not . Further , the Respondent/ Management has also not given any evidence nor produced any document to show that the applications were rejected by the management and under such circumstances , it cannot be said that the Petitioner has unauthorisedly absented for duty for more than 455 days without any prior

permission and therefore, the charges framed against the concemed employee have not been proved. But, on the other hand, the Enquiry Officer has placed the burden of proving this fact on the concerned employee and he has alleged in the enquiry report that the Petitioner has not produced any material to show that he has applied for leave or sought for any prior permission for his absence . In this case, though it was stated that the enquiry was held against the concerned workman in his presence, during the enquiry no witness was examined and no document was marked before the Petitioner and therefore , no opportunity was given to the concerned employee to cross examine the witnesses . Only questions were put to the concerned employee by way of cross examination by the Presenting Officer and alsothe Enquiry Officer and his statement was recorded. Therefore , merely recording the statement ofthe workman concemed without the Respondent/Management attempted to substantiate the charges framed against the concerned employee does not satisfy the requirements of holding of enquiry and it will not satisfy the statutory requirements and therefore , the findings of the Enquiry Officer is illegal and the punishment imposed on the basis of the findings is also illegal . The enquiry so conducted was in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of LIC of India Staff Regulations , 1960. It is further argument that the enquiry so conducted by the Enquiry Officer is arbitrary , unreasonable and violative of principles of natural justice . Even though it is stated that the documents were marked in the enquiry proceedings , no witness was examined by the Respondent/ Management to prove the charges . The Presenting Officer though presented the documents in the enquiry did not substantiate the charges by any witness or by any other material evidence . The procedure followed by the Enquiry Officer do not amount to fair producer and therfore, it is / in violation of principles of natural justice . even the High Courts and Apex Court have held that such enquiry is not an enquiry at all and she has placed reliance on 1967 II LLJ 392 MEENGIAS TEA ESTAT VS. ITS WORKMAN and AIR 1963 SC 1914 SUR ENAMEL AND STAMPING WORKS LTD . Vs. WORKMAN. In the first cited case , the Supreme Court has held that " no evidence tenderedat the domestic enquiry in support of the charges made against the concerned workman and certain questions put to concernedworkman by way of cross examination, the officerswhowere alleged to have been assaaulted by the concerned workman also sitting as Enquiry Officer and cross examining the concerned workman and the concernedworkman was not given any opportunity to cross examine them at the domestic enquiry and in such circumstances, in the case before the Industrial Tribunal, theIndustrial Tribunal was right in holding that domestic enquiry was not fair and hence, the Industrial Tribunal was right in asking the employer to prove the allegations against the concerned workman denovo before it. It is an elementary principle that a person who is required to [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

JUNE 19, 2004 /JYAISTHA 29, 1926

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA

3370

indisposition the production of a medical certificate may, at the absolute discretion of the competent authority be dispensed with.

(2) An employee who absents himselffrom duty without leave or overstays his leave shall not entitled todrawany payand allowances during such absence or overstayal, and shall further be liable to such disciplinary measures as the competent authority may deem necessary.

answer a charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. He must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way ofcross examination as he desires . Then he must begiven a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. This is the barest requirement of an enquiry of this character and this requirement must be substantially fulfilled before the result of enquiry can be accepted. A departure from this requirement in effect throws burden upon the charged to repel the charge without first making it out against him. " In the second cited case , the Supreme Court has held that an enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held unless--

Provided, however that the competent authority maytreat suchperiod ofabsence or overstayal, if not followed by termination of service as period spent on privilege , special or extra ordinary leave, but the employee shall not be entitiled as of right to such treatment.

(i) the employee proceedid against has been informed clearly of the charges levelled against him;

(ii) the witnesses are examined ordinarily in the presence of the employee in respect of the charges;

Providedfurther that notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation 65 the competent authoritymay treat such absence or overstayal as period spent on extra ordinary leave irrespective of whether the employee has any other leave to his credit or not ? " (iii) the employee is given a fair opportunity to cross examine the witnesses ;

and Regulation 61 says " leave is earned by duty or service (b) it cannot be claimed as a matter of right .

(iv) he has given fair opportunity to examine the witnesses including himself in his defence ifhe so wishes on any relevant matter ;

When the exigencies of service of the corporation so require discretion to refuse or revoke leave ofany description is reserved to the authority empowered to grant it.

(v) the Enquiry Officer records his findings with reasons for the same in his report .

Explanation: Sanction of leave may not be presumed and leave askedfor not be availed ofunless it has been specifically sanctioned.

In this case, such procedures have not been followed and therefore , the enquiry held against the concerned employee is vitiated.

(n). the employee shall before proceeding on leave intimate to the competent Authority his address while on leave and shall keep the authority informed of any change in the address previously furnished. " 8. But, as against this the learned counsel for the Respondent argued that it is false to allege that the enquiry held against the concerned employee was against the principles of natural justice . The counsel for the Petitioner has not brought to the notice of this Tribunal with regard to the provision in Regulation 30 and 61 of LIC of India (Staff) Regulations , 1960 which is as follows :-

Regulation 30 ( 1 ) an employee shall not absent himself from duty without having obtained permission from the competent authority nor shall be absented himself in case of sickness or accident without submitting a medical certificate satisfactory to the competent authority.

Provided that in case ofunforeseen emergency an employee may be allowed to avail of one day's casual leave without prior sanction subject to the condition that the competent authority is promptly advised of the circumstances in which prior sanction could not be obtained.

In this case, in the charge itself, an annexure was attached to the charge memo , wherein it is clearly mentioned that the concerned employee was in an unauthorised manner and without obtaining prior permission abstained from duty for which the concerned employee has given an explanation under Ex . M3 that due to family circumstances and due to mental condition , he has not given the leave application and he has given the said leave applications after he has joined the duty and furhter he has stated that in certain circumstances , he has informed his superious orally and also informed the same by telegram and it was not want only or wilfully he has not given the leave letters then and there and only in certain circumstances , he has not submitted his application in time. Since the explanation given by the concerned workman is not satisfactory, the management has ordered an enquiry and even in that enquiry , he was informed about the charges Provided further that in the case oftemporary

14 3371 भारत का राजपत्र जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 19

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

been followed in this case . Again , the learned counsel for the Respondent argued that though under Ex . M11 series the employee concerned has given leave applications alongwith medical certificate , all these applications were submitted before the management subsequent to framing of charges i.e. on 17-3-1997 and therefore , it cannot be saidthat the management has to pass an order sanctioning the leave or rejecting his leave applications . Therefore , there is no point in the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that without producing any documents with regard to sanction of leave , the enquiry was held against the Petitioner . It is his further argument in this case that the concerned employee has been given to habitual absence without leave or prior permission, to the office, thus he has been absenting himself for a period totalling to 455 days and even in his reply to charge sheet and also before the enquiry proceedings , he has not denied the charge that he had not obtained prior sanction of leave but onlysought to explain the reasons for his lapses. Therefore, it cannot be said that the enquiry was not held in a proper manner.

9. I findmuch force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent because it is clearly established before this Court that the concerned employee has not produced any material evidence to substantiate his claim that he has submitted leave applications before proceeding on leave . Under such circumstances , I find the concerned employee, was a habitual absentee for more than 455days and the enquiry held against him was in a proper manner and the enquiry is not vitiated by any illegality . Therefore , I find this point against the Petitioner Union .

Point No. 2 :-

The next point to be decided in this case is to what reliefconcerned employee is entitled ?

10. In view of my foregoing findings that the imposition of punishment on the onncerned employee is legal and justified, I find the concerned employee Sri S. Bhaskaran is not entitled to any relief. No Costs .

(Diotated to the PA , transcribed and typed by him, correctedand pronounced by me in the open court on this day the21st April, 2004.)

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :-

Oneither side

Documents Marked :-

For the I Party/Claimant

For the IIParty/Management

Ex. No. Date

Description

28-02-97

Xerox copy ofthe charge sheet issued toPetitioner

17-03-97

against him and was asked whether he admits the charges framed against him for which the concerned employee has admitted his mistake and he only pleaded mercy before the Enquiry Officer . Therefore , there is no need for the management to examine any witness and all the relevant documents were filed before the Enquiry Officer and as per the rule, as he has admitted, that he has not given leave letters before proceeding on leave and even though he has submitted certain leave applications before the competent authority, he has not stated or produced any material documents to prove his allegations and ia such circumstances, it cannot be said that the enquiry was not held in a proper manner and procedures have not been followed. Further , the learned counsel for the Respondent relied on the rulings reported in 2001 I LLJ 174 , wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with Punjab and Sind Bank with regard to the terms of the Bipartite Settlement has held that " if the Respondent has submitted his explanation regarding his unauthorised absence or placed any material before the Court that he reported for duty butwas not allowed tojoin duty, enquiry may have been necessitated but not otherwise. TheRespondent claimed that he had sent several communications regarding his illnesss or to extend his leave or to rejoin duty, but theredoes not appear to be any record with the banknor theRespondent is in a position to produce proof ofhis having sent such letters . Therefore, wedo not find any material on record to show that he had reportedfor duty withinthe period indicated in the notice in terms of Clause 16 of IV. Bipartite Settlement. In such circumstances, we find the High Court had proceded on an erroneous basis of non -compliance of principles of natural justice whereas the true content ofprinciples of naturaljustice should have been born in mind particularly when there was an agreement between the parties as to the manner in which the situation should be dealt with andthe consequence that would ensure thereof. " Relying onthisjudgement, the learned counsel for the Respondent argued that as per the Regulation 30 of the LIC of India Staff Regulations , 1960 , an employee namely the concerned workman should not be absent himself from his duties without having obtained prior permission from the competent authority and further even though so many letters have been sent to the concerned employee, he has not sent any reply or explanation for absenting himself for all these days. Under such circumstances , the enquirywas conducted against the concerned employee and in that enquiry, he has admitted that he has not submitted any leave application before proceeding on leave and therefore , itcannot be said that the witnesses must be examined in this case and an opportunity to cross examine the said persons must be given to the concerned employee . Since, the concerned employee has not produced any proofto show that he has submitted leave applications before proceeding on leave, it is not necessary for the management to examine any witness . In this case , the allegation in the charge sheet borne out by records and the concerned workman has not disputed the records produced by the Respondent/Management and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the principles of natural justice has not

Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent 1760 G1/04-23 3372

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

M3 24-03-97 Xerox copy ofthe reply given by the Petitioner to Charge sheet M4 07-04-97 Xerox copy ofthe letter from Enquiry Officer to Petitioner

M5 21-04-97 Xeroxcopyofthe letter from Enquiry Officer to Petitioner

M6 26-08-97 Xeroxcopy ofthe letter from Enquiry Officer to Petitioner

01-09-97 Xerox copyofthe letter from Enquiry Officer to Petitioner

M8 06-09-97 Xerox copy of the letterr from Petitioner to Enquiry Officer M9 12-09-97 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent M10 12-09-97 Xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings

M11 17-03-97 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Branch Manager Branch at Tuticorin

M12 Nil Xerox copy of the postal acknowledgement

M13 23-09-97 Xerox copy of the enquiry report M14 03-11-97 Xerox copy ofthe show cause notice issued to concerned employee M15 28-11-97 Хегox copy of the letter from concerned employee to Respondent M16 27-01-98 Xerox copy of the order of the Disciplinary Authority

M17 20-12-99 Xerox copy of the appeal preferred by concerned employee M18 25-05-00 Xerox copy of the order of the Appeilate Authority

M19 20-10-00 Xerox copy of the order passed by Chairman on Memorial preferred ByPetitioner.

PRESIDING OFFICER नई दिल्ली, 28 मई , 2004

का.आ. 1463.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इन्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय चेन्नैइ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 634/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/322/97 - आई.आर. ( बी -11 ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 28th May , 2004 S.O. 1463- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 634/2001 ) of the Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal- cum-

[PART II- SEC. 3( ii )] Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure , in the industiral dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 24-5-2004.

[No. L- 12012/322/97 - IR(B- II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy. ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Friday, the 26th March, 2004 PRESENT

SHRI K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer...

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO 634/2001 (TamilNadu Principal Lapour court CGID No. 3/98) (Inthe matter ofthe dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of Central Bank of India and their workmen).

BETWEEN .

Sri J. Samuel Jayaraj I Party/Petitioner AND

TheGeneral Manager, 11 Party /Management Central Bank of India, Coonoor.

Appearance Forthe Petitioner

M/s. D. Hariparanthaman, V.Ajay Khose , Advocates .

Forthe Management M/s . T.S. Gopalan & Co. Advocates . AWARD

The Central Government Ministry of Labour vide Notification No. L - 12012/ 322/ 97 / 1R( B - II ) dated 26-02-1998 has earlier referred this industrial dispute to Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court , Chennai for adjudication . The Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court has taken the same on its file as CGID. No.3 /98 and issued notices to both the parties and both the parties entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively. 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, itwas renumbered as I.D.634/2001 and notices were issued toboth sides.

3373 भारत का राजपत्र': जून 19 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2. The schedule mentioned dispute in the order of reference is as under :-

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in refusing to give employment to Sri J. Samuel Jayaraj with effect from 28-5-1996 is justified or not ? If not , to what relief the said workman is entitled?"

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

The Petitioner entered into the service of the Respondent/Bank branch at Coonoor on 7-7-87 as a casual sub-staff and he continued to be there till his disengagement on 28-5-96. In 1991 , the Petitioner worked in Kattabettu branch of the Respondent/Bank as a sub - staff and also as a sweeper and he has received Rs.60/- per day. During February, 1992, the Regional Office of the Respondent/ Bank has asked the service particulars of the Petitioner to regularise his service . But to his surprise , he has not been regularised, on the other hand, he has refused to give work from 28-5-1996 . The termination of the Petitioner is illegal and no notice of termination was issued to him and no compensation was given to him . The Petitioner from the year 1987 has worked more than 240 days in a continuous period of one year . The Respondent has not followed the mandatory procedure under the provisions of Section 25F oftheAct and therefore, the order of termination is illegal . The Petitioner was working from the year 1987 as a temporary sub - staff. While so, in the Coonoor branch of the Respondent/Bank the permanent Part- time Safai Karamachari Mrs. Lakshmi Ammal has retired and in that place the Petitioner must be given work. But, on the other hand , the Respondent has appointed one Mr. Loganathan , who was junior to the Petitioner . Therefore , his appointment is also illegal and it is against the provisions of Section 25H of Industrial Disputes Act . There was a settlement entered into between the Respondent/Bank theAll India Central Bank of India Employees Federation in which it has been agreed that if a temporary employee in the bank has worked for more than 180 days from 1-1-87 to 24-12-90 , such temporary employee should be called for an interview. The procedure followed in this case is illegal . Hence , for all these reasons , the Petitioner prays that an award may be passed in his favour directing the Respondent/Bank to reinstate him in service with attendant benefits .

sub-staff called as part- time safai karmachari and armed guards . When PTSK is not available, then an outsider is engaged on casual basis and he is paid wages as applicable to Part -time Safai Karmachari . The Coonoor branch of the Respondent/Bank had 5 or 6 subordinate staff and one Part-time Safai Karmachari namely Mrs. Lakshmi Ammal. The Petitioner used to be engaged as sub - staff against the leave vacancies ofpermanent staff and also Part-time Safai Karamchari , whenever Mrs. Lakshmi Ammal went on leave. Thus, hewas engaged for 156 days during the period from 27-5-87 to 6-6-90 . In the Kattabettu branch , there was one sub- staff and one Part-time Safai Karamchari . In the Kattabettu branch during period from 26-2-90 to 3-1-91 the Petitioner was engaged for 18 days as Part- time Safai Karamachari and for 62 days as sub-staff. He was lastly engaged on 9-9-95 . In the year 1996 the Petitioner was also engaged for six days in the Kattabettu branch . Part-time Safai Karamchari Smt. Lakshmi Ammal , retired on 30-6-95 . InKattabettu branch when the Part -time Safai Karamchari was promoted as a sub- staff, the vacancy was notified to. Employment Exchange and from among the candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange , one Mr. Loganathan was selected. He was appointed as Part- time Safai Karamchari in Kattabettu branch w.e.f. 1-10-91 . When Mrs. Lakshmi Ammal retired on 30-6-95, the vacancy was filled up bytransferring Mr. Loganathan from Kattabettu branch te Coonoor branch . The Respondent/ Bank reliably understand that the Petitioner had taken up employment in Govt. Tea Factory at Kattabettu . The Respondent never averse to engage the Petitioner as Casual Labour against leave vacancies ofsub- stufforPart-tineeSafal Kocamchari inCoonoor branch: Therefore, the question ofrefusingto engage the Petitioner against leave vacaney of sub- staff orPart-time Safai Karmacharisdid notarise. The causal engagement of the Petitioners in the Gobnoor brangh commencedfrom 27-5-87and not from 7-7-87as claimedby the Petitioner. It is not correct to say that the Petitioner continuously worked from 1987. No doubt the Petitioner has applied for a post of Part - time Safai Karmachari in Kothagiri branch . On 24-12-90 , an agreement was made between the Respondent/Bank and All India CentralBank of India Employees Federation which laid down the following norms for absorption of temporary casual employees in the vacancies of subordinate staff/Part- time Safai Karmachari (

a) temporary employees whose names are registered in the Employment Exchange but not forwarded or sponsoredand have worked for 90 days or more after the cut off date namely 1-1-82 to the date of agreement 24-12-90;

(b) temporary, employees whose names have been registered/forwarded by Employment Exchange and have worked for 90 days or more during the period from 1-8-82 to 31-12-86 and 60 days from 1-1-87 to 24-12-90 in any one year. In either case , 4. As against this , the Respondent, in the Counter Statement contended that the Respondent/Bank is a. nationalised bank having branches throughout the country including one branch at Coonoor , Kattabettu and one branch at Kothagiri in Nilgiris district . The employees of the bank who answer to the definition of workman under Section 2(s ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , are called as award staff. The award staff consists of clerical staff and non- clerical staff comprising of subordinate staff, part -time 3374

JUNE 19 , 2004 / JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] the registration with the Employment Exchange was necessary .

Unfortunately, the Petitioner got registered with the Employment Exchange only in September , 1989 and . therefore, his engagement prior to 1989 could not be taken into account . After his registration , he had not worked for 90 days and therefore, he could not be considered for the post of Part -time Safai Karmachari in Kothagiri branch. Since there was no termination , there is no question of giving any notice or paying compensation . The Petitioner has not put in one year of continuous service . Mr. Loganathan was appointed long before the Petitioner made claim for absorption . Even the violation of Section 25H of Industrial Disputes Act , will not give a cause of action for the workman to invoke Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act . For all these reasons , the Respondent prays that the claim may be dismissed with costs.

5. In these circumstances , the points for my consideration are-

(i) "Whether the action of the Respondent/ Bank in refusing to give employment to the Petitioner Sri J. Samuel Jayaraj w.e.f. 28-5-96 is justified or not ?"

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

Point No. 1 : -

6. In this case , the Petitioner alleged that he has worked more than 240 days in a continuous period of 12 months and even though there is a settlement between the Respondent/Management and the Employees Federation of the Respondent/ Bank on 24-12-90 and subsequently modified on 6-4-93 , the Respondent/Bank management has not regularised his service and all of a sudden , they have stopped his engagement , which is against the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, and therefore, his services should be regularised , as his termination is vitiated by illegality.

7. As against this, the Respondent contended that though the Petitioner was engaged as temporary employee from 1987 to 1996, his temporary engagement was on casual basis and at no point of time , he has worked more than 240 days as alleged by him in a continuous period of one year and further , the Petitioner has not been terminated form service , but on the other hand, he has voluntarily given up the work and he has worked elsewhere namely in Kattabettu Tea Estate , which is more beneficial to him and therefore , he is not entitled to any relief.

8. In this case , the Petitioner has examined himself as WWI and on the side of the Petitioner 12 documents were marked as Ex . WI to W2 . On the other hand, on the side of the Respondent, the present Branch Manager of the Kattabettu branch of the Respondent/ Bank was examined as MWI and on their side seven documents were marked as Ex . Ml to M7 .

9. The learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that though on the side of the Respondent/Management Ex . M1 to M4 namely the token books maintained by the Coonoor branch of the Respondent/Bank were marked,. they have not produced any document with respect to Kattabettu branch of the Respondent/Bank and they have also not given valid reason for not producing the documents . In this case , it is the evidence of the Petitioner and also the allegation in his notice before raising this dispute that he has worked for more than 240 days during the year 1990-91 in Kattabettu branch of the Respondent/ Bank, but the Respondent/Bank has not produced any document to show that the Petitioner has not worked more than240 days continuously during one year that too from January to September and they contended that the Petitioner has worked only for seven days at Kattabettu branch and it is only to nullify the contention of the Petitioner that he has worked more than 240 days at Kattabettu branch in the year 1991. Further , the learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that in Ex . W7 namely the notice to the Regional Manager , wherein the Petitioner has mentioned that he was working as Sub - staff/ sweeper in the imaginary names namely B. Sivaraj , K.M. Raman , Prabhakar , Mani etc. The Branch Manager has also recorded in details of his working in Kattabettu branch , which indicates this fact also and he has also accepted that wages were paid to Petitioner . The Respondent has not givenany reply that he has not worked in different names as requested by the Branch Manager . From these circumstances , itself, this Tribunal can come to an conclusion that only to avoid the situation that the Petitioner was engaged continuously for more than 240 days , they have given the wages in different names to the Petitioner , it is noting but an unfair labour practice ofthe Respondent/Bank . Thus , the Respondent/ Bank has indulged in adopting the practice of unfair labour practice to deny the Petitioner the benefits entitled under Industrial Law . Further , on 20-12-1995 for recruitment or regularisation of temporary Safai Karamcharis , the Regional Office of the Respondent/Bank has issued a circular asking for the particulars with regard to the Safai Karamcharis who have worked 240 days in a continuous period of 12 months between the period 1-1-82 to 31-3-95 and also the names of temporary Safai Karamcharis sponsored through the Employment Exchange and completed 90 days in any one year from 1-1-82 to 31-12-86 or sponsored by Employment Exchange and completed 60 days from 1-1-87 to 31-3-95 and also the persons registered with the Employment Exchange but not forwarded or sponsored and have worked for 90 days in any one year from 1-1-82 to 31-3-95 . In this case , though the Petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in a continuous period of one year further worked more than 180 days or 90 days in the concerned period from 1-1-82 to31-3-95 , the concemed Branch Manager has not given the particulars to the authorities and therefore, he has not 3375 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

been regularised . On the other hand , even from the documents produced by the Respondent , it is clear that he hasworked more than the days mentioned in Ex. W6, on any account, the Petitioner has to be regularised in the service of the Respondent/Bank.

that judgement that " striking off the name ofworking from the rolls ofthe employer amounts to termination ofservice and such termination is retrenchment within the meaning ofSection 2(oo) of the Act and if such retrenchment is effected in violation ofmandatory provisions of Section 25F of the act the termination would be invalid and the employee's name has been struck offfrom the list ofTikka Mazdoor in violation ofSection 25F the Act. " Though in this case , the Respondent contended that the Respondent/ Management has not refused to engage the Petitioner, on the other hand, the Petitioner has voluntarily given up the work and he has engaged in some other work namely under Tea Estate at Kattabettu , which is evident from the records produced by the Respondent under Ex.M5 and therefore , it cannot be said as termination of the services of the Petitioner by the Respondent . On the other hand, it was held in several judgements of the Apex Court and also High Courts that even the disengagement of the workman amounts to retrenchment . Under sach circumstances , I find there is no point in the contention of the learned counsel. for the Respondent.

10. On the other hand, the leamed counsel for the Respondent argued that even though on 24-12-90 an agreement was made between the management of the Respondent/Bank and the Central Bank of India Employees Federation, which laid down the norms for absorption of casual employees in the vacancies of subordinate staff/ Part- time Safai Karamcharis and the norms namely temporary employees whose names are registered in the Employment Exchange but not forwarded or sponsored and have worked for 90 days or more after the cut off date namely 1-1-82 to the date of agreement 24-12-90 and the temporary employees whose names have been registered/ forwarded by Employment Exchange and have worked for 90days or more during the period from 1-1-82 to 31-12-86 and60 days from 1-1-87 to 24-12-90 in any one year and in either case , the registration with the Employment Exchange was necessary and unfortunately the Petitioner has got registered with Employment Exchange only in September , 1989 and therefore, his engagement prior to 1989 could not be taken into account and after registration , he has worked only for 90 days and therefore, he could not be considered for the post of Part - time Safai Karamchari in any one ofthe branches .

13. Again, the learned counsel for the Respondent contended that even assuming that this amounts to retrenchment, the Petitioner has to be engaged only as a Casual Labour, on the other hand, the Petitioner in his evidence and in cross examination has stated that he is not willing to work in the bank on temporary basis and he wants to go for work only on permanent basis . On the other hand, this Tribunal cannot pass an order to engage him on permanent basis and therefore , even assuming for an argument sake that he is entitled for reinstatement as temporary/Casual Labour , he cannot be reinstated in this " case because he is not willing to work on casual basis . Under such circumstances , only compensation can be given to the Petitioner .

11. But I find, there is no points in this contention because in the norms , it is mentioned that temporary employees whose names are registered in Employment Exchange but not forwarded or sponsored and have worked for 90 days or more after the cut off date i.e. 1-1-1982 to the date of agreement namely 24-12-90 and further even in the year 1993 the agreement has been modified and even in that norms 1 p.m. been mentioned and only to refuse the regularisation of the Petitioner, I find, the Respondent has taken a different stand and by no stretch of imagination , it can be said that the Petitioner has not completed the period as mentioned in the settlement.

14. But, I find in this case, even though the Petitioner has stated that he is not willing to work on temporary basis , the Court can only restore to his original post at the time: of filing of the application . In this case, the Respondent/ Bank has want only given artificial names to him and paid wages only to avoid the continuity of his service and therefore, I find the Petitioner has continuously worked for more than 450 days and the matter was also dragged on for several years . Under such circumstances , I, find the Petitioner is to be reinstated in service as claimed by him.

15. Again, the learned counsel for the Respondent argued that it is evident from the documents produced by the Respondent and also documents sent for by the Petitioner that from the alleged date of termination, the Petitioner was engaged in the Tea Estate , which according to him is more beneficial monetarily and therefore, his contention should not be accepted in these circumstances .

12. Further , the learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the rulings reported in 1986 I LLJ 127, wherein the Supreme Court, while considering the disengagement ofTikka Mazdoor in Reserve Bank of India has held that "direction that Tikka Mazdoor should not be engaged continuously but should be offered work on a rotation basis is an unfair labour practice as defined in Section 2(ra) of the Act read with item 10 of Schedule V. The bank has indulged in methods amounting to unfair labour practice to deny the employee the benefit under the Industrial Law and further directed the bank to enlist the employee as regular employee as Tikka Mazdoor to reinstate him and pay him the back wages upto date. " It is further held in 3376

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

1 2

W4 6-4-93 Xerox copy of the settlement under Section 18( i) .

W5 23-9-93 Xerox copy of the circular issued by the Respondent/Bank with regard to absorption of temporary employees .

W6 20-12-95 Xerox copy of the circular issued by Respondent/Bank to all branches regarding recruitment to temporaгу Safai Karamcharis .

W7 21-8-96

16. But , even assuming that it was proved that the Petitioner was engaged subsequent to his termination , it will be considered only at the time of awarding back wages and not with regard to his right for reinstatement and also for his regularisation . From the evidences adduced in this case and also from the documents produced before this Tribunal , I find the Petitioner has worked for more than 240 days and the records were not produced by the Respondent/Bank only to deny the claim of the Petitioner and in the absence of the records produced by the Petitioner with regard to Kattabettu branch of the Respondent/Bank , I find the case of the Petitioner , that he has worked for more than 240 days , is to be accepted . Under such circumstances , I find this point in favour of the Petitioner .

Хегоx copy of the letter from Petitioner to Regional Manager Requesting for absorption.

Point No. 2 :-

11-12-96 Xerox copy of the dispute raised by the Petitioner before Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) .

The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief the Petitioner is entitled?

W9 19-2-97 Xerox copy of the reply submitted by the Respondent before Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) .

WIO 17-4-97 Xerox copy ofthe rejoinder submitted byPetitioner.

WII 13-10-97

17. In view of my findings that the Petitioner is entitled to the relief of reinstatement, I find this point also in favour of the Petitioner . As such , I direct the II Party/ Management to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service and other attendant benefits , but without any back wages , since he has worked gainfully, after his termination in the Tea Estate . No Costs .

Xerox copy ofthe letter from Petitioner to Secretary , Ministry of Labour , NewDelhi .

18. Thus , the reference is answered accordingly .

W12 21-01-04

(Dictated to the P.A. transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 26th March , 2004.)

Statement showing the details regarding number ofdays Worked by the Petitioner and the wages earned by him in the Tea Factory Ltd. K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :-

For the II Party/Management:

For the I Part/Workman : WW1 Sri J. Samuel

Jayaraj

Ex. No. Date Description

For the II Party /Management : MW1 Sri Muthuramaiah

M1 Nill

Documents Marked : ---

Original Misc . Expenditure book No. 1 for 1987 .

For the I Party/Workman :-

Nill

Original Misc . Expenditure book No. 2 for 1988-93 .

Ex. No. Date Description

M3 Nill

Original Misc. Expenditure book No. 3 for 1993-1995 .

12-3-91

M4 1987 to 96

Xerox copy of the circular issued by Respondent/Bank

Certified copies of extract of attendance of the Petitioner

M5 10-08-02

For permanent absorption of ternporary employees .

card . Original postal acknowledgment W2

12-2-92

M6 12-09-92

Xerox copy of the letter from the Petitioner to Zonal Manager of the Respondent/Bank .

Letter from the Kattabettu Industrial Co-operative Tea Factory Ltd. to the Respondent/Management.

17-2-92

M7 17-10-03

Xerox copy ofthe letter from Regional Office ofRespondent/Bank to Branch Manager, Kothagiri branch .

Letter from the Kattabettu Industrial Co-operative Tea Factory Ltd. to the Respondent/Management.

7 3377 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजमंत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

नईदिल्ली, 28 मई , 2004

31-01-2003/10-02-2003 has referred the followingdispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the punishment of discharge from services from the bank imposed on Sri S. Malik, Clerk/Shroff, Thevaram branch by the management ofIndian Bank is justified and legal ? If not, what relief is the workman concerned entitled to? "

का.आ. 1464-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इन्डियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नै के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 38/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/185/2002- आई ०आर० ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 28thMay,2004

2.After the receipt of the reference, it was taken on file as I.D.No. 38/2003 and notices were issued toboth the parties and both the parties entered appearance through their authorised representatives and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively.

3. The allegations in the Claim Statement of the Petitionerare briefly as follows:-

S.O. 1464.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central overnment hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation tothemanagement of Indian Bank and their workmen, which was receivedby the Central Government on 24-5-2004.

[No. L- 12011/185/2002-IR(B- II)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Tuesday, the 30th March, 2004

PRESENT:

SHRI K. JAYARAMAN, PresidingOfficer

Industrial Dispute No. 38/2003

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of Sub -section ( 1) and Sub- section ( 2A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Bank and their workmen) .

BETWEEN:

wers List as per the

FParty/Claimant 99.3

TheGeneral Secretary, Indian Bank Employees Union, Chennai .

AND

II Party/Respondent

TheGeneral Manager Indian Bank, Chennai . APPEARANCE ; Forthe Claimant

: Mr. K. J. Arunachalam Authorised Representative.

For theManagement : Mr. Jayasankar & Mr. P. Sankar Authorised Representatives AWARD

1.The Central Government Ministry ofLabour vide NotificationOrder No. L- 12011 /185/2002 - IR( B - H ) dated

The petitioner Union espouses the cause of the concernedemployee Sri S. Malik who was working as clerk/ shroffat Thevaram branch of the Respondent/Bank since, 1985. While so , he was issued with charge sheet dated 27-11-99framing certain charges therein and ordered for departmental enquiry into the alleged charges . The concerned employee participated in the said proceedings and during the course of the said proceedings , he has admitted the charges levelled against him , therefore, the Enquiry Officer held that the concerned employee was guiltyofthe charges levelled against him . The Disciplinary Authority issued 2nd show cause notice on 2-2-2000 proposing a punishment of discharge from service ofthe bank. The concerned employee appeared before the Disciplinary Authority on 15-2-2000 during the personal hearing offered to him and explained the psychological affliction and the resultant depression which was the cause for the happenings mentioned in the charge sheet and the resultant punishment and he pleaded for lesser punishment, as the proposed punishment was much harsh and severe forthe levelled charges. Further , hopleaded for sympathetic consideration taking into account the extenuating situation the employeewas placed in: But the Disciplinary Authority confirming the punishment proposed by him and passed an order dated 19-2-2000. Even the appeal preferred by the concerned employee was rejected. The punishmen awarded should commensurate with the charges/office alleged against the workman and there cannot be a harsh , severe and disproportionate punishment to the allegations . Further, the punishment awarded to the concerned employee did not reflect the terms of the settlement and mere mention of discharged from services of the bank without any rider to this as laid down in settlement makes this order defective and a contravening order ofpunishment in violation of terms of the legally binding settlement . Hence, for all these reasons, the Petitioner Union prays that the order of discharge is to be set aside and the concerned employee may be reinstated in service with all benefits.

3378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

[PART II-Sac. 3 (ii) ]

sheeted employee submitted documents to disown his claim that he was having psychological problems . Therefore, the employer can no longer tolerate his behaviour and consequently forced to take appropriate action . Only because of his incorrigible behaviour , the management thought it fit to remove the concerned employee from service and certainly the punishment is appropriate and the allegations of the petitioner Union as claimed in Claim Statement are not correct. Hence , for all these reasons, the Respondent prays that the claim of the Petitioner Union may be dismissed with costs.

5. In such circumstances , the points for my determination are:-

(i) "Whether the punishment of discharge from service from the bank imposed on Mr. S. Malik, Clerk/ Shroff , Thevaram branch by the Respondent/Management is legal andjustified?

(ii) " To what relief, the concerned employee is entitled?"

Point No. 1 : -

6. In this case, on the side of the Petitioner 10 documents as Ex. W1 to W10 were marked and on the side of the Respondent 33 documents as Ex . M1 to M 33 were marked . No wittness was examined on both sides . It is an admitted fact of both sides in this case that four charges were framed against the concerned employee Sri S. Malik, Clerk/ Shroff, Thevaram branch of the respondent/Bank . The first charge is that he has abstained from duty in short spells on 14 occasions between the period 2-7-99 to 9-9-99 . The second charge is he has absented himself from duty unauthorisedly during the period from 26-5-99 to 12-11-99 on 12 occasions . Similarly, the third charge is that he has absented from duty unauthorisedly for a continuous period of more than 30 days without any intimation to the bank from 5-5-99 to 5-10-99 namely 31 days . The fourth charge is that he has not done the work allotted to him by an office order of the branch management . For these charges , a departmental enquiry was ordered by the Disciplinary Authority and in that the concerned employee participated and he has admitted the charges framed against him on his own and without any compulsion . On his voluntary admission , the Enquiry Officer found him positively guilty of charges levelled against him and he was prepared to admit any punishment other than dismissal or discharge.

4. As against this , the Respondent in its Counter Statement contended that four charges were framed against the concerned employee . The first charge is he has absented for duty on various occasions from 2-7-99 to 9-9-99 in short spells . The second charge is that he has absented himself from duty unauthorisedly during 26-5-99 to 12-11-99 for various dates and the third charge is that he has absented himself from duty unauthorisedly during 5-9-99 to 5-10-99 for 31 days . The fourth charge is that he has not done the work allotted to him by an office order of the branch management . All the charges were proved against him . Since it was a gross misconduct , a departmental enquiry was ordered by the Disciplinary Authority andthe charge sheeted employees participated in the said proceedings and voluntarily admitted the charges without any compulsion. Upon the admission , the Enquiry Officer found him positively guilty of the charges levelled against him . The Disciplinary Authority after applying his mind concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and found that the charges framed against the concerned employee was a gross midconduct and he proposed the punishment of discharge from the services of the bank and issued 2nd show cause notice . Even though personal hearing was offered to the concerned employee , he has neither submitted his reply to the 2nd show cause notice nor submitted, and extenuating circumstances in the personal hearing so as to make a review on the proposed punishment . The allegation that due to psychological problems these mistakes have been committed by him is only an after thought and the same cannot be accepted as a valid reason . Further , previously on seven occasions, he was awarded with punishments , but the concerned employee went on committing the misconducts repeatedly and he has committed these misconducts as a matter of routine and he has prepared to accept any punishment other than dismissal or discharge . The punishments previously imposed on seven occasions did not create any impact on the charge sheet employee to correct himself. As a clerk, the concerned employee is required to adhere to discipline , proper behaviour in branch premises and direct responsibility to banking public . The recurrence of such misconducts are undoubtedly serious in nature and the survival of the branch depends upon the basic honesty and standard behaviour of the employees and whatever manner such misconducts or delinquency been described, it is the most harmful and grave misconduct which the employee could repeat . The bank being a service industry, guardian of public money has to attend to the needs of customers/ banking public and cannot allow the employees to breach discipline , allow improper behaviour , intentional wrong doing and deliberate violation of a rule of standard or behaviour . Hence , the Disciplinary Authority finally thought it appropriate to remove the concerned employee from the services of the bank . Further , he had not brought out the psychological problems any where during the departmental proceedings . On the contrary , the charge

7. The authorised representative of the Petitioner in this case, contended that even at the time of admission, the concerned employee has prepared to accept any punishment other than the dismissal or discharge under such circumstances , the punishment imposed on the Petitioner namely discharge from service is very harsh and not commensurate with the charges levelled against him . Therefore , under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Tribunal has got every power to set aside the order ofpunishment and can interfere with the punishment 3379 [भाग II- खण्ड (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

imposed and moulding the same to a lesser punishment or otherwisen vinh

the past record of the employee and only when the bank lost confidence on the employee . Under such circumstances , it cannot be said that the punishment awarded to the concerned employee is harsh or disproportionate to the charges levelled against him . It is the further argument of the authorised representative of the Respondent that though the Petitioner Union alleged that these misconducts were done by psychological problems ofthe concerned employee, it is not the allegation of the concerned employee during the departmental enquiry and in nowhere he has stated that he was affected by psychological problems . Therefore , this averment is only an afterthought and made only to create sympathy before the Tribunal. The behaviour of the concerned employee namely neglect of his official duties by a public servant by which the rights of banking public besides the employer's business have been greatly affected, therefore , the Respondent as an employer can no longer tolerate his behaviour of the concerned employee and consequently, forced to take appropriate action against the concerned employee. Under such circumstances , it cannot be stated that this punishment is harsh and severe and the Authorised Representative for the Respondent has also relied on three judgements of High Courts and Supreme Court . The first judgement is 2003 II LLJ 705 PRASAD BABU VS. CORPORATION BANK, H.O. , MANGALORE AND OTHERS , wherein the High Court of Karnataka has held that " where the delinquent officer set up a theory of assurance given by higher officers of closing the matter against him if he admitted the charges of irregularities andmisconduct on his part, the High Court held it was only an after thought and he has not stated the details of the so called assurance nor placed any materials to show that such assurance was given. " It further held that "the appellate and reviewing authorities were held to have passed the orders against the Peritoner after due consideration of the material on record. " The next judgement relied on by the Respondent side is 2003 II LLJ 1047 ASHOK LEYLAND LTD . Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, SECOND ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT AND OTHERS wherein , the Madras High Court considered the case the charge of misappropriation proved against the employee , wherein the High Court basing the Supreme Court Judgement held that " in the event ofthe employer loosing confidence on the employee and passing order of termination, the Court cannot substitute the finding and confidence of the employer on its own and by ordering reinstatement. It was held that by reason ofthe gravity of the offence , the Labour Court cannot exercise its discretion and alter the punishment. " It has further held that " the attitude of the Labour Court in this case having found the charges as proved and that the enquiry had also been conducted properly and at the same time should have ordered reinstatement has to be held as uncalled for, perverse and erroneous application ofthe discretion under section 11A . Nature ofcharges in this case, ifproved 08 AsTagainst this , the authorised representative of the Respondent/Bank contended that this is not the first occeasion, the concerned employee was absented for duty unauthorisedly, but even prior to this occasion, he has beenimposed with minor punishments on seven occasions namely during the period from 3-8-95 to 30-12-95 he has absented to duty unauthorisedly on 26 occasions . Similarly , hehas absented for duty on 38 occasions during the period from 2-5-95 to 30-12-95.and an enquiry was conducted and on 5-9-96 punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect was ordered . Similarly, from 20-1-97 to 26-2-97 on 18 occasions of absence and for other charges of cash shortage, leaving cash cabin key, an enquiry was conducted on 19-8-97 and another punishment of stoppage ofone imcrement without cumulative effect for six months was ordered. On the third occasion , he absented for duty from 12-8-97 to 4-10-97 on 28 occasions and an enquiry was conducted on 3-12-07 and at that time warning was given to the concerned employee. In the fourth ocension , he was absented for duty from 214-98 to 7-8-98-on six occasions and in the enquiry held on 15-12-98 , punishment ofcensure was imposed on him. On the fifth occasion, he was absented for duty from 13-8-98 to 11-9-98 on ten occasions for which warning was was imposed as a punishment . In the sixth occasion , during the period 1-4-98 to 22-12-98 on 25 occasions he has absented for duty and in the enquiry held on 9-6-99 , again punishment ofcensure was imposed on him . On the 7th occasion during the period 19-1-99 to 18-5-99 he has again absented for daty on 38 occasions and in the enquiry, punishment of consure was again imposed on him. In all these occasions , the charge sheeted: employee was in the habit of committing these miseonduets as a matter of routine and he was preparedto accept any punishment other than discharge or dismissal . The minor punishments imposed on these seven occasions, did not create any impact on the concerned employee to correct himself. There is no dispute that as a clerk, the concerned employee is required to adhere to discipline, proper behaviour in branch premises and direct responsibility to banking public . The recurrence of such misconducts are undoubtedly serious in nature . It is an admitted fact that survival ofthe branch depends upon the basic honesty and standard behaviour of the employees and whatever manner such misconducts or delinquency be described it is the most harmful and grave misconduct which the employee could repeat . The bank being a service industry, guardian of public money has to attend to the needs of customers/banking public and cannot allow the employees to breach discipline , allow improper behaviour , intentional wrong doings and deliberate violation of a rule of standard or behaviour. Hence , only after considering all these aspects , the Disciplinary Authority thought it appropriate to remove the concerned employee namely Sri Malik from the services of the bank and after considering

1760 GI/04-24 3380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004 / JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

would inevitably result in termination of service and an employee who is found guilty of such a charge cannot be thrust upon the unwilling management and the management cannot be compelled to employ him and to undergo the loss and to continue him in employment, even though he has lost the confidence of the management. " The third judgement relied on by the Respondent side is 2003 II LLJ 986 V. KASI Vs. PANDIAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION LTD . MADURAI , wherein the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras has held that in this case the Labour Court has directed to reinstate the conductor who was guilty of misconduct and given the punishment of dismissal from service . The Division Bench ofthe High Court has further held that " we are therefore unable to accept the submission made by the workman's learned counsel that the workman was not guilty of misconduct and that even if he were to be pulled up for such misconduct, the misconduct was not grave enough

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

ofdischarge of the charged sheeted employee from service . Under such circumstances , the punishment imposed on him is just , fair and proper and hence , the action of the Respondent/ Bank is legal and justified and therefore , the claim of the Petitioner Union is to be dismisssed .

9. On consideration of the entire aspects in this case, I find the Petitioner Union has not placed any material records before this Tribunal to show that the misconducts committed by the concerned employee was only due to psychological problems and therefore , I find the allegation of psychological problems was made only as an afterthought , only to create sympathy in the minds of Tribunal . Under such circumstances , there is no material to interfere with the punishment imposed on the concerned employeeby the Respondent/Management. As such , I find this point against the Peititioner Union .

Point No. 2: -

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

10. In veiw of my foregoing findings , I find the concerned employee is not entitled to any relief. No Costs . 11. The reference is answered accordingly .

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 30th March , 2004.)

K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

None

On either side :

Documents Marked:

Date Description

Ex . No.

W1 27-11-99

Xerox copy of the charge sheet issued to concerned employee .

W2

20-01-00

Xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings .

W3

21-01-00

Xerox copy of the findings of Enquiry Officer.

W4 02-02-00

Xerox copy ofthe letter from Disciplnary Authority proposing the punishment and fixing personal hearing .

W5 19-02-00

Xerox copy of the order of punishment . imposed by Disciplinary Authority

W6 21-03-00

Xerox copy of the appeal preferred by... concerned employee .

W7 24-03-01

to warrant the penalty ofdismissal from service . It is misplaced sympathy by the Labour Court in such cases when on checking is found that the bus conductors have either not issued tickets to a large number of passengers though they should have or have issued tickets of a lower denomination knowing fully well the correct fare to be charged. It is the responsibility of the bus conductors to collect the correct fare from the passengers and deposit the same with the company . They act in a fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct, if knowingly they do not collect anyfare or the correct amount offare ...... Interference under 11A by the Labour Court in cases where such dishonest conduct has been proved would not be justified " and set aside the orders of the Labour Court as well as the order of Single Bench. The authorised representative of the Respondent further argued that in this case in many number of times , the Respondent/Management has taken lenient view and imposed minor punishments , even then , the concerned employee has not changed his attitude and by his act he has given much difficulty to his employer and only on consideration of all these things , the Respondent/ Management has taken a severe action against the concerned employee . Under such circumstances , by no stretch of imagination , it can be said that the punishment imposed by the Respondent/ Management on the concerned employee is too harsh or severe in nature . Even according to the Bipartite Settlement, these mistakes committed by the concerned employee are grave in nature and therefore , awarding the punishment of discharge after Xerox copy of the letter from Chief Manager to Petitioner enclosing order ofAppellate Authority .

W8 04-03-01

Xerox copy of the dispute raised by the Union Before Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) .

W9 31-12-01

Xerox copy of the reply submitted by Resondent Before Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) .

W10 29-08-02

imposing lesser punishments on earlier seven occasions cannot be considered as harsh . He has further argued that even the provisions of Bipartite Settlement give hope for leniency only for three occasions , on the other hand, the Respondent/Bank has on seven occasions had taken lenient view and imposed minor punishments and only because he has not changed his attitude, the Respondent/ Bank has taken a severe view and imposed the punishment Xerox copy of the rejoinder submitted by Petitioner Union .

3381

भारत का राजपत्र : जून19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

M21 04-06-99

For the II Party/Management :-

Ex. No. Date

Xerox copy ofthe letter from concerned employee To Disciplinary Authority .

Description

M22 09-06-99

20-05-96

Xerox copy of the charge sheet issued to concerned Employee .

Xerox copy of the letter of Disciplinary Authoirty Imposing punishment onconcerned employee .

M2 Nil

Xerox copy of the medical certificate

M23 16-01-00

Xerox copy of the reply given by concerned employee .

21-03-00 Xerox copy of the medical certificate.

M24

05-09-96

M25 27-11-99

Xerox copy of the letter of Disciplinary Authority Imposing punishment on concerned employee .

Xerox copy of the letter of Disciplinary Authority To concerned employee framing charges .

M4 23-04-97

M26 20-01-00

Xerox copy of the charge sheet issued toconcerned employee .

Xerox copy of the proceedings of enquiry.

13-08-97

M27 21-01-00

Xerox copy of the reply given by concerned employee .

Xerox copy of the findings of Enquiry Officer.

19-08-97

M28 02-02-00

Xerox copy of the letter of Disciplinary Authority Imposing punishment on concerned empioyee .

Xerox copy of the letter of Disciplinary Authority Proposing punishment of discharge on concerned Employee .

14-10-97

M29 19-02-00

Xerox copy ofthe letter from Disciplinary Authority To concerned employee framing charges.

Xerox copy of the letter of Disciplinary Authority Imposing punishment of discharge on concerned Employee .

24-11-97

M30 07-04-00

Xerox copy of the reply given by concerned employee To Disciplinary Authority.

Xerox copy of the letter ofthe Petitioner acknowleding the letter for personal hearing.

03-12-97

M31 15-04-00

Xerox copy of the letter of Disciplinary Authority Imposing punishment on concerned employee .

Xerox copy of the letter from Appellate Authority to Petitioner giving personal hearing.

M10 10-03-97

M32 26-06-00 Xerox copy of the order of Appellate Authority.

Xerox copy of the letter of Branch Manager Forwarding application ofShri Malik . transfer

M33 24-03-01

19-08-98

M11

Xerox copy of the letter of Disciplinary Authority To concerned employee framing charges.

08-12-98

Xerox copy ofthe letter from Respondent Bank to the Petitioner enclosing order ofAppellate Authority. नई दिल्ली, 31 मई, 2004 M12

Xerox copy of the reply given by concerned employee .

15-12-98

M13

Xerox copy of the leltter ofDisciplinary Authroity Imposing punishment on concerned employee .

M14 08-12-98 Xerox copy ofthe letter from concerned employee To Disciplinary Authority.

25-09-98

M15

का.आ. 1465- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन पैट्रोकेमिकल्स कारपोरेशन लि. , के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं . 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/4/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था । Xerox copy the letter from Disciplinary Authority to Petitioner .

[सं. एल०-30011/8/2003- आई ० आर० (विविध ) ] 15-12-98

M16

बी.एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव Xerox copy ofthe letter of Disciplinary Authority Imposing punishment on concerned employee .

New Delhi , the 31st May, 2004 21-05-99

M17

Xerox copy of the letter of Disciplinary Authority Framing charges against concerned employee .

04-06-99

M18

Xerox copy of the letter of concerned employee Addressed to Disciplinary Authority.

09-06-99

M19

Xerox copy of the letter of Disciplnary Authority Imposing punishment on concerned emplyee .

S.O. 1465. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government here by publishes the Award (Ref. 2/4 of 2003 ) of the Central Goverment Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure , in the industiral dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 31-5-2004.

24-05-99

M20

[No. L- 30011/8 /2003 - IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

Xerox copy of the letter ofDisciplinary Aurhority To concerned employee framing charges.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 3382

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2 , AT MUMBAI

4. Having considered the Settlement dated 12-04-2004 purported to be executed under Section 2 (P) read with Section 18 ( 1 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, this Tribunal is of the view that the dispute referred to it does not survive for adjudication.

PRESENT :

JUSTICE S. C. PANDEY PRESIDING OFFICER

REFERENCE NO. CGIT- 2/4 OF 2003

5. Accordingly this award is passed stating that owing to subsequent events , the dispute does not survive and reference is accordingly disposed of.

Justice S.C. PANDEY, Presiding Officer Employers in Relation to the Management of M/s. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd.

नई दिल्ली, 31 मई, 2004

The General Manager, (P&A)

Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd.,

At. Nagothane , Distt. Raigad (MS ) 402 125

AND THEIR WORKMEN

का.आ. 1466.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मिनरल एक्सप्लोरेशन कारपोरेशन लि. , के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 253/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-5- 2004को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

The Unit Secretary ,

Shramik Sena,

[सं. एल०-29012/85/97- आई० आर ० (विविध ) ]

बी.एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव Khairane (Bonekode , Turbhe ) , Navi Mumbai , Distt. Thane .

New Delhi , the 31st May, 2004 APPEARANCES :

For the Employer : Shri A.N. Mulla Advocate.

For the Workmen : Shri M.B. Auchan Advocate .

Mumbai, dated 10th May, 2004

S.O. 1466. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 253/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. and their workmen, which was received bythe Central Government on 31-5-2004.

AWARD

[No. L-29012/85/97 -IR(M)]

B.M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

This is a reference made to this Tribunal under Clause (d) ofsub- section 1 of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of the disputes are as follows:

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

PRESENT:

SHRI E. ISMAIL, B.Sc. , LL.B. , PRESIDING OFFICER

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 253/2001 "Whether the demand of the Union ( Shramik Sena) thai-All the workmen i.e. Shri Krishna Joma Mhatre and 18 others referred in Exh .. " A " be made permanent in the services of M / s . Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. and be given the wages and allowances and benefits which are currently paid to the permanent workmen of M/s . IPCL- is legal and justified? ifnot , what other relief, If any, the workmen are entitled to?"

(Old I.D. No. 1/98 transferred from Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Warangal)

Between:

Sri J. Venkata Narasaiah ,

2. A Joint application dated 12-04-2004 has been filed on behalf of the parties ( Ex - 15100 10-05-2004. It has been stated that the matter has been settled out of Court in terms of memorandum of Settlement dated 12-04-2004 attached to the application.

...... Petitioner

C/o The Deputy General Secretary , Singareni Collieries Workers Union (AITUC), Ramakrishnapur .

3. Both the parties desire that this Tribunal should dispose of this reference by stating that the dispute has been settled out of Court .

3383 भारत का राजपत्र: जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

AND

The Chairman- cum-Managing Director, Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. ,

retain, it is at their sweet will and they have issued an order dated 31-10-96 . It may be set aside and direct the Respondent to confirm the services of the Petitioner on permanent basis with all benefits .

....Respondents

Seminary Hills , Nagpur

APPEARANCES :

Sri P. Surender Kumar, Advocate

For the Petitioner :

M/s P. Nageswara Sree,

For the Respondent :

K. Raghuram Reddy & Ch . Venkata Raju , Advocates

AWARD

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its orderNo. L-29012/85/97- IR(M) dated 4-2-1998 referred the following dispute under section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Warangal between the management of Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited and their workman which has been transferred to this Tribunal in view of Government of India, Ministry of Labour's Order No. H- 11026/ 1 /2001 - IR (C.II ) dated 18-10-2001 bearing No. 1/98 The reference is,

SCHEDULE

3. A counter was filed stating that the main crux in the counter that the company is going through bad financial crisis hence, they have implemented voluntary retirement scheme. There are 800 persons and above manpower. There will be down flow of 20 crores in view of voluntary retirement scheme . That a similar dispute was referred by theGovernment of India, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur and the Award ofthe Jabalpur was later quashed for various reasons in the Hon'ble High Court.Acopy of the said award is enclosed. Referringto the aforesaid, it is stated that a casual worker by name Sri T. Ramachandraiah died in an accident on 5-4-95 . All the terminal benefits were paid to him . Yet, the company provided an alternative employment to the brother of the deceased Ramachandraiah , namely Sri J. Venkata Narasaiah herein as a casual worker . His services were extended from time to time. His services were terminated along with others on31-10-96 on completion of work at KTK - 2A , Bhupalapalli bytendering all terminal dues payable to the workmen .He also received terminal benefits tendered to him. Again he was reengaged till 9-1-98 . Even if it is considered that compassionate appointment has to be given to family member of the deceased, brother does not fall under the category offamily member. The Company is running already huge financial losses accumulated to more than Rs. 63 crores, Hence the petition may be dismissed.

"Whether Shri J. Venkatanarasaiah who was appointed on 3-7-95 as unskilled contingent workman and was terminated with effect from 31-10-96 is entitled for permanent employment in M/ s . Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. , on compassionate grounds in place of his Brother J. Ramchander who died while on duty on 5-4-95 whileworking under M / s M.E.C.L. or not ? If not, to what relief he is entitled for ?"

The reference is renumbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 253/2001 and notices were issued to the parties .

4. The Petitioner examined himself as WW1 that his brother Ramachandraiah , who died on 3-7-95 leaving, his widow two daughters and one son . His widow is unable to attend work as her leg is swollen . He was appointed on compassionategrounds . He was given work till 31-12-2002. Hisservices are not regularized. In the cross examination he deposed that Ex . M 1 is the appointment order of his brother . Ex . M2 is the appointment letter . Ex . M 3 is acceptance letter . Ex . M 6 is the termination notice. Ex .M7 is atermination notice with compensation amount . Ex. M8 is another appointment order . Ex . M9 is letter of acceptance. EX. M 10 is joining report. That he received the termination notice dated 29-11-2000 . That he received Rs . 22058.25 as closure compensation . That he also received Rs . 37063/- EPF amount. It is correct that there by is completely closed and nobody is working..

5. Sri A.L. Kulkarni , Senior Superintendent deposed as MW1 stating that the workman was temporarily appointed. Thatthey are party to SLP No. 4810-4811 of 1999 (Civil Appeal No. 2027-2028 of 2002) pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court . The disinvestment commission recommended the closure of the corporation . That the said temporary establishment, Bhupałapalli was closed after settling all the dues payable to the workman under the I.D. Act. Itwas closed in the month ofApril , 2000 .

2. The brief facts averred in the claim statement are That the Petitioner was the brother of J. Ramachandraiah who died on 5-4-95 while on duty. consequently the Respondent made a compensation to the legal heirs of deceased and offered employment to one ofthe legal heirs of the deceased. Thereupon the Petitioner gave application expressing his willingness to join the duty on compassionate grounds and the remaining legal heirs of deceased Ramachandraiah has consented to secure employment . The Petitioner was appointed as a contingent workman on 3-7-91 by the Respondent herein. That he has been oftenly discontinued without any reason or cause . Therefore the Petitioner has requested on several times provide or confirm his services on regular basis and subsequently he raised conciliation before Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) , Mancherial . The conciliation proceedings resulted in failure and hence , the reference to theHon'ble Tribunal . That he was taken on compassionate grounds to honour the sentiments of the local people/local authorities . Ifat all there is no such rule or regulation exists on the date ofproviding compassionate appointment what made the Respondent to provide the job and hence, the Respondent maydiscontinue the Petitioner at any time or 3384

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004 /JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

6. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has been given compassionate appointment in place ofhis brother Ramachandraiah , who died in an accident . The company is blowing hot and cold. In order to pacify the local public the Petitioner was given an employment being the brother of deceased Ramachandraiah and once the local commotion has subsided the Petitioner is shown a red flag and asked to go away . Hence , he may be reinstated.

7. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that it is correct that the Petitioner has received Rs . 28058.25 as closure compensation and he received Rs. 37063/- EPF amount . Petitioner now turn round and say that he wants job . Hence , he submits that the Petitioner may not be reinstated .

8. It may be seen that no doubt the appointment may be compassionate appointment in the initial stage but once work is over and the work stopped itself means closed and WWI has admitted that he received Rs . 28058.25 as closure compensation and also he has received Rs . 37063/- as EPF amount now it does not seem fair for him to come and ask for employment by the Respondent Company when the Respondent Company itself is in doldrums and as the Company has paid the compensation, the Company cannot be asked again to reinstate the Petitioncr . Hence , the reference is answered as follows : That the Management of Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. , is justified in terminating Sri . J. Venkatanarasaiah from service from 31-10-96 and the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief .

Award passed . Transmit .

Dictated to Kum . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 12th day of April, 2004 .

E. ISMAIL PresidingOfficer Appendix ofEvidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner :

: Witnesses examined for the Respondent :

WW 1 : Sri J. Venkatanarasaiah : MW1 ; Sri A.L. Kulkarni

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent EX. M1 : Copy of J. Ramachandraiah's appointment orderdt. 24-10-94

EX. M2 : Copy of acceptance letter dt . 8-1-94 EX. M3 : Copy of letter of acceptance of WW 1 dt. 8-7-95

EX . M4: Bio- data of WW I dt . 3-7-95

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] EX.M5 : Joining report of WW1 dt . 3-7-95

EX . M6 : Copy of termination notice dt . 30-9-96 EX . M7 : Copy of termination order dt . 31-10-96 EX.M8: Copyofappointment order ofWW 1 dt. 10/ 11-7-97 EX . M9 : Letter ofacceptance of WW 1 dt . 15-7-97 EX . M10 : WW 1's joining report dt. 15-7-97

EX. M11 : Copy of termination notice No. 3514/29/Ret ./P &/A/BHPL/ 02dt . 29-11-2002

EX. M12 : Copy of closure compensation particulars of WWI

EX. M 13 : Copy of particulars of EPF amount received by WWI

EX.M14 : Copy of profit & loss account of the Respondent corporation as on 31-3-2002 EX. M 15: Copy of letter of permission to close the establishmentdt . 26-11-2002

EX. M 16 : Copy of another termination notice dt . 29-11-2002

EX. M17: Postał acknowledgement

नई दिल्ली, 31 मई, 2004

का.आ.1467.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार टर्मिनल आपरेटर्स एसोसिएशन आफ कोचीन ( प्रा ० ) लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार श्रम न्यायालय इरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 6/1994 ( सी) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं..एल०-35012/1/93- आई ० आर ० ( विविध ) ]

बी० एम० डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 31st May, 2004 S.O. 1467. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government here by publishes the Award. Ref. No. 6 of 1994 (C) ofthe Central Govt . Labour Court Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure , in the industiral dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Terminal Operators Association of Cochin (P) Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 31-5-2004.

[No. L- 35012/ 1 /93 - IR(M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

3385 भारत का राजपत्र: जून19 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29 , 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

ANNEXURE

of M/ s Binni and Company Pvt . Limited who were the wharf contractors of Ernakulam and Mattancherry . He IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR

COURT, ERNAKULAM

(IN THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM)

Wednesday, the 17th day of March , 2004

PRESENT :

Smt. N. Thulasi Bai , B.A. LL. B. ,

Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 6 OF 1994 (Central)

BETWEEN

TheManaging Director, Terminal Operators Association of Kochi Pvt . Ltd. C/ o Hash & Co. Collis Building, Willington Island, Kochi -3 (Kerala )

AND

The workman ofthe above concern Sri . P.B. Aboo . H. No. C. C. 4/74 , Adhikari Valappu , cochin-682001.

Representations :

Sri .K.A. Jaleel , : ForManagement

Advocate,

Malloor Building , Lisie Junction, Ernakulam. North .

: For workman

Sri . S.P. Chaly,

Advocate,

Ernakulam, Cochin-682011 .

Award

This reference was made by the Central Government as per letter No. 35012/1/ 93-IR ( Misc) dated 22-7-1994. The dispute, is between the Management of Terminal Operators Association of Cochin (P ) Limited and their workman Sri . P.B. Aboo The dispute referred is :

"Whether the non-inclusion of name of Shri P.B. Aboo in the container workers ' List as per the Memorandum of settlement signed on 25-5-1993 before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Cochin by the terminal operator Association of Kochi Private Limited is justified If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

worked under them from 1978 to 1981. From 22-2-1981 M/s Binny and Company changed their Sub Contractors and the contract was given to M/s Hash and Company, Willington Island Kochi. Then the workman continued his employment under the subsequent sub contractors M/s.Hash and Company. In December 1982 the workman left the employment of the sub contractor for a short period in order to try to go abroad seeking employment . The attempt of the workman was not succeeded and so he returned to Kochi . Then he approached M/ s Hash and company and requested to employ him for the work he was doing . Though M/ s . Hash and company promised to employ the workman they did not keept their word . During 1990 the workman understood that the steamer Association of Kochi is making arrangements to start a pool scheme for carrying out work in Ernakulam and Mattancherry wharf. Then the workman approached the second Management Hash and company and requested to include the workman also in the pool scheme considering his experience in the field. Apprehending that the second opposite party will not include the workman in the pool scheme he approached the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central ) Ernakulam to redress his grievance . After conciliation the Regional Labour Commissioner directed the first opposite party to include the workman also in the pool scheme in the conciliation proceedings held on 22-5-1991 . Hash and company agreed to do the needful to include the workman as a container worker . Inspite of the direction by the Regional Labour Commissioner the opposite parties did not complythe same . The opposite parties have formed a pool scheme containing 80 workers to work in the various shifts . But the workman was excluded from the same . Even after the formation of the pool scheme the workman approached the opposite parties seeking employment , but they did not care to provide him employment . Again the workman approached the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) , Ernakulam by filing representation in respect of his grievances . Though conciliations were initiated the dispute could not be settled thereby the present reference to this court for adjudicating the dispute . The workmanhas no alternate employment thereby himself and his family are finding it difficult to meet the day to day expenses .As hewas a container worker from 1978 onwards he is entitled to get reinstated in that capacity in the Ernakulam and Mattancherry wharf . Many of the workers included in the pool scheme are not so experienced as the workman . So the workman prays for passing an award directing the opposite parties to include his name also in the pool schemeof Ernakulam and Mettancherry Wharfs.

There are two managements in the reference , the Managing Director, terminal Operators Association of Kochi Pvt . Limited and the partner M/s Hash and Co. , Collis Buildings , Willngton Island, Kochi -3.

2. On receipt of notices issued from this court the workman and opposite parties appeared through counsel .

4. In the written statement filed by the opposite parties following contentions are seen raised : The workman was not an employee of the second opposite party M/s Hash and company. The Second management started the work of handling Bulger wheat for M /s Binny 3. The workman filed a claim statement raising the following claims -The workman Sri . P.B. Aboo was an employee of M/s . T.A. Mammu and Sons , Sub contractors 3386

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/ JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]

of settlement dated 25-5-1993 before the Regional Labour Commissioner ( Central ) Kochi , is justified? 2. The relief, if any , due to the worker?

Limited, agents for M's American President Lines from 1981 December onwards . The workman was engaged on casual basis for work at that time whenever over flow chances occured. At present the second opposite party is not handling container works . The workman being a casual worker was used to engage for stiching and collecting sweepings work during 1981 if there were chances over the 15 regular workers . He left the casual work as early in 1982 without serving any notice and without any intimation to the second opposite party . Thereafter he has not approached the second opposite party for any employment and no promise has been given to him for employment. During 1989 the Chairman , Cochin Port Trust constituted a Committee comprising of members from stemer agents , stevedores and trade unions under the convenership of the then Secretary, Cochin Duck Labour Board for finalising thelist ofcontainer workers . During the course ofdecisions or thereafter none of the members including the unions did not mention the name of the members including the unions did not mention the narne of the workman to include in the list. The workman also is not made any representation before the committee . The list of container workers was finalised by the end of 1989 and in 1990. It is true that the workman approached the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner (Central) for including his name also in the list. But it is not true that the second opposite party agreed to include his name in the list . No direction has been given by the R.L.C. (C) to the second opposite party to include the workman's name in the container workers ' list. The workman was not a container worker and second opposite party has no authorities to include on exclude any person in the present list of 70 container workers finalised by the committee referred earlier. During conciliation meetings the R.L.C. ( C) was convinced that the workman has no right to include his name in the pool scheme . The 70 container workers included in the scheme list are well experienced in handling containers and they are attached with terminal operators. The employment opportunities of the existing container workers are in a declined position at present and their earnings also considerably went down . The claim raised by the workman is not legally sustainable . So the managements prays for passing an award rejecting the claim ofthe workman.

5. Workman filed a rejoinder traversing the contentions raised in the written statement and reiterating the claims in the claim statement .

6. For the purpose of this case evidence adduced from both sides which consists of the testimony of the workman as WWI one witness on his side as WW2 and one managementnagement witness as MW1 and Exts . W1 to W11 series and X1 .

7. Thus the points arise for determination are :

1. Whether the non - inclusion of the name of Sri . P.B. Aboo, the workman involved in the present case , in the container workers ' list as per the memorandum

8. Points : According to the workman he was an employee under M /s Benny and Company Private Limited , who were the wharf contractors of Ernakulam and Mattancherry wharf, for the period from 1978 to 1981 . Thereafter the second management M/s Hash and company was given the sub contract of M/ s Benny and company from 22-2-1981 and the workman continued his employment under that company also till December 1982. In December 1982 he left the employment for a short period in order to try to go abroad seeking employment . But as he could not succeed in his attempt he returned and demanded his earlier employment to the second management but they did not provide employment through they agreed to re- employ . During 1990 the steamer association of Cochin made arrangements to start pool scheme for carrying out work in Ernakulam and Mattancherry wharf the workman approached the second management and requested to include him also in the pool . He approached the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central ) Ernakulam also to redress his grievance by filing a written complaint. Though conciliation proceedings were initiated on the petition he was not included in the pool scheme containing the names of 70 workers . It is the case ofthe workman that the Regional Labour Commissioner gave direction to the opposite parties to include his name also in the list which was not complied to.So he again approached the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) on which also conciliations were initiated. But no relief could be granted to the workman . Thereby the present reference to settle the claim . Though it is contended by the opposite parties that the workman was not an employee under the second opposite party it is admitted that he was engaged casual basis from December 1981 onwards when they started work for M/s . Binny Ltd. Their case is that he left the casual work as early in 1982 without any intimation to the second management and thereafter he has not approached the second opposite party forany employment and no compromise was made to give him employment . Initiation of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner (Central) basing on a petition filed by the workman for inclusion of his name in the container workers ' list being prepared by the committee constituted at the instance of the Chairman, CochinPort Trust compromising all members from steamer Agents , Stevedores and the trade unions under the convenorship of the then Secretary, Cochin Dock Labour Board is admitted by the management. But the claim of the workman that direction was given by the Regional Labour Commission to the second opposite party to include his name in the list and agreement on the part of the second management to comply the same are denied. It is the further case ofthe managements that the second management has no authority to include or exclude any person in the present list of 70 container workers preparedby the committee 3387 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

constituted as referred earlier .

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Cochin is evident from the schedule of reference itself and the question referred is whether the non - inclusion of the workman's name in the list is justified. Though it is claimed by WW2, the Vice President of Cochin Port Labour Union that the workman is a member of his union he himself has no case that the union has persuaded the matter for an amicable settlement . Even according to him this case has no connection with the list of 70 persons prepared as per the memorandum of settlement. Ext . X1 of the office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) , Ernakulam produced at the instance of the workman is mainly relied on by the workman to prove that the second management agreed to include his name in the list and the Assistant Labour Commissioner gave direction to the second management include his name . It is evident from Ext. X1 file that basing on Ext. W 1 (e) petition filed by the workman before the Assistant Labour Commissioner conciliation was initiated and posted to 21-12-1990 . On that day union was present representing the workman but the management was absent. WW2 appears to be signed in the proceedings on behalf ofthe workman. On 3-1-1991 the management and union were present and MW1 representing the second management stated that they have no objection to employ the workman as container worker provided all the 3 unions that is CPLU, CPTŲ and CTU agreed for the same and the parties agreed to have bilateral discussions and accordingly conciliations are adjourned to 31-1-1992. On that day both parties were absent and conciliation was adjourned to 19-2-1991 . On that day union requested for postponement thereby it was adjourned to 28-2-1991 . On that day union requested for postponement over phone and accordingly adjourned to 12-3-91 . On that day also the union requested for time thereby adjourned to 22-4-1991 onwhich dayunion representative was present but nobody attended on behalf of management thereby adjourned for further discussions to a later date . Thereafter the conciliation was posted to 8-8-91 on which date the representation was closed since conciliation officer felt that the union is no more interested to persue their demand since the union was also absent. Thus it is evident from the above conciliation proceedings that there was no agreement by the second management to employ the workman in their establishment and direction by the Assistant Labour Commissioner to the second Management to employ the workman. But what was agreed bythe secondmanagement was that they have no objection to employ the workman as cotainer worker ifall the 3 unions agree for the same . As the second management was amenable for such a recourse it was the duty of the workman's union to get consent of the other unions to include the name of the workman also in the pool list of container workers . It is evidence from Ext . X1 file itself that after closing of the above conciliation on 8-8-1991 the workman filed another complaint on 6-5-1993 for inclusion ofhis name also in the scheme pool. Thereafter he filed 9. While considering the relief claimed by the workman the first and most important aspect to be noticeable is that even according to the workman he left the employment under the second management as early in 1982 for the purpsoe of seeking employment abroad. When he returned after his relieving from the work is no brought out . The workman has no claim that after his relieving in 1982 he worked under the second management or under the first management. If that is the case the workman lost his employment in 1982 and it is admitted by the workman himself that he left the employment on his own to try for better job opportunities in Gulf countries . He has no claim in the claim statement that his leaving in 1982 was as per permission obtained from the second management . Though it is claimed by the workman as WWI that he left the employment in 1982 after taking leave from the second management and it was agreed by the second management to re-employ him on his return there is absolutely no evidence in that respect than the interested testimony of WW 1 which is not reliable in the absence of a claim in that respect in the claim statement, rejoinder or in the petitions filed before the Labour Commissioner. Even if there was denial of employment to the workman by the second :management it was in 1982 in respect of which no action is seen taken by the workman . Though Exts . W1 , W( a ) , W1 (b), W1 ( c) , W 1 (d) copy of petitions claimed to be filed by the workman before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C) during 1985 to 1989 are produced from the workman's side to prove that he was initiating steps through Labour Authorities regarding denial of employment to the workman by the second Management there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the above petitions were actually filed before the Labour Officials and conciliationproceedings were initiated basing on it. If actually the workman had filed such petitions before the Labour Authorities , the authorities would have initiated conciliation proceedings , basing on it . In the absence of any evidence in that respect it cannot be believed that the workman has initiated steps through Labour authorities in respect ofhis denial ofemployment in 1982 till the filing of Ext: W1 (e) petition dated 30-11-1990 . In Ext . W 1 (e) the claim of the workman was direction to the second management to provide employment to him with backwager and also to include his name in the list of workmen for the purpose of decasualisation. It is an admitted case that during the end of 1989 and eginning of 1990 a committee compromising all members from steamer agents stevedor's and the trade unions under the convenorship of the then secretary. Cochin Dock Labour Board was constituted by the Chairman , Cochin Port Trust for finalising the list of container workers . After the finalisation of such list by including 70 container workers the workman approached the Joint Labour Commissioner to get his name also included in the list . The finalisation ofthe list was as per a memorandum of settlement signed on 21-5-1993 before the

1760 G/04-25 3388

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

the wharf by the second management and its predecessor company for the period from 1980-1982. But it is admitted by the workman himself as WWI that the above passes have validity of a single day and without such a pass a workerwill not be allowed to enter the wharf . It is further admitted by the workman that he had work only during the arrival of a ship in the port and on conclusion of the work in the particularship there will be no work and no pay if there is no subsequent ship . It is admitted by the workman that the 70 workers included in the pool are working under different companies and there are no permanent workers working under the second management . It is further admitted by the workman that now he is employed as the watchman under the security section in the port and before that he was working in the fisheries harbour at Thoppumpady. It was clarified during re -examination that ifa worker is included in the pool system he will get payment even if there is no work. Thus from the above referred evidence and circumstances it can be found that the workman was not denied employment by the second management that managements have nothing to do to include the workman in the container workers list dated 25-5-1993 as it was arrived at as per the memorandum of settlement signed before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Kochi and as the workman was not under the employment of the managements at the time of settlement and preparation of the list, the non- inclusion of his name inthe list cannot be found as illegal . Thus if follows that the non- inclusion isjustified and the workman is not entitled to get any relief as per the reference . Points are answered accordingly.

In the result, an award is passed finding that the non - inclusion of the name of Sri . P.B. Aboo , the workman involved in the present case in the container workers list as per the memorandum of settlement signed on 25-5-1993 before the Regional Labour Commissioner( C) , Cochin by theterminal operations Association of Kochi (P) Limited is justified and the workman is not entitled to get any relief as per the reference .

This award will take effect one month after its publication in the Official Gazette .

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed out by her, corrected by me and passed this the 17th day ofMarch , 2004 .

Ernakulam.

N. THULASI BAI, Presiding Officer APPENDIX

O.P. 8165 of 1993 before the Honourable High Court for a writdirecting the Assistant Labour Commissioner to take a decision on the above representation and also to direct the Assistant Labour Commissioner to issue directions to the first management herein to employ the workman also in the pool scheme pending disposal of the O.P. In that O.P. Honourable High Court passed an order on 22-6-1993 directing the Assistant Labour Commissioner to consider the workman's representation dated 6-5-1993 and to pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgement . Basing on the abovejudgement the workman filed a petition before the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 21-7-1993 to take steps as per the direction in the judgement of the Honourable High Court and to take necessary actions to direct the second management to provide him employment with backwages and also to include his name in the scheme pool . On the above représentation also conciliation proceeding were initiated by the Assistant Labour Commissioner but by that time a memorandum of settlement was arrived at on 25-5-1993 before the Labour Commissioner (Central ) in the Industrial Dispute between the management of terminal operations Association of Kochi Private Limited and their workman represented by Kochi Contract Employees Association regarding formation of pool for the category of container handling workers at Kochi Port . As per the above settlement 70 container handling workers were included in the pool scheme. Basing on the above the second management intimated the Assistant Labour Commissioner that at the time ofpreparing the list of container workers the workman or his union has not made any representation to include his name in the list , that the workman's union has also consented to the list and as the list was prepared basing on amemorandum of settlement arrived between the unions and the first management , the second management cannot do anything in favour of the workman . The workman's union did not take any steps to include the name of the workman in pool and that may be the reason for statement by WW-2 that this case has no connection with the list of 70 prepared as per memorandum of settlement . As the conciliation basing on the complaint filed by the workman could not settle the claim the Assistant Labour Commissioner sent Ext . W5 failure report to the secretary. Government of India. But as the Government of India did not make a reference basing on the failure report the workman filed O.P. 4957/94 before the Honourable High Court for directing the Government to make a reference basing on the failure report . The Honourable High Court as per judgement dated 7-4-1994 directed the union Government to consider the failure report and pass appropriate order within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgement . Accordingly the present reference was made by the union Government . As perExts W9 , W10 series and W 11 series it is evident that the workman was issued with security pass for entering in

Witness Examined on the side of the Management :- MW1 : Sri . K.P. Augustian Witness examined on the side of the workman;- WW1-Sri . Aboo .

3309 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29,1926

ANNEXURE

WW2 -Sri . K.V. Iyyer .

Exhibits marked on the side of the workman:-

Ext. WI-(series 6 inNo.)

LORDTH CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM LABOUR.COUNTAT HYDERABAD

PRESENT:

Photo copy of the complaint submittedbefore theAssistant Labour Commissioner(C) .

Shri F. Impil , B.Sc. LL.B. , PresidingOfficer

Dated the 15th day ofMarch , 2004 Ext. W2-Photo copy of letter issued by union to the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) .

INDUSTRIALDISPUTE LC.I. D. NO. 64/2002 Ext. W3--Photo copy of complaint send to the chairman, PortTrust, Kochi .

(Old IDNo. 50/2001 Transferred from Industriel Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnams) Ext. W4 Photo copy of letter dated6-5-1993.

Between:

Ext. W5-Photo copy of letter dated 30-7-93.

Petitioner

Shri M. Sadhu Rao ,

Ext. W6-Photo copy ofJudgement in O.P. No. 8165/93-U ofHonourable High Court of Kerala.

H. No. 2-13-6, Mindi Village, Gajuweka Mandalam ,

Visakhapatnam-530012 .

Ext. W7-Photo copy of Judgement in O.P. No. 4957/94. M. ofHonourable High Court of Kerala.

AND

The General Kanager,

Ext.W8 Copy ofcomplaintby. P.B. Aboo to theAssistant Labour Commissioner (C) Ernakulam.

M/s Hindosten Zinc Limited,

Ext. W9-Pass issued to the workman .

(AGovernment ofIndia Enterprise)

ZincLead Smelter, PO.,

Ext.W10-(series) Gate pass issued to the workman in differentperiod.

Respondent

Vienkhapatnam -530015.

Ext. W11-(series)-Gate pass issued to the workmanin differentperiod.

Sri S

Forthe Petitioner :

Raso, vogite.

Ext. W12-File Received from the Regional Joint Labou Commissioner, Ernakulam .

For the Respondent :

नई दिल्ली, 4 जून, 2004

Sri D. SubbeRao, Advocate.

AWARD

का.आ.1468.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै० हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केबीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण व श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या आई० डी० संख्या 64/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.-42025/1/2004-आई,आर. (विविध) ]

बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 4th June , 2004

This is acase taken under Sec. 24 (2 ) ofthe ID ALL, 1947 by the Industrial Tributos Labour Court , Visakhapatnam in view of the Judgment of the Houtble High CourtofAndhra Pradosis reported inWP.No.195 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Bri U. Chinmaya andMis . Cotton Corporation of lodia and two others and transferred othis Court in view ofthe Gowerament of India, Ministry of Labour's Order No. H- 11026/ 1 /2001 - IH ( CIF ) dated 18-10-2001 bearing ID No. 50/2001 and concumbered in this Court asLCIDNo. 64/2002 and notices were lessed to the parties. to

S.O. 1468.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government here by publishes the Award (Ref. No. IDNo- 64/2002 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industiral dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Me Hindustan Zinc Limited, and their worietan , which was received by the Central Government on 4-6-2004,

2. The brief facts as mentioned in the petition are : That the Petitioner joined the services ofthe management in 1982. That he has worked without my blemish freurthe time ofhis joining in 1982. That on 23-6-99 a change sheet was issued to him by the Management fainly alleging the misappropriation of electrodes belonging to the Company. Not only his explanaticar was rejected without any justifie grounsk charge shoot was issued with a 20 1780 G1/04-25 3390

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19, 2004/JYAISTHA 29, 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]

of documents on which the Management relied to the workman before hand. The workman has fully participated in the enquiry and cross examined the witness . Hence , he wasdischarged on 31-3-2001 and his appeal was also dismissed on 27-6-2001 . It was communicated by the Senior manager that the Appellate Authority has dismissed his appeal . Hence , he is not entitled for any relief.

into consideration the fact that the evidence adduced by the Departmental enquiry was tainted and influenced by the vested interests in the management . The evidence adduced at the Departmental enquiry is sufficient to prove the misconduct alleged against the workman . Findings of the Enquiry Officer are baseless and vitiated due to the above circumstances . That the evidence was circumstantial in nature and it does not include the possibility of any other.committing the alleged misappropriation of electrodes . The evidence on record in the Departmental enquiry does not point to the alleged misconduct of this workman. The workman submits that the Management has suppressed essential oral and documentary evidence in the Departmental enquiry . The selective evidence adduced by the management in the domestic enquiry is interested and partisan . He did not apply his mind and gave findings . The enquiry was neither fair nor impartial . Therefore , the order dated 31-3-2001 issued by the management discharging the workman from the services of the company is illegal , învalid , arbitrary, inoperative , besides being baseless and opposed to the principal of natural justice . The punishing authority did not apply his mind either to the facts or circumstances of the case . That the order dated 27-6-2001 stating that the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal and upheld the punishment awarded is also not correct . That he was drawing a wage ofRs . 10,000. Hence he may be directed to be reinstated with continuity of service , full back wages and all attendant benefits.

4. The Petitioner's Counsel connected in open Court that the enquiry is validly conducted and arguments were heard under Sec . 11A . It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is an alleged Vigilance report which was filed. The report says that on 25-2-99 Sri KCV Subba Rao, informed to Dy. General manager that electrodes worth Rs. 2,84,000 are missing from Central Stores . Again on 29-5-99 Sri Subba Rao informed to Dy. General Manager that electrodes worth Rs . 3,61,940.66 ps. Were stolen under mysterious circumstances . He stated that the electrodes were purchased , brought then kept in ' A' group after fulfilling necessary formalities . He came to know that the electrodes are missing from ' A' group. The ' A' group gate lock was missing . The three boxes in which the electrodes were kept was also missing. The latch hook of one box wasremoved and the latches of two boxes were removed and same were found lying near the boxes . That missing of locks is a created scenes with an idea to divert the attention ofthe investigative agency . Since the locks of type of ' A' group is know to the people of ' A' group involvement of people of ' A' group cannot be ignored. Several persons wereexamined . One of them is the Petitioner , Sadhu Rao . ThatSri Dandapani , Senior Material issuer of ' A ' group in hisstatement dated 31-5-99 informed that on 28-5-99 the electrodes which came in Kgs . were segreted and were kept in 3rd GI box . It was informed that during the segregation of the electrodes Sadhu Rao , the Petitioner herein and Sri Eeswara Rao , contract labour were present. Thatthe segregation was carried out on 28-5-99 . He also confirmed that S/ Sri Chinna Rao , Sadhu Rao , Eeswara Rao , carried out the segregation . That the Petitioner also in his statement informed that he himself, Chinna Rao and Eesward Rao segregated the electrodes on 29-5-99 and all Amol brand electrodes in3rd GI box . He further stated that the electrodes were segregated around 2 PM . That Chinna Rao an application in which he informed that he gave a wrong date and actually they were segregated so on 25th or 26th May , 1999 and not on 28-5-99 . He said that Dandapani told him to tell that the segregation was done on 28-5-99. That till 27-5-99 full quantity was available and on 27-5-99 some quantity was issued to the central workshop . Sri Dandapani deposed that the segregation was on 25th or 26th May , 1999. That Chinna Rao , Sadhu Rao, Petitioner herein and Eeswar Rao , contract labour carried out the segregation . Sadhu Rao in the second round statement stated that the segregation was done on 25-5-99 . That the statement of Naidu proves that he never gave a box on 22-7-99 . Hence, it shows that Sadhu Rao 3. A counter was filed stating that the workman joined the company on 16-1-84 as mazdoor on compassionate grounds . Subsequently he was promoted and at the time of discharge he was working as a senior helper . The Vigilance Officer ofthe Company has conducted investigation into the matter of misappropriation of electrodes belonging to the Company and submitted a report to the Management in which the workman indicated among others . Therefore , a charge sheet was issued to the workman alongwith two other workman for misappropriation of 410 kgs of electrodes in ' A' group section of Stores Department valuing Rs. 3,61,940.66 based on the said report of the Vigilence Officer, a criminal case No. 232/99 was also lodged in this regard before the Hon'ble Court of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate , Gajuwaka and the same is pending. It is false to allege that the Management had predetermined mind . That the enquiry was conducted following all principles of natural justice . The evidence adduced in the departmental enquiry is adequate enough but proved the charges framed against the petitioner . In this case the evidence adduced orally and documentary by both the parties fully support the charges framed against the workman . The allegations in para 2(g) of the petition are baseless and unsustainable and as such they are denied. The Management has given the list ofwitness on behalf of Management and the copies 3391

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

recovered in the unused rain water drain inside store premises.Which clearly goes to show that actual facts are being suppressed. On that the Petitioner is being made a scape goat. He therefore prays that the Petitioner maybe reinstated with back wages and all attendant benefits.

5. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that actually when WI was has examined running into several pages in the chief examination in the enquiry, when the Management representative prosant, he was asked a very few questions and he does not know the Petitioner . The second witness Sri . P. Srinivasa rao, was also examined, which he deposed that the group Incharge willbe preserving their group keys with him . He was asked only few questions . Similarly PW2 has also deposed the same and PW4 Sri G.V. Prasad was allowed to examine who deposed that it was Sadhu rao who has closed the stores . The charegesheeted employee did not examine any witness or documents and only submitted his defence representativewhich is ofno use to him . Hence, the petition maybe dismissed.

6. It'maybe noted that the police has chosen not to file charge- sheet against Sadhu Rao the Petitioner herein and another Peerubabu and although complaint was given against these above two employees and also against Dandapani and Chinna Rao . I have gone through the enquiry report and in the enquiry report main reasonwhy the Petitioner herein is held guilty is the contradictory statements given by him . That the Petitioner first gave a statement that segregation of electrodes was done on 28-5-99 and subsequently confirmed that the segregation ofelectrodes was not done on 28-5-99 . He also relied on the evidence of Chinna rao one of the witnesses of the enquiry proceedings , he said that he gave two different statements at the instance of the Petitioner herein and also the statement of Sri Eeshwar Rao who deposed to his first question that the segegation of electrodes took place on 25-5-99. Itmaybe seen that the same witness states that at the time of segregation G. Chinna Rao and M. Sadhu Rao werepresent. Segregation took place on 25th or 26th may, 1999.He is not very much sure as to the date on which the segregations took place and another contention of the Enquiry Officer because all the four gave contradictory statements , the guilt of Sadhu rao is also proved. More so , some quantities ofelectrodes were recovered. I may add that the police was correct in not charge sheeting the petitioner. These statements of the witnesses may not standthe scrutiny of a criminal trial court. But sufficient suspicionwas thrown on the Petitioner and more so after the recovery of some of electrodes . Once the employee loose confidence it is not desirable that the Petitioner be given any relief of reinstatment nor he is completely absolved from the charges. there is sufficient suspicion against him . Hence, even treating as retired is also not proper. But even the Police have not found sufficient evidence against him and there is no sufficient evidence gave statement with an ulterior motive. Since the electrodes were issued on 27-5-99 , it established that on 27-5-99 electrodes were available in No. 3 GI box . Therefore, it is clear that the segregation was made on 27-5-99 and not on 28-5-99. On 29-5-99 it is reported that they were missing There was no issue of electrodes on 28-5-99 . Hence, it is proved that missing of electrodes was taken place only after the issue was made on 27-5-99 . Since the missing of electrodes reported on 29-5-99 it established that the loss taken place either on 27-5-99 after the issue was made or on 28-5-99 . So he came to the conclusion that there are three probabilities . The first probability is the electrodes after being shifted from Central Stores were kept inside the plant area and were shifted outside in convenient time. The second probability is the electrodes were loaded in any ofthe above mentioned 4 vehicles and were taken out ofplant. The third probabllity is the electrodes were taken out ofthe central store shed first during day time and were hided inside the central store premises and in convenient time the electrodes were shifted. The third probability is ruled out because during daytime it any one shifts the electrodes (410kgs ) and hide it will come to notice ofnumber ofpeople. Second thing on 29-5-99 when the fact came to the light CISF conducted combing operation andthey could not detect any material . Out of the 4 vehcles which went outside of CISF vehicle gate on 27/28-5-99, vehicle No. ATR-378 had come to 'A' group i.e. , the group from which electrodes are missing and then he concludes that the electrodes are shifted with the active connivance of the Petitioner, Dandapani and Chinna Rao . That it also came to light that in 1994 some electrodes were found missing during the time Chinna rao and the Petitioner were in ' A ' group. He also came to the conclusion that since the Vigilance Officerhas nopower to call for the driver ofvehicle ATR- 378. The matter may be handed over to the police. So he submits that the Vigilance Officer himself is not sure . First he gave three possibilities and four vehicles and suddenly concluded that the material was dispatched in one vehicle only and that he is not the authority to call for the driver of that vehicle and the matter may be referred to the police The Enquiry Officer merely relies on the fact that the Petitioner has given wrong date ofsegregation that he has admitted in his defence reports that he gave wrong information of state of confusion. Which clearly shows themalafide intention of Sri Sadhu rao and also he relies on the fact that Sri. T.V. Kishore and Sri Sadhu rao moved behind the Central Stores area and that the charegsheeted employee , the Petitioner did not asked any question on this aspect and hence , he concluded that the Petitioner is guilty. It may be seen that there is only doubt against him and it is not conclusively proved that the Petitioner is involved in the misappropriation and it is a well established fact that one cannot be found guilty only if there is some doubt unless it is proved that he has been really involved inthe case. Further while presenting the case it has been clearly admitted that around 240 kgs of electrodes were 3392

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19, 2004/JYAISTHA 29, 1926

except the contradictory statement made to hold him completely guilty . Hence, I am of the opinion that as the Petitioner has put in 17 years of service and has had 12 years of service left. hence , as the conclusions reached by the Enquiry Officer that he is guilty cannot be fully sustained. It canonly be said that there is a web ofsuspicion against him. Hence in such cases it is desirable to award him some compensation . Hence, without interfering with the order of the discharge passed against the Petitioner he shall be only entitled to 10 months full gross pay multiplied by his last drawn pay which will meet the ends ofjustice.

Award passed accordingly..

Dictated to Kum . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on thisthe 15th day ofMarch , 2004.

E. ISMAIL, PresidingOfficer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner.

Witnesses examined For the respondent NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नईदिल्ली, 4 जून , 2004

का.आ.1469.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केबीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण व श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी संख्या 65/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.-42025/2/2004- आई ० आर० ( विविध ) ]

बी० एम ० डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 4th June, 2004 S.O. 1469.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. ID No. 65/2002) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the industiral dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s Hindustan Zinc Limited and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 4-6-2004 .

[No. L-42025/2/2004- IR(M) ]

B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii))

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD

PRESENT:

Shri E. Ismall, B.Sc. LL.B. , PresidingOfficer Dated the22nd day ofMarch , 2004 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.I.D. NO . 65/2002 (Old L.D. No. 51/2001 Transferred from Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, Visakhapatnam) Between:

Shri B. Peeru Babu ,

S/oB.Guruvulu,

H. No. 58-10-26, Near Karasa,

N.A.D. Post

....Petitioner Visakhapatnam-530009.

AND

TheGeneralManager,

M/sHindustan Zinc Limited,

(AGovernment of India Enterprise)

ZincLead Smelter , P.O. ,

Visakhapatnam-530015.

....Respondent Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. S. Ramchandra

Rao & P. Srinivasa

Rao, Advocate.

M/s. D. V. Subba Rao, For the respondent

& D. V. S. S.

Somayajulu , Advocate.

AWARD

This is a casetaken under Sec. 2A(2) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 by the Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Visakhapatnam in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court ofAndhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s . CottonCorporation of India and two others and transferred tothisCourt in view of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour's Order No. H- 11026/ 1 /2001 - IR(C - II ) dated 18-10-2001 bearing I.D. No. 51/2001 and renumbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 65/2002 and notices were issued to the parties.

2. The brief facts as mentioned in the petition are: That the Petitioner joined the services of the Management in 1982. That he has worked without any blemish from the time ofhis joining in 1982. That on 23-6-99 a charge sheet was issued to him by the Management falsely alleging the misappropriation ofelectrodes belonging to the Company. Notonlyhis explanation was rejected without any justifiable ground and without any justifiable reason an enquiry was conducted . A charge - sheet was issued with a predetermined mind to discharge him from the services of the Company by adducing interested and partisan evidence in the departmental enquiry. The Management failed to take into consideration the fact that the evidence adduced by the Departmentai enquiry was tainted and influenced by the vested interests in the management. The evidence 3393

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 19, 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

dismissed on 27-6-2001 . It was communicated by the Senior Manager that the Appellate Authority has dismissed his appeal.hence, he is not entitled for any relief.

adduced at the Departmental enquiry is sufficient to prove the misconduct alleged against the workman. Findings of theEnquiry Officer are baseless and vitiated due to the above circumstances. That the evidence was circumstantial innature and it does not include the possibility of any other committing the alleged misappropriation of electrodes . The evidence on record in the Departmental enquiry does not point to the alleged misconduct of this workman. The workman submits that the Management has suppressed essential oral and documentary evidence in the Departmental enquiry . The selective evidence adduced by the management in the domestic enquiry is interested and partisan. He did not apply his mind and gave findings . The enquiry was neither fair nor impartial. Therefore , the order dated 31-3-2001 issued by the management discharging the workman from the services of the company is illegal, invalid, arbitrary, inoperative, besides being baseless and opposed to the principles of naturaljustice . The punishing authority did not apply his mind either to the facts or circumstances of the case . That the order dated 27-6-2001 stating that the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal and upbeld the punishment awarded is also not correct . That he was drawing a wage ofRs . 11,000 . Hence he may be directed to be reinstated with continuity of service , full back wages and all attendant benefits .

4. The Petitioner's Counsel connced in open Court that the enquiry is validly conducted and arguments were heard under Sec. 11A. It is argued by the Learned Counsel forthe petitioner that there is an alleged Vigilence report which was filed. The report says that on 25-2-99 Sri K. C. V. Subba Rao, informed to Dy. General Manager that electrodes worth Rs . 2,84,000 are missing from central stores .Again on 29-5-99 Sri Subba Rao informed to Dy. General Manager that electrodes worth Rs . 3,61,940.66ps. were stolen under mysterious circumstances . He stated that the electrodes were purchased, brought then kept in 'A' group after fulfilling necessary formalities . He came to know that the electrodes are missing from ' A' group . The 'A' group gate lock was nissing. The three boxes in which theelectrodes were kept was also missing . The latch hook ofone box was removed and the latches oftwo boxes were removed and same were found lying near the boxes . That missing off locks is a created scenes with an idea to divert the attention of the investigative agency. Since the locks of type of ' A ' group is know to the people of ' A ' group involvement of people of ' A' group cannot be ignored . Several persons were examined . One of them is the Petitioner, Sadhu Rao . That Sri Dandapani , Senior Material issuer of ' A' group in his statement dated 31-5-99 informed that on 28-5-99 the electrodes which came in Kgs . were segregated and were kept in 3rd GI box. It was informed that during the segregation of the electrodes Sadhu Rao , the Petitioner herein and Sri Eeswara Rao, contract labour were present . That the segregation was carried out on 28-5-99. He also confirmed that S /Sri Chinna Rao , Sadhu Ráo, Eeswara Rao , carried out the segregation . That the Petitioner also in his statement informed that he himself, Chinna Rao and Eeswara Rao segregated the electrodes on 29-5-99 and all Amol brand electrodes in 3rd Gl box . He further stated that the electrodes were segregated around 2PM. That Chinna Rao an application in which he informed thathe gave a wrong date and actually they were segregated so on 25th or 26th May, 1999 and not on 28-5-99 . He said that Dandapani told him to tell that the segregation was done on 28-5-99 . That till 27-5-99 full quantity was available and on 27-5-99 some quantity was issued to the central workshop . Sri Dandapani deposed that the segregation was on 25th or 26th May , 1999. That Chinna Rao , Sadhu Rao, Petitioner herein and Eeswara Rao , contract labour carried out the segregation . Sadhu Rao in the second round statement stated that the segregation was done on 25-5-99 . That the statement of Naidu proves that he never gave a box on 22-7-99 . Hence , it shows that Sadhu Rao gave statement with an ulterior motive . Since the electrodes were issued on 27-5-99 , it established that on 27-5-99 electrodes were available in No. 3 GI box . Therefore, it is clear that the segregation was made on 27-5-99 and not 3. A counter was filed stating that the workman joined the company on 16-1-84 as mazdoor on compassionate grounds . Subsequently he was promoted and at the time of discharge he was working as senior helper . The Vigilence Officer ofthe Company has conducted investigation into the matter of misappropriation of electrodes belonging to the Company and submitted a report to the Management in which the workman indicated among others . Therefore , a charge sheet was issued to the workman alongwith two other workman for misappropriation of 410 kgs of electrodes in ' A ' group section ofStores Department valuing Rs . 3,61,940.66 based on the said report of the Vigilence Officer , a criminal case No. 232/99 was also lodged in this regard before the Hon'ble Court of VIII Metropolitan magistrate , Gajuwaka and the same is pending . It is false to allege that the Management had predeterminly mind. That the enquiry was conducted following all principles of natural justice. The evidence adduced in the departmental enquiry is adequate enough but proved the charges framed against the petitioner. In this case the evidence adduced orally and documentary by both the parties fully support the charges framed against the workman . The allegations in para 2(g) of the petition are baseless and unsustainable and as such they are denied . The Management has given the list ofwitness on behalf of Management and the copies of documents on which the Management relied to the workman before hand . The workman has fully participated in the enquiry and cross - examined the witnesses . Hence , he was discharged on 31-3-2001 and his appeal was also 3394

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 19 , 2004/JYAISTHA 29, 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] on 28-5-99 . On 29-5-99 it is reported that they were missing. There was no issue of electrodes on 28-5-99 . Hence , it is proved that missing of electrodes was taken place only after the issue was made on 27-5-99. Since the missing of electrodes reported on 29-5-99 it established that the loss taken place either on 27-5-99 after the issue was made or on 28-5-99 . So he came to the conclusion that there are three probabilities . The first probability is the electrodes after being shifted from central stores were kept inside the plant area and were shifted outside in convenient time . the second probability is the electrodes were loaded in any of the above mentioned 4 vehicles and were taken out of plant. The third probability is the electrodes were taken out ofthe central store shed first during day time and were hided in side the central store premises and in convinient time the electrodes were shifted . The third probability is ruled out because during day time if any one shifts the electrodes (410 kgs . ) and hide it will come to notice of number ofpeople . Second thing on 29-5-99 when the fact came to the light CISF conducted combing operation and they could not detect any material . Out of the 4 vehicles which went outside of CISF vehicle gate on 27/28-5-99 , vehicle No. ATR- 378 had come to ' A ' group i.e. the group from which electrodes are missing and then he concludes that the electrodes are shifted with the active connivance ofthe Sadhu Rao Dandapani and Chinna Rao . he also came to the conclusion that since the Vigilence Officer has no power to call for the driver of vehicle ATR- 378 . The matter may be handed over to the police . So he submits that the Vigilence Officer himself is not sure . First he gave three possibilities and four vehicles and suddenly concluded that the material was dispatched in one vehicle only and that he is not the authority to call for the driver of that vehicle and the matter may be referred to the police . The . Enquiry Officer merely relies on the fact that the Petitioner has given wrong date of segregation that he has admitted in his defence reports that he gave wrong information of state of confusion . Which clearly shows the malafide intention of Sri Sadhu Rao and also he relies on the fact that Sri T.V. Kishore and Sri Sadhu Rao moved behined the Central Stores area and that the chargesheeted employee , the Petitioner did not asked any question on this aspect andhence, he concluded that the petitioner is guilty. it may be seen that there is only doubt against him and it is not conclusively proved that the Petitioner is involved in the misappropriation and it is a well established fact that one cannotbe found guilty only if there is some doubt unless itis proved that he has been really involved in the case . Further while presenting the case it has been clearly admitted that around 240 kgs . of electrodes were recovered inthe unused rain water drain inside store premises . Which clearly goes to show that actual facts are being suppressed. On that the Petitioner is being made a scape goat . he therfore prays that the Petitioner may be reinstated with back wages and all attendant benefits .

Respondent that M/ s . Hindustan Electric House and M/ s Maruthi Marketing were supplying electrodes to Hindustan Zinc Limited and received by all central stores . Subsequently the material was shifted to ' A' group issues section. Sri G. Chinna Rao of ' A ' Group acknowledged the same material on 28-5-99. 410kgs . ofelectrodes were found missing. The matter was referred to the Police and Police came and they informed that there is no intruder can enter through entry point through which anyone can enter into the central store shed after office hours . hence , it is a case ofmisappropriation and not a case of theft . The central stores gate used to be locked after office hours and the hading door near to the receipt section used to be sealed. On29-5-99 the condition of the store was intact . Hence , it isestablished that no intruder had entered into the central store shed and lifted the mine. It is not out place to mention here that on 27-5-99 certain quantity of electrodes were issued to the central workshop from the existing law. Above information gives clear reason to believe that the electrodes were intact on 27-5-99 . That Peeru Babu revealed that the segregation of the electrodes was made on 28-5-99 . Subsequently it was confirmed by Dandapani , Chinna Rao and Eeshwar Rao that the segregation of electrodes was not made on 28-5-99 but it was made on a prior date . The contradictory statement given by Peeru Babu clearly proves his bad intentions . Subsequently Dandapani in his statement given in the enquiry proceedings dated 21-2-2000 has stated that the he was deputed for outside duty form 21-5-99 to 10-8-2000 . In the subsequent evidence he has also stated some time only he used to come to the A- group for signing attendance and to check up stock position at complaints to telephone . Hence , it is important to note that Peeru Babu used to be available in the A- group during the mentloned period. For causing misappropriation the individual's presence is not always necessary . It is pertinent to note that the CSE in his section rounds statement recorded on 2-6-99 as stated that on 27-5-99 he was present in the A-group when electrodes were being issued. Hence , it is clear that he was available in the section. Further Sri G. Chinna Rao in his statement clearly informed that he gave wrong date as Dandapani insisted him to give the wrong statement . Dandapani also confirmedthat he has insisted Chinna Rao to give wrong statement. As the above facts clearly levelled that Dandapani intentionally hid the fact just to escape from the charge ofmisappropriation . Lastly but not leastly Shri B. Peeru Babu in his statement has stated that when he reached the central store on 29-5-99 he has seen Sadhu Rao and Dandapani standing under the Mango Tree adjacent to the central store shed . It is contrary to the statement of Dandapani . Moreover as some quantity of electrodes recovered from waste water drain it clearly confirms that it is an act of misappropriation but not a case oftheft . Hence , the Hon'ble Tribunal may not invoke Sec . 11A to come to the rescue of the Petitioner as he does not deserve any sympathy .

5. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the 3395 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 19 , 2004/ज्येष्ठ 29, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

NIL NIL Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

नई दिल्ली , 3 जून , 2004

का.आ. 1470.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नार्थ मालाबार ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में श्रम न्यायालय , कोजी कोडे के पंचाट [ संदर्भ संख्या आई डी ( सी ) 3/99 ] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 12012/173/98- आई.आर. (बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 3rd June , 2004

5.0. 1470.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award [ID( C) 3/99 ] of the Labour Court Kozhikode now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industiral Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of North Malabar Gramin Bank and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 3-6-2004.

[No. L- 12012/173/98 - IR (B- I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE, KERALA STATE

Dated this the 30th day of March, 2004 PRESENT: SHRIK. BALASUBRAMANIAN, B.Com. , LL.B. , PresidingOfficer I.D. (C) 3/99

Between:

The Chairman,

HeadOfficer,

NorthMalabar Gramin Bank, P.B. No. 59 , Bank Road, Kannur-670001

Management 6. It may be noted that the police has chosen not to file charge sheet against Peeru Babu the Petitioner herein andanotherDandapani and although complaint was given against these above two employees and Sadhu Rao and ChinnaRao. I have gone through the enquiry report and in theenquiry report main reason why the Petitioner herein is heldguilty is the contradictory statements given by him. Thatthe Petitioner first gave a statement that segregation of electrodes was done on 28-5-99 and subsequently confirmed that the segregation ofelectrodes was not done on 28-5-99 as he was in a state ofconfusion. He also relied on the evidence of Chinna Rao one ofthe witnesses ofthe enquiry proceedings, he said that he gave two different statements at the instance ofthe Petitioner herein and also the statement of another witness Sri Eshwar Rao who deposed to his first question that the segregation of electrodes took place on 25-5-99 . It may be seen that the same witness states that at the time ofsegregation G. Chinna Rao and M. Sadhu Rao were present. He does not speak about the presence ofPeeru Babu . Segregation took place on 25th or 26th May, 1999, He is not very much sure as to the date on which the segregation took place and another contention ofthe Enquiry Officer because all the four gave contradictory statements , the guilt of Peeru Babu is also proved. More So, some quantities of electrodes were recovered. I may add that the police was correct in not charge sheeting the Petitioner. These statements of the witness may not stand the scrutiny of a criminal trial court.But sufficient suspicion was thrown on the Petitioner andmore so after the recovery of some of electrodes . Once the employee loose confidence it is not desirable that the Petitioner be given any relief of reinstatement nor he is completely absolved from the charges . There is sufficient suspicion against him. Hence even treating as retired is also not proper. But even the Police have not found sufficient evidence against him and there is no sufficient evidence except the contradictory statement made to hold him completely guilty. Hence , I am of the opinion that as the Petitioner has put in 17 years of service and has had 17 years ofservice left. Hence, as the conclusions reachedby the Enquiry Officer that he is guilty cannot be fully sustained. It can only be said that there is a web of suspicion against him. Hence , in such cases it is desirable to award him some compensation . Hence, without interfering with the order ofthe discharge passed against the Petitioner he shallbe only entitled to 10 months full gross pay multiplied byhis last drawn pay which will meet the ends of justice .

AND

Awardpassed accordingly. Transmit.

NorthMalabar Gramin Bank Employees Union,

TheGeneral Secretary,

Dictated to Kum . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 22nd day ofMarch, 2004.

N.M.G.B. Employees Union, C/o . NorthMalabar Gramin Bank,

E. ISMAIL, PresidingOfficer

Payangadi Branch, P.O. Payangadi , R.S.

Appendix of evidence

Payangadi-670358

....Union

Witnesses examined for the respondent

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner.

3396

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 19 , 2004 /JYAISTHA 29 , 1926

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

with the gravity of the offence and is fully justified and so no interferes is called for. -

Sri M. Asokan, Advocate , Calicut . For Management Sri E.K. Santhosh Kumar, Advocate , Calicut. For Union

AWARD

6. In the result, an award is passed holding that the enquiry is proper and justified and the punishment is proportionate with the gravity of the charges. Passedby me on the 30th day ofMarch, 2004.

SHRIK. BALASUBRAMANIAN, By Order No. L - 12012 / 173 / 98/ IR ( B - I ) dated 12-3-1999 the Government of Kerala has referred the following issues for adjudication and passing award:

PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 11 जून , 2004

"Whether the action of the management in imposing the stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect against Sri M.R. Gangadharan for the alleged charges isjustified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?

का.आ.1471.-केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट हो जाने पर किलोकहित मेंऐसा करना अपेक्षित था, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ठ ) के उप- खंड ( VI ) के उपबंधों के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 3531 दिनांक 16-12-2003 द्वारा लोह , अयस्क, खनन उद्योग जो कि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 16 में शामिल है, को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक18-12-2003 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित किया था ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार की राय है कि लोकहित में उक्त कालावधि छः मास की और कालावधि के लिए बढ़ाया जाना अपेक्षित है ।

को अतः अब औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ ) के उप- खंड ( VI ) के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 18-6-2004 से छः मास की कालावधिके लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है ।

[फा. सं. एस-11017/13/97- आई.आर. (पी.एल. ) ] जे.पी. पति, संयुक्त सचिव

New Delhi , the 11th June , 2004 2. The management in North Malabar Gramin Bank, a scheduled bank sponsored by Syndicate Bank. The workerwas an employee of the Bank working in the clecrical cadre. He was selected as a participant for the refresher course arranged by the management . In the course of training the worker absented on 8-5-1991 . According to the management the worker absented without taking permission from the concerned authorities and clandestinelymarked his presence in the attendance register subsequently and thus committed misconduct . The explanationofthe worker in this regard was called for and the management was not satisfied with the explanation. So a charge sheet was filed against the worker alleging that his conduct amounts to violation of Regulations 17 and 19 ofthe staff service regulations , 1990. Followed a domestic enquiry was conducted through a Senior Manager of the Bank . Enquiry Officer after taking evidence found the delinquent-worker guilty of the charges . Accepting the findings the impugened punishment was imposed. The worker raised the dispute which was eventually referred to this court for adjudication and passing award .

3. In pursuance of the notice issued from this court both parties appeared and filled their respective statements .

The worker was represented by the union. Union attacked the propriety and fairness of the enquiry on several grounds . The disproportionality of the punishment was also highlighted by the union. After a preliminary enquiry this court upheld the propriety of the enquiry and that found the conclusions are supported by legal evidence. Thereafterboth sides were heard on the justifiability ofthe punishment.

S.O. 1471. Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest so required that in pursuance of the provisions of Sub-clause (vi ) of the clause (n) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), declaredby the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour No.S.O. 3531 dated 16-12-2003 the service in the Iron Ore Mining Industry which is covered by item 16 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) to be a public utility service for the purpose of the said Act , for a periodofsix months from the 18th December , 2003 .

4. The points for consideration are :

(1) Whether the impugned punishment was just andproper ?

Andwhereas, the Central Government is of opinion thatpublic interest requires the extension of the said period bya further period of six months .

(2) Reliefs ?

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Sub -clause ( vi ) of clause ( n) of Section 2 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby declares the said industry to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act , for a period of six months from the 18th June, 2004 .

5. Points Bank is an institution of trust and confidence . The worker was clerk in the Bank . The dishnoest conduct of the workman in this case is not liable tobe viewed lightly. There are no materials to suggest that the impugned action is tainted with malafies or was imposed on account of any victimisation. On the other hand the facts and circumstances of the case would amply justify the punishment imposed . Punishment also comensurates

[F. No. S - 11017/13/97- IR(PL) ] J. P. PATI, Jt. Secy.

Printed by the Manager, Govt . of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.